Who will US Army pick

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Grandaddy of cost overruns is the Lockheed F-35 program. So far they've not pulled the plug.
Click to expand...

Funny that people made the same complaints about the F-22. Now that it is in service and a mature platform, the Air Force is seriously regretting the congressional decision to the close the F-22 production line after building a paltry 187 examples.
 
Quote:
For my two cents - a Glock 17 would just be fine. Buy them off the shelf and save us a buck or two. However, if the new Beretta saves money, buy that.
Smartest line of the thread so far.

I would say the same goes for S&W, SIG, current M9 etc. All are decent options. Whichever design passes trials (real trials - not ones designed to favor a particular design), and has the cheapest long-term price is the right choice.
Click to expand...

Indeed. These are all:
1. Proven firearms in terms of accuracy, reliability, ease of cleaning.
2. At the lead in current technology.
3. Have been proven with police and military units in a variety of different conditions.

None may be perfect for every situation, but all of them are good for the general purpose with which the purchase is made-secondary arms for the average soldier.
 
Having carried a 1911 Colt or a Smith M15 or a Browning Hi-Power at one point or another during my two tours in Vietnam, I'd say that 99% of guys in actual combat units would gladly carry the extra weight of a side arm. Ask any combat veteran.

If the current inventory of handguns is worn out...then we need to replace them and cost be damned. We owe it to our troops. As one suggestion, we could fund it out of the "cell phones for welfare recipients" program among others of equal merit.

A pistol or revolver, much more so than a rifle/carbine, is never out of reach: showering points, sleeping bags, the local cat house, you name it, the short gun was NEVER out of reach. Riding in jeeps (OK Humvees now), almost precludes the use of even a short carbine, BUT NOT A PISTOL. Same with an aircraft that crash lands, assuming you survive the sudden halt.

As to the type, manufacturer etc., a good 1911 is hard to beat. DA/SA systems are OK, if you can keep the grip size down where today's personnel can use it. I'd say that a 1911A1 is as close to that spec as any other type and a lot more user friendly for smallish hands than the current M9. Compare an M9 to the 1911 and I think you'll find that it's thicker, bulkier, and larger around than the venerable Colt design.

Caliber is another arguing point. 9mm doesn't cut it in many cases and the notion that ammunition compatibility between our troops and our so-called allies is vital is ludicrous. Hell we buy most of their needs anyway if truth be told, let 'em use what we use. Training is the real issue...if we issue hand guns to troops, for God's sake train them to use them...

Lastly, and for once, let it be a US manufacturer, not some overseas conglomerate with a token US plant...we need the bucks, and jobs here and also the manufacturing base. Out sourcing to China, Russia, India or any other place overseas is insanity. Does anyone actually believe we'll be allies with that bunch when the next balloon goes up...gimme a break.

Rod (an old fart who carried a "useless" pistol" for 23 months and would rather have given up his jungle stompers than part with it.)
 
Last edited:
If the current inventory of handguns is worn out...then we need to replace them and cost be damned. We owe it to our troops. As one suggestion, we could fund it out of the "cell phones for welfare recipients" program among others of equal merit.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone yet that has said, "We shouldn't spend money to equip our soldiers; to hell with American soldiers." What I have seen is people saying that the DoD budget is in a state it hasn't been in decades and given the realities of that limitation there are other areas of the budget that need money that would likely have a greater impact on more soldiers given the current manner in which pistols are used. If you can get your Congressmen/women to approve more money for the DoD or cut money elsewhere, then by all means go for it. But sentiments alone don't make money appear.

Lastly, and for once, let it be a US manufacturer, not some overseas conglomerate with a token us plant...we need the bucks, and jobs here and also the manufacturing base. Out sourcing to China, Russia, India or any other place overseas is insanity. Does anyone actually believe we'll be allies with that bunch when the next balloon goes up...gimme a break.
Click to expand...

The Beretta pistols are made here in a US plant by US workers. As are the weapons by FN that our soldiers use. It's typically a requirement of their contracts. To me as long as the weapons are made here so that the people get jobs and we control access to the factory in case relations were to sour, I'd prefer the firearm be the best of those submitted. If that's a US manufacturer all the better, but I don't give them a free pass.
 
Last edited:
Having carried a 1911 Colt or a Smith M15 or a Browning Hi-Power at one point or another during my two tours in Vietnam, I'd say that 99% of guys in actual combat units would gladly carry the extra weight of a side arm. Ask any combat veteran.

If the current inventory of handguns is worn out...then we need to replace them and cost be damned. We owe it to our troops. As one suggestion, we could fund it out of the "cell phones for welfare recipients" program among others of equal merit.

A pistol or revolver, much more so than a rifle/carbine, is never out of reach: showering points, sleeping bags, the local cat house, you name it, the short gun was NEVER out of reach. Riding in jeeps (OK Humvees now), almost precludes the use of even a short carbine, BUT NOT A PISTOL. Same with an aircraft that crash lands, assuming you survive the sudden halt.

As to the type, manufacturer etc., a good 1911 is hard to beat. DA/SA systems are OK, if you can keep the grip size down where today's personnel can use it. I'd say that a 1911A1 is as close to that spec as any other type and a lot more user friendly for smallish hands than the current M9. Compare an M9 to the 1911 and I think you'll find that it's thicker, bulkier, and larger around than the venerable Colt design.

Caliber is another arguing point. 9mm doesn't cut it in many cases and the notion that ammunition compatibility between our troops and our so-called allies is vital is ludicrous. Hell we buy most of their needs anyway if truth be told, let 'em use what we use. Training is the real issue...if we issue hand guns to troops, for God's sake train them to use them...

