US Army handgun

[tarosean]

why a foreign company (even if they have an assembly line in Georgia)?

¿?????????

Wanna take a guess at which foreign country Beretta is based outta?

I also read recently that HK is replacing Knights Armament for sniper rifles.. (forget which branch though.)


however, we are running around half a billion deficit, don't think we can afford it.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

How often does any group use their pistol anyway?

Most private citizen carriers will never use a gun outside of the range. Most law enforcement officers will never fire their duty gun. You are saying military pistols don't get used enough to matter.

Why even have the darn things, let alone care what they are or how they work? Who needs 'em?

Most LE practice with their duty gun. And practice more than a lot of people do. Especially sherries office. So to say most will never fire their gun is not so. They practice with their duty gun.

Also if they don't live in mayberry you will find that more LE fire their gun in the line of duty than most think. I had one inlaw that fired his in the line of duty 6 times over a 20 plus year LE career. He wasn't alone as far as firing his service weapon.

In fact around %12 do fire their gun in the line of duty.

in a nutshell.....yes ....and no......

look at your current crop of "military handgun" possibilities.......even more specifically....look at the Glock 17.

does the G17 do anything significantly better than the M9?....is the M9 really that bad that you need to replace all the guns in the fleet? is the cost of replacing them going to be justified by the performance increase we see from a replacement?

for most people in combat rolls, a pistol is a secondary, hell, sometimes a tertiary weapon........

its kind of like saying, " im not happy with my cars spare tire, i want to replace it with a new one"..........why?

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I'm in line with General Milley on this. This ain't rocket science. We don't need to study and committee the death out of a simple handgun choice for the military.


The U.S. Army's chief of staff said Thursday that if he had his way, he'd abandon the bureaucratic Modular Handgun System effort and personally select the service's next pistol.

Speaking at the Future of War Conference 2016, Gen. Mark Milley said he has asked Congress to grant service chiefs the authority to bypass the Pentagon's multi-layered and complex acquisition process on programs that do not require research and development.

"We are not exactly redesigning how to go to the moon, right?" Milley said. "This is a pistol. ... And arguably, it is the least lethal and important weapon system in the Department of Defense inventory."


http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/03/10/army-chief-wants-power-to-select-new-pistol.html

 

[Warp]

Most LE practice with their duty gun. And practice more than a lot of people do. Especially sherries office. So to say most will never fire their gun is not so. They practice with their duty gun.

lol, I'm not saying most peace officers literally never ever fire their duty gun. I'm saying the majority of peace officers will never fire in the line of duty/in an OIS.

LEO probably practice more often than the average handgun owner, but the average handgun shooting enthusiast (or whatever you want to call 'us') practices far more than the average LEO, of that I am certain.

In fact around 12% do fire their gun in the line of duty.

As I was getting at, the majority of LEO never fire their gun [in the line of duty].

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Oh well that's different! It happens. No biggie. Moving along.........



Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

This should not be a Beretta vs. anyhting thread.

It should be a fiscal responsibility/accountability vs. pork barrel thread!

Someone(s) should be sued for the waste already perpetrated upon the American taxpayer.


Todd.

 

[HighRoadRover]

FL-NC:

"High road- the "foreign design" seal has long since been broken, regarding small arms: M249 SAW; Belgium. M9 pistol; Italy M240 mg; Belgium (where it was produced in 1958, but beat by the inferior US made M60 due to it being "foreign"), USMC Benelli shotgun; Italy HK416 variant as used by USMC and SOF; Germany SCAR rifle system; Belgium. M11 (Sig 228 pistol) and MK25 (Sig 226 as used by NAVSPECWAR); Switzerland (or Germany?)."


TAROSEAN:

"Quote:
why a foreign company (even if they have an assembly line in Georgia)?
¿?????????
Wanna take a guess at which foreign country Beretta is based outta?"


