Who will US Army pick

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay. For those who were not in the service and those who were, this is what we carried and when we carried in modern times
.
Typically service pistols are revolvers or semi-automatic pistols issued to officers, non-commissioned officers, and rear-echelon support personnel for self defense, though service pistols may also be issued to special forces as a backup for their primary weapons. Pistols are not typically issued to front-line infantry.
I hope this is crytsal clear to those who do not understand the value or reason
of carrying side arms.
If you were never in battle where your life depended upon every tool that our soldiers could use to protect themselves, then you will never get it.

Including Vietnam these are the side arms carried:

Smith & Wesson Model 10 Revolver .38 Special 1935–1976
Beretta M9 Semi-automatic 9×19mm Parabellum 1985–present
Sig Sauer M11 Semi-automatic 9×19mm Parabellum 1988–present
Heckler & Koch Mark 23 Mod 0 Semi-Automatic .45 ACP 1996–present (Used by United States Special Operations Command)
SIG P229 DAK Semi-automatic .40 S&W 2006–present (Used by United States Coast Guard)
Heckler & Koch HK45C Semi-automatic .45 ACP 2010–present (Select use by United States Naval Special Warfare Command)
SIG Sauer P226 MK25 Semi-automatic 9×19mm Parabellum 2011–present (Select use by United States Navy SEALs).

If these side arms were not important, then they would never have been issued and used.
So, the next generation of side arms is very important. Hope they get it right.
GO ARMY
Doc
 
Typically service pistols are revolvers or semi-automatic pistols issued to officers, non-commissioned officers, and rear-echelon support personnel for self defense, though service pistols may also be issued to special forces as a backup for their primary weapons. Pistols are not typically issued to front-line infantry.
I hope this is crytsal clear to those who do not understand the value or reason
of carrying side arms.
If you were never in battle where your life depended upon every tool that our soldiers could use to protect themselves, then you will never get it.
Click to expand...

I would argue many of us do "get it". Who does and doesn't get issued a pistol and why is fairly common knowledge. The importance of the reliability of equipment in the field is something any gun owner can appreciate, and this country is generally very concerned with the well being of its soldiers.

If these side arms were not important, then they would never have been issued and used.
So, the next generation of side arms is very important. Hope they get it right.
Click to expand...

I think what many here have been saying is that the money spent on a new service pistol would have greater impact on the well being of the soldiers through other means that would also impact a higher percentage of soldiers. The defense budget is being cut to levels not seen in decades. We have planes and vehicles more than twice as old as the airmen and soldiers using them. The concept of triage comes into play. I think many of us also question how substantial the gains would be from going to a different pistol.

The US military has at a number of points throughout the latter half of the 20th Century and the beginning of the 21st considered changing the primary service rifle/carbine. This would have a much greater impact on the lives of the soldiers than replacing the M9. The general consensus a number of times has been that the gains weren't substantial enough to justify the cost. Beretta tried to use the same logic with the US Army to protect its contract for the M9, but now they have to compete with everyone else (which I personally think is fair). Many companies, such as Ruger as you noted, have said they don't feel it's worth it to enter given the cost and the chances of the competition falling through (which it already did in the past with the Joint Combat Pistol competition). The same concerns apply to the US government.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/
 
Last edited:
Tunnel Rat, There is a feud between Vickers and Ruger floating around the internet and some funny stuff about it as well. Happened at the SHOT show recently.
 
A new .45?

is it possible that the .45 could be reissued? If not, how about a staggered-column 10mm Auto? (That last one is just wishful thinking). A nice DA/SA .45 ACP auto would be an excellent addition to the "fighting soldier's" kit.

God in heaven, are you listening? PLEASE?!?!?!
 
This is what most gun forum members want as a US side arm.

tumblr_npyfmmgDXm1r94kvzo1_250.gif
 
Cap O,

Somebody is listening besides we mere Mortals.(not sure that this is correct English).
Can't argue with Evil Monkey on this. Just one more great tool for the Good Guys.

GO ARMY

Doc
 
You still didn't answer my question.
What exactly is the fault you're trying to correct here?

*9mm is used by police and military units all over the world for a century now. Agencies like the FBI that went away have returned to it. Studies and doctors have show that the difference between 9mm and .45 acp is not medically differential on a statistical basis (and this come from a 1911 owner). Remember anything in the .45acp range brings additional weight and we all know how much that is loved.

