What would you replace M9 with? The Army is looking at .357, .40, and .45ACP

2014-07-03T12:37:22-04:00

Which of the rounds that the Army is looking at replacing the M9 with would you pick? .357 Sig, .40 S&W and .45 ACP Or would you pick something else? Why?

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/07/03/army-wants-harder-hitting-pistol/

Army wants a harder-hitting pistol

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.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2014 1:06 PM

2014-07-03T13:06:48-04:00

.45 all the way. Go big or go home. IMHO It also has the best stopping power.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2014 1:10 PM

2014-07-03T13:10:22-04:00

I wouldn't change the pistol at all. We already own this one and we are throwing people out of the military because we are low on funds.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jul 3 at 2014 1:22 PM

2014-07-03T13:22:01-04:00

The stopping power of pistols (ANY pistol short of the most powerful revolvers) is really only a matters of degrees. The difference between .45 and 9mm is not as great as people make it out to be. .45 DOES make a bigger hole though.

However, if you take a look a the big picture, pistols aren't really that important. They are issued only to a small portion of the population, and even then, as a last ditch self-defense weapon. No one is going into combat with only a pistol as their primary weapon system. And if you are, you are in a world of hurt to begin with. A pistol is meant to allow you to fight your way to something bigger.

That being said, if the military was going to switch, there are a lot of good off-the-shelf options. Priorities I would look for are:

1) High magazine capacity. This allows you to stay in the fight longer.
2) Reliability and ease of maintenance.
3) Ease of operation and shootablitiy.
4) Terminal ballistics. Here I would go with a .40. It bridges the gap between the capacity of a 9mm and with the improved terminal ballistics of a .45.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Jul 3 at 2014 2:12 PM

2014-07-03T14:12:19-04:00

As I have carried a Glock 23 for over 20 years........ I would vote for it. It's .40 cal; easier to clean; easier to operate (training time could be reduced); lighter; fit's in more holster types; and as I understand is being used by some of the Spec Ops types.

As a Firearms Instructor (Police and Military through the years) I have trained hundreds of people from all walks of life and all skill levels on 1911's, M9's, and G23's. The Glock family is the easiest to train to. I know, we already have a bazillion rounds of 9mm ammo. But we had a bazillion rounds of .45 cal at one time and got rid of most of it on the civilian market....... wait for it....... FOR MONEY!

I have a M&P Shield in a 9mm as my current concealed carry weapon and would probably buy several hundred rounds of the 9mm from the Military just for giggles (I am not a fan of the 9mm but it is easier to conceal than my G23). I know all you safety fanatics out there are saying "it doesn't have a thumb safety"...... news flash, my M&P Shield does and guess what..... I don't use it cause' I was trained right. Of course I always carried my Combat Commander (45.cal) for 21 years in Condition 3. Just Sayin'..... NOT THAT I AM OPINIONATED OR ANYTHING.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jul 3 at 2014 2:45 PM

2014-07-03T14:45:41-04:00

I'm not an expert in the technical aspects of firearms so I will defer to my esteemed colleagues MAJ Jim Woods and LTC Paul Labrador I think they have a good handle on it. I will say I did prefer the .45 over the .9mm, easier to maintain and, I felt, better balance when firing.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2014 3:10 PM

2014-07-03T15:10:11-04:00

I used to believe in switching to a .45 - then I spent a tour carrying 30 rnds of 9mm ammo. .45's are twice as heavy. I'll stick with the 9mm and have extra rounds vs the heavier .45s. And I say this as someone who uses a .45 for home defense. I will always prefer to shoot more vs shoot bigger.

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2014 3:27 PM

2014-07-03T15:27:37-04:00

I don't know if spending the money is such a good idea. A pistol is a secondary weapon, if the funds are going to replace small arms let's focus on rifles.

