Trigger Mike Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 read an article the army wants to replace thee M9. Why? seems like a fairly good pistol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Don't know, but my two friends who served in Iraq back in 2004 hated theirs.....but being Marines they probably wanted the big ole .45 http://www.gao.gov/assets/110/102286.pdf GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Hand Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 The M-9 was the solution to a non-existing problem. The US wanted to base missiles in Italy, Italy needed some encouragement, Beretta gets a lucrative military contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs Bonney SASS # 10171 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 The excuse is that the M96's are old and wearing out. The reality is that they are too big for manu female hands and they want a pistol with grip inserts. With women becoming a larger part of the military and now allowed into combat they need a pistol more adaptable to more people. I'm sure there are other reasons but I think that is the basic problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sedalia Dave Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 The Army has just now rediscovered that there is no such thing as a one size fits all. Below is a very interesting read. When U.S. air force discovered the flaw of averages In the early 1950s, the U.S. air force measured more than 4,000 pilots on 140 dimensions of size, in order to tailor cockpit design to the "average" pilot. But it turned out the average airman didn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Coffinmaker Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 The answer is simple. The M9 isn't a .45 The finest combat handgun on the planet is an M1911 in .45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Fat phillips Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Coffinmaker is correct. The 9mm does not have enough stopping power for use in combat, especially against enemies in body armor. Military sidearms are mostly last resort weapons, but many special operations forces who actually use side arms in life or death situations have gone back to the 1911. Remember, the 45 ACP was developed because the 38 special the Army was using at the time was inadequate to stop the Philippine Morro tribesmen. The Army even went back to the 45 Colt revolver for a time until the 45 ACP was ready. The new pistol selection could be anything, but I am guessing a 10mm or 40 S&W. Remember from a SASS view point, the 38-40 in BP is the same caliber and ballistically identical to the 10mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAYOBARD SASS #13025L Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 I carried one for about 18 years. I hated it. It is an awkward feeling handgun. I prefer the 1911 over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abilene Slim SASS 81783 Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Remember, the 45 ACP was developed because the 38 special the Army was using at the time was inadequate to stop the Philippine Morro tribesmen. Nitpicking I know, but it was the .38 Long Colt cartridge, not the .38 Special that was a problem in the Phillipines. The .38 Special was developed as a response to the failure of the .38 Long Colt in the Philippine insurrection. The .45 acp was the round developed to solve the same problem and as we know, was adopted by the military. The .38 Special went on to a long career in law enforcement and civilian market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel-eye Steve SASS #40674 Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 The answer is simple. The M9 isn't a .45 The finest combat handgun on the planet is an M1911 in .45 Except they're not going back to the 1911............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presidio Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 I got a solution. Let them boys and girls buy their own that's to their liking, along with ammo and other amenities...and turn a receipt into Uncle Sam. Or Uncle Sam just get it in their noogin to go back to the tried and proven......the 1911. Uncle Sam is sure to save big money either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Bullweed Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 When the scuttlebutt started about replacing the M9, about 2010, several makers came out with polymer frame, .45 ACP, manual thumb safety pistols. The S&W M&P, Ruger SR-45 and several from Herstal are all set up to meet likely requirements. I do not see the military going back to a single-action 1911. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Hand Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 The M-9 procurement specifications called for a "high capacity" magazine and a DA/SA firing system. That was negated by local command practices of requiring it to be carried with the chamber empty and safety on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocWard Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 I will start by saying I am biased, because having carried the M9 for the vast majority of my time in, including a number of missions on deployment, I can only say I liked it enough so that my retirement gift to me was an M9. I always had confidence in it to do its job if I did mine. Granted, when given the option between the M9 and the M4 I chose the M4, but for me that was a no-brainer. The reasons for the desired change are numerous. As was mentioned, there is a desire for a "modular" platform, so that a pistol can be adapted to different sized hands. Funny that my personal M9, with Hogue grips, is actually a bit thicker than the standard, yet Mrs. Doc, who has smaller hands, was putting rounds down range with it two days ago without problem. I've trained other females, and small statured males to shoot the M9 as well. There is also a desire to go toward a striker fire design, because that is the newest, hippest design. There are other things the Army wishes to change as well. Beretta offered to finish out their current contract with M9A3s, which would have been compatible with existing M9s internally, not requiring any additional training for troops or armorers, but addressed many of the design desires of the Army, including a thinner grip. Yes, I am sure Beretta's idea was it would keep them with a lucrative contract, but it would have also given the Army a design improvement now, which has been done over time with other items in military inventory, without the need for further reviews. The Army refused. As it is, you have a contingent pushing for Glocks, while other manufacturers are coming forth with their own designs including Ruger and Beretta. I'm not a fan, but I'm not a hater either. I will say if Glocks are adopted, it will practically guarantee that they are seldom carried with a round chambered, because of the lack of a manual safety. I would anticipate that the rate of negligent discharges among troops who do not carry nor utilize every day will increase. But that is just my opinion on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trailrider #896 Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 What has happened to the .45 ACP pistol Colt's (I think) was designing for the Marine Raiders (designation recently given to Force Recon or SOG)? BTW, the .40 S&W, in its original loading, is ballistically identical to the .38-40 WCF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chantry Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Having