What handgun should replace the Army's M9?

[Deaf Smith]

Yeah because when comparing 9mm to .40 S&W in FMJ, .40 is only .05" wider. That's not going to make a big enough difference in FMJ in my opinion.

It will if the .40 is FP-FMJ. All they use to day is RN-FMJ in 9mm.

Plus the damage is by AREA and VOLUME of the bullet's incursion of the target, not diameter. .40 and .45 have lots more area and volume.

Deaf

 

[Aikibiker]

Yeah but yu should be comparing 9mm and .40 jacketed hollow points, not FMJ. Since the Army says they will be switching to JHP with whatever new pistol they choose.

 

[1911 guy]

No, they're not. JHP will be a special issue item, not general issue. Cost will be the main driver.

 

[John C]

That's not the way I read those articles. It sounds to me that JHP rounds will be used for "duty" use and FMJ will be used for training. The reality will probably be that MPs routinely carry JHP but a regular line soldier on guard duty carrying a loaded pistol (I've seen it happen) would have FMJ because a regular unit wouldn't have JHPs readily available. In a combat zone, JHPs would be issued to everybody.

 

[John C]

Further, when purchased in gargantuan quantities, JHPs don't cost much more than FMJs. The amount of material (copper and lead) is the same, only the machinery and process is different. Assuming suppliers don't scrap existing machinery with usable life left in it to start making JHPs, the cost difference for a billion round order is minuscule.

 

[TwinReverb]

Aikibiker]Yeah but yu should be comparing 9mm and .40 jacketed hollow points, not FMJ. Since the Army says they will be switching to JHP with whatever new pistol they choose.

We don't use JHP in war. We use FMJ. Hence FMJ is what I should be comparing.

 

[Aikibiker]

The Army says they will be using JHP in war with the new handgun. The USMC is already issuing hollow point rifle rounds in Afghanistan.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Well look on the bright side. JHPs and SPs won't penetrate vest as well as FMJ or AP.

So if I was the enemy, I'd wear a vest (as we do.)

Deaf

 

[TwinReverb]

The Army says they will be using JHP in war with the new handgun. The USMC is already issuing hollow point rifle rounds in Afghanistan.

First, link please. I'm very hesitant to believe that.

Second, if that's the case, then we don't need a replacement for the M9. Just give 'em JHPs. So then we don't need to switch calibers: 9mm is enough. (And it's enough for the FBI as well.)

Third, all I care about is handgun hollow points. A link about USMC using HP rifle rounds doesn't matter to me for the current discussion.

 

[Aikibiker]

Twinreverb,

Post #105 in this thread. The underlined text is two different links to news articles about a statement made by the Army R.E. switching to JHP handgun rounds.

 

[TwinReverb]

Thanks.

Hence if we can carry hollow points in war, we don't need to change guns. The M9 and any 9mm will work fine with quality JHPs.

But somehow i have doubts because something as big as a change to Hague laws would surely be major news. Still, that's good news.

Military cops already carry hollow points in the states in almost all localities.

 

[kBob]

1. those "laws" only apply to nations that are actually signatories.

2. those laws SPECIFICALLY apply to use against the uniformed soldiers of a recognized military of another signatory

3. The 'ban" on HP small arms ammo is ridiculous to anyone that has ever seen real artillery fragments and or their effects.

-kBob

 

[TruthTellers]

Yeah, the ban on using JHP doesn't apply to terror groups, drug cartels, or domestic terrorists not part of another nation's military. Now, if the US gets involved in a war with another nation like Iran, North Korea, Syria, Russia, etc. I wonder if the military would still be willing to use the hollow point ammo. It's possible the Army will look to use both JHP and FMJ as service ammunition during combat operations.

 

[Old Dog]

Six pages so far. As one who spent more than 20 years on active duty (and transitioned from the 1911 to the M-9), my mind is boggled. Some of y'all are way too concerned with this trivial matter. The 9 is fine, and the one we got works okay. Obsessing about a handgun for the military? And the hollow-point issue?

