"Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearm choices"

[E4 No More]

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

You affirmed my point. Thanks.

[DaveTN]

If they aren’t ditching the lame 9mm why do they need to change?

[Moped]

I was in an MOS where a pistol was issued as part of the MTOE.  We got minimal training on pistol marksmanship and zero combat handgun training.  Personally, I think the entire military is long over due for a complete change in marksmanship and combat weapons training.

[dcloudy777]

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.

 

The real irony is, modern JHP ammo would almost certainly cause less "undue pain and suffering" than stupid 19th century-spec FMJ.  1-2 shots and a threat is stopped, instead of peppering the dude with icepick holes until he bleeds out or something hits the CNS.

 

IMHO, modern expanding ammunition (especially in handguns) is more in line with the intent of the Hague Accords than FMJ.

[Bill4282]

The purpose of one hangun and one rifle is logistics. Amorers only need to learn one system, stock fewer parts and keep the soldier in the fight. Supply lines only need to stock one bullet. When the soldier goes empty, he can get a mag fom anyone else in the fight. As an aside, these are the same reasons Tennessee's State LEOs all carry Glock .40s; backup in firefight.

Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk

[nightrunner]

The purpose of one hangun and one rifle is logistics. Amorers only need to learn one system, stock fewer parts and keep the soldier in the fight. Supply lines only need to stock one bullet. When the soldier goes empty, he can get a mag fom anyone else in the fight. As an aside, these are the same reasons Tennessee's State LEOs all carry Glock .40s; backup in firefight.

Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk

The reasoning is sound for soldiers, but that could not be further from the truth for LEOs. Just in TN there are probably 20 different issued handguns, and they aren't all Glocks or even .40s. Tennessee State Highway Patrol are issued Glocks in .357sig.

Just check the thread pinned at the top of this sub forum, "LE Duty handguns in TN" Edited March 19, 2016 by nightrunner

[TrickyNicky]

The reasoning is sound for soldiers, but that could not be further from the truth for LEOs. Just in TN there are probably 20 different issued handguns, and they aren't all Glocks or even .40s. Tennessee State Highway Patrol are issued Glocks in .357sig.

Just check the thread pinned at the top of this sub forum, "LE Duty handguns in TN"

 

 

Nightrunner speaks the truth. Took the words right of my mouth even. 

[DaveTN]

The reasoning is sound for soldiers, but that could not be further from the truth for LEOs. Just in TN there are probably 20 different issued handguns, and they aren't all Glocks or even .40s. Tennessee State Highway Patrol are issued Glocks in .357sig.

Just check the thread pinned at the top of this sub forum, "LE Duty handguns in TN"

Sure, different departments are going to use different weapons. But most forward thinking Police Departments are going to require the Officers within that department (especially street cops) to use the same ammo and weapons that use the same magazines.

There is no need for the military (or a Police Department) to have duty weapons that are incompatible with each other. (With the exception of special ops)

Someone in THP made the decision to go with the .357Sig. That doesn’t mean it was good decision.

[Omega]

The reasoning is sound for soldiers, but that could not be further from the truth for LEOs. Just in TN there are probably 20 different issued handguns, and they aren't all Glocks or even .40s. Tennessee State Highway Patrol are issued Glocks in .357sig.
Just check the thread pinned at the top of this sub forum, "LE Duty handguns in TN"

While for the military it has been acknowledged that having multiple lines of supplies from other armies is a good idea, it has only recently started to be the case for LEO departments. Most civil shooting incidents are over in minutes, and longer incidents are either hostage or other standoffs where ammo shortages are unlikely to occur. But with the incidents like the Chattanooga shootings, San Bernardino etc, LEO departments better be thinking ahead and get their departments better equipped and trained because there may come a day where they may just be in a prolonged firefight with perps that have no fear of death and mass casualties are their main goal.

[btq96r]

All this I said the last time we discussed this still applies:

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/89164-military-handgun-contract/?p=1285002

 

I'll also add, that no matter how high-speed or supposed low maintenance a handgun is, unless it has proper maintenance from the user and the armorer, it's going to crap out eventually.  And sorry to pull back the curtain too far, but most unit armorers aren't some gunsmith in waiting, they're just someone who got picked to go to armorer school, and trust me when I say that it's usually not a stud from a line platoon that are picked for this duty.

