Ernest Langdon mentioned in Washington Post

[Sam]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/berettas-fight-to-arm-the-military/2015/08/07/d11d590a-349c-11e5-adf6-7227f3b7b338_story.html

ACCOKEEK, Md. — The letters gave Cpl. Ernest Langdon “freedom of movement” in the Panama Canal Zone.

The United States maintained control of the canal in 1989, when Langdon, a Marine, was stationed there. But as tensions mounted between President George H.W. Bush and Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, Langdon and his comrades were ordered to test the lines of the Panama Defense Forces to see how far those papers would take them.

On patrol in the muggy jungle, Langdon often reached for his pistol, the only weapon he carried, for a pinch of firepower — just in case. It was a Beretta M9 pistol, standard issue for U.S. servicemembers.

.......

“A handgun is not going to help us win battles,” says Langdon, who exited the Marines as a staff sergeant and is chief executive of firearms training firm Langdon Tactical. “And if it is, we’ve got problems.”

[MadAngler1]

I think it's great that Ernest Langdon got into the Washington Post, but the author of the article is illiterate when it comes to reporting on guns. Take for instance:


And Beretta is suddenly fighting for a military contract worth $580 million with rivals it normally competes with in gun shops, not in defense contracting: Traditional military suppliers such as Beretta and Colt are facing competition from civilian manufacturers including Glock and Sturm, Ruger & Co. Commercial handguns are sophisticated enough that the military would ask gunmakers to modify a civilian product to meet battlefield specifications. They’re durable, accurate, high-capacity weapons, perhaps giving civilian gunmakers the upper hand for the first time in military contracting history, gun experts say.

The distinction between "civilian" and "military" contractors baffles me, which pretty much sets up the premise for his article. Beretta has been a civilian and military contractor since 1526. Their "civilian" and "police" products led to the development of the M9 and the M92 variants sold to the public. Likewise, Glock is not just a "civilian" maker, but probably sells more pistols to militaries and police agencies worldwide than Beretta does. The reason the US Army is behind times with the M9 is due to the inefficient bureaucracy that exists known as the US military and US federal govt. The M9 could have been replaced a decade ago, or something like the M9A3 could have been issued way back. Of course, you guys know all of this, and I guess I'm preaching to the choir. :p

That aside, I don't quite understand the XM17 requirements for "modularity" either. The Sig P320 is a great concept, but who in the military honestly needs to change calibers using the same frame, especially for a foot soldier? Do they want a pistol that changes between the 9 mm, 40 S&W and .45 ACP cartridges? It's one thing to want a rail for lights and lasers, but what exactly is the point of the APX and P320 over a Glock 17 or VP9 with a rail? What our troops need is for Larry Vickers, Ken Hackathorn and similar instructors to be cloned in mass so they can learn how to shoot a pistol like it's an extension of their bodies. More training, more ammo, less bullshit. Ernest Langdon and Super Save run a M9 just fine. Troops need to learn from them.

OK, enough choir preaching. Otherwise, I'll start writing about why we need the .45 ACP back in service (since they have to use FMJ rounds) :p

[Pappabear]

I'm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/berettas-fight-to-arm-the-military/2015/08/07/d11d590a-349c-11e5-adf6-7227f3b7b338_story.html

ACCOKEEK, Md. — The letters gave Cpl. Ernest Langdon “freedom of movement” in the Panama Canal Zone.

The United States maintained control of the canal in 1989, when Langdon, a Marine, was stationed there. But as tensions mounted between President George H.W. Bush and Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, Langdon and his comrades were ordered to test the lines of the Panama Defense Forces to see how far those papers would take them.

On patrol in the muggy jungle, Langdon often reached for his pistol, the only weapon he carried, for a pinch of firepower — just in case. It was a Beretta M9 pistol, standard issue for U.S. servicemembers.

.......

“A handgun is not going to help us win battles,” says Langdon, who exited the Marines as a staff sergeant and is chief executive of firearms training firm Langdon Tactical. “And if it is, we’ve got problems.”


Thanks for sharing. The Berretta story is quite interesting. And the changing of states is quite heart warming, as others have done.

PB

[ruchik]

As a gun owner with very small hands, I do understand at least the modularity aspect. Instead of issuing a one-size-fits-all handgun (which it won't), the military could issue one sidearm to everyone which can be further adapted to meet each individual's needs. Since a replacement frame from Sig direct is only about $40, the price is within reach for anyone who wants a larger or smaller grip. A soldier could customize his/her grip size to fit better, proficiency with a handgun likely increases with the same level/standard of training given to soldiers, the military won't have to spend millions on replacement grip frames as soldiers buys them out of pocket. Sometimes it really is a hardware issue. As of right now, the M9 forces many to train to adapt to a system that is a poor fit to begin with. I'm 5'4", and it's akin to me learning how to drive with the seat pushed all the way back. I just can't reach the controls properly. I suspect it's the same for many other folks. Sure you can train around it, but wouldn't training be that much more efficient and quality if the platform fits the individual to start with?

