Military To Replace M9 With?

[the1kidd03]

I'm in complete agreement. I'm just curious as to others' thoughts. And by the way, is FN the only company that manufactures guns in that caliber?


Doh! Not trying to jack your thread.

I believe so.....I think they actually designed the round....an FN guru may correct me if I'm wrong...but that is the impression I have been under for a number of years

 

[jwhite]

Dont think they should replace it. But if i had to choose.. 1911!

 

[ckcollins2003]

Uhh....I'll stir this pot....I chose bacon. But what about the 5-7? I'm not saying its the best or the only, but it is high capacity and long range, external safety and a rail. Is it not even to be considered? I realize 5.7x28 is a .22 mag on steroids, but in my meager opinion this is a wicked gun and a sweet little round. Also pretty overpriced.

I'll pass on the 5-7 for a service pistol. Although it's a sweet round, there's absolutely no stopping power with it.

Whatever they choose, I hope it's a .45.

 

[Fastmover]

also expensive ammo....not a big seller with the government

Yeah govt hates spending our hard earned tax dollars....

 

[mk2ja]

M9...A1...

Honestly, the only place I've seen or heard guys complaining about the M9 are:
1. Guys who want to impress their friends with their gun knowledge, claiming the M9 is junk (after watching a show on Spike TV about it)
2. Internet gunboards (where half the crap people say is unmitigated, parroted and unresearched)
3. Gunshops where the Glocks are king (decent margin) and trouble free in the hands of the average gun owner (not shooter).

Everyone I have talked with that was in the service that was issued one didn't have any problems with them (unless they had the garbage mags that the military has long since replaced). Most folks thought of the M9 as a necessary evil (they didn't carry a rifle due to their job) they had to carry, that I talked with. Also, the guys that actually SAW combat didn't even care what they had (no preferance), just wanted something that worked and the M9 did.

In fact, most of the folks that I talked with wern't gun people, despite being in the military. Most just wanted something to point at bad guy and kill them, period.

Face it folks. We all want to have our preferred gun be what the military carries. I am willing to bet someone wants them to carry a Hi Point because they like theirs. Beretta has a sweet gun with a darn good .gov contract, that's not going away soon. If they replace it, it will be with a ray gun.

IF they want to change something for more "effectiveness", ditch the FMJRN and go with the truncated cone the US Air Force initially wanted at the beginning of this crap. We dont use subguns much anymore, why keep trying to cater to that? Give our boys 'sum moar metplat!!

I'm in the process of joining the Marines; I obviously don't have personal combat experience, but I've talked to a lot of folks who have—marines, Navy combat swimmers and corpsmen, Army NCOs among them—and the general consensus is that they don't like the M9. One of my close friends who was a corpsman said that he had an option of the M9, the 1911, or the Sig Sauer P226. Depending on the mission, he might switch between the Sig and the 1911, but he never wanted the M9.

Myself, I've only shot these weapons at targets that weren't shooting back at me. But from those experiences, I've been able to determine that I didn't like the way a M9 shoots at all. It looks like a freaking sweet gun (in fact, I even picked up a Taurus PT101 because I like the look so much), but I decided that it would never be my carry weapon because I just don't like the way it does its job.

My point is simple: there are plenty of servicemen who don't like the M9. And the reasons for the displeasure are more than simply, "I'm a 1911 guy, so I wish they'd go back to those."

 

[the1kidd03]

Most guys I know and served with like the M9's.....I'm sure there are those that don't...but the majority do......plus it's hard to get an accurate account for a fair opinion of a gun until you've put at least a thousand rounds through it to know how efficient you could be with it

 

[CarmelHP]

IF they want to change something for more "effectiveness", ditch the FMJRN and go with the truncated cone the US Air Force initially wanted at the beginning of this crap.

I still have a few boxes of that ammo in .45 and 9mm (Hornady developed the bullet and sold it in their old Frontier cartridge line in the early '80's). I like the bullet but can't see it making a big difference in effectiveness.

 

[darthfader]

pretty sure that they will be switching some units to glock 19...

 

[jeremy]

pretty sure that they will be switching some units to glock 19...

Doubt it...

 

[LPMan59]

there is no such thing as/room for "sportsmanship" in war

 

[the1kidd03]

Doubt it...

