The article in todays local paper mentioned a competition between gun makers to supply the military with a new handgun. The article mentioned the need to have a handgun that would fit smaller hands and not be so balky as the current 9mm Beretta being used since 1985. It wanted a handgun that could be adjusted for grip size. Also requested and most interest to me was the request for more stopping power. Maybe going back to the 45acp? I'd like that..............BUT and disturbing to me is I think this smaller hands requirement is based on allowing women to join areas where they have never been before and lowering min. requirements to suite them. A couple women passed the Rangers course but from what I've read they were given several helping hands from the top. If women can get thru the SEALS buds course without lowering the requirements then I'm all for them.
New military handgun
- Thread starter Shimpy
- Start date
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
The vast majority of male combatants in the US military obviously can not make it through the SEAL course, why should all the women need to do so?
I would only give any credibility to your comment if you had successfully completed buds.
Israel and pretty much all of our other allies seem to be having no problems with women in combat. IDF sees a considerable amount of intense combat. You, and the US DOD are way behind the curve. Women have a history of regularly serving in combatant roles in military and paramilitary organizations stretching back for hundreds of years. less regularly for thousands of years. There aren't trenches or lines anymore, so US service women still regularly end up in combat without the benefit of infantry training.
I'm male and the Beretta 92 does not fit my hand. I can shoot it as almost anyone can, but it does not fit my hand.
Graduating Ranger School does not qualify one as a Ranger, so they aren't there yet anyways.
I knew a Marine Corporal who claimed to have been ordered to take certain written tests multiple times for others in order to get them passing scores. 45 years ago and everyone involved was male. Nothing new. Nothing surprising.
I would only give any credibility to your comment if you had successfully completed buds.
Israel and pretty much all of our other allies seem to be having no problems with women in combat. IDF sees a considerable amount of intense combat. You, and the US DOD are way behind the curve. Women have a history of regularly serving in combatant roles in military and paramilitary organizations stretching back for hundreds of years. less regularly for thousands of years. There aren't trenches or lines anymore, so US service women still regularly end up in combat without the benefit of infantry training.
I'm male and the Beretta 92 does not fit my hand. I can shoot it as almost anyone can, but it does not fit my hand.
Graduating Ranger School does not qualify one as a Ranger, so they aren't there yet anyways.
I knew a Marine Corporal who claimed to have been ordered to take certain written tests multiple times for others in order to get them passing scores. 45 years ago and everyone involved was male. Nothing new. Nothing surprising.
Last edited:
LockedBreech
New member
I have to agree with john. The Soviet Russian military in WW2 had extremely effective female combatants, as do/did a number of other militaries, and lord knows there are some out of shape/ineffectual male combatants out there.
Whatever excuse DOD uses I believe it's just good old fashioned entrenched sexism to deny that women can excel in combat roles.
Whatever excuse DOD uses I believe it's just good old fashioned entrenched sexism to deny that women can excel in combat roles.
Dream on!
It is a very cold day in a very hot place when you see any bureaucracy go BACK to something they left before, publically. That would imply they were wrong, something they all hate.
They might go to something that is essentially what they left, but it will be in a new package. New name, new look (to some degree), so they can claim its new, and better.
After all, how can you justify REARMING the most modern military in the world with a weapon over 100 years old????
"It works", just isn't enough of a reason for most of them.
dakota.potts
New member
This thread just feels like a thin cover to complain about women in the military. I don't know where you think you're getting that connection from.
I'm a male and I have relatively small hands. I shoot a number of full sized guns well (among them my CZ 75, which I love) but the ergonomics of the 92 are just not good for people with small hands. The 92 is one of the more egregious guns in the large grip department.
I'm a male and I have relatively small hands. I shoot a number of full sized guns well (among them my CZ 75, which I love) but the ergonomics of the 92 are just not good for people with small hands. The 92 is one of the more egregious guns in the large grip department.
