• Frank's Lesson's Contest

    We want to see your skills! Post a video between now and November 1st showing what you've learned from Frank's lessons and 3 people will be selected to win a free shirt. Good luck everyone!

    Create a channel Learn more

  • Having trouble using the site?

    Contact support

Army To Replace The 9mm

#2
It won't happen for a decade. There is no money for this at all......

Not saying I wouldn't mind it, I am too old and already served, so for me it will never matter. I was there for the first transition to the 9mm and never liked it then. The logistics of training, re arming, ammo, holsters etc, is mind numbing, not considering the "draw down" or whatever you want to call it.

On the thoughts of ammo, who knows, we as in the U.S. completely restrict ourselves due to the treaties and conventions we have signed. There are plenty of 9mm rounds that would work, the armed forces will never use them. Here is my solution though, 1911 in .38 Super. There - throw a wrench in conventional thought.
 
#3
JMHO, but if they do switch, I think they will go with a .40 over a .45 but the bigger question would be who will get the contract. As most conflicts are calming down and the next big "downsizing" is on the horizon, this won't happen for some time.
 
#4
Hairball said:
JMHO, but if they do switch, I think they will go with a .40 over a .45 but the bigger question would be who will get the contract. As most conflicts are calming down and the next big "downsizing" is on the horizon, this won't happen for some time.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, "Conflicts calming down." Haha. How long do you think that will last. Ill give you even money the US will be at least partially, perhaps fully involved in another conflict, mid east or elsewhere in 6 months. There is too much money in weapons for the defense contractor lobby's to let peace happen. My guess is the mid east, as, since we have been backing out of there, heat is coming on the Israeli's, for the first time since 911. Who gets more aid than all others combined? Get the picture?
 
#5
Giving financial aid is not the same thing, all services will be cutting ranks over the next few years. Next PRES election is only two years away, the people don't want is so the candidates will be against it....until they are elected. No doubt, war is big business but compared to what we have been doing over the last 10 years, it is slowing way down.

EDIT: recent quote "Even as Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Monday that future budget reductions cut "so deep, so quickly, that we cannot shrink the size of our military fast enough," pink slips were already on their way to soldiers".
 
Last edited:
#6
Was a dumb move to go to the 9mm when we did most of the tier 1 units still use the 45 although it's always about bullet placement I would still vote for a 230 grain +p as the round to base the gun on

I also agree it won't happen for 5-10 years anyway if at all
 
#9
However, the number of those that actually engage in combat is so small compared to overall numbers that a switch to 9mm was cost effective. Depending upon what statistical model you reference, anywhere from 6-10 percent of active duty military ever fire their weapons or engage in direct combat. For every person at the "tip of the spear" there are another 20-40 support personnel holding up the pole that never witness combat or fire the weapon they are required to carry around with them everyday in theater. While services still maintain weapons for their force, budget cuts force cutbacks and this is one place that the services can save a considerable amount of money. Maybe the Army needs better bullet placement and not increased bullet weight. Here is an interesting read:

Ballistics 9mm Stopping Power vs .40 S&W and .45 ACP ammo bullet expansion penetration
 
Last edited:
#10
Hairball said:
However, the number of those that actually engage in combat is so small compared to overall numbers that a switch to 9mm was cost effective. Depending upon what statistical model you reference, anywhere from 6-10 percent of active duty military ever fire their weapons or engage in direct combat. For every person at the "tip of the spear" there are another 20-40 support personnel holding up the pole that never witness combat or fire the weapon they are required to carry around with them everyday in theater. While services still maintain weapons for their force, budget cuts force cutbacks and this is one place that the services can save a considerable amount of money. Maybe the Army needs better bullet placement and not increased bullet weight. Here is an interesting read:

Ballistics 9mm Stopping Power vs .40 S&W and .45 ACP ammo bullet expansion penetration
Click to expand...

You're right unfortunately. Back when they did the "surge" in Afgh and we were at 130k troops, I'd say that easily 120k could have left their weapons in the States. I may be off by a bit, but I don't think I'm exaggerating.
 
#11
bogeybrown said:
You're right unfortunately. Back when they did the "surge" in Afgh and we were at 130k troops, I'd say that easily 120k could have left their weapons in the States. I may be off by a bit, but I don't think I'm exaggerating.
Click to expand...

+1, and yet those 120k seem to all come back with "PTSD" and war stories, even though they never left the FOB. That's one of the few things in life that actually gets me bent out of shape.
 
