Just heard that our military is looking into a new sidearm for the troops. If what I heard is true, testing will begin soon. Anybody know anything about this?

Military Arms Blog: Saying good-bye to the M9

Pistols with a shot at replacing the M9 - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times

I could wish it would be a return to the 1911 but it isn't at all likely. Our U. S. M. C. machinegunner son would dearly love to carry the 1911. He pines for his 1911 constantly.

I truly love the 1911 and carried it as an MP in the army, I never felt the need for a smaller rnd w/higher capacity mags. I still carry a 1911 today...

Unfortunately I don't think the small parts (internals) would be as good a quality in a military 1911 made today than yesterday due to cost. The weapons will probably be chock full of cast/mim parts (kinda like the Kimber made 1911 for MCSOCOM Det 1).

Crazy or weird but not too long ago Beretta was given the go ahead to build more M-9's (thousands). I find it hard to believe they'll replace the M-9 anytime soon. Elite units and such will probably get the newer 1911's as they're using them now anyway.

Troops are still waiting for a real battle rifle, I'd be more intrested in replacing the poodle shooter 5.56 than a last resort sidearm.

With all of the test done in the late 1980s, why is the military looking for another sidearm?

The army did the test, they picked the beretta, what has changed? Why not just go back to the 1911 and be done with it?

After looking at the above links, I like the looks of the USMC M9A1

I wonder if the military is going to use the same requirements in the 1980s test? If so, glock is out because there is no external safety.

__________________
shooting sports forum

The side arm chosen isn't the issue it's the cal. in it's present form of 9mm FMJ and not HP ( Geneva convention and rules of war mean no HP's on the battelfield ). Changing to a larger cal. will make it so a new platform is needed (though they do make a .40 S&W Beretta).

The army actually picked Sig but Beretta dropped their numbers per unit and agreed to set up shop in the US (there was also some fighter jet deals between Italy and US going on at the time, I believe it was about replacement parts for the jets we sold them).... the rest was history as money talks.

Going back to the 1911 would be a breath of fresh air if it was to the original military spec. and not some weapon filled with sub par internals. Cost per unit is a big problem for the 1911.

The tests today would probably similar to the type in the 80's as they seemed to have weeded out the issues that needed to be addressed.

Glock being out of the race? Who knows really? The female MP's use to carry the S&W .38 revolver (less recoil and fit their hand better) without a safety...

A Glock 21 with 13+1 rnds wouldn't be to shabby with 2 extra mags, that's 39 +1 rnds of .45 acp OOOOOH-RAH! We carried (3) 7 rnd mags loaded down to 5 rnds for the M1911A1 for a total of 15 + 1. I wouldn't mind higher cap of a proven larger rnd but would leave the smaller high cap rnd.

gotta disagree. Glocks are great guns and .45acp is a great round - but you may be surprised at how many people can't shoot a double stack .45

I can't -
while I have wide hands... my fingers are pretty stubby. can't shoot a double stack .45 worth a darn. ruger P90 or P345? sure, Sig P220 or 1911? hell yeah! I love the .45. but the HKs and the glock 21? I can't hit crap with em'.

if its to be a .45 again, it'll have to be single stack so everyone can handle it. from the brick layers to the piano players

IMHO: Here is what we need:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer_P220

__________________
Ua Mau ke Ea o ka ʻĀina i ka Pono

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

I seriously doubt the glock in its current state will make it to the finals.

One of the requirements from the 1980s was the pistol had to have an external safety. The military has to have weapons designed for people who have never handled a firearm in their life. This is one reason why the 223/5.56mm was adopted, the low recoil of the 5.56mm makes it easy to shoot for first time shooters.

If I remember right, some of the requirements from the 1980s test were:

Lanyard
No magazine safety
External safety
Fire X number of rounds without a malfunction

There were lots of requirements, but I can not remember them all, its been about 25 years since the test of the 80s.

Roger that, I do forget Glock 21 doesn't fit everyone The Sig P-220 (I own one) is a great thought and it's a heck of a weapon but also pricey like the 1911. The Ruger 345 has a mag safety when mag is removed (don't think the military cares for that feature), I'm not sure if the P-90 has that feature as well.

>>Our U. S. M. C. machinegunner son would dearly love to carry the 1911<<

And I did just that...of course, that was back in 1965!

__________________
"Foreign Aid: The transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries."

P90 has the same setup as the P85/P89 only bigger, it'll fire without a mag in it.
but that family of pistols while rugged, accurate (enough), reliable and inexpensive - Are pretty damn chunky and heavy. and they don't have a frame mounted safety (it's on the slide)

cost or no - IMHO the best choice is the P220 or the 1911.

__________________
Ua Mau ke Ea o ka ʻĀina i ka Pono

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

I would like to see the M9 replaced with a high cap polymer .45 acp. The weight savings would be nice. I also like the idea of going back to a bigger round.

If we could use modern hollow points I would say that the 9mm would be fine.

__________________
Bulk .308 Ammo

I will agree: A double stack .45acp is probably a BAD idea. Remember, the military has to pick a sidearm that will fit most hands well.

1911 would be my choice. I don't mind target shooting with a 9mm, or even Self defense, but since the military is limited to ball ammo, they should have a .45acp as a sidearm. 9mm ball is good to punch holes...

The Hague Convention was the one that prohibits soft point or hollow point bullets. I've read that the US didn't agree to use only fmj's, just do.

I dont see why some folks are so excited about .45's. A 9mm +P hits just as hard (400+ ft-lb) and some .40s&w hits harder (500+ ft-lbs). Any way you slice it, a hit from a smaller caliber is better than a miss from a bigger caliber. A 9mm (or .40S&W) gives you more chances to hit your target.

If I were in charge of picking a new service side arm it would be a modern polymer .40s&w from Ruger, S&W, Springfield or Glock. Those mfgs all make darned nice guns and with a .40cal you can have your cake and eat it too.

High capacity - check
decent barrier penetration - check
decent sized/weight bullets - check
manageable grip size - check

Speaking of Glock, they Do make their guns with external safeties if you happen to have a big enough order(I think the Portugese police just got some)...and I am sure a US military contract would qualify as a "big enough" order to get them to put on a manual safety.

Just based on what I have seen and shot I would pick the S&W M&P40 with the external safety. Its accurate, compact, comfortable and reliable. And Made in the USA.

One thing that does make me irate is how much time and money the US military spends vacillating over what they are going to replace their current bang-sticks with. They spend Millions(sometimes Hundreds of Millions) of dollars "thinking it over" and end up back where they started (think XM8 rifle).