Army wants a harder-hitting pistol
- Thread starter FitGunner
- Start date
- Status
Mainsail
Member
Remember the FBI shootout? They adopted the (real) 10mm because it met their criteria (as did the .45ACP apparently). They abandoned it because females and some males found it too hard to control.
I think what Vern is saying is that the gun that will not do the job is what they end up buying. Like the Emperor's new clothes, we pretend the less-effective round/gun is effective, that way everybody has a pistol with which they can qualify- then everyone is equal and its all fair. IOW, instead of bringing the PEOPLE up to the most effective gun/caliber, we bring the gun/caliber down to capture all the people, actual ability notwithstanding.
The alternatives are; issue pistols based on the individual's ability or weed out the individuals that cannot handle the most-effective caliber/gun. The latter is unfair and not PC, the former is both a logistical problem and might lead to smaller stature men (and possibly women) to holster a gun they cannot shoot, just to save face.
I think Vern merely generalized by separating them men & women.
Last edited:
SnowBlaZeR2
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 643
There are a wide variety of uses and places that pistols are carried. Marines fill many roles outside of combat. I carried one on every deployment, among other places. I couldn't possibly go into all of the uses, but there are many, and it's certainly not restricted to the higher ranking officers only.
Big Shrek
Member
That is an excellent summation of the issue!
Frankly, I always thought they should not stick to ONE caliber,
offerings of at least two or three should be available...in the same platform.
As in, three calibers of HK or Glock or whatever for the main,
and at least two caliber options for the backup...for LEO's
Although folks love Street Monsters...the reality is that dinky little folks have a place too,
remember the "Tunnel Rats" of Vietnam?? And after a roof collapse at a fire scene,
I was lifted and carried out of the mess by a firefighter gal who was 98 pounds soaking wet...
although, I gotta admit, every inch of her was muscle...
So in the case of strength, it is up to the individual to be strong enough to "Do The Job"!
That's why I decry LOWERING standards...because anyone who can meet the
tough physical standards can perform in the capacity needed!!
And even more frankly, anyone who cannot meet the physical standards Should Not Do The Job!!
Its more important than ever before in the Military, Fire & Police that the people be able to handle it!!
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
Post #127.....
I agree with post 127.
In the early 1990s, I recall a article where a FBI special agent said carrying a S&W 1006 10mm was like carrying a box of Wheaties.
He added that most field agents kept the 10mm pistols in a laptop case or attaché case, carrying a J frame .38spl or S&W model 19/66 2.5" K frame as a back up(2nd gun).
It should be noted too, that the US DoJ/FBI was sued in a class action by several female applicants who couldn't qualify with the big P220 .45s & S&W 10mm sidearms.
The FBI, mandated by AG Janet Reno, changed the SOPs granting wide choices to new special agents & sworn personnel. Special agents had a long list to pick from & carry on duty.
I'd add too that this meeting or press release may mean nothing in the end. :banghead:
I agree with post 127.
In the early 1990s, I recall a article where a FBI special agent said carrying a S&W 1006 10mm was like carrying a box of Wheaties.
He added that most field agents kept the 10mm pistols in a laptop case or attaché case, carrying a J frame .38spl or S&W model 19/66 2.5" K frame as a back up(2nd gun).
It should be noted too, that the US DoJ/FBI was sued in a class action by several female applicants who couldn't qualify with the big P220 .45s & S&W 10mm sidearms.
The FBI, mandated by AG Janet Reno, changed the SOPs granting wide choices to new special agents & sworn personnel. Special agents had a long list to pick from & carry on duty.
I'd add too that this meeting or press release may mean nothing in the end. :banghead:
gun_with_a_view
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2014
- Messages
- 471
Making a case for the FN Herstal 5.7N, a modern combat handgun designed for military and police work:
http://www.defensereview.com/fn-five-seven-is-this-the-handgun-of-the-future/
http://www.shootingtimes.com/2011/01/03/handgun_reviews_fnusg_021207/
The gun's already there. It's up to the Army now.
http://www.defensereview.com/fn-five-seven-is-this-the-handgun-of-the-future/
http://www.shootingtimes.com/2011/01/03/handgun_reviews_fnusg_021207/
The gun's already there. It's up to the Army now.
vaupet
Member
This is the portuguese solution: tpg 9 from brugger&thomet,
actually smg with good silencer.
