"U.S. army would like to replace its standard 9mm M9..." Topic

… pistol with a more accurate model.

"The U.S. Army would like to replace its standard 9mm pistols with a more accurate and user-friendly model. U.S. Army officials say they want a new "Modular Handgun System" with more stopping power, accuracy and reliability than the M9 currently in service.

U.S. Army officials say their inventory of more than 200,000 semi-automatic Beretta M9 and Sig Sauer M11 pistols has become outdated, worn out and needs to be replaced with an updated model that also offers more reliability and durability.

The Defense Department will reportedly buy more than 400,000 new pistols if and when officials agree on a new model…"

Full article here
link

More "stoping power" and a better pistol?
My vote goes for:

link

What's your opinion?

Amicalement
Armand

The photo is of US Marines.

I carry a Glock and it is the worst handgun on the planet! H&K makes great guns, Colt, anything but Glock.

Considering the limited utility of a pistol on an actual battlefield (outside of special forces, etc…) just buy an off the shelf model. Per US custom they will end up with some over-priced gadget instead.

I carried a SIG 9mm for about 4 years. No stopping power. We had 14 shootings with the 9mm and in only 1 was the threat stopped.

We then went to the SIG .40 cal., first standard semi-auto and then to a DAK (double action only). The .40 cal is a great round and although I thought I would hate the DAK, it was a really wonderful weapon. I shot perfect on my last 3 requals with it.

My job gave up on the SIG 2 years ago due to production problems. Higher powers determined that the quality of SIG had dropped off. I can't say, I've NEVER had a problem with a SIG.

We carry a Smith and Wesson M&P .45 now, also in DAK. I again didn't think that Smith & Wesson would make a good semi-auto. They had some problems in the past, great wheel guns, but not semi-autos.

I am very happy with my Smith .45. Great weapon, lighter, 3 grips for different size hands and very accurate. I hit a man size target at 100 feet 6 times with 6 shots, 4 in the head, 2 upper chest on one trip to the range.

I did not shoot perfect on it with my requal. 30 round course and I threw one over the right shoulder of the target at 3 feet range.

Boy, did I feel stupid on that one.

H&K do make wonderful weapons, but are very expensive.

A friend of mine has a Glock .45, double stacked magazine. I don't know how tough it is for field use, but it shoots very well at the range.

My vote would go to bringing back the Colt 1911 .45 ACP.

Pistols are mostly for REMFs, and the occasional SF operator. Accuracy and stopping power are buzz words that mean nothing. Really, does no one ever remember anything? Then again I suppose it's all about sound bites and making the news. But there again do I know?

Delta Force now use Glock 22 .40 I hate glocks but aperantly they just keep working.

SEALs use SIG P226

Force Recon use MEU .45 now replaced with Colt Rail gun .45

Still don't know Why seal use 9mm, but must be a reason, I under stand the sig part, great guns, if I was going to use anything other then a 1911, it would be a SIG P version, but either in .40 or most likely .45 The quite new SIG P227 looks great, it's a P226 in .45 and 10+1 capasity.

So either I would go for a modern 1911 like Kimber or a new colt ect. or a SIG p227

I was in a unit called FAST company years ago we all carried handguns, it's better to have two guns then one, everyone should carry a handgun. If I had a choice I'd carry the FN 5.7

link

ODDBall could you please take a look at your post concerning the kit you are bringing to Historicon.

Irish Marine,

email me at pkenglish @ charter.net

As a 2nd Lt I carried the Colt 1911 .45. Loved it. In 1988 they gave me that 9mm piece of crap. I got permission and drew a shotgun from the armory. 9mm was like shooting a bb gun.

1st Gulf War I carried a M16A2 and was lucky enough to beable to draw a 1911. Being a Company Commander, I never fired a shot at or saw many live Iraqi's.

The 9mm should have never been issued.

"I carry a Glock and it is the worst handgun on the planet"

What don't you like about the Glock?

"I was in a unit called FAST company years ago we all carried handguns, it's better to have two guns then one, everyone should carry a handgun"

For the mission of the FAST units, handguns available make sense. For everybody else, rarely.

"As a 2nd Lt […] In 1988 they gave me that 9mm piece of crap. I got permission and drew a shotgun from the armory."

I humbly suggest that officers ought to be concentrating on leading troops and trying to understand what is going on, instead of firing weapons themselves.

The Glock jams, I have cracks in my slide there is no safety so anyone can use it, it doesn't shoot as well as other handguns I've fired. Years ago as a PlatoonSgt I was asked by a General what I thought of the SAW and told it was suck wad weapon but if we had to have it then all the SAW gunners should be issued a handgun and not a KABAR. Again everyone should, have a backup two guns are better then one.

Why not a revolver? a .357mag with speed loaders? So you have a 13 rd mag and fire a lot of lead downrange but does that help with the inaccuracy and carrying multiple mags? I read somewhere our soldiers are noted for firing single shots when the enemy is blazing away with AK's so would a return to the revolver as backup be detrimental?
Note: I've only fired a .22 bolt action, a AR-15, a Mossberg bolt action shotgun with 3" shotshells and never a pistol. All that in the early seventies.
Don't want to start a massive debate just a consensus.

"U.S. Army officials complain they haven't had an opportunity to stuff up a weapons procurement contract this year …."

Doing anything but buying a COTS pistol is just an excuse for empire building by procurement officers.