What pistol should the US Army replace the m9 with?

[stmoore]

Finally, a bright one shows up.

the most likely will be the FN.....I've used a lot of different manufacturer weapons in the military....a good number of them from FN......the thing about the FN is that it's already widely used government contractor....has an external safety, and mag capacity requirements.....I see no need to change, but I think FN is the most likely if/when they ever do change

 

[stmoore]

unreal.

deagle

 

[Kagnew]

They shouldn't replace it. Great gun. Easy to shoot, carry, clean, etc. Good enough for decades, no need to change now and spend even more tax $$$ (translation - YOUR money).

Bingo! (Or, maybe, we need some more of that "change we can believe in"!)

 

[Kagnew]

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.....

Is Maryland no longer part of the United States?

 

[VERT]

Somebody mentioned giving soldiers an allowance and letting them choose their own sidearm. I agree this is unrealistic. But honestly how many troops get issued a sidearm? A PDW or carbine is much more practical. So, why not just allow soldiers to carry a personal sidearm and knife of their choice? I suppose the ammunition would have to be issued. But why not? If a soldier wants to own/carry/use their own let them. Heck let them carry it on duty, off duty, on base, in the shower.......you get the picture.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Somebody mentioned giving soldiers an allowance and letting them choose their own sidearm. I agree this is unrealistic. But honestly how many troops get issued a sidearm? A PDW or carbine is much more practical. So, why not just allow soldiers to carry a personal sidearm and knife of their choice? I suppose the ammunition would have to be issued. But why not? If a soldier wants to own/carry/use their own let them. Heck let them carry it on duty, off duty, on base, in the shower.......you get the picture.

How do you maintain and provide spare parts and magazines for personal side arms?

 

[rugertoter]

Well, from being in the military myself, I would almost bet any hand gun without an external safety will pretty much be going nowhere. I think they should go back to a .45 ACP caliber myself. JMHO.

 

[MilitaryArms]

I believe the M&P is the one to beat.

 

[dmil12]

SIG 220

 

[mike8170]

On the note of personal sidearms, there is a DOD regulation against personal sidearms in combat. I know there are ways around it, heck, I carried a chi-com shotgun in the 'Stan. Plus, I could see some joe telling his team leader "it's mine, I'll clean it when I want to!"

 

[repeter1977]

agree, personal firearms would not be the best idea. In a fire fight, trying to change over mags so you can use someone else's rounds, IF they are even the same caliber, and just the logistics of all the spare parts, holsters and other gear with them. Special Forces can do it easier cause they are a lot smaller and a lot less red tape to deal with. As for issued weapons, Ive had both the M9 and the M11 issued to me (Beretta 92 platform and Sig P228). I liked carrying the M11 more. M9 had 2 more rounds, but the grips were significantly larger, and many of the people with average to small hands liked using the M11 better. Like I had said on my earlier post, its just what I have seen in my dozen plus years in the Army and my personal opinion. As someone else pointed out about opinions, everyone has them and they are usually _______. I know the Army has been testing out various pistols, and they have had the break down in the Army Times (as well as the other branch's papers too, I'm sure). I know they are testing for both the new pistol and rifle, but who knows how long that testing will go on or if they will even decide to finally kill those weapon systems, or keep them cause its just easier then refitting the military with a new choice.

 

[FFJakeT]

Is Maryland no longer part of the United States?

I thought the m9 was off of a beretta 92. which would be an italian made gun. or do i need corrected? and i was also stating that whatever they decide to repace it with (if they do) should be an american made gun. I was going off the assumption that it was basically a Beretta that was given another name. but i know what happens when you assume as well.

 

[Koukalaka]

I think the Beretta 92 can be found in both American- and Italian-made versions, both under the same model name. Here's a link to Beretta's page that shows both. Same MSRP for either one. The page also lists the 92A1 (with rail) and the commercial version of the M9.

 

[FFJakeT]

I think the Beretta 92 can be found in both American- and Italian-made versions, both under the same model name. Here's a link to Beretta's page that shows both. Same MSRP for either one. The page also lists the 92A1 (with rail) and the commercial version of the M9.

So i'm half right, or half wrong??? haha I hope everyone understands what I was saying. I try my best to buy American made products and I would hope that our Government and Military would do the same.

 

[FFJakeT]

I think the Beretta 92 can be found in both American- and Italian-made versions, both under the same model name. Here's a link to Beretta's page that shows both. Same MSRP for either one. The page also lists the 92A1 (with rail) and the commercial version of the M9.

And thanks for helping clear that up.

 

[MilitaryArms]

The M9 has always been made in the US for the military contract guns. Any defense contractor that sells weapons to our military must establish manufacturing here in the US for a major contract. Beretta USA was setup when the M92 won its contract. All M9's in military inventory are US made.

The M9 is an Italian firearm made in the US with all profits going to an Italian company. They do, however, employ Americans.

 

[grizman]

You M&P/ FN guys seem to be overlooking the fact neither of those pistol lines has a NATO approval as of yet. The Glock 17's 19's and the M11 Sig's already have NATO approval. If our military does switch to a new side arm I suspect it will be one of the already NATO approved pistols. Not one which will require the time to get a new pistol approved, or one without a proven combat track record. The current US military requirement for a ext safety can be dropped much easier than getting a new pistol design approved by NATO.

Cost will be, as always, a top consideration. If Glock can beat out these other pistols in the majority of the LE market be assured they can do so with the military as well.

When has the GOV ever used common sense though?

P.S. Glock can entirely manufacture any of their pistols here in GA with ease, they have been producing some here already.

 

[MilitaryArms]

You M&P/ FN guys seem to be overlooking the fact neither of those pistol lines has a NATO approval as of yet. The Glock 17's 19's and the M11 Sig's already have NATO approval. If our military does switch to a new side arm I suspect it will be one of the already NATO approved pistols. Not one which will require the time to get a new pistol approved, or one without a proven combat track record. The current US military requirement for a ext safety can be dropped much easier than getting a new pistol design approved by NATO.

Cost will be, as always, a top consideration. If Glock can beat out these other pistols in the majority of the LE market be assured they can do so with the military as well.

When has the GOV ever used common sense though?

I don't see the NATO approval as being any major obstacle. The US wouldn't be testing the M&P if they didn't want to bother getting it NATO approved should it be selected.

 

[grizman]

I don't see the NATO approval as being any major obstacle. The US wouldn't be testing the M&P if they didn't want to bother getting it NATO approved should it be selected.

True enough providing it performs spectacularly during the trials. Still leaves the fact the M&P and FN's are for all practical terms unproven at this time. The Berreta 92 had a good track record but still proved it had flaws after its adoption. IMHO the military will bear this in mind in the future when selecting sidearms. Maybe tougher trial standards would have shown these flaws maybe not. Any man made mechanical device will fail at some point. We all have our pet picks, I would have been much happier with a G17 than the M9. I started my service career with the 1911 and never felt the M9 was an improvement.

 

[MilitaryArms]

I don't believe the military will take into consideration previous tests conducted on the entrants into the trials. Their evaluation will be based solely upon each weapons performance in the current trials. Each weapon will start with a clean slate, so to speak.