Military (Finally) Looking to Retire the M9 Pistol
Commentary by John Buol
The critics say that the M9 pistol (the U.S. military’s version of Beretta’s m92) must go. We’re told that the 9x19mm (aka 9mm NATO) is a poor pistol cartridge. Our Soldiers and Marines are being hampered by an inferior handgun and cartridge — or so the argument goes.
We are told that the military needs a new pistol, to be called the Modular Handgun System (MHS). According to Fox News: “The MHS would replace the Army’s inventory of more than 200,000 outdated M9 pistols and several thousand M11 9mm pistols with one that has greater accuracy, lethality, reliability, and durability.” The MHS will be a “total system replacement — new gun, new ammo, new holster, everything,” reports Daryl Easlick, Army project officer at Fort Benning, Georgia.
Easlick says that the Army, and other services, demand a pistol with a more powerful cartridge that does more damage to the bad guys: “We have to do better than our current 9mm.”
Does the military really need a new pistol, with a different chambering? Maybe not…
Here’s the real problem. Most Marines, Soldiers, police, and gun owners tend to be novice marksmen, especially with handguns. Very few people have trained to shoot a handgun well enough to offer a competent opinion on the matter. To underscore this point, let’s look at some ranges for evidence of typical skill levels.
Army Pistol Qualification Target
As you can see, there is no real trend in hits and the entire barn door (full sized silhouette) has shots sprayed all over it. And these are the shots that actually hit, all of them receiving full value. On this particular Army course, shooters are given 40 rounds to engage 30 targets and are considered qualified if 16 of the 30 targets are hit, somewhere. Soldiers can miss nearly half the time, even with ten extra rounds, and still pass. The “fast” stages of the course allow two seconds per shot and the bulk of the course is slower. Note the base of the target is blocked by the mound protecting the target lifter and that mound is a beaten zone of many very low, errant shots.
The Marines in the peanut gallery are likely chuckling, so let’s look at examples of their ranges.
Marine Pistol Target Bay
Yet Another Marine Pistol Target Bay, Showing Effects of Missed Shots.
The metal carrier behind the block wall holds a silhouette the same size as the Army target and that waist-high wall has taken a healthy beating from bad shots jerked and flinched several feet off target. Of course, the wall only shows shots pulled off target that went low. The rest ended up in the berm somewhere else. As seen closer up, the chewed-up top line of blocks is not made of concrete. That’s to avoid back-splatter towards the shooters from the excessive number of low shots.
REALITY CHECK: These are the results on actual qualification ranges with large targets, generous time limits, fixed courses of fire, and no real pressure. Imagine how much worse the shooting is when the stress and variables of combat are thrown in. Given the users wielding it, is the M9 truly ineffective? Even if it is, are shooters like this capable of a valid opinion on the matter?
Most Marines, Soldiers, police, CCW, and gun owners won’t invest the effort needed to train to a high level of skill and very few public sector organizations will expend the resources needed to make them do so. I’m not casting aspersions, just trying to address reality. If the Department of Defense (DoD) decides on a new pistol, or any other weapon, the results will be similar because the end user isn’t magically more skillful with a shiny new issue item.
About the Author
John M. Buol Jr. began his shooting career in practical competition, earning Master classifications from USPSA and IDPA. After slotting on the Army Reserve Marksmanship Program, he switched to NATO and NRA/CMP events, earning Distinguished Rifleman and Pistol Shot badges and a series of All Army Small Arms Championship wins along the way. He is a published author (Beyond “Expert”: Tripling Military Shooting Skills) and maintains the Firearm User Network Blog at http://FirearmUserNetwork.com
Similar Posts:
- Soldiers and Marines Test Talladega Targets
- Army Issues Solicitation for XM17 Pistol to Replace Beretta M9
- Hoppe’s Sends Cleaning Kits to U.S. Marines in Combat Zones
- U.S. Army Adopts SIG XM17 (P320) Pistol to Replace Beretta M9
- First Shot Ceremony Will Honor Those Who Served in WW II
Share the post "Military (Finally) Looking to Retire the M9 Pistol"
John Buol, speaking truth to power
After carrying one of the POS pistols (in combat) I can say first hand it needs replaced. What most people don’t understand is encounters with enemy combatants typically aren’t equal. Meaning the EC’s are on some type of drug. This allows them to be shot repeatedly with small calibers and continue to be an effective enemy. An open tip .45cal bullet is much more effective and this is why our SF guys went to the .45 caliber. It needs to go.