How many guys you work with that would take a glock over the M9?

I wouldn't, but I'm not much of a Glock fan to begin with...more hype than anything, simple and affordable

 

[jeremy]

How many guys you work with that would take a glock over the M9?

Does not matter due to the Fact that the 19 is not even a Choice in the JCP Trials, and the Only Glock is a 21SF...

Everyone shoots a little differently. The Beretta is not a bad pistol, no better or worse than a Glock, or Sig, or Colt, Or HK, or FN, or insert any pistol manufacturer. My only Complaint with the M9 is it is to nose light for my tastes, and I REALLY dislike where there Decocker is located at.

 

[tradertator]

I vote we keep what we've got, and pay the debt down. Seems like shopping for a new handgun should be pretty close to the bottom of US' priority list.

 

[jeremy]

I vote we keep what we've got, and pay the debt down. Seems like shopping for a new handgun should be pretty close to the bottom of US' priority list.

Replacing the M-9 is like the Search to replace the M-16/M-4...

****ing pointless...

 

[pinshooter45]

I'll put my money on the Smiths. A little over 5 years ago I worked with a guy who just got out of the Navy and he still had contacts in the military, And I think I remeber reading something about this too. But one of the branches maybe the Marines had ordered several thosand Smith M&P's in either .40 or .45cal. But It got pulld by the House Armed services Comittee. Also another freind just a couple of years ago said he had friends over in Iraq in Marine Recon and they were back to using .45's, can't remeber whether it was 1911's or Smiths or what. He also told me that many of his buddys were getting Hornaday Tap ammo through round about channels, cause I was asking him If he knew were I could get some. And told me that's why they were hard to find. BTW the Navy guy had the unpleasant task of dumping thousands of 1911's into the ocean. he said some of them were brand new and some were in walnut boxes like presentation grade, I got ill when I heard that cause I had just purchased my Colt 1911. No way for me to confirm their stories but it sounds like typical government crap!

 

[Hornett]

If they don't change calibers, there's no point in changing pistols, so I chose bacon.

Edit: And bacon is winning.

 

[Rob377]

I heard they're getting Sig 226s in 10mm. True story.

 

[teddy12b]

The M9 is a fine pistol and the 9mm kills anything it hits in the head or heart. Having said that I think the US went to the 9mm because they could either have a pistol that had 7 rounds in the mag, or 15 rounds in the mag. If I had to choose between the two I personally would side with having 45 rounds of ammo on me rather than 21.

I chose bacon because I'd like to see an option that the military hasn't really explored. The 10mm would be a fine sidearm for the military and when you combine that with the reliability of the glock then I think you have an incredible combination. 15 rounds of ammo that's more powerful than a 9mm or 45acp or 357mag for that matter, but is also very soft recoiling and very controlable in a glock frame. I chose bacon, because my glock 20SF is what I bet our bacon on every night when my family goes to bed.

 

[ckcollins2003]

The M9 is a fine pistol and the 9mm kills anything it hits in the head or heart. Having said that I think the US went to the 9mm because they could either have a pistol that had 7 rounds in the mag, or 15 rounds in the mag. If I had to choose between the two I personally would side with having 45 rounds of ammo on me rather than 21.

Maybe you should look up an H&K USP45 Tactical and other double stack .45's. Yes, the 1911 does only hold 7, but again you have the difference between a 9mm and a .45. There's a reason the 9mm holds more, the bullets are much smaller and don't have the knockdown power. You need more ammo because you're going to use more before stopping the threat unless you hit them in the head or the heart.

The .45 gives you the knockdown power that our guys really need, because lets face it, if you're close enough to where you can use your pistol, you're too close to use something that won't stop the threat instantly.

Of course most of these problems can even be solved with the 9mm if we could use critical defense ammo, but hollow points are banned from being used in an international conflict...

It's the same as the 7.62X39 vs 5.56mm NATO. I've seen a man bust down a door, shoot a man with his M4 3 times from about 3 feet away, and the guy shoots back like nothing hit him. One of those 7.62X39 rounds hit our guy in the vest and sent him flying back into the wall. He was out of the fight for a few hours, but that Iraqi didn't even know he had been shot.

 

[zqdime]

wait, they can use depleted uranium and incendiary rounds but they can't use hollow points?