What Would You Choose As the M9's Replacement?

Even in a room. The chance of hitting someone is low. Not even close to the approx 85% that was reported. I see this is as far more malicious than careless. Maybe i'm just a sceptic, but the numbers are too strange to use this as a basis for number of ND in the military.

So, 24 AD's in Afghanistan last year. And this is with a gun WITH a safety, but we are WAY past safeties here: obviously loaded, safety off, maybe cocked, definitely doing something stupid, and finger on trigger, aiming at something not intending to shoot or kill (which rule is that?). And, how many troops do we have there, armed, stressed, working under tough conditions, required to be READY to shoot at any time, and we have a problem with 24 AD's? That number might be low under the circumstances, and it would not matter WHAT KIND OF WEAPON the AD came from. In fact, that 24 MIGHT include the issue rifle, machineguns, and other weapons, not just the M9. Interesting statistic that needs further statistics to make it understandable.

We lost a young Soldier a few years back who came in from a patrol, exhausted, and fell asleep without clearing his rifle. Somehow it ended up being discharged while he was sleeping, either from falling over or maybe he manipulated it in his sleep, and he did not survive the incident.

About as unlucky as you can get, and could have happened with any weapon. Can't be going to bed with a chambered firearm, people do all kinds of weird things in their sleep.

If they can't "handle" shooting the .45 and .308, they either need more training, become cooks, or get drummed out. If a soldier can't handle shooting a serious (non-poodle shooting) caliber, they have NO business being a soldier.
The military is not an equal opportunity employer. They exist to defend our country.

Click to expand...

Having served for four years, I'm taking issue with this statement that the U.S. military is not an equal opportunity employer. You've clearly never been anywhere near a post, because they ALL have an Equal Opportunity Office, every unit has Equal Opportunity staff, and it's not a wink-wink nudge-nudge equal opportunity. Even when don't ask don't tell was in effect giving someone a hard time based on their sexual orientation, real or peceived, was grounds for an Article 15.

The military is the definition of an equal opportunity employer. If you work hard and show competence in your field, there's not much that will get in the way of success for you.

And there are TONS of reasons not to use the bulky, overweight .45 and .308 cartridges for service weapons. .308 rifles can deliver a kill against a man-sized animal to a greater distance than 5.56 rifles can, sure, but who can outshoot their 5.56 rifles without controlled conditions and a rifle setup that's below subprime for close combat anyway? at ranges less than 500 meters the 5.56 is basically an ideal combat round, 6x45 or 6.8 SPCII may be a somewhat more capable round, but not enough to outweigh the momentum and other advantages the 5.56 has.

Since AD's and ND's are being brought up I'd like to call up on other military memebers, particularly Army and Marine Corps to back me up in testifying that during BCT we have it beat into us repetedly about firearms safety.


AD's and ND's happen because of some DS(not 'drill sergeant') not paying attention to what they're doing and blowing off the drill instructors' warning/lectures of safety. If you DS/DI did not beat it into your head, they were being lazy and have failed you. it's their job to teach you how to kill the enemy, not yourselveas and eachother thru carelss mishaps.

Basic friearms safety principals are NOT limited to specific types of arms, so 'lack of training' on the model XYZ is NOT any sort of excuse for this happening, regardless of external safety devices. It's because someone's being a dummy more often than not.

And yeah, I agree that if there's that many hits(22 hits of 24 shots fired), they're not accidents or negligent, they're deliberate. A good portion of them, anyhow.

don't ask don't tell

Click to expand...

don't forget the "don't harrass" part.

Quote:
don't ask don't tell

don't forget the "don't harrass" part.

Click to expand...

Bingo. How many pushups you can do or what kind of heavy-caliber rifle you think would be a good service weapon gives you no excuse to create a hostile working environment for fellow servicemembers, even if they do find the M16 a good rifle, and the M9 an adequate handgun.

I'm going to go on record saying this: If a soldier cannot effectively fire a .308 battle rifle, or a .45 caliber sidearm, they probably do not have the strength, stamina, or co-ordination to be an effective soldier. Even if we ISSUE lower powered, shorter range weapons, the ABILITY level required to be effective with the higher powered weapons could be used as a "pass-fail" for combat MOS or weapons carrying soldiers. The rest of you can set the bar wherever you want, based on sexual orientation, race, creed, religion, whatever, but physical skill level with firearms is STILL a "stay alive/ priority" level issue, and cannot/should not be ignored for political reasons.

I carried mine with the safety off. In condition 'green'. If I ever needed to use it, I wouldn't want to have to draw it, load it, rack it, AND take the safety off for a DA pull. I practiced frequently loading quickly from condition green.

US made Glock, S&W M&P or FN FNX/FNS.

Guys....that's 24 NDs that ended up hitting someone. Not 24 NDs total, all of which hit someone. The total number of ND's in Afghanistan, including the "harmless" ones is much much much much larger. And that's even just the reported ones. I was on a fairly small camp last year, and there were 7 in just our area.

