Big Army and the MHS??

[LSP972]

Anyone heard any updates? While I haven't been keeping an eye out, so to speak, I have not noticed any new blogs (i.e., uninformed speculation), or anything else new, for that matter, regarding this "program". There has been zilch about the "industry day" sponsored by the army back at the end of July.

So, while interesting, I have to wonder if this Modular Handgun System deal is nothing more than the dream sheet of a Pentagon bureaucrat or some think-tank type. Because you KNOW that any trials will be an epic exercise in… bureaucracy.

.

[Chuck Haggard]

Everybody knows that the military is going to the .40 because the 9mm sucks.

Or was it the .45 again?


Anyway, I haven't seen a thing lately.

[TORCH2J]

They got so much feedback from SMEs across the Army about 9mm being sufficient and the requirements being skewed toward Hk that they're taking a tactical pause. Just a guess.

[DocGKR]

No..............I would guess they are preparing more levels of stupid and not listening to any voices of reason.

[GardoneVT]

Screw the guns.

Let me know when Big Military starts taking pistol training seriously. 50 rounds per year of M9 quals is a Greek tragedy.

[Drang]

Everybody knows that the military is going to the .40 because the 9mm sucks.

Or was it the .45 again?


Anyway, I haven't seen a thing lately.
Highly informed guy at the gun show told me that the Army wants a .45, the Marine Corps wants a .45, the SEALS want a .45, but the military wants a 9.
The field grade and flag officers pushing the MHS have probably been pink slipped.

[Kyle Reese]

Screw the guns.

Let me know when Big Military starts taking pistol training seriously. 50 rounds per year of M9 quals is a Greek tragedy.

We all know that PV2. Joe Schmuckatelli III will be so much better off with a .40 S&W or .45 ACP, right? The mouthbreathers on the Internet told me so!

[Jeep]

Screw the guns.

Let me know when Big Military starts taking pistol training seriously. 50 rounds per year of M9 quals is a Greek tragedy.

Nah--it's merely absurd, which Big Army does very well.

The Greek tragedy is coming over the next few years as more and more of the current Pentagon budget is diverted to "green energy" projects that seek to repeal the first law of thermodynamics, and unfunded deployments throughout the world to build schools in Kenya or stop Ebola in Liberia or provide logistical support for favored social and political movements elsewhere.

Every penny of that will have to come from things that can be cut--and fuel and ammo are two non-fixed costs that can, and will be, cut. Expect to see many units get no pistol ammo for several years in a row and maybe 100 rounds of 5.56 per man per year. The Carter administration showed how that could be done 35 years ago.

As for a new pistol--no way, except if it will be made in a politically connected Congressional district.

[Suvorov]

We all know that PV2. Joe Schmuckatelli III will be so much better off with a .40 S&W or .45 ACP, right? The mouthbreathers on the Internet told me so!

Hey! The only reason he has to breath through his mouth is that his nose was fuzed shut by all the mustard gas he inhaled when he had to rescue the Obama girls and 20 Navy SEALS from a secret island terrorist hideout. He's only living in his mom's basement until he recovers.


Screw the guns.

Let me know when Big Military starts taking pistol training seriously. 50 rounds per year of M9 quals is a Greek tragedy.

The 50 rounds thing is kind of unit dependent. In the hard charging Armor and Cav units I was a part of, we probably got to shoot a whole 100 (count em - 2 whole boxes) of 9mm ball every year! :rolleyes:

[JHC]

Hey! The only reason he has to breath through his mouth is that his nose was fuzed shut by all the mustard gas he inhaled when he had to rescue the Obama girls and 20 Navy SEALS from a secret island terrorist hideout. He's only living in his mom's basement until he recovers.



The 50 rounds thing is kind of unit dependent. In the hard charging Armor and Cav units I was a part of, we probably got to shoot a whole 100 (count em - 2 whole boxes) of 9mm ball every year! :rolleyes:

My son's unit's deployment last year to a notorious region in RC-East (AFG) was so quiet for so many they ran a lot of ranges to keep the guys from going crazy. (an FSO I know however was busy) I saw a few pics from their M9 range running guys through shooting from laying on the ground on their backs, on their sides . . . a little innovation. One of the pics of a SNCO running his gun with a very modern ISO and high thumbs was a clue. So you never know.

[GardoneVT]

My son's unit's deployment last year to a notorious region in RC-East (AFG) was so quiet for so many they ran a lot of ranges to keep the guys from going crazy. (an FSO I know however was busy) I saw a few pics from their M9 range running guys through shooting from laying on the ground on their backs, on their sides . . . a little innovation. One of the pics of a SNCO running his gun with a very modern ISO and high thumbs was a clue. So you never know.

Oh, there is little doubt there are pockets of competence.

On the other side, we have units like the last squadron I was posted at where NCOs went to Iraq with zero handgun time, and a 'get it done downrange' letter from the enlisted Cheif. Wish they did that for the Cultural Sensitivity powerpoints .If thats how Uncle Sam wants to run things, we may as well buy MP7 Airsoft Guns and save the taxpayer some money, as who precisely are we fooling sending troops into harms way with ZERO pistol training?

[Jeep]

My son's unit's deployment last year to a notorious region in RC-East (AFG) was so quiet for so many they ran a lot of ranges to keep the guys from going crazy. (an FSO I know however was busy) I saw a few pics from their M9 range running guys through shooting from laying on the ground on their backs, on their sides . . . a little innovation. One of the pics of a SNCO running his gun with a very modern ISO and high thumbs was a clue. So you never know.

This sounds promising. One of the keys to building a marksmanship culture in the Army is getting the junior officers and enlisted engaged in rifle/pistol craft from the start and giving them enough ammo and training to become good shots. Being able to hit your target rapidly and accurately is one of those basic skills for combat arms guys that have been neglected too often in Army history, but it sounds like some current NCO and officers are determined to prevent that from happening again.

Let us just hope that the Pentagon keeps the ammo flowing--as mentioned above I have grave doubts about that.

[MGW]

The problem is getting actual ammo to train with is outside the power of most senior NCOs and company level officers. You can only capture the attention of troops with dryfire for so long.

Dumbass goes up exponentially as you leave the company level. In their minds PowerPoint solves all.

[Odin Bravo One]

Let us just hope that the Pentagon keeps the ammo flowing--as mentioned above I have grave doubts about that.

Current allocations are below 2001 levels. They have been in a steady decline since 2008.

[Jeep]

Current allocations are below 2001 levels. They have been in a steady decline since 2008.

Below 2001 levels already? I knew it was bad but I didn't realize it was that bad. If this keeps up it is soon going to be the Carter administration, part deux, insofar as readiness is concerned.

Who cares what pistol we have if all they do is stay in the arms rooms looking pretty? (Back then my unit's .45's didn't look pretty, but they almost never fired a round because we didn't have the ammunition budget for it).

[TORCH2J]

Wellll... yes, if they don't forecast their training, don't argue their case and don't justify it to their BN 3 and ammo manager sure... On the other hand, if you know how to write a memo and a training plan and be able to justify it in Army speak, then it's nowhere near the issue that many make it out to be. The reality is that since oh...circa 2003, very few Big Army units that deploy have fired their ammo allocation. As a matter of fact the utilization rates have tended to hover between 50% to 80%.


The problem is getting actual ammo to train with is outside the power of most senior NCOs and company level officers. You can only capture the attention of troops with dryfire for so long.

Dumbass goes up exponentially as you leave the company level. In their minds PowerPoint solves all.

[will_1400]

Oh, there is little doubt there are pockets of competence.

On the other side, we have units like the last squadron I was posted at where NCOs went to Iraq with zero handgun time, and a 'get it done downrange' letter from the enlisted Cheif. Wish they did that for the Cultural Sensitivity powerpoints .If thats how Uncle Sam wants to run things, we may as well buy MP7 Airsoft Guns and save the taxpayer some money, as who precisely are we fooling sending troops into harms way with ZERO pistol training?

Which is why I'm doing what I can to pick up my own personal practice with the pistol. If the military isn't going to get me training, I feel I should seek it out myself. I probably won't need it, but if I do, at least I should be well-ahead of the curve.

[5pins]

I may be out in left field but if, and I think it’s a big if DoD picks a new pistol, it will be something like the 5.7. Low recoil, penetrates body armor, and that will show picks of gel blocks showing how “effective” it is.

[DocGKR]

5pins, you are out in left field.

[JHC]

5pins, you are out in left field.

I heard Army brought some new ideas to the discussion. (what, or good/bad I have no idea)

I may be out in left field ;) but I wondered if it might be a 3 rd burst to "increase lethality". Might help for point shooting on the run from the half hip. lol

[Jeep]

I heard Army brought some new ideas to the discussion. (what, or good/bad I have no idea)

I may be out in left field ;) but I wondered if it might be a 3 rd burst to "increase lethality". Might help for point shooting on the run from the half hip. lol

A three round burst might be too much to work well, but a two-round burst might actually work with a 9mm--and with M882 ball you probably do want to try to dump a lot of ammo into the other guy.

Personally, though, I'd save the money and spend it on ammo, particularly with the news Sean M reported above. (Of course, the chance that the saved money would actually go to ammo is slight).

[GardoneVT]

I heard Army brought some new ideas to the discussion. (what, or good/bad I have no idea)

I may be out in left field ;) but I wondered if it might be a 3 rd burst to "increase lethality". Might help for point shooting on the run from the half hip. lol

With three round burst, standing near Airman Schmuckatelli at the clearing barrel would be lethal indeed.

[BWT]

As I understand it regular Army units go to "train ups" before deployments anyway.

Beyond that AFAIK it's just qualifications, possible field exercises/trainings, or schools that might involve shooting.

ETA: I'm not in and haven't ever been in the military.

[Jeep]

As I understand it regular Army units go to "train ups" before deployments anyway.

Beyond that AFAIK it's just qualifications, possible field exercises/trainings, or schools that might involve shooting.

ETA: I'm not in and haven't ever been in the military.

I'd hate to rely on last-minute training before a deployment to teach people how to really shoot. First, you don't always get the time. In fact, historically we have very often deployed partly trained units. The results were generally less than good. Second, as we all know, shooting skills take a significant while and quite a bit of ammo to refine. Pre-deployment training should be about polishing skills--not trying to learn them in the first place (or for the first time since original training).

[BWT]

I'd hate to rely on last-minute training before a deployment to teach people how to really shoot. First, you don't always get the time. In fact, historically we have very often deployed partly trained units. The results were generally less than good. Second, as we all know, shooting skills take a significant while and quite a bit of ammo to refine. Pre-deployment training should be about polishing skills--not trying to learn them in the first place (or for the first time since original training).

I didn't mean to imply I agreed with current practices for the Army; simply explained what I believed they currently were.

[JHC]

I didn't mean to imply I agreed with current practices for the Army; simply explained what I believed they currently were.

That's pretty much accurate for my son's Bn. However there are many many tasks to train up on besides marksmanship so even then, there is not "a lot" by our standards. Nothing like my SF friends did on a routine basis all the time.

[5pins]

5pins, you are out in left field.

That’s what I thought, thanks for the confirmation. LOL

[JRB]

I know of Reserve units that quietly pencil-whipped 'expert' record quals for troops that previously shot expert or sharpshooter with their assigned weapon, to save the ammo. That was during FY2014. I expect FY2015 to be worse.

[Jeep]

I know of Reserve units that quietly pencil-whipped 'expert' record quals for troops that previously shot expert or sharpshooter with their assigned weapon, to save the ammo. That was during FY2014. I expect FY2015 to be worse.

I am sorry to hear that. The lack of ammo is shameful, but the moral corruption involved in certifying qualifications that never occurred is even worse. It is nothing new, though. It happened on a consistent basis in Jimmy Carter's Army and goes back far beyond that. And it always seems to have the same genesis: when a subordinate unit complains that it doesn't have the ammo to train and qualify, the leadership above the unit replies that competent leaders would solve the problem. They never actually tell their subordinates to cheat--rather they maintain plausible deniability while essentially giving them no choice but to cheat.

The whole thing is a scandal, but since the scandal is being caused by purposely inadequate defense budgets from an administration that is trying to radically reduce the size and effectiveness of the military while not admitting that goal in public (apparently Leon Panetta accuses the administration of precisely that in his new book) it is never going to get much press.

[Dave J]

I know of Reserve units that quietly pencil-whipped 'expert' record quals for troops that previously shot expert or sharpshooter with their assigned weapon, to save the ammo. That was during FY2014. I expect FY2015 to be worse.

I'm going to call BS on that excuse. The FY14 authorizations for Individual Weapons Qualification I've seen at weren't cut at all. Somebody is covering for failure to adequately plan or forecast. And the lying shitbags doing the false reporting deserve to get fired.

Now, I do know of units that were told to cease travel due to lack of funds and thus couldn't get to the range, but the problem wasn't an ammo shortage. And their leadership didn't falsify the missed quals, either.

Sorry for the rant.

[JRB]

I'm going to call BS on that excuse. The FY14 authorizations for Individual Weapons Qualification I've seen at weren't cut at all. Somebody is covering for failure to adequately plan or forecast. And the lying shitbags doing the false reporting deserve to get fired.

Now, I do know of units that were told to cease travel due to lack of funds and thus couldn't get to the range, but the problem wasn't an ammo shortage. And their leadership didn't falsify the missed quals, either.

Sorry for the rant.

I can't say that I'm surprised to hear that. But a lot of UIC's have had some serious personnel fluctuation as well, usually in that a lot of under-performing troops were finally put out, just in time for recruiters to be knocking on their doors begging for them to come back a couple of months later when the ranks got very barren and the-powers-that-be changed their mind and wanted a larger Reserve again.

But I'm just a worker bee in that system - I do as I'm told and otherwise try to keep my trap shut.

It does merit mentioning that I've personally witnessed some troops, even deployed NCO's, fire hundreds of rounds trying to make that magical 23 out of 40 on the paper-target 25M alternate qualification. Unsurprisingly, more than one of them have been Dunning-Kruger effect poster children.

[Jeep]

I can't say that I'm surprised to hear that. But a lot of UIC's have had some serious personnel fluctuation as well, usually in that a lot of under-performing troops were finally put out, just in time for recruiters to be knocking on their doors begging for them to come back a couple of months later when the ranks got very barren and the-powers-that-be changed their mind and wanted a larger Reserve again.

But I'm just a worker bee in that system - I do as I'm told and otherwise try to keep my trap shut.

It does merit mentioning that I've personally witnessed some troops, even deployed NCO's, fire hundreds of rounds trying to make that magical 23 out of 40 on the paper-target 25M alternate qualification. Unsurprisingly, more than one of them have been Dunning-Kruger effect poster children.

I had never heard about the Dunning-Kruger effect before, so I had to look it up. It perfectly describes some General Officers I knew, and I'm not sure that it doesn't apply to some of the highest civilian officials in the federal government.

[ranger]

I know of Reserve units that quietly pencil-whipped 'expert' record quals for troops that previously shot expert or sharpshooter with their assigned weapon, to save the ammo. That was during FY2014. I expect FY2015 to be worse.

I would be very interested in what unit did that. I am a commander in the Army National Guard. On occasion, there are shortages of specific ammunition that causes issue with qualification - 9mm has been problematic at times. However, the biggest current issue with training for the Reserve component - USAR and ARNG - is time. We get two days per month for IDT and 15 days for Annual Training for a total of 39 days to train. Since 9/11 - we usually got some additional days per year and those units closer to mobilizing got even more days to prepare. This Fiscal Year, we are limited to 39 days to do collective training, weapons qualification, plus a never ending stream of other "mandatory" training - you can actually get a lot of training done in 39 days until we get hit with the "mandatory" (non-combat skills) training. Actually, the current biggest issue is getting range time on the weekends at the Active Duty bases because the Army does not want to pay range control and the ASP to work weekends due to budget cuts - we work weekends but have to push for weekend range time (yes, we plan this way in advance and coordinate with the base and range control with all the appropriate forms, coordination, etc. including forecasting ammo).

[Chuck Haggard]

For those who haven't seen it before, I'll drop the most concise summary of "Dunning-Kruger Effect" that I have seen;


"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."
-- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999, Vol 77 No.6, 1121-1134, Kruger & Dunning

[JHC]

I've missed this little blurb on the modular handgun program. Sig 320 with a frame mounted manual safety, and just the right color! ;) Wow, how their fortunes would chance if they snagged this.

http://blogs.militarytimes.com/gearscout/2014/10/13/sig-sauer-p320-mhs-edition/#more

[JRB]

I would be very interested in what unit did that. I am a commander in the Army National Guard. On occasion, there are shortages of specific ammunition that causes issue with qualification - 9mm has been problematic at times. However, the biggest current issue with training for the Reserve component - USAR and ARNG - is time. We get two days per month for IDT and 15 days for Annual Training for a total of 39 days to train. Since 9/11 - we usually got some additional days per year and those units closer to mobilizing got even more days to prepare. This Fiscal Year, we are limited to 39 days to do collective training, weapons qualification, plus a never ending stream of other "mandatory" training - you can actually get a lot of training done in 39 days until we get hit with the "mandatory" (non-combat skills) training. Actually, the current biggest issue is getting range time on the weekends at the Active Duty bases because the Army does not want to pay range control and the ASP to work weekends due to budget cuts - we work weekends but have to push for weekend range time (yes, we plan this way in advance and coordinate with the base and range control with all the appropriate forms, coordination, etc. including forecasting ammo).

The E4 mafia network tells me that an IG MAJ from group has already been through our unit's leadership & asking questions about the now-PCS'd leadership of those units involved, as well as asking a couple of AGR's about their injuries and subsequent physical profiles that are surprisingly coincidental with record PT weekends, which has been an ongoing issue with an AGR E5 in my own unit, and a lot of other units as well, it seems. I just hope the subject of the profoundly inconsistent delivery/review of E5/E6 promotion packets was brought up as well.

I share your frustrations for the training time consumed by those blocks of "Mandatory" training that are not combat skill or unit-mission related. I'm only tangentially aware of the scheduling & logistical nightmares faced by those in leadership positions but I suspect that different group commands and geographic regions face their own unique sets of problems with such things.
We usually conduct our ranges at an NTC facility, and a slew of smaller Reserve/NG units will piggyback in on any range we conduct. Hence the cross-talk and 'interesting' record quals observed in other units.

