I wonder. Supposedly the Army Sigs are "throw away" guns that one can just bandsaw when worn out, but is that what would happen?
"You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
"I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI
Even if that truly is the case, that would assume that the Army has the intention to determine when that point (the end of viable platform lifespan) is reached; historically, except at in face of draconian results (e.g., slides physically broken and severed), the pattern seems to be to just keep everything on hand pretty much forever (or until replaced by a successive platform, which will probably suffer the same fate).
Best, Jon
"You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
"I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI
Optimists study English; pessimists study Chinese; and realists learn to use a Kalashnikov.
My unit was in that study - there is no "48 Infantry Division" - that is the GAARNG 48th Infantry Brigade (Mech) - now the 48th IBCT (Light) currently in AFG. When we got off the planes in Georgia - all our weapons were turned in at the bottom of the stairs at the aircraft and were sent to depot for inspect-repair-rebuild. Our Infantry, Armor, Cav Soldiers, etc. had M4s - most of the support teams had some form of M16 - usually upgraded to M16A4 status. We left most of our M240Bs in theater as there were not enough to go around in 2006 and were hot swapped with incoming units.
I remember those surveys - great attempt but not uncommon for Soldiers to "hate" on the M9 and wax poetic if they only had a Glock or the mythical 1911. Most of the "Special" units in theater were carrying Glocks, sometimes 1911s. No surprise that M16s were unpopular as they were larger, heavier, etc. plus the gunfighters normally carried M4s.
I never saw an issue with a M9. Note the comments in report about adding accessories with duct tape, etc. then having issues - a M9 variant with a light/laser option would have been nice at the time.
PS - I have seen several examples where the same weapons get pulled from the arms room and get many, many rounds through them with no maintenance while the rest of the weapons stay in the arms room "clean". Looking at you Ft Benning...…...
Well, the title of the study is Soldier Perspectives on Small Arms in Combat and no doubt the perceptions you list played into the low confidence ratings scored by the M9. I certainly take some of the comments with a grain of salt, and perceptions can be very subjective.
Still, I see no reason to dismiss the following conclusions (which are not limited to the M9).
Soldiers issued a rebuilt weapon were more likely to report a repair while in theater.
Weapons that were rebuilt were also reportedly repaired more often than non-rebuilt weapons, and those with rebuilt weapons were less likely to be confident in the durability of the weapon.
"When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."
I am not clear on the definition of "rebuilt" weapon. As I stated, all of our small arms were surrendered literally as we deplaned in Georgia - sent to depot level maintenance for inspection-repair-rebuild. That seemed to be the norm and I assume this was to insure the weapons were to "spec" for future use. My point is that all the small arms seem to be "rebuilt" unless you get the first issue - for example, units now getting the M17s.