# Military to Change Handguns



## bigjohn56 (Jan 26, 2013)

Interesting read about the drive to change military handguns.

Army wants a harder-hitting pistol | Fox News


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

What goes around comes around........ The Army used the .45 for eons then switched to 9mm and now want to go back up to a larger caliber/mm....... Oh well....... America can afford it...... Oh wait America is broke........ 

As stated in the article its more about shot placement than caliber/mm size.......


----------



## hud35500 (May 8, 2010)

The Pentagon is just trying to get a better price from Beretta. It's all politics. I like Berettas, but are they really the best handgun for military purposes? Not hardly!


----------



## dondavis3 (Aug 2, 2009)

Agree ^^^

:smt1099


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Army officials, however, say the M9 does not meet the MHS requirement.

"The M9 doesn't meet it for a multitude of reasons," Easlick said. "It's got reliability issues; the open slide design allows contaminates in. The slide-mounted safety doesn't do well when you are trying to clear a stoppage -- you inadvertently de-cock and safe the weapon system."

This may very well be true, and the M9 probably isn't the best pistol for the military, but there is merit to the 9MM vs larger rounds. Shot placement is paramount, and although some of the personnel will be able to shoot the .45 or .357/.40 accurately, on the whole the 9MM is going to be a much more accurate round. Like the expert said, pistol cartridges suck! You're going to have to shoot an attacker several times to stop them. This won't hold quite as true in the civilian defense world, but in a combat situation where you're likely to face a very tough and determined enemy, a pistol is your last ditch effort for survival. You'd better be able to hit the target, or it won't matter what you're shooting.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

I'll believe it when it happens. This comes up every couple of years.


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

A friend of mine spent some time in the desert out east. They would trade almost anything for a .45.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I think it would be a mistake to go back to a 1911. Today's battlefield is not like it was in the 40s, and anything with less than 10 rounds is insane, especially when you can get a Glock .45 with 13 rounds or the FN45 with 15. Personally, I think they should stick with the 9MM, but if they do choose a bigger bullet, the .45 should be the choice. Something tells me the .357 Sig may be the choice as it has blazing penetration with a lot of punch from the bottle-necked .40 casing. The Secret Service has been using this round for some time now, and it has good reviews. My guess, if they do actually get a new pistol, it will be something with a modular backstrap system; therefore, a polyper gun. The logical choices are the Glock, M&P, FN, Sig, HK. All have a polymer variant, and it seems there is a reason or two for that.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

VAMarine said:


> I'll believe it when it happens. This comes up every couple of years.


Yep, heard the same thing from the same person Daryl Easlick back in Aug of 2011. M9's are not reliable oh my. If you want 357 sig speed go +p+ in 9mm, but you won't get better ballistics than a slow moving 147 grain HST, GD, or Ranger T. Shot placement is key, 2 to the heart and one to the brain should do it. Relegated to Hardball does not help soldiers in the field either, unless seeking deep penetration.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Well we do know the Army moves slowly, and they will eventually change the pistol. They seem more determined to change caliber than pistol, but making the argument about the pistol and caliber only serves the agenda. To spend money! They will buy some 400,000 guns??? WOW! Just save us all time and money, and go with the Glock 17 Gen 4. It is the simplest, most reliable and cost effective pistol available.


----------



## hud35500 (May 8, 2010)

So the Army has issues now with design elements that existed when they chose the pistol back in the 80's??


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Well, there are some things you just can't figure out until you put something to real use. Most everyone hated the M9 when it was first introduced. I loved the idea bc I loved the way the pistols looked, and they are great shooters. Very accurate. After I got more familiar with other quality handguns, I learned that I liked other designs better, which are a lot easier to maintain, break down, etc., so I took up with Sigs and Glocks. The same issue arose when the M-16 was first introduced. Everyone loved the M14, and the M-16 had a lot of issues initially, but it has evolved into several designs that are a lot more reliable. Truth be told, some guy in the Army purchasing department has a bur in his saddle and wants to award some rep he likes with a huge contract, so the Army wants to change pistols.


----------



## Smitty79 (Oct 19, 2012)

A key thing to remember about military rounds is that you aren't allowed to use hollow points. My personal defensive ammo is high tech 9mm. But for our military, the best trade off would be double stack 45 ACP with a choice of steel or polymer fame. I don't know of any gun that has the frame options. Maybe Sig will do something like that for a Sig 320 like gun. I'd probably buy Glock 21s. Combat accurate, light weight for someone who had to carry it up and down hills, high reliability, simple to use and train on... Is it the prefect gun; nope. Is it the right one for this job, I think so.