Good word, Mr. Buol! A rare blend of common sense, sound reasoning, and brevity.
I shoot a Glock 32 in .357SIG, but I firmly understand that it’s all shot placement, not the pistol-caliber cartridge.
@Adam: Please check your info. I recently read that SF does NOT want .45, but wants 9mm.
Sounds like there’s some confusion surrounding the issue.
Irregardless of what SF uses now or in the future, ballistics is ballistics and pistol cartridges, irrespective of caliber, all have roughly the same wound profile.
The M9 is an excellent weapon. I never had a jam firing many thousand rounds through one. My problem is that for a 9mm handgun, it is HUGE. It is way too big for a little 9mm. It shouldn’t be any bigger than a H&K USP Compact or a Sig 229. No need for the extra length. The other big problem with the M9 is the trigger pull on the first shot is ridiculously long. Drawing it from a holster and trying to reach the trigger (with the hammer “decocked”) is near impossible – and I have relatively large hands. Great gun, just a very old design.
Shot placement aside, I would say the 40 S&W is a good compromise between the 9mm and 45 ACP. But, the 40 comes with a substantial increase in recoil. To me, a 45 is too big a compromise in that the rounds are twice as heavy and you sacrifice half your magazine capacity.
I always remember the old saying “if you have to use a pistol, they are too close…”
Pistols are hard to use and their skill level is perishable; if you are not practising regularly you will struggle. In an ideal world the skills of arms should be but we all know it is not.
The answer? Apply the KISS principle to pistol design and put rounds on target. One 9mm will rarely cause the damage of a 5.56 … but a magazine full will.
Understatement: “the end user isn’t magically more skillful with a shiny new issue item.”
The 9mm was designed for war. To wound the enemy so 8 men would have to care for him. Its all about the money it cost to wage war.
The 9mm lacks stopping power by design!
You place a +P 9mm round in someone at the right spot they are going down. I’ll leave it to the guys using them in combat to decide what they need though. As my Marine dad always told me, it doesn’t matter how big the bullet is if you can’t hit the target and if you can’t consistently hit the target with even a .22LR odds are you won’t be much better with larger calibers. I like the 9 for CC because it gives me extra rounds. I got no problem shooting someone twice if needed and after the first one the second is likely to be well placed. If I am already shooting whats one more round?
bullet placement… Good article..
How many soldiers actually carry a pistol these days? For the weight, I would prefer an extra magazine for my rifle.
My son didn’t carry a sidearm while deployed in Iraq as a combat engineer. When he went back the second time to Afghanistan, he was EOD and he carried an M9 in addition to an M4. Carried the M9 inside the FOB at all times. Can’t trust the locals there for training.
If a sidearm is for mostly non-frontline troops I would vote in favor of a large magazine capacity. They won’t use it much and when they do the more chances to hit an off switch the better.
I don’t care for the M9, but there are plenty of worthwhile 9mm’s to choose from. Ditch the FMJ for a polymer tip to cut a better hole. Screw treaties we haven’t signed and our current enemies don’t care about and can’t read.
CCW issues aside, I do think that there is some merit in changing to a pistol that has a consistent single action or DAO trigger. The toughest trigger to master is the DA/SA. I eventually qualified exert with the M9, but it was a lot harder than had I been able to shoot one of my personal 1911s. Not trying to turn this into a ‘go back to the 1911′, I’m sure Glock, XD, M&P and even wheel gun shooters would say the same thing. The beaten zone below the targets is indicative of trouble with the DA/SA trigger.
I also agree that the M9 is way bigger than needed. I’ll probably retire before the new shiny toy comes on-line, but I’m all for replacing the M9 with something that is trimmer and smaller.
To the author’s point, the military will be better served if they triple the ammo budget and actually get us some time one the range. We have a much more tactically oriented qualification course in the Air Force which is much harder to pass, but now we only get to shoot (at least in the Air Guard) ‘Just in time’ i.e. just before a deployment. Not the smarted idea!
Fantastic article.
If the ‘now’ soldier can’t shoot a 9mm he sure as hell won’t be able to handle a .45ACP and worse still, the .45 has a lesser capacity.
For me it has always the ammunition – 9mm FMJ punches nice little holes in bodies. When you are limited to FMJ by regulations and treaties, I prefer the .45 just beause it punches a bigger hole. As long as one is limited to hardball, caliber will always be a factor, and larger is better since expansion doesn’t come into play.