*Are you complaining about the M9 itself? What specifically? What would not be corrected with newly manufactured pistols? If its the design itself (love mine) what could not be corrected with a quick field test of off the shelf pistols?
 
is it possible that the .45 could be reissued? If not, how about a staggered-column 10mm Auto? (That last one is just wishful thinking). A nice DA/SA .45 ACP auto would be an excellent addition to the "fighting soldier's" kit.
Click to expand...

They looked at those in the Joint Combat Pistol competition. Then the competition was terminated.
 
I've spoken to too many vets who were alive today because they carried that extra protection.
You guys moaning about money, I hope you are never in that position.
Click to expand...

Apparently you failed to comprehend my post:

(If we want to have the best sidearm possible) then we need to stop spending money on more important things like communications, better integrated command & control, better medical care, 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.
Click to expand...

We need our military to spend (their limited pool of funds) on things that will save MANY MORE soldiers' lives than a new sidearm design ever will. These things I listed may not be as glamorous as the notion of a personal sidearm, but they are PROVEN to protect our troops and save lives in modern combat. If you truly value the lives of servicemen and women, you would be just as appalled as many of us are that the military is yet again (for the 3rd time in a decade) blowing money on a competition to replace a serviceable and proven handgun.

That said, I'm not opposed to replacement of the M9 - but only if this replacement saves money in the long term that could be better used elsewhere.


.
 
Last edited:
Including Vietnam these are the side arms carried:

Smith & Wesson Model 10 Revolver .38 Special 1935–1976
Beretta M9 Semi-automatic 9×19mm Parabellum 1985–present
Sig Sauer M11 Semi-automatic 9×19mm Parabellum 1988–present
Heckler & Koch Mark 23 Mod 0 Semi-Automatic .45 ACP 1996–present (Used by United States Special Operations Command)
SIG P229 DAK Semi-automatic .40 S&W 2006–present (Used by United States Coast Guard)
Heckler & Koch HK45C Semi-automatic .45 ACP 2010–present (Select use by United States Naval Special Warfare Command)
SIG Sauer P226 MK25 Semi-automatic 9×19mm Parabellum 2011–present (Select use by United States Navy SEALs).
Click to expand...

I admit to not reading the whole thread to this point but technically shouldn't the following be on this list.

Smith and Wesson 686 - SEAL use
Glock 19 - DELTA or whatever they are called these days as well as other secret squirrel guys.
1911 - Again a fair number of high speed low drag guys (Marine Recon/Special ops dudes)


My take on things is give the people who USE pistols the best tool for the job and honestly I think that tool is probably the Glock 19, which seems to be making its way through the various military special operations circles into the hands of the guys who train and use handguns fairly often.

Give the rear echelon guys, pilots, vehicle crew whatever, some kind of PDW in .223 or 9mm. Small, compact, safer then a Glock(with little training or use) and much more effective should it ever be needed. I wouldn't go with the HK or FN offerings here due to the need to rustle up another caliber.

If it has to be a pistol go with whatever is cheapest, safest and works. I don't know the economics but it seems like staying with the Beretta (M9A3) might make the most sense since there has to already be a ton of parts and such in the supply line and the training is already there.

Frankly they would do better to either issue JHP ammo or design and field a "JHP" ammo that skirts the rules so to speak.
 
My take on things is give the people who USE pistols the best tool for the job and honestly I think that tool is probably the Glock 19, which seems to be making its way through the various military special operations circles into the hands of the guys who train and use handguns fairly often.
Click to expand...

NSW has recently adopted the Gen 3 Glock 19 as their standard pistol to replace the Mk.25 (Sig P226). It is rapidly becoming the de facto standard service pistol of SOCOM.

Give the rear echelon guys, pilots, vehicle crew whatever, some kind of PDW in .223 or 9mm. Small, compact, safer then a Glock(with little training or use) and much more effective should it ever be needed. I wouldn't go with the HK or FN offerings here due to the need to rustle up another caliber.
Click to expand...

Why? They (aside from pilots) already have the M4, which is light, compact, and FAR more effective than any PDW or service pistol. The days of the PDW are essentially over thanks to carbines like the M4.

Frankly they would do better to either issue JHP ammo or design and field a "JHP" ammo that skirts the rules so to speak.
Click to expand...

There are no rules that outright preclude use of JHP by the US military (other than any internal self-imposed procurement choices).
 
