What sidearm should replace the U.S. M9?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Go glock 19 and call it a day. Then they can take some extra time and give the grunts the training needed to handle the weapon, no need for an external safety. To me the whole external safety argument is stuck in the past. :banghead:
 
To me the whole external safety argument is stuck in the past.
Click to expand...
I guess explains why the highest percentage (by handgun platform, not sheer numbers]), by far,of law enforcement negligent ("accidental") discharges happen with ... Glocks.

And cops tend to get more handgun training than soldiers, Marines, airmen and Sailors.
 
no need for an external safety. To me the whole external safety argument is stuck in the past.
Click to expand...
So why isnt there a long heavy trigger pull on m-16/4's? Its only a mater of training. You preform how you train so if you train with an external safety you will be no diffrent than a person with out an external safety.
 
I'd go with a Glock 20.

The two biggest cons that would make it difficult for the gun to pass government bureaucracy are the grip size and lack of external safety. As someone on this thread has already pointed out, Glock would probably be quite happy to add some external safety for a contract of this size. As for the grip size: 1) It takes practice and training, but it is manageable -- I've got modest to medium sized hands for a guy and shoot mine comfortably. 2) Glock's backstrap is large and not necessarily necessary (although it does contribute to the Glock signature grip angle). For a large contract Glock could eliminate this. I've seen & held a G20 with a grip reduction, and its not too large at all.

Other cons:

Due to powerful recoil, there is an increased likelyhood of a round failing to eject cleanly if the shooter limp wrists it.

(This can and should be overcome by training, and is very fast to clear).

Pros:
Light weight
Comes from the factory with accessory rail
Very corrosion resistant
Bigger hole than a 9MM
Reliable in harsh conditions
Simple and instinctive to use
Big, fat sights make aiming easier at longer range
15rd capacity: not bad overall, better than any .45
Good penetration of urban obstacles like wooden fences, glass, car doors, some building material (this could be a pro or con)

Extras for each service:

All reserves:
>60% of police departments either issue or allow officers to choose Glock. Glocks are also common civilian weapons. This improves commonality with war fighter's civilian weapon.

Air Force:
10MM is a great hunting round, add detachable stock & you have a survival rifle.

Special Forces:
Lots of power, used with choice ammo, it can penetrate light armor that might be bought be drug lord lieutenants at military surplus & other venues. Or with armor penetrating ammo or special upgrades like 9X25 Dillon extended barrels it may have some capacity to defeat modern soft armor.

Army/Marines:

A bit lighter than all metal guns of comparable size, power, and capacity.
Click to expand...

THAT'S what I would like too! But I know they'll not go 10mm. I know it'll most likely be 9mm, so I say Glock 17.

But yeah, I always thought the 10mm Glocks would be best for military. If people can take deer down at 112 meters (they posted the pics on GlockTalk a while ago) with his Glock 20, then I know for damn sure the Glock 20 (and 29 for backup, if they want it) would be AWESOME for the combat soldier (and militimen private citizens, as in We The People, spoken of in the 2nd Amendment :cool:)!

With a 6" barrel, using DoubleTap 200 gr. FMJ and/or Beartooth rounds, we're talking 1430ish FPS, and 860-900 ft. lbs. energy! Like said above, if people are taking deer down at 112 meters with a Glock 20, then it'll be ideal for a backup pistol for the footsoldier, and a good weapon for pilots to have when they land on the ground (as you stated).

With 15 round mags, 1 in the chamber, that's 16 rounds of what I personally call ".40 Magnum Auto" power, baby! With certain extensions, it can be 21 round capacity! They can also easily make a Glock 20 Long version, so the sight radius is longer, and thus even more accurate at longer ranges; that with 6" barrel? Man o man! What a pistol!

This, together with the known, tried and true durability, simplicity and reliability of Glock pistols? That's a winner, my friends! The Glock pistol, after all, was specifically made for the modern combat soldier! The hump in the back up the grip is there since there's a hole in the bottom of the grip, and thus easier for a person to slip their finger up inside and grasp the magazine, if it ever gets jammed, for some odd reason! There's the tactical advantage! :)
 
Last edited:
I'm not a soldier, nor have I ever been a soldier.

Can't say I've read the preceeding 150 or so replys either.

The question should be asked directly to the defenders of our country. Then it would be a definitive answer!
 
