US Army: Modular Handgun System

If we go back to the .45 or to any of the other calibers we gun hobbyists love to promote, the U.S. will not be ammo compatible with any of our alllies. Ain't gonna happen, .45 lovers. Sorry.

Jim
 
This is another "rumor of the week" that keeps cropping up, usually promoted by some genius who has just invented a "super gun" that he wants to sell the military.

The Army is continually looking at new weaponry - that is part of their job. But the reasons for adopting the 9mm are the same as they were in the 1980's: it is the cartridge of choice for all of our allies and, unless they all agree to replace their current handguns and ammo, we are not going to adopt something else, no matter how loud the fans of the .40 S&W or 9mm SIG scream.

As to "improved" ammo, is there such a thing that would not violate the Hague convention rules? The gunzines may promote the latest super hollow point bullet that expands to the size of a basketball, but the Army can't use it.

Another gun? Possibly, but what gun is so demonstrably better than the M9 that Congress will pony up millions of bucks to adopt it? Remember that the Army does not just buy a weapon; it also buys a whole support train of manuals, spare parts, training, etc., called the "logistics tail". All of that, established for the M9, has to be replaced. The new gun would have to be a whole lot better to make it worthwhile, especially since the handgun is very much a secondary weapon.
Click to expand...

Winner Winner chicken dinner. The expense to re-create the the support train that the M9 has is simply not in the cards especially when you consider the roll that the M9 plays on the battlefield of today.

It is an afterthought. It is not a primary weapon and for those in harms way to be using it a whole lot of stuff has had to go wrong and having a 45 ACP vs 9mm unfortunately is not enough to save the day. Specialized groups already get what "they want" for particular ops but for the avg soldier the M9 is an afterthought. At least that is what my brother who served as a member of the Marine infantry in Iraq told me.... ;)

Also 9mm is what the rest of NATO uses and with Russia playing games NATO is going to become more relevant in the coming years for good or for bad.
 
I think they are talking a lot of rubbish.

The MHS will be an open-caliber competition that will evaluate larger rounds such as .357 Sig, .40 S&W and .45 ACP
Click to expand...
Larger calibre, I thought that .357 Sig was 9MM. :confused:

"I talked to a Chicago cop that shot a guy eight times with a .45 to kill him and that was a 230 grain Hydra-Shok," Langdon said. "And that guy now carries a 9mm …he realized that handgun bullets suck. "You have to shoot people a lot with a handgun."
Click to expand...
If it was 9mm they would be blaming the calibre.

Soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have complained that the 9mm round is not powerful enough to be effective in combat.
Click to expand...
How do they know they would not have got the same results if they used .45.

Most that have went to .40 will go back to 9mm IMO, for one reason its the best all round handgun calibre. They need to be realistic and accept the limitations of handguns.
 
Most of the current inventory of M9s have reached the end of the frame's useful lifespan.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that the military recently ordered some 450,000 new M9s in 2009, and 100,000 more in 2012.

.
 
Last edited:
The military has to ping industry with the stupid requests every so often or they'll stop making relevant products for military use and divert to civilian/Leo needs. That is all.

TCB
 
Some of us have seen the recent Congressional hearings on various issues. Who would want to go before a bunch of hard-nosed men and women like that and explain why the SIG, or the H&K, or the Glock, or the whatever is so superior to the M9 that Congress has to pony up a whole bunch of benjamins to change?

Let's hear it, fans of those guns! Can you convince Issa, let alone Pelosi, that YOUR favorite gun is so markedly superior that the Army MUST adopt it, NOW, or the world is lost? Sure you can. Not.

Jim
 
Not going to happen

Sorry folks, I was waiting for someone to mention what Fishbed77 did in that the Military recently re-committed to the Beretta and is not going to change any time soon.

Any handguns are not really relevant against an enemy armed with AK-47 or 74 rifles. If your pistol comes out in combat, you are only trying to take a few with you before you are killed or hope they run away and drop their rifle for you.

Pico
 
Any handguns are not really relevant against an enemy armed with AK-47 or 74 rifles. If your pistol comes out in combat, you are only trying to take a few with you before you are killed or hope they run away and drop their rifle for you.
Click to expand...

If thats what you think you have no knowledge of the use of the pistol in warfare. WWII is FULL of historically proven uses of pistols to GOOD effect.

Educate yourself before spouting off inane drivel
 
Oh how I hope they pick 45 GAP

For every time someone has posted:

"answer to a question nobody asked"
or
"solution looking for a problem"

I wish they would chose 45 GAP
 
Can you convince Issa, let alone Pelosi, that YOUR favorite gun is so markedly superior that the Army MUST adopt it, NOW, or the world is lost? Sure you can. Not.
Click to expand...
Well, not for free, anyway ;)

"Esteemed members of Congress and the Armed Forces. Your pistols are old and clapped out, and no one else is using them."

*Eddie Murphy as the barber in Coming to America* "That'll be 800,000 dollars..."

TCB

I'd try to convince them for $800,000 that the past, is the future, is the FNH five-seven.
 
Inane drivel?

Handguns were / are issued to pilots, tank crews, officers, and non-coms who either were not able to shoulder a rifle due to their relative assignments or as a supplementary weapon to underscore their rank. As much as I love them, up against any rifle they are insignificant. Argue this point.

On a modern battlefield, pistols are not important unless you have no other option. If you are going up against an enemy armed with a weapon which is firing 7.62 x 39 mm or 5.45 x 39 mm; 9mm, .40, .357 sig, or .45 auto will ALL be ineffective.

AND you may not care for my posting and have every right to disagree but show respect. I am neither non-educated nor am I spouting. I am expressing my opinion which is what this forum is all about.

Pico
 
The M9 will be replaced sometime... When...

Who knows.


Maybe it will happen. The military is being pressured to be more friendly and accommodating to female personnel. Many of those females may find the M9 large for their hands, causing training and qualification issues.

Females will be allowed in to more and more roles... many that put them directly in harms way, and pistol quals will be more and more frequent for them...

Can you imagine the headaches when the first significant numbered class of females has to go through serious pistol quals (not some support role technicality qual that can be brushed off) and half of them are having difficulty with the trigger reach and large grip size?

No... the military is going to have to replace the M9 sometime. Current trends are moving that direction. Its just a matter of when.
 
WWII is FULL of historically proven uses of pistols to GOOD effect.
Click to expand...

For the love of all that is holy, can we get over WWII? It was a while ago last I checked.

This is not WWII. The only units using pistols in combat are mostly elite units that aren't using the M9 anyway, so they don't care what the majority uses. Those pistols are mostly for MPs and officers, and the absolute most rear of the rear echelon troops. This isn't WWII where the standard issue rifle was the M1 Garand. An M4 carbine can be used from a vehicle and isn't that much of a burden for rear echelon troops to tote around. M1 Garand weighs a tad more than an M4. Elite units will continue to use whatever pistols they want.

As I mentioned, we almost lost the A10 and even saved it doesn't have the funding to truly be maintained. That's just one weapon system. $1 trillion over 10 years folks. Pistols? Pistols are a concern? Biggest cuts since the end of WWII. Ask anyone on the inside. Pistols? I don't even.
 
Can you imagine the headaches when the first significant numbered class of females has to go through serious pistol quals (not some support role technicality qual that can be brushed off) and half of them are having difficulty with the trigger reach and large grip size?
Click to expand...

Lordy! Lordy! I can more than imagine it I've seen it.

The M11 has been around since the M9 was adopted. Big and small handed men and women have been qualifying with both the Beretta 92 and the Sig P226 for a quarter century now.

tipoc
 
So what does the 357 Sig offer that the 9mm parabellum doesnt? Its a little faster with more blast and recoil while still firing the same fmj bullet. The 40 S&W again greater recoil, harder on the gun for not much in gains if any. Yes a specialized unit uses it but they primarily use there SBR AR's. So that leaves 45acp. Again in fmj no big gains. Maybe if they switch to a flat nose projectile. The thing that cracks me up is them citing the location of the decocker on the M9 when the Army spec'd that.
 
What specialized unit uses .40?

One good thing about the .40 is the FMJ is flat nose by definition. I would think the HK USP in .40 would make a great choice. The German army chose the 9mm version so it is well vetted. And we're talking about a country that also has Sig Sauer and Walther as favorite sons so it had some stiff competition and came out on top. Also the USP was designed from the get go around the .40; not retro engineered from a 9mm like Glock and many others.
 
A-10 ? That's a good idea ! arm each soldier with a 30mm gatling !! That'll stop them.
Like cops the real answer is to spend more time and money in training.

But handguns don't win wars they are not a main weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top