New Army Handgun: We're Really Doing This

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see quite a few questioning the need or use of a pistol in combat.

Didn't know so many on this forum were combat veterans.

Perhaps they could chide the Marine sergeant in Fallujah who
survived because he had his M9? Trapped in a basement,
he used his M9 to kill several insurgents. When he emerged
he was photographed carrying his M9 and his K-Bar.

He wasn't the only one who has survived because he had a
1911 or M9.

Still, the experts on this forum know better. :D
 
Perhaps they could chide the Marine sergeant in Fallujah who
survived because he had his M9? Trapped in a basement,
he used his M9 to kill several insurgents. When he emerged
he was photographed carrying his M9 and his K-Bar.

He wasn't the only one who has survived because he had a
1911 or M9.

Still, the experts on this forum know better.
Click to expand...

One example doesn't make a war.

The citation for his Navy Cross doesn't mention him actually using his M9. I think it's just as likely that he drew it after being wounded by both AK rounds and fragmentation from a grenade. The citation was for his leadership both before and after being injured and using his own body as a human shield for a fellow Marine. The man was a hero of the first order, but frankly he didn't need a pistol for that.

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

You could even use this story as an example of why the M9 doesn't need to be replaced. It obviously worked well enough for the sergeant.

The problem is this: $500 billion in cuts over 10 years before sequestration, $1 trillion in cuts over 10 years with it (and it hasn't been truly eliminated). Are those pistols going to provide more benefit to the soldier than some other system for the same money? That's a hard call to make. Money is going to be extremely tight. Pistols sure make for good photos though.
 
Last edited:
The citation for his Navy Cross doesn't mention him actually using his M9.
Click to expand...

[sarcasm] That's because he didn't use a 45acp 1911 and if he did, he would've gotten a vest made from Medal of Honors. [/sarcasm]
 
I bow to the more knowlegable vets out ther who have been in harms way, I just thought the handiness of a handgun might be of an advantage but after hearing some of the vet's replies it's obvious to me that I haven't a clue. God bless all of you for your service to our country.
 
I bow to the more knowlegable vets out ther who have been in harms way, I just thought the handiness of a handgun might be of an advantage but after hearing some of the vet's replies it's obvious to me that I haven't a clue. God bless all of you for your service to our country.
Click to expand...

Remember this thread isn't about removing handguns entirely. It's about if a new handgun is needed given the tighter budget and the current M9.
 
The fact is unless NATO switches rounds, we are more than likely stuck with 9mm. But on the same topic, after 18yrs of Service nothing the Army does surprises me. So spending money for a new platform and or round wouldn't shock me one bit. And truth be told by the time its fielded completely(years), there will a ton of complaints about what they went with and wish for something else.
 
Nothing wrong with the M9, the problem is with the shooter.
Click to expand...

The problem is not with the M-9 but the idiots at Beretta that after 30 years still have not changed the safety off the slide to the frame.

As to moving from the 9 mm to another caliber, I see a problem with that also because of NATO. I think you will start seeing pistols that use 9 mm +P ammunition. Heavier recoil springs and slightly thicker barrels that can use 9 MM NATO ammo or 9 mm USA ammo (+P).

Maybe FNH will come up with a version that looks like the FNX 45 Tactical in 9 mm (optics ready) that the Army will like.

Jim

The FNX 45 does 15 rounds of 45 ACP and could take 20 rounds of 9 MM +P.
 
Maybe keeping the 9mm pistol would work if the military changed the ammo like they did with the M16/M4. The newer 147-grain loads have shown a lot of promise. They should reexamine the 147-gr. FMJFP as a Hague-friendly round.
 
9mm said:
What is the need to replace the m9? it has a proven track record. Prehaps the problem is, the shooter, the cheap magazines and the old/abused guns. Upgrade/replace train and buy better magazines..
Click to expand...
The problem is that the troops in the field consistently report that the 9mm FMJ round doesn't do even a half-decent job of putting the bad guys down. Don't forget, we civilians can now claim that the 9mm "approaches" the effectiveness of the .45 ACP mostly due to advances in bullet design -- bullets that are not allowed in combat because of the Hague convention.

If the military isn't allowed to use advanced hollow-point ammo, and big holes still beat little holes, I would expect them to look for a pistol that makes bigger holes.
 
Last edited:
The nine is fine. Beretta makes a great pistol and it's in the USA. Problem is shooting hard ball ammo. It is illogical to view napalming, irradiating, using mines, and generally blowing the heck out of ememy combatants as OK, then endangering our own children (yes all our soldiers are our children)by refusing to let them use hollow point bullets It's just asinine! If one of our soldiers is in an unfortunate, last ditch situation where a pistol is really needed, then I say give them the ammo needed to get the job done right.
 
If our guys are reporting that the 9mm isnt terribly effective, I begin to wonder what the bad guys are wearing?
Ammo vests, etc?

I'm no fan of the 9mm, mostly because of the weak impression it leaves with me when I shoot up junk at the range... wood, old electronics and so on just dont fly apart like they do when hit with 40.
I'm told the statistics dont really show that there is much difference between 9mm & 40, possibly true in civilian self defense... but what about a combatant wearing "stuff" on their body that needs to be penetrated?

The 40 is definitely better at busting stuff up, but probably not enough to warrant the huge expenditure and replacement of the M9.

However, switching to that all-copper 357Sig with the Lehigh bullet might be worth a look. (or some similar high velocity combination)

Its awfully expensive, but they dont need to practice with it... train with fmj and use the Lehigh ammo only when out on mission.
 
If our guys are reporting that the 9mm isnt terribly effective, I begin to wonder what the bad guys are wearing?
Ammo vests, etc?
Click to expand...


9mm being "ineffective" is complete non sense. If the 9mm is ineffective then so is any other pistol round.

There is no evidence, and will never be any evidence, that one moderate power pistol cartridge is more effective than another.

What people love to argue about is negligible non sense. Like as if a battle ship falling on you will kill you better than a jet flying into you. Completely silly.....

I mean look at this post....

If the military isn't allowed to use advanced hollow-point ammo, and big holes still beat little holes, I would expect them to look for a pistol that makes bigger holes.
Click to expand...

.......big holes beat little holes? Yeah......when you're talking about 6inch and 12inch projectiles, not projectiles measured in millimeters, in relation to the human body.
 
OK guys here is the answer to who will be making the new Army handgun. This come right from the horse's mouth.
.
.
.
.
.
.Wait for it
.
.
.
.
.
Here it comes
.
.
.
.
.
It will be the company that donates the most to the politicians involved and offers the best jobs to the army procurement personell after they retire. Just ask the airforce how they chose the basic training planes for the academy (which have been grounded for years now and sit who knows where). Could have bought new Cessna's but for some reason when with an unproven foreign design.

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top