Hang on a second

Yes, I am biased, because I work for Beretta.
Yes, I have a personal interest in Beretta being seen as a positive brand.
But... why do people post things without researching facts? Why do we say stuff as if it were the Bible when, in fact, it is not?
When I hear people crying for an "American Made Gun", and getting indignant about the fact that we need to "keep jobs in America", why don't they research, to find out that Beretta M9 pistols are made in America, by Americans, and that the hundreds of small changes that have made the M9 a more reliable pistol in 2008 than it was in 1984, have been developed by American engineers, working on Microsoft-straight-from-Seattle software and sitting on american chairs, located in American soil?
Why is it ok to say that the Glock is "idiot proof", when everyone reads daily of accidental discharges that damage and destroy, when they don't injure and kill?
Why do we have to simply state opinions as facts, and nobody points out that the M9 passed tests that other pistols didn't pass, in 1984 and 94 (yes, 94) other times since then, and the results were progressively better? Why does nobody take into account the fact that there were many lawsuits against Beretta at the hand of sore losers, all of which have been dismissed? And why does nobody point out that the M9 has faired 16 times better than DoD standard in malfunctions per mean round, 15 times better than DoD standard in slide durability, 7 times better in frame durability, 4 times better in locking block durability, saving countless lives and millions of dollars to the taxpayers?
Does nobody ever check the letters we receive from deployed soldiers who write to us, telling them that the M9 saved their life, or the life of a fellow soldier? Whoever said that the M9 is a 'weapon of spite' has never been in combat. I have the letters to prove it.
Does nobody research that the 9mm was chosen not for political reasons, but because 1. it costs less; 2. it lasts longer, posing less stress on the frame; 3. it is more accurate in first and follow up shots; 4. it has higher capacity; 5. it costs less to transport; and 6. Yes, it standardizes NATO ammo. So what? Is that bad? Do we assume it's political just because it's more glamorous? ATK manufactures a round (FMJ-LP) which, fully compliant with Geneva terms, creates a cavity similar to a .50 cal with a 9mm round. It is fully functional in an M9. Deploy those, instead of changing proven platforms.
Why do people say "The M9 lacks durability and mechanical reliability if the pistol is used as anything besides a holster-stuffer. The tendency of locking blocks to fail pretty consistently (as well as various springs breaking as well) is why the pistol has such a dismal reputation in the SOF community." who in the world told you that? The numbers above speak a different story (and they are FACTS, not hearsays).
When I hear statements like: "The S&W M&P .45, though the .40 might arguably be the better choice." I wonder WHY? Who said that? Based on what FACTS?
Why do we have to simply accept as facts quotes like: "Sig came in first in trials not beretta. But for political decisions and a last minute drop in $ of 20.00 we have the m9/10." and not question them? Who told you that? Who are your sources? You're writing as if you knew for a fact and can back it. I think you're wrong and call you out on it.
And someone else said: "it would be nice of the us gov. to buy an american made pistol regardless of caliber, action. with the collective engeneering know how and manufatureing prowess of that huge remington/cobb/marlin/dpms panther/nef conglomerate, one would think an american replacement would be no sweat."... do we not think these companies are knocking at the doors of the Pentagon every week, asking them to review the contract? Do we not think that there have been extensive testing, and there continue and will continue to be testing? Do you think that Beretta simply has a 'hold' over DoD so strong that the US Gov't can't shift its multibillion dollar weight to someone else? It's tests and their results.
Sorry for the LONG tirade, but I had to say it all.
Good post, though. Very good post!
 
I like the S&W M&P .45, but what the hell do I know? I guess I am a little suspicious of plastic guns. Maybe if they made it all out of metal it would be more durable for combat conditions.
 
Why, other than..

...

Going to a larger caliber, either 40 or 45 would be my only thought..

Nothing wrong at all with the Beretta M9, being accurate, dependable, reliable, (with min care, by some) not personal pride-like care that most of us give our guns, be them whatever make or model..

Nope, the Beretta M9 fits the bill just fine, forgiving, DA/SA with safety, for those that only give the gun, its capability with accuracy, and proper inspections with care, the best, most affordable choice, for the military IMO.

The rest of the reasoning of "what or why" a change from Beretta is nothing more than inspiration from guns (that worked well) of the past, to taking a minority of complaints from the few that put in any effort to understand (the pistol.. IMO) and start the rumor mill spinning.. for Glock, SIG, back to 1911, or whatever gun lies at the heart of each responder with "the right change to the right model.."

Get over it, the military is not gonna change or make it happen..

Beretta is a fine weapon when one "takes the time" to learn about his/her gun.. Its limitations, its maxiums, and its needs.. if, and when, any may apply.


Ls
 
mrecanatini,

Don't take it too personally.

There is alot of brand loyalty here.

Alot of this particular disscussion is speculative by nature.

TO me its more like a "wish list" thing than anyone directly jumping on the 92.

JMHO
 
SSevenN
It is obvious that there are two things on this forum, both of which are much appreciated: passion and politeness.
I will continue coming on from time to time, as it is a pleasure to be in a community like this.
Nothing is taken personally. I speak out of the same passion and - if I sound abrasive at times - I apologize in advance and personally to those I might offend.
 
