What pistol should the US Army replace the m9 with?

[the1kidd03]

And thanks for helping clear that up.

in the manufacturing/ supply chain industry...there is virtually NOTHING that is 100% american made anymore......gun A might be stamped on the frame as "built in Connecticut"..but that simply could mean it was imported there or assembled there.......the grip could have came from Europe, the steel parts from South America, etc,etc,etc........the best thing you can do to stick with the "principle" of buying "American made" is to buy from Amercian based/owned companies.....but being "American made" and "American owned" are two completely different things in this day an age

 

[richardraw316]

if this comes down like the ACR program did, we will spend tons of tax money on new entries, pick 5 that the government thinks will fit the role. Grant conracts to those five for millions of dollars, our tax money again. and then when its all said and done, stay with the m9, because its cheaper to keep it than it is to replace it. What a waste of time and money.

Now in the op it mentioned lack of power. the m9 had a 5 inch barrel, so anything chosen with a shorter barrel in 9mm is not going to be any better in this area. Forget .45, the government used it and got rid of it for a reason. It is effective, but also heavy, and our allies do not use it.
This leaves .40 or maybe 10mm. both are effective, and much lighter than .45. Getting them approved through nato should not be hard, if their not already. next would be 5.7x28mm. this has already been nato approved if i read correctly. large ammo cappacity. multiple weapons that can use it. only thing uncertain is effectiveness. i have no idea.

given the criteria i have just stated, i would figure a glock model, or the fn57. glock is very simplistic, reliable, light, and cheap to produce. it can be had in 40 or 10mm.
fn57 not cheap, but maybe they get a bulk discount. twenty round standard mags, is a huge advantage, and the round is very light. you could pretty much carry 3 times the ammo compared to .45.

i just hope the government makes this decesion based on whats best for the soldiers, and not on the bottom line. our boys deserve the best.

 

[VERT]

If we are talking about getting away from 9mm then I would think that. 357 sig would have to be considered as well.

 

[Eric05]

Something American

 

[jayhawk]

if this comes down like the ACR program did, we will spend tons of tax money on new entries, pick 5 that the government thinks will fit the role. Grant conracts to those five for millions of dollars, our tax money again. and then when its all said and done, stay with the m9, because its cheaper to keep it than it is to replace it. What a waste of time and money.

FYI, just because they grant contracts doesn't mean they issue delivery orders. Big difference between issuing an IDIQ contract (or something of the like) and an actual delivery order. Whenever my company gets one of these contracts the media likes to report that we got a "$20 mil" contract or whatever, when the gov't may only issue 5 mil in actual orders.

 

[richardraw316]

FYI, just because they grant contracts doesn't mean they issue delivery orders. Big difference between issuing an IDIQ contract (or something of the like) and an actual delivery order. Whenever my company gets one of these contracts the media likes to report that we got a "$20 mil" contract or whatever, when the gov't may only issue 5 mil in actual orders.

each of the company get so much to produce weapons for trial, going by what you said 5 mil a piece is 25 million total. to pay out that much and then stick with what they are already using, is just plain stupid.
25 million could go toward something alot more worth while. like a real nice battle rifle, so as soldiers would not need to rely on their side arm as much. just my.

 

[sig1473]

How about HK....P30, P2000, USP. All would be 9mm of course.

 

[jayhawk]

each of the company get so much to produce weapons for trial, going by what you said 5 mil a piece is 25 million total. to pay out that much and then stick with what they are already using, is just plain stupid.
25 million could go toward something alot more worth while. like a real nice battle rifle, so as soldiers would not need to rely on their side arm as much. just my.

Normally that is handled with a First Article Test, which typically results in a very small number of units. Since these are "off the shelf items" a FAT or trial, would not cost the government very much money at all in terms of materials used. It's very likely that these contracts are awarded at relatively slim margins.

The only big problem I can see by issuing multiple contracts is if they issue a contract to someone that doesn't already have a US factory and they don't order a significant volume from that OEM. In that case, the gov't may be responsible for covering costs incurred. It's hard to say without seeing the actual contracts, but they should be publicly available somewhere.

I saw an article referencing a 2008 contract for M9s that was a 3 year contract for 25,403 guns. That is the kind of contract you want to win (multi-year with definite quantities), though it can still be cancelled halfway through by the gov't.

each of the company get so much to produce weapons for trial, going by what you said 5 mil a piece is 25 million total. to pay out that much and then stick with what they are already using, is just plain stupid.
25 million could go toward something alot more worth while. like a real nice battle rifle, so as soldiers would not need to rely on their side arm as much. just my.

They won't issue delivery orders for that much unless there is a need in the supply system or it is defined by a contract minimum. There are caveats to that of course, but typically not for new contracts.

 

[richardraw316]

Normally that is handled with a First Article Test, which typically results in a very small number of units. Since these are "off the shelf items" a FAT or trial, would not cost the government very much money at all in terms of materials used. It's very likely that these contracts are awarded at relatively slim margins.

The only big problem I can see by issuing multiple contracts is if they issue a contract to someone that doesn't already have a US factory and they don't order a significant volume from that OEM. In that case, the gov't may be responsible for covering costs incurred. It's hard to say without seeing the actual contracts, but they should be publicly available somewhere.

