If Army Times is to be believed, the Army is (or is about to) writing the specs for yet another replacement attempt for the Beretta M9. Don’t know if a caliber has been specified, or if they’ll leave that up to the offerors.
Is a .40 caliber weapon a realistic option, or would the logistics of a caliber changeover be too expensive?
Unless we’re getting out of NATO, I’d anticipate another 9mm.
Did the 6.8 ever catch on? Any proposed replacement will be 9mm, not that it will actually be procured.
Nope.
Nope. No reason to consider it in that the primary service load will be FMJ, and that the sidearm has such a limited role in the Army. Given those limitations, the .45acp would be a better option. More than likely though, the 9mm will continue to be the primary service caliber for the military until the metalic cartridge is no more. If there were a change, it would likely be for some sort of PDW armor piercing caliber.
I still say that Larry Vickers and Ken Hackathorn were right on the money when they both agreed on service caliber selection. Nothing but 9mm if you have the option to use what ever ammunition that you want, and if you are restricted to using military ball(FMJ) go with .45acp.
They should go with the BREN TEN!!! 
If the military in general wasn’t so Jerrys’ Kids about pistols they could simply select the G17 or G19.
Easy to maintain and reliable. If other militaries and police which in some cases have lesser amounts of firearms training can use it, why the hell can’t we? Get over the phobia of no safety and train the personnel to use the weapon.
Other weapons still have safeties and there are still negligent discharges.
Didn’t the military recently order 500,000 M9’s?
I think it is just a waste of money. Bottom line this that the military relatively recently placed a contract for 1/2 million or so M9s and really doesn’t need additional pistols. I foresee this program is going to be similiar to the XM8 and other M4 carbine replacement programs. They will probably spend tens of millions of dollars and at the end of the day decide to keep the M9.
Also, since we are facing upcoming defense cuts I would not want to spend very limited procurement dollars buying a new pistol when pistols quite simply make no difference on the modern battlefield.
M9 replacement time frame?
Probably 2084
THANK YOU.
If they did get it I fear they would have all guns with some type of NY Trigger that has a pull weight of 12 lbs.
Word!
BTW, even in a military setting the 9mm can have advantages over the .45
All ball ammo sucks, period. At least with 9mm you get a ball round that gets through the crap that troops might be wearing, like mag pouches, helmets, canteens, etc. These barriers often stop a pistol caliber JHP or .45acp ball ammo.
An example would be the old GI steel pot helmet and liner, .45 bounces off, 9mm NATO ball shoots through both sides.
I know these aren’t in use anymore, but it’s an example that I think everyone can relate to.
I humbly submit that in a fight any bullet hole you put in your bad guy is better than no bullet hole in your bad guy.
If I were the Secretary of War, or POTUS, I’d wave a magic pen and get the troops Glock 17s and 26s, as needed for the job, then issue that heavy jacketed 9mm stuff (I think the Swedes make it) that shoots through schools like an .88magnum, and just be done with it.
Oh, yeah, special guys could carry whatever the hell they wanted to, but G34s with a mounted dot would be an issued option.
I’d be happy with the M9 if they’d put the safety in the proper place and make it capable of cocked-and-locked carry.
Get over the phobia of no safety and train the personnel to use the weapon.
oh how I would love it if the military would actually train people to really use and handle weapons instead of falling short of the bare minimum and then treat the individuals like they’re too stupid to carry a gun.
i believe the Glock 17 would be a good replacement for the m9 IMHO. I don’t hate the m9 but i think the g17 is easier to shoot well with based on my admitedly limited experience with both of these pistols since i am not in the military of LE…again, just my opinion. true, they need to get the gen4 17 straightened out first, but i am sure they will fix it.
Glock will gladly sell the US Military a Glock 17 with an external safety.
Near worthless second-strike capability? Not so much.
The whole second strike thing is a canard anyways. Personnel properly trained will conduct immediate action drills take care of the empty chamber or errant round, to it’s moot.
I concur with IG and say we adopt the G 17 for general issue. It’s time to stop the madness.
Will it happen? Never. :rolleyes:
Looking back, it’s interesting that a gun that (evidently) did so well in the M9 trials in the 1980’s is now regarded as a complete flop. Makes you wonder how it passed all those tests.
It could pass whatever test they come up with, I still wouldn’t prefer to carry the damn thing. My complaint is with the safety lever. The slide mounted safety/deckocker is a major drawback. Any pistol that can be put on safe by manipulating the slide and end up with a dead trigger is a liability.
The M9 is a nice weapon, I just don’t like it as my secondary because of the DA pull. It being a 9mm does not bother me, and the Air Force actually gets it right and we carry it on FIRE (versus everyone else carrying it with the safety on which doesn’t work with the slide safety).
I don’t think it’s a big enough issue to spend money on to replace.