For every smart thing DoD does, there's always a couple dumb things. Getting rid of the 1911 was dumb. But it was time to get better pistols, just not completely trash a perfectly good weapon altogether. I don't know if anybody remembers the last 1911's to go out, but they were wore out. Really badly wore out. We needed new ones. Not refurbrished either. They were already re-everything too many times since WWII. Instead of new 1911's (with tight fitting parts and fresh virgin steel) we got damn M9's which now are almost as loose and wore out as those old 1911's were. They aren't better quality either. The first M9 I ever shot back in the 90's I had to aim at the lower left corner of a man sized silouette to get a right shoulder hit at 25 meters. That is sorry by any standard.
Let's be real. The only reason the 9mm ever made it into our armory was because in the '80's it was hot-stuff. All the cops and every cop movie had them. Hey, Mel Gibson made the Beretta too cool. It was time for new sidearms in this military and right then there was a newly revitalized amazing wonder-bullet right off the shelf in a package that could pass field trials. Looking like a hard hitter on paper made it an easy sell. But by the '90's the cops got smart and went to .40 or better while the U.S. Military was stuck with another NATO round. Let's see...NATO adopted the 7.62x51 from us...NATO adopted the 5.56 from us...all of a sudden we give a crap about adopting a pistol round from them....yeah right. It was hot-stuff so we bought it. Period.
In 2003 my unit bought USP45's and a few other pistols. We laterally transfered all the M9's to whoever wanted one. It was a struggle to keep enough ammo for them in Iraq and we ended up trading 5.56 to government agencies to get enough .45 to stay in business. The only bad thing I can say about the USP is the grip size bothers some people (not that the M9 is very small either anyway). It is a good weapon. If we go back to .45 service wide, I expect this one to win the contract; Springfield being the second most likely. Both impressed people in combat so I expect they will anywhere else. (One of our sergeant majors hit a running dog from a moving 4wheeler with a USP and suddenly we had a new sport...try that with a crusty M9)
Glock will never get a contract for troops as long as there is no external safety. Period. DoD would stick their peckers in pickle slicers before they let it happen. Safety, Safety, Safety, and I hate to say it but they have damn good reason. There are enough accidents already; any training is perishable, couple that with good ol' combat zone complacency and you need a no-crap safety. Fact of life.
On training. Our military has the most overall bare minimum handgun training for conventional forces that we can get away with. Troops that are issued one only get any training at all, and they just learn to strip/assemble, load, and shoot from a couple positions. Yes you could issue a pistol from day one like we do with rifles now, but let me say that new soldiers have to learn so much these days in so little time that you'd get little good done by it. You'd have lots of new soldiers that hauled around a pistol until it's just more dead weight to them. There is not enough hours in any of the days during that 9 crucial weeks to add in worthy pistol training. As a man with a Drill Sergeant badge on my right pocket, I can tell you this with certainty. It already takes every free hour to get them proficient with a rifle and we still pray for more hours because after us they have their few weeks of AIT then join a unit shortly departing for a combat theater of operations. I got 25 total months in one place or another so this thought is never far from my mind.
Someone mentioned funds and the XM8. Well, this summer I was in the office that tests those, or was testing, to visit a buddy from my first unit, and he told me what he was allowed about why we aren't getting any XM8. Oh well, no love lost. The M4 is a world class fighting rifle and I'd carry it anywhere all over again. Anyway, they have plenty more new weapons to test and eat up funds, but that won't get in the way anyhow. We'll get a new pistol when DoD wants a new one; tax dollars be damned. It all comes down for which manufacturer lobbies the hardest to get hardware that can perform the best in testing with the lowest MSRP. And it has to be cooler than whatever it replaces; wish I were kidding, I can name examples.
If anything brings back the .45, it will probably be the GAP. Militaries used to be run by traditionalists, but those days are gone. We woke up one day and realized that we can have the cutting edge of everything. (uniforms, trucks, radios, bombs, planes, sunglasses) Okay, so GAP is everything the legendary .45 ACP was for us, but in a smaller package perfect for a hi-tech ergonomic space-age highly tactical new pistol. Yeah, it might have a chance.
Based on my experience, for a true all around service .45, we should just buy the USP patent and start producing them in a single stack, .45 GAP version, keep the rails so units can decide what gadgets to use, and you got a .45 fighting pistol. Same thing for the Springfield XD. Both guns are almost there anyway.
In the meantime, I have no say of what the Army issues me, but with my own money it's 1911.