^
|
Well then you'll fit right in!

Still, that was one of the best first posts I've seen:cool:
 
It takes 2 or more..

...

To make good company.. with ongoing, polite, discussions, etc.

Where are my manners? (not in counting it appears) :eek:

Welcome to THR Matteo.. :)


Ls
 
BERETTA 92/96 ARE VERY GOOD GUNS====except

mrecanatini,

I presently own several BERETTA pistols and used to carry a model 96D on duty. I can tell you from my own experience and the experience of at least one firearms instructor that I worked with, BERETTA locking lugs wear out.

When I turned in my last BERETTA 96D, it was already showing the signs of locking lug wear. The slide had started to slow down during firing. I could actually see the slide travel back and forth on my last trip*to the range with it.

The instructor I mentioned had the same thing happen to him at about 2400 rounds fired. IT IS A PROBLEM.
In my own experience, I think it is based on the ammo. With 9m.m., it will take a very long time to happen. With the .40 S&W, it will happen much sooner. This is especially apparent with the 155 grain high velocity loads.

Also, I think even you will admit the model 92 is too large. I would have gone for a Centurion model if it were my choice. Lighter and faster handling.

My choice for a service pistol would be for a GLOCK 19 sized gun. Big enough to handle and shoot well, compact enough to not be noticed until needed.

By the way, I still keep a 96D Brigadier as a home defence gun or hotel gun when I travel.

Jim
 
Golden;
You are talking about a 96D, not an M9. It is a different design, and it is a .40 S&W caliber. I'm simply discussing the merits of the M9, currently deployed with the United States Armed Forces.
I can clearly see how a .40 cal. round would lower the life expectancy of a locking block. I am not sure about your specific gun, but I can tell you that the US inspector picks guns randomly to test, and the already-impressive results are improving with each test.
I'm glad you have a 96 for home protection, by the way :)
 
I know folks who work/worked for Glock, Beretta, and HK. Some of them have worked for more than one of them. Funny to compare what they said about A when they worked for B now that they work for A... :D

The Buy America Act has loopholes big enough to fly Airbuses through. :)

About 70% of US military small arms are made by FN. FN USA is considered an "Ameican" company, as are Beretta USA, HK USA, SIGARMS (now SIG SAUER), Glock USA, etc. That's how they get those govt contracts w the DOD, DOJ (FBI, DEA, BATF, USMS) and DHS (ICE, CBP, USSS, USCG, TSA, FAM, FPS).

The first year of the M9 contract the pistols were made and assembled in Italy. The second year, made in Italy and assembled here. The rest were made and assembled in the USA. Have been numerous follow on contracts since to bring the total to about 500,000 pistols.

"Before the M9 was adopted, some units were issued Ruger P85's. and had some problems with slamfires as I recall. They were quickly ruled out. But something in the Ruger P-series might work."

The final M9 trials (there were several) were in 1984, and the M9 contract was announced in Jan 1985. The Ruger P85 did not appear until 1987. Some Rugers were entered in one of the M10 trials (there were several of those too BTW), but they failed. Beretta won the M10 trials too.

Beretta and SIG were the only two to pass the compact M11 trials, SIG got that contract. Some thought that was a back door way to replace the Berettas w SIGs, but that never happened. Total SIG 226/228s bought is about 10% or less of the Berettas bought so far.

Beretta 40s beat the Glock, SIG, HK, S&W, and Ruger 40s in the 1994 and 1999 INS/BP contracts.

In 2004 the DHS thoroughly tested (about 3 million rounds through about 300 pistols) the usual suspects (HK, SIG, Glock, S&W, Beretta, and SA) in 9/40/357. They wanted a "family" of pistols w options in size and caliber.

The SIGs and HKs were the only guns to pass all the tests in all models and calibers, so they were the only companies to get contracts. Beretta withdrew early, the S&Ws, Glocks, and SA XDs (w/o grip safeties BTW) failed some tests in some models and calibers.

SIG and HK got contracts for up to 65,000 pistols over 5 yrs for about $27 million, about $400 per pistol (w night sights and spare mags/parts). That's pretty comparable to Beretta's $200 per pistol in the much bigger 1985 M9 contract (320,000 pistols) adjusted for inflation and adding the night sights.

In just the last 4 yrs the US military has contracted for a lot of 9 minimeter handguns: 5K Rugers, 5K sig pros, over 70K Sigmas, over 100K each from Glock and Beretta. Most did NOT go to US forces. They also contracted for up to 14 _million_ new M9 mags from Airtronic. Hmmm...

