I just read an article in the Army times newspaper dated for the period of 29 August 2011 that stated that the army is looking to field a replacement for the M9 by 2014. i cannot find the article online. so if anyone can get a hard copy...they did a two page spread on it (pg 24). lots of candidates.

The Army signed a contract with Beretta 1 or 2 tears ago for another 750,000 M9's I don't think they will be getting a replacement in the next 10-15 years..

<––- Keeps fingers crossed for M10 chambered in 10mm. Also, maybe an American owned mfg, not those gun right hating Italifags.  

You just keep those fingers crossed.  But don't come back here complaining about finger cramps.  10mm will NEVER EVER happen.  

It seems the Army Times runs an article every year or two about replacing the M9, the M16, or the SAW.  It's worse than the National Enquirer.

Their really isn't a handgun in 9mm worth switching to. The M9 will do anything the rest of them will and the military has hundreds of thousands of them, mags, replacement parts and trained up armorers and personal.  (Steps into bunker before the Glock fanboys come after me)...

The Army Times and Marine Times just alternates the articles on the replacement of the M4 and M9 between the two editions.  It fills up space.  They are due some more speculation on uniform color as that has not been discussed for a while.

Army Times is not a official DOD/DA source.

IIt is not going to happen anytime soon....the M9 is here to stay..it works.....I would to see .45 ACP but unfortunately it is not happening.

This.
And maybe, if the military is "profeshunul enuf", Sgt. Skippy might NOT peg himself in the leg with his Glock.





Hands down, the safety mechanisms on the M9 are safer for troops, and they STILL shoot themselves with it.  Constantly.  Obviously, someone, somewhere along the chain, doesn't understand the concept of "finger off the trigger", and still fanbois enjoy their dream that a gun whose only real "safety" is IN the trigger, will be adopted.





Not gonna happen.





 

Source?

I'm guessing you don't read Army Preliminary Loss Reports often. Seven-Shooter isn't really pulling this out his ass. I can't say I've tracked any kind of actual statistics or anything, but it does seem that the M9 is involved in more injury related NDs proportional to the number issued than any other weapon system we use. The M9 seems to bring out a special kind of stupid in Soldiers.

 

That may be the case, but is it caused by the M9 or by stupid soldiers? It seems that for some reason, idiots tend to fiddle with pistols more so than rifles, although I've seen ND's with M16/M4 weapons as well.

The sheer number of armed soldiers + rushed training + lack of individual discipline AKA fucking around = eventual ND. I just so happens that the M9 is the issued pistol. I bet we would see the same thing had any other pistol been the standard issue, say the Sig P226.

ND's with pistols among US GI's were very common back in WW2

Nothing to do with any particular make/model/design - just handguns seem to bring out the stupid in some folks

They would still have NDs with DAO revolvers.  Soldiers get side tracked and do wrong clearing procedures or horseplays around.  The US Army does issue a DA auto without a positive manual safety.  Is called the M11 SIG 228.  There will be no M10 pistol as that service pistol competition was held and won by Beretta again.  So, the Army just stuck with one nomenclature.  Be silly to have it both listed as the M9 and M10 for the same pistol.


CD

The pistol that is the apparent favorite at this time is the S&W M&P. The spec MAY include a caliber switch (likely .40) and must have a safety- pretty much kills the Glock. They are saying that service life is a factor in wanting a new pistol-ie... round count before replacement is needed.....I think someone may have raised this issue awhile ago here... With two hot wars going on, handguns are getting shot much more than they otherwise would.

Anything Big Army buys will be NATO spec.  The 40 isn't going to cut  it.  Your point about two wars is valid tho not in the way you intended.  Handguns are near the bottom in terms of budget priorities.  Too many other things to spend money on for the Army to even consider a new handgun at this time.  

The M&P would requre a re-write to the spec.  It doesn't have a double strike capability.

The M9 is generally underrated.  It's fine - most of the problems were shitty mags.  Glocks would be nice but it won't happen.  

On the issue of ND's the Army does not generally give any decent pistol training to the troops.  It's bullshit but just the way it is - there are many other things to train on that are viewed as more important and are tied more directly to mission success.  Pistols generate ND's with young troops - have done so since WW1.

I was just "quoting" the article that the OP was talking about. I have no idea what they will really do but one of the points put forward in wanting to change the platform was that the current pistol was not felt to be durable enough when compared to more modern designs and they wanted "more power".

