New Army Handgun: We're Really Doing This

Status
Not open for further replies.
DaleA said:
How do the troops carry the Beretta M9?

Round in the chamber cocked safety on?

Round in the chamber hammer down?

No round in the chamber?
Click to expand...
When I was in many moons ago, SOP for our units (MCSF and my regular grunt units) was round chambered, safety on.
 
Some locations and duties require no magazine inserted and chamber empty and safety on.
Click to expand...

Oh, Dear! ..... it's like it's 1983 all over again..... and we've gone double-plus-extra-safe with mandating that the safety be on.....

Sentries were ordered to keep their weapons at condition four (no magazine inserted and no rounds in the chamber)
Click to expand...

That was the SOP at the 1/8 Marines (BLT) in Beiruit, Oct., 1983.

Question: should we be more afraid of the occasional ND, or not being able to stop bad people from doing very bad things? If you need a gun, chances are, unless you are ambushing somebody, you go from carrying the thing to using it like your life, and more importantly, The Mission, depends upon it?

Generally, a ND is limited in scope, and the idjit responsible pays dearly and directly. It's kind of self correcting, that way. The lack of instant, effective firepower caused by stupid ROE instituted by passive/agressive control freak leadership (whose greatest fear, IME, is a poor ER) ....that generally results in lots of people paying all they have, and all they are ever gonna have ..... sure, what's that matter, so long as the "Leaders" never have to fret about private Snuffy coonfigering a loaded weapon..... IF the "Leaders" were doing their J-O-B, private Snuffy understands the responsibility involved with a loaded weapon ...... risk/reward issues are not solved simply by removing the risk....... were that the case, Sodiers would never leave the barracks, in CONUS, and the Navy would never float a boat!
 
Last edited:
Yeah!

Why can't we just go back to the good ol' days of gwbush taking our eye off the ball, letting Bin Laden escape, and break the bank declaring mission accomplished on a totally different and useless war while simultaneously imploding our economy?
 
A big driver for operators in mufti is a requirement to carry the pistol with 75 rounds in magazines, and 75 rounds loose secreted on your person. A G19 is one of the best for this. The operator ransomed out of Pakistan for 2 million USD was so equipped. He won his gunfight against two local BG's.
 
apart from the platform it appears to me that a lot of problems would be solved by continuing 9mm, but switching to variants / loads / bullets more powerful than the common ball round. The Russians gave proof to the fact that 9mm can be as (soft-)armor piercing as both 5,7 or 10mm. This solution would still be NATO standard compliant, with the advantage of cheap and stockpiled 9mm ammo, but with more punch on the battlefield on the other hand (there are also some Western design approaches on how to make 9mm fit for the era of insurgents wearing body armor ANG give it more stopping power, like VBN Belgium).

(all that completely oblivious of the question whether a pistol is important or not on the modern battlefield).
 
In the grand scheme of things, pistols aren't important, but to the fellow that has had to draw his and fire it in anger, it's important.

Ask my medic and my 'terp, not to mention my mom and LadyFriend, if they think it was important that I carried a sidearm.
 
