View Full Version : Army's new handgun to be designated XM17...
...and evidently they're considering upgraded ammo as well:
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2015/07/09/Army-includes-special-ammunition-in-hunt-for-new-handgun/5451436465890/
Eurodriver
07-09-15, 17:27
Who are they kidding? I hate judging a book by its cover, but looks an awful lot like an M9!
Who are they kidding? I hate judging a book by its cover, but looks an awful lot like an M9!
Maj. Brent Streater prepares for a M9 pistol Competition on Forward Operating Base Slayer, Iraq. The U.S. Army is seeking to replace the M9 with a new handgun. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Matthew Friberg
:p ...
And they're switching to hollow points?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/07/robert-farago/breaking-u-s-army-switching-to-hollow-point-ammunition/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/07/jon-wayne-taylor/combat-medic-armys-hollow-point-ammo-switch-will-or-should-end-the-caliber-debate/
Eurodriver
07-09-15, 18:03
:p ...
I actually googled the XM17. I knew it couldn't look exactly like that!
BuzzinSATX
07-09-15, 18:35
This is interesting...
http://bearingarms.com/top-three-contenders-u-s-militarys-xm17-modular-handgun-system-contract/
Take Care,
Buzz
MountainRaven
07-09-15, 20:37
That's grand and all, but the Army isn't going to be spending any money on it this year. Except to keep the program on life-support.
All of the money previously earmarked for the XM17/MHS program has been reallocated to other programs.
Having said that, it does seem possible that the winner will be a 124-grain 9mm NATO Gold Dot. (And another 200,000+ M9s.)
I'm surprised the Army doesn't want a manual safety, at least I didn't see that listed in the requirements.
I bet the Sig 320 will get the nod, if they change side arms at all.
Seriously, whens DARPA gonna come out with man portable energy weapons, PEW's if you will?
So they finally want a SA auto and wish to get away from the double action hammer guns of 85 and they decide to go with something other than the Glock?!?!
Jesus Christ the GLOCK was made for combat, it's actually a terrible LE weapon which is why it was nearly universally adopted. But for doing "army stuff" I can't think of a much better handgun and the three they are looking at seem to be turds in comparison.
Swear to god I will never figure military procurement out.
So they finally want a SA auto and wish to get away from the double action hammer guns of 85 and they decide to go with something other than the Glock?!?!
Jesus Christ the GLOCK was made for combat, it's actually a terrible LE weapon which is why it was nearly universally adopted. But for doing "army stuff" I can't think of a much better handgun and the three they are looking at seem to be turds in comparison.
Swear to god I will never figure military procurement out.
Why exactly is a Glock ill suited for Law enforcement?
Digital_Damage
07-10-15, 08:30
Why exactly is a Glock ill suited for Law enforcement?
would like to know as well...
Now, this is just a guess mind you, a mere speculation, but it could have, maybe, something to do with the rate of negligent discharges possibly increasing with so called safe action trigger safetyless pistols.
not saying how. not saying why. Just noting that the correlation has been noted more and more often on the internets.
Digital_Damage
07-10-15, 10:30
Now, this is just a guess mind you, a mere speculation, but it could have, maybe, something to do with the rate of negligent discharges possibly increasing with so called safe action trigger safetyless pistols.
not saying how. not saying why. Just noting that the correlation has been noted more and more often on the internets.
So what you are saying is the LEO's in almost every other part of the world are better trained and more intelligent in that they don't shoot themselves than the LEO's in the United States?
Now, this is just a guess mind you, a mere speculation, but it could have, maybe, something to do with the rate of negligent discharges possibly increasing with so called safe action trigger safetyless pistols.
not saying how. not saying why. Just noting that the correlation has been noted more and more often on the internets.
When our agency (2,000 personnel) transitioned from S&W DA/SA pistols to Glock striker fired pistols the rate of negligent discharges dropped dramatically. Our training program was updated and there was more emphasis on trigger finger discipline when we transitioned to Glocks.
It's a training issue.
BoringGuy45
07-10-15, 12:14
When our agency (2,000 personnel) transitioned from S&W DA/SA pistols to Glock striker fired pistols the rate of negligent discharges dropped dramatically. Our training program was updated and there was more emphasis on trigger finger discipline when we transitioned to Glocks.
It's a training issue.
This is a huge issue for me. I can't tell you how many people tell me they want something with a safety or a heavy trigger pull so they don't have to worry about trigger discipline.
WickedWillis
07-10-15, 12:15
XM17= Glock 17.....I can dream!
brickboy240
07-10-15, 12:18
Yeah like the Brits..lets just adopt the G17 and call it good.
I usually do not advocate following the Brits on anything but I think we'd be safe in adopting the G17.
Yeah like the Brits..lets just adopt the G17 and call it good.
I usually do not advocate following the Brits on anything but I think we'd be safe in adopting the G17.
I agree with adopting the Glock 17. It's stone ax simple to use under stress and relatively easy to maintain.
Sometimes it pays to follow the Brits. I've followed the Brits into a few pubs and it was entertaining to say the least.
KalashniKEV
07-10-15, 12:46
I agree with adopting the Glock 17. It's stone ax simple to use under stress and relatively easy to maintain.
At the very least they should spec Glock Mags and force all entrants to use them.
Then NATO should adopt them as STANAG.
At the very least they should spec Glock Mags and force all entrants to use them.
Then NATO should adopt them as STANAG.
Whoa whoa whoa. Slow your roll man!
You'll be asked to leave northern Virginia using sense like that.
Why exactly is a Glock ill suited for Law enforcement?
In LE use weapons are regularly pointed at or near individuals when you have no real intention of shooting them. LE training programs are also not intensive enough to instill the necessary trigger and muzzle discipline to prevent NDs and accidental shootings.
Despite the "three safeties" is really is like running around with an unlocked 1911 and not everyone is responsible enough to do that. This is why we get stories of guns being fired into the pavement while somebody is being cuffed up and things like that.
brickboy240
07-10-15, 13:55
There are several serious military groups using the Glock 19 or Glock 17.
I believe the Dutch, Swedes and Austrians carry it and the IDF has used Glock 19s for quite some time.
-brickboy240
I'm calling it. S&W M&P .45.
Here's why, I have short fingers, first time I held the above pistol was at the 2011 Infantry conference, I thought I was holding a 9mm 'till I looked closely.
grip that accepts a wide-range of hand-sizes (5th to 95th percentile)
WickedWillis
07-10-15, 14:44
I'm calling it. S&W M&P .45.
Here's why, I have short fingers, first time I held the above pistol was at the 2011 Infantry conference, I thought I was holding a 9mm 'till I looked closely.
grip that accepts a wide-range of hand-sizes (5th to 95th percentile)
That'd be very interesting. It was my understanding that the M&P 45 was made to compete for the military handgun trial.
KalashniKEV
07-10-15, 15:39
I'm calling it. S&W M&P .45.
I'm calling 124gr 9mm Gold Dot is the only thing that comes out of this.
WickedWillis
07-10-15, 17:39
I'm calling 124gr 9mm Gold Dot is the only thing that comes out of this.
You think they are going to stick with Beretta?