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Jul 3 at 2014 4:45 PM

2014-07-03T16:45:14-04:00

Perhaps I'm missing something here; but wasn't the driving force to change from the M1911 45 cal to the M9 9mm in order to align ourselves with NATO ammunition standards to allow resupply within all NATO nations? Not to try to stir up any conspiracy theories or anything, but could this mean that we're beginning to separate ourselves from NATO (although we will, I'm sure, continue to foot 90% of the monetary bill for NATO). Just a thought....

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2014 9:47 PM

2014-07-03T21:47:08-04:00

Sig Sauer 226 & 229 in 357 Sig. Many federal agencies and police departments have adopted the round. Sig Sauer weapons because there already in service.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2014 9:54 PM

2014-07-03T21:54:00-04:00

I would say that I am not opposed to the 9mm as you could get ammo that would improve the damage of a target. I was reading an article and saw some great points. The 40 cal is not really a great option due to the fact that no gun was design for that round. They are all on a 9mm frame and that frame wears out fast with the additional power. I would almost favor a 45 but them who really uses side arms that much in the regular army. MP's would be hit the hardest as the M9 is their primary weapon when performing their duties. I think the 357 could show promise but the pistol will have to bring a lot of options to the table.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jul 3 at 2014 10:14 PM

2014-07-03T22:14:17-04:00

Something for the more game savvy crowd, maybe?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2014 10:59 PM

2014-07-03T22:59:23-04:00

Assume that I have already written a paragraph citing calibers, scary sounding brand names and such... You will save me the trouble of writing it and, more importantly, you will not have to read it.

Stopping power is really not the issue here. Regardless of whether you miss with a .22, a 40, a 45, a 46, or a phased plasma rifle in a 40 watt range, stopping power only counts if the round actually encounters the target. Unless you are Johhny Rico deployed to Klendathu, your chances of actually engaging with a side arm are about as remote as me giving a damn about ANYTHING remotely connected with a Kardashian. IF, you are actually engaging with a sidearm, you are not terribly likely to encounter a foe who is going to get philosophical about the size of the entrance wound they experience. Rather, they are likely to perceive that they have been shot and change their priorities accordingly.

But for those whose hearts and minds are not penetrated by secondary firearms, they are more likely to be changed by volume of fire. Hence, if you are going to miss (and miss you will given range, adrenaline, dust and the fact that you are not Johnny Rico on Klendathu) you are better served to miss often and loudly. With that in mind, I would rather miss 30 times with a 9 mm in the hopes that the enemy will decide to seek out someone with a different MOS and use the saved ammunition weight for more water.

Note: Edited to add a "t". See if you can find the change, it's fun!

Response by SSG William Sutter made Jul 4 at 2014 3:34 AM

2014-07-04T03:34:00-04:00

If I remember right we had the 45 before the 9. Personally I have a 44. So I would go with that one but it isn't on your list.

Response by SSG James E. made Jul 4 at 2014 9:16 AM

2014-07-04T09:16:37-04:00

I personally like the 40 but if they want to keep 9mm I think they should get rid of the beretta and go with something else. My personal choice would be a glock!

Response by SSG Jeffrey Spencer made Jul 4 at 2014 11:52 AM

2014-07-04T11:52:20-04:00

It appears according to the RFP put out by the Army, only one weapon currently produced meets the criteria.

http://bearingarms.com/army-wants-new-handgun-way-can-now/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate

The Army Wants a New Handgun. Here It Is. And By The Way... You Can Have It NOW - Bearing Arms -...

Share on Facebook 1

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2014 12:11 PM

2014-07-04T12:11:44-04:00

As much as I dislike the M9, it has performed satisfactorily, and it's in a very common caliber. If it's not broke don't fix it

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2014 2:08 PM

2014-07-04T14:08:22-04:00

If it were my decision to make, I would find a solid 44. Sp /44. Mag. Lots of power, little ability to pierce, but we train marksmen. I'd rather have a high caliber low round pistol than vice versa in a close range gun fight.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2014 11:46 AM

2014-07-05T11:46:34-04:00

My vote is for the Springfield XD (2nd generation with a slide safety). They're accurate, VERY reliable, less expensive than the Beretta M9, have a high magazine capacity, and are made in a multitude of chamberings. Furthermore, they can take a beating. I've heard of torture tests on the XD (1st generation) that surpassed that of Glock, and the weapon still functioned.