 

 

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)

 

You have to account for the fact that big Army is ordering for the Reserves and National Guard as well, so that's slightly over a million authorized personnel in uniform.  Plus, as TrickyNicky pointed out, that's the total number of guns produced over the life of the contract.  The military will just hold onto any extras and replace broken/damaged ones as needed.

[Bill4282]

Sorry for my post re LEOs; going by what my State LEO son told me.

Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk

[TrickyNicky]

I think there is a lot of merit to PDs having a 'standard issue' pistol while still allowing for officers to select from an approved list of other weapons that may suit the individual better, or even better, doing away with the model list and make one with criteria that must be met for a weapon to be approved. Much the same way there is no one perfect carry gun for a civilian, I don't believe it is in anyone's best interest to limit an officer who is statistically more likely to have to depend on their weapon to a platform that they may not handle well. While it could certainly be argued that many or all deficiencies could be corrected with training, I would repose that that training time and expense would be better utilized training with a comfortable, familiar platform.

As to the eventuality of officers having to share ammunition in an extended firefight, I feel like that would be a rare and getting rarer situation at least concrning sidearms. With more and more officers being equipped with an intermediate rifle, in most cases ready access to backup including but not limited to swat or other specialized teams, the good guys are doing pretty well all things considered in the firepower department. Let's not forget too the average patrol officer is carrying the better part of 50 rounds not including a BUG these days.

It's really a situation with a lot of pros and cons to either side, I think the deeper you dig the more of both you'll turn up, and at a certain point I think it makes sense to look and see what has historically been more of an issue; officers needing to 'borrow' ammo during an extended engagement, or officer related mishaps or fatalities attributed to incompatibility with their weapon.

[Omega]

Sorry for my post re LEOs; going by what my State LEO son told me.
Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk

 
Nothing to be sorry about, it is a reasonable assumption to think LEOs do that sort of thing.
 

I think there is a lot of merit to PDs having a 'standard issue' pistol while still allowing for officers to select from an approved list of other weapons that may suit the individual better, or even better, doing away with the model list and make one with criteria that must be met for a weapon to be approved. Much the same way there is no one perfect carry gun for a civilian, I don't believe it is in anyone's best interest to limit an officer who is statistically more likely to have to depend on their weapon to a platform that they may not handle well. While it could certainly be argued that many or all deficiencies could be corrected with training, I would repose that that training time and expense would be better utilized training with a comfortable, familiar platform.
As to the eventuality of officers having to share ammunition in an extended firefight, I feel like that would be a rare and getting rarer situation at least concrning sidearms. With more and more officers being equipped with an intermediate rifle, in most cases ready access to backup including but not limited to swat or other specialized teams, the good guys are doing pretty well all things considered in the firepower department. Let's not forget too the average patrol officer is carrying the better part of 50 rounds not including a BUG these days.
It's really a situation with a lot of pros and cons to either side, I think the deeper you dig the more of both you'll turn up, and at a certain point I think it makes sense to look and see what has historically been more of an issue; officers needing to 'borrow' ammo during an extended engagement, or officer related mishaps or fatalities attributed to incompatibility with their weapon.

Having options is overrated, when I joined the military the M16 would not of been my first choice, but guess what I got used to it and managed to master it's potential. When I went to Sapper School, we all had to place everything in the same place, hung on the same side, located in the same pocket etc. The reasoning is that in a stressful situation, no matter whose pack you get to first, you know where the extra ammo, extra bandages etc are. As long as a good quality handgun, riffle etc is selected, anyone can get used to it. After 9/11 many departments synchronized their communication equipment and frequencies due to the issues they had during the response. So far LEOs around here have not run up against this type of situation, and hopefully never will; but it doesn't hurt to be forward looking when it comes to equipment and training. Many have recently started questioning the acquisition of military overstock, seeing a possibility of using it against the populace; especially after Furgeson. But I personally see nothing wrong with it, a department should be equipped to handle these violent protests and mass shooting situations.

