US Army: Modular Handgun System

But handguns don't win wars they are not a main weapon.
Click to expand...

Agreed. They perhaps should get the lightest pistol possible which means plastic and that way way they can carry an extra 5.56 mag or 2 for the weight saving which has a far better chance of saving their bacon anyway.
 
Last edited:
Just another example of unbridled government waste.

There is no handgun in the world (regardless of caliber) that represents a significant enough improvement over the M9 to justify its replacement.
Click to expand...
What he said except,
Just another example of unbridled government waste.

There is no handgun in the world (regardless of caliber) that represents a significant enough improvement over the 1911 to justify its replacement.
Just my opinion.:p
 
There has NEVER been any legit side by side comparison showing 9mm to be significantly less effective than any other semi-auto round. Especially when FMJ ammo is used. And the military WILL continue to use FMJ ammo.

If moving to 40 S&W helps increase soldiers confidence in their weapon, then so be it. It is a good round and will work. Going back to 45 would be a huge mistake. Don't even think about a 1911.

I'm not a huge fan of the Beretta, but it is a fine gun. I've owned and shot a few, I'd trust my life to the weapon if issued one. If spending my money I just prefer other designs that are every bit as good.

While not a Beretta fan I think replacing it at this time is a waste of money. There are other more modern designs that are better in a lot of ways, but not enough better to spend the money on. Especially for something so low on the priority list.
 
If we were to look at .40's designed from the get go, then you also have the M&P. I carried the M9 when I served and never felt under gunned. At this point if they just absolutely have to spend money on a firearm invest it rotating out the well used M4's with new ones.

I also believe the A-10 is an incredible aircraft. One of my favorite to see on the flight line when out on patrol.
 
I really think they just need to switch their ammo choice
Click to expand...

+1
Maybe a good +p round, or do Like the Russians and have a light weight bullet ( 90 grains) and loaded it +p+, that would solve the ammo problem.
 
Will a flat nose 10mm hit harder than a 9mm round nose? I imagine it would.

Why not the Glock 20 in 10mm? High cap, serves the Danes well in Greenland where they might have to fend off polar bears. Dress it up you get close to .41 mag power. Dress it down you get .40 power. A good pistol should be able to handle both types of ammo. Should be flat and accurate enough (minute of terrorist) for 100 yard shots. Still not as good as a carbine but maybe the next best thing you're going to get.

Or heck, just make it a 1911 10mm. 9 + 1 rounds, fits all hands.
 
$10 says they still stick with the M9. Hard to beat the reliability. I really think they just need to switch their ammo choice.
Click to expand...
my experience with the M9 suggests anything less than hard to beat reliability. granted the failures happening up and down the line were in poorly maintained guns that saw upwards of 500 rounds a week, however, still left a bitter taste in my mouth for the M9.

I still think they'll stick with the M9, they've been "replacing" the M9 for 15 years and 15 years ago they had a heck of a lot more funding than they do now. definitely not going to change calibers... the cost of refitting lake city would give the welfare office a heart attack.
 
10mm? FBI went down that road which gave us the 40. As was stated, handguns have their limitations especially when restricted to ball ammo.
 
Why not the Glock 20 in 10mm? High cap, serves the Danes well in Greenland where they might have to fend off polar bears. Dress it up you get close to .41 mag power. Dress it down you get .40 power. A good pistol should be able to handle both types of ammo. Should be flat and accurate enough (minute of terrorist) for 100 yard shots. Still not as good as a carbine but maybe the next best thing you're going to get.
Click to expand...

If the enemy develops an army of polar bears capable of using guns, I suggest we surrender.
 
Military eyes replacing M9 (here we go again)

Today, consistent with what I said before....

The U.S. Army is moving forward to replace the Cold War-era M9 9mm pistol with a more powerful handgun that also meets the needs of the other services....

...Army weapons officials maintain that combat troops need a more effective pistol and ammunition....

...Beretta officials maintain that the company has offered to upgrade M9 many times. "We have submitted numerous changes or product improvements that really address a lot of the shortcomings that are either perceived or real," said Gabe Bailey, Business development manager for Beretta's military division. The Marine Corps adopted the M9A1 in 2006 that features a rail for attaching lights or lasers, checkering on the front and back of the grip and a beveled magazine well for smoother magazine changes. Some of the improvements Beretta offered included an enhanced sight system, changing the angle of the slide-mounted safety to avoid inadvertent safety activation and a threaded barrel, Bailey said.
Army officials, however, say the M9 does not meet the MHS requirement.
"The M9 doesn't meet it for a multitude of reasons," Easlick said. "It's got reliability issues; the open slide design allows contaminates in. The slide-mounted safety doesn't do well when you are trying to clear a stoppage -- you inadvertently de-cock and safe the weapon system."
Click to expand...

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/07/03/army-wants-a-harder-hitting-pistol.html?ESRC=dod.nl


In total fairness, the article explains that the military wants a better man-stopper and that it's got design problems. This however IMO is a total waste of time and money (I'm an advocate for replacing it with a more modern striker fired pistol, but not the glutton of testing they will certainly waste money doing - and I'd probably stick with the 9mm as 'good enough'). The experts agreed that shot placement (and more ammo capacity by default) is the most important factor, and 9mm is easier to control that .40 or .45.

This statement made NO sense:
"We have got an old fleet of M9s right now; it's costing us more to replace and repair M9s than it would cost to go get a new handgun,"
Click to expand...
How could it possibly cost MORE to replace or repair old M9s, than to test for, and purchase NEW platforms? Sounds like fuzzy math to me. Testing will certainly cost millions of dollars. Then there's replacement guns. Versus, the armorers are already a sunk cost and parts are not that expensive on huge contracts...

