US Army Wants to Replace Beretta

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ryan3030

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    94   0   0
    Dec 2, 2010
    1,895
    48
    Indy
    This gets posted every 3 months.

    Not saying you shouldn't post it, just saying they don't seem to be very dedicated to replacing the M9.
     

    chezuki

    Human
    Rating - 100%
    48   0   0
    Mar 18, 2009
    34,151
    113
    Behind Bars
    7796151_orig.jpg
     

    dwh79

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Feb 20, 2008
    939
    18
    Wanamaker/ Acton
    You only been on for a couple of months so understandable not knowing that. I would suggest try the search bar before adding a new column but still new article looks like so I would understand posting it as well.
     

    mbills2223

    Eternal Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Dec 16, 2011
    20,138
    113
    Indy
    I'd love to see the uproar on INGO if they switched to Glocks...specifically a Glock 17...that is to be carried IWB. So many factions to anger, so little time
     

    Vigilant

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Jul 12, 2008
    11,659
    83
    Plainfield
    I'd love to see the uproar on INGO if they switched to Glocks...specifically a Glock 17...that is to be carried IWB. So many factions to anger, so little time
    Never happen, the Big Green Army is afraid of guns in the hands of soldiers! The Glock doesn't have an "off" switch, that renders it completely Shannon Watts, so...
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    I'd love to see the uproar on INGO if they switched to Glocks...specifically a Glock 17...that is to be carried IWB. So many factions to anger, so little time

    Polymer 1911 chambered in .22 magnum issued with an Open Appendix Carry holster and CCI shot shells.
     

    ratames

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 14, 2012
    408
    28
    From the articles I've read, I believe they are looking to move away from 9mm because they are restricted to FMJ ammo. The articles point to a heavier round, either .40 S&W or .45ACP. .357Sig may be a candidate as well but I think it is the underdog of any competition.
     

    Hohn

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jul 5, 2012
    4,444
    63
    USA
    Good luck getting NATO on board with ditching 9mm. Not to mention higher ammo costs.

    One could argue that the reliability of a the bottlenecked .357Sig is a strong point in favor of it as a combat load. And in the quantities NATO would be consuming, the cost premium over 9mm would be fractions of a penny per round.

    But a 9mm FMJ has no problem with penetration, and accelerating it to .357Sig speeds seems to offer no advantage to an FMJ load. The difference in wound channel has to be minimal.

    I'm not sure on the Geneva rules for handgun ammo and exactly what point a round is considered JHP. Does the shallow crater on the top of many .357 Sig rounds count as "hollow point"? Look at the top of a Gold Dot in .357Sig and you'll see what I mean-- it's a shallow inverted cone more than an actual hollow point. Far cry from the 9BPLE Federal load kind of design.

    I gotta think that if a conical FMJ is required, than you end up arguing for a .45. If you can use a truncated cone, then maybe a smaller caliber becomes a strong contender.

    If *I* am in a combat zone, I personally want a hot 10mm with the most lethal projectile that is Geneva legal. A fast truncated cone FMJ can actually make some wound cavity (flatter front is better for wounding)
     

    45fan

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 20, 2011
    2,388
    48
    East central IN
    I think getting NATO on board is a secondary consideration, as we tend to supply our troops, and a good bit of the NATO troops that deploy with us. If anything, they will be forced to follow suit, or supply their own.

    Our military has been "away" from the Beretta platform for a long time, in certain circles. Smaller units that have specific needs have used what works for their missions for as long as there has been a military. Units that do not typically engage the enemy with what ever armament in question as a primary mission will default to the standard, but those that have specific needs use what works. The Coast Guard and Navy have used Sigs for quite some time, some units in the Corps never fully disengaged from the 1911, and now there is a new version that has started working its way into the armories.

    For a caliber choice to remain "Geneva Legal" all it has to be is not designed to cause expansion. I would think that a large metplat on the projectile (assuming reliable feeding is acheavable) would be the way to go, and a .452 diameter bullet has more frontal area than any other "standard" handgun round to offer said large metplat...
     

    Hop

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Jan 21, 2008
    5,084
    83
    Indy
    I think they should just use an AR-15 pistol. They are all the rage right now. Army has plenty of parts and ammo for it already. Just lop the barrel down and get some kydex holsters. Seems like a no brainer to me.
     

    in625shooter

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 21, 2008
    2,136
    48
    I think getting NATO on board is a secondary consideration, as we tend to supply our troops, and a good bit of the NATO troops that deploy with us. If anything, they will be forced to follow suit, or supply their own.

    Our military has been "away" from the Beretta platform for a long time, in certain circles. Smaller units that have specific needs have used what works for their missions for as long as there has been a military. Units that do not typically engage the enemy with what ever armament in question as a primary mission will default to the standard, but those that have specific needs use what works. The Coast Guard and Navy have used Sigs for quite some time, some units in the Corps never fully disengaged from the 1911, and now there is a new version that has started working its way into the armories.

    For a caliber choice to remain "Geneva Legal" all it has to be is not designed to cause expansion. I would think that a large metplat on the projectile (assuming reliable feeding is acheavable) would be the way to go, and a .452 diameter bullet has more frontal area than any other "standard" handgun round to offer said large metplat...

    6 of one and half dozen of the other on capacity vs caliber however, in reality (real shootings) whether ball or JHP all the standard pistol rounds have similar % stopping power to include the 9 and 45 are within a few points of each other. The 45 is not leaps and bound ahead of the 9 as urban legend would have it to be..

    Geneva had nothing to do with the Hollow Point rounds and warfare that was The Hague Treaty, however The Hague Treaty doesn't disallow hollow point in certain circumstances. For example the USAF all Security Forces personnel at stateside bases carry 124 gr JHP rounds in their M9 Beretta and have since around 1999. (there were several stateside shootings with Security Forces and they all stopped their threat with the standard NATO ball but the Chief Security Forces at the time decided he wanted to be more inline with modern LE so he went to JAG which determined stateside duty was a domestic LE and security when it came to aircraft and Nukes type mission.

    Every time this announcement of a new service gun comes out everyone salivate on their particular flavor gun/caliber. In reality for a general issue handgun 99% chance they will adopt another 9mm design and about a 1% chance they will go with a 45. If and when they ever get around to it which even if approved tomorrow will be another 10 years minimum.
     
    Top Bottom