The cartridge that was used in the Philippines was the old 38 Colt cartridge, an extremely low powered cartridge, that cartridge was replaced later with a substantially higher powered cartridge called the 38 Special, almost a magnum cartridge compared to the old 38 Colt.
US Army looking for new pistol?
- Thread starter Slater
- Start date
- Status
Given the funding problems with the war, why mess with this now? How many folks really have been endangered by the M9? Not that I don't like new guns for all but is this like the FBI trying the 1911 of the day?
We cutting planes and subs - is a pistol worth futzing around with?
We cutting planes and subs - is a pistol worth futzing around with?
alan
Member
GaryP:
I won't argue with Glock, they are in business to make money, and a "new caliber" might bdring more sales with it.
Having said that, what purpose, realp[ose does the 45 GAP actually serve. Chamber pressures with that round are higher than with the 45ACP, the latter havinb a long established record for effectiveness.
While reinventing the wheel now and then might be fun, it is NOT necessary, nor does it make a great deal of sense.
I won't argue with Glock, they are in business to make money, and a "new caliber" might bdring more sales with it.
Having said that, what purpose, realp[ose does the 45 GAP actually serve. Chamber pressures with that round are higher than with the 45ACP, the latter havinb a long established record for effectiveness.
While reinventing the wheel now and then might be fun, it is NOT necessary, nor does it make a great deal of sense.
fistful
member
If I'm not mistaken, alan, the .45 GAP is intended to replicate .45 Auto ballistics in a Glock, but with a slimmer grip than in those of the .45 Auto Glocks. Could be wrong, though.
HungSquirrel
Member
Yep.
http://www.gunblast.com/Glock37.htm
I kind of want one, but I don't want to have to order ammo over the internet.
http://www.gunblast.com/Glock37.htm
I kind of want one, but I don't want to have to order ammo over the internet.
Kobun
Member
Resurrection of the 10 mike-mike? 
HungSquirrel,
the Glock 17 was adopted by the Norwegian army in the mid '80s.
HungSquirrel,
the Glock 17 was adopted by the Norwegian army in the mid '80s.
Gary_P
Member
odd
it appears I have been cloned
Gary
it appears I have been cloned
Gary
alan
Member
fistful:
I believe that your surmize is correct. That aside, the 45 ACP is well established, and proven.
As to the smaller grip frame you mentioned, wasn't that what was mentioned re going to a 9mm pistol, in particular the Beretta that was adopted. Funny thing about that is that the Beretta pistol, in some dimensions, is larger than the government model in 45 ACP.. Of course it holds more rounds than do single stack 45's, but "wide body" 45's are available, and does anyone really need DAO?
Pistol shooting is still a question of being able to hit what you are shooting at, as well as hitting where one wants to. In that respect, the 9mm Luger round is less forgiving than the 45 ACP. It still seems to me that regarding pistols and the military, handguns are still a "court of last resort" weapon. I could be wrong though.
I believe that your surmize is correct. That aside, the 45 ACP is well established, and proven.
As to the smaller grip frame you mentioned, wasn't that what was mentioned re going to a 9mm pistol, in particular the Beretta that was adopted. Funny thing about that is that the Beretta pistol, in some dimensions, is larger than the government model in 45 ACP.. Of course it holds more rounds than do single stack 45's, but "wide body" 45's are available, and does anyone really need DAO?
Pistol shooting is still a question of being able to hit what you are shooting at, as well as hitting where one wants to. In that respect, the 9mm Luger round is less forgiving than the 45 ACP. It still seems to me that regarding pistols and the military, handguns are still a "court of last resort" weapon. I could be wrong though.
countertop
Member
Actually, i think this is probably a sign that Colts gonna get another big contract - as payback to Joe Leiberman for being a good pro military kind of guy in the face of partisan politics. Colt, while it has the M4 contract right now, is going to lose it in the next couple of years to HKs next generation battle rifle. Since the lines are already in place and it will mean lots of American jobs in a state that is somewhat less crazy than its other Blue state counterparts (Conn gives us Lieberman, Maryland gives us gun ban central) and its an old US brand with a new CEO (former Marine General) I'd be prepared to see Colt re-emerge with new 1911s (heck, that might also explain the sudden uptick in their quality)
fistful
member
alan,
I is a 1911 man all the way. I agree with you, but only because the Colonel (Cooper) corrupted me while still impressionable. No matter the caliber, I hope they do switch to some other gun.
I is a 1911 man all the way. I agree with you, but only because the Colonel (Cooper) corrupted me while still impressionable. No matter the caliber, I hope they do switch to some other gun.
Fumbler
Member
Hmm 10mm sounds nice.
If you dropped me in the middle of Iraq with only a handgun I'd want a S&W 1006 or a Delta Elite.
I wonder if we'll see a bunch of used M9's on the market when they finally switch.
