Time For A New Military Sidearm

It seems that the U.S. military is once again talking about replacing the 9mm Beretta 92.

The top replacement possibility in this article - Springfield XD45 - might surprise some, but not me since I've owned an XD9 for several years.

source

I love the fact that I can take it down for cleaning almost one-handed in less than 30 seconds.

I was just looking at the new Springfield XDM .40 cal and thought that was an awesome pistol, (WANTS ONE) Im sure the 45 is sweet too!! I wouldnt be surprised at all...

reply to post by centurion1211


Ok i was heartbroken when they dumped the M1911, a whole era of my life just cast aside for the younger prettier new gal.
That said the Beretta proved to be pretty solid, although i do not own one, i would if i could easily enough.
My buddy just got one of those xd45's it is pretty, but just like my first suspicions with the Beretta M9 there has not been enough time tried data.
another thing i did not like about the xd is the controls are just a little too low profile, ie the slidelock.
I still prefer my 1911 or sig 220 or usp 45.
Good thing i am not dependant on an issued weapon!
You will most generally be faster, more accurate, or just better with what your happy with.
Xd still is a pretty gal though.

Going back to the 45. I prefer the 45 over the 9mm but didn't they spend millions converting stock piles to 9mm?

www.springfield-armory.com...

I have one of the earlier XD's without the ergonomics for about 6 or 7 years now in 45ACP. I like it. In hind sight I would have gotten a shorter barrel though. It's a big thick gun. I like the newer XDM 3.8's. Not the first 3.8's but the more recent 3.8's. I might pick one up.

The forces have been looking for a new rifle too.

www.marinecorpstimes.com...

With all this shopping around doesnt look like waging war all over the world is going to end anytime soon.

reply to post by exile1981


They sure did, but as my post eludes, i am a 45 junky as well!
2nd line reserved for future comment and or rebuttal.

reply to post by centurion1211


As a warrior, stationed in various conflicts, and a weapons collector, I find this decision to be wise. The unmentionable "sidearm", you refer to, is probably the worst piece of crap I had the displeasure of using (only in training). I will, of course, be keeping one for my collection. Same could be said about most US light-infantry weapons...goes to show just how high US Policy-makers regard the soldiers...give them the cheapest available weapons, and let them sort it out (it does keep unemployment statistics down, after all).

Fortunately, I was not US military. I also had the fortune, and money, to equip myself, and my partner. However, your post, not because of it being your intention, is a bit misleading.
I "worked" along side many US forces, in Somalia, Iraq I, in the Balkans, and Afghanistan, and none of them used that ridiculous "Sidearm". Guess it was only for infantry, and those whose families didn't have money, or means, to send them a proper gun.

I had very little contact with USA's light infantry, but I saw, and was told, that most of them used personal weapons, sent by family, or bought on the nonofficial local markets.
All US forces I worked with where issued other sidearms: HKs in 45 ACP; 1911s in 45 ACP; various models of the SIG P228 (M-11); Heckler & Koch MK23; SIG P226-9-NAVY; M-45 MEUSOC (based on the 1911, chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge); SIG P229R DAK (chambered in .40 S&W or .357 SIG); Heckler & Koch HK45, along with some other, more "exotic" guns - anything but the Beretta M9, that was reserved for the "poor bastards" that, either didn't have the money to buy something else, or where commanded by some "by-the-book" pencil-pusher.

As such, the M9, even though officially adopted as the universal sidearm, was never universally accepted...
Good riddance, you where never remember, so cannot be forgotten.
Just hope, this time, they are more concerned with soldiers safety, and well-being, then with the budget.

My opinion is that stepping back up to the .45 would be a big improvement but as the .40 seems to be a good round also I guess and has a huge following it would work also.

wouldnt it make a lot more sense to develop a new round? 9x19 and .45 are both very old. Im sure it is possible to design a new pistol round which has a good compromise between stopping power, penetration and weight/size.

The revolution continues. Back to a 45. Personally I have a fondness for the 1911, a nice dependable pistol. It's too bad that pencil pushers are the ones making the choices of firearms for our soldiers. They way too often make choices based on the look of the gun as opposed to the practicality of it.

reply to post by centurion1211


I think the military should go with .40 S&W over the .45, I've always been a huge fan of the .45 and even own a Glock 21 in .45 cal its a great shooter and hits hard and there is a ton of history on the success of the .45acp in wartime use. Now after owning a .40 S&W HK USP Compact, I immediately fell in love with that round, flies almost as fast as a 9mm just as accurate (a bit more recoil) but follow up shots are easy to an experienced shooter and you also get more magazine capacity than guns chambered in .45 cal. The .40 S&W would be my vote for the military, I've never had any range time behind the Springfield XD but I've held one in my hand and just didn't care for the feel of the gun and that by no means is an indicator of how the gun functions but if the gun isn't comfortable in my hand than I have no interest, my hands are somewhat big btw. My Glock and my HK fit me perfectly and those weapon systems have been around much longer and parts are more plentiful than the XD, the military should stick with a proven sidearm if they are looking to replace thier current issue sidearms.


