M9 days Numbered?

Terran empire · 02-15-2005, 00:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by By Spc. Nikki St. Amant

Fort Benning tests current M-9 sidearm, future alternatives
By Spc. Nikki St. Amant

FORT BENNING, Ga. (Army News Service, Jan. 28, 2005) – The Directorate of Combat Developments and Soldier Battle Lab began an experiment Jan. 24 analyzing the current-issue M-9 handgun and possible alternative weapons.

“I want to make it clear, this is not a selection of a new pistol,” said Charley Pavlick, project officer with DCD’s Small Arms Division. “We are responding to concerns we have from (Soldiers deployed for Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom) that report a lack of confidence in the M-9 for several reasons. This is an analysis of different features and characteristics that are available with other weapons platforms.”

Some of the concerns with the M-9 include many stoppages, uncomfortable function control and the low lethality of the 9mm ball round, Pavlick said.

The Army hasn’t made an official decision to make a move from the M-9 to a new sidearm, Pavlick said. DCD will rewrite the draft requirements documents after the experiment is complete, and then officials will make a decision.

Army officials decided to switch from a .45-caliber sidearm to the 9mm in 1954, but that change wasn’t fully implemented until 1984, Pavlick said. It was only when the supply of rebuilt .45s began running out that the Army finally started the 9mm Personal Defense Weapon program.

“The decision to switch was strictly logistical,” he said. “The United States was trying to move toward NATO joint operability, and we were fighting the Cold War. Target effect wasn’t a factor in that decision. Now it is.”

The performance of better sights, larger calibers and double-action-only firing mechanisms are what DCD analysts will be taking a look at.

The test firers for the experiment are representative of the force, Pavlick said. Soldiers of varying rank, military-occupation specialty and gender are included.

The testing started this week with a baseline qualification to assess the basic marksmanship of the firers with the M-9 and familiarization fires with alternative weapons.

Staff Sgt. Michael Morten is one of the test firers. He fired the .45-caliber version of the Smith and Wesson 99.

“You can really feel the difference,” he said of the Smith and Wesson. “It fits better in my hand. The sights are easier. I thought it would have more kick being a .45, but the recoil is the same as the 9mm. I thought it was excellent.”

(Editor’s note: Spc. Nikki St. Amant is assigned to the Fort Benning Public Affairs Office.)

I found this on the Army web site @ http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6791

It mentions the S&W 99 in .45ACP but i would think the 9mm or original walther P99 version would also be under testing along with USP's, P2000 and a few others

Sinfulcurves_AK · 02-15-2005, 00:14 AM

http://www.sigarms.com/news/index.as...y=detail&id=72

Check this out, it's about SIG. I wouldn't go with the M9, after reading 2 extensive articles about 9mm VS .45ACP vs .357 SIG, etc etc... That pretty much changed my vision on 9mm. I personally want a SIG P229 (.357)

ChrisF202 · 02-15-2005, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinfulcurves_AK

http://www.sigarms.com/news/index.as...y=detail&id=72

Check this out, it's about SIG. I wouldn't go with the M9, after reading 2 extensive articles about 9mm VS .45ACP vs .357 SIG, etc etc... That pretty much changed my vision on 9mm. I personally want a SIG P229 (.357)

9mm is weak, I was once told that it vant even penetrate a car door muchless a bullet proof vest.

Im sure Beretta could make a .45 version of the M9

lemontree · 02-15-2005, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisF202

9mm is weak, I was once told that it vant even penetrate a car door

Who ever told you that, must have been a pro .45 spokes person. It depends at what ranges we are talking about. At 25 mtrs a handguns averge effective range, the 9mm bullet will pass through a car door and hit you.

Quote:

muchless a bullet proof vest.

Again this depends if you are talking about 'flack jackets' or full metal bullet proof jackets.
The full metal jackets, will stop 9mm as well as 7.62x51mm or 7.62x49mm. I have tested the effect of these rounds on full metal jackets at 25 mtrs. Weapons used were:-
- 9mm Sterling.
- 7.62mm LIAI SLR and L4 LMG.
- 7.62mm Type 56 AK.
The full metal bullet proof jackets stopped all the above calibres at 25 mtrs.

bonehead · 02-15-2005, 13:39 PM

I would vastly prefer the .357 sig or the .40 over the nine. I also would rather have a sig over the barretta, though the barretta has done well. For whatever the change may be, I hope the decision will be made by combat veterans and not some bean counter sitting behind a desk playing "politics". Our troops are at a greater risk because some idiot put logistics above target effect when choosing the 9mm barretta. Nato is not the worlds police. Nor is the U.N. American military is bearing the lions share of the brunt and the risk. America should dictate the weapons and calibers used and the others should fall in line. Not vise versa.