The requirement is that whichever design is chosen, it has to be manufactured in the USA; the company doesn't have to be an American company (although some Congressmen will point out that it would be nice if it were). Beretta built their plant in Accoceek, MD, as part of their selection to produce the M9. Glock has a manufacturing facility in Smyrna, GA, which would meet this requirement if Glock is selected.

 

[WestKentucky]

The entire process is FUBAR. The solution to the problem is super simple, but the pansies in office won't allow it to happen. You sell your current inventory and replace it with new. Are rough m9s worth much on the market? I would buy one if it was appropriately marked as having been taken into the equipment register. Would I pay 300 bucks for it, yes, absolutely. So make the agreement with CMP that the guns are essentially on consignment, and buy new guns. Same with m14, m16, 214, m2 (wouldn't it be nice) etc, with rules around permanent removal of FA or burst fire capability.

Hey Washington, if you guys are listening...guns are durable goods...treat them as such. And quit crushing ammo cans and old mags.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

The requirement is that whichever design is chosen, it has to be manufactured in the USA; the company doesn't have to be an American company (although some Congressmen will point out that it would be nice if it were). Beretta built their plant in Accoceek, MD, as part of their selection to produce the M9. Glock has a manufacturing facility in Smyrna, GA, which would meet this requirement if Glock is selected.

Don't forget a bunch of other big-name gun makers!!

SIG makes their handguns in New Hampshire, FNH makes theirs in South Carolina. I think H&K makes (or, at least, assembles) some of their weapons in Georgia.

If CZ were to compete (and they were interested at one time), they'd probably start production in New York (where, I think, Dan Wesson and CZ 1911s are made.)

The issue was JOBs, not overall profits or where the profits ended up in someone's pockets!

 

[FL-NC]

West Kentucky- it would be nice, but will never happen. While I have no love for the M9/Beretta 92, I wouldn't mind owning a beat up property marked one, only because I collect US mil weapons. Clunkers like old M9s and M16 rifles often end up as small nickels and dimes in multi-million $ foreign aid packages in places like afg and colombia. I trained indig in both countries when they obtained these things. They don't even remove the property marks from them! As far as the M14s, and the like, my understanding is the ATF has proclaimed "once a MG, ALWAYS a MG"- permanent mods notwithstanding (as was done with the M21 SWS), also making them post- 86 non-transferable, except to the "'thorities". At least this was the explanation given me by a class 3 dealer who knows more about this stuff than I ever will.

 

[JDR]

What about all of those problems with the Glock GEN 4 -- why do you want to put the soldiers' lives at risk with an inferior foreign product?

My Gen4 21 has never missed a beat in thousands of rounds in the over two years that I have had it. NATO has pretty much standardized on the Glock 9mm, the Brits have had the Gen4 17 for over 2 years now. The Navy Seals have replaced the P226 with the Gen4 19.

Clunkers like old M9s and M16 rifles often end up as small nickels and dimes in multi-million $ foreign aid packages in places like afg and colombia.

Well I can tell you that the Colombian National Police in Guaymaral outside of Bogata have the latest & greatest weapons and equipment thanks to a U.S. State Dept. program that I worked on!

 

[WestKentucky]

Your right, and I hate it. The CMP was established for a darn good reason and the idiots in office are undermining it and it's mission. Silly rules and such only serve to enable more silly rules to become silly laws. Common sense must disqualify a person from being a politician. I digress before getting too far into politics.

 

[Sergei Mosin]

We waste countless billions of dollars reinventing the wheel, and the Modular Handgun System is just another example of this. If (big if) we really need a new general issue handgun, we don't need something modular and we don't need a system. We don't need to study it to death and we don't need to own the patents (good luck finding a company willing to do that anyway.) All we need is a pistol. Pick one and get on with it.

 

[mgmorden]

All we need is a pistol. Pick one and get on with it.

I think that's the crux of it. Anything full sized and reliable would do. I've got a 92FS - it wouldn't be my first choice out of the safe. Probably wouldn't be in my top five. But if I'm open carrying it as a backup weapon? I wouldn't have any problem carrying that gun.