Response by SSG William Patton made Jul 5 at 2014 12:16 PM

2014-07-05T12:16:25-04:00

The round that has proven itself over the years and has not failed is the .45ACP. One .45 will do what it takes 3 or 4 9mm to accomplish. True, you do not have the magazine capacity of the 9mm, but the stopping power of a single .45 ACP does away with the need for additional ammunition for the same target. The military made a big mistake, in my opinion, when they went away from the M1911. It has served the military for many decades and should still be in use.

Response by SFC Dennis Leber made Jul 5 at 2014 12:46 PM

2014-07-05T12:46:43-04:00

I will add to the Glock vs. Sig discussion. The Glock has 3 to major parts, this keeps its operation simple, the Glock can be underwater, muddy, etc and still fire. When it comes to the Sig, there are numerous springs and moving parts in that gun, Sig recommends replacing those (at the factory) every so often. The Glock, you shoot, you clean, your done.
When I was a firearms instructor for Law Enforcement in KY the Louisville and Jefferson County Police Departments merged, Louisville had Glocks, County had Sigs. The first firearms range with combined guns resulted in many Sigs being sent to the Company for maintenance and spring replacement, also a lot of jams and stove pipes, The Glocks shoot true and everytime the trigger was pulled.
My 2 cents

Response by SSG Christopher Alderman made Jul 6 at 2014 12:07 PM

2014-07-06T12:07:20-04:00

Like many of you I have owned and shot everything from 9mm to 44mag. I think the Army either needs to change the ammo we use in 9mm if they wish to stay with that caliber or go to the .357SIG.

I don't mind 9mm myself and have shot a lot of it in different grains in my POW 9mm's and in my issued M9. I have shot a lot of 40S&W at the same time and have a lot trigger time on this round along with the .357SIG and a 45ACP.

Yes The .40 caliber. Is an excellent cartridge, but the recoil is snappy, and more difficult to shoot. Even more than a. 45acp. The. 357sig recoils in a very pronounced manner, but it is fast and your gun lines up on target faster than the 40 caliber. The 357sig is more powerful and has a good track record even though it has not been around as long as the others.

I like the .357SIG due to it being easier to shoot than the 40S&W as it does not have the muzzle flip or the snappiness or up and twist like the 40S&W has. I would describe the .40 as "snappy" up and the .357 "recoil" back at you if that makes any sense. The .357SIG also has a 100 yard flat range trajectory when fired unlike the other pistol rounds, I like that I know that within 100 yards my round is not going to drop or be high unless I move my sights and then fire the gun.

I like many others here love the good old 45ACP and it has a history in every branch and is still used today by units in different branches. It is effective and will works really good. What a lot of people that due not understand about firearm's is that it does not matter what type of bullet is used it all comes down to shot placement.

There have been many people killed with a 22LR and .380 all due to shot placement. If you take a pistol class you will see and know how to effectively employ your handgun and where your shots need to hit.

I would say as to the platform that should be recommend for a new gun should be either a SIG 226R or 229R, H&K P30 if the Army would stop worrying about not having a external safety then I would recommend the M&P series SIG 320 and then the Glock series.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Jul 6 at 2014 1:46 PM

2014-07-06T13:46:06-04:00

The Kimber Warrior SOC - Full sized, tactical wedge night sights, tan/green Kimpro II finish, ambi safety, and removable Crimson Trace laser that mounts to the rail.

