The Army to replace the M9

Discussion in 'General Handgun Discussion' started by opaww, Sep 2, 2011.

  1. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    3
    0
    I'm surprised that Jennings or Lorcin didn't make the short list.
     

  2. Lindenwood

    Lindenwood New Member

    659
    0
    0
    Eh, I don't think that article is much more than conjecture.

    1) The M9 is way more durable and reliable than they say.

    2) The M9 is probably the easiest common defensive handgun to suppress, and is really one of few that can get away with not having a booster (so suppressors are lighter, smaller, and cheaper for the same level of suppression).

    3) The M9A1 has a rail.

    4) The military just bought several hundred thousand M9s in 2009, after they canceled the last search for a new sidearm a few years back.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2011
  3. Marthor

    Marthor New Member

    447
    0
    0
    Several attempts at a new handgun have died already. With budget pressures increasing like never before, don't expect and real new program to get any momentum.

    Like the article said, selection process hasn't even started. This article is total speculation and fiction. The M9 will continue to serve as far out as we can see.
     
  4. armsmaster270

    armsmaster270 New Member

    755
    0
    0
    I hope they go with Sig, they are already in the military inventory.
     
  5. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    I hope they seriously consider HK.

    The FBI already shot themselves in the foot with a Glock .40,

    and Colt and Springfield really have nothing inspirational

    on the horizon.

    Wouldn't it be funny if they wound up re-adopting the 1911-A1?
     
  6. pubthumper

    pubthumper New Member

    14
    0
    0
    Yeah, but capacity would remain an issue. I see the M9 remaining the standard. Sad really, with so many other, better options. It would seem to me that as ball ammo is required by convention, the .45acp makes the most sense. Sure, you would want HPs in any combat handgun, but if you are not allowed that, that round is the go-to option. A 9mm issue weapon is just silly to me at this point. No offence to our 9 loving friends here, but c'mon. It worked in WWI, if it aint broke........
     
  7. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    15
    38
    they already had a great handgun that worked and replaced it... duhhhh
     
  8. Lindenwood

    Lindenwood New Member

    659
    0
    0
  9. MrWray

    MrWray New Member

    6,424
    0
    0
    Wats not inspirational about the 1911?? Its just turned 100 years old and is still a favorite and carried by thousands!!
     
  10. pubthumper

    pubthumper New Member

    14
    0
    0
    Again, capacity. A 1911 is a hallmark-one of the finest (if not the finest) handguns ever devised. However, few soldiers are going to want to carry so many mags, and less will want to change them every 8 rounds. If you end up pulling your side arm, you are already in big trouble.
     
  11. canebrake

    canebrake New Member

    21,833
    2
    0
    So round count makes up for poor accuracy?

    If you are a lousy shot what will extra rounds do? (other than allow your opponent to count the misses)

    In the Guru's own words:

    “It has never been clear to me why increased magazine capacity in a defensive pistol is particularly choice. The bigger the magazine the bigger the gun, and the bigger the gun the harder it is to get hold of for people with small hands. And what, pray, does one need all those rounds for? How many lethal antagonists do you think you are going to be able to handle? Once when Bruce Nelson was asked by a suspect if the thirteen-round magazine in the P35 was not a big advantage, Bruce's answer was, "Well, yes, if you plan to miss a lot." The highest score I know of at this time achieved by one man against a group of armed adversaries was recorded in (of all places) the Ivory Coast! There, some years ago, a graduate student of mine laid out five goblins, with four dead and one totaled for the hospital. Of course there is the episode of Alvin York and his eight, but there is some dispute about that tale. (If you read it over very carefully you will see what I mean.) Be that as it may, I see no real need for a double column magazine.” - Col Cooper​
     
  12. Lindenwood

    Lindenwood New Member

    659
    0
    0
    Missed shots in the threat's direction prevent them from taking aimed shots in your direction. If I'm 10 feet away from my escape and have already expended 6 rounds of my one magazine, I like knowing I've got another 10 rounds to toss in the enemy's direction so they can't hit me while I make my break for that door (or tank or whatever).

    It is also my understanding that soldiers aren't nearly as well-trained with sidearms as they are with rifles. I mean, the way I've heard some soldiers talk about their handguns, it's almost like an afterthought. Hell, that some soldiers are leaving them back at the barracks to save that 3lbs of weight tells you they aren't seen as vital equipment. So, couple likely mediocre shot-placement with unfortunately-limited ammunition and you get lots of failures to stop with the 9mm.
     
  13. MrWray

    MrWray New Member

    6,424
    0
    0
    I have NEVER understood the geneva convention
     
  14. Lindenwood

    Lindenwood New Member

    659
    0
    0
    I think it's because leaders were probably imagining where the developments in technology could go, and no leaders wanted to see their solders getting poisoned or mutilated or whatever they thought would happen.
     
  15. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    Yeah, well, you played that fiddle too long. The Para Super Hawg not only has

    14+1 capacity, it has a 6" barrel, for increased accuracy and muzzle

    velocity. All in the Venerable 1911 --45ACP .
     
  16. Vincine

    Vincine New Member

    3,495
    0
    0
    I would think there is a difference between an officer having to pull their sidearm because his unit, squad, company, whatever, is surrounded and being overrun by an enemy that is wearing all sorts of combat clothing; and a ATM machine, convenience store, liquor store holdup, etc., by someone wearing street clothing.

    I think maybe there is a difference is mission relevant to caliber and capacity.
     
  17. Chainfire

    Chainfire Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,249
    311
    83
    What it doesn't have is 100 years of proven superior firepower. You can experiment with all kinds of gimmic guns, but if you want reliable, the 1911 is the way to go.

    If you need 13 rounds to defend yourself, you need a damn rifle. If you need a 6" barrel to shoot at 7 yards, you need a desk job.
     
  18. pubthumper

    pubthumper New Member

    14
    0
    0
    @canebrake, of course not, but in combat would you not choose the weapon with a higher capacity? As was stated by someone else, it is possible to need to suppress an enemy position to advance to better cover, ect. Not every round you fire will hit what you intend it to, especially if you are being shot at. Let me "play that fiddle" one last time, as a combat weapon, the 1911 lacks in the area of capacity. The Para mentioned is a nice gun, but better options exist for military applications, in my view.
     
  19. Lindenwood

    Lindenwood New Member

    659
    0
    0
    The entire idea of the sidearm is for if a rifle is not available. Nobody would ever be halfway through a 1911 mag in a desparate fight for his life and think "I'm sure glad I've only got 4 rounds left instead of 9, because that would be silly."