Well like Nyles said before Infantry don't really have a use for sidearms. I was told in Infantry School that M240 gunners are supposed to be issued M9s as a personal defensive weapon. I'm assuming because the M240 can be very unwieldy and awkward to fire when not in the prone in addition to the lengthy reloading process when compared to a M4(though by this logic SAW gunners should get them also).

Complications I imagine with adopting the Glock 20 would be for example the non NATO standard round of 10mm in addition to the fact that it has no manual safety would probably be a problem with it's adoption.

It would probably take a time where the economy wasn't down and we weren't in the middle of a war. The military spent a lot of time and money less than thirty years ago to adopt the M9. Given the limited military applications of a pistol anyway, I doubt it's going to happen anytime soon. Plus, any group that seems to really care about pistols, SOCOM, Force Recon, Deltas, etc, already replaced the M9 anyway.

I would also think the military would run into the same problems that the FBI did with the 10mm round. If you're going to go with a non-NATO round, you might as well just skip ahead to .40 S&W.

Heh, I bet if H&K had their way every SAW or M240 user in the US Army would use the MP7A1 ("it's a selective-fire PDW that can be holstered like a pistol and pierces most armour!") as a backup weapon.

I've heard of modification kits to Glocks that give them manual safeties, and NATO standards can change (though not always for the best reasons or via the best methods). Otherwise, we'd still be using M14s instead of M16s. Of course, as I've said before, on-paper-effectiveness is no guarantee a weapon system or new ammunition will be adopted (sadly enough).

The deal with the M16's adoption was very controversial and it happened during a time in military standards where they believe what they got works and most old men of the military don't like to make their rifle ammo smaller caliber so they compromised and created the M14. Otherwise, the M1 Garand would still be in service because the M16 was so new at the time. It introduced so many new technology that frankly, the higher ups in the chain of command didn't know how to make heads or tail of. It's the old saying of if it isn't broken, don't fix it

Well, you could argue that the FBI values physical fitness (and has less strict physical requirements) less than the Army does for frontline troops, because it values investigation and administration more than strength of the body. Besides, aren't many of those same troops used to handling higher recoil cartridges than the 10x25mm, like the 7.62x51mm NATO?

Yeah, in a machine gun. Most of which are either mounted or fired from a supported position, unlike a pistol. I would also think there are a lot more women in the military than as field agents. Not only does .40 S&W exist to address this shortcoming with 10mm, it has come to overwhelm 10mm in the LE market.

pretty much

The great irony of the AR15 is that the British wanted NATO to standardize on the FAL in the .280 British cartridge, but United States refused, forced the 7.62x51 on the rest of the world, then switched to the even smaller 5.56x45 when they realized they were wrong.

What about the deal with the 9mm NATO being standard?

It was already ubiquitous throughout Europe and the Commonwealth. .45 ACP was only used in the United States, Latin America, and China.

NATO can suck it

Because we totally could've held off Soviet expansion all by ourselves.

Let me rephrase that: We shouldn't have done what all the cool kids were doing and stuck with the .45

Which is basically what we've done. We still use .45 pistols, and we've solicited bids for .45 pistols since the M9 decision. (The Mk 23) The cancelled JCP competition also specified for a .45 pistol.

But the official sidearm is the M9. I really wish they would have chose the Sig over the Beretta

Of what consequence is it to you?

Well, Sigs are fucking awesome. No explanation needed

sounds like fanboyism to me :rolleyes:

Fuckin' A!

Sigs aren't even my "thing" and I know they are awesome anyways

The USCG has dropped the M9 in favor of Sig's P229. Also, I do believe that a bunch of P228s were requisitioned by the US Armed Forces as the M11, for people who were having trouble handling the M9.

Honestly, what would have been different if the P226 had been chosen? It would still have the same 9mm cartridge, people would still complain that it wasn't a .45, and I do suspect the SEALs would have still managed to find a way to break it - remember, the issues with the original M9s were discovered largely because SEAL teams were pumping extremely high-pressured ammo through the guns at their typical astronomical bullet-consumption rate. Maybe it would have taken a bit longer, but I put nothing past them.

Not saying the P226 is a bad gun...just that the Beretta doesn't quite deserve all of the crap that's been heaped on it.

EDIT: Just Wikipedia'd it, and while the above largely stands, the article concerning the M9 does say that the USCG has "mostly" replaced their M9s with P229 DAK, going on to mention that some Berettas remain for certain units. Take that as you will, as I didn't see an article to link to supporting that. Anyone more in-the-know care to elaborate?

Ah yes, but I think it has to be admitted that FBI agents don't go through the same physical training that grunts do. They don't wear the same heavy kit as often, they don't get a lot of practice moving heavy objects while running as fast as possible, they don't routinely load heavy supplies by hand to keep fit or for punishment duty. A lot of military training is to get one accustomed to the discomforts which would normally cause an unaccustomed civilian to quit quickly. I've been hearing wildly varying accounts of the 10x25mm round's recoil when properly loaded (i.e., beyond the .40 S&W's capabilities), from everything to "mildly worse than a .45 ACP's" to "just too much." We're not talking about .454 Casull or .50 Action Express though--just how much is "too much", even with service members who are used to most discomforts and pain?

