Big Army and the MHS??

[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.