I shot it as a pistol and as smg in full auto.
I nearly placed all the shots (semi auto) in a 1" circle at 25 metres, free standing, with the stock extended, with Aimpoint t1 optics
http://www.bt-ag.ch/en/manufacturing/firearms/index.php?navanchor=2110012
actually smg with good silencer.
I shot it as a pistol and as smg in full auto.
I nearly placed all the shots (semi auto) in a 1" circle at 25 metres, free standing, with the stock extended, with Aimpoint t1 optics
http://www.bt-ag.ch/en/manufacturing/firearms/index.php?navanchor=2110012
Madcap_Magician
Member
I can't believe companies are still getting suckered into making proposals for replacing service weapons after the carbine fiasco.
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
FN 5.7mm handgun.....
I highly doubt the US Army or DoD would select the exact same pistol used in the tragic Fort Hood spree shooting.
That weapon & caliber may have merit but the media & victims' family members/spouses would wig out!
+ the failures & problems of the 4.6mm/HK PDW system. That design really went nowhere.
Rusty
I highly doubt the US Army or DoD would select the exact same pistol used in the tragic Fort Hood spree shooting.
That weapon & caliber may have merit but the media & victims' family members/spouses would wig out!
+ the failures & problems of the 4.6mm/HK PDW system. That design really went nowhere.
Rusty
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
JSF?.....
Like the Joint Strike Fighter program?
A jet designed to meet the needs/mission requirements of the USMC, USAF & the US Navy.
The aircraft never met all the stated goals & really wasted $$$.
But that's what hard working US tax payers are for, right?
Like the Joint Strike Fighter program?
A jet designed to meet the needs/mission requirements of the USMC, USAF & the US Navy.
The aircraft never met all the stated goals & really wasted $$$.
But that's what hard working US tax payers are for, right?
RetiredUSNChief
Member
As a side note, the Joint Strike Fighter program wasted huge bucks more because they never went into the production levels required to bring the costs down. Every time something new is developed, every nickle of cost that went into R&D and manufacturing set up WILL be recovered by the companies involved, regardless of how many units are or are not ordered. Cutting replacement aircraft for budget purposes only goes so far before it kills us in cost per unit AND long term logistics for what turns out to be a small number of specialty aircraft instead of a large number of commonly used aircraft.
The JSF concept SHOULD have resulted in a LOT more planes than what we settled on.
As for how this relates to a replacement sidearm...a replacement sidearm is NOT necessary in the first place. The sidearm is NOT a major piece of combat equipment. PERIOD.
And diversification of sidearm options for the services, given their limited usage in the first place, is also totally unnecessary. Those that require different sidearms for special purposes (such as special forces and such) already get them. It's not necessary to spend truckloads of money on this, either.
Replacing the current sidearm with something totally different is totally uncalled for. Replacing any defective/worn out existing sidearms with the same sidearms should already be logistically supported.
The JSF concept SHOULD have resulted in a LOT more planes than what we settled on.
As for how this relates to a replacement sidearm...a replacement sidearm is NOT necessary in the first place. The sidearm is NOT a major piece of combat equipment. PERIOD.
And diversification of sidearm options for the services, given their limited usage in the first place, is also totally unnecessary. Those that require different sidearms for special purposes (such as special forces and such) already get them. It's not necessary to spend truckloads of money on this, either.
Replacing the current sidearm with something totally different is totally uncalled for. Replacing any defective/worn out existing sidearms with the same sidearms should already be logistically supported.
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
SF/Spec Ops.....
A common misconception is that SF(special forces) or SOFs(spec ops) are armed & trained with the same funds(budget) as the regular forces(regular army).
False.
They get $$$ & procurement(contracts) directly from the DoD/USTreas by law.
These units(Rangers, CCTs/STS, ISA, ACE, etc) can buy or order what they need to meet mission profiles/requirements.
In the non fiction book; Roughneck 9-1, a US Army SF team member explained how the unit sent in a "wish list" request or formal budget/procurement list. Every single item was approved & funded for the deployment to OIF(SW Asia). Everything.
I also disagree that pistols or small arms aren't important. I had to qualify & carry a M9 9mmNATO for nearly four years. A loaded pistol on my left hip was important to me, .
RS
A common misconception is that SF(special forces) or SOFs(spec ops) are armed & trained with the same funds(budget) as the regular forces(regular army).
