100,000 More Beretta M9′s for the Army

Beretta has announced that the US Army is set for the M9 for another 5 years and has ordered another hundred thousand M9 handguns.

So there you go… No new Army handgun for some time to come.  Sorry guys.

Of course, the M9 isn’t all that bad, when running off of good Beretta made magazines.  It’s full sized frame makes it controllable, confidence inspiring, and it’s both accurate and reliable… again, when running off factory mags and not after market.    Of course, my problem isn’t the gun, but the chosen caliber.  Maybe we can get an upgrade kit and make them all .40′s at least?  No?  Oh well.  The 9mm has done a good job with what it’s had to deal with.  The problem though is that the US Military has to use FMJ ammunition, where as we can run good JHP’s if we like.  If the Military could use some good old Hollow Points, then I think the complaints about stopping power would diminish greatly.

If not HP’s, then how about EFMJ’s?  Expanding Full Metal Jackets.  They look like regular Ball ammo but expand on impact.

EDIT:  Okay, okay… It’s my fault.  I just got a Beretta 92 and all the Generals at the Pentagon are like “Ogre went with the M9?  Order 10 thousand more!  No, Scratch that!  Make it 100 Thousand!”  Then they all pulled out Cigars, slapped each other on the backs, and went back to telling Golf stories while the Marine General looked smug and quietly swirled his brandy knowing the Marines just bought a bunch of 1911′s for their Boys.
Yes, the DOD totally works on my recommendations:

Okay then:

1.  Build more F-22 Raptors.
2.  Build new M1 Battle Tanks.
3.  Build new A-10′s.
4.  Buy a shit ton of the Remington ACR’s chambered in 6.8SPC, with suppressors to match, roll these out to everyone with an 11 Series MOS first, other MOS’s can get them later.
5.  M9′s for everyone in Uniform.
6.  That uniform will be some form of Multicam.
7.  Anyone in Uniform with the nickname “SOAP” will be put on permanent KP duty.
8.  The Army will bring back the original WWII Jeeps with modern upgrades to engine, suspension, and coms…. but they will be the same size and weight as the originals, and they will look the same… because they were badass.
9.  Sergeants will be allowed to tell off Second Lieutenants.  “Sir, that’s a real fucking stupid idea… Sir.
10.  Have a fighter pilot mistake Nancy Pelosi’s plane as a Drone Target.  OOPS!!!

Please?

44 thoughts on “100,000 More Beretta M9′s for the Army”

  1. For number 1, well…we could crank out F-15SEs quicker and cheaper. And the SE is good to go.

    1. The F-15SE is nearly as expensive as the F-22 had we bought 300 of them. It’s not nearly as good as the F-22 too. Why not just build more proven F-22s?

      1. The SE Eagle is primarily for Export. It’s only partially stealthed out, and even then, only from the front. This does not give us the distinct advantage the F-22 has.

  2. We have more guns than any other country. How the hell are we still buying military arms from another country?

  3. I believe the A10 has been out of production for quite some time. I don’t believe that I have seen any aircraft numbers made after 1982 at either Myrtle Beach AFB, Spangdahlm AB or even at Pope AFB before their birds left back in 2008. It’s a badass airframe but extremely outdated with its original mission pretty much gone.

      1. Getting the A-10 back in production today would be impossible. However…who wouldn’t like something better, like a heavily armed & armored UAV built around the Avenger gun? Without the pilot and armor for him you might be able to pack on more firepower than the old airplane.

        1. Not impossible. Just not a flip the switch easy thing to do. I’d rather have a pilot in the air than a Drone and a drowsy Controller.

  4. I like the suggestion for more A10s. Start with a gun, and make it airborne – what’s not to like?

    I’m desperately trying to come up with a function for the classic WWII battelship. Maybe one could “observe” the goings-on in places like Tripoli?

    1. I used to frequently visit the USS Missouri when it was at port in Bremerton Washington. It was basically a floating museum. The guns are massive… pictures and movies do not do those things justice. I totally fell in love with the Battleships.
      But I can see the Navy’s reasons for their retirement. Even if they were fitted with new engines and all new navigation… The platform is just hopelessly outdated. It would be like putting an MP3 Player in a 1938 VW Beetle.

    2. “I like the suggestion for more A10s. Start with a gun, and make it airborne – what’s not to like?”

      I like that idea too. But I also like the idea of it on a 25-30′ tall Mech holding it like Ahnold/Jesse Ventura.

      Scare those sand fleas so bad they’ll never come out of their holes.

      Alas, needs a small nuclear power source.

      1. Alas? Hardly. You need to market it properly:

        “Plus, it would be so badass that it would have it’s own nuclear power source!”

  5. The A10 became the best we have ever seen at close air support tank busting, which I don’t think was the plan for the airframe when it was built. Just a happy coinkadink when the sand box erupted the first time. Looks like we may need all that were built with current events in play…

    1. I thought the A-10 was built specifically for busting tanks? … Soviet tanks? … Soviet tanks in Eastern Europe heading west (Germany)?

      From Wiki: “The A-10 was designed for a United States Air Force requirement to provide close air support (CAS) for ground forces by attacking tanks, armored vehicles, and other ground targets with a limited air interdiction capability. It is the first U.S. Air Force aircraft designed solely for close air support.”

