Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Your picks for the next US service pistol.

I can only offer two thoughts.
One is that the 9mm is here to stay for most of them. Specialized units can, of course, pick and hopefully get whatever they want.
But.... if they go to something else, it has to be as shootable as the 9mm and offer something more in the way of performance.
And that brings us to the 5.7 FN. With the right ammo, it will shoot through some, perhaps most battlefield body armor. That right there means it's got something special. Then you can add that it kills better than the standard hardball 9mm ammo. Even with non expanding bullets. The current FNH guns are lighter than the M9's and hold more ammo as well. If the current FN pistol has any faults, I haven't heard of them. E

Seems natural everyone praising the .45, but I'm surprised nobody is suggesting the 10mm, why is that?

It might be a good idea for the US to have two pistols, after all, we have two approved pistols now, the M9 & M11. But rather than being different versions of the same cartridge, perhaps it would be best to have one �conventional� pistol in .45 ACP and one �penetrator� in whatever� As for a �penetrator� (being, something that would punch military soft body armor to fill that need) it would make sense to use whatever we finally settle on for a PDW round, if that is ever settled.

Have any of our adversaries been equipped with body armor? Ever? Not to say that they won't in the future should we get embroiled with, for example, a ChiCom satelite nation. But for now, has this been a problem for our military? It could be, but for the life of me, I can't think of a situation where we weren't the only ones wearing flack jackets--(at least from Viet Nam on).
Huh??? I'd be curious to see the data on that one. The 5.7 replicates in pistol length barrels a .22 mag rim fire in rifle length barrels (approx. 30gr @ 2150 fps). That "kills better" than a 9mm.?? I'm absolutely NOT a 9mm fan, but the 5.7 seems to be going in the wrong direction IMO. Ermicus, is there any data or anecdotal evidence (other than the Ft. Hood shooting) to validate the claim to "kill better" than a 9mm?

Detonics Combat Master

Our soldiers have encountered many foes wearing body armor, even in the Middle East. But let�s not forget, you don�t arm your army to fight the last war, you arm them to fight the next war. And if half-arsed terrorists in 3rd world chit holes are managing to come up with body armor, you can bet that if we ever face a well armed army we�ll face widespread use of body armor. After all, we are talking about the NEXT service pistol�I would hope the next pistol would be ready for the next war.

You guys with combat experience, I wonder if you have an opinion as to whether a pistol - any pistol - used in combat is more successful in an offensive role than in a defensive role, or vice-versa or same-same.

And I'll leave it up to you to define "successful."

- Tom

XD45

TJM,

I am not sure I really understand your question. That being said, the M9s, 1911s and Glocks have all been used quite effectively in our recent ongoing World War.

On another note, We (our military, not me)are using more than just the M9 and M11. Just off the top of my head, I know units using various 1911s, BUNCHES of units using Glock 19s, 17s and one unit using the G22. Add the HK45C, P226s for some Navy dudes.

It is a great thing to see the latitude given individual units, in regards to getting what they want, from handguns, to top quality hiking boots, to Toyota pickups and 4 wheelers.

Kevin: A few years ago,there was an announcement made by the Army they would be soon asking for entries into what was going to be called the "Joint Combat Pistol" (stick the moniker of "joint" and it enhances success nowadays). Anyhow it was to replace the weak-tit M9 and the only requirements I remember was it had to be in 45ACP and ambidextrous safety. I'm sure given the fact we are broke, it's been shelved. I can tell you the same slide cracking issues still plague the M9. jorge

I expect the next US service pistol will be along the lines of an HK.

Both the Army and Marine Corps recently ordered moreM9's. I could see a reduced diameter grip and a multi position safety mod for the M9 as an improvement but wouldn't count it as new.

Mackay:

That's what got me thinking about this. Just about everyone agrees that these pistols are being used quite effectively in the middle east, but under what circumstances?

We've discussed how most of our guys issued with a pistol are in support services, but at the other end of the spectrum, we've got, say, special ops guys using them for certain assignments.