----------



## PatC (Jul 8, 2014)

I have spoken to several vets that spent time in Iraq and Afghanistan about the firearms. In the cold months the guys were having some issues with the ammo when the combatant wore so much clothing penetration was a problem. One Sgt was given an M14 and a retired Green Beanie from Viet Nam rebuilt it for him. Another uniform gave him two cases of match ammo. He corresponded the rifle shot very well. The guys shooting the black guns when the received the newer/heavier high speed ammo said it worked great. Still a hand gun is the weapon used to get to the rifle. Yes, good shot control with a handgun/rifle is most important. The first shot should be on the X. Personally I use a 1911 and train with it. The Texas Department of Public Safety is changing out the Sig 357 with 9mm but it is not mandatory except for new officers. I think the duty weapon for the Austin, TX PD is the M&P 40 and they have taken down so bad guys with them.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Whatever the Army decides to do, I think a Glock is the best choice for a combat pistol. Regardless of caliber chosen, the Glock is easy to train to, extremely user friendly (requiring little maintenance to operate effectively), accurate, safe, reliable and probably the most cost effective all the way around. It may be smart to go with the Glock 41. A double stack .45 with a five inch barrel...hard to beat for a combat pistol.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

I don't think we will ever see a Glock as a general issue side arm in the US until a manual safety is incorporated. If i had to put money down on three contenders it would be Beretta, S&W and HK.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

VAMarine said:


> I don't think we will ever see a Glock as a general issue side arm in the US until a manual safety is incorporated. If i had to put money down on three contenders it would be Beretta, S&W and HK.


I think Beretta is out given that is what is being "replaced". You may be right about the Glock; however, it is as safe as any handgun on the market, if not safer. My other four considerations would be: Sig, HK, SW, FN.


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

I like glocks but I would rather see a American company step up with something like S&W or Ruger.


----------



## TAPnRACK (Jan 30, 2013)

A gun is only as safe as the person using it... regardless of whether it has a safety or not.

Sig came close to getting the contract last time... be interesting if Beretta is actually phased out or not... and if a striker fired handgun will replace it, maybe the P320? It has been designed with applications for Military & LE in mind (as least that's what they advertise).


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

rustygun said:


> I like glocks but I would rather see a American company step up with something like S&W or Ruger.


Me too, to be honest, but nothing American made comes close to the Glock wrt durability. You can literally shoot thousands of rounds through a Glock without cleaning it. Not that I recommend that, but still...I like the M&P and would be ok with that, but they are not quite as durable as the Glock is in this regard. Now, as often as the miitary cleans their weapons, this won't be an issue, which makes the M&P a top consideration. However, the FN45 can hold 15 rounds...15!!! And it comes DA/SA hammer fired version with exterior safety. That alone makes it a top consideration. Honestly, with the Glock capacity at 13+1 and the FN at 15+1, I really don't think anything else makes sense, especially when you factor in cost.

I would say Ruger has no chance, and probably for a reason. It just does not come up to par with the other top tier guns like Sig, Glock, M&P, HK, FN or Beretta.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

TAPnRACK said:


> A gun is only as safe as the person using it... regardless of whether it has a safety or not.
> 
> Sig came close to getting the contract last time... be interesting if Beretta is actually phased out or not... and if a striker fired handgun will replace it, maybe the P320? It has been designed with applications for Military & LE in mind (as least that's what they advertise).


Check out the FNX-45

FNH USA - Distinct Advantage :: FNX?-45

And the FNX-45 Tactical

FNH USA - Distinct Advantage :: FNX?-45 Tactical

I watched a review comparing the FNX-45 to the HK45, and it was very interesting. The FNX won out due to capacity/price, and that is what I believe the USA will look at heavily in such a change. I know the Marines love the new Colt CQBP, but those things are $3500/per, and it only holds 8+1, and to me that is just insane in today's world.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

Do remember that civilian cost does not equal Government cost. I've always been underwhelmed when it comes to FN's handguns.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Isn't the gov cost like four times more? I owned a FNS-9, and it was a pretty solid pistol. I traded it in my quest to find my perfect pistol, but still like them. I'm just a fan of the Glock for several reasons, but it wasn't always the case. My personal favorite is the Sig P226. It is just a fantastic pistol! I think for precision shooting the Sig wins, but when it comes to shots down range, at least for me, I am more proficient with the Glock. It's lighter, smaller and cheaper, so it's sort of a no brainer for me. I really think the Glock 21 or 41 would be the best option for a .45, but I'd stick with the 9MM if it were up to me. Don't get me wrong about the 1911. I love that design and it feels really good in the hand and shooting it is a joy, but capacity rules it out for me. Para came out with a double stack 1911 version, but it completely changed the entire feel of the gun, and I don't like it. But you can't beat the 1911 design...expect for capacity, and in today's world, 8+1 just don't get it in a combat scenario.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