Next step for the military to replace should be doing away with the 5.56x45mm that round never deserved to be on a battelfield, its a very good Varment round but just doesn't have the stopping power that you want in a war and my vote to replace that would be .308 winchester its one of the most common rifle rounds in the world, has very good stopping power and penetration up to 800 yards, snipers reach out to 1200 yards accurately and the recoil is mild for a .30 cal round. Only drawback is the ammo weighs more than the 5.56 but with the 5-8 rounds it would normally take to drop a enemy with the 5.56 you could do with just 1 .308 in center mass and those 5 or more rounds weigh much more than 1, .308 round. Would be an easy decision if it were up to me but the government has their business partners they have to keep happy so our troops will probably be the ones that pay the price for using an ineffective round that is more effective at small game hunting.

Originally posted by tomcat ha
wouldnt it make a lot more sense to develop a new round? 9x19 and .45 are both very old. Im sure it is possible to design a new pistol round which has a good compromise between stopping power, penetration and weight/size.

Age should have nothing to do with it the success of the .45, its "Proven" history goes back 100 years but just becuase its old doesn't mean its not effective, the .45 is pretty devastating and packs one hell of a punch with very light recoil for that caliber. Its only drawback is magazine capacity mainly in the 1911 style guns which most use single stack magazines holding 7-8 rounds. For example the Glock 21 has double stack magazines that hold 13 rounds with factory magazines. I think there are a few makers of 1911's that offer double stack versions but they are costly and not as common as the single stack and you can't just change the magazine either the whole frame is machined differently to allow the wider double stack clips.

reply to post by tomcat ha

wouldnt it make a lot more sense to develop a new round? 9x19 and .45 are both very old. Im sure it is possible to design a new pistol round which has a good compromise between stopping power, penetration and weight/size.

IMO that would be known as the 357 Sig. At 125 grains it gets nearly the same ballisitics as a .357 magnum, but in a semi auto. Speer Gold Dot 125 is very bad for the health at nearly 1400 fps. Basically it's a .40 S&W (10mm short & weak) necked-down to .357 dia.

BTW 38 Super is nearly the same thing, but made back in the '20s. Reinvent the wheel......

I still like the Sig P220, .45 ACP 230 grain. Reliable and accurate, don't need the whole magazine of 8, just one.

It is time for the military to give up its macho bias for the .45 or the more economical 9mm that nato adopted and split the difference with the ,40 s&w. Many police departments use this round and it began as a shorter and less powerful version of the 10mm adopted for the FBI. Most guns chambered in the .40 hold nearly as many rounds as a 9mm (with double stacking) and basically the same ballistics as the ,45 (what it looses in mass it gains in velocity). My vote, then, is for the .40 s&w cartridge to replace both the .45 acp and the 9mm (9x19 parabellum).

My personal opinion is that the 10mm is the best all around caliber to be used. More energy and magazine capacity than a .45, and more stopping power than a 9mm, .40, or even .357sig

It's not the most common round, which is why I would guess the military has not decided to use it, but I honestly think this would be the best idea for a combat sidearm. That's assuming we should force soldiers to use one single weapon/caliber. It should be up to the soldier, they are the one that has to put their life on it.

As for a rifle, I think there has recently been a lot of interest in the 6.8mm converted AR platform rifles. This too is supposed to be a great middle ground from .223 to 7.62x39 (orx51 for that matter)

I am a big fan of springfield everygun i own is springfield... atleast they are doing something i dont mind this time so its all good

reply to post by James1982


It would be nice to have the choice of what sidearm you would like, but having a standard round makes it easier and cheaper then trying to get 9mm, .45acp, .40s&w and imagine if you decided to go with a .357 went to grab some ammo and there was none, now that personal choice to carry that weapon makes it useless.

With a sidearm you really dont need to worry about high velocity, infact the lower the velocity the better for a sidearm. At close range (what a sidearm is for) 9mm has a much higher chance of going strait through the target because of the high velocity, use a 45acp has lower speed and more weight, that energy will transfer into the target stopping it in its track (good for close range).

Colt 1911 all the way.

I had the displeasure to work with a Company of MPs in Iraq, and the vast majority of the time, the M9 was what I was working on. I don't mind the caliber of the round, or its supposed stopping power (I've seen a few 9mm wounds, don't appear to be anything less 'stopping' about them).

The worst thing about that weapon, by far, was a faulty safe selector switch. I knew a couple of soldiers who would holster the thing only to have it pinstripe them down the side of their leg.

One of them was real hooah too. He was really pissed to have to go back to the states after only being there about a month. I had been there about a year. I told him I'd gladly trade.

He didn't take my offer though.

AHAHAHAHahaha, awesome!
Im an XD-9 owner and the weapon is fantastic.
Police forces already use the XD, now the military is possibly picking it up.

In environments where insurgents are walking off with 9mm and 5.56mm "tattoos" I'm not surprised that the Marine Corps would adopt a larger caliber weapon service weapon.

They are also looking into newer caliber rifles like the 6.8spc or the 6.5mm Grendel

Both of these rounds allow for the soldier to carry more rounds and deliver more powerful hits at longer distances.

It's good to hear the military returning to the .45 caliber round for service pistols. I'd like to see a bigger rifle round now.