  6. Can’t do any expanding rounds. Hague Convention says, “The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.”

    Stupid, I know. And I made it a point with leadership, since I was on a stateside base. The M9 had HP rounds, but it was a supply thing with the 5.56mm. Cheaper to buy everything the same, and less likely to screw up where it goes.

    I didn’t much care for the M9, honestly. Felt like I was holding a fence post.

    1. From Illinois white tail hunting regs:

      “Non-expanding military style full metal jacket bullets cannot be used to harvest white-tailed deer; only soft point or expanding bullets (including copper / copper-alloy rounds designed for hunting) are legal ammunition. ”

      What’s “humane” for hunting, is banned by convention in war, and vice versa???

    2. The Hague Convention should only be viable when we are fighting others who have agreed.
      Right now we are not – so why are we holding ourselves to it?

  7. Per Number 5, that would have to be expanded to include the M11.

    My sister is in the military, and the M9 would be way too big for her mitts. My P228 with an E2 grip and a short trigger is just about right for her.

    1. I was thinking the same thing. The M9 puts our female/smaller warriors at a disadvantage. Why not supply the best tool for the fight?

  8. 1. I would much rather see the Army buying S&W M&Ps, or even (ick!) Glocks, over the M9. They are both better performers than the M9 (IMO).
    2. I agree on the A-10. But, I think a better idea would to build Burt Rutan’s designed replacement for the A-10. Same gun system with updated frame, engine, and avionics.

    1. I love the A-10, but I am not convinced that we need that particular gun system. We should keep that gun and its capability in the inventory for anti-armor work. But for most of the CAS support we need today I think something like the A-1 Skyraider with its low tech, four 20mm single barrel cannons in the wings is what we could use. The 20mm will open up nearly every threat armor system except first line Main Battle Tanks, its ammo consumption rate is much lower, the airframe is cheaper to operate. The need to lay scunnion down on bad guys in a low air threat environment is not likely to go away and an A-1 type system could do it. There is nothing wrong with the high performance (jet) systems, but using them for all CAS is like swatting flies with a hammer. Its like owning a pick-up truck that can race NASCAR. That is awesome but it costs a lot for guys who are going to spend their time carrying cargo.

        1. I saw the Ares in person at the EAA Airshow in Oshkosh, WI. It was a radical looking aircraft. Strange.
          But the flight demo was amazing. Absolutely amazing. It maneuvered like a house fly.

        1. Rotary wing systems will nearly always cost more to maintain than a fixed wing, especially propeller driven fixed wing. Most fixed wing will also have greater loiter time than a rotary wing system, higher speeds and better performance at high altitudes. Additionally Longbow was conceived as the Aegis Cruiser of helicopters, uniquely adapted to fire and control all its Hellfires simultaneously and to be able to let a single aircraft control multiple aircraft’s missiles. In other words it is more expensive than a pre-longbow Apache with mods that optimize it to kill armor. It was conceived of to let a Company of Longbows slaughter a motorized rifle regiment in seconds.

          If there is more to Longbow in the video that lets it excel in operations against dismounts and unarmored vehicles than pre-longbow apache upgrades I apologize in advance, I am operating from a system that doesnt allow streaming video. So I am running off the top of my head.

          1. The Rockets carry a lot of different sorts of warheads. Some are absolutely horrific against infantry. Never mind that gun.
            You’ve seen the video. Its like a wicked sniper rifle that blows it’s targets into stew chunks.
            But your right about the cost.
            Here’s the thing though… We already have them and we don’t have any Spads. We’d have to build a facility, tooling, and all that developement to get some new Spads up into the air.
            We’ve got the facilities to roll out more Apaches any time we need them. So in reality, we could roll out an Apache cheaper than a new Fixed Wing platform.
            Your right also that we don’t need Hellfires for CAS… Fine. We could always just hang some Gun Pods and more rocket pods. All good for CAS.

  9. Why couldn’t the Hague Convention just have said something like: All international disputes will be resolved by a best of 5 game of Battle Chess 3D…

    Because warfare is not a game, and banning more effective bullets is something only sensible if you fight behind a desk with strongly worded letters and other peoples lives.

    1. The Hague Convention in question is also from 1899. Perhaps an update is in order?

      The argument at the time was something like, “when shot, a civilized soldier immediately stops fighting and calls for a medic, so causing him undue harm in the process is uncivilized behavior.”

      That argument is obviously meaningless in modern warfare. Modern attitudes on all sides are that the honorable thing to do is to keep fighting as long as you are capable. So a bullet that incapacitates with one or two shots is actually more humane, compared to putting a dozen rounds into someone in order to stop him from effectively fighting. Hollowpoints cause more damage per bullet, but less damage per incapacitation.

  10. The problem is hippy mentality. The just cant wrap their brains around more effective bullets being a good thing. Its the same mentality that had NYPD using FMJs until the 1999 despite the clear evidence to the contrary for decades.

    1. So who keeps disliking stuff about changes to the Hague Convention as it pertains to expanding ammunition? Please, by all means lay out your argument. I could make a few valid arguments of why we should not start using expanding ammo, but I wont because I personally think the reasons to use expanding ammo outweighs them. I might disagree but I dont hate. Please share.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>