Oh yeah. The Security Forces center, who decides all this stuff, basically decided that since we carried the M9 with the safety off all these years that we should carry the M18 the same way.Originally Posted by JRB
I have reviewed the Center’s decision, and since it’s a stupid ass decision I’m going to ignore it and use the safety.
Why holy shit? It's a little goofy for sure but not unsafe. Tons of non-military 320s have no safety at all, and people have been carrying fully-cocked striker pistols with no manual safety for a while; eg. the M&P.
Of course, there was the drop safety thing.
Yup.
You can get much more of what you want with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.
Would you be willing to share details?
Any good?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The rampant Dunning-Kruger effect that too many service members tend to develop on weapons handling is foremost.
If a policy says no-safety carry is OK, I expect them to be using it as a hammer when chambered, off-safe, and holding it by the barrel.
In between that, it'll be used as a loaded doorstop, latrine fishing lure, paperweight, etc. A hammer-down DA Beretta makes all of these situations substantially safer than a weapon with stored ignition energy that's already had a drop-safety problem.
I'd feel comfortable issuing G Berettas to a military. I am NOT comfortable with a no-safety P320.
At least, unless we make a military-wide mandatory course developed by P-F sorts that require at least a full week of proper pistol instruction and at least 500 rounds of shooting. Make strict standards on pass/fail and failures will never be allowed to be issued a handgun, ever.
Then make literally everyone in uniform go through that course - from new 11B Soldiers in OSUT at Benning to the most Fobbity Fobbits about to retire, everyone.
At which point, I figure we can talk about issuing pistols with stored ignition energy and carrying them off-safe.
That should cost only slightly less than the F35 program, I figure.
Last edited by JRB; 11-16-2019 at 12:38 AM.
I understand your zeal but this is for an organization that is struggling to develop and administer a basic physical fitness evaluation. Another idea is focus on the very few Soldiers and Marines that actually go into harms way with best training and equipment and reduce the number of uniform military "support" deployed so they are not there and therefore do not need the weapons to start with.The rampant Dunning-Kruger effect that too many service members tend to develop on weapons handling is foremost.
If a policy says no-safety carry is OK, I expect them to be using it as a hammer when chambered, off-safe, and holding it by the barrel.
In between that, it'll be used as a loaded doorstop, latrine fishing lure, paperweight, etc. A hammer-down DA Beretta makes all of these situations substantially safer than a weapon with stored ignition energy that's already had a drop-safety problem.
I'd feel comfortable issuing G Berettas to a military. I am NOT comfortable with a no-safety P320.
At least, unless we make a military-wide mandatory course developed by P-F sorts that require at least a full week of proper pistol instruction and at least 500 rounds of shooting. Make strict standards on pass/fail and failures will never be allowed to be issued a handgun, ever.
Then make literally everyone in uniform go through that course - from new 11B Soldiers in OSUT at Benning to the most Fobbity Fobbits about to retire, everyone.
At which point, I figure we can talk about issuing pistols with stored ignition energy and carrying them off-safe.
That should cost only slightly less than the F35 program, I figure.
I'm afraid you may have missed my intended snark/sarcasm - hence the quip about the F35 program cost at the bottom. Obviously that sort of handgun program will never, ever happen, ever.
Personally I believe that uniformed Soldiers and Marines should always be capable of effectively defending themselves and winning those defensive battles, regardless of MOS, unit composition, or assignment.
I also believe that skill with small arms should be celebrated more than any PT test. I believe the fundamental difference between a Soldier and anyone else doing that job instead is the Soldier can do that job and bring an assigned weapon system and be skillful and effective with that weapon. But in today's military that is a very uncommon perspective.
Given the number of O3+ and CW3+ Soldiers I've been working with in my current assignment that absolutely threw a fit when they were told they had to qualify on an M4 in Ft Hood in addition to their M9's -not get assigned an M4, simply report to a range and shoot the thing- I suspect little is going to change in that regard.
For about the millionth time in my career this morning, I'm really wishing I'd picked Infantry or Armor instead of Maintenance.
Reply With Quote