Army Looking to Replace M9 With More "Knock Down Power"

[XD45 7,124]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/12/army-to-replace-mm-pistol-with-more-reliable-gun-packing-better-knock-down/

 

The pistol sucks.  The round sucks.  At least when you're stuck with hardball.

 

HK USP in 45 ACP using truncated cone ammunition.  Problem solved.

 

45 isn't magic but bigger is better when it comes to fmj pistol bullets.  And the truncated cone design has proven to be more effective than standard round nose.  The USP is the best fighting handgun in the world today (although some will argue that Glock or XDm or Sig 227 are as good).

 

These things are known.  No mystery.  No multi-million dollar research needed.

 

 

[Maxwelhse 1,285]

I'll take a $125 surplus Beretta 9mm! Time to watch AIM...

 

I agree with your diagnosis of the problem though.

[patriot 7,197]

This is what happens when you change the test so Beretta wins. Had it been the original acceptance test, we'd still have 45ACP.Doublestack 45ACP is the way to go!

[DLT 1,646]

Just bring back the the 1911 with a poly frame and at least an 8 round magazine. Problem solved.

Just bring back the the 1911 with a poly frame and at least an 8 round magazine. Problem solved.

[Bobthetomato 15]

I'll take a $125 surplus Beretta 9mm! Time to watch AIM...

 

I agree with your diagnosis of the problem though.

 

They will get run through a metal shredder and sold to China for 5 cents a pound.

[Maxwelhse 1,285]

 

I'll take a $125 surplus Beretta 9mm! Time to watch AIM...

 

I agree with your diagnosis of the problem though.

 

They will get run through a metal shredder and sold to China for 5 cents a pound.

 

 

You're probably right, and some may argue that is the best thing to do with a Beretta, but I can dream...

[Capt Nemo 882]

Never liked the M9's mag catch position!  Always causes me to dump the mag when firing.  The old Taurus PT-92 had the catch at the bottom of the grip where it wouldn't get hit during firing.

 

I've taken WI sized whitetails with 9mm hollowpoints from an M11/9.  It's got enough balls to do it to 50 yds.  Works even better with the UZI carbine 16.1" barrel.   9mm is better in an SMG length barrel.

 

If a 9mm or .45 won't kill it, you don't need a .40, you need a rifle!

[gunfun 3,931]

Let's all engage in a huge work-around rather than fixing a stupid treaty that makes no sense...

 

My armchair opinion is as follows.

For the entire history of military use of standardized firearms models, the following are true in a more objective sense:

 

1)The military is not monolithic. It will have different portions always actively researching and advocating opposite doctrinal and equipment theories.

2) There will always be a vocal bunch who hates what we have now, another one who likes it... Some of those who are not happy with current equipment will want whatever we had before, others will want new and cutting edge. There's always some arguing for bigger, and some for smaller. It costs a lot of money to make changes, and large organizations change slowly and seldom. Even when great resources in trials prove something new is better, the programs are usually scrapped and the military sticks with what is working 'well enough.' Therefore articles about how the military is going to change should be taken with a great deal of skepticism. Ditto, for articles which present the military as having one agreed opinion or intent.

3) Ball ammo is not as effective per size and energy as other types. The Hague convention does not prevent ghastly wounds, it simply forces miltiaries to use more energetic ammo or bigger ammo to achieve the same gruesome incapacitating wounds.

4) 45 is very bulky, but is comparatively effective in ball. If we are going to play the stupid semantic game of building an optimal gun for ball ammo, rather than putting the same resources into challenging the faulty logic of the Hague convention, 45 works. That doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't other ball friendly calibers that might work more efficiently for capacity, bulk and weight. i.e. 40 s&W or something new.

 

In a more personally opinionated sense:

a) In modern era, a heavy big gun with only 7 or 8 shots is absurd. There are far more practical, and less costly pistols in 45 than any 1911 variant, particularly the $2000 colt pistol the marines just adopted. That is a shameful joke of taxpayer money, and it handicaps the guys who lovingly use it. They could have any of several pistols that weigh less and have double the capacity with higher reliability for a quarter the cost. Take your pick, and you will do better. I'd rather see soldiers armed with any of these than the 9mm.