24 NDs total for the entire theater? Not a chance.

I'm going to go on record saying this: If a soldier cannot effectively fire a .308 battle rifle, or a .45 caliber sidearm, they probably do not have the strength, stamina, or co-ordination to be an effective soldier. Even if we ISSUE lower powered, shorter range weapons, the ABILITY level required to be effective with the higher powered weapons could be used as a "pass-fail" for combat MOS or weapons carrying soldiers.

Click to expand...

I'm curious as to what the practicality is of training and testing soldiers on our ability for fire a weapon we don't issue or use.

First off, the Beretta isn't going to be replaced anytime soon. It's a fine weapon that perfectly suits the needs of our military as currently configured. Costs of the gun, parts availability and maintenance are well known and in line with what the military considers reasonable.

Secondly, and the Glockaholics can whine till the cows come home , no striker fired pistol that requires the trigger to be pulled as part of the disassembly process will ever be adopted by a thinking person for issue to troops. There is too much risk, and no benefit, to issue weapons like the Glock. Then there is the requirement of US military weapons being manufactured in the US to further exclude Glock.

Even if some idiot was to approve a Glock-like weapon down the road we already have the Smith & Wesson which is everything the Glock is for the same or less money. FN is being made in the US, is already an approved military contractor and has suitable pistols a few ounces lighter than Beretta. The differences aren't enough to justify the costs of a change however. Beretta is going to be around for the foreseeable future.

Snowbandit said:

Then there is the requirement of US military weapons being manufactured in the US to further exclude Glock.

Click to expand...

Glock is producing some completely American made guns for export to countries that don't allow importation from Austria.

StockKahr, the Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator was pulled from trials, as it was proven too easily stolen by tall animated rabbits.

SharpsDressedMan, I qualified with the M-14 and 1911A1 in the Navy several years back, good enough?

My "selection", being phased in as a military sidearm in one country right now. I doubt the US Military will leave the M-9 in a tough economy, but I can dream.

Ragnar D.: " I'm curious as to what the practicality is of training and testing soldiers on our ability for fire a weapon we don't issue or use." ME: I could make a case for training with weapons that are more difficult to shoot, then issuing lighter, easier weapons to shoot. If you gain the skill to shoot well with, or qualify (depending on the "quality" of your qualification) with, a more difficult weapon, it SHOULD translate into being even MORE efficient with an easier weapon. Training and skill does not end with intial training, and another added "plus" would be being cross-trained on other weapons right off the bat. Let's say we require training with the M14. A soldier learns marksmanship with a difficult weapon. IF he qualifies on the M14, then he is issued the M16A2, etc. Let's make a RIFLEMAN out of him first, learning how to aim and control the M14, all basic ranging and marksmanship skills, etc, and then afterwards, do the same with the M16. Do you REALLY have a problem understanding the merits of that? If you DQ a person on that basis, you haven't lost very much. There are MANY soldiers that CAN be taught that way....anyone who can't can be excluded for combat arms duty. Woosies or people who develope mental blocks in training do not belong in the combat ranks. It is that simple. Anything else is bad theory or politics; it certainly isn't logic.

Commanders really aren't in much of a position to say who they will and won't take to war with them. It's not like they can make a list of the soldiers they do or don't like and trust, and leave half of them home. If they are legally and physically qualified to go, they will go.

The army neglects training for pistols because it has little benefit to THE ARMY. The benefit to the individual soldiers is the soldier's problem. The thing is, when you need a sidearm, you need it VERY BADLY. You are in big trouble. This is the time you really need to know how to save your own life.

Training time, resources, and money is limited. I wouldn't take a CPL holder to the range and say "learn to shoot this Desert Eagle. It will make shooting your G26 easier". I'd spend that money and range time on actually shooting the carry weapon.

I would spend all of my available training resources training soldiers to be proficient with the weapons they would actually use against the enemy. You can be a rifleman with an M16. There are American Rifleman right now in Afghanistan shooting and killing the enemy with M4s as I type this post. And you don't need to issue 2 types of rifles, 2 types of ammo, and train on 2 platforms to do it. Any time spent on the M14 is time not spent on the weapon they will actually fight the enemy with. That's bad.

Emotional attachment to a weapon system does not belong in combat arms either. You train to fight with the weapons you have and will have when the fight is real. You do not squander training to satisfy a desire to go back to the old days.

