Who will US Army pick

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Doc Holliday 1950

New member
This one should be a doozy. The US Army is going to replace the Baretta 9mm.

So, who will get the contract that initially will be for 400K side arms with 200K
to follow?? (sorry if I got the term wrong)

Will it be S&W?
Glock?
Sig Sauer?
Detonics?
Ruger?
Heckler & Koch?

Sorry if I left anyone out. Everyone, please feel free to weigh in and also write why you made your choice.

Respectfully,
Doc
 
Last edited:
IMO Glock or SIG.

Glock has been well proven and is being used by SF branches already.

SIG maybe if they pass the performance and reliability tests, which I think they probably can, as SIG can offer the modularity they are looking for.
 
Funny that you left Beretta off your list. The Army is looking to replace the current M9 but I suspect not necessarily replacing Beretta. I know there wasn’t a lot of excitement from the military concerning the new M9A3, but that doesn’t mean they’re out of the running.

I agree SIG and maybe GLOCK have a head start since they already have some modularity, but who knows what might happen.
 
It appears that Beretta made a real effort to make the M9A3 usable by smaller hands, so it may be a player in the contest. Like sigarms228, I think it'll be Glock or SiG, with Beretta being a distant 3rd as a possible.

I'm not entirely sure how the controversy about the previous M9 iterations cracking frames finally shook out. I nonetheless suspect it'll be on the minds of the people who will make a decision.

There also seems to be an almost instinctive tendency among large agencies to NOT adopt Rugers, just because their name isn't Smith & Wesson, Colt, SiG, or Glock, and I think it is a mistake, given the reputation for strength, durability and reliability that most every Ruger firearm enjoys. If Ruger submits a candidate pistol to the trials, it'll have to leave its competitors in the dust to be considered.
 
What a waste of money. Of all the things we need to update within the military the sidearm is not one of them.
 
My bet would be on a modern modular built handgun. So long as a trigger pull is required for a field strip, the long in the tooth Glock will not be adopted by the Big Army.
 
I don't see the Army going to the Glock or any other striker fired gun, they are big on manual safeties.

Regardless, I think its silly. The Beretta works, easy to shoot and reliable.

I'd much rather see the Army put the funds in marksmanship training.
 
I've been following this. None of the contenders have actually been formally announced but I would say at least SIG, Beretta, and S&W are likely entering. It sounds like a manual safety or decocker will once again be a requirement (unfortunately). I'm interested in seeing what happens.

As far as not needing to upgrade, I'm not so sure. I believe our troops deserve the best gear possible. I think the AR-15 platform is still one of the best rifle platforms in the world, but I don't feel the same way about the M9. The distance between the back of the grip and the trigger when decocked is too far when you consider that there are already service members with smaller hands and even more so now that women can enter the armed forces. The pistol is very large and heavy for a backup weapon that will rarely be used so I feel that those serving deserve something that is just as reliable but lighter and less bulky. The M9 is a classic pistol but it's not the best service pistol today when you look at the plethora of modern lightweight guns that can do the same job with less bulk and fit more soldiers' hands.

I don't know who will win, but both the P320 and the new Beretta APX look like excellent options if entered. We'll see what happens. If asked who I would LIKE to see win, I would like to see SIG take the win. The military is apparently looking for something completely modular and SIG basically pioneered the modular trigger group.
 
Frankly, except for the silly magazine disconnect, I don't see a lot wrong with the MkIII Browning Hi-Powers. It's almost certainly more small hand-friendly than the Beretta.
 
Keep in mind that this is all very political. Having the best design doesn't have to do with the decision so much as who's in bed with who I think, and with contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars, you can be sure that somebody is going to be greasing the wheels.

does anyone know what the Army doesn't like about the M9?
Click to expand...

Probably that they're all broken and neglected and nobody knows how to fix them. My brother is on his 2nd tour in Afghanistan and he never got a chance to shoot the M9 they gave him until he had to qualify at the range, where he learned that the trigger return spring was broken. He finished the course (pushing the trigger back after each shot) and took it apart to find the problem. He took it over to the armorer (who was all upset that he took apart his own gun) and said he needed a new return spring, who replied that they didn't bring any parts with them. To a warzone. This is our military.
 
Last edited:
I am going with Smith and Wesson if they change. Just a guess. THey will go with a manual safety.

At the end of the day I think they stay with the M9 or variant.
 
The M9 or a variation will continue for another decade or two. Nothing out there that really substantially improves on the 92 series.

As to smaller handed military, I think the M9A3 addresses that.

As to broken trigger springs, other broken parts, that reflects on the military's lack of taking care of its equipment, especially the "lowly" pistol.

Whatever brand the military may eventually lean toward, I''m sure it'll have a manual safety and an exposed hammer, again for safety.

Personally, I like the Beretta but I also like the Sig 226/229 family.

What is more likely to happen in the near future is that the military will address the 9 mm and seek a more effective 9 mm loading.
 
Until Glock adds a manual safety and way to field strip WITHOUT pulling the trigger, it won't be a Glock.

I suspect the Beretta will be in service well into the next decade. IIRC, the government just ordered another hundred thousand or so not too long ago.
 
I agree with one of the earlier posts. This is a waste of money. There's a lot more important things to put the money towards than a sidearm.
 
My understanding was that there was also the requirement to supply a certain quantity of ammunition and that S&W had partnered with an ammo maker (Remington?) and was the only one to do so.
Did I misread that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top