The Armed Forces just renewed Beretta's contract in late 2012 and Beretta delivered 100,000 spanking new M9's. I would wager we won't see a pistol replacement and/or caliber replacement until at least 2020.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

denner said:


> Who is NATO? What is NATO's primary small arms pistol ammunition? Is .45 interchangeable with 9mm? Is this about the M9 pistol itself or the 9mm Nato round it shoots, or both? Pistols in the military's scheme of things are only secondary considerations as compared to primary offensive/defensive small arms? What's the defense budget look like for the near future? Is the country in debt and practically bankrupt? Has the M9 served venerably since 1987? The Armed Forces just renewed Beretta's contract in late 2012 and Beretta delivered 100,000 spanking new M9's to the military. I would wager we won't see a pistol replacement or caliber replacement until at least 2020. This article is re-hashed gun rag filler in my opinion.


Well, we know at some point the change will occur. Will it be next year? Not likely, but it will change. I contend it has nothing to do with how well the M9 has or has not performed. It has more to do with the human nature to change, and right now is an evolutionary time in handguns. The latest and greatest buzz word is "polymer", and why not? It is durable, lighter, and far more cost effective than any stainless gun made. With the British Royal Army recent switch from the BHP to the Glock 17, it's only the thing to do now for the USA. We both know it really has nothing to do with budgets or how many pistols the Army just bought. It all boils down to somebody wants to change. There is no doubting that there has been grumblings about the M9 and the 9MM ever since it was introduced as the official sidearm. Everyone I talk to screams "GIVE ME A .45". The Colt CQBP is catching on, and EEEEEEEverybody wants one...and why? B/c it's cool! It's a 1911! It's a ".45" man! Like I said, I would stick with the 9MM. Would I change the M9? Yep! To what? A polymer frame pistol, and you know my first recommendation! ;-)


----------



## TAPnRACK (Jan 30, 2013)

Kool-Aid anyone?









I'm just kidding, couldn't resist.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Lol


----------



## zeke4351 (Jan 29, 2013)

I will make a prediction that the new Army pistol will be.40 S&W caliber just like most LE agencies use today. Not enough rounds in a .45. It also will not surprise me if the Sig P320 winds up with the contract. You will never see another Beretta or 9mm military contract. Like another poster said the gun will have a manual safety. Glock could get it but I doubt it from all I have seen lately. Just my opinion. Time will tell.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Actually, a lot of LE agencies are going away from .40 these days to either a 9mm or .45, due to shot placement issues with the .40, and wear/tear as the article points out. If a Sig P320 is a finalist, I say a Glock or M&P gets the nod. As stated, the Glock .45 carries 13 and the FNX-45 carries 15, so I'd say the .45 carries enough. I think the .40 won't be picked just bc of the issues pointed out, and so many professionals are starting to go away from it. I would not be surprised to see the Glock 17 or 21 get the nod based on proven track record and cost. They are far superior when it comes to simplicity and wear. You can degrease it and shoot it forever without malfunction. They just work!


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

As for what they just bought...that's an easy fix. Sell them, or just give them to some foreign government like so many other things.


----------



## zeke4351 (Jan 29, 2013)

GCBHM said:


> Actually, a lot of LE agencies are going away from .40 these days to either a 9mm or .45, due to shot placement issues with the .40, and wear/tear as the article points out. If a Sig P320 is a finalist, I say a Glock or M&P gets the nod. As stated, the Glock .45 carries 13 and the FNX-45 carries 15, so I'd say the .45 carries enough. I think the .40 won't be picked just bc of the issues pointed out, and so many professionals are starting to go away from it. I would not be surprised to see the Glock 17 or 21 get the nod based on proven track record and cost. They are far superior when it comes to simplicity and wear. You can degrease it and shoot it forever without malfunction. They just work!


Wrong! You got some catching up to do.

Sent from my iPad using Outdoor Forums


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

zeke4351 said:


> Wrong! You got some catching up to do.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Outdoor Forums


Not really. Even the FBI, the people that basically created the .40 are in the works to switch to nine.

I'm not so sure we'll see a .40 adopted as a US sidearm.