As for which units will do such a thing; where they pencil-whip DA705's, they'll pencil-whip DA3595R's as well. Which is to say that I strongly doubt you'll find any Reserve or NG UIC that hasn't seen it happen.

[Drang]

...Jimmy Carter's Army...
I was in Basic during the '80 election. I was scandalized when the Senior Drill Sergeant went off-script during the "how to vote absentee" lecture to say "If you didn't make plans before leaving for basic to vote that peanut farming SOB out so he stops screwing up my Army, see your Drill Sergeant, he'll get you the forms to request the ballot."
I don't worship the memory of Ronald Reagan like some do, but he was so much getter than Carter it's amazing. The Army was already "de-hollowing" itself before I left for Fort Lost-In-The-Woods, and it took years for some of the improvements to be seen, but improve they did.

I fully expect the next Presidential administration to have the same task ahead of them, I just hope it's not too late.

[Jeep]

I was in Basic during the '80 election. I was scandalized when the Senior Drill Sergeant went off-script during the "how to vote absentee" lecture to say "If you didn't make plans before leaving for basic to vote that peanut farming SOB out so he stops screwing up my Army, see your Drill Sergeant, he'll get you the forms to request the ballot."
I don't worship the memory of Ronald Reagan like some do, but he was so much getter than Carter it's amazing. The Army was already "de-hollowing" itself before I left for Fort Lost-In-The-Woods, and it took years for some of the improvements to be seen, but improve they did.

I fully expect the next Presidential administration to have the same task ahead of them, I just hope it's not too late.

In 1976 the Army generally was pretty apolitical. The McGovernite wing of the Dem party wasn't liked, but Carter wasn't seen as a McGovernite and so some supported him, some supported Ford and most probably didn't vote. Four years of relentlessly cut budgets, pay raises at much less than the then very high rate of inflation, and an equally relentless push to officially report that everything was fine pushed a lot of NCO's and officers to actually get out and vote against Carter.

However, we did get the federal Department of Education out of Carter, and you can see what a bang up job they've been doing with the American educational system ever since.

[John Hearne]

Sig 320 with a frame mounted manual safety...

That is sexy, especially with the "fixed" slide catch lever.

[MGW]

Wellll... yes, if they don't forecast their training, don't argue their case and don't justify it to their BN 3 and ammo manager sure... On the other hand, if you know how to write a memo and a training plan and be able to justify it in Army speak, then it's nowhere near the issue that many make it out to be. The reality is that since oh...circa 2003, very few Big Army units that deploy have fired their ammo allocation. As a matter of fact the utilization rates have tended to hover between 50% to 80%.

That may be true. I should have specified that I was talking about Army Guard. As an example our range coming up next month has no ammo allocated for the M9 range. Supply AGR claims no nine is available. That may be a 9mm dependent issue or a may just be in the wrong food chain or being fed crap.

As to shooting allocated ammo before a deployment, I really don't know when we would have had time to shoot more during predeployment training. Some of that might have been command decisions though. I don't know I wasn't involved in the planning stages for the two I've been on.

[Drang]

That may be true. I should have specified that I was talking about Army Guard. As an example our range coming up next month has no ammo allocated for the M9 range. Supply AGR claims no nine is available. That may be a 9mm dependent issue or a may just be in the wrong food chain or being fed crap.

Poll other units to see if anyone has more than they can shoot?
Works better in July than in October, though.

[TORCH2J]

Supply should not enter in the equation, unless the Guard does something very different from AD or it's an additional duty (and if that's the case, that's idiotic).

At the BN level you should at least have an ammo NCO with access to TAMIS. At the BDE level, you should have a CW2 or an E7 who is your ammo manager. TAMIS forecasts get locked in three months out. Unless you have absolutely no allocation, three months ago, your unit should have locked in their usage for November. If your unit did not look at a training plan, and as a result didn't forecast, you're out of luck unless you submit a memorandum of lateness and an unforecasted request. That usually requires an O6 signature.


That may be true. I should have specified that I was talking about Army Guard. As an example our range coming up next month has no ammo allocated for the M9 range. Supply AGR claims no nine is available. That may be a 9mm dependent issue or a may just be in the wrong food chain or being fed crap.

As to shooting allocated ammo before a deployment, I really don't know when we would have had time to shoot more during predeployment training. Some of that might have been command decisions though. I don't know I wasn't involved in the planning stages for the two I've been on.

[5pins]

Here are some new developments.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2014/12/03/Beretta-out-as-standard-issue-Army-sidearm-Pentagon-taking-bids-for-replacement/5191417641526/


WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 (UPI) -- The Pentagon announced it will actively seek a new manufacturing contract to replace Beretta as the primary sidearm of the United States military.

[GardoneVT]

Here are some new developments.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2014/12/03/Beretta-out-as-standard-issue-Army-sidearm-Pentagon-taking-bids-for-replacement/5191417641526/

Is it really a *new* development?


Circa 2008:
Joint Combat Pistol Search Plods Along
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,160146,00.html?ESRC=dod.nl

Circa 2004, then called the "Future Handgun System".
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fhs.htm

In related announcements, Todd Green's favorite color is orange.....

[RJ]

^^^ Guessing that the article linked named General Dynamics as partners to S&W to bid the M&P for the MHS.

That was late November ish, this year, I think. From the link:

"Gun manufacture Smith & Wesson and a division of General Dynamics have already announced plans to enter a jointly-produced firearm based on Smith & Wesson's M&P, an already popular polymer pistol used by law enforcement agencies around the world."


?

[Timbonez]

Is it really a *new* development?


Circa 2008:
Joint Combat Pistol Search Plods Along
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,160146,00.html?ESRC=dod.nl

Circa 2004, then called the "Future Handgun System".
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fhs.htm

In related announcements, Todd Green's favorite color is orange.....

Well, technically, it is a new development. The GD and S&W partnership is a new thing, like Llando88 commented. The Future Handgun System, SOFCP, and JCP were previous programs that ended up being canceled. The MHS is the newest program in an over a decade long quest to find a new pistol for the military. It will be interesting to see if a new pistol is actually selected, or if more money will be wasted on a program bound to be canceled.

My opinion is if your are already going to waste money on an inconveniently timed program, you might as well reap the benefits of getting the product. Considering the military is searching for a COTS option, it would seem like an achievable goal. That being said, it is the military, which means snatching defeat from the jaws of success is almost guaranteed.

[5pins]

Is it really a *new* development?


Circa 2008:
Joint Combat Pistol Search Plods Along
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,160146,00.html?ESRC=dod.nl

Circa 2004, then called the "Future Handgun System".
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fhs.htm

In related announcements, Todd Green's favorite color is orange.....

Ok, maybe “newest” development.

[MichaelD]

Another day, another chance to make fun of the media's general lack of accuracy in firearms reporting: http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/03/news/companies/army-gun-new-beretta/index.htm

Some gems:


The Army has not specified whether it wants these lighter plastic-framed handguns. But it already made that switch for rifles during the Vietnam War, when it swapped its heavy wood-and-metal M-14 for the mostly plastic M-16...

And this:
2825

Smith & Wesson's M&P pistol, which will be entering the competition, is made primarily of plastic.

[LSP972]

One cannot help but wonder how much of this initial derp reportage will seep into the actual selection process... IF that ever gets off the ground.

Hard to tell if they really are serious about it; is the January 2015 announcement an actual RFP, or just the prelims to that?

S&W teaming up with General Dynamics? Boy, if that isn't an attempt to stack the deck...

Still, considering the amount of our tax money being pissed away on zero value stuff, something good COULD come out of all of this... right????:D

.

[Hambo]

How cool! A new pistol to go with the ACR, no the OICW, oh, wait make that 6.8mm for everybody...

A smart man once pointed out to me that the plan isn't to find the best new weapon, it's to keep the project going until you retire.

[TCinVA]

They could just pretty easily get a more modernized Beretta 92 that has some relatively minor changes and be done with the whole bloody thing pretty darn cheap.

[Suvorov]

They could just pretty easily get a more modernized Beretta 92 that has some relatively minor changes and be done with the whole bloody thing pretty darn cheap.

That would be far too simple........

[PPGMD]

They could just pretty easily get a more modernized Beretta 92 that has some relatively minor changes and be done with the whole bloody thing pretty darn cheap.

Does Hogue make smaller grips for the 92 like they do with the Sig?

If so you can make a M9A2 with Hogue grips as part of an armorer level kit to fit the gun to the user.

[Suvorov]

Does Hogue make smaller grips for the 92 like they do with the Sig?

If so you can make a M9A2 with Hogue grips as part of an armorer level kit to fit the gun to the user.

There are a variety of thin grips available for the Beretta 92 series as well as later models have a reduced radius backstrap. The French went with a different set of grip panels to help make the gun more woman friendly. All of this helps to a degree but it isn't as good as newer handguns offer. All that said, with the promise of a new military contract, I'm sure the folks at Beretta could redesign the frame to allow for changeable grip panels.

An update to the M9 really seems like the best option to me from a cost/training standpoint, but many in the Army seem hell bent on ridding themselves of the M9 and DA/SA autos in general. Of course once a striker fired auto is adopted en mass, que the reports of widespread NGs and the subsequent order that the pistols be carried on an empty chamber.

[LSP972]

Of course once a striker fired auto is adopted en mass, que the reports of widespread NGs and the subsequent order that the pistols be carried on an empty chamber.

Good point.:D

One wonders how the Brits are getting along with their new G17s???

.

[5pins]

Glock vs. Smith & Wesson: A Shootout for the Pentagon's New Pistol Contract.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-12-04/will-the-military-pistol-contract-return-to-american-hands


Pentagon officials have been talking for years about shelving the semiautomatic M9, made by an American unit of the Italian-owned Beretta. Daryl Easlick, a project officer with the Army’s Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Ga., told the website Military.com in July that the Pentagon would replace its entire inventory of 9mm Berettas for something more accurate, lethal, and reliable: “It’s a total system replacement—new gun, new ammo, new holster, everything.”


I still don’t see them going away from the nine.
So when the Army puts out the announcement next month are they going to specify a caliber?

[littlejerry]

Glock vs. Smith & Wesson: A Shootout for the Pentagon's New Pistol Contract.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-12-04/will-the-military-pistol-contract-return-to-american-hands



I still don’t see them going away from the nine.
So when the Army puts out the announcement next month are they going to specify a caliber?

Wonder if there is a "green" 9mm in the pipeline?

[TCinVA]

Does Hogue make smaller grips for the 92 like they do with the Sig?

If so you can make a M9A2 with Hogue grips as part of an armorer level kit to fit the gun to the user.

Dunno. I do know Beretta can make a Vertec frame and include a short trigger to lessen the trigger reach for those with smaller hands.

[TORCH2J]

They could just pretty easily get a more modernized Beretta 92 that has some relatively minor changes and be done with the whole bloody thing pretty darn cheap.

The cost of a product improved Beretta that BUSA submitted was ridiculous.

[ToddG]

I still don’t see them going away from the nine.
So when the Army puts out the announcement next month are they going to specify a caliber?

If they follow previous trends, they'll leave caliber (and possibly even ammo) choices to the submitting manufacturers and simply provide requirements. E.g., "more lethal than current service M882 ammunition as determined by penetration and expansion in 10% raspberry jello."

[Wheeler]

There are a variety of thin grips available for the Beretta 92 series as well as later models have a reduced radius backstrap. The French went with a different set of grip panels to help make the gun more woman friendly. All of this helps to a degree but it isn't as good as newer handguns offer. All that said, with the promise of a new military contract, I'm sure the folks at Beretta could redesign the frame to allow for changeable grip panels.

An update to the M9 really seems like the best option to me from a cost/training standpoint, but many in the Army seem hell bent on ridding themselves of the M9 and DA/SA autos in general. Of course once a striker fired auto is adopted en mass, que the reports of widespread NGs and the subsequent order that the pistols be carried on an empty chamber.

Not sure how much things have changed in the intervening years but when I was in the Army we were never allowed to carry with a round in the chamber and the Q course was never from the holster.

[Suvorov]

Not sure how much things have changed in the intervening years but when I was in the Army we were never allowed to carry with a round in the chamber and the Q course was never from the holster.

When issued ammo for operational need, the M9 is usually carried loaded chamber and safety on. Some slick units or units that have commanders with a clue may get by with loaded chamber and safety off. I've never seen the basic Army pistol qualification course run from the holster either. In fact I could just imagine the pandemonium that would result.

[JDB]

When issued ammo for operational need, the M9 is usually carried loaded chamber and safety on. Some slick units or units that have commanders with a clue may get by with loaded chamber and safety off. I've never seen the basic Army pistol qualification course run from the holster either. In fact I could just imagine the pandemonium that would result.

I've been shooting the EIC matches at various levels with Army and AF the last couple years, there are a few matches that include drawing from the holster.
That gets interesting....I try to be on the far left lane when possible.

[Suvorov]

I've been shooting the EIC matches at various levels with Army and AF the last couple years, there are a few matches that include drawing from the holster.
That gets interesting....I try to be on the far left lane when possible.

Yeah, the competition world is a little different. I used to show up wearing my M9 in my tanker holster. It caused a lot of commotion but it was an issued piece of kit. They actually let me shoot a couple matches that way but they were watching me like a hawk. Have you got to go to the Wilson Match yet?

[JDB]

Yeah, the competition world is a little different. I used to show up wearing my M9 in my tanker holster. It caused a lot of commotion but it was an issued piece of kit. They actually let me shoot a couple matches that way but they were watching me like a hawk. Have you got to go to the Wilson Match yet?

Yes, shot the Wilson the 2 of the last 3 years, and the All Army last year. Got my distinguished pistol last year, so now on to the more serious stuff (USPSA!).
Interestingly, the guard match (Wilson) was way more competitive than the All Army.
In

[Suvorov]

Yes, shot the Wilson the 2 of the last 3 years, and the All Army last year. Got my distinguished pistol last year, so now on to the more serious stuff (USPSA!).
Interestingly, the guard match (Wilson) was way more competitive than the All Army.
In

Congrats on shooting distinguished! I never amounted more than bronze pistol and a few rifle leg points. I used to dream of making Presidents One Hundred....

Wilson was a great time! I shot it back in '94 and '95. Never got to shoot All Army. Not all that surprising that the Wilson match was more competitive.

[Timbonez]

Not sure how much things have changed in the intervening years but when I was in the Army we were never allowed to carry with a round in the chamber and the Q course was never from the holster.

I think it is still that way for the Army. Each service is different.

If you are issued an M9 in the Air Force, you are required to chamber a round and disengage the safety. There have been multiple occasions when I have stepped to fly and I have seen fellow aircrew refuse to chamber a round. The airman issuing the weapon says it is required for them to chamber a round and turn the safety off. There are others who will re-engage the safety afterwards... all of them are clueless about how the M9 works. They have no issue dropping 500lb and 2000lb bombs, but they are afraid of the issued handgun.

Pistol qualification is done with drawing from your issued holster and firing. There are some portions of the qualification where you are behind a "barricade" and your muzzle is pressed against that before the string of fire. Most everyone I have seen qualify has a safariland on a drop leg. In my case, I wear a survival vest with a cheap collapsible nylon holster (thanks AF) when qualifying and flying.

[Wheeler]

I think it is still that way for the Army. Each service is different.

If you are issued an M9 in the Air Force, you are required to chamber a round and disengage the safety. There have been multiple occasions when I have stepped to fly and I have seen fellow aircrew refuse to chamber a round. The airman issuing the weapon says it is required for them to chamber a round and turn the safety off. There are others who will re-engage the safety afterwards... all of them are clueless about how the M9 works. They have no issue dropping 500lb and 2000lb bombs, but they are afraid of the issued handgun.

Pistol qualification is done with drawing from your issued holster and firing. There are some portions of the qualification where you are behind a "barricade" and your muzzle is pressed against that before the string of fire. Most everyone I have seen qualify has a safariland on a drop leg. In my case, I wear a survival vest with a cheap collapsible nylon holster (thanks AF) when qualifying and flying.

I qualified with the M-15 (dating myself here) in the USAF using a duty belt, Safariland holster with an uncovered trigger guard and drop pouches. When I joined the National Guard it was an endless source of amusement when working the pistol range on AWQ day.

[Suvorov]

I think it is still that way for the Army. Each service is different.

If you are issued an M9 in the Air Force, you are required to chamber a round and disengage the safety. There have been multiple occasions when I have stepped to fly and I have seen fellow aircrew refuse to chamber a round. The airman issuing the weapon says it is required for them to chamber a round and turn the safety off. There are others who will re-engage the safety afterwards... all of them are clueless about how the M9 works. They have no issue dropping 500lb and 2000lb bombs, but they are afraid of the issued handgun.

Pistol qualification is done with drawing from your issued holster and firing. There are some portions of the qualification where you are behind a "barricade" and your muzzle is pressed against that before the string of fire. Most everyone I have seen qualify has a safariland on a drop leg. In my case, I wear a survival vest with a cheap collapsible nylon holster (thanks AF) when qualifying and flying.

Interesting perspective. I guess the Air Force figures you wont be doing a lot of holstering and unholstering of your pistol if you go down behind enemy lines. It is nice to hear that Air Force is a little more enlightened when it comes to carrying the M9, maybe they figure that since they can trust you with nuclear weapons and a intercontinental bomber, they can let you take the safety off? It also just further illustrates that pistol training is nothing more than an afterthought in our military's mind for anyone but special ops and maybe military/shore/special police units. And that said - how will adopting a newer, more reliable, and more lethal handgun change the fundamental problem?

[Timbonez]

I appreciate the fact that the Air Force says to carry chambered and safety off. That is how I carry my personal Berettas. If I did have to eject, taking the safety off to use my weapon - using it would probably be a last resort thing - is the last thing I want to worry about. Then again, the holster on our survival vest is so awful and slow to use.

