National service pistols

R

RX-79G

Moderator
I found this list, and while it isn't complete or completely accurate (a MK23 is not really a general issue sidearm), it is interesting in what is, and is not there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_pistol

The Beretta 92, under a variety of names, is by far the most widely issued weapon in current service.

Glocks have been gaining steadily more recently - for the first 20 years only 2 countries used them, and USPs have done pretty well in the last 20 years. Many old Hi-Powers still in service, and German Sigs (stamped slides and Sig Pros). A few other guns also get around a little more - Helwan, Maks and Toks. Many of the rest are guns local to the country like CZ-75s, Bersa, HS2000s, Daewoos, FiveSevens, Llama, Jericho, etc, but not really outside those .

I find this list interesting because Glock is still the only polymer striker gun used by national militaries, and it took a long time to get there. "Expensive" HKs have done surprisingly well. The Beretta 92s have mostly been in service 25-30 years, and don't appear to be going anywhere.

It is my opinion that national militaries have the resources and government oversight to run the most comprehensive adoption trials, and these actions are more meaningful than what a TX PD decides. IMO.
 
What are we talking about here? Is the claim widely issued/used -or- most issued/used?

CZ claims the "most widely used" service pistol -- and that claim might be true if you count every small sale of 75/75Bs to a large number of small departments in many different locations around the world. Most folks seeing that CZ marketing claim seem to read "most sold" when they see "most widely used." Those two phrases don't mean the same thing.

Beretta probably has the most service weapons in use in the Western world, and that might also be true world wide -- by virtue of its sales in the U.S. market alone.

The initial U.S. Department of Defense order in 1987 was 600,000, and they ordered 100,000 more in 2012 for the U.S. Army. A number of federal agencies also bought Berettas in the early 1990's, as did a number number of local and state police departments. (I haven't actually personally seen a Beretta in use by a police department in a long time, however.)

.
 
Last edited:
It is my opinion that national militaries have the resources and government oversight to run the most comprehensive adoption trials, and these actions are more meaningful than what a TX PD decides. IMO.
Click to expand...

I look at it the other way actually... Sidearms are generally more "useful" for a police department than they would be for the military, due to the indended roles of each force. Local police may have access to a primary weapon, but that is not always the case. On the flip side, military members have more emphasis placed on their primary weapon in a hightened threat environment.

Also, most countries cannot afford to outfit troops with a new model handgun every few years, so they have to find something that will last (hence the "outdated" designs). Other things must be considered as well (on a much larger scale for military), such as training/implementation, parts, environment, longevity, etc.

Politics are present in both to a certain extent, so that part is a wash. Either way, I think most of the popular choices for police/military greatly exceed that which a typical person would need... And that is a great thing.
 
I think the fact that PDs are constantly lobbied with highly discounted guns from only a few companies, are limited by available duty gear and have no expectation of keeping the weapons going for decades are also large factors in ignoring PD thinking.

Police organizations are fickle, as a whole. They are always chasing the caliber de jour, replacing guns every time a new chief shows up whow likes/hates Glocks. They are like civilian consumers, except they're spending someone else's money.

The largest PDs do act like the military. How long did LA and NY stick with 9mm Berettas and 9mm Glocks, respectively? How many guns did most other PDs go through in that time?
 
It is my opinion that national militaries have the resources and government oversight to run the most comprehensive adoption trials, and these actions are more meaningful than what a TX PD decides. IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree in theory, though recent history in the US has shown us that there doesn't appear to be the willingness to make the change even with the trials. We already went through one pistol trial for the US Army. Similar to the carbine trials, it doesn't seem that any one manufacturer can show enough of a performance gain over existing stock to warrant an upgrade that would likely be very expensive. As much as some have disdain for the M9, besides weight what on the market offers a significant benefit over it for a military role?

