Sidearms & Scatterguns No more 9mm for Army?
- Thread starter bama1
- Start date
My first guess was FN 5.7x28, but now I think it will be more like a good ole .45
I would prefer the 10mm but I doubt that's gonna happen.
I would prefer the 10mm but I doubt that's gonna happen.
I'll say here exactly what I said in the Ultimate Combat Pistol thread: .mil needs better ammo, not a different firearm or caliber. I never have figured out why we hold ourselves to the Hague IV when we never signed the fucking thing. We can shoot Hellfires at individual enemy soldiers, but heaven forbid we shoot them with an XTP.
If they would open up new expanding projectiles into the mix, then dammit, stay 9mm. Capacity and recoil management for all users easily hold a strong enough push if they also carry improved terminal performance.
Now a more ergonomic pistol may indeed be in the future, especially since the military limits handgun training for the most part to annual qualifications, but I certainly hope they stay away from the standard external safety they have such a hard on for. I'm hoping the money spent stays inside our own shores to benefit our own firearms industry, but I'm sure that will fall to a US located-foreign based company again. The S&W M&P is about the only existing line domestically produced and USA owned that I think stands a chance at meeting the RFP requirements (my predictions) of ergonomics, capacity and durability, not to mention they have external safeties available for those that don't know how to keep their bugger finger off the bang switch. As much as I like MD made Berettas, it would be a breath of fresh air to have something other than European based handguns in our troop's holsters.
Of course, who am I kidding. More than 95% of the new pistols are still going to be issued to Fobbits who never remove them from their shoulder holsters (aka FOB Bra) even to clean them, while the battles will still be won by troops issued a rifle and no secondary weapon.
If they would open up new expanding projectiles into the mix, then dammit, stay 9mm. Capacity and recoil management for all users easily hold a strong enough push if they also carry improved terminal performance.
Now a more ergonomic pistol may indeed be in the future, especially since the military limits handgun training for the most part to annual qualifications, but I certainly hope they stay away from the standard external safety they have such a hard on for. I'm hoping the money spent stays inside our own shores to benefit our own firearms industry, but I'm sure that will fall to a US located-foreign based company again. The S&W M&P is about the only existing line domestically produced and USA owned that I think stands a chance at meeting the RFP requirements (my predictions) of ergonomics, capacity and durability, not to mention they have external safeties available for those that don't know how to keep their bugger finger off the bang switch. As much as I like MD made Berettas, it would be a breath of fresh air to have something other than European based handguns in our troop's holsters.
Of course, who am I kidding. More than 95% of the new pistols are still going to be issued to Fobbits who never remove them from their shoulder holsters (aka FOB Bra) even to clean them, while the battles will still be won by troops issued a rifle and no secondary weapon.
Last edited:
I like many others believe it will be a return to the .45 ACP. Which manufacturer will get the contract? For that question I can't even begin to guess.
Rumor mill has spit out this as a potential replacement:
Detonics Defense Technologies, LLC.
I'm not so sure I believe it.
Detonics Defense Technologies, LLC.
I'm not so sure I believe it.
This is Joint Combat Pistol V2.0 and just like V1.0, it will end up in the circular file.
The US Armed Forces will NOT change the caliber of the standard issue handgun away from 9x19. Guaranteed.
The M9 might get replaced maybe 10 - 15 down the line when about 95% of them become unserviceable. Or Beretta may keep on making parts for them and the Army will keep rebuilding them.
The US Armed Forces will NOT change the caliber of the standard issue handgun away from 9x19. Guaranteed.
The M9 might get replaced maybe 10 - 15 down the line when about 95% of them become unserviceable. Or Beretta may keep on making parts for them and the Army will keep rebuilding them.
Now get rid of the 5.56, and we are good to go.
In 2012 The Army put in an order for up to 100,000 M9
In 2014 The Army put in an order for new holsters for said M9's
So, Now a new pistol, I"ll believe it when I see it!
In 2014 The Army put in an order for new holsters for said M9's
So, Now a new pistol, I"ll believe it when I see it!
what's wrong with the 556? i thought it had the reputation to be bad ass.
i wasn't allowed to join the military due to body structural issues, so please forgive my ignorance.
