one of my good buddies (and fellow devil dogs) is an armorer at the johnson city, tn marine reserve infantry unit, and about a year ago was asked to test out a pistol that was on the list to be selected as a replacement for the M9. the pistol was an H&K .45 tactical with a threaded barrel for a suppressor. however, i've heard recent reports that the Sig p-220 .45 is at the top of the list, and is supposed to be the new military sidearm. anyone out there heard anything new on this?
new mililitary sidearm...
- Thread starter cookhj
- Start date
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
Don't Tease.
the pistol you are refering to is the H&K Mark 23 SOCOM. It's suposed to be the new "offensive" pistol for Special Operations Command. But NOT a replacement for the M9 (I expect the M9 to have about as long a career as the 1911)
Here's a good article on it http://www.hkpro.com/socom.htm
I don't think the military will issue a .45 to regular troups (we're going to see 9mms as the sidearm of choice for the military for a long time to come)
The US military has way too much money, time, training, and support invested in the M9 weapons system to go and change it now, especially given the low priority placed on pistols. However, I do highly doubt it will last even half as long as the M1911A1. Even old slabsides wouldn't have lasted so long had 2 million not been made during WW2, which kept the military's inventory sufficient for another 50 years. But once the existing supply of M9s wears out in another ten years or so they'll be looking for a replacement.
Having read this thread with great interst I feel an overpowering need to add my $.02 worth of personal experience. I was issued my first 1911A1 in 1965. It was made in the 40's by a typewriter maker, rattled like a bucket of bolts, and had a pitted bore (no replacement barrels available). For the next 20 yrs I carried 1911A1's made by sewing machine, typewriter, and switch makers. All were tired and had seen better days and the magazines were even worse. We finally got the M9. The were brand new, it didn't jam during annual requal, hit where you aimed, held twice as much ammo, and all you had to do was stuff a box of HP ammo in your seabag and you were good to go. As to the M9 lasting as long as the 1911, I hope to God it doesn't. The Corps gets enough used hand-me-downs as it is. Match grade 45's from Quantico may be great for Force Recon, but there aren't enough to outfit the whole FMF and they couldn't maintain them anyway at Battalion level. Those pieces are hand built by team armourers not your average 2111 at the Battalion armory. Any handgun is just a security blanket in combat anyway, what you want and need is a rifle. Any Grunt whose been there will tell you that. Soory for the long thread.
SgtMaj13
Semper Fi
SgtMaj13
Semper Fi
boogerbawb
New member
I used the same old clapped-out 1911A1s in Germany in 86-88 and still managed to shoot expert, even though on one range I happened to notice a magazine floorplate, spring, and five rounds of ammo spilling out onto my feet. I still contend that the only problem with the 1911A1 was that the most RECENT military contract for new production was 1945. My "new" Springfield Armory and Norinco 1911A1 clones have been chugging along steadily for years now.
My contention is that if a pistol ain't really that important in the sceme of things and is chambered for 9mm anyway, one could have adopted something the size and weight of a Makarov or a H&K P-7, instead of something as big, heavy, and clunky as the "obsolete" 1911A1.
With my roommate being company armor 88-90 at Ft. Knox, He had to keep track of the rounds put through the then new M-9s. First, he had to send them in to be checked for stress cracks in the slide every 5,000 rounds and this limit was later dropped to 3,000. In 1989, the Army Chief of Staff's Office in the form of General Carl Vuono, sent the chairman of Beretta a letter putting the company on notice for a possible cancellation of the contract because the slide problem had not been fixed.
Maybe I'm just a malcontent, but when I buy a brand new pistol, I quite naturally expect the damn thing to last a lifetime.
My contention is that if a pistol ain't really that important in the sceme of things and is chambered for 9mm anyway, one could have adopted something the size and weight of a Makarov or a H&K P-7, instead of something as big, heavy, and clunky as the "obsolete" 1911A1.
With my roommate being company armor 88-90 at Ft. Knox, He had to keep track of the rounds put through the then new M-9s. First, he had to send them in to be checked for stress cracks in the slide every 5,000 rounds and this limit was later dropped to 3,000. In 1989, the Army Chief of Staff's Office in the form of General Carl Vuono, sent the chairman of Beretta a letter putting the company on notice for a possible cancellation of the contract because the slide problem had not been fixed.
Maybe I'm just a malcontent, but when I buy a brand new pistol, I quite naturally expect the damn thing to last a lifetime.
Abominable No-Man
New member
I agree with sgtmaj13. The pistol in combat, except for a handful
of occasions, seems to be redundant. As I've said before, I'm in
Army Aviation, and my issue weapons are a Beretta 92 and an
M60D. 99.9% of my trigger time is spent on the M60. Granted,
if I'm shot down, I'll have a 9mm, but I won't be running around
trying to lead a fire team with it. (Actually, if I do have to go again, I'll check out an M16A2 or M4 and take that with me....)
