G19: This pistol could be the Army's next handgun

[crazymjb]

Im a leader that believes in standardized training based on the regulatory requirement that i sign a memorandum before deploying that i personally certify my Soldiers were trained on all of their equipment. And if some jackass has a nd with his persoanally owned g19 and injures another Soldier im profesionally.....and yes morally responsible because I allowd the soldier to use equipment and was not trained on it propey. Thats command respinsibility. The first question asked after an accident in the Army is "who certified the that the Soldier was trained on that equipment....second question is "where is the copy of the current risk assesmet"? I dont make these regs.....but i do follow them.

Oh yeah not to mention.....personally owned fire arms are prohibited by regulation anywAy in line units.

Two Marines (that I know of) in my company had shot themselves with personally owned weapons accidentally prior to our deployment (years prior, not to get out of deploying) One took birdshot to the foot when the action was stuck on a side by side shotgun, and another had shot himself in the quad with a "new custom .45" that had a "match trigger." Are there training issues that could have prevented this... sure, and they were trained and should have known better... but unfamiliarity and lack of specific training on the various firearms served as increased risk factors.

Firearms are dangerous. We have weapons, everyone knows their function and capability, everyone is trained on them or doesn't use them, and that serves as another layer of protection for the individual, the unit, and the mission. People aren't infallible, you work to mitigate risk. Likewise, reliability and familiarity, or lack thereof, can also get people killed in combat.

Mike

 

[whacko]

Two Marines (that I know of) in my company had shot themselves with personally owned weapons accidentally prior to our deployment (years prior, not to get out of deploying) One took birdshot to the foot when the action was stuck on a side by side shotgun, and another had shot himself in the quad with a "new custom .45" that had a "match trigger." Are there training issues that could have prevented this... sure, and they were trained and should have known better... but unfamiliarity and lack of specific training on the various firearms served as increased risk factors.

Firearms are dangerous. We have weapons, everyone knows their function and capability, everyone is trained on them or doesn't use them, and that serves as another layer of protection for the individual, the unit, and the mission. People aren't infallible, you work to mitigate risk. Likewise, reliability and familiarity, or lack thereof, can also get people killed in combat.

Mike

Someone that gets it. Thank god. In the civilian world you have a nd and hurt yourself its all on you trained or not trained. In the mil someone has an nd and hurts themselves the unit is one man down and that puts others at risk and lets down the team.....and the powers that be start asking queationa like who authorized that soldier to have a non issuees weapon.....and where is the training schedule? It is what it is.

 

[drgrant]

Glock didnt even submit a gun. Neither did ruger.

Probably because they're sick of the DOD fiddle ****ing around and wasting everyone's time. The amount of resources gun companies have probably wasted in the past decade undergoing vain attempts to get them to suck for a big contract on an RFP is probably mind numbing. Meanwhile the rest of fedgov just buys a few guns, tests them, then picks a ****ing gun. (or guns, plural, depending on agency)

-Mike

 

[crazymjb]

To be fair I find it hard to believe that other federal agencies beat on their gear as much as the military. We are also talking about a different environment (young, testosterone fueled, etc) in the .mil vs the federal LE agencies.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

 

[drgrant]

To be fair I find it hard to believe that other federal agencies beat on their gear as much as the military. We are also talking about a different environment (young, testosterone fueled, etc) in the .mil vs the federal LE agencies.

So you're going to tell me that the FBI FTU at quantico doesn't beat the shit out of guns they approve for use?

The "different environment" is the DoD procurement system/procedures is a special kind of hell unparalleled compared to the rest of the government. This isn't about testing a gun it's about bureaucracy. The army has tested a shitload of guns at this point over the past decade or more, the problem never was "we didn't find a gun that was good enough" it's always been someone up the food chain didn't want to shit or get off the pot on actually making the decision. The DoD should just leave small arms manufacturers alone until they actually want to buy something.

-Mike

 

[crazymjb]

I dont disagree but military gear tends to really really really have the shit beaten out of it... im not just talking use Im talking things getting slammed in 400lb doors, used for blunt force when they shouldnt be, having equipment dropped on it, dragged through all sorts of shit... and it just gets recycled until it starts to physically break down. We had M2s from the 1940s. Lifecycle matters. Im not saying a glock wouldnt be perfect, just saying I see why the mil is cautious with what their procurement.