My other comment would be how important are sidearms to any military? Mostly they're issued to officers and non frontline troops, including base MPs and those involved in logistics or support roles in the field. Sure there are elite units that use them, we all know the SEALs, but compared to the whole that's a limited number. I'm also not aware of those smaller units conducting large public trials. They seem to have much more discretion in choosing what they think is best based on their own opinions and personal testing.

On the civilian and police side pistols are often the first line of defense. In actual combat I have to wonder how much of a difference pistols make. I've known some soldiers that would frankly rather ditch the pistol and have an extra magazine or two for their primary. Even if those soldiers did carry a pistol, having to use it would be a sign that something likely went terribly wrong (which can happen but maybe not as much as it did in the past).

I would agree that a military adoption is a general litmus test of the toughness of a particular weapon. But I don't ignore the PD trials because they do consider some factors, such as weight, that the military is less worried about (the German standard police tests seem pretty tough too). As you alluded to, there are also political factors in the adoption of a firearm by PD (though many argued that with Beretta and the M9 as well). I like to look at all of it. Not every pistol has been tested by the military and if said pistol can't pass PD trials it likely wouldn't pass the military trials either (which I grant would likely be harder). When I sometimes just like trying different firearms, at least the PD results give me some idea of how that firearm might perform.
 
Last edited:
This gets said a lot, but US troops seem to be using their sidearms quite a bit. Otherwise problems with dust and parkerized magazines wouldn't have come to light. And discussion about replacement weapons and new calibers would also not be on the table.

I believe that US forces dealing with insurgencies and caves end up using pistols quite a bit more than you might expect.

As I pointed out earlier, the Beretta 92 design is the most successful military pistol in recent history, and it is actually going to be hard to come up with a military issue pistol that works as well or measurably better.

I just read on Beretta's site that the US trials also set a standard of 3" groups at 50 meters, which the 92 met. I'm sure that is from a Ransom rest or the equivalent with excellent ammo, but there aren't many service pistols that can do that under any circumstances.

And the little groups I got today with my 25 year old PT92 and cheap reloads, I believe it.
 
This gets said a lot, but US troops seem to be using their sidearms quite a bit. Otherwise problems with dust and parkerized magazines wouldn't have come to light. And discussion about replacement weapons and new calibers would also not be on the table.
Click to expand...

Well the M9 has been in service for what, two decades now? I would imagine that over time those issues will surface. The ones that are in service do get shot, or Beretta wouldn't be selling replacements and parts or upgrading the Marine Corps to the M9-A1. I guess my argument was how much in combat do they get shot in comparison to carbines/rifles and how much of their shooting is for practice and qualifying.

As for discussions of replacement weapons and new calibers. There are always officers looking for pet projects and the military industrial complex has to eat. Some worthwhile projects have been canceled in the past, so progression isn't always a sign of need. Similar to the last pistol trial, I doubt this one will go anywhere (especially with at least $500 billion in budget cuts over the next decade). The M9 works pretty well.

I believe that US forces dealing with insurgencies and caves end up using pistols quite a bit more than you might expect.
Click to expand...

That's a good point, but keep in mind the carbine length systems in the military are shorter than our 16.5" models (assuming they have access to carbines). We also go from the caves to the mountains in Afghanistan where engagement ranges are greater than had been seen in some previous conflicts. I'm not sure how much help pistols are there (though ambush is a factor).
 
Last edited:
Cost of M9s not that much...

TunnelRat said:
As for discussions of replacement weapons and new calibers. There are always officers looking for pet projects and the military industrial complex has to eat. Some worthwhile projects have been canceled in the past, so progression isn't always a sign of need. Similar to the last pistol trial, I doubt this one will go anywhere (especially with at least $500 billion in budget cuts over the next decade). The M9 works pretty well.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating replacing the M9 but if the U.S. Military decided to do so, it wouldn't be that costly in the grand scheme of things. A complete replacement of all the M9s (not including any money from the sale of the M9s), would cost what, around 3 or 4 modern fighters?
 
