Has the Military picked a sidearm yet?

[ruffhunter]

I was aware the military is looking for a new sidearm and every company of late is coming out with a 1911.  There was a discussion here in 05 or 06 about its requirements.  So anyone know of any updates?

[fastbike]

I believe the military is looking for more capacity than a 1911.

[williamlayton]

We are pretty sure it will be .45 caliber.
Blessings

[SharonAnne]

there are several higher cap 45s like the Para P14-45.

[williamlayton]

Not to hijack the thread--BUT--I understand there is a concerted attempt for some quarters too reintroduce the .45 caliber in some form of automatic weapon like the old Thompson, but updated.
Blessings

[williamlayton]

Deleted by author because of double post.

[williamlayton]

Not to hijack the thread--BUT--I understand there is a concerted attempt from some quarters too reintroduce the .45 caliber in some form of automatic weapon like the old Thompson, but updated.
Blessings

[ruffhunter]

I found some military info that there were two projects by them to search for a new sidearm.  They were consolidated into one group and the project was scrapped a year ago or so. 

[Lloyd Smale]

I think your going to see them stick with the beretta for a good long time. two reasons. First with the finatial state were in theres probably not money to switch and secondly and probably the biggest reason is our miltary has changed in recent years. they are much more specialized and even infintry divisions have many specialized soldiers. You see special forces like the seals rangers recon ect using specialized weapons and going back to 1911s and just about every other handgun out there. they use what the misson dictates. they are not strapped by the weapon choises most have. Even if the military did decide to switch weapons im sorry to say but the 1911 wouldnt even be a consideration. Cocked and locked and short single actions pulls arent whats wanted in the heat of a battle with a bunch of scared inexperienced soldiers. the 1911 is a great fighting weapon but it is a weapon for an experienced trained man. The military just doesnt have the time to train there men to that extent with a weapon that is only a secondary weapon and only a secondary weapon for some.

[teddy12b]

I think your going to see them stick with the beretta for a good long time. two reasons. First with the finatial state were in theres probably not money to switch and secondly and probably the biggest reason is our miltary has changed in recent years. they are much more specialized and even infintry divisions have many specialized soldiers. You see special forces like the seals rangers recon ect using specialized weapons and going back to 1911s and just about every other handgun out there. they use what the misson dictates. they are not strapped by the weapon choises most have. Even if the military did decide to switch weapons im sorry to say but the 1911 wouldnt even be a consideration. Cocked and locked and short single actions pulls arent whats wanted in the heat of a battle with a bunch of scared inexperienced soldiers. the 1911 is a great fighting weapon but it is a weapon for an experienced trained man. The military just doesnt have the time to train there men to that extent with a weapon that is only a secondary weapon and only a secondary weapon for some.

I don't think I'd go so far to say the military won't get their people trained with a new weapon.  It's hard to find an inexperienced soldier these days.  Active, Guard, Reserve, everyone has been deployed at least once at the least.  Most guys have been there 2-3 or more times by now.  I think I know what you're trying to get across though.  It's not like they're going to fire 500 rounds a week or anything. 

Didn't Springfield make an XD that had a safety similar to the 1911's just for the military to review?  I've read about the military reviewing some of the handguns, but that's been a while.  Anymore there are plenty of 45's that have great capacities.

[victorcharlie]

About a year or so ago, the Large box retail chain store I worked at had the Smith & Wesson rep in for employee training.  At the time, Smith had already sold the Sigma to the Afgan police.  He told us that the army had placed an order for 50,000 M&P's which Smith built to win the military bid.

At this time, it looks like he was a true salesman, as I've not seen an announcement, nor talked to a GI that has been issued one.

How do you tell when a saleman's lieing? 


His mouth is moving.....

[Cottonwood]

I think the trials got cut off for what ever reason..... But rumor is a hi cap in .45 acp.  Sub guns are also being selected for Special Ops and stuff like the http://www.kriss-tdi.com is showing good potential... Dang I would love to have one of these 

[redmistmd]

The trials were suspended late last year. Most major arms manufacturers produced a pistol to enter the trials. There were some guidelines set form by the joint service command for what the pistol had to have ie: 12 round minimum, sa/da trigger, decocker, external saftey , 4 inch barrel minimum, We as a consuming public greatly reaped the benifits of this . We now have the Taurus OSS, the FNP-45, The High Cap XD45, S&W M&P. these pistols were not available at the time the notcie went out which was several yaers ago. The 2 frontrunnser for this new pistol contract were the FNP-45 and the H&K  45 tactical. The JSC found it would be way to expensve to replace the M9 with a new 45. so they discontinued the trials . The m9 is only a side arm and not a main weapon. Personally I would always use the long gun first and only when I run out of ammo do I go to the side arm.

