I just found this notice on FedBizOpps.gov. The FBI is wanting to join the 21st century and change their pistols from their current stock of .40 caliber firearms to the 9mm. In fact they are looking for two types of pistols. One pistol is to have a barrel length of 3.75" to 4.25" and a minimum magazine capacity of 13 rounds. The other pistol being solicited is to have a barrel length between 4.5" to 5.5" and a minimum magazine capacity of 15 rounds. They are not lookling for anything new like the Army is. They want what is COTS (commercial off the shelf). This contract is valued at a maximum cost of $100 million. IMO this is further proof that the .40 is a solution looking for a problem. Sure in 1986 the 9mm sucked. However since then R&D and materials science has made leaps and bounds to where the 9mm at worst only marginally under performs against the .40. That gap isnt enough to justify the added expense of the .40. As for who I think should be in the running, my money is on the ubiquitous Austrian Glock, The American Made Smith & Wesson M&P, and the German Walther PPQ and Heckler Koch VP9. Springfield Armory XD & XDm (grip safety, internal extractor) and Beretta PX4 (the rotating barrel and weight) need not apply. In the end it should come down to these two pistols: The PPQ and the VP9. Both blow the Glock and the M&P out of the water for accuracy and triggers. So between the PPQ and VP9 they're neck and neck. In some areas the VP9 comes out on top, on other the PPQ. If it does come down to these two the biggest things against the VP9 is that its both brand new and they don't have a 4.5" version available. In the end this ought to be interesting. So do you think that this is a wise move on the FBI? Waste of money? Any better suggestions for a pistol for this possible contract?
My son has a Smith and Wesson "Value Enhanced" 9 mil. I'm a revolver guy, but I must admit it is worth every penny, though it was very inexpensive. Once I figured out how to take it apart to clean it (the instructions sucked, so I went on YouTube) I was very impressed. I can't hit shit with it compared to my bow, but there's a YouTube of Hickock using one to NAIL targets pretty far out like it's nothing. Then again the guy is an expert with any weapon in his hands, but it does show just what the gun can do.
Next year, Glock is coming out with a 9mm version of its brand new Glock 42 .380. The 42 has sold me. That 9mm is on the top of the short list.
Yeah the M&Ps have a reputation for shitty triggers and the 9MMs have had a reputation for shitty grouping. They have been working on the trigger and its better, but no where near where it needs to be. As for the grouping they first tried fiddling with the twist rate. They used 1:16 for some reason instead of 1:10 like everyone else. But the real culprit was the lock up time from when the primer was struck to when the slide released. It wasn't staying in place long enough, thus venting a lot of pressure that was needed for stablization. That apparently has been addressed in the most recent production, but still there are problems @Elwood where did you hear that Glock is coming out with a 9mm version of the 42? This is the first I've heard of it.
I've been biased towards larger calibers--there's a .45 on my nightstand--but the reality is that modern defense ammunition can be very, very good, so it may be better to move back toward the 9mm and its higher capacity and easier control. I got myself a small 9mm--a Ruger LC9--in anticipation of California becoming "shall issue," and I'm not at all worried about the effectiveness of the round (with quality defensive ammo).
That's been boy ved around. Problem is the m9s are getting pretty worn out after 30 years, they come with a safety, and are as huge as all get out
Love my Beretta 92FS (almost identical to the M9), but my Glock 17 is more firepower in a more compact form and with significantly less weight.
The 92FS is HORRIBLE from an ergonomics standpoint. I can't operate the manual safety without altering my shooting grip. That's bad juju. *stifle it, chumps*
My gripe with the M9 was it's exposed barrel design, horrible in sandy environments, that said, I've been contemplating a 92A1, grip fits my awkward paws great and when I'm not dealing with a 25 year old one that's been in constant service, accumulating a pound of sand a day, they are pretty reliable. I did a side-by-side test of the 92A1 and the G17 and the G17 was just a brick in my hand, had awkward corners my hands couldn't get a really tight grip on and it jumped around in my hand a bit because of it. The FBI's requirements for the M9 will be a lot less strenuous and in a lot better climates, I'm sure they'll last.
I thought the M9 got a bad rap. I liked mine. Then again my first tour I was lugging a SAW everywhere I went, in comparison just being able to carry a pistol when on the VSP or Hearts and Minding in the village probably earned it extra points in my mind. My dad picked up a Taurus PT92 (same dies as original Baretta's?) which is even better IMO. Probably just b/c Joe hadn't been fucking with it for years. As for Glocks, even if the whole hand grenade thing doesn't bother you (hey, live dangerously!) I don't like the way they feel in my hand. I've got a G36* and while I don't hate it or anything I've never bothered picking up a rig for it. Much prefer my 1911 and Blackhawk thigh-rig for fucking around in the woods. Glock just feels awkward. And un-American. *(it was our deployment piece, got the SF crest [3rd Group was in charge of SOTF-W for that rotation, Marines weren't happy but doesn't bother me] and the dates and all that shit engraved on the slide)
For your dad's sake I hope Taurus' quality control is better than now than it has been in the past. I've known a few people who bought PT92s who had nothing but trouble with them.
The recently ousted head of Taurus busted his ass to improve both production quality and customer service.
