What Would You Choose As the M9's Replacement?

[golden]

I doubt we will see an m9 replacement for a decade

The Defense Department just signed up for a huge buy of M9's, so I doubt we will see an replacements, expecially with the military planning to shrink in size.

That said, I would bet on a S&W SD9 with night sights. Price will be the issue here. Once a final price is agreed upon, the military may try to upgrade by asking for a best price from GLOCK for model 17, RUGER for a best price on the SR9 and S&W for prices on the M&P9.

Any of the above UPGRADE pistols would do the job and have really low prices when they want to win a contract.

Failing that, the S&W SD9 could win on a purely low price bid.

In the end, it would be less about which is the best pistol, than it would be about which is the best for the money.

I would rather see the money spent on an M-4 carbine replacement. It would be a much better use of money.

Jim

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Ever heard of Geneseo, Illionois? Springfield Armory has a factory there

Ever look at the slide of an XD? It has HS Produkt Karlovac Croatia on it. They are made in Karlovac, Croatia by HS Produkt.

 

[Fishslayer]

Who voted to replace the M9 with a Beretta?

Ummm.... pssst!

[whisper]Berretta makes other guns besides the M9[/whisper]

 

[allaroundhunter]

I would love to see the M9 replaced with a 1911, but due to cost, I never see it happening.

I also never see the M9 being replaced with a Glock. I do not see the military adopting a pistol without a manual safety, just ain't gonna happen.

 

[Kush]

In my opinion if the m9 was to be replaced it should be replaced with something that could also be used in possible future conflicts against soldiers wearing body armor. I would even go to the extent of suggesting something more like the H&K mp7 instead of a pistol for the people who normally just get a pistol. As for the troops who get a pistol to go along with their rifle, I really don't see the point, for the argument of it's something to use if their rifle breaks, they would probably be just as screwed with or without a pistol(from the video footage I have seen of the war an Afghanistan/Iraq and what i heard on the news it seems to be happening at a longer range than 25 or even 50 yards, and at such a range I would prefer to just sit behind cover than attempt to use a pistol at far beyond the range that it is effective) and the money would be better spent keeping the rifle from breaking in the first place.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I really don't see the point, for the argument of it's something to use if their rifle breaks, they would probably be just as screwed with or without a pistol(from the video footage I have seen of the war an Afghanistan/Iraq and what i heard on the news it seems to be happening at a longer range than 25 or even 50 yards, and at such a range I would prefer to just sit behind cover than attempt to use a pistol at far beyond the range that it is effective) and the money would be better spent keeping the rifle from breaking in the first place.

Someone I know ran out of ammo in his M4 and had to draw his pistol. It has a legitimate purpose.

 

[Kush]

Someone I know ran out of ammo in his M4 and had to draw his pistol. It has a legitimate purpose.

You could carry 2 more magazines for your rifle instead for the same weight as the m9, unless you are saying that instead of reloading he switched to his handgun. Also was the enemy close enough that he used his handgun?

 

[Bill_Rights]

FN! I agree with RustInTheWheel: http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=7968677&postcount=22. Ideally FNP-45 or FNX-45 (in .45 ACP). Superb firearm! At least $100 and possibly $200-300 less than the Sig, Glock, etc. I call for a tax-payer revolt if we over-spend on this one!!

 

[Inebriated]

As for the troops who get a pistol to go along with their rifle, I really don't see the point, for the argument of it's something to use if their rifle breaks, they would probably be just as screwed with or without a pistol(from the video footage I have seen of the war an Afghanistan/Iraq and what i heard on the news it seems to be happening at a longer range than 25 or even 50 yards, and at such a range I would prefer to just sit behind cover than attempt to use a pistol at far beyond the range that it is effective) and the money would be better spent keeping the rifle from breaking in the first place.

So you want to just not issue handguns because you think they're screwed either way, without the rifle? Would you be happy if that's what they told you before sending you out?

You could carry 2 more magazines for your rifle instead for the same weight as the m9, unless you are saying that instead of reloading he switched to his handgun. Also was the enemy close enough that he used his handgun?