BuzzinSATX
07-10-15, 18:35
In LE use weapons are regularly pointed at or near individuals when you have no real intention of shooting them. LE training programs are also not intensive enough to instill the necessary trigger and muzzle discipline to prevent NDs and accidental shootings.
Despite the "three safeties" is really is like running around with an unlocked 1911 and not everyone is responsible enough to do that. This is why we get stories of guns being fired into the pavement while somebody is being cuffed up and things like that.
Yes, which is also why a striker fire, no external safety firearm would be a terrible idea for our new standard issue sidearm as well.
Don't get me wrong...I'm pretty much a Glock guy, and the predominant handguns in my home are Glocks and a couple XDm's for my daughters. Glock 17 would be a fine combat sidearm for those trained enough to become familiar with the platform. But I think this whole "one service-wide" sidearm for all concept is very flawed for three main reasons:
1. There is a huge difference in military firearms skills and training frequency and intensity between combat (infantry, SOF, security/provost Marshall, etc.) and combat centric (combat engineers, artillery, etc.) personnel and the support troops who arm up when deployed to combat zones (cooks/logisticians/vehicle & aircraft maintenance/civil engineers/admin/personnel/finance/etc. Support folks only receive minimal trigger time which might be once in 12-24 months, with a "just in time" combat shooting skills class thrown in if the troop is scheduled to deploy to a war zone.
2. I drive through an Air Force Base main gate every day I go to work, and more and more, the gate guards are females, 19-22 years old, 5'2, and maybe 120 lbs with all their gear on in the rain. I have no idea how they can their hands wrapped around their issued M9, and with a drop holster, the muzzle is almost at the top of their size 4 combat boot. So whatever firearm is chosen need's to fit an ever increasing population of petite female troops as well as the 6'5 230 lbs gorilla handed male troops.
3. And probably the most important reason...most young folks entering military service have never fired a real weapon in their life, other than maybe a laser tag or paintball gun, either of which taught them the opposite of muzzle discipline or the 4 golden firearm rules.
I hope the DoD gets this one right, but I won't hold my breath. I think the modular grips are a good start, but if i were "King of the DOD", I'd do something like this:
1. I would tell the SOCOM commander to lock heads with his individual service branch counterparts to get their acts together and figure out what handgun they want. No more SEALS rocking Sigs, Delta shooting Glocks, and MARSOC slinging .45's from 1911's. I wouldn't even give them any guidance on caliber, safeties, size, etc....just pick a single sidearm platform that they can live with so we can buy guns, mags, and related gear in bulk. Only stipulation I'd ask them to consider would be consider if a platform that had 2 or more frame sizes that accepted common mags and holsters, like the G17/G19 relationship, would be a benefit. Once they fought it out and came up with something, I would then offer this platform to the combat units as well to help reduce the whole "SOF gets all the good shit" mentality.
2. Second, I'd solicit for a different sidearm for the support folks if the sidearm SOCOM chose didn't meet my criteria for the support folks. That criteria would be an external safety, 9MM NATO, minimum 15 round magazine, adjustable/modular grip, and a consistent, double action only trigger pull. Keep it simple and relatively safe as much as possible.
I was a support troop and deployed with many other support troops. I've also been a "gun guy" since I was 15 years old, so while I was very comfortable with my M9 and M16/M4, I had to help out lots of other folks when they had issues cleaning and lubing their weapons during long deployments. I may be wrong, but I see it getting worse as we draw our folks away from the war zones and reduce the amount of combat shooting skills training the support community receives.
Of course, none of this will happen. The military will pick one gun and press on. I hope they choose wisely, but regardless, it is impossible for one gun to fit everyone serving and make them all happy about it.
Just my $0.02 YMMV...
Digital_Damage
07-10-15, 21:34
Yes, which is also why a striker fire, no external safety firearm would be a terrible idea for our new standard issue sidearm as well.
Don't get me wrong...I'm pretty much a Glock guy, and the predominant handguns in my home are Glocks and a couple XDm's for my daughters. Glock 17 would be a fine combat sidearm for those trained enough to become familiar with the platform. But I think this whole "one service-wide" sidearm for all concept is very flawed for three main reasons:
1. There is a huge difference in military firearms skills and training frequency and intensity between combat (infantry, SOF, security/provost Marshall, etc.) and combat centric (combat engineers, artillery, etc.) personnel and the support troops who arm up when deployed to combat zones (cooks/logisticians/vehicle & aircraft maintenance/civil engineers/admin/personnel/finance/etc. Support folks only receive minimal trigger time which might be once in 12-24 months, with a "just in time" combat shooting skills class thrown in if the troop is scheduled to deploy to a war zone.
2. I drive through an Air Force Base main gate every day I go to work, and more and more, the gate guards are females, 19-22 years old, 5'2, and maybe 120 lbs with all their gear on in the rain. I have no idea how they can their hands wrapped around their issued M9, and with a drop holster, the muzzle is almost at the top of their size 4 combat boot. So whatever firearm is chosen need's to fit an ever increasing population of petite female troops as well as the 6'5 230 lbs gorilla handed male troops.
3. And probably the most important reason...most young folks entering military service have never fired a real weapon in their life, other than maybe a laser tag or paintball gun, either of which taught them the opposite of muzzle discipline or the 4 golden firearm rules.
I hope the DoD gets this one right, but I won't hold my breath. I think the modular grips are a good start, but if i were "King of the DOD", I'd do something like this:
1. I would tell the SOCOM commander to lock heads with his individual service branch counterparts to get their acts together and figure out what handgun they want. No more SEALS rocking Sigs, Delta shooting Glocks, and MARSOC slinging .45's from 1911's. I wouldn't even give them any guidance on caliber, safeties, size, etc....just pick a single sidearm platform that they can live with so we can buy guns, mags, and related gear in bulk. Only stipulation I'd ask them to consider would be consider if a platform that had 2 or more frame sizes that accepted common mags and holsters, like the G17/G19 relationship, would be a benefit. Once they fought it out and came up with something, I would then offer this platform to the combat units as well to help reduce the whole "SOF gets all the good shit" mentality.
2. Second, I'd solicit for a different sidearm for the support folks if the sidearm SOCOM chose didn't meet my criteria for the support folks. That criteria would be an external safety, 9MM NATO, minimum 15 round magazine, adjustable/modular grip, and a consistent, double action only trigger pull. Keep it simple and relatively safe as much as possible.
I was a support troop and deployed with many other support troops. I've also been a "gun guy" since I was 15 years old, so while I was very comfortable with my M9 and M16/M4, I had to help out lots of other folks when they had issues cleaning and lubing their weapons during long deployments. I may be wrong, but I see it getting worse as we draw our folks away from the war zones and reduce the amount of combat shooting skills training the support community receives.
Of course, none of this will happen. The military will pick one gun and press on. I hope they choose wisely, but regardless, it is impossible for one gun to fit everyone serving and make them all happy about it.
Just my $0.02 YMMV...
double action? LULS
MountainRaven
07-10-15, 22:17
There are several serious military groups using the Glock 19 or Glock 17.
