"Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearm choices"

[quedz]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/12/army-boss-takes-aim-at-bureaucracy-over-sidearm-choices.html?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obnetwork

[Dolomite_supafly]

I disagree with the statement that the pistol is the least important weapon system in the DoD. It should be the most important because if a service member is using theirs that means everything else has failed. I carried a rifle and a pistol while I was in and I always felt the pistol was the second most important weapon I had and was only second to my brain.

 

What should happen, like they do within some police departments, is the command come up with a list of "authorized" pistols and allow the soldier to pick from that list. I could come up with a list of probably five pistols that should suit ever soldier's wants or needs. During training cover the basics of each one on the list then let the soldiers handle and shoot each one before letting them choose.

 

The reasoning for most changes is cost savings and our soldiers are expected to do more with less these days. We should be supporting the soldier's choice because their sidearm is likely the last weapon in their arsenal that they can use to save their own.

[E4 No More]

"Shaw said soldiers don't like the M9 and would much prefer some type of .45 cliber [SIC] handgun. If I had to pick, I would lean towards a Glock 17 or 19 or their .45 model."

I'd like to hear the reasoning that if you don't like the 9mm in the M9 then why would you like it in the Glock 17/19? I agree that the soldier should have a choice. For instance, I'd want a 10mm but someone smaller may want a 9mm or .357 Sig.

[tercel89]

I'd have to pick the Glock 17 (9mm) or the Glock 21 (45acp) . The Glok is so easy to operate , it has VERY few parts , and has no large take down levers , and safety levers and such sticking out of the side like the Beretta does.

 People say that soldiers "need" a mnual safety . I say that if they can't learn to keep their finger or foreign debris out of the trigger guard then they need more training .

 I have carried the Glock pistol for over 18 years on my job and have found it to be extremely user friendly and just plain reliable and tough.

 This isn't rocket science . But then again you are talking about government crap and anything government related doesn't use common sense .

[dcloudy777]

Sidearm selection only narrowly beats out bootlace selection in importance.

 

Replace end-of life M9s with M9A3s.  Done.

 

Anything else is a complete waste of resources.  Doing something really stupid like switching to .45 or .40 would be even worse than just a waste or resources.

Edited March 16, 2016 by dcloudy777

[Cruel Hand Luke]

In the grand scheme, they look at it as pistols don't win wars so they are way down the list of priorities.....

 

And let's be HONEST here....The overwhelming majority of people in the armed services are NOT in a combat arms job. They drive trucks, program computers, cook, play in the band, or work in some kind of logistical support specialty. The ones who ARE in a combat arms job still RARELY use a pistol unless they are in a specialized unit. My friend Mike was in in the Army and served during Desert Storm. He said the last time he even handled a pistol (much less carry one) in the Army was in basic training and no one he served with had a pistol in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Unless you are an MP , an officer, or a member of a VERY specialized unit then you just don't carry pistols. And as such the Pentagon really has no interest spending money in replacing a pistol that is still functional.

 

Now lets potentially hurt some feelings. First off, just because someone wears or wore the uniform does not by definition make them a "gunfighter" or even an "enthusiast" . See above paragraph about how most everyone does a "support job" not actually send bullets downrange. As such the military devotes almost NO time to pistol training except for the specialized units that actually use them regularly and even that training is on the lowest common denominator side when compared to the better civilian pistol training. I get military guys in class all the time who say they WISH the military pistol training was half as good as what they just did in class......

 

So why would the pentagon scrap a pistol design that has 30 years of service (and 30 years of logistical support, mag pouches, holsters, training doctrine , and instructors who already know how to teach it) for a new pistol that very few are going to be carrying on a regular basis anyway and which will likely not be demonstratively better than what they are currently issued. The special units that make heavy use of pistols ALREADY get whatever pistol they want because they have bigger budgets and are only supplying a few hundred or so pistols. Rangers already have access to glocks from what I hear from "over there" , Delta/ CAG gets whatever they want (most are carrying glocks) and DEVGRU (SEAL Team 6) gets whatever they want,  Naval Surface Warfare ( regular SEALs) just officially adopted the Glock 19 in January replacing the Sig 226 but they have always had a more liberal policy allowing individual operators to choose what they want.  So really the only oxen left getting gored by the M9 are the MPs and some officers who choose to carry a pistol.  The pentagon is NOT going to adopt a new platform so that truck drivers, cooks and painters are going to get a cool new pistol they will likely never carry anyway.....

Edited March 16, 2016 by Cruel Hand Luke

[Monkeybat]

Seems like I read somewhere about polymer guns being poor choices in the ridiculous heat our troops deal with in the Middle East.


Sent from the Fortress of Solitude.

[Jonnin]

should be allowed to pick anything in 9mm (sticking with nato ammo thing?)  or one of several in 9.  I dunno about offering multi calibers ... seems expensive.   Ria 1911 9mm highcap?  