But somehow i have doubts because something as big as a change to Hague laws would surely be major news.

Didn't we NOT sign the Hague Convention?

Military cops already carry hollow points in the states in almost all localities

Huh?

 

[Detritus]

Didn't we NOT sign the Hague Convention?

I certainly was under the impression that the US never did. and post #2 in this thread notes that we never did.

We've followed it's tenants, and taught our troops (until fairly recently) that we abide(d) by it because it was "the right thing to do", but I don't think the US ever actually became a signatory.
Might have something to do with the US being involved in a fight against a bunch of Islamic fanatics (Moro), and having trouble with anemic pistol rounds soon after the first Hague convention came about.

well that and the whole "We're America, you pansy Europeans can talk of 'civilized warfare' all you want. If you piss us off enough to shoot at you, we no longer care about your feelings.."

oh and another note:

Three of the five branches already have some variant of the SIG P226/228/229 in inventory. It's no stretch to imagine that the Air Force will buy the same.

the Air force already issues the M11 for it's special investigations personnel and it's also made it's way into the system and seen use as a pilot sidearm. so really all branches are currently using the SIG. thus reinforcing them as a good choice IF the M9 is replaced

 

[TruthTellers]

Six pages so far. As one who spent more than 20 years on active duty (and transitioned from the 1911 to the M-9), my mind is boggled. Some of y'all are way too concerned with this trivial matter. The 9 is fine, and the one we got works okay. Obsessing about a handgun for the military? And the hollow-point issue?

Didn't we NOT sign the Hague Convention?

Huh?

The thing is Old Dog, the 1911 had shown it's age by the mid 80's. It had to be replaced with something of higher capacities and at the time, the Beretta was a much newer design. Another thing is, better guns have been made the past three decades and the M9 is outdated. The 9mm itself is of questionable stopping power and has been for a long time.

As for the FMJ/JHP debate, let's say the Army stays with FMJ. The .40 is better than 9mm at that point and I think .40 S&W is better and more effective in JHP too. If purchased in large enough quantities, .40 will not be so costly as to warrant it's dismissal as the next service caliber.

 

[Detritus]

something that's been bugging me in reading this....

to all the ".40 is better" guys... that does not matter even in the most infinitesimal way. Even if 40S&W could, in one shot, kill your adversary, wrap him in a sealed body bag, ship him home to his momma, and write the telegram. It will not replace 9mm as standard issue to US troops.

Unless the US pulls out of every single mutual defense pact/agreement/Organization we are currently part of. we will continue to be held to "common/standard" (in the "mutual use" sense) caliber ammunition.
and we're NOT leaving NATO, nor withdrawing from any of our other current basing/defense sharing schemes. and after the whole "we choose .308 not some pansy intermediate round! Nope sorry we've changed our mind. Oops you already have armories full of FALs and G3s..." we're not going to convince our allies to swap calibers just for us ever again.

and this is on top of the fact that just about all the armies of our allies view a pistol as a badge of office more than a weapon. for all most of NATO cares the standard handgun round could be .32acp

 

[TwinReverb]

As for the FMJ/JHP debate, let's say the Army stays with FMJ. The .40 is better than 9mm at that point and I think .40 S&W is better and more effective in JHP too. If purchased in large enough quantities, .40 will not be so costly as to warrant it's dismissal as the next service caliber.

The problem here is that you're turning this into a caliber war. As such:

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866

There's not a difference enough in the major defensive calibers (9mm, .40SW, 10mm, .45 ACP) to warrant how much money they'd blow on switching to or from any of them.

 

[entropy]

Sure about that?? Not very good recoil control on pic #2...

If you look closely, I think you'll find it's Matt Lauer. Maybe they let him run their course for a story......

I say they should either go with something much wider, as wide as they can, if they're using FMJ (like .45 ACP). That or get Hague to re-evaluate the ban on expanding ammunition, as it is completely possible to manufacture JHP to not separate, or at least not separate 99% of the time, etc. I think that was their main objection to it.

Again I will state as in my first post in this thread (#2), and as many other have also pointed out, that the US is not a signatory to the Hague Accords. Congress did not pass authorization to sign it. We are not bound by it's restrictions on ammunition. But for some odd reason, we still abide by it's rules.

As long as I have the floor, I'll include my personal experiences with the M9 vs. the 1911, as well as what other soldiers in my unit and Division, the 7th ID(L), thought of it:

I was a Unit Armorer during the changeover. I had 7 1911's (to be more precise, 1 M1911, 6 M1911A1's) and 55 M10's of various manufacture and type. (A mixture of Colt Det. SPl., S&W M10, S&W Victory Models) The revolvers were for the Dustoff unit in our Battalion. (I was in HHD, but the Arms Room had the weapons for all but two of the units in the BN, and I had oversight of all of them) I did not want to lose the 1911's, but of course, had no choice. The M9 did improve my score, (went from 38/40 to 40/40), and most others', but I was not confident of it's stopping power. When we got a new BN Cdr shortly before the changeover, he had to qualify with the 1911, and failed the first time. He'd been a carreer Huey pilot, (flew dustoff in VN) and all he'd ever been issued was the revolvers. This was his first non-aviation command, (Though he still flew to get hrs.) so he was issued the M1911A1. (His XO, the captain of our pistol team drew the M1911. This guy knew his pistols, and shot that one very well. Course, he had an excellent Armorer working on it..... ) Anyhoo, I did coach the BN Cdr. and he passed the second time. Eventhough he owned a .357 Mag., he was unused to the slow rolling recoil of the .45 compared to it.
We all thought the M9 was easier to shoot, and the LTC passed the first time with it. Most of the enlisted who had been issued revolvers, (crewchiefs, medics) didn't like to have to take the M9 down to clean it. Everyone that had been issued the 1911 thought the M9 was easier to clean, but most would've still traded it back for a 1911.
My friends who were Infantry Armorers and the HHT, 3rd Avn. Bde. Armorer, (A classmate of mine from AIT) liked the M9 better, for different reasons. The Infantry Armorers liked the takedown and cleaning aspects, the HHT Armorer and his users liked the increase in firepower (15 vs. 6 in the revolvers) as well as him liking the ease of maintenance. The Infantry end users were split on the issue. Most of the LT's and some of the CPT's liked the M9, the rest of the officers the 1911. The enlisted that were authorized a pistol were divided as well. Those who were issued it as a driver, or such, liked the M9 better (lighter) but those who were authorized one for specialized MOS' (LRSD, BCT, & MP's) preferred the M1911. This was just informally gathered from talking to people around post, not a study.

My summary is this; I personally prefer the M1911. If the DOD decided to reverse it's postion on HP, as it is able to, the 9mm would be a far better choice than it is now. I would not feel undergunned with 15 rds. of say, 124 Golden Sabers in one. That said, the .45 ACP would be that much more effective with 230 gr. Golden Sabers.

 

[TwinReverb]

My summary is this; I personally prefer the M1911. If the DOD decided to reverse it's postion on HP, as it is able to, the 9mm would be a far better choice than it is now. I would not feel undergunned with 15 rds. of say, 124 Golden Sabers in one. That said, the .45 ACP would be that much more effective with 230 gr. Golden Sabers.

"Much more effective"? Not according to the statistics I've posted.

Regardless of whether we signed Hague, we tend to try to follow it. It's in our training that HPs aren't allowed except if issued, etc.

Honestly i hope they stop trying to follow it.

 

[Aikibiker]

Twinreverb,

The "except if issued" part is the important bit.

Heads are going to roll if non issued FMJ is found during an inspection too. It is the nature of the beast, don't go to war with anything you were not issued, because if something goes wrong your command, JAG, the press, and that jug eared idiot in the Oval Office will all use any excuse to hang you out to dry.