M9 Replacement?

[BLR]

AF rumor mill I'm part of says trials soon.

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 2

[Kyle Reese]

I'd be surprised if the .mil adopted a new service handgun anytime soon, given the current climate of downsizing and budget cuts.

I'd love to be proven wrong. :cool:

[BLR]

I can't imagine this being any more successful than any other replacement effort.

Still, one must pass along rumors with all due enthusiasm!

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 2

[Nephrology]

I would be pretty astonished. Seems like it should be fairly low priority but I imagine that some of the M9s in service are looking pretty clapped out.

10 dollars says the new trials (if they exist) mandate a manual safety....

[Timbonez]

I'd be surprised if the .mil adopted a new service handgun anytime soon, given the current climate of downsizing and budget cuts.

I'd love to be proven wrong. :cool:

Like Bill mentioned and what was reported in AF Crimes, trials for a new handgun could begin in early 2014 and are expected to continue for 3 years. If the last few weeks have been any indication, where I work, there is always "a different pot of money." I wouldn't be surprised if millions are spent on this program only to be scrapped a tenth of the mile from the finish line... like so many procurement programs in the past decade. There is always money to be spent. It's just a matter of the 5 Ws and how, and if those questions lead to something that will actually be fielded as opposed to being canceled.

[Suvorov]

Why?

In my 10 years of being issued M9s, the ONLY real problem I ever saw with them was a endemic resistance of the Army to provide the soldier with proper and adequate training. EEO, sexual harassment (ironic since we had no women), retention, suicide prevention, and other classes ALWAYS took precedence to marksmanship training. As long as a checkmark could be made by the soldiers name that stated "qualified", then there was no problem as far as the brass was concerned (who cares if that means the soldier can only hit the edge of 23 out of 40 oversized E-silhouette targets?). Whatever weaknesses the M9 may have as a pistol, the military will NOT see any improvement in whatever they seek by choosing a new pistol until they place a real premium on pistol training.

[Timbonez]

Suvorov, I agree completely. Handgun training in the military is almost non-existent. Focusing on more training (marksmanship and maintenance) in addition to it being more practical, would go much further than a new pistol.

I think the M9 is a good pistol. While I believe there are better pistol designs now, I do not think that they perform better to a measurable degree that would warrant replacing the M9.

[da6dspanburg]

Herre is what the Army Times is saying:

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130727/NEWS04/307270003/Testing-M9-replacement-start-next-year


da6d

[imp1295]

There is also this - US Army Awards New Beretta M9 Pistol Contract (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2012-2017-US-Army-Orders-up-to-100000-M9-Pistols-07540/)

[Rich]

Why?

In my 10 years of being issued M9s, the ONLY real problem I ever saw with them was a endemic resistance of the Army to provide the soldier with proper and adequate training. EEO, sexual harassment (ironic since we had no women), retention, suicide prevention, and other classes ALWAYS took precedence to marksmanship training. As long as a checkmark could be made by the soldiers name that stated "qualified", then there was no problem as far as the brass was concerned (who cares if that means the soldier can only hit the edge of 23 out of 40 oversized E-silhouette targets?). Whatever weaknesses the M9 may have as a pistol, the military will NOT see any improvement in whatever they seek by choosing a new pistol until they place a real premium on pistol training.

awesome reply.

[Rich]

Suvorov, I agree completely. Handgun training in the military is almost non-existent. Focusing on more training (marksmanship and maintenance) in addition to it being more practical, would go much further than a new pistol.

I think the M9 is a good pistol. While I believe there are better pistol designs now, I do not think that they perform better to a measurable degree that would warrant replacing the M9.

I agree.

I really don't see the M9 decocker/safety a big issue. Just a training issue.
Even if it was a non training issue ? Its a easy fix for Beretta.

[JonInWA]

As a former troop commander and field-grade officer, I also see the issue as a training and maintenance issue. The M9 has been the victim of indifferent command emphesis on use, marksmanship, operator and echelon maintenance. While the Beretta is arguably been superceeded by newer polymer-framed designs (such as thiose from Glock, HK, and Smith & Wesson), it's with great interest that I observe that the big Beretta is still one of the most reliable out-of-the-box pistols available today.

It sounds like what some segments of the military community desire is a zero maintenance, low weight, long lasting pistol-not a bad goal, but given the military's proclivities with the M9, what they'd most likely do would be to field a Gen4 Glock 19 with a NY2 spring, a manual safety and Korean magazines, with millions dedicated towards testing/evaluation/contracting, and zero towards meaningful, on-going training-and end up in the same position they're essentially in now...

Best, Jon

[JHC]

Why?

In my 10 years of being issued M9s, the ONLY real problem I ever saw with them was a endemic resistance of the Army to provide the soldier with proper and adequate training. EEO, sexual harassment (ironic since we had no women), retention, suicide prevention, and other classes ALWAYS took precedence to marksmanship training. As long as a checkmark could be made by the soldiers name that stated "qualified", then there was no problem as far as the brass was concerned (who cares if that means the soldier can only hit the edge of 23 out of 40 oversized E-silhouette targets?). Whatever weaknesses the M9 may have as a pistol, the military will NOT see any improvement in whatever they seek by choosing a new pistol until they place a real premium on pistol training.

Recently my son was assigned to run an M9 qual range (Army) in their BCTs train up for deployment. They have a pre-range basic pistol doctrine lesson all standardized by the Army and he was horrified by its content so we prepared his own based on all the basic draw, grip, recoil control, reloading etc - basic stuff you would find here and in most respected pistol training courses. One of his NCO's was raising an eyebrow about non-Army doctrinal TTPs yada yada yada but the troops ate it up.

[will_1400]

RUMINT at my base is the plan is to transition to M9A1s, but that's pure speculation. Though, to be honest, M9A1s seem to make the most sense to me if going away from the standard M9.

[JSGlock34]

Considering the continuation of sequestration and the death of the Individual Carbine program earlier this year, I can't imagine a worse time to roll out a program to select a new sidearm.

I was discussing the prospects of a M9 replacement with some friends after seeing the article, and we were amused at how SOCOM has moved on from the M9, though with each service choosing their own sidearm. Besides the Beretta M9 and SIG M11, the P226 and HK45C are in service with the Navy, the Marines have stuck with the 1911 and are now introducing the Colt M45A1 in very limited numbers, and though not type classified, the Glock 19 is now widely used among USASOC units. While none of these are fielded in the numbers of the M9, there are at least a half dozen different sidearms in military service.

[BLR]

92s and 226s really are nice guns.

Though, I do wonder what complaints, etc. would be leveled against the 17 if it were adopted.

[WDW]

92s and 226s really are nice guns.

Though, I do wonder what complaints, etc. would be leveled against the 17 if it were adopted.

Having been in the military, I know what special breed of stupid lives within it. Two things come to mind when I hear of a gun like the Glock being adopted

1.) the lack of an external safety and/or heavy first DA trigger pull poses a serious safety issue

2.) most certainly junior troops would at some point attempt to see how long the frame could withstand being held under a lighter or if they could burn through it with a cigarette.

The most dangerous threat to a marines equipment is a bored marine.

[TCinVA]

92s and 226s really are nice guns.

Though, I do wonder what complaints, etc. would be leveled against the 17 if it were adopted.

If police adoption of the Glock is any indication, there'd be a dramatic uptick in the number of unintentional discharges (along with associated injuries) and the wailing and gnashing of teeth would be legendary.

Color me skeptical on a new pistol program getting off the ground in the military. The M9 program was FUBAR to the point where it ended up front and center in congressional hearings, along with all the usual manufacturer vs. manufacturer legal and GAO shenanigans. The weapon that was adopted was swallowed in controversy, and to this day there are still people who think that the .mil would have been better off with geriatric, beaten all to hell sidearms that held only a couple more bullets than a Peacemaker. This despite the fact that various pockets of the military had bought something like 35 different handguns as they felt best suited their needs over the old war horses.

Why should the military go through all the hassle of a new pistol program (keeping in mind they've already canceled a new pistol program in recent memory, as well as a number of other small arms programs) when they can keep buying Berettas? The pistol is such a minor player in the military arsenal (lots of guys doing high-speed things didn't even bother carrying one in many circumstances) that it hardly seems worth the bother of going through the contracting process to replace them wholesale. Not that it would be possible anyway, as I don't see the sections of the military that get to choose their sidearms giving up what they want for whatever the big military decides to buy.

It should be noted that when the M9 program was underway the GAO dug up people who thought it was a good idea to convert the military's supply of 1911's to 9mm to meet the NATO caliber specs, with the NATO use of 9mm being one of the big reasons for adopting a new sidearm. Now? The number of people who will come out of the woodwork to insist that a new sidearm program is wasteful will be legion. It's an easy mark for the doves on capitol hill and for the hawks who occasionally need to tell the DOD "No" on something to maintain credibility.

As a concept I think a new pistol program to replace the M9 is deader than disco.

...but it could be one of those occasions where something so obviously stupid actually happens. Who knows.




The most dangerous threat to a marines equipment is a bored marine.

What is the old saying? If you lock a Marine in a room with 3 bowling balls for 48 hours, at the end 1 will be broken, 1 will be missing, and 1 will be pregnant.

[ToddG]

Though, I do wonder what complaints, etc. would be leveled against the 17 if it were adopted.

If the most recent Army handgun RFI is any indication, the lack of a positive manual safety will be an absolute bar to participation in any testing. This was based on a study of soldiers who were given an opportunity to shoot a number of different types & calibers of handguns on a "combat course" after receiving familiarization training. Every other projectile weapon system in the US Army inventory has a manual safety. Commonality of training & policy makes a manual safety on the sidearm desirable.

Count me amongst the skeptical when it comes to a new .mil sidearm. The M9 is younger than the M16/M4 and far less critical to war fighting but even the various M4 replacement proposals have all died out. Even at the height of military spending during the GWOT the .mil couldn't get a new handgun program off the ground. And there were multiple attempts. Every one died because from an objective standpoint, no new handgun is going to deliver an improvement to warfighting capability great enough to justify the cost.

[JMS]

1 will be broken, 1 will be missing, and 1 will be pregnant.

...and he'll swear upon Tyr's remaining hand that he was only issued two...

[Rich]

If police adoption of the Glock is any indication, there'd be a dramatic uptick in the number of unintentional discharges (along with associated injuries) and the wailing and gnashing of teeth would be legendary.

Color me skeptical on a new pistol program getting off the ground in the military. The M9 program was FUBAR to the point where it ended up front and center in congressional hearings, along with all the usual manufacturer vs. manufacturer legal and GAO shenanigans. The weapon that was adopted was swallowed in controversy, and to this day there are still people who think that the .mil would have been better off with geriatric, beaten all to hell sidearms that held only a couple more bullets than a Peacemaker. This despite the fact that various pockets of the military had bought something like 35 different handguns as they felt best suited their needs over the old war horses.

Why should the military go through all the hassle of a new pistol program (keeping in mind they've already canceled a new pistol program in recent memory, as well as a number of other small arms programs) when they can keep buying Berettas? The pistol is such a minor player in the military arsenal (lots of guys doing high-speed things didn't even bother carrying one in many circumstances) that it hardly seems worth the bother of going through the contracting process to replace them wholesale. Not that it would be possible anyway, as I don't see the sections of the military that get to choose their sidearms giving up what they want for whatever the big military decides to buy.

It should be noted that when the M9 program was underway the GAO dug up people who thought it was a good idea to convert the military's supply of 1911's to 9mm to meet the NATO caliber specs, with the NATO use of 9mm being one of the big reasons for adopting a new sidearm. Now? The number of people who will come out of the woodwork to insist that a new sidearm program is wasteful will be legion. It's an easy mark for the doves on capitol hill and for the hawks who occasionally need to tell the DOD "No" on something to maintain credibility.

As a concept I think a new pistol program to replace the M9 is deader than disco.

...but it could be one of those occasions where something so obviously stupid actually happens. Who knows.



What is the old saying? If you lock a Marine in a room with 3 bowling balls for 48 hours, at the end 1 will be broken, 1 will be missing, and 1 will be pregnant.

+1
Took the words right out of my mouth about the AD we would see.

also good reply