U.S. Army wants a new gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
What are the chances they'll adopt the P226?


Slim to none. It lost out on cost alone last time to the Beretta. Polymer guns are cheaper to manufacture than metal framed guns. So if ONE polymer gun can pass the benchmarks that the P226 can, it is dead from the get go.
Thanks for the post. Well, as we know, a lot of factors go into each requisition candidate's acceptance or rejection, and as alluded to above, a big portion of it is political - maybe even more so than practical.
 
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
My suggestion would be to move back to a .45 ACP cartridge in a poly pistol. Sure, you give up some capacity to the 9mm, but if you're shooting at a bad guy with a pistol, your rifle is probably toast and you're probably standing toe to toe and want him to go down. .45 ball still gets it done quicker than ball 9mm.


Rifle?

What rifle?

19Ks (M1 Abrams armored crewman) do not qualify with a rifle. No point in having the fool thing that will just eat up space and is inferior to the 2 7.62s, the .50 cal, and the 120mm. We spent a couple of days familiarizing with the rifle, fired it once, and then the only time I ever touched a rifle was when we were in garrison. Cleaning crunchy weapons was common busy work.

Throw track? you're a pillbox. Throw track and run out main gun ammo? You're a bunker. If you have to bail out of your track, bad stuff is already afoot. You better have a good pistol.

9X19 is standard NATO. I vote for an HK MP5 Compact...at least for the loader and driver.









I wasn't talking about tankers- more referring to boots on the ground. You're right though about the guys in armor.
 
My father who was a Major in the US Army in the 1960's was tasked with doing an extensive report on small arms by acting secretary of defense Robert Macnamara. Unfortunately I have never read the entire report he submitted and it was lost in a move but I did recently ask him about it so here goes.

Let's start with the M-16 at the time remember we are talking 1960's ... Let's start with the ammo first the 5.56 was chosen for a few reasons one being so a soldier could carry more ammo with less weight. It was dreamed effective at a reasonable range. What people fail to understand about the 5.56 is that it was never designed to have great stoping power it lacks bullit weight and energy has little knock down power. You must remember and this is real important if an enemy soldier is shot it takes lots of logistics to help him or her on the battlefield ex. Helicopter or truck to retrieve the hurt man as well as several people to move that person or persons so it is effective at tying up logistics. Big factor and traditionally a big factor for an army esp when not only is the shot soldier prob going to go home or if returned to combat prob won't be for several months so great for a short term conflict. The big issue with the 5.56 is when fighting terrorists like the Taliban in say Afganistan is you are shooting them at long range and like I said the 5.56 lacks energy esp at range. Many insurgents have been shot several times and a day later they show up at a medical area looking for help! .... I will get into into the M-16 another time lets talk 9mm and .45 and what pistol the Army may pick....

The 9mm debate vs .45 will never end but to be honest in ball ammo .45 is not that much more effective then 9mm. The military is restricted to ball ammo I'm not sure if special ops can use hollow point ammo or not.
9mm gives the soldier more capacity then .45 and it costs the U.S. huge $$ to make an ammo change so my bet is they will stay .9mm although I personally feel there are better choices in both rifle and pistol ammo for the military.
My bet is a new polymer pistol will win the day and my bet is either the Smith & Wessson M&P or one of the FN polymer pistols both are great guns I have shot them both extensively and own several M&P guns. I would be surprised if Glock was the chosen pistol in the past Glock and the U.S. Mil had some issues with People at Glock including Gadson Glock there founder maybe it's all forgotten now maybe not? FN has a long history of supplying small arms to the U.S. and they have several lobbyists that are well known and will fight for the contract where as Smith & Wesson has little current mil contracts and prob knows few people high up in the military to make any political difference. If say both the Smith M&P and the FN guns come out even in the Military testing it will prob come down to cost if one gun is $20.00 more that's 4 million if they order 200,000 guns.

I could type for hrs on this but I'm tired so more later. Also this is just my opinion so your thoughts may vary. 😊
 
Interestingly, the Russians adopted a cartridge similar to the 5.56 when they went to the AK74, and went away from the 7.62x39. They seem to think it was effective.

