New Military Sidearm?

[austinguy23]

I understand the U.S military is entertaining the idea of replacing the Beretta M9 as their official sidearm.

Yes, this likely won't go anywhere but if it does, what are Mas and crew's thoughts on what could/should take its place in terms of 1.) Caliber and 2.) Make & model?

[Chemsoldier]

Could you post your source on that?  I read Army Times fairly regularly and they are pretty good about covering that kind of stuff.  I am not aware of any serious look at handguns for the whole force since the Joint Service Pistol thing was shelved a number of years ago.

Only pistol stuff I have heard of lately is that the USMC is looking to get an off the shelf 1911 for their MEU(SOC)s.  I believe Springfield and Colt are in the running.

[MasAyoob]

Could you post your source on that?  I read Army Times fairly regularly and they are pretty good about covering that kind of stuff.  I am not aware of any serious look at handguns for the whole force since the Joint Service Pistol thing was shelved a number of years ago.

Only pistol stuff I have heard of lately is that the USMC is looking to get an off the shelf 1911 for their MEU(SOC)s.  I believe Springfield and Colt are in the running.

What Chem is hearing is what I am hearing.
best,
Mas

[Jerome from California]

I found this article from Armytimes.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/08/army-pistols-with-a-shot-at-replacing-m9-82811w/

[Chemsoldier]

Jerome I am ashamed,  I have read that article. 

Honestly I hadnt taken it seriously since I considered it a poorly written and researched article.  The primary reason cited for replacing the M9in the article is terminal ballistics.  Yet the army would have to make some serious decisions cost wise, during hard economic times when the Army does not want to cut troop strength, to transition to a new caliber.  I dont know if they will want .45 for all firers and the article cites the ATF's switch to .40 S&W M&Ps (which is a non-sequiter since LE agencies use HP ammo).  There are rumblings of QA/QC issues with the M&P also.

Previous army pistol trials dictated the caliber, I cant believe they would let the manufacturer make a cost sensitive decision like  caliber selection for a fleet of hundreds of thousands of weapons.

Additionally, Beretta is a contender with more 9mm offerings according to the article, including their product improvement version of the same old M92, hardly a stunning change. 

HK had no dings on it in the article but it also likely to be the most expensive if trends in civilian weapons prices apply to government sales.

The article digs at the sig for not having a manual safety (though it does have a decocker) yet mentions not the Glocks lack of manual safety.

It then adds another non-sequiter about the Marine 1911 program like its pistols are an outside chance when that program when the military would not dream in a million years of making the 1911 the service pistol again.


I have heard squat about this since the article.  Anything you have would be appreciated but I think this was another Army Times red herring.  At most, they are looking to replace the M9 fleet (the physical guns, not necessarily the model and caliber) and they will likely do it with an M9 variant or another 9mm pistol for cost reasons.  They might make another offering for design tryouts but if the army wont change caliber there is very little margin of improvement for the cost entailed.

[flop-shank]

I doubt going to a bigger caliber would be an improvement when using full metal jacket ammo. Any gains in stopping power (and I'm thinking they would be pathetically small, if any) would come at a cost of ammo capacity as well as manufacturing expense.

I always seem to be in the minority, but when I was a National Guardsman I had the opportunity to qualify with the 1911A1 and the M9. As far as my experience with gov't guns went, the M9 is way more accurate, easier to shoot and holds a lot more rounds. I'll take an M9 anyday and keep in mind that I have small hands.

Of course, all of what I said probably means nothing to the aces in our gov't who love wasting our tax dollars.


Sent from my fat-monitor Dell using a pigeon

[Devereaux]

FS - remember that you probably fired a 1911 manufactured in the Korean War era, and had had a lot of rounds through it, vs the relatively new Beretta. There is also the basic intimidation factor of the .45 ACP. Back when it was created men shot .45 Colt all day, and it was really no different in end ballistics. Today we have "downsized" - a lot.

Seems to me both you and Chem have hit the basic issues - money and effectiveness. I would agree - a FMJ bullet isn't going to be much different in a .40 over a 9. Further, times are tough, and dumping the whole store of 9mm for a new calibre isn't going to happen - in either rifle, where it is much more needed, or in pistol. We have what we have. Rumsfeld's comment - "You go to war with what you have."

[flop-shank]

FS - remember that you probably fired a 1911 manufactured in the Korean War era, and had had a lot of rounds through it, vs the relatively new Beretta.

Actually, IIRC my unit had WWII era guns. A dendritre firing somewhere in the back of my brain tells me that I don't think the government bought any more after 1945. Don't quote me on that. Anyway, they were well used, but by no means were they clunkers. They had likely been re-arsenaled at some point. I had no trouble shooting them well, but really felt that the Berettas were definataly a step up accuracy wise. To their credit, those 1911s we had left me impressed that they were very reliable.

