military handgun choice discussion

[imp]

The Sig is a good choice for a mass issued sidearm.

It's a striker fired gun, which is easier to train on compared to the M9, and while I've never served in the military, my experience with military trained shooters tells me they dont spend much time training with pistols.

The barrel is easily swapped for a threaded barrel for suppressed use, which is more difficult with the M9.

The entire grip module is replaceable, both to change grip diameter for people with larger or smaller hands than average, and from full sized to compact and subcompact to accommodate concealment priorities. Also entirely different grip profiles are available with more to come. This is an advantage over the Glock and S&W, where only backstraps are replaceable, and on par with the new beretta pistol. The big caveat to this is the fact that the DOD bureaucracy will probably hinder the issue of particular grip modules to the troops.

It's as cheap, accurate, and reliable as the competitors entries.

Truthfully, the only question I have is whether the new procurement is important enough to justify the financial output, but that is something for the bean counters to figure out, and they decided it was.

 

[USNRet93]

Again, without delving into the silly politics of it all, you have to detach personal feelings from rational decisions (something the left often has difficulty with). The "'Nuff said" comment indicates a close-mindedness that benefits neither the warfighter or taxpayer.

To use an example you brought up, if drones are more cost-effective than a wall why shouldn't that option be studied? Just because a politician threw out the wall idea to get elected and it sounded appealing to those who didn't really think about it much?

You may not agree with the Euros' politics (I typically don't), but good on them for looking at other options for border security. We know walls provide almost zero effectiveness in this situation, since the majority of illegal aliens cross borders via aircraft/airports anyway, and walls without constant surveillance are easily defeated (climbed, tunneled under, or simply walked or boated around). If you have to provide surveillance anyway for a wall to be effective, why not just spend the money on better surveillance and interdiction?

Never mind the physical impossibility of running a non-stop wall along an arbitrary (i.e. non-natural) border. Google "watershed" if you don't understand.

Serious thread drift but what he said...

 

[44 AMP]

We know walls provide almost zero effectiveness in this situation, since the majority of illegal aliens cross borders via aircraft/airports anyway, and walls without constant surveillance are easily defeated (climbed, tunneled under, or simply walked or boated around). If you have to provide surveillance anyway for a wall to be effective, why not just spend the money on better surveillance and interdiction?

I'm not suggesting its the right thing for US, but to say walls are ineffective seems foolish. And, in what countries do the majority of illegal aliens arrive via aircraft?? Great Britain? Cyprus? Australia? other islands?? And, while a wall must be manned (or robotically surveilled) to be its most effective, the simple fact it is a physical barrier that requires effort to get over, under, around, or through does have an effect.

If you think walls don't work (or are "not effective), go talk to any of the millions of people still living that were stopped by the Iron Curtain. During its existence, only a relative handful of people managed to get past it, and the "majority" of them didn't do via commercial air travel.


Back on topic, I don't really see what the point in discussing military handgun choice, other than as something to pass the time. The military cares nothing for our opinions, and are not overly concerned with either the handgun's combat effectiveness, or its personal defensive ability.

Since, at present, and for the near future, the military round is a FMJ 9mm Luger, it really makes little difference which 9mm pistol they choose. None of them can perform better than the ammo they shoot.

 

[SIGSHR]

In my 4 years in the Army 1967-1971 I received NO training on the M1911A1 and NEVER went to the range. And I carried it twice. And I knew very few gun guys. Probably more crack shots in the Army in the days of the 45-70 and 30-40 Krag.

 

[TBM900]

Not sure how this topic got here, but.....

Just because a politician threw out the wall idea

It wasn't a 'new idea', it's been implemented for decades, as well as supported, reinforced, supplemented, etc.

Further, the 'wall' has simply been a broad brush term to cover a multitude of physical barriers as well as electronic surveillance.

it sounded appealing to those who didn't really think about it much?

It was 'appealing' to leftists......until Trump beat Clinton.
As far as 'not thinking about it much', I would look in the mirror as you seem to be repeating talking points almost verbatim.

We know walls provide almost zero effectiveness in this situation

Utter BULL$H1T
Crossings where walls have been built are ALWAYS reduced
I live in a border state, our family ranch is right in the bath of illegals
Every single place walls have been erected in our state the crossings drop over 90%
And I'll let you in on a little secret.....shhh....I've worked the border.....don't tell anyone....

since the majority of illegal aliens cross borders via aircraft/airports anyway

Another BS talking point
You are referring to visa overstays, which account for about 40%

walls without constant surveillance are easily defeated (climbed, tunneled under, or simply walked or boated around)

You just refuted your own argument and don't even know it
Further, if physical barriers are 'so easily defeated', why have they worked so well when/where erected? At no point, and at no time, has anyone suggested physical barriers cannot be defeated, people have escaped some of the most secure prisons ever built. But to keep repeating BS talking points says a lot about you and your capacity for critical thought.