Overall there are a few things the Air Force does right and more that they do wrong when it comes to small arms. Everything on the M9 is pretty much shoot to failure, unless you notice something completely wrong with your firearm (i.e. cracked locking block). When something does fail, it was the design of the M9 that is at fault.

One minor thing to note, and unrelated to the Beretta, is that the B-1 is no longer nuclear capable. It hasn't been since the 90s. It's funny since it was originally a nuclear only bomber, but now doesn't have that capability. It's definitely more capable today and has a greater number of mission sets, that I think don't get trained to enough because we are always deploying to do CAS. That is a completely different thread topic, however.

[TGS]

One minor thing to note, and unrelated to the Beretta, is that the B-1 is no longer nuclear capable. It hasn't been since the 90s. It's funny since it was originally a nuclear only bomber, but now doesn't have that capability. It's definitely more capable today and has a greater number of mission sets, that I think don't get trained to enough because we are always deploying to do CAS. That is a completely different thread topic, however.

Which we should start, because it sounds like an awesome topic.

[Timbonez]

I qualified with the M-15 (dating myself here) in the USAF using a duty belt, Safariland holster with an uncovered trigger guard and drop pouches. When I joined the National Guard it was an endless source of amusement when working the pistol range on AWQ day.

One of the O-5s I know went to the same college as me (albeit about 10 years before I started college. Anyway, when he was at field training he had to qualify on the M-15 while the other bases that also had AFROTC Field Training had begun using M9s. He said he was always fond of the S&W since then.

ETA: TGS, I will probably start it in the next day or two. I'm enjoying a day of leave right now, but I seem to be using most of it on PF!

[RJ]

One of the O-5s I know went to the same college as me (albeit about 10 years before I started college. Anyway, when he was at field training he had to qualify on the M-15 while the other bases that also had AFROTC Field Training had begun using M9s. He said he was always fond of the S&W since then.

ETA: TGS, I will probably start it in the next day or two. I'm enjoying a day of leave right now, but I seem to be using most of it on PF!

That would be cool.

I'm not a former USAF/service guy, just a contractor. I spent a lot of 2014 at Dyess AFB for work. Was kinda neat to hear the B-1Bs on takeoff roll from KDYS 19/34 while I was in our building. You could tell it was not a Herc. :)

[Jeep]

Interesting perspective. I guess the Air Force figures you wont be doing a lot of holstering and unholstering of your pistol if you go down behind enemy lines. It is nice to hear that Air Force is a little more enlightened when it comes to carrying the M9, maybe they figure that since they can trust you with nuclear weapons and a intercontinental bomber, they can let you take the safety off? It also just further illustrates that pistol training is nothing more than an afterthought in our military's mind for anyone but special ops and maybe military/shore/special police units. And that said - how will adopting a newer, more reliable, and more lethal handgun change the fundamental problem?

Suvorov: "Enlightened?" I served back in the .45 era (we never called them 1911's) but I doubt that the average E1-4, O1, or maybe worst of all, O4, has changed much since then, and given the almost-total lack of pistol training in the Army, I'd cringe if the average major walked around with the safety of his M9 off.

But, then again, I saw an E6 turn an M-16 into the armorer, swear he had thoroughly cleaned it, only to have a round go off when the armorer dropped the hammer, as everyone hit the floor. I also saw a 2LT shoot himself in the hand with an unloaded .45, and I saw a 04 just back from the Pentagon nearly wipe out the rest of the squadron staff with a .45 that didn't have the safety engaged (and which he didn't appear to know was a hot weapon).

I left the Army liking safeties on weapons. They don't stop ND's by any means, but they cut the numbers. Actually training troops on live fire would cut the numbers more, but that would take too much money away from the sacred "green energy" projects that assume that the 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to the US government, so it will never happen.

[Suvorov]

Suvorov: "Enlightened?"

OK. Understand where you are coming from. I do think that the long DA pull of the M9 does a lot to prevent NDs which safety or no safety is something you dont have with the 45. It would be interesting to see a comparison of ND rates between the M9 and M11 although that might be a little misleading as troops armed with the M11 are generally better trained with handguns than the average soldier.

In my utopian world, every soldier issued a handgun would receive at least the same amount of training as they give soldiers issued the M16. For me my first official Army training on the M9 was "here is your M9, this is where the bullet goes in, this is where it come out, now go and qualify." In my case I had been shooting in the guard marksmanship matches so was quite familiar with the M9, but for many it was the first time they had ever fired a handgun. That mindset would continue to reign supreme my entire time in. Compare and contrast that to the instruction I would receive years later at FLETC on the HK and the US Army is setting up its soldiers and its weapon system for failure. It really doesn't matter what pistol the Army chooses until it finally takes pistol training seriously.

The Army simply wants a gun that is small, will fit everybody's hand, does not need to be maintained, will never go off unless pointed at the bad guy, will vaporize the target with just a grazing hit, and that you don't have spend any time training with so as to maximize that precious EEO, Recruiting and Retention, or sexual harassment training time.

[StraitR]

The Army simply wants a gun that is small, will fit everybody's hand, does not need to be maintained, will never go off unless pointed at the bad guy, will vaporize the target with just a grazing hit, and that you don't have spend any time training with...

Vaporizing bullets fired from a handy, self cleaning smart pistol? Yes please. I'll take 3.


On the subject of derp military quals, every Navy qual I shot with a 1911, shotgun, and M14 (circa 94-97) were done underway off the fight deck, no targets, with the ocean being the 10 ring. The only quals I shot with targets (50gal oil drums/smoke floats/100mph tape) were with the 25 mike-mike and M2's. I did all my reserve time in the ANG (11b 98-01) with M16's, were at least we shot a scored course of fire once a year, with just enough ammo issued to get everyone passed. I got out in 05 May 01, needless to say 4 months later small arms training in the military changed.

[PPGMD]

On the subject of derp military quals, every Navy qual I shot with a 1911, shotgun, and M14 (circa 94-97) were done underway off the fight deck, no targets, with the ocean being the 10 ring.

And I sure that even then there are people who missed the target.

[Wheeler]

One of the O-5s I know went to the same college as me (albeit about 10 years before I started college. Anyway, when he was at field training he had to qualify on the M-15 while the other bases that also had AFROTC Field Training had begun using M9s. He said he was always fond of the S&W since then.

ETA: TGS, I will probably start it in the next day or two. I'm enjoying a day of leave right now, but I seem to be using most of it on PF!

A nice Model 15 4" is on my list for nostalgia and such.

[Jeep]

OK. Understand where you are coming from. I do think that the long DA pull of the M9 does a lot to prevent NDs which safety or no safety is something you dont have with the 45. It would be interesting to see a comparison of ND rates between the M9 and M11 although that might be a little misleading as troops armed with the M11 are generally better trained with handguns than the average soldier.

In my utopian world, every soldier issued a handgun would receive at least the same amount of training as they give soldiers issued the M16. For me my first official Army training on the M9 was "here is your M9, this is where the bullet goes in, this is where it come out, now go and qualify." In my case I had been shooting in the guard marksmanship matches so was quite familiar with the M9, but for many it was the first time they had ever fired a handgun. That mindset would continue to reign supreme my entire time in. Compare and contrast that to the instruction I would receive years later at FLETC on the HK and the US Army is setting up its soldiers and its weapon system for failure. It really doesn't matter what pistol the Army chooses until it finally takes pistol training seriously.

The Army simply wants a gun that is small, will fit everybody's hand, does not need to be maintained, will never go off unless pointed at the bad guy, will vaporize the target with just a grazing hit, and that you don't have spend any time training with so as to maximize that precious EEO, Recruiting and Retention, or sexual harassment training time.

Precisely right and extremely well said. That is the heart of the problem. You and I (and I suspect most here) share that Utopian world. And one thing about pistol marksmanship is it tends to make you a better shot with a rifle as well, while the obverse isn't necessarily true.

However, we all know that it isn't going to happen because the purpose of the Army is no longer to win wars. Instead, like the Navy, it is becoming "a global force for good" with a primary mission of building schools in Kenya (although actually that is the Air Force and Navy right now, I understand) and stopping EBOLA in Liberia. Training to break things and kill people is far too old fashioned and politically incorrect.

[Trooper224]

Training to break things and kill people is far too old fashioned and politically incorrect.

Until the next time someone attacks us, then we'll follow our established pattern of getting all fired up to go f*** up everyone. We'll do that and alienate a few allies along the way, then stop wagging war and try to win hearts and minds. We'll win the short game and completely screw up the long game as per SOP.

[StraitR]

Until the next time someone attacks us, then we'll follow our established pattern of getting all fired up to go f*** up everyone. We'll do that and alienate a few allies along the way, then stop wagging war and try to win hearts and minds. We'll win the short game and completely screw up the long game as per SOP.

It's conspiracy, orchestrated by our government and Toby Keiths agent.

[JHC]

It is American society at home that doesn't know how to win a war. This country today would call WW II a defeat because the Soviets held East Europe and Mao was moving on China. Too much navel gazing about the way things used to be that weren't.

[GardoneVT]

It is American society at home that doesn't know how to win a war. This country today would call WW II a defeat because the Soviets held East Europe and Mao was moving on China. Too much navel gazing about the way things used to be that weren't.

A coworker today said it wasnt necessary to drop two nukes on Japan. That she said it on Pearl Harbor day just adds more :mad: to it .

[Kyle Reese]

A coworker today said it wasnt necessary to drop two nukes on Japan. That she said it on Pearl Harbor day just adds more :mad: to it .

Tell her to research Unit 731 and review the casualty predictions for Operation Downfall.

[RJ]

A coworker today said it wasnt necessary to drop two nukes on Japan. That she said it on Pearl Harbor day just adds more :mad: to it .

My dad told me he was on a troop ship headed for Japan in '45. 1st Cav, if I understand his service patch in the pictures.

He always said, before he passed, may he rest in peace, that he and a lot of his buddies were alive because of those two bombs.

[HCM]

My dad told me he was on a troop ship headed for Japan in '45. 1st Cav, if I understand his service patch in the pictures.

He always said, before he passed, may he rest in peace, that he and a lot of his buddies were alive because of those two bombs.

He wasn't the only one - my old man did 35 missions over Europe in a B-17 and was being re- trained for B-29s in support of the invasion when those bombs were dropped.

[Coyotesfan97]

A coworker today said it wasnt necessary to drop two nukes on Japan. That she said it on Pearl Harbor day just adds more :mad: to it .

Tell her to read the Okinawa campaign portion of With the Old Breed by EB Sledge and try to imagine the hell that invading Japan would've been.

[5pins]

Why am I not surprised.


US Army delays request for new handgun
http://www.janes.com/article/48217/us-army-delays-request-for-new-handgun

[LSP972]

Cue up "Yakkety Sax" music.

The charley-foxtrot begins…

.

[Jeep]

Cue up "Yakkety Sax" music.

The charley-foxtrot begins…

.

"Begins?" Knowing the Army, my bet is on "continues."

[Alpha Sierra]

This is a pistol-centric forum. I gather the Army is anything but.

[cmoore]

Pistols got some attention from the Army when it still had a horse cavalry component. Since then, not so much. Special Forces are no longer part of the big Army, and they can buy whatever pistols they want anyway. The Military Police, perhaps the only group left in the Army at large that gives a rip about pistols, are way too small a group to have any sway, especially in procurement matters.

[GardoneVT]

Pistols got some attention from the Army when it still had a horse cavalry component. Since then, not so much.

I'll keep saying it until the servers crash-the guns aren't the problem. An M9 is more then sufficient for our current mass-issue needs.

What we need isn't an UberBlaster 2.0-or admittedly the M9A3 even, cool as it is.

What our military needs is ammo, a proper and professional training regimen, and logical maintenance practices.A training curriculum more advanced then "point black handgun thataway, and pull trigger unless at a clearing barrel, where you'll then coon-finger it according to a nonsensical process designed to demote you as noisily as possible."

[RevolverRob]

I'll keep saying it until the servers crash-the guns aren't the problem.

And the choir has heard you, and heard you, and heard you. The real question is, what are you prepared to do about it?

I keep hearing the same things from my peers. "We don't like issues X or Y." But none of them ever do anything about it. Meanwhile, last week, My colleagues and I were disappointed that some of my younger colleagues are poor at communicating science with non-scientists. Realizing that I have a background where I was trained to do exactly that, I went to my faculty mentor and asked them to co-teach a class with me on communicating science, he agreed, next year we will do exactly that. We're developing a crazy curriculum seeking to pull in outsiders with successful careers in communicating science. I am sure I will learn a lot and so will the other students in the class.

Actions speak louder than words. Send a letter to your congressman. Write a letter to Beretta. Hell if you really feel so strongly about it, get a local pistol instructor, a stack of Berettas, and launch a grassroots M9 training program with the local ROTC unit....you know who the future officers of the US Military are? And if you train them individually, maybe they will affect policy changes when they grow up into those positions. Only time will tell. But hey if you aren't successful, at least you tried. Which is better than most people.

[Redhat]

I'll keep saying it until the servers crash-the guns aren't the problem. An M9 is more then sufficient for our current mass-issue needs.

What we need isn't an UberBlaster 2.0-or admittedly the M9A3 even, cool as it is.

What our military needs is ammo, a proper and professional training regimen, and logical maintenance practices.A training curriculum more advanced then "point black handgun thataway, and pull trigger unless at a clearing barrel, where you'll then coon-finger it according to a nonsensical process designed to demote you as noisily as possible."

What is your disagreement with the process at a clearing barrel...?

Thanks

[GardoneVT]

And the choir has heard you, and heard you, and heard you. The real question is, what are you prepared to do about it? .....

Actions speak louder than words. Send a letter to your congressman. Write a letter to Beretta.

Yes ,because the DOD will totally reform its training philosophy with one phone call from Beretta .

ROTC? It'll be half a decade at best before anyone I rub shoulders with here gets in a position to remotely effect policy even in their own squadrons, to say nothing about the entire military. The person making the short term call won't be them.

If the military can circle jerk 'contract proposals' annually , the DoD can find the scratch to budget a proper handgun training course . It would do a lot more good then buying new guns.

[RevolverRob]

Yes ,because the DOD will totally reform its training philosophy with one phone call from Beretta .

ROTC? It'll be half a decade at best before anyone I rub shoulders with here gets in a position to remotely effect policy even in their own squadrons, to say nothing about the entire military. The person making the short term call won't be them.

If the military can circle jerk 'contract proposals' annually , the DoD can find the scratch to budget a proper handgun training course . It would do a lot more good then buying new guns.

Who said changes would happen overnight? Nothing in life is instant and guaranteed, working incrementally to do something about it is better than nothing. Or you could just not doing anything and bitch about it.

But I still remember what my dad told me, "Just remember, hard work is rewarding, because it is hard not easy."

-Rob

[HCM]

What is your disagreement with the process at a clearing barrel...?

Thanks

Not so much the process itself, but the idea of constantly loading and clearing weapons multiple times per day.
Going in and out of the DFAC, offices, etc. Load it, put it in the holster, and leave it the hell alone until you need it.

[breakingtime91]

I always found the comments about pistols interesting in the marine corps. The people who had pistols in my unit (staff and officers) hardly ever left the wire and used the pistol as an excuse not to carry their carbine. For that reason I never really cared what they did with pistols, sure would be nice if they alotted pistols to the
grunts that need them, not POGs and people who go on patrol once a month. I know this will anger some but honestly, if your not doing the fighting, give the guys thay are the gear they may potentionally need.

[Kyle Reese]

The Military Police, perhaps the only group left in the Army at large that gives a rip about pistols, are way too small a group to have any sway, especially in procurement matters.

While Army Military Police got substantially more training on the M9 than most other MOS types who were issued the weapon(quarterly quals), it was still lacking in realism, IMO.


I'll keep saying it until the servers crash-the guns aren't the problem. An M9 is more then sufficient for our current mass-issue needs.

What we need isn't an UberBlaster 2.0-or admittedly the M9A3 even, cool as it is.

What our military needs is ammo, a proper and professional training regimen, and logical maintenance practices.A training curriculum more advanced then "point black handgun thataway, and pull trigger unless at a clearing barrel, where you'll then coon-finger it according to a nonsensical process designed to demote you as noisily as possible."

Revamping decades of institutional incompetence is much harder than talking about procuring new toys and debating the merits of the "stoppin' power" of the "fourdee fahhhhhve". Since we're transitioning to a "peacetime Army" (how I loathe that term) again, I doubt that individual handgun training even makes it on the top 50 list of things to get done by the brass for 2015.


What is your disagreement with the process at a clearing barrel...?

I thought that the emphasis on mindlessly loading / unloading it prior to entering buildings at the clearing barrel accounted for the majority of ND's. It's silly, especially in a conflict zone.

[Redhat]

Not so much the process itself, but the idea of constantly loading and clearing weapons multiple times per day.
Going in and out of the DFAC, offices, etc. Load it, put it in the holster, and leave it the hell alone until you need it.

I do agree it gives more opportunity to mess up....especially when troops are in a hurry / impatient / tired. I was actually asking what disagreement he had with the steps of the procedure...if that's what he was talking about.


I thought that the emphasis on mindlessly loading / unloading it prior to entering buildings at the clearing barrel accounted for the majority of ND's. It's silly, especially in a conflict zone.

Why is it any more silly in a conflict zone? Is there a good reason to do it anywhere? I'm unfamiliar with the Army way so I have no idea what their logic is behind such requirements.

I's also be interested in hearing (1) why a "grunt" would need a pistol as someone above posted and (2) what your ideas would be on an appropriate pistol training program for the troops?

Thanks

[Jeep]

[QUOTE=Redhat;289628 Why is it any more silly in a conflict zone? Is there a good reason to do it anywhere? I'm unfamiliar with the Army way so I have no idea what their logic is behind such requirements.

I's also be interested in hearing (1) why a "grunt" would need a pistol as someone above posted and (2) what your ideas would be on an appropriate pistol training program for the troops?

Thanks[/QUOTE]

Here are my 2 cents:

1. Except for conflict zones, MP's and certain special details, Big Army pretty much never keeps its weapons loaded so there aren't clearing barrels around.

