The US Army, as lead agency, is looking at new service Pistol

[aflineman]

Why insist on a safety if you're not allowed to carry it with even a loaded chamber?

Ours were carried hammer down, safety off, on a loaded chamber (USAF). But then again we transitioned from a .38 Special service revolver, unlike most of the other services.

 

[Norm0931]

I've used and seen both the 9mm and 45acp in combat. Difference is really minimal round for round. Biggest difference is less ammo. Troops preferred the 45 mostly because the berretta is a POS. Hopefully they pick up the M&P in 9mm. It's a very comfortable pistol to shoot, functions well, adjustable backstraps. 9mm is also much easier for the average shooter to be proficient with versus .40.

 

[BAMCIS]

Whatever is chosen will have to comply with the Hague Accords. (Not to be confused with the Geneva Accords, which has to do with how POW's are treated.)

That said, I'd prefer something big, like .45ACP (which would be my choice if it were up to me) or maybe a .40 Short & Weak over a 9mm since IMO a 9mm works best if the bullet expands.

As for the ammo capacity, the former Marine in me says that is a training issue. You know, "one shot one kill".

 

[Pandaz3]

Here is a update link aiming at .40 S&W

 

[Pandaz3]

I have to admit the Army gave me nearly nothing in handgun training. I had over time been assigned various .38's, had to qualify with a POS (as far as care and repair) 1911 with the benefit of 10 rounds for familiarization. DIY Training! When we got the new (and they were new) M-9's we did get a good bit more ammo to"train" with. Some who could not hit the broad side of a barn were actually given some help, but the quality of training still suffered mightily as they had no trained or experienced instructors. I left the Army on return from Desert Storm, but I bet things did not get better until it had to. The Army really does not care.

 

[oli700]

10mm Auto, no competition as far as capacity/power combination. More velocity and energy in a 180gr projo at 100 yards than a 45 ACP has at the muzzle, trajectory and capacity of a 9mm.

What platform they could use I haven't a guess. I know the Glock is easier to control in the 10mm as apposed to a 1911, in full power loadings, but I would love to see a CZ75 SP-01 chambered in 10mm Auto.

this is my average FPS with my Blue Dot/180 XTP handloads out of my G29.....that's a 3.7" barrel.
No other combat pistol can do this, its very accurate, stout recoil but very controllable
Chronograph 10 ft off the muzzle

 

[PNWHunter]

love the 10mm but it isnt going to become the next service caliber. i wouldnt mind if it did though!

 

[Pandaz3]

10mm Auto, no competition as far as capacity/power combination. More velocity and energy in a 180gr projo at 100 yards than a 45 ACP has at the muzzle, trajectory and capacity of a 9mm.

What platform they could use I haven't a guess. I know the Glock is easier to control in the 10mm as apposed to a 1911, in full power loadings, but I would love to see a CZ75 SP-01 chambered in 10mm Auto.

this is my average FPS with my Blue Dot/180 XTP handloads out of my G29.....that's a 3.7" barrel.
No other combat pistol can do this, its very accurate, stout recoil but very controllable
Chronograph 10 ft off the muzzle

Yes lets see the 97 lb female MP master that one.

I think the Services need to have several frame size selections and calibers to avoid the "One size fits all" approach

 

[oli700]

I truly believe a person using the proper technique would have no problem no matter the size or gender of the shooter.
It's not like holding on to a tornado like some folks are led to believe. It has a stoutish recoil but very manageable IMO. I have shot less powerful cartridges that were snappier

 

[Certaindeaf]

Well that's true.. in a perfect/theoretical world. However, the fact remains that 2/3 of all otherwise viable candidates are disqualified due to lack of education, tattoos and lack of basic physical ability.

 

[RicInOR]

I have no dog in this fight, but I have to ask - why do we have pistols at all?


That question has been asked before and we saw some interesting carbines come out:
- FN P90
- Calico M960

The idea being the weapon is no longer than the shoulders are wide, and have a good amount of ammo on board to eliminate reloads. Carbine means 2 hand operation, and with pistol caliber for 1 hand operation if needed. These minimize training relative to a pistol.

Soldiers and Riflemen should use their battle rifle - typically an M16 variant. The rifle is more effective than a pistol. Carrying an extra 3lbs of ammo, or a spare/alternate barrel (longer or shorter) might make more sense than a pistol.
Support folks, office, cooks, truck drivers - would use a carbine. Less training than the pistol requires.
MPs /SPs - maybe need pistols. If so, let those departments select from what civilian law enforcement uses - and set a caliber for across the services - which would be 9mm no doubt.

Then for ceremonial usages, let the officers pick what they want. Pearl handled Chrome Model 1861 SAA sure are pretty.


What is the purpose of a pistol in the modern battle field?

 

[oli700]

many lives have been saved by transitioning from an empty rifle to a full pistol instead of reloading.

3 pounds of extra ammo make for a crappy contingency plan if you and your rifle happen to part ways, at that point I would love to have a Ruger Single Six 22 then 3 ponds of .308

when things go hand to hand, or you get jumped its hard to gut shoot your opponent without a pistol

cant pose for pictures and gangster hold a P90

a proper execution cant take place without a pistol

you cannot pistol whip without a pistol

 

[Norm0931]

Whatever is chosen will have to comply with the Hague Accords. (Not to be confused with the Geneva Accords, which has to do with how POW's are treated.)

That said, I'd prefer something big, like .45ACP (which would be my choice if it were up to me) or maybe a .40 Short & Weak over a 9mm since IMO a 9mm works best if the bullet expands.

