Army wants a new handgun

Discussion in 'General Handgun Discussion' started by 7point62, Jul 3, 2014.

  1. 7point62

    7point62 Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,188
    0
    0
  2. molonlabexx

    molonlabexx New Member

    980
    0
    0
    I never liked the M9 anyway
     

  3. hiwall

    hiwall Well-Known Member

    4,282
    52
    48
    I think the Army just wants to spend money.:mad:
     
  4. bluez

    bluez Well-Known Member

    1,657
    79
    48
    I am not sure who is writing these requriements and key performance parameters.:eek:

    9mm is established as a good balance between pistol size and performance for military applications for generations.
    Not sure what suddenly changed with human beings that we now "need" a bigger caliber.

    But if they want to allow usto carry our personal .357 Magnum Revolvers on duty I am all for it :D
     
  5. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,080
    154
    63
    Good luck with that. One, most handguns are more accurate than the shooter. Two the M9 is one of the most reliable handguns in service, Three the 9mm has being doing the job for over 100 years. They need to accept the limitations of handguns there is no magic handgun or bullet.
     
  6. JTJ

    JTJ Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,677
    390
    83
    The M9 was issued in 1914???:eek:
    When all you use are hardball you need a larger diameter bullet to make up for the lack of expansion. The military could have gone to a different pistol with more capacity and kept the 45acp. An XD45 holds 13+1 and the grip is not as fat as the Beretta. Lots of other brands out there. The 9mm would do the job just fine if they used expanding bullets. No matter what they do it is still a pistol and you need more than 1 shot to reliably take down someone that is trying to kill you.
     
  7. seancslaughter

    seancslaughter New Member

    1,714
    0
    0
    i usually don't agree with manta but in this case i think he meant the actual caliber not the platform
     
  8. 25-5

    25-5 New Member

    3,302
    1
    0
    Sounds to me like another boondoggle. More money. Shooting someone multiple times takes time. How about aiming and putting a hole in the T. Spend the cash on how to hit the target.
    Recoil? My little wife can shoot a 1911. Not her favorite, but she can do it. You can hike miles with a pack. Even run uphill in full gear. But, too much recoil, come on. This is some desk jockey's idea to spend the tax dollar as inefficiently as possible.
     
  9. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,080
    154
    63
    We can agree sometimes, and yes I did mean the calibre. And in the article there is an example of a guy taking 14 hits from a .45 using expanding ammo and he kept shooting back. If it had of being 9mm they would have being blaming the ammo.
     
  10. kryptar19

    kryptar19 New Member

    1,774
    0
    0
    Funny thing is that the Army did pistol trials in 2012 and the M&P won. In the end Beretta offered the better deal, and the bean counters won. An M&P 40 or .45 would be a good step for the military.

    To be honest, if all I was issued was ball ammo, I'd want a 10mm.


    Hmmm...an M&P 10mm...if only. :rolleyes:
     
  11. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0
    :D
    I have to agree with this. Any one who can't handle the recoil of a handgun, up to and including a 10mm, shouldn't be in the military or LE.
    Wow all the experts were touting the 9mm as a fine replacement for the 45 now the people who actually have to use them are saying they aren't enough. This is what happens when you let bureaucrats and bean counters make these types of decisions. I'm not bashing the 9mm, it's just that these guys are fighting fanatics not trying to keep some punk from mugging them.

    Let's not forget that the French use 9mm's, just saying. :D
     
  12. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,080
    154
    63
    The problem is the guys complaining that the 9mm did not do the job, don't know if the .45 would have fared any better. There are examples of both 9mm and .45 not stopping people without multipliable hits. Its not just the calibre they are talking about accuracy and reliability as well. Something they already with the M,9. I don't think they will be changing it any time soon.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2014
  13. Quentin

    Quentin New Member

    7,551
    1
    0
    I'll be surprised if the Army replaces the M9 in this economy. If they do, then the M&P40 would be a good choice. I doubt they'd go with Glock unless supplied with a well designed manual safety.

    The FBI story is mind boggling in this economy. 40S&W is a good round and not that hard to control. I wonder if frame damage is anywhere near as bad as claimed.
     
  14. 7point62

    7point62 Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,188
    0
    0
    hey I'm biased...but if everybody was smart they'd do what they all end up doing anyway, getting a freaking


    .45 1911

    like the Marines are doing. Upgrade it, put rails on it, put a GD seatbelt and an iphone5 on it...but if something works (C-130, M2Browning, 1911, B52, A-10) stick with it. Survivability Upgrades. Some things get better with age.
     
  15. kbd512

    kbd512 Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,732
    88
    48
    The Army doesn't need a new pistol, it needs training.

    A new pistol isn't going to fix not having sufficient ammo for marksmanship qualification, let alone proficiency.

    A new pistol isn't going to fix negligent discharges from careless operators.

    A new pistol isn't going to fire magic bullets that are any more effective than the 9MM is or the .45 ACP was.

    Army is firing FMJ bullets that don't have a lot of power behind them and .45 ACP is a negligible power increase over 9MM NATO.

    If the Army adopted hollow point ammunition (not gonna happen) and spent more money training people to use pistols (sent them to a MagPul Dynamic Pistol course or something similar), then if they're still having problems we can talk about buying new pistolas.

    Until all of that is done, the Army doesn't need to waste any more taxpayer money on new toys that don't increase capability. Perception is not reality. Perception happens in your head and nowhere else. The Army needs to admit to their reality. Their soldiers don't have sufficient training with the weapons that they have.
     
  16. kryptar19

    kryptar19 New Member

    1,774
    0
    0
    No go on the Glock, although they did test it and it faired well.
    As far as the "frame damage" goes, its the same old Glock problem. Just like when the Gen1's were recalled for .40sw and 10mm frames cracking. Also why the Gen3's went to a two pin frame. Glock should start using Zytel polymer for their frames.
     
  17. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    Didn't the fed just piss away a potload of money on millions of

    rounds of .40 small and weak?

    If they need "stopping power" why didn't they stick with

    the 1911 to begin with?
     
  18. kbd512

    kbd512 Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,732
    88
    48
    Yeah, you can bet that the design with the most testing and best performance amongst the current crop of modern combat pistols won't be selected because that'd just make way, way too much sense.

    As far as frame damage goes, it's maybe $10 worth of plastic. That may not be what Joe Civilian pays for a Glock frame, but it's still just a piece of plastic. I'm quite certain that Uncle Sam won't pay as much as we pay for one.

    As far as "safety" levers are concerned, if revolvers don't need them then neither does a semi-auto. If it does need one, then it's a design flaw. The only thing a soldier should have to do after drawing a pistol is pulling the trigger.

    Instead of just admitting that there are at least a half dozen designs available that require no testing and no modification because it's all been done before, we're going to waste many more millions of dollars to come to the conclusion that Army doesn't need a new pistol.

    With the amount of money that's been wasted to date on this endeavor, we could have purchased gold plated 1911's for every soldier in the Army.
     
  19. kryptar19

    kryptar19 New Member

    1,774
    0
    0
    They did pick the one with the best performance as the winner, The M&P. Beretta got the contract because they offered the best deal.
     
  20. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,080
    154
    63
    For the same reason they went to 5.56 Nato.


    Standardisation, lighter smaller ammo, less recoil, easer to train soldiers to shoot accurately, Larger mag capacity, etc.