US Army handgun

[FL-NC]

Archangel- Today, few SOF personnel utilize the M1911 pattern handguns. In fact, its only a standard issue handgun (among others) in 1 unit. Handguns made by SIG, Glock, and HK are the common types, depending on which command we are talking about. Some Army SOF units are still using the M9, especially for support personnel.

 

[FL-NC]

Hammer- military equipment is replaced over time when certain conditions occur, such when equipment becomes worn out, or is deemed unsuitable due to unsatisfactory performance and/or safety issues. Sometimes items are replaced in the interest of mission effectiveness as better technology becomes available. In a military where electronics, cyber and space based warfare, and the most advanced naval and air fleets in history are available for instant world-wide deployment, the acquisition of better/more effective handguns and other individual items of equipment, primarily for the use of ground-based forces to perform their missions while being placed in the highest risk category is the smallest of potatoes.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

You mean discontinue it? That seems kind of harsh.

http://cz-usa.com/product/cz-75-sp-01-phantom/

The Phantom was discontinued for civilian sales in the US to fill military orders. You can still get them occasionally when there are production over runs.

They are available on Buds right now.

 

[TTv2]

The military as a whole already wastes enough money. The M9 has and will do the job just fine. I see no (urgent) reason to switch.

Maybe they should just ditch sidearms entirely and have the officers buy their own instead?

 

[Caliper_Mi]

The military as a whole already wastes enough money. The M9 has and will do the job just fine. I see no (urgent) reason to switch.

Allegedly, the stock of M9's are wearing out and are due for replacement soon anyways. So, if the pistols require replacement, should they be new M9's, or something else that costs less and may serve the user better?

 

[tarosean]

Allegedly, the stock of M9's are wearing out and are due for replacement soon anyways. So, if the pistols require replacement, should they be new M9's, or something else that costs less and may serve the user better?

The Army signed another 5yr contract and 250k worth of 92's almost 2yrs ago. (Jul-14) so a number of pistols have already been replaced.

 

[FL-NC]

tarosean/caliper- don't put a whole lot of thought into that, even though its true. When a major end item, like weapons, need immediate replacement, they are ordered and purchased through channels from an authorized list of products, and with respect to existing contracts. The mil still has warehouses of unfired/rehabbed weapons, both current and obsolete, dating back decades (along with just about any other item of equipment you could name). This stuff sits around for however long, and then is "re-utilized". Some of it goes into foreign military aid programs (those multi-million dollar aid programs? They don't just drop off a bag of cash with a 3rd world president-usually). Some of it goes to LE agencies (hence MRAPS in Ferguson). Some of it gets released to civilians as surplus (CMP for example, or my personal M24). Some of it gets "re-purposed"- like M14's being re-issued in afg. and iraq. A lot of it gets scrapped. Like I said before, small potatoes.

 

[jamal28]

S&W got <edit> over on that texas dps deal. The m&p only had 3 failures and most of those were by traines in the academy. Texas dps loves there sigs and there was no getting around that at all.

 

[Millamber457]

here is my two cents worth!
lets say the current crop of issued side arms Does need to be replaced. By the time the testing and bidding is done. The weapon chosen will be out of date technology wise.
To me the question is how to fix the system so that those that need them, get the best suited weapon , the least expensive, fastest way. Maybe an off the shelf test with a shoot them till they die, test is all it really takes?
In today's day and age , the gov't really doesn't need to own the rights,long term price fixed contracts , provide jobs, and gives the Gov't some control over its weapon of choice.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

S&W got <edit> over on that texas dps deal. ..

If you read the Inspector General's report, S&W got <edit> in the original competition that led to the US buying Berettas, too. That report is on the 'net. Getting through a government competition and getting a contract is an ART not a SCIENCE.

 

[Boarhunter]

FL-NC,

One of the problems the PD was having with the Beretta was its heavy weight and long, heavy first pull of the trigger, and the adverse impact that combination was having on practical performance of the pistol by smaller officers in the field and during qualification. "Boat anchor" was how a number of officers referenced their duty Beretta.

