US Army Wants to Replace Beretta

[in625shooter]

If you think 30carbine or 45acp are a more effective round then 5.56 against the human body i think we are done. Someone on INGO was saying 45acp was better then 7.62x51 was that you also?

No, and I wasn't saying that here,what I did say was the 45 (as well as the 30 Carbine) has a larger power factor (muzzle velocity multiplied by bullet weight and divided by 1,000) That is an old Jeff Cooper (I think he is the one that came up with it) USPSA/IPSC use it today. The 45 ACP and 30 carbine have a larger power factor by that scale but that doesn't necessarily make them better. My reference to this was done because some are all about the numbers. While the power factor scale is good it is antiquated. Look at the improvement of 9mm JHP ammunition these days compared to the dismal stoppers it was 25 years ago. The improvement has nothing to do with power factor (they still have the same bullet weights at the same velocity) it has to do with ammo companies getting the bullets and materials bullets are made from to both expand and penetrate at those speeds. Something they didn't really have down all those years ago.

Each caliber has their own trait/ While a 45 or 30 carbine might be better (or at least adequate) at short ranges obviously they wouldn't (and couldn't) at farther ranges. Could a 5.56 do the job at close range??? Of course Thats why a lot of SWAT teams (including the FBI) has migrated to the M4 from the MP 5 system. Others have a concern of over penetration (which some tests have shown handgun rounds penetrate more than previously thought, not to mention the development in technology by the ammo companies as mentioned above that have benefited the 9mm)

 

[Drail]

Every old GI I have ever talked to about the M1 Carb. said the exact same thing about it - your first priority was to get rid of it ASAP and find something better.

 

[Robjps]

No, and I wasn't saying that here,what I did say was the 45 (as well as the 30 Carbine) has a larger power factor (muzzle velocity multiplied by bullet weight and divided by 1,000) That is an old Jeff Cooper (I think he is the one that came up with it) USPSA/IPSC use it today. The 45 ACP and 30 carbine have a larger power factor by that scale but that doesn't necessarily make them better. My reference to this was done because some are all about the numbers. While the power factor scale is good it is antiquated. Look at the improvement of 9mm JHP ammunition these days compared to the dismal stoppers it was 25 years ago. The improvement has nothing to do with power factor (they still have the same bullet weights at the same velocity) it has to do with ammo companies getting the bullets and materials bullets are made from to both expand and penetrate at those speeds. Something they didn't really have down all those years ago.

Each caliber has their own trait/ While a 45 or 30 carbine might be better (or at least adequate) at short ranges obviously they wouldn't (and couldn't) at farther ranges. Could a 5.56 do the job at close range??? Of course Thats why a lot of SWAT teams (including the FBI) has migrated to the M4 from the MP 5 system. Others have a concern of over penetration (which some tests have shown handgun rounds penetrate more than previously thought, not to mention the development in technology by the ammo companies as mentioned above that have benefited the 9mm)

I seen your PM

I think we are on the same page mostly, all i am getting at is why chamber in 5.7 if the firearm is large enough to use 5.56. 5.7 suffers from all the problems of 5.56 to even a greater degree of being half the weight at 3/4 the speed while gaining no real benefits.

I stated early on in this thread in the very close cqb it will work just fine. So will pistol calibers but i have no idea why any military would want a long gun that limited range even more then 5.56. Which i assume is why no one uses it.

 

[in625shooter]

I seen your PM

I think we are on the same page mostly, all i am getting at is why chamber in 5.7 if the firearm is large enough to use 5.56. 5.7 suffers from all the problems of 5.56 to even a greater degree of being half the weight at 3/4 the speed while gaining no real benefits.

I stated early on in this thread in the very close cqb it will work just fine. So will pistol calibers but i have no idea why any military would want a long gun that limited range even more then 5.56. Which i assume is why no one uses it.

The same reason lots of good calibers don't get adopted. Those running things settle on a specific round for specific things. Sometimes those running things or deciding things knows what they are doing with ballistics and specific firearms and sometimes they do not. When the USSS went to the 5.7 in very limited quantities then they had their own unique reason. Why the FBI SWAT did away with all of their 10mm MP 5's and went almost all 5.56 M4 several years ago. Because the overpenetration fears of 5.56 was exaggerated and 5.56 was a good balance with minimal barricades, penetration and power over their 10mm MP 5's. Why did the 6.8 (a promising cartridge at the time along with the 6.5 Grendal) Fail then the 300 Blackout did better????? To much infighting and the fact logistically the 5.56 is here to stay for a long long time as a Military round Probably will out live most of us on this forum not matter how much some want a different cartridge.

But those calibers have noting to do with the Beretta and standard handgun aka pistol cartridges. If the Military goes away from the Beretta or a firearm with a manual safety for general issue (outside of some specialty career fields I doubt SIG's will get the nod due to cost and some troops can't fathom the whole de cocker technique) they will probably go with 1. a 9mm and 2 a striker fired (Glock S&W M&P). You can not beat their cost and simplified manual of arms (try training general issue troops and you will feel my pain on that) but in reality the Military will be in the Beretta business for a LONG LONG time So in 12 months there will be another "Military to replace Beretta or 9mm or whatever thread" Because someone not running anything has their own wet dream on what they think it should be.

 

[Robjps]

try training general issue troops and you will feel my pain on that

Wife's entire family brother father uncle are all army i know this pain all to well. The fact they "served" in Iraq (trust me not aimed at people that actually did anything they all were kicked out for being dip****s some just took longer) is somehow their trump card for any argument. I always retort to "I was in the army i know what I'm doing." with "I don't think that means what you think it does." the confused look afterwards is the best.

*This post is not aimed at anyone worth a ****, but the private pyles of the world.

Back on topic, Glock 17 or MP would be my personal choice. The cost to performance not to mention weight savings make it ideal imo. Not sure how well the no safety will work with quality people like my in-laws.

 

[Alamo]

This thread is still alive?

I think this latest go-around is generated more by acquisition strategy than new requirements. Beretta has been making the M-9 a long time, and they are the only ones making it. They probably have the actual production costs shaved down to the absolute bare minimum. The Army would like to pay less, and get some upgrades like lighter weight, rails, etc, but since Beretta is the sole supplier, the Army's negotiating position is not real strong -- unless they make it clear to Beretta that maybe they won't be the sole supplier. You do that by looking like you are serious about starting a new competition, thus undercutting Beretta's position as sole-source. And Presto! all those upgrades that were going to cost a pretty penny per pistol suddenly show up in a very reasonably-priced ECP.

and a p.s. By law production contracts can be let for a maximum of five years --- usually one base year with real money on it, and four yearly options. Then one must re-compete the contract, or come up with a justification for sole-sourcing it back to the original vendor. Even if you think it is likely you can come up with a good reason to sole-source it back to Beretta, prepping for a competition might flush out a new solution (i.e. different pistol) that looks like it has a combination of performance and price that still beats a sole-source. (and it pressures the sole-source to keep his prices in line). There's a point where you have to cut it off, it is not ethical or legal to make other companies think they have a real chance and convince them to spend lotsa $$ on the competition when you have already decided to go with sole-source, but until you get to that decision, you can put out RFIs and hold conferences and such on "the new pistol" to see what the market might provide.

And ultimately the most cost effective decision that meets performance might be sticking with the same pistol.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Another delay: Army Delays Effort to Replace M9 9mm Pistol | Military.com

Anyone shocked?

Beretta countered with it's M9A3...will the army reconsider? It doesn't want to apparently. The whole point of MHS (reiterated last summer: Army Wants a Harder-Hitting Pistol | Military.com) was to upgrade to a much more effective harder hitting round. A nicer 9mm is still a NATO 9mm. In the usual DoD/Army way they will ponder what to do for a while longer.

So......................................................we wait.

 

[ratames]

The same reason lots of good calibers don't get adopted. Those running things settle on a specific round for specific things. Sometimes those running things or deciding things knows what they are doing with ballistics and specific firearms and sometimes they do not. When the USSS went to the 5.7 in very limited quantities then they had their own unique reason. Why the FBI SWAT did away with all of their 10mm MP 5's and went almost all 5.56 M4 several years ago. Because the overpenetration fears of 5.56 was exaggerated and 5.56 was a good balance with minimal barricades, penetration and power over their 10mm MP 5's. Why did the 6.8 (a promising cartridge at the time along with the 6.5 Grendal) Fail then the 300 Blackout did better????? To much infighting and the fact logistically the 5.56 is here to stay for a long long time as a Military round Probably will out live most of us on this forum not matter how much some want a different cartridge.

But those calibers have noting to do with the Beretta and standard handgun aka pistol cartridges. If the Military goes away from the Beretta or a firearm with a manual safety for general issue (outside of some specialty career fields I doubt SIG's will get the nod due to cost and some troops can't fathom the whole de cocker technique) they will probably go with 1. a 9mm and 2 a striker fired (Glock S&W M&P). You can not beat their cost and simplified manual of arms (try training general issue troops and you will feel my pain on that) but in reality the Military will be in the Beretta business for a LONG LONG time So in 12 months there will be another "Military to replace Beretta or 9mm or whatever thread" Because someone not running anything has their own wet dream on what they think it should be.

Actually, I think Sig will be a real contender now with the P320. The cost is comparable to a Glock but much more flexible, and it's striker fired with a sweet trigger.

 

[modelflyer2003]

Not sure if it's true, but I would love to get my hand on one of the M9s. I carried one for 4 years in US Air Force law enforcement. 1989 to 1993. I bought a Beretta 92F Compact version so I could practice with the same type of handgun.

 

[BigMoose]

There is something that I think is being overlooked, and I think it points to a caliber change. I will post a quote from the recent military.com article.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current plans call for the Army to purchase more than 280,000 handguns from a single vendor, with delivery of the first new handgun systems scheduled for 2017, according to PEO Soldier officials. The Army also plans to buy approximately 7,000 sub-compact versions of the handgun.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7000 sub-conpact versions is the key. Why would they bother replacing the M11 if they were not going to change calibers. For those who may not know, the M11 is a Sig made 9mm compact product that was intended to replace the old S&W victory 38SPL revolvers for the USAF and USN. It's a low use niche pistol. It doesn't see the abuse the M9 does. So WHY else would you replace the M9 AND the M11? These 7000 sub compacts would be to replace the M11. This has been totally missed by most in the community.

To me this SCREAMS "CALIBER CHANGE"! There is no reason to replace the M11 pistol unless your getting rid of 9MM totally. Change the main issue pistol to another caliber and you end up with the M11s being a really weird oddball. (ironically just like the old S&W revolvers were).

Special Ops will of course just buy whatever it wants......