Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Army to Replace M9

The Virginia State Police have been huge fans of their Sigs for years. .357SIG, too.

I'd vote Glock 21 but I bet if they go .45 it will be an FN or Sig.

Our troopers were carrying Beretta 96D's Then they switched to G37 45 GAPS then they recently switched to G21 Gen-4s. And have been having problems with more than a few cracked frames and FTFs.

Now they are getting Sig P227s


We have been carrying Glock 31s for about a year. The rumor mill is abuzz with stories of the Chief considering the allowance of Sig p226, p229s in .357 sig as well.

We shall see

Perhaps that's the problem right there

1907 Convention of The Hague to which we are not signatories, but have always abided by the guidelines.

In set-piece battle, IE tank/infantry warfare, yes. Until you get to the first town, then EVERYBODY wants a sidearm. Like Maj Herbert McBride wrote in "A Rifleman Went to War", a bayonet is what your country buys you when they are too cheap to provide you with a proper pistol".

I'd make space for one.

Unless someone makes a .45 ACP sized .40, I don't see any .40's that are going to make it the long haul without wearing out. The old S&W 4006 would probably hold up, but it's long gone. The .40 S&W is always put in a 9mm sized pistol and that cartridge beats the living crap out of the a pistol that size. So unless they make a pistol with a much heavier slide and a frame beefed up in the right places, I just don't see the .40 making it through all the military tests.

So the .45 ACP seems like it's set for a return.

For most by time you are engaging with a pistol things have gone really bad. To me it is 6 of one and half dozen of the other. The weight of the pistol and ammo would give me a lot more ammo for my rifle. Not saying I wouldn't want a pistol, just that at the point I need it more then likely its not going to matter either way. Of course there are always exceptions.

The M-9 buy was politically motivated. The military likes SIGs but what does what the military's input have to do with anything?

With Democraps in office , I think gay azz 270s and gay azz Glocks are in order.

This is where it will land.

Military will buy the cheapest POS with the lowest bid, just like they did with the M9. They won't buy Sigs because they are too expensive. They won't buy 1911's because they are too expensive.

It will come down to either the S&W M&P or the Glock, IMO.

It would be nice if they went with a an American MFG, for a change.
Personally, I'd prefer the Ruger SR9 or SR45 over any M&P or better yet, Ruger 1911.

I am pretty sure that it is no coincidence that the Glock plant in Smyrna has kicked it into high gear, and it is fairly common to see Glock slides with USA stamps on the slide rather than Austria.


And my post should in NO way be taken as Glock worship. I don't really like the bastids.

I'd rather have two more 30 rounders in place of the M9.

This plus one. My Kahr CW40 blew itself apart with less than 500rounds through it.

Good buddy told me to never bring a 9 to a 44mag fight. I said why you couldn't hit me with that 44 anyway. Then he shot my 9. Doubt he'll say that again.

SIG did beat Beretta the first time and then Beretta under bid SIG by less than $10 the second time.

I never see them going for a striker fired pistol., nor plastic for that matter. I still feel something from Sig would fit well. Along the lines of the P220.

The P220 would work well since there's a compact version. A full size pistol isn't a good fit for aircrew and plain clothes investigators.

I'd bet a pay check if SIG had been chosen over Beretta back in 1985 we'd be hearing as many people claim that Beretta got screwed. Give it a rest people!