Following the transition to the lighter M&P 9 with the interchangeable grips and consistent trigger pull, qualification scores improved immediately and dramatically, particularly for the smaller officers and cadets unfamiliar with firearms prior to joining the force. In addition, the M&P has been used in a considerable number of OIS incidents since its adoption, and it has performed well and without fault or criticism.

BOARHUNTER

 

[jamal28]

I think the m&p sig 320 and fnx45 are the favorites to win the contract.

 

[jamal28]

I know my city charlotte nc has issued the m&p40 to its officers and is very happy with all the officer involved shootings its been in.

 

[LeonCarr]

Allowing the entire United States Armed Forces to use JHPs in their handguns would make the handguns in inventory perform much better.

Then replacing the gigantic M9 with something that is more manageable in size with a consistent trigger instead of DA/SA would be next. And no, it should not take forever and a day to make this happen.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[FL-NC]

Boarhunter- a predictable response. While not MY #1 choice, I would not be adverse to using it- especially in lieu of the M9. I firmly believe the M&P would be the best choice for our military, based on positive feedback and performance from the "real world" as described by yourself, the features and capabilities that the pistol offers, and the demonstrated abilities seen thus far under more extreme use than a LE or civilian owned firearm would normally be subjected to.

 

[FL-NC]

Leon- the challenges regarding the use of HP ammo in combat is being addressed. Its a conversation involving attorneys and interpretations of certain laws, agreements that the US may or may not be a part of, etc. Since I'm not an attorney, its not an argument that I'm qualified to engage in. But I do think its ridiculous that restricting the use of any specific ammunition in a handgun- our least lethal weapon- is even an argument worthy of having, since enemy combatants are engaged regularly and without impunity with much more lethal firearms, explosives, artillery, air-delivered munitions from unmanned platforms, and so on.

 

[jamal28]

Leoncarr the us military has always used big handgun as there issued sidearm. I dont know why but its a fact.

 

[tarosean]

Leoncarr the us military has always used big handgun as there issued sidearm. I dont know why but its a fact.

Sure but the XM17 RFP is for

Full Sized Pistol
Compact Pistol
+ Ammunition
Spares, etc.

 

[FL-NC]

jamal- in SOF units the M11 (Sig 228) and Glock 19 have and continued to be used as "standard duty sidearms". I consider them mid-sized. For me, the ideal would be a Glock with a Gen4 model 19 frame to accommodate the lefties (11% of the force) and the females (14% of the force) along with the smaller males. This would also facilitate the use of all Glock 9mm mags of 19 dimensions and larger. For the top half I would like a gen 3 model 17 slide and barrel assembly, as I believe the longer barrel can only benefit a duty pistol. The shorter frame would facilitate "concealability" should that capability be required, or standard G26 pistols could be utilized for this purpose (which are currently being used in SOF). But as I previously posted, what works for myself and my former units doesn't always translate into ideal for the entire Army- thus, M&P variants may be a better choice.

 

[Fiv3r]

I'm a Beretta fan. The last pistol I would clear from the safe would be a 92 series. I simply love the design, accuracy, aesthetics, and feel of a Beretta.

That said, IF a new sidearm is needed for the military, I think a poly framed 9mm with a 4" barrel makes the most sense. The fns9 with a thumb safety comes to mind. 17 rounds, 4" barrel, manual safety, already used to filling government small arms contracts.

Then again, I'm an FNH fan. My fns compact would be my second to last pistol to get the boot, trumped only by the 92fs.