Why can't, or why won't american manufacturers build a small arm that our army can use. M16s replaced by a european make troubles me, as is our use of barrettas. What's next? Is our next generation bomber going to be made by eurobus. Is Italy going to make our next generation tanks? Is iran or north korea going to make our next I.C.B.M.? This outsourcing has gotten way out of hand.

Beaugeste93 · 02-16-2005, 14:09 PM

I think adding another caliber to the procurement system is a bad idea. I would stick with 9mm or .45ACP. While I love the M1911-style .45, it is not a good choice for the second-line units that carry most of the pistols as defensive weapons as it requires a good bit of practice to master. Leave it for the USMC and the spec ops guys who put in the practice time. The weapon has to be simple because many of these troops just don't get the training they need on them. My vote would be for the sig p220 in .45 acp. Its only real disadvantage is that is a foreign made weapon. The S&W/Walther P99 series in .45 would be a good secondary choice for those with smaller hands, much like the sig 226 is used in the army now for that purpose.

I carry a glock 22 (.40SW) as a duty weapon and love it, but I think the grip size of the 21 in .45 is too big for most folks.

Terran empire · 02-16-2005, 16:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonehead

Why can't, or why won't american manufacturers build a small arm that our army can use. M16s replaced by a european make troubles me, as is our use of barrettas. What's next? Is our next generation bomber going to be made by eurobus. Is Italy going to make our next generation tanks? Is iran or north korea going to make our next I.C.B.M.? This outsourcing has gotten way out of hand.

Points too be Made here
One
H&K contracted out too General Dynamics for the M8 production (weather or not this means that GD will be the Final maker or just a temp well HK builds a factory is unclear )
Two
Barretta is Italian.
Walther is German but it was bought out by Smith and wesson.

bonehead · 02-16-2005, 19:32 PM

maybe I am asking the wrong question.
Why can't /won't a company like colt design and build a rifle that is on par with the fn hk,and other rifles being considered as replacements. Why can't/won.t a company like smith and wesson design and build a pistol that can compete with a sig, hk, glock, and berretta. During the last trials there was sig and barretta. Every one else was a distant third. Manufacturing used to be america's strength. Now is seemes the US can only put out second quality firearms, or manufactures firearms designed elswhere. I do not like this trend.

Terran empire · 02-16-2005, 20:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonehead

maybe I am asking the wrong question.
Why can't /won't a company like colt design and build a rifle that is on par with the fn hk,and other rifles being considered as replacements. Why can't/won.t a company like smith and wesson design and build a pistol that can compete with a sig, hk, glock, and berretta. During the last trials there was sig and barretta. Every one else was a distant third. Manufacturing used to be america's strength. Now is seemes the US can only put out second quality firearms, or manufactures firearms designed elswhere. I do not like this trend.

Cult has been under mismanagement for years and lacks the manufacturing capabilities ands interest to research and manufacture non M16 systems or extreme modifications to the M16.
smaller Companies in the Us Have been making systems that surpass them for years but they tend too lack the Manufacturing Capabilities and the Us military seems too lack interest due too the price tag involved, to name a few Bushmaster, Armalite and ZM weapons .
The M16's used by the Us Army and Marine corps Are made by more then Just Colt.
Fn, Armalite, Bushmaster and other corporations Have licensing agreements for the M16 & M4 weapons.

as for smith and wesson It's primary business has been Law enforcement and civilian.
In the last trials there were a large number of contenders at the start but a number of Mistakes and the Time the trials took place lead too a large number off weak choices. The us military has also had too suffer from civilian assault weapon bans which hamper innovation.
the infantry was looked last for any new gear. it still used the steel m1 helmets from ww2 till panama. the introduction of land warrior and FCS are the ARMY's attempt too try and get a chunk of the budgetary kill just like the rest of the forces

sniperdude411 · 02-16-2005, 23:55 PM

Anyways, for a good replacement in the next 20 years or so, I'm a fan of the FN Five-seveN.
The SS190 ammunition is great- good impact, great energy, armor penetrating capabilities, lethality, low recoil, and best of all, ULTRA-HIGH CAPACITY. One mag can hold 20 rounds.
http://www.world.guns.ru/handguns/hg18-e.htm

Sinfulcurves_AK · 02-17-2005, 00:31 AM

FiveSeven is kinda interesting, as a pistol round, but would be a lot better off in a sub gun...

Terran empire · 02-17-2005, 00:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinfulcurves_AK

FiveSeven is kinda interesting, as a pistol round, but would be a lot better off in a sub gun...

It is a sub machine gun round it's the same round they used in the FN P 90.

Sinfulcurves_AK · 02-17-2005, 02:13 AM

Yep, I knew that... It just kinda seems useless having it in a pistol, when you can feed it to an SMG, enhanced performance, lethality, etc.

sniperdude411 · 02-20-2005, 23:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinfulcurves_AK

Yep, I knew that... It just kinda seems useless having it in a pistol, when you can feed it to an SMG, enhanced performance, lethality, etc.

Also much bigger size and little concealability.

