The U.S. Army wants a new gun.

[mark056]

Whether the pistol is of least importance or not, that's not the question here. I'd rather carry a Glock than an over weight over complicated M9 or 1911, it's shear logic and boggles my mind why it wasn't the sidearm of choice from the beginning of its existance. So because the Army puts sidearms low on the list of priorities, does that mean the troops can't have a better, cheaper, back up sidearm?? If i had to go to my pistol I'd rather it be something other than a 1911 or an M9 , preferably polymer.... it is almost 2015.

Well for one thing you don't know your history very well. The Glock only made it to our fair shores about the time the Army was looking for a new sidearm and it was really radical. The idea of a plastic pistol with no external safety was more than most people could even fathom. You have to remember that law enforcement then and most shooters in the civilian world were still wedded to revolvers and it was the era of the wonder nine. The story of the Glock and how it became the preeminent police sidearm and popular pistol among many shooters is a story of marketing and a remarkable tribute to the genius of curtain rod maker Gaston Glock. I suggest you get a copy of Glock: The Rise of America's Gun by Paul M. Barrett that tells the whole story in detail.

The type of gun the Army was looking for in 1984 was a traditional double action 9mm .Smith & Wesson Model 459A, Sig-Sauer P226, Heckler & Koch P7M8 and P7M13 (which weren't traditional DAs but sq, Walther P88, Steyr GB and Fabrique Nationale ADA were the guns that were tested and Glock wasn't even on the list !

Son, you have to simply do your homework. You might be a great pipefitter but you know nothing about soldiering, military weaponry or procurement or the history of firearms. What you would rather carry is of little importance because you don't wear a uniform and I doubt if you ever have or if you ever will. I appreciate your commitment to the 2A, and your enthusiasm for Glock firearms, but your mixing your youthful idealism with what you think things should be with the way things are, and believe me, by the time the .gov got done with things, it wouldn't any cheaper.

 

[M60]

Perhaps, and this is the rationale that I have heard for non-expanding ammunition is this: non-expanding ammunition will frequently more than likely wound than kill. Wounding requires care (in modenr "civilized armies") so factoring in medics, field hospitals etc. you are creating more logistical problems by wounding enemy soldiers than killing them.

You may accept or reject this explanation, but I have heard it offered up over the years. I have not researched it myself. It might or might not make sense in the context of your rather colorful rhetoric, but consider that Western Armies are still rooted in the Rules of Land Warfare and even in our current conflagrations, we have Rules of Engagement. It is not for me to pass judgement as to the veracity or rightness of all of this, that is veritas, at least the part about Rules of Engagement and all the rants in world about killing etc. isn't going to change things one iota, it is what it is.

In the end, your point?

As a post script: Some special operations forces do use expanding bullets.

Yes, I've heard the same things that you have regarding hollow point ammunition wounding rather than killing and requiring field care for the injured. Lets assume that on occasion the enemy is wounded rather than killed, which by the way happens with full metal jacket also, and it requires several to be kept busy attending to that enemies immediate needs. That as you know takes several of the enemy personel out of the equasion. Logic says that's a win win result and in my himble opinion the objective of our troops. My point, thank you for asking, is that if the use of other than full metal jacket ammunition might up the odds of a US troop returning home safely and since rules determined in the 1800's are clearly outdated, the best ammunition available should be issued to achieve the task. The Marine Corps. is issuing 1911, .45acp, Colts to troops because generals returning home reported to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. that marines in combat are disheartened with the 9mm fmj ammo that's presently issued because it doesn't stop the enemy from advancing when shot. Most people seem to agree that punching 9mm fmj holes in bad guys is less effective expanding ammunition that makes larger holes and with todays technology penetrates better than ever. Given a choice, what percentage of NES members would arm themselves with fmj ammo rather than expanding ammo? few to none is my guess.Yes, I am aware that some special operations forces are using expanding ammunition. I reject the term special forces. Its my opinion that any member of the armed forces that's engaged in returning enemy fire qualifies as special and deserves to be issued expanding ammunition. further, it is my understanding that the use of expanding ammunition is not allowed except when pursuing terrorists. Can someone please enlighten me as to how any American special operation forces can know before loading weapons and returning enemy fire, if he or she is returning the fire of an every day enemy or a terrorist. Another of my understandings is that presently our enemy for the most part is not utilizing body armor, so at present wondering how affective expanding ammunition will function is a non issue. I'll give you that the use of fmj will not be changing soon. I'm just saying that it's my opinion that it should be changing soon. I guess that the powers that be in the 1800's didn't want the troops to adapt, improvise and overcome. Funny. I thought that overcoming was the purpose and the goal.

