Here we go...

Fox News Article about the search to replace the M9

I like the quote about 9mm vs 45.

"he realized that handgun bullets suck"

Pretty much sums it all up about the miles of hot air over 45 vs 9mm.

Neva been dun befo.

This would be the third thread on the subject.  Two already started in GD.

   So I guess by NEW they mean ...not used?  Yes, the military should use new ammunition.  


Wow, you're just now noticing the open slide?    How did that get past them way back when the pistol was adopted?  

And by some miracle it managed to pass their tests back then, open slide and all.

the SIG might have won twice. But the Sig comes from a Non-NATO country. Also we kinda wanted to keep our missile bases in Italy.

When dealing with FMJ .45 and .40 > 9mm.

Going back to the future with 1911?

One of my favorite episodes.  Great photo.

This is the real reason Beretta completed the trials and was allowed to submit a second, lower bid after Sig turned in theirs.

BOT:

Unless we go back to 45 or even 50 caliber with pure lead, full wad cutter flat nosed bullets, any switch from 9mm ball ammo is a waste of time and money.

We went through this drill over 100 yrs ago. The .38 didn't fare well in the PI, so they had the test where they shot cadavers and cows. The recommendation was nothing smaller than .45. And the wheel of history keeps turning.

The Marines are currently buying more updated 1911s from Colt. Looks like a nice gun.

My money is on the S&W M&P 45 with safety

Not when there other guns with higher capacity out there like the FNX.

ETA: or the Sig 227. Unfortunately, if the army does choose a new pistol it will probably be chosen for reasons other than their stated needs.

So the stupid is the ammo

If they weren't bound by Geneva and just loaded hollow points it wouldn't be an issue?

Just go 10mm cast and be done with it

Lol no

First the FNX is a flaky cheap POS.  Secondly, capacity isn't going to be the deciding factor


As you point out, other reasons will triumph.   Look to political capital.


My money is on the m&p

Someone finally pulled their head out of their arse and realized the mistake made going to a 9mm. My bet is on the FN or Sig since they already have contracts for service weapons.

The Marines are buying shiny things based on people who no longer go to war having been brought up with them 10-20 years ago and having money to do it now.


Much is often made of the poor performance of 38s in the Moro uprising.  Funny that they never point to the exact same complaints about 30-40s, 45-70s, 12 gauge shotguns and 45 Colts because all reported to not be able to stop narcotic filled Jihadi

Focus is on the wrong areas like always....
Nothing wrong with the M9. It's a service pistol. A sig, Glock, HK, 1911 would be no more reliable given the conditions they are used & the conditions they are kept in. The problem isn't the gun it's the AMMO. 9mm ball just blows.  The M9 is about the easiest thing to shoot. Unless you have smallish hands.

Pisses me off they want to waste billions to get back so little gain.  It's almost 2015 where the F are the ray/laser guns?  Come on WTF???

They're searching for Unicorns/wanting a pistol to do a rifle's job. The Beretta is a dinosaur, but a caliber change won't do anything other than raise taxes.

Sorry, but using ball ammo, there's only so much damage you're going to do. Not a terminal ballistics expert by any means, but how much of the advantage of a larger caliber (say .45 ACP) is lost when the bullet is an FMJ and will have zero expansion?

Doesn't seem worth the lessened mag capacity and decreased follow-up shots.

Shot placement is critical, and caliber doesn't change that.

I'm not saying the FNX is the best option, just that it is one. I think capacity will be a big factor. In the end it'll come down to whoever pads the most pockets and provides the lowest price.

This. They're also going to have a hell of a time getting away from any NATO round. I'd venture to say the M&P9 is in their future...

For the comments about the 38 not working on the drugged up frenzied Moro warriors.  

The 38 used by the Army from 1892-1909 was the 38 Long Colt.  So the 38 that failed to stop the Moro was a 150 grain lead round nose at around 770 fps resulting in about 200 ft-lb of energy.  The NATO 124 grain full metal jacket 9mm has almost twice the energy of the 38 Long Colt and about the same as the 230 grain Army ball 45.  

Not gonna happen. The Army has already terminated or suspended 55 procurement/upgrade programs this year.

Yes, please.

My little girl hands hated it when I had to use one.  That grip is just not comfortable for me.  

And yeah, 9mm ball was a silly decision.  9mm is great, ball not so much.

The 10mm, it's ballistic equivalent 41 Magnum and superior, 44 Magnum are all obsolete for general issue self defense.
Even the 357 Magnum has been downgraded to special needs issue, such as officers in  Alaska and other places with dangerous game.