[straitR]

If I shot Beretta's like EL, that's all that I'd bother to carry too.

[MadAngler1]

As a gun owner with very small hands, I do understand at least the modularity aspect. Instead of issuing a one-size-fits-all handgun (which it won't), the military could issue one sidearm to everyone which can be further adapted to meet each individual's needs. Since a replacement frame from Sig direct is only about $40, the price is within reach for anyone who wants a larger or smaller grip. A soldier could customize his/her grip size to fit better, proficiency with a handgun likely increases with the same level/standard of training given to soldiers, the military won't have to spend millions on replacement grip frames as soldiers buys them out of pocket. Sometimes it really is a hardware issue. As of right now, the M9 forces many to train to adapt to a system that is a poor fit to begin with. I'm 5'4", and it's akin to me learning how to drive with the seat pushed all the way back. I just can't reach the controls properly. I suspect it's the same for many other folks. Sure you can train around it, but wouldn't training be that much more efficient and quality if the platform fits the individual to start with?

I guess I should have clarified my point better. The problem I have with the XM17 contract is not the rails and modular grips, which any new military pistol should have for the reasons you stated above. It has to do with the "component modularity" requirement. This necessitates possible interchangeable calibers, fire control systems, frames, slides, etc. The Sig P320 seems to have all the features they want in a handgun, but this leaves out some very well made pistols from the competition, such as the new HK VP9, HK P30 and Glock 17, etc. Some very durable, proven platforms I might add.

Anyone who loves and shoots handguns a lot, like most of us on this website, will know that a compact gun in 9 mm is a completely different animal than a full sized frame in 9 mm. Likewise, going from a .40 S&W to a 9 mm or to a .45 ACP completely changes the way the platform works and how it feels to the end user. Sig's concept is great, but any engineer will tell you that it's best to design the gun around the caliber rather than build "one size fits all" with a potpourri of parts. Case in point has been this push for rifles with interchangeable barrels and caliber conversions such as the SCAR, ACR, etc. I much rather have a pair of pistols that work best for the given caliber at that given size of pistol. If Sig can do it with the P320, so be it. However, I would argue HK might offer some better engineered options than the crap Sig and Beretta has put out in recent years. Glock could as well, but their company has many internal issues right now and the Gen 4 has had many problems.

I believe it is better to simplify the matter and for the military to designate a caliber( 9mm, 40 or 45) and requirements for compact and full sized pistols, with interchangeable grips, rails so each type can be tailored to that solidier. A female enlisted soldier or officer may be better off with a compact rather than a full sized gun, etc. Good pairing examples would be redesigned G17/19 or HK P30L/P30, Sig P226/228, etc. I don't think this necessitates something like a Sig P320, which introduces way too many variables in order to maintain the guns right, and I doubt they will be used as the contract intended. More important, we need to focus on soldier training. They should be carrying their sidearms everywhere (like recruiting centers) and they should be trained to the point where the pistol and their carbine are extensions of their body. I have met far too many people the past ten years who complained to me that they did not receive good enough firearms training while in regular service with the Army.

To get back on topic, I think Ernest Langdon is awesome, and I wish I could shoot a Beretta like him as well. :cool:

[Sam]

Mr. Langdon posted these comments about the article at another forum:

Good thing they did not talk about the PX4 as God only knows what they would have said. They totally mixed up my quote as well. I always had other guns with me in Panama and it was never the only gun I had to reach for, or what ever they said. It was "the" gun in my hand a few times for very specific reasons.

I had a specific time in Cuba that I talked about with them. I was the SOG on the Leeward side of the base and we had a swimmer come up on shore. My driver and I where the first ones to respond, and all I had was my M9. It was a total non-issue as this guy was no threat to any one as he had spent hours in the water swimming after his homemade boat (probably) fell apart. Once we figured that out, it was time to put guns away and help the guy.

Panama was a different issue all together. We did do some "freedom of movement" patrols in vehicles that required us to go to or through PDF check points. These where very tense situations and having your hand on an M16 or the like would have potentially escalated situations quickly when not always necessary (as we all know). That being said, having my hand on a gun was necessary; the M9 was my choice. All-in-all, there were several times that it was the only gun in my hand, but I would never say it was my only option.

Ernest