As to a replacement, just about any of the major designs would do fine. Glock, S&W, Ruger, etc. HOWEVER, I don't see the need for replacement. I'm a conservative. I'm for limited government and more specifically limited government SPENDING. We've got a whole fleet of serviceable handguns already. It doesn't make fiscal sense to replace them (and I don't buy they idea that it'd cost more to maintain the current Berettas than to buy all new guns).

 

[Tirod]

The fleet of M9's is worn out across the board. They have been in service for more than 20 years, and fixing them is costly. A more modern design would be cheaper to acquire and offer the features specified - changeable backstraps to fit different hands, and two sizes of frames for duty or concealed carry.

The contract hast some huge requirements built in. First, whatever design wins becomes .Gov property. The TDP for the gun can be shopped out to ANY subcontractor, just the same as Remington and FN making M-series firearms and Colt not getting much for the effort. All the development costs could go up in smoke. Secondly, the ammo has to be supplied, too, not only for testing but also for the annual service requirements. This is where the Army Chief is likely blustering, because just buying commercial off the shelf would get the job done quick and cheap. Various departments and sub units get their own carve outs and protected budgets for whatever they want anyway.

In actual use it really doesn't make a hill of beans difference what gun wins. Most soldiers do NOT carry a sidearm and if going into combat are issued a rifle for a primary weapon. A lot already carry Glocks, SIGs, and others. It's the mainstream units forced to accept an "issue" gun who will get stuck with it, and for the most part it's a symbolic token of their status in the duty roster. Another reason the Chief isn't happy about his budget being blown on an extended testing when all it will prove is the money got spent. He could spend it on fuel for a few days, which should put the whole thing in a new light. The amount wasted wouldn't get our tanks to the Mexican border.

In combat sidearms are a sideshow. It's the rifle and crew served weapons that do the work.

 

[BSA1]

Oh what the heck I’ll jump in on yet another Glock vs. Beretta debate.

Warp asks…

Why even have the darn things, let alone care what they are or how they work? Who needs 'em?

My thought for a military service handgun runs along the thinking of the guns that the Eastern Bloc Countries used…the Makarov & P-64. The Colt 1908 is a maybe.

The main feature of a handgun is…it is HANDY. It is also very portable. In a war zone I would want a gun on me at all times even in supposedly secure area like a military base. The rifle just gets in the way for some things like using the latrine. A small handgun would also be comforting when sleeping in a foxhole.

Size wise the Army has always like large handguns. The Colt SAA, M-1917 revolver, the 1911 and the Beretta M-9.

buckhorn cortez says…

Beretta has been in the inventory for 31 years. I'm sure the Army could continue to rebuild and replace as needed. But, at some point it becomes more cost effective to replace the gun over a specified time period.

I will admit that I am a big fan of the Beretta 92. Keep in mind there is more than just buying X number of handguns. You also have to have spare parts in warehouses, stored in armories, at bases and trained gunsmiths to repair them. You also need new holsters. That system is already in place with the Beretta M-9. The M9A3 uses many of the same parts.

One advantage of the Glock is the low skill level required to repair them. A friend is a trained Glock armorer and was trained and certified in a one day course. Cost wise it might be more cost effective just to trash Glocks when they need repair and forego a complicated, extensive support system that a modern Army spread across the world needs.

FL-NC says…

The fact is that the M9 pistol has not lived up to the expectations of the Army,

Bullhockey…such as what?

A gun that has been in service for 30 years, seen combat in just about every kind of battlefield conditions across the world used by as wide of variety of soldiers possible.

9mm ball ammunition is the same regardless of what handgun it is shot out of. The performance of ball ammunition has been known since W.W.1.

Many military personnel don’t have a lot of interest in learning to shoot a handgun well. As a matter of fact so do most LEO’s in America.

