Apparently there will be around 200,000 M9's hit the market later as the military is looking to replace the gun and maybe the caliber.

Beretta's offer to update the pistol was not accepted and reports from combat indicate that the 9mm is less than lethal with limited number of hits.

Calibers being entertained are .357SIG, .40S&W. and the 45ACP. Bets are for the the .40S&W or going back to the 45ACP. The military women have complained about the recoil in the .40 and the .45ACP so we dumbed down the caliber to the weakest of our soldiers. Brilliant.

Any takers on the caliber and the firearm to be chosen???

Don't hold your breath waiting for those 200,000 M9 pistols to "hit the market", ever!

Where did the M1911A1 pistols go when the M9 was adopted? Our current politicians will never allow surplus handguns to enter the civilian market. Even a Republican President will have major issues with such a proposal.

Many LEO agencies who adopted the .40 are now returning to the 9mm due to too many shooters inability to qualify with the .40

Mike

I know I am preaching to the choir on this--but if they can't qualify with an effective round-whats the use?

My 105lb niece shoots both the 40 smith and 45 ACP--very effectively--

isn't it more about training?

Hey Sean,

Good to hear from you. Hope all is well with you.

Yes, training is always the key. But you can train up an individual only so far, and you cannot instill the necessary intestinal fortitude nor an abiding interest in firearms. Most rookie cops today have extremely limited or, more than likely, NO experience with firearms, especially handguns, prior to the academy. The only time they shoot (practice) post-academy is at their departmental mandatory qualification days, which vary by agency budget and may be as infrequent as once per year!

I have carried the .45acp in both M1911 and Sig-Sauer configurations while going in harms way, also the .38spl (before I knew better) and .357mag, but I switched to the additional firepower of the multi-stack 9mm circa 1985 and have never looked at anything else for extreme situations.

I practice and adhere to the Mozambique technique of combat shooting - 2 rounds to center of mass and 1 to the head - delivered without pause. Recoil is a factor with this technique. I also always prepare for multiple attackers and the hi-cap 9mm gives me the potential to dump 3 rounds into six people intent on doing me harm, rather than only two. I like having that capability and neither the .45 nor the .40 provides me that margin.

BTW, my preferred armament for any critical incident is a semi-auto rifle (M14) or a sub-machinegun (MP5 or M4), but a 12ga. shotgun repeater, pump or auto, will also serve.

As always, JMO based upon education, training and experience.

quote:

Originally posted by LionHunter:
Where did the M1911A1 pistols go when the M9 was adopted?

I was in one of the last units to have the 1911A1 taken away and replaced with the M9. We were very sad to see them go. But the newest 1911A1s we had were made in the 1950s. Many were from the 1940s. We just kept replacing parts and cannibalizing. The pistols kept going and going but I don't think they were considered anything but obsolete or BER (Beyond Economical Repair) when they were finally turned in.

One of the biggest problems with the M9 is the service life. We were wearing them out in training then going downrange with pistols on the verge of failure. Then it was discovered (that's another story) that many of them developed hidden cracks in critical areas! It was discovered that in a fairly short time nearly all of our weapons had exceeded their service life by two or three times. A typical day at the range was 300 rounds or more!

A two pronged approach was used. First, replace all the M9s in our MACOM. This was thousands of pistols. Second, Beretta was to make changes to increase the service life. This Beretta did but the M9 still cannot take the use and abuse that the good old 1911A1 could. The Berettas were fine for soldiers who carried them but rarely used them, i.e. defensive use. The Berettas were never built sturdy enough for soldiers who used them regularly, i.e. offensive use.

I think the round needs to be .45ACP -- for too many reasons to list
The pistol should have a staggered magazine for additional capacity. (Our 1911A1 mags only held 7 rounds)
The pistol should be all steel or have steel parts and a steel reinforced synthetic frame (like the HK SOCOM)
The pistol should be able to use a suppressor (sorry M9)
The pistol needs to be reasonably slim, trim, and lightweight
And of course, it needs to meet or exceed all the performance and endurance standards the military will impose

Let's see what Colt and S&W have learned since 1996 when HK got the SOCOM contract.

Technology is no replacement for training. It hints at a "more money than brains" attitude.