Response by SFC Walter Mack made Jul 6 at 2014 2:33 PM

2014-07-06T14:33:28-04:00

Something to consider, we have a lot of small female senior leaders in the Army that I have seen show difficulty firing a 9mm. If you put a .45 ACP in the hands of a 5'0" 50 year old that weighs 120 lbs and has small hands, they won't be able to fire it effectively. If we decide to field a larger pistol, we should use common sense and ensure units give leaders the opportunity to choose a M4 or M9 instead of forcing them to qualify with the weapon that is assigned to their MTO&E position. Truthfully, we should do that now. I don't care if there's a female next to me in combat, but I want her to be able to put rounds downrange accurately when the need arises.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2014 12:06 PM

2014-07-07T12:06:24-04:00

I would use the .45 ACP for the increased stopping power. However, due to the cost of the .45 I would give back some of the power IOT save some $$ and go with the .40 S&W.

Response by SFC Jerry Humphries made Jul 7 at 2014 1:11 PM

2014-07-07T13:11:05-04:00

I understand with only 7 rounds why the Military did away with the M1911 but they should of kept the 45cal round 9mm just lacks stopping power.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2014 5:57 PM

2014-07-07T17:57:00-04:00

Sig Sauer P320 Striker Fire in .40 S&W.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2014 9:46 AM

2014-07-08T09:46:30-04:00

I would go with the Glock 20. The ballistics on that round is amazing! With the 10mm, you have stopping power that exceeds the .45 while carrying 15 rounds. However, my first choice would be training, so that we would have better shooters.

Response by 1SG Michael Nault made Jul 9 at 2014 11:38 AM

2014-07-09T11:38:50-04:00

The M1911A1 45 cal. pistol was A knock down weapon. Just how many weapons and types of ammo do we need the troops to carry?
The Tanker has M14, M240, 9mm now.
If we go back to the M1911A1 then we should go back to theM3/M3A1 .45 cal machine gun. (grease gun)
Maybe the answer isnt a close combat weapon but why is there a need?
More Claymores,Beehive and A-10 may limit close in combat. Hollow points or Shredders may also be the answer for the 9MM.

Response by SFC John Barna made Jul 10 at 2014 1:33 PM

2014-07-10T13:33:15-04:00

Return to the M1911A1 - the only sidearm the military ever needed. It was designed to serve a purpose and it served that purpose very well. The M9 was a mistake that never should have happened.

Response by 1SG Michael Nault made Jul 10 at 2014 1:44 PM

2014-07-10T13:44:56-04:00

Try SRM 12/16 A 12 gauge 16 round shot gun, Google it and watch video.
The SLE 12 is semi auto or auto select.
I believe a rifled barrel firing sabot slugs will stop most combatants in thier tracks.

Response by SSG Jason Neumann made Jul 13 at 2014 1:54 PM

2014-07-13T13:54:33-04:00

Finally......BUT it would cost too much to improve the M9 berreta we currently have. It would cost effective to purchase or replace the current stock. In my opinion I do believe ALL members of the force should have sidearms when performing duties and be accurate and efficient with said pistol. I do believe Glock or Springfield xd would be a good choice, but the military is too into safety we have to have a decocking mechanism if that is the case then why not buy Sig Sauers, M11 for all and call it a day

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 17 at 2014 7:45 AM

2014-07-17T07:45:29-04:00

http://kitup.military.com/2014/07/sof-prefers-9mm-45-caliber.html

This is why I like a 9mm. There are more factors than the "stopping power" augment at play.

Response by SPC Keelan Southerland made Jul 17 at 2014 2:39 PM

2014-07-17T14:39:50-04:00

One of the biggest problems with the Army's choice in pistols is not the pistol. It is the crappy training. It is a check the box, push as many people through as you can with outdated tactics. If the Training was actually realistic and the tactics were up to date with companies like CSAT, Tiger Swan and MagPul you would see a great improvement in the ability of soldiers to hit their targets. At the end of the day only hits in the CNS make bad guys stop doing what they were doing. Currently, the Army has a Human sized target at 25 Meters and all you are required to do is keep the rounds on paper. The target should be changed along with the tactics/training, if they want to invest all this money in a new sidearm/service pistol.

