SpaldingPM
Expert
- Mar 22, 2013
- 1,367
- 48
The 9mm would be fine if the rules of land warfare allowed JHP ammunition, but in ball form it's performance is pretty poor.
What would be the point of going to a Sig p226? At this point it's essentially the same gun as the M9. If you've already got the infrastructure to support one handgun, why would you want to spend a ton of money building up a new infrastructure to support a gun that gives you no real advantage?
Don't get me wrong, I love my p229, but it's really not any better than my Beretta was in terms of weight, thickness, capacity, and reliability. It's only smaller and more convenient to carry than the Beretta because it's a mid sized gun. Based on my experience with my 229 I would not be surprised if a full sized Exeter produced p226 wasn't every bit as bulky as the m9.
This is a thread is a dupe of = https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo.../351309-army-wants-harder-hitting-pistol.html
Actually though the USAF issues 9mm 124 gr JHP for on duty Security Forces at stateside bases and has done so since the late 1990's. However for all overseas use everyone if required to use NATO Ball. Contrary to urban legend and feeling of better manhood by the 45 there actually is not a lot of difference in performance between 9mm and 45 in ball or JHP performance believe it or not.
What's with no Hollow Points. That's like our gun laws here. All they do is give the scumbags the advantage. I say CZ P-09 with 20rds of Hollow Points.
as soon as they switch to a bigger caliber with less rounds they will want a smaller caliber with more.
Beings as how the Brits recently went with the Glock 17, I predict that the DoD will as well if they ever decide to change, which is highly unlikely.