US Army: Modular Handgun System

Then we discovered that .223 actually encouraged soldiers to shoot back.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but they still can't hit anything as shown by the number of rounds fired per each kill. Numbers like 2,000 rounds per kill. That is just crazy, I understand the concept of covering fire, but can't at least one of them hit a target with their first round??? Or is it "I don't want to get hit" and I will just fire into the air to make it look like I am fighting?? And people keep asking why we keep losing wars.

Jim
 
I wasn't aware we are "losing wars". Our military is easily the most effective and seasoned force in the world, as well as the largest.

The basic problem is a mistaken assumption that "wasting ammunition" is bad. It isn't. Soldiers that shoot back win wars. The Marshall study found that only few soldiers in a combat unit were doing the majority of the fighting in WWII and Korea. While there is much debate about how or why this changed, some credit is given to the ease of firing the M-16 for completely changing how often soldiers fired their weapons in response to enemy fire.

The US military has always been backwards on this score, sticking to low rate of fire weapons whenever possible, introducing magazine cut-offs and hard kicking semi-automatic rifles. The M-16 was forced on the military, and changed the soldiers it was issued to.

Bullets are cheap. Soldiers that face the enemy are priceless. 2000 rounds a kill is much cheaper than the cost of one gunship sortie.


Extrapolate what you will about handguns from all of that, but the traditional US military values of hard kicking, low capacity weapons is as misplaced as it was when it was embraced 200+ years ago. Give soldiers an easy to use weapon and they will use it. A less lethal bullet is a million times more valuable than the ultimate man-stopper that never leaves the magazine.

I'd rather see the .32 Skorpion as a side arm than a 7 round .45. Luckily, we have 18 round 9mms, 15 round .40s and 21 round 5.7s to pick from as well.
 
I wasn't aware we are "losing wars"
Click to expand...

Than you haven't been paying too much attention since WWII. Or I guess that not winning them is not the same as losing, huh. Maybe all football games should be played to ties. That way Brazil wouldn't feel as bad as Germany feeling good.

And as long as you don't have to reload or pay for the ammo, then using 2,000 rounds for a kill, is not wasting ammo. Maybe we should allow hunters to use 30 or 100 round mags for their rifles instead of three to five rounds. You have a strange ideal of what accuracy is. And CCW pistols need 18 rounds because you can't hit your target and neutralize it with the first 7 rounds???

Jim
 
rx-79g said:
Extrapolate what you will about handguns from all of that, but the traditional US military values of hard kicking, low capacity weapons is as misplaced as it was when it was embraced 200+ years ago.
Click to expand...

What kind of low kicking, high capacity weapons do you believe existed in 1814?
 
"Maybe, but they still can't hit anything as shown by the number of rounds fired per each kill. Numbers like 2,000 rounds per kill."

If true, that figure is substantially BETTER than the estimates that have been made for rounds per kill during World War II, which range from 5,000 to 50,000.

But, I know, I know...

Anything less than 1 round per kill is just so unAmerican and not in keeping with the national ethos that ever American is a hyper deadly sniping machine out to 1,000+ meters...
 
+1. Similar to complaints about collateral damage in bombing/missile strikes. All it takes is a glance at history to realize our military is doing a really fantastic job. It's not their fault if they're sent into vague, unwinnable conflicts. I realize that veers dangerously close to a political statement, it's not meant to be. My only point is that there is nothing to fault with the competence/accuracy/effectiveness of our military.
 
What kind of low kicking, high capacity weapons do you believe existed in 1814?
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should have said "low rate of fire". The armory board also fought against breech loaders when they first became available.
 
In the article which kicked off this discussion:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...hitting-pistol.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=1

It quotes this person here:
Daryl Easlick, a project officer with the Army's Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Ga.
Click to expand...

I went over to the website of the MCoE thinking that I could find a press release, article or notice of upcoming seminars like the mentioned July 29th one, relating to a new handgun or trials for such.

http://www.benning.army.mil/mcoe/

I went through their news releases for this year, 2014 but I could find no reference to coming meetings or announcements of a new firearms search.

http://www.benning.army.mil/mcoe/PAO/NewsReleases.html

I didn't look back to last year or earlier but I did not see a notice. I may have been a bit tired.

I also looked here...http://www.thebayonet.com/

I saw no notice or mention.

I may have missed something and I only have so much time. But has anyone read anything official from the U.S. Army on this?

The last things I read that were official were from the Marines on the acquisition of the upgraded 1911s from Colt and orders for over 100,000 new M9s for the Army. Both were a year and two old now.

By official I mean something from the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corp, Air Force, Coast Guard, National Guard etc. and not just from Gannet News Group or Fox News.

By the way exactly what rank is a "Project Officer"? How many stars does that General have?

tipoc
 
Thanks Barry, what I was looking for. Note...

OVERVIEW
The Project Manager Soldier Weapons (PM SW) will be hosting a second Modular Handgun System (MHS) Industry Day on 29 July 2014 at The Cannon Gate Catering and Conference Center, Bldg #121, 121 Buffington Road, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. The purpose of this Industry Day is to: expand on information gained from Industry Day #1, to further exchange information with the industry regarding the handgun and ammunition draft purchase descriptions, and to better refine the acquisition strategy. This event is for U.S. Government planning purposes only and constitutes a request for exchange of information pursuant to FAR 15.201.

This announcement should not be construed as a Request for Proposal (RFP) or a commitment by the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government does not intend to award a contract on the basis of this Industry Day. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION AND DOES NOT OBLIGATE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO ISSUE A SOLICITATION. The U.S. Government will NOT ACCEPT proposals at this time. NOTE: The U.S. Government will not be responsible for any expenses incurred by a vendor's decision to participate in this MHS Industry Day. All travel and other associated costs are to be assumed by the interested vendor.
Click to expand...

What I thought. There is no proposal at this time. There is an exploratory discussion. No discussion of the need for a new sidearm, caliber, etc. Not yet anyway. They are looking to see what is out there and what it would take to begin a serious search. No mention of being unhappy with the M9 or M11.

tipoc
 
But this article quotes folks by name and rank and has a link to the original MHS #1 (though I could not access it) and says a proposal may be available as soon as August.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...tm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&************=rss

Though not being a tactical guru I'm not sure what this is...

“Systems are encouraged to utilize ergonomic and design improvements to minimize the effects of greater recoil energies, reducing the degradation of shooter-in-the-loop dispersion thereby improving the probability of hit,” it adds. - See more at: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...ium=rss&************=rss#sthash.Rn6F4tXz.dpuf
Click to expand...

Other than "Tastes Great, Less Filling!"

tipoc
 
Today the US Army is holding their Industry Day to discuss plans for a new handgun. Beretta “coincidentally” sent out a press release stating that the US Army has just purchased $250,000 worth of additional M9 pistols. This is actually part of a larger 600,000 pistol contract signed in 2012.

So, if they are contractually obligated to purchase 600,000 pistols how serious can they be about replacing it? Can they terminate the existing contract?

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/07/29/army-buys-more-m-pistols/?intcmp=features

http://www.beretta.com/en-us/us-army-acquires-additional-beretta-m9-9mm-pistols/
 
All this reflects a debate in the armed forces. Or at least some folks holding a contrary opinion to the majority opinion.

This industry day is the second one. The last one was in 2013. This "industry day" is part of a years long process of organized looking into the possibility of replacing the M9 and M11 with some thing else. What else is not yet clear and there is no proposal at present on what the replacement could be. There is no agreement on what to replace the M9 with or if it needs replacing. Given that, they continue to buy more of what they have.

Both the M9 and M11 have been successful guns for the military.

It takes years for the military to do this sort of thing. In 2012 they ordered more than 1000,000 M9s. Another batch is due for delivery on that order. They are satisfied with the M9. Industry day is a chance to discuss what else is available. They ain't changing tomorrow.

tipoc
 
The problem with the M-9 is that it is BIG, BULKY and HEAVY. Would you rather carry around an EXTRA 30 round mag or a M-9???

Jim
 
The M9 is 34 oz - about the same as most other alloy framed full sized autos, and about 7 oz more than a polymer USP 9mm. The 1911 is 39 oz, as are CZs and most other steel framed 9mm pistols. So I think it is a stretch to call a Beretta "heavy".

When the US first started talking about replacing the 1911 with a 9mm, it took 30 years. So this new inquiry could take awhile.
 
The problem with the M-9 is that it is BIG, BULKY and HEAVY.
Click to expand...

Many mothers have said this about the offspring in their wombs but came to love them anyway.

Wah, wah! Should I call for a waambulance? :D

tipoc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top