I'll admit that the programs the US has undertaken to replace its service weapons (the M4/16 replacement, the Joint Combat Pistol programs) have been all over the place. Nothing ever seems good enough (seriously, improve on the M16 by 100%?!), or else the makers just don't bid low enough. Sniper Wolf's line from the original Metal Gear Solid that "You men are so weak. You can never finish what you start . . . " is starting to take on less nice connotations the more news I hear about . . .

You can't TRAIN away the fact that someone's a smaller person. Not being able to handle the recoil is not a conditioning issue. If it were that simple, our professional, volunteer military would still be using full auto M14s. Again, I point out the dominance of .40 S&W in the LE market over 10mm. Cops, who's lives can hinge on being able to hit their targets, still would rather go with .40 S&W, despite probably having as much range time as they want. (Cops shoot for free at my range.)

A friend of mine from HS did two tours in Iraq as an MP. She's an officer, and an MP, so I would think at least one of those facts would mean she was issued a sidearm. She's also tiny, probably no more than 5'2", 110 lbs. How much conditioning would it take for her to handle a full sized 10mm sidearm? And giving her a smaller 10mm pistol would only exacerbate the issue.

And why spend all that time training to use a weapon with such limited capability anyway? The British went from the .455 to the .38/200 for exactly the same reason. Any unit which actually cares about that much about stopping power already went back to using .45 ACP pistols anyway.

Can't say if this is really true or not. But back when the Beretta was chosen over the Sig, a gun magazine claimed the Beretta was chosen for two reasons. First, Beretta was willing to open a factory in the U.S. to manufacture the M9. The second reason given was that the Beretta had the length of barrel extending past the slide, allowing the military to use a suppressor by threading the barrel. Where with the Sig, they would have to use a special barrel.

David.

But wouldn't a threaded barrel be considered a special barrel itself?

You can thread a Beretta factory barrel. A Sig barrel is flush with the slide and would have to be replaced, or the slide would have to be modified.

The p228 is still issued, ive seen MPs carry it, and know a naval range instructor who trained military members (MP, NIS, pilots, etc.)

And the average grunt is not going to be using a supressor, thats SF stuff, and SFs can get pretty much anything they want.

You mean they get range time for free, right? It's not like you hand them ammunition for free, too? Last I read not many pistol-users know where to get 10mm Auto ammunition at a reasonable price. Good to know that some cops are looking to not be part of the statistic that says "Cops only hit their targets 20% of the time," if not necessarily in an environment that simulates the randomness and rapid change from friend-to-foe of on-the-beat situations (i.e., someone pulls out what you think is a gun, you plug two rounds in his chest and one in his head, only to find that he was holding an aluminum-wrapped sandwich, or someone claims that he's needs help and pulls out his drivers license, only to pull a small revolver to fill your face full of lead).

Gary Coleman, at all of his 4' 11'', is too small to handle the recoil, until he isn't.

(Interested viewers can see the full vid here. Watch your step around the missile launcher, the machine guns, and . . . the magazine models?)

To misquote a popular saying, the sources I've seen seem to corroborate this: "A gun that's good for the gander is good for the goose" (double entendre totally intended).

Are these women exceptional in some way that I am unaware of?

There's also the assistance that can be rendered by technology. Aside from the aforementioned slim frames that Glock 20s/29s come in, there's always the compensated models (which can be changed back to uncompensated simply by replacing the barrel with a non-ported version). How about the pseudo-foregrip used by the Beretta M93R? Is that covered by a patent somewhere that disallows its use on other pistols without paying a hefty licensing fee?

To get back closer to topic, why hasn't the M9 been replaced already by the "winning candidate" of the Joint Combat Pistol program? It's not a good way to address a problem by cancelling the program that was supposed to appoint a replacement twice. And here I was thinking that because pistols are easier and less costly to make than rifles, the Joint Combat Pistol would have a better chance of reaching completion and meeting its objectives than the M4/M16 replacement program did.

There's too much to quote, so again, I ask, why bother spending all that time practicing using something that won't be used that often in combat? If LE can be bothered to train to use 10mm as their PRIMARY weapon, why would servicemen train to use it as a BACKUP?

If you're going to give them a foregrip, then why even settle for a pistol?

When I say cops get to shoot for free, I mean they don't have to be members or pay any guest fees. We don't sell ammo there anyway.

And as far as I know, there wasn't a winner in the JCP competition.

Okay, maybe next time I'll use fewer sources. Were you at work when you first read that post?