False.
They get $$$ & procurement(contracts) directly from the DoD/USTreas by law.
These units(Rangers, CCTs/STS, ISA, ACE, etc) can buy or order what they need to meet mission profiles/requirements.
In the non fiction book; Roughneck 9-1, a US Army SF team member explained how the unit sent in a "wish list" request or formal budget/procurement list. Every single item was approved & funded for the deployment to OIF(SW Asia). Everything.
I also disagree that pistols or small arms aren't important. I had to qualify & carry a M9 9mmNATO for nearly four years. A loaded pistol on my left hip was important to me,
.RS
RetiredUSNChief
Member
True that, about the common misconception. Some of the submarines I served aboard were SpecOps boats, one outfitted to carry a dry deck shelter for SEAL team deployments. They're weapons load out was NOT what the "typical" servicemember got.
I've never said that a sidearm was not important to any particular individual. I, too, qualified and was at times required to carry a sidearm, both the .45 and later the 9mm. However, it's function and utility in combat is strictly limited and not the preferred weapon except in certain circumstances. If the gun is the primary weapon, due to certain watchstanding requirements, then of course it is more important, relatively speaking. If one is carrying out tunnel rat operations, likewise it's more important relatively speaking.
But as a whole, the sidearm is not a primary military weapon for servicemembers in combat.
By the way...thanks for your service.
I've never said that a sidearm was not important to any particular individual. I, too, qualified and was at times required to carry a sidearm, both the .45 and later the 9mm. However, it's function and utility in combat is strictly limited and not the preferred weapon except in certain circumstances. If the gun is the primary weapon, due to certain watchstanding requirements, then of course it is more important, relatively speaking. If one is carrying out tunnel rat operations, likewise it's more important relatively speaking.
But as a whole, the sidearm is not a primary military weapon for servicemembers in combat.
By the way...thanks for your service.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Exactly; if they'd spent that budget developing three independent aircraft specifically suited to the task set before them, we have 3000 total with 50 million flight hours behind them by now. JSF finally has, what, 150 or so, and is currently grounded (again) due to P&W engine issues (again), with no alternative powerplant (again). If only we'd seen this coming
That's my take on the thing. Back in McNamara's day of punch-card computers and office-buildings full of typists, there was an argument to be made for logistical simplicity, but it's nonsensical to claim that we are so limited today, in the face of the logistical nightmare of getting the cargo to its million destinations on time which we seem to do well enough at. We have computer databases, barcodes/scanners, and GPS tracking today; we can keep track of more than one kind of sidearm + ammo
. But I do think it requires more work from 'management' at the end of the day, and that's why there is so much resistance; the McNamara's don't want to make extra work for themselves (because they probably can't handle it; simple solutions for simple minds )TCB
M1GarandDeerHunter
Member
To the original post, how about a harder hitting, more reliable rifle? The M16 in all its variations has been around over 50 years. Maybe replace both the M9 and M16. A new ship, and a new plane, in exchange, would prob cover it.
Financially, yes, the costs of a plane/ship would about cover the costs of thousands of smaller arms. No doubt.
The issue of the M16 or M9 not being able to do the job is the whole point. Let's look at it a different way - like any other crew served weapon, all it does is launch a projectile, which actually does the damage, not the gun itself.
If the service claims it needs a bigger or more powerful projectile, OK, where is the objectively collected data, who analyzed it, and what was the conclusion of that selected body? Who was even on that committee/project?
We have no idea here. What we do have is another announcement that the service is looking at what the industry can propose meets it's criteria. And, it's been pointed out, pointedly, they did that with the M4 and then at the very last, on the eve of announcing the Big Decision, scrapped the entire effort with no reason or result.
It's already happened previously with the M9.
Therefore, if the 9mm is inadequate and the M9 no longer state of the art for doing the job, lets talk why.
Oh, wait, don't forget, we have already gone thru a 25 year cycle of deploying another bullet launcher, and developed a lot of 9mm ammo in that effort, too, in the LEO community. Nobody much complains that the Glock with modern ammo doesn't do the job. What gets complained about is that in some unusual circumstances a hastily fired gun isn't capable of getting one stop shots.
Goes to training, not the firearm. You have to hit something in the right place to do that. Even a .22 is lethal, and soldiers have survived multiple hits with .50BMG and literally won the fight on the battleground to survive.