 

[mark056]

Whether the pistol is of least importance or not, that's not the question here. I'd rather carry a Glock than an over weight over complicated M9 or 1911, it's shear logic and boggles my mind why it wasn't the sidearm of choice from the beginning of its existance. So because the Army puts sidearms low on the list of priorities, does that mean the troops can't have a better, cheaper, back up sidearm?? If i had to go to my pistol I'd rather it be something other than a 1911 or an M9 , preferably polymer.... it is almost 2015.

Well for one thing you don't know your history very well. The Glock only made it to our fair shores about the time the Army was looking for a new sidearm and it was really radical. The idea of a plastic pistol with no external safety was more than most people could even fathom. You have to remember that law enforcement then and most shooters in the civilian world were still wedded to revolvers and it was the era of the wonder nine. The story of the Glock and how it became the preeminent police sidearm and popular pistol among many shooters is a story of marketing and a remarkable tribute to the genius of curtain rod maker Gaston Glock. I suggest you get a copy of Glock: The Rise of America's Gun by Paul M. Barrett that tells the whole story in detail.

The type of gun the Army was looking for in 1984 was a traditional double action 9mm .Smith & Wesson Model 459A, Sig-Sauer P226, Heckler & Koch P7M8 and P7M13 (which weren't traditional DAs but squeeze cockers) , Walther P88, Steyr GB (gas operated) and Fabrique Nationale ADA were the guns that were tested and Glock wasn't even on the list !

Son, you have to simply do your homework. I don't want to be a hardass here. You might be a great pipefitter but you know nothing about soldiering, military weaponry or procurement or the history of firearms. What you would rather carry is of little importance because you don't wear a uniform and I doubt if you ever have or if you ever will. I appreciate your commitment to the 2A, and your enthusiasm for Glock firearms, but your mixing your youthful idealism with what you think things should be with the way things are, and believe me, but the time the .gov got done with things, it wouldn't any cheaper.

 

[M60]

Pistols, for the vast majority of the military, are merely badges of rank or billet. How the pistol/ammunition performs in combat conditions is virtually irrelevant.

Unless things have changed, I disagree. I was only a NCO. The back up weapon that I was issued was a 1911 Remington Rand. It was no badge of rank or billet. It was a useful tool and did the job for which it was intended just as the canteen did.

 

[mark056]

Unless things have changed, I disagree. I was only a NCO. The back up weapon that I was issued was a 1911 Remington Rand. It was no badge of rank or billet. It was a useful tool and did the job for which it was intended just as the canteen did.

It depends on where and when you served and what your MOS was and also how long you served. Your avatar tells me something, but it also would more than likely make you an exception and not the rule. Viet Nam was a long time ago, different war, and even there most who carried pistols were in the category that Ochmude describes.

You want recognition for being a combat vet in Nam, fine, but most people who are issued pistols don't see combat and this is especially true in the Army which if you do the numbers is a much larger organization than the Marines. I'd have to say in the 20 plus years I served and in the situations where I was issued a pistol, it pretty much served as a badge of rank and little more. Since most people before our present non-linear conflicts tended not to be on the front lines, I'd have to say that my experience was more the rule and yours more the exception. More combat service and combat support troops than combat arms troops always because that's how America fights.

 

[ochmude]

Unless things have changed, I disagree. I was only a NCO. The back up weapon that I was issued was a 1911 Remington Rand. It was no badge of rank or billet. It was a useful tool and did the job for which it was intended just as the canteen did.

