US ArmyDown to 3

RANT AHEAD:

The real problem is guns aren't chosen by the end user, but the congressmen with the most kick back.

I'd much rather see the money spent on training our soldiers to shoot what they have.

19 of my last 25 years in the army (Active and NG) was spent mostly in firearms training.

The constant I found in those near 19 years and the other 6 was that as a whole soldiers (marines and other services) cant shoot for crap. Rifles and pistols.

Heck, I carried a pistol (1911a1) in combat, as a machine gunner with the 2/502 IN. 101st in SE Asia.

The pistol was perfect for when you have to have a weapon, and don't need one. For example its easier to carry a pistol through the chow hall then a M-60.

Most uses of the pistol can be filled by giving them a 4 in S&W Model 10.

Spend the money on training, if a soldier wants a pistol, (which is a feel good tool more then anything else) let them furnish their own and qualify with what they want.

END OF DAILY RANT
 
Last edited:
Spend the money on training, if a soldier wants a pistol, (which is a feel good tool more then anything else) let them furnish their own and qualify with what they want.
Click to expand...

+1,000,000

Spending money on a new pistol is freaking dumb. They could be making all the M4s mid length, with free float Keymod or MLok rails, or maybe trying to develop some lighter yet still effective body armor. A pistol is really the most inconsequential weapon on the battlefield.
 
The real problem is guns aren't chosen by the end user, but the congressmen with the most kick back.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna disagree with this a little bit. Now I am under no illusions of the pork barrel that is the federal budget and especially the DoD budget where the military has to keep buying tanks despite them saying they don't need more tanks. My point is in small arms procurement there is typically some field trial involving soldiers. Now we can argue about the results, how those results were interpreted, and whether or not the "best" candidate was chosen, but the end user is involved to an extent. As much as that end user would like? Probably not. But I don't think it's quite the days of the whiz kids in DC telling the military that plastic fantastic rifles are the future no matter what.
 
TunnelRat said:
... But I don't think it's quite the days of the whiz kids in DC telling the military that plastic fantastic rifles are the future no matter what.
Click to expand...

Although in THAT case, it turned out to be pretty much true -- at least for most modern Western militaries...
 
I have to say if they don't pic the Beretta M9A3, which will save the country some big buck, then I think the Ruger American is the way to go. If Ruger even entered the race. Now I own both the Sig P320 and the Ruger American and I have to say that the Ruger American is a awesome pistol and built like a tank to boot. I like the Ruger American better than the P320.
 
Although in THAT case, it turned out to be pretty much true -- at least for most modern Western militaries...
Click to expand...

Lol I know. That's part of the irony. Sometimes one central making decision authority works out for the best and eliminates a lot of wasted time. Other times it doesn't.I'd argue we have a procurement process now where we try to satisfy everyone. Sometimes the worst enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan.
 
Walt Sherrill said:
Although in THAT case, it turned out to be pretty much true -- at least for most modern Western militaries...
Click to expand...
Well, only after many years of product improvement following a disastrous launch. If I remember correctly, the original M16 was hindered dramatically by McNamara's cost-saving 'improvements' (no chrome lining on the barrels, sticking with the older, dirtier propellant, and not issuing cleaning kits with the rifle).

And that was 20 years after insisting on adopting the .308 as the standard cartridge instead of the intermediate-powered .280 British, and the M14 instead of the FAL.

But aside from that, yeah, it worked out in the end.
 
From what I've heard it's the design that sold the Detonics. I'm sure S&W or Colt or somebody would actually build the pistol under license.

BTW, I have a 1980 vintage Detonics Combat Master that is a fine little 1911, and I mean little. I carry it often when I don't have a CW or CM45 in my holster. Of course, it was built in the original Seattle factory before they moved to Arizona, then Georgia, and finally Illinois.
 

Attachments

  • PICT0120.JPG
    PICT0120.JPG
    86.2 KB · Views: 23
Last edited:
Independent George said:
Well, only after many years of product improvement following a disastrous launch. If I remember correctly, the original M16 was hindered dramatically by McNamara's cost-saving 'improvements' (no chrome lining on the barrels, sticking with the older, dirtier propellant, and not issuing cleaning kits with the rifle).

And that was 20 years after insisting on adopting the .308 as the standard cartridge instead of the intermediate-powered .280 British, and the M14 instead of the FAL.

But aside from that, yeah, it worked out in the end.
Click to expand...

All true. But they had the same sort of technological experience with jet-powered aircraft... and, nowadays, there's only a few prop-planes still used in military applications.

Advancements in technology typically don't come quickly or easily.
 
The pistol was perfect for when you have to have a weapon, and don't need one. For example its easier to carry a pistol through the chow hall then a M-60
Click to expand...
.
Yep...shower points, slit trenches, the local cat house, jeep seats, cockpits...the list goes on and I was never out of reach of that antiquated Colt and happy to have it when, "you can't get the slat with a rifle". But I'm sure you're aware of all that and many more...our war is long over but I suspect that the crowd that firmly believes it's all cruise missiles, lazer bombs from 35,000 feet and long range artillery fire has never waded through the mud, blood and whatever, nor wondered if dawn would ever come.

The short gun has always had its detractors, but ask any forward deployed GI if he wants one, and two guesses what the answer will be...give 'em a good, usable hand gun, teach 'em to use it, and make it American made....

Rod (lll Corp, An Loc, B34 Special Forces Camp 69-70)
 
And that was 20 years after insisting on adopting the .308 as the standard cartridge instead of the intermediate-powered .280 British, and the M14 instead of the FAL.
Click to expand...

Actually, not even 10 years elapsed between the adoption of the M14 (1959) and the adoption of the M16. The XM16E1 had several years of combat experience behind it by the time it was formally adopted as the M16A1 in 1967.

Bart Noir
 
rodfac said:
.

Yep...shower points, slit trenches, the local cat house, jeep seats, cockpits...the list goes on and I was never out of reach of that antiquated Colt and happy to have it when, "you can't get the slat with a rifle". But I'm sure you're aware of all that and many more...our war is long over but I suspect that the crowd that firmly believes it's all cruise missiles, lazer bombs from 35,000 feet and long range artillery fire has never waded through the mud, blood and whatever, nor wondered if dawn would ever come.



The short gun has always had its detractors, but ask any forward deployed GI if he wants one, and two guesses what the answer will be...give 'em a good, usable hand gun, teach 'em to use it, and make it American made....



Rod (lll Corp, An Loc, B34 Special Forces Camp 69-70)
Click to expand...



I'm not sure those of us saying the M9 might be fine are arguing that all wars are fought completely with cruise missiles and laser guided bombs (though those likely account for a lot more casualties than pistols). I think the point that has been made, to the point of ad nauseum with all the threads about this, is that for the money spent on a new handgun the performance gained and the percentage of those affected indicate that there are better places to spend money. Wth sequestration and budget cuts already in place before that the military is seeing its budget decrease significantly. Until those facts are remedied, there is only so much money to go around and there are technologies and equipment that need replacing and are more crucial to the war effort. And it's not just guys in ties and pocket protectors saying this. A lot of people that have been down range recently agree. Now if you can get Congress to alleviate those budget concerns, then great. But what will likely turn into years of competition and hundreds of millions spent for a program that has been shelved already before in the past, some doubt isn't out of left field nor is it a result of lack of concern for the fighting man.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top