2. Grunts need pistols because primary weapons can go down for a variety of reasons and being weaponless and in close contact with real bad guys isn't a good idea. (However, the weight of a M9 will keep many grunts who are walking up and down hills from carrying one). Pistols are also nice to have when some of your local allies have a tendency to go all jihad on you inside the wire.

3. Training needs to teach the DA shot and train the troops to hit the target multiple times. 500 rounds of training ammo per year wouldn't be too much. Right now the fortunate probably get 50 rounds.

[Kevin B.]

Nevermind.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Didn't the Army put the program on hold to rewrite the specs for companies?

[Redhat]

Here are my 2 cents:

...

3. Training needs to teach the DA shot and train the troops to hit the target multiple times. 500 rounds of training ammo per year wouldn't be too much. Right now the fortunate probably get 50 rounds.

Well since round count isn't necessarily an indicator of good training, I was hoping to hear more detail on what skills you guys think they should spend their rounds on, how often training should be conducted and what standards (score percentage wise) would meet the objectives?

[Jeep]

I'm not really worried about standards, since the Army will then teach to the test no matter how artificial it is.

As for round count, it isn't necessarily an indicator of good training but it is absolutely critical for basic familiarization and that is what I think is needed most. The troops have to know what the pistol can and can't do. So I'd have them shoot several times a year, repeatedly practicing the DA/SA transition to the point they no longer dread the DA pull. And I'd have them practice putting multiple rounds in human size targets from 3-25 meters--and I'd start and concentrate on the shorter distances until they could get something like a group. No sense wasting ammo at 25 meters when they can barely hit the target at 5. Too often many don't come even close to hitting at 25 meters (though that might not be what their official score says).

At which point there wouldn't be many rounds left in the allocation--but they would know the pistol better and feel better about their ability with it. I'd much rather have troops who have some level of basic comfort with the pistol than have a qualifying score that has a good chance of having dubious legitimacy.

[Redhat]

I'm not really worried about standards, since the Army will then teach to the test no matter how artificial it is.

As for round count, it isn't necessarily an indicator of good training but it is absolutely critical for basic familiarization and that is what I think is needed most. The troops have to know what the pistol can and can't do. So I'd have them shoot several times a year, repeatedly practicing the DA/SA transition to the point they no longer dread the DA pull. And I'd have them practice putting multiple rounds in human size targets from 3-25 meters--and I'd start and concentrate on the shorter distances until they could get something like a group. No sense wasting ammo at 25 meters when they can barely hit the target at 5. Too often many don't come even close to hitting at 25 meters (though that might not be what their official score says).

At which point there wouldn't be many rounds left in the allocation--but they would know the pistol better and feel better about their ability with it. I'd much rather have troops who have some level of basic comfort with the pistol than have a qualifying score that has a good chance of having dubious legitimacy.

If you have a lack of integrity within the instructor group...it doesn't matter what "course" you set up. Also, I'm not against teaching to the test. IF the objectives are properly developed, they will always build towards passing the test. Don't like the standards...then they can be changed to require what ever skills you want the troops to learn.

[RevolverRob]

I honestly, just think the military eliminate pistols entirely. They can phase in 10.5" M4s for those who need guns but can't carry a regular size M4. Spec-Ops can have whatever it wants. M&Ps can have whatever they want. M&Ps should have same pistol training the mirrors federal LE.

Problem solved.

[LSP972]

Didn't the Army put the program on hold to rewrite the specs for companies?

<<Overheard in a shitter at the S.H.O.T. Show, third stall down on the left...>>

"Big Army postponed the RFP to allow Beretta catch its breath; plus, they (Beretta) have a completely new modular pistol waiting in the wings, should they need it!"

Told to me at lunch today by someone who was actually at S.H.O.T. and said this info came from a Beretta rep...;)

.

[Kyle Reese]

I honestly, just think the military eliminate pistols entirely. They can phase in 10.5" M4s for those who need guns but can't carry a regular size M4. Spec-Ops can have whatever it wants. M&Ps can have whatever they want. M&Ps should have same pistol training the mirrors federal LE.

Problem solved.

What would we talk about on the Internet, then? Our feelings? :cool: I agree that M&P's should have sidearms that are mechanically accurate at 25M.

[Jeep]

If you have a lack of integrity within the instructor group...it doesn't matter what "course" you set up. Also, I'm not against teaching to the test. IF the objectives are properly developed, they will always build towards passing the test. Don't like the standards...then they can be changed to require what ever skills you want the troops to learn.


My experience is that when there is a widespread lack of integrity, it is generally a command, and not a trainer, issue. Usually it involves requiring various levels of command to do things that are impossible or close to it. Some commanders resist the temptation, others don't, and when they don't numbers get fudged on less important matters and pistols aren't considered important in Big Army. Go to the direct action company in a SF Group and pistol training will be an important matter. In a maintenance company it won't be.

As for standards, I really think we have too many of them already. Too many tests on a wide variety of subjects, and that can get in the way of real combat readiness. For most of Big Army troops, getting comfortable with the M9 is the real hurdle. Teach that--particularly the DA/SA transition and effective use of the safety, and you will have accomplished a lot. Let combat arms troops qualify with their primary weapon and familiarize with the M9 to a level of reasonable comfort.

[Jeep]

I honestly, just think the military eliminate pistols entirely. They can phase in 10.5" M4s for those who need guns but can't carry a regular size M4. Spec-Ops can have whatever it wants. M&Ps can have whatever they want. M&Ps should have same pistol training the mirrors federal LE.

Problem solved.

Not for tankers, it isn't. They need some pistols, as do many denizens of armored vehicles.

[RevolverRob]

Not for tankers, it isn't. They need some pistols, as do many denizens of armored vehicles.

Don't tank crews get issued rifles these days? Most armored vehicle drivers and occupants do, my best friend was a driver, two tours in Iraq, an M4 with a collapsed stock was what he carried, he was never issued a pistol. Most of the vehicles have rifle racks now, too. Admitedly, grabbing a rifle when your tank or truck is burning up, isn't ideal. But I am also unsure of the number of incidents like that, which were resolved with a handgun after the armored vehicle exploded.

[Suvorov]

Don't tank crews get issued rifles these days? Most armored vehicle drivers and occupants do, my best friend was a driver, two tours in Iraq, an M4 with a collapsed stock was what he carried, he was never issued a pistol. Most of the vehicles have rifle racks now, too. Admitedly, grabbing a rifle when your tank or truck is burning up, isn't ideal. But I am also unsure of the number of incidents like that, which were resolved with a handgun after the armored vehicle exploded.

Per to TOE (organization and equipment list), each tank is equipped with an M4/M16 (usually issued to the loader). Each tank crewman (M1, the MGS may be different) is issued an M9 as their primary small arm. The fact is that as a tanker, I NEED a pistol. Rifles or even SMGs are great from the extra power standpoint, but they will get in the way. I want something that will always be on me as I jump off and back on multiple times a day (as a unit leader) or don't have to worry about grabbing as I'm escaping a burning tank.

[Timbonez]

I honestly, just think the military eliminate pistols entirely. They can phase in 10.5" M4s for those who need guns but can't carry a regular size M4. Spec-Ops can have whatever it wants. M&Ps can have whatever they want. M&Ps should have same pistol training the mirrors federal LE.

Problem solved.

And what about aircrew?

[Redhat]

And what about aircrew?

What's your opinion? Are you happy with the M9 and the training program?

[RevolverRob]

Per to TOE (organization and equipment list), each tank is equipped with an M4/M16 (usually issued to the loader). Each tank crewman (M1, the MGS may be different) is issued an M9 as their primary small arm. The fact is that as a tanker, I NEED a pistol. Rifles or even SMGs are great from the extra power standpoint, but they will get in the way. I want something that will always be on me as I jump off and back on multiple times a day (as a unit leader) or don't have to worry about grabbing as I'm escaping a burning tank.


And what about aircrew?

So as tank crew and aircrew - is the M9 sufficient for your needs? Would shooting training equivalent to Federal LE training work for most of your handgun shooting needs? I admit that training is only marginally better than current Mil.

In short - if the military only issued handguns to tank crew, aircrew, and M&Ps and stopped issuing them to desk jockeys - and switched to Federal LE training program, would that sufficiently meet handgun needs?

[Jeep]

So as tank crew and aircrew - is the M9 sufficient for your needs? Would shooting training equivalent to Federal LE training work for most of your handgun shooting needs? I admit that training is only marginally better than current Mil.

In short - if the military only issued handguns to tank crew, aircrew, and M&Ps and stopped issuing them to desk jockeys - and switched to Federal LE training program, would that sufficiently meet handgun needs?

I'm not sure of what the Federal LE standards are (though I recently saw a Fed who couldn't hit a target at 10 meters and who bounced rounds off the floor), but my guess is that there is neither money nor training time for that. The crew of an armored vehicle needs to spend most of their time training on the vehicles' weapons. They need to be comfortable enough with whatever pistol they have to be able to use it somewhat effectively at close ranges.

Now, I think more pistol training than that would be a good thing--I think becoming a good shot with a pistol not only increases your confidence but helps you become a better shot with most other weapons, including the main gun of a tank. But, as mentioned elsewhere here, I think comfort with the weapon is an acceptable result, and yes I think an M9 is enough.

However, I also think infantry needs a backup weapon at times, especially when fighting people who will torture and behead you if they capture you. The M9 is heavy for an infantry weapon when you are carrying lots of stuff for any distance--a G19 with a safety would be better--but it is what we have.

[Suvorov]

So as tank crew and aircrew - is the M9 sufficient for your needs? Would shooting training equivalent to Federal LE training work for most of your handgun shooting needs? I admit that training is only marginally better than current Mil.

In short - if the military only issued handguns to tank crew, aircrew, and M&Ps and stopped issuing them to desk jockeys - and switched to Federal LE training program, would that sufficiently meet handgun needs?

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the difference in training I received in Officer Basic Course on the M9 and the handgun training I received more than a decade later at FLETC were night and day. *IF* the Army were to adopt the type of training that FLETC has for every soldier issued an M9 it would be a HUGE improvement. If the Army would train every soldier carrying the M9 with the degree of zeal that they do the M16, it would also be an excellent start. I'd even be happy if the Army would send every Armor NCO and Officer to a weekend long Tactical Pistol course like Paul Howe's for them to bring back and teach the soldiers what they learned. As I saw it (and be mindfull that I have been out for nearly 10 years), it was the blind leading the blind. What is really sad is that that the Army Pistol Manual FM23-35 is actually pretty good but it seemed no one bothered to read or follow it. In my opinion, the knowledge is out there (be it simple manuals, Marksmanship support units (SART), or HSLD outside instructors), it simply is that there is an institutional bias to simply assuming soldiers can shoot the handgun and equating a qualifying score to being adequately trained.

As far as the M9 goes, I like the M9 and I think it meets my needs as far as a 9mm handgun goes. I think that while it has some known issues, they can largely be worked around with proper training and maintenance. I think that the M9A3 would do a lot to improve the known issues with the M9.

As I mentioned, if I'm jumped while going between my tanks or have to jump from a burning tank, I want something attached to me. SMGs and Rifles while offering more advantages may not be available when I need one, but a pistol will be. So while I'm all for equipping tankers with something like an MP5K, I wouldn't want one in lieu of the pistol.

P.S. Redhat, please clear your inbox.

[Redhat]

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the difference in training I received in Officer Basic Course on the M9 and the handgun training I received more than a decade later at FLETC were night and day. *IF* the Army were to adopt the type of training that FLETC has for every soldier issued an M9 it would be a HUGE improvement. If the Army would train every soldier carrying the M9 with the degree of zeal that they do the M16, it would also be an excellent start. I'd even be happy if the Army would send every Armor NCO and Officer to a weekend long Tactical Pistol course like Paul Howe's for them to bring back and teach the soldiers what they learned. As I saw it (and be mindfull that I have been out for nearly 10 years), it was the blind leading the blind. What is really sad is that that the Army Pistol Manual FM23-35 is actually pretty good but it seemed no one bothered to read or follow it. In my opinion, the knowledge is out there (be it simple manuals, Marksmanship support units (SART), or HSLD outside instructors), it simply is that there is an institutional bias to simply assuming soldiers can shoot the handgun and equating a qualifying score to being adequately trained.

As far as the M9 goes, I like the M9 and I think it meets my needs as far as a 9mm handgun goes. I think that while it has some known issues, they can largely be worked around with proper training and maintenance. I think that the M9A3 would do a lot to improve the known issues with the M9.

As I mentioned, if I'm jumped while going between my tanks or have to jump from a burning tank, I want something attached to me. SMGs and Rifles while offering more advantages may not be available when I need one, but a pistol will be. So while I'm all for equipping tankers with something like an MP5K, I wouldn't want one in lieu of the pistol.

P.S. Redhat, please clear your inbox.

Done...send it!

[TGS]

As I mentioned, if I'm jumped while going between my tanks or have to jump from a burning tank, I want something attached to me. SMGs and Rifles while offering more advantages may not be available when I need one, but a pistol will be. So while I'm all for equipping tankers with something like an MP5K, I wouldn't want one in lieu of the pistol.


What about an MP7, which can be worn on the chest......or even smaller, a B&T MP9, which can be worn in a thigh holster?

[JSGlock34]

In short - if the military only issued handguns to tank crew, aircrew, and M&Ps and stopped issuing them to desk jockeys - and switched to Federal LE training program, would that sufficiently meet handgun needs?

In defense of the "desk jockeys", they tend to be where the "green on blue" incidents take place. I have no problem with issuing infantrymen a pistol if they want to carry one, but every soldier in a combat area should be armed and able to defend themselves regardless of MOS and duty assignment.

[GardoneVT]

What about an MP7, which can be worn on the chest......or even smaller, a B&T MP9, which can be worn in a thigh holster?

Itll make a great YouTube video when Airman Schmuckatelli ND's one of those, way things are now WRT to training.

[DocGKR]

TGS--in many ways the small PDW's require even more investment in training resources than a pistol or carbine given the need to use them in auto for optimal on target effects.

[TGS]

TGS--in many ways the small PDW's require even more investment in training resources than a pistol or carbine given the need to use them in auto for optimal on target effects.

I understand thats the case with the MP7.

But the Brugger and Thomet MP9? Issue a semi-only version. It's still shooting the same thing as the pistol, just with a third point of contact and the resultant much better accuracy. No need for auto.

m39/b or some other ammunition can be issued for conventional warfare with armored targets.

I'm still unsure as to whether it would be more of a PITA than it's worth to wear a MP9 in B&T's thigh holster, but I'm definitely strongly of the opinion that most people with a pistol in the military should not have a pistol. It's a rabbits foot talisman for the majority of the people carrying them, and increased pistol training is not the answer. I know that sounds like heresy on this forum, but we don't need to saddle most troops, nor our budget, with extra pistol training. That time and money can be spent on much more valuable things.

[Paul]

What about an MP7, which can be worn on the chest......or even smaller, a B&T MP9, which can be worn in a thigh holster?

I haven't shot an MP7, but from shooting an MP9, I could see a lot of this happening. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11fcg543Jow)

[JHC]

I understand thats the case with the MP7.

But the Brugger and Thomet MP9? Issue a semi-only version. It's still shooting the same thing as the pistol, just with a third point of contact and the resultant much better accuracy. No need for auto.

m39/b or some other ammunition can be issued for conventional warfare with armored targets.

I'm still unsure as to whether it would be more of a PITA than it's worth to wear a MP9 in B&T's thigh holster, but I'm definitely strongly of the opinion that most people with a pistol in the military should not have a pistol. It's a rabbits foot talisman for the majority of the people carrying them, and increased pistol training is not the answer. I know that sounds like heresy on this forum, but we don't need to saddle most troops, nor our budget, with extra pistol training. That time and money can be spent on much more valuable things.

I'm definitely of the opposite opinion because one can make nearly the same argument for a large number of civilian LEOs and even more non-LEO civilians who nevertheless manage to save their bacon with a pistol on many occasions.

As far as heresy on PF - how about that basic save your ass with a pistol, isn't rocket science. Shooting to the extreme heights of performance is. I think most troops that can afford the weight ought to be packing an economical modern lightweight service pistol. Partly for the same value as learning combatives; an even less used weapon but one that affects the warrior mindset.

Troops could easily be trained up with a minimum cost and time away from their primary combat skills with all the dead time that resides in a weekly training schedule. Cadre could be certified about as the Army has done with Modern Army Combatives. It would take will from TRADOC and the Commands but not really that much.

I absolutely reject the line of thinking that there are only a tiny sliver of war fighters that warrant the sidearm. Smacks of "the only ones" to me.

[Paul]

That time and money can be spent on much more valuable things.

Unfortunately "more important things" are AR670-1, don't drink in the barracks, don't drink and drive either, don't sexual harrass, don't committ suicide (but don't come to me with your problems, I'm just here to make your life miserable), mow the grass, don't rape, etc etc.

[GardoneVT]

JHC-Agreed.

Disarming the finance troops and the cooks might seem like a good idea, but in the last war -and the ones before that-manpower sometimes required the cooks and the money troops to arm up. When the mission needs extra bodies and the only ones youve got are support troops, they need to be up to speed on the basics.

Further , the need for 24/7 self defense exists in a combat zone equally as it does with the wrong side of Chicago. I also agree the military has plenty of time to execute proper handgun training for ALL members. If we can subject troops to major eye bleed PowerPoint marathons for mandatory "Sexual Assault Coordination " breifings, we can take a few hours each month on M9 time.

[Suvorov]

Unfortunately "more important things" are AR670-1, don't drink in the barracks, don't drink and drive either, don't sexual harrass, don't committ suicide (but don't come to me with your problems, I'm just here to make your life miserable), mow the grass, don't rape, etc etc.

I have said it before and I will say it until the horse we are beating I nothing but dust. The number of times that I had quality small arms training cancelled or severely abridged so that the above sort of classes could be attended was probably the most frustrating thing I dealt with as a combat arms officer. If only the Army looked at small arms training the way they look at PT. There is an institutional aversion to really good training at the line unit level. It really doesn't matter if every soldier is allocated 500 rounds if the only time on the range they get is the 35 rounds it takes to qualify.

[Kevin B.]

Cadre could be certified about as the Army has done with Modern Army Combatives. It would take will from TRADOC and the Commands but not really that much.

Already being done.


JHC-Agreed.

Disarming the finance troops and the cooks might seem like a good idea, but in the last war -and the ones before that-manpower sometimes required the cooks and the money troops to arm up. When the mission needs extra bodies and the only ones youve got are support troops, they need to be up to speed on the basics.

Further , the need for 24/7 self defense exists in a combat zone equally as it does with the wrong side of Chicago. I also agree the military has plenty of time to execute proper handgun training for ALL members. If we can subject troops to major eye bleed PowerPoint marathons for mandatory "Sexual Assault Coordination " breifings, we can take a few hours each month on M9 time.

Interesting as I recall you taking a slightly different position when the topic was military physical fitness.

[Drang]

And what about aircrew?
I know you're asking due to a personal interest, and I have no idea what how the Air Force currently arms flight crew. Plus, my experience is 14 1/2 years out of date, but...
We had racks for M16s in the EH60s... but were issued M9s. Ditto the UH60s. My electronics techs were the only guys with M16s in my platoon. We also had no M60s, no place to mount them on the EHs.
The UHs tended to use their M60Ds for perimeter defense; put on your flight helmet with the NVGs attached and those poor infantryman aggressors had no chance. (I think we blew through a years blank budget in one night...) (Note that Army aviators tend to have this unrealistic idea that they will have, at minimum, one battalion of infantry attached to them for perimeter defense.)

I also agree the military has plenty of time to execute proper handgun training for ALL members. If we can subject troops to major eye bleed PowerPoint marathons for mandatory "Sexual Assault Coordination " breifings, we can take a few hours each month on M9 time.
I don't recall, and am honestly asking: What is your military background?

I have said it before and I will say it until the horse we are beating I nothing but dust. The number of times that I had quality small arms training cancelled or severely abridged so that the above sort of classes could be attended was probably the most frustrating thing I dealt with as a combat arms officer. If only the Army looked at small arms training the way they look at PT. There is an institutional aversion to really good training at the line unit level. It really doesn't matter if every soldier is allocated 500 rounds if the only time on the range they get is the 35 rounds it takes to qualify.
My experience, as noted above, is almost 15 years out of date, but I concur, especially with pistol marksmanship. I was armed with a pistol rather than a rifle four times, twice as non-rated air crew and twice as Company First Sergeant. Each qualification range I went to was different, and I don't just mean the experience was different, but the course of fire was different. As a First Sergeant I nearly bolo'd because I didn't trust the other shooters on the line during the "walk forward and engage your targets" phase...
For the benefit of those with no Army background, before any qual range you allegedly get attend "PMI", "Primary Marksmanship Instruction", which is usually taught by whichever NCO is available. And usually goes over the very basics you were supposed to have internalized in Basic Training, but Big Army is so uninterested in guns and shooting that no one bothers remembering because no one ever even suggests otherwise.
Something I learned about Aviation units: Stuff that is done by an NCO in normal units is usually done by Warrant Officers, because it gives them something to do when they're not burning the tax payers' fuel. So the actuall Armorer duties were performed by... well, it depended. At Ft Cartoon I had an NCO who had been a tanker, the fly boys about creamed themselves because "He was a tanker! He knows all about pistols!"
In Korea PMI was from a KATUSA...
THAT range was interesting. 50 people lined up shoulder-to-shoulder, blasting away with M9s from 25 meters. Over on the right of the line (smirk) were two WO1s, one had been a SEAL, the other a Ranger, and they were doing the Mel Gibson "Lethal Weapon" thing. Everyone else was trying to figure out what the hell position they were supposed to be getting in, because the PMI had neglected to teach us things like "This is the crouching position..."
/WarStories
tl;dr: The Army has written standards for pistol marksmanship, I know it does, I've read them.

However: In the run-up to Iraq War II I was forwarded an email from a retired Sergeant Major who had been contracted to assess training in preparation for same, and one of his Bottom Lines was "We need to stop treating soldiers who like guns and like to shoot like a bunch of militia crazies and/or criminals, and make use of them as training assets."

My take on his take is that, until their is a clear-cut military disaster that can be pinned down to inadequate marksmanship training, rifle and pistol, the Army will continue to look for equipment solutions, because it's easier to get money to throw at your contractor buddies, who will, after all, have retirement jobs for you, than it is to institute effective training.

When Company and Battalion Commanders get graded on their OERs for range results, graded by independent inspectors and/or auditors, they'll care. Until then, the No. 2 pencil reigns supreme. (I suppose these days it's a left click of the mouse...)

[JHC]

Already being done.



FuckinA fuckinA fuckinA!!!!!!

[GardoneVT]

I don't recall, and am honestly asking: What is your military background?

USAF Active Duty, Tactical Finance Desk Warrior.

[JSGlock34]

My major issue with pistol training in the Army was that there was no corollary to a Basic Rifle Marksmanship. My pistol training consisted of a NCO reading a POI out of the manual. He had no more training or experience with the sidearm than I did. After a few dry manipulations of the M9, it was off to the range to qualify. That was it.

At least with the M4/M16 there is a dedicated Basic Rifle Marksmanship program that all recruits receive. And while that program is certainly basic, it provides a foundation so that troops can receive refresher training prior to their annual qualification. There is no such corollary for the vast majority of soldiers who are issued a M9 (the previous cited examples of Military Police who receive pistol training during AIT are an obvious exception).

Unfortunately, I don't see such a program emerging anytime soon though. However, I think the various proposals for a 'train the trainer' construct, where unit level instructors (perhaps at the Company level) can attend a course and receive certification, have merit.

[Kevin B.]

My major issue with pistol training in the Army was that there was no corollary to a Basic Rifle Marksmanship. My pistol training consisted of a NCO reading a POI out of the manual. He had no more training or experience with the sidearm than I did. After a few dry manipulations of the M9, it was off to the range to qualify. That was it.

At least with the M4/M16 there is a dedicated Basic Rifle Marksmanship program that all recruits receive. And while that program is certainly basic, it provides a foundation so that troops can receive refresher training prior to their annual qualification. There is no such corollary for the vast majority of soldiers who are issued a M9 (the previous cited examples of Military Police who receive pistol training during AIT are an obvious exception).

FM 3.23-35 does a fair job of covering basic pistol marksmanship. Room for improvement? Absolutely, but lack of information is not the issue. The issue is leaders do not take the time to adequately prepare for PMI and their supervisors allow them to get away with it.

In fact, much of the criticism about training and maintenance is really an issue of leadership.


Unfortunately, I don't see such a program emerging anytime soon though. However, I think the various proposals for a 'train the trainer' construct, where unit level instructors (perhaps at the Company level) can attend a course and receive certification, have merit.

As I said earlier, this is already being done.

[Suvorov]

FM 3.23-35 does a fair job of covering basic pistol marksmanship. Room for improvement? Absolutely, but lack of information is not the issue. The issue is leaders do not take the time to adequately prepare for PMI and their supervisors allow them to get away with it.

In fact, much of the criticism about training and maintenance is really an issue of leadership.

.

As I said earlier, this is already being done.

All fine and good as long as the Field grade leadership is on board and the time is allocated for these "trainers" to do their job. That IMHO is going to be the challenge. 10 years ago my State had Small Arms Readiness Teams available to any unit requesting them, but they were under utilized. As you have said, I have said, and others have said, the knowledge and information is out there, but - until the leadership is forced to take small arms training seriously in the Big Army (I realize where you come from things are entirely different), things are not going to get any better no matter what gun they have.


Anyhow, the horse is dead and I'm beginning to repeat myself like the old fool in the corner. I won't be able to influence the Army one bit. All I can do is enjoy shooting and ensure that my children learn to shoot well so that if they choose to go into the military, they will already have the fundamentals they may not otherwise get. I really hope that 13 years of fighting in CQB environments has affected the Army in a positive light, but now that peace has broken out, I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Kevin B.]

No argument. As I said, it is largely a leadership issue. While I think the FGs have a role, I really think it is a company-level issue.

My last assignment in a conventional unit was as a company commander. We had exceptional marksmanship training. I planned and resourced the training. My NCOs executed it. I had a couple of epic battles with the S3 and got my ass chewed a few times. So what? They could not argue with results. The other companies in the BN were competent but we were in a completely different league when it came to shooting.

Command emphasis at the company level (not just me but all of my company leadership) is what made the difference.

[JHC]

FM 3.23-35 does a fair job of covering basic pistol marksmanship. Room for improvement? Absolutely, but lack of information is not the issue. The issue is leaders do not take the time to adequately prepare for PMI and their supervisors allow them to get away with it.

In fact, much of the criticism about training and maintenance is really an issue of leadership.

.

As I said earlier, this is already being done.

When my son was a PL in a Cav troop he ran an M9 range in their pre-deployment train up and due to some other circumstance the NCO that would have run the PowerPoint presentation and instruction was unavailable he jumped on it. He improvised in some modern "PF consensus" type stuff for lack of a shorter way to say it. He explained the whys and demoed. An old salt tagging along to Qual pointed out the variance from the FM but the class was digging it and they picked it up and a good time was had by all.

I saw pics of their ongoing M9 range while in AFG on the unit FB page and saw one of their 1SG s running his gun - looking like he was a student of our top trainers and Soldiers shooting SHO from laying supine etc. Didn't look to bad at all.

[Odin Bravo One]

Greatest Officer I ever knew was a Marine Engineer Battalion Commander tasked with an infantry mission, who paid out of his pocket for several of his SNCO's to attend some private training, well in advance of their deployment date, IOT "TTT", and bring back PMI's who could not only shoot possible's on the KD range, but also keep training relevant to their upcoming mission.

He may have been on the losing team, but Rommel's wisdom lives on: "The best form of troop welfare is first class training, for this prevents un-necessary casualties".

[imp1295]

Some very interesting discussion.

I will completely agree that command emphasis and "getting on board" is the most critical step. I've placed an empahsis on it in my outfit and my subordinate commanders seem to be on board based on what they are focusing on.

We will do that "mandatory" qual as the Army tells us. But after taken Combative Pistol 1 and 2 I've directed my guys to start using the FBI-Qual as a training and qualification method.

We stress dry-fire. But, I still have little faith that my guys really believe in it. The easy part is getting the resources, except that I have to place many of my eggs in one basket due to STRAC only allowing for minimal ammunition commensurate with the Army stated qualification standards.

But, I know that I'm a minority when it comes to marksmanship training, PMI emphasis and thinking about what is really relevant as opposed to just getting "# of qualified on assigned weapon" stats for Command and Staff/QTBs.

It does help that when our guys and gals go out the door their primary weapon will be a pistol due to mission profile etc.

Great discussion though and as always it is informative to see what the various opinions on regarding commanders and their emphasis. I can't disagree, but don't lump us all in the same basket. The issue is an organizational one for sure, and material solutions have always seem to be the default - at least what I've seen in the last 23 years.

[Jeep]

Some very interesting discussion.

I will completely agree that command emphasis and "getting on board" is the most critical step. I've placed an empahsis on it in my outfit and my subordinate commanders seem to be on board based on what they are focusing on.

We will do that "mandatory" qual as the Army tells us. But after taken Combative Pistol 1 and 2 I've directed my guys to start using the FBI-Qual as a training and qualification method.

We stress dry-fire. But, I still have little faith that my guys really believe in it. The easy part is getting the resources, except that I have to place many of my eggs in one basket due to STRAC only allowing for minimal ammunition commensurate with the Army stated qualification standards.

But, I know that I'm a minority when it comes to marksmanship training, PMI emphasis and thinking about what is really relevant as opposed to just getting "# of qualified on assigned weapon" stats for Command and Staff/QTBs.

It does help that when our guys and gals go out the door their primary weapon will be a pistol due to mission profile etc.

Great discussion though and as always it is informative to see what the various opinions on regarding commanders and their emphasis. I can't disagree, but don't lump us all in the same basket. The issue is an organizational one for sure, and material solutions have always seem to be the default - at least what I've seen in the last 23 years.

imp 1295: Well done and keep it up. There is a good chance that one of these days some of your guys, or guys they have trained in turn, are going to live because of the training you are providing them now.

[GardoneVT]

Some very interesting discussion.

I will completely agree that command emphasis and "getting on board" is the most critical step. I've placed an empahsis on it in my outfit and my subordinate commanders seem to be on board based on what they are focusing on.

We will do that "mandatory" qual as the Army tells us. But after taken Combative Pistol 1 and 2 I've directed my guys to start using the FBI-Qual as a training and qualification method.

We stress dry-fire. But, I still have little faith that my guys really believe in it. The easy part is getting the resources, except that I have to place many of my eggs in one basket due to STRAC only allowing for minimal ammunition commensurate with the Army stated qualification standards.

But, I know that I'm a minority when it comes to marksmanship training, PMI emphasis and thinking about what is really relevant as opposed to just getting "# of qualified on assigned weapon" stats for Command and Staff/QTBs.

It does help that when our guys and gals go out the door their primary weapon will be a pistol due to mission profile etc.

Great discussion though and as always it is informative to see what the various opinions on regarding commanders and their emphasis. I can't disagree, but don't lump us all in the same basket. The issue is an organizational one for sure, and material solutions have always seem to be the default - at least what I've seen in the last 23 years.

Wish my AF unit commander shared your view. Unfortunately, many folks from my squadron went overseas with zero stateside M9 time. Better believe by Curtiss LeMay's ghost their cultural sensitivity PowerPoints were checked off before departure.

Edit-heres an idea cribbed from the anti-DUI campaign: put a sign in front of the entry and exit roads of the base showing the squadron with the lowest M9 Quals and the one with the best. When the dependapottami can see how much your unit sucks at shooting , it'll make a nice motivator for the bosses to keep their troops proficient.

[TGS]

JHC-Agreed.

Disarming the finance troops and the cooks might seem like a good idea, but in the last war -and the ones before that-manpower sometimes required the cooks and the money troops to arm up. When the mission needs extra bodies and the only ones youve got are support troops, they need to be up to speed on the basics.

Further , the need for 24/7 self defense exists in a combat zone equally as it does with the wrong side of Chicago. I also agree the military has plenty of time to execute proper handgun training for ALL members. If we can subject troops to major eye bleed PowerPoint marathons for mandatory "Sexual Assault Coordination " breifings, we can take a few hours each month on M9 time.

Disarming support troops is completely different and quite extreme compared to what I stated, but okay.

[Paul]

A stark reminder that every one is fair game in a combat zone, 3 American contractors were killed in Kabul (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/three-american-contractors-killed-in-shooting-at-afghanistan-airport/) Soft targets in rear areas are still legitimate military targets, especially when the enemy can't go toe to toe with the hard m'fers on the front lines. Politically anti-coalition forces have had much greater success with green-on-blue attacks than fighting troops in the field.

While pistols are of questionable value against a rogue guard with body armor, a helmet and a rifle. I'd much rather have the image projected by troops with some training carrying around a loaded M9 and going about their business, than troops that act like they are some sort of victim for having to lug around a rifle as some sort of punishment in a rear area fuck-fuck game. Unfortunately there are a lot of guys that just don't have a mindset to stay alive. Neither group is going to pass as mean killing machines, but one group looks like it can fight back and one group looks like victims.

[Jeep]

Disarming support troops is completely different and quite extreme compared to what I stated, but okay.

How about a compromise solution? Let's ban power point presentations in the military.

[Suvorov]

How about a compromise solution? Let's ban power point presentations in the military.

How would anyone above E4 ever get promoted then?

[Drang]

How about a compromise solution? Let's ban power point presentations in the military.

Jeep for Chief of Staff!

20 years ago...

[Trooper224]

How would anyone above E4 ever get promoted then?

Pretty much the status quo in law enforcement too. The words "Power Point" make me cringe.

[GardoneVT]

How about a compromise solution? Let's ban power point presentations in the military.

10 slide limit.
No assault presentations.
Carry of a flash drive holding more then 10 slides without a permit is prohibited.

Law Enforcement officers exempt.;)

[Drang]

10 slide limit.
No assault presentations.
Carry of a flash drive holding more then 10 slides without a permit is prohibited.

Law Enforcement officers exempt.;)

Officers must have their PowerPoints approved by a senior NCO with an approved retirement date.

[JHC]

Officers must have their PowerPoints approved by a senior NCO with an approved retirement date.

Ha! Fits the meme but is f'd up like polio. ;)

[5pins]

House Wants to Cut Army’s M9 Replacement Money.

http://kitup.military.com/2015/05/house-cut-armys-m9-replacement.html

[BWT]

House Wants to Cut Army’s M9 Replacement Money.

http://kitup.military.com/2015/05/house-cut-armys-m9-replacement.html

Are you talking about the United States Military and the United States House of Representatives?

I am STUNNED. ;) I figured I'd try some sarcasm out early this morning :cool:.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

9mm contributes less to global warming. That explains it all. Think of all the different amounts of burned products that bigger rounds contribute.

Actually, just buy Glock 19s. See I saved a zillion dollars of research.

[Jeep]

House Wants to Cut Army’s M9 Replacement Money.

http://kitup.military.com/2015/05/house-cut-armys-m9-replacement.html

Well someone is having an attack of common sense. Now maybe Big Army can consider the A3 upgrade rationally and test to see if it is really an upgrade.

[Suvorov]

Well someone is having an attack of common sense. Now maybe Big Army can consider the A3 upgrade rationally and test to see if it is really an upgrade.

That's what I was thinking. Against my better judgement I ventured into the comment section and to my surprise, there was a lot of good discussion there.

[5pins]

Quick up date.

http://soldiersystems.net/2015/06/17/us-army-issues-draft-rfp-for-modular-handgun/

[Chuck Haggard]

I knew that was coming out some time ago, but I suspect that once again the program will get cut.

We've seen the proposals for new pistols before, what we haven't seen before is that they do not have to be 9mm this time (would be retarded to go to .40 or back to .45 IMHO....), nor have we seen "special purpose", aka JHP, ammunition being mentioned before.