But none of it matters if you can’t hit your target….
I was forced to carry one of those POS for many years. I regret every day. Should’ve been a boomerang! Absolutely worthless in battle and always will be. If the enemy is that close that you must engage with a pistol, you have other issues! I remember this “Officer” that was huddled up in a fetal position when the shooting started. What a waste.
Mike,
.45 punches barely larger but still little holes in people. A forensic pathologist can’t tell the difference, and neither can anyone being hit. Don’t delude yourself into believing that 0.45 inches is “large”. It’s not.
Shall we kill two birds with one stone, switch to OTM, you know the hollow points that aren’t hollow points… they are just made that way for increased accuracy.
But I agree with a switch to a smaller sidearm. And after qualifying back in the 90’s with a 1911 in the NG and the condition those were in I am sure the m9’s are ready to be replaced.
Switch to 40 S&W with a compensated barrel.
The Glock 22C is very nice to shoot. No muzzle flip almost like a 9mm. And use OTM ammo.
The US Military can do what it wants. There are no treaties with our enemies for the last 100 yrs. They just want to die early.
how about a 45 with a compensated barrel load with 230 hardball?
Interesting and valid observations, but you overlook the other considerations involve. The Army says the sidearms are worn out and are requiring too much maintenance to keep them in service. Translation: there needs to be a large scale acquisition of some sort of replacement.
The Army says that the M9 isn’t very ergonomic which contributes to poor shot placement.
The troops say that the open slide design is unsuited to the desert environment in which they have been operating these many years.
Why just keep buying more of the same? What better time to take a fresh look at the requirements of the end users, the trigger pullers. It would be no great surprise to see a fair number of warmed over existing designs submitted, but there just might be some new designs of sidearms and/or cartridges submitted in response to the request for proposals.
One poster suggested the use of open tip (hollow point) bullets in a .45 ACP. That simply is not an option under the existing law of armed conflict.
I, for one, hope the services conduct an exhaustive examination of the alternatives before deciding upon a course of action. Let’s just hope that the tests aren’t rigged the way that the tests have been for some weapon systems…the Bradley comes to mind. In that evaluation, fuel tanks were filled with water to pass one test which was to evaluate the Bradley Fighting vehicle’s resistance to fire when hit with various projectiles.
If the Army is going to conduct an evaluation at any time, I think the time is now. If not now, when?
Excellent article. Everyone knows thatthe .45ACP is a better stopper than the 9mm w/FMJ ammo. But perhaps better/more training could go a long way in making the 9mm more effective. I also agree that although the M-9 is a good pistol perhaps something the size of the SIG P-229 might be a better choice.
I can attest to the maintenance levels required to keep the M9’s in the field. 2 years in Afghanistan keeping these guns and other running was a pain but the M9’s had to problems. extreme neglect from high ranking individuals that never cared for their side arm and actual users that shot them more than 2 times a year. Our attachments and elements that actually trained with the guns used to constantly wear out springs barrels and slides and eventually the frames would go. I have coded out more M9’s than any other weapon in those 2 years due to these two extreme’s that the pistols experience.
This is a very good article. The problem isn’t that “9mm isn’t big enough”. No handgun round is “big enough” for instant one shot stops—not even a .45 ACP. The 9mm is much easier to shoot than .45, therefore if poor marksmanship exists with the M9, a .45 is going to make it much worse.
The reality is the military WANTS something new, be it for political or economic reasons. Its absurd to try to spin the desire with the propaganda to which this article responds.
The author of this article is spot on many points. I regularly train with military members of more than one branch, private security personnel, and law enforcement. Of them, the only person proficient with a sidearm is a young man that has been training with pistols since his teens. The others are constantly forgetting to apply the fundamentals of marksmanship and need constant reminders to keep them on paper.
The notion one is limited by ergonomics or the trigger is completely ridiculous. The same people that complain about ergonomics of a Beretta, Glock, or Sig don’t shoot any better with 1911s than Beretta. Its a matter of applying the fundamentals.
Our military may indeed be well suited to look at a new model to replace the M9 for longevity/durability reasons, but veiling it in idea that there is a “need” for a larger caliber to do so is ludicrous. And to the poster that suggests the SF units are all carrying .45s, of the SF units: Rangers, Delta, SEALs, MARSOC, AFSOC, I believe all of them use 9mm with the exception of MARSOC which carries a Colt M1911.