I believe the Dutch, Swedes and Austrians carry it and the IDF has used Glock 19s for quite some time.
-brickboy240
Norway: Glock 17
Sweden: Glock 17
Finland: Glock 17
Ireland: H&K USP
Denmark: SiG Sauer P210
UK: Glock 17 Gen4
France: Beretta 92G
Germany: H&K USP
Poland: Walther P99
Luxembourg: Glock 17
Austria: Glock 17
Spain: H&K USP
Portugal: Glock 17
Italy: Beretta 92FS
Canada: FN GP35
Australia/New Zealand: FN GP35
Japan: SiG P220
Republic of Korea: Daewoo K5
The Baltic states - Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia - probably use whatever they're given, particularly in event of NATO-wide hostilities.
So if the idea is to get a pistol with the greatest interoperability with our allies - the 9mm Glock is probably going to be it.
wildcard600
07-11-15, 01:39
IMHO the "military handgun" for line troops should be no bigger than a j-frame. MP's, aircrew, artillery, and the like are better off with a PDW (P90, MP7, etc).
Given the option of strapping a 15 shot pistol vs 120-150 more rounds of 5.56 on my LBG i'll take the rifle ammo thanks.
But i'm just some dude on the internet.
IMHO the "military handgun" for line troops should be no bigger than a j-frame. MP's, aircrew, artillery, and the like are better off with a PDW (P90, MP7, etc).
Given the option of strapping a 15 shot pistol vs 120-150 more rounds of 5.56 on my LBG i'll take the rifle ammo thanks.
But i'm just some dude on the internet.
Consider the logistics of that for thousands and thousands of troops. Then ask yourself what the hell good does a j-frame do anyone in the military.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BuzzinSATX
07-11-15, 05:04
double action? LULS
I'm talking about something like a Sig/HK DAO action hammer fire (single trigger pull) or a striker fire, preferably with a restrike capability, and something like an 8 lbs pull.
Better option would be to provide support troops more training/range time, but I don't see that as a reality today.
Just need to keep it simple to operate and safe as possible.
Take Care,
Buzz
Those comments though...
"Zero complaints from anyone who ever used an old 45acp. You hit it, it stops. Go back to the old proven firearm in 45acp cause it works."
"When you get to the point in combat you have to rely on your handgun, I perfered someting large and reliable. The 1911 Colt .45 filled that gap for 75 years. Going forward, I'm hoping something very close to that caliber is selected."
"The Army was totally satisfied with the old .45 and then some clown or clowns in the pentagon (after the usual kickback) decided on th 9mm. Same old story."
"Go back to .45 ACP and I guarantee it will feed better and have as much stopping power as 9mm hollow points."
"Return to the 1911 - That's been the best all 'round military pistol for more than 100 years. If the military needs a special pistol once in a while for a special need then buy it -- Pistols are kind of like hamburgers--there is no best."
wildcard600
07-11-15, 08:09
Consider the logistics of that for thousands and thousands of troops. Then ask yourself what the hell good does a j-frame do anyone in the military.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What logistics ? Adopt the M&P shield for line troops and the P90 for everyone else who isnt issued a rifle.
Ask yourself what good a glock 17 does the military if the infantry units issued one carry it buried in thier pack or leaves it back at the base ?
What logistics ? Adopt the M&P shield for line troops and the P90 for everyone else who isnt issued a rifle.
Ask yourself what good a glock 17 does the military if the infantry units issued one carry it buried in thier pack or leaves it back at the base ?
The logistics of adding two very different weapons to the inventory. Clearly you know absolutely nothing about the military - you should just stick to your Call of Duty.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
wildcard600
07-11-15, 15:57
The logistics of adding two very different weapons to the inventory. Clearly you know absolutely nothing about the military - you should just stick to your Call of Duty.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How many different types of rifles and pistols are already in military inventory ? With that thinking, clearly expediency is more valued than effective equipment for soldiers. If your attitude of ad hominem attacks is indicative of military culture, call of duty would likely be a more pleasant environment to attempt a discussion.
How many different types of rifles and pistols are already in military inventory ? With that thinking, clearly expediency is more valued than effective equipment for soldiers. If your attitude of ad hominem attacks is indicative of military culture, call of duty would likely be a more pleasant environment to attempt a discussion.
There's more than just those two factors to consider. We don't even have subguns in the inventory, much less either of those rounds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MountainRaven
07-11-15, 19:45
From what I have been able to gather:
-Single-action handguns are not for the novice shooter.
-Striker-fired handguns are not for the novice shooter.
-Double-action handguns are not for the novice shooter.
-Double-action-only handguns are not for the novice shooter.
Maybe it should just be said that handguns aren't for the novice shooter?
What logistics ? Adopt the M&P shield for line troops and the P90 for everyone else who isnt issued a rifle.
Ask yourself what good a glock 17 does the military if the infantry units issued one carry it buried in thier pack or leaves it back at the base ?
As someone whose father, a Marine whose happiest days with the Corps were commanding a rifle company, utterly detested the idea of an infantryman packing a handgun instead of more ammunition for his (or her, now, I suppose) rifle....
I ain't never heard of anybody leaving their handgun in the rear with the gear. That's not to say that it hasn't happened, but I cannot say that I've ever heard of it happening - from guys carrying issued handguns to handguns being sent from home to handguns being picked up as souvenirs during the Second World War, or during Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, or Iraq (again).
I'm just trying to imagine a world where it makes any sense to issue a soldier/sailor/Marine/airman either a J-frame or any other sub-compact concealed carry BUG. Maybe for pilots. But that's pretty much it. Nevermind that J-frames are really not for novice shooters.
That being said, tying in with what I said above, I think it would make sense to adopt a sub-5 lb. semi-automatic 5.56mm carbine/PDW for support troops (plus 5.56mm ammo optimized to work out of its inevitably insanely short barrel). But a Beretta M9A1/Glock 19/SiG Mk25/whatever fed Gold Dots or HSTs ought to be fine for those whose MOS calls for a sidearm.
wildcard600
07-11-15, 20:02
There's more than just those two factors to consider. We don't even have subguns in the inventory, much less either of those rounds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe you misread my original post, as i said J-frame sized. The shield is 9mm so no changes there. Adding the 5.7 to military inventory (in the case of the P90) would complicate things a bit, but there also exist PDW's in 9mm which would negate that problem. The training would be basically the same as the pistol and rifle training already taught in basic and infantry school and adoption of a two weapon system would result in much more effective tools for those who carry either. The line troops would have something light and easy to carry in a pouch or BDU pocket not wasting space on LBG and the auxiliary and support troops would have something worlds better than a 15 shot pistol if they ever found themselves in an actual combat situation.
It just seems to me that a better solution to the 1915 era fullsize pistol mindset has already been put to use in the US military at least once before, so i really can't wrap my head around the apparent backwards thought process. In this day and age and the better equipment available, IMO trimming the fat somewhere else to implement a slightly more complicated solution to the one sized fits all sidearm would make sense.
I realize that in the grand scheme of things the military sidearm is a tiny fraction of a percent of actually going out and making war, but that does not make it any less important to the poor SOB on the ground with bullets whizzing past their head.
wildcard600
07-11-15, 20:31
From what I have been able to gather:
-Single-action handguns are not for the novice shooter.
