What pistol should the US Army replace the m9 with?

[johnson8861]

If they want USA made that throws out the XD(Croatia). Glock is made in Smyrna, Georgia, Sig Exeter New Hampshire and the FNs are made in Columbia South Carolina. I don't see why they would change calibers, all of NATO use 9mm NATO. It is effective. I don't know how many have first hand knowledge of the power of the 9MM NATO, but I do, it saved my life twice. Two one shot kills. I don't see a problem with the Beretta, as an armored I serviced 100 of them. All with several thousand rounds through them, and no reported malfunctions ever. If you take of your weapons they will take care of you. Also if one of my soldiers went through 4 pistols I would begin to question his technique and his maintenance.

 

[dyerwatcher]

(mm ammo is cheap - don't see a change

 

[Seven High]

The DoD just commited to purchasing up to 450,000 M9a1s at a projected cost of $220 million dollars. The Beretta is not going anywhere for a while.

 

[ghitch75]

1911

 

[HICKMAN]

I would like to seem them check out the M&P9 since the Army likes a thumb safety.

 

[cswan]

They just need to go with the Glock 22 and get on with it.

 

[hANNAbONE]

...prolly the M & P, just a gut feel.

 

[Rizzo]

For real?

The DoD just commited to purchasing up to 450,000 M9a1s at a projected cost of $220 million dollars. The Beretta is not going anywhere for a while.

I am not doubting you, but could you post a link on this for me so I can read about it?

"Trust but verify" - Ronald Reagan.

Thank you.

 

[jblomenberg16]

1911...maybe an A2 version sporting some upgraded sights and an extended beaver tail over the A1. Maybe an ambi safety since we do have a number of folks that shoot righty or lefty.

 

[cartmanfan15]

Seems like they may just stick with Beretta? I mean the M9 coming from Beretta you would think it may be easier just to stick with the company and pick up the newer 92A1 or 96A1. But, I have also heard good things about M&Ps. As long as something reliable comes through I am ok with it. Anything to keep our troops from getting killed.

 

[repeter1977]

personally, i would like to go back to the 1911 in .45acp. Most the complaints about them was that they were worn out. Well, as with any weapon, when its worn out its not going to function as well, not really the fault of the pistol. Besides the 1911 lasted how many years before it was replaced. Personally I think we should make NATO conform to US, after all, they need us more then we need them. I have worked with other NATO nations as well. As for the 9mm size, its the same thing they say about the 5.56 round, proper shot placement is key. Well, when people are trying to kill you, you aren't always going to be able to get the best shot placement. Also, we pick those rounds because they are wounding and it will supposedly take more people out of the fight. When are they going to realize, most of the other countries or enemies that we fight, dont give a crap about their wounded. I want a round that takes them out of the fight completely. Not that there is that magic round or anything, but .45 has a lot more one stop shots then the 9mm or the .40. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[Jeremiah]

This is about to become a 9mmv .45 thread I can feel it.

Logistically the cz p-01 makes the most sense? And fits all the requirements but the stupid one that says it must be us made.

If they changed caliber .40 would seem the only choice to make past 9mm, maybe in a 135-155 grain flavor. Velocity paired with the larger wound channel would be a decent idea.

But I doubt they go away from 9mm unless NATO picks a new. Bullet.

 

[FFJakeT]

It would be nice if the U.S. military used a gun made in the country they are fighting for. I guess that might make too much sense to some people though.....

 

[thoroughbred]

I would like to see the decision left up to the soldiers. Give each soldier an allowance to buy whatever he/she wants. Say a 1000$. If they want something more expensive than their allowance they pay the rest. Make some general rules like it has to be in one of three calibers or something. If it needs to be replaced it is taken out of their pay or they can use something issued. Just a different idea. I think anyone who serves should be able to choose their weapons to some extent.

 

[GlockFox]

Completely agree but maybe be a little more restrictive. In other words, line up 4-5 guns that are of "approved" usage and then let them choose. I like the thought though.

I would like to see the decision left up to the soldiers. Give each soldier an allowance to buy whatever he/she wants. Say a 1000$. If they want something more expensive than their allowance they pay the rest. Make some general rules like it has to be in one of three calibers or something. If it needs to be replaced it is taken out of their pay or they can use something issued. Just a different idea. I think anyone who serves should be able to choose their weapons to some extent.

 

[dbd870]

I see no reason to change as they will no doubt stay with the 9mm. It will just cost we taxpayers extra $$$.

 

[WebHobbit]

I want a round that takes them out of the fight completely. Not that there is that magic round or anything, but .45 has a lot more one stop shots then the 9mm or the .40. Just my 2 cents worth.

Ahhh...not really. I dunno whose stats you are looking at but Marshall/Sanow/Ayoob stuff shows the top hollow-points in 9-40-45-357 to all be within 5-9% of each other. Not a HUGE margin for anything really.

And the larger problem is with military we aint talkin' hollow-points....were talking about old-school anemic BALL ammo. I suppose a .45 BALL round should be slightly more effective than 9mm size ball round...BUT the 9mm is going a hell of a lot faster so they probably aint all that far off from each other. If we can agree that BOTH kinda suck wouldn't you want the one that holds more? But as I said in an earlier post I think the M9 was a poor choice due to it's awful grip/back to trigger face dimensions.

 

[yenningcomity]

Ughh not another one of these threads....

Military just ordered a boat load of m9's as someone else already posted.

Also good luck getting the military to justify the budget for replacing a sidearm. As others have said it tends to be an afterthought which is why we ran the 1911 until they were falling apart.

For those wanting the 1911 to comeback, keep dreaming. It is a great gun, but it has no chance of ever really coming back. Even if the military justified switching to 45 acp (which it won't) the low round count would preclude the 1911.

Lastly it doesn't really matter what country a gun is currently made in. As long as the US is friendly with them it is fair game. If the gun is made somewhere else part of the terms is that they would have to switch to a us based plant (like beretta had to) in order to get the contract. That gives politicians something to fight over as they will want the plant.

 

[churchmouse]

They need something light (polymer frame) hi-cap (14+1) and .45 ACP.

 

[HICKMAN]

It would be nice if the U.S. military used a gun made in the country they are fighting for. I guess that might make too much sense to some people though.....

I'd rather have the best gun...