New military pistol?

OK, I admit it, I am a geezer. However, I do remember my time in service very clearly. As the unit's designated marksman, I was taught that the main use of a military sidearm, was as an indication of rank. In any group, we were taught to shoot
A. The guy with the pistol
B. Any guy appearing to giving orders
C. Any guy with a large entourage.
This being said, all our officers and senior NCOs carried rifles, or carbines. I guess that the other guys were taught the same thing.
Now that we have the M4, I for one see no reason to have any troops, with the exception of Special Forces, carrying pistols.
Other exceptions might be pilots, air crew, MPs, and REMFs.
Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Ridiculous nonsense, the M9 is here to stay for at least another 10yrs and the 9mm is here for a very, very long time, probably until case-less ammo is perfected.
 
Unless the new pistol, no matter make/bells-whistles, needs to be a 2rd burst for it to be any improvement in my mind.

That would be some gain. If it's not a burst then I see no gain.

I like the Beretta, the people who trash it often are not trained well with it, probably will have a hard time with any pistol, have crazy concepts of what a pistol is supposed to do, or were issued crap (non-Beretta) mags. Yeah, there are some things that could be improved on it but not a lot.

I know, it needs to be piston driven, that will fix it all!!!!!:D:D
 
I know, it needs to be piston driven, that will fix it all!!!!!
Click to expand...

No no no, you've got it all wrong! It'll have to be a fully automatic, caseless, .950 jdj, with a 30 round magizine. Anything less won't take down those crazed elephant nazis that are just around the corner.

I kid of course, but can you imagine a full auto .950 jdj pistol with a 30rd mag?!?! It'd be friggin RIDICULOUS!!!:eek:
 
I think you need to alter your think to imagine a new pistol, only it wouldn't be a pistol. Someone mentioned the FN 5.7 (the cartridge, anyway). They introduced what they (FN) conceived as a "personal defense weapon" for the cartridge. I don't know why it wasn't made in 9mm but perhaps that would change the whole dynamics of the weapon. Anyhow, I imagine they thought a weapon like that would be more practical if you were going to only have one weapon, much more so than a pistol. But we've been there before and that's what the M1 carbine was. I don't know how many pistols it replaces but I suspect it ultimately replaced more rifles than it did pistols.

Fast forward 70 years and the situation is a little different. We have rifles downsizing from the other end, leaving us with the M4, which you must admit, is a mighty handly little thing. It isn't unique, by any means, since there are AK variants that are similar. One thing, however, is that a typical M4 carbine seems to be loaded down with so much stuff that it starts to lose some of the advantages of the thing, chiefly weight.
 
I don't see them switching either, be it caliber or platform. If they did switch platform, I'm with the school that thinks that Glock is out until they put a thumb safety on them. Either a Sig, H&K, another Beretta, or possibly a 9mm variant of the 1911, would probably be the new sidearm, and like hinted at, more then likely in 9mm.

Like most have mentioned though, I can't see it happening, although anything is possible. If, when, it happens, one needs to realize, regardless of platform, someone won't like.
 
When and if the Army decides to replace the M9, a solicitation for bids will go out to the usual manufacturers...all in the public eye.

The "Times" of each service tend to be gossip mags when it comes to such things.
 
Not going to happen. BTW, when service folks shoot with us at the IDPA matches in San Antonio (and we have lots of service people here), they don't bash the M9.

As said, given the budget needs - the upcoming withdrawal from Iraq and probably Afghanistan - spending money on a quite secondary weapon for marginal gains seems silly.
 
PX4 would be logical, is the Army not under contract with Beretta for several more years?
Click to expand...

The Maryland State Police are having issues with the PX4.
I seriously doubt the military will adopt it.

If they did switch platform, I'm with the school that thinks that Glock is out until they put a thumb safety on them.
Click to expand...

The Glock has been issued to many law enforcement agencies and has been used by civilians for decades. I'm not sure why a "thumb safety" would be an issue for the military if it's not an issue for LEO and civilians. It's not like our military consists of horseback calvery. :)
 
The Glock has been issued to many law enforcement agencies and has been used by civilians for decades. I'm not sure why a "thumb safety" would be an issue for the military if it's not an issue for LEO and civilians.
Click to expand...

Having been issued a Glock by a department, and owning a few personally, I know this as well as anyone. Yet, some departments still want a thumb safety,or some sort of most be disengaged type thing, as does the military when most specifications are issued for a duty pistol. I don't know why, don't really care. All I was saying, is going by past military specs, at least to the best of my knowledge, some sort of manual safety is required, that is not satisfied by the Glock safe-trigger design.

