What handgun should replace the Army's M9?

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by TruthTellers, Aug 21, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jeff-10

    jeff-10 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,628
    Location:
    South Florida
    I do believe it is time to get away from the 9mm which is now well over a hundred years old and first used by one of our greatest adversaries. Unfounded or not, its stopping power in the FMJ version has been questioned since first adopted.

    I would choose the 40 S&W and call it 10mm NATO. Instead of the 229 though I would choose a Glock. Either the 22 or 23.
     
  2. kBob

    kBob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    6,240
    Location:
    North Central Florida
    Troops carry what they feel they can get away with.

    Nothing new about that.

    Officially my last trip in in Peace Time Europe when there was a Red Menace no one was allowed PoW carry. That's right officially then Prisoners of War was PW and Privately owned Weapons were PoW.

    My Regimental level CO and his Birds told me to carry anything in a "reasonable caliber" that I could pass the simple qualification test with whenever I felt it appropriate. In spite of USAEUR regs I could have been found at various times with a Colt Series 70 Mark IV, a H&K P7, a CZ75, P-1/P38 or a six inch barreled S&W Model 19 loaded with either GI .38 Special or copper washed 158 grain SMC .357 Magnum. I usually carried the Colt full of Speer 200 grain "Flying Ashtray" HPs.

    Why would you trust an Officer with men's lives but not a handgun? That seemed to be his reasoning.

    He was also aware that my load out bag contained a broken down Mini14 and a few loaded magazines.

    Even earlier when I was Enlisted and the same regs applied in USAEUR our company XO and two of the four platoon leaders carried 9x19mm long before thoughts of a M9 crossed the big brass's minds. Several NCOs secreted various guns on or about their persons. A few Joe Snuffies occasionally carried "illegally" I have mentioned else where and when on THR that occasionally a Reproduction Colt 1851 cap and ball revolver went on patrols around an active Pershing site.

    One evening in the Cannon Battery Officer's course at Ft. Sill we were shooting under flairs and someone woke up a Rattler. Within seconds said rattler had a .32 ACP round through it and a .25 ACP through it. The two "Young Shave Tails" involved were both over age for commissioning but for the fact they were prior service. Only comments from the Cadre was "Good shooting."

    Reserve Captain that was in Iraq I know was given a BHP by someone leaving and when he left he passed it on to someone else.

    Folks like handguns. It Happens. Get over it.

    What troops carry or want to carry has little to nothing to do with procurement.

    -kBob
     
  3. tarosean

    tarosean Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7,505
    Location:
    TX

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

    Zerodefect Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    5,972
    Location:
    Yakutsk, Sakha Republic
    I couldn't find M&P pics with a camel.
     
  5. Aikibiker

    Aikibiker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    558
    Location:
    Daytona, Fl
  6. AZ Desertrat

    AZ Desertrat Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    154
    Location:
    Tempe, AZ
    Think simplicity and ruggedness: Glock 17 or 19.
     
  7. GAMEOVER44

    GAMEOVER44 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    375
    Location:
    Detroit
    I think the military would be silly not to go with Springfields XDM.. customization for each members hand, all the bells and whistles, with stock high cap mags.
     
  8. FinnComm

    FinnComm Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    119
    Location:
    Finland
    Sorry to snip a section of your post, but I agree with this point :)

    All the talk of stopping power between ,45 and 9mm is relatively meaningless.

    Anyone care to guess what % of enemy contact situations call for a handgun?

    And in what % of those situations would the difference betwen ,45 and 9mm have been noticeable or made any real difference to the outcome?
     
  9. Deaf Smith

    Deaf Smith Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,708
    Location:
    TEXAS!
    When it's your posterior that is on the line... think back to that term 'meaningless'.

    Stopping power is a relative term and not absolute, but it defiantly is there.

    As I've posted many times, larger diameter bullets TEND to stop better, faster bullets TEND to stop better, heavier bullets TEND to stop better, good bullet placement TENDS to stop better, and more bullets on the target TEND to stop better.

    Pick the most powerful weapon you can control and carry daily (and conceal if need be.)