In fact, in the last several years, most of our service members who have been unlucky enough to be engaged by the enemy were attacked ON BASE by local personnel who up until that time were thought to be "good guys".

Which makes my case for a small handgun such as a Makarov or a J-Frame revolver stuck inside a pocket. A J-Frame revolver with the old FBI 158 gr. SWC load would be more effective than 9mm ball.

Wreck-N-Crew says…

Most LE practice with their duty gun. And practice more than a lot of people do. Especially sherries office. So to say most will never fire their gun is not so. They practice with their duty gun.

Come again? Most Departments have annual qualifications.

Also if they don't live in mayberry you will find that more LE fire their gun in the line of duty than most think. I had one inlaw that fired his in the line of duty 6 times over a 20 plus year LE career. He wasn't alone as far as firing his service weapon.

6 times at what? Rural deputies where I live occasionally put injured deer down that have be hit by a car.

And despite your comment about "mayberry" most police departments are small town and sheriff deputies serve large areas of low populated counties.

In fact around %12 do fire their gun in the line of duty.

Documentation to support your claim?

FL-NC says..,

BSA- I didn't intend for this to be a M9 vs anything thread. I just tried to start a discussion on the M9 replacement project conceived within the DOD.

You almost pulled it off until you say…

as someone who did a career of 23 years in the mil, and who was issued several different types of handguns, the M9 was the worst.

Glocks have a lot of shortcomings and mechanical problems also but you will probably never admit it.

 

[jerryd]

Still like the 1911 carried it for 2 yrs RVN but just saw an article that the Hi Point Tac 45 model is leading the tests.

 

[FL-NC]

BSA- welcome and thanks for playing. I'm having a hard time understanding the thought process that would endorse the issue of handguns in a modern war zone that would be better suited for a civilian CCW holder, but I do concede that it would be interesting to watch someone pass a military combat pistol qualification course with something like a Makarov or C&R Colt 1908 (either option would require "adoption" of new ammo- 380 or 9X18) or a snub 38 (these were largely replaced by M11 pistols-Sig 228- because they weren't satisfactory). Most professionals don't subscribe to the placebo idea of a "comforting handgun", and definitely not a "special purpose handgun" to support the "shooter in the chow hall" scenario. We generally prefer reliable equipment that will actually do the job when needed. ANY job. Regarding the record of the M9, first understand that just because a piece of equipment hung out in the Army inventory for 30 years doesn't mean that its a success. And my comparison of the M9's performance as a user and my observations as an instructor placed it against the 1911A1, Sig 228 (M11), HK MK23, and yes the Glock. As a user and instructor, the Glock performed the best (not perfect, but still the best). The M9 problems I contended with were not just problems when it was in MY hand, they also surfaced while being used by other Soldiers: Overall reliability, parts breakage, magazine quality, service life (a new one would last about 2 years where I worked) and ease of use by smaller Soldiers (esp. female Soldiers- which represent about 14% of our people). I know of a venue where the S&W M&P and the Glock have been put side by side with the M9 for the past 8 years in some very rigorous testing, with high round counts and not much in the way of maintenance. The not perfect M&P's and Glocks are spanking the brand new M9s. In fact, they are literally killing them. Regarding fiscal responsibility, the cost of replacing handguns (which are phased into service over years) and related equipment is NOTHING in the big picture. When mere mortals such as ourselves see the numbers, we tend to compare them to OUR personal budgets.

 

[FL-NC]

Jerry- I was issued the 1911 for a time, and I was just fine with it too. The most important reliability upgrade we did to ours was replacing GI mags with better ones from Wilson, not that big of a deal by itself. And yes, some of the best shooters in the world use the 1911 in some variation or another. The problem is, a military handgun should work well with ALL service members, and the 1911 doesn't do that. MOST of our people are not "regulars" at the range, like the warriors in SOF units or the highly skilled pistoleros on 3 gun nation. About 14% of them are females. This is why females were commonly issued 4" S&W model 10's in MP units back in the 1911 days. Nowadays, they are often offered the Sig 228 in MP units where Sigs are available.