If you have to provide surveillance anyway for a wall to be effective, why not just spend the money on better surveillance and interdiction?

You've clearly never heard the term 'force multiplier'
Physical barriers are huge force multipliers, especially when COMBINED with electronic walls
Which AGAIN, have always been part of the equation

 

[Fishbed77]

And, in what countries do the majority of illegal aliens arrive via aircraft??

The United States.

Visa Overstays account for 44% by the most recent count, but that is only the number that can be confirmed, with many more unconfirmed, likely putting this number over 50%. Also understand also that large numbers of otherwise temporary illegal aliens get "trapped" with an increase in physical barriers, further inflating the number of illegals who would not otherwise be in the US. This has been widely studied and you can research yourself, since it is outside the scope of a firearms discussion.

It wasn't a 'new idea', it's been implemented for decades, as well as supported, reinforced, supplemented, etc.

Further, the 'wall' has simply been a broad brush term to cover a multitude of physical barriers as well as electronic surveillance.

I am specifically reffing to the "30' concrete wall" certain politicians have touted.

You just refuted your own argument and don't even know it
Further, if physical barriers are 'so easily defeated', why have they worked so well when/where erected? At no point, and at no time, has anyone suggested physical barriers cannot be defeated, people have escaped some of the most secure prisons ever built. But to keep repeating BS talking points says a lot about you and your capacity for critical thought.

Walls only work with constant surveillance. Without constant surveillance, a wall is next to useless. Critical thinking includes looking at history (even recent history). As soon as surveillance of the Berlin Wall ended, it was defeated within minutes.

You've clearly never heard the term 'force multiplier'
Physical barriers are huge force multipliers, especially when COMBINED with electronic walls
Which AGAIN, have always been part of the equation

I clearly understand the term, and have alluded to it multiple times above. There are other force multipliers outside of physical barriers (especially on the scale we are speaking of) as well, and ones that are potentially much more effective. Physical barriers are of course not wholly ineffective when paired with force multipliers like surveillance and human intelligence, they just have to be employed in an intelligent and measured manner.

Your tone, however, indicates a certain close-mindedness on this subject. So there is no point in further debate on this subject, and I will refrain from such.

This thread need to be swung back into the direction of military service weapon adoption and the economics/politics/priorities associated with it.

 

[agtman]

Okay, let's review.

1) Build the wall, Snowflakes.

2) Colt M45A1 for the real shooters.

3) 9mm whatevers that 'look-real-purty-on-yer-hip' for everyone else.

 

[Leaf]

I love the Colt M45A1 but I'd feel like I was willing to cut off my nose to spite my face if I were willing to send our folks into battle with anything less than a hi-cap nine. I mean, we're talking combat with a lot of targets.

 

[TBM900]

The United States

Prove it

Visa Overstays account for 44% by the most recent count, but that is only the number that can be confirmed, with many more unconfirmed

False
The data you are referring to is NOT 'confirmed', it is only an estimate, and a very generous estimate at that

likely putting this number over 50%.

Funny how you keep moving the bar.

Also understand also that large numbers of otherwise temporary illegal aliens get "trapped" with an increase in physical barriers, further inflating the number of illegals who would not otherwise be in the US.

So wait a minute.....
You assert that physically barriers are essentially useless at keeping people out....
Then go on to assert that they 'trap' people in.......?

LoLoLoLoLoL

I can tell you've never set foot on or even near our southern border.

This has been widely studied and you can research yourself, since it is outside the scope of a firearms discussion.

You brought is into the scope, so please provide one of these 'studies'.

I am specifically reffing to the "30' concrete wall" certain politicians have touted.

Which also included budget for everything I stated, stop being so obtuse.

Walls only work with constant surveillance.

a) False
b) The 'wall' as you keep referring to it also includes multiple levels of electronic surveillance.

Without constant surveillance, a wall is next to useless.

a) False
b) The 'wall' as you keep referring to it also includes multiple levels of electronic surveillance.

You keep feigning ignorance on this aspect but doing so only keeps digging yourself deeper.

Critical thinking includes looking at history (even recent history).

You keep saying 'walls don't work', yet those on the border prove they do, and you ignore them.

I clearly understand the term, and have alluded to it multiple times above.

Clearly you do not.
Your alluding has been in terms of 'Trump wall bad because it doesn't have surveillance'.
Even though it has included such since day one.
You painted yourself into a corner.

There are other force multipliers outside of physical barriers (especially on the scale we are speaking of) as well

Do you mean the electronic ones that have been included in 'the wall' since day one?
You know, the ones you keep pretending don't exist?

and ones that are potentially much more effective.

