Quit being NATO compliant and issue bullets that kill.

Semms as though I've read many compliments and few complaints of the longest serving pistol they ever employed, another one of Mr.Browning's masterpieces, the 1911.

They should also consider Glock since they'll just keep on shooting. The lightweight frame goes against what was mentioned in the article, though. Thus my mention of the 1911. I sure can run mine better than I could the Glock 21 I had. I'm curious to see how this plays out.

Now if they'd just replace the whimpy 5.56mm with a 6.5mm and get some work done.

Lol dang you're in love with that 6.5 haha. That won't happen. Unless they go to a 6.5 Grendel they would have to change out all the M16's to the SR25 platform to shoot the other 6.5 caliber's. Plus would defeat the purpose of us moving from the bigger heavy rounds in the first place the platform would be heavy and ammo would be heavier thus less ammo being carried by each soldier.

And seeing how most rounds never find their intended target you need to be able to carry as many as possible.

That's right.

Army needs to take up Marine Corps school of thought. Every Marine a rifleman. Odd how I read the article "Taking back the half mile" bringing M14s out of storage and putting them in them hands of designated marksmen. Not quite Snipers but can reach the 400 yard distances the enemy is fighting from and where the 5.56 aint so good. Funny how the 308 found its' way back on the battle field and now they're wanting out of the 9mm pistol business.

Read Chris Kyle's second book "American Gun". He tells through history how the head shed doesn't arm soldiers with the best arms available until way late. He sites examples from 1775 through to his time on the battle field.

And yes I love the 6.5mm.

I agree, somewhat. The 5.56 was never intended to be used past 300 yards, and loaded with the faster 55grn bullet, it was effective at those distances. I don't think the AR is a bad platform at all. However, they do need to recognize its limitations and do something to arm troops for farther distances.

I vote XDM .45 or G21.

If they want power then they will have to scrafice the number of round a gun holds. I think that is where the 9mm excels over other rounds. I say give them a P226, with the best defense round available, after all, Sig makes their 40 based on the same frame and slide design that also shoots the 357sig and 45. I don't care if you shoot a would be attacker with a 45, if he is determined then he will still fight. I'm all for giving our millitary the most powerful weapons that they can handle.

I say give then them the FN5.7 if they want power.

I would want whatever holds the most rounds

This...I would want quantity over power in a fire fight

We will argue about this for years, ultimately reach no conclusion, and the proposed program will be canceled. Every eight or ten years we go through this with either the duty rifle or sidearm. I hate to sound so cynical, but the cycle has an almost inevitable quality.

If the Army wants a bigger pistol, I say let them have it. They are the ones who have to use it, not the stateside police trainers and competitive shooters that have misgivings about it.

"The 9mm doesn't score high with soldier feedback,"

Well DUH! You'd think they'd be listening to the guy on the ground that uses one every day from the get go.

How is it a sacrifice to go from an M9 with 15 rounds to a Glock or XD .45 with 13?

Seems like I read or heard somewhere, "We are always preparing to fight the last war."

I don't get that either. When they went from the 1911 to the m9, they doubled their magazine capacity. That is significant but loosing or gaining two or three rounds isn't (at least when the round count is into the teens).

In 2014, they can defiantly do better than the M9. If they went with the Glock 20, they would have twice as much power with the same mag capacity in a lighter weight pistol that is cheaper and easier to shoot. I know they wont do that, I'm just saying that handgun technology has come a LONG way in the last 30 years since they adopted the M9.

Every year - this story gets up and around - who knows if its real this time or it will actually get traction. They just finished getting a bunch more M9s recently.

If the .40 cal had been what it is today popularity-wise they would have never gone to the 9mm.

But I would guess changing over is like turning the Titanic....

I don't believe the .40 SW even existed at the time. The adoption of the 9mm was a rare occurrence of the US military adopting a preexisting round. I can't think of another time when they didn't adopt something that was brand new.

I wonder how often they actually use the handgun in offensive combat?
Or is it mostly used in situations where you are trying to hold territory?
Are we limited to FMJ?

Ever notice how the world seems to have to keep learning the same lessons over and over. Back during the Indian Wars we had it pretty well covered with the 45 Colt. Then dropped down to the 38 for action in the Philippines and bad feedback so back to a bigger bullet- the 1911 comes along to save the day- not quite as powerful as the old 45 Colt but close enough. Push a button, mag drops, cram in a new one, push a button, keep on shooting AND that outstanding trigger. I have a variety of 9mm including the Browning Hi-power, shot the Glock for a while, so BEEN THERE DONE THAT, only hits count and hits that knock the stuffing out of some one count best.
I feel the 1911 can hit a man "often enough" at 100 yards to represent a viable weapon. I really hate the double action semi-autos and detest the logic behind them- the "safety police". 1911's have been tossed off buildings cocked and locked- just to see if they would fire accidentally, nope. In a street gun fight I'd probably pick a S & W because you can use SWC and if you get hit and can't hold a firm wrist you can still shoot the revolver whereas you might limp wrist and get a stovetop with the semi-auto; but, in a military situation I'd always opt for the 1911 because of better firepower and a good cartridge and trigger. The Beretta in current issue, the first time I handled one I was surprised that it felt larger and more bulky in my hand than the 1911, I figured if the Army was dropping down to a 9mm that the handgun would be more compact. It's that 15 round magazine, how many times in combat do you really need 15 continuous rounds? It only takes a second to reload a 1911. In any event, to each his own but for me the 1911 points better and I shoot it better.

1. You can shoot SWC out of a 1911.
2. It is quite difficult to limp wrist a pistol to the point of malfunction.
3. When is it a good idea to carry LESS ammo to a firefight?
4. Out of combat gear, a reload is going to take closer to 4 seconds. Therefore, it is going to take almost twice as long to shoot 15 rounds from a 1911 than a modern 9/40/45.

I've seen 1911s "limp wristed" on several occasions on the range. By smaller handed individuals mostly. Look at the FBI report on the various handgun rounds. Yes the .45 leaves a bigger hole to bleed out of but none of the standard handgun rounds have legitimate "knock down" energy. A head shot, CNS hit or pelvic shot is the only real immediately immobilizing shots that are reliable. I like the .45 round and if they made a shield in it I would carry that over the 9mm just for the larger hole it makes. The reality is though in a defense/offense firefight situation more rounds is better imo.

Judging by the FBI, we need 6" .357 revolvers.

FNX-45.

i can see that as a viable option.