M9 service pistol replacement

[ripley16]

... they need to be replaced.

They are being replaced as we speak (type). Beretta was awarded a very large contract a while back for a wave of new M9s.
http://www.berettausa.com/usarmyawar...istolcontract/

[voodoo54]

Oh great, another 30 years of garbage pistols.

[Bawanna]

Can't say for sure but my spidey senses tell me your not a big Beretta fan?

Personally I don't think it was or is a good choice for the military either.

I know a few returning military guys just returned from the sand box and they although issued them seldom bothered to carry them on their patrols etc.

[ripley16]

Oh great, another 30 years of garbage pistols.

Why do you think the Beretta 92 is garbage? It's robust, reliable, accurate and easy to maintain. What more do you want in a service sidearm? In years to come the U.S. will adopt a polymer sidearm, but I see nothing wrong with the Beretta design. It has served well.

[JustinN]

I don't think you'll see the .45 come back, simply for capacity reasons. Switching to the Sig 220 would halve the number of rounds in the magazine. I believe that is also a factor in the 5.56 over the 7.62, the number of rounds held in a magazine and the weight of said rounds. 30 rounds of 5.56 takes up less room and weighs much less than 30 rounds of 7.62. The same is true of 9mm. 9mm is also easier to shoot and manage to shoot, especially for new shooters. I've seen this over and over, having a new shooter shoot a Glock 17 and a Glock 21, they pick and do better with the 17 over and over again.

I'm not arguing for the Beretta, I think they'd be better off with a Glock, just saying I don't think you'll see them get away from the 9mm. It seems the main idea of firepower behind the military is quantity over quality. More bullets are better than bigger bullets for the most part.

[Bawanna]

Too much NATO influence. Glock would be a bad choice. Too many guys would shoot themselves in the foot.
I think that's one reason the 1911 was phased out. Guys never use them since the rifle is the primary weapon so they want to play with them since they are cool.

A lifer navy guy here told me they did away with sidearms on Navy ship watches for this very reason. Issued rifles. M14's since AR's bounce right off boat hulls.

[RedRyder]

EVERYBODY'S gunna have their own opinion here so here's mine. They apparently aren't getting away from the 9mm and so my choices for replacement would be one of three. The Sig P226 or P229 and the M&P9, . Never had an M&P but the Sigs for me have been absolutely flawless with anything I put in them. Friends of mine with the M&P swear by it too.

A penny for your thoughts was what was asked for here and so this was my two cents worth.

[voodoo54]

Why do you think the Beretta 92 is garbage? It's robust, reliable, accurate and easy to maintain. What more do you want in a service sidearm? In years to come the U.S. will adopt a polymer sidearm, but I see nothing wrong with the Beretta design. It has served well.

It's just a heavy, clunky pistol that shoots 9mm. There have been much better pistols out there for years that are lighter, more ergonomic, simpler to shoot, and carry more rounds than the M9. If we stick with the 9mm because as some other posters say, it's easier to shoot, then go with the Glock 17 or the M&P9.

[yqtszhj]

Glock would be a bad choice. Too many guys would shoot themselves in the foot.

That sounds about right.

[dkmatthews]

It surprises me that the M9 was adopted as the "service pistol" so early, and yet I didn't see any during my term of service, 1990 to 1997. I served on two different ships and we only had 1911s and M14s. The first ship was an old Perry class frigate and we were used to getting hand-me-downs from the bigger & newer ships. The second ship was a brand new Burke class destroyer (plankowner, here) and we had the best of everything -- including the 1911s.