As far as "knock down power", there have been soldiers shot 3 times by the 7.62, and even the vaunted .30-06 who sought medical attention.

My father-in law saw lots of combat in the Vietnam war. He used the early versions of the M16 that jammed frequently. His didn't, at least in combat, because he cleaned it frequently, when soldiers thought it didn't need to be cleaned. He scoffs when he hears that it doesn't have enough power. He said it was called "The Meat Axe" for a reason. He said many times, after firefights, he saw the enemy with limbs either severed or hanging by threads from M16 wounds. He saw two tours of duty in Vietnam.

I find it interesting that everyone thinks the .45 has all this knock down power, but the 5.56 doesn't. A 62 grain bullet traveling nearly 3000fps has plenty. I've destroyed 200+ pound hogs with 55g bullets. If hit in the vitals, they die quickly, usually where they stand. If they run, it is only for 20 yards or so.

As far as long range, there are other weapons for that. Not many GI's with a standard battle rifle are able to effectively engage beyond a few hundred yards. Even so, the 5.56 is lethal out to over 500 yards. Good luck hitting a moving guy at that distance, with any rifle. Leave that to trained snipers, and even then, the target better not be moving a lot.

Just my 2c. I wouldn't want to have any of these calibers shot at me.
 
Originally Posted By: IndyFan
Interestingly, the Russians adopted a cartridge similar to the 5.56 when they went to the AK74, and went away from the 7.62x39. They seem to think it was effective.

As far as "kock down power", there have been soldiers shot 3 times by the 7.62, and even the vaunted .30-06 who sought medical attention.

My father-in law saw lots of combat in the Vietnam war. He used the early versions of the M16 that jammed frequently. His didn't, at least in combat, because he cleaned it frequently, when soldiers thought it didn't need to be cleaned. He scoffs when he hears that it doesn't have enough power. He said it was called "The Meat Axe" for a reason. He said many times, after firefights, he saw the enemy with limbs either severed or hanging by threads from M16 wounds. He saw two tours of duty in Vietnam.

I find it interesting that everyone thinks the .45 has all this knock down power, but the 5.56 doesn't. A 62 grain bullet traveling nearly 3000fps has plenty. I've destroyed 200+ pound hogs with 55g bullets. If hit in the vitals, they die quickly, usually where they stand. If they run, it is only for 20 yards or so.

As far as long range, there are other weapons for that. Not many GI's with a standard battle rifle are able to effectively engage beyond a few hundred yards. Even so, the 5.56 is lethal out to over 500 yards. Good luck hitting a moving guy at that distance, with any rifle. Leave that to trained snipers, and even then, the target better not be moving a lot.

Just my 2c. I wouldn't want to have any of these calibers shot at me.



If your father in law is still with us thank him for his service for me.

I seem to recall reading some time ago in one of several M-16 books I have that during the Vietnam war a change was made in the rifling twist rate on the M-16 to make it much more accurate and in doing so the military lost much of the "wildness" so to say in the 5.56 round and yes early versions of the M-16 with the old rifling twist rate would tear an arm off it was quite effective in that if you were shot in the lower torso the rnd could travel all through the body before exiting say out your left ear it was wild. That wildness was lost with the twist rate change. I do feel the 5.56 is lacking is bullet weight and energy though although still effective enough that the military prob won't make a change esp when it would cost huge $$.
 
The early ARPA field reports of of the Colt AR15/M16 in Vietnam(used by the early advisers) showed the M16 to be extremely lethal.

A requirement of the 5.56 round when it went through the first testing in the late 50's was that it had to have comparable lethality, penetration, and accuracy to the 7.62 NATO round.

The twist rate was changed from a 1 in 14 to a 1 in 12 to pass the arctic long range accuracy requirements. With the 1 in 14 twist the bullet was so barely stable that the denser cold air of the arctic cause accuracy issues, so they tightened it up. Various reports of weapons experts later said that may have decreased lethality.

Basically all of that is in the Ed Ezell books "The Black Rifle" and "The Great Rifle Conspiracy". And Ed knew a thing or two since he ended up working for the Smithsonian.