 

[FL-NC]

I'm not familiar with the FNS, so I've refrained from mentioning them. I know FN has always built quality products, as I've used many of them (M240, M249, FAL, SCAR). Given the existing contracts the mil has with FN, that gun could be the answer. But the well-known rep of the Glock and the emerging rep of the M&P leave big shoes to fill. The FNS is a "johnny come lately", without much operational deployment with anyone. Testing and pricing will tell the tale.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

First of all, let me say that I've read a few articles which claim that the Army wants hollowpoint ammunition for its new pistol, whatever that ends up being. Actually, the specific wording is "special purpose ammunition", which rather implies that it wants the OPTION to use hollowpoint ammunition, should they judge that it's necessary. This is a whole 'nuther matter than simply saying they want hollowpoint ammunition.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/mili...gun-system-solicitation-hollowpoint/29886907/


There is a lot of hype going on with this discussion, and we've seen the likes of it here and elsewhere...talks of "energy transfer", "over penetration", "less risk to innocent civilians down range", etc.

And let's be clear and honest, here...it IS "hype". None of this stuff is new science and all it's being used for is expanding the ever growing scope of this needlessly expensive debacle they currently call the "Modular Handgun System", as if it's some kind of fancy SciFi weapon. It's not. It's a frickin' pistol, the lowest of the low of the military's firearms.


The military is not a civilian police organization and is not a group of civilian citizens simply looking for personal protection needs or hunting needs. Their needs are a wee bit different due to the nature of the beast when going up against armed and armored enemies deliberately maneuvering in combat.

That said, what the military needs above all else with respect to their pistol and rifle ammunition is penetration and reliability. People can say what they will, but with all other things being equal, non-hollowpoint ammunition has this in spades in comparison with hollowpoints.

Energy transfer doesn't mean squat if your small arms ammo can't poke a hole in the enemy. And a pistol needs all the penetration assistance it can get, what with it being the most underpowered firearm the servicemember carries.

The danger to "innocent civilians downrange" is, and ever has been, due largely to the fact that most rounds fired MISS their target entirely in the first place. And the flip side of "over penetration" is that you can cut down more enemy.


If the Army wants hollowpoint ammunition as an option, more power to them. This allows them the flexibility they need to tailor their troop training and provisioning for specific combat missions, and this is good. But it should not "replace" non-hollowpoint ammunition.

 

[tarosean]

Testing and pricing will tell the tale.

That is all that matters!

Yours, as well as my, opinions are moot...

Heck we dont even know what was submitted yet. Since the RFP just closed a few weeks ago.

 

[Wisco]

Some thoughts...

I was in a SOF unit and I remember a hodgepodge of pistols in the arms room - M9, M11, m1911, MK 23, Glock 19. Not one single person kept the M9 when something better became available.

Pistols are a status symbol for the majority of soldiers and just another part of the uniform that is form over function. 95% of the Army carries pistols as status symbols only. Your division commander and sergeant major aren't going to be at the ops center on a overrun base defending themselves with their M9s. I'm not even sure that happened in WWII.

A great secondary weapon is necessary for those who find themselves in CQB. No one I knew thought the M9 was great.

When the pistol becomes your primary weapon, you want it to be as good as it can be. Again, I've never heard anyone say they'd prefer an M9 for times a long gun isn't an option.

For those that truly have a need, they've had had something better since the beginning of OEF in 2001.

 

[FL-NC]

Wisco- same experiences, but we didn't have any 1911's in my specific unit. I think they just got jammed into the "other" arms room, where all the AK's and weird stuff like that was kept. Things are slightly different over here now- due to the continuing threats from "PN friendlies" (I refuse to use the term that denotes colors) there are more fobits carrying pistols than ever before. Which is good- assuming they were trained by someone competent. Kind of along the lines of CCW people in the US in general, or those who find themselves in and around "high crime areas" in particular. That being said, I don't think enough handguns are normally available in conventional "line units" to be issued where they would be appropriate: crew served weapons operators, snipers, and so on. And since we both know the "big Army" isn't exactly stellar when it comes to weapons training, either in quality or frequency- especially handgun training- a better handgun that's easier to use for ALL of these Soldiers is probably a good idea.