Posted on Jul 3, 2014
What would you replace M9 with? The Army is looking at .357, .40, and .45ACP
26K
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
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
I grew up as a combat medic using the .45. The M9 was "nicer," but one should consider the purpose of the weapon. Not to return fire in a firefight, but for personal protection and the protection of one's patient. Stopping power at close range is critical.
(1)
(0)
SPC Keelan Southerland
The medics carry both for various purposes. Tactics dictate they have the pistol in case they need to engage at short range while treating the wounded or to pass the pistol to the wounded who may still fight.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
I am a dyed in the wool Glock fan (I have a Glock 23 as well), but I like the M&P series. To me, it's a product refined version of the Glock. I like how they've slimmed down the grip compared to a standard Glock. My next pistol will likely be a M&P V-Tac in .40.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Only problem with Glock is striker fired. IMHO hammer fired is a better way to go and safer. I carry a M11A1 Sig Sauer. I guess it could be I'm a little old fashioned.
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
no hammer = nothing to snag. Strikers also have a more consistent trigger pull than traditional DA/SA pistols with a hammer. Preferences I guess.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Well Brian, you know my personal favorite, the M-niner-ish, LT safe, Super Duty.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) Are Nerf guns an option for some of our special kids?
I like the .45ACP. It has good knockdown power, and would provide the protection we need. The .40 would be ok since it is higher velocity and can be utilized in a smaller frame which may make handling the weapon easier for some. However, the .45ACP seems to be more of a push recoil with less barrel raise. This means that target acquisition after the first shot may be faster.
We could always just issue a 1LT (Join to see) as an enforcer for everyone and then noone will need to worry about self-protection with the fit hits the shan.
I like the .45ACP. It has good knockdown power, and would provide the protection we need. The .40 would be ok since it is higher velocity and can be utilized in a smaller frame which may make handling the weapon easier for some. However, the .45ACP seems to be more of a push recoil with less barrel raise. This means that target acquisition after the first shot may be faster.
We could always just issue a 1LT (Join to see) as an enforcer for everyone and then noone will need to worry about self-protection with the fit hits the shan.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
I would go back to the Colt 1911 45ACP I was in when they changed over to the 9 what junk !
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Rosario Felice
they got the berretta 9 mm for the USMC and they would have to be rebuilt every 150 shots, How we through away American jobs. I liked the 45 it was heavy but it was tested in a cement mixer we shook it once and loaded, fired its still the best in my book. but anything is better than the 9mm's they have now!
(0)
(0)
SSG Jason Neumann
I would have to agree with the .45, it fits most peoples hands, due to single stack. Even though it is single stack a good round will set a foe straight quick, fast, and with a purpose. I love my Kimber......
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
Those Hague and Geneva conventions prohibit explosive ammo, not balistacally deforming ammo.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
LTC Paul Labrador, Sir, I bow your superior retention of the specifics.
I'll amend: I'd replace the 9mm ball with JHP or DPX from Crobon, and the 5.56 and 7.62 ball with a similar deforming but barrier blind ammunition.
As we are not signatories to the Hague we would face no legal ramifications. It's a stupid rule in the first place. War is about killing and dying, superior ammunition means the dying is more likely to be the enemy's role, not ours.
I'll amend: I'd replace the 9mm ball with JHP or DPX from Crobon, and the 5.56 and 7.62 ball with a similar deforming but barrier blind ammunition.
As we are not signatories to the Hague we would face no legal ramifications. It's a stupid rule in the first place. War is about killing and dying, superior ammunition means the dying is more likely to be the enemy's role, not ours.
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
But I also think the convention is woefully out of date. It was created at the end of the 19th century where soldiers would languish and die of wounds that are pretty much survivable today due to modern trauma care and surgical techniques.
(1)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
I agree with the absurdity of the convention. The more "merciful" round is the one that kills faster thus precluding teh "suffering" that the law was created to prevent.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google