As for the poly guns....I would agree FN and S&W both have the edge. They are tied in with the current military industrial complex. FN has many weapons contracts and S&W is partnering with a large defense contractor to push the M&P.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
The early ARPA field reports of of the Colt AR15/M16 in Vietnam(used by the early advisers) showed the M16 to be extremely lethal.

A requirement of the 5.56 round when it went through the first testing in the late 50's was that it had to have comparable lethality, penetration, and accuracy to the 7.62 NATO round.

The twist rate was changed from a 1 in 14 to a 1 in 12 to pass the arctic long range accuracy requirements. With the 1 in 14 twist the bullet was so barely stable that the denser cold air of the arctic cause accuracy issues, so they tightened it up. Various reports of weapons experts later said that may have decreased lethality.

Basically all of that is in the Ed Ezell books "The Black Rifle" and "The Great Rifle Conspiracy". And Ed knew a thing or two since he ended up working for the Smithsonian.

As for the poly guns....I would agree FN and S&W both have the edge. They are tied in with the current military industrial complex. FN has many weapons contracts and S&W is partnering with a large defense contractor to push the M&P.


Excellent that saves me the trouble of finding that M16 barrel twist change in my books...thanks.
 
I read where Beretta is attempting to make a comeback with a new pistol in this "race". The author of the article states:

"It is my opinion, however, that while the M9A3 is indeed an improvement over the existing M9, it simply fails to address the major shortcomings of the platform. The open-top slide, structural design weaknesses in the barrel, locking block, and frame, poorly placed slide-mounted safety, substantial grip size/ergonomic issues, DA/SA action, and 9mm NATO chambering all work against the pistol. The M9 is an aged design, and gets the lowest marks of all small arms (PDF) used by U.S. military combat-experienced servicemen for both durability and reliability."

With regards to "lowest marks", I thought this report (referenced in the above article) had a nice overview and rating of the weapons used by the current military. With this excerpt highlighting the general feeling about the M9:

"Levels of satisfaction and confidence with the M9 and M249 are consistently lower than for the other weapons. Soldiers reported being most satisfied with the M4 and least satisfied with the M9. This trend was found with regard to satisfaction with weapon accessories, maintainability, training, cleaning equipment, ammunition, corrosion resistance, accuracy, smoke/noise/flash, range, and rate of fire. High levels of confidence were attributed to soldier maintenance and low levels of confidence were attributed to weapon age, stoppages, and difficulty in maintaining the weapon."

It will be interesting to see if the benefit of years of embedded training with the M9 platform will be a factor in the military even considering the Beretta considering the overall sentiment about the M9.
 
I have an article from the American Rifleman from 1953 at the end of the Korean War that basically said the same thing about the 1911 and the M2 carbine. No weapon is ever perfect and hence soldiers are going to complain about them. I think there was talk of replacing the 1911 about three times before they actually did it.

Of course the M9 is going to get the lowest mark...its a pistol...it is the least effective method of defense. As Jeff Cooper said "the only time you should be using your pistol is to get back to the rifle you should have never put down in the first place"
 
This is a really good post. Obviously a pistol is really not all that important to soldiers. For infantry a rifle is much more important but many soldiers do not carry rifles for various reasons. For example, a fighter pilot will probably have a pistol and not a rifle. And a soldier in a tank will probably have a pistol.

But if a pistol has to be used for defense by a soldier we want for the soldier to have the most effective weapon.

Pistols are not that important compared to aircraft and tanks and artillery and rifles and so forth. The question is what is the best pistol for American soldiers to carry when they do carry a pistol and may have to use it in a combat situation.

I don't know the answer for that. The 1911 .45 provided a good answer in many wars and for a long time. 9mm pistols use ammunition that is common to what NATO soldiers are carrying and provides a higher capacity magazine at least compared to the 1911 45. And it is possible to have a .45 that carries more ammunition than the 1911 .45 and is cheaper. Somebody will have to make the right decision.
 
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Of course the M9 is going to get the lowest mark...its a pistol...it is the least effective method of defense.