Response by SGT Jason Doyle made Jul 17 at 2014 4:26 PM

2014-07-17T16:26:51-04:00

40, more stopping power, and more capacity than a 45. Plus, it is large enough for people with big hands, yet small enough for those with smaller hands. If they adopt a tactical one like H&K or Sig has, it would be a major upgrade over the M-9. Don't get me wrong, I love a 45, but for practical purposes, the 40 would be the best suited for the majority of the Army troops.

Response by SFC Joseph Johnston made Aug 28 at 2014 12:25 PM

2014-08-28T12:25:38-04:00

To answer the question directly, I own a .40 S&W (FNX-40). I get the benefit of high magazine capacity and slightly better stopping power than a 9mm. I've seen a lot more special purpose ammunition that comes in .45 but not 9mm, but lets be honest, unless you're in special operations don't bother engaging with a sidearm as a primary weapon.

I agree with the statements that a 9mm vs a .45 platform is a marginal gain when you take into account cost, weight, and the fact that most soldiers I've seen are horrible with a sidearm on the range. Add to that the stress of a real world situation with reduced capacity and higher recoil and that spells out a disaster. The M9 despite some of it's flaws has served us well. In the grand scheme of the army I'd rather see money spent on better training, development, and retention of soldiers.

Weapons are the tools of our trade, but at the end of the day it is what lies between our ears that makes us effective and dangerous adversaries.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Aug 29 at 2014 4:03 AM

2014-08-29T04:03:03-04:00

The 9mm is common and one of the cheapest rounds out there. They could gain a bit going to a 10 but it has a low expansion rate and pokes holes rather than delivering the energy. They got rid of the .45 so it would be stupid to go back. .40 is very common but as Maj Miller pointed out, a very expensive change over.

If they want more power than they have then they could buy ammo with a little +p on the back.

If they REALLY want to save money, lets cut back on Obama's greens fees and vacations.

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Aug 29 at 2014 8:45 PM

2014-08-29T20:45:04-04:00

LTC Paul Labrador I agree with almost all you have posted here. But recently this old dog has learned a few new tricks. Some of what I say here will not hold up due to costs, supply etc. but in a perfect world I believe all line troops should be issued and trained with a pistol. Under 25/50m depending on your skill level a pistol can provide significant suppressive fire to a buddy if your primary weapon had stopped running for whatever reason and his is in need of clearing a stoppage/malfunction.

My old thoughts were "strictly defensive" and I carried a single stack .45 for decades. Since running training scenarios featuring the above I have come to believe in a rifle/pistol weapons package that compliments one another. Students are likewise enthused with the amount of fire they can continually put down range with out interruption, when working in pairs.

All of that wind passed, I prefer the .40 (that I shoot in a Glock LS) nice cross section and capacity, plus the LS gives a longer site radius and better accuracy.

Implementing any of this would probably take 50 years due to training changes, costs and pure political BS, but it's an interesting thought.

Response by SPC David S. made Aug 29 at 2014 9:13 PM

2014-08-29T21:13:12-04:00

SIG Sauer P226

The P226 cost less per pistol than the Beretta 92F(M9), but SIG's package price with magazines and spare parts was higher than Beretta's. The Navy SEALs, however, chose to adopt the P226 later. Only the Beretta 92F and the SIG P226 satisfactorily completed the XM9 Service Pistol Trials. Chambered for the .40 with 15 round mag for a little more punch. The XM9 Service Pistol Trials (see also Joint Service Small Arms Program) were held by the US Army in 1984 on behalf of the US armed forces.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Aug 30 at 2014 3:05 PM

2014-08-30T15:05:03-04:00

.38......then .45 cal....then 9mm.....I say keep the M9 and ammo and put the money towards saving the Kiowa!

Response by LTC Paul Heinlein made Aug 30 at 2014 4:26 PM

2014-08-30T16:26:17-04:00

O.K. First, there is nothing wrong with the Beretta M9. It is one of the most reliable weapons out there. The reason most people in the Military do not like it is due to poor maintenance and poor ammo performance.

