Testing of M9 replacement to start next year

[Trooper]

This might be reflective of what is happening with the concept of the GPC and Gen III rifle.

But improvements to the M9 won’t get the job done, Pavlick said. There are four key reasons:
■ A number of pistols can outperform the M9, which is manufactured by Beretta. There have been significant advances in trigger mechanisms in the 26 years since the M9 entered service. The Army’s Small Arms Branch at Fort Benning, Ga., put these to the test and found troops had more hits and tighter groups of hits as a result.
■ There are too many issues to overcome. The M9’s slide-mounted safety is one issue. When troops rack the slide to alleviate a jam or stovepipe, they often inadvertently engage the safety — and won’t realize this until they reacquire and squeeze the trigger. The open-slide design allows contaminants and dirt into the system.
The 9mm round also lacks the stopping power most soldiers need. And an improved M9 would need a modular grip, integrated rail, night-sight capabilities and the ability to suppress fire.
■ The numbers don’t add up. Easlick’s team did the budget drills and found that a new pistol would be less expensive to produce and maintain.
How much cheaper? Simply improving the M9 would be a “waste of time and money,” Easlick said.
For example, many newer pistols use a polymer frame. While that will not be a requirement, that frame is cheaper and more durable.
■ User feedback. Unlike the M4 carbine, which has a strong approval rating among users, the M9 consistently ranks as the weapon in which troops have the least confidence.
“They don’t want new pistols. They need new pistols,” Pavlick said.

http://www.armytimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...3307270003

[stanc]

This might be reflective of what is happening with the concept of the GPC and Gen III rifle.

How so?

[Trooper]

How so?

The biggest factor is that the troops seem to be happy with the M4 but not with the M9.

[cory]

It's about time! It's a shame the M9 hasn't already been replaced.

If they can replace the M9 with the right pistol, I believe it can drastically change CQB tactics.

When you have a building full of Marines or Soldiers clearing rooms, at least to me it makes more sense to push your rifle to the side and pull out a pistol. Assuming the pistol has the terminal performance to get the job done within 10m. Especially if you're carrying the LMG.

If you miss your target with a rifle you have to worry about the round traveling through the wall and striking a friendly. With a pistol round that's far less likely.

This could change the requirements for a replacement for the 5.56 and 7.62 rifles.

[Trooper]

According to the article, there is some suggestion that they might be looking at the .40S&W (10mm NATO????)

[LRRPF52]

Pistols suck at ending fights unless you get a good head shot most of the time, or saturate the center of chest with a Bill Drill. It's about time they looked at getting rid of the M9-what an abortion of colossal proportions. In the SF CQB course, they break about 3 locking blocks per day, but again, they are running 500rds through each blaster per day.

Glock would be an easy fix, but I like the M&P. A lot of units have been using .40 S&W for a while now, believe it or not. I would prefer a certain cartridge, but there's no way they will even entertain it-it makes entirely too much sense for a military sidearm and potential PDW system. (7.62x25 or 6.5x25)

As to pistols in an offensive CQB environment, way too little firepower. 5.56 carbines have less over-penetration because of frag threshold. CAG figured this out decades ago, and started dumping the MP5's in favor of Colt Commando carbines for CQB.

[cory]

Pistols suck at ending fights unless you get a good head shot most of the time, or saturate the center of chest with a Bill Drill. It's about time they looked at getting rid of the M9-what an abortion of colossal proportions. In the SF CQB course, they break about 3 locking blocks per day, but again, they are running 500rds through each blaster per day.

Glock would be an easy fix, but I like the M&P. A lot of units have been using .40 S&W for a while now, believe it or not. I would prefer a certain cartridge, but there's no way they will even entertain it-it makes entirely too much sense for a military sidearm and potential PDW system. (7.62x25 or 6.5x25)

As to pistols in an offensive CQB environment, way too little firepower. 5.56 carbines have less over-penetration because of frag threshold. CAG figured this out decades ago, and started dumping the MP5's in favor of Colt Commando carbines for CQB.

I agree as the likely options stand now it is to little fire power. It'll take out of the box thinking with the pistol and likely a new caliber as you've suggested. Something like the FN that essentially fires scaled down rifle rounds at around 2000 fps.

[cory]

According to the article, there is some suggestion that they might be looking at the .40S&W (10mm NATO????)

It's a big step up from the 9mm, but it's still only a short term fix.

[mongoosesnipe]

if i was going to guess i would guess it will be a sig they choose the Beretta over the sig p226 originally because it was a little bit cheaper, a Sig P229 in 357 sig would be a pretty solid option as a compromise pistol 12 shots of 357 sig or 40 smith, Hk is an option but they are expensive

[Schwag173]

Pistols suck at ending fights ...

Glock would be an easy fix, but I like the M&P ...

As to pistols in an offensive CQB environment, way too little firepower ...

I've carried both the Beretta 92FS (M9) and the .40 M&P in a LE capacity. The 9mm is barely adequate when you have the luxury of good JHP ammo, but with an FMJ-requirement; size matters. While I very much like the M&P, it may suffer from the 'foreign contaminate' issue in a military environment. You can see daylight looking sideways at the weapon between the slide and frame. No issue at all for us state troopers, but a grunt rolling around in the big sandbox may run into problems. The .40 is an excellent choice however. I predict they'll go with a Sig in .40 but when you mix in congressional politics who knows what they'll get.

To quote the Colonel; "The .45ACP is almost enough gun." Any pistol would be a second choice.

[Buster]

they break about 3 locking blocks per day, but again, they are running 500rds through each blaster per day.

Glock would be an easy fix, but I like the M&P.

As to pistols in an offensive CQB environment, way too little firepower.

Can relate to the locking block breakage problem of the M9. We have had several of those units come through our small arms repair shop section and have to wait 6-8 months for parts from the Federal Supply System (being a FAD III unit).
Talking with our customers, they are wanting a striker fired unit and "Glock" is the first manufacturer they comes out of their mouth. The 10mm (G20) round is a round that has really never caught on, but probably should.......
I would dig a FN 5.7 myself..

[Michael]

9mm is the NATO standard. I would anticipate that any replacement would be in 9mm due to logistical constrains brought up in previous posts about 5.56 stockpiles. Navy SpecWar uses Sig p226s - one of the three finalist in the pistol search of the mid 80's. The other was the Glock 17 (or 19, can't remember which).

You can argue calibers and stopping power all you want. The purpose of the pistol in the military is so lazy REMFs and officers don't have to carry an unwieldy real weapon...or, as a BRMC SgtMaj told me once 'all a pistol is good for is to give you time to get to a real killin' gun'.

[bwaites]

I'd really like to see them test the .22 TCM. 40 grain bullet at 2000 FPS out of a pistol barrel, so you can get very close to 5.56 performance (if shot from a very short barrel). All the advantages of the 5.7 without the difficulty of 5.7 reloading.

You can run it in 1911's and its an easy conversion for poly pistols that shoot any of the "regular" pistol cartridges, too.

[KentuckyBuddha]

Lots of good comments, but don't forget the sequester makes the point moot, and also the fact that the Army is absolutely never having anything but a double action sidearm again. The vast majority of folk who are issued these weapons need something more like a P-90 or MP7 anyhow. There is no reason why something like that could not be in their existing chamberings or something like 22TCM in a different but similar weapon.

Bottom line is what we need is something that penetrates body armor but does not over-penetrate in QCB.

You can either do that with something solid, light, and dazzlingly fast or with the sidearms we have with extremely light and frangible projectiles. Since we are exceedingly unlikely to ever be fighting a Geneva Convention signatory again in a force on force conflict, perhaps we should just consider the latter in the platforms we have. We might even be able practically to get that done as well, and quit spending a few million every few years on vetting stuff we are not going to buy anyway.

[joker31]

Lots of good comments, but don't forget the sequester makes the point moot, and also the fact that the Army is absolutely never having anything but a double action sidearm again. The vast majority of folk who are issued these weapons need something more like a P-90 or MP7 anyhow. There is no reason why something like that could not be in their existing chamberings or something like 22TCM in a different but similar weapon.

Bottom line is what we need is something that penetrates body armor but does not over-penetrate in QCB.

You can either do that with something solid, light, and dazzlingly fast or with the sidearms we have with extremely light and frangible projectiles. Since we are exceedingly unlikely to ever be fighting a Geneva Convention signatory again in a force on force conflict, perhaps we should just consider the latter in the platforms we have. We might even be able practically to get that done as well, and quit spending a few million every few years on vetting stuff we are not going to buy anyway.

Not to disagree with ya too much but the money for the swap over is not very much because the new procurement standards only cost us for the pistols themselves which big Army is going to do anyway, the M9's are going to Poland through an agreement for their support as are most of the M4's that have seen battle. The Army is switching to M4A1's and the M-16A4's for Long arms and last I saw on the contract bid contest the pistol will either be an FN, Colt or a Sig. I do believe the 40 will make the cut because all 3 competitors are chambered in 40 S&W. Beretta M9A1 is an interim replacement for MP's and certain other MOS's like drivers. From what I seen most of this Weapon stuff is going away until someone comes up with the Battery Package Standard and wins that bid. The next generation weapons are supposed to have live Rails (Powered) so they can be powered by just moving an accesory from pistol to rifle. out of all the ones I have seen, I like the FN the most and the Colt the least. Colt should have folded their R&D department when Browning died. They are like Glock, Porsche and other innovation stagnant companies. They make it all different ways but the only ones that will sell are the ones that look like the first of each catagory. I dont think they will go with a high pressure round because they didnt even like the idea when HK wanted to give them MP7's to field for testing. Besides most of Nato is still pissed off about the 5.56 thing (When we made them all switch from 7.62 because they dont fit in the STANAG Magazines)

I think that soon we'll see a move away from a true FMJ across the board because everyone agrees that Hague is outdated and most JAG candidates are authorizing the use of a lot of "open tipped" rounds because unless your fighting a uniformed enemy, your fufilling a Law Enforcement Duty. In the post 9/11 world we see this all the time, more and more the justice department and the supreme court are calling "Bad Guys" defendant and prisoner and giving them a trial. It wont take long to go back up that stream and start using Hollow Points against these Defendants and Prisoners because we are defending ourselves against "International Criminals without a nation"

By the way, I only carried an M9 when my issued Sig was broken, you remember when that was?....Never

[Variable]

While I feel the Glock 22 I carry on duty is a decent pistol, if I were to dream...


I loves my FNX Tactical...

[joker31]

While I feel the Glock 22 I carry on duty is a decent pistol, if I were to dream...


I loves my FNX Tactical...

Nice, When the backpay comes through..... FNX comes in, might keep my XDM, not sure though.

[cory]

Nice, When the backpay comes through..... FNX comes in, might keep my XDM, not sure though.

If you're selling a XDm 45 I call dibs. I've got the tactical, xds and Xdm 40. I love that line.

I've never had the chance to get any range time with a FN, but looking at the pictures the one thing I don't like about it for this purpose is the traditional safety.

I LOVE the system of safeties that the xd line uses. I think that'd be ideal for a military pistol IMHO.

[VASCAR2]

I'd really like to see them test the .22 TCM. 40 grain bullet at 2000 FPS out of a pistol barrel, so you can get very close to 5.56 performance (if shot from a very short barrel). All the advantages of the 5.7 without the difficulty of 5.7 reloading.

You can run it in 1911's and its an easy conversion for poly pistols that shoot any of the "regular" pistol cartridges, too.

I'm with you bwaites I'm interested in the 22 TCM, a couple of friends own them. It is very flat shooting and the only down side I've seen is the bright muzzle flash. The 22 TCM chambered Glock 19 would sure be worth testing. I think the 22 TCM cartridge makes more sense than the 5.7 X 28 in pistols and PDW. At least with the 22 TCM you have the option of either 9 MM or 22 TCM, let the mission decide which caliber/cartridge is most appropriate.

I can't see the military going against NATO standard from 9 MM to 40 or 45. At least with the 22 TCM you have the option of the 9 MM. The Russian latest service pistol had a hot .355/9 MM and a small caliber variant.

[BjornF16]

Pistols suck at ending fights unless you get a good head shot most of the time, or saturate the center of chest with a Bill Drill. It's about time they looked at getting rid of the M9-what an abortion of colossal proportions. In the SF CQB course, they break about 3 locking blocks per day, but again, they are running 500rds through each blaster per day.

Glock would be an easy fix, but I like the M&P. A lot of units have been using .40 S&W for a while now, believe it or not. I would prefer a certain cartridge, but there's no way they will even entertain it-it makes entirely too much sense for a military sidearm and potential PDW system. (7.62x25 or 6.5x25)

As to pistols in an offensive CQB environment, way too little firepower. 5.56 carbines have less over-penetration because of frag threshold. CAG figured this out decades ago, and started dumping the MP5's in favor of Colt Commando carbines for CQB.

From Wikipedia:

The 7.62×25mm Tokarev cartridge is a Russian bottle-necked pistol cartridge widely used in former Soviet and Soviet satellite states, China and Pakistan among other countries. The cartridge has since been replaced in Russian service by overpressure versions of the 9×19mm Parabellum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x25mm_Tokarev

Strange the russkies would dump it for 9mm +P