Soldiers of both genders had trouble getting a good hold with the 1911A1. When the M92 Beretta replaced it, MORE soldiers of both genders had trouble getting a good hold on it. If it is an inexorable destiny for the U.S. military sidearm to be a DA/SA chambered in 9mm, there's not very much wrong with the Browning P-35, or Cz-75, that cannot be readily fixed. Obviously, the P-35 does not have the DA option, but reliable conversions have existed since I was in High School.
Unfortunately, the specification most in need of improvement is the one least likely to be changed, and that is the round the sidearm must fire. Defenders of the 9mm are quick to complain that the NATO 9mm was downloaded, to keep from cracking M92 frames. I'm not so sure, either way, but if a 125 or 115 gr. fmj projectile didn't stop a determined attacker, the same projectile launched 100 f/s faster isn't likely to, either.
Time to increase bore diameter. If the desk-bound, pencil-pushing, "chairborne commandos" in charge of these things are unalterably opposed to re-issuing 1911A1s in .45 ACP, then it's time to look at the .40 S&W. Mercifully, almost any 9mm platform may also be chambered in .40, so the issue weapon need not be changed, just its caliber. To ME, reissuing the 1911A1s that are still in government inventories makes the most sense, but sensibility seems to be consigned to a very dark corner of the firearms acquisition/adoption decision process, and our society's best people often pay the penalty for it on the battlefield.
Unfortunately, the specification most in need of improvement is the one least likely to be changed, and that is the round the sidearm must fire. Defenders of the 9mm are quick to complain that the NATO 9mm was downloaded, to keep from cracking M92 frames. I'm not so sure, either way, but if a 125 or 115 gr. fmj projectile didn't stop a determined attacker, the same projectile launched 100 f/s faster isn't likely to, either.
Time to increase bore diameter. If the desk-bound, pencil-pushing, "chairborne commandos" in charge of these things are unalterably opposed to re-issuing 1911A1s in .45 ACP, then it's time to look at the .40 S&W. Mercifully, almost any 9mm platform may also be chambered in .40, so the issue weapon need not be changed, just its caliber. To ME, reissuing the 1911A1s that are still in government inventories makes the most sense, but sensibility seems to be consigned to a very dark corner of the firearms acquisition/adoption decision process, and our society's best people often pay the penalty for it on the battlefield.
Other than the last time the US govt bought 1911A1s in bulk was 1945....
Many of which I inspected in the 1970s.
Back in the 50s, when we were getting NATO going, we made a deal with the Europeans. They would adopt our rifle round (7.62mm NATO, at that time), and WHEN we retired our 1911A1s, we would adopt their pistol round the 9mm Parabellum.
They weren't crazy about it, but we had a big stick (money) so the deal was made.
THEN, a few years later, we turned around and shafted them (from their point of view) when our administration decided we were going to adopt the 5.56mm round.
We did, however stick to the deal about taking the 9mm when we retired our .45s. Still a lot of argument about whether or not we chose the best 9mm.
Of course, the pistol isn't considered a serious military weapon, anyway. It's only important to the guy who carries it. But to the guy or gal who is carrying it, it's rather important in a personal not a mission sense.
Nope, that would be a step backwards.
One of the challenges of the modern battle field is barrier and body armor penetration. We are no longer the only army using armor. That simply isn't gonna happen with larger calibers, especially 45. I think the Russians are on the right track with the newest generation of 9mm pistols they have developed. The gun is designed to survive shooting some very hot loads. A lighter bullet at over 1500 fps designed specifically to defeat armor. The same gun will still function with traditional 9mm loads.
dakota.potts
New member
Makes me wonder if they shouldn't be looking towards small, collapsing submachine guns that can be worn in a flap holster. Something like the Mp7 in 4.6x30mm which is designed to penetrate body armor and to put a lot of rounds on a body sized target very quickly with little recoil. These types of guns are slightly bigger, but much more controllable and easier to shoot (even if limited to only semi auto or burst) by the average person and also allow a lot more firepower. From what I understand, pistols are very rarely used in actual combat, but maybe scaling down an assault rifle type concept into a machine pistol would be a benefit.
