Discussion in 'Handguns: General Discussion' started by threefeathers, Jun 24, 2005.
Does this mean the CMP will be selling M9s???
I'm thinking Glock 21 with a manual safety (as Glock has produced before).
13+1 rounds, light weight, low cost, low part count, easy maintenance, great reliability and durability.
The G37 would be a distant second Glock option.
Then there's always the USPF45LEM.
Larry Vickers calls the Glock 21 "the worst gun Glock makes", due to parts breakage. You can put his opinion under the heading "People who actually know"
9mm NATO isn't "standard pressure", as US civilians know it. It's quite a bit hotter. There's only so much you can do with a 9mm pill, without going to a long gun.
As I'm just a fat, lazy civilian myself, I'm certainly not going to look at all the after-action reports of troops disparaging the effectiveness of 9mm ball in CQC, and write them off as incompetent "bitchers and whiners."
I think they derserve a little better than that from those of us sitting in comfy chairs back home.
I think the Glock 37 would make a fine military pistol.
CZ75 SPO1 in 40, DAO, with manual safety. Of course, CZ would have to build it first, but, with a new US factory, (Dan Wesson), it could be built "in the USA", too....
With all of the money being spent on uparmoring vehicles and transforming to the Unit of Action concept, I fully expect to see my new pistol (whatever it is) approximately three years after I retire. And I'm not eligible for retirement until 2016.
Problems with carrying .45s in the military has always been inferior capacity. Now that newer designs are out there are many more options. I'm afraid the 1911 guys getting their rocks off to the news will be disappointed.
I think a good 9mm is just fine but unfortunately our troops can't use high quality JHPs due to treaties, so that limits its effectiveness.
I am not a scientist, ballistician, or really even all that educated. What I am wondering is this: What would happen if you slowed the twist down to a point where it barely stabilized the 9mm bullet? I would think that it would cause our FMJ bullets to tumble when they hit. I have seen how much more damage a tumbling bullet can cause when it hits (although not necessecarily on flesh) so this may be worth a shot. Maybe even add a "crimp cannelure" to the ammuntition so that it has half a chance of tearing apart. Changing the twist may degrade accuracy, but who cares? It is a handgun. If it will do a pie plate at 15 yards that should be good enough, right?
I think this could increase the stopping power of the round without forcing us to buy a bunch of new guns (although I am not opposed to ever buying a new gun).
All we would need would be new barrels. This shouldn't be too hard of an idea to try out.
If it is going to be a .45 ACP, make it an inexpensive one. Maybe a Ruger? US made so it is employing Americans (even if the politics in the past were less than ideal to the US gunowner).
What I've heard over and over again from soldiers returning from Iraq is that their M9s just won't work properly. I know of a medic (armed only with his M9) who had to had to cycle the slide manually after each shot in the midst of a firefight. I don't care what make, model, or caliber they switch to, but these single-shot Berettas have got to go. Our soldiers deserve better. At the very least let them provide their own sidearms as backup.
In a war zone you can not have thirty two different ammo requirements. there really should be only two types of ammo on the field. rifle/machine gun, and pistol. In the middle of a fire fight, the last thing you want to be doing if you run out of ammo is searching the bodies of your fallen comrades for who it was who also shot the 357 magnum and all you can find are 40, 10mm, 9mm and .45's you also do not wan tto be making a chinese food order when you call for ammo resup. "hello quartermasters? I want two 38's four 357's one 45 colt, ten 45 acp and a couple of short tens on the side." much easier to scream into the microphone, " I need belts and mags NOW!!!" people understand that sort of stuff much easier.
As per what weapon we should have, that is a question I hope will get answered truthfully. with proper and fair tests. but I doubt that will happen. And i rely on the fa ct that those people who really need handguns in a warzone will be able to get what they need.
The troops can't hit with the 92, so they want to fix the problem by giving them something in .45?
Training the troops how to use their sidearm must be too obvious of a solution. Some people leave for duty never having fired their Beretta... and the military wonders why the boys aren't effective with them.
I guarantee it.
Cannot see this happening. Move to 9mm was a political decision lead by Congressperson Boo Hoo.
Does DACOWITS approve?
The Navy seems to be happy with the 9mm Sigs. The Beretta is a workhorse, you just have to use good mags as with all pistols. The 9mm will work fine if
the soldiers are trained properly.