    Deaf
     
  10. R.W.Dale

    R.W.Dale Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,564
    Location:
    Northwest Arkansas
    It's only a matter of time before even the most backwards meathead jihadists figure out that body armor might help them live a little longer as most armies have already figured out.

    Something similar to the fn5.7 will be in order.

    No current handgun in the usual suspect calibers offers ANY measurable improvement over the current m9 if modern JHP ammo becomes standard issue.

    In the past 30 years since the m9's adoptions the only improvements we've seen in handguns relate to materials, mostly manifesting in a slight weight savings.
     
  11. Barry the Bear

    Barry the Bear Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,852
    Location:
    The Yellow Rose of Texas
    I'd like to see the Army adopt the model 29!!! Nothing like the enemy seeing an army of dirty Harrys coming at em! But in all seriousness I'd like a version of the m&p series to get the contract
     
  12. Zerodefect

    Zerodefect Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    5,972
    Location:
    Yakutsk, Sakha Republic
    I don't know. 5.7 compares well to 9mm when shot from a 10" barrel. P90 vs Mp5, I'll take the P90 all day long. PS90 vs 9mm AR, I'd still prefer the PS90.

    But the pistol? I'd have to see more testing. I'm a 9mm hater. But I want to see the brick heavy M9 gone, not really the caliber. A 9mm pistol shouldn't weigh 10 pounds and have a weird open slide and corny safety lever. I just hate the M9, and DA/SA triggers.

    A 5.7 Glock would be neat though.....
     
  13. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,868
    Location:
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    3. It must be ergonomic enough for women to use effectively. (Bye-Bye .45 ACP)

    Absolutely wrong. There are a lot of handguns available now that alter capacity to keep the same grip frame size throughout the range of calibers available.

    JHP ammo is out, even if the OP wants it to be included. Even buying in the bulk required by DoD, the cost is far more than hardball. They're going to stick with hardball except for special circumstance and special issue.

    For my money, the choice should be between .40S&W and .45ACP. Several models would be suitable, my top choices are the M&P and XD.
     
  14. Water-Man

    Water-Man Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,509
    Location:
    JAX, FL.
    Sig P320 makes the most sense to me.
     
  15. 2wheels

    2wheels Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,094
    Location:
    Virginia
    Meh.

    As an active duty soldier who is issued an M9 (in addition to an M4), here's my 2 cents.

    Choose whatever, it doesn't matter. Realistically all the choices these days are solid, it just comes down to caliber and personal preference. M&P, Sig, Glock, HK... I don't care! Then take that handgun and my rifle away from me, and give me a PDW like an MP7!

    Two birds one stone! And so much less crap for me to carry.
     
  16. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,945
    Location:
    North Olmsted, Ohio
    Way too big for the caliber and with a positively gruesome trigger. No thanks.

    Glock, S&W M&P or M1911.
     
  17. tarosean

    tarosean Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7,505
    Location:
    TX
    :what:
    Now thats funny. One is deemed "gruesome" then you continue to name two of the worst stock triggers out there.

    There is a reason that there is a cottage industry for trigger improvements with Glock and M&P....
     
  18. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,945
    Location:
    North Olmsted, Ohio
    Actually, as long as it's not that hideous "New York" trigger, the Glock trigger is just fine. You just have to know how to use it. Of course with a tube of Flitz, a few Q-Tips, and about an hour's labor watching TV, you can have a really NICE Glock trigger.

    The Beretta D/A? That's a lost cause. The best I can say for it is that it's not as bad as the Colt All American 2000...
     
  19. Zerodefect

    Zerodefect Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    5,972
    Location:
    Yakutsk, Sakha Republic
    I hate the stock Glock trigger as well. But it works fine for me. Just feels terrible. So I run a Zevtech trigger, and that new flat trigger looks interesting as well.

    The M9 trigger feels awful, and I don't shoot it well at all.
     
  20. JR24

    JR24 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    4,671
    Location:
    Upper Midwest
    Everyone has their opinions of course, I'll personally take a stock Glock trigger over any DA/SA trigger that I've tried.
     
  21. tarosean

    tarosean Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7,505
    Location:
    TX
    Of course. I own multiple Glocks and multiple 92's. So while they may be part of the elite group of the "Most hated" on the internet.. I dont share that opinion.

