What Would You Choose As the M9's Replacement?

[RLZIII]

The topic says it all: What would you choose as the M9's replacement in the various military branches? There's been a lot of talk about the military replacing the M9, and several announcements to the same effect (when this will actually occur is up in the air of course). This is just to see some opinions and whatnot; I understand that most people here don't have the ability to test these guns to the extent that the military would have to in order to see how they function in various conditions. This thread is for discussion's sake only.

The poll only allows you to select a manufacturer (and is there for a general overview), but please post in the thread listing the specific gun that you think would be suitable and why.

My pick: Glock 21 Gen4. A full-size gun chambered in .45 ACP that holds 13+1. It's obviously very reliable and has great accuracy. And of course Glocks have been able to prove themselves in various conditions, which unfortunately the M9 has had some problems with.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

M1911A2 -- the standard Colt Government with beavertail safety and "speed bump" plus better sights.

 

[Weedy]

Who voted to replace the M9 with a Beretta?

 

[beatledog7]

I've had some experience in military requirements and procurement, and I'm pretty sure of four things:

1) The M9 will remain the standard sidearm for at least another 6-8 years.
2) Its replacement will be a US-manufactured gun.
3) Its replacement will still be chambered in 9mm.
4) Its replacement will still be a metal-framed DA/SA design with a manual safety.

My Pick: Something that has not yet been designed. If it were a horse race, my money would be on Ruger to win, S&W to place, Springfield to show.

 

[Mike OTDP]

You've really got two questions here.

Which Caliber? and Which gun?

If we stick with 9mm, I don't see anything with enough of an improvement to warrant a change. The Beretta 92 is in the system as the M9, the Sig P228 is in the system as the M11. You might go to the Sig over the Beretta.

In .45ACP? Fight's on. My money would be on the FNP-45. DA/SA, made in USA.

 

[ritepath]

P220

 

[marksman13]

I love the Glock 21, but it will never win a military contract for the same reason that the G20, and G21 are not popular as LEO issues guns, they are too big for many people to shoot comfortably.

If it were my money to spend I would issue Glock 17s and be done with it if we didn't already have a side arm. However, since it is my money, as a tax payer and we have a sidearm that currently works, I vote we leave it as is and put that money towards reducing the national deficit.

 

[mgmorden]

This topic comes up all the time, but realistically we're the ones window shopping - the military ain't that interested. I can't say I blame them either. If I was choosing a new gun from scratch then I'd never issue the M9, but we're not starting from scratch. Any replacement has to not just be better but be ENOUGH better to justify the replacement cost. Nothing has really come along that warrants that type of expenditure.

For the sake of grins and giggles though, if we were buying again I'd like to see the contract go to an American company (both "Made in America" and a company under American ownership - not one or the other). I'm not all that big of a "buy American" person, but IMHO when it comes to our tax dollars being spent there should be a great effort to keep that money within our own economy. As such I'd like to see either the Ruger SR9 or the S&W M&P.

I agree with Beatledog on several things though: no matter what, any replacement will still be 9mm, and it'll definately sport a manual safety. Not sure on DA/SA being certain, but I can guarantee that straight SA (or single-stack) is out. They ain't bringing back the 1911.

 

[dogtown tom]

beatledog7 I've had some experience in military requirements and procurement, and I'm pretty sure of four things:

1) The M9 will remain the standard sidearm for at least another 6-8 years.
2) Its replacement will be a US-manufactured gun.
3) Its replacement will still be chambered in 9mm.
4) Its replacement will still be a metal-framed DA/SA design with a manual safety.

My Pick: Something that has not yet been designed. If it were a horse race, my money would be on Ruger to win, S&W to place, Springfield to show.

And you would lose your shirt....Springfield Armory is an importer- and doesn't manufacture anything. If you believe your #1 above Springfield better build a factory here.

 

[Fremmer]

S&W m&p 9mm

 

[Hondo 60]

It is my firm belief that we went with the Beretta simply to have a better political "in" in Italy.
The only advantage the 9mm has over the 1911 is more ammo in the magazine.
Personally, I'd much rather carry a couple of extra magazines.

