It's only a handgun !

Meanwhile, in a related story, Smith & Wesson is being accused of financial indiscretions; Politics at work. I can only assume that "someone" doesn't want S&W to get that contract.
 
Am I having a brain cramp but didn't the military, just three or four years ago, make the decision to stick with the Beretta M9 instead of going to a 45 ACP handgun?
 
Funny, the Brits and New Zealand went for Glock 17s. Trust us to go to a B-2 level of expense. We will probably end up just buying three of them.
 
I'm still not sure what's wrong with the M9 that it needs replacing. Old, worn out guns? Fine buy some more new M9s and call it a day.

No need to buy new ammo, new guns, new parts, retrain everyone, retool all the armorers for the new pistol.
 
Wait, the military is dragging their feet and spending gobs of money with nothing to show....shocking.

Should've just stayed with the 1911.

-Robb
 
I agree that there's not enough wrong with the m9 to warrant replacing it. Just get beretta to get a smaller model for smaller hands; that's the only legitimate complaint I've ever heard.

Those that have traditionally carried a service pistol have been carrying carbines now
 
There is nothing really wrong with the Beretta functionally. There are better, more modern designs that SHOULD be cheaper to purchase though. If I were king I'd not pull serviceable Berettas out of service, but would phase in either the Glock or M&P. There doesn't need to be a ton of testing, it has already been done and both of those are proven enough to me. Just place an order and buy the darn things. They could outfit half the military for the cost of all the testing they plan.

Going to another caliber, especially 45 would be a huge mistake and a step backwards.
 
Isn't the sidearm sort of the modern equivalent of the officer's saber back in the old days? They could wear six-shooters for all the difference it makes.
 
I just don't get it. I'm not a fan of Glocks, but that should be the direction to go. There are several common sense reasons, IMO, that that platform would work out well for the long run.
 
...there's not enough wrong with the m9 to warrant replacing it. ...get a smaller model for smaller hands; that's the only legitimate complaint I've ever heard.
Click to expand...

1.) The M9 uses an alloy frame which, I am led to believe, is or was prone to cracking due to stresses from shooting NATO-spec ammo. Fixing them may be impossible or prohibitively expensive. We live in the polymer age, now. If a polymer pistol frame cracks, another may be injection molded and finished for far less expense. Given the advent of 3D printing, we may eventually see this being done in the field, not the rear echelons.

2.) There may be limits to how much the frame can be reduced in size, for smaller hands.

3.) Double action autos are just stupid.
a.) It's far more difficult to master a draw-and-fire presentation with them (while actually HITTING something) than with the 1911A1, Glocks, or even double-action revolvers.
b.) They are necessarily more complicated, inviting breakage and a necessarily more complicated repair paradigm and parts inventory.
c.) Their decocking mechanism(s) can give rise to unintended discharges, either through mechanical failure or a misunderstood/misapplied manual of arms, especially in stressful circumstances (like...oh, I dunno...COMBAT?).
 
Wierd, that somehow you think the manual safety and decocker is going away on the next gun? Every serious entry will have a safety and decocker. The SA/DA requirement will probably stick around too.
I've operated a beretta since about 1987 in training. Real live combat use of a pistol...0 times.allways had a rifle. The people that were traditionally issued pistols grab a rifle if they end up needing one.
Most of the pistols are decorative pieces like another person posted. I agree, a six shooter would do.

If you're a special operator, that goes in pistols blazing. I suggest that you stop posting to Internet gun boards.
Now I feel that replacing the m9 is a total waste of money and time.
 
Wierd, that somehow you think the manual safety and decocker is going away on the next gun? Every serious entry will have a safety and decocker. The SA/DA requirement will probably stick around too.
Click to expand...

I don't recall saying that the manual safety and decocker IS going away on the next pistol, just that it would be nice if it DID. I'M not the one who must buy (not directly, anyway) or tool up for this arm, so if the military is well & truly determined to overcomplicate the mechanism with safeties made superfluous by proper weapons handling, so be it. I'M unlikely to ever use one in combat, but the members of our uniformed services can't really say that.

If the pistol simply MUST have a DA configuration, then the SA option is, to me, a necessary feature, also. Except for expense and complexity (two ships which have already sailed, it appears), I have no REAL objection to a DA autopistol that I may always use in SA mode (Condition 1).

I've operated a beretta since about 1987 in training. Real live combat use of a pistol...0 times.allways had a rifle. The people that were traditionally issued pistols grab a rifle if they end up needing one.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your service, and I am happy for your good fortune to always have a better tool at hand for your combat experiences. Sidearms fill the same roles in combat as seat-belts, airbags, parachutes, Epi-Pens, and crash helmets fill in other more mundane aspects of our existence. The salient characteristic shared by these devices is that if one is without them when they really need them, they'll probably never have need of any of them, ever again.

The sidearm is a DEFENSIVE weapon, used to deliver an instantaneous and disabling response to an unprovoked and unforeseen attack. Failing this, its use is a delaying tactic, meant to keep its operator in one piece long enough to escape the threat, or gain access to more effective weaponry. There is a more humourous depiction of this, by Mike Irwin (I believe), who characterizes sidearms as "the starting pistol for the fat man's mad-dash tactical retreat".
That said, I am not
a special operator, that goes in pistols blazing,
Click to expand...
and I doubt that any SO worthy of the title would do so, unless no better weapon was at hand. I've made no claim to be an SO, ever. To postulate that I am is to "assume facts not in evidence" as the litigators are fond to say.
Further, since your suggestion that I
stop posting to Internet gun boards.
Click to expand...
is predicated on the false notion that I AM an SO, I elect to relegate said suggestion to same fate the M9 deserves, the nearest trash heap. Both items are long overdue there.

Waste of time or not, it appears that the M9 is fated to be replaced. If so, then replacing it with a better sidearm is the only ethical outcome.
 
No, I didn't direct that directly at you, but the type of folks that would rely heavily on a pistol would probably not post here. Just a discussion point. I don't think the requirements of the beretta will change on the next handgun. The military has time tested requirements for a reason, and they usually don't relax in the next inception, probably will require some feature in addition to the ones in place already.
If they can retain those features and get added life, or enhanced operation then all the better. Sure there's plenty of alternatives. I've shot some of the contenders meant for military contracts, they all had external safeties and decockers (the ones I shot)
 
LOL @ Kilomanjaro. Well, perhaps not combat viable, given the Luger's reputation for being persnickety about ammo, but imagine the ballistics one might obtain from a .45 ACP loaded to higher pressures! Certainly, the Luger's mechanism can withstand beatings that many swinging link/tilt-barrel actions just won't handle. It might make a 100-yard capable defensive automatic sidearm more than fanciful thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top