M9 is actually a decent gun, it's the ammo that sucks, and the slide mounted decocker. (or the fact that it iis a safety-decocker anyway.)

c) 45 is a natural for suppression, is common, we have a lot of it, and it is easy on guns due to lower pressures.

d) 45 is too bulky and costs a lot. If we have put enough rounds through one to wear out a higher pressure gun such as .40 S&W, the difference in cost of ammo would have been more than enough to replace the whole .40 pistol.

e) none of these are particularly well adapted to the modern world of armored soldiers.

f) perhaps a soldier would be better served to have 3 more mags for his carbine, and a slightly better carbine than a boondogle pistol for the same weight and cost. Or a lighter pistol and one more carbine mag.... Say a plastic 9mm +2 mags, and an additional full m4 mag for the weight savings.

[Maxwelhse 1,285]

2) There will always be a vocal bunch who hates what we have now, another one who likes it... Some of those who are not happy with current equipment will want whatever we had before, others will want new and cutting edge. There's always some arguing for bigger, and some for smaller. It costs a lot of money to make changes, and large organizations change slowly and seldom. Even when great resources in trials prove something new is better, the programs are usually scrapped and the military sticks with what is working 'well enough.' Therefore articles about how the military is going to change should be taken with a great deal of skepticism. Ditto, for articles which present the military as having one agreed opinion or intent.

 

I've never served, so someone please correct me if my thinking is all wrong, but if you're down to your pistol in a combat situation you essentially don't have a gun and may as well start hurling insults and rocks, right?

 

Soo... Since it is probably YOUR life on the line. in a very hail mary moment, just why in the hell can't you carry whatever you want as long as it meets a minimum standard and you pay to own/maintain it? Obviously the military couldn't support 800 different pistol calibers, but if you want a Hi Point 9mm or a $5000 target 9mm, why not?

 

Cops can do this in many jurisdictions and rely on their pistols far more than soldiers. I suppose I'm living in a world where things could be as simple as they really could be.

[XD45 7,124]

We're not going to challenge the Hague so that argument is moot.

 

It is easy to sidetrack any discussion with arguments about whether it's appropriate to say the sun rises in the east when in fact we all know the sun doesn't rise at all.

[gunfun 3,931]

I kind of agree with post #9, but there are logisitcal considerations. interchangeable mags and parts between troops, ammo supply.

 

Most cop-shops and correctional institutions don't allow officers much choice anymore. Mostly because their insurance will only support a few models at a time. Also their insurance is based off of manual of arms, proof of qualification with that gun, and proof that they train their officers with that gun and its manual of arms. For a rural department with only a few guys, it isn't that big a deal to make sure the two guys with weird guns know how to use them. Probably they know more than the rest anyway. They can just create a record, that the two guys made master rating, and that the training officer spent an hour or two of quality time with them on the finer nuances of their choice. The cops who get to choose their shotgun and rifle for their cruiser are fortunate.

 

Aside from practical logistical considerations, the military is Big Government. This means at a core level it's leadership deeply believes that it knows better than the individual members and is resistant to any personal choice. They don't even trust their soldiers with constitutional right to bear arms, after all.

 

As for post #10, you could say the same thing about getting the military to change weapons systems. They throw billions at it with no change. The same billions could be applied to changing hague. However, most of the points I made were based off of the assumption that we would continue to do dumb work-arounds and treat Hague as immutable.

Edited July 12, 2014 by GunFun

[Maxwelhse 1,285]

I CAN see mag interchangeability being a problem in combat, but like I said, if you're down to your pistol.... well...? Just how many extra pistol mags should one carry when carrying a rifle and rifle mags too? My personal answer would be 0 or 1.

 

I'm probably making it sound easier than it is, but the last time I looked into the cops around here could carry Sig/Smith/Glock 9mm. We don't have a PD with 4 guys, we're a pretty large city. The state guys don't get any choice and retired their Berettas for Glock 17s a long time ago (that combined with IN and NJ apparently being the only 2 states to use 9 is somewhat telling back to the OP). I'm not sure about the county guys.

 

My information is all pretty old (haven't asked a local LE about their carry gun in a long time... I haven't had a good social setting to do so and you don't just walk up and ask) but I know that philosophy was once practiced. It seems if local governments that can't even keep pipes from breaking can somehow manage a few flavors of pistol that the military could say X, Y, or Z without much trouble should the solider choose to supply their own.