The M9 is fine for the REMFs and others who do not use them in combat. A 40 or 45 caliber with the latest ergo inserts etc would be fine. The M1911 would be fine too, if we trained. Hi cap is not needed even for SOF type uses. 7-10 round in a adjustable grip format and a 5 inch bbl would be just fine for all but the tactical units of the Army Navy and Marines.

95% of the pistol equipped personnel are just fine with the M9 and 9mm. Give them more gun and they won't qualify anyways.

I went through a continental replacement station a few years back and almost all of the augmentees ( regulars and RC folks) could not qualify 1st time on the Army standard CPQC (combat pistol qual course)of 30 rounds from 5 to 30 yards with the M9.

I am glad my armorer in country had extra M590s and M4s... I took one of each in addition to the M9 I carried from Benning. I did use the M9 as well as the others long(er) guns, but the M9 was the firearm I carried when decorum required the "offensive weapons" had to be checked at the door...

quote:

reports from combat indicate that the 9mm is less than lethal with limited number of hits.?

I don't believe it's less lethal in the literal sense, at least not in ball ammo . But I do think the bigger frontal area makes it more likely to stop aggressive behavior sooner than the 9mm in many cases.

I guess most of you don't remember that the M9 out preformed all the other pistols during the adoption process in all areas even durability.

They far surpassed even the 1911 used as a standard.

quote:

One of the biggest problems with the M9 is the service life. We were wearing them out in training then going downrange with pistols on the verge of failure. Then it was discovered (that's another story) that many of them developed hidden cracks in critical areas! It was discovered that in a fairly short time nearly all of our weapons had exceeded their service life by two or three times. A typical day at the range was 300 rounds or more!

Over what time frame are we talking about and how many total rounds. Saying shooting 300 rounds a day doesn't mean a thing its total number of rounds that count.

Then what ammo were you using the frame cracks were contributed to using to non spec over pressured ammo.

Run a bunch of +P 45 in 1911s through the normally military 1911 with standard springs etc. and see how long they last.

My guess a 1911 built in the 10s to 60s well get battered fairly quickly.

My nephew who was hire as a air marshal after 9/11 who's a gun person and works as an instructor now. Told me they were cracking frames on their 357 Sigs at about 9000 rounds.

Guns do not last for ever they all have a service life.

"It was discovered that in a fairly short time nearly all of our weapons had exceeded their service life by two or three times."

Exceeding service life by 2 or 3 times seems good.

A vehicle that would have a life of a hundred thousand miles that lasts 300 thousand would be deemed a great thing.

Any piece of equipment that exceeds it service life and lasts 2 or 3 time what it was suppose to do is a good buy.

I believe they were spec. at 30000 rounds for a service life is about 3 months of shooting at your rate.

quote:

I was in one of the last units to have the 1911A1 taken away and replaced with the M9. We were very sad to see them go. But the newest 1911A1s we had were made in the 1950s. Many were from the 1940s. We just kept replacing parts and cannibalizing. The pistols kept going and going but I don't think they were considered anything but obsolete or BER (Beyond Economical Repair) when they were finally turned in

As stated about yet you have no complainants about having to rebuild the 1911s you were using and that they went passed their service life.

One can keep anything going if one replaces enough parts.

Why didn't you just keep rebuilding the M9s?

Beretta's Uberti subsidiary can make these all day long at a $500 retail pricepoint. No one ever complained about disappointing results from hits ...

Those tests are often biased and rigged to get the wanted results. There is no way the M9 is the most durable gun they could have tested.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
I guess most of you don't remember that the M9 out preformed all the other pistols during the adoption process in all areas even durability.

They far surpassed even the 1911 used as a standard.

quote:

Those tests are often biased and rigged to get the wanted results. There is no way the M9 is the most durable gun they could have tested.

If you say so.

What do you say?
Do you know anything about engineering qualification testing?
Or are you just an ex-cop?
The US has a long history of adopting crappy small arms due to nationalistic behavior, sloppy engineering, economy and generally poor performance of the selection processes.

The Trapdoor Springfield is a well known scab on conversion that saved a few $$$ by recycling Springfield rifled muskets.

The Krag was a goofy POC.
The 1903 Springfield was a POC
The Winchester Lee Navy was a POC

The M1 Garand functioned well enough but is a terrible turkey to manufacture.