What we are much more likely seeing is politics in the budget process. Ask for more than you count on, accept the "loss," and you net a result that is more than what you would have otherwise suffered with. And, it might actually survive, too.
But it does go to where sidearms are most used, and that is NOT combat. They are issued for soldiers to carry where it's more publicly acceptable than the M4. MP or Marine, you don't go out on patrols to engage the enemy with just an M9. Pistols have long been a symbol of authority, and that is more important in a low to no conflict zone than a rifle. Being "overarmed" for the situation is a public fau pax, as most of the commentary on Open Carry in Chipotle's points out.
No one would blink an eye if their were armed men with rifles defending your home against a foreign invader. But if they showed up with just pistols against machine guns, you'd seriously question their ability and likely start packing up your push cart.
Pistols are not a "combat" weapon, they are a defensive sidearm for most of those who carry them. The exception are those who would use them in close quarters combat, and they get exactly what they want, anyway.
Like the camo trials and the use of different ones for each Branch, you have to wonder if someone is doing the same - asking for a sidearm to embellish their presence in uniform more than it's actual job as a limited range close contact defensive arm.
So far, there's nothing to point to in the way of a conclusive reason for it. Just a Hey, watcha got that's "bigger and better," cause we might like to carry it.
The issue of the M16 or M9 not being able to do the job is the whole point. Let's look at it a different way - like any other crew served weapon, all it does is launch a projectile, which actually does the damage, not the gun itself.
If the service claims it needs a bigger or more powerful projectile, OK, where is the objectively collected data, who analyzed it, and what was the conclusion of that selected body? Who was even on that committee/project?
We have no idea here. What we do have is another announcement that the service is looking at what the industry can propose meets it's criteria. And, it's been pointed out, pointedly, they did that with the M4 and then at the very last, on the eve of announcing the Big Decision, scrapped the entire effort with no reason or result.
It's already happened previously with the M9.
Therefore, if the 9mm is inadequate and the M9 no longer state of the art for doing the job, lets talk why.
Oh, wait, don't forget, we have already gone thru a 25 year cycle of deploying another bullet launcher, and developed a lot of 9mm ammo in that effort, too, in the LEO community. Nobody much complains that the Glock with modern ammo doesn't do the job. What gets complained about is that in some unusual circumstances a hastily fired gun isn't capable of getting one stop shots.
Goes to training, not the firearm. You have to hit something in the right place to do that. Even a .22 is lethal, and soldiers have survived multiple hits with .50BMG and literally won the fight on the battleground to survive.
What we are much more likely seeing is politics in the budget process. Ask for more than you count on, accept the "loss," and you net a result that is more than what you would have otherwise suffered with. And, it might actually survive, too.
But it does go to where sidearms are most used, and that is NOT combat. They are issued for soldiers to carry where it's more publicly acceptable than the M4. MP or Marine, you don't go out on patrols to engage the enemy with just an M9. Pistols have long been a symbol of authority, and that is more important in a low to no conflict zone than a rifle. Being "overarmed" for the situation is a public fau pax, as most of the commentary on Open Carry in Chipotle's points out.
No one would blink an eye if their were armed men with rifles defending your home against a foreign invader. But if they showed up with just pistols against machine guns, you'd seriously question their ability and likely start packing up your push cart.
Pistols are not a "combat" weapon, they are a defensive sidearm for most of those who carry them. The exception are those who would use them in close quarters combat, and they get exactly what they want, anyway.
Like the camo trials and the use of different ones for each Branch, you have to wonder if someone is doing the same - asking for a sidearm to embellish their presence in uniform more than it's actual job as a limited range close contact defensive arm.
So far, there's nothing to point to in the way of a conclusive reason for it. Just a Hey, watcha got that's "bigger and better," cause we might like to carry it.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
BINGO!
And there's more to this than just a study claiming the need for a bigger or more powerful projectile.
In combat, OF COURSE a bigger and more powerful projectile would be better. This is a no-brainer. But there is a balance of many other aspects to consider as well.
- Bigger means heavier and less ammunition for the same amount of weight.
- More powerful means heavier and less ammunition for the same amount of weight.
- Logistics is important...and not just the obvious logistics required for any given branch of the service. There are also our allies to consider as well, which means agreements with them need to be negotiated or renegotiated as required.