[Omega]

In the military there are many reasons they do what they do and how they do it.  First, as was stated, there is standardizing ammo within NATO units, the 9mm is not going away so any mention of .45, .40 or any other caliber is probably a moot point.  Second, logistics; it is much cheaper for DOD to purchase in bulk, so there will be very few models it keeps in inventory do to initial price and most importantly is the support package that gets negotiated when a contract is assigned.  A weapon must have x amount of parts in inventory before it is fielded, just in case something comes up such as the cracked slides in the M9 early on.  While I agree that the sidearm is not up there with your battle rifle, it should be a reliable piece of equipment; its not important until it is.

[E4 No More]

In the military there are many reasons they do what they do and how they do it.  First, as was stated, there is standardizing ammo within NATO units, the 9mm is not going away so any mention of .45, .40 or any other caliber is probably a moot point.  Second, logistics; it is much cheaper for DOD to purchase in bulk, so there will be very few models it keeps in inventory do to initial price and most importantly is the support package that gets negotiated when a contract is assigned.  A weapon must have x amount of parts in inventory before it is fielded, just in case something comes up such as the cracked slides in the M9 early on.  While I agree that the sidearm is not up there with your battle rifle, it should be a reliable piece of equipment; its not important until it is.

Ding, ding, ding!!!

 

As far as NATO caliber is concerned, has that been an issue in the decades of being in NATO, and does not the Marine Corps use .45 acp 1911's?

[Omega]

Ding, ding, ding!!!

 

As far as NATO caliber is concerned, has that been an issue in the decades of being in NATO, and does not the Marine Corps use .45 acp 1911's?

We, DOD, have a few calibers in our inventory that may not be fully NATO compliant.  But there are few in numbers and it is understood that we bear the burden of providing ammo for them.  I don't know if there has been any instances where one NATO member has had to "borrow" from another NATO, but that is the reason there is a standard.  I guess if there were an all out war, some factories may be taken out so others would have to provide supplies to other NATO nations.

[E4 No More]

We, DOD, have a few calibers in our inventory that may not be fully NATO compliant.  But there are few in numbers and it is understood that we bear the burden of providing ammo for them.  I don't know if there has been any instances where one NATO member has had to "borrow" from another NATO, but that is the reason there is a standard.  I guess if there were an all out war, some factories may be taken out so others would have to provide supplies to other NATO nations.

Oh, I understand the reasoning for it. I was just pointing out the lack of need over the decades and that it wasn't a hard-n-fast rule. I think many military members in actual combat roles carried whatever they wanted. I new veterans who carried Pythons and Model 29's in Vietnam. I don't know if any ever had to use them, but with the reputation of the early M-16's I don't doubt that they needed them.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

Ding, ding, ding!!!

 

As far as NATO caliber is concerned, has that been an issue in the decades of being in NATO, and does not the Marine Corps use .45 acp 1911's?

The Marine Corp as a whole uses the Beretta....the MARSOC units (Now Marine Raiders) still issue 1911s with the option of choosing a Glock 19 instead. 

[E4 No More]

The Marine Corp as a whole uses the Beretta....the MARSOC units (Now Marine Raiders) still issue 1911s with the option of choosing a Glock 19 instead. 

Didn't they recently sign a contract worth millions of dollars for new 1911's?

 

EDIT: http://www.businessinsider.com/marines-reissue-1911-colt-45-because-the-9-mm-has-no-balls-2012-8

Edited March 16, 2016 by SWJewellTN

[nightrunner]

Now I don't doubt that the "special" groups get to use whatever ammo they want, but it would go along way in increasing the effectiveness of the 9mm to just issue some quality JHP ammo loaded to current NATO pressures. Same pistol and platform, just new ammo.

[Omega]

Now I don't doubt that the "special" groups get to use whatever ammo they want, but it would go along way in increasing the effectiveness of the 9mm to just issue some quality JHP ammo loaded to current NATO pressures. Same pistol and platform, just new ammo.

I agree, and for the M4 and sniper rifles they have, sort of. But the hollow point is tricky, the Hague convention of 1907 mandated that bullets (and other stuff)must not cause unnecessary suffering, so many soft tip and hollow points have been shunned. I don't get it personally, it's mandated for a clean kill in game animals but not in enemy combatants? I would think that a good quality bullet would be mandatory.

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

[DaveTN]

I’m not very familiar with the Army, so someone fill me in. I keep seeing that most troops don’t carry a handgun. Yet according to that article they are going to buy at least 307,000 handguns. According to a story in Army Times the strength of the Army now is 498,642. So it sounds like over half would be carrying handguns?

Out of that 498,642 remove all the stateside personnel and office personnel that don’t carry guns and it sounds to me like they could give a handgun to everyone that is deployed?

