What handgun should replace the Army's M9?

[Zerodefect]

Seems like many of the troops get to carry whatever they want, as long as it's on the approved list and a 9mm. (...and you buy the pistol yourself ):

 

[dogtown tom]

Zerodefect Seems like many of the troops get to carry whatever they want, as long as it's on the approved list and a 9mm. (...and you buy the pistol yourself ):

Nope.
Carrying "personal" firearms is prohibited.
If you are in the US military you can only carry the weapon you are authorized to carry. Certain special operations units have more freedom to choose the handguns they want.

It causes much angst among the HK and Beretta fanboys, but many in SpecOps seem to go with the Glock 19.

 

[golden]

I would go with the beretta m9a3

I like the BERETTA Vertec pistols and the Brigadier slides, so I would be happy with the M9A3. If I could modify it, I would shorten the barrel to the 4.3 inch barrel used on the BERETTA 92 Compact and Centurion.

There are other good guns, but this one is already in the system and would save the taxpayer a lot of money the military wants to waste on a competition.

If they want to spend money on a gun, upgrade or replace the most important one, the rifle.



Jim

 

[entropy]

If you are in the US military you can only carry the weapon you are authorized to carry. Certain special operations units have more freedom to choose the handguns they want.

Makes me wonder about Sgt. Cowles there. The rest are high speed, low drag types, I'm sure their Armory looks like the one Neo and Trinity had in 'The Matrix.

The Marines will probably keep plugging along with the 1911 pistols they already have. From what I have read over the years in American Rifleman, the Marine Corps believes that John Moses Browning was quite literally sent by God, to give them the 1911.

You mean he wasn't?

M&P series fits the bill

Keeps an American made company going strong

As would the M45A1, made by Colt.

The Special Operation units will use what ever they deem best. Everyone else it matters not what handgun they end up with.

Well, aren't you the generous one. Having been one of the 'everyone else' , why doesn't it matter? Gee, how bout the Bryco 9mm then?

lol at whoever picked the 1911.
No infantryman wants to carry that when you've already got 60lb on your back.

I did, and sometimes more than one, when the officers in my unit got sick of carrying them.

Here's a load of stats gleaned from vets who used the M9 in combat:

In December 2006, the Center for Naval Analyses released a report on U.S. small arms in combat. The CNA conducted surveys on 2,608 troops returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 12 months. Only troops who fired their weapons at enemy targets were allowed to participate. 161 troops were armed with M9 pistols, making up 6 percent of the survey. 58 percent of M9 users (93 troops) reported they were satisfied with the weapon, which was the lowest satisfaction rate in the survey. 48 percent of users (77 troops) were dissatisfied with the M9's ammunition. 64 percent (103 troops) were satisfied with handling qualities such as size and weight. M9 users had the lowest levels of satisfaction with weapon performance, including 76 percent (122 troops) with accuracy, 66 percent (106 troops) with range, and 88 percent (142 troops) with rate of fire. 48 percent of M9 users (77 troops) were dissatisfied with its ability to attach accessories. 26 percent of M9 users (42 troops) reported a stoppage, and 62 percent of those that experienced a stoppage said it had a small impact on their ability to clear the stoppage and re-engage their target. Only 45 percent of M9 users (72 troops) reported their weapon's magazine did not fail to feed completely. 83 percent (134 troops) did not need their pistols repaired while in theater. 46 percent (74 troops) were not confident in the M9's reliability, defined as level of soldier confidence their weapon will fire without malfunction, mainly due to difficulty of maintenance. 63 percent (101 troops) were confident in its durability, defined as level of soldier confidence their weapon will not break or need repair. The M9 had the lowest levels of soldier confidence in reliability and durability. 74 percent of M9 users offered recommendations for improvements. 26 percent of requests were for increased caliber or stopping power, with some specifically requesting returning to .45 ACP rounds. 20 percent of requests were for a new pistol. Other recommendations were for more durable magazines and better grips.

In 2007, soldiers in the field had a lot of concerns with the M9, notably a lack of confidence in its stopping power[10] resulting from the use of the 9mm ball round, a significant factor in military evaluations because the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) prohibit use of expanding bullets in warfare.

I stand by my choice: The M45A1. If it had to be in 9mm, well that would suck, but I suppose that would be better than a sharp stick.

 

[Hammer059]

Glock 17. For reasons I shouldn't even have to explain.

I'd say the P226, but there's no way the military would want to buy thousands of them for all the troops.