-Striker-fired handguns are not for the novice shooter.
-Double-action handguns are not for the novice shooter.
-Double-action-only handguns are not for the novice shooter.
Maybe it should just be said that handguns aren't for the novice shooter?
As someone whose father, a Marine whose happiest days with the Corps were commanding a rifle company, utterly detested the idea of an infantryman packing a handgun instead of more ammunition for his (or her, now, I suppose) rifle....
I ain't never heard of anybody leaving their handgun in the rear with the gear. That's not to say that it hasn't happened, but I cannot say that I've ever heard of it happening - from guys carrying issued handguns to handguns being sent from home to handguns being picked up as souvenirs during the Second World War, or during Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, or Iraq (again).
I'm just trying to imagine a world where it makes any sense to issue a soldier/sailor/Marine/airman either a J-frame or any other sub-compact concealed carry BUG. Maybe for pilots. But that's pretty much it. Nevermind that J-frames are really not for novice shooters.
That being said, tying in with what I said above, I think it would make sense to adopt a sub-5 lb. semi-automatic 5.56mm carbine/PDW for support troops (plus 5.56mm ammo optimized to work out of its inevitably insanely short barrel). But a Beretta M9A1/Glock 19/SiG Mk25/whatever fed Gold Dots or HSTs ought to be fine for those whose MOS calls for a sidearm.
The issue of packing a full size pistol is one of the most striking things that i have heard from people i know/have met who have been deployed to combat theaters. From stories my uncle has told of himself and guys from his unit stashing their issue 1911's in foot lockers and stuffing a personally owned detective special or j-frame in a fatigue pocket while in Vietnam to friends who were involved in both Iraq campaigns and Afghanistan ditching the Beretta to carry more rifle ammo. I used to think that a full size combat pistol would be an essential piece of gear for any infantry soldier, but after talking with a number of people about the actual usefulness (or lack thereof) and the issues with finding an effective carry solution among all the other crap a line troop must carry the idea of a fullsize service pistol made less and less sense.
Timothy J. Mullin has an good book on the subject (though dated) titled The 100 Greatest Combat Pistols which touches on the subject and comes to many of the same conclusions that a big pistol rarely makes sense for anyone that has a better option available.
I personally can't imagine a scenario where anyone other than maybe an MP on a secured base somewhere is actually going to be able to use a pistol as an effective weapon against even a single adversary in a modern military engagement (SOF is a different story).
I don't pretend to be an expert, or even purport to have any practical experience on the subject, but listening to those who have had experience certainly has changed my thought process.
You do know that almost no line troops are even issued a sidearm right? The only ones that really get one in many units are commanders or primary staff - people who will be inside a TOC the whole time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MountainRaven
07-11-15, 21:07
I don't see how issuing a handgun that is very difficult to use effectively - like a J-frame - is any better than issuing a handgun that is merely difficult to use effectively.
Maybe I'm just too much a student of Jeff Cooper and Ken Hackathorn - if you're going to use a handgun, use one that you can use the most effectively, which pretty much almost always means a full-size handgun.
The full-size handgun for a warfighter (or anyone, for that matter) is, IMHO, a compromise between the carbine you're not willing (or perhaps unable) to carry and the pocket gun you cannot employ effectively.
It is worth bearing in mind, I feel, that the M4 Carbine was originally intended to be the spiritual successor to the M1 Carbine (and the select-fire M2 Carbine and the IR scope-equiped M3 Carbine - Colt didn't pick "M4 Carbine" out of a hat, afterall) and to be issued to support troops. The entire PDW concept was intended to produce successors to the M1 Carbine FOW. This coming after the M14 - and then the M16 - was supposed to replace the M1 Garand, M1 Thompson and M3 Grease Gun, M1/M2 Carbine, M1918 BAR, with all troops. (These developments coming just under forty years after the US military decided to replace carbines for cavalry and support troops and long rifles with leg infantry with short rifles that split the difference for everybody in the M1903.)
So I think the idea that we're taking a step back from the halcyon days of 1942 - when a squad needed magazines and ammunition for their M1911s, M1918 BARs, M1 and M3 SMGs, M1 Carbines, and clips and ammunition for their M1 Garands - is one that nakedly ignores US military small arms development over the last one-hundred years. The trouble seems to be that because a new carbine or PDW - even if intended for support troops - is new and therefore cool, it will therefore be utilized by SOF - who will get it first. And then the rest of the Army decides that they should have the new toy SOF is playing with for their line infantry. And then they encounter a problem that the weapon was never intended to deal with and "fix" the weapon, turning their 5lb. PDW into a 10lb. tinker toy.
Subsequently, the weapon originally designed to be lightweight and issued to support troops becomes a fat assed pig that never gets issued to support troops.
I digress. Point being, we already have a PDW for support troops, to replace their pistols. We've had one for decades. And it has never replaced those pistols - or the muskets they have been forced to carry in their stead. And it is no longer the light, handy weapon that it was intended to be.
wildcard600
07-11-15, 21:38
You do know that almost no line troops are even issued a sidearm right? The only ones that really get one in many units are commanders or primary staff - people who will be inside a TOC the whole time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So why even mess with having a new pistol in inventory ? Get the people who need a PDW some better equipment and let those who carry a pistol as a badge of rank keep the beretta.
wildcard600
07-11-15, 22:00
I don't see how issuing a handgun that is very difficult to use effectively - like a J-frame - is any better than issuing a handgun that is merely difficult to use effectively.
Maybe I'm just too much a student of Jeff Cooper and Ken Hackathorn - if you're going to use a handgun, use one that you can use the most effectively, which pretty much almost always means a full-size handgun.
The full-size handgun for a warfighter (or anyone, for that matter) is, IMHO, a compromise between the carbine you're not willing (or perhaps unable) to carry and the pocket gun you cannot employ effectively.
It is worth bearing in mind, I feel, that the M4 Carbine was originally intended to be the spiritual successor to the M1 Carbine (and the select-fire M2 Carbine and the IR scope-equiped M3 Carbine - Colt didn't pick "M4 Carbine" out of a hat, afterall) and to be issued to support troops. The entire PDW concept was intended to produce successors to the M1 Carbine FOW. This coming after the M14 - and then the M16 - was supposed to replace the M1 Garand, M1 Thompson and M3 Grease Gun, M1/M2 Carbine, M1918 BAR, with all troops. (These developments coming just under forty years after the US military decided to replace carbines for cavalry and support troops and long rifles with leg infantry with short rifles that split the difference for everybody in the M1903.)
So I think the idea that we're taking a step back from the halcyon days of 1942 - when a squad needed magazines and ammunition for their M1911s, M1918 BARs, M1 and M3 SMGs, M1 Carbines, and clips and ammunition for their M1 Garands - is one that nakedly ignores US military small arms development over the last one-hundred years. The trouble seems to be that because a new carbine or PDW - even if intended for support troops - is new and therefore cool, it will therefore be utilized by SOF - who will get it first. And then the rest of the Army decides that they should have the new toy SOF is playing with for their line infantry. And then they encounter a problem that the weapon was never intended to deal with and "fix" the weapon, turning their 5lb. PDW into a 10lb. tinker toy.
