Why would an airline want to buy your weapons?

That is what I got from the article too. Which is funny because when they switch the M9 there were many articles about how the qualification scores increased up dramatically over to the M1911.  I guess they want a gun to do the aiming for them.  Or every body get green (mil spec) lasers!  

With the 1903 we tried to steal a design and made an inferior version.

The Krag was obsolete ten minuets after adoption.

The Trapdoor was obsolete at inception.

All beloved classic American firearms now.

Yeah, this is really absurd.

I too remember the accolades granted the Beretta when scores improved.

Really the question must be asked if there is actually ANY pistol that is significantly easier to shoot than the Beretta?  Because the answer is of course, no.

Sure, it is big and girls and midgets might have a tough time reaching the trigger, but the blending of big bulky gun with the 9x19 round makes for powderpuff recoil.

The easiest to shoot pistols I have ever shot are USPSA Open Division raceguns.

So I guess that settles it; Comped and dotted, 38 Super 2011 will be the next service sidearm.

Oh and 28 round magazines too.

But what will they call a lieutenant with "major face"?

So how was the M1903 inferior?

Off topic but well known issues that were identified pretty quickly after adoption.

The main inferior design elements over those of the Mauser were the 2-piece firing pin that caused problems, poor sights {a tiny aperture located halfway down the barrel, fragile front blade than can and did break}.  The rear sight was addressed in the A3 version but that was when the rifle had already been relegated to secondary standard status.

The cutoff was unnecessary and complicated to manufacture.

The M1917 (American Enfield) was actually a better battle rifle than the '03, but at that place and time the Army put far greater emphasis on the results from Camp Perry
than a rifle's performance in the field. (Remember that most US troops in WW1 were armed with the M1917).  Also have to figure in the Not Invented Here syndrome, that somehow never bothered the Army about
their de-improved M 1893 "Spanish" Mauser.

So after WW1 the 03 was kept as the front line standard and the M1917 was relegated to training, and many thousands were shipped off to the Philippines to arm the Philippine Army.


/Derail

I don't really get your point about the ap.  Because first, the Mauser has a similar sight in front of the receiver also.  And second it's not an aperture if you leave it down.  The front sight thing, yeah, I could see that being a problem.  But I would think could've been easily remedied.  But I suppose that could be constituted as a poor design.   I didn't know about the firing pin problems.  I suppose it could've been a lot better weapon to begin with though.  I do like the 1917.  But it's a bit longer.  Although I think it's a hair lighter.  And carries one more round.

I also agree with what someone else said, the M9 is a very easy gun to shoot accurately and quickly.  The recoil is very manageable and I find it easy to shoot well and quickly.  Easier than some others.

It's not really "my" point tho by my own experience with the rifle I understand the problem. These are problems leveled at the rifle from almost the beginning.
I
Conceptually, an aperture sight should be very close to the eye, like on an AR.  The Springfield 1903 has an absurd, tiny aperture midway along the bbl that is only useful under perfect light and contrast conditions.  The sight is also very delicate.  No, it is not similar in ruggedness or in serviceability as the tangent Mauser sight or even the earlier two models.

"Could have been remedied" doesn't mean it was modified.  In fact, you are right another issue in that they could have remedied it by leaving it "Mauser" in the first place.

The M1917 rear sight is a decent aperture tho it is delicate and will be broken if the sight is tilted backwards and the bolts worked vigorously.

The M1903 is a "good" service rifle but a step down from the Mauser it was modelled after.  We paid Mauser a royalty to build that thing and made a less effective and efficient battle rifle along the way.

The AR is a darn good service rifle that takes flak from those that seem to think, like our forefathers...that something with foreign roots is by necessity better.  The AR is a great rifle.

When I was a contractor at AFRL we used to take our USAF lieutenants and captains to the range (on our own dime) before they deployed.  Because 1) they were our friends, and 2) the USAF certainly wasn't going to do so.

Every single one of our female LT's could shoot a 1911 much more accurately than the M9.

I have read on a few other websites the military is taking a hard look at the M&P. Of course it may all be bullshit, who knows.

If they want a poly framed gun, they could do a lot worse than the M&P  in my opinion. I still think they should stick with what they have though, YMMV.

They WILL go to a poly framed gun at some point.

Will FN offer an FNX in 10mm for trials?

Is there anything stopping manufacturers offering two calibers say 10mm and .45

Perhaps, but a more conservative group when it comes to firearms you will not find. And, right now with the DoD budget about to be gutted to finance the FSA, I don't think replacing the service pistol when the current one serves the purpose is gonna be hight on the list of priorites.

The groups that can justify using a different pistol than the M9 all ready do, for widescale issue the beretta is fine and will still be serving for years to come.

Dude I will fly to the UK and be your butler before the DoD adopts the 10mm. If, IF we adopt another pistol it will probably be 9mm, next likely would be .45 acp and there is a slim chance it could be .40 S&W. NFW they adopt 10mm.

God, I hate this argument. The military is a big organization, of which the Army is the biggest. The requirement/goal is for a pistol and round that will accomodate ALL Soldiers. MOST Soldiers issued a pistol aren't that proficient with them, and maintaining proficiency can be even more difficult based on $. Yes, even THOSE guys. This would probably be a good time to mention that I spent 23 years in SF, 5 as an instructor at Bragg where weapons training at various levels was my primary function. I also noticed that the realistic training we conducted had more than a few of these outstanding Soldiers struggling to meet the high standards required in our organization regarding speed and accuracy when utilizing the M9 and later Glock 9 mm pistols. Thus, it could be safely assumed that Soldiers at a less proficient level would have yet even more difficulty in real world practical application of these or similar tasks. With this in mind, why would the introduction, or re-introduction, of a more powerful (increased weight and recoil) pistol of lower ammunition capacity using a round not currently in the inventory solve the problem? "Train more" and "buy the ammo" are solutions that are easier said than done especially given today's environment of budgetary "challenges" Also, I was in the Army during numerous weapon system/ammo changeovers, and getting the ammo through channels to the enduser, and in the required quantity was a sluggish process at best- I cite specifically: 45 to 9mm, 55 grain 556 to 62 gr 5.56, 77 gr 5.56 (mk12) , 5.56 link, 173gr 7.62 to 175 gr 7.62, 300 win mag, and 50 cal match (M107). So, the supply process is also broken, historically speaking. Does the standard 9mm ball round have the best terminal ballistics? NO. But it doesn't matter what caliber you are packing when you aren't getting rounds on target rapidly and accurately. Is the issue platform (M9) chock full of design flaws that effect service life and reliability? YES. Therefore, in my opinion, it would make more sense to replace the M9 with a more modern 9mm pistol that would give significant improvements in these areas (I'm thinking S&W M&P with safety- even though I personally prefer the glock- best for the many, right?), putting more research into the development of a 9mm round for combat use with enhanced terminal performance that would please both the operators and the lawyers, and doing some serious "soul searching" on the way that the Army (big Army) conducts pistol training and qualification standards, and maintaining that level of proficiency. If you look at the Army qual tables for the M9 pistol, you will see that the most ammunition you ever load in a mag is 7 rounds (in a mag that holds 15). That tells me that the tables have been the same ever since the 1911A1 was standard issue. The shooting positions specified in the table aren't even realistic by today's TTPs. No one can give me a definitive answer as to the difference between "standing" and "crouched"! What's wrong with this picture? I guess my point is that I think its a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. My 2 cents.

Good post.

As I've mentioned, I have killed literally tons of butcher critters with many service pistol calibers {especially .45 and 9mm} with ball ammo and the thought that the Army would actually go back to .45 is so absurd that it defies discussion.

As I mentioned before and agree with you, the swapping of the Beretta for a modern synthetic framed pistol in 9mm is likely the best route and the one they will take.

However, Uncle COULD develop a new cartridge that would be both more shootable and provide superior terminal performance over the 9mm, but the caliber would not be LARGER than 9mm, it would be smaller.

Having said that I cannot see them dumping the 9mm.

The M&P45 has a 14-round mag option, but it's not exactly flush fitting.

Just going to another 9mm will not solve very much for as much as it will cost. 9mm is a 9mm.

With armor piercing, low recoil, and round capacity seemingly the most important aspects of a new firearm in terms of what can be upgraded......wouldn't a higher velocity round like the 5.7 or similar be a better solution?  

Personally I think moving in any other direction is asinine and a waste of money.

every female from the Hospital or even high school interns that have gone to the range with me have shot my 1911 better than any other Semi Automatic handgun I take with me. Glocks, Rugers, S&W.
the only gun they shoot better than the 1911 is my S&W  4 inch 66.

The industry day happened at the end of july, anyone have any news?

I tried google but only got info that it was going to happen.

They should just use 45 in the existing M9's! Duh... Problems solved.

Next?!

U.S. Military will never get into the 10mm game.

FN could make a handgun in any practical caliber imaginable.

