Army looking to replace the M9

**Kabloosh** · July 8th, 2014, 10:40 PM

I know this is crazy talk for the military, but I think they could save a lot of money especially on handguns if they like many police departments have service members buy their own handgun.
It's crazy talk for two things. The military always had a weird vibe with how weapons were handled and dealt with, and that service members do not like paying for things especially things that we are required to have, and even if service members received a discount on the M9 it would still likely be a little pricey.
This would also give the opportunity I think for more members of the military to at least get qualified and carry at least a sidearm around. This way if some lunatic does go looney toons all over a bunch of GIs the receptionist at the desk could stop it from happening(cough cough Fort Hood cough).

**Asmodeus6** · July 9th, 2014, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Kabloosh

I know this is crazy talk for the military, but I think they could save a lot of money especially on handguns if they like many police departments have service members buy their own handgun.
It's crazy talk for two things. The military always had a weird vibe with how weapons were handled and dealt with, and that service members do not like paying for things especially things that we are required to have, and even if service members received a discount on the M9 it would still likely be a little pricey.
This would also give the opportunity I think for more members of the military to at least get qualified and carry at least a sidearm around. This way if some lunatic does go looney toons all over a bunch of GIs the receptionist at the desk could stop it from happening(cough cough Fort Hood cough).

This breaks the cardinal rule of resupply, and generally becomes a logistics nightmare.

How are you going to get say 200 different kinds of pistol mags to the people who need them in the field. Much easier to have 100,000 of ONE kind of magazine on hand and just issue them.

Think of how bad they are at doing THAT - and removing unserviceable magazines from inventory as it is.

Fort Hood is as simple as people being armed on base. This should be common sense. It's a military base, everyone should be armed, ALL the time.

**Grey Bearded One** · July 9th, 2014, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by Kabloosh

I know this is crazy talk for the military, but I think they could save a lot of money especially on handguns if they like many police departments have service members buy their own handgun.

Until WW II, it was quite common for officers to buy their own handguns. The GCA '68 even has allowances for military officers to buy handguns without going through an FFL.

**Kabloosh** · July 10th, 2014, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by Asmodeus6

This breaks the cardinal rule of resupply, and generally becomes a logistics nightmare.

How are you going to get say 200 different kinds of pistol mags to the people who need them in the field. Much easier to have 100,000 of ONE kind of magazine on hand and just issue them.

Think of how bad they are at doing THAT - and removing unserviceable magazines from inventory as it is.

Fort Hood is as simple as people being armed on base. This should be common sense. It's a military base, everyone should be armed, ALL the time.

You would only be able to buy an M9 or whatever handgun the choose in the future. Any other pistol wouldn't be supported by the military of course. Sidearms are sidearms though. You're likely in trouble if that has become your primary weapon in a conflict. You're probably better off killing a guy and using his weapon then.

Of course if the military did open it up to multiple handguns and put an stipulation that it had to fit a certain magazine just imagine what that would do for the civilian market. Face it, you all would love to have something like a universal magazine that fit the majority of popular handguns similar to M16 mags and how they can be used in so many different rifles.

**chauncey** · July 13th, 2014, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by animalmother85

The issue with the 5.56x45 isn't it's diameter or speed, it's its bullet's design. If you put the right bullet in there, it'll be plenty for any man.

yes but when you get to barrier penetration and downrange energy you either have to switch rounds or calibers.

I prefer simplicity so I like 7.62x51. even in pistols :-)

**animalmother85** · July 13th, 2014, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by chauncey

yes but when you get to barrier penetration and downrange energy you either have to switch rounds or calibers.

I prefer simplicity so I like 7.62x51. even in pistols :-)

That's why you have crew served weapons.

**chauncey** · July 13th, 2014, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by animalmother85

That's why you have crew served weapons.

I couldn't begin to tell you how many times command and logistics let me down. or how many times the right tool or materials "were tasked to another priority" or "not allocated" or otherwise unavailable, pointed the wrong direction, or just plain old f'd up.

and that was in training. I can't imagine the "fog of war" would Help The Situation

I learned that at the end of the day as an infantryman or boat captain (and now as a construction manager) all you could rely on is what you took care of yourself. if you didn't bring the necessary tool, likely it would not find itself there.

so give the choice between humping bandoliers of 249 ammunition for a weapons system that frequently went down, I would have much preferred the added weight of 7.62x51 ammunition for my service rifle.

That would put the power in MY hands to solve problems, instead of relying on someone else that may or may not be there with the right tool for the job.

maybe it's different in the Army

sorry to the OP for pulling off topic...