New Rifles and Pistols for the Army?

[Chasbo00]

The average age of a small-arms weapon in use by the Army is more than 30 years, far older than most of the soldiers who rely on them in combat.

While plans are in the works to modernize the service’s rifle and handgun inventories, procurement timelines are such that soldiers and Marines will almost certainly finish out the war in Afghanistan with small arms that were already old when the conflict began.

The issue has drawn the attention of members of Congress, particularly Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that passed the Senate in November carried an amendment authored by Coburn calling on the Pentagon to report its plans to put up-to-date weapons in the hands of soldiers.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... rades.aspx

[mamabearCali]

Wouldn't I love to own one of the old ones! Just for historical value! Would be amazing!

[Reverenddel]

I would say that the next round of rifles will have proprietary magazines that ONLY fit THEIR rifles!

No more "USGI's" out in the market, or a populace planning on scavenging them from military bases.

[RWBlue01]

They have done this several times. I don't expect much new on this front for the rifle. The M16/M4 platform gets minor improvements here and there, but there just isn't anything that much better.

Yes, we can go piston. Yes, we can go scar. But honestly, the M16/M4 platform runs and we have a lot of them. When a barrel wears out it is replaced. When a gas tube wears out it is replaced. The lowers are even better.

I would say that the next round of rifles will have proprietary magazines that ONLY fit THEIR rifles! No more "USGI's" out in the market, or a populace planning on scavenging them from military bases.

You do realize that the magazine is a NATO standard?


Pistols are a different matter. I have a 92FS. There are several things not to like about it for a combat gun. It might be wearing out, but odds are someone is wanting to get the contract to replace them and senator or representative is thinking about how they can award the contract.


As a side note the British are finally replacing their high powers. Some of which have been in service since WWII. And their choice is a Glock17. I have a G17 and thing this is a pretty good idea as long as the brits can be taught to keep their finger off the trigger until it is on target.

[GeneFrenkle]

Isn't the M9 an fs with a couple of parts (like the guide rod) and the sights changed? I thought there was some slight difference in the slide, too.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[gunderwood]

They have done this several times. I don't expect much new on this front for the rifle. The M16/M4 platform gets minor improvements here and there, but there just isn't anything that much better.

Yes, we can go piston. Yes, we can go scar. But honestly, the M16/M4 platform runs and we have a lot of them. When a barrel wears out it is replaced. When a gas tube wears out it is replaced. The lowers are even better.

Exactly. The reports from the wars indicate that the M4 worked well. The M16s complaint was OAL of course. Most of the weapons have done well. There are other options, but even piston AR15 platforms have issues necessitating the redesign of various bolt/carrier parts. Often they have issues being suppressed, which is rapidly becoming a military priority to protect the troops hearing. A much better idea IMHO is to swap to a real piston gun designed from the ground up, if that's the decision. FNH probably makes the best option, but it's going to cost a lot more than just replacing worn out parts.

Of course, all of that still doesn't show that there is any other platform that is *better* than the existing one. Remember, much of the concern was over the caliber, not the platform. Afghanistan ranges were much longer than "normal" combat so many of the old M14s and new AR10s were pulled out for range. VBIEDs and lack of bullet terminal performance through barriers caused the creation of Mk316/SOST round for the marines. Across the board adoption of that alone would drastically improve the platforms effectiveness, particularly in the really short barrels. Then again you could switch to a cartridge like 300BLK that works well supersonic, subsonic, suppress very well for either and doesn't wear our suppressor as quickly, gets M4 muzzle energy out of a 9" barrel and even has better terminal performance if you use an expanding bullet like the 110gr Barnes black tip.

I doubt any changes will occur though. The system has momentum.

I would say that the next round of rifles will have proprietary magazines that ONLY fit THEIR rifles! No more "USGI's" out in the market, or a populace planning on scavenging them from military bases.

You do realize that the magazine is a NATO standard?

It could be done, but given they don't even like the idea of a caliber change that only requires a barrel swap which you could do when the old one is worn out for no cost, simply because of logistics. I doubt they would do that.

Pistols are a different matter.

Yes, all handguns we use for SD/LE/Mil are underpowered in general. Just like the rifles, it's a trade-off exercise. The military's biggest problem isn't caliber, but bullet selection. Even .45ACP FMJ, while better than 9mm FMJ, is NOT a good performer. Start using HPs and the problem will be solved. I do agree the M9 isn't a very good platform given today's polymer options. The M9's just a heavy beast.

[RWBlue01]

Isn't the M9 an fs with a couple of parts (like the guide rod) and the sights changed? I thought there was some slight difference in the slide, too.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

As I understand it....

There is the original M9 and an updated military M9.
Then there is the commercial M9.
Then there is the commercial 92, 92FS, 92G and several others.

The guns are 99% the same, but parts might not be interchangeable depending on if the gun was made in the USA or Italy and if it is old or new.

I "think" mine is basically the same as the new M9 but mine came with a prettier surface coating.

It is a nice gun, but not my prefered shooter. I don't care for the DA/SA trigger system. The Sig226 and Sig228 triggers were much better for DA/SA on the DA side.

[RWBlue01]

Pistols are a different matter.

Yes, all handguns we use for SD/LE/Mil are underpowered in general. Just like the rifles, it's a trade-off exercise. The military's biggest problem isn't caliber, but bullet selection. Even .45ACP FMJ, while better than 9mm FMJ, is NOT a good performer. Start using HPs and the problem will be solved. I do agree the M9 isn't a very good platform given today's polymer options. The M9's just a heavy beast.

It is the whole Hague conference thing. When War was suppose to be honorable. Officers were not suppose to be shot....

A rifle is just better if you want to stop someone, especially teamed with JHP or PJHP bullets.

As far as the weight, I never noticed it. If that is a concern, I guess they should look at the G19 vs. the G17. It is just a little bit smaller and lighter.

[gunderwood]

Pistols are a different matter.

Yes, all handguns we use for SD/LE/Mil are underpowered in general. Just like the rifles, it's a trade-off exercise. The military's biggest problem isn't caliber, but bullet selection. Even .45ACP FMJ, while better than 9mm FMJ, is NOT a good performer. Start using HPs and the problem will be solved. I do agree the M9 isn't a very good platform given today's polymer options. The M9's just a heavy beast.

It is the whole Hague conference thing. When War was suppose to be honorable. Officers were not suppose to be shot....

Yes, but it technically doesn't ban HPs, just bullets that cause "unnecessary suffering," which is up for interpretation. Regardless, until you start using HPs no military handgun is going to have even modest "stopping power."

A rifle is just better if you want to stop someone, especially teamed with JHP or PJHP bullets.

Yes, but even our rifles are mostly underpowered which is why we argue about them every war and they are not legal to hunt deer (mid-sized game) with...unless you re-chamber them in a larger caliber which civilians do all the time because the basic platform is good.

As far as the weight, I never noticed it. If that is a concern, I guess they should look at the G19 vs. the G17. It is just a little bit smaller and lighter.

A G19 holds 15 rounds just like the M9 and unloaded weighs ~21oz, while an unloaded M9 is ~34oz. A fully loaded G19 weighs ~4oz less than an unloaded M9. That may not seem like much until you carry one around all day. Besides the M9 has had spotty reliability at best, while Glocks are among the most reliable. There are much better options than the M9 for a handgun and the M9 didn't win the competition, we just wanted to sell some tomahawks to the Italians. Quid Pro Quo.

[Reverenddel]

Understood that USGI mags are NATO standard, but standards can change, and making is "Civy" weapons won't take the mags is something I'm sure they're gonna work on.

As to the Glock 19 becoming the replacement weapon? Don't make me excited! HAHAH

[dusterdude]

The m9'is a pos

[grumpyMSG]

There are much better options than the M9 for a handgun and the M9 didn't win the competition, we just wanted to sell some tomahawks to the Italians. Quid Pro Quo.

I agree that there are/ were better pistols available at the time of selection. Given the list of features that the military wanted there were about 6 pistols that had the decocker/ safety options, magazine capacity, etc. that the Army tested. The honest truth is, 2 pistols met the criteria for durability and reliability, the Beretta 92F and the Sig 226. It then fell to the next criteria in the contract and the Beretta beat the Sig by $10 per pistol.

It was the SEALs who really hated the controls and decided to try the Submachine Gun ammo in the Berettas causing the cracking issues to show up. The redesign/ fix/ upgrade became known as the 92FS.

I find humor in the "Glock Perfection" crowd saying how wonderful it would be for the US Military to adopt them, especially all the troubles so many of the Gen. 4s have with extraction/ ejection. So many people blame it on "limp wristing" while shooting, meanwhile, Glock came out with a fix kit. If there wasn't an issue why do they need a fix?

I don't know what the average service life for a polymer pistol is, but the military being the way it is, may not be ready to accept a plastic (I know it has metal rails molded in) pistol yet. Personally I would rather see them go to smaller pistol (I like the M11/Sig 228, which they consider compact). Double action only would be easier to train, I don't necessarily like have a separate safety, to drop in the heat of the moment, but a grip safety like a 1911 or Springfield XD wouldn't be a bad idea.

[gunderwood]

There are much better options than the M9 for a handgun and the M9 didn't win the competition, we just wanted to sell some tomahawks to the Italians. Quid Pro Quo.

I agree that there are/ were better pistols available at the time of selection. Given the list of features that the military wanted there were about 6 pistols that had the decocker/ safety options, magazine capacity, etc. that the Army tested. The honest truth is, 2 pistols met the criteria for durability and reliability, the Beretta 92F and the Sig 226. It then fell to the next criteria in the contract and the Beretta beat the Sig by $10 per pistol.

It was the SEALs who really hated the controls and decided to try the Submachine Gun ammo in the Berettas causing the cracking issues to show up. The redesign/ fix/ upgrade became known as the 92FS.

Or Beretta produced special guns for the tests and then couldn't produce them properly at the cost they quoted, which resulted in a slide being sent through a soldiers face. Like the pistol or not, it's hasn't had a good track record and makes even the M16 teething problems look minor.

I find humor in the "Glock Perfection" crowd saying how wonderful it would be for the US Military to adopt them, especially all the troubles so many of the Gen. 4s have with extraction/ ejection. So many people blame it on "limp wristing" while shooting, meanwhile, Glock came out with a fix kit. If there wasn't an issue why do they need a fix?

I never said they were perfect. They're a tool, just happen to be a pretty good one that while not perfect, does have a much better track record than the M9. To each his own, if you like the M9, go for it. I will note that Italian anything isn't known for quality.

I don't know what the average service life for a polymer pistol is, but the military being the way it is, may not be ready to accept a plastic (I know it has metal rails molded in) pistol yet. Personally I would rather see them go to smaller pistol (I like the M11/Sig 228, which they consider compact). Double action only would be easier to train, I don't necessarily like have a separate safety, to drop in the heat of the moment, but a grip safety like a 1911 or Springfield XD wouldn't be a bad idea.

Glock claims 50k, but that seems to be based on the fact they want to sell more pistols to LEA's. I've seen and shot some Glocks used for training that see ~2k rounds a week, every week...except when their having the springs replaced because of wear. Just keep on ticking well north of 50k.

[grumpyMSG]

It was the SEALs who really hated the controls and decided to try the Submachine Gun ammo in the Berettas causing the cracking issues to show up. The redesign/ fix/ upgrade became known as the 92FS.

Or Beretta produced special guns for the tests and then couldn't produce them properly at the cost they quoted, which resulted in a slide being sent through a soldiers face. Like the pistol or not, it's hasn't had a good track record and makes even the M16 teething problems look minor.

The SEALs set out to break them, that is why they used ammo that was never intended for pistols in it. They wanted the Sig, they got the authority to run the 226 after they tore up the M9s. The individuals involved admitted as much years later.
Please don't confuse my telling the story accurately as an endorsement of the M9, I think the controls on the M9 stink. I would rather carry a M1911 with an empty chamber and the safety off than the M9 with one in the chamber and the safety on. As far as service life goes the M9 hasn't even made it to half of the service life of the M1911.

[scrubber3]

As far as 9mm goes, you'd be hard pressed to find a better military oriented pistol than the Glock 17. The gen 4's had an issue when first released, but that has been rectified. 17rd magazine, light weight, easiest pistol to clean and maintain, will work even without oil and in dusty environments(something that hinders he current M9s and some 1911s), parts are easy to find and replace if needed, and regardless of what anyone thinks of them: they are extremely reliable and virtually idiot proof.

The M9 is garbage. Always has been. The 1911, while it is a good shooter, has issues and only holds 7rounds. Not even half of the G17 mag capacity. The Glock was designed from the ground up. Nothing was like it before, and it was designed specifically for the Austrian army. Gaston Glock made curtains rods before his venture into pistol manufacturing. He came to the table with the most reliable pistol the world had ever seen at that point. Still is...........

IMHO the Army would benefit best if they went with the SCAR platform for rifles (MK 16 and MK 17) as these are chambered in 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO and share over 85% parts commonality. They are very lightweight, have next to no recoil, are waaaaay more reliable than any AR/M4, and last longer. Not to mention are a breezed to clean because of the piston system.

SOCOM is already fielding the MK 17 (or SCAR H as you guys know it). Imagine the logistical advantage the SCAR platform would give our military.

The GLOCK platform would do the same......

Ask any soldier who has seen actual combat what is most important in a firearm. He will tell you it needs to work. ALWAYS! Second will be it needs to be lightweight.

You guys picking up what I'm laying down?

Both the M9 and M4 have had issues from the start all the way up till today. I've seen them cost the lives of great men when they failed. AND they fail often in a dusty environment. SCAR & GLOCK just keep getting it long after the M9 and M4 stop working.

Are there good M4s? Yes, I have one and its not a COLT. Though COLT is a good civilian AR. I made darn sure I have a good one now that I can choose. I also have both the SCAR 16S and 17S too. Also have 5 GLOCKs. Anyone care to ask why? (Hint) cause I've been there, done that. Got the marks to prove it.

[gunderwood]

The SEALs set out to break them, that is why they used ammo that was never intended for pistols in it. They wanted the Sig, they got the authority to run the 226 after they tore up the M9s. The individuals involved admitted as much years later.
Please don't confuse my telling the story accurately as an endorsement of the M9, I think the controls on the M9 stink. I would rather carry a M1911 with an empty chamber and the safety off than the M9 with one in the chamber and the safety on. As far as service life goes the M9 hasn't even made it to half of the service life of the M1911.

They may have, but they weren't the only ones to break them. All the engineering evidence points to a poor quality control, particularly in the heat treating of the slide in the Italian factory; frame cracking was noted as well. However, that's never been proven. The official reports in some cases are publicly available such as this one:

olive-drab.com/archive/NSIAD-88-213_9mm.pdf

Of the 14 failures observed in the report the Navy only reported 3. That leaves 11 Army failures or did they go shooting machine gun ammo too despite the official report stating it was NATO spec? FYI, this report notes that the Navy failure was firing non-NATO spec ammo. The most any of these test pistols lasted was 30,545 rounds and the least (Army) was just 4,908.

I wouldn't consider blaming it's failures on the Navy and ammo when it was 3 of 14 to be "telling the story accurately." That's cherry picking, IMO. In any case, the designs been changed and now doesn't seem to fail spectacularly. However, its reliability hasn't been too hot either; not bad, but not great. Of course some of that appears to be cheap mags they bought. Pays your money and take your chances.

Like you, my biggest problem is the controls and weight. I just don't like they way it shoots, but thankfully that's not what I get when travelling.

[breacher]

This is not the case with just the Army, it's all US military. TV shows like Future Weapons are for our benefit, not soldiers. The most elite military units who conduct specialized, necessary and highly dangerous operations have these same old weapons. Meanwhile, we all are lead to believe through games and movies they field the most advanced weaponry.

When new weapons come out it takes years, decades even for them to reach the front lines.

[breacher]

It was the SEALs who really hated the controls and decided to try the Submachine Gun ammo in the Berettas causing the cracking issues to show up. The redesign/ fix/ upgrade became known as the 92FS.

Or Beretta produced special guns for the tests and then couldn't produce them properly at the cost they quoted, which resulted in a slide being sent through a soldiers face. Like the pistol or not, it's hasn't had a good track record and makes even the M16 teething problems look minor.

The SEALs set out to break them, that is why they used ammo that was never intended for pistols in it. They wanted the Sig, they got the authority to run the 226 after they tore up the M9s. The individuals involved admitted as much years later.
Please don't confuse my telling the story accurately as an endorsement of the M9, I think the controls on the M9 stink. I would rather carry a M1911 with an empty chamber and the safety off than the M9 with one in the chamber and the safety on. As far as service life goes the M9 hasn't even made it to half of the service life of the M1911.

that's not exactly right. no one set out to break the M9, it was the use of +P ammo that cracked slides which led to the purchase of MK23. At that time, HK was the only manufacturer to state their pistol could handle high pressure ammo. the MK23 also handled better due to its size and weight. it was later dropped for those same reasons in favor of the lighter, smaller P226 which NSWC had Sig beef up the slide wall thickness. The only difference between a real Specwar P226 and a retail commemorative one is slide weight.

If you ask most SEALs they will tell you they prefer the smaller HK Tactical 45ACP to the MK23 and P226.

[RWBlue01]

I find humor in the "Glock Perfection" crowd saying how wonderful it would be for the US Military to adopt them, especially all the troubles so many of the Gen. 4s have with extraction/ ejection. So many people blame it on "limp wristing" while shooting, meanwhile, Glock came out with a fix kit. If there wasn't an issue why do they need a fix?

Glock G17 or G19 or even something in the 45GAP, yes, Gen4 HELL NO. Gen3 was perfection, Gen4 was stupid for a gun that would be required to shoot WWB and Wolf ammo. But as the military would use NATO ammo, it would work.