US Army: Modular Handgun System

I can see this scenario playing out. The M9 will still be the main pistol for nearly all troops. Some units will be given their own autonomy to have a different weapon. Those will primarily be special operations units which are somewhat more flexible spending and more of changing mission set. In reality, in both terms of logistics and fiscal responsibility, there is no need to change from the M9 and/or 9mm.

The main handgun weapon system for the military is not the same as handgun needed for a police force. It is not what is the best range gun or home defense gun or what works for a state trooper or NYC police officer. It is about what can be mass deployed in vast number(really beyond compreheshion) and what will stand up to the long term(decade after decade) use for a broad range of users. Changing from the M9 really makes little sense as the weapon is primarily a backup weapon for most troops now. Yes, the Seals or Delta operators might have a different need than the average Joe. They have their own funding to do that kind of thing. An infantry unit is going to take what weapons are issued to them and they have to make them last for years.

For the military to change would be a massive undertaking. It is no like a state police force who might trade out 3,000 weapons and they work a deal with a local X Brand distributor or the factory. The US Army alone recently purchased 100,000 M9's just to fill gaps. Can you imagine an entire new pistol across the board? Just think of the parts and training alone. I think money could be better spent elsewhere.
 
So today we read that the military has placed an order with Beretta for $200G (I think that's what it was) for new M9s. Is there any sanity at all in our government?
Click to expand...

While I don't consider what most of our Govt does as sane, in this case I think it is. Sidearms are such a small part of our military that it would be a tremendous waste of money and resources to replace the M9. Especially considering all the spare parts we have on hand, and that every armorer in the military would have to be trained on the new platform, as well as the soldiers.

The M9 is a fine pistol, and the 9mm is a more than adequate round. It's not Beretta's fault that some of the pistols still in use by our military should have been scrapped a decade ago. The same thing happened when we had 1911's, by Vietnam the majority of the 1911's were rattle boxes and performed like crap because they were put through so much use and abuse. Most of these pistols have been through hundreds if not thousands of different peoples hands. They have been improperly cared for in some cases, and beat to hell in training.
 
man are we still on this? they've been planning on replacing the M9 since I first joined up 6, almost 7 years ago, they were likely looking to replace it 7 years before that... still hasn't even come close to happening. they do not have the funds to go through with a swap, especially to a 40 cal as most of the rumors claim...

we should just start a sticky on this and have it resurrect every time armytimes/navytimes/marinetimes/AFtimes/militarytimes and any other military magazine decides to claim that DOD is once again replacing the M9.
 
no no, it was a 45 ACP but using a glock safe action pistol(GSAP) and somebody forgot the "s" and just thought it was GAP. :D

everybody knows that the military wants to go back to 45ACP, 9mm just bounces of Al Qaeda.
 
well if we are talking about their newest of the new, I would have to say between the gen4 glock 17, S&W M&P, and the Beretta PX4, I would take the PX4 hands down, though I wish beretta would do a variant with a frame mounted safety instead of slide safety. the PX4 has an excellent trigger, soft recoil, and is dead nuts accurate, perhaps the most accurate handgun I've ever shot was a PX4, I was hitting floating chunks of firewood in a river at 100 yards(lasered).
 
the issue seems to have reached Media across the big pond.

In this article (German, alas) Glock's potential bid and how its chances might be diminished by the legal battle between him and his ex wife are explained.
 
the issue seems to have reached Media across the big pond.

In this article (German, alas) Glock's potential bid and how its chances might be diminished by the legal battle between him and his ex wife are explained.
Click to expand...
Their chances are diminished because of the lack of a manual safety and I seriously doubt they would consider it. When you have been selling a design and a concept that manual safeties are "obsolete" so to speak for over 30 years you don't go back and put one on it just to win a contract without suffering ridicule and loss of respect. Changing the one thing left that differentiates you from your biggest competitors is a big no-no if sales are good. That is how business lives and dies by market demand. When one goes, so does the other. If I were Glock I would not put a safety on, at least the way things are now.
 
I don't think thefirearmblog.com article is completely correct. This is not (at least not at this time) Beretta's entrant into the proposed new Army pistol trials. The M9A3 is being submitted as an Engineering Change Proposal under the current M9 contract. In other words, they are offering to fill the remaining M9 contract with the M9A3 if the military would prefer it. I'm sure part of the idea here is the military will like it enough that finding a replacement is not necessary at this time.
 
Glocks have been made with safeties for specific buyers before.
Click to expand...
I know there are after market add on but I can't find a reference to a production Glock pistol with a manual safety tat was for sale public or private. Who did they do this for?
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't mind a manual safety on my Glock. I've been a nearly exclusive Glock user for years (for obvious reasons), yet I never quite appreciated the fact that "Safe Action" means either half loaded or ready to fire, with nothing in between.

Anyway, I wonder why seemingly the British Army (and many others worldwide) can easily handle a pistol w/o an external safety while the US Armed Forces seem to have their difficulties with the idea...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top