Subsequently, the weapon originally designed to be lightweight and issued to support troops becomes a fat assed pig that never gets issued to support troops.
I digress. Point being, we already have a PDW for support troops, to replace their pistols. We've had one for decades. And it has never replaced those pistols - or the muskets they have been forced to carry in their stead. And it is no longer the light, handy weapon that it was intended to be.
The thought process is that outside of someone like Jeff Cooper or Alvin York, the pistol is ineffective in an infantry role. Personally i think the handgun is all but obsolete for military uses, but that a compact pistol would be the best choice for one if it is going to be used at all since it has a higher likelyhood of actually being carried and that it won't waste space on an item that isn't even likely to be used at all.
As to the M4 carbine, if their attempt at a PDW was cutting a couple inches off a rifle barrel it was pretty half assed, considering what was already available even at that time. As i said above, if no one is getting sidearms outside of commanders or support troops, the whole idea of adopting another useless handgun is waste of time and money.
I realize that the British procurement system is different than ours, but I have to admire the way they picked the Glock 17 as their new sidearm - take the competing pistols and shoot them in desert, jungle, and cold environments and then (based on test criteria) a Lt Col picked the winner. In less than a year's time, IIRC. And that was that. No political backlash or protests either.
In LE use weapons are regularly pointed at or near individuals when you have no real intention of shooting them.What kind of fuctup lack of discipline is that?
LE training programs are also not intensive enough to instill the necessary trigger and muzzle discipline to prevent NDs and accidental shootings.
Despite the "three safeties" is really is like running around with an unlocked 1911 and not everyone is responsible enough to do that. This is why we get stories of guns being fired into the pavement while somebody is being cuffed up and things like that.Here's an idea that costs nothing extra: why don't they stop hiring idiots and instead do like every other profession and only keep people who are capable of using their work equipment properly, and train them until they're experts at it? Works for HVAC, surgeons, dentists, opticians, pilots, mechanics, computer techs, pharmacists, carpenters, electricians...
MountainRaven
07-11-15, 22:40
The thought process is that outside of someone like Jeff Cooper or Alvin York, the pistol is ineffective in an infantry role. Personally i think the handgun is all but obsolete for military uses, but that a compact pistol would be the best choice for one if it is going to be used at all since it has a higher likelyhood of actually being carried and that it won't waste space on an item that isn't even likely to be used at all.
As to the M4 carbine, if their attempt at a PDW was cutting a couple inches off a rifle barrel it was pretty half assed, considering what was already available even at that time. As i said above, if no one is getting sidearms outside of commanders or support troops, the whole idea of adopting another useless handgun is waste of time and money.
Colt could have made it shorter, lighter, handier, but the Army wanted to be able to attach a bayonet to it.
And carrying a handgun you can't effectively use is no different than not carrying a handgun. Except for the extra weight you're carrying around.
wildcard600
07-11-15, 23:24
Colt could have made it shorter, lighter, handier, but the Army wanted to be able to attach a bayonet to it.
And carrying a handgun you can't effectively use is no different than not carrying a handgun. Except for the extra weight you're carrying around.
The philosophy of use for line troops to carry a compact pistol is at bayonet range, at least that's how I understand it.
At any rate, a circle jerk procurement for another pistol when money would be much better spent on something like the Magpul PDR and the ammo to go with it makes no sense.
The philosophy of use for line troops to carry a compact pistol is at bayonet range, at least that's how I understand it.
At any rate, a circle jerk procurement for another pistol when money would be much better spent on something like the Magpul PDR and the ammo to go with it makes no sense.
Theoretically you give a pistol to the machine gunners and vehicle crews. Then if you have extra, to officers as a status symbol when dealing with the locals.
But I think the M9 is good enough that unless switching will save money in the long run, it's not worth replacing.
The thought process is that outside of someone like Jeff Cooper or Alvin York, the pistol is ineffective in an infantry role. Personally i think the handgun is all but obsolete for military uses, but that a compact pistol would be the best choice for one if it is going to be used at all since it has a higher likelyhood of actually being carried and that it won't waste space on an item that isn't even likely to be used at all.
As to the M4 carbine, if their attempt at a PDW was cutting a couple inches off a rifle barrel it was pretty half assed, considering what was already available even at that time. As i said above, if no one is getting sidearms outside of commanders or support troops, the whole idea of adopting another useless handgun is waste of time and money.
They also made an collapsible buttstock instead of the huge fixed one. And just because only a smaller portion use it, doesn't mean it won't be a worthy upgrade. And regardless of what you may have heard about Vietnam, troops these days don't get away with leaving a weapon somewhere that easily. I'm not sure how you're so adamant on something you have no first hand knowledge about. M&P9 and be done with it. No PDW to invent a whole separate category of weapon in big Army. Talk about waste of money.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
wildcard600
07-12-15, 00:56
They also made an collapsible buttstock instead of the huge fixed one. And just because only a smaller portion use it, doesn't mean it won't be a worthy upgrade. And regardless of what you may have heard about Vietnam, troops these days don't get away with leaving a weapon somewhere that easily. I'm not sure how you're so adamant on something you have no first hand knowledge about. M&P9 and be done with it. No PDW to invent a whole separate category of weapon in big Army. Talk about waste of money.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are we talking about the M4 as a general issue weapon or as a PDW ? General issue of a collapsable stock was a huge leap forward compared to the A1/A2 configuration, but that does not make the M4 a very viable pistol replacement for tank crews or other non-infantry units does it ?
Now i would ask, who benefits from the M&P vs the Beretta ? What inherent problem with the effectiveness of a military sidearm does that fix ? If no one is actually using these things in combat why change anyway ? If they are being used as defensive weapons, cut the pistol and replace with PDW. net increase of weapons systems = 0
Line troop dont get pistols anymore. got it. i learned something, which is why i participate in forums such as these and as much as you may currently believe otherwise I appreciate the information.
A waste of money is crappy uniforms and camo patterns, not getting our support troops effective personal use weapons when they may be operating around active combat zones. Just because a person isnt a door kicker basass dosent mean they can't see that giving a person a taurus judge vs an AR for protection is a lousy idea, if in fact it is going to actually be used for more than a costume accoutrement.
MountainRaven
07-12-15, 02:01
Are we talking about the M4 as a general issue weapon or as a PDW ? General issue of a collapsable stock was a huge leap forward compared to the A1/A2 configuration, but that does not make the M4 a very viable pistol replacement for tank crews or other non-infantry units does it ?
Now i would ask, who benefits from the M&P vs the Beretta ? What inherent problem with the effectiveness of a military sidearm does that fix ? If no one is actually using these things in combat why change anyway ? If they are being used as defensive weapons, cut the pistol and replace with PDW. net increase of weapons systems = 0
Line troop dont get pistols anymore. got it. i learned something, which is why i participate in forums such as these and as much as you may currently believe otherwise I appreciate the information.
A waste of money is crappy uniforms and camo patterns, not getting our support troops effective personal use weapons when they may be operating around active combat zones. Just because a person isnt a door kicker basass dosent mean they can't see that giving a person a taurus judge vs an AR for protection is a lousy idea, if in fact it is going to actually be used for more than a costume accoutrement.
Funny story: That's exactly who the M4 was designed for.
A damn SMG would get in the way just as much as an M4. If you're gonna carry a two handed weapon, might as well be a good damn carbine shooting a rifle caliber. People are not issued both. It's pistol, or M4.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Eurodriver
07-12-15, 05:58
People are not issued both. It's pistol, or M4.
That's not how it is in the United States Marine Corps.
But then again, Marines are not people.
That's not how it is in the United States Marine Corps.
But then again, Marines are not people.
You know I've seen that now that you mention it. Our MPs get both I'm sure but the commanders and staff that will be stuck in the TOC only get M9s.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Eurodriver
07-12-15, 17:30
You know I've seen that now that you mention it. Our MPs get both I'm sure but the commanders and staff that will be stuck in the TOC only get M9s.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What ranks/positions are you referring to specifically?
Practically every E6+ and Officer has both. Some E4/5 NCOs do if they have buddies in the armory too.
There was talk about eliminating the M9 and only issuing M4s to everyone except CO, XO, SgtMaj, etc but the groaning of SNCOs and Officers walking around fobs and training ops with a rifle must have been too loud.
Is this different than big army?
In my BN only company commanders have an M9 at the company level. Even the 1SG and XO have M4s. I know the battalion commander has an M9 and assume the SGM and XO do as well, though I'm not sure. I'm also assuming that the primary staff such as the S1-4, S6, etc have M9s, but again I'm not positive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FN P90, and Five Seven for PDW and pistol. Both use the same ammo, virtually no recoil, the PDW holds 50 and the pistol holds 20. Only qualm I have about them is that the P90 throws spents casings at your feet. The 5.7 round is more effective than 9mm, .40, .45 (objectively). Since FN is already supplying our military with various weapons platforms, procurement shouldn't be an issue.
FN P90, and Five Seven for PDW and pistol. Both use the same ammo, virtually no recoil, the PDW holds 50 and the pistol holds 20. Only qualm I have about them is that the P90 throws spents casings at your feet. The 5.7 round is more effective than 9mm, .40, .45 (objectively). Since FN is already supplying our military with various weapons platforms, procurement shouldn't be an issue.
Watch Future Weapons much? I seem to recall reading that the 5.7 had abysmal ballistics. And again, wtf is with this PDW bullshit. There's a reason SWAT and CT teams transitioned from SMGs to carbines.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
wildcard600
07-12-15, 19:40
Watch Future Weapons much? I seem to recall reading that the 5.7 had abysmal ballistics. And again, wtf is with this PDW bullshit. There's a reason SWAT and CT teams transitioned from SMGs to carbines.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You do realize that there are PDW class weapons that fire rifle cartridges right ?
Watch Future Weapons much? I seem to recall reading that the 5.7 had abysmal ballistics. And again, wtf is with this PDW bullshit. There's a reason SWAT and CT teams transitioned from SMGs to carbines.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The PDW isn't really for a tactical team. It's not supposed to compete with rifles or SMG's. It's intended to replace handguns. And mostly the handguns issued to REMF's (public affairs, supply, truck drivers, cooks, etc.). If I was forward deployed and had the choice between a 16 round handgun and a 50rd shoulder weapon (P90), I'd take the P90. If I could get a rifle, well then I'd happily do so.
I dunno. We could always bring back the M1 carbine.
In my BN only company commanders have an M9 at the company level. Even the 1SG and XO have M4s. I know the battalion commander has an M9 and assume the SGM and XO do as well, though I'm not sure. I'm also assuming that the primary staff such as the S1-4, S6, etc have M9s, but again I'm not positive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
On all three of my deployments, I've seen everyone PSG and up carrying M9s on the FOB. They just jack them from the 240 gunners when they go to the gym or chow hall. 1SGs and COs just have them...much like how their TOCroach RTOs and Supply SGTs always find a pistol on their hip somehow...
Shitty? Sure. But it's the Big Army norm. I have never (in 7 years) seen anyone on Staff carry a rifle on deployment.
I don't want a new pistol. I want better holsters and enough support equipment to effectively train my Soldiers with so we can make the M9 actually useful instead of just a FOB novelty.
I'm pretty sure I already said this but maybe I haven't been clear with the opinion that I have based on what I've seen. If you're going to have a two handed weapon, it may as well be a carbine. Maybe next to no one uses PDWs anymore because they only fill a very niche role. Maybe for a discreet VIP protection detail, but I can't see them filling an effective role in a combat zone, especially as a replacement for a pistol. If you can't put it in a holster on your belt, its a shitty replacement for a pistol. Big Army mostly issues pistols to MPs or those that will be inside a tent on a FOB during a deployment. And again, the logistics of adding a whole new category of weapon to the arsenal is ridiculous right now, especially for such a stupid reason.
I want a new pistol because I think there are much better options, and hopefully along with that will come better holsters and training, but if I had to pick between one or the other, I would choose the latter. That's the harder option though so even less likely.
Here's my take -
1911 .45ACP - designed when it was cost effective to have skilled machinists produce parts, and trained personnel hand fit the parts. We don't live there any more. Depending on firing pin safety or not, the 1911 contains between 43 - 55 parts (without doubling up on grip screws and bushings); some of those parts have to be hand fitted. I've seen armorer training in as little as one-day for a parts replacer/trouble-shooter, two-days is the norm in my experience. 1911 aficionados freely admit 'two is one' because of the maintenance required with the platform when used heavily.
Glock/striker fired - designed maximizing more modern manufacturing technology, no hand fitting required. The Glock 17 has 34 parts. Glock does 1-day Armorer schools, maybe it's me, but 4 hours of that is fluff. You can carry everything to completely rebuild a Glock in the field, including tool (except barrel) in a plastic box the size of a man's bath soap bar.
That pretty much sums it up for me - I'd just go G17. Keep the old Master Gunners, WO's and GO's who have a love affair with things from their youth out of the process and choose the best pistol - if we need to, and we don't IMO.
Some folks have been advocating a safety, not for a combat pistol IMO. If you are that worried, before the DAK Sigs, I thought the DAO 92's were the smoothest DAO's going. So retrofit and disable the safety/decock.
We need a lot of things more than a new pistol.
CarlosDJackal
07-12-15, 21:45
What logistics ? Adopt the M&P shield for line troops and the P90 for everyone else who isnt issued a rifle.
Ask yourself what good a glock 17 does the military if the infantry units issued one carry it buried in thier pack or leaves it back at the base ?
This statement doesn't make a lick of sense. During our work up to deployment in 2008 most of my Soldiers wanted to bring their personally-owned Glocks instead of the issued M-9s. We tried to get the necessary approval but the rules and red tape made it impossible. The Glocks are a lot lighter than the M-9s and certainly the M1911 (both of which I have carried as issued).