While it probably won't be a 1911 it will probably be a .45

My guess would be an M&P with thumb safety IF it were to happen.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

I agree with what Jim had to say on the matter below:

Is there a problem with the M9? Honestly, when I deployed, if I was going outside the wire, I wanted a rifle. The pistol was to go in a holster and was fine if I had a place to lock up the rifle, on the compound because I didn't want to lug it around or take it to the gym / chow hall. At a FOB, you always have a rifle.

The pistol is sort of an afterthought and you know if you need it, you have bigger problems than a bigger round or a marginally better pistol. Who cares? Let cops and fat guys at gun shops worry about it. In a deployed environment a pistol is a pistol - they all suck. From my experience the Beretta was great - mag springs held up well when loaded too long - which they always were, soft shooting, accurate, external safety minimized risks of accidental shootings - which still happened too often despite all the requirements and clearing barrels at every entrance / exit to the compound.

Of all the weapons listed, most are just silly. I like my Pro Carry at the range but I would never take my 1911 over a Beretta in the AOR - would be idiocy - cocked and locked with that short soft trigger and only 7 or 8 rounds? Why? I love Glocks too but with no external safety, you'd be asking for more accidental shootings "darn it, I forgot to clear my weapon last night!" At least with an external safety, if the guys forget to clear, which everyone does once or twice if only for a minute or two, they at least have the safety on and have a reasonably long trigger.

Of all the stuff out there, the only thing that might be an improvement over the Beretta would be a 226 or USP - but not much, if any, improvement in practical terms and logistically, it would be a cluster. Plus both are relatively overpriced - especially magazines. Plus you have to train everyone on a new pistol (all day away from work to go screw around at the range) and all the old dudes or people who aren't infantry but are comfortable stripping a Beretta and comfortable shooting one now have to learn a new platform. Why?

I just don't see the point. I think the M4 was a worthwhile improvement on the M16 - because it is the same weapon only shorter and handier with a red dot - if you can strip and clean one, the other is the same and it is so much handier in an up armored vehicle. May not be as useful on the 500 yard line but if we're shooting 500 yards, someone better have a .50 or .30 cal anyway.

If you want to give all services the same uniform to simplify logistics and get the Chair force out of their flammable nylon costumes - great. Would make sense if all services wore the same uniform with different insignia. Would maybe make sense to get rid of non flame-retardant uniforms. Would make sense to look at better boots, better socks, better basics - but another pistol that is maybe 5% better than the status quo and creates training, logistical, and expense nightmares and will inevitably create more problems than it solves? Right.


----------



## zeke4351 (Jan 29, 2013)

I know there are a lot of .40 haters on the gun forums and most people think the 9mm is the best thing since sliced bread but most LE don't read the gun forums but they do go by the results from other agencies. For example St. Louis used the 9mm for 20 years but switched to the .40. Glock claims that they sell 65% of all American LE guns and I would say they do or more. Glock also says that 75 % of those guns are .40 S&W. The Kentucky State Police switched from their 10mm S&W a few years back and had already purchased new .45 Gen III S&W pistols and had them in hand but sold them all off brand new and went with the .40 Glock. Better scores are shot with the 9mm but keep in mind that 75% to 80% of all shots fired in a gun fight miss. I don't carry the .40 and I don't like to shoot it but it is what it is. 


Sent from my iPad using Outdoor Forums


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

zeke4351 said:


> I know there are a lot of .40 haters on the gun forums and most people think the 9mm is the best thing since sliced bread but most LE don't read the gun forums but they do go by the results from other agencies. For example St. Louis used the 9mm for 20 years but switched to the .40. Glock claims that they sell 65% of all American LE guns and I would say they do or more. Glock also says that 75 % of those guns are .40 S&W. The Kentucky State Police switched from their 10mm S&W a few years back and had already purchased new .45 Gen III S&W pistols and had them in hand but sold them all off brand new and went with the .40 Glock. Better scores are shot with the 9mm but keep in mind that 75% to 80% of all shots fired in a gun fight miss. I don't carry the .40 and I don't like to shoot it but it is what it is.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Outdoor Forums


I'm not sure where you come up with this stuff, but there are quite a few LEOs on this forum. No one said all LE agencies are going away from the .40 pistol, it was said a lot are. I've talked with LEOs whose agencies have switched from the .40 to either a 9mm or .45, and it is sweeping across the nation. It's not really a big secret. Some agencies are sticking with the .40 while others are switching to it, sure, but that does not mean that other agencies are not going away from it. It is far from the newest trend.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

denner said:


> I agree with what Jim had to say on the matter below:
> 
> Is there a problem with the M9? Honestly, when I deployed, if I was going outside the wire, I wanted a rifle. The pistol was to go in a holster and was fine if I had a place to lock up the rifle, on the compound because I didn't want to lug it around or take it to the gym / chow hall. At a FOB, you always have a rifle.
> 
> ...


