The Top Three Contenders For The U.S. Military's XM17 Modular Handgun System Contract
- Thread starter JDBerg
- Start date
JJ45,
A lot of the early part of this thread centered around the Hauge convention and the use of expanding ammo. I'll try to sum it up without too much nauseating detail: Loopholes and exceptions are plentiful, and hollowpoints have been in play quite a bit in recent years.
The rule is against ammo "designed to cause undue suffering", I forget the exact wording. The Match king Hollowpoints we use aren't "designed" to expand, they are designed to be accurate. Russian "balloon head" ball isnt "designed" to tumble in tissue, it is designed to feed reliably. By the same token they may argue the chosen HP pistol bullets are not "designed" to cause pain and suffering, but rather to reduce the risk of civilian death due to overpenetration...or some other thinly veiled BS. (If it helps our guys, I'm for it.)
Actually, since we arent fighting Hague Accord signatories, so those rules don't apply.
A lot of the early part of this thread centered around the Hauge convention and the use of expanding ammo. I'll try to sum it up without too much nauseating detail: Loopholes and exceptions are plentiful, and hollowpoints have been in play quite a bit in recent years.
The rule is against ammo "designed to cause undue suffering", I forget the exact wording. The Match king Hollowpoints we use aren't "designed" to expand, they are designed to be accurate. Russian "balloon head" ball isnt "designed" to tumble in tissue, it is designed to feed reliably. By the same token they may argue the chosen HP pistol bullets are not "designed" to cause pain and suffering, but rather to reduce the risk of civilian death due to overpenetration...or some other thinly veiled BS. (If it helps our guys, I'm for it.)
Actually, since we arent fighting Hague Accord signatories, so those rules don't apply.
This could apply to any family of polymer/striker guns, but Glock has the most options ready to go:
Replacing the M9, the G19
Replacing the MK23, the G17 w/hollowpoints
Replacing the M11, the G19 or G26 w/HPs
Replacing the 1911, the G17 w/hollowpoints
I like the idea that any G.I. who sees a U.S. pistol, knows it works just like his own.
I'm not even a huge fan of Glocks, but this move just makes sense. It is a well proven and reliable design, simple, robust, and versatile and cost effective. I would prefer the Ruger SR-9, but the Glock is in place, proven, and has the most options. The Ruger could be reworked and is "Made Right Here"
Does anyone see an issue with just jumping into this without Billions in testing?
Replacing the M9, the G19
Replacing the MK23, the G17 w/hollowpoints
Replacing the M11, the G19 or G26 w/HPs
Replacing the 1911, the G17 w/hollowpoints
I like the idea that any G.I. who sees a U.S. pistol, knows it works just like his own.
I'm not even a huge fan of Glocks, but this move just makes sense. It is a well proven and reliable design, simple, robust, and versatile and cost effective. I would prefer the Ruger SR-9, but the Glock is in place, proven, and has the most options. The Ruger could be reworked and is "Made Right Here"
Does anyone see an issue with just jumping into this without Billions in testing?
...or communications, or better integrated command & control, or better medical care, or better training, or better psychological care (both deployed and at home), etc., etc. All of these things will save more lives and better assist the military in accomplishing its mission than replacing the M9.
A new pistol to replace the already perfectly acceptable M9 is frankly a waste of money that is desperately needed elsewhere.
I agree with Fishbed77, the money could be better used elsewhere, especially on heath and mental health care for our veterans.
But this being a handgun discussion board, I will add that to save money the Beretta should NOT be out and out replaced, it should be phased out. They should be allowed to dwindle in use and shrink into secondary roles like National Guard, Stateside Security Forces, Missile Cops, etc. As a unit wears a few out, send them the new guns and ship their remaining M9s to an M9 carrying unit.
We ARE going to replace broken and worn guns, so why not update but WITHOUT spending billions of dollars reinventing the wheel?
But this being a handgun discussion board, I will add that to save money the Beretta should NOT be out and out replaced, it should be phased out. They should be allowed to dwindle in use and shrink into secondary roles like National Guard, Stateside Security Forces, Missile Cops, etc. As a unit wears a few out, send them the new guns and ship their remaining M9s to an M9 carrying unit.
We ARE going to replace broken and worn guns, so why not update but WITHOUT spending billions of dollars reinventing the wheel?
Even this is an untenable solution.