Only an ignorant gamer would even consider the M&P Shield and the P90 as viable weapons to issue our troops. Go to your nearest Military Recruiter, do your time an get an Honorable Discharge; then come back and maybe you can come up with a more relevant post based on real (military) life.
walkin' trails
07-13-15, 07:48
I last played Army back when the 1911 was being phased out for the M9, and the 1911s in our inventory were nothing to write home about. I've heard the arguments for and against combat troops carrying a pistol, and I lean toward the concept of carrying a secondary firearm. Remember that Sgt. York effectively deployed a 1911 while reloading his rifle during the action that resulted in him being awarded the MOH. Had he not hat the 45, the outcome might have been different. Shoulder weapons are easier to shoot than handguns, but training for both must emphasize high standards; a concept that seems to have eluded military commanders on a regular basis over the years as emphasis got placed on weapons of mass destruction over individual marksmanship skills. To say that a striker fired pistol such as the Glock has no place in law enforcement is a bit off the mark. Some LE officers receive better training than others. Some are more into guns than others. The only statistics I can readily refer to however, are from internally published shooting incident reports from the old INS. Before the universal adoption of the Beretta 96, they allowed personally owned semi autos from Glock and SIG along with issued revolvers. The number of NDs was evenly split between the three operating systems. Now consider that in the military, the carrying of a handgun with an empty chamber is more the rule than the exception. Outside of SOCOM units, how much emphasis is placed on safe gun handling skills? Personally, I hope the military adopts something along the lines of the G17/19 or the M&P. That said, bureaucracy is the only thing that remains constant...
Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk
If the Glock 17 is procured by DOD, I think the Glock Stock should be an ancillary item and optional issue.
This statement doesn't make a lick of sense. During our work up to deployment in 2008 most of my Soldiers wanted to bring their personally-owned Glocks instead of the issued M-9s. We tried to get the necessary approval but the rules and red tape made it impossible. The Glocks are a lot lighter than the M-9s and certainly the M1911 (both of which I have carried as issued).
Only an ignorant gamer would even consider the M&P Shield and the P90 as viable weapons to issue our troops. Go to your nearest Military Recruiter, do your time an get an Honorable Discharge; then come back and maybe you can come up with a more relevant post based on real (military) life.
I'm an ignorant gamer without military experience.... That's low man... Real low. :(
I'm an intelligent gamer with years of combat MOS experience FYI. :o
And I've even shot a P90 a couple times.
KalashniKEV
07-13-15, 13:56
I ain't never heard of anybody leaving their handgun in the rear with the gear. That's not to say that it hasn't happened, but I cannot say that I've ever heard of it happening -
And regardless of what you may have heard about Vietnam, troops these days don't get away with leaving a weapon somewhere that easily.
You heard it here first- I left my M9 in my CHU next to a stack of T-shirts and mostly only used it for late night chai.
Compliant with AR 190-11?
Nope... but it happened.
Any pistol is near useless, and can be substituted with more mags.
People are not issued both. It's pistol, or M4.
I've never heard of only getting an M9.
It's likely they all have M16A2s sitting in a rack somewhere with a lock on it.
Only an ignorant gamer would even consider the M&P Shield and the P90 as viable weapons to issue our troops.
Does the HK MP7 with an even smaller projectile gets a pass? How long has it been in use, a decade already?
In my BN only company commanders have an M9 at the company level. Even the 1SG and XO have M4s. I know the battalion commander has an M9 and assume the SGM and XO do as well, though I'm not sure. I'm also assuming that the primary staff such as the S1-4, S6, etc have M9s, but again I'm not positive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From my experience in a joint hq unit, pretty much every officer had an M9 and everyone brought a long gun of some sort with them, though if issued an M9, most people kept their long guns locked up in a rack in the MGySgt's office. Most SNCOs had M9s too if I recall correctly.
I didn't lock up my M4. I actually stored my M9 when going outside the wire to carry more ammo. Never fired a shot though, so I guess it didn't matter.
Does the HK MP7 with an even smaller projectile gets a pass? How long has it been in use, a decade already?
That doesn't mean it's a good idea for big Army to issue them.
From my experience in a joint hq unit, pretty much every officer had an M9 and everyone brought a long gun of some sort with them, though if issued an M9, most people kept their long guns locked up in a rack in the MGySgt's office. Most SNCOs had M9s too if I recall correctly.
I didn't lock up my M4. I actually stored my M9 when going outside the wire to carry more ammo. Never fired a shot though, so I guess it didn't matter.
I assumed it was that way but I know for a fact that my BN's MTOE doesn't support that, unless it changes when you deploy but I doubt it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
scoutfsu99
07-14-15, 01:44
Does the HK MP7 with an even smaller projectile gets a pass? How long has it been in use, a decade already?
In my BN only company commanders have an M9 at the company level. Even the 1SG and XO have M4s. I know the battalion commander has an M9 and assume the SGM and XO do as well, though I'm not sure. I'm also assuming that the primary staff such as the S1-4, S6, etc have M9s, but again I'm not positive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Your BN is only a tiny slice of the Army pie. Other BN's, M9's are given from O5 on down to E-whatever. The actual MTOE varies and then it gets even more complex given TPE, etc.
I assumed it was that way but I know for a fact that my BN's MTOE doesn't support that, unless it changes when you deploy but I doubt it.
My experience was a sudden decline in rule enforcement once you stepped into the AOR, besides GO1.
That doesn't mean it's a good idea for big Army to issue them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Big Army needs to stick with what they have (M4) and spend money where it matters, training ammo. On the aviation side you never saw a rifle or carbine with a officer or senior NCO. Im sure something has changed since I left 6 years ago, I see a lot more Army pictures of aircrews with M4s in addition to their M9s and 240s.
Big Army needs to stick with what they have (M4) and spend money where it matters, training ammo. On the aviation side you never saw a rifle or carbine with a officer or senior NCO. Im sure something has changed since I left 6 years ago, I see a lot more Army pictures of aircrews with M4s in addition to their M9s and 240s.
I can see carrying a carbine as a back up in an aircraft, it would be easy to squeeze in with your equipment. If you have mechanical trouble in a hostile area, you would definitely need it.
For some it may not be practical to carry a carbine, so a good service pistol is needed. A service pistol should be simple, durable, reliable and easy to maintain.
Your BN is only a tiny slice of the Army pie. Other BN's, M9's are given from O5 on down to E-whatever. The actual MTOE varies and then it gets even more complex given TPE, etc.
True, though other BNs of the same type have the same MTOE so it isn't like this is limited to just my BN. Plus, I'm in a support BN where most would expect to have more pistols.
My experience was a sudden decline in rule enforcement once you stepped into the AOR, besides GO1.
I would entirely expect that, but again, unless the actual authorization for equipment changes based on deployment, we wouldn't have enough M9s to issue to tons of people. I know deploying units are usually beefed up with personal and equipment, but wouldn't expect them to give us a shit ton more M9s just because. I could be wrong there though.
Big Army needs to stick with what they have (M4) and spend money where it matters, training ammo. On the aviation side you never saw a rifle or carbine with a officer or senior NCO. Im sure something has changed since I left 6 years ago, I see a lot more Army pictures of aircrews with M4s in addition to their M9s and 240s.