There is alot of BS on this thread.
The after-action reports by the combat soldiers in Iraq are the ones complaining about the M9. It isn't some bureaucratic boondoggle, or desire to compensate for bad training with hardware, or some contracting scam that has led us to this point. The M9 is not performing satisfactorally in combat. I, for one, am not willing to disregard the experiences of combat soldiers with their weapons out-of-hand, but I guess I'm not a mall ninja tough guy like some of y'all.
A copy of the Army report was available online; I'll see if I can find a copy to link to.
The guns were unreliable; the military-contract magazines appear faulty, and the gun seems to have problems with sand compared to other firearms. The 9mm NATO FMJ cartridge has performed poorly in combat... as in, they HIT THE ENEMY and it is ineffective. The pistols are used more in Iraq than in past operations, becuase more of the combat is at short ranges in urban areas, and it has been found wanting.
The experience of people using commercial Berettas, with Beretta factory magazines, in clean environments, using modern hollow-points, tells you nothing about the experience of combat soldiers, using military-issue M9s, with the military contract magazines, in a sandy environment, using FMJ.
Hopefully this time the Army will listen to the troops who actually have to carry a sidearm in the field, instead of the chairborne rangers who usually make these type of decisions. I'm sure most of the folks on this forum will fall into the latter category.
Everyone has to realize that the army does not waste its resources trying to create highly trained handgun experts. With the exception of MP's and a few SOCOM personnel, handguns get issued merely as a last ditch survival weapon. The mere fact the someone has to draw it from its holster means that things have gone terribly wrong with his primary weapon, which can be anything from a machine gun to an aircraft.
The typical soldier issued a handgun is an 18 year old kid, too young to own a handgun in most states. He spent one day on a range with it in boot camp and he gets to shoot one once or twice a year for an hour or so. He does not get to dry fire it every night while sitting in front of the television watching 24/7.
When in the field the gun spends 23.5 hours a day in a holster, which is basically a magnet for every type of garbage you can imagine. It gets cleaned with a paint brush and a snot rag, whenever the soldier has the time to do so (his primary weapon always takes priority). "Hand-Gunner" is not a Military Occupational Specialty, it is just something you need to know how to use. Much like a radio or tire-jack.
With this in mind, the 1911 is out of the question. No one would give their 18 year old son a 2 hour class on a single action and then let him carry it locked and cocked. The army won't either. Not again.
Navy statistics don't count. There are forum members here who probably own more handguns than the entire Navy does. The few SEALS that are issued handguns also receive proper training to use them. Like SOCOM, they have the budget to purchase anything they choose and train extensively with it.
We never had any confidence in the 9mm, even when shot in bursts from an MP5. Confidence in your weapon is very important, especially when it is made by the lowest bidder.
Sorry for the rant and the chairborne ranger insult.
I have shot with many of US Army personal near the Fort Hood. When asked how much pistol training they recieved most said none. When I inquired what training they did received, the course was not very demanding. The Units included 4th ID and 1st CAV. I do not want to put down anybody but shooting gasta style is not the preferred way of dispatching someone . Most where shooting their personal weapons that they where sneaking over to the sandbox. I don't think they like the issued weapons.
KurtC, from your keyboard to God's eyes!
Some of their suggestions would seem to confirm that.
Dutch, for the most part the only people in the military to carry pistols are the Special Operations community and officers. There are exceptions like vehicle crew members and machine gunners. So most of the guys carrying pistols over are 1. doing so illegally 2. Doing so because they haven't been issued a pistol. I really don't think they are carrying private weapons over because they don't like the berrettas.
Other than the SF community, because of the low density of pistols, training = here is your pistol, here is the target, ready? one two three...qualify! Sad but true.
The article was out of the Army times June 27th issue if I remember correctly. the problem I have with it is that it's the Army Times (Army in name only) and they don't really say specifically WHO they polled about it.
Lastly, I'm not a huge fan of 9mm, never had a problem with it down range in 18 months it stopped people just fine, but if we go to .45 the 1911 is still the industry standard and by that articles posting the Army requirements pretty much rule out the 1911. It's kind of funny that the article claims that they don't want a single action for safety concerns when the 1911 is one of the safest pistols going in my opinion. Anyway, 9mm isn't going anywhere anyway this is all academic, the big army sees in dollar signs, not common sense always has and always will.