 

I can say I would sleep better knowing that a solider has picked the self defense weapon (which is what a pistol really is) which is most optimal for their preferences within a set of constraints. That's way better than the morons you mentioned on capital hill picking it for them. I'm not a Beretta hater (no experience), but I wouldn't carry one if I got to pick based on reputation alone! $125 for a decent plinker is hard to turn down though in my fantasy world.

[james lambert 3,059]

I wonder where all the old gi 1911s are now?

[Arik 565]

 

2) There will always be a vocal bunch who hates what we have now, another one who likes it... Some of those who are not happy with current equipment will want whatever we had before, others will want new and cutting edge. There's always some arguing for bigger, and some for smaller. It costs a lot of money to make changes, and large organizations change slowly and seldom. Even when great resources in trials prove something new is better, the programs are usually scrapped and the military sticks with what is working 'well enough.' Therefore articles about how the military is going to change should be taken with a great deal of skepticism. Ditto, for articles which present the military as having one agreed opinion or intent.

 

I've never served, so someone please correct me if my thinking is all wrong, but if you're down to your pistol in a combat situation you essentially don't have a gun and may as well start hurling insults and rocks, right?

 

Soo... Since it is probably YOUR life on the line. in a very hail mary moment, just why in the hell can't you carry whatever you want as long as it meets a minimum standard and you pay to own/maintain it? Obviously the military couldn't support 800 different pistol calibers, but if you want a Hi Point 9mm or a $5000 target 9mm, why not?

 

Cops can do this in many jurisdictions and rely on their pistols far more than soldiers. I suppose I'm living in a world where things could be as simple as they really could be.

 

 

Its not just "your life on the line" its also the guy next to you and the guy behid you and the guy whos two soldiers in front. You are a fighting unit not Rambo. Because no one will want to be next to the guy who thinks a Bergmann is good enough because his granddad carried it in ww1. I dont want to run out of ammo and find you you desided to bring 9 largo and a 30-30 rifle. I also dont want to be next to the guy who doesnt have parts to fix his antiquated gun. When individuals are allowed to bring they're own they often choose using emotion instead of logic. I dont want to be stuck with the guy using a 38spl snubby because it has pretty lines and Glocks are plastic and ugly. The military is a machine, no emotion involved...ok less emotion involved. The simplest thing would be for everyone to have the same not for everyone to supply their own.

 

This was a problem in ww1 and ww2 especially with Germany. Their handguns were Mausers, Astras, Radom, FEG, FN, Steyr, Saur, Star, Walther, and a host of Czech and captured Russian handguns. Calibers ranged from 32, 380, 9mm, 7.63x25, 7.62Tok, 9x23 Largo.

 

I dont think the 1911 is a great idea either. omething thats easier to fix would probably be a better choice

[jdtravers 637]

We didn't want to get rid of the 1911's for this very reason!!  I was working at Mott Lake (Fort Bragg) Special Operation/Counter Terrorism Unit at the time they decided to get rid of the .45s.

 

Numerous write ups had been submitted to allow various units to retain the .45 for several reasons, it causes more arterial damage and temporary  wound cavitation damage than a 9mm thus having a higher percentage of putting the aggressor down with one shot.  AND the .45 wasn't as likely to penetrate walls, etc causing collateral damage which a high velocity 9mm will.

 

It was politics as usual, they are going to do it regardless of the actual needs.

 

Also guys, there is no such thing as KNOCK DOWN Power, unless you get hit by a train, a 155mm Howitzer round etc. 

 

It is all about shot placement, doesn't matter if it is a .380 or a .45, you have to put the bullet where it counts!!!!!

 

Jack

Edited July 14, 2014 by JTE

[XD45 7,124]

I wondered if anybody would comment on "knock down power". I put it in quotes for a reason. Lol

[thebuns1 4,323]

I don't know if the HK is the best, but the M9 does suck balls. I own Sigs, Glocks, FN's and Hk's and really don't see how one is more reliable than the other. But for a replacement, I'd say it will likely be a FN or Sig over the others. Maybe HK, but they better come up with a hell of a deal. But not Glock as they don't have an external safety.

[james lambert 3,059]

A  Smith M@P in 45 would be a good choice

 

screw the others , I want an American gun

[thebuns1 4,323]

I want what ever will give our boys the best advantage.

[XD45 7,124]

I want what ever will give our boys the best advantage.