I could see going to the 5.7. cash is king brass powder and primer are the same but the bullet is where you save the cash. You can get three bullets for one 9mm bullet. Going back to 45 for limited users maybe but the way the gov has a hard on for lead I can not see it going main stream. Heck how much would it cost? I can not se it happen.
Yeah...whatever. Been rumored a dozen times. I'll believe it when I see it. And the TOCroaches are the only ones that get pistols anyways, so who cares?
Well, I was skeptical until I saw this little factoid. Now I know they are going to change to something else.
Mostly, having worked for a company that put pistols up for eval last time the military did this little show, I think it is done for the amusement value.
I don't care what people like Steve riechert say, the 9mm is a shit cartridge. All the math in the world won't convince me that the 9mm is nearly as effective as a .45. It's funny that 9mm guys always feel the need to defend their choice with "I hold X amount of rounds" or "it's all about shot placement." While those factors matter, real world experience is the best teacher. Ballistic gelatin may be "close" but it's not the same thing. I've seen people shot with 9mm and others shot with .45. I carry a .45 and always will. I'm glad the service is actually manning up and supplying our troops with an effective cartridge. Now if only we can do something about the 5.56...
And this is probably the ONLY time the Marines beat the Army to the punch. Usually we get the hand-me-downs.
And this is probably the ONLY time the Marines beat the Army to the punch. Usually we get the hand-me-downs.
It's funny, because I am the opposite. I don't won't some dude's anecdotes. I prefer empirical evidence and duplicable data. I'm a firm believer in the scientific process.
However, with our current budget situation, and given our proliferation of M9s, I'm not so sure that changing the secondary weapon situation is that important.
As much as I hate to say it, sticking with the 9mm cartridge makes sense for one main reason: ammo commonality with other nations.
I can foresee a scenario in some future conflict at a joint base comprised of, say, American, British, and German forces. For one reason or another, handgun ammo is in short supply... If the Germans ran out of their supply of sidearm ammo, they could borrow from the Brits. If the Brits ran short, they could borrow from the Americans. Or whatever.
Or perhaps I just have a really active imagination.
Anyhow, I wouldn't mind seeing the American forces go with the .40 S&W, as it seems to be a pretty good compromise between capacity (as compared to the .45) and increased energy (as compared to the 9mm)... I don't see it happening, though.
I can foresee a scenario in some future conflict at a joint base comprised of, say, American, British, and German forces. For one reason or another, handgun ammo is in short supply... If the Germans ran out of their supply of sidearm ammo, they could borrow from the Brits. If the Brits ran short, they could borrow from the Americans. Or whatever.
Or perhaps I just have a really active imagination.
Anyhow, I wouldn't mind seeing the American forces go with the .40 S&W, as it seems to be a pretty good compromise between capacity (as compared to the .45) and increased energy (as compared to the 9mm)... I don't see it happening, though.
I have to agree with this sentiment. I actually ran out of 9mm in country, and supply had to go onto the economy. As a result, I had an slamfire, which was scary as hell, because I no longer had confidence in my secondary weapon system. It was also scary for a buddy who was standing slightly in front of me. We had no other friendly forces near by, but it sure would have been a nice option, and I won't shoot third world ammo ever again.
Note: It was determined to be a slamfire, and not a ND, based on the fact that the primer was lodged in the firing pin hole of the bolt face. My pistol was down the entire op and I didn't even know it.
Due to the move to lead free ammo and the reluctance to use JHPs, I give the 5.7 a damn good chance. A barrier/armor penetrator round could be developed for the military. However, this pistol requires a wider magazine than other pistols and will likely be deemed "unfair" to females and the 1% of smaller troops.
If the change happens under the administration I'd put my money on the 40s&w. It's a step up from 9mm and it'll fit a females hand while be more "controllable".
I suspect this happens after 2016, and it'll either be 45 acp (most likely) or 10mm.
If the change happens under the administration I'd put my money on the 40s&w. It's a step up from 9mm and it'll fit a females hand while be more "controllable".
I suspect this happens after 2016, and it'll either be 45 acp (most likely) or 10mm.
If the issue involves enough energy then 5.7 is not the solution. Not a whole lot of energy, even out of the P90.
Also, I don't think the grip size is that important, as somone who owns a 92FS and a Five-Seven, I can tell you the M9s have a fat grip. I knew plenty of guys in the service who thought it was too fat. The Five-seveN just has a longer grip, my GF has no problem with it, but doesn't prefer it.