No one is saying the pistol is the primary weapon. I stated it really isn't a matter of improvement over the M9 as much as I believe it is just wanting a change. I agree going to a 1911 would be lunacy, and have stated so. Sure, it is a great and proven platform, but with all the options available that have twice the capacity...why would anyone choose a 1911? It escapes me! I stated the best option to replace, if that is actually done, would be a Glock simply for two reasons. You can shoot them forever without cleaning them, and they are cheaper than anything else out there that is a combat ready pistol. But, knowing the military, it will likely go with some cumbersome piece of junk it will want to replace in another 20 years. Of course by then we'll probably be using laser guns.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

VAMarine said:


> Not really. Even the FBI, the people that basically created the .40 are in the works to switch to nine.
> 
> I'm not so sure we'll see a .40 adopted as a US sidearm.
> 
> ...


I believe it will be a USA manufactured gun, and the M&P will likely have the best shot. I like the M&P 45. It's a fine weapon, and if it is kept clean it will stand up well.


----------



## zeke4351 (Jan 29, 2013)

GCBHM said:


> I'm not sure where you come up with this stuff, but there are quite a few LEOs on this forum. No one said all LE agencies are going away from the .40 pistol, it was said a lot are. I've talked with LEOs whose agencies have switched from the .40 to either a 9mm or .45, and it is sweeping across the nation. It's not really a big secret. Some agencies are sticking with the .40 while others are switching to it, sure, but that does not mean that other agencies are not going away from it. It is far from the newest trend.


I came up with this "stuff" from 3 different places that I mentioned for you to check out yourself if you are interested. It is very easy to confirm what I stated but you just seem to be interested in getting in the last word on any subject you discuss even though you have no facts. There is a term for your facts. If you would research somewhere other than the gun forums you can learn a lot. Contact Glock or Smith & Wesson and see what they tell you. I said that the .40 was the most widely used in LE. You say you know agencies that have switched but you don't name any.

Sent from my iPad using Outdoor Forums


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

Guys, it really doesn't matter. Some departments change calibers with the season or so it seems. Some.move up, some move down. All it proves is that the grass is always greener (shouldn't it be the grass is more green? ) On the other side.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

zeke4351 said:


> I came up with this "stuff" from 3 different places that I mentioned for you to check out yourself if you are interested. It is very easy to confirm what I stated but you just seem to be interested in getting in the last word on any subject you discuss even though you have no facts. There is a term for your facts. If you would research somewhere other than the gun forums you can learn a lot. Contact Glock or Smith & Wesson and see what they tell you. I said that the .40 was the most widely used in LE. You say you know agencies that have switched but you don't name any.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Outdoor Forums


No one said .40 isn't the most widely used caliber by LE. What was said is that a lot of agencies are going away from the .40. As to what agencies that I know have made this switch or use a 9mm/.45: Birmingham, Hoover, Vestavia, AL, Paulding County GA, Chattanooga and Knoxville TN, LAPD, NYPD, DEA, FBI, Secret Service, amoung others, but that isn't the point. I originally responded to your statement that a lot of LE agencies are going away from the .40, which apparently sent you into full defense mode. I'm not the only one who stated this either, but you seem bent on getting the last word with me. I was just being conversational. If you're interested in the facts that I and VAMarine have stated, all you have to do is research it to see that more and more agencies are in fact switching to either a 9mm or .45, but like VAMarine said, it really isn't that big a deal. I certainly never expected such a staunch defense of a claim that no one refuted.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

VAMarine said:


> Guys, it really doesn't matter. Some departments change calibers with the season or so it seems. Some.move up, some move down. All it proves is that the grass is always greener (shouldn't it be the grass is more green? ) On the other side.


I do think that if they do finally make a change, they will go back to the .45. To be honest, it is a hard round to beat, especially with the FMJ restrictions. The pistol being a pure defense weapon, it does seem that a .45 would be the way to go in a combat setting. And I also believe they will look long and hard at the American made offerings. Why give all that money to a foreign company when the US makes some pretty dang fine pistols for military use now? The 1911 is just not the choice I think they should go with. It will work for some of the special units (where marskmanship is a little better), but for the average soldier, something with a few more rounds is more suitable. Denner makes a good point about the rifle being the primary weapon, so what is the big deal with wanting to switch a pistol/round that has served well for the last 20 years. I'm not the biggest fan of the M9, but it really has worked as well as any other pistol. I still think they should just stick with the 9MM, but I'm just an old sailor. What do we know about guns?


