The military has far more important things to worry about, there is no good reason to spend millions of dollars in a pistol-swap. As some M9s age we just need to dust off the thousands and thousands of unused M9s sitting in armories around the country (& world). In every armory I've worked in while on active duty, we only issued M9s from one safe to keep inventory easier. Doing this meant that most pistols sat in NIB condition, doing nothing but looking lonely. There is no service-life problem with the M9s, just an issue problem. Get all those beat-to-sh!t M9s out of service and replace them with "new" old pistols from the armories and they'll run like tops. Additionally, switching to JHP wouldn't solve much and in fact isn't ideal in combat... I want penetration on the battle field, as much as I can get, especially from a handgun. The people who need JHP have JHP anyway, we used them in our issued vault-pistols and the MPs carried them in their service pistols. The operators that desire more from a handgun get what they want, very few M9s are in the hands of the people who actually use their handguns often on the battle field.
Switching handguns isn't necessary, especially in an age where we are trying to reduce budgets. Much like the great "M16-platform replacement" debates... the weapons we have may not be ideal nor the best of the best but, for most people they are good enough. I don't prefer the DI-M16 family of rifles but, they usually work just fine and considering that we have millions of them in armories around the globe they're not likely to switch anytime soon. At least, not on a large scale anyway... same goes for the M16-family service life debate, I've personally counted thousands of near-new M16-A2s, A4s and M4s sitting idle in vaults. Take the rifles with tens of thousands of rounds through them and swap 'em out, problem solved.