OK, educate me here regarding pistols and the US military.

[AdAstra2009]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

I remember reading once how "pistols are among the hardest kinds of firearms to aim, thanks to how many lack a buttstock, another full place to grip with the off-hand, and the short sight radius," so it's not a surprise that rifle form is emphasized first in the regular Army.



So, what would it take to make the first steps towards replacing the M9 with something like the Glock 20? Same magazine capacity of 15 rounds, much better stopping power in FMJ, flatter bullet trajectories and better range, along with more compact options (such as the Glock 20SF, the Glock 29, or even a Glock 29SF) should the need arise for those with hands too small.

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.

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

So, what would it take to make the first steps towards replacing the M9 with something like the Glock 20? Same magazine capacity of 15 rounds, much better stopping power in FMJ, flatter bullet trajectories and better range, along with more compact options (such as the Glock 20SF, the Glock 29, or even a Glock 29SF) should the need arise for those with hands too small.

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.

[funkychinaman]

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.

[Mazryonh]

Originally Posted by AdAstra2009

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.

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).

[Excalibur]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

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

[Mazryonh]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

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.

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?

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

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.

[AdAstra2009]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

Yeah, in a machine gun. Most of which are either mounted or fired from a supported position, unlike a pistol.

pretty much

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

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

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.

[Excalibur]

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