Military wants a harder hitting pistol

[rustynuts]

No combat experience, but I have three M&Ps. Great guns.

[gaston_kalash]

People wanting to go back to the 1911 makes me think of Jurassic Park. I mean, don't get me wrong I love the 1911, but I don't think the mil is going to consider a low cap single action.

the USMC are using 1911's again.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[gaston_kalash]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/28/ma ... r-pistols/

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[shelbygoat]

My issued weapon is an M9. My Bradley is my primary weapon system. I give a shit if its a 9mm, 10mm, or .45. Truth be told is that you don't get enough real solid training with it(the pistol) yearly to make it matter in most cases. You have the EST2000 simulator and your yearly qualification. Those is a mainstream Army unit that carry an M9 are on a tracked vehicle. Those that are assigned to a wheeled vehicle or dismounted carry M4s, M240s, M249s, and Javelins. You train on your primary weapon system, which to many is the M4/M16 platform, crew-served weapon on a wheeled vehicle, or a tracked vehicle.

[Frailer]

My issued weapon is an M9. My Bradley is my primary weapon system. I give a shit if its a 9mm, 10mm, or .45. Truth be told is that you don't get enough real solid training with it(the pistol) yearly to make it matter in most cases. You have the EST2000 simulator and your yearly qualification. Those is a mainstream Army unit that carry an M9 are on a tracked vehicle. Those that are assigned to a wheeled vehicle or dismounted carry M4s, M240s, M249s, and Javelins. You train on your primary weapon system, which to many is the M4/M16 platform, crew-served weapon on a wheeled vehicle, or a tracked vehicle.

Exactly. Bottom line: there are few issues in the military that are more inconsequential than what caliber (or what pistol) is issued to armored vehicle crewmen, MPs, and TOC weinies. We could give them all .22s and it wouldn't matter.

Those folks who actually might *use* a pistol already get whatever they want.

[Jakob]

I have the (mis)fortune of being one of our battalions pistol coaches. So, I get to handle the M9 with some infrequency (3-4 times a year). More importantly, I get to work with many soldiers who shoot it and the reviews across those I work with would probably rate it at a 6 out of 10. Many more would like to see the 1911 frame returned to service, but I would say 50% of those are uneducated opinions. The other 50% only have the the lack of ammunition capacity to hold against the 1911.

[richief]

How bout a 45 caliber cz /
Sarsilmaz k2 .45acp
Good enough for the Turkish military!

[WLJ]

Problem: 9mm isn't the issue, being force to use ball ammo is the issue. As for the M9 platform, it can get scraped entirely.

Solution: Fuck the GC and use quality HP ammo and 9mm is still very much a viable option. Then ditch the M9, replace it with a G17 that is simple, easy and extremely reliable.

One of the only times you will hear me say this, They should go with the S&W M&P not the Glock. I say this for a few reasons, you could get them with a thumb safety, so you could please both them who like them and them who dont. Its an American made product by an American company, it just seems right. They already have or could supply slides cut for Red dot as well as extended , threaded barrels, and while I dont think its needed all the time , it would be nice if the sharp edge had the option without altering the firearm.

Let me be clear about this though, I am a Glock fan boy , go glock or go home.

The M&P, one of the most overlooked firearms of today IMO.
BTW: Anyone considered something along the lines of a CZ-75? Which is another overlooked firearm in IMO.

I love my CZ-75B (clone) except for the location of the mag release. It is also an internal slide (polymer frame) and could be difficult to manipulate with combat gloves.

75B polymer frame? The P07 and the P09 have a poly frame but not the 75.
But they all have the internal rails and are crazy accurate. As far as the release, there are aftermarket replacement releases.

[justang1997]

My issued weapon is an M9. My Bradley is my primary weapon system. I give a shit if its a 9mm, 10mm, or .45. Truth be told is that you don't get enough real solid training with it(the pistol) yearly to make it matter in most cases. You have the EST2000 simulator and your yearly qualification. Those is a mainstream Army unit that carry an M9 are on a tracked vehicle. Those that are assigned to a wheeled vehicle or dismounted carry M4s, M240s, M249s, and Javelins. You train on your primary weapon system, which to many is the M4/M16 platform, crew-served weapon on a wheeled vehicle, or a tracked vehicle.

Exactly. Bottom line: there are few issues in the military that are more inconsequential than what caliber (or what pistol) is issued to armored vehicle crewmen, MPs, and TOC weinies. We could give them all .22s and it wouldn't matter.

Those folks who actually might *use* a pistol already get whatever they want.

I agree with this 100%. I know from experience that my old units armory had 1911's and m9's to issue out and you got your choice. If a team wanted to carry Glocks they could. Same goes with ammo selection.

If regular army went with a polymer frame pistol that would be crazy Imo. It would probably show wear way sooner than a metal frame gun.

Sent from my Q10 using Tapatalk 2

[justang1997]

I bet a gen4 glock rtf would be worn smooth in a matter of a few deployments just from wear and tear of the grip being exposed while riding in a holster.

Sent from my Q10 using Tapatalk 2

[Jakob]

75B polymer frame? The P07 and the P09 have a poly frame but not the 75.
But they all have the internal rails and are crazy accurate. As far as the release, there are aftermarket replacement releases.

I said mine was a clone, it's a SARB6.

[WLJ]

75B polymer frame? The P07 and the P09 have a poly frame but not the 75.
But they all have the internal rails and are crazy accurate. As far as the release, there are aftermarket replacement releases.

I said mine was a clone, it's a SARB6.

Clone, got it

[WLJ]

http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/07/10/harde ... -nonsense/

“Harder hitting” nonsense…
by Tim • July 10, 2014

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve doubtless encountered this gem of a story from Fox News which covers the U.S. Army’s desire for a new handgun. The discussions about this tidbit of information online have generally been dominated by ignorance and soul-crushing idiocy. Let’s boil away all the nonsense and get a few facts straight on this.

1. The Beretta M9 has actually been a pretty good sidearm.

We’ve talked a bit about the Beretta 92/M9′s track record as an issued sidearm for the military and law enforcement before, but it’s worth reemphasizing here that the biggest problem the Beretta has had in military service is bad maintenance practices by the military itself. Springs don’t get replaced, parts that aren’t supposed to be reused get reused, and the military went out and bought a bunch of cheap magazines for them that didn’t work well. Remember that this is the same organization which preached minimal or no lube on carbines like Jimmy Swaggart on cocaine and then seemed somewhat stunned by the fact that guns shut down when used in combat. When you talk to people from units who took maintaining their issued M9 sidearms seriously, and who bothered to actually lubricate them properly, you hear that they were pretty darn reliable. The most annoying issue is probably breakage of the trigger return spring, but for some reason the military never followed the lead of the U.S. Border Patrol by buying the Wolff TCU to fix that.
The M9's service in the military has been better than many would have you believe.

The M9′s service in the military has been better than many would have you believe.

When the GWOT kicked off there were a ton of news stories about how bad the M4 was too, if you’ll remember. Turns out the M4 was just fine provided you lubricated the darn thing, kept up with maintenance, and used decent magazines rather than handing down worn beat to hell magazines like they were the frickin’ family silver. When you read these articles and the statements by somebody who knows somebody who was in unit X who said that the M9 sucked horribly, remember that not too long ago the same sort of doofuses (doofi? What’s the proper plural of that word?) were saying the M4 sucked and were pushing the need for a new rifle like the XM-8. The XM-8 which was based on the spectacularly awesome G36 which has never had any problems ever.

2. .40 S&W ball ammo, .45 ACP ball ammo, or .357 sig ball ammo is going to suck about the same as 9mm ball ammo.

One of the stated reasons for pursuing a new handgun is to get one that’s in a chambering with better terminal ballistics. That’s really a non-starter unless the military is willing to start using ammunition with expanding bullets. It’s particularly amusing to see the .357 sig in the list of considerations because the .357 sig is a .40 S&W case necked down to take a 9mm bullet…as if a .355 FMJ from a .357 sig is going to perform better than a .355 FMJ from a 9mm. If the Army wants better terminal ballistics, start issuing Gold Dots. No, dear reader, we’re not prohibited from using JHP ammunition by the Hague convention…and to paraphrase an exceptionally astute comment from a forum discussion on the topic, it’s patently absurd to issue hand grenades and shoulder-launched missiles and then wring our hands and fret over whether hollowpoints for handguns are “humane”. It’s ridiculous that in our society a police officer can shoot another American citizen with JHP ammo without any human rights concerns but somehow there’s a big problem if a Marine shoots some foreign dirtbag with the exact same ammo. You know, shooting him with a handgun rather than calling in an airstrike or blowing the whole structure the dude is hiding in to kingdom come with an Abrams tank. Derp.

The .40 S&W and .45 ACP hardball loads do bring some advantages to the table, but those advantages aren’t free. They bring with them costs in packaging, capacity, ease of use, and reliability that tend to negate any marginal terminal ballistics advantage you get from an extra .10″ of bullet diameter. These are not insignificant considerations when you’re issuing sidearms to small-statured males and females, and it’s one of the reasons why large organizations like the FBI have been issuing 9mm handguns pretty freely to those who struggle with the standard issue .40 caliber weapons.

3. The military does not take handgun training seriously.

Those who have never been in the military often make the mistake of assuming that everyone within the organization is extensively trained in the use of small arms. This is not true. The unpleasant reality is that a large chunk of the people in uniform (be that a police or military uniform) are extremely poorly trained with small arms. I know a number of people who did multiple tours in the military without ever once touching a weapon. The handgun training that does happen is very rudimentary, happens infrequently, isn’t sustained by any ongoing practice, and generally results in somebody who it is hoped will be at least intelligent enough to know which end of the tube the bullet comes out of. That’s it. Even infantrymen who are supposed to be the warfighters get minimal handgun training that doesn’t leave them remotely prepared to use the weapon under combat conditions. Some units within the military do take training seriously, and guys like “Super” Dave Harrington and Ernie Langdon spent a chunk of their career working on programs designed to teach necessary weapons skills to people going into harm’s way, but places like Range 37 and program’s like the USMC’s High Risk Personnel program are the exceptions rather than the rule.

If you’re fielding troops that are poorly trained with a handgun, it doesn’t bloody matter what size bullet you give them because they’re not going to put the bullet where it counts in the first place. The Fox News reporter who wrote the original story probably knows how to use Google and so he managed to stumble on Ernie Langdon who summed up the terminal ballistics situation nicely in the article by saying “…handgun bullets suck. You have to shoot people a lot with a handgun.” That’s an accurate summation of the many years of law enforcement shooting data that’s been collected here in the US.

The military doesn’t need to buy a bigger bullet and bet on magic, they need to actually take handgun training seriously. Even if a soldier is stuck with 9mm FMJ ammunition, if he/she is able to put a few of those FMJs in an Al Quaeda aorta it’s going to work. Handing a poorly trained troop a larger, heavier, lower capacity handgun with more recoil and hoping that the bigger bullet will make up for training shortfalls is lunacy. Police departments blessed with solid personnel have figured that stuff out and have made efforts to up their training game with excellent results on the street. Tools aren’t unimportant, but the military’s biggest handgun problem isn’t the quality of the tool, it’s the dearth of proper training on how to use the tool. Until that’s fixed the results won’t change no matter what shiny new thing they buy.

You might get the impression that I’m dead-set against the Army adopting a new handgun, but I’m not. I’m against making purchase decisions based on faulty assumptions and belief in the ballistic equivalent of voodoo. I’m especially against spending a bunch of money on equipment that doesn’t matter instead of channeling those resources to the training which does.

I’ll talk about where I think a new handgun makes sense next time…

[Frailer]

... I’m especially against spending a bunch of money on equipment that doesn’t matter...

This.

[WLJ]

Meanwhile
US Army Buys More Beretta M9 Pistols
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014 ... 9-pistols/