Having multiple types in the system means tracking two training programs, two manuals, two subsets of armory/maintenance training, two sets of accessories (holsters, mags, etc.), two reserves of parts, etc. This is practically just as much a waste of money as replacing all the M9s outright (remember - we are talking a general issue handgun - not something used in small numbers). Such expenditures for something as insignificant to modern warfare as a handgun are frankly ridiculous.
dogtown tom
New member
"Untenable"?
The .mil is already doing it and has been for decades....the Beretta M9 and Sig M11 are both "in the system".
If the DOD adopted the Glock 17 (or any other firearm) it wouldn't bring down mankind as we know it.......it would just be another set of NSN's....and no big deal.
zincwarrior
New member
I think he's saying there's no point in having both. I can understand that. In which case, keep the Beretta or completely move to something new. I think the essential issue is: in a military with rail guns, nukes, artillery, drones, smart artillery, and miniguns, if you need to just pick one and call it done already. Its like its intentionally designed to waste money (which it appears designed to be 
).
Considering both Glock and M&P have active PoPo programs, buy it and and the support off the shelf, grab and beer and be done. This was important when we were fighting the Comanche, not flying the Comanche.
). Considering both Glock and M&P have active PoPo programs, buy it and and the support off the shelf, grab and beer and be done. This was important when we were fighting the Comanche, not flying the Comanche.
RAfiringline
New member
Handguns account for a tiny percent of enemy casualties. The best replacement would probably be a G17 with a small telescoping shoulder stock - so troops can actually hit something w/ it.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by cslinger:
Here's the thing: the current sidearm was developed using metal manufacturing technology and materials that predated its adoption in 1985 by quite some time. That's more than three decades.
Vast advances in materials and manufacturing techniques have enabled the development of pistols that cost a lot less and last a lot longer. That's not just true in the firearms industry. It is true in the aircraft, appliance, automotive, computing, home furnishing, photographic, and telecommunications industries, and in just about everything else..
The best we had then is just not competitive now, and it makes no sense to continue to replace and refurbish the old M9 pistols with more of the same as they wear out.
Posted by Fishbed77:
But it doesn't take much knowledge to look at the Glock or the M&P, for example, and at their service lives, compare those with those of the M9, and conclude that replacing the M9 is almost certainly the more economical thing to do.
The only thing we cannot do without more information is assess the payback period with any real accuracy.
Since "the money" in question is really difference between the cost of replacing and continuing to refurbish worn out, expensive Beretta M9 pistols and the cost of replacing it with something more economical, how might we spend that money on body armor if we do not replace the M9?
Here's the thing: the current sidearm was developed using metal manufacturing technology and materials that predated its adoption in 1985 by quite some time. That's more than three decades.
Vast advances in materials and manufacturing techniques have enabled the development of pistols that cost a lot less and last a lot longer. That's not just true in the firearms industry. It is true in the aircraft, appliance, automotive, computing, home furnishing, photographic, and telecommunications industries, and in just about everything else..
The best we had then is just not competitive now, and it makes no sense to continue to replace and refurbish the old M9 pistols with more of the same as they wear out.
Posted by Fishbed77:
If not replacing the "perfectly acceptable" M9 were somehow a no-cost propostion, one could make that argument.
But it doesn't take much knowledge to look at the Glock or the M&P, for example, and at their service lives, compare those with those of the M9, and conclude that replacing the M9 is almost certainly the more economical thing to do.
The only thing we cannot do without more information is assess the payback period with any real accuracy.
Fishbed, you are in error, which I also was until I read this other TFL thread.
TFL thread about hollow points in US military use
Taking a look at Mike Irwin's post #13, and several other good entries, and looking at the links provided, will give the real deal picture. Yes, the US of A is a signatory, since it signed a later version which includes the original version. And the laws outlined in the links apply only to doing battle with uniformed armies of other signatory nations. And not all of today's actual nations have signed.
As for ISIS or any other non-national forces, the conventions do not apply.
Bart Noir
No. You are talking about more than just replacing pistols. Please refer to my previous posts. Also, we are talking about a standard-issue weapon system - not something that will be issued on a very limited basis.
Do you know that these pistols have a longer service life? That they would be more economical in the long run? That's the story I would like to see - a breakdown of the economics and life-cycle cost analysis of replacing the pistols (and all other associated maintenance/accessory/ammunition/training costs) - rather than these lame speculative Army Times-type stories.
OldMarksman
Staff
That they have a longer service life and that they cost much less is publicly available and well documented.