That got me wondering. Pick a few scenarios. An Afghani police officer goes Taliban on you and all you have to hand is a pistol. Another scenario: a special ops team might use their pistols on a prisoner snatch because they need to keep one hand free while there's shooting going on.

I wonder if anyone is keeping track of ... for lack of a better word ... effectiveness under conditions of offense (spec ops scenario) and defense (treacherous Afghani police officer) and such.

Believe me, if I had an opinion on this, I'd share it, but the only things I know about combat are what combat veterans tell me.

- Tom

I'm sure ther are those who are keeping track of effectiveness. There was such a study done after the first Gulf War and it found the two most "effective" US small arms were the M1911A1 and the M2 .50 machinegun. Predictably there was "effectiveness" criticism of the 5.56 cartridge and there was significant criticism of the 9mm NATO. There was also a lot of criticism leveled at many of our NATO partner's weapons, specifically the Brit SA80 and the French FAMAS rifles.

I have read one report on the effectiveness of US small arms in the current war(s) and it found the M4 to be pretty darned good, and the 9mm to be performing fairly well despite the criticism a decade earlier (I�m sure that�s because there were no 1911�s around for comparison this time). But I haven�t read anything as comprehensive as the report I read following the Gulf War Version 1.0.

If you Google around, you could probably find those reports. I wouldn�t have the foggiest how to find either of the reports I read as one was well over a decade ago and the other about a year ago.

Still, I'm a big believer in bullet placement. If you place your shots well, that trumps the "caliber war" every time. Well, almost every time.

Kevin: The M4 has a spotty record in both Iraq and A-stan. With the shorter barrel and corresponding slower MV, it really takes multiple hits to anchor. That is why the Army was looking at the 6.8. Same for the M9. As I said before, it didn't take long for the main Navy armory and Crane, In to deplete the 1911 inventory. We're broke so we fight with what we have. jorge

Did I already say, HK 45?

if not


HK 45

The M4's record is a bit spotty, but big Army isn't looking at different cartridges. The 6.8 wasn't a regular military project, it was developed by some guys in special forces, and it was never in contention or consideration for adoption over the 5.56, it was being considered potentially in special ops. Personally, I really like the 6.8, but the Army isnt going to be changing frome the 5.56 any time soon. Especially now that they're using high performance hollow point ammunition and no one's complaining just yet. If that trend continues and they are allowed to continue using the expanding ammo, then the 5.56 will be around for a LONG time.

The Marines are using ammo with the Trophy Bonded Bear Claw bullet in small quanities; a couple million rounds have been purchased. I'm not sure if they have been fielded as a general issue cartridge yet, but the lawyers say it's legal. If they begin using this bullet, then the effectiveness (as we know through hunting) will go up.

All you need to do to see the difference in killing power of the 5.7 FN w/ non expanding ammo vs. the 9mm w/ hardball is to shoot a few 2.5 gallon jugs of water. Even the .45 ACP's hardball won't do much in the way of lateral damage to the jugs. They hardly split the sides of the jug at all. The 5.7's non expanding 27 gr. HP will rupture the sides of the jug to about half way back in a much more convincing manner. They, the 5.7 bullets don't penetrate nearly as much. The back of the jug, that's 12 inches, is all they have.
The Ft. Hood shooter used a 5.7 and kill many of his victims. Rep Giffords was shot through the head with a 9mm rd. Her doctor said that over 30% of such people so shot survive do to due to lack of laterial disruption. I can assure you that a 9mm HP load would rupture the head and blow out the back of it. Never heard of anyone surviving that kind of damage. E

For a DA auto .45 with external safety the HK 45 or USP series reigns supreme in accuracy and dependablity. the HK .45's are a tested and proven design and built to survive tens of thousands of rounds.

The Smith M&P could be close if they made some improvements in the design but in my hands it is not any more ergonomic than the HK 45.

The Springfield XD or XDM is not even close IMO.

Glock 17 or 34

I really hope nobody I know ever has to bet their life on a Tarus.

I did not know about the use of HP or TBBCs by the Armed Forces in combat. Wow, things have changed! but you are right, with HP ammo, both pipsqueak rounds, 5.56 and 9mm will work. jorge