View Full Version : Army Wants a Harder-Hitting Pistol
Amp Mangum
07-04-14, 07:38
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/03/army-wants-harder-hitting-pistol/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/03/army-wants-harder-hitting-pistol/
The issue is that they are stuck with Ball ammo. In this instance, the 45 makes more sense in a MODERN polymer gun (like the HK45).
C4
I agree.
I think if they went with modern ammo for both 9mm and 5.56mm it would restore "the faith" in them.
However, we all know that isn't going to happen.....
The issue is that they are stuck with Ball ammo. In this instance, the 45 makes more sense in a MODERN polymer gun (like the HK45).
C4
The issue is that they are stuck with Ball ammo. In this instance, the 45 makes more sense in a MODERN polymer gun (like the HK45).
C4
Yep, might as well have the biggest, heaviest bullet you can if your stuck with FMJ's as your only option.
Funny thing is though, It seems like the .Mil is always looking for something "better" every couple of years and yet nothing seems to change. First it was a new rifle to replace the M4/M16, then a new caliber to replace the 5.56NATO. Then they needed a new pistol to replace the M9 and that gave us the Glock 21SF and the S&W M&P series and here they are again looking for new pistol. Sadly, I do not doubt that nothing well come of this just like nothing came of all the other times the .Mil was looking for something "better"
But hey, maybe we'll get an HK VP45 because of this...:D
The issue is that they are stuck with Ball ammo. In this instance, the 45 makes more sense in a MODERN polymer gun (like the HK45).
C4
I agree, and as much as I like the HK, I think FN has the inside track (if there is a decision at all) from their extensive mil contracts already. I almost think a .40 caliber platform may be the dark horse to win it because of magazine capacity and frame size.
Just please for the love of everything that it good and holy, No 1911's!
Address institutional philosophy, training and technique, ammunition issues, and then look at the pistol itself. While the M9 is a big gun and has its quirks, and other designs might mitigate some issues, most problems that troop has aren't about the gun.
It would be something if they went back to the 1911!
The Army doesn't know what it wants because it's irretrievably broken from the top down. The Army needs to define greater accuracy, lethality, reliability and durability before ANY meaningful discussion can commence. Hell, the 9mm cartridge has killed more people than small pox. The article quoted by the OP illustrates well why this selection process is going to be a clusterphuck of epic proportions.
The issue is that they are stuck with Ball ammo. In this instance, the 45 makes more sense in a MODERN polymer gun (like the HK45).
C4
Agreed on the ammo issue, as well as the HK45 for a potential option. Its a great gun.
Failure2Stop
07-04-14, 10:58
I don't foresee actually bypassing NATO for just a pistol cartridge.
Failure2Stop
07-04-14, 11:07
"The Army" (read: the people in key positions befriended by lobbyi$ts) knows who it wants to give the next contract to, be that Colt or FNH, or someone else. if the rumours of Colt working on a polymer design are true, then that could be driving the creation of this new dog-and-pony show. As always, if the wrong entrant wins or leads the competition, all they have to say is, "Oops, our budget was cut and we'll have to stick with the M9 for now."*
*See the Future Handgun System and Joint Combat Pistol competitions for reference.
Being on both sides of these, I disagree highly with your assertion.
First thing that needs to happen is for the Army to decide what color it will be. Will it be the old ACU, Multicam or something new? Once we have that settled we can blow shit tons of cash on a weapon used by only a small portion of the total personnel.
9mm? Glock 19 or 17.
.40? Glock 23 or 22.
Either of the above, without upgrading to a modern JHP is pretty pointless. Glocks themselves in both those calibers are proven designs and readily available. However, like IG said, drop all this cash on weapons only used by a small percentage of personnel? Big .mil strikes again!