The reason all those rounds and the 40 S&W came into being was because hollow point ammo either didn't exist yet or was still too immature at the time.
The 41 magnum was practically stillborn because it was harder to shoot, without any noticeable improvement in lethality, over the mainstream 357.
When the FBI tried to ignore this reality by issuing the 10mm, they rediscovered how most officers shoot too little to properly handle and shoot well with the magnum level round.
They then went to the instantly obsolete, downloaded 40S&W. That round does nothing a 9mm can do for less money in a smaller package.

The 44 magnum was never issued in large quantities. It's too, too much for the vast majority of needs.
An SBR rifle or SMG is usually a better choice at this size and weight level.

Once reliable 9mm hollow points were available, the 357 was ditched as fast as the guns firing it became worn from service.

I've stuck to commenting on issue hollow point ammo because the uninformed foolishness of issuing 10mm ball ammo, for use against humans, isn't even worth commenting on beyond this one sentence.

If a new pistol is actually adopted, and I sincerely doubt it will be, it will be a SIG P226 in .40 S&W.

I don't see them changing handguns if they don't change the caliber.


No battles are own or lost on the handguns that already limited numbers of our service members carry.

We have no obligation to use NATO ammo.   Especially so being the richest nation in NATO by far, and Western Europe no longer a three hour tank surge from soviet invasion.   We could literally use whatever caliber we wanted as long as we wish to deal with multi-nation logistics problems.   And running out of handgun ammo is probably a much lower priority than running out of clean underware or shaving kits for out troops in a total war.  Again, handguns are of limited value and the majority of soldiers do not carry them at all.  This isn't call of duty where if you magdump as a guy jumping around like a bunny, you hit triangle to grab your pistol because it is quicker than reloading.   Video games and hollywood have ruined our perception of handguns in the services.


The doorkickers and special units are already using whatever they would like already.


A .45 is going to suck as much as a 9mm.  


I think we will just stick with berettas for another 50 years.


If a decision is made, the company will have to have the industrial capacity, or the capital to secure the industrial capacity to meet the production schedule.      That alone will eliminate many of the aspiring manufacturers.   You are looking at S&W and Sig.   Colt has the infrastructure, but would probably need more people and machines.   FNH-USA would likely have to severely cut back on rifle and carbine production to meet demand.   I doubt their suppliers could keep up as well.   So they are out.    HK is far too small of a company to handle such a contract.  I still vote S&W because they recently bought out their frame supplier and they have the industrial capacity, workforce, and capital to handle the contract without sinking LE/Civilian business.

Nor would Sig commit to building a factory in the US. Beretta would & did.

But if you can get the enemy all lined up nice you can punch a hole through them 3 or 4 at a time.  :-)

Touché!  

I could see an S&W M&P in .40 with manual safety.

It meets the military requirement of a manual safety and thanks to the configurable grip inserts arguably  meets the 5% to 95% anthropometric criterion.

I could also see the Sig 229 since the Coast guard bought 4.2 million dollars worth of them, and they seem to be doing the job just fine.

And the Thompson-Lagarde Stockyard tests were as unscientific as it gets.  



 

Why does the Army need a new pistol to kill Warren Harding? He's already dead. Unless he becomes the undead, then any bullet to the brain will work. Or unless he's a vampire. Then only a stake through the heart will work or sunshine or holy water or.....................................

Or a pistol that can hit harder than Tonya Harding.  That's just weird

Wow, if they get a pistol that hits harder than Tonya Harding, then our enemies are in for a real world of hurt.

Maybe certain units have been impressed with their G22s?  

Tonya Harding couldn't hit, or skate. That is why she had someone else swing the club.

he is referencing her wedding night video.  

 

To me it's all just pissing in the wind.  But it will be interesting to see what happens next.

I hate to say this, but finding a new handgun for the troops ISN'T going to be that high a priority. I mean hell, they can't agree on a new rifle yet, how the hell are they going to pick a new handgun? Battles and wars are not won by handguns but they'll waste our money trying to convince us of that.

This whole discussion is so absurd I am certain Army Times and those rags cook it up just to sell copy rags.

I have killed literally tons, truckloads, of butcher stock, stock chasing dogs, varmints and coyotes with service pistols and others using primarily FMJ's and solid lead bullets in .22LR, .32 ACP, 7.62x25, 9mm Mak, 9x19, .38 Special, .45 ACP, .357 SIG, .41 Mag, .357 Mag, .45 Colt and .44 Mag.  By far most with 9mm and .45 ACP.  