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

The big difference between military and law enforcement is the type of bullets they use. Military can't use JHP. 9mm ball ammo tends not to slow down a drugged up jihadi just goes right through. Not that .45 is an ultimate stopper but it does tend to slow them down a little more.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I tend to agree, but there are stories like in the article where drugged up junkies were shot multiple times with a .45 and kept coming. No doubt a .45 is going to hit harder than a 9mm. It is an effective round in most cases, as is the 9mm. I think it all boils down to simply wanting a change, and justifying that want with stats, etc.


----------



## zeke4351 (Jan 29, 2013)

There is some interesting reading about this subject in other places such as The Army Times. The Army has not read what all the gun forum gurus have proclaimed and they have declared the 9mm as a POS for offense.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

zeke4351 said:


> There is some interesting reading about this subject in other places such as The Army Times. The Army has not read what all the gun forum gurus have proclaimed and* they have * declared the 9mm as a POS for offense.


"THEY" is very subective.

Handgun usage and training us very rare in the Military. I was issued an M9 before I ever had any pistol training. Thankfully I ended up with an M16A2 instead nit would have much rather had an M4.

If we could ditch the FMJ and spend a little more time doing handgun training the 9mm might not get so much hate.

Even some guys in thr military that are actually use handguns on a regular basis have a differing opinion than "big Army"

http://kitup.military.com/2014/07/sof-prefers-9mm-45-caliber.html


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

Also, as far as the Army goes, they've wasted millions just trying to figure out what camouflage pattern they want to stick with and still can't get their heads out of their rectum on what to use.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

My choice would be the Glock G20, since whatever they use is going to be loaded with hardball ammo. The 10mm can be loaded down to .40 S&W specs or up to about .41 magnum power. Depending on ammo, it could be tamed down for those who needed something weaker, or loaded with full power ammo so combat soldiers could have a 16 shot pistol with serious power that could be fired quite accurately out past 25 yards.

The services force-feed a lot of things to new recruits that they find unnatural, so learning to safely handle pistols without lever safeties should be do-able, and dealing with the large squarish grips shouldn't be insurmountable.


----------



## zeke4351 (Jan 29, 2013)

Glock is out of the running already unless they change design. Glock does not have metal to metal contact between the magazine catch and the magazine .


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

zeke4351 said:


> Glock is out of the running already unless they change design. Glock does not have metal to metal contact between the magazine catch and the magazine .


I dont think that will be a nail in the coffin. Glocks are all ready in use by some Army units and they don't seem to have a problem with it. But an interesting nugget none the less. I don't recall if that was part of the criteria in the previous two attempts at replacing the M9.


----------



## Desertrat (Apr 26, 2007)

I still think they should just go back to the .45 ACP and be done with it...not necessarily a 1911, but use the .45.


----------



## zeke4351 (Jan 29, 2013)

This is going to be interesting to watch. Sig now has plans to produce three versions of the P220 in 10mm. An all steel version will be made. Bruce Gray has converted some P220's to 10mm and already gotten the kinks worked out and that has helped Sig decide to make a 10mm. There has been a lot of interest and requests from Sig customers for quite some time for a 10mm Sig and now it is finally going to happen.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Desertrat said:


> I still think they should just go back to the .45 ACP and be done with it...not necessarily a 1911, but use the .45.


I think there are a lot of service members who would welcome that transition, even if it were back to the 1911. I would think the FN FNX45 would be a pretty solid candidate. It already comes equipped with all the things the military tends to want, but those with whom I've spoken about the CQBP absolutely love it. It would be interesting to see what the Army would eventually choose with all the platforms available.


----------



## RobSettle (Oct 5, 2014)

The whole reason the army went with the M 9 back in the 80s was because it held thirteen rounds. Today there are many pistols chambered in .45 ACP that take high capacity mags.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

The M9 holds 15 rounds, but personally I think there were a whole host of reasons the Army transitioned to the M9. Cost being the primary followed by a move to become more NATO compliant. However, I do think if they do transition back to the .45 and do not choose a pistol with a hi-cap magazine, they are stupid. Then again, it is the Army! GO NAVY!!!


----------



## zeke4351 (Jan 29, 2013)

And the winner will be?