From what I see, the money for ammo isn't nearly the biggest problem. I do have a very limited scope on this aspect, but it wouldn't matter if we had money for five rounds or 15,000 - the end state is still the same. The focus isn't on it like it should be.
On the aviation side you never saw a rifle or carbine with a officer or senior NCO. Im sure something has changed since I left 6 years ago, I see a lot more Army pictures of aircrews with M4s in addition to their M9s and 240s.
http://i.imgur.com/wZoGKNW.jpg
Redacted eyes and date and such. Also redacted a mustache because I was bored. Photo was taken within the last 12 months.
Pilot is a friend of mine on the right, carrying an M4. The left is a CWO. No idea what the two in the middle are carrying.
2. Second, I'd solicit for a different sidearm for the support folks if the sidearm SOCOM chose didn't meet my criteria for the support folks. That criteria would be an external safety, 9MM NATO, minimum 15 round magazine, adjustable/modular grip, and a consistent, double action only trigger pull. Keep it simple and relatively safe as much as possible...
In one of my last units we had to train all Services before deployment. I've seen females that couldn't pull the M9 DA trigger with one finger. Thier first shot would have the trigger finger from each hand on the trigger.
You heard it here first- I left my M9 in my CHU next to a stack of T-shirts and mostly only used it for late night chai.
Compliant with AR 190-11?
Nope... but it happened.
Any pistol is near useless, and can be substituted with more mags.
I've never heard of only getting an M9.
It's likely they all have M16A2s sitting in a rack somewhere with a lock on it.
Plenty of deployable staff Officers will only get a pistol. In 2003 I was in Baghdad with no plates, canvas doors, and a M9; and now I'm one of those deployable staff pukes again.
The issue of packing a full size pistol is one of the most striking things that i have heard from people i know/have met who have been deployed to combat theaters. From stories my uncle has told of himself and guys from his unit stashing their issue 1911's in foot lockers and stuffing a personally owned detective special or j-frame in a fatigue pocket while in Vietnam to friends who were involved in both Iraq campaigns and Afghanistan ditching the Beretta to carry more rifle ammo. I used to think that a full size combat pistol would be an essential piece of gear for any infantry soldier, but after talking with a number of people about the actual usefulness (or lack thereof) and the issues with finding an effective carry solution among all the other crap a line troop must carry the idea of a fullsize service pistol made less and less sense.
Timothy J. Mullin has an good book on the subject (though dated) titled The 100 Greatest Combat Pistols which touches on the subject and comes to many of the same conclusions that a big pistol rarely makes sense for anyone that has a better option available.
I personally can't imagine a scenario where anyone other than maybe an MP on a secured base somewhere is actually going to be able to use a pistol as an effective weapon against even a single adversary in a modern military engagement (SOF is a different story).
I don't pretend to be an expert, or even purport to have any practical experience on the subject, but listening to those who have had experience certainly has changed my thought process.
I agree that in a regular Infantry company more magazines is better choice than a pistol. The caveat to this philosophy is small teams, A Teams and MiTT/ETTs. When in a large group if you have trouble with your M4, you can take cover and effective fire will still be put on the targets; but in a small team if you have a malfunction you need to transition to your pistol quickly. Since 2003 there have been many uses of the M9 in combat.
In one of my last units we had to train all Services before deployment. I've seen females that couldn't pull the M9 DA trigger with one finger. Thier first shot would have the trigger finger from each hand on the trigger.
My buddy at BOLC was a former MP. He told me that he saw this quite often. I believe it, a 12ish pound trigger pull? Crazy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sevenhelmet
07-15-15, 10:36
On slightly different tack, I think a possible switch to HP ammo is interesting. I have always found it ridiculous that our LE uses HP ammo on the streets here at home, while I am only issued ball rounds for my military pistol. Political decisions and sound tactics just don't seem to mix.
I imagine any ammo switch would require a very, very high level of approval. If I had to guess, I'd say it's pretty unlikely.
Put me in the G17 camp for a new military pistol.
You heard it here first- I left my M9 in my CHU next to a stack of T-shirts and mostly only used it for late night chai.
Compliant with AR 190-11?
Nope... but it happened.
Any pistol is near useless, and can be substituted with more mags.
I've never heard of only getting an M9.
It's likely they all have M16A2s sitting in a rack somewhere with a lock on it.
Any individual officer or > E7 enlisted deploying out of CRC since 2006 or so was only isssued / qualified with a M9. All junior enlisted were issued M16s with irons and qualified / deployed with it.
A few officers and enlisted every cycle arrived to CRC with M4's and were allowed to qualify and deploy with it only if their orders specified the M4 was authorized. This was a big deal for the CRC because they only had 7 days to train, SRP, and qualify 300-400 people at the height of the GWOT, and weapons qual time was very tight. Anyone arriving with a weapon system not on their orders had to store it in the CRC armory for their deployment.
I learned this lesson in 2007 for OIF and just waited until I got to my unit in theater to draw a M4 for OEF in 09.
KalashniKEV
07-15-15, 13:58
I learned this lesson in 2007 for OIF and just waited until I got to my unit in theater to draw a M4 for OEF in 09.
That makes sense.
Post-surge I picked up M240s, M2s, SAWs, and an M24 from the theater pool.
...also an M998 for use as a FOB runner, on the off occasion I found myself on LSAA/JBB.
It only got stolen once, but I found it in a half a day.
BACK ON TOPIC:
Glock 17 to replace all M9s and call it done.
A few Glock 19s to replace M11s.
Make Glock 17 mags STANAG.
3-dot Night Sights as standard.
Threaded barrels as a cool guy only option.
sevenhelmet
07-15-15, 14:02
...A few Glock 19s to replace M11s...
I like the M11. What don't you like about it?
KalashniKEV
07-15-15, 15:14
I like the M11. What don't you like about it?
It was randomly procured with no consideration to the big picture as far as support or logistics.
I do not think the modular concept will be successful, or save time/ money. I am in favor of a full size pistol for 99% of all mission requirements and a few compacts for special duty.
In an organization as large as the Army, >50% parts commonality between the 17 and 19 is a huge advantage in terms of mags, bench stock, armorer training... not to mention Soldier training.
BuzzinSATX
07-15-15, 15:18
In one of my last units we had to train all Services before deployment. I've seen females that couldn't pull the M9 DA trigger with one finger. Thier first shot would have the trigger finger from each hand on the trigger.
Do you think it was an issue of finger strength or possibly because the M9 had a large grip and they were only able to use fingertips?
Lots of small, pocket pistols have long, 9-10 lbs triggers, but due to the grip size, are not an issue for most women.
M9 is a great firearm, but does require you have the hand size/strength.
Take Care,
Buzz
Do you think it was an issue of finger strength or possibly because the M9 had a large grip and they were only able to use fingertips?
Lots of small, pocket pistols have long, 9-10 lbs triggers, but due to the grip size, are not an issue for most women.
M9 is a great firearm, but does require you have the hand size/strength.
Take Care,
Buzz
Combination of both size and strength. We only had three days to get them qualified on both M9 and M4. I'm sure with more time they could have built up the needed hand strength.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.