Posted on Jul 3, 2014
What would you replace M9 with? The Army is looking at .357, .40, and .45ACP
25.8K
223
201
3
3
0
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/
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/07/03/army-wants-harder-hitting-pistol/
Equipment
Army
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 65
0
0
0
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
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
.45 ACP has proven itself through 2 World Wars...Korea and Viet Nam. No testing required!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
.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.
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.
(0)
(0)
SSG Jason Neumann
I am for bring back the M1911, however, some individuals need the extra capacity since their shot placement sucks and need a couple more little guys heading toward the enemies direction. If the Soldiers practice effectively on the range in both static and maneuver ranges (think IDPA) it would most definitely increase their ability in striking their target to incapacitate. Unfortunately, from some of the programs I have encountered while in, this is not happening as often. Also, the change in the round that is being used would help as well, but being hit with ball ammunition still is effective IF shot placement is there to maximize incapacitation. All in all, 1911 should be brought back and an effective pistol program be incorporated. See ya on the range.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google