While all that was going on the SOF-CP (Special Operations Forces Combat Pistol), FHS (Future Handgun System), JCP (Joint Combat Pistol), CP (Combat Pistol), AFH (Air Force Handgun), AFFH (Air Force Future Handgun) came and went, were indefinitely postponed, and/or soldier on in other forms.

In 2007 Congress directed the services get together on another joint program in one form or another. The latest shot at that is the USAF's Modular Handgun System. So far they want a full/compact pistol w 8/10 shots w adjustable grip, rail, and manual safety. More details will surface as they step their way through this latest fandango. Good luck w that.

IMO they pay way too much attention to Tier One folks. What's good for them is not necessarily best for everybody else. We gave 'em exactly what they asked for about 10 yrs ago (HK MK23 MOD O in 45 ACP) and they have been whining about it ever since... Give e'm the custom 1911s in 45 ACP they really want. Some wanna give 'em M9s/M11s and tell 'em to shut up and soldier on.

The rest of the military will do just fine w what has been tested to death already and works for the DOJ/DHS: Glocks, SIGs, and HKs in 40/357. Don't know if the S&W M&P, FNP, new SA XDM, etc can run w them; haven't been tested as much yet. Time will tell.
 
While all that was going on the SOF-CP (Special Operations Forces Combat Pistol), FHS (Future Handgun System), JCP (Joint Combat Pistol), CP (Combat Pistol), AFH (Air Force Handgun), AFFH (Air Force Future Handgun) came and went, were indefinitely postponed, and/or soldier on in other forms.
Click to expand...

Though various SOF units never adopted the Beretta and various others have replaced it at the unit level since 2002. Units that train heavily with handguns have reliability issues with the Beretta that conventional units don't encounter.

IMO they pay way too much attention to Tier One folks. What's good for them is not necessarily best for everybody else. We gave 'em exactly what they asked for about 10 yrs ago (HK MK23 MOD O in 45 ACP) and they have been whining about it ever since... Give e'm the custom 1911s in 45 ACP they really want. Some wanna give 'em M9s/M11s and tell 'em to shut up and soldier on.
Click to expand...

The Mark 23 just proves that SOCOM has acquired Echelons Above Reality that write procurement specs just like the Big Army. The M9 definitely does not get the job done -- it might if SOCOM units were able to right their own maintenance schedules and specs that take into account the greater wear and tear on the pistols, but there's very limited faith in the design in the operator community after years of "here's your pistol and five spare locking blocks, go forth and conquer."

Prevailing opinion these days would seem to favor just adopting Glocks (or more exactly wider adoption of Glocks) rather than reverting to 1911s, though the 1911 has a good number of advocates.
 
1911 .45 all the way, I have a 9mm and a .45acp. If I could carry either for sheer stopping power and lethality I could only pick my 1911 .45 with a clear conscience. How our military picked a smaller round, then recommended shooting twice is beyond me. Why not have a .45 with a 14rd double stack magazine and only have to shoot the unlucky target once time to finish the job?
 
Glock 19 if you want another 9mm right now. I got one to use while my SR 9 is awaiting repair. I may sell it when the repair is done. The SR 9 is thinner and more accurate without any malfunctions. However don't base you choice on somone elses opinion. Handle and shoot as many as you can before you buy. Then you will have a better idea what YOU want.:)
 
1911 .45 all the way, I have a 9mm and a .45acp. If I could carry either for sheer stopping power and lethality I could only pick my 1911 .45 with a clear conscience. How our military picked a smaller round, then recommended shooting twice is beyond me. Why not have a .45 with a 14rd double stack magazine and only have to shoot the unlucky target once time to finish the job?
Click to expand...

Real world, 45 ACP doesn't have a very good track record for one shot stops. No pistol round does.

Put it another way, guys who carry 45ACPs in uniform these days all train controlled pairs, failure drills, etc., just like the guys with 9mm's, because neither will reliably put a guy on the ground with a single shot.

A 14 round double stack 45 would not be overly workable with the military's smallest to the largest ergonomic requirements. One of the major shortcomings of the double stack 45ACP Mk-23 is that it's simply got too big a grip for most user -- and that's in units of SOF guys, where there aren't a lot of 5-foot-nothing female soldiers floating around. If it doesn't really work for operator types, it definitely won't work when you hand them out to MPs and Air Force Security Forces guys, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Replacing the USAF M9
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Robert
Robert
D
  • Locked
The .45 makes a comeback during the war on terrorism
2 3
Replies
74
Views
4K
Harold Mayo
H
M
  • Locked
Is Army giving inferior guns to U.S. troops?
Replies
5
Views
582
Z71
Z
R
  • Locked
Gun Control hurting U.S. troops
Replies
0
Views
479
RED-DOG 40
R
G
  • Locked
Gun Control Harming U.S. Troops
Replies
13
Views
1K
Master Blaster
Master Blaster
Back
Top