[kiddekop]

I was aware the military is looking for a new sidearm and every company of late is coming out with a 1911.  There was a discussion here in 05 or 06 about its requirements.  So anyone know of any updates?

Beretta was chosen again for us troops

[1911crazy]

The higher capacity 9mm was a great idea too, and so was the M16 thats why were seeing the M14's and the 1911's being taken out of moth balls and put back into action.  Some gov. seat warmer will come up with a new caliber for handguns i'm sure just wait and see. This BS of reinventing the wheel with something that ain't working is costing us tax payers $$$$ in the end its just more GOV waste. Our soldiers in the field need weapons that kill the enemy quickly and the 9mm and the 223 ain't doing the job.  Get back to basics with the M14 and the 1911 these are proven weapons.

[teddy12b]

The biggest problem I have isn't so much of the gun used, it's the ammo.  There's a pretty big difference between 9mm ball ammo and a 9mm 147gr jacketed hollow point.  If the powers that be are going to keep using little calibers, they should at least use better ammo.  I know I know, it's against the rules to use JHP ammo but since we're the only ones following the rules shouldn't we be allowed to change them?

[Blackhawk44]

Beretta was just awarded a contract for 450,000 pistols.  So much for a change of caliber, except for special units.  Main problem with the Beretta's function is the magazines from the lowest bidder are absolute trash.  Hardball ammo?  There have been recent developments in the area of a capped, hardball appearing, collapsing nosed round intended for possible service in undeclared conflicts.   

[SHOOTALL]

I read in maybe American Rifleman they will keep what they have . they orderd a large enough order to keep Beretta busy for 6 or so years . some of the first are going to Iraq for their police forces . Guess it will be going away presents from us to them ?

[helotaxi]

The EFMJ rounds from Federal have been approved by the lawyers as in compliance with the Hague conventions and from what I've heard the first batches have been delivered to the troops.

I haven't heard of any 1911's being issued but prior to the EFMJ ammo coming out the SOCOM guys were going with the USP Mk whatever in .45 for increased stopping power and high capacity.

The M14s as SOCOM II's are out there not because the M14 is a better rifle than the M16 (for the average soldier in the field it is a terrible choice) but because in close quarters, the 5.56 lacks the wallop of the 7.62.  The M14 is heavier, clumsier, louder, has much worse recoil and prevents the soldier from carrying as much ammo.  Hardly a superior weapon.  It serves a role similar to that of the squad automatic in a lighter package than the M240 or 249.

[SharonAnne]

M14 serving as squad automatic? That is a role it failed at dismally the first time around. The wounding characteristic of the 7.62x51 is such that most of its energy is expended behind the target so it is worse at wounding or stopping than a 5.56 Nato.

There IS an AR10 type weapon that is set up to shoot from an open bolt on automatic. Being an inline design it is much more controllable than an M14 firing full auto. It is experimental.

I would think that a heavy barreled M16A4 with a 100rd drum would be a much better squad automatic substitute than an M14. Although it too would best fire from an open bolt.

Sorry I have contributed to a major thread drift.

[teddy12b]

I think the Marines are testing an infantry automatic rifle that fires from an open bolt.  I think I saw that on future weapons.  In any case it was an incredible piece of equipment.

[helotaxi]

M14 serving as squad automatic? That is a role it failed at dismally the first time around. The wounding characteristic of the 7.62x51 is such that most of its energy is expended behind the target so it is worse at wounding or stopping than a 5.56 Nato.

When there is a wall in the way the 7.62 comes into its own.  The 5.56 upsets and fragments, the 7.62 just punches through the wall into the bad guy behind it.  That is what the entry guys were looking for.

[SHOOTALL]

to blame the M-14 as a saw then praise the M-60 only points out the box mag vs the belt as failure . The bar was praised in its day but then mobile belt fed weapons were still in the future . the one short comming was it did not weigh enough to allow most to shoot full auto with some degree of comfort . Then too has it not beed determined that a 3 round burst is better and more controled in a M-16 also .
are  frag rounds  legal for rifles ?
From what i have read the reissue of the M-14 was to fill in the range hole left between the M-16 and the long range guns . Busting barriers and other jobs that were not filled well with the aval. weapons .
a 7.62 hole thru. several seems ok . so what if it goes thru. and does more damage . should we consider that a bad thing ? which works better when armor is encountered ?
and the AR-10 was developed first and down scaled to the "new cart. " .

[SharonAnne]

shoot, your post is confusing. who blamed the M14 and praised the M60? The BAR was plenty heavy enough for full auto, being around 18.5 lb. The full auto M14 (M15) were about 14 lb.
The "frag rounds" you refer to are ball rounds that tumble IN a target and break up. They are not expanding or soft point bullets.
The reissue is to fill the gap between the M4 and sniper rifles. Full size M16A4s are used to 700 meters. Scoped M16A4s are being used as Designated Marksman Rifles. The 14.5" barrel of the M4 loses too much velocity to be reliable past about 350 meters.
body armor is not much encountered in Iraq or Afganistan. I am not sure which is more effective against armor but body armor in the USA that stops a 5.56 also is rated for 7.62 and vice versa.

What is the significance of the AR10 being first?

[troy_mclure]

back to the op 
i saw 2 different beretta m9's break, 1 at a combat pistol course, the slide pretty much shattered during firing.
and once at a standard 25m range, the chick was firing single action and the hammer snapped off.

[Mikey]

Well!  The things you learn.  Dang!  I always felt pretty comfortable with a E2.  A 2-4 round burst would deal effectively with most any vegetation problem, including bamboo, just as the old BARs in 06 that some of us employed in SE Asia.  Hey, there were times when I carried the M-60 intentionally.  Full auto assaults with heavy rounds is very devastating.  The M60, like any other firearm needed routine maintenance to function properly.  So did the M14/E2

And I wonder if whoever the hay the expert was who said the E2 failed as a saw or the M60 failed as light machine gun, due to the wounding characteristics of the bullet, ever spent any time behind one of those babies on the line when charlie came on hard?  When they massed and came in on ya from 2 or 3 different directions, the heavier slugs of the 7.62s would clear the road and make new ones to boot. 

Magazines vs belts - oh yeah, belts are better.  Boxes (captured belts) are better yet but belts are better; you know when you just smoked up a full mag of 20 in a E2, so yeah, belts are better.  I always felt the M60 was a good balance of power and weight, better than the old 1919s and 1919A4s.  JMTCW.

[williamlayton]

Mikey rules.
Blessings

[SHOOTALL]

SA , the A10 first was the fact that the ar was first the down sized to use the 5.56 thats all .
The BAR was the best there was in its day as it stood alone really and was lite in its day .
the M-14 was cut down for ammo cap. by someone and made a poor SAW . It has a 20 r mag. true but in the day it was used the M60 was a better choice as a SAW . The BAR was the saw in its day , the M-14 was to replace both the M-1 and the BAR . My point was it was not fair to compare a belt fed weapon with a mag. fed one . I agree the M-14 was to lite for full auto by some ( many maybe ) but it did well as a battle rifle .
The frag round was a ? thanks for the ansewer as i have seen rounds that burst in a target and did not know if they were used or not .
Armor is not always clothing but a hit from either has got to hurt .
SA i know your respect for the AR , didn't say anything negative about it .

[SharonAnne]

shootall i know you did not say anything against the AR15. I just wanted clarification. This you did.

[Wakaba]

..my take on this


The M9 will not be replaced anytime soon.  It is very reliable, user friendly, and worth every penny the DOD has tossed at it.  If you have seen two fail, you need to hem that armorer and 3rd shop from the tallest flag pole.  I have fired tens of thousands of rounds through the M9 and M11, and had 0 failures that could be blamed on the weapon.  USASOC will do what they want, just as it always has been with them.  They are not held to the "standard issue" weapons due to their mission and needs.  When it comes down to it, they use what they want.  If the DOD does choose to replace the M9/M11 with a .45 it will not be the 1911.  The 1911 is a dated design.  While it is great, and fun to shoot, it is not what is needed now.  I think they would go with a .40 over the .45 anyway.  And lets face it... short of directing traffic and weighing down a thigh holster, the pistol is damn near worthless in our current wars (Afghanistan and Iraq)

The M4 is much more reliable and accurate past the 350yrd line.  There are a ton of soldiers out there that can constantly hit the 400m (437yrd) with iron sights shot after shot.  An M68 or other optics make hits further.

The M60 was not a SAW, it was a LMG and now replaced by the M240. 

The M249 (SAW) was built to replace the M16a1 for the AR in the squad.  The M249 is now being issued in the "para" format, with a shorter barrel and telescopic stock.  It has it's place, and like the M9, is not going anywhere soon.

The M14 is being dug out of mothball for as a DMR, not an entry weapon.  I am sure there are some SOC guys running the chopped down versions, but they are the exception not the rule.  90% of all M14's down range now are NM's being used to provide longer range, more punch, and faster second shot than the M24 or M40A1/2/3.  Much like the SVD and PSL extended the range and accuracy of the AK47 wielding commie, the M14 extends the range and accuracy for the M4/M16a2/4 wielding American soldier. 

If you want an entry weapon, grab the M500... nothing else.