As for the ammo capacity, the former Marine in me says that is a training issue. You know, "one shot one kill".

BAMCIS, I did my last year in the Marines as a PMI and trust me, you are not going to one shot anything with a pistol in combat. 9mm offers more ammo at the same weight and is easier for a wider range of troops to manage.

 

[Pandaz3]

I have no dog in this fight, but I have to ask - why do we have pistols at all?


That question has been asked before and we saw some interesting carbines come out:
- FN P90
- Calico M960

The idea being the weapon is no longer than the shoulders are wide, and have a good amount of ammo on board to eliminate reloads. Carbine means 2 hand operation, and with pistol caliber for 1 hand operation if needed. These minimize training relative to a pistol.

Soldiers and Riflemen should use their battle rifle - typically an M16 variant. The rifle is more effective than a pistol. Carrying an extra 3lbs of ammo, or a spare/alternate barrel (longer or shorter) might make more sense than a pistol.
Support folks, office, cooks, truck drivers - would use a carbine. Less training than the pistol requires.
MPs /SPs - maybe need pistols. If so, let those departments select from what civilian law enforcement uses - and set a caliber for across the services - which would be 9mm no doubt.

Then for ceremonial usages, let the officers pick what they want. Pearl handled Chrome Model 1861 SAA sure are pretty.


What is the purpose of a pistol in the modern battle field?

Well you can cook pretty effectively with a pistol on your side, but I have never seen a comfortable sling that allows the use of both hands and still allows instant access if needed. The same with many of those other jobs. I don't see the Army offering anything but minimal training to support troops, no matter what the weapon. They just don't care all that much and it is all about budgets.

 

[BAMCIS]

Good thread.

....... trust me, you are not going to one shot anything with a pistol in combat. 9mm offers more ammo at the same weight and is easier for a wider range of troops to manage.

I agree. You're damn sure not going to "one shot" anything with a 9mm loaded with rounds which are in compliance with the Hague Accords.

The 45ACP was designed by John Browning in response to this phenomena from the experiences in the Philippines.

From Wikipedia:

The cartridge was designed by John Browning of Colt, but the most influential person in selecting the cartridge was Army Ordnance member Gen. John T. Thompson. Thompson insisted on a real "man stopper" pistol, following the poor showing of the Army's .38 Long Colt pistols during the Philippine–American War (1899–1902).

However, even after all of our thoughtful and friendly back and forth debate on this matter, it's going to come down to what the senior officers want to be packing around. Since it is going to be them and not the "front line troops" who will be packing whatever pistol finally decide on. The "front line troops" would be packing their trusty M4's and M16's. (While I realize there are instances where a rifle is impractical, but personally, if I were a "front line troop" or in command of "front line troops" I wouldn't be caught outside the wire WITHOUT my rifle.)

 

[Norm0931]

Good thread.



I agree. You're damn sure not going to "one shot" anything with a 9mm loaded with rounds which are in compliance with the Hague Accords.

The 45ACP was designed by John Browning in response to this phenomena from the experiences in the Philippines.

From Wikipedia:


However, even after all of our thoughtful and friendly back and forth debate on this matter, it's going to come down to what the senior officers want to be packing around. Since it is going to be them and not the "front line troops" who will be packing whatever pistol finally decide on. The "front line troops" would be packing their trusty M4's and M16's. (While I realize there are instances where a rifle is impractical, but personally, if I were a "front line troop" or in command of "front line troops" I wouldn't be caught outside the wire WITHOUT my rifle.)

Actually bro, it's pretty common for most infantry to carry both. We all had rifles and pistols. We obviously had our complement of other weapons; MGs, shotguns, etc, but everyone had an issued rifle and pistol.

 

[Pandaz3]

I would point out that the Army and Marines did try to have a Carbine replace the pistol it was called a M1 Carbine. and yes I would rather have it than most any pistol, but after WWII and Korea the Carbine lost favor.

 

[Pandaz3]

Okay an update to the update. Enhanced update

 

[AMProducts]

So this came across another discussion list and here were the basic points:

1) The M9 is a derivative of a 1930's german (P38) design that has been updated only slightly in the time that pistol has been in production. Despite the 1980's showing it off as the gun from "Lethal Weapon" it was functionally obsolete at the time, and given the emergence of 4th generation handgun designs, why it has remained a front line arm is at best puzzling.

2) Despite the desire for "more power" and "more lethality" existing handgun cartridges (9mm, 40S&W and .45ACP) will never deliver the performance of either rifles or some of the modern PDW cartridges (4.6x33 H&K, 5.7x28) without adopting some of the advancements made in bullet technology. A ball round is a ball round, and will remain a ball round, and will always deliver ball performance. It really doesn't matter how large or small it is, the deciding factor in lethality for a range of similar designs will always be velocity.

3) Capacity is the most important aspect of firepower. This is why no one has agitated for a .45-90 single shot.

4) I don't think the military is at all interested in actually persuing this, they make noises about upgrading, changing, swapping to a new platform every few years for all kinds of things, and then never do. I'm pretty sure they're going to bolt some new crap onto the M9 and claim it fixes all of the issues they were or were not having. Frankly, even the title of that article "army wants harder-hitting pistol" means they have zero concept of what they actually want, it's an open ended requirement that will spur industry to waste all kinds of time and money, and before the purchasing decision is made, someone from acquisition will total up the numbers decide the figure is too high, and then demand a chance that costs more money to existing inventory.

 

[Sstrand]

OR . . . OR . . . They will develop something new or Re-New something old and the regime will mandate that civilians can not obtain/own one or anything similar!!!!

Sheldon