Rumor milling
Army to replace the M9 with the M&P? Always rumors of them replacing some gun. They won’t go .40 since it’s not NATO.
15 Responses to “Rumor milling”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 30th, 2011 at 11:19 am
I’m confident that the Army will replace the M9 soon.
Just look at how quickly and efficiently the Army replaced the M4/M16 system…er…
What was the question again?
Pleeeahze — in 2050, the Chinese will be fighting their wars with laser rifles and phasers, and the U.S. Army will still be talking about a “possible replacement” for the M4/M16 and the M9.
August 30th, 2011 at 11:48 am
That’s rich, we invent NATO as a kindergarten for Euro goober-children, and then NATO starts making stupid decisions we have to abide by?
August 30th, 2011 at 11:57 am
yeah, they’ve got larger concerns on the table like cutting another 350 billion from the budget and various overseas operations. I don’t think trying to fix something like the issue sidearm is going to happen BEFORE the service rifle is cleared up. I also think the M&P wouldn’t be the best choice but it certainly is not the worst. I like my M9, never had an issue with it and all it takes is training and a better understanding of the damn thing than the Army bothered to teach you to figure out how to run it well. I think people are missing the point with the pistol sometimes, it is a secondary weapon system used for last ditch self defense while you get your rifle up or you use it to get another rifle.
August 30th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Honestly, since we are talking FMJ ammo, I’d go to the .40 with the FMJ flatpoints in a heartbeat.
And yes, dump the M9. I’d take a SIG, or Ruger, or Glock, or S&W MP, or 1911 Commander over the M9 any day.
And yes I’d love to see an AMERICAN gun!
August 30th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Cover story for last week’s Army Times. TL/DR.
The secret squirrel guys already carry whatever the hell they want, and the regulars will have whatever turd has the highest bribe attached to it forced on them.
And I’m sure that upgraded rifle is right around the corner, just behind the hacked and slashed budget. You know, so we can afford that trillion dollar free health care.
August 30th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
I say just set some boundary conditions as to caliber and magazine size and let soldiers choose what sidearm suits them. Stick them with an M9 if they’ve got firearm failure. It saves all the long testing process, and would silence all the critics. The M9 is a fine pistol, but it’s not for everyone. It’s silly to expect everyone to conform to the same pistol.
August 30th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Didn’t Big Army just let out a Contract for another 400,000+ M9’s just a couple of years ago? Sounds like someone in the U.S. House of Representatives wants some ‘Murican Made Pistols” for our “Brave Men and Women in Uniform” and the money to go to their District. Now who’s the Rep for Springfield, Mass?
August 30th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Well with the way the EU/NATO nations military power is going… I don’t think we will have to worry whether our ammo matches with theirs. They won’t really have any guns or soldiers to use them….
August 30th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Erik: That’s crazy talk! Conformity must be conformed to!
August 30th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
.338 Lapua hasn’t been NATO standardized yet. Several nations are using it as a sniper round. .300 Win Mag, same deal. .45 ACP was never NATO spec, but we used it for a long time after we formed NATO. 5.56x45mm was not NATO when we adopted it.
August 30th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Actually, it IS crazy talk, but not for comformity’s sake. Could you imagine the logistical nightmare that would cause? Even if you absolutely require that the cartridge is something that US forces already use (which would, as a matter of practicality, limit it pretty much to 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm), you’re going to have a hell of time keeping the rifles themselves functional and in the field. You’d have to have armorers who know how to service the myriad of different rifles the troops would choose, you’d need to source parts from dozens of different companies, with no economy of scale to bend down prices, you’d need to be able to train – or at least make sure – that every soldier knows how to care for their particular weapon. All for maybe a slight increase in effectiveness out of your riflemen. It just ain’t worth it.
August 30th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
All this “it’s not NATO” crap is just that…crap. What is NATO any more except an United Nations force for invading 3rd World Dictatorships like Libya? We’re not going to be getting in a land war in Europe against the Soviet Union any time soon. What countries are we going to be getting all this 9mm ammo from in the event of a war anyway? The Netherlands? Belgium? France? Nobody in Europe produces anything anymore anyway and if they do, they can do it in a better caliber.
The United States IS NATO. Just go back to the .45ACP and be done with it. I agree that we need one standard handgun for uniformity and spare parts.
August 30th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Grandpa carried a .45 Colt in WWI
Uncle Bob carried one in WWII.
Dad carried one in Korea and Viet-Nam.
OK, so I’m biased. But you can’t argue with success.
Do away with the grip and mag safeties the Ordinance and horse Cavalry officer forced on to John Moses Browning (face Ogden and bow) and it’ll be easier and cheaper to produce.
Then if we adopt the .270 round Garand had originally wanted …
August 30th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Now introducing the 10mm NATO Round!
August 31st, 2011 at 4:06 am
Wow, a lot of under the skin tension coming out,
Nato membership allows for use of facilities beyond what allies normaly permit eachother. Wether it’s joint US/Dutch helicopter exercises, the existence of the Rammstein USAF base, disposition of the underground European (Nato exclusive) petro-pipeline network, integration of radar networks or the possibility of storing tactical nukes in one country or another (this remains confirmed or denied of course)
A strategic alliance, not tactical
Any country can adapt a cartridge or weapon that is not Nato standard,
Case in point: Belgian/German rivalry concenring the new pistol/PDF round (5.7mm vs 7mm)
In addition, certain eastern european countries continue to use some Warsaw Pact-ish guns (e.g.: Romania’s PSL)
Lastly: concerning the M4/M16
I hear that the USMC has started inroducing the HK 416, you know to “replace” the M249 (wink wink, nudge nudge)