US Army: Modular Handgun System

[leadcounsel]

Today, consistent with what I said before....

The U.S. Army is moving forward to replace the Cold War-era M9 9mm pistol with a more powerful handgun that also meets the needs of the other services....

...Army weapons officials maintain that combat troops need a more effective pistol and ammunition....

...Beretta officials maintain that the company has offered to upgrade M9 many times. "We have submitted numerous changes or product improvements that really address a lot of the shortcomings that are either perceived or real," said Gabe Bailey, Business development manager for Beretta's military division. The Marine Corps adopted the M9A1 in 2006 that features a rail for attaching lights or lasers, checkering on the front and back of the grip and a beveled magazine well for smoother magazine changes. Some of the improvements Beretta offered included an enhanced sight system, changing the angle of the slide-mounted safety to avoid inadvertent safety activation and a threaded barrel, Bailey said.
Army officials, however, say the M9 does not meet the MHS requirement.
"The M9 doesn't meet it for a multitude of reasons," Easlick said. "It's got reliability issues; the open slide design allows contaminates in. The slide-mounted safety doesn't do well when you are trying to clear a stoppage -- you inadvertently de-cock and safe the weapon system."

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...ml?ESRC=dod.nl


In total fairness, the article explains that the military wants a better man-stopper and that it's got design problems. This however IMO is a total waste of time and money (I'm an advocate for replacing it with a more modern striker fired pistol, but not the glutton of testing they will certainly waste money doing - and I'd probably stick with the 9mm as 'good enough'). The experts agreed that shot placement (and more ammo capacity by default) is the most important factor, and 9mm is easier to control that .40 or .45.

This statement made NO sense:

"We have got an old fleet of M9s right now; it's costing us more to replace and repair M9s than it would cost to go get a new handgun,"

How could it possibly cost MORE to replace or repair old M9s, than to test for, and purchase NEW platforms? Sounds like fuzzy math to me. Testing will certainly cost millions of dollars. Then there's replacement guns. Versus, the armorers are already a sunk cost and parts are not that expensive on huge contracts...

At the end of the day, IMO a pistol rarely decides a fight in combat. I'm not a fanboy of the M9, but it's a low priority to replace it. Appears to be another way to waste our money, spending millions on tests that lead nowhere. They could just pick another highly proven platform and go with it (Sig, Glock, XD, CZ, etc.). They've all got at least a decade or more of proven adverse conditions track record.

[LockedBreech]

I'm an admitted fanboy of the 92/M9, but even admitting that it's not a perfect platform I would put good money on them managing to find a bunch of real or perceived new problems with whatever they replace it with.

I think sometimes the bureaucracy just wants to get shiny new toys.

[Pico]

Great reply Tunnel!

How in the world did we go from a discussion of the military's next handgun to shooting polar bears? You have to love this forum.

Seriously, I always thought a single multi-caliber platform such as the Glock or M&P which allows you to train on one system and tailor hand sizes and calibers as needed would be a logical choice.
Pico

[BOPLEO]

45 gap

[mete]

Polar bears ? I've seen photos of polar bears , thinking a submarine was a dead whale , starting to eat it !!! Those subs carry M14s for that . They warn you that casual trips on the ice in their snow mobiles are a no-no ! They will actively hunt you !
I would like to see a committee to choose a handgun be made of Handgun hunters , cops like Jim Cirillo NYPD Stakeout squad, and similar .No politicians and no military REMFs !

[leadcounsel]

As I mentioned, we almost lost the A10 and even saved it doesn't have the funding to truly be maintained. That's just one weapon system. $1 trillion over 10 years folks. Pistols? Pistols are a concern? Biggest cuts since the end of WWII. Ask anyone on the inside. Pistols? I don't even.

Agreed.

If I were king for the day, I'd flip the switch, sell the surplus Berettas and have my experts pick a more modern platform in 9x19, given critera. No tests needed. Pick from Glock, XD, SW, CZ, Sig offerings and get the best prices. Could probably SAVE money over expensive M9s.
1. We all agree that shot placement is key.
2. 9x19 offers many advantages in weight and more ammo, which means more shots, lower recoil, easier for everyone to shoot, and supply concerns with allies.
3. We all also probably agree that pistols are a weapon of last resort, and close quarters. They matter to that individual, and there are anectodal stories of heroism with pistols, but they make no difference in the outcome of any campaign. As evidence the M9 is inferior, units that CAN pick their sidearm rarely pick the M9.

[mete]

Tunnel Rat , A-10 . I see the F-35 is grounded again ! The A-10 may be obsolete but it can fly !

[Bezoar]

from what i understand alot of small sized women LOVE the old browning autopistol of ww2. And i beleive i read somewheres that the english government stpped using their browning high powers...

[iraiam]

MHS (Modular Handgun System). To me this term implies that they want some kind of modular system similar to the M4/M16, where most any manufacturer (The lowest bidder) can make the parts and have them fit together and function with parts/pistols made by other manufacturers, I suspect this is the only reason the Beretta won't meet the MHS requirements.

The bigger question is why they can't just be honest about the reasoning behind the MHS, instead they just recycle the same old dislikes about the M9, some of which are questionable IMO.

"It's got reliability issues; the open slide design allows contaminates in. The slide-mounted safety doesn't do well when you are trying to clear a stoppage -- you inadvertently de-cock and safe the weapon system."

IMO, the open slide design is also what gives this pistol the ability to digest ammunition that other designs will quite literally choke and puke on.

The slide mounted safety may be a problem for some? but having personally fired many tens of thousands of rounds through these pistols, I don't see an issue with it. It's a safety learn how to operate it. If it's really that big an issue, why did they not go with the "G" model? (de-cocker only).

[barnbwt]

To me this term implies that they want some kind of modular system similar to the M4/M16, where most any manufacturer (The lowest bidder) can make the parts and have them fit together and function with parts/pistols made by other manufacturers

Hmm, sounds like the 1911, as dumb as that would be. I suppose Glock has a bunch of people making frames, slides, and everything else as well. I see the "modularity" requirement as a red herring, personally. The only "modular" handgun I can think of is one that, by replacing parts, can go from a compact or subcompact size on up to a full size duty pistol (and possibly a select-fire machine pistol variant for military sales). What's silly about this concept for the military, is they'd have little use for all but the big duty-pistol offerings, since they don't do concealed carry. If an office-jockey's issued sidearm is too big for his comfort, the military would be better served by simply letting him return it to the armory and purchase his own weapon (with periodic armory inspections to verify mechanical function/safety, but would not be responsible to service it).

I saw it said elsewhere that "modularity" is simply .mil code for them openly admitting they have no idea what they want or would like to use a product for, so instead they will "order everything on the menu." Everything from pistols, rifles, vehicles, fighter planes, soldier-loadouts, surveillance aircraft, and pretty much everything else is trending toward "modular" nowadays. What does this tell us about our wider tactical outlook? That we are intending to make it up as we go along, ad hoc. That would make sense if the actual ground-level commanders were driving the modules' development, but we all know this is not and will never be the case. Now we'll be able to design the perfect weapon for the last 3 wars, instead of just the last one

A-10 . I see the F-35 is grounded again ! The A-10 may be obsolete but it can fly!

Be specific; the Pratt & Whitney engines grounded the F35 (this time). If only we'd thought to develop a competing engine, on the off-chance P&W screwed theirs up (again) or was late (also, again).... Just kidding, GE, Pratt, and R-R were all collaborating on each others' engines, so it really didn't matter as much who ended up 'winning,' nor would it have changed the outcome. Last time I had bothered to look before the cancellation, the GE engine was having schedule and weight problems of its own (it was still pretty dumb to can the project when 90% of the budget had been spent and they were into final development and production tooling)

TCB

[tipoc]

There is no evidence that the U.S. military is switching to another handgun, or rather handguns plural. The M9 and M11 are available to it right now as well as others.

The U.S. military don't have a problem with 9mm. They like it just fine.

They don't want to replace the M9 and keep ordering more of them.

They have the M11 as well.

Women with big and small hands regularly qualify, so that is not an issue.

Every three months, for the last 20 years these same rumors pop up so that some intern over at "Military Times" or somewhere can impress their boss with how many hits they can generate for their website.

Gun forums like it cuz it's the same debate over and over and fellas get bored with other topics.

tipoc

[tahunua001]

the M11 is in as limited of use as the 1911s that MARSOC ordered last year.

[SIGSHR]

IIRC one of the selling points for the 9MMP aside from NATO standardization was its higher velocity gave greater penetration against thicker clothing. And more people could shoot it well.
The search for the "more effective" handgun round, like the search for the "more effective" rifle round-it locks in appropriations and provides some people with career security.

[Crankgrinder]

I do not wish to hijack this.thread, but I have a question. Say the military replaces the m9, could this mean a supply of cheaper berets for a while for some of us who would want one?

[TunnelRat]

could this mean a supply of cheaper berets for a while for some of us who would want one?

I'm not sure I need a new beret. I mean more colors couldn't hurt, but I rarely wear the ones I have now.

[tipoc]

the M11 is in as limited of use as the 1911s that MARSOC ordered last year.

Cite a source for this please.

The distribution of the M11 and M11-A1 is wider then the MARSOC 1911s. To compare them is a mistake.

The M11 has been in use since the M9 was adopted. The M11-A1 is an adapted version of the M11. Run a search for these and you'll see the length of service and extent of it, for the Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force, U.S. Army and others.

tipoc

[Spats McGee]

A discussion of plans for a new pistol is fine. Let's not turn this thread into a round of gov't-bashing.

[James K]

Before folks get all excited about a new handgun for the Army releasing M9's for sale through CMP, it might be well to note that the law establishing CMP bans them from selling handguns. That was part of a compromise with the fanatic left, led by Ted Kennedy, who wanted a total ban on all arms sales by the government to individuals, as a prelude to his dream of "total domestic disarmament."

A change to the law is quite impossible at this time, and for the foreseeable future.

Jim

[tirod]

James nailed it, no M9's. And to add salt to the wound, Clinton had the 1911's ground up for scrap. First he killed the CMP, then he had the contract running for 24/7 operations to get rid of them. No more Singers, Union Switch, nada. Gone forever. Over 250K disappeared.

The M9's won't likely be given away as military support precisely because the 450,000 Berettas from that recent contract were. They didn't replace what we had, they were given away to Iraq and others.

Seriously, I always thought a single multi-caliber platform such as the Glock or M&P which allows you to train on one system and tailor hand sizes and calibers as needed would be a logical choice.

MHS is a lot more about this - and a steel frame 1911 can't even begin to do that. You can't have the user or unit armorer change out the backstrap at that moment to fit, you can't just swap a different sized slide on any lower, etc. It will take the kind of close quality control to get parts to interchange, which the 1911 has never ever enjoyed. And it will likely have to stay inside one caliber for the kit, the issue with the larger calibers is that too many were transplanted to the 9mm without reengineering and that is why they don't hold up well. The Army has NEVER offered alternate calibers in their firearms, and even more tightly restricted the ammo load to a single specific recipe in order to maximize reliability. We already read to often about WWB not cycling correctly in M4geries, the whole point to Army ammo is to use a single high quality round exclusively because all the weapons are tuned to it alone. That is how you get things to work, not by making it a one size fits all and accepting a huge number of problems.

A system of two, maybe three different frames with different grip lengths, slides and barrels the same, alternate backstraps, a pic rail on the front, and the service will get what they need - across the board. But the unit? Nope. It's driven by MTOE - an officer or MP carrying a holstered gun gets the full size duty version and no other parts are authorized. The benefit for the maker is they can use a lot of the same machinery, the benefit for the service is they will reduce the number of different sources - but the disadvantage is that there will be only the one. That still won't affect the special units, tho, as they get what they want when they want.

So, the General and CID can have the cut down version, the troops that carry still get the big duty pistols and very little will have actually changed.

That is if the project isn't actually a sacrificial lamb for the budget process. The rule is ask for more than you need, and then you get what you really want. I see the project as something that won't survive the next budget battle and the service crying some crocodile tears over it complaining they need to spend less on keeping the old fleet going. But the track record? They have been there and can do it. The 1911 and B52 kept going, in some cases barely a shell of what they originally were as parts were continuously replaced. We've seen M16's become A1's, and many of both are still in service with the Air Force, too. Some very old Hydramatics were noted floating around overseas with some units, in great condition.

Much ado about nothing, I won't be surprised to read the program cancelled after a few prototypes get made and we gush over them. It's all about the dog and pony show, replacing a minor side arm in a major budget slashing period of history is not likely.

[volkstrm]

Well I hope if its true I would love to see them go with a CZ,P06 in 357sig. I myself think they should be thinking of upping the ar15. Like going with a piston upper & in 6.8 caliber. The hell with the 5.56 it just does not get the job done. So the way I see it 6.8 & 7.62 Nato(308) for rifle's & 357sig for the side arm. And we are the big guys on the block as far as Nato go's & we should push our weight around to get the rest of Nato to go along with it. After all we pay for most of all of Nato! JMO.

[simonrichter]

my 5 cents (repost from the closed parallel thread):

1.) all considered, I wouldn't be surprised if this was much ado about nothing again, and they will stick with the M9 or some upgrade...

2.) While most will agree that neither pistol round has a great "stopping power", of course penetration (doors, magazines worn close to the the body, other obstacles...) is an issue. So, why don't they consider 9mm with an optimized round? The Russians and this Belgian company (interesting video, moreover!) have successfully upgraded the 9mm penetration ability in a way that would make much of the ongoing discussion obsolete (and any surplus 9mm ammo could still be used for training).

3.) .40 & .357: It seems those are seen as the potential candidates to replace the 9mm. These might indeed penetrate barriers or body-worn equipment a little better, yet to the expense of more wear on the platforms, being harder to handle for a regular soldier, and making less sense when used with the proposed suppressor.

4.) .45: Is of course an obvious candidate, yet: even inferior (to 9mm) penetration, a little harder to handle still, quite easy to suppress since SS by default (yet not optimal due to the larger diameter)...

5.) 5,7: I wonder why this caliber has not been considered a little more in discussions so far. It is easy to handle, without doubt a good penetrator, yet it's SS version will perform slightly better than a .22lr at best...

[barnbwt]

Unless we think our battles will be relegated to 3rd world backwaters for another 50 years, we'd better bank on meeting body armor. That means +9 mm calibers are an incredibly bad idea. Now that H&K has lost a lot of their clout and market share (as far as modern military weapons) I don't think they'd have the pull to stymie 5.7x28 a second time. It was the future 10 years ago, and it still is, and while not perfect it is a step in the right direction.

TCB

[Will Beararms]

Modern designs overcome the pressures of the .40.

The recoil on a full size Sig, M&P or Glock Gen. 4 in .40 is nothing. If you can't handle it, you're not fit for combat or beat duty.

.40 is already ubiquitous with the DHS contract and numerous LEO agreements, Lake City is already tooled up. In Dallas, .40 is often at the same price point as 9mm for domestic offerings.

It is reported in many circles that Delta Force is using the Glock 22.

[Oruglock]

It seems like the US Military bigwigs think they'll find a single handgun that anyone and everyone can shoot comfortably and effectively, guarantees a one-hit kill no matter what you hit and where, and will never get dirt in the holes that other things have to come out of.

Good luck with that.

Meantime in the real world, most military forces recognize that handguns are the weapon of next-to-last resort (just before knives and fists), and often all you want is to be able to fire off shots to keep your opponents heads down while you seek better cover and/or a better weapon.

9x19mm Parabellum is the caliber choice for almost all modern military forces. Choose something else and you're creating a lot of logistical problems for your forces.

Glock 17 or 19 is a common military choice, and would provide commonality with UK forces alongside which American forces have been known to fight.

[WESHOOT2]

I'd like them to pick a 9x19 CZ75 (or clone).

I think they'll pick a 357 SIG from FN.