It does not seem to receive lowest marks simply because it is a pistol (the M249 which is a rifle was also rated very low by the military). It does seem there are design/ergonomic/function/maintenance issues at play more so than the fact it is a pistol:

Quote:
The open-top slide, structural design weaknesses in the barrel, locking block, and frame, poorly placed slide-mounted safety, substantial grip size/ergonomic issues, DA/SA action, and 9mm NATO chambering all work against the pistol.
 
Interesting criticism of the M-9.

Personally, I like the ergonomics. It fits me well. It fits my wife (a slender girl with pretty small hands) well. She shoots very well with it. In fact, that's why we bought her one a few years ago, she liked it that much.

I've not seen the maintenance, reliability, or other issues that this author cites. Perhaps because her Beretta is carefully stored, and regularly cleand.....
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Interesting criticism of the M-9.

Personally, I like the ergonomics. It fits me well. It fits my wife (a slender girl with pretty small hands) well. She shoots very well with it. In fact, that's why we bought her one a few years ago, she liked it that much.

I've not seen the maintenance, reliability, or other issues that this author cites. Perhaps because her Beretta is carefully stored, and regularly cleaned.....

Agreed (this was not my personal criticisms). I had a 92FS and 96FS back in the early 90s that I shot the barrels out of and never had those issues. However, I was not crawling through the mud/salt water/sand/jungle, etc. with mine either and they were religiously cleaned/maintained. They did have fairly large grips on them (I have BIG hands so not an issue for me, but I can see where it could be an issue for some) and I may have had a few FTF, but they were a consequence of the ammo and not the pistols. I have all SIG, Walther, and FN pistols in my arsenal now, but I would still give a nod to the Beretta. It may be that on top of the issues, the military is simply tired of the M9 and current arsenal is very old so they want to look at alternatives. What better way to force Beretta (or any other manufacturer) to compete than to start hammering the current supplier in hopes of procuring a much more technologically advanced weapon at current or lower pricing.
 
The open top slide is a blessing and a curse. It allows the gun to function even with a bulged barrel(depending where the damage is). The locking block system also has its pros over a browning tilting barrel system in that the cartridges do not have to "ramp up" into the chamber and are fed in a more straight in manner. The one BIG issue I see with them is the area where the locking lugs engage the slide is open to intrusion from debris/sand/dirt. In the pistol that pioneered the system, the Walther P38, this was not the case. That is the one big thing I would fix. Maybe make it where it had replaceable steel frame rails and move the safety to where Taurus did on the derivative PT92AF.

As for durability and whatnot, as someone has mentioned...the environment we can been using them in has a lot to do with them wearing out. Any alloy framed gun is going to get eaten up in a desert environment. Aluminum is soft and that fine sand of the middle east gets in there and is abrasive on the softer frame rails.

I think where the true hate for the M9 came from was the magazine debacle early in the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The DoD, in their frugal nature, contracted for a ton of mags made by a low bid manufacturer that created many headaches for soldiers and the bad reputation stuck even after the mag issue was remedied.

Certainly there are better pistols available as the Beretta is nearly a 40 year old design at this point.
 
Last edited:
On a different tack, I want our soldiers to have good gear. If the guns are worn out, it's time for new ones. We spend a lot on big ticket items (tanks, ships, airplanes) and we have spent a lot on other personal gear: uniforms, armor, NVGs, etc. pistols are expensive, but the gear for my last deployment (which didn't happen) was several thousand, and included uniforms (with GoreTex and fleece outerwear), boots, tactical light, battle rattle, gas mask.

A pistol seems cheap compared with all that.
 
A pistol is not all that important in the general scheme of things for the military, but for a few people it is very important. A pistol of good quality would be very important to a fighter pilot who might be shot down and have to eject. And quality pistols would be important for any other soldier who might only be able to carry a pistol and not a rifle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
got a new upper for my Glock 34
Replies
6
Views
415
Rogueman2016s
S
Which pistols etc should I select to shoot at the range?
2 3
Replies
49
Views
4K
Revving2Redline
billt460
New Beretta 92X Performance
Replies
11
Views
4K
M56959
billt460
New CZ 612 Target / Trap
Replies
5
Views
4K
billt460
burbguy82
Smokeless Muzzleloading............at Mach 3 and beyond
Replies
16
Views
529
Mach3Muzzleloader
Back
Top