Of course we want a new handgun... while my BDE is busy sharing M4s to get people qualified. As pointless as it is since no weapon stays zeroed
With so much equipment worn out, damaged, and "lost", I'm disappointed that the Army has focused on this handgun issue. I seriously doubt that replacing the M9 is cheaper than keeping it. If this plan moves forward, all the pistol experts in Congress will jump up and contribute their unqualified opinions. After all, guys know handguns, right? This happened in the early 80s prior to M9 selection. Perhaps we will adopt a new light weight carbine that fires a .30 caliber pistol type cartridge, and this new carbine will replace pistols for most applications. Sound familiar?
ffhounddog
07-04-14, 17:52
Stupid to change the caliber. With thinking the next War 9mm is better at barrier penetration than 45.
M9, there are cheap improvements to make it more durable as have been seen in civilian and other countries 92s. We just decide to stick to spec from 1980s.
M9 is not a bad sidearm, easy to shoot low recoil, I think money should be spent on combat training.
BrigandTwoFour
07-04-14, 18:41
Stupid to change the caliber. With thinking the next War 9mm is better at barrier penetration than 45.
M9, there are cheap improvements to make it more durable as have been seen in civilian and other countries 92s. We just decide to stick to spec from 1980s.
M9 is not a bad sidearm, easy to shoot low recoil, I think money should be spent on combat training.
But then how is the colonel gonna get his ticket punched for a juicy acquisition program? Without that, he'll never get promoted! Please, think of the colonels.....
9mm? Glock 19 or 17.
.40? Glock 23 or 22.
Either of the above, without upgrading to a modern JHP is pretty pointless. Glocks themselves in both those calibers are proven designs and readily available. However, like IG said, drop all this cash on weapons only used by a small percentage of personnel? Big .mil strikes again!
3 words. Military Industrial Complex.
3 words. Military Industrial Complex.
Well, they did get short changed by Obama not securing a SOFA.
Agree this entire project is fairly pointless. Those few who get sidearms don't train with them enough to be truly proficient. SOF being the obvious exception but they typically get their needs addressed through more streamlined channels.
With most of the free world using 9mm and us adopting it in 1985 to standardize with our allies (NATO AND SEATO dropped 7.62 for our 5.56 - no way we were going to get them to also adopt our handgun caliber), changing to something new would be foolish IMO. Even if one argued that NATO and SEATO aren't what they were during the cold war, 9mm is still easier to obtain around the globe than probably any handgun cartridge.
As mentioned, all handguns suck at putting down a threat - especially with ball ammo. Get something easy for casual shooters to use, that has more longevity, and has a lower operating cost. In other words, a 9mm. Adopting 40 would be even more stupid than going back to 45.
Every M9 I ever shot in 11 years was boringly reliable. The only downfall I see is that the grip is larger than it needs to be and the safety is in a horrible location for a couple reasons.
Terminal performance of non-expanding bullets can be enhanced by using a semi-wadcutter design with a wide meplat
So how much trouble would a person get in if they did the old "gangster modification" of ball ammo and cut an X on the top of the round with a dremel tool?
In theory you could be charged with violating International Humanitarian Law and the Laws of Armed Conflict, and be tried at the Hague Tribunal.
In reality I would think that most militaries would hanlde it internally via UCMJ or equivalent.
When I was in Kosovo in 2001-2002 a 7.62 round was found that had a cross carved in the tip. Our entire company had to stand in formation, empty all our ammo and have it inspected. They did not find any more, or find out who did it, but it was a pretty serious affair.
In theory you could be charged with violating International Humanitarian Law and the Laws of Armed Conflict, and be tried at the Hague Tribunal.
In reality I would think that most militaries would hanlde it internally via UCMJ or equivalent.
When I was in Kosovo in 2001-2002 a 7.62 round was found that had a cross carved in the tip. Our entire company had to stand in formation, empty all our ammo and have it inspected. They did not find any more, or find out who did it, but it was a pretty serious affair.
I for the life of me will never be able to understand this as it strikes me as nonsensical. Let's take firearms and shoot bullets at the opposing force, with extreme prejudice mind you, but then at the same time try to diminish the visceral nature of that act by condoning particular bullet designs..
I don't get it...
Some people think it is important to reduce uneccessary suffering and death. That is the thought process behind it, at least.
I don't think it makes sense either, for lots of reasons.