At the end of the day, IMO a pistol rarely decides a fight in combat. I'm not a fanboy of the M9, but it's a low priority to replace it. Appears to be another way to waste our money, spending millions on tests that lead nowhere. They could just pick another highly proven platform and go with it (Sig, Glock, XD, CZ, etc.). They've all got at least a decade or more of proven adverse conditions track record.
 
I'm an admitted fanboy of the 92/M9, but even admitting that it's not a perfect platform I would put good money on them managing to find a bunch of real or perceived new problems with whatever they replace it with.

I think sometimes the bureaucracy just wants to get shiny new toys.
 
Too much

Great reply Tunnel! :D

How in the world did we go from a discussion of the military's next handgun to shooting polar bears? You have to love this forum.

Seriously, I always thought a single multi-caliber platform such as the Glock or M&P which allows you to train on one system and tailor hand sizes and calibers as needed would be a logical choice.
Pico
 
Polar bears ? I've seen photos of polar bears , thinking a submarine was a dead whale , starting to eat it !!! Those subs carry M14s for that . They warn you that casual trips on the ice in their snow mobiles are a no-no ! They will actively hunt you !
I would like to see a committee to choose a handgun be made of Handgun hunters , cops like Jim Cirillo NYPD Stakeout squad, and similar .No politicians and no military REMFs !
 
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

If I were king for the day, I'd flip the switch, sell the surplus Berettas and have my experts pick a more modern platform in 9x19, given critera. No tests needed. Pick from Glock, XD, SW, CZ, Sig offerings and get the best prices. Could probably SAVE money over expensive M9s.
1. We all agree that shot placement is key.
2. 9x19 offers many advantages in weight and more ammo, which means more shots, lower recoil, easier for everyone to shoot, and supply concerns with allies.
3. We all also probably agree that pistols are a weapon of last resort, and close quarters. They matter to that individual, and there are anectodal stories of heroism with pistols, but they make no difference in the outcome of any campaign. As evidence the M9 is inferior, units that CAN pick their sidearm rarely pick the M9.
 
Tunnel Rat , A-10 . I see the F-35 is grounded again ! The A-10 may be obsolete but it can fly !
 
from what i understand alot of small sized women LOVE the old browning autopistol of ww2. And i beleive i read somewheres that the english government stpped using their browning high powers...
 
MHS (Modular Handgun System). To me this term implies that they want some kind of modular system similar to the M4/M16, where most any manufacturer (The lowest bidder) can make the parts and have them fit together and function with parts/pistols made by other manufacturers, I suspect this is the only reason the Beretta won't meet the MHS requirements.

The bigger question is why they can't just be honest about the reasoning behind the MHS, instead they just recycle the same old dislikes about the M9, some of which are questionable IMO.

"It's got reliability issues; the open slide design allows contaminates in. The slide-mounted safety doesn't do well when you are trying to clear a stoppage -- you inadvertently de-cock and safe the weapon system."

IMO, the open slide design is also what gives this pistol the ability to digest ammunition that other designs will quite literally choke and puke on.

The slide mounted safety may be a problem for some? but having personally fired many tens of thousands of rounds through these pistols, I don't see an issue with it. It's a safety learn how to operate it. If it's really that big an issue, why did they not go with the "G" model? (de-cocker only).
 
Last edited:
To me this term implies that they want some kind of modular system similar to the M4/M16, where most any manufacturer (The lowest bidder) can make the parts and have them fit together and function with parts/pistols made by other manufacturers
Click to expand...
Hmm, sounds like the 1911, as dumb as that would be. I suppose Glock has a bunch of people making frames, slides, and everything else as well. I see the "modularity" requirement as a red herring, personally. The only "modular" handgun I can think of is one that, by replacing parts, can go from a compact or subcompact size on up to a full size duty pistol (and possibly a select-fire machine pistol variant for military sales). What's silly about this concept for the military, is they'd have little use for all but the big duty-pistol offerings, since they don't do concealed carry. If an office-jockey's issued sidearm is too big for his comfort, the military would be better served by simply letting him return it to the armory and purchase his own weapon (with periodic armory inspections to verify mechanical function/safety, but would not be responsible to service it).

I saw it said elsewhere that "modularity" is simply .mil code for them openly admitting they have no idea what they want or would like to use a product for, so instead they will "order everything on the menu." Everything from pistols, rifles, vehicles, fighter planes, soldier-loadouts, surveillance aircraft, and pretty much everything else is trending toward "modular" nowadays. What does this tell us about our wider tactical outlook? That we are intending to make it up as we go along, ad hoc. That would make sense if the actual ground-level commanders were driving the modules' development, but we all know this is not and will never be the case. Now we'll be able to design the perfect weapon for the last 3 wars, instead of just the last one ;)

A-10 . I see the F-35 is grounded again ! The A-10 may be obsolete but it can fly!
Click to expand...
Be specific; the Pratt & Whitney engines grounded the F35 (this time). If only we'd thought to develop a competing engine, on the off-chance P&W screwed theirs up (again) or was late (also, again)...;). Just kidding, GE, Pratt, and R-R were all collaborating on each others' engines, so it really didn't matter as much who ended up 'winning,' nor would it have changed the outcome. Last time I had bothered to look before the cancellation, the GE engine was having schedule and weight problems of its own (it was still pretty dumb to can the project when 90% of the budget had been spent and they were into final development and production tooling)

TCB
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top