Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 4/11/2006 2:02:09 PM EDT
What was the military's rationale behind replacing the 1911 as the standard sidearm? Was it just because they felt that it was an old design?
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:03:13 PM EDT
9MM, and lots of it.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:04:45 PM EDT
High capacity
Some, namely females, didn't like the recoil of the .45 ACP.

We're the US, we have to be an EOP.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:05:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/11/2006 2:06:12 PM EDT by capnrob97]
Read a story on NY Times site about Smith & Wesson, the Pentagon is putting up a bid to replace the Berettas in 2008 I believe. S&W wants the contract very much so.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:09:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/11/2006 2:10:19 PM EDT by ARDOC]
Reliability
Mag capacity
NATO round commonality
Less recoil

Sig should have won but lost due to unit cost. But they got a small order for M11s.

Beretta also built a factory here to make them. But so did most of the competitors.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:12:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/11/2006 2:12:25 PM EDT by BlueEyedEvil]

Originally Posted By capnrob97:
Read a story on NY Times site about Smith & Wesson, the Pentagon is putting up a bid to replace the Berettas in 2008 I believe. S&W wants the contract very much so.



Lord God, PLEASE don't let S&W screw up our military's side arms worse than it already is!
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:15:22 PM EDT
Because it holds 15 in the clip and one up the pipe.

That's some serious shit.



Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:15:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BlueEyedEvil:

Originally Posted By capnrob97:
Read a story on NY Times site about Smith & Wesson, the Pentagon is putting up a bid to replace the Berettas in 2008 I believe. S&W wants the contract very much so.



Lord God, PLEASE don't let S&W screw up our military's side arms worse than it already is!




Here is the quote from the article: (2007 not 2008 as I said)

"Next year, the Pentagon will be deciding on a new 10-year contract to provide 645,000 sidearms for the military to replace its Beretta models. With up to $600 million at stake, Smith & Wesson wants to be in the running — perhaps, suggests Mr. Golden, even working with the Pentagon to develop a next-generation pistol."
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:17:46 PM EDT
the m9 sucks, it has a very fat grip and long first trigger pull making it a tough gun for females.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:17:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ARDOC:

Beretta also built a factory here to make them. But so did most of the competitors.



That was one of the requirements to bid... it had to be build and delivered from a US company located in USA. Same for the M-16 rifles, which is why FN set up a factory here.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:18:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By capnrob97:

Originally Posted By BlueEyedEvil:

Originally Posted By capnrob97:
Read a story on NY Times site about Smith & Wesson, the Pentagon is putting up a bid to replace the Berettas in 2008 I believe. S&W wants the contract very much so.



Lord God, PLEASE don't let S&W screw up our military's side arms worse than it already is!




Here is the quote from the article: (2007 not 2008 as I said)

"Next year, the Pentagon will be deciding on a new 10-year contract to provide 645,000 sidearms for the military to replace its Beretta models. With up to $600 million at stake, Smith & Wesson wants to be in the running — perhaps, suggests Mr. Golden, even working with the Pentagon to develop a next-generation pistol."



I pray the brass ain't that stupid.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:19:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/11/2006 2:20:18 PM EDT by Mauser101]
Wouldn't be a damn problem with the 92F they issue if we supplied our men with high quality magazines and stopped pretending we signed that stupid Hague Convention. The only thing really wrong with 9mm is ball.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:21:03 PM EDT
Who cares? Pistols are a badge of rank, the M-4 is what you depend on.

Why not a S&W 1911 in 9mm? Think you could get 10 rounds in the .45 frame?
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:26:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SS109:

Why not a S&W 1911 in 9mm? Think you could get 10 rounds in the .45 frame?



Them nutty Croats just got 13 of them into the XD.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:26:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/11/2006 2:26:41 PM EDT by motown_steve]

Originally Posted By BlueEyedEvil:

Originally Posted By capnrob97:

Originally Posted By BlueEyedEvil:

Originally Posted By capnrob97:
Read a story on NY Times site about Smith & Wesson, the Pentagon is putting up a bid to replace the Berettas in 2008 I believe. S&W wants the contract very much so.



