Army is replacing M9, what will it be?

[SpaldingPM]

Don't see the army going back with a 1911. That would be taking steps back imo. Why go from a high cap gun that regularly takes 15+1 up to 18+1 to 7+1 or 8+1?


I highly doubt they will settle for anything that holds less than 12rds.

 

[MRP2003]

If they are truly going to a new pistol, I would think one of the gun manufactures is trying to create something revolutionary. As pointed out earlier, the 5.7 would sound like a good choice since you could hold a high capacity and come in lighter. But hey I am so far from an expert or even someone to be considered very knowledgeable.

I like the 40 cal for myself.

 

[in625shooter]

The 9mm would be fine if the rules of land warfare allowed JHP ammunition, but in ball form it's performance is pretty poor.

This is a thread is a dupe of = https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo.../351309-army-wants-harder-hitting-pistol.html

Actually though the USAF issues 9mm 124 gr JHP for on duty Security Forces at stateside bases and has done so since the late 1990's. However for all overseas use everyone if required to use NATO Ball. Contrary to urban legend and feeling of better manhood by the 45 there actually is not a lot of difference in performance between 9mm and 45 in ball or JHP performance believe it or not.

 

[arthrimus]

What would be the point of going to a Sig p226? At this point it's essentially the same gun as the M9. If you've already got the infrastructure to support one handgun, why would you want to spend a ton of money building up a new infrastructure to support a gun that gives you no real advantage?

Don't get me wrong, I love my p229, but it's really not any better than my Beretta was in terms of weight, thickness, capacity, and reliability. It's only smaller and more convenient to carry than the Beretta because it's a mid sized gun. Based on my experience with my 229 I would not be surprised if a full sized Exeter produced p226 wasn't every bit as bulky as the m9.

 

[in625shooter]

What would be the point of going to a Sig p226? At this point it's essentially the same gun as the M9. If you've already got the infrastructure to support one handgun, why would you want to spend a ton of money building up a new infrastructure to support a gun that gives you no real advantage?

Don't get me wrong, I love my p229, but it's really not any better than my Beretta was in terms of weight, thickness, capacity, and reliability. It's only smaller and more convenient to carry than the Beretta because it's a mid sized gun. Based on my experience with my 229 I would not be surprised if a full sized Exeter produced p226 wasn't every bit as bulky as the m9.

Fair statement! The new grips for the SIG 226 make it more ergonomically and fitting to a wider variety (especially slightly smaller hands) than the original 226 grips but it still is on the large side. A better fit would be the 228/229 size however all this talk of a new general issue sidearm is just that....talk. They have beat it to death and with the budget crunch the way it is it is not going to happen in the next 10 years. They have a ton of M9's and parts in inventory so it's not that critical an issue as some that want a different military side arm hope for.

 

[jblomenberg16]

This is a thread is a dupe of = https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo.../351309-army-wants-harder-hitting-pistol.html

Actually though the USAF issues 9mm 124 gr JHP for on duty Security Forces at stateside bases and has done so since the late 1990's. However for all overseas use everyone if required to use NATO Ball. Contrary to urban legend and feeling of better manhood by the 45 there actually is not a lot of difference in performance between 9mm and 45 in ball or JHP performance believe it or not.

Agree, although if you are going to just poke holes in a target, the .45 ACP ball does leave a bigger hole than most 9mm JHP, and of course has more "energy" on target when it hits. Perhaps a double stack 1911 could make an appearance?

 

[Destro]

for most military members who carry an M9, stopping power is largely irrelevant. It's simply that annoying thing they have to carry around.

 

[tlandon]

What's with no Hollow Points. That's like our gun laws here. All they do is give the scumbags the advantage. I say CZ P-09 with 20rds of Hollow Points.

 

[jblomenberg16]

What's with no Hollow Points. That's like our gun laws here. All they do is give the scumbags the advantage. I say CZ P-09 with 20rds of Hollow Points.