 

[BSA1]

FL-NC,

So what do you take with you when you go to the latrine or chow hall in a hot area? (It isn't p.c. to use war zone). To paraphrase a commercial "What is in your pocket?"

My point is the strongest strength of a handgun is having it with you went you need it...now! A small handgun especially in a trained shooter hands is a effective fighting tool. For me a handgun is for close quarters combat so beyond 15 yards I want a long gun.

Long guns are a pain to tote around in some places and usually require two hands. The M-9 in the full flap holster is slow to draw. LEO's in the 1960's called them "widowmakers."

However give me a small handgun that I can slip into a convenient pocket, draw and shoot with one hand. It might give me the edge to defeat the enemy that thinks I am unarmed, a chance to get to a better weapon or to safety.

Vietnam saw the need for small compact guns that could be carried 24/7. The S&W Model 60 was ideal for this. Very rust resistant, easy to carry in the pocket of bdu's, very reliable. In fact I frequently carry a stainless steel snubby in the lower side pocket of my cargo pants. I have got use to it's weight and don't even notice it anymore. (There were a lot of types of guns that were cut down also but I digress).

So when I sitting in the throne room with my M-4 standing just outside of arms reach and my M-9 / Glock is hanging on the door in its holster I still have 5 with a snubby - 9 rounds with a Makarov and a round in chamber immediately within reach with only one hand. At its worse it is no less effective than the M-4 just out of reach and M-9 / Glock still in it's holster with the flap tied down. At its best it just might be the edge needed to survive.

For rear area duties such as MP's the Beretta meets their needs just fine. Remember even before WW2 the Army was looking to replace the 1911 with a smaller long gun hence the M-1 Carbine. When we entered the war we were poorly prepared and needed weapons of all types so the 1911 and M-1 carbine were ramped up for production.

My weapons of choice are in order of preference;

Close air support by the fly boys with lots of napalm.

Long range artillery with lots of shells.

Close range artillery support such as missile systems.

Armor such as tanks. Just so they are not close enough to my position to draw enemy fire.

Heavy machine guns. Lots and lots of ammunition.

Squad Automatic Weapons

30 caliber battle rifle. I know not many are issued now days but still is more effective than the 5.56 especially when you want to reach out and touch someone.

M-4 5.56 carbine

Fighting knife

Handgun
a. Small one that I can carry concealed all the time
b. Full size if required by MOS

 

[FL-NC]

BSA- I guess things have changed considerably since you were in the military. Also, since I'm not a politician, I don't impose political correctness on myself. I was never voted into any position- all of my promotions have been appointed, based on performance and merit. You carry what you have to the chow hall or wherever you go, on base or outside the wire. For me, its a Glock. For some service members, its a M16A2. If you visited a US Army FOB in afg today you would see most Soldiers (and even a bunch of civilians) carrying handguns. I'm reasonably certain that these many of these Soldiers' duty positions and unit MTOEs don't call for them to be issued a pistol, but the current threat dictates that they are obtained through channels and issued accordingly, presumably after training. The standard issue M12 holster with flap is rarely encountered any more anywhere. They have given way to designs like the Safarilands commonly used by police, or kydex models like the Serpa or similar types (my preferred "force protection holster) or even open-topped leather types with thumb breaks- all very efficient for the user to rapidly present his or her weapon and bring it into play, and much more user-friendly than the older "suicide holsters" or, dare I say, a cargo pocket. The military won't issue an arsenal of multiple handguns for various purposes to Soldiers, except for perhaps SOF units. In that case, the number is normally limited to about 2. The method by which equipment in general is replaced or upgraded is a phased system, taking place over several years, unit by unit. No one flicks a switch and replaces everything overnight. Units are prioritized and the process filters down. So, a maintenance unit in the Army reserve will probably have to wait "a while" for their weapons to be upgraded or replaced, whereas a line combat unit at Ft Bragg looking in the face of a deployment to a war zone will be given a higher priority and a place in line closer to the front. I've never been in a knife fight and have no desire to do so. I do know that most knife attacks do not result in death- the numbers of survivors vs. decedents in the correctional system where these occur regularly attest to this, and I think those people aren't lacking in aggressive attributes, and probably have more actual experience in this area than most. As for perfect weapons choices in a perfect world (wherever that place is) I would much prefer a drone to do the work and watch it on a monitor. I've been in a scrap or 2 and I'm done with that, if I have any say in the matter, but the problem with that is the enemy has a vote on the when and where- sometimes the best you can do is try to influence the outcome.