Note: my open carry gun is a Five-seveN, which replaced my 92FS. That lack of recoil is ridiculous. I love the 198LFs
Also, I don't think the grip size is that important, as somone who owns a 92FS and a Five-Seven, I can tell you the M9s have a fat grip. I knew plenty of guys in the service who thought it was too fat. The Five-seveN just has a longer grip, my GF has no problem with it, but doesn't prefer it.
Note: my open carry gun is a Five-seveN, which replaced my 92FS. That lack of recoil is ridiculous. I love the 198LFs
I hope it is not a 40. I am already sitting on six 5 gallon buckets of that brass.
I think it will stay 9mm due to women in the mil. In country we played at the range with some of the cool guy gear and none of the women shot more than 1 mag through the SCAR due to recoil. I think a 40 cal would have the same effect.
I'm of the same opinion, I'll believe when I see.
We're all wrapped up in a standardized ammo agreement with all our "Teaty Partners" around the World so unless the rest decide to change their standard issue pistols I really doubt that the US will, all rumors aside. That doesn't mean that Spec Ops groups won't get something different but that's pretty much been the case since the term "Spec Ops" was coined.
In the end, "Logistics" will determine a lot of what happens. Wouldn't it be a bitch to get re-supplied by one of your "treaty partners" and find the freaking ammo doesn't fit your weapon?
.40
We won't abandon the 9mm because virtually every other country in the world uses it. They will try to upgrade the ammunition, possibly going to a 147gr. projectile. The pistol will be something more modern and reliable than the Beretta. I'm really thinking G17. Let the flaming begin!
Most sensible thing I've heard suggested in a long while.
Statistics can always be manipulated into producing the result that one may want. There isn't a computation capability in the world that can produce the exact result of a .45acp or 9mm round throughout the terminal ballistic phase. There are just too many variables to stand on a soap box and preaching how the 9mm data shows it has to be "just as good". It isn't , and that has been proven over and over in field testing. It's funny to hear people stand solely on the math, and cannot admit the .45 is a better round. Bones, organs, skin, velocity, shot placement, angle, and mass are variables which you need to study in the field. This has, time and time again, proven the .45 to be a better cartridge. Sure, 9mm is good... for chicks.
Just happy to see that this whole "skinny jeans, progressive, anti-bullying" generation is finally admitting to needing to be a god damn man. Our troops need to be armed with the best, and capabilities/recoil management/platform options, go .45.
I'm not sure what your saying, but .45 recoil management is a terrible joke, and all the anecdotal and empirical evidence agrees. Platform options are equal across all calibers. As for capabilities, the only round mentioned in this thread with special capabilities, would be the 5.7. If, gods forbid, we had to face a conventional military the 5.7 does have armor defeating loads available (look up T8s).
Sent from my Sega Dreamcast using Tapatalk
I'll say here exactly what I said in the Ultimate Combat Pistol thread: .mil needs better ammo, not a different firearm or caliber. I never have figured out why we hold ourselves to the Hague IV when we never signed the fucking thing. We can shoot Hellfires at individual enemy soldiers, but heaven forbid we shoot them with an XTP.
If they would open up new expanding projectiles into the mix, then dammit, stay 9mm. Capacity and recoil management for all users easily hold a strong enough push if they also carry improved terminal performance.
Now a more ergonomic pistol may indeed be in the future, especially since the military limits handgun training for the most part to annual qualifications, but I certainly hope they stay away from the standard external safety they have such a hard on for. I'm hoping the money spent stays inside our own shores to benefit our own firearms industry, but I'm sure that will fall to a US located-foreign based company again. The S&W M&P is about the only existing line domestically produced and USA owned that I think stands a chance at meeting the RFP requirements (my predictions) of ergonomics, capacity and durability, not to mention they have external safeties available for those that don't know how to keep their bugger finger off the bang switch. As much as I like MD made Berettas, it would be a breath of fresh air to have something other than European based handguns in our troop's holsters.
Of course, who am I kidding. More than 95% of the new pistols are still going to be issued to Fobbits who never remove them from their shoulder holsters (aka FOB Bra) even to clean them, while the battles will still be won by troops issued a rifle and no secondary weapon.
Nailed it.
FDE five seven pistols have not been available for some time now. They are all going to a large military contract, but nobody knows which military