I saw an article referencing a 2008 contract for M9s that was a 3 year contract for 25,403 guns. That is the kind of contract you want to win (multi-year with definite quantities), though it can still be cancelled halfway through by the gov't.



They won't issue delivery orders for that much unless there is a need in the supply system or it is defined by a contract minimum. There are caveats to that of course, but typically not for new contracts.

im just thinking if the intention is to keep 9mm, then their is no need to change platforms. it is just not cost effective. now if they are willing to change caliber, then a new or just different design would make alot of sense.
i personally have never fired a m9, but i had a taurus pt92, pretty much the same thing, just with a better location for safety/decocker, and it was flawless. it would eat anything you put through it, and was very accurate. this included cheap ammo, +p ammo, +p+ ammo, and those little shot shells by cci. the latter was because i was curious. was very funny.
9mm ball ammo sucks. since we have to use ball ammo, lets go for bigger. 40 or 10mm.

 

[richardraw316]

Something American

i would change that to something built by americans.
alot of countries make very nice and functional weapons, and as long as they are willing to have a factory here, and use our workers, then i am open to any country for the design.

 

[jayhawk]

It might be worthwhile if they could get a deal like Glock offers to law enforcement. And it could all be posturing to get Beretta to lower their bid on a new contract. But I have no idea what they are paying for M9s now.

 

[MAJB Retired]

Colt 1911

 

[richardraw316]

lets save time and money, just have taurus build a whole bunch of pt92s. that has to be cheaper and no safety on the slide. plus lifetime warranty, so break em and send em back. hehe

 

[jayhawk]

According to this http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayR...STORY=/www/story/01-29-2009/0004962662&EDATE=

They are paying about $489 per M9. So, I imagine they could save money in the long run by switching to a polymer gun, which typically cost a lot less than that to produce.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

LeMat revolver! It was good enough for, well... I guess that was a while back, but with speedloaders, maybe...

 

[CSORuger]

Jericho 941



Polymer FramesFull-sizeSemi-compactCompactCaliber9x1940S&W9x1940S&W9x1940S&WMfg. Part No.Israel Weapon Industries*941 FL/RL (16/15rd)941 FL/RL (12rd)941 SL/RSL (16/15rd)941 SL/RSL (12rd)941 FBL/RBL (13rd)941 FBL/RBL (10rd)Magnum ResearchN/AMR9900RSL (10rd)
MR9915RSL (15rd)MR9400RSL (10rd)MR9900BL (10rd)MR9400BL (10rd)Weight**Pistol w/o magazine800 g (1.8 lb)720 g (1.6 lb)680 g (1.5 lb)Magazine empty90 g (0.2 lb)90 g (0.2 lb)80 g (0.2 lb)Loaded magazine282 g (0.6 lb)275 g (0.6 lb)282 g (0.6 lb)275 g (0.6 lb)250 g (0.6 lb)230 g (0.5 lb)DimensionsOverall length207 mm (8.1 in)192 mm (7.6 in)185 mm (7.3 in)Height138 mm (5.4 in)138 mm (5.4 in)122 mm (4.8 in)Width38 mm (1.5 in)38 mm (1.5 in)38 mm (1.5 in)Barrel length112 mm (4.4 in)96 mm (3.8 in)89 mm (3.5 in)Sight line radius156 mm (6.1 in)141 mm (5.6 in)134 mm (5.3 in)*Optional finishes available.
**Overall weights may vary due to manufacturing differences and accuracy of scale.

 

[FFJakeT]

in the manufacturing/ supply chain industry...there is virtually NOTHING that is 100% american made anymore......gun A might be stamped on the frame as "built in Connecticut"..but that simply could mean it was imported there or assembled there.......the grip could have came from Europe, the steel parts from South America, etc,etc,etc........the best thing you can do to stick with the "principle" of buying "American made" is to buy from Amercian based/owned companies.....but being "American made" and "American owned" are two completely different things in this day an age

I understand that. And I think that it is a shame. I guess I am partial to "American companies." yes i know somethings are "American made" in other countries. BUT since someone stated that since beretta won that contract, that they had to maufacture them here. So they started Beretta USA. Say for instance that S&W or Ruger (sorry I love the SR series pistols lol) gets the contract. That is an AMERICAN company, and they would be made to manufacture everything here. So, in my view point, that would mean EVERY american taxpayer dollar sent on the military sidearm selected, would go to an American company, building American guns, made my American workers, for American Soldiers. now THAT sounds like a good plan to me. but hey... just my lol ....and yes I know the Ruger is not in the selection that we know of, I was just using a (biased) example.

 

[Kagnew]

I thought the m9 was off of a beretta 92. which would be an italian made gun. or do i need corrected? and i was also stating that whatever they decide to repace it with (if they do) should be an american made gun. I was going off the assumption that it was basically a Beretta that was given another name. but i know what happens when you assume as well.

The M9 is made by BerettaUSA at their plant in Accokeek, Maryland. Consider yourself corrected.

 

[dice dealer]

New Beretta 92's

 

[Seven High]

The DoD is presently downsizing personnel. Yet they have commited to purchasing an additional 450,000 M9a1s. Makes me wonder what is really going on.