#13
leprechaun said:
Was a dumb move to go to the 9mm when we did most of the tier 1 units still use the 45 although it's always about bullet placement I would still vote for a 230 grain +p as the round to base the gun on

I also agree it won't happen for 5-10 years anyway if at all
Click to expand...

Why does everyone bring up "tier 1 units"... ALWAYS. You do realize that a lot of handguns in various SOF units inventories are 9mm right? More specifically Glocks and SIGs.

Now, I think the M9 is an outdated design (Walther P38 essentially). However, military pistols generally speaking are carried a lot, shot very little. All of my personal weapons are 9mm, with current bullet designs it does well in the handgun ballistic category. 9mm ball which is the standard military issue, is the problem.

Personally, if they went with a modern striker fired design in any caliber it would be a very nice upgrade, and cheaper. The M9 isn't a bad pistol, it just takes a lot of training to use the DA/SA at its best and the slide mounted decocker is a horrible design for a combat pistol. Instead of pouring money into new equipment the .mil as a whole should be pouring money into effective training and ammunition.
 
#14
Im a tin foil guy on this.

So two years ago this was talked about and the mil ended up spending a bunch on new slides/upgrades for the current inventory putting the rumor to bed.

Now its a done deal.

What changed? Im thinking a manufacturer became very vocal about a political football, even cancelled a manufacturing expansion in one state to move to a more friendly state.

Now the mil is going to buy other guns?

Any doubt someone would play games and spend money budget be damned to make a point?

I never liked that big bitch with such a little bore but if my tin foil hat is on to something I may just buy a Berreta.

Save me from my suspicions. I fear you will end up with some gun that requires an electronic pinky ring to fire it and the political cadre officer will turn the ring on or off as need be.
 
Last edited:
#15
Hairball said:
However, the number of those that actually engage in combat is so small compared to overall numbers that a switch to 9mm was cost effective. Depending upon what statistical model you reference, anywhere from 6-10 percent of active duty military ever fire their weapons or engage in direct combat. For every person at the "tip of the spear" there are another 20-40 support personnel holding up the pole that never witness combat or fire the weapon they are required to carry around with them everyday in theater. While services still maintain weapons for their force, budget cuts force cutbacks and this is one place that the services can save a considerable amount of money. Maybe the Army needs better bullet placement and not increased bullet weight. Here is an interesting read:

Ballistics 9mm Stopping Power vs .40 S&W and .45 ACP ammo bullet expansion penetration
Click to expand...

Of that 6-10%, if they're using handguns its a bad day.
 
#16
Delta4-3 said:
+1, and yet those 120k seem to all come back with "PTSD" and war stories, even though they never left the FOB. That's one of the few things in life that actually gets me bent out of shape.
Click to expand...

Yep, you nailed that shit. I was sitting around with a CSM a couple of years ago, talking about the RIF after the war, and I raised the issue that no one ever really separates from the mil anymore. Basically every single troop claims a disability when they get out. The guys who didn't EARN a disability will have slips, trips, falls, and most commonly: weight room injuries. When all else fails the guys who can't fake an injury claim PTSD. So a RIF is meaningless because everyone is still drawing a check. The CSM looks at me and tells me that HE has a 90% disability rating for PTSD plus the other 10% from some other shit. I about fucking lost it.

There are guys like yourself that have fucking EARNED every benefit and more. If we quit giving away benefits to the huge number of bitches then the guys with REAL injuries could actually get some solid benefits and the VA wouldn't be so swamped.

Sorry for the derail. Now back to "whatever we choose as the next service pistol will suck too".
 
#19
I lusted after a Beretta for many years. Then I bought one and hated it. After shooting 1911's its hard to accept a decrease in function, accuracy and relaibility. 9mm is a perfectly fine round, what would it be like if the issue sidearm was the sig 226?
 
#21
bogeybrown said:
Yep, you nailed that shit. I was sitting around with a CSM a couple of years ago, talking about the RIF after the war, and I raised the issue that no one ever really separates from the mil anymore. Basically every single troop claims a disability when they get out. The guys who didn't EARN a disability will have slips, trips, falls, and most commonly: weight room injuries. When all else fails the guys who can't fake an injury claim PTSD. So a RIF is meaningless because everyone is still drawing a check. The CSM looks at me and tells me that HE has a 90% disability rating for PTSD plus the other 10% from some other shit. I about fucking lost it.

There are guys like yourself that have fucking EARNED every benefit and more. If we quit giving away benefits to the huge number of bitches then the guys with REAL injuries could actually get some solid benefits and the VA wouldn't be so swamped.

Sorry for the derail. Now back to "whatever we choose as the next service pistol will suck too".
Click to expand...

Say Mr Bogey, I know this is off topic, but as an 8531 what did you train the troops on? Ie what all weapons were you instructing them on? And whats the difference between Primary Marksmanship Instructor and Combat Marksmanship Instructor?



Otherwise, I think a good 1911 would be a fine choice. Or a Glock/XD/M&P, or heck just about anything long as it runs good and hits where its supposed to. Provided we have to stick with FMJ ball, .45 or atleast .40S&W should be the direction to look IMO.

If it was up to me Id second [MENTION=91385]Darkside-Six[/MENTION] on the MEU-SOC/M45 CQBP. Thats one slick sidearm right there.
 
#22
bogeybrown said:
Yep, you nailed that shit. I was sitting around with a CSM a couple of years ago, talking about the RIF after the war, and I raised the issue that no one ever really separates from the mil anymore. Basically every single troop claims a disability when they get out. The guys who didn't EARN a disability will have slips, trips, falls, and most commonly: weight room injuries. When all else fails the guys who can't fake an injury claim PTSD. So a RIF is meaningless because everyone is still drawing a check. The CSM looks at me and tells me that HE has a 90% disability rating for PTSD plus the other 10% from some other shit. I about fucking lost it.

There are guys like yourself that have fucking EARNED every benefit and more. If we quit giving away benefits to the huge number of bitches then the guys with REAL injuries could actually get some solid benefits and the VA wouldn't be so swamped.

Sorry for the derail. Now back to "whatever we choose as the next service pistol will suck too".
Click to expand...

You couldnt be more right! I work in the psych ward of a VA Hosp. I could tell you stories...(but I cant tell you stories)...
 
#23
Smcarroll said:
I lusted after a Beretta for many years. Then I bought one and hated it. After shooting 1911's its hard to accept a decrease in function, accuracy and relaibility. 9mm is a perfectly fine round, what would it be like if the issue sidearm was the sig 226?
Click to expand...


1911 just slides into your hand like a cold bottle of beer on a hot summers day.
 
#24
Forgetful Coyote said:
Say Mr Bogey, I know this is off topic, but as an 8531 what did you train the troops on? Ie what all weapons were you instructing them on? And whats the difference between Primary Marksmanship Instructor and Combat Marksmanship Instructor?
Click to expand...

Back when I went through the course the weapons being instructed were the A2 and the M9. The Marine Corps was in the process of changing up the KD course, so we learned and shot the new course of fire, as well as all the "field firing" courses at the time. There were no "combat optics" yet so it was open sights on the rifles.

The Combat Marksmanship Instructor program came about later, and there were changes to the whole program but I can't honestly tell you what the role is today of the different instructors. Back then PMI was the only one.

My big regret was that after returning from Quantico for the PMI course, I was offered the chance to go right back the next week and do SAWIC and I declined it, requesting a later course date. Had I known the Marine Corps was going to discontinue that course I never would have passed on it at the time.
 
#25
Smcarroll said:
I lusted after a Beretta for many years. Then I bought one and hated it. After shooting 1911's its hard to accept a decrease in function, accuracy and relaibility. 9mm is a perfectly fine round, what would it be like if the issue sidearm was the sig 226?
Click to expand...

The P226 is inadequate to the task of providing a universally manageable sidearm. In the hands of some it's unnecessarily unwieldy. Even the grip on its little brother the P229 (and I speak of the old school ones) is a little big through the bottom. For general use they need something that's more "one size fits all," which probably would eliminate the .40 S&W, as well.

I'm wondering if, perhaps, some whiz-bang iteration of the 2011 (to provide capacity for spray and pray advocates) might not be the ticket?
 
#26
Veer_G said:
The P226 is inadequate to the task of providing a universally manageable sidearm. In the hands of some it's unnecessarily unwieldy. Even the grip on its little brother the P229 (and I speak of the old school ones) is a little big through the bottom. For general use they need something that's more "one size fits all," which probably would eliminate the .40 S&W, as well.

I'm wondering if, perhaps, some whiz-bang iteration of the 2011 (to provide capacity for spray and pray advocates) might not be the ticket?
Click to expand...

I tend to forget that not everyone has hands like mine. The reason I like these large frame pistols is because they fit my xxl glove wearing hands. A 2011 in 10 mm with a full length railed dust cover is very high on my list. One of the sweetest shooting guns I have ever handled.
 
#28
Willyz_54 said:
Dude I have little midget carnie hands and I can "wield" my P226 fine.
Click to expand...

Do you smell like cabbage, too? I'm just thinking that it's a bit boat-anchorish for a general purpose solution. You're eager to climb up the learning curve, determined, even, but that might not be the exact case for everyone given a P226 to learn on.

For the uninitiated:

 
#30
The new Sig P320 might be much better than a P226. Striker fire, excellent trigger out of the box, and some advantages over a Glock. One of these multi-size polymer guns would work well for the Mil, I believe.

The P226 fits me perfectly, but I can see that some would have trouble. As to a 1911 style, I do that see the military going with something that is carried condition 1, at least not too large masses of troops.

s
 
Last edited:
#31
GetSome? There are times when the rifle runs dry.

Only the Special Forces can use the 45 and yes even in the +p and +p+ rating it is not the stopper the .45 is.

The only real benefit to the 9mm is when it is suppressed unless they have made big progress on the 40 or 45?
 
#32
Willyz_54 said:
Your ability to google is second only to your ability to youtube. Enjoy your cheetos and second hand knowledge.
Click to expand...

I own or have owned six SIGs in multiple calibers and frame types, including 226s and 229s, I have multiple certifications in pistol instruction, and years of shooting. That may not jibe with whatever ridiculously prejudiced impression that you've formed of me, but, nonetheless, there it is.

The two-dimensional nature of the internet doesn't exactly lend itself to perspicacity. Rather than repeatedly trying to abuse me, why not just go off and abuse yourself?
 
#33
skeeterIII said:
GetSome? There are times when the rifle runs dry.

Only the Special Forces can use the 45 and yes even in the +p and +p+ rating it is not the stopper the .45 is.

The only real benefit to the 9mm is when it is suppressed unless they have made big progress on the 40 or 45?
Click to expand...

The FNX 45 and the FNX 45 tactical are both very good 45 acp double stack pistols. This will probably be my next "quality" handgun.

FNH USA - Distinct Advantage :: FNX?-45 Tactical
 
#34
Veer_G said:
I own or have owned six SIGs in multiple calibers and frame types, including 226s and 229s, I have multiple certifications in pistol instruction, and years of shooting. That may not jibe with whatever ridiculously prejudiced impression that you've formed of me, but, nonetheless, there it is.

The two-dimensional nature of the internet doesn't exactly lend itself to perspicacity. Rather than repeatedly trying to abuse me, why not just go off and abuse yourself?
Click to expand...

Where did his post show prejudice? I think you bask in it anyways.
 
#35
Veer_G said:
which probably would eliminate the .40 S&W, as well.

I'm wondering if, perhaps, some whiz-bang iteration of the 2011 (to provide capacity for spray and pray advocates) might not be the ticket?
Click to expand...

Don't know about that V???, I think 40 is the best solution.

But dead on for a perfect candidate in the 2011. Uh, I'd rather have 14 +1 rounds of 40/2011 (short mag 126mm) than 15 + 1 rounds of 9mm/Berreta M9 or 7+1 rounds of 45/1911.
 
#36
Veer_G said:
The P226 is inadequate to the task of providing a universally manageable sidearm. In the hands of some it's unnecessarily unwieldy. Even the grip on its little brother the P229 (and I speak of the old school ones) is a little big through the bottom. For general use they need something that's more "one size fits all," which probably would eliminate the .40 S&W, as well.

I'm wondering if, perhaps, some whiz-bang iteration of the 2011 (to provide capacity for spray and pray advocates) might not be the ticket?
Click to expand...

Im liking your thinking on that. There is no pistol I dream of more than a STI Edge, unfortunately just a bit outside my price range.....for now. ;)
 
#37
There are many good pistols available. I think what often happens is the request for proposal is put out with the specifications, and gun makers build a pistol specific to those specifications. This has an immense effect on raising the cost. It would be interesting if the military said they want to test pistols that have been in production for at least 5 years, then select a pistol from among those submitted. That way, the military won't have to bear the full cost of research and development.

Getting a pistol into the competition for selection isn't the hard part though. The hard part is actually getting the military to make a decision in a timely manner. It would be interesting if two members from each branch of service were placed onto the selection committee. All branches of the military would have to live with the results of this committee. However, that won't happen as there is simply too much inter-service "we are different than you" so we want something special.

It wouldn't bother me if all the "we are special" people were allowed to buy their own pistol out of their own pocket. Although the logistics people would howl about this.
 
#39
Delta4-3 said:
+1, and yet those 120k seem to all come back with "PTSD" and war stories, even though they never left the FOB. That's one of the few things in life that actually gets me bent out of shape.
Click to expand...
Always have wondered about that. A gal my wife is friends with at work claims it. She was an aircraft mechanic I think. Def no combat.
Shot an M9 equiv 2x. Didnt like it. I shoot revolvers, 1911s and Glocks. Also like the M&P line but like to keep em more the same.
 
#40
Veer_G said:
I own or have owned six SIGs in multiple calibers and frame types, including 226s and 229s, I have multiple certifications in pistol instruction, and years of shooting. That may not jibe with whatever ridiculously prejudiced impression that you've formed of me, but, nonetheless, there it is.

The two-dimensional nature of the internet doesn't exactly lend itself to perspicacity. Rather than repeatedly trying to abuse me, why not just go off and abuse yourself?
Click to expand...

Smcarroll said:
Where did his post show prejudice? I think you bask in it anyways.
Click to expand...

We have history, one, and two, I'm saying that he's prejudging me as only capable of parroting whatever I read online or watch on Youtube — no victim card involved whatsoever. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I've probably been shooting since he was in grade school. I'm coming up on 29 years looking down the sights, a fair stretch of time by any measure.
 
#41
steve123 said:
Don't know about that V???, I think 40 is the best solution.

But dead on for a perfect candidate in the 2011. Uh, I'd rather have 14 +1 rounds of 40/2011 (short mag 126mm) than 15 + 1 rounds of 9mm/Berreta M9 or 7+1 rounds of 45/1911.
Click to expand...

I'm just not sure of an acceptable number of trainees being as capable behind the recoil of a .40 S&W. I'll give it the nod for availability and "thump" factor, for sure. I'm just not sure why they're so dead set against the idea of a 9mm as something that's supposed to be used as a tool to get to a long gun anyway. We seem to be running smack into elements of the argument for lighter caliber carbines at this point.
 
#42
Veer_G said:
We have history, one, and two, I'm saying that he's prejudging me as only capable of parroting whatever I read online or watch on Youtube — no victim card involved whatsoever. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I've probably been shooting since he was in grade school. I'm coming up on 29 years looking down the BUFFET LINE, a fair stretch of time by any measure.
Click to expand...

Fixed.
 
#43
Army To Replace The 9mm

There's nothing wrong with 9mm as a general purpose, general issue military sidearm caliber.

If the Army was smart they would issue the G17 and train all soldiers how to shoot one. But that won't happen either.

And the big FN .45 is a boat anchor. No one wants to carry one any distance.

Let SOF choose their own.
 
#46
From the point of view of having had to teach the pistol to troops, I'd love to see one of the "safe-action" designs get adopted. We'd all have our favorites in that race so there's no point in naming mine. Regardless of which brand they chose, a consistent trigger pull, no external hammer, no decocker, no external safety, etc would make weapons training significantly easier across the wide spectrum of shooters. Way back when we transitioned from revolvers to semi-autos on police departments, this was a huge selling point for the Glock.

Unfortunately, IIRC, the Military tends to write in requirements for external safeties or other criteria that narrow the field and drive it in what I consider to be the wrong direction. At that point they end up with a short list of contenders, none of whom should really be in contention.
 
#47
skeeterIII said:
Only the Special Forces can use the 45 and yes even in the +p and +p+ rating it is not the stopper the .45 is.

The only real benefit to the 9mm is when it is suppressed unless they have made big progress on the 40 or 45?
Click to expand...

i would suggest that on a lethal shot the heart nor head can tell the difference between a 9mm or 45. or +p, or +p+. even the nominal 9mm will detroy either when shot properly. And neither kills with a miss or bad shot. While i love my 45's as much as the next guy, realistically its a moot point. Do the others have more energry than 9mm. Sure. Although, if its going to be a stretch wound, bleed out, kill versus a wound channel kill the difference is pretty small. But lethality and percentages is a fuzzy math kind of thing to begin with. Lastly, when its alls said and done, my pistol is a last line kind of thing. Statistically (i know, that again) you will miss 10 times more often then you will hit with the pistol under stress. When my mag stops at 7 rounds i hope i get my 1 in 10 very quickly :). Ill take the extra capacity over the extra inch of stretch wound anyday.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jefe's Dope
What kind of "clips" does this pistol use?
Replies
14
Views
824
Downtown
Downtown
sirhrmechanic
Hey LL... Can you get some of these for Testing?
Replies
25
Views
1K
sirhrmechanic
sirhrmechanic
eastexsteve
Ruger LC 45 - my review
Replies
3
Views
241
BORIStheBLADE1
B
sirhrmechanic
Kamala invokes "Strength through Joy" slogan????
Replies
17
Views
696
TexPatriot
T
M
Suppressors 9mm Carbine Can??
Replies
26
Views
1K
Diesel79
D
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts