Let the dick-waving, insult-spewing, statistic-promulgating, anecdote-swearing discussion begin! And please, let us keep the contretemps to arguments of a high caliber, shall we? 
I’ll toss out the first pigeon: The army never should have gotten rid of the .45 ACP pistols that served us so well. Real guns are measured in inches, not millimeters!
Wouldn’t be surprised to see a return to the 1911 .45 or a variation. 9mm has the advantage of more rounds.
I understood part of it was to make the logistics of re-supply easier when working with other NATO nations since they all use 9mm.
.40 S&W rules!!!
flees
That was the idea. The US used the 1911 against rebels in the Philippines and the army liked it. There was no movement in the army to get rid of the 1911, this was a one-size should fit all sort of decision.
Put me down as another for the old 1911A1 in .45ACP
How about a removable shoulder stock ala Luger? Not a bad thing to have clearing buildings.
I’d put my money on something like this.
.45 ACP has no penetrating power. These days, with body armor, you need something that fires a small, high-veleocity round.
I think you are probably right.
That was the first pistol that crossed my mind as well. It would need a bit more stopping power to go with the armour piercing, I would think.
This will go nowhere. Nor should it. In an era of downsizing, when the search for a new service rifle and improved cartridge got shelved, it is fucking stupid to be farting around with pistols. The M9 and M11 are suitable for the required tasks and maintain NATO commonality on ammunition…not that handguns mean fuck-all in terms of winning wars.
Some military desk jockies trying to look like they have a reason to exist, no doubt encouraged by industry shills hoping to score a fat contract, came up with this. Money will get spent. Junkets will be taken. Circles will be jerked. Whether a new gun is adopted or not, money will definitely get spent.
WRT the 1911- it wasn’t used by the US in the pacification of the Philippines. It was eventually adopted as a result of dissatisfaction with the .38 Colt revolver used in that conflict, but that was years later. The. 45s used to put down fanatic Moros were older. 45 (long) Colt revolvers taken out of storage and reissued. Also, as much as I personally love 1911s, there are more cost effective choices available. Good 1911s that actually work anywhere near their mythology aren’t cheap…and since it is the bullet that does the killing there are other platforms available that I would choose ahead of the 1911 if use of the .45 acp is the goal.
5.7mm ammo is outrageously expensive isn’t it? I mean, especially compared to 9mm.
It wouldn’t be if the gubmint started handing out contracts to produce it.
What scumpup said. I’m sure this research program has *nothing at all * to do with Beretta USA switching production from Maryland, where they’d been for the last 35 years, to Tennessee.
If they’re so intent on improving pistol lethality, give them modern expanding bullets (with a hardened penetrator, if need be) and call it a day.
Expanding bullets are against the Geneva Conventions.
The Hague Conference of 1899, Declaration III, but whatever. It’s a ridiculous restriction, considering most modern military rifle bullets are designed to fragment within the body, even if they’re nominally full metal jacketed. Pistol bullets need expansion even more than rifle bullets do, given their lack of propensity to tumble within flesh compared to rifle bullets. The US military have used, and continue to use, hollow point target bullets when greater accuracy is required. Granted, the hollow tip doesnt assist expansion, and is an artifact of the bullet construction process, but still.
The new pistol search is still going to be a huge waste of time, even if the US military ends up choosing another sidearm. Hell, make everyone shoot FNXs; not like FN doesn’t make nearly every other firearm the US Army uses…
Another couple of advantages that the Beretta M9 has over the M1911 is that it is easier to field-strip and has better safeties built in (I don’t believe the M1911 is remotely drop-safe, unlike the Beretta, which I have on good authority can be dragged by it’s lanyard from a speeding Humvee for several miles on a bad Iraqi road without going off).
Personally, I don’t like the M9. It’s way too damn fat for how lightweight it is, making it just a bit too difficult for me to control. The M1911 is narrower and heftier, making it easier (for me) to handle, but that goes hand-in-hand with the ammo limitation: The M9 is fat because it has to make room for the double-stack magazine, while the M1911 uses a single-stack magazine).
And no, I don’t think adding a stock to make it into a carbine would be a great idea, when you could just use an M4.
A return to the 1911 by our military is unlikely to happen. I have nothing against the 1911. I most often carry a Cot Defender in 45acp. I also own a Beretta M9, and it is a fine and reliable handgun. It is a bit tougher to conceal, though.