Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Next military pistol, who do you see are the top contenders?

The army already turned down the Beretta selection

Doesn't mean they can't un-turn it down in the next round.

Within the big picture of a smaller military and reduced defense spending, I gotta believe there's a lot more crucial things for the Army to be working (spending) on than replacing one 9mm handgun with a slightly different 9mm handgun.

Changing handguns is a major logistical expense. Upgrading to an improved Beretta M9 is much more likely to get through Congress.

Army says no to updated M9

I think the RG .38 revolvers would be ideal. They cost very little. The shoot a great round when they shoot. If you tear them up you just throw them away and you ain't lost much. You don't need armorers either for the same reason. You could send all the armorers to work at the post office so more than one line would be open at a time. Armorers don't take near as many breaks. You could save all the ones you trash and sell them to the Navy. They could be tied together with zip ties and used for anchors. (Even new ones could be used for this since this would probably be cheaper than the Navy pays for anchors.) They would stimulate foreign trade just like Beretta. You could carry four at a time so you would have 20 rounds of available firepower. Due to their timing and lead spitting, they could be used at close range for crowd control. They have adjustable front sights because you can turn the barrel with your hand. They could easily surpass the 10,000 round survival test if you had enough of them. They handle just like a semi auto, just pull the trigger. They ain't got no silly safety to worry about. They will still shoot even if the barrel falls off which is likely. They are very accurate at 1 yard. I just don't see much choice here besides this one.

Actually it's a very minor purchase and logistical matter in comparison to other major equipment upgrades. The M9's in service have seen a decade of war, and many of them are getting a bit long in the tooth. It's probably a good time to review the whole program since you're going to have to replace the lion's share of M9's anyhow.

It should be pretty easy to waste a couple $trillion all around with that logic.



How do you figure? Has someone inspected a couple thousand of them to get a baseline and published a report?

It's gonna be the Glock, Sig, or M&P. Whichever comes in cheaper.

Speaking comparatively, not encouraging waste.



Not that I know of, but that's what the US Military typically does at the end of a war, they take stock of what they have, and determine what gets rebuilt and what gets replaced.

They have been trying to get rid of the M9 since around 2001 so I'm just assuming rather than replace any M9's that are nearing the end of their lifespans, they'll just replace the whole kit & kaboodle.

I personally have no issue with the M9 as a military sidearm, it has proven itself capable. Just need to train people how to use it, how to deal with the safety not being where it belongs, and it will continue to do just fine. It's not much of a concealed carry piece, but that's not what the military is looking for. So I for one wouldn't care too much if they decided to stay with the M9.

As good as the M9 is, there are pistols out there more suitable to military service.

Yeah, but it's not always just lowest bidder...it's lowest bidder who meets the spec/requirements. Which is how it ought to be...provided the spec/requirements are solid.

I'm sure they'd like to, but having just bought something like 100K new ones in the last four or five years, I'm having a hard time imaging they can't make do with those and refurbing the remainder.

The new M9A3 will get the nod. Bank on it. Some SOF units will continue to buy their own Glocks. Big Army/Air Farce ain't buying anything without a manual safety, ever.

If I were King for a Day, this would be my choice.

Just because the design is "old" means nothing, it works still & is a proven commodity with NATO power level ammo.

Not sure the other top contenders can take a steady diet of that ammo??

Choice will boil down to cheapest gun that meets minimum requirements built in a state with the administration's favor when the decision is made.

I'd bet on S&W, Sig 2nd, Glock 3rd if they all have a qualifying gun.

MM

I guess you missed that the Army has already shot it down?

As an aside, if Beretta does lose out on the .mil contract, I'd almost guarantee that they'll move their HQ out of Maryland and with remarkable speed. VA and TN both have Beretta plants, so either of them would make sense and both offer far better gun laws and better tax structures than does MD.

I thought the same thing. Accokeek will be shutting its doors.




Travis

TAK doesn't miss anything. MARSOC told him so.

Considering what the US military has to deal with for training, I would insist on a manual safety as well. They will NEVER train their soldiers well enough to where all are safe with a trigger cocking gun with no safety. In LE there have been SO many ND's that wouldn't have happened if there was a manual safety that was engaged. If we go with a trigger cocking gun with no safety, we're going to see these things happen a LOT more. People holstering a gun, a piece of clothing sticking out gets caught in the trigger guard and boom. I'll agree it's the user's fault, but it's also hard to argue the same thing would happen with a gun that has a manual safety that's engaged.

If I were big Army, I'd also insist that if a trigger cocking gun is chosen, that it's takedown either doesn't require pulling the trigger, or it can't be taken down until you open up the action.

There are two of the most common ND's that are encountered with trigger cocking guns with no manual safety.

When you don't have the money to properly train people, sometimes you have to apply a hardware solution to a software problem. Not perfect, but that's just the way it is.

Manual safeties are stupid.




Travis

Correct. I have to say (again) the M9 was a POS from the start. When I was Weapons Officer on NIMITZ, we received the first batch of them and by the time cruise was over, they already looked worn. Our folks carry the M9, but only because our company likes to mirror what USN has here.

The breakage rate with us has been nil so far (the guns are new), but over on the Navy side the breakage rate is up there. Also, they use milspec ammo whereas we buy ours direct from the manufacture and maybe they have less pressure. I have to say they've been completely reliable when it comes to operating though. I ask our RSOs to keep track of malfunctions for me, and to date, I can't recall any. Our annual consumption is about 30K rounds through about 100 guns.