# Military looking for a new handgun?



## Grenadier (Jul 7, 2014)

Looks like the US Army may be changing pistols...

Army wants a harder-hitting pistol | Fox News



> The MHS would replace the Army's inventory of more than 200,000 outdated  M9 pistols and several thousand M11 9mm pistols with one that has  greater accuracy, lethality, reliability and durability, according to  Daryl Easlick, a project officer with the Army's Maneuver Center of  Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia.



I'm somewhat skeptical of goals, since when it comes to handguns, they're already going to be much more feeble manstoppers compared to long guns, and any change in caliber isn't really going to make much of an effect.  Also, the Beretta M92 and Sig P226 pistols are already plenty accurate.  

In my opinion, the limiting factor when it comes to accuracy is going to be the operator, and if he's good enough that the pistol is the limitation, well, then he should be able to carry whatever he wants.


----------



## Buka (Jul 7, 2014)

I was surprised when they axed the .45. I always liked that weapon.

Question - Knowing how bureaucratic the military is, how long of a process do you think it is from conception of a new pistol to the actual distribution?


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 7, 2014)

Buka said:


> Question - Knowing how bureaucratic the military is, how long of a process do you think it is from conception of a new pistol to the actual distribution?



The last time around, it took about 5-6 years from the start to the actual issue, and that was back when the decision was made in 1979...  Then again, there was a delay because of one of the branches wanting another round of tests.  

This time around, I'm pretty sure it's going to be longer than that, since the original inquiry began in 2008.  The testing was supposed to be finished last year, and the changeover was supposed to happen this year.  Also, it seems that they're not exactly in a hurry to replace things, seeing how Beretta is still fulfilling the contract order from a few years ago.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 15, 2014)

So why did they even switch to the 9mm in the first place? Unless you get a precise vital shot, such as hitting somebody in the eye and having the slug go into their brain, the stopping power of the 9mm stinks. They should've stayed with the .45 which has been shown to be one of the best man stoppers there is in terms of handguns.


----------



## Blindside (Jul 15, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> So why did they even switch to the 9mm in the first place? Unless you get a precise vital shot, such as hitting somebody in the eye and having the slug go into their brain, the stopping power of the 9mm stinks. They should've stayed with the .45 which has been shown to be one of the best man stoppers there is in terms of handguns.



They switched to match the NATO standard of 9mm.  

The reason there are constant caliber debates is because it hasn't been settled in any sort of definitive form, that said, if I was required to carry ball ammo like our military does, I would be carrying a .45 as well.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 16, 2014)

Personally, I find the FMJ requirement an antiquated oddity.

We can bomb, shell, mine, burn, etc...each other at will. But JHP in a handgun is "inhumane"?

Weird.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 16, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> So why did they even switch to the 9mm in the first place? Unless you get a precise vital shot, such as hitting somebody in the eye and having the slug go into their brain, the stopping power of the 9mm stinks. They should've stayed with the .45 which has been shown to be one of the best man stoppers there is in terms of handguns.



NATO.  The idea was that everyone would use compatible ammo.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 16, 2014)

They will probably opt back to using a .45acp platform.

This was why the round was created in the first place.  The military had problems with the .38 they were using, they developed the .45 to stop better.  They US military then used the .45 in the Philipines to test out (contrary to popular belief that the round was devloped solely for use there).

Biggest drawback is number of rounds.  When you get into a double stack situation it is very cumbersome for average hands.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 16, 2014)

punisher73 said:


> They will probably opt back to using a .45acp platform.
> 
> This was why the round was created in the first place.  The military had problems with the .38 they were using, they developed the .45 to stop better.  They US military then used the .45 in the Philipines to test out (contrary to popular belief that the round was devloped solely for use there).
> 
> Biggest drawback is number of rounds.  When you get into a double stack situation it is very cumbersome for average hands.



The Glock 21 comes with 13 round magazines so it will hold quite a bit. That is, as long as you're not in California which bans magazines that hold over 10 rounds.


----------