 

Seems to me it's a helluva lot more patriotic to give our troops the best available, no matter where it's made.

 

Obviously we need to trust the country we're buying from so china or iran aren't going to work.

[james lambert 3,059]

If the very best isnt American......then it needs to be invented or refined until it is

[Maxwelhse 1,285]

If the very best isnt American......then it needs to be invented or refined until it is

 

That's a fair statement, Jim. I think the only reason you can buy ANY US made athletic shoes is because the military has a contract with New Balance. Seems like the same idea would apply if its by military specs.

 

Then again, we're rolling the dice others mentioned rolling about politicians making the right decisions. I may trust HK or Nike more than whoever makes the call these days.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Maxwelhse

[Mullet Man 2,114]

A Smith M@P in 45 would be a good choice

 

screw the others , I want an American gun

FNH fnx fits that bill. Is the m&p made here?

 

Is standard infantry issued sidearms?

[magsite20 1,664]

with a 1911 they wouldn't even have to write the manuals, just reprint them.

[jdtravers 637]

 

 

2) There will always be a vocal bunch who hates what we have now, another one who likes it... Some of those who are not happy with current equipment will want whatever we had before, others will want new and cutting edge. There's always some arguing for bigger, and some for smaller. It costs a lot of money to make changes, and large organizations change slowly and seldom. Even when great resources in trials prove something new is better, the programs are usually scrapped and the military sticks with what is working 'well enough.' Therefore articles about how the military is going to change should be taken with a great deal of skepticism. Ditto, for articles which present the military as having one agreed opinion or intent.

 

I've never served, so someone please correct me if my thinking is all wrong, but if you're down to your pistol in a combat situation you essentially don't have a gun and may as well start hurling insults and rocks, right?

 

Soo... Since it is probably YOUR life on the line. in a very hail mary moment, just why in the hell can't you carry whatever you want as long as it meets a minimum standard and you pay to own/maintain it? Obviously the military couldn't support 800 different pistol calibers, but if you want a Hi Point 9mm or a $5000 target 9mm, why not?

 

Cops can do this in many jurisdictions and rely on their pistols far more than soldiers. I suppose I'm living in a world where things could be as simple as they really could be.

 

 

Its not just "your life on the line" its also the guy next to you and the guy behid you and the guy whos two soldiers in front. You are a fighting unit not Rambo. Because no one will want to be next to the guy who thinks a Bergmann is good enough because his granddad carried it in ww1. I dont want to run out of ammo and find you you desided to bring 9 largo and a 30-30 rifle. I also dont want to be next to the guy who doesnt have parts to fix his antiquated gun. When individuals are allowed to bring they're own they often choose using emotion instead of logic. I dont want to be stuck with the guy using a 38spl snubby because it has pretty lines and Glocks are plastic and ugly. The military is a machine, no emotion involved...ok less emotion involved. The simplest thing would be for everyone to have the same not for everyone to supply their own.

 

This was a problem in ww1 and ww2 especially with Germany. Their handguns were Mausers, Astras, Radom, FEG, FN, Steyr, Saur, Star, Walther, and a host of Czech and captured Russian handguns. Calibers ranged from 32, 380, 9mm, 7.63x25, 7.62Tok, 9x23 Largo.

 

I dont think the 1911 is a great idea either. Something thats easier to fix would probably be a better choice

 

I am not for or against anything here, but what is easier to fix/maintain than a 1911?????? 

 

Jack

Edited July 14, 2014 by JTE

[gunfun 3,931]

an M9, for one. 

[jdtravers 637]

No way!!!!  You don't need any tools to completely strip, and I mean completely strip a 1911 and there are not very many parts.  How many parts are in an M9 and you can not completely strip an M9 (average guy) in the field, remove every pin, spring, etc.

 

Compare a 1911 and an M9 Parts Diagram and there is a huge difference!!!!  But there again, I grew up with the 1911 and can completely disassemble one (field strip) blindfolded and not drop any parts in about 10 seconds..

 

An M9 has about 3X the parts of a 1911 so how can it be easier to maintain?

 

Jack

Edited July 15, 2014 by JTE

[thebuns1 4,323]

^^ Glocks ain't much harder.

[G O B 3,516]

The caliber should start with a 4........

[liberty -r- death 1,445]

Sig 227 That's all I got to say bout that.