Lastly, and for once, let it be a US manufacturer, not some overseas conglomerate with a token us plant...we need the bucks, and jobs here and also the manufacturing base. Out sourcing to China, Russia, India or any other place overseas is insanity. Does anyone actually believe we'll be allies with that bunch when the next balloon goes up...gimme a break.

Rod (an old fart who carried a "useless" pistol" for 23 months and would rather have given up his jungle stompers than part with it.)
Click to expand...


Wow... That was so perfect, it gave me chills. Thank you for your service and I agree with you 100% as well.

I retract my original post on this thread. You're right.
 
Fishbed77
Funny that people made the same complaints about the F-22. Now that it is in service and a mature platform, the Air Force is seriously regretting the congressional decision to the close the F-22 production line after building a paltry 187 examples.
Click to expand...

If the history of the F22 proves anything, it's the danger of putting all your eggs in the basket of one airplane platform. When all of the F22s were grounded after the pilots were experiencing hypoxia we had backup F-16 and F-15s that were in service who could cover the F22s duties. If the F35s should develop (another) surprise glitch, we will have to rely on the handful of F22s witih their meager missile-carrying capacity to defend any and all global interests until the F35 returns to service. That fear of a global grounding of all US and ally F35-centric air forces is the reason people wish there were more F22s.
 
the Air Force is seriously regretting the congressional decision to the close the F-22 production line after building a paltry 187 examples.
Click to expand...
\It isn't as if the Air Force was in agreement to begin with. People in my area threw fits for months b/c there were all sorts of ancillary research projects continuing at WPAFB. Everyone always wants more toys. The fact is the US Air Force is decades ahead of what anyone has in anywhere close to the numbers as far as manned craft go. The reality is if the F35 is grounded the plethora of UAVs available in service will be utilized. Its a 'big secret' no one wants to admit and can bring quite the reaction from many of the military pilots, but manned fighter craft are a romanticized thing of the past. Beyond horizon SAMs and AAMs, UAVs that can literally go circles around manned vehicles without any concern about hypoxia, and many other factors are pushing them into the history books much faster than military pilots are retiring.

Soldiers knowledge about the terminal effects may not be relevant from a technical perspective, but their opinions are relevant due to morale. Their confidence in the weapons they carry is paramount, whether that confidence is warranted or not, as is their feeling of being supported in general. If someone feels like they are being forced to carry into combat, a 30 year old gun that is worn out to the extent of being sloppy, because the US taxpayers , government, and their commanding officers don't care enough to buy them a pistol that costs about what a gallon of gas will cost by the time it reaches a forward vehicle in Afghanistan, that feeling can have a very immediate and real effect, even if the worn out pistol is never pulled.

The things I've heard people say about the M2 Browning... Its an amazing gun and the 50 BMG is an amazing round, but it will NOT 'tear the skin off a person if it passes within a foot of them.' I imagine that if you believe that it makes storming the castle with a few as support considerably easier to stomach though.
 
Last edited:
If the current inventory of handguns is worn out...then we need to replace them and cost be damned.
Click to expand...


Negative.

Because every dollar spent on a new service pistol is a dollar not spent on better communications, better integrated command & control, better medical care, better training, or better psychological care (both deployed and at home), etc.

All of these things will save the lives of more soldiers than a new sidearm will.

It may behoove you to read the entirety of this thread. There have been some very thoughtful posts by some guys here who understand the situation at hand.
 
.45ACP can be difficult for women to shoot though. This has to be a pistol all service members can use.
Click to expand...

And this is the perfect reason why women should not be eligible for any combat unit UNLESS they can achieve the same standards as men.
 
...every dollar spent on a new service pistol is a dollar not spent on better communications, better integrated command & control, better medical care, better training, or better psychological care (both deployed and at home), etc.
Click to expand...
And not spent on refurbishing or replacing the old ones, which just may run up a higher tab, an likely would.

And not spent on retraining, re-recruitment, and treatment because someone was injured who would not have been had he or she had the right sidearm.
 
Oh no not again

"Its a 'big secret' no one wants to admit and can bring quite the reaction from many of the military pilots, but manned fighter craft are a romanticized thing of the past."

That statement or similarly stupid comments have been made for 50 or even 100 years...

That misguided belief was the reason the USAF had NON-gun armed F-4's in Vietnam...
That misguided belief was the reason the USAF had an "emergengy" program adding gun pods to the F-4 for use in Vietnam...
That misguided belief was the reason the USAF had the later F-4 redesigned to have an internal gun...

Same can be said for many aircraft and non-aircraft programs since WW2 and even since WW1...

Some clown comes up with the idea that the "day of manned aircraft is over" and history always seems to PROVE THEM WRONG AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN...

A few examples - 1950's and 60's...
Cancelling manned bombers and attack aircraft programs for missiles than were later cancelled (usually for being "one shot" and "NON-recallable")...

Cancelling many "fighter" programs since another clown decided we needed "missile platforms" which led to fighters that could not maneuver against enemy fighters and led to crash programs to develop LW fighters and more agile aircraft...

A Brittish clown comes out with a "white paper" claiming manned aircraft are out of date which led to cancelation of replacements to their "V-Bomber" force and the final dismantling of the force. This also led to the virtual destruction of the Royal Navy carrier attack forces. And guess what, it was wrong. That is why the UK is rebuilding their naval forces. And now 50 years later the F-35 is going to be what could have been then... A SUPERSONIC HARRIER (P1154)!!!

Could come up with dozens more examples this knuckle-headed BS being wrong but this IS a gun forum!:D

Sorry but I forgot the stupidest, most bone-headed idea of all...
Many of those with these misguided beleifs thought we also didn't need an Air Force (or Air Corps), Army or Navy... Why do we need these expensive manned systems, we have nuclear weapons... History repeats!!!

T.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top