Retirement of M9?

[graycrait]

I'm all jacked up. Somehow I got the Geneva and Hague Conventions confused, and the fact that the US has not ratified Protocols I or II of the Geneva Convention.

The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body.^[3] This is often incorrectly believed to be prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but it significantly predates those conventions, and is in fact a continuance of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams, as well as weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable. NATO members do not use small arms ammunition that is prohibited by the Hague Convention.

[JAB]

Is there overwhelming evidence (and I doubt there is) that .40 ball is a quantum leap over .355 ball strictly as military ordnance? Who uses .40 ball whose date could be analyzed to provide proof positive that .40 is as good as .45 and so much better than 9mm ball?

As a non-military person, that is also kind of what I was thinking. If there is anything a 9mm ball does it is penetrate - possibly overpenetate. I always thought the advantage to the .40 is supposedly that it has a better chance at penetrating and expanding in a JHP. With FMJ that shouldn't matter. I mean, the cult of the .40 aside, either in FMJ is pretty much a high-speed hole punch, right? Is a 10mm (.40 cal) hole really that much more 'devastating' than a 9mm hole?

Edited August 31, 2011 by JAB

[Dolomite_supafly]

They could actually increase the effectiveness while still staying within the rules. A flat point, even as a FMJ, would do more to upset the tissues than a pointed bullet.

Dolomite

[DaveTN]

They could actually increase the effectiveness while still staying within the rules.

Or simply say we aren’t agreeing to those rules anymore.

People get shot in wars, it hurts and they die. There is nothing humane about prolonging the agony. If you don’t want to get shot; don’t participate in wars.

Combat should be as brutal and inhumane as possible.

[Steelharp]

Combat should be as brutal and inhumane as possible.

Thought it was, already.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Or simply say we aren’t agreeing to those rules anymore.

People get shot in wars, it hurts and they die. There is nothing humane about prolonging the agony. If you don’t want to get shot; don’t participate in wars.

Combat should be as brutal and inhumane as possible.

+1,000

If they want it to be safe and humane the world should resolve disputes with pillow fights or a game of tag.

ETA:

The most humane way to end a war is to make it as quick and brutal as possible. Similar to the way we beat Japan in WWII. When you try to be nice and humane the wars tend to drag along at a snails pace. When it comes to war the countries need not worry with being nice, only with winning as quickly as possible to prevent their own from being killed.

Dolomite

Edited August 31, 2011 by Dolomite_supafly

[tnhawk]

...NOW, the Army is back "...looking for a replacement to the M9..."

Reminds me that some things never change in the Army

Hurry Up!

Wait!

(do pushups while waiting)

Change of mission!

Hurry Up!

Wait some more....

The M9 should have never been picked as a replacement for the 1911.

[Guest TresOsos]

The M9 should have never been picked as a replacement for the 1911.

The 1911A1 should have never been replaced in the first place............say that fast.....

[hornett22]

The 1911A1 should have never been replaced in the first place............say that fast.....

AMEN!

[Guest lostpass]

+1,000

If they want it to be safe and humane the world should resolve disputes with pillow fights or a game of tag.

ETA:

The most humane way to end a war is to make it as quick and brutal as possible. Similar to the way we beat Japan in WWII. When you try to be nice and humane the wars tend to drag along at a snails pace. When it comes to war the countries need not worry with being nice, only with winning as quickly as possible to prevent their own from being killed.

Dolomite

I find this idea interesting. There is the notion that if you go in and brutally kill everyone that people will just give up. It is also arguable that this actually saves lives in the long run.

But we aren't in any wars like that anymore. You nuke kabul and all you get is a bunch of pissed off people and a devastation. Their government never declared war on out government and so forth.

So while I agree that war is necessarily brutal, necessarily disgusting, I'm not convinced that we can beat folks the same way we did back in WW2.

[wcsc12]

US Army will Retire M9 (because it?s old and weak) - Guns News and Guns Reviews at Guns.com

Well maybe they'll finally get back to the gun they were supposed to be using in the first place i.e. the Sig P226. I would shun the military if it switched to anything plastic.