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Doubtful.


----------



## zeke4351 (Jan 29, 2013)

Who you think it will be? KelTec or Bersa maybe? I don't know who it will be but they already told Beretta that it won't be their new design that was thought to be a sure thing by some of the forum experts. Who else makes a "system" right now other than Sig? I found an interesting YouTube video produced by the federal government dated Mach 2014 declaring how much more powerful and better the .40 S&W was compared to the 9mm. It sure surprised me seeing such a demonstration of all different weights of .40 being fired into all kinds of material and saying how great it is. But the FBI is ditching it going to the 9mm. Guess we need to remember that our government is made up of all kinds of people just like found on these gun forums. Scary isn't it? Look what might be ahead.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

zeke4351 said:


> Who you think it will be? KelTec or Bersa maybe? I don't know who it will be but they already told Beretta that it won't be their new design that was thought to be a sure thing by some of the forum experts. Who else makes a "system" right now other than Sig?


Why are you always an ass? Let's see...other system makers...HK, Glock, M&P, FN...should I go on?


----------



## zeke4351 (Jan 29, 2013)

GCBHM said:


> Why are you always an ass? Let's see...other system makers...HK, Glock, M&P, FN...should I go on?


Screw you dipshit. Do any of them make a gun with interchangeable calibers grips etc using the same trigger?


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

zeke4351 said:


> Screw you dipshit. Do any of them make a gun with interchangeable calibers grips etc using the same trigger?


Those characteristics are not what the military is looking for. Grow up!


----------



## zeke4351 (Jan 29, 2013)

Bite me! What are they looking for know it all? They waiting to hear from you?


----------



## TAPnRACK (Jan 30, 2013)




----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

zeke4351 said:


> Bite me! What are they looking for know it all? They waiting to hear from you?


Man, dealing with you is like playing cards with my brother's kids.

If you have taken the time to actually read the articles discussing this, you would know what they are looking for. "The Army's draft MHS solicitation identifies design and performance requirements for a new modular handgun system that can be easily adjusted to fit all hand sizes and is optimized for improved gun, ammunition and magazine performance." They will look at pistols that offer multiple grip configurations, which the P320 does not offer.

"As part of the joint requirement process for MHS, Army weapons officials did a "*very thorough cost-benefit analysis*" that showed supported the effort, Easlick said." That cost benefits analysis means that although they are going to replace the M9, they are not going to invest in a platform that does not fit the multiple grip configurations which also requires purchasing other "guns" (b/c that what the trigger mechanism in the P320 is called, "the gun") so they can switch from 9mm to .357 Sig, not will the US Army invest in muliple ammunition calibers for conventional soldiers. That would be entirely too cost prohibitive, not to mention a literal training nightmare. Have you ever served in the military?

They want one system. "It's a total *system replacement *-- new gun, new ammo, new holster, everything." They want one gun that fits this bill, not three guns in one. It will be one gun, one caliber, one system that fits multiple users. Something like a Glock, HK, S&W (which has teamed up with and General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems to pursue the U.S. Army's Modular Handgun System (MHS) solicitation) or FN, all of whom already produce a pistol that fits this bill.

Actually, HK already has a few like the HK45 and HK45c, the P30 and the VP9. Glock makes all four platforms to fit each caliber, all with the MBS. I think the delay is to allow the S&W/GDO merger to be able to produce something to compete, but all these pistols will, regardless of caliber, will offer multiple grip variations to fit multiple users, but once they settle on the platform, you can rest assured that it will be for one single caliber.


----------



## zeke4351 (Jan 29, 2013)

You got to be a Yankee! I can tell the way you talk and the way you change your opinion of what is best from one thread to another. And like I asked you before what is the sickness you have that makes you want to have the last post in EVERY thread you participate? Go back through this forum and see for yourself. Might be something you don't realize. I have seen where you say one thing on one thread and something the opposite in a different post of yours. If you don't like dealing with me quit running your know it all mouth back to me each time I post. It's very simple.


----------



## TAPnRACK (Jan 30, 2013)




----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

zeke4351 said:


> You got to be a Yankee! I can tell the way you talk and the way you change your opinion of what is best from one thread to another. And like I asked you before what is the sickness you have that makes you want to have the last post in EVERY thread you participate? Go back through this forum and see for yourself. Might be something you don't realize. I have seen where you say one thing on one thread and something the opposite in a different post of yours. If you don't like dealing with me quit running your know it all mouth back to me each time I post. It's very simple.


