I know many thought it would happen by now, but the military has learned all the ins and outs of the Beretta, and Beretta has done a lot of product improvement. So the Beretta 92 may have a lot more life left in it than many of us thought it would have. Still, we all know it will be replaced at some point. When that happens, what do you think is a good candidate to be the replacement? I didn�t say, what would you like the military to pick, rather what do you think will end up being the replacement?

My money is on Taurus as the manufacturer, and probably some version of the OSS pistol.

Just like the Beretta, it'll go to whomever buys the right/most congresscritters and procurement monkeys.

[bleep] some Brazilian company. We don't need no new service pistol.

They should go back to the 1911 in 45 ACP or Super. Hell they never ever should of left it, The Marines didn't

I would hope that the next service pistol would be manufactured here in the good ole USA! Since we have the M4 I don't see the need for a pistol. With exceptions for military police and officers.

...and there are plenty of M9's, 1911's and SIG's inventoried for them.

Let's see.....we went from the 1911 in .45acp to the Beretta 92 in 9mm.......if this trend continues we might go with something like a Jennings in .380 or .32acp (and our government will pay $500 each for them).

One can hope...

Probably something by FN.

That's what I was thinking.

I really like the FN-H 45 ACP. 13 round mag in a relatively slim grip. I hope it's not too much to ask to go back to the 45. Otherwise they might as well stay with Beretta. I'd be hard pressed not to bring up the Ruger SR9. Great luck with mine and the grip is very slim.

More likely it will be something like the 5.7x28mm

I think it will either be the Glock 21 or Sig p220 with threaded barrel. With the use of suppressors on the rise their next gun will be sub sonic from the get go.

I guess they could just use the H&K 45 that some of the military has used.

VA has it right though. It will be who ever pays the most to congress.

Dink

I could like with the H&K 45, but if someone tried to force me to carry a Glock into harms way I would resign my commission

Same trend with the M-14 vs M-16.

So many seem to be lacking reading comprehension. I didn't ask "What do you want to see" or what do you "hope" will be the next service pistol. I asked what do you think WILL BE the next service pistol.

Some got it right, but several just read my post the way they wanted it to read.

I think that most are missing a major point. Most people that get issued a pistol in the service branches are in support roles and very, very minimally trained.

For guys who actually go in harms way intentionally (infantry, etc), I would prefer to see something along the lines of a polymer, high capacity auto with unit level armorer support for everything, including frame replacement. NO hand fitted parts.

The HK45 and HK45C are getting a lot of attention right now. In fact I do know of one navy unit that is fielding the C model.

As far as service wide issue, who knows. I would like to see a Glock in 9mm or 45 acp, but there are so many piss poor pistol shooters and grossly irresponsible service members currently in the system, that any gun that lacked a traditional external safety would be a poor choice for the majority of service people.

There is a reason why even in Iraq the vast majority of soldiers are not allowed to have any live ammunition on them or in their weapons, while on base, which fortunately 90% will never leave a base when deployed. I cannot tell you how many times in a single day I have had some soldier point their weapon at me while at a PX or DFAC.

Most have useless "coolguy" 3 point slings that have the gun held horizontally. They muzzle sweep everyone on a constant basis. The majority of their NCOs could care less. Gun handling skills are not stressed at all for the most part.

I got a little off topic there, sorry.

Before the US military considered the Glock, they would seriously need to address the take down procedure, or there will be lots of GI�s with holes in their hands (just as there are many cops with holes in their hands). And as built, I strongly doubt the military would allow the average soldier to carry a Glock with a round in the chamber. Oh they may at first, but it would change after a few ND�s. When the 1911 was in service, even though it can be carried quite safely in condition 1, the military required their soldiers to carry it in condition 3, as a last ditch moron control.

If the Joint Combat Pistol/Combat Pistol (CP) solicitation from 2006 is any indication it will have to be a production pistol. The military isn't interested in funding an R&D project.

The Glock 21SF wouldn't make the cut because they don't offer an external safety as the CP spec's require. Based on the pistols entered into the CP competition, my vote on the front runners would be the HK45, Sig P220 Combat, FNP45-USG, and the S&W M&P 45.

No, you were/are SQUARELY on topic.

Mackay Sagebrush don't they load a special 160 grain bullet in the 9mm to make it sub sonic?

Not that suppressors really matter I guess for infantry but I have a feeling what ever pistol is next will have a threaded barrel and be chambered in 45.

Dink

147's sir.

That solicitation didn't last long before they pulled it because for the most part, what they were looking for wasn't really out there.

If you ask me, the 2006 solicitation was to plant the seed, let manufacturers get such models going, and the the military will give it a few years for the competition to weed itself out, leaving the strongest for the next round of solicitation.

I supspect the next one will be very similar to the last, but may have a few differences.

