Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by JonEvans1990FL, Jan 19, 2017.
I can't see the point of replacing the M9 either, unless switching to the P320 is going to be cheaper than continued M9 procurement. Otherwise, why bother?
Yes, I do. But what does that have to do with the topic at hand?
In remembering Solyndra, I also remember that even counting the losses from Solyndra, the renewable energy investment loan program that it was a part of has ended up being a money maker for the Treasury.
I did, that was just the expanded team accessible to mere mortals. Sad to see it turn out like that. They still have a small team of sponsored Pros.
Sorry Jeff if you're thinking of just a new pistol; that's all it is but it's a positive step (even if small) in the right direction. I just see this as a catalyst for our focus which must be flexible, constantly evolving, mission-oriented, and this is a small token for that. We now have new leaders at the national level and this is a small manifestation of change that (I hope) will continue. I would rather have us put our efforts on a new handgun, training, and logistics support than the hundreds of man-hours (and likely millions) we spent forced to implement and execute the Army's "transgender transition training". I whole-heartedly agree that change is spearheaded by leadership, not equipment. TTPs evolve from innovative leaders married with experience; however, technology does play a significant role.
I have been living an Army at war for the past decade-plus and I knew the drought we had in the 90's. We have been up and down on policies and inconsequential changes. I gladly welcome the change of a new pistol even if it is not a significant equipment change. That's a focus I would rather have our units and Soldiers spend their efforts vice the hundreds of hours of training that has zero to do with unit missions. We may disagree with the importance of this new handgun for the Army, but I both think we agree that our Soldiers would be better off learning a new pistol on a range than spending time in the classroom spending priceless time receiving Powerpoint training on social issues that are irrelevant to the purpose of the military.
For those who didn't see it in page 2
At the very least, all the staff officers, senior NCOs and other rear echelon types will have a cool status symbol. It will remain to be seen whether the groups who really require a combat pistol will embrace this one or keep buying other stuff - either to have their own status symbol or for functional reasons.
Of course we are. But I still love the Beretta, and the 1911 is still the first girl I ever kissed ...
Poppa Woody lol
Don't forget the all important ambi slide stop. I think both of our points have been made.
it's a lot. a massive mind blowing amount to many of us here myself included, but seeing how the army's budget alone for 2016 was 146.9 billion.........yeah i fact checked that amount...a 500+ million over 10 year contract is peanuts to their budget. let alone the entire dod's budget which is over 580+ billion this last year. yeah we have big spending issue problems to solve.....
i want to clarify i'm not for this new pistol spending, but there is nothing i can do about it. so of the choices i'm okay with the sig, as the winner.
Waste is relative despite the amount. I've seen the Army contract 1 Million to put a tower up in Iraq only to find out it couldn't be certified and then spend another half million to bring it down. I would also guess the Army spent well over a million on their new "transgender" training material that has been mandated. I would much rather see the Army spend money on weapons systems and training with weapons. I do agree accountability is just as important as making smart fiscal decisions. I do agree their is an enormous amount of waste in the military; much of it is redundant or poorly executed contracts. I don't think we should replace effectiveness with efficiency, but I do believe we should be more accountable to the tax payer's money and make smart decisions that are focused on equipping and training units for their missions.
For some reason, it reminds me of a mid-90s Camaro with a crank starter.
I agree. As a man who has used the M9 in uniform, I think the M17 will be a good replacement. A more consistent trigger pull, plenty safe, lighter, greater magazine capacity, and fits hands much better than the M9. I think this gun is a step forward. I think the whole "modular" thing will be a nice benefit for some, but the other benefits I mentioned will be what most of the force experiences in a positive way.
It doesn't have much to do with the topic, other than a reminder to those who are bemoaning the waste of this deal that our Federal government has done much, much worse in the past.
My hope is that a bit more research and thought went into this half-billion than it did for the Solyndra "investment".
I think it was inevitable that the Army was going to go to a lighter, polymer-frame pistol that required less training to shoot effectively and fit the various hand sizes of soldiers better than the Beretta. Was this the right time to do it? I am really not in a position to know, but if the alternative was to continue to make large investments in the M9 platform, it might have been. Was the P320 the best choice? Again, I don't know but I think it was a good choice. Should the selection process taken so long? No, but bureaucracy will be bureaucracy.
But at the end of the day, there will be something to show for this investment as opposed to the money having just gone poof and vanished into thin air.
I carried the M9 on active duty and had no issues with it. I thought the M9A3 was probably the best way to go, especially with the improved grip.
At least the Army did not drink the striker kool aid too much and still insisted on a POSITIVE manual safety- a 100% absolute necessity given the P320 trigger. I still expect many commanders will opt for condition 3 carry in their units.
As an aside, I'm a little sad, solely for nostalgic reasons. This will likely be a deathblow to reasonably priced metal-frame pistols.
Also, they hatched a deal with Ionbond about 5 years ago, that they would use the Ionbond coating process on production guns (I believe they previously only used it on special order upgrade guns), but only if Ion Bond set up a factory nearby. So Ionbond set up a state of the art facility on the old Pease SAC base (now a big industrial park with the air strip used by both the NH Air National Guard and commercial and charter airlines).
So this deal will drive jobs right here in the good old USA and Trump should love it.
The writer opined that the total cost of the new guns would be cheaper than keeping the old guns running, especially since the contract includes parts, service, holsters, etc. I'm not in a position to verify his conclusions but if that is indeed the price then it may well be cheaper than parts to keep the 92 going.
Separate names with a comma.