I'm not advocating replacing the M9 but if the U.S. Military decided to do so, it wouldn't be that costly in the grand scheme of things. A complete replacement of all the M9s (not including any money from the sale of the M9s), would cost what, around 3 or 4 modern fighters?
Click to expand...

It's not just the pistols though. It's the money involved in the testing process, the money spent on the parts, any new holsters that would be required, new training for those already qualified on the M9, new training for armorers, any needed modifications to the logistic system, etc. And while if you're referencing the JSF I agree, I also think that honestly the 3 or 4 modern fighters would likely have a greater battlefield impact.
 
The REAL big surprise...

Denmark is using the Glock 20? As a service pistol? In 10mm?

That is the big surprise. Even if it turns out to be only for a small elite unit.

Bart Noir
 
Yeah, the M9 gets some use......

Brad Kasal, hero in 2004

And it looks like his KaBar is still in his left hand. That also got some use in that fight.
Click to expand...

I can't open the link :(

There are definitely stories of service pistol still being used in critical situations. But a few stories here and there doesn't to me make a case that they're critical. Useful at times no doubt. I think that's part of the reason we won't see the M9 go away just yet. That and it's a good gun to boot.

Does anyone have any links in regards to other nations and their military trials for sidearms? All I typically here in the US. Would be interesting to see some foreign perspective and what they demand.
 
I tend to take the opposite view of the various national pistol trials as well... "a camel is a horse designed by a committee" to put it another way.

Glock likely took so long to break in due to the whole military "second strike ability" this was part of the M9 trial... for whatever reason our military perhaps others wants it's troopers to be able to go click again when click is not followed by a bang. Makes not sense to most but maybe they plan on giving out old ammo to go with parkerzed magazine etc? I understand the rational but do not get it.

The M9 is a fine gun, just not for everyone, not an end all be all of anything and frankly not that great for many end users.

I think going with the 226 / 228 would have been a much better choice, same manual of arms, parts commonality etc. But of course there was politics involved as well as there always is! And the 226 tied with Beretta just lost on price / politics.

Heck even then Mark 23 suffers from that to some degree, and that was a SOCOM project; I mean it's a fine gun but DAM it's huge.

Part of the reason for the M9 project was to get rid of the vast array of handguns the gov had from the 1911 to revolvers of various forms etc. and settle on one common sidearm. That is a noble intent from a logistics standpoint but utterly impractical given the spectrum of users out there.

Lets face it, they adopted the M9 AND the M11 so things went sideways from day one if the goal was one and only one sidearm.

A few decades latter we have what?

The M9 and M11... many report anyone that can get an M11 option usually takes it

The M23

The marines have their MEUSOG 1911's and now the M45

The seals have the P226

I read about coasties having the P229 in 40?

There are other various pistols floating around in small numbers as limited use / standards.

So I think it's more or less inevitable, various users have varied needs... no good one size fits all solution.
 
And the 226 tied with Beretta just lost on price / politics.
Click to expand...

Actually the SIG failed the dried mud test compared to the Beretta, but the military thought the test itself was likely unrealistic and eliminating the SIG would have left the Beretta as the only member of the competition.
 
RsqVet,

The M11 is smaller. It was chosen for people who need smaller guns - aircrew and investigators. Despite it being in the system, SEALs and the rest of SOCOM and SF don't use them. The short sight radius, smaller grip and smaller capacity must not make it attractive as a regular service pistol.

In any organization, people are going to try and seek out the oddball item instead of the vanilla, when they have a choice. When you add the US imposed M9 problems, like the Checkmate mag debacle and the fact that we don't really track round counts very well, the alternative pistol starts seeming pretty attractive.

I'm starting to come around to thinking that the Beretta is a better pistol than the Sig 226. It is both more accurate (meets US requirement for 3" groups at 50 yards) and is about the most feed reliable design of any common issue pistol. They don't need or use feed ramps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top