As a non-military person, that is also kind of what I was thinking. If there is anything a 9mm ball does it is penetrate - possibly overpenetate. I always thought the advantage to the .40 is supposedly that it has a better chance at penetrating and expanding in a JHP. With FMJ that shouldn't matter. I mean, the cult of the .40 aside, either in FMJ is pretty much a high-speed hole punch, right? Is a 10mm (.40 cal) hole really that much more 'devastating' than a 9mm hole?

I guess but the advantage of the 9mm is velocity and price

Edited September 2, 2011 by wcsc12

[ProjectDexter]

I would think Glock and Sig have the best chance, like to see springfield get a good long hard look too, and then they should just ask Colt to ship them some 1911A1s again

[Dolomite_supafly]

I find this idea interesting. There is the notion that if you go in and brutally kill everyone that people will just give up. It is also arguable that this actually saves lives in the long run.

But we aren't in any wars like that anymore. You nuke kabul and all you get is a bunch of pissed off people and a devastation. Their government never declared war on out government and so forth.

So while I agree that war is necessarily brutal, necessarily disgusting, I'm not convinced that we can beat folks the same way we did back in WW2.

While it won't work against enemies like Alqaeda and the Taliban it will and does work against conventional forces. Our shock and awe campaign did work in Iraq in 2003. Most of Saddam's forces dropped their arms and walked away. With the exception of the few loyal forces he had most just gave up. Had we went in soft handed they might have felt they stood a chance and continued to fight resulting in more deaths for both sides.

In Iraq we have went from a conventional war to an occupation and that occupation is costing us money in a time when it is in short suppply as well as lives. Personally we shouldn't have entered that country in the first place. Sure Sadaam was a bad, bad man but he, nor his country, were not a threat to us. Afghanistan was and continues to be a much larger threat to our safety and security. Let me rephrase that, The border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan is the threat. Pakistan is far from being our ally and we have been dupped into believing they are. They feed us crumbs of intelligence and make gestures to make it seem as though they are on our side but they are not, at least not the populace. There are more Alqaeda and Taliban in Pakistan than there ever was in Afghanistan and the reason is because the Pakistani government has and agreement with them. Why else would the country with the ghiest number if terrorists not be suffering the same attacks as pretty much every other country in the region?

I hate to say it but we will never win, per se, the war on terror. We will make strides that will makes us feel safer for a little while but there is no way to eliminate the threat. What we need to concentrate on is our own safety, on our own lands. With that we need to lock the borders down, I mean no one in for any reason at all. Remove all those who came here illegally, whose whose visas have expired as well as those who have shown a connection to those who have proven to be a threat to the UNited States. And finally we need to quit worrying about being so PC and treating the bad guys or suspected bad guys with kid gloves. They do not want to follow the American laws or ways so they should not be afforded the same protections those laws provide.

Dolomite

[DaveTN]

I would think Glock and Sig have the best chance, like to see springfield get a good long hard look too, and then they should just ask Colt to ship them some 1911A1s again

Springfield doesn’t have a dog to bring to this fight; they are just an importer.

In this economy I would think everyone would be pushing for weapons that would mean jobs here. Our government doesn’t need to be buying foreign handguns.

[Curiousgb]

Man am out of the loop. My beloved Coasties switched to Sigs in 2006 and I completely missed it. I hope the Navy follows suit. The first thing I bought my wife before we were married was an Model 92 so she could practice. If they change sidearms, I get to get another pistol!

[Guest bkelm18]

Springfield doesn’t have a dog to bring to this fight; they are just an importer.

In this economy I would think everyone would be pushing for weapons that would mean jobs here. Our government doesn’t need to be buying foreign handguns.

For once I'm going to agree. The M&P is a heckofa pistol and as you said earlier, has steadily been stealing the professional market from Glock. Though of course I'm sure creating jobs at home wont be a big factor in their decision.

[Moped]

I don't really care which pistol they get, I would like it to a U.S. Company or at least U.S. made. What I would like is to see them go back to the .45ACP. If your going with FMJ and sticking with the Geneva Convention (which we will), then the obvious selection is the .45ACP hands down. The flat nose would be interesting and could make it more effective. I see no reason why a female shouldn't be able to handle the .45ACP.