Maintenance- At least in the Army, it is extremely poor. I'm not talking about the operator maintenance. Springs and such need to be replaced after firing a certain amount of rounds (in the thousands), if you do not, slides won't cycle effectively, etc. leading to failure to feed or failures to extract...which are the most common problems I have seen at Military ranges. The open top of the Beretta slide is purposely designed to not have these problems, assuming they are maintained properly. If you ask the average Army "Armorer" about replacing springs and such, you are going to get the Deer in the Headlight Look. I could not even get them to switch the magazine release on my M9 (which I just googled and did myself in about 15 seconds). My personally owned Beretta has never failed to feed or extract. My personally owned Glock 17 has, and I love Glock's.

Ammo performance- Mil Issue Ammo is Full Metal Jacket for M9s (and would be for any other caliber we adopt) to due Law of War/ Geneva Convention agreements (to reduce pain and suffering). Generally a 124 gain 9mm is a good round, and our ammo is loaded hot (higher pressures to increase bullet speed). But, it is FMJ which makes a nice clean hole and does not do a lot on damage going in, which means unless you hit your target in the spine, brain, or heart they are going to keep coming at you (at least until they bleed out, which could take some time). If we used Hollow Point ammunition, we would have much better results with stopping our target because more of the energy of the bullet would be transferred to the body.

That being said, the ballistics on the .357 Sig are the best of all of those calibers, so in an unconstrained environment, I would switch to that, because I would get the best of both worlds (increased ballistics and still have a high ammo capacity).

Response by SGT Richard H. made Aug 30 at 2014 5:58 PM

2014-08-30T17:58:17-04:00

I'm kind of a fan of a .40 if the Army really thinks it needs to change. It's a nice compromise between 9mm and .45, in that it hits harder than 9mm, but is compact enough for a higher round count magazine than a .45 can get without the grip getting massive.

Simply adopting something besides plain old ball ammo may be a much cheaper compromise.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2014 12:55 AM

2014-08-31T00:55:41-04:00

A lot of law enforcement agencies have been running .40 cal for awhile and have switched back to 9mm because the difference in power is not enough to outweigh the need for higher capacity magazines. Personally I say don't fix what isn't broken- but for personal use I always go for 1911 .45 acp. One size does not fit all

Response by CW3 John Wescott made Aug 31 at 2014 11:13 AM

2014-08-31T11:13:20-04:00

The only comment I can make is: when I was in Iraq we had about x100 M1911 pistols on our books - all the guys wanted them but they needed updating and repairs. I spent a couple weeks putting together all the information about cost and time. When I was called in to my Battalion Commander to explain the cost and he said one thing "Can you tell me how many people in the War on Terror have been killed with a sidearm?" I shrugged my shoulders - he said "None" I thanked him for his time, packed up my papers and left.

From a logistical standpoint it is not just the weapon itself, it is the magazines and holsters - all the other stuff that goes into a Program of Record.

I love the Sig P226, Glock 19 and the M1911. The Marine Corp has a great history with the .45 ACP and the M1911

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Aug 31 at 2014 4:05 PM

2014-08-31T16:05:17-04:00

Have had a Glock 23 (.40) for almost 15 years and love it.

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Aug 31 at 2014 6:42 PM

2014-08-31T18:42:56-04:00

The only .357 auto that I ever recall seeing was a COONIN. A friend of mine had one and every time he shot that thing I would run for cover.....from the empties. It ejected brass as violently as the slug. He loved it, me not so much.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2014 7:18 PM

2014-08-31T19:18:43-04:00

If you're asking what could replace the M9 Baretta? The answer is just about anything, a sling shot would probably work better.

A better pistol would be the M&P 9 With a modified trigger. That thing is awesome.

As for caliber, I had a recent conversation with the leader of our local swat team and they are dialing back to 9mm. The found that a heavy grain hollow point 9mm+P round packs the punch of a 357MAG and they can carry 17 of them in a single mag.

food for thought.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Sep 1 at 2014 9:44 AM

2014-09-01T09:44:06-04:00

* Why do you carry a .45? Because they don't make a .46! Old joke, but appropriate..