[Jeep]

I knew that was coming out some time ago, but I suspect that once again the program will get cut.

We've seen the proposals for new pistols before, what we haven't seen before is that they do not have to be 9mm this time (would be retarded to go to .40 or back to .45 IMHO....), nor have we seen "special purpose", aka JHP, ammunition being mentioned before.

To me it is incredible that the Pentagon is cutting the A-10 but still thinks it has money to spend on new pistols of all things. And the idea that we need a more "accurate" pistol than the M9 is simply nuts. The current M9 might be too big and heavy for my taste, but it is an inherently accurate pistol. Updating it (at less cost!) makes sense but we have hundreds of billions of spending priorities that should be met before we spend dime one on an entirely new pistol.

[Chuck Haggard]

Agreed, especially about the A10, but then the "fighter mafia" has been entrenched in the Air Force since well before the time of Col. Boyd, and to the nation's detriment.


Too many people in the .mil small arms game who are there for a career and busy work, not what's best for the troops.

[Drang]

To me it is incredible that the Pentagon is cutting the A-10 but still thinks it has money to spend on new pistols of all things.
The Air Force has always hated the A10. It's for a mission the Air Force doesn't like, and it's too robust an airframe, so there's no money for maintenance, which means no retirement jobs for generals.
/derail
Concur that this may get nowhere, or it may take so long to complete testing that it winds up being like the contracts to replace the Springfield with the Garand, the decision had been made years before but troops at Schofield Barracks were shooting at Zeros and Vals with '03s.

...“the XM17 will provide Warfighters with greater accuracy, target acquisition, ergonomic design.”
With Target Acquisition, I wonder if they're expecting the ability to mount RDS? Or just a Pic Rail for a laser?

“The new handgun will also be more reliable, durable and easier to maintain.”
Glock can win there, but I wonder if they'll won the "ergonomic design" competition?

This is a case where reading comments has a minimum of Derp: someone actually seems to have read the hundreds of pages in the proposal and reports that there is a requirement for an external safety. Does Glock qualify? Another reports that Glock engineers says they can modify a Glock 18 selector to provide a 1911-style safety.

Myself, I think the S&W M&P would be a more ergonomically friendly design, a unit armorer can swap out grip modules. But I'm just a retired NCO who never got comfortable with the Beretta...

[HCM]

The Air Force has always hated the A10. It's for a mission the Air Force doesn't like, and it's too robust an airframe, so there's no money for maintenance, which means no retirement jobs for generals.
/derail
Concur that this may get nowhere, or it may take so long to complete testing that it winds up being like the contracts to replace the Springfield with the Garand, the decision had been made years before but troops at Schofield Barracks were shooting at Zeros and Vals with '03s.

With Target Acquisition, I wonder if they're expecting the ability to mount RDS? Or just a Pic Rail for a laser?

Glock can win there, but I wonder if they'll won the "ergonomic design" competition?

This is a case where reading comments has a minimum of Derp: someone actually seems to have read the hundreds of pages in the proposal and reports that there is a requirement for an external safety. Does Glock qualify? Another reports that Glock engineers says they can modify a Glock 18 selector to provide a 1911-style safety.

Myself, I think the S&W M&P would be a more ergonomically friendly design, a unit armorer can swap out grip modules. But I'm just a retired NCO who never got comfortable with the Beretta...

Glock has produce pistols before with manual safeties for military and police contracts. I believe that was one of the original requirements for the British Army handgun trials, though they eventually went with the standard Gen 4 G17.

I agree the Smith & Wesson M and P is a good design but the execution / production has been inconsistent. Larry Vickers said it best "the MNP could've been a great handgun at Smith and Wesson was willing to spend 50 or $60 more per unit in production."

I really think the SIG P320 has a good chance - it seems to be the best fit for what is described in the RFP

[Dave J]

To me it is incredible that the Pentagon is cutting the A-10 but still thinks it has money to spend on new pistols of all things. And the idea that we need a more "accurate" pistol than the M9 is simply nuts. The current M9 might be too big and heavy for my taste, but it is an inherently accurate pistol. Updating it (at less cost!) makes sense but we have hundreds of billions of spending priorities that should be met before we spend dime one on an entirely new pistol.


One thing that's helping to push this along is the cost to refurb a Beretta is higher than what they expect to buy the new pistol for. IF the numbers I heard mentioned were correct, and not fudged to help justify the project, then buying new pistols actually makes financial sense.

Unfortunately, there is a faction really pushing the caliber change. I got the impression that they wanted to be able say "x.xx% more stopping power" or whatever the politically correct term for lethality is these days.

Rumor has it the accuracy requirement was at least partially derived from a desire to make damn sure that some POS Hi Point or Taurus wouldn't get selected.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I read from Janes:


The US Army has taken another step towards buying a new XM17 Modular Handgun System (MHS), and announced on 17 June that a draft solicitation was released to industry.

Programme specifications have continued to evolve - the army is hosting its fourth industry day on 7-8 July to evolve them further - as feedback from arms makers have factored into the requirements and the Pentagon decided to allow the use of 'special purpose ammunition'.

Colonel Scott Armstrong, the army's project manager for soldier weapons, said in the announcement that he expects a final solicitation in 2016 followed by a competitive down-select process running through 2017.

Does that mean a move from FMJ?

[Dave J]

I read from Janes:



Does that mean a move from FMJ?

Has to have both FMJ and JHP available. 9, 40, and 45 meet that requirement.

I wouldn't take that as a shift away from FMJ for general purpose forces (unfortunately).

[PPGMD]

Agreed, especially about the A10, but then the "fighter mafia" has been entrenched in the Air Force since well before the time of Col. Boyd, and to the nation's detriment.


Too many people in the .mil small arms game who are there for a career and busy work, not what's best for the troops.

The Fighter Mafia were disciples of Boyd, and were responsible for the A-10.

[Redhat]

The Air Force has always hated the A10. It's for a mission the Air Force doesn't like, and it's too robust an airframe, so there's no money for maintenance, which means no retirement jobs for generals.
/derail
Concur that this may get nowhere, or it may take so long to complete testing that it winds up being like the contracts to replace the Springfield with the Garand, the decision had been made years before but troops at Schofield Barracks were shooting at Zeros and Vals with '03s.

With Target Acquisition, I wonder if they're expecting the ability to mount RDS? Or just a Pic Rail for a laser?

Glock can win there, but I wonder if they'll won the "ergonomic design" competition?

This is a case where reading comments has a minimum of Derp: someone actually seems to have read the hundreds of pages in the proposal and reports that there is a requirement for an external safety. Does Glock qualify? Another reports that Glock engineers says they can modify a Glock 18 selector to provide a 1911-style safety.

Myself, I think the S&W M&P would be a more ergonomically friendly design, a unit armorer can swap out grip modules. But I'm just a retired NCO who never got comfortable with the Beretta...


How much does the Army care about the Air Force's mission(s)... other than CAS? I like the A-10 by the way.

[Dave J]

How much does the Army care about the Air Force's mission(s)... other than CAS? I like the A-10 by the way.

I can only speak for myself , not the whole Army, but I care quite a bit. Besides CAS, I've used the heck out of air mobility and ISR, and really appreciate us having air superiority/supremacy pretty much anywhere we go. I'm also fully supportive of bad guys getting blown up via precision strike and AI before they get a chance to play in the close fight. And having GPS and reliable SATCOM is a good thing too. The cyber stuff...well that's all voodoo magic that I don't understand anyway :)

However, trying to sell the F-35 as a substitute for the A-10 is more than a little disengenuous IMHO.

Anyway, we should probably steer this thread back to the MHS.

[JHC]

They could adopt a 9mm FMJ flat point and call it more lethal. Might be hokey but would be smarter than .40

[Redhat]

I can only speak for myself , not the whole Army, but I care quite a bit. Besides CAS, I've used the heck out of air mobility and ISR, and really appreciate us having air superiority/supremacy pretty much anywhere we go. I'm also fully supportive of bad guys getting blown up via precision strike and AI before they get a chance to play in the close fight. And having GPS and reliable SATCOM is a good thing too. The cyber stuff...well that's all voodoo magic that I don't understand anyway :)

However, trying to sell the F-35 as a substitute for the A-10 is more than a little disengenuous IMHO.

Anyway, we should probably steer this thread back to the MHS.

MHS? Well anything with improved capabilities/ergonomics sounds good to me...be interesting to see how it plays out. I do find the numbers interesting. Who in the Army actually carries a pistol anyway?

[Jeep]

Armored guys--tankers, cavalry guys--often do as their only weapon. So do MP's and some engineers and artillery guys. Infantry these days often carries a pistol as a back up weapon. The M9 is really too heavy for that use (A G19 would be far better) but the M9 is fine for pretty much everyone else.

[Dagga Boy]

MHS? Well anything with improved capabilities/ergonomics sounds good to me...be interesting to see how it plays out. I do find the numbers interesting. Who in the Army actually carries a pistol anyway?

This is why I am in the "who cares" camp. If we had an organization serious about being a martial organization where most of its members are armed at all times, it would be meaningful. If we can train cops,corrections people, security guards and others to regularly carry a pistol, yet are scared to death of armed soldiers.....sounds like we have a different issue than what pistol is used. Also, as long as they are having to load and unload administratively all the time for those who do carry, and stupidity like being in the field for extended periods with no magazine in the gun ( and wonder why they have reliability and wear issues) will continue to make this a mute issue.

Personally, I would like to see a majority of soldiers in combat type MOS's wearing a belt with UM84 type holster and magazine pouch most of the time. I think it would make our bases more secure and add a level of seriousness about what the military does. Will it require a learning curve, discipline, and training......yea. It is the military, isn't that what is supposed to be going on? Most military cultures in history have carried personal weapons when not in the field with battlefield weapons. I would like to see a return to that. If soldiers cannot be trained and trusted to regularly carry weapons......maybe we are doing something wrong.

[Jeep]

One thing that's helping to push this along is the cost to refurb a Beretta is higher than what they expect to buy the new pistol for. IF the numbers I heard mentioned were correct, and not fudged to help justify the project, then buying new pistols actually makes financial sense.



I have no doubt that this is being said, but I would need to see those numbers to believe them. I have seen too many government numbers like this that make absolutely no sense.

To give one example, I saw DOA boast about a new "green energy" project on some base that would save the Army a nice amount of cash. Now admittedly, this is "green energy" and those projects are really run by the political types and not career people so you can't expect them to be correct.

Still, the Army said that the project would save it X hundred thousand per year over the life of the project (the magic green energy devices were predicted to last only a certain number of years). Now the chance that any device will work at peak efficiency for years is approximately 0%, and that is what these calculations were based upon. But, if you accepted this nonsense as true and multiplied the X hundred thousand per year time the number of years it was (optimistically) expected to operate you still came to far less than the upfront cost to the Army.

Again, it is a "green energy" project so you can't expect much, but the press release gave you all the numbers you needed to show that its claims to save money were absolutely wrong and no one in the press seems to have done the math and realized that the Army was spending through the nose on the project and not saving anything.

You've probably seen the same thing.

Anyway, no way that refurbing a Beretta actually costs more than buying a new MHS pistol, magazines, holsters and the cost of new fam. fire training.

[GardoneVT]

I have no doubt that this is being said, but I would need to see those numbers to believe them. I have seen too many government numbers like this that make absolutely no sense.



In the specific case of the M9,it makes sense. The DoD guns are in baaaaaaad shape.

A civilian M9 sells retail ~$600. While a new frame and small parts themselves could add up to less then that, the guns won't assemble themselves.

Backing up for a moment- first the DoD has to determine which guns are busted , which guns can be fixed, and which M9s don't need work. That task right there eats up a pile of labor dollars.Even if the military doesn't pay hourly or overtime, bodies sifting M9 parts are bodies unable to do their regular jobs.

Then the guns which need work have to be transported and fixed.

Then they need to be tested for function afterwards. More bodies, more $$, more time.

Add it all up & marginal cost it , and buying a new gun at the logistical level our DoD plays at makes fiscal sense.

[Drifting Fate]

This is why I am in the "who cares" camp. If we had an organization serious about being a martial organization where most of its members are armed at all times, it would be meaningful. If we can train cops,corrections people, security guards and others to regularly carry a pistol, yet are scared to death of armed soldiers.....sounds like we have a different issue than what pistol is used. Also, as long as they are having to load and unload administratively all the time for those who do carry, and stupidity like being in the field for extended periods with no magazine in the gun ( and wonder why they have reliability and wear issues) will continue to make this a mute issue.

Personally, I would like to see a majority of soldiers in combat type MOS's wearing a belt with UM84 type holster and magazine pouch most of the time. I think it would make our bases more secure and add a level of seriousness about what the military does. Will it require a learning curve, discipline, and training......yea. It is the military, isn't that what is supposed to be going on? Most military cultures in history have carried personal weapons when not in the field with battlefield weapons. I would like to see a return to that. If soldiers cannot be trained and trusted to regularly carry weapons......maybe we are doing something wrong.

Agreed, but I think things went to PC hell when we went from the War Department to the Department of Defense, so this isn't a new problem.

[Jeep]

In the specific case of the M9,it makes sense. The DoD guns are in baaaaaaad shape.

A civilian M9 sells retail ~$600. While a new frame and small parts themselves could add up to less then that, the guns won't assemble themselves.

Backing up for a moment- first the DoD has to determine which guns are busted , which guns can be fixed, and which M9s don't need work. That task right there eats up a pile of labor dollars.Even if the military doesn't pay hourly or overtime, bodies sifting M9 parts are bodies unable to do their regular jobs.

Then the guns which need work have to be transported and fixed.

Then they need to be tested for function afterwards. More bodies, more $$, more time.

Add it all up & marginal cost it , and buying a new gun at the logistical level our DoD plays at makes fiscal sense.

Maybe (but see below), but there are a huge amount of similar admin tasks in fielding a new firearm and so you would need to cost those as well. The chance of them balancing out in favor of the new pistol is, to my mind, slight.

Then you get to the point I hint at above. Unless things have radically changed, in the Army the ordinance units are not exactly overworked. There is (or was) a lot of excess capacity there. (Back in the day we either needed to bribe them with coffee or bring an LTC or above to scare them to get them to do anything at all). Besides, I think you could do a refurbish contract with Beretta for a very good price if you let it keep the M9 contract.

[LSP972]

They could adopt a 9mm FMJ flat point and call it more lethal. Might be hokey but would be smarter than .40

IIRC, the original Parabellum cartridge used a truncated cone (flat point) bullet.

One wonders what reason (if any rational one exists) caused the Germans to drop that in favor of a round nose bullet?

And you got to wonder who is driving that bigger-caliber bus? Is 9mm ball really that ineffective? You hear it both ways from guys who have used the M9 in combat. I've seen quite a few 9mm ball bullets- mainly light ones- in the past few years that made one or two shot kills. But- and this is a BIG but- most of those came from corpses who were not expecting to get shot, judging from the incident reports. That can make a huge difference.

Adopting a new gun in .40 would only have one big drawback… the increased recoil would make the already-dismal general military training, such as it is, even less effective. The cartridge is already in the "system", supplying the Coasties and the JSOC units who use it.

But I cannot forget the Coast Guard Senior Chief who came to check out our range, prior to their borrowing it for annual quals when the range they normally used was closed for maintenance. This guy had been involved in firearms training for almost as long as I had, and told me that their ammo consumption rates had sky-rocketed since replacing their M9s with the P229; and it was all due to the troopies struggling with the .40 recoil.

I retired a year before we adopted the .40, so I have no first-hand knowledge… but from everything I've heard, qual score averages went down shortly afterward. I do know that a lot more of our guys chose the G17 this time around, instead of the G22.

.

[Dave J]

If soldiers cannot be trained and trusted to regularly carry weapons......maybe we are doing something wrong.

Word.



I have no doubt that this is being said, but I would need to see those numbers to believe them. I have seen too many government numbers like this that make absolutely no sense.


I hear you. Unfortunately, I don't know what assumptions were used to develop the cost estimate, but such things are easy to manipulate to support a desired outcome.

[Drifting Fate]

IIRC, the original Parabellum cartridge used a truncated cone (flat point) bullet.

One wonders what reason (if any rational one exists) caused the Germans to drop that in favor of a round nose bullet?

.

While I don't know the reason for going to ball rounds, period manufacturing and feed issues come to mind.

In the hunting world, the larger the meplat, the higher the considered lethality, though generally with much heavier, wider bullets. Still, one wonders if the concept carries over to defensive calibers.

[TR675]

However, trying to sell the F-35 as a substitute for the A-10 is more than a little disengenuous IMHO.

From what I've read trying to sell the F-35 as a substitute for anything other than money is a little disingenuous.

[DocGKR]

"The cartridge is already in the "system", supplying the Coasties and the JSOC units who use it."

Lot's of those folks are in the process of going back to 9 mm.

[Drang]

If soldiers cannot be trained and trusted to regularly carry weapons......maybe we are doing something wrong.
It's not a matter of "cannot", it's a matter of "will not."

Or maybe "care not."

This is an issue that is nowhere near any Leadership radar screen.

Maybe if President Ted Cruz appoints Mattis to be SecDef, and Alan West as SecArmy.

But I doubt it even then. An awful lot of inertia to overcome, an awful lot of stars that fell during the Politically Correct era.

(Tommy Franks admitted in his memoirs that the was armed at all times when he was in the Middle East, but he also promulgated General Order #1, no personal weapons...)

[LSP972]

Lot's of those folks are in the process of going back to 9 mm.

Okay. So… who is pushing for a bigger caliber? I understand that "special purpose ammunition" is most likely a euphemism for hollow points… and its about damn time.

Still, somebody with some horsepower decided to specifically tailor the proposal for a "more powerful" cartridge?

.

[Drang]

From what I've read trying to sell the F-35 as a substitute for anything other than money is a little disingenuous.

Once again, to a lot of Field Grade and Flag Officers, it's a substitute for having to work for a living post-retirement.

[Dagga Boy]

It's not a matter of "cannot", it's a matter of "will not."

Or maybe "care not."

This is an issue that is nowhere near any Leadership radar screen.