fired both the 1911 and the M9 in the National Guard, I would have chosen the M9 which was accurate and reliable over the worn out 1911's we had in the armory which would not go a full magazine without jamming. The military has to pick a handgun that comes closest to fitting ALL of the people in the service, so while many of us have strong preferences for what we would choose to carry, those choices aren't necessarily ideal for the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocWard Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Having fired both the 1911 and the M9 in the National Guard, I would have chosen the M9 which was accurate and reliable over the worn out 1911's we had in the armory which would not go a full magazine without jamming. The military has to pick a handgun that comes closest to fitting ALL of the people in the service, so while many of us have strong preferences for what we would choose to carry, those choices aren't necessarily ideal for the military. I had the same experience, and well stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 The answer is simple. The M9 isn't a .45 The finest combat handgun on the planet is an M1911 in .45 You got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trigger Mike Posted June 9, 2016 Author Share Posted June 9, 2016 i agree the 1911 is better but i was in when the army was proud to switch to the M9 partially because NATO uses 9mm. logistics made it practical. just surprised they are changing again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blastmaster Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 .45ACP is a very good round, Now you need to find a firearm to rap around the cartridge that the whole military personnel can reliably maintain, operate, and shoot the .45ACP through. Plus the gun has to pass all the field trials testing + you can afford to purchase 300,000+ units of. It will not be the 1911 steel/alloy gun platform Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramblin Gambler Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Or Uncle Sam just get it in their noogin to go back to the tried and proven......the 1911. I don't like that plan. If they do that the CMP will never start selling those 1911s. I know I'm being selfish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Hand Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 i agree the 1911 is better but i was in when the army was proud to switch to the M9 partially because NATO uses 9mm. logistics made it practical. just surprised they are changing again. NATO standard was 7.62mm and we didn't hesitate to adopt the 5.56mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeb Stuart #65654 Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 deleted Having fired both the 1911 and the M9 in the National Guard, I would have chosen the M9 which was accurate and reliable over the worn out 1911's we had in the armory which would not go a full magazine without jamming. The military has to pick a handgun that comes closest to fitting ALL of the people in the service, so while many of us have strong preferences for what we would choose to carry, those choices aren't necessarily ideal for the military. Not really fair comparing a fairly new pistol against one that is worn out. I have three 45's and don't ever recall one of them jamming, and that's easily over 40,000 rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpo Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 NATO standard was 7.62mm and we didn't hesitate to adopt the 5.56mm. Didn't we force the 7.62 onto NATO in the first place (they wanted to go 6mm, but WE required 30 caliber) before switching to Mr. Stoner's plastic toy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noz Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 My gun in the military, an 8" howitzer was a one size fits all and very effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Hand Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Didn't we force the 7.62 onto NATO in the first place (they wanted to go 6mm, but WE required 30 caliber) before switching to Mr. Stoner's plastic toy? Yes we did, NATO wanted the FAL in 6mm we told them that if they went to 7.72mm we would adopt the FN/FAL, they redesigned it to 7.62mm and we adopted the M-14. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seldom Seen #16162 Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Trigger Mike, The Beretta 92/M9 area excellent, reliable, combat proven design that has seen duty worldwide. For more informed discussion and useful information about it I suggest you visit Beretta Forum at: http://berettaforum.net/vb/index.php?s=007c8be99becc15f8590d1ff788b5ce5 It is a friendly group that enjoy discussing all Beretta firearms, not just the 92/M9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Not really fair comparing a fairly new pistol against one that is worn out. I have three 45's and don't ever recall one of them jamming, and that's easily over 40,000 rounds. Bingo. GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocWard Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Trigger Mike, The Beretta 92/M9 area excellent, reliable, combat proven design that has seen duty worldwide. For more informed discussion and useful information about it I suggest you visit Beretta Forum at: http://berettaforum.net/vb/index.php?s=007c8be99becc15f8590d1ff788b5ce5 It is a friendly group that enjoy discussing all Beretta firearms, not just the 92/M9. Thanks, I may need to go there and sign up. It looks like some good information to be had. Oh, and yes, I do realize that comparing the M9 to WWII vintage (literally) 1911s is apples and oranges. The fact is, the 1911s were worn out, and the military was going to need to renew the procurement process, and the new pistol was destined to be a 9x19 for a number of reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chantry Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Not really fair comparing a fairly new pistol against one that is worn out. I have three 45's and don't ever recall one of them jamming, and that's easily over 40,000 rounds. Shrug, that was what was issue in 1993 when I was in the National Guard, along with M-16A1's and M-60's from the Vietnam time frame. The 1911 needed to be replaced and the Beretta won the competition in 1985. Now the Beretta's are allegedly worn out and need to be replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocWard Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 Shrug, that was what was issue in 1993 when I was in the National Guard, along with M-16A1's and M-60's from the Vietnam time frame. The 1911 needed to be replaced and the Beretta won the competition in 1985. Now the Beretta's are allegedly worn out and need to be replaced. I may be wrong on this, but Beretta is still contracted to deliver more M9s to the Army. I will need to find the article, but if that is the case, and the Army were to adopt a new sidearm, it could mean one of two things, the Army will need to pay Beretta for firearms not delivered to cancel the contract, or virtually new M9s will be turned around into the surplus market or elsewhere. I know Beretta has been continually delivering M9s under a new contract from 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Wyatt Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 Had one years ago, it was a good gun. And Seldom Seen is right about The Beretta Forum. Good info and a friendly forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.