Or better yet, if we actually supported the troops, we'd bring them home!

 

[W.E.G.]

I want a an M9 that is stamped: MADE IN TENNESSEE

 

[Zerodefect]

Certain special operations units have more freedom to choose the handguns they want.

.

Is there anyone left in the military, over there, that isn't spec ops? There's a zillion pics of US troops carry something other than an M9 on google.

Seems like some units are purchasing other pistols because of the lack of available M9's. More people are approved to carry pistols lately than normal, and with many of the M9's sitting at the bottom of a dumpster......

 

[BSA1]

In December 2006, the Center for Naval Analyses released a report on U.S. small arms in combat. The CNA conducted surveys on 2,608 troops returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 12 months. Only troops who fired their weapons at enemy targets were allowed to participate. 161 troops were armed with M9 pistols, making up 6 percent of the survey.

entropy,

What were the other 94% (2,447) small arms that were in the survey?

 

[BSA1]

I edited the survey entropy posted for easier reading;

Satisfied with weapon - 58 percent of M9 users (93 troops).

Satisfied with handling qualities such as size and weight - 64 percent (103 troops)

Dissatisfied with ammunition - 48 percent of users (77 troops) were dissatisfied with the M9's ammunition.

This is true of all 9mm handguns.

Dissatisfied 76 percent (122 troops) with accuracy.

A handgun is a CQB weapon. What distances and what exactly were they trying to engage the target?

Dissatisfied with range – 66 percent (106 troops) with range.

What distances are they trying to engage the target?

Dissatisfied with rate of fire - 88 percent (142 troops).

Dang. Is this a group of IDPA shooters?

Dissatisfied with its ability to attach accessories - 48 percent (77 troops).

Addressed in the M9A3.

26 percent of M9 users (42 troops) reported a stoppage, and

62 percent of those that experienced a stoppage said it had a small impact on their ability to clear the stoppage and re-engage their target.

Shooter induced, ammo failure or gun malfunction such as dirty, parts breakage, bad magazine?

Only 45 percent of M9 users (72 troops) reported their weapon's magazine did not fail to feed completely.

FTF with ball ammo most likely is magazine problem which is usually the case with most semi-auto handguns.

83 percent (134 troops) did not need their pistols repaired while in theater.

46 percent (74 troops) were not confident in the M9's reliability, defined as level of soldier confidence their weapon will fire without malfunction, mainly due to difficulty of maintenance.

This seems to be conflicting data. The gun never needed repair but lack of confidence it would have a malfunction and fail to fire. What is so hard about cleaning the M-9?

63 percent (101 troops) were confident in its durability, defined as level of soldier confidence their weapon will not break or need repair.

The majority said they are confident of it’s durability and reliability.

The M9 had the lowest levels of soldier confidence in reliability and durability.

Whoa! Compared to what? Were other handguns included in the survey?

74 percent of M9 users offered recommendations for improvements. 26 percent of requests were for increased caliber or stopping power, with some specifically requesting returning to .45 ACP rounds.

Get over it. Ain't happening. The same can probably be said about the 5.56.

20 percent of requests were for a new pistol.

Not much of overwhelming request.

In 2007, soldiers in the field had a lot of concerns with the M9, notably a lack of confidence in its stopping power[10] resulting from the use of the 9mm ball round, a significant factor in military evaluations because the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) prohibit use of expanding bullets in warfare.

Research has proven time and time again that there is not any real difference in the stopping power of 9mm and 45 acp ball ammunition.

http://handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=15&Weight=115

http://handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=18&Weight=230

 

[Taroman]

This whole business is nothing more than a make-work project for overpaid AMC bureaucrats.
Army is broke. Cutting 40K soldiers from the force, with many more possible.
Last thing on earth they need or can afford is as a new handgun.
Maybe some actual training with what they have would be a good start.

 

[Fishbed77]

What were the other 94% (2,447) small arms that were in the survey?

M4s, M16s, M249s, and M240s if I had to guess.

 

[fastbolt]

What handgun should replace the Army's M9?...

What handgun do you choose, in what caliber(s), and why?

Whatever meets the newest specifications, including any change in service caliber, providing it's designed to provide significant enough improvements to merit introducing a new system into military inventory, effectively manageable by the intended average military user, and which does so at the least cost, and which can be delivered by the vendor(s) in the time specified.

It's not like we're talking about a F35, you know.

Of course, private citizen handgun enthusiasts are probably always going to put more emphasis on, and have more interest in, handguns.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Last thing on earth they need or can afford is as a new handgun.

Fine, then in the interest of saving money, if they are authorized to carry a handgun, let them buy their own.

It would be a win-win. Government off the hook for $$$, GIs get a gun the know well, and bad guys set shot. Military can just issue a list of approved weapons that are well tested. And if the military is still a control freek, they can keep the weapons in the armory till the GIs go overseas.

Deaf

 

[dakota1911]

Given the way the world has changed it may not be one handgun or even one ammo choice. It may end up being several handguns and a few different ammo choices. Everything including logistics has changed a lot since 1910 or since the mid 1980s.

 

[TruthTellers]

Whatever meets the newest specifications, including any change in service caliber, providing it's designed to provide significant enough improvements to merit introducing a new system into military inventory, effectively manageable by the intended average military user, and which does so at the least cost, and which can be delivered by the vendor(s) in the time specified.

It's not like we're talking about a F35, you know.

Of course, private citizen handgun enthusiasts are probably always going to put more emphasis on, and have more interest in, handguns.

If we're talking a caliber change, .40 S&W is the only alternative to 9mm. Some hangups are still all about .45 ACP, but the Army will never return to the cartridge because of the fact between the choices of 9, 40, and 45, it's the most expensive alternative.

The .40 S&W has the infrastructure already in place due to the vast police market that has used it the past 20 years and would fit every bill that the Modular Handgun System is asking for.

.40 S&W, whether it's FMJ or JHP, is more lethal than 9mm and more cost effective than .45 ACP. It's the Goldilocks handgun cartridge.

 

[Billy Shears]

If we're talking a caliber change, .40 S&W is the only alternative to 9mm. Some hangups are still all about .45 ACP, but the Army will never return to the cartridge because of the fact between the choices of 9, 40, and 45, it's the most expensive alternative.

The .40 S&W has the infrastructure already in place due to the vast police market that has used it the past 20 years and would fit every bill that the Modular Handgun System is asking for.

.40 S&W, whether it's FMJ or JHP, is more lethal than 9mm and more cost effective than .45 ACP. It's the Goldilocks handgun cartridge.

There is zero chance that the military would switch to the .40S&W. Hell, even a lot of law enforcement agencies are going back the 9mm, following the FBI's lead once again. This is because there is not, in fact, any evidence that the .40 is more lethal. It does, however, have more recoil. The truth is that the difference in terminal performance among the major calibers, using the best JHP ammo, is negligible. I really doubt the .40 offers any improvement in terminal performance using FMJ either; both rounds are likely to go completely through a human torso, and the difference in size between the holes they make is all of one millimeter -- nothing important. Truthfully, I don't see any reason to switch calibers. The .40 offers no advantages, and several disadvantages. Right now, the army has better things to spend money on than a new handgun, but whenever they do change, it will almost certainly be another 9mm.

 

[BSA1]

Plus 40 S&W is not a NATO standard cartridge.

 

[Zerodefect]

.40 would rule. The troops are asking for a more powerful round. The .40 is exactly that.

The FBI test is fine and dandy, but the other calibers do each have their niche. When we start getting into light barriers and auto glass, I've had better luck with .40 and .357sig, than 9mm. But I only tested 125gn 9mm, I'd like to test again with heavy subsonic 9mm. Heavy and slow seemed best for soft barriers like wood and glass. Advantage .45 big time. Light and fast seems to punch through brittle objects better, like steel sheet.

I also think that the heavier recoil of .40 can be more reliable. Less chance of a weak charge not cycling the slide. Less limp wrist issues, or dirty slide issues. Glock 19 would be a good example. I've seen those fail in weak hands too often. But the 23 did not, even though she hated the extra power. Was a cool experiment, at least.

 

[TwinReverb]

f we're talking a caliber change, .40 S&W is the only alternative to 9mm. Some hangups are still all about .45 ACP, but the Army will never return to the cartridge because of the fact between the choices of 9, 40, and 45, it's the most expensive alternative.

The .40 S&W has the infrastructure already in place due to the vast police market that has used it the past 20 years and would fit every bill that the Modular Handgun System is asking for.

.40 S&W, whether it's FMJ or JHP, is more lethal than 9mm and more cost effective than .45 ACP. It's the Goldilocks handgun cartridge.

1) It's not the "only alternative". That's just silly.
2) Actually, last I checked, .40 S&W > .45 ACP in terms of price.
3) You can't use JHP (Hague Convention) in war. If we could, they'd be using 9mm in JHP and they wouldn't need an alternative.
4) More lethal is a joke. Lethality comes first from accuracy. And the difference in cost for the civilian market between 9mm and .40 S&W isn't worth the very few percentage points of claimed "lethality" it presumably has. Take a look at the link below.

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

Honestly, if they want something that hits harder (all other factors being equal, and especially since this is going to be FMJ) but still fits in a more compact grip, .45 GAP. But lethality comes from accuracy first, second (due to military environment and being limited to FMJ) from how large a hole you punch in them.

The above stats from soldiers who express their gripes are mostly not even worth evaluating because they're only opinions. Again, I've spoken with several USAF who have engaged enemies with their M9 in combat and they came away with an appreciation for the gun because it is lethal when they aim.

Really, the limit is Hague conventions. If we can get them to re-evaluate hollow points and approve hollow points that are guaranteed to 99% of the time not separate into individual pieces (which was their main gripe, the humanity of the round), this would be a non-issue, and 9mm would continue.

But even then, on top of this, the logic of depending on any handgun in combat is silly. You'd want your rifle first, as they have more power and more range. The M9 is supposed to be a backup in a combat zone.

My vote (since any ammunition is going to be mass produced by the military through contract, thus making any round cheaper) is .45 GAP. Widest bullet in a compact grip.

 

[JR24]

Seems like many of the troops get to carry whatever they want, as long as it's on the approved list and a 9mm. (...and you buy the pistol yourself )

Judging from those pictures you can carry any firearm you would like, as long as it is a Glock 19...

 

[Lord Teapot]

nothing, the m9 is an amazing pistol, it allows me to regularly outshoot classrooms full of army/marine/law enforcement veterans at the security re-qualification course every year. unless one of them also has an m9, then it's a tie.


unless it shoots lasers and is powered by microfusion, it's not better than the m9 at being a sidearm.

 

[Captain33036]

What did the contracting officer notes say?

IIRC the attributes were:

Low cost
Lighter weight
Modularity
Accurate
Combat ready/durable/functions in muddy and sandy conditions

Lethality will come from the round...but that round will be 9mm.

So, taking the above into account and considering this is a secondary arm, my 0.02 is the Glock 19.

Low cost and lighter weight - probably the top of all considered
Modular as any
Accurate as any. In fact I personally think the G17 will win accuracy over the M&P series.
Able to be dragged through the mud, sand, sea and still function. This remains to be determined with the M&P series, but it is a foregone conclusion with Glock.

But, I think cost and weight will be primary factors. Accuracy and durability will be secondary but givens.

After that, consider that the G17 and G19 are already in use by NATO forces. The G17 was adopted by the BA.

So...I would say G17, except that when you consider that the G19 can take many components from the G17, most importantly magazines, but not the other way around, you enhance logictics. If you work with BA forces, you can use their mags.

And the G19 would serve aviators, security personnel, women, CID and other personnel who are now using the slightly more compact SIG M11 (228), you can have just one issue arm.

So, the G17 or G19. Possibly with a safety (there are at least two options there, one of which could easily be slipped into the manufacturing line with zero change).

[SIG320 is an option, but I think Glock will win on cost and since these are already in use, the soldiers testing them will be more familiar with them and more comfortable]

Not a fan boy....just being realistic. My 0,02.

J

 

[jeff-10]

Makes me wonder about Sgt. Cowles there. The rest are high speed, low drag types, I'm sure their Armory looks like the one Neo and Trinity had in 'The Matrix.

Yah. Unless they moved the Big Red One into SOCOM, it's doubtful he is any kind of special operations unit at all. Things change in the military and weapons wear out. Seems like a Glock 19 would be a nice stop gap measure until the Army finally works out what the next sidearm will be.

For all the people out there who believe the Army doesn't need sidearms, get real. They have been issuing them to many soldiers of all ranks and MOS's for two hundred years and will likely being doing so for at least another hundred. It certainly is not a waste of money. As far as defense programs go, it is relatively inexpensive.

They want to save money they need to stop changing uniforms every year, now that is a waste.

 

[DevsAdvocate]

P320 MHS is a big contender to meet the requirements. SIG is working really hard to win this one from Beretta.

 

[JO JO]

Why no go with the Sig P229 40sw they already have the contract as that's
What they get for several for their other Agencies it's already fielded and proven