Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Military sidearm update?

Wagion
So what is the current deal with the M9 being replaced?

Got in an argument with a guy today who was buying a 92FS off me who said it was no longer the sidearm of the military huh?

I know the Coasties switched to the P226R DAK in .40 along with Dept of Home Land Security is anyone else (not counting special ops) switching
0

Comments

23 comments

Date Votes
  • catpealer111
    As far as I've heard (and seen), the M9 is still the standard sidearm. There has been talk for a long while now that the military is going back to the .45 ACP, but they keep going back and forth on that since they haven't settled on a final pistol design.
    0
  • Wagion
    Seems like .40 would be a god compromise between 9mm capacity and .stopping power of .45
    0
  • idsman75
    The M9 is still the standard side-arm. They've been tossing the idea of a new pistol around for years. They still haven't stopped buying them or you'd hear a hell of a lot more talk about it in the MP Corps. Nothing has been said officially and there would be MUCH talk about the town if they were doing more than just thinking about it. My office is about a 20 second walk from the office of the Commandant and Command Sergeant Major of the MP Corps Regiment. I work at the home of the Regiment. There hasn't been a single WORD breathed about it in the hallways.
    0
  • ripley16
    The Beretta is a fine gun and will be around for another decade before being replaced by a polymer gun. No reason to change until they are all shot out and unrepairable.
    0
  • zink
    According to factory reps, the Marines are going with a SA 1911 and the Marine/Navy Special OPS are going to a Kimber 1911(both special versions). I got to shoot both at a shoot in Houston for Gander Mountain gunsmiths, both shot and handled AWSOME. Yes, both are 45's. Both are scheduled to start being their issue handgun with-in 6 mos.

    Lance
    0
  • Svobodov
    They're not gonna be able to replace a standard-issue firearm in the middle of a war, whether they wanted to or not. The Beretta's safe 'til Iraq et al. are over, and they'll probably want a new generation a few years after then to fix whatever problems they had this time. Switching back to a .45 (or a .40, or something in that ballpark) sounds like a safe bet right now.
    0
  • Sigfan
    The sidearm switch is dead for now, and probably for years to come. It is going to cost a lot of money for military reset after Iraq and changing handguns will be low on the priority list.
    0
  • peon
    The military just needs to switch to GLOCKS in .45ACP. I've heard them called the "AK of handguns" and I agree. You can drop the durn thing in mud and it won't miss a beat. It will take a beating. I'm sure the military has some special requirement about safeties and the such, but I'm sure GLOCK could come up with a military version.

    LONG LIVE THE GLOCK!


    Stir, stir...
    0
  • Sigfan
    quote:Originally posted by peon
    The military just needs to switch to GLOCKS. I've heard them called the "AK of handguns" and I agree. You can drop the durn thing in mud and it won't miss a beat. It will take a beating. I'm sure the military has some special requirement about safeties and the such, but I'm sure GLOCK could come up with a military version.

    LONG LIVE THE GLOCK!


    Stir, stir...


    I doubt they will go with Glocks. That trigger system is just too touchy. If they would never allow us to carry a 1911 cocked and locked, don't think they would allow an 18 year old gun newbie to carry a Glock around chambered. Glocks only chance would be to put a thumb safety on it, like a 1911.
    0
  • The Dutchman
    What about the XD45 as a replacement? I heard it is a good piece.
    0
  • dakotashooter2
    I really doubt you will see a caliber change. The 9mm is a nato round meaning that if we run out of ammo it is readily available through foreign sources. I don't think the military will mess with that outside of special forces.
    0
  • cce1302
    I find it amusing the amount of attention the military sidearm receives for as little as it is used. Right now, the Marine Corps is all but phasing out the idea of a sidearm completely. I believe Navy Corpsmen and Chaplains still carry an M-9, and colonels and generals as well. Everybody else carries an M-16A4 or an M-4. In Iraq, nobody leaves the wire without an A4 or M-4.
    0
  • oldnbald
    I understand that there have acually been calls issued for a new handgun several times, but all have later been cancelled. If I remember correctly, the calls were for a .45 DA/SA firearm. Don't remember about frame - poly or metal.
    0
  • rogue_rob
    quote:Originally posted by cce1302
    I find it amusing the amount of attention the military sidearm receives for as little as it is used. Right now, the Marine Corps is all but phasing out the idea of a sidearm completely. I believe Navy Corpsmen and Chaplains still carry an M-9, and colonels and generals as well. Everybody else carries an M-16A4 or an M-4. In Iraq, nobody leaves the wire without an A4 or M-4.


