M9 Replacement: Back in the News

[Shooter5]

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130723/NEWS04/307230008/Testing-M9-replacement-start-next-year

Once again, testing/evaluation program for replacing the M9 and M11 service pistols may begin in 2014 if Congress approves.

[Bill D]

Since I don't want to subscribe, they won't let me read it!

[p246]

My son said one rifle squad was T & E ing G lock 17's last training cycle in his regiment.

[dave]

Can not read article but they are still considering a 9m/m? I thought they had learned by now!

[p246]

got to keep our boys in NATO happy...

[Nick Riviezzo]

Dave, what are you kidding? The people behind the "armor plated desk"never know,or really care, what the trooper behind the trigger needs.At the Flag Rank dicision level they're only interested in the "political " solution. That's the solution that gets another star! Nick

[Shooter5]

The field is wide open for design and caliber for now to include 40 and 45. Modular designs (which may include switch calibers) may be considered. Also; Many, many DOD units have been using various Glock models for many, many years.

Let's try this one:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130727/NEWS04/307270003/Testing-M9-replacement-start-next-year

[Major Tom]

A Glock? Ya gotta be kidding!

[Richard H Brown Jr]

Make it a 1911a1 frame with 9mm and .45 acp slide bits and mas. Just swap out when you want to change calibers. ... Course it'll have to be a specially designed frame to play with the ejector differences. Oh and a .22 for short range training purposes.


RHB

[Major Tom]

With all the excellent, reliable 45acp pistols out there; I see no reason to keep 9mm pistols for the military. Why pump a a full magazine of 9mm in an agressor when 1-2 45 rounds will put him down for good.

[Shooter5]

Not kidding on the Glocks: thousands have been purchased by DOD for mil units and are being used every day. The 9mm caliber will be very difficult to overcome simply for logistics and NATO interoperability issues.

[Guamsst]

Been arguing this allot lately but the 9mm logic seems to be 2 to the chest, one to the head no matter what and repeat until job is done. That initself indicates a lack of faith in the round to me.

I could care less what we go to as long as they actually look at stopping power (WITH FMJ) and reliability. Seriously, with FMJ the difference between .45 and 9mm is massive.

[Shooter5]

Regardless of caliber, any pistol cartridge has much less power than rifle caliber rounds. Furthermore, any review of trauma data by any cause clearly demonstrates capacity for humans to absorb tremendous amount of damage. Therefore, the expectation that a pistol shot, any pistol shot, can reliably and immediately cause incapacitation is merely a pipe dream. That remains true of rifle, artillery or motor vehicle accidents. As in anything, shot placement is paramount...but CNS shots can never be guaranteed past point blank distances in a dynamic environment.
Therefore: modern professional technique usually acknowledges these facts and instead advocates multi-round shot count when engaging threat adversaries: if the target is worth one, a double tap, a 2 and 1; then it just may be well worth it to use the whole magazine if applicable. That goes for rifle engagements, as well, especially at CQB distances and even more so with 5.56/Green-tip ammo.

[Tuna]

There is still the big problem that the standard FMJ .45 cannot over come. It is not a penetrator when compared with the 9mm. And with cheap body armor become more common place in the sand piles the 9mm is the better of the two rounds. But as stated any pistol is a poor second compared to a rifle. The big problem with the 5.56 today is the green tip standard rounds that while they do penetrate they are just too stable and do not release enough of their energy before they exit. That was the great thing about the older M193 from the 1 in 12 twist M16. It would tumble inside and do a lot of damage. But because it was too devastating by European standards we dropped it in favor for what we now have.

[rickgman]

Tuna, The M193 ammo had increased terminal ballistic performance due to the fact that it fragmented after yawing around 45 degrees. The projectile actually fractured along the cannelure. This created at least two separate wound channels. The M885 ammo also yaws (as do virtually all modern military rifle rounds) and frequently exits the target base first. It, however, does not fragment so it leaves a single wound channel. And by the way, the reason that the M193 cartridge was replaced by the M885 cartridge was due to improved penetration and long range accuracy of the M885 cartridge.

[Shooter5]

FWIW: Green tip has been enhanced;

http://www.guns.com/2012/09/06/new-m855a1-epr-enhanced-performance-round-camp-perry-101-abn-video/

http://www.aschq.army.mil/ac/aais/ioc/LCAAP/Industry_Day/634272332137343750.pdf

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/u-s-army-touts-m855a1-round-performance/

[m1ashooter]

Another waste of Taxpayer dollars. Just reissue the 1911, but then again how many people really need to carry a side arm? The M4 is smaller then the M16 and kinda replaces the role of the M1 carbine which was intended to replace the 1911. So except for a rare few that need a side arm why waste all the money on trials.

[rickgman]

M1AShooter, even though the M1 carbine was suppose to replace the M1911 pistol in the hands of many personnel, the fact of the matter is that there was still great demand for the service pistol. In fact, many officers carried both weapons. The same is true today. Just look at the number of troops who are shown in photos carrying both an M4 carbine and an M9 pistol. The more things change the more they remain the same. It is always comforting to have a back up weapon - especially when the enemy is blood thristy and vicious. One can also carry a pistol in lacations where a carbine is impractical.

[Rock]

Seriously, with FMJ the difference between .45 and 9mm is massive.

I've never heard it put that way before.

[Shooter5]

http://blogs.militarytimes.com/outside-the-wire/2013/04/11/special-forces-vs-the-dolphin-cheerleaders-in-call-me-maybe/

Although there are a few distractions in the video, if you look closely one can see some service pistols.

[John Sukey]

I should think our military would be able to supply 45ACP to the troops! This "interchangeability" is pure crap.
One improvement would be to make the pistol double action instead of single action. ie; one up the spout and all you have to do is pull the trigger

[Art]

The big problem with any pistol is that it isn't a rifle. The big problem with the 9mm, even the really hot NATO FMJ loads is that they don't transfer as much energy to the target as a bigger (.45) FMJ round. Within the continental United States the military is issued hollow point ammunition for the M9 pistol which does mitigate the problem. The big problem with the .45 ACP is it's lack of penetration, in fact it is often unable to penetrate a steel helmet (there is a WWII DoD video I've seen several times in which an M1911 Pistol gets two clean hits on a Nazi helmet on a maniquin and neither penetrates.)

Most people I know who have used the M9 weapon in combat like it, maybe you could argue they don't know any better.

I didn't like replaceing the M1911 pistol purely on financial grounds, it was a plenty good enough pistol, my gut feeling about the M9 is similar. I don't think anybody has ever won a war because they had a better pistol.

[m1ashooter]

This "interchangeability" is pure crap. It was a very good idea when NATO was formed to defend the block from being over run by the WARSAW PACT. 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union and huge reductions in NATO country force structure and budgets, I also think that interchangeability is pure crap as a reason.

Lets poll the troops and ask the end user what they want, but not one of those polls with limited choices. A simple question of if you had to use a handgun in combat, what would it be, would work. We don't need costly trials, or staff studies.

[rickgman]

Art, Energy transfer does not have a significant wounding effect when we are talking about handgun ammo The primary wound effect is from the size (diameter and depth) of the permanent wound channel. Basically, how much tissue is crushed by the projectile. .45 ACP projectiles have a much larger permanent wound channel than 9mm projectiles (assuming both are ball cartridges). You are correct that wars are not won by better handguns but more combatants come home if they are armed with better handguns. I remember well the WWII training film (Infantry Weapons and Their Effects) where the .45 ACP cartridge dented but did not penetrate the German helmet. I'm not exactly sure if the 9mm cartridge would have done the trick either. What did surprise me was the fact that the cal .30 carbine cartridge did easily penetrate the helmet. Something has to be said for increased velocity and reduced cross sectional area of the projectile.

