I have never seen a reason why a 9mm P pistol needs to be the size of an M9, but part of that problem is due to the US Army's split views on a handgun. Put simply, is a pistol a personal defense weapon, a last ditch arm to kill an enemy who is at arms length, or a combat tool to contribute to a fire fight? Many years ago, the Army decided to split those roles and came up with the M1 carbine; the wisdom of that move is still debated. Meantime, the service rifle has become smaller, shorter, and lighter, in line with the M1 carbine, but much more powerful.
I wonder if it is not time to rethink the whole military handgun approach. Maybe a compact pistol (A-80?) for a symbolic handgun for officers and a compact SMG for troops who don't have to carry a rifle, but who need an effective and usable combat weapon. (No, M1911 lovers, not a ".45"; it is still a pistol and more a nuisance to carry than a combat weapon.)
Jim
I wonder if it is not time to rethink the whole military handgun approach. Maybe a compact pistol (A-80?) for a symbolic handgun for officers and a compact SMG for troops who don't have to carry a rifle, but who need an effective and usable combat weapon. (No, M1911 lovers, not a ".45"; it is still a pistol and more a nuisance to carry than a combat weapon.)
Jim