Army to replace 9mm pistol with more reliable gun packing better 'knock down’ power

Fox News:

Army to replace 9mm pistol with more reliable gun packing better 'knock down’ power

The Army wants to retire its supply of 9mm handguns and replace it with a more accurate and user-friendly model that also will provide soldiers with more “knock-down” power. Army officials say their inventory of more than 200,000 semi-automatic Beretta M9 and Sig Sauer M11 pistols has become outdated, worn out and needs to be replaced with an updated model that also offers more reliability and durability.
They also are considering new ammunition, which has sparked considerable debate among military and civilian weapons experts, too.

“Advancements in firearms have taken place since the M9 was adopted nearly 30 years ago, and it is our intent to take advantage of these advancements,” a military spokesperson told on Friday. “The Army is seeking to replace the M9 and M11 pistols with a handgun that is more accurate, ergonomic, reliable and durable than the current pistol.”

Officials seem opposed to an update version of the Beretta M9, despite the company offering to make changes.
“We have submitted numerous changes or product improvements that really address a lot of the shortcomings that are either perceived or real,” Beretta development manager Gabe Bailey recently told

Maybe they should just go back to the Colt .45 sidearm.

I am honestly getting tired of our government spending so much money on the military.

As a mother whose three sons are all serving our nation in the United States Air Force, I do take offense at your statement Holly. They offer to sacrifice their lives for your safety and freedom; your freedom is NOT free! And you complain because they might get a better sidearm?

Don’t have one, but it certainly is one for the ages. The Colt has stood the test of time and yessir by all means go gack to it. Ammo costs more though. :thumbsup:.

If the army is going to replace their current gun with a more reliable gun then all the better. No one should judge this justifiable spending.

The USA has lost enough of its troops already.

Hopefully by changing their guns, it will make the troops safer and more men and women will be able to return home alive vs in a casket.

What’s a few million dollars when more families will be able to celebrate as their family members return home alive and safe and sound.

I’d like to thank your sons for their service. Our men and women deserve the best equipment we are able to give them.

I am sorry that I offended you Fencersmother and I realize that our freedom is not free. I completely agree with you. I see nothing wrong with them getting a better sidearm. I was just speaking in general. I just wish our military would stop trying to be the world’s police is all. Again, I am sorry I offended you. :frowning:

The point of a weapon is not to make its user safer, but to inflict death and destruction upon the enemy it is brought to bear upon.

Changing a weapon will not bring more troops home safe, ending meaningless engagements will.

It seems to me that this is just a normal part of military procurement. It would have no bearing on foreign policy.

I’m no militarist, but it seems to me that replacing old and out dated pistols would be nothing more than procedure as usual.

It’s not the same thing as building a nuclear submarine, or funding Star Wars.

In any case, I don’t think pistols constitute a major part of most engagements. It takes a real expert to use a pistol accurately at any distance. From my limited understanding, most pistol clubs have a maximum limit of 25 yards. Rifle clubs have much longer ranges.

I think the only people who wear them regularly are officers, (and maybe MP’s?)

I agree with you. I see nothing wrong with them upgrading equipment that will make them safer. I do have a problem with our military trying to be the world’s police force. I wasn’t clear on that in my original post and I am sorry for offending anyone because of that. It was my fault. :frowning:

All I am trying to say is that I don’t really see much of a reason to buy new equipment if the older equipment works well. I did read that the older pistols weren’t very reliable though so that’s a good justification for replacing them with newer equipment. Its just that with the crippling debt that our nation has, I think they should limit stuff like this to only when its necessary and clearly this is necessary and therefore justified.

Actually, it will. We’re not talking about M-16s. This is the personal side arm. It’s primary purpose is close action protection. So, yes, a better pistol will not only bring more troops home safely but it will increase safety in non-combat situations.

I didn’t realize it was primarily used for close action protection. Now I realize just how stupid my original comment was.

Which, sad to say, is the point. The soldier’s purpose is not to die for his country, but to make the other poor **** die for his.

Improvement in weapon reliability, accuracy, etc improves your chances of neutralizing your opponent before he can do the same to you.

In WWI, due to political interference, the Canadian Army was stuck with the Canadian-made Ross Rifle. Accurate as all get out – on a sporting range. Useless in the mud of the Western Front. Canadians chucked their Rosses and picked up the far more reliable British Lee Enfield whenever they could.

[quote=Hobbes42]Changing a weapon will not bring more troops home safe, ending meaningless engagements will.

Obviously. But if you **are **going to send the lads off to war, don’t make them bring a knife to a gunfight.

Not really. I understand your sentiment.

It would be nice if we could spend less on the military. Here in Canada, the Conservative government seems preoccupied with changing the buttons and bows on the uniforms and rearranging the flags on the ships. They certainly aren’t spending anything on soldiers coming back wounded physically and/or mentally from combat. As for our equipment…well, we still use Sea Kings… :eek:

Oh please. The people in the military have volunteered to become a part of immoral military actions where they are rewarded with money and benefits. If the people in this country were not so irrationally in love the military, the people in the military (along with their political leaders including President Obama) would be stripped of their pay and benefits and be forced to work to repay for the damage they have done to world. They have the blood of thousands on their hands, and they accept blood money. They are no better than mercenaries.

Sorry if that offends you, but it is the capital T Truth.

I am in complete agreement. I live in Australia that does not have the same gun culture as the U. S. however I would want only the very best for our police and army. I respect anyone who stands between my family and the invader,criminal or terrorist.
Sometimes violence is sadly justified and the brave men and women who bear them in our defense deserve the best munitions we can afford.

I take your point and see how you might have hurt the feelings of families in the forces.
It is true that many people believe that America has involved itself in “policing” actions that they may have more wisely avoided. I put Iraq, and Afghanistan in this basket. However, given the world we live in, it is important to place America strongly in the camp of the good guys. It saved the world literally in the Second World War and as an Australian, can witness our enduring thanks at saving our skins against the Japanese.
We also saw the domino effect of communism rising from China and leading to its zenith in Vietnam. Without America, Korea would not be free, and the pacific nations liable to the communist threat.
So let us not be too quick to castrate America’s power, as many of us see it as a force for justice where-ever it ventures. It makes mistakes all the time, but I personally thank God for its power and the presence of its troops on our shores. America will always have a friend in Australia and a loyal ally.

Why did they ever leave the 1911 ? That was the coolest.

I never did understand that change.

Sorry if I sound uncharitable, but that has got to be the most abysmally stupid thing I have ever read on CAF, I wouldn’t even know where to begin to respond to the inanity of that statement.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit