TexasCHLforum.com

Read this article from National Defense Magazine:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... rades.aspx

Seems the 9mm may be replaced ending the argument which caliber is superior?

Clips from Article:

"..After the M4’s shortcomings, troops complain the most about their aging and "underpowered 9mm" M9 pistols, Coburn added".

"..The requirement document does not specify what caliber the new handgun should be, leaving an opening for the old-school .45 caliber or the in-between .40 caliber that has become popular with law enforcement agencies. A change in caliber seems more likely in light of complaints about the lethality of the 9mm round. Pavlick said the lack of punch the smaller round delivers has been a constant concern in after-action reports."

"The Army currently has 238,000 M9 pistols. It plans to buy 265,000 replacements"

Of Course Glock will be in the hunt to be the next Army Pistol - if the Glock "safety" can be successfully argued in proposal. Fascinating Article.

Is the 9mm going to be dumped? Looks like it will. What do you guys/gals think?

The new pistol caliber should be the new 5.7x28mm. Give a new 5.7 to each GI.

My cousin and renewel instructor are both recent combat vets. After what they told me It pretty much confirmed 9mm ball as ineffective. All ball ammo pretty much can penetrate enough. When using non expanding bullets it is hard to argue against the 45acp. It worked in ww2- Vietnam. Time to go back to the basics Imo.

I wonder if A Glock would be selected considering no safety. When Gaston designed the Glock he looked at the data that stated that in crisis usage, people mess up the safety - prohibiting firing of the weapon. I.e. they panic. Here is a quote from the article that is interesting - and may give a Glock a chance...

"While the Army will likely require an external safety on its primary sidearm, the M9’s safety is a classic shortcoming for troops trying to reload quickly, especially when wearing gloves. The safety selector is located at the rear end of the slide among grooves meant to improve grip when cocking the pistol. Troops have a tendency to accidentally activate the safety while cocking or reloading the weapon, a definite drawback in close-quarters combat. Well yea that would be bad.

But thats probably not the army way of doing things. But for close combat (of which most times is real bad) Glock would be best choice.

Both of them said the only time someone used an m9 was when there rifle or shotgun malfunctioned. One even described the M9 as useful as a door stop!

What 9mm are they carrying now? I wonder where they will be sold at and for how much

Ericstac wrote:What 9mm are they carrying now? I wonder where they will be sold at and for how much

They use a "Beretta M9".

The Arm uses M9's. SEALS use Sig 226, or anything else they want.

England is going with the Glock 17. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20978842, replacing the Berettas now in use. same 9mm though.

JALLEN wrote:The Arm uses M9's. SEALS use Sig 226, or anything else they want.

England is going with the Glock 17. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20978842, replacing the Berettas now in use. same 9mm though.

The story made it sound like they use a browning 9mm now

Ericstac wrote:

JALLEN wrote:The Arm uses M9's. SEALS use Sig 226, or anything else they want.

England is going with the Glock 17. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20978842, replacing the Berettas now in use. same 9mm though.

The story made it sound like they use a browning 9mm now

Sorry, my spell checker can't tell the difference between "Browning" and "Beretta."

Maybe it's the English accent or something.

It's a shame the Beretta 96 hasn't been more positively received. I suppose Beretta will entering this weapon in the trials for the replacement.

I'll gladly purchase those M9s.... who do I speak with?

If you have to use non expanding ammo (FMJ) then 9mm is a poor choice. In that situation 45 would be the way to go.

If you can use modern expanding ammunition then 9mm is an excellent choice.

Beiruty wrote:The new pistol caliber should be the new 5.7x28mm. Give a new 5.7 to each GI.

[ Image ]

That'd be fantastic for the platform and the round (and for me, since it'd drive costs down and I want one). If the 9mm's problem is that it doesn't make big enough holes (remember, they can't use hollow-point ammo), how does dropping down to 5.7mm help? Is it really that much faster?

I'll be disappointed if it's not at least considered, though. Our troops deserve the best we can afford, and the Five-seveN is at the very least an interesting platform.

Glocks can have safeties installed.

As far as I know they're after market installations.

If the contract was big enough, Glock might be interested in creating models with safeties, though the rest of world seem to find Glocks just fine as they are...

CC Italian wrote:Both of them said the only time someone used an m9 was when there rifle or shotgun malfunctioned. One even described the M9 as useful as a door stop!

I need a recent combat vet to school me on the "current" military (Army/Marine) policy on weapons issue. Back in the "olden days," from which my experience comes, pistols were not issued to everyone in the combat arms. For example, if you were a "rifleman" you carried the current battle rifle of the day, and no pistol. If you were a "heavy weapons" type that carried a light machine gun or part of a crew served weapon crew, you had a pistol. Support personnel usually had pistols or rifles dependent on duty position. When did the military begin issuing a rifle and a pistol to an individual soldier? I'm, not addressing special ops personnel, but rather the infantry type who are deployed in combat operations.