[E4 No More]

 
Nothing to be sorry about, it is a reasonable assumption to think LEOs do that sort of thing.
 Having options is overrated, when I joined the military the M16 would not of been my first choice, but guess what I got used to it and managed to master it's potential. When I went to Sapper School, we all had to place everything in the same place, hung on the same side, located in the same pocket etc. The reasoning is that in a stressful situation, no matter whose pack you get to first, you know where the extra ammo, extra bandages etc are. As long as a good quality handgun, riffle etc is selected, anyone can get used to it. After 9/11 many departments synchronized their communication equipment and frequencies due to the issues they had during the response. So far LEOs around here have not run up against this type of situation, and hopefully never will; but it doesn't hurt to be forward looking when it comes to equipment and training. Many have recently started questioning the acquisition of military overstock, seeing a possibility of using it against the populace; especially after Furgeson. But I personally see nothing wrong with it, a department should be equipped to handle these violent protests and mass shooting situations.

I think you'll find that one size fits all won't work well with women on combat. Just a guess, but a woman's hand won't come close to my XXXL hands, for instance.

[graycrait]

Seems to me that there must be a dozen pistols that would do the job (minus 300+ pages of requirements) these days.   They either need to realistically  get on with it or just drop it and stay with what they have until there is some watershed development in sidearms.  First time I shot an FN 5.7 I said "wait a minute....even the safety seemed "right" for standard issue Joes and Joelenes."   But I never had the chance to tear one down and see logistic issues besides the ammo issue itself.  

 

If a good positive thumb safety is a definite requirement my brain is having a hard time coming up with a pistol that would meet modularity requirements and have a positive clicking conventional safety.  I suppose something Sig has meets the mail as close as anything.  M&P has a mushy safety that is "off" for some reason for me including disassembly of the safety itself and that tiny spring in the mechanism.  Then there is Glock with no thumb safety except for that Comminoli aftermarket which I installed on several Glocks but didn't think that safety quite measured up to the rest of the pistol.  The Ruger SR series has a decent thumb safety but did I see Ruger isn't interested in the contract?  I just don't see a return to the 1911 in any caliber. The last one I carried in the military would turn orange if it was cloudy out, but would never jam because it was so loose and rattled so much you could have used it as tambourine in a rock band.  I'm sure modern metallurgy and finishes would prevent both those issues right?  One thing about some of the modern plastic guns is that it is pretty easy to cannibalize one to make another work with about 99.9% certainty if necessary.  No fitting of parts.

 

Hard call, I'll wait to see the end result. Someone wake me up when the choice is made.  

[Omega]

I think you'll find that one size fits all won't work well with women on combat. Just a guess, but a woman's hand won't come close to my XXXL hands, for instance.

There are a few handguns with replaceable back straps just for this situation.  Again, you have to think of things like this beforehand but so far even the smallest of hands have been able to manage the M9 decently.  My hands are not the biggest out there but I can manage even the larger frames ok, not what I would personally purchase but I can manage any firearm out there given enough familiarity with it.

[espacef1fan]

As a service member who is issued  a pistol I think the realistic solution is a Glock or M&P or something similar thats already out there and proven. Failing that the M9A3 would honestly be a great option.

[btq96r]

Seems the Army Chief of Staff is getting frustrated with the process.

http://taskandpurpose.com/army-chief-eyeing-glock-pistol-services-next-sidearm/?utm_content=buffera13f1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=tp-buffer

Side note: Wish I could buy a Glock 19 that cheap.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk, because I felt that Oh Shoot wanted to know that particular bit of information.

[Sunfish]

You don't think Goverment Contracts have any graft or kickbacks involved? The word politics is defined as conspiracy to comit Grand Larceny. Choices are made accordingly.

[crossfire]

Side note: Wish I could buy a Glock 19 that cheap.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk, because I felt that Oh Shoot wanted to know that particular bit of information.

You can, just put in an order for 287,000 :angel:

[Defender]

I'm a .45ACP fan, but I wouldn't pick the 1911 for military primarily because of capacity and I think wed have problems with NDs unless they made them carry with a round unchambered, which I dont like.  I prefer something like the FN45 which can be carried cocked and locked like a 1911 if  necessary, but can also be carried with a round chambered and decocked on safe.  I like having choices too, but I think giving  latitude with types of weapons causes some logistical problems with ammo and mags, and in a combat situation, ammo/mags might need to be shared...uniformity permits this.   Just my opinion.