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2014 4:59 PM

2014-09-02T16:59:43-04:00

Sig Sauer P320 "Striker Fired" in 40 Caliber.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2014 6:02 PM

2014-09-04T18:02:02-04:00

Notwithstanding the money and so forth, that was not your question. Do I think we need to change the sidearm, no. But, if we were I would hands down say go back to the .45! Yes the sidearm is a "secondary" weapon, and the user obviously needs to be a good shot, if not it does not matter what caliber you are using. I have been on law enforcement ranges that are firing, 9MM, 10MM, .40 and .45 and even with double ear protection you can tell when someone was firing a .45.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 8 at 2014 12:06 AM

2014-12-08T00:06:08-05:00

H&K .45 would be my choice. I like the look and feel, but not sure how it works for all services.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Dec 8 at 2014 10:18 AM

2014-12-08T10:18:18-05:00

I'd replace the 9mm ball with 9mm JHP or DPX from Cor-bon.

Those Hague and Geneva conventions prohibit explosive ammo, not balistacally deforming ammo.

Response by SSG Jason Neumann made Dec 9 at 2014 12:18 AM

2014-12-09T00:18:09-05:00

Why not go with Glock 23. It's compact, .40 cal (benefits of a recoil of 9mm, but also stopping power of a .45 ACP), rugged, reliable, adaptable and easy to maintain. I would also include NOT using just ball ammunition, but that would have to be changed with Law of War, Geneva Conventions and all that craziness. If they decide not to change caliber, stick with 9mm and utilize ball ammo for qualifications, but jacketed hollow point for oversea operations. Just my two cents..... OH and get rid of the Serpa holster and go with G-code XST, they just won a decent contract with the Army.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2014 11:46 AM

2014-12-09T11:46:55-05:00

Replacing the M9 makes no sense. Aside from an accessory rail (which most people won't use anyway), no handgun has a meaningful advantage over the M9.

Most of the military, especially the Army, does not take pistol training seriously. Most guys who hate the M9 have no idea what the hell they're doing with it. Changing the issued pistol will not solve this problem. The M9 is one of the easiest pistols to shoot, and I own or have owned most of the major designs at some point. Issue a Glock, and scores will drop. Issue a M&P, and scores will drop. Issue anything in .40 or .45, and scores will drop.

And everyone will hate it.

Response by SSgt Rosario Felice made Dec 10 at 2014 11:47 AM

2014-12-10T11:47:14-05:00

I would go back to the Colt 1911 45ACP I was in when they changed over to the 9 what junk !

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2014 11:43 PM

2014-12-11T23:43:48-05:00

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca, SFC Mark Merino , and CPT Private RallyPoint Member did you comment yet?

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Dec 11 at 2014 11:59 PM

2014-12-11T23:59:51-05:00

I vote for the M93R, but in 5.7mm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUhL-Pg_Y5M

Robocop gun (Auto 9) test

Using Adobe After Effects for flames, lights and smoke. The gun is an Airsoft gun from K.S.C. The sounds of the gun are extract from the first movie. The so...

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Dec 12 at 2014 5:23 AM

2014-12-12T05:23:57-05:00

Well Brian, you know my personal favorite, the M-niner-ish, LT safe, Super Duty.

Response by SGT Charles Vernier made Dec 14 at 2014 4:38 PM

2014-12-14T16:38:02-05:00

Military small arms training is already lacking. Even more so for secondary weapons systems like the m-9/m-11. In my civillian law enforcement experience our initial training with a pistol was between 3000 and 3500 rounds depending on the shooter's need for remedial training. Even with the initial training a "continuing education" of 300-500 rounds per year is required to maintain proficiency with a pistol. The pistol is always a poor choice when compared to a rifle, carbine, or artillery fire. Unless the military is willing to invest in eh necessary training for those who carry a pistol I would say stick with the weapons system were already invested in.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 10:51 AM

2015-03-27T10:51:36-04:00

I think .40 would be nice. It has better stopping power than a 9mm but does not have as much kick as a .45 for those who are looking for that.