Maybe if President Ted Cruz appoints Mattis to be SecDef, and Alan West as SecArmy.

But I doubt it even then. An awful lot of inertia to overcome, an awful lot of stars that fell during the Politically Correct era.

(Tommy Franks admitted in his memoirs that the was armed at all times when he was in the Middle East, but he also promulgated General Order #1, no personal weapons...)

Hypocrisy 101. Military leadership has personal security......thus who cares about their troops. Just like politicians, celebrities and the rich. They have personal security, and there are armed security at their kids schools, while your kids go to school in a free to murder here zone.

[imp1295]

This is why I am in the "who cares" camp. If we had an organization serious about being a martial organization where most of its members are armed at all times, it would be meaningful. If we can train cops,corrections people, security guards and others to regularly carry a pistol, yet are scared to death of armed soldiers.....sounds like we have a different issue than what pistol is used. Also, as long as they are having to load and unload administratively all the time for those who do carry, and stupidity like being in the field for extended periods with no magazine in the gun ( and wonder why they have reliability and wear issues) will continue to make this a mute issue.

Personally, I would like to see a majority of soldiers in combat type MOS's wearing a belt with UM84 type holster and magazine pouch most of the time. I think it would make our bases more secure and add a level of seriousness about what the military does. Will it require a learning curve, discipline, and training......yea. It is the military, isn't that what is supposed to be going on? Most military cultures in history have carried personal weapons when not in the field with battlefield weapons. I would like to see a return to that. If soldiers cannot be trained and trusted to regularly carry weapons......maybe we are doing something wrong.

After the murders here (Hood) last year, my CSM and I had the exact same conversation. We and other rank and file (read: below BDE level) tend to have the same outlook. It should be a simple case of officers/NCOs are issued a sidearm, report to the Arms room at the beginning of the duty day, draw their pistol and ammunition and wear it all day on an external pistol belt in the Biachi flap holster.

But, of course, since we don't even trust our maneuver guys to walk around with a weapon in condition 1, this will never happen.

Re: MHS - again, most of those I've spoken too are content with the M9. Realize that generally most don't spend the time or have the ammo allocations to become proficient and a new pistol is a waste of resources that would be better served to keep the Army from dropping down to the rumored 420k overall strength. But, after 23 years and my CSM's 25 - what do we know?

[Dave J]

I'm of the opinion that the vast majority of the Army's senior leaders have no real exposure to concealed carry or defensive firearms use in general. They may own guns, but it's more for the skeet range or opening day of hunting season.

Stereotype is military brat (grow up on base; no guns except skeet or hunting), often attend West Point (no guns), in NY (no guns), perhaps Ivy League schools (no guns), hell, college in most places means no guns, get commissioned, so back to military bases (no guns)...and the ones that make it to the top, from what I've seen, really really dedicate themselves to their work, and don't spend much time doing anything else. I doubt the idea of ordinary folks actually using firearms for personal defense really ever crosses their minds. Even if they were inclined, frequent PCS moves can make it a real PITA to keep a valid state CHL, and if you spend 99% of your time on base anyway, I doubt they'd bother.

That said, I do know of some relatively senior folks who did "get it", and were comfortable with the idea of subordinates being armed. Hypothetically, I might or might not know of some who followed the "better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6", and "concealed means concealed" mantra. Unfortunately, I don't think any of them will ever be in a position to change the current rules.

I'm also in complete agreement with the idea that officers and S/NCOs should be armed. If you're not sure you can trust the person with a firearm, then they probably don't deserve to be in a leadership position in the first place.

At this point, I really don't care if we refurb our M9's, or adopt something new. I do hope we stay with 9mm, for the reasons that are well understood by the P-F crowd. Either way, the outcome of our Nation's wars does not depend on what pistol we carry.

[Jeep]

Very well said, Dave. We talked about this in the 70's. Arming E6's/E7's and above and officers with pistols as a normal thing also would, as nyeti says, have a good psychological effect. It would help remind everyone of the real business of the armed forces.

As for holsters, I always preferred a chest holster to carry a .45 in when I was ammo officer (I wore one of those around Germany for quite a few months on a REFORGER exercise) because I was constantly getting in and out of vehicles, but we wore belt holsters as duty officers/NCO's.

Are duty officers/NCO's still armed or has that fallen by the wayside?

[Timbonez]

Is the Army still using those lousy flap holsters? The AF uses Safariland holsters with SLS. Some individuals that don't know any better buy Serpas, and unfortunately aircrew that wear a survival vest get get a crappy collapsible nylon holster affixed to their vest.

[imp1295]

Is the Army still using those lousy flap holsters? The AF uses Safariland holsters with SLS. Some individuals that don't know any better buy Serpas, and unfortunately aircrew that wear a survival vest get get a crappy collapsible nylon holster affixed to their vest.

Re: Flap hostlers - no, not really. G-code has the current line - at least in the supply system. Random Serpas running around. Most I know went Safariland or some other model besides Serpa long ago ('05/'06).

[GardoneVT]

Are duty officers/NCO's still armed or has that fallen by the wayside?

Wayside, definitely. While the military doesnt shy away from arming personnel yet ,unfortunately theyre all Security Forces or civvie LE contractors.

There's a solid anti-gun culture in both the enlisted & officer sides of the Air Force.To grasp why this paradox exists, we have to return to the foundation of our military; recruitment.

In my enlisted basic flight maybe ten guys out of the forty odd in the group had ever shot a gun before. Unfortunately their "experience" was the Cleetus Curricula of cans at 5 yards with the family 12 gauge. The other thirty odd guys -including myself-never touched a gun before setting foot on the Kelly Base range.

Then operational there's a pervasive safety culture in place. Some of it is good (dont get DUIs, get an education using your military resources, etc) and some of it is not (being a heterosexual male is illegal, driving a motorcycle is the next best thing to suicide,etc.). Guns unfortunately are in the "OMG HAZARDOUS" PowerPoint.

Forget concealed or open carry on base. I had to request permission just to own my first .22 with a form that went up to my squadron commander & the Security Forces commander.Fortunately for me my enlisted boss was a guy from Kentucky who loves guns. I knew Airmen assigned under supervisors who were personally anti-gun -they were not as fortunate . No Air Force 1314 authorization for them.

On that subject; a lot of folks the AF recruits come from places with a less then positive view of guns, the NRA ,or the Constitution. When you have a Chain of Command list thats twenty people long, odds are at least one of them hails from those 2nd Amendment backwaters and still retains that mindset despite being in uniform. Good luck getting any document hinting at pro-gun behavior past those folks. Not long ago there was an Army "Wing Commander" (whatever the Army equivalent designator is) who literally banned concealed carry after someone at an AK base got into an off post shooting.

Not just on base, mind; OFF POST too and so what if you had an Alaska CCW permit. No member assigned to his command could carry a gun , and if they got caught and the military found out.....Article 15 for violating a direct order. Kooky thing was the order only applied to military folks in his command chain. Members on TDY and visiting could carry off base without risking paperwork.So you could still carry...so long as you wern't permanent party under General Blockhead's AOR.

I forget the exact methodology behind how that BS order got rescinded, but I know it took DC intervention to fix it.

[ReverendMeat]

^What GardoneVT says. I can't speak for any branch but the Marines, and as far as armed duty NCOs and officers, nope. Stateside the only people who are armed are gate guards (rifles and shotguns, though I think they're using civvies now for that instead of FAPs) and PMO. Given that though it was a pretty rare thing for me to meet someone who was anti-gun. I knew a couple guys who brought their new guns to the shop to show off (totally against the rules of course, no personally owned firearms on base) and a lot of us liked to go shooting. Out of all the smoke pit conversations guns were probably the MOST politically-correct thing we talked about.

Air Force sounds like the exact opposite from what GVT describes. Can't say I'm terribly surprised though.

[Drang]

Are duty officers/NCO's still armed or has that fallen by the wayside?

I can't say what has happened since I retired in Aug 2000*, but I was never armed when on Staff Duty, either as NCO or as Officer. (SFCs who were on Bde. SDNCO were regularly assigned as the BN SDO. Pain in the ass.)

That said, it was common knowledge that 1SGs and CSMs were carrying concealed illicitly on post in the mid-90s. One told me he had had a conversation with his BC that went something like "Here's that roster you gave me of troops with suspected gang affiliations. Next question?"
(At the time, Ft Lewis was doing a "tattoo inspection" of all arriving SSG and below.)


*Retirement leave and Permissive TDY began 15 years ago this past Wednesday, in fact.

[Jeep]

I can't say what has happened since I retired in Aug 2000*, but I was never armed when on Staff Duty, either as NCO or as Officer. (SFCs who were on Bde. SDNCO were regularly assigned as the BN SDO. Pain in the ass.)

That said, it was common knowledge that 1SGs and CSMs were carrying concealed illicitly on post in the mid-90s. One told me he had had a conversation with his BC that went something like "Here's that roster you gave me of troops with suspected gang affiliations. Next question?"
(At the time, Ft Lewis was doing a "tattoo inspection" of all arriving SSG and below.)


*Retirement leave and Permissive TDY began 15 years ago this past Wednesday, in fact.

Back in the 1970's, in the combat units, each battalion and brigade SDO/SDNCO was given a .45 and 5 full rounds of ammo in a mag. The mag was supposed to be in a pocket, but normally was loaded to avoid losing it. Ammo supply point guards were provided one pump shotgun and 3 full rounds of #6 shot. In addition, when going off base, payroll officers/NCO's and ammo officer/NCO's were required to carry a .45 with the standard 5 full rounds in a magazine.

It was all somewhat "let's pretend" since #6 shot was unlikely to do much good, and 5 rounds of .45 out of a standard Army .45 with a 10-14 lb. pull (Changing out rusted mainsprings? What's a mainspring?) was unlikely to deal with a serious threat. But, at least there was a remaining idea that we were, uh , soldiers. Now, of course, the preferred term is "warfighters," but no guns at all seem to be allowed.

It's pretty hard to understand as a rational matter.

[LSP972]

It's pretty hard to understand as a rational matter.

I'd opine it has much to do with the same reason pistols and frags were kept far away from the lower enlisted ranks, unless in a direct-fire zone, back in our day. After reading what Drang wrote about shaking down new arrivals, looking for gang tats… good God, its much worse than I had figured. If I was a field grade officer who had no time for slackers and zeros (IOW, wielded the Article 15 hammer freely), I'd be less than conscientious about others' rights and privileges versus protecting my ass.

Just sayin'…


.

[Jeep]

I'd opine it has much to do with the same reason pistols and frags were kept far away from the lower enlisted ranks, unless in a direct-fire zone, back in our day. After reading what Drang wrote about shaking down new arrivals, looking for gang tats… good God, its much worse than I had figured. If I was a field grade officer who had no time for slackers and zeros (IOW, wielded the Article 15 hammer freely), I'd be less than conscientious about others' rights and privileges versus protecting my ass.

Just sayin'…



You are probably right. Back in the day, though, the reason that we carried .45's probably is because we had so many thugs. Down the block from where I was, in the 18th Infantry, some gang guy fragged some other dope dealer in the shower, while in the headquarters troop in my squadron the loan shark owned the place (he kept the top paid off).

[LSP972]

Back in the day, though, the reason that we carried .45's probably is because we had so many thugs. .

That was my point. There was an institutional fear (well-grounded) of easily-concealed weaponry amongst the rank and file. In Korea, the crew-served weapons people were never issued their 1911A1s, even when we pulled DMZ duty at Fire Base Oullette; and that was a two-way live fire zone for sure. Ditto the Hot Apple detail (guarding the tactical nukes at Camp Carroll); only the platoon leader was issued a pistol.

Of course, none of that prevented a deranged private from pocketing a loaded magazine away from the range during quals, and using his M16 to kill his CO, first shirt, and XO once back in the company area.

As has been covered here before… a determined man will find a way.

.

[Jeep]

Of course, none of that prevented a deranged private from pocketing a loaded magazine away from the range during quals, and using his M16 to kill his CO, first shirt, and XO once back in the company area.



I remember hearing about that. We had an 11b on a live-fire exercise shoot up some of his "buddies" for some reason I no longer remember, if I ever knew. Jimmy Carter's army.

[GardoneVT]

I remember hearing about that. We had an 11b on a live-fire exercise shoot up some of his "buddies" for some reason I no longer remember, if I ever knew. Jimmy Carter's army.

Nowadays the "in" crime is drug distribution. Prescriptions, Oxy, some meth, etc. Not much in the way of shootings besides the occasional suicide, but lots of drugs.Either guy's pre-service who were dealing and kept it as a side gig, or folks who got lawful prescriptions and decided to "suppliment their income."

Getting Schedule I substances really should be harder on base then off post, but that's "Obamas Military" for ya.

[Jeep]

Nowadays the "in" crime is drug distribution. Prescriptions, Oxy, some meth, etc. Not much in the way of shootings besides the occasional suicide, but lots of drugs.Either guy's pre-service who were dealing and kept it as a side gig, or folks who got lawful prescriptions and decided to "suppliment their income."

Getting Schedule I substances really should be harder on base then off post, but that's "Obamas Military" for ya.

We not only had plenty of drugs--we had drug wars and very rich loan sharks who financed the drug gangs. That was largely (but of course not completely) cleaned up in Reagan's years, but if you treat soldiers like scum, you tend to get a fair number of fairly scummy guys as soldiers.

Do you get the sense that the treatment of enlisted men has declined to the point that recruitment has been become difficult and standards have drastically fallen?

[Chuck Haggard]

IIRC, the original Parabellum cartridge used a truncated cone (flat point) bullet.

One wonders what reason (if any rational one exists) caused the Germans to drop that in favor of a round nose bullet?

And you got to wonder who is driving that bigger-caliber bus? Is 9mm ball really that ineffective? You hear it both ways from guys who have used the M9 in combat. I've seen quite a few 9mm ball bullets- mainly light ones- in the past few years that made one or two shot kills. But- and this is a BIG but- most of those came from corpses who were not expecting to get shot, judging from the incident reports. That can make a huge difference.

Adopting a new gun in .40 would only have one big drawback… the increased recoil would make the already-dismal general military training, such as it is, even less effective. The cartridge is already in the "system", supplying the Coasties and the JSOC units who use it.

But I cannot forget the Coast Guard Senior Chief who came to check out our range, prior to their borrowing it for annual quals when the range they normally used was closed for maintenance. This guy had been involved in firearms training for almost as long as I had, and told me that their ammo consumption rates had sky-rocketed since replacing their M9s with the P229; and it was all due to the troopies struggling with the .40 recoil.

I retired a year before we adopted the .40, so I have no first-hand knowledge… but from everything I've heard, qual score averages went down shortly afterward. I do know that a lot more of our guys chose the G17 this time around, instead of the G22.

.

We noted a rise in qual scores going from the G22 to the G17

Ref the original Parabellum cartridge, my historical reading tells me the flat point ammo went away due to the Luger not feeding it is well.

I've seen 9mm ball be VERY effective when properly applied, as have a few other people on this board. Most of the planet, even the Russians, have gone that route for good reasons.

[Jeep]

I've seen 9mm ball be VERY effective when properly applied, as have a few other people on this board.

And therein lies to rub. Good hits with 9mm ball will do the job, but we don't train most of our troops well enough to get even mediocre hits, and from what I can tell a lot of soldiers aren't even told about the importance of trying to put multiple rounds on target.

We really need to go to JHP and announce we are doing so to honor the Hague convention's underlying concern about not hurting other people.

[GardoneVT]

And therein lies to rub. Good hits with 9mm ball will do the job, but we don't train most of our troops well enough to get even mediocre hits, and from what I can tell a lot of soldiers aren't even told about the importance of trying to put multiple rounds on target.

We really need to go to JHP and announce we are doing so to honor the Hague convention's underlying concern about not hurting other people.
Careful note- the Air Force already uses 9mm JHP.

Stateside use only , of course. Because overseas bad guys deserve more humane bullet holes then our own citizens......???!!?

[Kyle Reese]

And therein lies to rub. Good hits with 9mm ball will do the job, but we don't train most of our troops well enough to get even mediocre hits, and from what I can tell a lot of soldiers aren't even told about the importance of trying to put multiple rounds on target.

Surely switching to a higher pressure cartridge, like the .40 S&W, will make up for troops being unable to get good hits with the 9x19 on baddies, right?

[Jeep]

Surely switching to a higher pressure cartridge, like the .40 S&W, will make up for troops being unable to get good hits with the 9x19 on baddies, right?

Well, of course. Because "it starts with a 4."

[Drang]

Jimmy Carter's army.
I was in Basic Training at Fort Lost In The Woods from September-October 1980.
When giving the "It's your duty as a citizen to vote" talk the Senior Drill Sergeant made some rather derogatory remarks regarding "that peanut farmer and anyone who would vote for him." Even as a recruit, I was taken aback.

[LSP972]

We noted a rise in qual scores going from the G22 to the G17

.

As has everybody who will be honest about it.

As I have stated earlier, I have seen a lot of 9mm ball bullets retrieved from corpses in the past few years, here at the lab. But... most of those were from people who weren't expecting get shot. Many ways to look at all of this, of course... me, if sub-caliber ball is all I've got, I'll be shooting for CNS, or a lot of rounds per target; whichever is more expedient at the time.;)

As for the TC bullet not feeding in the Luger... you're probably spot on there. It doesn't take much to choke those things, delightful though they may be.

.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Getting Schedule I substances really should be harder on base then off post, but that's "Obamas Military" for ya.

Not just "Obama's Military". Candidly, there are a few FBI types who will tell you that the biggest drug pusher on reservations is the Indian Health Service.

[DocGKR]

Why worry about how a projectile looks? Perhaps the focus should be on the military end-user requirements the projectile needs to meet in order to successfully complete the mission...

[LSP972]

Why worry about how a projectile looks? Perhaps the focus should be on the military end-user requirements the projectile needs to meet in order to successfully complete the mission...

I wasn't worried about how it looks. The truncated cone bullet is simply more accurate, in most cases, than a round nose.

At least, that has been my experience in shooting the two bullet types in both factory and reloaded trim in 9mmP.

.