Lord God, PLEASE don't let S&W screw up our military's side arms worse than it already is!




Here is the quote from the article: (2007 not 2008 as I said)

"Next year, the Pentagon will be deciding on a new 10-year contract to provide 645,000 sidearms for the military to replace its Beretta models. With up to $600 million at stake, Smith & Wesson wants to be in the running — perhaps, suggests Mr. Golden, even working with the Pentagon to develop a next-generation pistol."



I pray the brass ain't that stupid.



Smith and Wesson makes good pistols.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:26:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ARDOC:
Reliability
Mag capacity
NATO round commonality
Less recoil

Sig should have won but lost due to unit cost. But they got a small order for M11s.

Beretta also built a factory here to make them. But so did most of the competitors.



Double strike capability.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:48:05 PM EDT
I would like to see HK get the contract for the new sidearm. The built a HK 45 as per request of the pentagon.

But they way S&W has been pushing the MP it might go to them.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:52:53 PM EDT
beretta's in the running for this new contract too. they're building their new PX4 in .45. if the 45 model shoots anything like the 9mm and the .40, it'll be a SWEEET RIDE! the PX4 is a REALLY nice pistol
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:54:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1911greg:
the m9 sucks, it has a very fat grip and long first trigger pull making it a tough gun for females.



Long trigger pull on what? DAO? I have taught four women how to shoot with my 92FS and not one of them had a problem. I know a couple who had more problems with the triggers on Glocks, than anything. As far as the 92FS sucking, I had mine since 94 and I have only had one problem (bad primer), after about 8000 rnds. I can't recommend the 92 highly enough...
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 2:56:27 PM EDT
How about a CZ-97?
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:00:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
How about a CZ-97?



Looks great, and the price is right. But for the looks of it the military wants a polymer framed gun with a ambi slide and flash light rail.

CZ would have to remake the gun to get the contract.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:07:06 PM EDT

Who cares? Pistols are a badge of rank, the M-4 is what you depend on.



Speak for yourself buddy. I've been an MP for nine years and a pistol is very useful in getting you out of a scrape. Gunners especially need them. Call them the ultimate"My rifle fucked up/went empty and I really need to kill this asshole"weapon.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:13:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/11/2006 3:14:21 PM EDT by MT-Gun-Nut]
They should use glock 22s.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:15:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Silesius:
Because it holds 15 in the clip and one up the pipe.

That's some serious shit.

img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-3/963911/lethal-weapon-1-4.jpg



CLIP?????

GLock 17 holds 17 rnds and one in the pipe.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:15:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MT-Gun-Nut:

Originally Posted By Silesius:
Because it holds 15 in the clip and one up the pipe.

That's some serious shit.

img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-3/963911/lethal-weapon-1-4.jpg



CLIP?????

GLock 17 holds 17 rnds and one in the pipe.



the humor is lost obviously
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:16:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MT-Gun-Nut:
They should use glock 22s.



an upshot of that is if an instructor shoots his own dumb ass, he could always sue
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:20:22 PM EDT
At the time the biggest threat of war came from the Soviet Union. NATO was formed to counter that threat. NATO countries swapped technology and trained their militaries to fight alongside other NATO nations.

Naturally it simplified the NATO supply situation if everyone used the same ammo instead of everyone using their own stuff. So part of the NATO agreement was for all member nations to standardize their ammunition.

NATO designed and adopted the 9mm NATO and 7.62 NATO cartridges. (The 9mm NATO was based on the 9mm Parabellum cartridge and is generally compatible with it.)

The United States adopted the 7.62 NATO round for it’s new M-14 rifle but kept the .45 ACP cartridge in service. Then the US adopted the 5.56mm cartridge for the M-16 and completely abandoned NATO standards. Then we pushed a new “standard” cartridge on NATO, the 5.56 NATO (SS109) cartridge when we decided to upgrade from the M-16 A1 to the A2.

At about the same time we needed to replace all of the handguns in military service. The last .45 was made in something like 1945 and they were all simply worn out. So Congress decided that the military should use the NATO standard 9mm cartridge or their new pistol.