Regardless, much of the woes of equipment R&D and acquisition come from either outside sources making the decisions on what the military "needs" or the military being indecisive or waffling about on what they need. The cause for is varied, but it's true. And the answer to these particular woes is to STOP DOING THAT!
Which means getting organized and dedicating people who will be committed from start to finish on these things. A difficult task to do just from the government and military side, what with high turnovers caused by elections and duty reassignments alone.
But it's NOT impossible.
morcey2
Member
I've been searching all over the place and I haven't been able to find an S&M M&P anywhere. When I asked at the counter about it they looked at _ME_ like I was the crazy one even though they were the ones wearing black leather in a way that was totally unnatural and very disturbing.....
(sorry. I had to.)
Matt
Last edited:
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
HBO....
HBO had a TV movie in the early 2000s about how screwed up the DoD/DARPA/contract system was. It had actor Kelsey Grammer & Cary Elwes(Saw).
Elwes character was a field grade US Army officer who was outraged by the fraud/waste/abuse that goes on in the R&D and procurement process of defense weapons.
The new XM9 meetings/plan reminds me of that film.
You can't cram a bunch of stuff into one pistol or firearm w/o problems. The pistol will need to last(hold up) for years too often in rough conditions or combat.
The weapon needs to be powerful yet have low recoil/blast so that entry level troops or those with limited training can shoot it properly.
The panel or the DoD should review how they selected the M9(92F) & the model 23 Mk 0 .45acp sidearms and avoid the same mistakes.
HBO had a TV movie in the early 2000s about how screwed up the DoD/DARPA/contract system was. It had actor Kelsey Grammer & Cary Elwes(Saw).
Elwes character was a field grade US Army officer who was outraged by the fraud/waste/abuse that goes on in the R&D and procurement process of defense weapons.
The new XM9 meetings/plan reminds me of that film.
You can't cram a bunch of stuff into one pistol or firearm w/o problems. The pistol will need to last(hold up) for years too often in rough conditions or combat.
The weapon needs to be powerful yet have low recoil/blast so that entry level troops or those with limited training can shoot it properly.
The panel or the DoD should review how they selected the M9(92F) & the model 23 Mk 0 .45acp sidearms and avoid the same mistakes.
In my nearly five years of service '68-73, the only time I carried a side arm was MP duty while waiting for my security clearance, stateside (1911-A1).
I'm curious to know from the younger guys, who served in the Afghan / Iraq conflicts, how many actually had to resort to a side arm in an offensive/ defensive situation.
I'm curious to know from the younger guys, who served in the Afghan / Iraq conflicts, how many actually had to resort to a side arm in an offensive/ defensive situation.
Willie Sutton
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,025
Like the Joint Strike Fighter program?
Looking back a bit further... it's more like the F-111, which Macnamara wanted as a joint AF/USN jet. The Navy backed out early enough to not have been saddled with thoe things, and selected the F-14 as it's replacement.
As a side note, the Joint Strike Fighter program wasted huge bucks more because they never went into the production levels required to bring the costs down.
Think you're confusing JSF (F-35) with the F-22. JSF production program isn't even really going yet, and likely in the end will exceed even the F-16 production numbers. It's the Raptor (F-22) that was cut short in its production. And it's a superb jet....
Back to the thread:
We need a new service pistol because the existing 9mm platform is not adequate? That's based on the, oh... 30 times that a 9mm pistol has actually been employed by a line combatant since they were adopted? Pistols in most military use are decorations, not weapons. They might as well issue airsoft pistols to most of the people I see carrying them.
Willie
.
Looking back a bit further... it's more like the F-111, which Macnamara wanted as a joint AF/USN jet. The Navy backed out early enough to not have been saddled with thoe things, and selected the F-14 as it's replacement.
As a side note, the Joint Strike Fighter program wasted huge bucks more because they never went into the production levels required to bring the costs down.
Think you're confusing JSF (F-35) with the F-22. JSF production program isn't even really going yet, and likely in the end will exceed even the F-16 production numbers. It's the Raptor (F-22) that was cut short in its production. And it's a superb jet....
Back to the thread:
We need a new service pistol because the existing 9mm platform is not adequate? That's based on the, oh... 30 times that a 9mm pistol has actually been employed by a line combatant since they were adopted? Pistols in most military use are decorations, not weapons. They might as well issue airsoft pistols to most of the people I see carrying them.
Willie
.
