There is no objective data to support this claim. Let’s look at two of the major complaints: So why then is the Army so intent on replacing the M9? The materials may have changed, but the basic function of the weapons has not. The ammunition has remained much the same, and the patterns of the weapons have remained much the same. Moving from a bolt action, to a semi-automatic, to the intermediate cartridge assault rifle patterns of the Kalashnikov and M-16/M-4, pistols simply have not experienced the same types of improvements. Over the past century, there have been no advances in pistol weaponry as significant as the revolution seen in rifles. In the world of small arms technology, there is nothing so revolutionary as to justify the expense of replacing the current arsenal without data to support it. A new standard-issue pistol system will not change the way America fights its wars, tactically or strategically. While our troops should have the best, most reliable equipment possible, in a world of finite resources, the Army would be better off investing in the tools of warfare most likely to have an impact in protecting the lives of our soldiers and allowing them to accomplish their missions. Additionally, cost overruns that are typical of military contracts must also be factored into the total tab.įurthermore, pistols are simply not a war winning weapon. Disregarding the costs for the pistol itself, there could be additional costs in ammunition, training, holsters, and other support for the system. The cost of replacing the Army’s 230,000+ M9 pistols will inevitably cost hundreds of millions of dollars in a time of shrinking budgets.
![used beretta m9 used beretta m9](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tmcrBHYIuUw/maxresdefault.jpg)
Replacing an entire weapons system when it may not be absolutely necessary is something that could be delayed for a period of budgetary increases when the Army can afford to do so. This means considering both the lifespan, utility, and expected usage of any new weapons. Despite this, the Army and Air Force, have marked their standard issue side-arm, the Beretta M9, for replacement.Īs the defense budget shrinks, the Army especially needs to think clearly about what its requirements are for a future warfighting scenario. These innovations have largely been the result of facing new battlefield threats, like improvised explosive devices (IED).īut what hasn’t seen much innovation is the technology around pistols. The wars of the 21 st century, as with any war, have subsequently seen a variety of military innovations to address the shortcomings of tactics and weapons.
![used beretta m9 used beretta m9](https://gray-wvir-prod.cdn.arcpublishing.com/resizer/wcZlvOrNWaukl3iOraauObVMVKE=/1200x675/smart/filters:quality(85)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gray/EOYKRLXB4BFFJKRBONROEADGXY.jpg)
Some of that equipment, like the HMMWV (Humvee), proved inadequate to the tasks at hand. Over more than a decade of war, there is little doubt that America’s military equipment has been used and abused. military is assessing its current stock of equipment and weaponry to determine its needs for the future. With the war in Afghanistan “winding down,” the U.S.