Johnwilliamson62......... "The vast majority of male combatants in the US military obviously can not make it through the SEAL course, why should all the women need to do so?"
I never said "all women" but was referring to women who would be selected into Buds. I don't believe Buds should lower standards to make it easier for women to complete the course and be assigned to a team for further training to earn their trident. If they can pass the same standards as the men then I'm all for them, but to lower the standards just because they are women would only weaken the SEALS and put them at risks. JMHO
I never said "all women" but was referring to women who would be selected into Buds. I don't believe Buds should lower standards to make it easier for women to complete the course and be assigned to a team for further training to earn their trident. If they can pass the same standards as the men then I'm all for them, but to lower the standards just because they are women would only weaken the SEALS and put them at risks. JMHO
I see no need to change the pistol, maybe if the grip is that much of an issue.
I can handle a beretta just fine. In fact, it's my favorite pistol to handle. I carry one daily.
I could see if they wanted to replace the caliber with a smaller, higher velocity cartridge
Like all our modern military cartridges; 9mm balanced the economics and logistical advantage with effectiveness.
Even in the fiercest modern firefights, the outcomes are extremely one-sided in favor of American troops.
The only advantage to replacing the m9 with another 9mm could only be made in the grip size (for some)
I can handle a beretta just fine. In fact, it's my favorite pistol to handle. I carry one daily.
I could see if they wanted to replace the caliber with a smaller, higher velocity cartridge
Like all our modern military cartridges; 9mm balanced the economics and logistical advantage with effectiveness.
Even in the fiercest modern firefights, the outcomes are extremely one-sided in favor of American troops.
The only advantage to replacing the m9 with another 9mm could only be made in the grip size (for some)
9x18_Walther
New member
Plenty of men have hands that are far larger or far smaller than average in our armed forces. This change benefits all.
Most special operation units have say in what they are equipped for. I believe that if you are a Navy SEAL, you can run pretty much whatever handgun you want. I think Chris Kyle used his own Springfield TRP on occasion.
And the improved frame making the gun last longer, and the closed slide keeping the gun cleaner, and the silencer making the gun a touch more accurate and ear-friendly, and the frame-mounted safety which is much more user friendly than Beretta's slide mounted safety, and the new sight options the gun is cut to accommodate......
I guess I don't understand. If 100fps doesn't make any difference why does one millimeter? And if you say it is heavier and will penetrate better you still lose because the 9mm has always been know as a "driller" that has too much penetration.
Maybe whats needed is a new gun with and better and adjustable fit for more hand sizes. And dream on, they will never reissue the 1911 again.
And really, how important is a handgun in the overall strategy of combat? I thought the shorter, lighter ARs were the answer for combat. But I do admit I don't keep up all that much with what the military is doing. It has no bearing on my life.
Last edited:
I still think the beretta is just fine for most.
I'm 5'9 and average hands.
I'm old enough to have used many handguns, I haven't seen anything top the beretta in reliability. It's got enough mass to mitigate recoil. Not too shabby in the accuracy front. It's no target gun.
9x19 ammo can be found literally everywhere on the planet.
I don't know about current doctrine, but when I was in, the handgun was not used too much.
Seems like most have been supplemented with carbines anyway.
In an army that is struggling with budgets, seems like a waste of money to change sidearms now
I'm 5'9 and average hands.
I'm old enough to have used many handguns, I haven't seen anything top the beretta in reliability. It's got enough mass to mitigate recoil. Not too shabby in the accuracy front. It's no target gun.
9x19 ammo can be found literally everywhere on the planet.
I don't know about current doctrine, but when I was in, the handgun was not used too much.
Seems like most have been supplemented with carbines anyway.
In an army that is struggling with budgets, seems like a waste of money to change sidearms now
Because area is a square function of bore radius. When you increase bore diameter from 9mm to 10mm, you don't increase the projectile area by 11.1%, you increase it by 11.1% squared , or slightly over 23%. Bigger projectile area translates to bigger hole through the target's organs, larger surface area through which the kinetic energy is transferred to the target's organs, higher velocity obtainable, all factors being equal, for the chamber pressure achieved.won't
The 9mm is a "driller"? With FMJ bullets, I guess maybe it is. It won't meet the FBI criterion for penetration (two layers of 3/4" marine-grade plywood, covered outside with multiple layers denim. After traversing the plywood and denim, the projectile must penetrate some set depth into ballistic gel. I don't know if the 9mm in FMJ trim made the grade or not. To the best of my knowledge none of the expanding point loads available have, even when loaded right up to the pressure limit. The .40
S&W, loaded to max, makes the grade with a little to spare. The .45 ACP in FMJ ball (not target ammo, not overloaded Buffalo Bore ammo) at 850 f/s, traversed all barriers and came to rest in the ballistic gel well past minimum distance. The 9x19 didn't seem to be much of a "DRILLER" in those tests. It's actual performance belies its reputation, it would seem.
"Never" is a long time. The elite forces in Iraq and Afghanistan started requesting .45s and M14s (and GETTING them) within the first year of conflict, and I've heard nothing to lead me to believe that the demand for them by the individual operator has decreased.
Gee, I dunno, one Air Force Forward Air Controller on a radio can bring down worlds of ordnance on the bad guys. He's likely to be working alongside any combination of elite force units, and I suspect a .45 ACP will keep him alive at close quarters better than any wonder-nine you can name. One HOPES that his carbine is within reach, but if not, then his sidearm ought to be one without a history of stoppage failures as prolific as the 9x19 seems to have racked up.
Armed forces are becoming smaller in number, and their training times and expenses are both increasing. I'm not sure on how much money it takes to fully train one Navy S.E.A.L. team member, one Force-Recon Marine, or one Green Beret, but it would not surprise me to find out that it is in excess of $1 Million per man. ALL of these personnel can act in a way that is pivotal to the outcome of an engagement. I want them armed with ANYTHING we can afford to give them if they want it.
Well, thanks for imparting all that "expertise".
<shrug> Maybe, maybe not...
Last edited:
9x18_Walther
New member
They tried in a way. Starting around 2002, the Marine Corps heavily modified GI 1911s into MEU(SOC) pistols for Recon Marine Expeditionary Units. Pretty much the only original thing left from the GI pistols was the frame when the armorers were finished.
When MARSOC came about, there was a dwindling supply of usable 1911s in inventory. The Marine Corps spec'd out a new pistol to meet demand.
The end result was the Kimber ICQB (commercial variants being the Kimber Warrior and Desert Warrior). We all know that Kimber QC took a hit around this time, so I imagine the Marine Corps was not too impressed after initial testing.
Later they spec'd yet another replacement. The result was the Springfield Operator (commercial variant being the MC Operator). What did the Marine Corps do? They didn't issue a contract but rather kept buying parts from Wilson Combat and others for converting GI 1911s to MEU(SOC) pistols.
A few years ago, they issued yet another competition and selected a Colt Rail Gun variant (now known as the M45A1) over the Springfield Operator and a Combat NCO 1911 variant from Karl Lippard.
So everything is settled, right?
The answer is no. Last time I checked, Colt was delivering 12,000 pistols. Apparently there was so much displeasure with the 1911 in training that MARSOC authorized the use of the Glock 19 (which is approved by other USSOCOM forces). Apparently some Marines while wearing gloves did not get a good enough grip that fully disengaged the uniquely shaped beavertail grip safety. Although I'm sure this was a training issue, a few Marines were probably concerned that a weak grip on the pistol would prevent it from firing, something that could become easily reality if an individual is wounded or injured in combat.
If a special forces unit is having difficulty adopting the 1911, I doubt it will come back into general acceptance by the military as a whole.
The most probable choice to replace the Beretta M9 at this point is the M&P 9 with the manual thumb safety and no magazine disconnect.