Of course we want a new handgun... while my BDE is busy sharing M4s to get people qualified. As pointless as it is since no weapon stays zeroed
If the weapon is properly zeroe'd why would its zero change?
This whole line of thought is stupid. We are broke and the Army is wanting to spend millions on something that means very little. Those that neeed something else usually have it. In the grand scheme of warfare the sidearm isn't that big a deal. There is nothing inherently wrong with the M9. It generally works like it's supposed to, is fairly accurate and reliable. It's not the weapons fault that 99% of those carrying it don't have the requisite level of skill or training to use it effectively. Most that have it are issued it in theater so they won't have to lug around an M-16 or M-4 during thier daily trips to the gym, chow hall, or bazaar. Those troops are the most unable to need a firearm and the most unlikely to be able to.
Haven't we already gone through this fukktardery 50 times already. I wish no one would submit a pistol to these retards. Pick one at the gun store like the rest of us you morons. They never select a submission anyway.
Plus... they'll pick something just as retarded as the Beretta again even if they do actually move forward.
I just have to ask, since people are saying that the procurement is stupid and will cost money that you do not have.
Is this a project that already has funds allocated?
Are investment funds already a part of the DoD budget/Branch specific budget?
If the answer is yes to the above, then completing the procurement does not affect the national budget at all. If you want more money focused on other areas, and you think that these kinds of programs are a waste of money, then you will need to cut overall DoD funding.
Because the Armys way of teaching is when you receive the weapon from the Arms Room for the first time, to take it back to battle sight zero and start from scratch. So it's an endless cycle of zero..bsz...zero again...bsz...zero again
I know the concept is that once you zero a rifle, then that zero can move with you from weapon to weapon but again... that is not what the majority of the Army teaches. Only a small number of people actually practice that idea.
Averageman
07-05-14, 09:52
The least expensive most effective tool they have is training, yet for the most part they refuse to use it effectively.
I wish someone would follow a unit through a simple pistol range from it's very beginning to the end and watch the series of compromises that are made that turns effective training in to a "Check The Block' exercise in futility.
BoringGuy45
07-05-14, 10:00
If they really wanted a new pistol, they'd probably have just picked up a Glock, M&P, HK, etc, and that would be the end of it. Instead, they're going to do this whole competition thing and ask for new designs, which basically says, "We don't want a new pistol, we just need to max out our budget so we don't lose it next year."
The least expensive most effective tool they have is training, yet for the most part they refuse to use it effectively.
I wish someone would follow a unit through a simple pistol range from it's very beginning to the end and watch the series of compromises that are made that turns effective training in to a "Check The Block' exercise in futility.
I highly doubt that the money spent on this is being taken out of the training budget though.
If they really wanted a new pistol, they'd probably have just picked up a Glock, M&P, HK, etc, and that would be the end of it. Instead, they're going to do this whole competition thing and ask for new designs, which basically says, "We don't want a new pistol, we just need to max out our budget so we don't lose it next year."
What are the federal procurement rules like? Do they have value thresholds they need to conform to with regards to procurements?
In Europe, if the total sum of the procurement passes certain thresholds, the government entities conducting the purchase need to hold a public tender, as well as publish internationally. For some types of equipment, they use limited tenders, in order to qualify suppliers so that they can control who many people gain access to confidential information; PPE for example.
For smaller procurements, below a certain limit they can purchase directly by requesting at least three offers, and choosing the offer with the lowest price.
People are very quick to comment on procurement processes without really understanding how they work. Very rarely can you purchase COTS items direct, especially when you are looking at larger quanitites.
The reason it is done like this is to ensure a level playing field across the industry, as well as ensuring that whatever is purchased is done so according to stated end user requirements, and that a certain degree of user feedback is assessed as part of the procurement.
MountainRaven
07-05-14, 11:20
I highly doubt that the money spent on this is being taken out of the training budget though.
But it's money that could be spent on training. Or retaining combat veterans in combat MOSs. Or on veterans' healthcare. Or....
I predict that when the dust settles from this, we'll still be issuing the 9mm Beretta M9. Maybe (but probably not) the M9A1.
Crow Hunter
07-05-14, 12:25
Keep in mind this is also a means to keep innovation churning.