 

[AnselHazen]

I work with someone who was in the sandbox until an RPG hit the ASV his unit was using. He finds the M9 to be just fine. I don't think he's just saying that either, one comes to work every day with him.

But whatever, I bet a lot of waste could be eliminated if it were treated in a similar manner to the clothing allowance. The General could say you have X dollars to spend and be reimbursed, and you can buy from this list of X guns.
Everyone gets a gun they might actually be able to use if needed.

 

[FL-NC]

Ansel- that would never work. Who would the responsibility and logistics fall on to insure that multiple different privately owned weapons are safe and functional? Even if the bench stock of repair parts and Basic Issue Items for them is present, there is a legal issue with the gov't owned parts (in the course of normal maintenance) and ammunition going into personal firearms. Leaders at all levels would have to be educated in multiple platforms for safety reasons, range operations, etc. There would also be issues with serial numbers and approval of these weapons to leave the US, enter other countries, and be returned-"imported" -back into the US, and since they are "lethal implements" there would be additional issues with ITAR (International Trade in Arms Regulations), as well as the various laws and regulations of host countries. Penalties for ITAR violations are very steep. As a civilian, I am prohibited from even bringing items for my issue weapon like magazines and optics into Afg., regardless of where they came from or how I obtained them. A certain private military company that held numerous contracts world wide nearly went under just paying fines for violations, and some of their people narrowly escaped prison. Also, your friend who was issued the M9 for his tour of duty (thank him for his service for me)- how often did he train with his pistol, under what conditions, and how often did he use it (engage the enemy with it) in combat? I personally pulled my sidearm out more times than I could possibly remember, but I only fired it on 2 occasions. This is an gross exception to the "norm". But I also found out that while a handgun is rarely needed, when you do need one, you will realize you probably never needed anything so bad in your life.

 

[MikeInOr]

My 92FS is my home defence weapon. I do trust my life to it.

If I had to hump a gun around all day I would want something lighter (My XDS 3.3 is my carry weapon). XD, M&P, Glock, Ruger, Walther etc... all make excellent reliable light weight hand guns. Why carry around extra weight when you don't have to? Every ounce you can shed from a soldiers gear while maintaining the same functionality increasses the soldiers effectiveness.

I fear what a soldier carries has more to do with kick backs than effectiveness though!

 

[FL-NC]

Mike in Or.- if you are happy with your 92 for HD duty, or whatever else, and you can use it effectively, then that is the right gun for you. Just understand that the requirements of your HD gun- meaning what actually happens in practice- and a pistol in service use- are 2 completely different animals. Your HD pistol probably remains in a static location for the most part, and takes trips to the range for some training, then back to its location. Not so with a service weapon or any other piece of gear that has to perform under the worst conditions imaginable. Equally important as the overall reliability is the ease of use and simplicity of training the Soldiers (or Marines, Sailors, Airmen, etc.) So, the weapon must be simple/safe to operate, reliable in function under adverse conditions, and capable of not only hitting the target (enemy) but also of sufficient power to eliminate that threat. And it has to be as user-friendly as possible for ALL service members- male and female, big and small, "operators" and cooks. Nothing against cooks- they are VERY important. 3 x a day, pretty much everyone relies on them to do their mission.