My first handgun was a 1911 so I never understood the need for a fat butt handgun. It holds more ammo but how does that fit the role of a military gun? In a battle zone my rifle would be within arms reach at all times. If I were in civilian clothes, I'd want a gun that was concealable or very compact. Otherwise, give me a sub machine gun and 30 round mags.
If I were 30 years younger and headed for Iraq or Afganistan, I'd want one of the small .40 or .45 Glocks (with hollowpoints accidentally loaded).
Well, as far as the M9 goes, I have nevr had a problem the design. However when I was a young Marine in the first Gulf war, I watched my Ssgt. dump 6 rounds center mass on a towlie and it enver slowed him down. It took a burst from the '60 to finally stop him. Lesson learned, 9mm FMJ ammo is crap and lacking anything resembling stopping power. Training was good, shot placement was right on, it was just a failure of the stopping power of 9mm FMJ, plain and simple. If you are going to use FMJ ammo, I agree with the idea of going back to the .4 ACP.
These days I'm a combat arms instructor in the USAFR. It scares the crap out of me the way I see some of these idiots handle the M9 and I would NOT want a single action 1911 or a Glock put in their hands!!! Before the lectures begin about better training is needed and so on, you're preaching to the choir here. The Air Force only shoots one day with the M9 and for catagory A shooters (cops, PJs, TACP), it's once a year, catagory B shooters (such as CES, some pilots, etc) is every 15 months and catagory C shooters (medical personnel for example) shoot only once every 3 years. IMHO, it's substandard training but we need money to buy ammo, people that want to shoot and take it seriously, and time to get them on the range and work with them for longer than just one afternoon.
What I would like to see is a .45 ACP adopted with the DAO style trigger. Soemthing like a the HK USP-45 with the LEM trigger, a Sig P220 with their DAK trigger or the S&W SW99 with their OA trigger (I think that's their version of a light, long DAO trigger) be adopted. IMHO, this offers the best compromise of a trigger that is light enough for shooters not familiar with a true heavy DAO trigger to shoot better scores, long enough for new shooters to realize they are pulling the trigger before they fire a round and firing a caliber that is a better fight stopper than the 9mm FMJ. I would not like to see a 1911 adopted for general issue due to the short, light trigger in the hands of shooters that have trouble remembering to take their finger off the trigger or reapplying a safety lever. I would also not like to see the Glock adopted due to the lack of a safety lever and is capabile of firing by shooters leaving their finger on the trigger when they go to reholster the weapon. Sure you could add a manual safety lever but now you have the same problem as giving them a 1911. Of course, the ideal situation would be to train them up to high speed, low drag standards but with the limited budget, time constraints and the Air Force attitudes about small arms training, I'm not going to hold my breath of that ever happening.
As for the idea of letting everybody pick whatever they want, that ain't gonna happen. If it did, I would be against it 100%. If you've never worked an armoury before, believe me, it would complicate matters beyond belief! We have to inventory EVERYTHING in that armoury every day and with just M-16s, M-4s, shotguns, SAWs, M-60s, M-240s, M9s, M-203s, training ammunition, dummy ammunition, and anything else that is stored there. Oh, and make sure the count is ABSOLUTELY correct or you may face the possibility of brig time if anything comes up missing!!! And then don't forget the different ammunition, various holsters, various magazine pouches, various magazines, replacement parts for each type of handgun and training for CATM personel to work on them as well. :banghead: Do you see where this is going? That would be a total logistical nightmare and if you order ammunition for one day of shooting, I can guarantee that it's going to get f'd up as a football bat with the wrong amount of ammo of caliber X either being logn or short and caliber Y getting what caliber X should have got. No, it ain't (at least it damned sure better not!) happen.
Sean Smith - well said.
Schromf makes excellent points - logistics support issues will eliminate most choice options. Also defining requirements to match a specific provider is an old gov't acquisiton trick.
IIRC cost also played a part in switching from the 45 ACP to 9mm. The rounds are cheaper. Cost mat also be a big factor in why proper training in using the 9mm might not be up to snuff. Spending money on the military was not a popular pursuit during the 90's and early 2000's. Lot's of areas were affected by funding reductions including basic supplies, replacement parts, and training. You usually get what you pay for and often regret what you don't.
Most of the soldiers aren't old enough to buy handgun ammo.
Separate names with a comma.