[DocGKR]

LSP972: sorry about any miscommunication--my comment was not directed toward you at all, but rather the Big Army approach to MHS ammo up until this most recent change.

[LSP972]

No drama, Doc.

I'm just curious as to who, exactly, is pushing this caliber business; and why.

When John Garand's masterpiece was first proposed, in .280 caliber or something similar (i.e., smaller than .30), MacArthur flatly stated no way/no how. Supposedly because of the established wounding/killing history of the '06, but also due to the huge stocks of M2 ammunition in inventory. Plus, he was, like, the Cheif of Staff of the army.

My point here being, whoever IS behind it now either is working from a shaky premise, or is sufficiently far down the food chain to want to avoid sticking his neck out too far.

All, of which, of course, is totally irrelevant here; just the random curiousity of an old fart...;)

.

[Jeep]

No drama, Doc.

I'm just curious as to who, exactly, is pushing this caliber business; and why.

When John Garand's masterpiece was first proposed, in .280 caliber or something similar (i.e., smaller than .30), MacArthur flatly stated no way/no how. Supposedly because of the established wounding/killing history of the '06, but also due to the huge stocks of M2 ammunition in inventory. Plus, he was, like, the Cheif of Staff of the army.

My point here being, whoever IS behind it now either is working from a shaky premise, or is sufficiently far down the food chain to want to avoid sticking his neck out too far.

All, of which, of course, is totally irrelevant here; just the random curiousity of an old fart...;)

.

Good question. Somebody with clout is pushing this, but the question is who? Politician hoping for home state contracts? A powerful general? I haven't seen any recognizable clues.

[LSP972]

No problem, Doc.

I'm just curious as to who, exactly, is pushing this caliber business; and why.

When John Garand's masterpiece was first proposed, in .280 caliber or something similar (i.e., smaller than .30), MacArthur flatly stated no way/no how. Supposedly because of the established wounding/killing history of the '06, but also due to the huge stocks of M2 ammunition in inventory. Plus, he was, like, the Cheif of Staff of the army.

My point here being, whoever IS behind it now either is working from a shaky premise, or is sufficiently far down the food chain to want to avoid sticking his neck out too far.

All, of which, of course, is totally irrelevant here; just the random curiousity of an old fart...;)

.

[DamonL]

Looks like there is movement on the MHS.

http://soldiersystems.net/2015/07/08/hey-this-xm17-modular-handgun-system-is-happening-army-hosts-industry-day/#comments

[JHC]

Waaaaaaaat?????

KRISS?

http://bearingarms.com/confirmed-kriss-usa-will-pursue-u-s-army-modular-handgun-system-contract/

[HCM]

A good explanation regarding the MHS : Weapons Man - "Why the Army's guns wear out and yours don't"

http://weaponsman.com/?p=23857

[LSP972]

That was great; a man after my own heart. Now "subscribed"…

Thanks for the reference, HCM. I wonder how many other jewels of this nature I'm missing by virtue of being a computer troglodyte???:D

.

[Malamute]

Good picture at the end of the comments.

[JHC]

Final RFP here https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=4d021209938939195ef9b9d7b02ef4d6&tab=core&_cview=1

I hopes some gubment veterans can decipher some. But if I am reading this right the pistol vendor is also supposed to source a bazillion rounds of ammo? Ball and special purpose?

Might explain why Sig brought out their own line of ammo eh?

[Alpha Sierra]

In what universe does it make sense to require a firearm supplier to source the ammo too?

That's like requiring Ford Motor Company to set up its own gas stations if the .gov wants to buy Fords.......

Then again this is the federal government, where common sense and business sense are both in short supply

[HCM]

Apparently the S&W M&P is still in the running for the MHS contract via their joint bid with General Dynamics. Does General Dynamics have an ability to produce handgun ammunition ?


http://www.guns.com/2015/09/01/smith-wesson-in-final-running-for-army-handgun-contract-ceo-says/

[RJ]

Final RFP here https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=4d021209938939195ef9b9d7b02ef4d6&tab=core&_cview=1

I hopes some gubment veterans can decipher some. But if I am reading this right the pistol vendor is also supposed to source a bazillion rounds of ammo? Ball and special purpose?

Might explain why Sig brought out their own line of ammo eh?

(raises hand) 32 years in Aerospace, retired. Systems Engineer working for a one of the larger contractors.

Reading the 351 pages now.

Yes, 300,000 rounds of test ammo, if I read it right.

ETA: Here is a hint for reading specs: If you open the pdf up in a web browser, type CTRL-F.

You can then get a search box and type in what you are looking for e.g. "Full Size" and just page through to find it.

[RJ]

Hmpf. Maybe I am missing it, but the Spec section doesn't have the purchase description i.e. what they are looking for in terms of technical details.

Apparently that is in Purchase Description AR-PD-177.

A quick google on FBO shows this statement:

"To obtain a copy of the latest DRAFT Purchase Description (PD) AR-PD-177, AR-PD-179, AR-PD-180, AR-PD-183, AR-PD-184 and other Distribution D documents, interested parties must email a signed and approved DD Form 2345 Military Critical Technical Data Agreement, a completed AMSTA AR Form 1350 Technical Data Questionnaire, and a completed and signed Non-Disclosure / Non-Use Agreement "

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=95bc767a824b22b95519d02feb0a9c0f

In other words, I would not waste much time looking through this 351 pages, it is mostly contract/legalese about the contracts process, CLINS, data descriptions, etc. etc.

Unless I'm missing it, of course...

[JHC]

(raises hand) 32 years in Aerospace, retired. Systems Engineer working for a one of the larger contractors.

Reading the 351 pages now.

Yes, 300,000 rounds of test ammo, if I read it right.

ETA: Here is a hint for reading specs: If you open the pdf up in a web browser, type CTRL-F.

You can then get a search box and type in what you are looking for e.g. "Full Size" and just page through to find it.

OK just 300K of test ammo. Hey, budgets are tight so . . . BYOA.

When I saw reference to whether vendors had ammunition production capability I thought they meant for the next 5-10 years of pistol ammo. Then again, maybe that's how long they expect the trials to take. ;)

[JSGlock34]

It is rather dense and repetitive. I certainly won't claim to have read the whole thing. However, some judicious searching revealed that “Upon receipt of hardware submission, inspections will be conducted to ensure that the Modular Handgun System candidate has an integrated rail, an external safety mechanism, adjustability for ergonomics (by means of grip inserts, grip panels, front or back straps, different triggers, or other means) and be other than single action only. Submissions without these features will not be considered for evaluation.” (Page 340)

[Luke]

Isn't striker fired considered single action only? Or do you think they literally mean single action only, like hammer fired.

[JHC]

Isn't striker fired considered single action only? Or do you think they literally mean single action only, like hammer fired.

Striker fired are classed DA only if the pressing of the trigger loads the striker to fire (some or most?). IIRC some designs are so much pre-loaded by the slide in recoil they may be classed SA only. Not sure about the details of that

[TiroFijo]

I've tried to read/browse the document, but fell asleep halfway...

This is the epitome of "why make it simple if we can make it complicated?'". And this is just the beggining, I can foresee all sorts of legal battles, complains and recriminations until all is all over.

[RJ]

I've tried to read/browse the document, but fell asleep halfway...

This is the epitome of "why make it simple if we can make it complicated?'". And this is just the beggining, I can foresee all sorts of legal battles, complains and recriminations until all is all over.

Yeah, get your point.

But: That 351 pages is really for the Contracts folks and Program Managers to worry about. As far as DoD procurements go, it's actually fairly typical stuff - as someone who lived in that world for 30+ years, there is nothing overly complicated there.

What we need is the Purchase Description, but, as I read the Terms and Conditions, this is a "controlled" document, and not released to the general public. From the notice:

"Please see the additional documentation area for the RFP and the non-controlled attachments. The Purchase Descriptions for the Modular Handgun System, Government's Tissue Damage Model and other controlled documents, will be provided separately upon request.'

What I don't understand is how the trade press is quoting requirements ("50 yards at 4 inches") if the Spec is a controlled document. Especially since a "non disclosure agreement" (NDA) is mentioned.

When the contracts officer for a company signs an NDA, there are very severe penalties for releasing this information outside of the control of those accessing it properly.

[RJ]

It is rather dense and repetitive. I certainly won't claim to have read the whole thing. However, some judicious searching revealed that “Upon receipt of hardware submission, inspections will be conducted to ensure that the Modular Handgun System candidate has an integrated rail, an external safety mechanism, adjustability for ergonomics (by means of grip inserts, grip panels, front or back straps, different triggers, or other means) and be other than single action only. Submissions without these features will not be considered for evaluation.” (Page 340)

That is a great catch. Interesting.

[Trajan]

Striker fired are classed DA only if the pressing of the trigger loads the striker to fire (some or most?). IIRC some designs are so much pre-loaded by the slide in recoil they may be classed SA only. Not sure about the details of that

S&W calls the M&P DA even though the trigger just releases a sear holding the striker back.

Unless S&W considers the quarter of a millimeter the striker travels back as the top bump on the sear disengages from the striker foot.

[ST911]

Isn't striker fired considered single action only? Or do you think they literally mean single action only, like hammer fired.


S&W calls the M&P DA even though the trigger just releases a sear holding the striker back.

Unless S&W considers the quarter of a millimeter the striker travels back as the top bump on the sear disengages from the striker foot.

M&P and XD are both mechanically single action pistols.

[Suvorov]

M&P and XD are both mechanically single action pistols.

That may be so - but aren't they considered DAO by the BATF like the Glock is? :confused:

Either way - my guess is that the Army's use of the term "single action only" is designed to prevent 1911/BHP type actions from being considered and not striker fired guns even though mechanically the striker may be pre-cocked prior to trigger pull.

[Hambo]

In what universe does it make sense to require a firearm supplier to source the ammo too?


Just a guess, but it might separate the men from the boys so to speak.

[Alpha Sierra]

Just a guess, but it might separate the men from the boys so to speak.

I'll just be blunt and direct. It's a bullshit requirement and a blatant attempt to weed out firms that the army doesn't want to even bother with.

What does supplying ammo have to do with pistol performance? Nothing.

No wonder Fifer said F it

[RJ]

I'm not finding where in the RFP they are requiring ammunition production and supply as part of the MHS?

I did see that they requested an "Ammunition Support Package" to support the Production Verification Testing, in para C.5.1.1:

"C.5.1. Part A: PRODUCTION VERIFICATION TESTING (PVT)

C.5.1.1. Ammunition Support Package

The Ammunition Support Package is to be delivered as part of Weapon System Component Package, (Section C.3.1.1). The Ammunition Support Package shall include the following: Ammunition (Section C.5.1.1.1), Reference Cartridges (Section C.5.1.1.2), Bulk Energetic Material (Section C.5.1.1.3) and EPVAT Barrels (Section C.5.1.2).

C.5.1.1.1 Ammunition

The following ammunition shall be delivered in accordance to the ammunition Purchase Descriptions listed below:

Cartridge Type Reference Quantity
Ball Cartridge AR-PD-180 300,000
Special Purpose Cartridge AR-PD-179 255,000
Ball Cartridge (Mil-Pack) AR_PD-180 36,000
Special Purpose Cartridge (Mil-Pack) AR-PD-179 36,000
Dummy Cartridge AR-PD-184 50"

Could the bidders not simply go out and buy/procure ammunition from commercial or government suppliers and provide it? I am thinking the Government is hoping to save some money for the evaluation, by having the gun show up with whatever cartridge already as part of the hardware.

?

[JHC]

I'm not finding where in the RFP they are requiring ammunition production and supply as part of the MHS?

I did see that they requested an "Ammunition Support Package" to support the Production Verification Testing, in para C.5.1.1:

"C.5.1. Part A: PRODUCTION VERIFICATION TESTING (PVT)

C.5.1.1. Ammunition Support Package

The Ammunition Support Package is to be delivered as part of Weapon System Component Package, (Section C.3.1.1). The Ammunition Support Package shall include the following: Ammunition (Section C.5.1.1.1), Reference Cartridges (Section C.5.1.1.2), Bulk Energetic Material (Section C.5.1.1.3) and EPVAT Barrels (Section C.5.1.2).

C.5.1.1.1 Ammunition

The following ammunition shall be delivered in accordance to the ammunition Purchase Descriptions listed below:

Cartridge Type Reference Quantity
Ball Cartridge AR-PD-180 300,000
Special Purpose Cartridge AR-PD-179 255,000
Ball Cartridge (Mil-Pack) AR_PD-180 36,000
Special Purpose Cartridge (Mil-Pack) AR-PD-179 36,000
Dummy Cartridge AR-PD-184 50"

Could the bidders not simply go out and buy/procure ammunition from commercial or government suppliers and provide it? I am thinking the Government is hoping to save some money for the evaluation, by having the gun show up with whatever cartridge already as part of the hardware.

?

I think you are tracking correct there. But imagine what a PIA it could be for a company to just place an order to Speer or Federal for that volume of Gold Dots or HST so they'd score well in the tissue damage tests. And before that they'd have to figure out how it would perform on gel at 50 yards.

And holding 4" at 50 yards (albeit from a mechanical rest I'm sure) is going to get dicey if you source WWB NATO for the ball round test. I've never found that load to group very well.

[mizer67]

The Govt. does not require the offeror to actually produce the ammunition. That requirement will be subcontracted to ATK or a similar supplier that is fully capable of meeting the demand.

The best value evaluation criteria has a small amount of interesting info. regarding the solicitation requirements. If you're interested, I'd read section F, about page ~260 or so.

I didn't see a 4" at 50 yard requirement. What I did see for "shooter in the loop" evaluation was that each gun would have shooters run the JPQC for score, engaging targets from 1-35m under time pressure.

[Drang]

Since the proposal doesn't specify caliber, or even details of loaded round, it would seem to make some sense for the competitors to provide the ammo to be used in the test.

[DocGKR]

No it does not make sense for the vendors to provide the ammo.

What makes sense is for the end-users to specify what caliber they want and want specific loads that want to shoot and then have the firearms vendors design their pistol entries around those specifications.

The way it is being done is utterly STUPID.

[TiroFijo]

No it does not make sense for the vendors to provide the ammo.

What makes sense is for the end-users to specify what caliber they want and want specific loads that want to shoot and then have the firearms vendors design their pistol entries around those specifications.

The way it is being done is utterly STUPID.

ABSOLUTELY! Why is it so difficult to understand and implement?

[Alpha Sierra]

Why is it so difficult to understand and implement?
Because United States Government

[mizer67]

No it does not make sense for the vendors to provide the ammo.

What makes sense is for the end-users to specify what caliber they want and want specific loads that want to shoot and then have the firearms vendors design their pistol entries around those specifications.

The way it is being done is utterly STUPID.

Playing devil's advocate:

As the Govt. I can specify the minimum effects/performance on target I want to see with each special purpose round expended, without specifying caliber. You're much more qualified to comment on this than I am, so I won't speculate what minimum effect/performance that might be.

From this specification, on the plus side, perhaps a supplier or team of suppliers will generate innovation(s) and deliver a handgun + round that is better than what the Govt./user would have thought of on their own. I.E. caseless wonder round, plasma pistol in the 40 watt range, etc.

Granted, without Govt. funded development, I can't see anyone expending the IRAD to propose anything really cool, but you never know. Maybe we'll get better performing 9mm JHP's out of the deal.

[Drang]

No it does not make sense for the vendors to provide the ammo.

What makes sense is for the end-users to specify what caliber they want and want specific loads that want to shoot and then have the firearms vendors design their pistol entries around those specifications.

The way it is being done is utterly STUPID.

The organization doing it is utterly stupid, as are all large, {EDIT} heavily compartmented, highly bureaucratic organizations. Which end user? DoD? DA? Navy? AF? USMC? JSOC? The project would be tied up for years as each of them tries to sell their personal favorite, including changing their favorite when a new flag officer takes over as project manager. Hell, just within the Army, the MP Corps and Aviation would never agree.
And then Congress would get involved...
The only bright side would be that this is late enough that the current CinC won't be around to issue an Executive Order directing some utterly absurd choice, like that Detonics proposal, in .32 ACP. Or maybe .25.

[DocGKR]

There are ample USG examples of good procurement decisions regarding caliber, ammunition, and firearms. All the Army had to do was use one of those successful programs as a template for their procurement. Unfortunately, they chose another route...

[JSGlock34]

That may be so - but aren't they considered DAO by the BATF like the Glock is? :confused:

Either way - my guess is that the Army's use of the term "single action only" is designed to prevent 1911/BHP type actions from being considered and not striker fired guns even though mechanically the striker may be pre-cocked prior to trigger pull.

This was my thought as well. However, at the same time, the Army needs to discard definitions like 'single action' and 'double action' that had reached the end of their utility back when everyone was trying to figure out if Glock could participate in the XM10 trials...

I can't help but notice that as currently defined, TDA pistols with decocker only controls (such as the SIG classic series) do not meet the requirements.

[Alpha Sierra]

I can't help but notice that as currently defined, TDA pistols with decocker only controls (such as the SIG classic series) do not meet the requirements.

Which is why I can't take seriously anything the Army does re pistol contracts. Zero f-ks given about what new pistol the Army chooses.

[Jeep]

There are ample USG examples of good procurement decisions regarding caliber, ammunition, and firearms. All the Army had to do was use one of those successful programs as a template for their procurement. Unfortunately, they chose another route...

Perhaps not a huge surprise given that it is the same Army that suddenly needs to spend lots of money on a new pistol while budget cuts are forcing it to reduce the number of troops to the lowest level since before WWII, and which is also slashing training budgets. So we will be buying a new pistol (with new holsters, magazines and the like) that the Army won't be able to afford to shoot.

Given that, a highly random selection process to procure the new pistol fits right into the overall pattern.

I'm hoping at least we get some entertaining prose with lots of adjectives and adverbs in it. You know, "A modular increased lethality platform for 21st Century warfighting that structurally incorporates cutting-edge changes that allows the individual operator to take advantage of the technological edge that the platform gives him or her in conducting both low and high-intensity operations. Among other features are the chrome bumpers, full whitewalls and state-of-the-art tail fins."