Time to say goodbye to the M9 9mm pistol

[Cthulhu]

As Danny said, get to where you're not a novice with firearms.

After that, go look for a good 12ga pump. They're reliable, hard hitting, and intimidating.

Also, in a home defense situation, you want to be able to hit him once, and have there be absolutely zero chance he gets back up. You pray you don't have to take anyone down, but when it comes down to it, is the safety of you and your family.

Absolutely.  If you're thinking home protection, nothing says you're serious like a 12 ga. And you can have one for less than the cost of a good pistol.

You'll still end up buying a pistol because well, you will. Shooting is addictive and fun as Hell. Take everybody's recommendations with a grain of salt, and then go buy whatever makes you smile the most when you shoot it.  

[nrshida]

Would it not be more logical and economical for the US Army to do away with the pistol altogether and lump the money towards a new ambidextrous bullpup assault rifle with varying barrel lengths but sharing the same mechanism and cartridge?

[Cthulhu]

Would it not be more logical and economical for the US Army to do away with the pistol altogether and lump the money towards a new ambidextrous bullpup assault rifle with varying barrel lengths but sharing the same mechanism and cartridge?

That's a thought. Some of the really short-barreled M4's are practically there already. Carriage (holster?) could be an issue though. Maybe something like the P90?

[nrshida]

That's a thought. Some of the really short-barreled M4's are practically there already. Carriage (holster?) could be an issue though. Maybe something like the P90?

The shortest one of these doesn't seem a lot longer than the thingie Gscholz posted. All 5.56-mm with mostly common parts:



If you designed it properly you could change out the barrels like the Steyr AUG in about 45 seconds. So if the day's work involved urban house clearing...

Just a thought anyway.

[TheCrazyOrange]

US military doesn't like bullpups for some reason.

[GScholz]

The shortest one of these doesn't seem a lot longer than the thingie Gscholz posted.

Only about twice as long.

[GScholz]

Would it not be more logical and economical for the US Army to do away with the pistol altogether and lump the money towards a new ambidextrous bullpup assault rifle with varying barrel lengths but sharing the same mechanism and cartridge?

The pistol is there as a backup in case your main weapon malfunctions or is out of action for other reasons.

[nrshida]

Only about twice as long.

I was thinking the maximum length simply had to be comparable to a pistol shooter using the Weaver Stance.

The pistol is there as a backup in case your main weapon malfunctions or is out of action for other reasons.

I thought that was what your squaddies was for 

[Cthulhu]

The shortest one of these doesn't seem a lot longer than the thingie Gscholz posted. All 5.56-mm with mostly common parts:

(Image removed from quote.)

If you designed it properly you could change out the barrels like the Steyr AUG in about 45 seconds. So if the day's work involved urban house clearing...

Just a thought anyway.

Pretty sure the P90 is smaller than any of those.

[GScholz]

The previous posts when you were talking about the 5.7, and then saying this - my point the entire discussion is that THIS point is invalid, as penetration doesn't mean anything with all combat pistol caliber including 5.7, and even many rifle calibers, versus the very armor you brought up.

The armor I brought up, the US PASGT armor is not level 4. The helmet is rated at 3a and has been penetrated in demonstrations by both the 5.7x28 and the 4.6x30. The PASGT kevlar vest is only rated at level 2... and please note that I specify the kevlar vest just like i did in my previous posts, not the ISAPO plate carrier that was added later... I have not "brought up" or even hinted at any level 4 armor.

For reference here's your AR500 plate:




And here's the complete Interceptor armor system in use by US forces now:




Now... What does a level 4 plate protect... It protects the heart, lungs, liver and upper intestines. It does not protect the torso flanks, lower abdomen, hips, gonads, shoulders, upper arms, throat, or head. All these areas have a maximum of level 3a protection and can be penetrated by the 5.7 or 4.6. in one shot. With a 9mm or .45 you're down to the unprotected face, lower arms and legs only. The rest is pretty much impregnable to legacy pistol calibres. And that is what I meant with my original post.



You can keep quoting on me all you like, but you will never find a quote where I say or even hint at the 5.7 being able to defeat level 4 armor in one shot.

[GScholz]

I was thinking the maximum length simply had to be comparable to a pistol shooter using the Weaver Stance.