Peacetime military, (yes, there was a time), we had 1911A1s on the ship. The OTHER services had gone to the Beretta in the late 1980s, but the Navy was holding out. Heck, some of the antiques in my armory were marked Remington-Rand! They ALL rattled like castanets, but they all worked. Even the one an idiot dropped in 118 feet of salt water, complete with belt, holster, spare mags and pouch, that I got the fun of watching him clean after the EOD diver we had on board brought it back up.
To put things in perspective, my Dept switched to Glocks, (17s and 19s), about 14-15 years ago. We no longer train with the G-19s on the range because the G-19s we used for practice are far too worn out for anything but recycling. Now we are working on the G17s we use for other duties. The ship board 1911s had been there since the late 50s, from the records I remember seeing, with a few being replaced here and there, and shot every quarter. Oddly enough, we had 4 Ruger Service Six 38 revolvers, too. No ammo, no holsters, no speedloaders, nothing, but 4 wheelguns, never did get an answer from anyone on why.
Does that mean the 1911s were superior to the Glock because they lasted so much longer?Boy will THAT question open a can of worms...!!! No, it doesn't, because the range Glocks got a minimum of 300 rounds through them every week, and the 1911s got about 1000 rounds through them every 3 months or so. How do I know? I got to load the magazines...low man on the totem pole.
What should we go with? That is a question that is very easy to answer - whatever that will go bang when we want it to, won't go bang when we don't want it to, hits the intended target and lays a hurtin' on it. That;s simple - the REAL work is Congress - a system of appropriation and replacement that ensures pistols nearing a planned life span end should be rotated out of service and surplussed, to either friendly Third World powers or CDNN Investments, with new pistols of the same make/model brought in to replace them. I realize it ain't a perfect world, but in said perfect world armorers would be able to surplus pistols that nearing replacement and provide new ones, with the worn ones serving as third line or training equipment before being surplussed completely.

Then again, I'm just an old squid with one total day of combat in my whole wasted life, so my opinion is worth what you paid for it. ;)
 
Last edited:
You raise a good point. Why doesn't total cost of ownership enter into the equation? It's not a friggin' stapler. If cheapest lasts a small fraction of the service life of an HK, HK may wind up being the cheapest when it's all said and done.
 
Like 45_Auto: in Baghdad I carried with safety off and round in chamber but hammer down. On CONUS post duty, though, SOP did not allow a round in the chamber; I did anyway. Just some extra exercise if I got caught.
 
Why are we spending so much on this?

A couple of thoughts:
Handguns are one of the least effective methods of killing your enemies. Therefore maybe we ought not to be putting too many resources into such an inefficient system.
For the most part the handgun is more a symbol of rank(yeah, there are exceptions).
Why not go with an already proven design like the CZ? Who doesn't make a reliable and cheap clone of the design?
If your special ops ninjas need a .45 with a threaded barrel for a suppressor, or other special doohickies then have one of their guys buy it with some discretional funds that the military has on hand for special projects.

Spending billions of dollars on a personal sidearm that will rarely get used seems kinda stupid.
 
"Isn't Glock standard issue for some armies?

So its not like Glock needs expert operators."

Yeah and lets not forget how many LE departments use them. Now if those guys can use em, then well, there ya go.

This bucket of awesomeness is proof that glocks are pretty safe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXFL0NhqtRk
 
Last edited:
SPEMack618 said:
Anytime I was out of the FOB though, safety off.
Click to expand...

You believe that there is a significant difference in safety between your loaded Beretta M9 with the safety off and a loaded Glock? What happens if the trigger gets pulled on either one?

Your Beretta had a double action trigger pull of around 13 pounds. A Glock with a New York trigger has a trigger pull weight of 12 pounds. A standard Glock trigger pull is bout 5 pounds.

You and the New York PD seem to have the same idea as to what makes a pistol suitable for common use.
 
I'm not claiming to be an "only ones" type of guy, but I bought a Beretta 92 specifically to practice with on my own time.

It's not the gun that I find inadequate or dangerous, it's the amount of time, or lack there of, really, that the Army devotes to small arm qualification and training, especially pistols.

That's my concern.
 
Say what you want, the M9 has a US military battle history. Right, wrong, or indifferent it does. There is a baseline to draw from.

With all due respect to Glock, they do not. Yes, they are popular. But, who has had more troops deployed for the last 14 years? That would be the USA. It would be interesting to see if Glock got it and 15 years down the road if they had the same reputation as now. I think it would be a whole different ballgame than having them in a lot of police departments and foreign militaries.

I have nothing against Glock. That being said, I am not convinced it is the best solutions for a general issue weapon.
 
The various police users probably have more examples of Glock firing and usage than the USA military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

IIRC, we bought 20K Glock 19s for the Iraqis - of which many were sold. We bought Sigmas and Rugers for the Afghans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top