Sig 320 vs Glock

[GTF425]

: it is incredibly rewarding to have a former student seek me out to thank me for teaching him how to defend himself in a gunfight. He went home after a long day. The person who tried to murder him did not.

It truly is. That's outstanding.

[southswede]

It truly is. That's outstanding.

Thanks.

I completely understand the dilemma. Same thing applies with motivating people to workout or even consider staying in shame. Its an up hill battle, just like trying to get them in invest in their own safety by being competent on a static line range, where there is no real stress.....

[GTF425]

Sorry for not replying more earlier, I was running an errand.

This is gonna be a TL;DR post, so to sum it up: I'm genuinely glad we are equipping Soldiers with the best possible tool we can. I hope we also are willing to adjust our institutions approach to handgun training as well.

The biggest problem we had with training is complete lack of true doctrine. The M9 was not a part of my familiarization training in OSUT, and I didn't even shoot one until after my first deployment. We have the obstacle of personnel changes to overcome as well. While there are many high quality NCOs and Officers across the Army who invest the effort into being as capable as they can in their job, they still rotate units every 2-3 years. So while there may be one very squared away NCO who can burn it down with an M9, he will eventually leave his unit and go somewhere else. In the mean time, duty positions change. Soldiers who may have received pistol training under that excellent instructor will likely not be in the same position within a year due to how Platoon structures change in the Infantry. Soldiers are injured, they PCS/ETS, go to SOF Selections, get promoted...we have no true consistency. And then there's the fact that not everyone is a good instructor, especially not the guys who went to the range one time ever and never touched it again.

Combine a lack of structured training, lack of familiarization with the M9, lack of consistent personnel assignment beyond 24 months (max), and a general disregard for handgun training and we end up with a culture that treats the M9 as nothing more than a "gatpiece".

I totally agree that a weapon that is simpler to use is therefore simpler to learn. But I'll counter that if we never teach in the first place, no learning will occur.

I could take 10 rack grade Soldiers right now and I guarantee at least half won't know how to field strip an M9. In that vein, I consider the biggest personal victory I was able to achieve was convincing my Company leadership to allow our Soldiers to carry the M9 decocked and on fire in the holster while patrolling. That speaks volumes to the ignorance surrounding the employment of the M9 in the MIL.

We have a culture problem with handgun training in the Infantry. And while there are truly outstanding NCOs and Os in the force who are training their boys to the best of their abilities, just the sheer nature of how we structure almost always defeats their efforts. We give guys enough fam fire with every other weapon that they are at least at a basic level of competence with them. The M9 was treated as a joke and, as such, our shooting with it was as well.

It was also something that in the conventional Army we didn't really field in a high enough quantity for there to be a measurable amount of guys exposed to it. Only 2 Joes in the PLT even had an M9, and then they mostly never even shot it. The rest in our unit went to Staff who just hand jammed qual cards to meet the pre-deployment requirements.

I would have liked to have seen the Army take pistol training more seriously and focus on the software limitations we have more so than buying new hardware. We're trying to run Windows 95 on an Alienware.

[Firefly]

320 is dividing us.

Meh. I tried one. Thought it would be k-rad. Turned out to be Not K-rad.

If people want one have at it but I would sooner have an M9A3 or a Glock.

[JHC]

Sorry for not replying more earlier, I was running an errand.

This is gonna be a TL;DR post, so to sum it up: I'm genuinely glad we are equipping Soldiers with the best possible tool we can. I hope we also are willing to adjust our institutions approach to handgun training as well.

The biggest problem we had with training is complete lack of true doctrine. The M9 was not a part of my familiarization training in OSUT, and I didn't even shoot one until after my first deployment. We have the obstacle of personnel changes to overcome as well. While there are many high quality NCOs and Officers across the Army who invest the effort into being as capable as they can in their job, they still rotate units every 2-3 years. So while there may be one very squared away NCO who can burn it down with an M9, he will eventually leave his unit and go somewhere else. In the mean time, duty positions change. Soldiers who may have received pistol training under that excellent instructor will likely not be in the same position within a year due to how Platoon structures change in the Infantry. Soldiers are injured, they PCS/ETS, go to SOF Selections, get promoted...we have no true consistency. And then there's the fact that not everyone is a good instructor, especially not the guys who went to the range one time ever and never touched it again.

Combine a lack of structured training, lack of familiarization with the M9, lack of consistent personnel assignment beyond 24 months (max), and a general disregard for handgun training and we end up with a culture that treats the M9 as nothing more than a "gatpiece".

I totally agree that a weapon that is simpler to use is therefore simpler to learn. But I'll counter that if we never teach in the first place, no learning will occur.

I could take 10 rack grade Soldiers right now and I guarantee at least half won't know how to field strip an M9. In that vein, I consider the biggest personal victory I was able to achieve was convincing my Company leadership to allow our Soldiers to carry the M9 decocked and on fire in the holster while patrolling. That speaks volumes to the ignorance surrounding the employment of the M9 in the MIL.

We have a culture problem with handgun training in the Infantry. And while there are truly outstanding NCOs and Os in the force who are training their boys to the best of their abilities, just the sheer nature of how we structure almost always defeats their efforts. We give guys enough fam fire with every other weapon that they are at least at a basic level of competence with them. The M9 was treated as a joke and, as such, our shooting with it was as well.

It was also something that in the conventional Army we didn't really field in a high enough quantity for there to be a measurable amount of guys exposed to it. Only 2 Joes in the PLT even had an M9, and then they mostly never even shot it. The rest in our unit went to Staff who just hand jammed qual cards to meet the pre-deployment requirements.

I would have liked to have seen the Army take pistol training more seriously and focus on the software limitations we have more so than buying new hardware. We're trying to run Windows 95 on an Alienware.

They're working on it.

http://www.apd.army.mil/epubs/DR_pub...INAL%20WEB.pdf

[Wake27]

Sorry for not replying more earlier, I was running an errand.

This is gonna be a TL;DR post, so to sum it up: I'm genuinely glad we are equipping Soldiers with the best possible tool we can. I hope we also are willing to adjust our institutions approach to handgun training as well.

The biggest problem we had with training is complete lack of true doctrine. The M9 was not a part of my familiarization training in OSUT, and I didn't even shoot one until after my first deployment. We have the obstacle of personnel changes to overcome as well. While there are many high quality NCOs and Officers across the Army who invest the effort into being as capable as they can in their job, they still rotate units every 2-3 years. So while there may be one very squared away NCO who can burn it down with an M9, he will eventually leave his unit and go somewhere else. In the mean time, duty positions change. Soldiers who may have received pistol training under that excellent instructor will likely not be in the same position within a year due to how Platoon structures change in the Infantry. Soldiers are injured, they PCS/ETS, go to SOF Selections, get promoted...we have no true consistency. And then there's the fact that not everyone is a good instructor, especially not the guys who went to the range one time ever and never touched it again.

Combine a lack of structured training, lack of familiarization with the M9, lack of consistent personnel assignment beyond 24 months (max), and a general disregard for handgun training and we end up with a culture that treats the M9 as nothing more than a "gatpiece".

I totally agree that a weapon that is simpler to use is therefore simpler to learn. But I'll counter that if we never teach in the first place, no learning will occur.

I could take 10 rack grade Soldiers right now and I guarantee at least half won't know how to field strip an M9. In that vein, I consider the biggest personal victory I was able to achieve was convincing my Company leadership to allow our Soldiers to carry the M9 decocked and on fire in the holster while patrolling. That speaks volumes to the ignorance surrounding the employment of the M9 in the MIL.

We have a culture problem with handgun training in the Infantry. And while there are truly outstanding NCOs and Os in the force who are training their boys to the best of their abilities, just the sheer nature of how we structure almost always defeats their efforts. We give guys enough fam fire with every other weapon that they are at least at a basic level of competence with them. The M9 was treated as a joke and, as such, our shooting with it was as well.

It was also something that in the conventional Army we didn't really field in a high enough quantity for there to be a measurable amount of guys exposed to it. Only 2 Joes in the PLT even had an M9, and then they mostly never even shot it. The rest in our unit went to Staff who just hand jammed qual cards to meet the pre-deployment requirements.

I would have liked to have seen the Army take pistol training more seriously and focus on the software limitations we have more so than buying new hardware. We're trying to run Windows 95 on an Alienware.

I think its headed in the right direction. The MCOE guys have done a lot of good with the recent weapons TCs. I don't believe the pistol version has been done yet, and we both know that even when it is it'll take many years before it starts coming close to mainstream, but there is real progress happening now for the first time in many years.

[GTF425]

They're working on it.

http://www.apd.army.mil/epubs/DR_pub...INAL%20WEB.pdf

Thank you for sharing. I'm glad to see steps being taken to fix a major void in our training.

[3ACR_Scout]

Which the root could be traced to the fact no one teaches how to shoot an M9 period. The overwhelming majority of M9 ranges are a joke.

How pistol ranges work in Big Army:

Soldiers receive 30-50 rounds.
Paper qual target.
Soldiers shoot all ammo.
Take LMTV back to Company.
Clean M9.
Turn in.

Repeat next year.

It’s funny, in my seventeen years in the Army, I’ve probably qualified with a pistol 15 times, but I’ve only shot a paper qual once. Everything else has been on a Combat Pistol range with pop ups, which is both more realistic and a lot more fun. In armor and cavalry units, vehicle crew members were always assigned M9s, with very few rifles before the war. After the war kicked off, they started to field additional M4s, so many of us carried both a rifle and a pistol and had the chance to train with both, to include transitioning between them. During deployments especially, ammo was plentiful, which allowed us to train a lot.

Now that I’m in an infantry battalion, I have to keep reminding myself about how few M9s we have on the MTOE. We have to consolidate them for any training other than qualification so that we have enough to support the training event. Guarding gates has actually had the benefit of allocating us additional 9mm ammo to qualify our guards, which means a lot more people get to shoot pistols. We’ve also had the chance to partner with special operations and federal tactical teams at home station so our 11Bs can receive additional pistol and rifle training from them. It’s mutually beneficial - we get lots of good training, and they get recertification as instructors by working with us.

Just a check the box qual for the gunners and move on. Many Officers and SNCOs just hand jam their qual cards, much like their APFTs.

That’s pretty sad. My guys enjoy any chance to get out and shoot, and my commanders hold our officers to the standard when it comes to APFTs. I’m currently separating one for not meeting that standard.

[1168]

IRT pencil-whipping APFTs: You’ll be pleased to know that some leaders have been breaking hearts holding guys to the standards. Over the past year and a half in my unit, a few NCO’s have been processed out, and commisions have been lost. Mostly over APFT/body fat.

[JHC]

IRT pencil-whipping APFTs: You’ll be pleased to know that some leaders have been breaking hearts holding guys to the standards. Over the past year and a half in my unit, a few NCO’s have been processed out, and commisions have been lost. Mostly over APFT/body fat.

+1 I am blessed to know a few young Soldiers recently and currently in some very strong units (82nd, 4/25 Abn (Alaska) and 10th Mtn) where the training is legit. Like snipers instructing the riflemen in high angle marksmanship at distance in the mountains in AK, FoF simunitions, M9 ranges not to qual but to shoot most of a day with a pallet of ammo, and two a day workout regimen when in garrison.