The size of a backup weapon is not that important when you're actually using it. The size and weigh is important when you're not using it. Lugging around what is in effect a second assault rifle is contrary to the whole idea of a backup gun. It should be light and not cumbersome.

I thought that was what your squaddies was for  

They could be out of action too.

[nrshida]

The size of a backup weapon is not that important when you're actually using it. The size and weigh is important when you're not using it. Lugging around what is in effect a second assault rifle is contrary to the whole idea of a backup gun. It should be light and not cumbersome.

Yes I understood that. I wasn't suggesting it as a secondary weapon. I was thinking if you had a short-barreled variant then those that wouldn't normally be armed with a rifle could carry the short one. The L22 is carried by helicopter pilots in the British Army I understood. This was just prompted by the suggested ineffectiveness of a pistol, the unlikelihood of needing it in squad-based operation but primarily the cost and logistics: one platform, one cartridge, one magazine type...

The Bullpup suggestion was about overall length / barrel length ratio in restricted spaces. The M16/4 platform being pretty long also because of the buffer tube location.

Does the Norwegian army issue pistols to regular infantry?

[danny76]

One of the major concerns regarding issuing soldiers with pistol's is the likelihood of them shooting themselves outweighs the likelihood of them being in a situation where they would have to resort to a back up weapon.

For whatever reason soldiers seem to want to play with handguns.

The Brits seem averse to handing them out except to snipers as a backup and to officers to make them feel important.

Other than in competition shooting I rarely even laid eyes on a pistol other than the ones carried in holsters by officer types. Apparently because their little arms were too weak to hoist a big heavy rifle about the place

[danny76]

US military doesn't like bullpups for some reason.

It has probably been swayed by the early experiences with the bullpup design in other armed forces.

The FAMAS for example is truly horrible.

I had the dubious honour of using the L85-A1 and frankly it was a fairly shocking piece of crap.

It was rattly and unnecessarily heavy, the cheek pad melted in contact with Army issue insect repellant and repellant containing cam-cream. It was possible to load two rounds, one behind the other, because the extractor in the bolt head would hold onto the first round, when fired the front round would head off down range, the rearmost round would more often than not come out of the top of the receiver, with potentially fatal results.

Field stripping took a good amount of time, parts like the firing pin retaining pin were tiny and easily lost. Failing to place the rear trigger mechanism housing locking pin exactly in the correct place would result in the main spring and guide shooting out into a bush or up your nose, and the gas plug could get permanently jammed if re-inserted at the wrong angle.

The magazine catch was positioned in such a way that with the correct sling position, it would bang against you chest and dump the mag.

The H+K revised A2 is an exemplary weapon however, which is accurate over iron sights out past 600m, the magazine change is intuitive and quick, the weapon itself is now pretty soldier proof.

I like the bullpup design, the only real issue with the bullpup that I can find is that I wouldn't fancy bayonet fencing with a weapon that short

[craz07]

It has probably been swayed by the early experiences with the bullpup design in other armed forces.

The FAMAS for example is truly horrible.

I had the dubious honour of using the L85-A1 and frankly it was a fairly shocking piece of crap.
It was rattly and unnecessarily heavy, the cheek pad melted in contact with Army issue insect repellant and repellant containing cam-cream. It was possible to load two rounds, one behind the other, because the extractor in the bolt head would hold onto the first round, when fired the front round would head off down range, the rearmost round would more often than not come out of the top of the receiver, with potentially fatal results.

Field stripping took a good amount of time, parts like the firing pin retaining pin were tiny and easily lost. Failing to place the rear trigger mechanism housing locking pin exactly in the correct place would result in the main spring and guide shooting out into a bush or up your nose, and the gas plug could get permanently jammed if re-inserted at the wrong angle.

The magazine catch was positioned in such a way that with the correct sling position, it would bang against you chest and dump the mag.

The H+K revised A2 is an exemplary weapon however, which is accurate over iron sights out past 600m, the magazine change is intuitive and quick, the weapon itself is now pretty soldier proof.

I like the bullpup design, the only real issue with the bullpup that I can find is that I wouldn't fancy bayonet fencing with a weapon that short

who were the useless anklehumpers that designed this lovely piece.. lol