Army News, news from Iraq, - Army Times

Congress halts Air Force plan for new handgun

Congressional negotiators have put a hold on the Air Force’s plans to replace the M9 9mm handgun so the Defense Department can consider the possibility of a joint plan for upgrading or replacing pistols.

The M9 is the standard issue sidearm for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and U.S. Special Operations Command, but the Air Force asked for $89.8 million in the 2007 wartime supplemental appropriations bill to start purchasing a replacement.

The request was not included in the compromise version of the bill approved Monday by congressional negotiators. Instead, lawmakers would provide $5 million for a study of the joint sidearm requirements, including any service-unique requirements, according to a report accompanying the bill.

Because the supplemental bill faces a veto threat over issues unrelated to the handgun purchases, the only certain result of the agreement is that the Air Force will not get money anytime soon for a replacement weapon. Money for the handgun review would not be available unless this bill, or another bill containing similar language, is approved by Congress and signed into law by President Bush.

The study requested by lawmakers, to be completed by Aug. 31, would look at the M9’s capabilities, lethality and ammunition options, as well as how it stacks up against other handguns. The Aug. 31 date was picked because that would allow the results of the study to be considered when Congress puts together the final details of the 2008 defense appropriations bill, which traditionally is not approved until fall.

To conduct the study, lawmakers approved the purchase of up to 50 handguns and ammunition for the guns.

For years, talk has circulated about having a so-called Joint Combat Pistol, most likely a .45 caliber because that is what the Special Operations Command has been studying. In the early 1980s, the Air Force conducted several handgun tests to find something other than the M9, but no final decisions were made, partly because the Army and Special Operations Command had different requirements and wanted to conduct their own tests. The Army later did conduct its own tests, and did not recommend a replacement.