That being said, I don't expect them to bring back the 1911. There are cheaper and just as effective weapons out there. The S&W being one of them. The beauty of the M&P is that you can change the butt around for bigger or larger hands. That should help with smaller female hands. It will be interesting to see how it does with some of the environmental tests the military will require.

Note to all, the pistol in the military is not necessarily a last ditch weapon. Many occupations in the military can only use pistols, due to their specific jobs. When I was in, surveyors were one of those occupations. It is a defensive weapon though. I think some consideration also should be given to a short rifle (shorter than the M4) like the FN PS90, but in .45ACP, in order to limit even more pistols from the inventory.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Moped

[JReedEsq]

For once I'm going to agree. The M&P is a heckofa pistol and as you said earlier, has steadily been stealing the professional market from Glock. Though of course I'm sure creating jobs at home wont be a big factor in their decision.

Aren't all or most of the Glocks sold in the USA being maunufactured in Georgia? Aren't the Sigs US made as well? Seems to me that it would be easy to pick a US made gun.

[Moped]

The M9s are made here too. That was one of the requirements for foreign competitors to be considered. They had to agree to build a factory here.

[Guest bkelm18]

Aren't all or most of the Glocks sold in the USA being maunufactured in Georgia? Aren't the Sigs US made as well? Seems to me that it would be easy to pick a US made gun.

If I'm not mistaken, only the Glock frames are made here, everything else is not. I suppose it's easy to pick a US manufactured gun, but I'd prefer it be a US company as well, otherwise the money still goes elsewhere in the end.

[JAB]

Note to all, the pistol in the military is not necessarily a last ditch weapon. Many occupations in the military can only use pistols, due to their specific jobs. When I was in, surveyors were one of those occupations. It is a defensive weapon though. I think some consideration also should be given to a short rifle (shorter than the M4) like the FN PS90, but in .45ACP, in order to limit even more pistols from the inventory.

I thought there was a push to replace most of the handguns used by those occupations with PDWs like the FN P90. As I said earlier, though, I am not a military guy and was going just on what I had heard/read.

[PC7]

Retirement of the M9? Not likely; this program for a new pistol will not survive the budget cuts that are coming for the DOD. They may even select candidates and do some testing but the program will never field a pistol to replace the M9.

[Guest m14man]

Aren't all or most of the Glocks sold in the USA being maunufactured in Georgia? Aren't the Sigs US made as well? Seems to me that it would be easy to pick a US made gun.

glock makes the complete gun here but they are not sold in the US. they are sold to other countries, all glocks sold in america are made in austria, the glocks made here are sold to countries that can not buy from axies countrys after world war 2. thats what i was told at the armorer's course.

[durtyzulu]

Retirement of the M9? Not likely; this program for a new pistol will not survive the budget cuts that are coming for the DOD. They may even select candidates and do some testing but the program will never field a pistol to replace the M9.

Agreed

[Guest motonut]

In Iraq we have went from a conventional war to an occupation and that occupation is costing us money in a time when it is in short suppply as well as lives. Personally we shouldn't have entered that country in the first place. Sure Sadaam was a bad, bad man but he, nor his country, were not a threat to us. Afghanistan was and continues to be a much larger threat to our safety and security. Let me rephrase that, The border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan is the threat. Pakistan is far from being our ally and we have been dupped into believing they are. They feed us crumbs of intelligence and make gestures to make it seem as though they are on our side but they are not, at least not the populace. There are more Alqaeda and Taliban in Pakistan than there ever was in Afghanistan and the reason is because the Pakistani government has and agreement with them. Why else would the country with the ghiest number if terrorists not be suffering the same attacks as pretty much every other country in the region?

Dolomite

I've been against the Iraq portion of the current conflict since it was first proposed. Not only for the reasons you state but also because Iraq and Iran countered each other. They hated each other. No way Saddam would allow Iran to get this close to having a nuclear weapon. Now we've removed that counterbalance to Iran which I fear much more than Iraq. It also diverted resources we should have been applying to hunt OBL (to take him out earlier).

Oh well, political rant off.