Things have changed....a lot. I was an artilleryman and got out as a sergeant in 2007. With the exception of our battalion armorer, who was also a sergeant, no one below the rant of gunnery sergeant carried a pistol. Everyone who carried a pistol carried only a pistol. It wasn't a backup weapon, it was the only thing they carried. When I say it was a badge of rank, I mean that in a very practical sense. When you're required to keep your weapon in your sleeping bag with you at night for security, and you're a young lance corporal with an obnoxiously large M16A4, you look at the gunny with his little M9 and imagine how comfortable he must be.

When we got to Iraq, base orders required that everyone carry a firearm at all times outside their hooch. If you were E-6 or below, you got to shlep around your M16 or God forbid a damn M249 and a-bag (we didn't have the short barreled ones with the collapseable stock, either). Staff NCO's and officers just tucked their M9 into the tactical leather shoulder holsters they all bought at the haji shop and strutted like a boss.

 

[calsdad]

Perhaps, and this is the rationale that I have heard for non-expanding ammunition is this: non-expanding ammunition will frequently more than likely wound than kill. Wounding requires care (in modenr "civilized armies") so factoring in medics, field hospitals etc. you are creating more logistical problems by wounding enemy soldiers than killing them.

You may accept or reject this explanation, but I have heard it offered up over the years. I have not researched it myself. It might or might not make sense in the context of your rather colorful rhetoric, but consider that Western Armies are still rooted in the Rules of Land Warfare and even in our current conflagrations, we have Rules of Engagement. It is not for me to pass judgement as to the veracity or rightness of all of this, that is veritas, at least the part about Rules of Engagement and all the rants in world about killing etc. isn't going to change things one iota, it is what it is.

In the end, your point?

As a post script: Some special operations forces do use expanding bullets.

I think if you want to understand the rationale behind mandating non-expanding ammunition - you need to go back and look at the date that the original agreement was signed:

Legality

The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibited the use in international warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body.[3] This is often incorrectly believed to be prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but it significantly predates those conventions, and is in fact a continuance of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams, as well as weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable. NATO members do not use small arms ammunition that is prohibited by the Hague Convention and the United Nations.[citation needed]

Despite the ban on military use, hollow-point bullets are one of the most common types of bullets used by civilians and police,[4] which is due largely to the reduced risk of bystanders being hit by over-penetrating or ricocheted bullets, and the increased speed of incapacitation.[citation needed]

In many jurisdictions, even ones such as the United Kingdom, where expanding ammunition is generally prohibited, it is illegal to hunt certain types of game with ammunition that does not expand.[5][6] Some target ranges forbid full metal jacket ammunition, due to its greater tendency to damage metal targets and backstops.[7]

And then take a close look at what wars had been recently fought around the time the agreement was signed (here's a hint: American Civil War ended in 1865).

Now go take a look at what type of ammo was typically used in those wars - and what types of deaths and injuries were sustained by the combatants.

The American Civil War had a pretty high death count - AND - if you look at the history of say ...... field hospitals, one of the things you will find mentioned over and over again were how there will literally piles of arms and legs outside of those hospitals because of all the soldiers who had to have them amputated because their limbs were hit with what amounted to - expanding ammo. (Pretty sure the typical ball shot by a muzzle loader type military rifle essentially amounted to expanding ammo - especially when it hit something hard - like a bone)

Point is : there was a REASON why they mandated this at the time. And given the date it was signed - it was mostly likely done that way because of DIRECT battlefield experience.

Why has it stayed in place? Because governments usually never change something once they have put it in place. There has to be some kind of major impetus behind it to get major change like that to happen. Seeing as how militaries generally solved the "well we can only shoot them with non-expanding ammo" problem by just saying " well shit - then just shoot him a few more times " (automatic weapons) - and/or just blowing up enemy soldiers thru other means - the whole hollow point vs. FMJ ammo thing is probably a non-starter in any sort of international politics circles.

Especially since most international politics at this point generally revolves around just eliminating small arms altogether. Good ****ing luck getting them to go back and revisit the Geneva Convention - or any of the earlier ones. That's pretty much a non-starter.

 

[Dench]

Unless things have changed, I disagree. I was only a NCO. The back up weapon that I was issued was a 1911 Remington Rand. It was no badge of rank or billet. It was a useful tool and did the job for which it was intended just as the canteen did.

I carried an M9 and an M16A4. I don't know what he's talking about. Everyone in my company carried the same thing, also.

 

[mark056]

Yes, I've heard the same things that you have regarding hollow point ammunition wounding rather than killing and requiring field care for the injured. Lets assume that on occasion the enemy is wounded rather than killed, which by the way happens with full metal jacket also, and it requires several to be kept busy attending to that enemies immediate needs. That as you know takes several of the enemy personel out of the equasion. Logic says that's a win win result and in my himble opinion the objective of our troops. My point, thank you for asking, is that if the use of other than full metal jacket ammunition might up the odds of a US troop returning home safely and since rules determined in the 1800's are clearly outdated, the best ammunition available should be issued to achieve the task. The Marine Corps. is issuing 1911, .45acp, Colts to troops because generals returning home reported to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. that marines in combat are disheartened with the 9mm fmj ammo that's presently issued because it doesn't stop the enemy from advancing when shot. Most people seem to agree that punching 9mm fmj holes in bad guys is less effective expanding ammunition that makes larger holes and with todays technology penetrates better than ever. Given a choice, what percentage of NES members would arm themselves with fmj ammo rather than expanding ammo? few to none is my guess.Yes, I am aware that some special operations forces are using expanding ammunition. I reject the term special forces. Its my opinion that any member of the armed forces that's engaged in returning enemy fire qualifies as special and deserves to be issued expanding ammunition. further, it is my understanding that the use of expanding ammunition is not allowed except when pursuing terrorists. Can someone please enlighten me as to how any American special operation forces can know before loading weapons and returning enemy fire, if he or she is returning the fire of an every day enemy or a terrorist. Another of my understandings is that presently our enemy for the most part is not utilizing body armor, so at present wondering how affective expanding ammunition will function is a non issue. I'll give you that the use of fmj will not be changing soon. I'm just saying that it's my opinion that it should be changing soon. I guess that the powers that be in the 1800's didn't want the troops to adapt, improvise and overcome. Funny. I thought that overcoming was the purpose and the goal.

I can't answer some of your questions and you would best direct your concerns to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. The Colts are only being issued to a select few Marine Special Operations Units and not the "troops" the M9A1 a supposedly "improved" version of the M9 and the M9 being the generally issued pistol in service with the USMC. Obviously the Commandant of the Marine Corps isn't listening to all the Marines in combat, only some of them which is why the CQB Pistol (as Colt calls it) is a limited issue item.

Since most NES members will never serve nor have ever served in combat it is moot what they would choose. I think that most Marines and Soldiers would prefer the 5.56 mm over 9mm or .45 ACP and in many applications the 7.62 NATO.

If you want to argue or raise a point, you need to find somebody who can actually effect change. Me, I'm a pragmatist and I figure that we are stuck with what we are stuck with.

 

[ochmude]

I carried an M9 and an M16A4. I don't know what he's talking about. Everyone in my company carried the same thing, also.

Which company? When I was in the MAARNG (972 MP Co.) we didn't have enough M9's for everyone.

 

[Dench]

Which company? When I was in the MAARNG (972 MP Co.) we didn't have enough M9's for everyone.

It was a Combat Engineer company, of all things. God knows where the M9's came from.

 

[mark056]

I carried an M9 and an M16A4. I don't know what he's talking about. Everyone in my company carried the same thing, also.

Every unit I was in was always short M9s but that was back in the 20th Century.

 

[ochmude]

It was a Combat Engineer company, of all things. God knows where the M9's came from.

Probably stole them from an MP company . Regardless, when I was on active duty in the Marines (1st Bn, 12th Marines), everyone carried a rifle, pistol, or SAW. No one carried a pistol and something else. And if you were above E-6, you had dibs on the pistols. That's just how it was, even on deployment. The only time the staff NCO's or officers would pull out their long arms was when they had to tag along with the convoy security teams for some reason. Otherwise they only carried the pistol.