The M-14 ditto

The M-16 started out without the chromed bore and the ammo was so cruddy it caused the rifle to jam.

The 1911 worked well for a long time. Apparently the govt was too cheap to replace them on a regular basis as they wore out over 50 years in service.

A more reasonable method of adopting a new sidearm is to take a lot more time in the process. Put 1000 guns of several types into qualification testing with a number of active units over 10 years time. Surely the military can pick a winner without picking another M9 type turkey.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

Those tests are often biased and rigged to get the wanted results. There is no way the M9 is the most durable gun they could have tested.

If you say so.

SAS and the SEALs both selected to use the P226 (9mm). They manage to limp along reasonably well.

p dog shooter,

I remember from a couple of meetings I attended that the service life requirement was the main issue. Service life is a design criteria that defines a minimum standard. It was specified in the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) that formed the basis of the contract. Having something exceed the service life is actually the norm. The meetings had depot rep, PM (program manager) rep, reps from units, force mod reps, manufacturing reps, and others. From the military side, the number one conclusion was that the service life requirement was much too small for our units. Our requirements were not the same as most other units. We should have had a much higher service life specification in our ORD and later ORD's would take care of that. Meanwhile, we had to deal with what we had.

The most troubling problems we were having was with frames cracking or breaking. We became aware of the problems after we sent a group of about nine men to a Beretta factory course and they took twelve pistols with them. The story goes that they turned the pistols in when they arrived and the first day of training the reps told them that they would not be getting their pistols back. ALL twelve had problems so big that the company refused to give them back. It was a liability issue. The soldiers were assured they would receive replacements. The captain protested and contacted the command. It went from there -- spot inspections, turn-ins, meetings, letters, and finally some sort of agreement with Beretta and all pistols were replaced. Replacement was rolled out, unit by unit, and took a long time.

The M9 is basically a P38 with a staggered magazine of greater capacity. The original P38 was a superb weapon. The German's really knew what they were doing when they made those. P38s were made with STEEL frames for decades. Later, to placate a civilian market, the P38 was made on aluminum alloy frames. An M9 with a STEEL frame would probably have done much better.

Some weapons do very well with aluminum frames. The M9 is a different story.

Can you see all of the politicians and retired colonels and generals lined up to lobby for their candidate?

The original M9 situation was that the gov't specified DESIGN not just peformance .Really dumb.
I used to have a 1951 Beretta .Single action, single, column mag ,and the same locking system. The locking wedge broke !! They break on the new version too. I had a good laugh when I saw the new repair/spare parts kit .It included a new wedge !!Can anyone tell me if the Walther locking wedge had that problem ??
But such things are a tradition . Pres Lincoln test fired and highly recommeded the Spencer repeater.His Army guy wouldn't accept anything new or different !!

I learned in Vietnam,up close and personal, that the 9mm ball round is not nearly as effective as a .45. Even from only 10 meters.
Common sense doesn't matter to a lot of important people in the food chain. Of course if NATO had the 9mm then it had to be OK....right?

All of my Special operations friends carry the .45...and shoot is so really well that it embarrasses me to compete!

The .357 Sig is a real sleeper and a great round. Again....Our European pals will rule I bet!

Backspin

Problem I'd guess with 9mm is that, just like McArthur in the 1930s re the Garand, that's there so much of it that it effectively rules out, now, using any other calibre.

OTOH given that the SMG is now an outdated concept and few if any armies have them maybe a swap to .40 S & W could be possible. Seeing as ONLY pistol ammunition is now the issue.

Remember, it was Congress of the 70’s that decided to flush the 45 ACP out and use the 9mm to standardize with Nato. A bud of mine used to be on the military repair lines at Anniston Army Depot and he was sent on CONUS TDY to refurbish small arms at local installations. I remember a discussion where he told me of attempting to refurbish M9’s from one mechanized unit. The M9’s were all beat to heck, loose, because the units were using +P+ hollow point ammunition. Standard velocity ball ammunition was not giving them the results they wanted. When the 9mm came out in 1902, the idea of suicide bombers was unthinkable, in fact, this idea was unthinkable until we went into Iraq. When you are dealing with fanatics who are determined to die, and take you with them at the time of detonation, I don’t know what pistol round is adequate, but a 9mm FMJ sure has not worked to the satisfaction of American units.

quote:

One of the biggest problems with the M9 is the service life. We were wearing them out in training then going downrange with pistols on the verge of failure. Then it was discovered (that's another story) that many of them developed hidden cracks in critical areas! It was discovered that in a fairly short time nearly all of our weapons had exceeded their service life by two or three times. A typical day at the range was 300 rounds or more

I have another Bud who was in the Program Office that made the downselect decision. He also claimed to have inputted into the requirements of the JROC. He said, he knew that M1911’s with parts made as far back as WW1, were still inventory, no new M1911's having been purchased after WW2. The robust design of the M1911 allowed these pistols to be rebuilt and rebuilt so many times that they were essentially, unreliable, and inaccurate.

At one level you would think endless rebuilds a good feature, but in fact, it allowed decision makers to abrogate their responsibilities. Decisions are hard, someone is always unhappy, so it turns out, the term decision maker is an oxymoron. WW1 pistols should have replaced with new or an advanced pistol at some point, but it was the path of least resistance to continue rebuilding ad infinitum, even though the rebuilt pistols were not accurate or even reliable. The things would not break!.

However, the aluminum frame of the M9 will, absolutely, positively, fracture fatigue given enough firing cycles. The estimate is around 30,000 rounds of ammunition. Fatique fracture is an interesting subject in itself. Steel can be made thick enough that given an allowable stress, the steel part will never fatigue fracture in use. This is done in some applications, makes a heavy part, but it will last. Aluminum will always fracture fatigue, the thicker the aluminum part, the longer it will last, but at some service cycle in the future, it will crack.

Once the frame has cracked, the pistol has to be replaced. This removes the natural and normal inclination of decision makers to punt decisions into forever land and forces them to buy new pistols. I think this was a wise decision, and as we are seeing, the Army can’t keep these aluminum frame pistols in inventory forever and at some point, the whole concept of 9mm and a 70’s technology pistol will be reconsidered.

Hopefully, this time around, they will go to something bigger and better than the 9mm. While I like the overall operation of the M9, maybe something better has been developed since the 70's. About time to reconsider this.

quote:

While I like the overall operation of the M9, maybe something better has been developed since the 70's. About time to reconsider this.

Yes. The CZ75. Except would have been unthinkable for the US at the time. Far better than the Beretta offering.

I liked the idea...but never saw (except in their catalogue), or handled or shot the .40" Browning Hi-Power.

Which is now no longer a listed stock item?

Maybe as Czechs are now in the European Union we will see the CZ85 tested?

This politically, Reagan years etc., was unthinkable when the Beretta M9 decision was taken I am guessing?

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:

quote:

While I like the overall operation of the M9, maybe something better has been developed since the 70's. About time to reconsider this.

Yes. The CZ75. Except would have been unthinkable for the US at the time. Far better than the Beretta offering.

I liked the idea...but never saw (except in their catalogue), or handled or shot the .40" Browning Hi-Power.

Which is now no longer a listed stock item?

Maybe as Czechs are now in the European Union we will see the CZ85 tested?

This politically, Reagan years etc., was unthinkable when the Beretta M9 decision was taken I am guessing?

The Beretta is piece of shit. The CZ75 is genius...so yes, I agree. Love the CZ75.

I'd like us to go back to .45 ACP, however I think the 1911 is is too cumbersome a platform in its operation for the average GI in a quick-draw-to-save-life situation. Depending how you carry it, when you draw, you deal with a grip safety, exposed single-action hammer, and manual safety. Even if it's cocked and locked, you still have to take the safety off.

This is why so many law enforcement agencies have gone to the Glock and Sig: pull pistol, aim pistol, pull double-action trigger, bad man die! No safety, no hammer cocking -- just point and shoot.

Of course, I'm not sure the military would ever allow a platform with no manual safety, even though tens of thousands of law enforcement officers, worldwide, carry just such a firearm.

As for magazine capacity, the Sig P227 holds 10+1, with an option for an extended magazine holding 15 rounds. The Glock 21 holds 13+1.

I'm not advocating for either of these two pistols. I'm just using them as examples of features I believe our new service pistol should possess.

quote:

Of course, I'm not sure the military would ever allow a platform with no manual safety, even though tens of thousands of law enforcement officers, worldwide, carry just such a firearm.

Errm?

They USED to! It was otherwise known as a SA/DA revolver! Colt New Service, S & W Model 1917....etc..

quote:

Originally posted by GAHUNTER:
I'd like us to go back to .45 ACP, however I think the 1911 is is too cumbersome a platform in its operation for the average GI in a quick-draw-to-save-life situation. Depending how you carry it, when you draw, you deal with a grip safety, exposed single-action hammer, and manual safety. Even if it's cocked and locked, you still have to take the safety off.

This is why so many law enforcement agencies have gone to the Glock and Sig: pull pistol, aim pistol, pull double-action trigger, bad man die! No safety, no hammer cocking -- just point and shoot.

Of course, I'm not sure the military would ever allow a platform with no manual safety, even though tens of thousands of law enforcement officers, worldwide, carry just such a firearm.

As for magazine capacity, the Sig P227 holds 10+1, with an option for an extended magazine holding 15 rounds. The Glock 21 holds 13+1.

I'm not advocating for either of these two pistols. I'm just using them as examples of features I believe our new service pistol should possess.

I have a Sig P220 45 ACP. I couldn't ask for more in a pistol, it is wonderful and I think the 227 would be a great choice.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:

quote:

Of course, I'm not sure the military would ever allow a platform with no manual safety, even though tens of thousands of law enforcement officers, worldwide, carry just such a firearm.

Errm?

They USED to! It was otherwise known as a SA/DA revolver! Colt New Service, S & W Model 1917....etc..

Very good point!

Yet how come we can teach a 21st Century soldier to use a shoulder fired SAM to shoot down a fast attack jet yet we can't train same soldier to use a piece of ONE HUNDRED YEAR OLD technology...the Colt .45 1911?

Alvin York may have been extraordinary for his courage and his cool headedness. A very brave man and this post is not meant to disrespect him.

Yet his high standard marksmanship skills would NOT have been considered as exceptional by many soldiers of the time.

British soldiers in 1914 were trained to deliver fifteen aimed shots a minute for example.

And I find no account of Alvin York having used, owned or shot a Colt 1911 (or any other automtaic pistol) before he enlisted.

So he must have been taught to use a Colt 1911 after he enlisted?

So why can't we train a 21st Century soldier to use his, Alvin York's, sidearm?

Simply the will isn't there. It isn't thought of as important.

Others here will have the figures. But I guess that the average US policeman or policewoman sends more rounds downrange with a pistol in one month than does the average US (or British) soldier in six months or one year.

quote:

quote:

Of course, I'm not sure the military would ever allow a platform with no manual safety, even though tens of thousands of law enforcement officers, worldwide, carry just such a firearm.

Errm?

They USED to! It was otherwise known as a SA/DA revolver! Colt New Service, S & W Model 1917....etc..

Contemporary with those handguns:

This is what President McKinley tootled around in 1900



The 1907 Klibinger



Studebaker 1910 Dump Wagon



1910 Farman Longhorn



1918 horse drawn Army Wagon on left, 1914 horse drawn Water Carrier on right



I am very certain the Army is not going to use either a single action revolver, or double action revolver from this period, and absolutely will not use any autopistol type classified in that era. On the last auto pistol procurement the Army absolutely, positively, ensured it would not get a single action autopistol, and I am willing to bet the farm, that the next autopistol will not be a thumb cocking, single action autopistol with a huge side safety.

It is the issue ammo, not the handgun, that is the bigger problem!

From my perspective, it is far past the time to STOP issuing ball ammo for military handguns! This is the real problem in my opinion. I know what we did to our .45acp ball ammo in RVN - we took a pair of diagonal pliers and cut the end off!! Yes, we were in violation of some arcane treaty that the U.S. signed, prior to WWI I believe! But it was our lives on the line and, frankly my dear, we didn't give a damn!

Anyone who believes that individually purchased hollow point +P ammo, regardless the caliber, wasn't being used in handguns by frontline soldiers and Marines in the recent sand-pit disagreements either has never served in combat or is naive in the extreme.

Since it has been accepted practice for LEOs to be issued ammo loaded with HP bullets at +P pressure for approximately the past 35 years - that's how long I carried them - why do we allow the military to issue crappy and ineffective handgun ammo to our troops? There is no excuse for this clear disregard for their safety!

Fix the ammo issue before the selection process begins, PLEASE!

quote:

From my perspective, it is far past the time to STOP issuing ball ammo for military handguns! This is the real problem in my opinion. I know what we did to our .45acp ball ammo in RVN - we took a pair of diagonal pliers and cut the end off!! Yes, we were in violation of some arcane treaty that the U.S. signed, prior to WWI I believe! But it was our lives on the line and, frankly my dear, we didn't give a damn!

Not advisable if you are going to get be in a position of having to surrender.

Although in WWII a now dead friend in the British Army carried a Winchester 92 loaded with soft point 44-40 ammunition. As he said he didn't intend to be captured either.

This happened to an Argentine officer in the Falklands War. He surrendered to British Forces and was relieved of his pistol. One of his captors went to "make safe" the pistol.

Dropped the magazine and saw soft point bullets. Put the magazine back into the pistol and proceeded to empty the full magazine into said just surrendered Argentine officer.

The reason armed forces still use FMJ (and comply with those laws of war) is not for the benefit of their own troops.

That is if THEY comply then everybody else complies. Or so the idea goes.

But if you do get caught with expanding rounds the results can be fatal as noted above.

That is BS. Please provide citations for your claims. The officer involved in the killing committed murder, plain and simple.

Clearly, you have never been involved in a shooting war, so kindly clarify all future comments.

Never, ever, presume to tell a combat soldier how to behave when it is his life in the balance.

And while we are on the topic of laws of land warfare, remember that both the Germans and the Brits were signatories to the Hague Conventions banning WMDs prior to WWI, yet both countries did in fact use WMDs during the fight on the Western Front, so perhaps you should take caution before you throw stones at other nations, yes? And yes, when we dropped the Atomic bombs in WWII we were also in violation by using WMDs - not to mention the fire-bombing of Tokyo - but the estimate of lives saved (including British) were in excess of 100,000 by ending the war without having to invade the Japanese mainland.

Flying civil aircraft into buildings is also a use of WMDs as are roadside IEDs (bombs).

So you see, the Hague doesn't really mean piss-all in real warfare.

And BTW, water boarding IS NOT torture! Ask me how I know.

For me personally I think a 1911 Combat Commander in 45 ACP would be the best "Army" handgun in todays World...

However, for the masses, something Glock would be hard to beat. The Glock 40 is a good choice.
It is the same size as the 9mm Glock and has a bigger heavier bullet.

I would prefer my Glock in 45 ACP, but as has been stated in some posts above the average soldier is not really a pistolero.

quote:

Please provide citations for your claims. The officer involved in the killing committed murder, plain and simple.

Clearly, you have never been involved in a shooting war, so kindly clarify all future comments

I don't intend to, or need to, justify anything to you.

The incident in the Falklands it is not BS it is fact. And a VERY well known fact.

quote:

Originally posted by GAHUNTER:
I'd like us to go back to .45 ACP, however I think the 1911 is is too cumbersome a platform in its operation for the average GI in a quick-draw-to-save-life situation. Depending how you carry it, when you draw, you deal with a grip safety, exposed single-action hammer, and manual safety. Even if it's cocked and locked, you still have to take the safety off.

Well........ They came up with this about 25 years ago and offered them in the 1990s. It will be interesting to see what Colt comes up with today.

Colt is in the toilet and about to file for bankruptcy; don't expect anything from them. By the way, the 'double eagle' might as well been called the 'triple turkey' based on performance and sales. The U.S. military will stick with the 9mm cartridge as it is the NATO standard. Any other cartridge disrupts the logistics flow chart. Lets face it; the amount of enemy combatants felled by pistol rounds in combat is statistically insignificant. The handgun choice will be based upon price per unit and political considerations. I would choose the Glock 17 for ground troops and the Glock 19 for support personnel. But what you and I would choose matters not.

Glock (I own three) and Sig (I own five) have been simply the most dependable autoloading handguns I have ever used...period!