Response by SSG Jason Neumann made Mar 27 at 2015 7:46 PM

2015-03-27T19:46:03-04:00

I am all for an upgraded pistol program, but all members of the force should receive that sidearm. With that being said, a great pistol program for Soldiers would also be in order. Shot placement is crucial with any firearm, unless your using a Barrett 50 at close range (pun). With proper shot placement and the correct round (NOT Ball ammunition) would increase your chances of incapacitating your target. However, some of these individuals we are shooting back at are hopped up on drugs or adrenaline shots, so putting them down can be troublesome. This would bring in the question, "would a larger caliber be in order, change in round type (defensive round), and also the capacity of rounds the firearm can hold". Being able to handle the firearm is important as well. Single stack sidearms, such as the 1911, are pretty compatible with all sorts of hand sizes. The trouble with double stack or staggered pistols is the grip can get wider and problems with handling the firearm increase.

I am guessing i have hit a lot of what other people have said, but still always good to reiterate and maybe state the obvious.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Apr 30 at 2015 12:25 AM

2015-04-30T00:25:47-04:00

.45 ACP...Hands Down.

In 1985-86, we were tasked to evaluate several 9mm pistols for adoption. On the test team I was with EVERY ONE OF US sent in the recommendation that we RETAIN THE M1911A1 in .45 ACP. We were informed that "That is not an acceptable answer nor is it an option". I carried an M-9 and I own one of my own. I carry a sidearm everyday in my job now, I carry a COLT M1911A1, in .45 ACP. It is like getting hit with a brick at 650 miles per hour.

If the US Army and the powers that be would STOP listening to some little weasel looking dude in a bow tie with a PHD but NO TIME in a uniform, and start listening to guys with CIB's on their chests about what they need in Combat, retro steps forward, or a reversing of a bad Idea would be the exception rather than the rule.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 3 at 2015 6:51 AM

2015-05-03T06:51:01-04:00

The issue here isn't a hardware issue, it's a training issue. There is nothing wrong with the 9mm round and honestly I think I only have come across 2-3 people who have ever had to transition to their pistol. The problem with the M9 and the round it fires is a lack of proficiency, in fact I dealt with a Negligent Discharge last week, why? It happened because a reserve field grade decided he didn't need supervision to clear his pistol at night in the rain. Long story short, one went pop in the clearing pit.

Re-tooling the force for a better pistol round that most people can't accurately put on target is just a waste of time and money while increasing negligent incidents. Like it or not 9mm is the NATO common round just like the 5.56 and there is nothing wrong with either of them as a common application. Depending on the unit they may have a wider option like when I spent time in a certain company I had the option of an M9, G19, or G22. I carried the G19, because that was the common pistol among the team. The .40 is a great round but to me it has tenets of indecision between someone who can't decide whether they want 9mm capacity or .45 energy.

Response by SFC Siva Williams made May 29 at 2015 6:42 PM

2015-05-29T18:42:03-04:00

Advances in ammunition design makes the "stopping power" argument a mute point. So what should we focus on? How about the fact we only issue ball ammo to the military. All the advancements in the world won't do us any good if we don't use them. I say stick with the 9mm. It is easier to shoot and we have to remember that the user isn't going to be proficient on the weapon unless they are in a Tier One unit.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2020 11:00 AM

2020-08-13T11:00:11-04:00

.45 ACP has proven itself through 2 World Wars...Korea and Viet Nam. No testing required!

Response by SGT Daniel Petitt made Mar 5 at 2022 11:32 AM

2022-03-05T11:32:13-05:00

Anything but a 45. I barely qualified with it,but qualified expert with everything else,even the 81 mortar. I couldn’t hit a wall with a 45. Lol