 

[M60]

I can't answer some of your questions and you would best direct your concerns to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. The Colts are only being issued to a select few Marine Special Operations Units and not the "troops" the M9A1 a supposedly "improved" version of the M9 and the M9 being the generally issued pistol in service with the USMC. Obviously the Commandant of the Marine Corps isn't listening to all the Marines in combat, only some of them which is why the CQB Pistol (as Colt calls it) is a limited issue item.

Since most NES members will never serve nor have ever served in combat it is moot what they would choose. I think that most Marines and Soldiers would prefer the 5.56 mm over 9mm or .45 ACP and in many applications the 7.62 NATO.

If you want to argue or raise a point, you need to find somebody who can actually effect change. Me, I'm a pragmatist and I figure that we are stuck with what we are stuck with.

As I understand it the order to colt was around 26 or 27 million dollars. Since there are only about 175,000 marines world wide now, those colt, .45acp's should go a long way.

 

[M60]

It depends on where and when you served and what your MOS was and also how long you served. Your avatar tells me something, but it also would more than likely make you an exception and not the rule. Viet Nam was a long time ago, different war, and even there most who carried pistols were in the category that Ochmude describes.

You want recognition for being a combat vet in Nam, fine, but most people who are issued pistols don't see combat and this is especially true in the Army which if you do the numbers is a much larger organization than the Marines. I'd have to say in the 20 plus years I served and in the situations where I was issued a pistol, it pretty much served as a badge of rank and little more. Since most people before our present non-linear conflicts tended not to be on the front lines, I'd have to say that my experience was more the rule and yours more the exception. More combat service and combat support troops than combat arms troops always because that's how America fights.

Suggesting that I'm looking for recognition on NES for being anything is rather foolish. As I stated I had a canteen that served its purpose well also. Honestly, I didn't feel like much of an exception and at the time and place it was pretty much the rule. Wars are usually fought under different conditions for sure. Nothing seems to have changed in the area of having more service troops that combat troops though. All I was trying to say is that some troops that need them are issued handguns. Lets issue handguns with ammunition that best protects the lives of the troops that the handguns are issued to. This should be a no brainer for all, including the decision makers don't you agree?

 

[mark056]

Suggesting that I'm looking for recognition on NES for being anything is rather foolish. As I stated I had a canteen that served its purpose well also. Honestly, I didn't feel like much of an exception and at the time and place it was pretty much the rule. Wars are usually fought under different conditions for sure. Nothing seems to have changed in the area of having more service troops that combat troops though. All I was trying to say is that some troops that need them are issued handguns. Lets issue handguns with ammunition that best protects the lives of the troops that the handguns are issued to. This should be a no brainer for all, including the decision makers don't you agree?

I WOD say on one level you are looking for recognition because of your avatar. I'll bet you a beer too you even have the baseball cap but I could really care less one way or the other honestly. I think you're trying to bait me a little.

It doesn't matter what I think or whether we agree. What matters is what the leadership does. You want to make this your personal crusade five. Write letters or something but ranting about it on an Internet forum isn't going to change a damn thing.. I think there are higher priorities that's all. The U.S. Armed Forces are gutted and being systemically degraded IMO. The threats aren't going away and whether we have 124 fr 9mm NATO or 230 gr .45 ACPj just isn't that big a deal to me. I'll have to dig up the press release from Colt on who gets the new pistol and it is not for general issue. I'm on my smart phone now.

 

[M60]

I WOD say on one level you are looking for recognition because of your avatar. I'll bet you a beer too you even have the baseball cap but I could really care less one way or the other honestly. I think you're trying to bait me a little.

It doesn't matter what I think or whether we agree. What matters is what the leadership does. You want to make this your personal crusade five. Write letters or something but ranting about it on an Internet forum isn't going to change a damn thing.. I think there are higher priorities that's all. The U.S. Armed Forces are gutted and being systemically degraded IMO. The threats aren't going away and whether we have 124 fr 9mm NATO or 230 gr .45 ACPj just isn't that big a deal to me. I'll have to dig up the press release from Colt on who gets the new pistol and it is not for general issue. I'm on my smart phone now.

