Comments on: Military (Finally) Looking to Retire the M9 Pistol

By: tylerw02

tylerw02 — Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:16:00 +0000

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.

By: Minesweeper3433

Minesweeper3433 — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 07:19:02 +0000

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.

By: Barry P. Fitzgerald

Barry P. Fitzgerald — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 01:51:11 +0000

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.

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 22:36:44 +0000

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?

By: Gerald Malerba

Gerald Malerba — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 21:28:42 +0000

how about a 45 with a compensated barrel load with 230 hardball?

By: zippy

zippy — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:49:36 +0000

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.

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:22:03 +0000

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.

By: Marc

Marc — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:33:30 +0000

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.

By: Ken Schilling

Ken Schilling — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 05:14:44 +0000

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.

By: Mike Gifford

Mike Gifford — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 04:23:20 +0000

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….