Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Army to Replace M9

It's likely that they were using 1911's during that time frame. Delta's primary sidearms were 1911's until they transitioned to Glock 22's.

We should declare the .40 lite caliber Gay like the .270

Rename it the 40 'flave?

Here's an interesting article on the subject: http://kitup.military.com/2014/07/sof-prefers-9mm-45-caliber.html





Marines seem happy with their 1911's in .45 ACP but they're having logistical issues getting .45 ACP ammunition. If you ask me, that's completely intolerable.

Logistical problems? Seriously....?

Me and the M9 have always gotten along. I own a Berreta 96 and like it well. I have buddies in my unit that are far more "experienced" than I and they don't hate the M9 and they have literally 100k+ rounds through them. By their account, failures were remedied when the blocks were modified and replaced years back. Magazines of course can be culprits if they are the really cheap version of yester-years. I'd go back to theater with an M9 and not be worried about my sidearm. I'd be sure to have berreta factory mags though, as an extra measure of insurance.

As stated by many, just upgrading to modern defense ammunition like the Gold Dot or Federal HST would be the most cost effective "solution."

I don't believe we will go away from the 9mm. If we were to change the pistol I sure like XDm's capacity and ergo's. But I seem to be in the minority on that. I have owned an XD40 sub for a long time now and it's money. I will have an XDm someday. M&P's ergos feel great to me, but haven't shot them. Glock's ergos just don't fit me and they feel terribly awkward in my hands. But they would be a fine choice for a combat pistol and I could train into comfort with them.

Oh and I wouldn't want to go to combat without a sidearm. For many many situations and reasons.

In reading all the post on here it does seem that Army policy has changed and everybody now has a side arm. Back in the day only select individuals were issued side arms. Probably the 9MM is best if everybody is going to have a side arm.

Has a nice ring to it...




Travis

Flave, Crimson Tide, and Mac all agree with me... Better buy a lottery ticket!!

40 S&W is still the most popular police caliber in the upper Midwest, but almost nobody uses anything less than 180 gr ammo. Folks in the cold North wear a lot of clothes and they tend to run on the fat side. You need heavier bullets with more momentum to reach the good stuff.

FWIW, my modest instructional experience over the past 15 years or so mirrors Mackay's. This is especially true in IDPA and IPSC shooter classes. The 40 is a snappier round than either 9mm or 45 , which slows you down and degrades accuracy. And when we're talking competition, fractions of a second are very clearly noticeable.

I carried a Glock 23 as my off-duty/CCW pistol for 8-9 years, and I liked it a lot. I shot it in IDPA matches more than a few times. I shot 3-4 matches with my G23 and G19 in tandem, and every time the G19 scored better. Not by much, but enough to make a difference in my match placement.

And a Glock is less "snappy" than an M&P or an XD. Put a ported Storm Lake on a G17 and you can get about 5-6 pieces of brass in the air at the same time, and still actually hit a target.

Setting aside the pistol platform, while looking only at the terminal end, to fit the Army bill for harder-hitting:

It is clear by their own data, the current 9mm NATO round does not reach this goal, whereas the previous 45 caliber round did. So no question that the 45ACP would work wonderfully, unless recoil was considered an issue by the Army. So if this were the case, and the Army intends to use ball pistol ammo, where is the data that would either show, 1) that the same 9mm ball projectile fired at the increased velocity of the 357sig, would greatly improve terminal performance, or 2) that the increase in frontal area of the 40 caliber is enough to greatly improve terminal performance when shooting ball. IMO, I believe when limited to ball pistol ammo, I doubt the 357sig would reach the goal, and likely the 40 caliber would still fall short of the previous 45ACP. In addition, when you do consider recoil, I�m not so sure the Army would find the 45ACP to be a great jump in comparison to either the 357sig or the 40 caliber.

What about the projectile itself? Delta may be shooting something other than ball from their pistols, but this probably would not carry over to all of today�s Army. Modern LEO loads with their law enforcement hollow points may not fit the bill either. But what about the new generation of expanding fmj projectiles. They are not hollow points and kind of act like a wall anchor to implode upon itself to increase in diameter on the terminal end. If this were something considered in the mix, then suddenly the 9mm comes back into play. You would then maintain the lower recoil, the magazine capacity, in addition to the harder-hitting.

If it were up to me, every combat soldier would be a battle-hardened Marine and would be issued a railed 1911 chambered 45ACP. But, it�s not up to me and today�s Army runs a wide swath of big to little along the lines of most modern law enforcement agencies. In that world, the trend is for striker-fire for the percentage having difficulty with long trigger strokes, 9mm for the percentage having difficulty for increased recoil, and modular for the cost efficiency and ease of fitting that wide swath. So in reality, the platform chosen by the Army may likely not be a hammer fired gun such as the old school Sig, but may likely be a striker fired gun along the lines of the Glock gen 4 type or M&P.

Best

Some very good analysis there Gary.

Well here's the problem with that. The expanding FMJ's expand on IMPACT pressure vs. hydraulic pressure like the JHP. The advantage that the JHP has is when it hits a solid object, it doesn't expand, so barrier penetration isn't affected. But when it hits a fluid object, like living tissue, the fluid pressure gets inside that cavity and rips the bullet open.

So the expanding FMJ would certainly get you the greater stopping power, but you'd completely give up barrier penetration, and in military and LE roles, barrier penetration is VERY important.

What's more, while The Hague convention does somewhat specify FMJ, you don't get a pass just because your bullet starts out as an FMJ, they specifically forbade any expanding bullet... ("bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body")

If it has to be a non-expanding bullet, why not just go to a flat point? The increased terminal effect on tissue by simply changing from a round nose to a flat nose has been seen in countless examples on game and humans since Elmer Keith's days at least.

Physics is physics. If the weight of the bullet or the velocity is increased, recoil increases. And no matter the opinion of smart people like us, .gov is intent of having women and males of questionable masculinity in combat arms and that means no heavy recoiling handguns.

So, it would seem to me the obvious choice to increase lethality without changing the recoil characteristics of the 9mm is a FMJ flat point or WFN. The profile wouldn�t be any different than a HP so feeding should be a non-issue.

That, or a much lighter projectile at much higher velocity ala the 5.7x28 or some new round of our own creation with similar ballistics.

I know that doesn't address the barrier penetration or armor penetration characteristics and my knowledge in that area is sketchy, but if barrier/body armor penetration is a primary goal then increased velocity or a much heavier projectile are the only means to achieve that (AFAIK), and without increasing recoil that means a lighter projectile going faster.

45 ACP in a 1911 which was the gun originally designed for that purpose.

They should put all the queers on the front line to use as a buffer zone for the good men.

Ill bet the SF boys won't give up their 1911s..

I believe lots of SF(all branches) are already using Glocks and Sigs

The Marines have already obtained their new pistol. It's a Colt and it's chambered in 45 ACP.

I'm still frickin kicking myself over one of those Colt Marine 1911's. When they came out, the LGS had one on display for $1399.00. I was gonna think on it overnight, and of course, it was sold the next day before I got back to the store to buy it.

Tried to buy several on Gunbroker the next few days, and all of them sold for $3K or more!
Ive never seen another for sale since then! Frickin Hindsight !