A handgun might not be their primary weapon but I will take a WAG and say there are a lot of servicemen alive today because they had a handgun. (But that's just a guess)

[nightrunner]

I agree, and for the M4 and sniper rifles they have, sort of. But the hollow point is tricky, the Hague convention of 1907 mandated that bullets (and other stuff)must not cause unnecessary suffering, so many soft tip and hollow points have been shunned. I don't get it personally, it's mandated for a clean kill in game animals but not in enemy combatants? I would think that a good quality bullet would be mandatory.

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

Hague convention is BS. We should have never entered into it.

[TrickyNicky]

I’m not very familiar with the Army, so someone fill me in. I keep seeing that most troops don’t carry a handgun. Yet according to that article they are going to buy at least 307,000 handguns. According to a story in Army Times the strength of the Army now is 498,642. So it sounds like over half would be carrying handguns?

Out of that 498,642 remove all the stateside personnel and office personnel that don’t carry guns and it sounds to me like they could give a handgun to everyone that is deployed?

A handgun might not be their primary weapon but I will take a WAG and say there are a lot of servicemen alive today because they had a handgun. (But that's just a guess)

 

I

 

f I had to guess, the contract is likely for x amount of units over a time frame of y.

 

 It is relatively SOP for these kinds of contracts. 300,000 pistols over say a 10 year time frame might make a lot of sense depending on who all is getting them issued and how many people fill those rolls. I remember talking to my dad when DHS was buying eleventy billion rounds of pistol ammo and he told me it was the same way he bought both arms and ammo for his department, albeit in much smaller numbers the what DHS was doing.

[rgaper]

Buying shiny new handguns doesn't matter one bit if they're not trained properly to use it.  We're not talking about CAG or the 75th, who are already carrying Glocks, we're talking about big Army.  Whatever pistol they choose will likely be a stupid choice that reflects politics more than application.  It will be 9mm no matter what, anything else is a pipe dream. 

[E4 No More]

I agree, and for the M4 and sniper rifles they have, sort of. But the hollow point is tricky, the Hague convention of 1907 mandated that bullets (and other stuff)must not cause unnecessary suffering, so many soft tip and hollow points have been shunned. I don't get it personally, it's mandated for a clean kill in game animals but not in enemy combatants? I would think that a good quality bullet would be mandatory.

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

It was illogically explained to me in the Marine Corps that it was better to wound the enemy rather than to kill. A wounded solder inhibits the attack because resources are diverted to care for the wounded. It was cited something like 10 people to care for 1 soldier. :shrug:

[Omega]

It was illogically explained to me in the Marine Corps that it was better to wound the enemy rather than to kill. A wounded solder inhibits the attack because resources are diverted to care for the wounded. It was cited something like 10 people to care for 1 soldier. :shrug:

That works for militaries like ours; I rarely seen any extremists try and haul their wounded away.  Heck in some cases they left them there booby trapped to try and get the ones coming to their aid.

[E4 No More]

That works for militaries like ours; I rarely seen any extremists try and haul their wounded away.  Heck in some cases they left them there booby trapped to try and get the ones coming to their aid.

Well, it was an early 1900's agreement that the extremists aren't signatories thereof. I've always thought it to be stupid. I thought the guys in Vietnam carrying Pythons with hollow points were smart to do so. Standing armies in WWII left booby traps too.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

Didn't they recently sign a contract worth millions of dollars for new 1911's?

 

EDIT: http://www.businessinsider.com/marines-reissue-1911-colt-45-because-the-9-mm-has-no-balls-2012-8

That was 4 years ago.....

 

This is a little more current.....http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/02/19/marines-allow-operators-to-choose-glocks-over-marsoc-45.html

[Cruel Hand Luke]

The Army probably has 4 M16s for every soldier...but they don't carry 4. And when you narrow it down to those who ACTUALLY engage in combat activities it might be 50 to 1 M16s per person.  They will have x thousand that never get shot or handled that are simply in storage and they will have y thousand that are used for training. Same goes for the M9. Again....the only folks who REGULARLY carry handguns outside a combat zone are Military Police and the only ones IN combat zones regularly carrying pistols are MPs, officers or specialized units. The big green army just does not have a whole lot of folks running around using handguns on a daily basis. 

 

That  is one reason that during WWII they were not keen on enlisted men picking up pistols as war trophies and carrying them....because of the likelihood of people who had virtually no pistol training carrying a loaded pistol and accidentally shooting themselves.

 

Who was it...Col David Hackworth I believe........ who commented that the 1911 was the 1 weapon in our arsenal that probably wounded more of our own people than the enemy (meaning through sloppy gunhandling and negligent discharges)   Sorry guys, contrary to popular belief not all GIs are Alvin York. 

Edited March 17, 2016 by Cruel Hand Luke