Terran empire · 02-21-2005, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sniperdude411

Also much bigger size and little concealability.

with the Proper fashion choices concealability is not as big a problem as you might think. But traditional pistol calibers will still be preferred After all .45 Will still Put some one down hard.

02-15-2005, 00:14 AM	#2 (permalink)
Sinfulcurves_AK Regular Join Date: 05-31-04 Location: TXXXASS Posts: 47	http://www.sigarms.com/news/index.as...y=detail&id=72 Check this out, it's about SIG. I wouldn't go with the M9, after reading 2 extensive articles about 9mm VS .45ACP vs .357 SIG, etc etc... That pretty much changed my vision on 9mm. I personally want a SIG P229 (.357) __________________ Life and death come and go like marionettes dancing on a table. Once their strings are cut, they easily crumble

02-16-2005, 14:09 PM	#6 (permalink)
Beaugeste93 Patron Join Date: 02-10-05 Posts: 200	I think adding another caliber to the procurement system is a bad idea. I would stick with 9mm or .45ACP. While I love the M1911-style .45, it is not a good choice for the second-line units that carry most of the pistols as defensive weapons as it requires a good bit of practice to master. Leave it for the USMC and the spec ops guys who put in the practice time. The weapon has to be simple because many of these troops just don't get the training they need on them. My vote would be for the sig p220 in .45 acp. Its only real disadvantage is that is a foreign made weapon. The S&W/Walther P99 series in .45 would be a good secondary choice for those with smaller hands, much like the sig 226 is used in the army now for that purpose. I carry a glock 22 (.40SW) as a duty weapon and love it, but I think the grip size of the 21 in .45 is too big for most folks. __________________ Rule 303

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Iraq isn't Hitler's Third Reich	Gun Grape	The War in Iraq	53	07-16-2007 21:48 PM
My Opinion of Islam	Insomniac	International Politics	252	05-22-2007 07:30 AM
It's Not Your Holiday	THL	World Affairs Board Pub	35	07-24-2006 02:07 AM
VT: Judge Sentences Serial Rapist of Child to a Mere 60 Days Jail Time	nickshepAK	International Politics	15	01-27-2006 01:42 AM
Parting kiss sparks Sharia law furore	troung	International Politics	140	10-15-2005 14:34 PM

02-15-2005, 13:39 PM	#5 (permalink)
bonehead *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-12-05 Posts: 2,367	I would vastly prefer the .357 sig or the .40 over the nine. I also would rather have a sig over the barretta, though the barretta has done well. For whatever the change may be, I hope the decision will be made by combat veterans and not some bean counter sitting behind a desk playing "politics". Our troops are at a greater risk because some idiot put logistics above target effect when choosing the 9mm barretta. Nato is not the worlds police. Nor is the U.N. American military is bearing the lions share of the brunt and the risk. America should dictate the weapons and calibers used and the others should fall in line. Not vise versa. Why can't, or why won't american manufacturers build a small arm that our army can use. M16s replaced by a european make troubles me, as is our use of barrettas. What's next? Is our next generation bomber going to be made by eurobus. Is Italy going to make our next generation tanks? Is iran or north korea going to make our next I.C.B.M.? This outsourcing has gotten way out of hand.

02-16-2005, 19:32 PM	#8 (permalink)
bonehead *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-12-05 Posts: 2,367	maybe I am asking the wrong question. Why can't /won't a company like colt design and build a rifle that is on par with the fn hk,and other rifles being considered as replacements. Why can't/won.t a company like smith and wesson design and build a pistol that can compete with a sig, hk, glock, and berretta. During the last trials there was sig and barretta. Every one else was a distant third. Manufacturing used to be america's strength. Now is seemes the US can only put out second quality firearms, or manufactures firearms designed elswhere. I do not like this trend.

02-16-2005, 23:55 PM	#10 (permalink)
sniperdude411 Thats me with my precious *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 02-06-05 Location: Lancaster PA, (Crystal Lake IL). Posts: 1,189	Anyways, for a good replacement in the next 20 years or so, I'm a fan of the FN Five-seveN. The SS190 ammunition is great- good impact, great energy, armor penetrating capabilities, lethality, low recoil, and best of all, ULTRA-HIGH CAPACITY. One mag can hold 20 rounds. http://www.world.guns.ru/handguns/hg18-e.htm

02-17-2005, 00:31 AM	#11 (permalink)
Sinfulcurves_AK Regular Join Date: 05-31-04 Location: TXXXASS Posts: 47	FiveSeven is kinda interesting, as a pistol round, but would be a lot better off in a sub gun...

02-17-2005, 02:13 AM	#13 (permalink)
Sinfulcurves_AK Regular Join Date: 05-31-04 Location: TXXXASS Posts: 47	Yep, I knew that... It just kinda seems useless having it in a pistol, when you can feed it to an SMG, enhanced performance, lethality, etc.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)