I'm from Birmingham, Alabama. Born and raised here. I've just been educated and I'm well traveled. I don't change my opinions often, but if I do it is for a good reason. This nonsense of insisting on shutting down a conversation by accusing the other of wanting the last word when you're in the middle of a conversation is the sickness. It means you have nothing further to add, so you run away accusing the other person of being a child.

Just like now. I've proven you wrong, again, and you're deflecting by trying to denigrate me as if that somehow supports the argument that you were right. I've posted several things that you have chimed in on, and were essentially slapped down, and you did the same thing you're doing now. It's actually quite funny, and very indicative of the fact you have no clue what you're talking about. You just, what was the way you put it...run your know it all mouth. You claiming I change my mind does not make it so anymore than anything else you have said is true.


----------



## zeke4351 (Jan 29, 2013)

Word


----------



## zeke4351 (Jan 29, 2013)

You have only ever proven me wrong in your mind. Been to court with people that truly believe they know what they are talking about. You don't know but you don't know that you don't know.


----------



## RIFLESHOOTER4741 (Mar 30, 2012)

As in the past there will be a lot of talking, lots of firearm Mfg.s putting their handguns in to the race. 
But in the end the upgraded M9 will be picked and will be supplied to the military.
There is no way the military will drop the NATO accepted 9mm, as the type Ammo used. 
They will never go back to the .45acp.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

RIFLESHOOTER4741 said:


> As in the past there will be a lot of talking, lots of firearm Mfg.s putting their handguns in to the race.
> But in the end the upgraded M9 will be picked and will be supplied to the military.
> There is no way the military will drop the NATO accepted 9mm, as the type Ammo used.
> They will never go back to the .45acp.


Actually, the upgraded M9 was dismissed without review. And I've heard that the USMC isn't as happy with the CQBP as they'd hoped. Of course, I'm not surprised to be honest. Colt is struggling, and frankly, I really just do not think the 1911 is the best pistol for that terrain. I believe the Army will go with a polymer frame striker fire gun, and probably one from the S&W/GDO partnership. I'm betting the USA would like to award the contract to an American company, and S&W may just get the nod.

That said, I think HK has a good shot based on the fact they already produce pistols that fit the requirements of the MHS in both DA and striker fire platforms, but the only thing that hurts HK is no US manufacturing locations. I agree that I do not think they will in up going away from the 9mm. The round can be enhanced more than the .357 Sig, .40 and .45, and the Army already has mountains of it in stock. Besides, the .357 Sig and .40 is just too snappy for all shooters and there really is no way they will go with a multi-caliber system. Just too cost prohibitive, and a training nightmare. Anyone with basic knowledge of how the military works (and half normal common sense) knows this. Either way, I am really interested in how it turns out.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

HK does have manufacturing in the US.


----------



## KeithC. (Dec 24, 2013)

What would be the weight restriction of the new pistol? If you make it heavy enough, recoil is not an issue. You can have any caliber you want. So where is the line? How heavy is too heavy? Recoil wise, a 54 ounce 10 mm loaded hot would be a cupcake gun to shoot. But if we add too much to the sidearm then something else has to go. They can't carry everything into battle. 

How much gear is infantry packing theses days in pounds?


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

VAMarine said:


> HK does have manufacturing in the US.


Where? I know they have a US HQ, but wasn't aware they actually made their guns in the US. I thought they only shipped them here for sale.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

KeithC. said:


> What would be the weight restriction of the new pistol? If you make it heavy enough, recoil is not an issue. You can have any caliber you want. So where is the line? How heavy is too heavy? Recoil wise, a 54 ounce 10 mm loaded hot would be a cupcake gun to shoot. But if we add too much to the sidearm then something else has to go. They can't carry everything into battle.
> 
> How much gear is infantry packing theses days in pounds?


I have not seen any real details, but my guess is that it will be a polymer based gun making it a lighter pistol. I doubt very seriously they choose an all steel gun. The future is in polymer. One of these days, they'll be carrying phasers!


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

GCBHM said:


> Where? I know they have a US HQ, but wasn't aware they actually made their guns in the US. I thought they only shipped them here for sale.


http://hk-usa.com/hk-make-new-rifles-u-s-facility/


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

VAMarine said:


> HK to make new rifles in U.S. facility | Heckler & Koch


Rifles, not handguns. Still, how hard could it be to start making pistols.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

GCBHM said:


> Rifles, not handguns. Still, how hard could it be to start making pistols.


They make pistols there too. Pretty sure its in the article.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Well there you have it. Learn something new everyday.


----------