    Course my purchases of a handful of drop in trigger groups for glocks and m&p's definitely isn't keeping all those people employed either.

    Apparently a whole lot of people share my opinion.. :)
     
  22. TruthTellers

    TruthTellers member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,075
    IMO, .40 is the only alternative because of the things both you and I listed. It is less expensive than .45 ACP and .45 GAP, it is a heavier bullet that does more than the 9mm, it has better capacity than the .45's, it's smaller than the .45's, it has a better effective range than the .45's, it already has a large manufacturing base because of law enforcement usage the past 25 years, and it the 180 grain bullet loading, it's a subsonic round and can be more effectively suppressed and more accurate with the lack of a transition from supersonic to subsonic velocities.

    The military will not be able to justify changing the caliber to .45 because it is the highest alternative, while .40 is a little bit more, but more war capable than 9mm.

    You put a 9mm and a .40 cal in the hands of a General and have him take some practice shots at various targets and show him the results of shooting through barriers and objects, his face gonna look like this when you show him what the .40 does:

    th?id=OIP.Mdf42f50c9538bb53e9712bfe6f8d4b4fH0&pid=15.jpg
     
  23. Fiv3r

    Fiv3r Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,938
    I'm a fan of the .40. It's my carry round of choice, but I wonder if the "it kicks like a mule and beats guns to death faster" mantra has reached the ears of Top Brass? Of course, most folks who shoot .40 don't really find it hard to control out of anything but the smallest of pocket pistols, and modern materials and engineering mean that most guns offered in .40 are designed to handle the round first and foremost and then scaled down to 9mm instead of the other way around like when the cartridge first hit the scene 25 years ago. Even so, it's probably going to be a tough sell to get away from the 9mm for a general duty pistol due to our close ties to NATO.

    That said, if the army was going to go to something larger than the 9mm, the .40 probably does make the most sense. The round is smaller than .45 in terms of taking up space, and is a little lighter (about .3lbs lighter per 50 rounds on bullet weight alone, of course not factoring in brass or powder weight), and the guns can be closer to 9mm in size.

    I do like the .45 as well. I think it's a fine round that is very capable of doing the job, I just wonder about soldier hand size when you start talking double stack pistols. Glock 21s and FNX-45 Tacs are big honkin' guns to get your hands around. I don't have huge hands. I wear a size large glove, but I much prefer the grip size of a 14 round .40 to a 13 round .45. Just preference of course.

    The one thing that seems to be in the .40s favor is that it is a very divisive round. Between people either thinking it will lift a man clear out of his boots as it smashed through a car windshield and those calling it the .40 Short and Weak as the stumpy little runt to it's 10mm big brother, it's one of the most love it or hate it calibers in spite of its nearly 3 decades of success in terms of sales and adoption. It seems that the military can't ever do anything that pleases everyone, so they adopt something that will almost be a guaranteed convoluted controversy with the aim of making the most people upset. The .40 seems like the "logical" compromise that will tick off just enough people like the adoption of the M9 did in the 80's:evil:

    I will say, that the .40 S&W really would get more traction on the international front if we dubbed it 10mm NATO like another poster mentioned. It would stroke the egos of the metric minded European allies and potentially open the door for other big bore pistols to make it to the front lines for other countries.

    I still think the next pistol will be a polymer striker fired 9mm with a manual safety that is modular enough to cheaply fit a variety of soldier hand sizes. It's just going to come down to money and back scratching, of course. As long as we are going to use ball ammo, it makes more sense to throw a bigger bullet that might penetrate enemy armor better than the 9mm. If we're talking about going to an expandable bullet that can put the most energy on target, then I totally agree that the 9mm is fine when it comes to that role.
     
  24. TwinReverb

    TwinReverb Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Messages:
    167
    Maybe in the Marines, but not the rest of the services, not on duty.
     
  25. TwinReverb

    TwinReverb Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Messages:
    167
    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.

    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.

    But I don't think they should even care, as grenades that fragment are accepted: why not ammunition that does? Really, I think the ammo ban is the root of the problem.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice