TexasCHLforum.com

The Army has announced that it will be replacing the 25 year old M9 pistol. This announcement came on Aug 28th, 2011.

The M9 has had a long and some what sordid history with the U.S. Armed Forces. Starting early in its life cycle a now infamous slide failure injured a Naval Special Warfare member. Other slide failures were also observed during this time period, the pistol was a Model 92SB....

(rest of the story...)

http://militaryarms.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... to-m9.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thoughts? Maybe the M11 (Sig P228) will replace it?

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/08/a ... m9-82811w/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Forget about NATO ammo compatibility and return to what works......
a 1911 in .45 ACP.

No need for us to shoulder the burden of an ineffective pistol in order to supply the 9mm round Worldwide.

If the 9mm is the NATO round, them let them support it themselves and live/die with it.

By going back to the .45 we regain the proven effectiveness of the round and the mechanics of the 1911 pistol. Should for any reason the US not be able to maintain supply of .45 for our troops in a long overseas engagement, I am sure there will be plenty of whatever laying around for our troops to use!

I wouldn't mind the Sig to replace the Beretta. Any model (although I'm not too fond of the 250) will do.

Of course the 1911 would be a good choice, too. No need to replace that model to begin with.

G21sf would be my gun of choice by my side.

There are many fantastic pistols that could EASILY replace the M9...either in the current 9mm if the Army wants to "do a Gen. MacArthur" such as was done with the adoption of the Garand in .30-06, or back to .45 ACP which was a round that proved itself time and again...a modernized 1911 (rail, combat sights, etc) would be an excellent choice, of course.

the author wrote:One thing of interest is that the Army has said that the M9 lacks lethality and one of the requirements for a new pistol will be "an increase in permanent wound channel" which seems to suggest a caliber change might also be on the horizon.  I would imagine this will be a tough battle given our NATO allies use 9mm and if the US once again goes off the reservation with a non-standard caliber, they might protest.  That, or perhaps NATO is considering a caliber change too.  I have no idea... but it is interesting for sure.  My guess is that the .40 S&W will be a strong contender.

I smell another caliber war coming!

.45 ACP rocks! (and this from a guy who has carried a 9mm a lot lately)

Some of the gun blogs are frothing at the mouth over this. The only consistent name I've seen so far is the S&W M&P, and a possible switch to the .40 caliber version. Of course, it is all pooh-poohed by those who say that the US would never switch from the NATO 9mm, so I guess it is all conjecture until the official announcement is made.

UpTheIrons wrote:Some of the gun blogs are frothing at the mouth over this. The only consistent name I've seen so far is the S&W M&P, and a possible switch to the .40 caliber version. Of course, it is all pooh-poohed by those who say that the US would never switch from the NATO 9mm, so I guess it is all conjecture until the official announcement is made.

In the Army Times article it states, “It’s kind of hard to beat the Smith and Wesson M&P right now,” said one industry insider from a competing company, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It is a polymer gun with high-capacity steel magazines. It has a positive safety and ambidextrous controls ... they simply came out of the gate with the right gun.”

I believe the M&P is a great handgun. It's not a 1911 though... heck even The Annoyed Man has one that he swears by (it is 45 ACP).

Being the dinosaur I am, I love the M1911 pistol, I carried one in Vietnam and own a couple of them. I do not think it is the ideal pistol for the average G.I. Joe or Jane. The 1911 is a "shooters pistol" - - - unless you are willing and able to spend the time, money, and ammo (you are going to be lucky if Uncle Sam lets you shoot 200 rounds in training/qualification) to master the platform; you are going to hate it and won't do well with it. I saw this many times during my time in the army.

Something like an M&P, Glock, or XD would be a much better choice for the average G.I. They can keep the 1911s, SIGs, H&Ks for the Spec Ops if that is what they want to do. Give the average guy or gal that needs a pistol for personal protection something they can shoot and can handle.

I have 2 M&Ps in 40 and they are my EDC guns the Army could do worse. Another thing about the .40. A 9mm can be converted to shoot .40 a lot easier than to convert a 9mm to .45.

gigag04 wrote:G21sf would be my gun of choice by my side.

I'd be ok with that. I'd prefer the G20sf, though... More power and higher capacity.

Dave2 wrote:

gigag04 wrote:G21sf would be my gun of choice by my side.

I'd be ok with that. I'd prefer the G20sf, though... More power and higher capacity.

Ammo cost though.

Unrelated, In my work environment, even small handed ladies qual'ed better on the 21sf (same size as 20sf) than on the G22. It's really a great platform. And they are unaffected by rail attachments, which the 22 can't claim.

MoJo wrote:Being the dinosaur I am, I love the M1911 pistol, I carried one in Vietnam and own a couple of them. I do not think it is the ideal pistol for the average G.I. Joe or Jane. The 1911 is a "shooters pistol" - - - unless you are willing and able to spend the time, money, and ammo (you are going to be lucky if Uncle Sam lets you shoot 200 rounds in training/qualification) to master the platform; you are going to hate it and won't do well with it. I saw this many times during my time in the army.

Could you expand on this thought?

What is it about the manual of arms for a 1911 that is offputting to the "average GI Joe or Jane"?

TIA / SIA

I saw this as a cover story in the Army Times a few weeks ago and immediately wondered if "Made in America" might be behind the reasoning. There was a Glock and Baretta listed as contenders for a replacement but I am not sure if they are Army contenders or were just listed by the author as contenders. On the other hand, this whole thing could because some general doesn't like the 9mm Baretta and is in a position to make a change. I have seen this in the past with uniforms, utility poles and fire hydrants.

gigag04 wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

gigag04 wrote:G21sf would be my gun of choice by my side.

I'd be ok with that. I'd prefer the G20sf, though... More power and higher capacity.

Ammo cost though.

Unrelated, In my work environment, even small handed ladies qual'ed better on the 21sf (same size as 20sf) than on the G22. It's really a great platform. And they are unaffected by rail attachments, which the 22 can't claim.

G22 Gen3, right? The G22 Gen4 redesign was specifically undertaken to address the rail issue (as well as other things). Are you saying it didn't?

longhorn_92 wrote:

UpTheIrons wrote:Some of the gun blogs are frothing at the mouth over this. The only consistent name I've seen so far is the S&W M&P, and a possible switch to the .40 caliber version. Of course, it is all pooh-poohed by those who say that the US would never switch from the NATO 9mm, so I guess it is all conjecture until the official announcement is made.

In the Army Times article it states, “It’s kind of hard to beat the Smith and Wesson M&P right now,” said one industry insider from a competing company, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It is a polymer gun with high-capacity steel magazines. It has a positive safety and ambidextrous controls ... they simply came out of the gate with the right gun.”

I believe the M&P is a great handgun. It's not a 1911 though... heck even The Annoyed Man has one that he swears by (it is 45 ACP).

One of the things that made me pick the M&P over the XD was similarity of manual arms, with the external slide mounted thumb-safety. One of the other things was that, thickness of the double-stack grip aside, the ergonomics were fairly similar. As much as I love my 1911s, I have to say that most of my friends who have had a chance to shoot my M&P45 alongside my Springfield "Loaded" 1911 have shot better with the M&P. The fact is, I do too.

I do regret selling my H&K USP Compact to finance the purchase of the M&P, but if I had to choose between either gun, I go with the M&P.