And I believe that if/when the M9 is replaced it'll once again NOT depend on ballistics, but on politics.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Why change? It's good for now and the DoD just bought a bunch more. If anything, they should switch to the 92A1. Glocks don't meet the requirements to be considered for standard issue.

 

[wlewisiii]

Glock 17.

 

[SouthernBoy]

In no particular order, Glock 17 or 22, or M&P in 9mm or .40S&W.

 

[Autolycus]

I would love to see the US military issuing a Glock 17 or Smith and Wesoon M&P9 but it won't happen. And they could issue Glock 19s to their investigative division or M&P9cs if they went with the Smith and Wesson.

But the fact is that it won't happen and I think we are stuck with the Beretta 92FS for now. From all reports it is not a bad gun, it is just bad magazines.

 

[beatledog7]

Springfield Armory is an importer- and doesn't manufacture anything.

I was not aware of that. But I stand by my win and place bets.

Dogtown,

What do you know about horse racing? Losing my show bet wouldn't necessarily cost me my shirt.

 

[Black Butte]

M10

Seriously though, maybe the Glock. Light, swappable parts, easy to strip and clean, reliable, durable, and low production cost.

 

[mljdeckard]

Of course I would prefer my 1911. But to train new shooters to go into a harsh environment, I would prefer that they had Glock 17/19s.

 

[SniperStraz]

I voted for glock. It'll never actually happen but it would be a nice improvement. Before we start fixing what isnt broken however, I vote we replace our militarys rifles for something in a more substantial caliber that doesnt choke on sand.

Unfortunately, we will most likely spend more money on fashionable new BDUs with nifty velcro pockets that come in the same color but some other ridiculous design.

 

[el Godfather]

I would chose Beretta for M9's replacement. What a joke!

Anyways, Sig Sauer may be a good option if there must be a change- However, nothing wrong with the M9 despite all the crtics arguing against it.

 

[Robbins290]

The m9 is a mighty fine pistol. Used it in the core. If they were to replace it. I would want them to take on the sig p226.

 

[Rustinthewheel]

FNP Series offer the light weight of the Glock/M&P with the manual safety and de-cocking feature, all made in the US, by a company we already have multiple contracts and a long history with.

They have the rails, optic mount and the suppressor threading already installed.

 

[gunnutery]

1) The M9 will remain the standard sidearm for at least another 6-8 years.
2) Its replacement will be a US-manufactured gun.
3) Its replacement will still be chambered in 9mm.
4) Its replacement will still be a metal-framed DA/SA design with a manual safety.

I voted for Glock, but I agree with the quoted text above. Actually my guess is that the M9 will be around longer than 6-8 years. With major defense cuts ahead, and the additional M9 contract still being met (I think), I think a new pistol is the least of their concerns. As long as we stay within the 9mm NATO confines, we may as well stick with with the M9.

 

[NG VI]

We won't be dropping the M9 for a very, very long time. For ease short and long term maintenance, the Glock makes a lot of sense, and the consistent trigger plus a nice sharp useable reset fits very well into the training we already give with the rifle. Beretta triggers don't really behave like M-16 triggers, while the Glock's is actually pretty similar.

Lighter, simpler, less fiddly bits to snag on things and Joe to screw around with, less parts to break, less springs and small, complicated metal pieces means less parts for the armorers to keep stocked, and for troops like special forces whose role by definition includes long-endurance missions, a small parts replacement kit would be very lightweight and small.

I don't think the Beretta is going anywhere though, and the trials that all the competing pistols went through were so well documented (and repeated) that I think we can safely rule politics out as the reason we went with the Beretta. I don't think the Beretta offers the best platform for a service pistol, but it is the archetype of mid-end of 20th Century service pistols. I think we (the civilian side, especially gun gamers) have learned an awful lot about combat handgunnery in the last twenty years, but not all of it is really relevant to large-scale government procurement and use.

Besides, it's just a pistol.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Besides, it's just a pistol.

This, I'm pretty sure that they'll be getting new rifles before a new handgun as that would be one of the last things on their list of things to replace. It's just a pistol, meant to get you back to your rifle.