As a child of the 80s, I would buy an improved Tec-9. Just not at B&T prices.

I suspect what holds back our 30SC service pistol is 1. "Hey, it's 9mm recoil and energy, so why change"? 2. "Who cares about pistol capacity"? 3. An attitude that any big improvement in military handguns isn't worth the effort.

Farmplinker said:

I suspect what holds back our 30SC service pistol is

Well what we really need - and what 30SC needs if it is to survive - is a service size pistol that makes the public say 'Wowza! Gotta get me some of that!' 

The initial guns launched in the caliber are uninspiring. 

My hope is S&W will adapt its new S&W MP5.7 to 30SC, as the case diameters are similar as is the SAAMI pressure. 22rd 5.7 should be ~21rd .30sc.

Farmplinker said:

I suspect what holds back our 30SC service pistol is 1. "Hey, it's 9mm recoil and energy, so why change"? 2. "Who cares about pistol capacity"? 3. An attitude that any big improvement in military handguns isn't worth the effort.

I think you summed it up very well, except I don't see where 30SC can be considered a "big" improvement in military handguns.

In regard to item 2, the military does care about pistol ammo capacity.  But 30SC offers a mere 20% increase in capacity vs 9mm.

A 20% increase in mag capacity is negligible.*  That would mean 20 rounds of 30SC versus 17 rounds of 9mm for the M17 pistol.

If such a small jump in mag capacity is desired, it would be much easier and far more cost effective to just issue the 21-rd mags.

*20%?  LOL.  When the Army switched to 9mm half a century ago, magazine capacity of the service pistol increased by 114%!!!

stancrist said:

20%?  LOL.  When the Army switched to 9mm half a century ago, magazine capacity of the service pistol increased by 114%!!

And the US had been aware of the 9mm and 13 shot 9mm Browning Highpower for decades before, but stuck with their 7 shot .45's, further supporting the argument that 30SC is a wayyyys off.

Farmplinker said:

There was a lot of "we need a longer range cartridge than 5.56x45" for a long time, though.

Well of course there has been the 7,62 vs 5,56 debate.
But there has been very little debate and allmost none in official chanels that something more powerfull than 7,62x51 as standard rifle cartidge is needed.
I mean the transition from full length M16 rifle to M4 carbines as standard issue happend around 2005. The Marine corps switched even later. So at this point in time the official opinion obviously has been that even less effective range then that of the 20" M16 rifle is all that is required.

stancrist said:

All I'm saying is that if the Army were to change its opinion on 9x19, there would be signs of dissatisfaction with the caliber well in advance of an announced decision to change.

Yes.
But this dissatisfaction could come once there is the comparision to something better. As you mention 9x19 is servicable. I agree on that. Especially if you want to use large numbers of handguns and not use an additional ammo type using 9x19 for handguns, SMGs and PDWs makes some sense. 9x19 is like .50 cal in this regard. It worked 100 years ago. It works now. Its the traditional, low risk, high inertia solution.
IF a SCHV PDW would be prooven to be superiour, which ironically can really only happen by fielding it in large numbers as standard issue preferable to be used in anger, there quickly could be dissatisfaction with 9x19 because there is something better around now. I think it would be the same with .50 cal. If something proven to be better would appear there quickly would be dissatisfaction and a move to replace it. Since this has not happened yet its the best thing proven to work.

Farmplinker said:

I suspect what holds back our 30SC service pistol is 1. "Hey, it's 9mm recoil and energy, so why change"? 2. "Who cares about pistol capacity"? 3. An attitude that any big improvement in military handguns isn't worth the effort.

In addition there is the lobbying of the established defense industry.
A lot of inovative equipment gets rejected or shot down during testing and evaluation because the large "go to" companies have no stakes in it and undermine such things.

Furthermore there often are legal troubles. Hasn't the APC9K been adopted because B&T has been one of the few companies who managed to fill out and deliver all the required documentation in time as well as having specs that are closest to the written down requirements?
If i recall correct on of the major problem holding things like the 6.5 Grendel back has been patent and IP rights. It was not "open source" so it has never been intresting for a large company to actually push this.

Then there is the administrative sind. A lot of the decision makers who have the last say are not experts. At least not for small arms, weapons or even things technical. They are lawyers and administrators. The proverbial bean counters. Of course these will make decisious that outright alienate engineers and soldiers.

schnuersi said:

...the transition from full length M16 rifle to M4 carbines as standard issue happend around 2005. The Marine corps switched even later. So at this point in time the official opinion obviously has been that even less effective range then that of the 20" M16 rifle is all that is required.

Requirements change.  At that point in time, what was required was a short, light weapon more suitable for CQB and use in vehicles.

Marine grunts react to switch from the M16 to the M4 (marinecorpstimes.com)

gatnerd said:

And the US had been aware of the 9mm and 13 shot 9mm Browning Highpower for decades before, but stuck with their 7 shot .45's, further supporting the argument that 30SC is a wayyyys off.

Indeed.  Although, in regard to the .45 to 9mm switch, by chance I came across this interesting historical tidbit:

"Army officials decided to switch from a .45-caliber sidearm to the 9mm in 1954..."  Infantry, Jan-Feb 2005, p. 5

And ISTR reading (a very long time ago) about the US Army testing the Colt Lightweight Commander in 9mm. 

--------------------------------------------------------

FYI:

YouTube

From the Vault: U.S. Army C.I.C. Colt 1911 Commander

Brownells Gun Tech™ Keith Ford shows us his early-production Colt Commander from 1951. In 1949, the U.S. Army issued requirements for a pistol to replace the...

schnuersi said:

If i recall correct on of the major problem holding things like the 6.5 Grendel back has been patent and IP rights. It was not "open source" so it has never been intresting for a large company to actually push this.

There are other, perhaps more critical, issues that held back 6.5 Grendel.  For example:

   - Excessive bolt breakage

   - Reduced magazine capacity

   - Inadequate magazine reliability

   - Lack of machine gun links