U.S. Army wants a harder-hitting pistol

[JimThornTX]

If only CZ had a manufacturing plant in the USA. I think our soldiers would look great carrying a P-06 or an SP-01 in 40S&W or a 97 in 45ACP. 

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/07/03/army-wants-harder-hitting-pistol/

[Grendel]

Again? Seems I see these stories every year - along with the latest camo design they're trialing. Must be a slow news day.

[jwc007]

Hmmm?  Wonder who's getting $$$ under the table for this one?  The Defense Department bought another shipment of Beretta M9's last year.

[1SOW]

I wouldn't look for the DOD to spend a BUNCH of money on handgun and ammunition testing/buying in this time of Mil cut-backs and National bebt.
DOD will be spending a LOT time trying to make cut-backs with minimum troop losses.

[Hurryin Hoosier]

We have nothing to fear. Dear Leader will take care of us.   

[bugboy]

I wouldn't look for the DOD to spend a BUNCH of money on handgun and ammunition testing/buying in this time of Mil cut-backs and National bebt.
DOD will be spending a LOT time trying to make cut-backs with minimum troop losses.

You are assuming that there is ANY logic to DoD spending.  There is not. 

The folks that make these decisions don't really care about troop losses or readiness or cost vs. benefit,,,,,, it is like any other bureaucracy,,,,, they do want they need to do to in order to keep them and their position relevant and to pad their EPR/OPR.

DoD is no less broken than any other of our bureaucracies.

[nicky]

+1

[muggia59]

It is infuriating how our lack of confidence in our government is so obvious to us, but doesn't seem to faze our government until they want a vote.

[Smitty79]

Let's go back to talking about the guns.   I understand why they don't like 9mm, while I think it's great for defense.   Everyone needs to remember that the military has to stick with ball ammo.   I believe it's the Geneva Convention that prohibits hollow points for military use.  Nothing in pistol caliber really does that job.    Without modern bullets, it's worse.

Something bigger and badder than 9X19 is needed to stop a highly motivated attacker.

[Towns]

You beat me to it Smitty.

It was the Hague Convention of 1899 that banned expanding bullets.  I just did some reading on it.....very interesting history. 

JHP would do better than switching to .45 IMO.  However, the military also makes use of the better penetrating FMJ ammo in some cases, I would imagine. 

[stitch1870]

Due to NATO conformity I wouldn't expect DoD to switch to a service pistol chambered outside of 9mm. Cool guys units (MarSoc, SF, SEALs, etc) will still get their pick of the lot due to their mission parameters, but standard units and personnel will more than likely be stuck with some awful DA/SA pistol.

[Smitty79]

If it were up to me, I would probably go with a double stack 45.    Max fire power with ball ammo.   Having a gun with a choice of polymer or steel for the frame would be nice.   That way, the guys that don't have to hump their gear in the boonies get the stronger frame.   But when the mission is is walk a long way in the mountains, you can save a few ounces.

[stitch1870]

Simple logistics would prevent widespread adoption of a 45 service pistol. On top of that DoD would have to retrain all the armorers, depending on the platform extensive retraining would have to take place to get everyone accommodated to the new pistol's operation, and then there's the commonality we share with other NATO forces. If a US unit is sharing a patrol base/outpost it screws over our allies if ammo stocks run short and they can't feed their sidearms.

[muggia59]

I really don't see the military getting away from 9mm as it has been mentioned. I personally like the Beretta, but never had to use it when I was in the military. And you have to remember that all of our troops that carry the 92 aren't elite and proficient with the gun like most of the units that probably have had to use it in a life or death situation. Granted it was over 20 years ago, but I was infantry, and in the 82nd, and we still only fired the 92 once a year to qualify. Proficiency only comes with practice, and Im pretty sure your regular ground pounders still don't get enough good handgun training. My apologies for going political earlier.

[Jake G]

I don't foresee any change due to simple logistics and the fact that you can carry much more 9mm than .45. I know from competition shooting that my bag feels considerably heavier when loaded down with .45 am  than 9mm. Personally I like the .40 when considering the fact that the military uses FMJ.  Think about handgun hunting with hard cast flat points. They give far more tissue disruption than round nose bullets. The .40 already has a flat point and would therefore cause more tissue damage.  Now, I wonder if we could improve 9mm performance by going to a truncated cone FMJ.  Or come up with a round nose that has an air cavity under the nose that would allow the nose to crush under impact to become more of a flat point. This may even be enough to cause the bullet to lose stability and begin to tumble there by creating more tissue damage.  Kind of like how 77 grain Sierra match kings are used in combat because they weren't designed to expand, however they yaw, tumble, and fragment really well!  We just have to become more creative!