Asking for submissions will get brilliant minds coming up with new ideas to beat the competition. Most of those new ideas probably won't be worth a crap but eventually, there will be a "AH HA" like Predator Drones or metallic cartridge cases or repeating firearms. Something that no one has thought of up to this point and none of us are even close to thinking about now and it will become the new standard.
That is a big purpose of asking for open ended criteria solicitations like this versus just going and grabbing a Glock or HK off the shelf.
To paraphrase Edison, we haven't failed, we have just found thousands of ways that don't work yet.;)
If the weapon is properly zeroe'd why would its zero change?
Very few people fire a mechanically zeroed rifle. Rather than adapt their shooting methods to a mechanically zeroed rifle, they instead adapt the rifle to their particular shooting method. This means so long as they exactly replicate their unique shooting posture, trigger pull, etc. they get a repeatable zero. I actually know guys who have a trigger pull that looks like they are hooking locked in boogers but they do it consistently so their zero is constant.
In theory you could be charged with violating International Humanitarian Law and the Laws of Armed Conflict, and be tried at the Hague Tribunal.
In reality I would think that most militaries would hanlde it internally via UCMJ or equivalent.
When I was in Kosovo in 2001-2002 a 7.62 round was found that had a cross carved in the tip. Our entire company had to stand in formation, empty all our ammo and have it inspected. They did not find any more, or find out who did it, but it was a pretty serious affair.
Amazing the stuff they are right on top of vs. the stuff that gets ignored.
Moose-Knuckle
07-05-14, 16:56
Some people think it is important to reduce uneccessary suffering and death. That is the thought process behind it, at least.
I don't think it makes sense either, for lots of reasons.
Yeah I always LOL'ed when it came to the The Hague Convention of 1899 (Declaration III, prohibits the use in international warfare of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body).
Okay guys you can shoot them and kill them, just can't shoot them with a HP. But hey, those DU rounds are a-okay! You just can't make this stuff up.
Grand58742
07-05-14, 17:19
Yeah I always LOL'ed when it came to the The Hague Convention of 1899 (Declaration III, prohibits the use in international warfare of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body).
Okay guys you can shoot them and kill them, just can't shoot them with a HP. But hey, those DU rounds are a-okay! You just can't make this stuff up.
One of those things. It's hard to wrap your head around the fact that with the way warfare has changed over the last hundred years and the original reason for the Declaration was because someone complained.
We aren't talking about brigandage or the customary law of war here, rather complaints the bullets were too effective.
Averageman
07-05-14, 17:23
I highly doubt that the money spent on this is being taken out of the training budget though.
True, but then when you see the entire mess in action it makes you ask "Why?"
I was speaking to a 2nd Lt the other day and he explained to me he needed 4k rounds to run an M9 Range. He has a great Plt Sgt working with him, everyone in the Platoon was highly motivated and ready to go run the best M9 range ever. In the end he gets 1500 rounds to work with.
So we're back to check the block.
So does it really matter what pistol they use at this point?
BoringGuy45
07-05-14, 22:32
True, but then when you see the entire mess in action it makes you ask "Why?"
I was speaking to a 2nd Lt the other day and he explained to me he needed 4k rounds to run an M9 Range. He has a great Plt Sgt working with him, everyone in the Platoon was highly motivated and ready to go run the best M9 range ever. In the end he gets 1500 rounds to work with.
So we're back to check the block.
So does it really matter what pistol they use at this point?
I think it's always crucial to have the best available equipment, within reason of course. If it doesn't matter what kind of pistol they have, why not just issue everyone Hi-Points and save the taxpayers millions? Yeah, I don't think that they need to spend the same time and money that's needed to improve the quality and lethality of service rifles, but I don't think that development of handguns should be completely ignored.
Magic_Salad0892
07-06-14, 10:54
Stick with the M9. Have JAG draft up a report stating how JHPs do not violate the Hague convention.
Or something.
Or just draft up a list of acceptable duty pistols that can be bought by the individual like LEOs do. (I've heard about this as a solution quite a few times, and didn't the AF do something similar with pilots?)
Averageman
07-06-14, 11:11
I think it's always crucial to have the best available equipment, within reason of course. If it doesn't matter what kind of pistol they have, why not just issue everyone Hi-Points and save the taxpayers millions? Yeah, I don't think that they need to spend the same time and money that's needed to improve the quality and lethality of service rifles, but I don't think that development of handguns should be completely ignored.
My point is regardless of what pistol or ammo they choose, it will mean nothing without training.
They could have any pistol on the market, or something developed to meet future needs in to the next century; it simply wouldn't matter. The Army gives little concern about pistol marksmanship and refuses (with perhaps the exception of some elite units) to do any serious training to develop and keep pistol skills.
Or just draft up a list of acceptable duty pistols that can be bought by the individual like LEOs do.
How do you suggest this model will be handled logistically, wrt spare parts, maintenance support, training, standards etc?
Magic_Salad0892
07-06-14, 11:45
How do you suggest this model will be handled logistically, wrt spare parts, maintenance support, training, standards etc?
Issue M9. If personal weapon breaks, or needs maintenance then the personal owner is responsible, and can withdraw an M9 from inventory at will. Military will not pay to support personal weapons, or issue magazines, or support gear. All must come from individual. Individual can withdraw M9, and support equipment from armory if needed. Weapon must be in 9mm or maybe .45 to use issued ammo.
I'm not military, nor have I ever been, but I don't see any real problems.
Averageman
07-06-14, 12:05
Issue M9. If personal weapon breaks, or needs maintenance then the personal owner is responsible, and can withdraw an M9 from inventory at will. Military will not pay to support personal weapons, or issue magazines, or support gear. All must come from individual. Individual can withdraw M9, and support equipment from armory if needed. Weapon must be in 9mm or maybe .45 to use issued ammo.
I'm not military, nor have I ever been, but I don't see any real problems.
The paranoia within the Military about personally owned weapons, especially pistols is legend. Although not a bad idea; for all practical purposes it wouldn't work. It can be difficult to get on and off post with a pistol and most regulations would preclude it from travel outside of CONUS to serve in war time.
Magic_Salad0892
07-06-14, 12:09
The paranoia within the Military about personally owned weapons, especially pistols is legend. Although not a bad idea; for all practical purposes it wouldn't work. It can be difficult to get on and off post with a pistol and most regulations would preclude it from travel outside of CONUS to serve in war time.
Thanks Bill Clinton.
Issue M9. If personal weapon breaks, or needs maintenance then the personal owner is responsible, and can withdraw an M9 from inventory at will. Military will not pay to support personal weapons, or issue magazines, or support gear. All must come from individual. Individual can withdraw M9, and support equipment from armory if needed. Weapon must be in 9mm or maybe .45 to use issued ammo.
I'm not military, nor have I ever been, but I don't see any real problems.
So, the soldier should master his primary rifle/carbine, his personally owned secondary, AND the M9 in addition to cross training on 40mm, M249, M240, .50 cal, M72 LAW, AT-4 et al ad nauseum?
How will soldiers qualify in order to bring their own sidearm, wrt aspects other than shooting? What about ammo supply?
What you are proposing is fantasy land.
I am not a big proponent of handguns being issued to troops, unless it is neccessary due to mission requirements and/or duty position restricts bringing along a rifle/carbine.
Also, I don't see how bringing personal weapons being forbidden is somehow attributable to Clinton. A standard NATO Travel Order only applies to military issue weapons, and theater SO's usually forbid the use of personally owned weapons.
Issue M9. If personal weapon breaks, or needs maintenance then the personal owner is responsible, and can withdraw an M9 from inventory at will. Military will not pay to support personal weapons, or issue magazines, or support gear. All must come from individual. Individual can withdraw M9, and support equipment from armory if needed. Weapon must be in 9mm or maybe .45 to use issued ammo.
I'm not military, nor have I ever been, but I don't see any real problems.
The issue is going to be liability. Both on the individual and his leadership.
Most Soldiers don't know any better and go buy Condor kit and Sightmark red dots just because it's different. There's a Soldier in my Platoon who went out and bought a Vortex Sparc in lieu of his CompM4s. It's approved for use, sure, but it doesn't mean it should be. Could you imagine some Private seeing, for instance, "Glock 17" on the approved pistol list and buying some $300 Craigslist special with modded internals all out of spec. When that weapon fails him, it very likely won't be at a range: it'll be at bad breath distance in the middle of a no-shit life or death gunfight. That's not the time or place to figure out you ****ed up with your life choices. And as a leader, it's our responsibility to insure our Soldiers equipment is properly maintained and that they are receiving quality training on their weapons. We can't do that when we have some Private running around with a Glock, another with an M&P, another with a 9mm 1911, a P226, etc.
Handguns have very limited utility for real world use in the Big Army. Without training, it's just a paperweight staff officers and TOCroaches carry around because it's lighter than an M4. Without the need for a secondary weapon system (which is very, very rare) general Infantry forces would be better spent focusing on solid rifle training and equipping armorers with the small parts needed to keep them running.
I agree with Arctic1. I don't think pistols should be fielded as widely as they are and letting Soldiers purchase/use privately owned weapons is a horrible idea.
Averageman
07-06-14, 14:05
The issue is going to be liability. Both on the individual and his leadership.
Handguns have very limited utility for real world use in the Big Army. Without training, it's just a paperweight staff officers and TOCroaches carry around because it's lighter than an M4. Without the need for a secondary weapon system (which is very, very rare) general Infantry forces would be better spent focusing on solid rifle training and equipping armorers with the small parts needed to keep them running.
I agree with Arctic1. I don't think pistols should be fielded as widely as they are and letting Soldiers purchase/use privately owned weapons is a horrible idea.
This is all very true, however as long as we have a Military we will continue to issue pistols.
I really don't feel we are hindered by the M9, although it isn't my first choice, but for the most part the only issues I had were bad magazines.
Taking in to account the number of Soldiers who carry the M9 as their primary weapon and their probability to engage the enemy in battle with a pistol, I think the whole idea of looking for another pistol is a bit of a waste of time. The squeeze just isn't worth the juice. I do believe if you HAVE to issue a pistol, you owe it to the Soldier to provide the best training possible, right now I don't see that happening.
For the most part in my experience the pistol, except for some very rare exceptions; is an excuse for not wanting to carry an M4.
Truth be told: if you're issued an M9 as a primary weapon, your job is NOT warfighting with it. Nobody goes on target with just a pistol. Our pilots are issued pistols because they have a helicopter to kill people with. If you're issued an M9 as a secondary weapon, you're either an: A) 240 gunner, B) sniper, or C) SOF. And for those who use pistols in SOF, they generally have the training to go with it.
The real issue I've seen is the weapon is being issued to people who don't need it, and then those that have them and truly need it in the Big Army don't have the money to train to a high enough level for it to be beneficial. A bigger bullet isn't going to make an under-trained Soldier any more effective.
ETA: This thread has inspired me to take a picture of every person I see carrying an M9 around in their Miami Vice shoulder holster or knee-height drop leg Serpa. You'll see a trend in the type of Soldier with a handgun...
montanadave
07-06-14, 14:52
I always had the impression a soldier's weapon was a rifle. Period. Why all the squawk about pistols?
Folks need to quit pissing money away trying to fix problems that don't exist.
Every time a thread comes up about someone not liking thrust shot on a DA/SA pistol, everyone jumps on him saying it's a non-issue as long as you have the training to compensate for it. Does anybody really think that the vast majority of soldiers have that level of training? My buddy was an MP before he commissioned. He said there was one female that had to use two fingers on the trigger to fire the DA shot...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NCPatrolAR
07-06-14, 16:15
Every time a thread comes up about someone not liking thrust shot on a DA/SA pistol, everyone jumps on him saying it's a non-issue as long as you have the training to compensate for it. Does anybody really think that the vast majority of soldiers have that level of training? My buddy was an MP before he commissioned. He said there was one female that had to use two fingers on the trigger to fire the DA shot...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That would be solved easy enough by installing a D spring into each M9. This isn't done though for the need to fire sub-gun ammo which sometimes mandates a harder primer strike
MountainRaven
07-06-14, 17:56
This (http://terminallance.com/2013/03/26/terminal-lance-259-inside-the-armory/) reminded me of this thread.
How do you suggest this model will be handled logistically, wrt spare parts, maintenance support, training, standards etc?
There was a time in this country when officers were allowed to purchase their own handguns. And before that they were required to.
Given that was only a century ago - if that - and we still speak the same language as we did then (mostly) I would probably find out what the regs were back then and simply reprint them after a quick once-over.
(When George S. Patton was a freshly-minted Lieutenant, he bought and carried a nickel-plated, ivory-gripped Colt M1873 single-action revolver with 5.5" barrel as his sidearm. This at a time when the US Army was transitioning from 38-caliber double-action revolvers to the M1911, a 45-caliber single-action automatic pistol. He continued to carry that same revolver throughout his career and, sometime in the 1930s, added a Smith and Wesson 357 Magnum Hand Ejector DA revolver, also nickel-plated, also ivory-gripped, to his pistol belt to carry while in uniform - yes, he carried two different handguns in two different calibers with two different methods of operation at the same time. And, of course, it wasn't uncommon for soldiers and Marines to get handguns shipped to them during WWII from friends and family back home - and carry them into battle. The US was not alone in this, either. General Kuribayashi being an obvious example from the Imperial Japanese Army, as he was supposed to have carried an M1911 that he was gifted while serving as deputy military attaché to the US.)
Stick with the M9. Have JAG draft up a report stating how JHPs do not violate the Hague convention.
Or something.
Or just draft up a list of acceptable duty pistols that can be bought by the individual like LEOs do. (I've heard about this as a solution quite a few times, and didn't the AF do something similar with pilots?)
That'll take more then just JAG drafting up a policy. The same way the Army got the Open Tip Match Ammo to stay in circulation by saying it doesn't expand like a Hollowpoint. I've had SGMs pull all M118 Match ammo from there snipers because of the fear during combat operations
I was issued the 9mm hollow point in Iraq; it does get issued both INCONUS and OCONUS
Thanks Bill Clinton.
It was an issue for us when Jimmy Carter was President, so I don't think slick Willie can take all the blame.
I was issued the 9mm hollow point in Iraq; it does get issued both INCONUS and OCONUS
Depends what world you work in
ClearedHot
07-06-14, 22:30
Regarding pistols, Terminal Lance pretty much hit the nail on the head with this one...
http://terminallance.com/2013/03/26/terminal-lance-259-inside-the-armory/
Magic_Salad0892
07-06-14, 22:43
It was an issue for us when Jimmy Carter was President, so I don't think slick Willie can take all the blame.
I was also joking. I thought it was Clinton who pushed for AF pilots to not be able to carry personal weapons on board aircraft?
Also, I'll accept that it's not such a good idea. Other than it seems to work for LEOs, which was the main argument I've heard for it.
SeriousStudent
07-06-14, 22:51
Regarding pistols, Terminal Lance pretty much hit the nail on the head with this one...
http://terminallance.com/2013/03/26/terminal-lance-259-inside-the-armory/
Ah, Terminal Lance. Some days it's a documentary, some days it's also a comic strip.
Maybe the same handgun for every purpose is not the best idea. Issue a Glock 17 to grunts and give the rear area bubbas a medium frame double action only revolver that uses moon clips to fire 9mm ammo. To save money the revolver can be a cheap to manufacture model along the lines of the Ruger polymer job. It can look like shit as long as it's reliable and smooth in the right places. Folks who would be poor shots with the revolver also wouldn't hit shit with the Glock.
Maybe the same handgun for every purpose is not the best idea. Issue a Glock 17 to grunts and give the rear area bubbas a medium frame double action only revolver that uses moon clips to fire 9mm ammo. To save money the revolver can be a cheap to manufacture model along the lines of the Ruger polymer job. It can look like shit as long as it's reliable and smooth in the right places. Folks who would be poor shots with the revolver also wouldn't hit shit with the Glock.