So a competition was held. The Army rigged the tests to make them impossible to pass; they wanted to stay with the .45. But a small fortune was riding on the contract for new pistols so companies actually found ways to make their pistols pass the test. Today people take reliability in an automatic pistol for granted but before the 1980s automatic pistols were somewhat finicky beasts. Firearms designers learned a lot about how to make an auto pistol reliable and durable during those tests.

The new pistols (which came to be known as Wondernines) were able to beat any test the Army could reasonably throw at them and they finally settled on the Beretta design.

Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:20:58 PM EDT
Its the JCP pistol trials actually, and anyone can submit a design to be tested


It requires .45 ACP, and a threaded barrel for a suppressor as well

Rumors of the following are submitting offers

H&K
Glock
Berretta
FN
S&W
Sig Arms
Colt
Kimber
IMI

I am sure there are others at this point before they get narrowed down
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:23:29 PM EDT
M-9s are much handier than M-4s in a tank...


Pistols are a badge of rank, the M-4 is what you depend on.



Why Beretta? Because only two companies provided pistols that passed all the tests, and Beretta's bid was $3,000,000 lower than the SIG one. The difference was in post-sales support (incl spare parts). The actual unit price before support was $176.33 per SIG P226 and $178.50 per 92SB-F

If only I had such an economy of scale.

NTM
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:26:24 PM EDT
Check out this link, American Handgunner had it in the back of their March/April magazine. Shows what the military is looking for in a new handgun. .45 ACP!!
link
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:27:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:29:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Snorkel_Bob:
Check out this link, American Handgunner had it in the back of their March/April magazine. Shows what the military is looking for in a new handgun. .45 ACP!!
link



this has been the talk of the handgun forum for the past 3 months.

dont get your hopes up all those who would like to see the m9 go bye bye. i can crush your joy with 3 characters:

XM8

i'll believe that the M9 is being replaced when i see it happen
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:32:55 PM EDT
The military is going back to the 45. they are finding the 9mm to be Insignificant firepower. Iraq and Afgan are proving it on a day to day basis
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:36:01 PM EDT
The 9mm will be around for a long time. This talk of a new .45 combat handgun for general issue is not gonna happen. The U.S. Military just purchased an additional 70,000 M-9's and I believe a contract for another large amount in 5 years. If any new pistol is adopted, it will be for SOCOM only. Any new firearm the U.S. Military will adopt will have to be NATO standard, i.e. 9MM. That rules out .45 ACP and .40 S&W.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:36:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:

Originally Posted By MT-Gun-Nut:

Originally Posted By Silesius:
Because it holds 15 in the clip and one up the pipe.

That's some serious shit.

img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-3/963911/lethal-weapon-1-4.jpg



CLIP?????

GLock 17 holds 17 rnds and one in the pipe.



the humor is lost obviously



True Dat.

I think Silesius wins for one of the best responses I've seen in a long time.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:40:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:41:46 PM EDT

They really should let non-military citizens get in on that group buy. They'd sell an extra 50,000 to Arfcommers alone...

Jim
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:45:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
What was the military's rationale behind replacing the 1911 as the standard sidearm? Was it just because they felt that it was an old design?



Because the 1911's they had were worn out. (40 yrs old!). Because more US soldiers/marines were being killed by NDs with the 1911 than badguys. Because the nato standard is 9mm. Because the DA trigger was/is considered safer than the SA trigger of the 1911A1.



Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:55:11 PM EDT
What they need is a SIG220R with the 8 round mags.

Better then most out there.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 4:00:01 PM EDT
the beretta won b/c it outbid the SIG
the 1911 was replaced b/c: it was getting old and the US govt did not want to keep the 1911s in service by cont contracting to keep em
wanted to std. to NATO 9mm
said that lots of grunts cant handle the .45acp
hi-cap
plastic guns are a joke
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 4:00:22 PM EDT
We rammed the 5.56 down the European throats, and our payback was the 9mm.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 4:07:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By go3:
We rammed the 5.56 down the European throats, and our payback was the 9mm.



logical...funny how as the US/EU "progressed", everyone ended up "wussifying" thier small arms cartriges
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 4:28:26 PM EDT
I think the M9 will be around for a while; the army just let a contract for 14 million magazines.