Glock 21 with a manual safety?  Glock will put them on if you buy enough of them.

None of the Military Times rags have any idea what the DoD will do either.

The Army Times is a joke.  I made the mistake of buying it once.  It's a shame that it is even allowed on any military installation.

It doesn't matter.  Manual safety isn't a requirement, and it wasn't for the M9.  In fact several of the entrants didn't have manual safeties, Sig, Steyr, and HK didn't have manual safeties.  Sig was deemed acceptable and simply not bought because of price.  

There was a requirement for a way to bring the mechanism to rest without pulling the trigger.  Sig used a hammer drop lever, Beretta used a hammer drop safety, HK used the squeeze cocker, etc.

There is no way to bring the Glock to full rest without pulling the trigger.  

Another requirement the Army has it to be able to field strip the weapon without pulling the trigger.  Again that disqualifies the Glock unless there is some serious redesign.  

The idea behind this is that if you don't pull the trigger, you don't get ND's.  Using designs to replace training frankly.  Not a great method, but the Army simply doesn't train pistols very well...actually not really at all.

Of course the Army then turns around and uses and SOP of clearing the weapon at a clearing barrel that requires you to pull the trigger.  Suprise, you pull the trigger on a loaded gun and you get an ND.  Who'd a thunk?  This then reinforces the pulling of the trigger, even on empty weapons, which sooner or later results in a trigger pulled on a not-so-empty weapon and ND again.  I've seen alot of GIs pull the trigger on an "empty" (we all know it's never "empty" of course) to drop the hammer because they are so conditioned by the clearing barrel process to do just that.

A simple procedure of using a thin, flexible polymer rod that has a curve att he end, mounted at the barrel would end all this trigger pulling.  Place M9 on safe, remove mag, lock slide back, visually inspect chamber, push the pistol over the rod so it goes up the barrel and flexes out the ejection port in plain sight, verifying it's clear by an NCO/Officer, remove the pistol, release the slide, hammer will follow slide while on safe.  Weapon cleared.  No training and reinforcing bad habits.  Train troops to use the hammer drop.  If you don't pull the trigger, you won't get ND's.  Using something like the above procedure would physically prove the weapon clear because there simply can't be a round in the weapon if you have the little rod sticking out.  Not saying it would end ND's, but it would reduce them.

The Army's problem with ND's is frankly of the Army's own making. Poor to no training, and then SOPs that will result in ND's, and then reinforcing practices that neglect design features the Army requested to prevent such problems.  

If you have people pull the trigger on an empty pistol, sooner or later you'll have someone pull it on one that's loaded by accident.

But...but...that won't get me a Glock 21 with a safety!

Here's the article:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/08/army-pistols-with-a-shot-at-replacing-m9-82811w/

Wait what?

The beretta doesnt have modular grips??? Ive seen tons of grips for the beretta
The beretta has a service life of 5,000???? Ive seen them go more than 5,000
The inability to suppress????? Ive seen suppressed berettas
The design allows dirts and contanimants in????? Never seemed to be an issue if you kept the slide shut
The beretta doesnt have good enough terminal ballistics?????? This is a caliber/bulet issue
Soldier engage the safety when racking the slide???? What are they doing grabbing the safety to use the slide?

Man all that made my head hurt, are these people for real

I carried the same suppressed M9 in 91' and later in 03'-04' in Iraq with 5th SFGA.  They sometimes went 5k rds every two months.  Kept the same pistol for years (one for 8 yrs).  Just replaced the recoil spring.

CD

figures. that expalins why my searches coming up in periods like that.

yup, that's the one. thanks.

Several months ago the military placed an order with Beretta for 500,000 M9's.      I think the pistol (which I like very much, BTW) will be with us for awhile.

Especially given the current monetary cutbacks in government spending.  And frankly,  I can't think of a better pistol for military use except the HK 45.  

My two cents.  

I wish everyone would just accept that the military is not going to be replacing the M9 any time soon, and move on with their lives.  Handguns just aren't that important in modern warfare, and if something is working acceptably, it's going to be in place for a very long time.

Amen!

Example: Colt 1911 was the official sidearm from March 1911 until January 1985 and fully replaced by the early 1990's. Going by that rate the M9 won't be replaced until about 2059-2067...

By then they'll be upgrading to a phased plasma pistol in the 20 watt range!