It was about two years before I even had a avatar. I thought that this one showed a little humor. Maybe you had to be there to see the humor. You say that you bet me a beer that I have a baseball cap too, then you say you think That I am baiting YOU. Who's baiting who? Yes, I have a cap. Don't you also have a cap. When I said don't you agree, I was certainly not baiting you. I really thought that you would agree that the sidearm / ammo combination should be the best possible to insure the troops safety. Sure there are other issues and more important issues, but they weren't the topic of discussion.

 

[mark056]

It was about two years before I even had a avatar. I thought that this one showed a little humor. Maybe you had to be there to see the humor. You say that you bet me a beer that I have a baseball cap too, then you say you think That I am baiting YOU. Who's baiting who? Yes, I have a cap. Don't you also have a cap. When I said don't you agree, I was certainly not baiting you. I really thought that you would agree that the sidearm / ammo combination should be the best possible to insure the troops safety. Sure there are other issues and more important issues, but they weren't the topic of discussion.

Hey it's almost Christmas see me in real time and I will buy you a beer. As for the pistol issue there is nothing I can do about it.

PM with your contact info and we can meet up for the beer.

 

[M60]

Hey it's almost Christmas see me in real time and I will buy you a beer. As for the pistol issue there is nothing I can do about it.

PM with your contact info and we can meet up for the beer.

You have me laughing so hard my belly hurts. I wasn't asking you to do anything about it. If I thought you had that level of muscle we'd be talking Ma. gun law reform.
Merry Christmas. Enjoy.
Can I wear my ball cap when we go for that beer?

 

[mark056]

You have me laughing so hard my belly hurts. I wasn't asking you to do anything about it. If I thought you had that level of muscle we'd be talking Ma. gun law reform. Merry Christmas. Enjoy. Can I wear my ball cap when we go for that beer?

I'd be disappointed if you didn't.

 

[M60]

I'd be disappointed if you didn't.

I wasn't going to mention this but when you first mentioned my baseball cap I was wearing my dads old cap. It says "PLANK OWNER DD829". Dad was a rightfully proud anker cranker who called me a sea going bell hop.

 

[mark056]

I wasn't going to mention this but when you first mentioned my baseball cap I was wearing my dads old cap. It says "PLANK OWNER DD829". Dad was a rightfully proud anker cranker who called me a sea going bell hop.

The way I heard it was the Navy operated ferry boats to take Marines on cruises, nothing but a bunch of cruise ship operators.

 

[alohadoug]

Well this degraded quickly.

Aloha

 

[M60]

The way I heard it was the Navy operated ferry boats to take Marines on cruises, nothing but a bunch of cruise ship operators.

Nope. Some of them are good cooks too and they did give me a three day ride once on a air craft carrier.

 

[fencer]

The way I heard it was the Navy operated ferry boats to take Marines on cruises, nothing but a bunch of cruise ship operators.

Oh no you didn't!! LOL

Old joke - Two gay guys are walking across a bridge when one says to the other " Whoa, that's a pretty boat, what kind of boat is that?"

To which the other replies " Why, that's a ferry boat"

And the first says " A Fairy boat? I knew there were a lot of us, but I didn't know we had our own Navy!"

 

[OIFer]

a

 

[goodlife30]

[h=1]Army Rejects M9A3 Proposal, Opts for New Pistol[/h]
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/09/army-rejects-m9a3-proposal-opts-for-new-pistol.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=2