I'm not sure I'm reading it right but sounds to me like they are looking at the 45 now. That's the biggest thing I would like to see. Good list of guns. Lots on their I could live with, and a couple I have.

The Special Operation Command operators have their own purchasing authority.

For the average servicemen the M9/M9A1 and M11 are fine for them. What those pistols need is Federal Expanding FMJ 9mm ammo. That and monthly pistol practice instead of annual.

I don't think the HK .45 would make the cut- the grip is too big for shooters with small hands. I would lean more towards the Springfield XD series with the interchangeable backstraps. BTW, Glock did produce a design with an external design for the trials (insider info from a friend at Glock in Smyrna).

I don't know where it will be made or what caliber it will be, but I'm betting that it will be of an Austrian design.

I think they will come to their senses and go with a 1911 in 45. It worked well for them for about 75 years and despite the claims to the contrary it is one of if not the best made today

Dink,

147s are standard for 9mm subsonic. I honestly do not see a shift away from the M9 for a very, very long time. What I would SPECULATE is that individual units will more and more likely augment their armories with whatever tool they see fit to get a job done.

Much like now, where some mil units purchase glocks or motorbikes or 4 wheelers, units will be given more lattitude to equip as they see fit. A new pistol will likely be added as an option, rather than an all out replacement. At least that is my guess for the immediate future.

Quite frankly I really have no idea what will happen. My guess is just as likely to be wrong as the next guys.

JWP,

As much as I love the beautiful chunk of steel that is the 1911, there are logistical issues with fielding them. I would be quite surprised if we saw a mass re-issue of the 1911.

As someone pointed out, what is needed is emphasis on pistol skills, service wide. At least that is my conclusion from my observations.

I know I could use some more range time.

I have no idea what the next service handgun will be, but I will venture a guess that it will be striker fired and have a polymer frame.

I haven't read the 2006 specs, so a couple of questions:

Is NATO compatibility still an issue?

Is there any requirement for a round that will defeat body armor?

XD-45??

My guess is somthing from Baretta or from FN.
I don't see the military using anything without a manual safety.
This will eliminate lots of pistols.

I do not know the requiments, but I agree.
It will be a polymer frame, striker fired pistol.

It will be modular design.
And I think the 9mm will stay.

As said before the pistol is a side arm for non combant personel. Or a last ditch back up for rifle draggers.

It may be even capable of quick caliber converstion.
But I'm thinking a hyper sonic small caliber round.


Lawyers will make the final decision.
and it will be a compromise of the worst kind.
Just like our Commander in chief

No and no. The specs call for a .45 ACP pistol that will function with four Mil-Spec rounds; ball, match ball, +P truncated cone, and a high pressure test round.

I think it will be something along the lines of a Springfield XD-M with 5 inch barrel, in 9mm. Would prefer to see it in .40 or .45 but I don't see them giving up the 9.

Kevin,
Interesting question. Personally I do not see anything being done for Big Army for a long time.

Just came in from a day on our range with a platoon of Infantry attached to the team. Once again, it all comes down to the man and training much more than the weapon. These guys today were not very well trained on the M-9. After several hundred rounds they felt a lot better.

Personally the 1911 is the only way to go, but not all the guys on the team agree. Some like their Glocks or Sigs.

I have bad news for you. I have a friend in military small arms procurement (yeah, the guys who did the soliciation), and despite my ardent pleas, they are not even remotely willing to consider the 1911 again. With the exception of my friend, the entire group just feels you look forward, not back. I can appreciate that line of thinking, and I'll be happy to accept it just the minute somone creates a better pistol.

I agree that we wont see 1911's again, but not for logistical reasons; unless you're talking about inter-mixing them with M9's. The 1911 is generally easier to work on than the M9 and has a much longer service life; the logistics would be easier if you ask me.

Exactly......

HK 45

http://www.hk-usa.com/civilian_products/hk45_general.asp

Interesting question.
I would place my bet on Polymer framed, interchangable griped, striker fired, external safety pistol with a barrel length of atleast 4 inches.

For ammo, if NATO is not the concern then .45 acp. If NATO is a concern then we will stay with the 9mm or all swap to the 5.7 round with an FN or HK platform.

If we stay with the 9mm then the M9 will be here for awhile longer. If not the M9, my bet is on something like the SW XD or MP platform, or something similar from FN or HK.

I'll bet a month of my military retirement that in 20 years the M9/M9A1 and the M11 will still be the standard pistols.

Excluding the Special Operations Command who will be mostly using 5.7mm and .45ACP pistols

You may be right, like I said, they have pretty much figured out how to keep the M9 alive, and Beretta has improved it a whole lot also; it's a pretty solid pistol despite what some people may think.