I recall reading that the Danish sailors assigned to Slædepatruljen Sirius (Sledpatrol Sirius) are issued 10mm Glock 20s to fend off polar bear attacks. I'll sure take a 10mm over 9mm almost any time, but I'm not sure I'd be comfortable about combating a bear with anything smaller than a G3 or an FAL.

But it can no longer be said that no uniformed service fields the 10mm cartridge. May the trend continue.
 
Keerist.........lotsa crap flying around this thread.

Well I guess I'll -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- some folks off , which isn't going to have much of an effect on me but should correct a few misconceptions.

Kindly do me ( and certain other folks) a favor and quit trumpeting about the phrase " Special Forces does "this and that"".........please? PLEASE?

S.F. covers a wwiiiiiidddddeeee umbrella that runs from certain A.F. response units on through MarSoc , S.O.F. , Seals (NSWC) and of course "Delta" , the latter recruits from *ALL*individuals currently serving under the "SF" umbrella in *ALL* branches.

Since historically speaking we operate with a degree of autonomy there is quite a degree of leeway in choice of sidearms , based of course on personal preference and the inherent parameters specific to a given mission.

Thus blanket statements such as " S.F. uses the Glock 19 " are inherently erroneous in nature , at times a given team will agree on a specific sidearm or longarm for the purposes of ammunition/magazine commonalities.

You will see a great many SIGs of various stripes and high-speed 1911s , you will occasionally see Glocks and H and Ks.You will NOT see any M-9s , in point of fact there was a major rebellion when they made the attempt to saddle us with that p.o.s.

That brings us to the next point , those of you stating " the Beretta is just fine , a great sidearm."...etc.etc.etc...........you're quite mistaken. OLD beretta 92s were a decent sidearm , the contract M-9 is a (again) p.o.s. and many of us would rather read the front of a Claymore and click rather than depend upon an M-9 to preserve our well-being in a pinch.

The problems are quite well documented and of a wide variety , ranging from problems with magazines to the slide problems and on and on.

Now , read what I wrote above i.e......."IN A PINCH"........here's a reality for y'all , except for certain very specific situations.........if you're down to your sidearm the -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- has hit the fan and you're hip deep in it , a sidearm IS NOT your primary weapon , in point of fact there is a great degree of truth to the hackneyed old cliche of " a pistol is for fighting your way to your long gun" even though the wording is not exactly correct.

9mm Parabellum (9 x 19) versus .45 acp..........in my era a great many of us chose .45 acp , my personal choices in platforms were specific 1911s and later on the P220 , towards the end phase of my tenure ( out in '96) we transitioned to 9 x 19 , personal choices then were the P229 and ,P226.


Realities of "contract sidearms" , *ANY* contract sidearm will a compromise based upon price point , that is again *any* contract sidearm , this holds true for not only military entities but also any given law enforcement agency.

Another reality , weapons are a " horses for courses" issue , what's good for one purpose may be sub optimal for another purpose , which is of course why I spent so much time behind M-21 ,M-25 and M-24 platforms along with the M82 and later M107 , though I will say that the few TAC 50s that came through and were utilised were overall better than the Barrett offerings. And Accuracy international offerings were seen and utilised , chamberings utilised varied , 7.62 x 51 or course , also .260 , 7mm rem mag ,.300 win mag and .338 Lapua along with .50 BMG.

Y'all get my drift? The M4 does NOT cover all bases and suffice for everything , nor do any of the above mentioned. Again..........horses for courses.

And to answer the obvious question.......yes .............18w. 15 years , 1st S.O.F.......

Now can y'all quite tearing each others heads off and attempting to defecate down each others necks over this?

Oh and in closing , to the individual that came off with " who cares what line troops think." ( or close to it)..........just about anybody who served cares.....and who cares what a civilian with a rather snotty attitude thinks about it?
 
I hope they just stay with the M9. We really don't need even more money to be spent on sidearms right now.
Click to expand...
Well, a decision to "just stay with the M9" would not result in eliminating expenditures on sidearms.

So, the question is, for the planning horizon selected, would continuing with the M9 constitute a more economical decision than replacing it, or not?

Remember that every pistol, night vision device, radio, and pair of boots has to be supported, maintained, and replaced.

All operational pros and cons aside, it should be intuitively obvious that the M9 does not represents a technology that lends itself to low cost manufacture. Things have changed since it was designed.

Replacements and new parts may well cost more than those for a current technology design.

And then there are the operational considerations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top