[Tuna]

Today in the sandboxes there is more body armor being worn by the enemy combatants then ever before. The .45 cannot penetrate and the 9mm can in many cases. A hit that gets into the body is better then one that doesn't as at least there is some leakage. But lets face it a handgun is a very poor defense choice when compared to a rifle or shotgun.

[Art]

Rickgman

The permanent wound channel of any round nose bullet is minimal. The bigger the bullet the bigger the permanent wound channel of course but it's still minimal if you're talking round nose projectiles at relatively low velocities that don't deform. Elmer Keith designed the semi wadcutter bullet to make a bigger wound channel in the day when effective hollow point bullets for handguns were virtually unknown. My point stands that a big fat bullet that stays in the body transmits more energy than a smaller faster bullet that zips right through and that certainly counts for something.

The 9mm Parabellum is a very effective penetrator compared to the .45 ACP. Back when I was in cop school we were admonished that "cover" from most other handgun cartridges was not "cover" when dealing with the 9mm Parabellum fmj. I admit I've never ruined a helmet by shooting it with a 9mm bullet but all other things being equal; a .355 cal. projectile at 1,100 fps is going to penetrate better than a .452" projectile at 850 fps. The current NATO 9mm round is quite hot, delivering a 124 gr. fmj bullet at 1,200 FPS + from the 5" barrel M9 pistol, almost low end .357 Magnum velocities so should penetrate even better than the standard load previously mentioned.

Penetration does matter. Sometimes you do have to shoot through stuff if you're a soldier or a cop. Both the .38 Super Automatic and the .357 Magnum attained popularity in the 1930s not as man stoppers but because cops, especially highway patrolmen and Federal agents wanted handgun cartridges that did a good job of penetrating car bodies. The .357 Magnum's reputation as a "manstopper" wasn't that much until really effective hollow point bullets were developed in the late 1960s - early 1970s, especially the almost legendary Federal and Remington full power 125 gr. SJHPs.

A handgun round that really penetrates well is the 7.62x25 Tokarev which drives an 85 gr fmj bullet at almost 1,500 fps. The Hong Kong constabulary, when the Brits were running things, found that a threat level II vest was not proof against this cartridge and ordered specially designed versions designed to defeat it. These "Tokarev rated" vests are probably still standard issue there and in mainland China.

[rickgman]

Art, You will get no argument from me relative to the merits of adequate penetration. I will also readily concede that the 9mm NATO (M855) cartridge is a far better penetrator than any .45 ACP cartridge. In fact, the M855 cartridge is really rated above normal 9mm ammo from a chamber pressure standpoint and enters the realm of 9mm +P ammo. All that being said, I do not know if the 9mm cartridge will penetrate a helmet or not. I really don't know but it is most certainly possible. With all due respect, there is no advantage to any handgun cartridge "transmitting all its energy" in the body of the target. Transfer of kinetic energy does not result in a significant wounding effect when we are considering handgun ammo. That fact has been clearly concluded via modern terminal ballistics testing. I remember back in the 70's when every ammo manufacturer was advertising the kinetic energy of their lastest high performance handgun ammo. It was an interesting value but had no bearing on the effectiveness of the ammo. The amount of penetration and the expanded diameter of the projectile were of practical value since that defined the permanent wound channel. As a point of reference, most ball handgun cartridges produce a permanent wound channel that is about 67% of the projectile's diameter. There is some obvious advantage to an expanding projectile (like a JHP) and if the edges of the projectile are sharp (like that of a semi wadcutter or a jagged expanded JHP bullet) the wound channel can even be larger than 67% of the expanded diameter of the projectile. Relative to modern body armor, I have little faith that even a 9mm NATO round will peneterate such armor. That leaves one to either use a rifle or place the shots in the enemies head. Back to two basics fo gunfighting - 1) bring enough gun and 2) there is no substitute for good shot placement.

[Art]

I think we really pretty much agree. Bigger bullets usually work better than smaller bullets, faster bullets generally work better than slower ones. Most importantly...a hit always beats a miss!!

[rickgman]

Art, we most certainly can agree on all three of the points you made. Rick