Army Plans To Replace M9 In 2018: What are your thoughts on the XM-17 MHS?

2015-06-19T15:55:39-04:00

The Army announced this week that it has approved it's concept design of it's new XM-17 Modular Handgun System and is now ready to begin the contract-bidding process. The Army says the plan is to begin replacing the M9 with the XM-17 in FY 18. Unlike the M9 and it's predecessor the 1911, the XM-17's modular platform will enable the weapon to be tailored to the preference of individual shooters or to meet unique mission-critical needs.

What are your thoughts on the XM-17 MHS?

Army to replace 9mm pistol with more reliable gun packing better 'knock down’ power

The Army is retiring its supply of 9mm handguns and trying to replace it with a more accurate and user-friendly model that also will provide soldiers with more “knock-down” power.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2015 4:05 PM

2015-06-19T16:05:13-04:00

If they want more knockdown power, they HAVE to go w/ the .40 or .45. The 9mm just doesn't pack the punch of those two. the .40 is a good compromise.

Anything that is lighter than "the Hammer" is good. I think that the overall weight, even w/ higher caliber usage, would go down. Polymers are good.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Jun 19 at 2015 4:12 PM

2015-06-19T16:12:02-04:00

It is time for a better weapon and the time is now to get it done before the next major conflict. I'd like to see the procurement of a weapon similar to the Kimber Warrior SOC (1911).

Response by A1C Nathan Fordahl made Jun 19 at 2015 4:18 PM

2015-06-19T16:18:29-04:00

I think it's a great idea. Not only is it going to have more stopping power than the 9mm, it is customizable to fit different mission needs.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jun 19 at 2015 4:23 PM

2015-06-19T16:23:10-04:00

I'll take a "worn out" M9 if they don't want them anymore!

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jun 19 at 2015 4:58 PM

2015-06-19T16:58:43-04:00

I do not know enough about the XM-17 Modular Handgun System to really make a truly informed statement BUT there appears to be a lot of moving pieces for a general issue weapon? I think we keep trying to get fancy with hand guns and forget they are going to be carried as a backup or a weapon of last resort.

Also, when it comes to knock down power for any weapon, but especially handguns, it is more a matter of the ammo than the weapon itself.

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Jun 19 at 2015 6:01 PM

2015-06-19T18:01:11-04:00

I like it. The thought of more "knock down" power is very good and the more modular the better. Also, looks like a silencer is part of the kit and that is NOT an option we currently have is it? It sure looks like an upgrade to me.

Thanks, had not seen the design anywhere else.

Rick

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2015 6:05 PM

2015-06-19T18:05:01-04:00

Joe is going to lose and break all those fancy parts.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jun 19 at 2015 6:07 PM

2015-06-19T18:07:58-04:00

Hopefully this design and production will be spiral-development versus linear development. Linear development tends to focus on requirements and threats up to a certain point in the development process.
Hopefully this development process will not only be able to deal with emerging requirements and threats but also keep pace and exchange development information with parallel uniform, soldier protection [such as body armor], equipment, parachute and airdrop technology, vehicle improvement and modification including rotary and transport aircraft, etc.

Response by SFC Dennis Yancy made Jun 19 at 2015 6:45 PM

2015-06-19T18:45:22-04:00

Go back to a 45.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 19 at 2015 11:59 PM

2015-06-19T23:59:56-04:00

Glock is the way to go! I love my G17 and I'm going to get a G42 and G43 in the near future.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 20 at 2015 12:02 AM

2015-06-20T00:02:09-04:00

What's wrong with the M1911A1?

Response by CPL Jim Smiley made Jul 9 at 2015 1:28 PM

2015-07-09T13:28:57-04:00

If the handgun design is released with new service ammo (i.e. JHP), there's nothing wrong with 9mm. I'd suggest the SIG P320. There are three frame sizes, changing mostly in terms of grip circumference. It's striker-fired, made in America, and its relative slide height permits easy charging if the services insist on troops carrying with an empty chamber. It will require a holster that rigidly encloses the trigger guard, however.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jul 16 at 2015 12:45 PM

2015-07-16T12:45:49-04:00

I like HK USPs but they are ridiculously expensive. Glocks are nice as well but don't feature a safety switch. The Beretta PX4 Storm, Walther P99, and PPQ are said to be great combat handguns. 1911s are great but have a limited mag capacity. So many options.

Let's go commie and get everyone Makarov PMs.

Response by SPC David S. made Jul 16 at 2015 1:39 PM

2015-07-16T13:39:39-04:00

I wouldn't mind one of the old Sig Sauer M11's. I do agree especially in considering a .40 or .45 the adjustable grip feature I think will improve overall marksmanship. Grip is one of the fundamentals of marksmanship. The ability to shoot, operate and control your handgun all are affected by "fit". Since grip is the interface between you and your gun, it’s important that the handgun fits your hand properly. Trigger placement also plays a part in the marksmanship but grip is the foundation. One thing is certain. When it comes to defensive handguns, one size does not fit all so the adjustable grip panel configuration will help in fitting the gun to the shooter.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2015 1:42 PM

2015-07-16T13:42:31-04:00

I wish that they would have had someone with a basic knowledge of weapon systems to write this article so that we could have a better idea what is going on.
"The argument against the .40 caliber round is that its heavier weight and stronger recoil causes excessive wear on a 9 mm pistol." How did you get a 9mm to fire your .40 cal rounds? Then add in the repeated use of "Knock down power", which is a buzz word used by gun manufacturers and is not measurable.
I see this conversation going the same way as it did the last time the Army talked about switching side-arms and each time the Army/Air Force have discussed switching rifles. Nothing will come of it and the DoD will get a discount when they renew their contract with Berretta. The 92 FS is not my favorite pistol but it does the job it was designed to do and it does it well.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2015 1:49 PM

2015-07-16T13:49:07-04:00

I not sure when last time we had a major battle with pistols ( maybe south side Chicago) if army does not have the funding for troops and doing all these major cuts why are we looking for a new pistol replacement, second army does not invest enough time in training for pistal use for a commen joe and final thought about these is who is greasing who's pocket

Response by Jordan Gaudard made Jul 16 at 2015 5:00 PM

2015-07-16T17:00:01-04:00

I just left a unit that still has M16's, save the money Army and spend it on necessary items. M9 does the job.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Sep 22 at 2015 11:26 AM

2015-09-22T11:26:13-04:00

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member Looks like an interesting concept to me. Looking forward to seeing more about it.

Response by SFC Mark Bailey made Sep 22 at 2015 12:27 PM

2015-09-22T12:27:29-04:00

About time.... when the M9 was first introduced we absolutely hated it

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 17 at 2015 8:49 PM

2015-10-17T20:49:01-04:00

M1911.
Why mess with something that worked just fine?