But it wouldn't enter any trials if it doesn't meet requirements.

Mega-capcity is unlikely to be a requirement in an open trials competition as well.

There would be a minimum capacity, but there would be no extra points awarded for squishing 20 rounds in the space usually used by 13.

So the FNX doesn't jump to the front because it has super extra awesome capacity.


My money is still on:

S&W M&P
Frame Safety
9mm or .45ACP (we don't really need to be NATO standard on this anymore IMO)
Possibly ruggedized frame and mag floor plates.
Integrated backstrap.

Personally, I think the 5.7 and similar rounds are asinine and a waste of money.

The military needs to spend money on pistol training.

The M9 already excels at low recoil and capacity.  Most of the bad guys we shoot are not wearing armor either.  Just dirty pajamas.  But you actually have to hit them first.

This is mostly true now, for sure.  But if the Army is talking a brand new pistol, that means long years of service.  I do not think the 5.7 is perfect, and in fact think there could be better options, but one of them just might be development of the 9x19 round for armor penetration.  I do believe the Russians now have some excellent AP loadings for that caliber.

Seriously, we're giving pink slips to folks.  I highly doubt they're going to shake money loose for new weapon systems when we can't afford to pay for the current operators who'd use those systems....

The M9 isn't even close to the 5-7 as for capacity(half) and low recoil. Nor is 9mm even in the ball park for armor penetration, How is that asinine?

Not saying the 5-7 is the answer, even though I like it a hell of a lot better than the m9, but a militarized version would certainly be a step forward, rather than just sideways or backwards, with another handgun that's basically just the same.

Armor piercing rounds for a handgun aren't a priority. Furthermore even if they were an option for the 9mm, or if I had the option of carrying a 5.7 I wouldn't pick it.
How many times have handgun engagements been a 'failure' due to body armor? It happens on occasion sure, and is more likely with LE then Military... But how many more engagements are there were a handgun didn't have enough 'stopping' power?

Unless you hit spinal cord or brain stem a HG doesn't really have much energy. Which means you have to put as many rounds on target to cause as much trauma as possible.

Would I want to put 20 rounds of armor piercing 5.7 rounds in someone any more then 15 rounds of 9mm ammo designed to expand? Probably not.

Now if they can find a away for the 5.7 round to expand/fragment and cause a comparable trauma on target I might feel a little differently about it... But again you have to consider how is the 5.7 round going to do against thick clothing/barrier/glass if it isn't an AP round.


Tradeoffs everywhere. Accuracy/shot placement is a bigger issue then anything else. Shooting someone with thick clothing or through glass/then metal/wood is a more realistic issue then shooting someone wearing body armor.

Remember that traitor Maj Hasan shooting at Ft Hood used a FN 5.7mm so it is effective against unarmored targets.


CD

So is .22LR

Sure smells like airsoft pellets in here........

5.7x28 fanboys.

I know, I know, it's the answer to everything.  OMG Elite Ammo solves all shortcomings. (small batches, dangerous loadings, and ATF raids FTW!

If it's so good, why are other militaries not using it?

Why are other manufactures not using the round in different designs?  (don't tell me that Mac-10 clone is a viable example).

AP is not a priority in .mil handguns.

30 round handguns are not a priority either.  The M9 can do 17+1 with flush fit mags.  

If the recoil of the M9 is too much for you, you really need to do some pushups.


Bottom line.  Training will solve most complaints.

The 5.7 sucks. PDs that went all nutty about it's low recoil and capacity realized it doesn't do well when it actually comes to stopping people, the P90 was a spectacular failure as well.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Take that back. The 5.7 is great in Splinter Cell and the P90 is great in Rainbow Six. Video games never lie.

Seriously, I will be shocked if the Army changes handgun calibers or goes to anything other than the M9 for general use sidearms. I don't know why anyone would believe this is actually going to happen.

Make me!

My take is this: Big Army will replace the M4 some day- when it is worth doing so. Their recent test required something like 2X the reliability of the M4 before changing was even considered due to the enormity of the task in switching out all rifles, parts, retraining armorers and users, etc. The M9 is so far down on the scale of importance you'd have to have something incredible to have a serious contender for taking the spot. The pistol really just doesn't matter.

ETA: the 5.7 still sucks.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Boots and MREs are probably higher on the list.

This is a wholly incorrect statement.

So is .22LR or any other cartridge.

What is your point?

Keltec PMR30 then.  



How long would it take Keltec to fill a DOD purchase order?