For the time it would take to weed out the soldiers that could not qualify with the 1911 and M14, it would be time well spent, eliminating the potentially weak soldiers who would also, most likely, have greater difficulty dealing with much greater challenges in combat. I, for one, would want the the best riflemen I could get in my infantry or combat unit. The cost of losing some soldiers in training is WAY less than losing them in combat, due to poor shooting skills or the propensity to "hang up" or have deficiencies with short learning curves on the battlefield. Better to find that out before throwing people away in combat. Sure, it is NOT the practice in use right now, due to perceived costs of training, etc, but forget what the SOP currently is, and look for a BETTER way to put the right people in the right jobs in the military. FWIW, we had MANY soldiers who transitioned from M14 training to the M16, with little or NO training on the new M16 in Viet Nam. It would cost little more to give current troops an additional two weeks of weapons training to qualify with the M16 (that is probably about all they get now in basic). As stated, the M14 & .45 requirement would be primarily used to screen qualified combat soldiers, and give them cross traing at the same time. Why use the lowest challenge of weaponry to weed out unfit soldiers? It only goes down from there.......let's set the bar a little higher.

That model didn't work very well when those WERE our issue weapons. Insisting on making men carry a heavy rifle that is very difficult to control in automatic fire would eliminate MOST of our armed forces now.

I have petite female soldiers in my squad, like, sub-100 lb soldiers. They can barely handle an M-16, and I insisted that they be issued M-4s. Before you say they shouldn't be in the army, I will let you know that they are among the best in the world at what they do, and replacing them would take YEARS. The weapons we have work. I could train them to use 1911s. There's no way they could handle M-14s.

I still don't get why you're assuming there is some challenge level with M16/M14 and M9/1911. Are the fundamentals of shooting different between the two sets? Is a shooter who is proficient with the M16 or M9 somehow a worse shooter than one who uses the M14 or 1911? What exactly makes the M16 or M9 easier in your eyes, and thus not as good of a training tool? Do you honestly believe that you can get better at shooting a certain gun by training on something other than that gun better and faster than training on that gun itself?

Have you by chance deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan? I am uncertain why you are assuming that the M4/M9 wielding soldiers who are fighting right now are inferior to soldiers who would be using M14s or 1911s.

The rifle does not make the soldier. A heavier rifle with bigger bullets does not turn a soldier into a better one. And that seems to be the falsehood you are writing under. Being proficient with the weapons and skills that he actually uses to fight makes a soldier better, not the weight of his rifle. And certainly not training to use something he won't use. Teaching Drill and Ceremonies for instance can certainly make a soldier stand straighter, take more pride in his appearance, and follow precise orders better. But it doesn't enhance his skills on the battlefield. Learning to march in a straight line doesn't make a soldier keener eyes when scanning for IEDs.

Yes the skills one learns while becoming good with the M14 will translate over to being good at the M16.

But the skills one learns while becoming good with the M16 will also translate over to being good at the M16. Because it's already done. That's what you were already training on. So why not skip the extraneous weapons you won't carry in battle and get good at those you will?

I agree that the more weapons a soldier can qualify on the better rounded that soldier would be. However, as was previously stated, training time is short and precious. Better to train with a weapon they will serve with so as to have better muscle memory during actual combat.
Honestly what it boils down to is that our soldiers need better training, not better weapons.
We spend so much money on technology and not enough on learning the basics. I would rather have a team of rangers with hi-points and open sighted m16 a1s fighting with me than your average grunts with decked out 1911s and m4s with crazy optics and lasers.
Our boys just need more training!

Ragnar, are you asking me or Sharps?

Sharps.

For the sake of grins and giggles though, if we were buying again I'd like to see the contract go to an American company (both "Made in America" and a company under American ownership - not one or the other). I'm not all that big of a "buy American" person, but IMHO when it comes to our tax dollars being spent there should be a great effort to keep that money within our own economy. As such I'd like to see either the Ruger SR9 or the S&W M&P.

Click to expand...

That's a tiny bit troublesome if the company is publicly owned like Ruger. What percentage of the shares are held by US stockholders? What about institutional owners?

Ruger says they are not pursuing military business because it is zero or even negative-margin business for them.

I agree entirely that it would be desirable to use US made product from a US company, however you define that. Assuming the SR9 fully satisfied all reliability tests, are you willing to spend more taxpayer dollars to get them? How far into Federal purchasing should this extend?

IF he qualifies on the M14, then he is issued the M16A2, etc. Let's make a RIFLEMAN out of him first, learning how to aim and control the M14, all basic ranging and marksmanship skills, etc, and then afterwards, do the same with the M16. Do you REALLY have a problem understanding the merits of that? If you DQ a person on that basis, you haven't lost very much. There are MANY soldiers that CAN be taught that way....anyone who can't can be excluded for combat arms duty. Woosies or people who develope mental blocks in training do not belong in the combat ranks. It is that simple. Anything else is bad theory or politics; it certainly isn't logic.

Click to expand...

Rifle training is not a remotely appropriate way to try to determine someone's physical ability to serve. There are medical screenings and fitness tests and the various required ruck marches to determine if a Soldier Sailor Airman or Marine is fit, use of a rifle that isn't issued in a caliber that is only used for medium machine guns and very limited distribution marksman rifles as a general fitness test is absurd.