A revolver? Two different platforms would be the complete opposite of saving money. Logistics.
My comment about saving money referred to selecting a "cheap" to make revolver and thus save money within the revolver project. Yes, two different platforms do complicate logistics. However, a few years after selecting the Beretta to be the one handgun for everybody, the military started buying other brands. At Ft. Hood, the tankers got Sig 228s because this model served them better. The Navy continued to use Ruger double action 38s for use by plain clothes investigators. Ditto for the Army and their 2 inch S&W 38s. So, the military has made exceptions to its one handgun/Beretta choice when it suited the brass.
I'm not qualified to say much more, but I no longer hold the one platform concept to be sacred. Unless the Marines need an expert bullet caster to feed them a steady diet of gun powder and bull shit, I won't hear from them or any other branch.
IG, what should be our next pistol if the Beretta goes?
That'll take more then just JAG drafting up a policy. The same way the Army got the Open Tip Match Ammo to stay in circulation by saying it doesn't expand like a Hollowpoint. I've had SGMs pull all M118 Match ammo from there snipers because of the fear during combat operations
How we've ever won a war with stuff like this going on is beyond me.
How we've ever won a war with stuff like this going on is beyond me.
Not since WW2...
Sent from my PG41200 using Tapatalk 2
Victory or defeat is hardly dependent on small arms caliber or ammunition construction.
Perhaps my sarcasm missed its point
I agree, and as much as I like the HK, I think FN has the inside track (if there is a decision at all) from their extensive mil contracts already. I almost think a .40 caliber platform may be the dark horse to win it because of magazine capacity and frame size.
Just please for the love of everything that it good and holy, No 1911's!
Plus 40 S@W is a homeland defense caliber. I gots a fortay has a certain ring to it.
Colt made a pilot survival, chopped, and very light weigh CAR with a 10-11 inch barrel and a similar version named Commando with a submachine gun designation.
Might one of these replace the pistol for many applications?
I'm waiting for a big troll to recommend a Taurus Judge and a little troll to argue for the S&W version, and we could keep what we have.
I was a grunt 30 years ago. Mortar maggot to be specific. The gunner and AG carried .45's. Yes, I'm dating myself....pre-Beretta days. I had an M16A1 as an issue rifle for my whole 4 years, and the SAW was just coming online when I ETS'd. I was stationed in Panama and at the time Nicaragua and the Sandinistas were the "big" local threat. I remember thinking that if I was ever sent into combat that I sure as f*** would want more than a .45! Going to the jungle for training was one thing, but if it got real I wanted an M16!
Moose-Knuckle
07-08-14, 01:49
Colt made a pilot survival, chopped, and very light weigh CAR with a 10-11 inch barrel and a similar version named Commando with a submachine gun designation.
Might one of these replace the pistol for many applications?
That's what they said about the M1 Carbine. And every other PDW ever since.
Amp Mangum
07-29-14, 12:53
Army buys more M9s:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/07/29/army-buys-more-m-pistols/?intcmp=features
Moose-Knuckle
07-29-14, 19:38
The Army’s New Handgun: A Weapon for Criminals?
There’s a new semi-automatic handgun on the horizon for the Army that U.S. consumers may have access to almost immediately. When that happens, America’s emergency rooms better be prepared for the carnage that’s likely to follow.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/army-handgun-weapon-criminals-162100885.html
Mauser KAR98K
07-29-14, 22:11
The Army’s New Handgun: A Weapon for Criminals?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/army-handgun-weapon-criminals-162100885.html
Some one ought to point out that some of the latest enhancements to firearms themselves have come the civilian side.
Retards!!!
The Army’s New Handgun: A Weapon for Criminals?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/army-handgun-weapon-criminals-162100885.html
Are reporters like this truly ignorant or do they know they are lying?
Anyone advocating giving troops a revolver hasn't been paying attention to politics for the past 12 years or so; from lack of armored vehicles to the M4 Congress has questioned the DoD. Any General advocating arming troops with a revolver would be committing career suicide; and it's stupid, we've had reliable autos for over 100 years now.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.