The beretta has good points and bad. Easy to shoot, except if you are a female or have small hands, easy to maintain, slide and frame never rusts, but the outside of the barrel for some reason will rust if you look at it with damp eyes. 9mm ball isn't the best stopper but I guess that’s what the large magazine is for.

I don't like the external safety or the DA/SA trigger, but the army does, and the next pistol has to have a safety too.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 4:33:38 PM EDT
Some .mil units are replacing the M9 already...with the M1911A1.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 4:53:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/11/2006 4:57:37 PM EDT by DvlDog]
you cant count Marine Recon and Delta as mainline .mil units replacing the M9. theres less than 1000 total between the 2. last time i heard there were just over 300 MEUSOC pistols BEFORE the kimber and springfield contracts and as far as i know they were replaced on a 1 for 1 basis except for the DET-1 procurement.

how many people here discussing the "worthless" 9mm have seen someone shot with one???? i have and while it aint RA9T or a .45 ......3 rounds of 9mm ball in the chest will definitely fuck your day up.

its inherent safety, accuracy and reliability have made it a winner. it doesnt have the steep learning curve of the 1911 and it has NATO interoperability. the M9 has been a good weapon. and i dont want to hear any crap about "what about the checkmate mags" i know, i was issued them.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 5:02:18 PM EDT
I don't think there is going to be a huge difference between 9mm and .45, in actual use. I do, however, think that the M9/M92 is a piece of shit--and many, many knowledgeable people would agree with me on that.

For all the bitching on the internet, don't forget that pistols don't win wars......but they might bring an individual back home who would have died without one.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 5:03:29 PM EDT
My only question is this:

Why not Glock? More capacity, more reliable, cheaper to maintain, easy to disassemble.....

Rant off

The beretta is a nice gun and all, but it's just not a good military arm. It's complex (compaired to glocks, etc), It's tolerances are too tight (makes it easy to cause a malfunction when dirty), and weighs more then a glock 17.

IMHO, the G17 is about as perfect of a military handgun as you can get.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 5:04:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fla556guy:
My only question is this:

Why not Glock? More capacity, more reliable, cheaper to maintain, easy to disassemble.....

Rant off

The beretta is a nice gun and all, but it's just not a good military arm. It's complex (compaired to glocks, etc), It's tolerances are too tight (makes it easy to cause a malfunction when dirty), and weighs more then a glock 17.

IMHO, the G17 is about as perfect of a military handgun as you can get.



nowhere near as idiot proof as the .mil would like
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 5:12:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/11/2006 5:13:30 PM EDT by fla556guy]
Maybe true. But consider this;

I got out of the USAF Oct of 2004. I was security forces, stationed at F.E. Warren AFB from mar of 01-oct04. I carried an m9 on many occassions (along with other more common military arms). The USAF"s SOP for the m9 handgun is to keep it on safe to load it, chamber a round, then before placing it into the holster, flip it onto fire. The safety was actually used as a decocker 90% of the time. I don't know how the army, etc do it, but that's how we did it. This is why I said glock, because the way we carried our m9s, there really is no difference in them besides the safe action vs DA/SA, and it all boils down to one thing: Keep finger off trigger until ready to shoot.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 5:14:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fla556guy:
Maybe true. But consider this;

I got out of the USAF Oct of 2004. I was security forces, stationed at F.E. Warren AFB from mar of 01-oct04. I carried an m9 on many occassions (along with other more common military arms). The USAF"s SOP for the m9 handgun is to keep it on safe to load it, chamber a round, then before placing it into the holster, flip it onto fire. The safety was actually used as a decocker 90% of the time. I don't know how the army, etc do it, but that's how we did it. This is why I said glock, because the way we carried our m9s, there really is no difference in them besides the safe action vs DA/SA, and it all boils down to one thing: Keep finger off trigger until ready to shoot.



but what about when loading/unloading, and the biggie: you gotta pull the trigger on a glock to clean it
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 5:16:55 PM EDT
You have to pull the trigger on an m-4/m,-16 to rack-safe it too. Problem solved by looking into the chamber before pulling trigger (much easier to do on a glock than an m-4/m-16 imho
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top