Such as....?

Physical barriers are of course not wholly ineffective when paired with force multipliers like surveillance and human intelligence, they just have to be employed in an intelligent and measured manner.

Do you mean the manner as proposed by those on the border that have all been included in 'the wall' plan since day one? The ones you keep pretending don't exist?

Your tone, however, indicates a certain close-mindedness on this subject.

Again, as I stated in my first reply to you......look in the mirror.

So there is no point in further debate on this subject, and I will refrain from such.

Yes I can clearly see that you've painted yourself into a corner.

This thread need to be swung back

You're the one that swung it away.





PS...sorry your girl lost

 

[seeker_two]

Until the military gets away from FMJ, any talk on caliber or pistol is pointless.

Now, can we dump the wall talk and stay on topic?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[agtman]

I love the Colt M45A1 but I'd feel like I was willing to cut off my nose to spite my face if I were willing to send our folks into battle with anything less than a hi-cap nine. I mean, we're talking combat with a lot of targets.

Nobody loses or wins wars because of the particular pistol issued to troops.

Looking at it across all branches of service, most soldiers don't get issued one anyway.

The purpose of the pistol is really to give a last-ditch survival chance to that individual soldier holding it, once his primary combat weapon (his rifle) is empty, disabled, or lost. The pistol was never a crew-served weapon, nor even issued for the benefit of the soldier's squad or platoon.

Pilots got them for E&E after being shot down because a pistol (or sometimes a revolver) stored in the post-crash survival kit was thought handier to store there than a full-size rifle.

But if you're going to issue an effective last-ditch survival tool to certain select ground troops, where the ammo is some form of FMJ-ball, the venerable .45acp still has it for lethality (or 'stopping power') over a FMJ 9mm alternative.

 

[imp]

The .30-06 is a far superior "man stopper" than the 5.56mm, yet the general issue rifles have been 5.56mms for the last 50+ years.

Capacity and volume of fire are just as important in close range engagements as they are distant targets.

 

[peacefulgary]

The Glock was the obvious choice.
Even before the adoption of the Sig, plenty of military units were already using a Glock.
And plenty of military units still use the Glock.

 

[TBM900]

Until the military gets away from FMJ, any talk on caliber or pistol is pointless.

Now, can we dump the wall talk and stay on topic?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

FMJ kills people just fine.
A PCC is leaps and bounds more effective for a solder than a pistol.

 

[TBM900]

Nobody loses or wins wars because of the particular pistol issued to troops.

Looking at it across all branches of service, most soldiers don't get issued one anyway.

The purpose of the pistol is really to give a last-ditch survival chance to that individual soldier holding it, once his primary combat weapon (his rifle) is empty, disabled, or lost. The pistol was never a crew-served weapon, nor even issued for the benefit of the soldier's squad or platoon.

Pilots got them for E&E after being shot down because a pistol (or sometimes a revolver) stored in the post-crash survival kit was thought to be handier to do than a full-size rifle.

But if you're going to issue an effective last-ditch survival tool to certain select ground troops, where the ammo is some form of FMJ-ball, the venerable .45acp still has it for lethality (or 'stopping power') over a FMJ 9mm alternative.

Agreed except for the last part....

In soft targets like people, there is almost no practical difference between 9 & 45.
On hard targets/barriers, 9mm actually tends to do better than 45.

Don't take my word for it, our military did all the testing you could ever want decades ago on this very subject. It's one of the main reasons we switched to 9mm from the 45 since we are sort of stuck with FMJ.

 

[44 AMP]

It's one of the main reasons we switched to 9mm from the 45 since we are sort of stuck with FMJ.

I think I'd say it was one of the main reasons we didn't object to adopting the 9mm. The oft stated "main reason" was political. We wanted NATO to adopt our rifle round (at the time the new 7.62x51mm) and a deal was worked out, NATO would adopt our rifle round, we would adopt their pistol round (9mm Luger), when we replaced our current inventory of 1911A1s.

NATO members assumed we would do that within a few years, and got a bit put out when we didn't replace our .45s until the 1980s, but we did keep our part of the deal. Just not as soon as they assumed we would.

We didn't adopt the 9mm because of the round's performance, we adopted it because of a political deal.

 

[Leaf]

Agtman, I agree with your post #51 but for your comment on the .45 in a limited magazine capacity formation being somehow superior to a high cap nine because of claimed superior "stopping power." I count on placement and round count for "stopping power."

 

[Ibmikey]

Agree with Rodfac, definitely not a status symbol when that is all you are armed with in hot areas. I carried a 1911 while working my dog in the dmz, he had great teeth but having a .45 and half dozen mags was also very comforting.

 

[Carl the Floor Walker]