Served as an MP when deployed, we only carried them at the gates. They were mostly a symbol of authority designating that a lower ranking person could and would bust you for drunk driving and not suffer any consequences for it.
We put some miles on them for 6 months loading, unloading, and checking them in and out every shift. We shot them once. If anything, within a few weeks the LEO's in the unit became concerned about the first rounds getting repeatedly chambered and having setback. We all started trying to rotate rounds in the magazines. By the end, they had all seen chamber time.
So much for the M9 as a combat weapon. During that deployment cycle, we only saw our M16's for transport on aircraft and familiarization when required. The rest of the time they were racked. At least 5 months at a time.
Pistols are conspicuously absent in the Box at Ft Polk, too. There are no blank rounds or accessories that accommodate MILES, therefore there is no training in the field that reinforces their use. I've shot the simulators off the laser disc at home station for that, and that wasn't available at the MP unit. Most don't have any access at all. I got more at my CCW class one afternoon than all the time I served in the MP unit.
Command has decided that field training in simulation is a waste of time with the M9, you won't be issued one anyway, and if things can get that bad, you are better off with the M16 and ten mags of ammo, right?
It's the CIVILIAN shooter who reveres the handgun, the military considers them a necessary evil to issue only to those who need authority enhancement by MOS and rank on the day to day basis. In combat, they don't get issued and used, nor do unit's that have them even bother to train with them in the field.
For all the ranting and disappointment about the M9 superceding the 1911, it's ironic because soldiers don't use them as much as civilians fantasize. The reality is that Clinton scrapping 240,000 1911's has gotten less hate than some old schoolers bemoaning it's passing. In reality, it doesn't make a hill of beans difference what pistol is selected. Let's not forget the real reason we got the Beretta - we have a Med fleet refueling station and a parachute unit in Italy. They played that card.
The real analysis of who might get a contract should follow the lines of who do we owe a favor to most, and will they twist our arm to get the contract? Regardless of the Army's tests and protocols, they will pick what they are told to, and that is no different than what we are experiencing with the last ten years of camo.
We still don't have a by name scapegoat for the UCP debacle. I'm sure his name starts with the appellation The Honorable Delegate from . . .
We put some miles on them for 6 months loading, unloading, and checking them in and out every shift. We shot them once. If anything, within a few weeks the LEO's in the unit became concerned about the first rounds getting repeatedly chambered and having setback. We all started trying to rotate rounds in the magazines. By the end, they had all seen chamber time.
So much for the M9 as a combat weapon. During that deployment cycle, we only saw our M16's for transport on aircraft and familiarization when required. The rest of the time they were racked. At least 5 months at a time.
Pistols are conspicuously absent in the Box at Ft Polk, too. There are no blank rounds or accessories that accommodate MILES, therefore there is no training in the field that reinforces their use. I've shot the simulators off the laser disc at home station for that, and that wasn't available at the MP unit. Most don't have any access at all. I got more at my CCW class one afternoon than all the time I served in the MP unit.
Command has decided that field training in simulation is a waste of time with the M9, you won't be issued one anyway, and if things can get that bad, you are better off with the M16 and ten mags of ammo, right?
It's the CIVILIAN shooter who reveres the handgun, the military considers them a necessary evil to issue only to those who need authority enhancement by MOS and rank on the day to day basis. In combat, they don't get issued and used, nor do unit's that have them even bother to train with them in the field.
For all the ranting and disappointment about the M9 superceding the 1911, it's ironic because soldiers don't use them as much as civilians fantasize. The reality is that Clinton scrapping 240,000 1911's has gotten less hate than some old schoolers bemoaning it's passing. In reality, it doesn't make a hill of beans difference what pistol is selected. Let's not forget the real reason we got the Beretta - we have a Med fleet refueling station and a parachute unit in Italy. They played that card.
The real analysis of who might get a contract should follow the lines of who do we owe a favor to most, and will they twist our arm to get the contract? Regardless of the Army's tests and protocols, they will pick what they are told to, and that is no different than what we are experiencing with the last ten years of camo.
We still don't have a by name scapegoat for the UCP debacle. I'm sure his name starts with the appellation The Honorable Delegate from . . .
RetiredUSNChief
Member
No, I don't think I'm confusing it at all. Yes, the F-22 suffered from this, but the JSF is also in a struggling world of hurt for exactly the same issues.
- Status
