"A Look At The Evolution Of The U.S. Army Pistol" Topic

"The weapons that won a revolution and defended a republic.

In late January of this year, the U.S. Army selected a new pistol to replace the Beretta M9, a gun that's served the Armed Forces for 30 years. But like every weapon in the U.S.'s arsenal, the Army pistol has gone through a slow evolution, from slow-loading flintlocks that helped create a country to polymer-framed, semi-automatic pistols used in conflicts around the world today.

The U.S. Army has come along way in 242 years…"

link

Main page
link

It has the look of being a toy…. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Not a fan of polymer.

I can understand going from the Colt to the Beretta as it allowed for a 15 round magazine and is single/double action (and has a better safety). So we go to a new pistol of the same caliber because it is lighter and has a 17 round magazine? How many thousands of pistols must be replaced with so the armed forces can spend more with no major improvements.

Considering how worn out most of those M9s are, it's probably about time. (They DO wear out, after all, and new barrels are almost as expensive as new pistols!)

Last time I shot a Navy M9, it rattled and I literally couldn't pull the trigger with one finger it was so heavy.

Though I do consider this a bit funny, considering that I was looking at buying a 100-year-old Colt 1911 pistol a little bit ago. It'd need new springs, of course, and maybe a new barrel and barrel bushing. But the slide and frame were made in 1918, according to the serial number.

The new Sig Sauer offers several advantages over the M9.

It has a greater capacity, it may happen only once or twice, but some guy will be lucky to have two extra bullets in his gun and live to tell the tale.

The modular system means that it will be easier to handle for different people. By changing the grip people with smaller or larger hands will be able to shoot more comfortably, it's not a major thing, but down the line it may mean the difference between hating the gun so much you never want to practice to having a gun that fits your hand like a glove and is pleasure to shoot, see also the my comment about living to tell the tale.

It can take different types of ammo like .45 and .357 sig. Should the army decide to move away from 9mm, it will be much easier to make the switch.

The fact that the various parts are now independent of each other means that if your gun breaks down, the armourer simply slips in a replacement.

The new gun has rails so you can mount accessories, which would be very useful in certain scenarios.

Handguns are of dubious value on the battlefield, but once in a while a soldier lives because of his or her handgun, if even a small improvement helps to save one extra life, why not ?

The two videos below show how easy how the gun works, how the parts can be exchanged and how it shoots.

YouTube link
YouTube link

If I recall,Beretta won the contract at that time, barely edging SigArms, by placing the lowest bid.

Thanks Patrick for the info!.

Amicalement
Armand

Worn out? I was firing the Colt M1911 and it rattled but I did qualify with it. Pistols are not rifles and you do not usually put hundreds of rounds through the weapon.

A pistol is primarily a backup weapon and rarely fired (except at the range). The reason the M1911 was in service for so long is that mostly it sat in the armory or in a holster and when needed was able to do the job. As far as replacing the M1911 with the M9 the advantages of a real safety, single/double action and 15 round (as compared to M1911 7 round) magazine was significant. The additional 2 rounds and somewhat lower weight does not add up to that big of an advantage. "Modular" is a great catch word but if you don't have the module or it does not improve the weapon so what

Saw a Lugar P-08 with a 32 round drum magazine. Will this be the "new" replacement for the M15.

The reason for the M9 was the 80s craze for the "wondernines"
For the average grunt it doesn't matter. They generally don't have a sidearm. But there is a reason those that use their sidearm a lot(special operators) prefer .45 or .40

Navy SEAL s being the exception.

My govt issued M1911 carries a 9 round magazine. My only complaint is that the weapon is not double action. It has 3 safeties and makes a big hole in the front of a target and a really big hole where it comes out. The Sig will offer, as already mentioned, the ability to easily rechamber a weapon to fit a need. To hear people complain about wornout M9's just shows to me how poor a weapon it is. I doubt very few weapons have had an excessive number of rounds put thru them.

I doubt very few weapons have had an excessive number of rounds put thru them.

We didn't use ship's weapons to qualify, we had to use range weapons (we didn't have weapons issued to us personally on the boat). And the range weapons got shot to hell and gone, about 100 rounds a day for 5 days a week. I'd be willing to bet that the 9mm I was shooting had about a 9.2mm bore, to say nothing of the 15lb trigger pull.

And here I am still carrying a new-manufacture M1911A1 with 8-round magazines and a couple ergonomic tweaks. It just plain works, but the disassembly and cleaning process is a bit more involved than preferable for a simple backup weapon.

If I carried a rifle for a living, my sidearm would probably be something simple like an M&P45 or a P320. The Army chose well.

If any weapon is massively used it will wear out (M1911, M9 or M15). If a pistol is only used on the range that means that the weapons in your armory or in holster are almost never used. A servicing plan for the range weapons is what is needed.

The XM-17 replacement program put forward that the current M9's procured in the 1980's were terminally worn, some parts could be replaced, but frames were said to be done.

The M9 lacks an accessory rail and is not easily modified for added accessories such as suppressors, and many features that were considered suitable years ago were now superseded by modern weapons, like the grips, trigger pull, caliber etc.

So they made a call for a more modern gun that was modular, could be refitted to have a wider variety of grip sizes and was not dependent on one single type of ammo. It had to be more accurate than the M9 and be able to achieve certain ballistic specifications.

In practice the P320/M17 is quite easy to modify, for example the Beretta entry was a lot harder to get right and required the use of a tool to actually remove pins.

They also settled on a 9mm configuration because while the .40 S&W and .357 Sig are more powerful they are not easy to control and follow up shots are slower. Though it is not excluded that troops may receive upgrades should conditions warrant the use of more powerful guns.

There once was a light utility vehicle called a jeep. It met requirements and was easy to maintain. With upgrades it ended up costing about $16 USDK per unit before they removed it from service. They replaced it with the HUMVEE which started out costing about $100 USDK per unit. Today the HUMVEE costs about $300 USDK per unit. The HUMVEE is in limited production and if we ever get into a war where losses get high then we will not be able to replace much less expand production.

The Chinese have modified an SUV for their light utility vehicle that is not as good as the HUMVEE but will do the job. They can ramp up production and meet any loss or expansion of there needs.

If you have specialized needs purchase or make a pistol that meets those needs. Do not buy a pistol that can do everything but not as well as a pistol that is made for that need. As soon as you said it is modular and we can changes grips and change calibers of ammunition I suspect it will end up with features that will push up costs and never be used.

It would be a fair comparison if they switched from the M9 to the Desert Eagle. This gun costs something like $170 USD/unit if memory serves me well and is cheap and easy to repair.

The P320/M17, if you have seen the video above, makes it very easy to repair, just switch the bit that doesn't work and you're ready to go. Sure you can repair other guns as well, but that means handing in the weapon because all the parts fit together.

The trigger group is one separate element, so is the barrel, slide and grips, they are all independent, if there is a problem with your trigger group, all you have to do is drop in a new one, which takes only a few minutes and you're ready to go. This means that if you have a few spares in your platoon, any pistol malfunction can be solved in minutes rather than throw away the gun in anger or wait until you can hand it over to a gunsmith.

The army has settled on the 9mm and hasn't made any provisions to switch to other calibers, but could do so at a reduced cost compared to introducing whole new guns or even slides/barrel assemblies.

Sure the gun may turn out to have shortcomings, but I can't see any real flaw in this kind of design, it's probably the biggest step in gun design since the introduction of the Glock. (Yes I am aware this is not the first modular gun ever, but it's the first that will be in widespread use)