There was this thing called the Hauge Convention (after the city) about 100 years ago that outlined a number of "laws of war." Included in that was an agreement that outlawed the use of expanding ammunition. Interestingly enough, the US did not sign as an approver of that particular part of the treaty, but it is still largely followed by many militaries. There are of course many exception to the laws or war, but generally speaking the US has complied. If you really want to dig in on the grey areas, it technically only applies to war between those that were party to the agreement and would also only apply to formal declared war.

Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SpaldingPM]

Like everyone, I would love the see the p226, but dont you all remember who the runners up to the M9 were, back when it was selected?... The P226 and The HK P9S in 3rd if I'm not mistaken. Only reason they went with the M9 was because Beretta offered them a better contract $ wise.

We have the technology now to offer a High cap, full sized, combat handgun, at half the weight (Modern Polymer is very durable). As much as I'd love to see the P226 take the M9's place (it should have won in the first place), I highly doubt it will.

Like mentioned above, there is honestly no advantage of a p226 over an m9. I have both (mk25 version ,and an M9). The M9 is heavier, by a long shot, and its longer, it might even be wider too, but the p226 is still a very heavy system compared to the "Modern" duty handguns that can supply the same results.

I would bet they go with a poly framed .40 or .45, and I bet FN steps up and completely monopolizes with their military contract (they already make most of the m4's m16's, m240's, m249's, mk19's, etc...). Hammer fired, decocker, Poly, .45 FN.
FYI... the FNX and FNP .45 both hold 15 (standard).

Both the FNX and P are fully modular in terms of accessories, quick change out from rear standard sights to any kind you want as well as different plates/brackets for a Red dot. They're similar to the M9 in function and size, but weigh half as much, using a .45 pill...

Speaking of that, check out my FNP .45 Tac haha, just picked it up

 

[Trigger Time]

Droooool

 

[Drail]

Whatever is chosen will be chosen for purely political reasons - just like the M9 was. And it will be chosen by people who know nothing about what is needed or what will work for the guys down in the dirt. Everything that happens is Washington is about making money - everything.

 

[tlandon]

It's like a retired NYPD Detective told me once. If you're going to fight, fight to win. There are no rules. Do whatever, and I mean whatever to win. And I totally agree.

 

[palerider0485]

as soon as they switch to a bigger caliber with less rounds they will want a smaller caliber with more.

 

[Thor]

as soon as they switch to a bigger caliber with less rounds they will want a smaller caliber with more.

I'm sure there will be people on both sides of that argument. Smaller caliber, higher velocity, longer point blank range VS larger caliber, lower velocity brush busting capability. The arguments and insults will go on for decades.

In the acquisition world of the five sided puzzle palace the SECDEF will make some comment on the competition and that's what they'll buy. Studies dutifully crafted to justify the decision.

 

[palerider0485]

how often dos the military use there hand guns in combat??? ive seen alot of balistics data that shows there isnt a huge difference between 9mm 40 45 cal. im not a balistices expert by any means though,

 

[ignats]

Not that often. A pistol is the last resort before rocks and harsh language. Some would have you believe every war this country was involved in was won by a .45 pistol (I've been a collector of M1911 and M1911 A1 pistols for years so don't gang up on me) but with shorter versions of the M16 rifle or carbine I see no real advantage to a pistol. Most troops aren't issued one anyhow.

 

[Thor]

View attachment 30578

The supply line for pistol ammo has always been light in comparison. It's difficult to carry a carbine in a holster while doing other tasks though so they have their place as backup, officers sidearm when not on the firing line etc.

 

[Seven High]

Beings as how the Brits recently went with the Glock 17, I predict that the DoD will as well if they ever decide to change, which is highly unlikely.

 

[halfmileharry]

Beings as how the Brits recently went with the Glock 17, I predict that the DoD will as well if they ever decide to change, which is highly unlikely.

We need to keep our military supplies made in the USA for obvious reasons. I personally would like to see us tell the world we'll use what the hell we want to fight to win. Heck with this political good guy hug a tree crap war stuff.
OUR enemies don't seem to abide by rules and such. We're gonna let them tie our hands behind our backs and fight a war? Screw that!
JHPs and the most destructive rounds we can use. Bingo!