And then when the rifle has a permanent failure, he's got a lot of ammo to throw at the enemy.

 

[1911 guy]

I'd like to see it replaced with the Springfield XD in .45ACP.

Of course, since we have to play nice with NATO and such, it'll never happen. They're too stuck on using the single worst performer (in FMJ) in common centerfire handgun calibers. I'll leave it at that before I start getting political and torquing off the rest of the world. Who seem to think we need to cater to their inferiority complex. Nevermind.

 

[Kush]

So you want to just not issue handguns because you think they're screwed either way, without the rifle? Would you be happy if that's what they told you before sending you out?



And then when the rifle has a permanent failure, he's got a lot of ammo to throw at the enemy.

If that's the case then why isn't everyone issued a handgun to go along with their rifle instead of just certain people?

 

[hifirock57]

Eff it, throw a 6920 in a drop leg holster and call it a day

 

[alaskanativeson]

I voted H&K, I'd say the HK45 would be my first choice, followed by the USP in 45. Third place goes to the Springfield XD Tactical, Also in .45 Auto. I'm with Sam1911, why should we settle for inferior because the Europeans decided to?

 

[Tcruse]

Springfield imports only. Closest thing to manufacture is some custom fitting on 1911s from Brazil. Mostly Springfield uses confusion about it's name to claim quality. XDx seem like good guns, not especially better than other midrange polymer guns. It is interesting to me that when they were imported as a $300 gun they were not successful.

 

[AT2]

IMHO glock will never be a suitable replacement. Why you ask? No external safety. Ya have to remember this isn't the 40's any more, most kids going into basic have never touched a firearm in their life. I know for a fact in the Navy I have seen people on the range qualifying (or rather trying to) that had no business with a M9 in their hand and were kicked off the range in short order. Yeah most were officers and a few Masters at Arms sprinkled in (had one MA2 tell me that the M4 kicked too much for him, he was a SAMI).

 

[Kush]

I'm just gonna point out that Glock has made limited runs of pistols with external safetys for governments and police departments that have requested it.

 

[mljdeckard]

Simplicity is exactly the reason I want to issue Glocks. When they gave us our (brief) CQB training, they were so redundant as to make us put the M-9 on safe when it locked empty. A Glock would have two less steps in an emergency reload.

Also, I found when I had many hours to practice reloads with a couple of magazines I took the followers out of, that the overhand grip on an M-9 has a significant risk of pushing the pistol 'on safe' when you rack the slide. NOT something I want to train new shooters to avoid. (I taught myself to release and rack the slide by pulling on the indents at the front of the slide.)

For new rookie soldiers, simplicity is better. I'll be sure to mention this when I am named Secretary of Defense.

BTW, a frame-mounted safety like the one shown above, would solve these problems.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

In my opinion if the m9 was to be replaced it should be replaced with something that could also be used in possible future conflicts against soldiers wearing body armor. I would even go to the extent of suggesting something more like the H&K mp7 instead of a pistol for the people who normally just get a pistol. As for the troops who get a pistol to go along with their rifle, I really don't see the point, for the argument of it's something to use if their rifle breaks, they would probably be just as screwed with or without a pistol(from the video footage I have seen of the war an Afghanistan/Iraq and what i heard on the news it seems to be happening at a longer range than 25 or even 50 yards, and at such a range I would prefer to just sit behind cover than attempt to use a pistol at far beyond the range that it is effective) and the money would be better spent keeping the rifle from breaking in the first place.

I used my M9 a number of time while looking in crawlspaces and under stairwells in Afghanistan. The military application of a pistol is NOT just to "fight your way back to your rifle" as some say.

 

[alaskanativeson]

My wife's XD is the one that has a manual safety. We just happened to get a good deal on it.

If I may point out a serious pet peeve of mine: If you're too stupid to use a firearm without a manual safety, you're WAY too stupid to be a cop. Or a soldier.

 

[mljdeckard]

Ragnar, it is for the vast majority of soldiers who carry them. For soldiers in situations much more serious, I would prefer to see unit-level discretion in procurement and training.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I'm just gonna point out that Glock has made limited runs of pistols with external safetys for governments and police departments that have requested it.

That's an after market safety, this is a real Glock factory safety:

 

[funnelcake]

"What's unsafe about their trigger?"

The comparison to a DAO revolver is largely invalid unless the average Glock has a 10-12lb.+ trigger. When asked for advice by casual users (especially those looking for a suitable weapon to carry concealed) I counsel strongly against any striker-fired pistol or similar with a 4.5 to about 7.5lb. trigger that doesn't have some type of manual or separate (from the actual trigger) safety.

I often hand them my 1911 with the heaviest trigger (5.2lbs.) and ask them if they'd be comfortable carrying the weapon with a round chambered, hammer back, the "thumb" safety off, the grip safety tied down, and tucked against a lower cheek? Not a single "Yes" to date. If they practice often and are very diligent - maybe it's a better choice. IMO - unwise and unsafe.

Also, does quality design and (assume) construction for LEO and armed citizen use make a good military sidearm? Maybe..

Funnel

 

[drunkensobriety]

Meh.

"This is my safety sir." *wiggles index finger*

And since we're all responsible people who all have firearm handling we all know the instructions our Dear Colonel Cooper gave us DON'T we boys and girls?

Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.

Trigger locks simply provide one more thing to fumble around with when fine motor skills dissolve into goo with the rest of your brains once the adrenal glandes kick in.

Wasn't the original intent of the Glock design to create a redundantly safe yet incredibly streamlined to operate semi automatic? Seems like they're violating their own mantra.

Anyone who -doesn't- have enough training to -not- be pulling the trigger when they don't intend to fire: shouldn't be handling a firearm.


Further thought: it's looks a little too much like - and sits a little too close to the magazine release. That's exactly what i want to happen in a dangerous situation. I go to make the gun capable of firing and kerplunk - my magazine is on the deck at my feet. That's a *GREAT* idea, why didn't someone think of that sooner?

Go over the logic of this with me:
People are having misfires because they don't have propor training: so Glock designs a trigger block safety to make misfires less likely to happen. This trigger lock however sits an inch away from and is shaped the same as the magazine release. Somehow: this German company thinks that the people not trained well enough not to pull the trigger by mistake are going to be trained well enough to distinguish the two buttons apart under stressful conditions. You know: ordinarily German engineering is pretty sound. This isn't one of those instances....

 

[marksman13]

I had a catastrophic failure on my M4 while conducting a raid on a house in Iraq. My M9 saved my life when my rifle's safety lever broke off as I attempted to switch from safe to fire. A pistol serves a purpose much more important than fighting back to a rifle. Until you've been sent into harm's way in a non-linear battle field you don't have the right to an opinion about how side arms are issued in such situations.

I would much rather be stuck in the mountains of Afghanistan with a broken rifle and a pistol that is ineffective past 50 yards, than to be stuck in the same situation with no pistol and a rock that is ineffective past 10 yards. Any weapon beats no weapon when someone else is trying to end your existence. If nothing else, a sidearm gives the individual a fighting chance at defending himself until other members of his squad can get to him.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

The comparison to a DAO revolver is largely invalid unless the average Glock has a 10-12lb.+ trigger. When asked for advice by casual users (especially those looking for a suitable weapon to carry concealed) I counsel strongly against any striker-fired pistol or similar with a 4.5 to about 7.5lb. trigger that doesn't have some type of manual or separate (from the actual trigger) safety.

I often hand them my 1911 with the heaviest trigger (5.2lbs.) and ask them if they'd be comfortable carrying the weapon with a round chambered, hammer back, the "thumb" safety off, the grip safety tied down, and tucked against a lower cheek? Not a single "Yes" to date. If they practice often and are very diligent - maybe it's a better choice. IMO - unwise and unsafe.

Trigger design is different as the 1911's is shorter and does have the trigger safety plus a lighter trigger than a standard issue Glock. The only way a Glock could go off is if the trigger is pulled by something in the trigger guard. If you are smart and carry with a holster and be smart about reholstering your gun then no problem.

It's safe and has been proven to be safe for the 25+ years it's been around.