ANM
of occasions, seems to be redundant. As I've said before, I'm in
Army Aviation, and my issue weapons are a Beretta 92 and an
M60D. 99.9% of my trigger time is spent on the M60. Granted,
if I'm shot down, I'll have a 9mm, but I won't be running around
trying to lead a fire team with it. (Actually, if I do have to go again, I'll check out an M16A2 or M4 and take that with me....)
ANM
5 years ago I was talking to a Marine Armor at the reserve base up in Hayward and he said that there was talk of changing back to 45 and going to the USP 45. But that was 5 years ago so I don't think they'll ever change the M9 at least not for a while. Then again as a 7 years old I always thought the 1911 would be the sidearm of the US military
AC's & 45's
New member
Why must we go to a foreign maker for our military guns?
There is not one damn thing wrong with the old GI 1911 in .45ACP!
Not only that such a move would benefit the US economy.
Hmmmm!, employ Americans, support an American company(s).
What a concept!!!!!!!!
There is not one damn thing wrong with the old GI 1911 in .45ACP!
Not only that such a move would benefit the US economy.
Hmmmm!, employ Americans, support an American company(s).
What a concept!!!!!!!!
No US manufacturers ?
I'm with you " AC's & 45's", if they're spending my US taxpayer dollars then they should be looking only at US-made guns from US-based manufacturers.
Why don't they just issue their requirements, fund the prototypes and then ask US makers for designs? I KNOW that among Ruger, Colt, *&*, Kahr, etc. they CAN come up with an excellent US-designed/made service weapon. At the same time we'd be helping US industry.
I'm with you " AC's & 45's", if they're spending my US taxpayer dollars then they should be looking only at US-made guns from US-based manufacturers.
Why don't they just issue their requirements, fund the prototypes and then ask US makers for designs? I KNOW that among Ruger, Colt, *&*, Kahr, etc. they CAN come up with an excellent US-designed/made service weapon. At the same time we'd be helping US industry.
glock glockler
New member
For a new sidearm I don't think we could do better than Glocks and Rugers, they might not be pretty but they will do anything needed by a soldier in combat. Whether or not we should go with 9mm or .45 is a different discussion, with both sides having valid points, though I'm slightly leaning towards 9mm at this point.
I would require that the pistols have to be produced on the US mainland for securityand logistical concerns, though they would not necessarily have to be built by an American company. These weapons are intended to protect the lives of our servicemen, I find it vulgar to compromise their safety in an effort to grease our own pockets, the performence of the gun should be the number one concern. As far as the current inventory goes, I'm sure they can be sold off to some countries or American citizens without a problem to alleviate any financial burden of switching over.
I would require that the pistols have to be produced on the US mainland for securityand logistical concerns, though they would not necessarily have to be built by an American company. These weapons are intended to protect the lives of our servicemen, I find it vulgar to compromise their safety in an effort to grease our own pockets, the performence of the gun should be the number one concern. As far as the current inventory goes, I'm sure they can be sold off to some countries or American citizens without a problem to alleviate any financial burden of switching over.
To re-outfit an entire country's military with a new pistol is rediculous. Yes, I like the .45, but whats done is done. No need to drag this issue through the mud and relive the 80's. The M9 works as advertised. The breakage stories were pistols that were subjected to usage that was beyond what most pistols go through during a single shooting. A combat pistol only needs to work. It doesn't need to be accurate, it just needs to operate on command. Your rifle on the other hand should recieve a lot more scrutiny.
The HK Mk23 was designed at the outset for SOCOM units. A commonly issued surpressed weapon was needed. Pistols in the past had to be sent to an armorer for threads, slide lock and other mods. In the past units liked using HK's P9's and high-Standard .22's. but those were on an as needed basis. Only the surpressed MP5 is available in the common inventory. Besides climbing up a ships ladder with a sub gun can (!) be cumbersome.
SEAL's are issued Sig 226's as their basic sidearm. M11/228's are in the inventory as are M9's, 1911's, P9's, S&W 66's and 686's and I'm sure a host of other weapons in the tool box. Their specialized duties allow them the flexabliity to use a wide rainbow of weapons. Certain platoon CO's will allow personal weapons, but that operator is responsible for cleaning (of course), parts, ammo and getting called on deck when his weapon fails during the moment of truth. SO, why bother with your own weapon.
The HK Mk23 was designed at the outset for SOCOM units. A commonly issued surpressed weapon was needed. Pistols in the past had to be sent to an armorer for threads, slide lock and other mods. In the past units liked using HK's P9's and high-Standard .22's. but those were on an as needed basis. Only the surpressed MP5 is available in the common inventory. Besides climbing up a ships ladder with a sub gun can (!) be cumbersome.
SEAL's are issued Sig 226's as their basic sidearm. M11/228's are in the inventory as are M9's, 1911's, P9's, S&W 66's and 686's and I'm sure a host of other weapons in the tool box. Their specialized duties allow them the flexabliity to use a wide rainbow of weapons. Certain platoon CO's will allow personal weapons, but that operator is responsible for cleaning (of course), parts, ammo and getting called on deck when his weapon fails during the moment of truth. SO, why bother with your own weapon.