No, there is no noticeable difference between killing effect of the .45 and 9x19.  Both are of course highly lethal, but very unimpressive.

RON was right about the whole Moro affair.  The primary problem with the Colt .38's was the guns themselves.  Hatcher discusses this in his books.

As for the Thompson-LaGarde report, well, read the whole thing.  It was a joke.  I have shot many multiple times the critters they shot and their methodolgy and observations were clownish.

No, Uncle is not going to go back to a .45 as a general issue pistol.  I have a few ideas about a new caliber they coud try, but .45?  No.

The terminal effect of the 9x19 could be somewhat improved by using a 110 grain flat point, truncated cone bullet and running it at 1400 fps.  I say marginally because at the enrgies ginned up by any of the common service pistols, you just can't get much out of them if one-shot stops are your goal and you are saddled with FMJ's.

ETA:  Forgot;  10mm, too.

Here's one;

G20, 10mm FMJ.

Shot thru the chest and killed by standing on its neck because the bullet wasn't convincing enough.

Agree. It's even got the name already.

The .40 is a cartridge that never should have been.

Really.

Nobody seems to get it.

Madison Avenue rules the gun world.

This replacement idea is not new, this has been planned for some time but the DoD cuts happened to come at the same time the M9s are reaching the end of their service life. But if what they say is true, that it is almost as cheap to adopt a new gun, then we know the only possible choices to replace it.

THE FACTS:

According to the criteria set forth by the military with the MHS program (industry day is the end of July), these are the only guns that meet all the set parameters and are inexpensive enough:

M&P .40
FNS .40 (possibly Long Slide)
FNX .40
FNX .45

These guns meet the exact standards set forth by the MHS including: reliability (closed slide design), external thumb safety (not on slide), larger caliber, service life of at least 25,000 rounds (some reports say 35,000), accessory rail, fully ambidextrous (important since very few guns have this feature), interchangeable back straps (noted as needed specifically for women), "commercial off-the-shelf" pistol (tested and cheap), reasonable capacity (probably no less than 12 or 13 rounds per magazine), and other federal agency tests get factored in to save money on testing (which favor the M&P).

MY OPINION:
They want a caliber that performs better than the 9mm at 50 yards in a gel test. Really, I think they might actually keep the 9mm and use either the M&P, FNS, or FNX when they realize the benefit of larger calibers is marginal. I would prefer they make the big switch and go to 5.7mm or something similar (too expensive right now), I think pistols will eventually change over to those types of calibers, but maybe not.

FN has built their guns around getting military contracts and has been very successful (SAW, M4, SCAR-H, vehicle mounted weapons, etc); they actually built the FNX for these military contracts, and if the military wants another external hammer handgun, this could get the contract. The FNX 45 with its 15 rounds of .45 is amazing because it matches the M9's 15 round capacity, but it may be too big for small handed people. I think FN should get the contract but they won't.

Here's why...

The problem for FN is that the M&P has been accepted almost as a replacement for Glock's around the country for ambidextrous design, incredible ergonomics, and "safety" features. It has been more thoroughly tested than FN pistols due to its popularity among LE and civilian markets. Most importantly, Smith & Wesson can also make the guns cheaper due to a mature market, increased production capacity, and a high stock price to use to raise capital. Therefore, they will have the lowest bid. I also think they will ended sticking with the M&P in 9mm because the .45 only holds 10 rounds and the .40 has too much recoil, and none of it is worth changing from NATO standard.

Fuck FN and their overpriced handguns. And there are plenty of Hajis in the dirt from 9mm ball.. Special forces all over still see the glock 17 as a perfectly suitable sidearm. I'd take FMJ 9mm ballistics and penetration over the 45 any damn day.

Where are you getting this information?

The FNX 45 has issues man.

What tests has it "passed"?

Capacity is not going to decide anything.  If it meets or exceeds capacity specs, it's in the fight.

FN's small arms have not been the success you claim.   FN's "purpose built" description of these arms is not really correct either.  They can say that, but the FNP-45 program was an entirely unsolicited program.

If we don't change caliber, I don't see us changing off of the M9.

I swear, the only threads that eclipse the balogny sauc stories about the original tests leading up to the M9, are the ones leading up to it's possible replacement.  Last month someone fairly credible on here was arguing that it was a rote fact that looks were the deciding factor.   This right after the usual stories of back room fixing and hookers being tossed through windows.

What will be funny is that if the mil ever switches to some plastic gun, everyone will lament the move, and all the 'cool guys" will get M9's to play with for a few decades.  And M9's will be highly sought after collectors models, just like the M1911 and M1911A1 are now.