    Transition teams carry a M4 AND a M9.

    Seeing as I came from Aberdeen, I would probably know if the military was looking to replace the M9 since I worked in new armament acquisitions. They're not.
    0
  • rhythm_guy
    quote:Originally posted by oldnbald
    I understand that there have acually been calls issued for a new handgun several times, but all have later been cancelled. If I remember correctly, the calls were for a .45 DA/SA firearm. Don't remember about frame - poly or metal.

    I read about a "contest" a while back which was supposed to be to come up with the next military sidearm. Supposedly the manufacturers were told it has to be a 45, it can't be a 1911, and it hasn't been funded yet, but just remember if we like it enough we might end up ordering 650,000 of them.
    0
  • joeaf1911a1
    O.K., so flame me. A handgun (except in certain cirsumstances) is needed like "t*ts on a bull" in combat. Most soldiers are not proficient with it. The M-1 carbine was developed to take the place of the pistol way back when. To me it is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. So, go ahead.
    0
  • Sigfan
    quote:Originally posted by rhythm_guy
    quote:Originally posted by oldnbald
    I understand that there have acually been calls issued for a new handgun several times, but all have later been cancelled. If I remember correctly, the calls were for a .45 DA/SA firearm. Don't remember about frame - poly or metal.

    I read about a "contest" a while back which was supposed to be to come up with the next military sidearm. Supposedly the manufacturers were told it has to be a 45, it can't be a 1911, and it hasn't been funded yet, but just remember if we like it enough we might end up ordering 650,000 of them.


    That was canceled. The RA (Regular Army) pulled it due to expense right now, then SpecOPs took it on their own and cut the number down to something like 50000. Last I heard, they had canceled now too.
    0
  • MosinNagantDisciple
    quote:Originally posted by joeaf1911a1
    O.K., so flame me. A handgun (except in certain cirsumstances) is needed like "t*ts on a bull" in combat. Most soldiers are not proficient with it. The M-1 carbine was developed to take the place of the pistol way back when. To me it is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. So, go ahead.


    Couldn't agree more. A pistol is basically dead weight that could be better used to carry more rifle ammo. In the case of support personnel, I believe a good submachine gun (such as an FN p90) should be issued. Its compact, but unlike a pistol it would be useful in a combat situation.
    0
  • Svobodov
    They carry a knife, too, you know.

    It's a safety measure, since it's impractical to carry around a second assault rifle in case you are for some reason unable to use your primary weapon in combat. Dudes who are going out to get shot at and blown up tend to appreciate safety measures. You don't end up needing your seatbelt 999 out of a thousand times you go out driving either, but when you do you'll be glad you had it.

    An SMG would be a lot more tactically useful, but as an emergency backup it's not a lot better and the weight is significantly more. We're not just talking a gun that's two or three times bigger and heavier, but two or three times more ammunition.
    0
  • Sigfan
    quote:Originally posted by MosinNagantDisciple
    quote:Originally posted by joeaf1911a1
    O.K., so flame me. A handgun (except in certain cirsumstances) is needed like "t*ts on a bull" in combat. Most soldiers are not proficient with it. The M-1 carbine was developed to take the place of the pistol way back when. To me it is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. So, go ahead.


    Couldn't agree more. A pistol is basically dead weight that could be better used to carry more rifle ammo. In the case of support personnel, I believe a good submachine gun (such as an FN p90) should be issued. Its compact, but unlike a pistol it would be useful in a combat situation.


    But if your rifle is damaged and non-functional, that extra rifle ammo is useless. The sidearm is primarily a backup/safety issue. You pull it when you have to. And sidearms are a lot easier to have with you at all times, like when working in a command center, etc.
    0
  • mrseatle
    I think the SS issues the 5.7 now[:)] maybe some military units will try it?
    0
  • Old Fool
    The 5.7 is, IMHO, useless as a combat (or defense) weapon. The projectile is too small to be effective at pistol velocities.

    OldFool.jpg
    0
  • Sigfan
    quote:Originally posted by Old Fool
    The 5.7 is, IMHO, useless as a combat (or defense) weapon. The projectile is too small to be effective at pistol velocities.


    Probably right. But the P90 subgun would make a nice compact gun for, say, truck drivers to carry while doing convoy duty in Iraq. It would give them low recoiling 50 rounds to fire with one hand while they keep driving with the other.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity