Will military replace Beretta anytime soon?

[JONDOUGH85]

I was wondering if the military is planning on replacing the M9 anytime soon for something in a bigger caliber? I heard at the range the other day DOD put out a call to gun makers and then retracted the call after all the major manufactures came up with their ideas. Hence, Smiths M&P, Springfields XD, Taurus's 24/7 and so on.

[Ruger4570]

Not likely, we already had a 45 ACP. They went with the 9mm weenie round. Mostly because of PC and NATO crap.

[Forwardassist]

Simple answer is No. Just last year the military ordered an additional 75,000 M9 pistols. Like the M16 they will be sticking with the M9 until something vastly superior comes along.

They went with the 9mm weenie round.

Ok, for a test, let me shoot you with a 9mm then a .45 and you can tell me which hurts more.

[209]

Like the M16 they will be sticking with the M9 until something vastly superior comes along.

Something vastly superior has already come.....


A Glock!


Now, I'll run and hide before the flack starts bursting!

[Forwardassist]

Actually more like a plasma weapon. I am being serious too. Now about the Glock. You see the military won't adopt DOA pistol like the Glock, at least not as a main side arm. The military requirements are for a DA/SA pistol with a decocker.

[Kraziken]

Few pistols are fired in combat anyway. If you have to resort to a pistol, you are already in a realy big world of hurt.

I'm kind of mad that the military hasn't really addressed the results of the last weapons test. It would seem the hk416 or some similar retrofit of the gas system would be a cheap fix, that would bring up the reliability and increase the confidence our service people have in the M-16, at least until the next space age battle rifle comes along.

[support_six]

Something vastly superior has already come.....


A Glock!


Now, I'll run and hide before the flack starts bursting!

What most people don't understand is that when the military chooses a new weapon, it chooses two things, (1) a round, and, (2) a platform from which to launch it. Either, or both, could be changed in the next change, whenever that is. Your suggestion of a "Glock" does not mean a change from the 9mm round, regardless of what some think of it.

[sousana]

Just read that the Army just signed a contract with Beretta to deliver 46000 Beretta M9A1 to the Army from 2008 thru 2010.

[Crosshair]

Ok, for a test, let me shoot you with a 9mm then a .45 and you can tell me which hurts more.

The 45 will of course. Larger bullet, larger permanent wound channel, larger blood loss.

[sousana]

Shock trauma of course determines a lot about how fast a target is taken down, but with specialty loads for 9mm you can get same performances or better. In Israel, and now, when I carry a 9mm CCW, it's always with GECO BAT, the only difference now is that I don't use military grade BAT rounds. BAT's give you the wound performance of a .45 in a smaller package and is totally frangible with no soft tissue over penetration.

That said, 98% of the time my ccw is the Safari Arms Matchmaster 1911A1 sts, 1% Glock 17/Kareen HP, 1% FN Five-Seven.

[ringworm]

No.

[IZinterrogator]

The Army ordered 70,000 M9s in 2006. The Army is not expanding enough for all of them to be for new units, so some are being used to replace M9s currently in service. Also in 2006, the Marines ordered 7,500 M9A1s. At the same time, they decreed that most officers and senior NCOs would be packing M4s instead of M9s, so those are most likely being used to replace M9s currently in service.

Now if you just dropped a ton of money to replace your issue pistols, why would you change?

I fully expect to be issued an M9 until the day I retire.

[sousana]

US Army Buys Beretta M9 Pistols
| Jan 21, 2008

ACCOKEEK, Md: Beretta has just announced that it has been awarded a multi-year contract by the U.S. Army to deliver M9 pistols to servicemen and women as part of the U.S. Government commitment to ensure the operational safety and readiness of U.S. Armed Services worldwide.

The contract is for 25,403 M9 pistols with deliveries starting in June 2008 and continuing until February 2010. The U.S. Army also reserves the right to purchase additional M9 pistols as needed to meet their needs. All of these M9 pistols will continue to be manufactured at the Beretta U.S.A. facility located in Accokeek, Maryland.

"Beretta is always honored to assist the U.S. Armed Forces in defending our country," stated Jeff Reh, Vice-General Manager for Beretta U.S.A. Corp. "The Beretta M9 pistol remains the most reliable and well-tested handgun in the U.S. military inventory, with tests resulting in an average of only one malfunction every 20,500 rounds fired. U.S. Government witnessed testing at our factory has confirmed this remarkable reliability." Mr. Reh added that, "Beretta U.S.A. Corp. has supplied the Beretta M9 pistol as the standard sidearm for the U.S. Armed Forces since 1985 and continues to make investments in manufacturing capability, R&D and product development to serve the needs of the U.S. Military and Homeland Defense community."

"We are proud to be able to provide the U.S. Armed Forces with a reliable, robust sidearm that will perform when needed to defend the lives of our servicemen and women", said Elio J. Oliva, Vice-President of Sales and Marketing for Law Enforcement and DoD at Beretta U.S.A. Corp. "We understand that the M9 is not a primary weapon system and that it is often used a weapon of last resort, in close quarters and under demanding conditions. When U.S. servicemen deploy their M9 in theater it needs to work. All 350 employees at Beretta U.S.A. understand the importance of this mission and remain committed to delivering the highest quality products to our Military", said Mr. Oliva.

"Each of our M9 pistols is test fired with proof rounds and tested for accuracy at 50 meters", said Gabriele de Plano, Vice-President of Product Development at Beretta U.S.A. Corp. "We have continued to invest significant resources to improve the quality and already impressive performance and reliability of the M9 through the years. We have also developed new accessories such as high-lubricity sand-resistant magazines to deliver improved performance in the unique environmental conditions of the Afghan and Iraqi theaters", added Mr. de Plano. Each Beretta M9 pistol ships with 15-round standard magazines and is designed to accept 20-round magazines.

In 2005, Beretta U.S.A. Corp. received 13 contracts for M9 pistols and component parts from the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps. Many of the U.S. Army purchases were multi-year contracts lasting five years, from which over $31 million dollars in purchase orders have since been issued to Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

In addition to the M9, Beretta U.S.A. has developed the M9A1 pistol which incorporates various enhancements such as integrated Picatinny rail, enhanced grip checkering and magazine well modifications to allow for quicker tactical reloads. To date Beretta U.S.A. has supplied over 4,000 M9A1 pistols to the United States Marine Corps.

[forest15]

The 45 will of course. Larger bullet, larger permanent wound channel, larger blood loss.

I do agree, but neither will hurt if the target is not hit, and m9 gives you almost twice the ammount of rounds per magazine, which is why I'm told that was one of the main selling points of going to 9mm from .45 acp, along with the above mentioned reasons. Now I'm only an enlisted man (which means I work for a living ), so it's not like I am on the inside and know all the answers, but from what I'm told, as also mentioned above, about the only way the military would switch from the m9 is if one firearm proved to be VASTLY superior (I've seen tests that hk and glock can arguably beat the m9 in reliability, but nothing that hands down say they are a without-a-doubt a superior platform), or if the military decided to change cartridges as it's main round of issue...

[Crosshair]

I do agree, but neither will hurt if the target is not hit, and m9 gives you almost twice the ammount of rounds per magazine, which is why I'm told that was one of the main selling points of going to 9mm from .45 acp,

Cool, now you can miss twice as much..

From what I understand, the government didn't want to invest in training and saw the M9 as a way to use equipment to make up for poor training. Of course they went and bought those low-bid M9 magazines that don't work and gave to the people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The truth is probably somewhere in between.

[SPUSCG]

my service weapon is a sig p229dak withn .40s&w hollowpoints, but thats because uscg is homeland security, not dod.

the military seems reluctant to upgrade, or even go back to 1911s and m14s. 9mm ball ammo is stupid, so is 22 caliber rifles. pc and nato crap stands in the way of a decades needed replacement rifle, hk416 or xm8 can replace m16 and keep the caliber, scar h would be a heavy hitter, and theres probably so many 1911s around that beretta replacement wouldnt take long.

[sousana]

Ammo standardization with NATO countries, and the fact that many incoming recruits were having problems controlling the 1911.

Personally, IMHO, I'm old school, served in the Navy as a Corpsman with the
2nd MarDiv circa Beirut 1983, I think it's a tragedy to downgrade especially since the only ammo authorized for use is ball and subsonic ball, and, with the increasing use of body armor on the battlefield, I think it was a decision based on lunacy and I'm glad I finished by service before the 1911 was replaced. LOL, but then again, after my US Military service, I reported for my compulsory 3 years with the IDF and ended up carrying a Kareen HP. LOL, ironies of all ironies.

[Kraziken]

What they should do is not follow the Hague convetions and just use hollowpoints. We never signed or agreed to the treaty anyway.

What is more cruel, having a round stop in the intended target, or having a round known for overpenetration (9mm ball) and potentially injure other people?

[Crosshair]

What they should do is not follow the Hague convetions and just use hollowpoints. We never signed or agreed to the treaty anyway.

Agreed, that whole mess was nothing than a late 1800's political move by the Germans to try and make the British look bad.

[RickB]

The government did ask for .45 options, and then shelved it. Notice how only the .45 versions of the XD and M&P are available with manual safeties? Those guns were developed for the expected government selection process.

[Colt46]

It's a damn fine weapon and well proven.

[forest15]

It's a damn fine weapon and well proven.

Most of the grumblings, at least from within the military I hear, isn't the weapon itself, but the round it fires...

[SPUSCG]

why not switch to beretta 96, .40 ball ammo would still suck but not as much as 9mm ball.

[Arabia]

round it fires...

Actually it is not the round that is the issue, but the fact that the military limits itself to ball ammo. 9mm does not do as well with FMJ ball ammo, even at high velocity. If they used HPs then it would be a different matter. The way the military looks at it, if they changed from 9mm, then they would have to replace a few other weapons, such as the MP5 and P226/229 pistols. On top of that we would not be NATO compliant. Which at this time is a big issue, since most of the ammo we use in the middle east is from European stocks. We have to be able to integrate with other military's especially those helping us in Afghanistan, and Iraq. Many times we have to supply their troops with ammo and other supplies since they do not have the ability to do that from from home, and vice-versa. At this time, It's just cheaper to stay with 9mm. The DOD has looked into the .45acp and the .40s&w but the amount of money it would cost to change to a different caliber and to new weapons is just prohibitive and better spent. There are better uses for the money than changing to a new caliber. What about better body armor, radios, computer, medical system which are much better investments than a new pistol. You have to look at the big picture.

[SPUSCG]

why would they be replacing mp5s, we can use multiple calibers, and p226/229 arent really used much and are much better in .40 anyway, and nato should switch back to 7.62x51 and .45 acp