Currently, there isn't a Glock in my inventory, although there is a knock off, Sigma .40VE, that the wife has laid claim too. I currently carry a SAR K2-45 when on duty, which I carry cocked and safe. Nothing against Glock, but I prefer the SAR right now, and it seriously doesn't take any longer to unsafe the weapon upon draw, then just pulling the gun. Our quals are all timed, and I routinely shoot faster then most at the range, and most shoot a Glock. And I still score better. Doesn't make the Glock a bad gun, either, I'm not bashing.

Back on topic, I'll still hold that Glock will not be a US military service sidearm until a thumb safety is put on it. Unless thinking changes at a way high level, IMHO, Glock is out until they safety their weapon. And no, I don't think it needs it.
 
that article said changing to something that the m9 is not and the first thing was lethal. it sounds like they are suggesting that the military is going to go away from a nato cartridge which i cant see actually happening, maybe the platform will change but that part of the article stuck out to me as being a little off :rolleyes:
 
that article said changing to something that the m9 is not and the first thing was lethal. it sounds like they are suggesting that the military is going to go away from a nato cartridge which i cant see actually happening, maybe the platform will change but that part of the article stuck out to me as being a little off
Click to expand...

I agree.
I also thought the comment about the M9 being inaccurate was odd too.
I had a 92F (civilian model) and I found it VERY accurate. :confused:
 
Glock already has a working G17 and G23 w/factory, external thumb safety.

If external thumb safety was part of the req Glock could use those models.

But I think the bigger problem is solving their RSA, extractor and ejector problems on the Gen 4s.
 
Personally, I love the M9. Never had any issues with it, but then I've never had it in combat in a sandy environment. Not to mention that every one I've ever shot was more or less brand new, whereas the military has been maintaining the same guns for who knows how long (tho I also heard they just bought a buttload of new ones, phasing out the old M9 for the M9A1 w/ acc. rail).

The MEU(SOC) turns me on to no end, however. Updating the crap out of a 1911 is genius...a testament to the design. How many other 100 yo guns still see a ton of service?

I'm told by very reliable sources (USMC, Army regs, and Rangers) that 'Special Forces do pretty much whatever they want' and that by and large the SF in both branches favor .45's, be they the MEU or any of a dozen different upscale 1911's (think Nighthawk).

My next purchase will be a 1911, and IMHO it's better to make a bigger hole. I'm betting on the .45 for a comeback, when is anybody's guess. Our budget is shot but we still spend more on our military than anything else.
 
Blue Train: So how much 9mm ammo does the army have anyway? It isn't personally important to me but it is an interesting question.
Click to expand...

The below table describes total 9mm procurement for all Services, but it offers a numerical perspective. DoD purchased up to 1.8 BILLION small arms rounds per year at the height of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.

From GAO report number GAO-05-687 entitled 'Defense Ammunition: DOD Meeting Small and Medium Caliber Ammunition Needs, but Additional Actions Are Necessary' which was released on July 27, 2005:

Table 2: Small Caliber Requirements, Fiscal Years 2000 to 2005:

In millions of rounds.

Type: 9mm:
FY 2000: 39.6
FY 2001: 133.7
FY 2002: 104.2
FY 2003: 146.4
FY 2004: 75
FY 2005: 81.

I'd guess that the Army's share of the above was about 60%.
 
I remember how popular it was to talk trash about the 1911 before it was replaced. I figure the same type of people complain about the Beretta 92.

If they're not going to replace the ammo, more than half the reason to replace the pistol is gone.
Trying to get NATO to replace the 9mm would be incredibly difficult or expensive or both.
 
The DOD just bought 400,000 odd NEW M9's this year. It isn't going away anytime soon.
Click to expand...

This is the answer to any question about a new sidearm. As long as the U.S. is heavily involved in NATO, the three basic small arms rounds will not change. The M9 and 9mm are here for the foreseeable funture.

Besides, there is no overwhelming reason to change.
 
Last edited:
I found the report and skimmed through it. The armed forces certainly go through a lot of ammunition, don't they, including a surprising amount of 9mm, although it doesn't approach the amount of 5.56 they buy. But given as how those were the requirements (don't know if it is the same as annual acquisitions or not), it doesn't tell you anything about how much is in stock and on hand. Either way, the amount of ammunition in any given caliber still on hand is probably not a determinent about changing calibers. If changing calibers were so difficult, you would see a different list of cartridges, except of course the .50 caliber would still be there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top