I think one of the better things the military can do is have more than one pistol just like you said, 5.7 and .45, which covers both sides of the spectrum, and seem to be the better performers. Still, I would love to see what kind of cartridge development can be done to improve the body armor performance of the 7.62 To, I think that's a very interesting cartridge.

In the BIG ARMY the obvious default for the M9 is the M11.

But just like in WW2 a Carbine beats a pistol in the hit ratio. The M4 is a better troop issue weapon than any pistol.

If only the Infantry was issued more 7.62 Nato battle rifles over M4s and M16s. Sigh...

My opinion is that the M9 will continue to be the pistol selected by the military. I have no complaints at all with the pistol itself, as it is easy to shoot accurately and very reliable (although some of the non-Beretta magazines the Army purchased proved to be poor). The standard ammo has been questioned, and I believe that there is a possibility for bullets of "harder hitting" shape to be developed. Any new ammo would have to equal the reliabilty of feeding that the current ball ammo shows. As sensible as it might be, I don't think that there will be a return to .45 caliber ammunition.

Ruger Superblackhawk in .44mag for the troops and a Freedom Arms .454 Casull for officers. Special forces get the BFR .45-70
lol

I think there is zero chance the military ever adopts the Glock. A safety/decock of some type would be in the specs for any service wide issue.

IF the M9 was replaced I could see something like a Sig variant or Beretta PX4 winning.

I would vote for the S&W M&P in 9mm or .45 ACP

+1

I'm surprised it took this long for someone to bring this one up. In about 5 years, it'll be the S&W M&P in .45. They've been looking at it and testing it since it came out. Some units are already using it. Before I got out, it was being touted as the next one. We'll see, procurments being what they are, but my money is on the M&P .45.

Sub-sonic and suppressed are niche guns and already have their place.

OK, being serious:

I think for those operators who depend upon pistols for their roles as warriors, the .45acp and MEUSOC 1911 pistol will continue to evolve. There was an "old style" and there is a "new style". Same basic concept utilizing different manufacturers' parts (King's on the old, mostly Brown on the new).

Of course, other SOCOM units carry HK, Sig, etc, some in 9mm and some in .45acp.

For general issue, I would think polymer and Made in America. I do think that they will stick to the specs issued a couple years ago: .45acp, double action, optional manual safety.

The 24/7 OSS seemed to be designed around those specs and would have been in the running had the idea not been canceled.

However, I would think that the Springfield Armory would churn out something in the way of a modified XDm which would likely look like a crossbreed of a current XD/XDm and a MEUSOC 1911.

Josh

So how did you end up nominating a Brazilian and Croatian pistol?

Sig 220
M&P 45
XD 45

I'd like to see American troops carrying an American designed and manufactured pistol.
It should be in .45 ACP.

I wonder why the 40 S & W has never entered the arena?

or at least a plant on us soil making which ever weapon they choose

Could not agree more. Saw where the M-14 (improved) has made a come back in the Army, Navy and Marines as either a quad or platoon marksman weapon. Believe the Army issues two per squad and the Marines one per platoon. I'm guessing the Navy uses them with the Seals, but not sure how they deploy them.

The Sig P220 in 45 ACP would be my pick for the 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

I really hope nobody I know ever has to bet their life on a Tarus. [/quote] Agreed, whatever it is one can be sure it will have less metal than did the 1911's

....so the "non expanding" hollow points "don't penetrate nearly as much" but we want the gun because it's superior at piercing body armor??? I'm really not trying to be contentious......but that doesn't make any sense to me at all. First, what is a "non expanding hollow point," and if there were such a thing wouldn't it be against the Geneva Convention? Second, how can the bullet penetrate less than 9 or 45 hardball but still be good for penetrating body armor? I'm obviously confused.

Don't forget, the PC politicians are pushing chicks in combat roles now, so the next sidearm, if there is one, will have to fit their small hands and not scare them.

What I can tell you is that the 27 gr. loads have a non lead HP design that doesn't not expand when it hits water or wood. It appears to dump it's energy very quickly and they penetrate half or less than do the typical hardball rds. from the 9mm.
They burst the sides of the 2.5 gallon jugs I use much more convincingly. Like a 158 gr. swagged SWC at 940 fps. but in reverse. The above load bursts the rear half of the jugs while the 27 gr. non expanding HP's blow out the front half. The bullets are recovered w/o any expansion present.
I've never tested the AP ammo. I understand that they do indeed out perform everything else in military handgun load as far as penetrating body armor. Odviously I can't tell you how well they kill after doing such penetrating either.
Don't blame you for doubting this. Since I've sen this, I believe it. A very interesting pistol and ammo. E

Springfield XD, you can abuse the hell out of them and they still work great.

You are going to see a lot of Smith & Wesson M&P's in 9mm and .40 cal.