[austinguy23]

I found this article from Armytimes.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/08/army-pistols-with-a-shot-at-replacing-m9-82811w/

That's my source. I assumed it was a reputable one.

[Chemsoldier]

I found this article from Armytimes.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/08/army-pistols-with-a-shot-at-replacing-m9-82811w/

That's my source. I assumed it was a reputable one.

It is reputable...sort of.  Army Times employs some really good reporters (like Sean Naylor), other times they have some iffy articles.  Hell, the army really might be looking for a new sidearm and willing to consider other calibers...in my own case I thought the article was shallow and I have been misled by Army Times before and I simply brain dumped it.

 

[Devereaux]

Remember - like any publication, the Army Times has to have an edition out on time, regardless of whether there is something to say or not. So when news is skimpy, you write "what if" things, or speculate, or ...

[watchman]

I'm not giving an opinion as I was born in 1979, but I have 2 WWII vet grandfathers who are both of the opinion the old army 1911's were junk (at least comparatively speaking to the pistols they both own and shoot today).  i.e. jammed easily, difficult to learn on, etc.

I've always wondered if some of the swooning over the old colt 45's is a bit revisionist ("never should have switched, the 1911's were 10x's the manstopper the M9 is," etc)?  Were they really that beloved in the battlefield?

Any thoughts from the sages?

[Devereaux]

Oh Lord! You are attempting to again open the old sore of whether or not the 1911 IS a great gun, or plastic is, or whatever.

First of all, I think you should note that the military has chosen a steel framed pistol as their issue sidearm. One can argue about the life of a plastic gun all you want, but the military is not willing to accept it - yet. The rigors that a military arm goes through are substantially different from what a civilian arm does. So you can talk all you want about how good today's guns are, you have to compare apples to apples.

That said, the 1911 has certain issues that make it less than optimal for general sidearm usage. I can tell you that from personal experience with Air Force pilots, who view any gun not mounted on a wing as of dubious value. So any sidearm that you are going to issue as a general weapon needs to have some characteristics that are harder to find in 1911's.

OTOH you will find many elite units that are going back to the 1911 as their sidearm. I have a friend who is in SF, and he loves the H&K that they carry. But there are Marine units that have gone to the 1911, as well as numerous specialized police units (for what that is worth).

My personal experience with an issue 1911 was great. But then, I was a Marine officer, and when I arrived at Battalion headquarters, I made the sergeant open the gun locker, and then I disassembled the 6 or so 1911's there, and started a mix-and-match of parts until I had the best combination I could make. Then I reassembled all the guns and he put them back in the gun locker. He didn't care, as all he cared was that he had a serial number and the correct number of guns left. Indeed, at depot when guns are refurbished, the parts are all dumped together, cleaned, and then randomly fitted so insure correct function. No one cares about "originality". No other parts are numbered. Look at the Garands you find - dimes to donuts they were not the same parts they were originally manufactured with.

So you can PYMTYC. I am not a fan of the 9mm in the NATO load. But that's in part because it's a Geneva Convention load, and not one of the far superior self defense loads. I like 1911's. I have a bunch of them. But IF the Soviet State of Illinois EVER finally comes around to allowing concealed carry, I will most likely carry a Sig 229 in .357 Sig. You can MAKE a 1911 with that calibre, but it would probably have to be built like an IPSC race gun as that is a high pressure round and would probably batter a standard 1911 unacceptably.

This all probably doesn't promote your sense of where to be any. But then, in the end, much of that will be what you end up liking. I like 1911's. I like Sigs. I don't like Berretta's. Just my thing.

[watchman]

Certainly wasn't trying to bring up any 1911 vs X controvery.  Neither of my grandfathers owns or would advocate polymer pistols.  But back when I was looking buying my first handgun I brought up the 1911 and was surprised at how ho-hum they were about it ("bit of a clunker" etc.).  Neither owns one today (one actually has just about everything but).

I was curious if anyone else had more anicdotal knowledge of how beloved the old army 1911 really was on the battlefield, or if their opinions are derived more from the custom kimber they own today.

[Dlshaw]

About two years ago, the Marine Corps signed a new country for a lot of thousands of M9A1s.  They bring this up about once every few years just like they bring up replacing the M4.  I would like to think that someone out there is thinking about a replacement for  our service pistol, but as far as the Corps is concerned, there are no serious talks going as of now.  A month or so ago, I asked a senior Gunner (CWO5) about getting new pistols.  He said that there are talks about actually developing training so Marines can learn to fight with the one we have and thats about it.

I am sure Chemsoldier is seeing similar things in terms of cutbacks as we are in the Marine Corps.  Based on what I am seeing, I would say that we shouldn't expect anything new, gun or gear, at all for the next few years.

Daniel