Because thanks to their short barrel lengths, pistols are undeniably deficient in their ballistics. To get their full potential, you really need to go for a pistol-caliber carbine. Of course, you could always go with more powerful cartridges, but the fact remains you waste a lot of the powder's energy the shorter the barrel gets, most of the time. Muzzle flash is just the visible signature of the powder's energy being wasted on useless light and heat rather than being directed to the ammunition. So to me the 10x25mm round is a good compromise between the capacity of the "wonder nines" and the stopping power but limited materials penetration of the .45 ACP. I've already gone over the round's advantages already (longer range, better energy at 100 yards than the .45 ACP has at the MUZZLE, better cover penetration, similar capacity to 9x19mm handguns)--having those handy when you're forced to use your pistol could definitely save you from becoming another "terrorist kill statistic." Your female MP friend could certainly use a less anemic pistol if the situation called for it.

Every time I watch the "Hurt Locker" scene where Sergeant James walks up to a VBIED driver and slowly puts his Beretta 92 to the driver's forehead, I'm reminded of this video which depicts how well properly loaded 10x25mm rounds can penetrate auto glass, even when they're Winchester Silvertips (a form of hollow point bullet which expands the moment it hits hard cover, but in this case had enough energy to go past the glass and make a deep hole through the catching material). If Sgt. James was using a Glock 20 instead, he could have popped the VBIED driver's noggin without putting it through the open window had the driver proved threatening, assuming the driver was not using a dead man's switch for the bomb.

The examples I linked to in an earlier post show that even those who are short and small are perfectly capable of handling "larger-caliber pistols" (a somewhat relative term) well, assuming they get their mindset and "combat reactions" right.

I meant to ask why such a nifty feature isn't present on more pistols. Usually when features like that only show up on a few models it's because a patent is involved (like the FN F2000's unique forward casing ejection system, which would be really nice to have on bullpup rifles everywhere). I thought you, or someone else reading that post, might have known.

But in cancelling the program, isn't it akin to the competition organizers declaring that "Everyone lost"? I don't think everyone who competed was so incompetent they couldn't meet the objectives. The HK45 seems to have some good reviews, for instance.

No, I just meant I didn't want to quote that whole block of text.

I don't think the Hurt Locker scenario is a very likely one. A more likely scenario would involve someone with a rifle.

I think once you add a foregrip, you acknowledge that it's no longer a handgun. How many handguns have foregrips? (And the Beretta 93 is a machine pistol.) Why not a folding stock while we're at it? (I'd love to see someone make a modern version of a Mauser C96. I think that would make both of us happy here.)

As for JCP, I'm not saying none of them were good enough, just that the military never specified which one was the best. All of the candidates got good reviews.

Except I brought up that situation in the Hurt Locker to show how some poor sods are only issued a pistol in the military (or only have one on hand in a dangerous situation) and how difficult it would be for the 9x19mm or the .45 ACP round to penetrate the cover provided by an average automobile, or even cover that isn't particularly thin (like plywood or drywall).

Actually, I've seen advertisements for detachable/folding stocks for Glock 18 pistols. From what I've read the Glock 20 is not that much larger than the Glock 17/18, so producing a detachable/folding stock for a Glock 20 shouldn't be too difficult. That, combined with a Glock 20 using a 6-inch barrel or something similar could make for an excellent ersatz pistol-caliber carbine that would allow an LEO or military personnel like your female MP friend to put the hurt out to unarmoured perps/terrorists out to 100 yards with good materials penetration.

And that makes the decision to cancel the JCP twice even stranger.

Just go with a PDW if you are going for 100m shots. I like the 10mm too but one has to think about the end user. A PDW is alot handier than a pistol in situations where the guns come out. As somenone once noted a PDW is as easy to manuver as a pistol but has much better ranged accuracy and much better penatration.

I suppose that would depend on the PDW in question. You can holster an MP7 (something good for a cop), you can't do the same for an FN P90 or a KAC PDW (though the last two can be slung). Firing the last two one-handed is hardly optimal, while you could do so reasonably well with an MP7 which can transform into a machine-pistol variant for one-handed firing. Too bad about that recent report which greatly criticized the 4.6mm round in favour of the 5.7mm round, though--was HK's quality control for its PDW ammunition just worse compared to FN's?

There's also the problem of the stopping power of these PDW cartridges in FMJ (and how in some cases they provide too much penetration in a LE context). While I'm sure all versions of PDW cartridges have hollow-point or other similar adaptations for better stopping power against unarmoured targets, military personnel have to abide by the Hague Convention. Given that the OpFor in this "low-intensity conflict" never wears body armour and the 10x25mm round's effectiveness in FMJ (otherwise why would it be a good handgun hunting round for medium-sized game?) but better range and energy retention than the .45 ACP, a Glock 20 could be a fine backup weapon when you have to use it (or when a pistol is all you're issued).

Here's one of the "Glock to PDW" conversions I mentioned earlier that includes a buttstock. I would prefer something like the return of the MP5/10 though. And if the Russians can turn the 9x19mm round into a PDW round with special powder and bullet configurations, then surely they can do better with the 10x25mm round which has more case room to work with and a harder-hitting bullet. Could be a step to making the infamous Pulse Rifle's ammunition a reality, at least in cartridge dimensions and armour-piercing capability.

Closer to the original topic, does anyone here own any of the pistols that were candidates for the JCP tests? How do the users here find them?