U.S. Army weapons officials will not evaluate an improved version of the service's Cold War-era 9mm pistol, choosing instead to search for a more modern soldier sidearm.
In early December, Beretta USA, the maker of the U.S. military's M9 pistol for 30 years, submitted its modernized M9A3 as a possible alternative to the Army's Modular Handgun System program -- an effort to replace the M9 with a more powerful, state-of-the-art pistol.
The improved M9 features new sights, a rail for mounting lights and accessories, better ergonomics and improved reliability, Beretta USA officials said.
But by late December, it was all over for Beretta's engineering change proposal for the M9. The Army's Configuration Control Board decided not to evaluate the M9A3, according to a source familiar with the decision.
The move clears the way for the Army to release a pending request for proposal that will launch the MHS competition.
Program Executive Office Soldier would not comment for this story until Army Public Affairs has approved a statement, PEO Soldier spokesman Doug Graham said Thursday night.
The Army began working with the small arms industry on MHS in early 2013, but the joint effort has been in the works for more than five years. If successful, it would result in the Defense Department buying nearly 500,000 new pistols during a period of significant defense-spending reductions.Current plans call for the Army to purchase more than 280,000 handguns from a single vendor, with delivery of the first new handgun systems scheduled for 2017, according to PEO Soldier officials. The Army also plans to buy approximately 7,000 sub-compact versions of the handgun.
The other military services participating in the MHS program may order an additional 212,000 systems above the Army quantity.
The effort is set to cost at least $350 million and potentially millions more if it results in the selection of a new pistol caliber.
Beretta USA officials said they have not received official notification of the Army's decision.
"Obviously, they didn't take a whole lot of time on this," said Gabriele De Plano, vice president of military marketing and sales for Beretta USA, reacting to the news of the Army's pre-Christmas decision after the M9A3's December 10 unveiling.
Army officials "didn't ask a single question; didn't ask for a single sample" for evaluation, De Plano said.
The Army maintains that the M9 design does not meet the MHS requirement. Soldiers have complained of reliability issues with the M9. One problem has to do with the M9's slide-mounted safety. During malfunction drills, the shooter often engages the lever-style safety by accident, Army weapons officials say.
The M9A3's "over-center safety lever" can be configured to act as a de-cocker, a change that eliminates the accidental safety activation, De Plano said.
As part of the joint requirement process for MHS, Army weapons officials did a "very thorough cost-benefit analysis" that supported the effort, Army weapons officials said. The old fleet of M9s is costing the Army more to replace and repair than to buy a new service pistol, officials said.
The M9A3 is not a perfect pistol, De Plano says, but the Army should at least evaluate it.
The M9 pistol can be "improved for hundreds of millions less than a new MHS pistol," De Plano said. "We can sell them this new pistol for less than the M9 pistol."
Beretta currently has an open contract for M9s that the Army awarded in September 2012 for up to 100,000 pistols. Deliveries of about 20,000 have been scheduled, leaving 80,000 that could be ordered in the M9A3 configuration for less than the cost of the current M9, De Plano said.
"Why not do a dual-path like they have done in other cases," De Plano said.
The Army was determined to do just that when it set out to search for a replacement for the M4 carbine. The service launched a competition to evaluate commercially available carbines while, at the same time, it evaluated improvements to the M4.
In the end, the service scrapped the competition and ended up adopting the M4A1 version used byspecial operations forces.
"They could explore this," said De Plano, by ordering 10 M9A3s. "What's the downside?"

Not gonna happen. Pistol works and the army has some budget issues.

 

[rkwjunior]

Not gonna happen. Pistol works and the army has some budget issues.

It's a shame if they don't, they are in dire need to enter in to the 21st century.

 

[goodlife30]

It's a shame if they don't, they are in dire need to enter in to the 21st century.

Pistols are being phased out. Everyone is going to a carbine type weapon. Pistols have limited use in a combat zone. Might be good for civilian law enforcement, but facing a guy with an ak-47 with a pistol is a death sentence. Typical army though-head stuck up its ass. They can't even get the cammo right. Switching it will cost over a billion dollars and now this. Pistols might have limited use for medics-

 

[rkwjunior]

Pistols are being phased out. Everyone is going to a carbine type weapon. Pistols have limited use in a combat zone. Might be good for civilian law enforcement, but facing a guy with an ak-47 with a pistol is a death sentence. Typical army though-head stuck up its ass. They can't even get the cammo right. Switching it will cost over a billion dollars and now this. Pistols might have limited use for medics-

Their taking away their back up weapons, Doesn't sound very smart.

I remember hearing a old story from i think WWI or WWII can t remember... where a soldier saved his own life with his 1911, and im sure there are many more we don't know about.

Now the military is making "common sense" decisions.??