If you dropped me in the middle of Iraq with only a handgun I'd want a S&W 1006 or a Delta Elite.
I wonder if we'll see a bunch of used M9's on the market when they finally switch.
i dont see the M9 relinquishing its throne anytime soon, there is nothing out there now that didnt exist when the army choose it (1911s, hi powers, etc) that could take its place. The only reason it might ever lose would be because the military would want a polymer gun to save space and weight on already overloaded GIs.
About the best thing they could do is just get some decent mags in the issue pipeline for the M-9. Its not like they need the things to invade a nation or fight a war..end up having to fight the enemy in the face with a M-9 you really really screwed up. Mostly the idea is you klunk drunks over the head with them if they get belegerant on base.
unspellable
Member
New Pistol
I've never been impressed with the Beretta.
As for the 9 mm vs 45 argument, it makes no practical difference if you are restricted to heard ball.
The dirty little secret from the Philippine thing is that the 45's didn't stop 'em either. Nor did the 30-40 Krag. You just have to face the fact that a hard ball is about the poorest possible choice of bullet for a stopper.
I've never been impressed with the Beretta.
As for the 9 mm vs 45 argument, it makes no practical difference if you are restricted to heard ball.
The dirty little secret from the Philippine thing is that the 45's didn't stop 'em either. Nor did the 30-40 Krag. You just have to face the fact that a hard ball is about the poorest possible choice of bullet for a stopper.
TheDutchman
Member
+1 on the .40 S&W
Bart Noir
Member
In the selection of the M9....
"Target effect wasn’t a factor in that decision.", according to the article. I guess we can do better than that this time around. Ruger may be a contender, as it has an inexpensive pistol with DA action (they can easily make a DA-only version). We don't know if it will stand up to the tough "mud and sand" testing but there's one way to find out.
Bart Noir
"Target effect wasn’t a factor in that decision.", according to the article. I guess we can do better than that this time around. Ruger may be a contender, as it has an inexpensive pistol with DA action (they can easily make a DA-only version). We don't know if it will stand up to the tough "mud and sand" testing but there's one way to find out.
Bart Noir
Mr. Mysterious
Member
Only one gun was mentioned by name in the current testing...SW99 in .45ACP:
nero45acp
Member
If I were choosing a new sidearm for the army it'd be the SIG P226R DAK .40 S&W with the short trigger (to accommodate the small handed soldier).
nero
nero
Jeff22
Member
New Military Handgun?
Whatever they might select, I hope it has a slimmer grip and a shorter reach from the backstrap to the face of the trigger than the M9 does.
I have big hands & long fingers and I personally really like the Beretta M9 but grip circumference and reach to the trigger are WAY too big for many people. I found this to be a big problem when teaching basic marksmanship when I was a CATM specialist in the ANG. The damn gun is simply too big.
Apparently the S&W 99 is under consideration. I have never fired the DAO version of the S&W 99. I have about 200 rounds through a .40 cal DA/SA S&W 99 that a local PD had as a test and eval gun. The gun was very comfortable in my hand but I thought the trigger pull was very stiff and stacked funny toward the end of the trigger travel. (This impression based on only one range session with the weapon, however).
I always thought the M1911A1 with the arched mainspring housing, or the S&W 39 had a particularly comfortable grip that fit shooters of many different hand sizes.
I hope whatever they select has an all steel or polymer frame. If you shoot an alloy framed gun enough, it'll break. (Usually about 30,000 rounds)
Any military handgun that has to fire FMJ ammunition will have questionable stopping power due to over-penetration. Doesn't matter if it's a 9mm or a .40 or a .45 or whatever. Bigger diameter is probably better. Maybe a bullet of 165 to 200 grains in .40 or .45?
I can't believe this is a real high priority for the military because very few soldiers carry a pistol as a primary weapon, other than the military police of the various services performing the law enforcement mission on base.
People who were never in the military have to remember that the "average" GI
gets two to eight hours of training on the handgun, fires some simple qualification course, and THAT'S IT! They usually expend about 100 rounds or LESS and that's the extent of their training. MPs and SPs usually qualify twice a year. Pilots qualify ONCE IN A LIFETIME unless deploying to a combat zone. So, you can talk all about cocked & locked SA handguns in major calibers all you want, but you have to remember that the operators generally don't have any real training.
MPs assigned to an SRT or SPs assigned to an EST usually train more than that, as do the various operators in the special warfare community, but they are the exception and NOT the rule.
Whatever they might select, I hope it has a slimmer grip and a shorter reach from the backstrap to the face of the trigger than the M9 does.
I have big hands & long fingers and I personally really like the Beretta M9 but grip circumference and reach to the trigger are WAY too big for many people. I found this to be a big problem when teaching basic marksmanship when I was a CATM specialist in the ANG. The damn gun is simply too big.
Apparently the S&W 99 is under consideration. I have never fired the DAO version of the S&W 99. I have about 200 rounds through a .40 cal DA/SA S&W 99 that a local PD had as a test and eval gun. The gun was very comfortable in my hand but I thought the trigger pull was very stiff and stacked funny toward the end of the trigger travel. (This impression based on only one range session with the weapon, however).
I always thought the M1911A1 with the arched mainspring housing, or the S&W 39 had a particularly comfortable grip that fit shooters of many different hand sizes.
I hope whatever they select has an all steel or polymer frame. If you shoot an alloy framed gun enough, it'll break. (Usually about 30,000 rounds)
Any military handgun that has to fire FMJ ammunition will have questionable stopping power due to over-penetration. Doesn't matter if it's a 9mm or a .40 or a .45 or whatever. Bigger diameter is probably better. Maybe a bullet of 165 to 200 grains in .40 or .45?
I can't believe this is a real high priority for the military because very few soldiers carry a pistol as a primary weapon, other than the military police of the various services performing the law enforcement mission on base.
People who were never in the military have to remember that the "average" GI
gets two to eight hours of training on the handgun, fires some simple qualification course, and THAT'S IT! They usually expend about 100 rounds or LESS and that's the extent of their training. MPs and SPs usually qualify twice a year. Pilots qualify ONCE IN A LIFETIME unless deploying to a combat zone. So, you can talk all about cocked & locked SA handguns in major calibers all you want, but you have to remember that the operators generally don't have any real training.
MPs assigned to an SRT or SPs assigned to an EST usually train more than that, as do the various operators in the special warfare community, but they are the exception and NOT the rule.
Jeff22
Member
Just remember that most military personnel NEVER get trained on a handgun, and those few that do don't get much training at that.
So a single action pistol is pretty much out of the question. Nobody in the military other than special warfare troops EVER carried "cocked and locked".
The M1911A1 was carried hammer down on an empty chamber in condition 3 and the operator had to draw and then manually chamber a round before engaging the target.
The Air Force at least carries the M9 with a round in the chamber and the safety off. I don't know what the Army and Marines do . . .
Whatever gun they select, they need to avoid alloy frames for durability reasons, and stick with a single column magazine to keep the grip circumference and reach to the trigger down to managable dimensions to accomodate shooters with smaller hands.
So a single action pistol is pretty much out of the question. Nobody in the military other than special warfare troops EVER carried "cocked and locked".
The M1911A1 was carried hammer down on an empty chamber in condition 3 and the operator had to draw and then manually chamber a round before engaging the target.
The Air Force at least carries the M9 with a round in the chamber and the safety off. I don't know what the Army and Marines do . . .
Whatever gun they select, they need to avoid alloy frames for durability reasons, and stick with a single column magazine to keep the grip circumference and reach to the trigger down to managable dimensions to accomodate shooters with smaller hands.
Bluecard
Member
IMO, the military will more than likely not got back to the 1911 with the exception of select SF units. No one has mentioned the Sig. The Military has been issuing the Sig 228 for several years to military investigators such as OSI and the NSA. There is a great possibility they may go with Sig. There really is nothing wrong with the Beretta other than the obvious caliber issue regarding the 9mm. Once they fixed the slide from ejecting into your face, the pistol held up rather well. I think the reasoning behind the DA is the keep it simple factor. Lets face it some of our troops our not the brightest. I can say this having served 15 years in the military. A brand-new 18 year old soldier is a little more prone to negligent discharges than the older seasoned troops. I can't count how many of my new troops rocked rounds off in the clearing barrel prior to guard mount over the years. 
If reading the tea leaves makes a .40 or .45 ACP polymer auto pistol with interchangeable backstraps the preferred standard next generation sidearm, here are the current competitors:
Ready to Go to T&E today:
Beretta PX-4
SIG P250
Walther/Smith P99
Ready with polymer frame but needs backstraps:
HK USP and P2000
Ruger
Glock
Ready with a polymer frame that may not need backstraps, but no American manufacturing presence in any form:
Springfield XD
Taurus
I'd say the inside track today would see Beretta, SIG, Smith, and possibly Ruger as front-runners because they all already have American manufacturing capability, which is a necessary element to winning the contract. Glock has an assembly plant, but that won't cut it, and HK's American plant just passed groundbreaking if I am not mistaken.
Ready to Go to T&E today:
Beretta PX-4
SIG P250
Walther/Smith P99
Ready with polymer frame but needs backstraps:
HK USP and P2000
Ruger
Glock
Ready with a polymer frame that may not need backstraps, but no American manufacturing presence in any form:
Springfield XD
Taurus
I'd say the inside track today would see Beretta, SIG, Smith, and possibly Ruger as front-runners because they all already have American manufacturing capability, which is a necessary element to winning the contract. Glock has an assembly plant, but that won't cut it, and HK's American plant just passed groundbreaking if I am not mistaken.
- Status