That said Im sure the process is an overblown nightmare.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

 

[dcmdon]

There's a lot of "could/would/should" in that article, which means to me that it's a bunch of hot air.

Just like gun owners, the military is divided into two camps, the .45 camp and the 9mm/"I want more than 7+1 shots" camp. If they really wanted to make everyone happy, they'd go with a gun with an external safety that's a double stack .45ACP, like say the CZ97B, especially since now CZ USA guns are made in Kansas City (or will be soon).

Or, they would just allow people to buy their own pistols with their own money at cost price or a small markup. List three approved calibers and let everyone have at it.

Or they'd just buy Glocks in 9mm and .45. Other than the frame, slide, barrel and magazine, most of the internal parts are the same. It really doesn't take much to keep a bunch of these guns running.

Don
(certified Glock armorer, going to advanced armorer class this summer)

p.s. the fact that SOF guys use 9mm glocks, probably with hollow points says it all. In my humble opinion, a 9mm Glock with federal HST or similar is hard to beat.

 

[ScottS]

And im pretty sure hps are still no bueno

You'd be wrong.

Some good detail is outlined here: The DOD Law of War Manual Returns Hollow Point Bullets to Armed Conflict

The US has been using HP ammo in specialized applications since at least the late '80's, starting with the 168gr Sierra MatchKing HPBT. Somewhere I have the Army JAGs letter outlining the legal case for it. If I can find it, I'll post it.

It's still the current JAG position:

Richard Jackson, the special assistant to the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General for Law of War, said the Army currently only uses hollow-point pistol ammunition for counter-terrorism operations. The change is based on the Army’s desire for more lethal ammunition, Jackson said.

“They wanted to be better at felling the adversary than the current ammunition,” Jackson said.

The current 5.56 Mk 262 Mod 0/1 uses a 77gr OTM bullet. Note, too, that what we used to call "HPBT" is now referred to as "OTM."

The Rangers already have authorized 147gr JHP 9mm rounds. I think some MP units are authorized them, as well.

 

[M1911]

There's a lot of "could/would/should" in that article, which means to me that it's a bunch of hot air. Just like gun owners, the military is divided into two camps, the .45 camp and the 9mm/"I want more than 7+1 shots" camp. If they really wanted to make everyone happy, they'd go with a gun with an external safety that's a double stack .45ACP, like say the CZ97B, especially since now CZ USA guns are made in Kansas City (or will be soon). Or, they would just allow people to buy their own pistols with their own money at cost price or a small markup. List three approved calibers and let everyone have at it.

CZ-97 would be a bad idea.

It is a big gun. Like many double-stack .45s, it has a large grip circumference. That makes it unsuitable for people with smaller hands. But the big reason is simply weight - the CZ-97 is too darn heavy. Our infantry soldiers are already overloaded with all the crap that they have to carry. Every ounce counts.

 

[Spanz]

at the risk of being laughed at, what the heck was wrong with the old style 1911's, where there was a big rectangular button on the back of the grip so that is could not fire unless it was being gripped by a hand. Had a nice safety lever. And could be de cocked if you wanted. huh? I bet there were not many ND's with that thing, even thought they were ALL over the place in WWII.

ANd if jihad johnie is running full speed at you with a suicide vest, one .45 placed center mass would certainly put a stop to THAT *******.

 

[jron]

Or, they would just allow people to buy their own pistols with their own money at cost price or a small markup. List three approved calibers and let everyone have at it.

what a shit show that would be.

 

[jron]

If they go to a striker type gun they will see the exact same increases in accidental discharges/shootings that the police departments that have adopted them are seeing

more "blame the gun" the striker fired wont "just go off". for every action there is a reaction.

 

[whacko]

CZ-97 would be a bad idea.

It is a big gun. Like many double-stack .45s, it has a large grip circumference. That makes it unsuitable for people with smaller hands. But the big reason is simply weight - the CZ-97 is too darn heavy. Our infantry soldiers are already overloaded with all the crap that they have to carry. Every ounce counts.

average infantry soldiers dont carry a handgun anyway. 90% of handguns in the army are issued to staff officers mil police and tankers

 

[M1911]

at the risk of being laughed at, what the heck was wrong with the old style 1911's, where there was a big rectangular button on the back of the grip so that is could not fire unless it was being gripped by a hand. Had a nice safety lever. And could be de cocked if you wanted. huh? I bet there were not many ND's with that thing, even thought they were ALL over the place in WWII. ANd if jihad johnie is running full speed at you with a suicide vest, one .45 placed center mass would certainly put a stop to THAT *******.

I like 1911s, but they are heavy, have low capacity, are expensive, require replacement parts to be had fitted, and are prone to feed failures. I think most any striker-fired pistol would be a better service pistol.

 

[just jim]

Someone that gets it. Thank god. In the civilian world you have a nd and hurt yourself its all on you trained or not trained. In the mil someone has an nd and hurts themselves the unit is one man down and that puts others at risk and lets down the team.....and the powers that be start asking queationa like who authorized that soldier to have a non issuees weapon.....and where is the training schedule? It is what it is.

First thank you for your service, I have made a good living under the protection of our service men and can't thank you enough.

I have a few questions to ask and I hope you don't mind. The m9 was brought into service in 1985, how often do they repair or replace the guns and how do they keep an accurate round count so the man issued the gun isn't getting a worn out gun? You certified training on all weapons so do you have someone certifie all the weapons and mags work? I have been to a war zone and observed weapons that show a great deal of use, did you guarantee your men going to battle that all them old guns would run?

 

[Andy in NH]

I dont disagree but military gear tends to really really really have the shit beaten out of it...

Overzealous cleaning methods and inspections take huge toll on military weapons. I'm reasonably sure this isn't the case with police firearms.

at the risk of being laughed at, what the heck was wrong with the old style 1911's, where there was a big rectangular button on the back of the grip so that is could not fire unless it was being gripped by a hand.

Had an old salt dog tell me about the time when choppering into Grenada, one of his buddies had an ND with a 1911 while chambering a round. The bullet went across the troop cabin of the CH-46 and between the heads of the two guys sitting there. The bullet simply pierced the side of the helo and caused no other damage. The Crew Chief and AO didn't hear it or otherwise seem to notice.

Plenty of violated safety issues with that, but the moral is that a piece of machinery (mechanical safeties in particular) isn't to blame for negligence.

This may seem blatantly obvious, but the vast majority of NDs happen while people are handling their guns. Grip safeties can help prevent a pistol from firing when dropped, but less so when manipulating the firearm because by definition the grip safety is depressed when gripping the handgun.

 

[just jim]

So let me ask the group, knowing the handgun issued to you may have been passed around to 30 different troopers for the last five years are you better off going into battle with that gun or the same model gun you went and bought new?

 

[crazymjb]

Overzealous cleaning methods and inspections take huge toll on military weapons. I'm reasonably sure this isn't the case with police firearms.



Had an old salt dog tell me about the time when choppering into Grenada, one of his buddies had an ND with a 1911 while chambering a round. The bullet went across the troop cabin of the CH-46 and between the heads of the two guys sitting there. The bullet simply pierced the side of the helo and caused no other damage. The Crew Chief and AO didn't hear it or otherwise seem to notice.

Plenty of violated safety issues with that, but the moral is that a piece of machinery (mechanical safeties in particular) isn't to blame for negligence.

This may seem blatantly obvious, but the vast majority of NDs happen while people are handling their guns. Grip safeties can help prevent a pistol from firing when dropped, but less so when manipulating the firearm because by definition the grip safety is depressed when gripping the handgun.

SOP for long guns in helos for us was muzzles down (and condition 3) incase some dumbass let a round go. More important stuff is on the top of the helicopters.

I dont know that the military keeps any round count, I know they wouldnt be remotely accurate if they did. Weapons all go through regular inspections by armorers on a time based cycle where they gauge various things and do visual inspections.

Its not uncommon for magazines to get issued out ****ed up.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

 

[just jim]

SOP for long guns in helos for us was muzzles down (and condition 3) incase some dumbass let a round go. More important stuff is on the top of the helicopters.

I dont know that the military keeps any round count, I know they wouldnt be remotely accurate if they did. Weapons all go through regular inspections by armorers on a time based cycle where they gauge various things and do visual inspections.

Its not uncommon for magazines to get issued out ****ed up.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

Have a friend who was a helo pilot in Vietnam War and they issued 38 revolvers to them. Ended up with it between his legs on flights and after inspection of the gun after a flight he found shrapnel had jammed the cylinder. Gun saved his junk


He did save his own life killing a charging VC with his revolver after a crash so I am a firm believer men in war should have handguns if they want them.

 

[Artifact]

First thank you for your service, I have made a good living under the protection of our service men and can't thank you enough.

I have a few questions to ask and I hope you don't mind. The m9 was brought into service in 1985, how often do they repair or replace the guns and how do they keep an accurate round count so the man issued the gun isn't getting a worn out gun? You certified training on all weapons so do you have someone certifie all the weapons and mags work? I have been to a war zone and observed weapons that show a great deal of use, did you guarantee your men going to battle that all them old guns would run?

NOPE

 

[Andy in NH]

I won't speak for whacko, but in Marine Infantry units each weapon has has a procedure that is called a "function check". This is considered "first-echelon maintenance" and is performed by person the weapon is issued to.

The function check is normally conducted after reassembling the weapon when field stripping and cleaning is complete. If the weapon fails the function check, the person notifies their chain of command for resolution.

Before firing exercises and quarterly (some standards vary) weapons are given a Limited Technical Inspection (LTI). This is considered second-echelon maintenance and is normally performed by the unit armorer and sometimes the armory custodians.

I am most familiar with the M-16/M4 LTI and this inspection includes, but is not limited to; head space go / no-go, throat erosion measurement, torque on the flash suppressor, safety engagement, buffer spring compression, hammer spring tension and more. If the weapon fails the LTI, some repairs can be made by the unit armorers, but if the condition requires a higher level of repair, the weapon is sent third-echelon maintenance.

All weapons (vehicles and equipment also) followed the 1st, 2nd and 3rd echelon maintenance format for repair. Very similar to you working on you car, taking it to the garage down the street or back to the dealership.

I did have an M2 .50cal assigned to my unit that passed the function check and LTI, but did not cycle reliably. It was sent to the "third shop" to see what was wrong. It was gone so long that I had to sign for a spare M2 from the the ship's Chief Gunners Mate so that my unit was fully armed when we went ashore. We never got to shoot it at the enemy, but always passed the test fire before missions.

 

[just jim]

Glock 19 is better than m9, if they change guns it would be better if the troops could buy their own 19 even if they had to check it in to the armoury...in my opinion.

 

[dcmdon]

You'd be wrong.

Some good detail is outlined here: The DOD Law of War Manual Returns Hollow Point Bullets to Armed Conflict

The US has been using HP ammo in specialized applications since at least the late '80's, starting with the 168gr Sierra MatchKing HPBT. Somewhere I have the Army JAGs letter outlining the legal case for it. If I can find it, I'll post it.

It's still the current JAG position:



The current 5.56 Mk 262 Mod 0/1 uses a 77gr OTM bullet. Note, too, that what we used to call "HPBT" is now referred to as "OTM."

The Rangers already have authorized 147gr JHP 9mm rounds. I think some MP units are authorized them, as well.

Lets remind ourselves that there is a difference between a HP round that is not designed to expand, like the OTM rounds the military is using and HPs specifically designed to expand. For example, the SMK's jacket is very think compared to a true expanding bullet, also the core is not attached to the jacket in any way, so separation is likely.

It appears to me that the military is saying to hell with the Hague convention since we were not a signatory anyway.

At least with respect to handgun bullets.

Anyone with any real knowledge on this, it would be great if you could add something.

Don

 

[ScottS]

Lets remind ourselves that there is a difference between a HP round that is not designed to expand, like the OTM rounds the military is using and HPs specifically designed to expand. For example, the SMK's jacket is very think compared to a true expanding bullet, also the core is not attached to the jacket in any way, so separation is likely.

It appears to me that the military is saying to hell with the Hague convention since we were not a signatory anyway.

At least with respect to handgun bullets.

Anyone with any real knowledge on this, it would be great if you could add something.

Don

The military is currently using both OTM rifle rounds and plain-old-vanilla 147gr JHP 9mm pistol rounds. They are currently authorized for specific uses, but if you check out the link I posted, it explains the Army's logic in some detail. There are reasons other than "FU. We're not signatories," although that is listed as one.

Section 6.5.4.4 of the DOD manual, “Expanding Bullets,” states that “[t]he law of war does not prohibit the use of bullets that expand or flatten easily in the human body.” Hollow point bullets “are only prohibited if they are calculated to cause superfluous injury.” The manual goes on to provide three reasons why expanding bullets are lawful for use in armed conflict:

(1) The 1899 Declaration on Expanding Bullets “only creates obligations for Parties to the Declaration in international armed conflicts in which all the parties to the conflict are also Parties to the Declaration” (the United States is not Party to the Declaration).

(2) The Defense Department determined in a 2013 review that the 1899 Declaration does not reflect customary international law.

(3) Expanding bullets as manufactured today are not “inherently inhumane or needlessly cruel.”

 

[dcmdon]

Thanks Scott.

I actually read the entire document at the link you provided. They commit a significant error in that they fail to differentiate between HP and HP expanding ammunition. The OTM rounds are not designed to expand and generally don't.

Joys of law and picking through details. The prohibition is on bullets that expand or flatten in the human body. The OTM do neither. So the discussion in that article doesn't even apply.

Although it certainly would apply to HP handgun or rifle bullets that are designed to expand.

Here is an article that I found that goes into even more detail on the specifics of the Hague convention and the SMK. Its great stuff if you like detail. Which I do. I'm guessing you will like it too.

Don

http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1262

p.s. the joys of the internet. Your article sent me scurrying for more and after 2 minutes googling I found another scholarly article on the subject and now know more aboutthis than I ever thought I would.

 

[Andy in NH]

So let me ask the group, knowing the handgun issued to you may have been passed around to 30 different troopers for the last five years are you better off going into battle with that gun or the same model gun you went and bought new?

Shortly after returning from OEF, I was the Officer in Charge (as a SSgt) of the battalion's annual pistol re qualification.

It was supposed to be a week of concurrent training and live fire, but it normally devolves into people (mostly staff & officers) coming down to the range on one day, shoot the required course of fire to qualify (until they like their score) and then go back to their duties.

It was the Marines who weren't normally armed with a pistol who I'd like to train at the range. If the ammo count allowed, I'd let them shoot some exercises before trying to qualify and earn their pistol badge. One of the benefits of being the OIC of the range (a duty most staff & officers avoided) was that almost my whole platoon earned their pistol badge.

Anyway, at this particular post-deployment range exercise, a sizable number of M9 pistols did not pass the function check on the range the first morning. In particular, the portion where actuating the safety lever is supposed to de-cock the pistol. I am not an armorer, but apparently there is a small pin (.02c) in the mechanism that causes the hammer to fall when the safety is tripped. Clearly these guns had not been LTI'd before the range was scheduled!

Yes, I know movement of the safety also rotates the firing pin out of the way, but beyond the mechanical and procedural safety considerations, dropping the hammer was an integral part of the course of fire; there were several strings of fire where a multiple shots were to be fired double-then single action. And the computer running the target array was not set up to wait on a bunch of shooters trying to get their pistols squared away.

So I deadlined all the pistols that failed the function check. Which meant not as many people could fire on a relay as there were only so many serviceable pistols availible. Which meant the time it took to come down and qualify took significantly longer. Which meant a bunch of staff & officers were pissed off.

Once the word got out, the Battalion Armorer (also a SSgt) came down to speak with me as he didn't understand the ramifications of keeping the deadlined pistols in service. He didn't like what I had to say and also didn't have the parts to fix the guns - he would have to order them. Which would take days and therefore be beyond the time we had the range scheduled for.

Shortly thereafter, the Bn Gunner (a CWO 5) came down to the range to speak with me. After explaining my reasons and decision making, he supported my position and didn't hear anything further about it. A few years later this same CWO5 recommended me for the Warrant Officer program.

Sorry for the long-winded example of what happens to "stock" weapons when they passed around, but to answer your question, I have (and still would) carry a well-worn, but well-maintained weapon from the armory. Some responsibility rests with the bearer of the firearm to read the Technical Manual (TM) and understand how it works and also to conduct proper and frequent Function Checks.

 

[ScottS]

Thanks Scott.

I actually read the entire document at the link you provided. They commit a significant error in that they fail to differentiate between HP and HP expanding ammunition. The OTM rounds are not designed to expand and generally don't.

Joys of law and picking through details. The prohibition is on bullets that expand or flatten in the human body. The OTM do neither. So the discussion in that article doesn't even apply.

Although it certainly would apply to HP handgun or rifle bullets that are designed to expand.

Here is an article that I found that goes into even more detail on the specifics of the Hague convention and the SMK. Its great stuff if you like detail. Which I do. I'm guessing you will like it too.

Don

http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1262

p.s. the joys of the internet. Your article sent me scurrying for more and after 2 minutes googling I found another scholarly article on the subject and now know more aboutthis than I ever thought I would.

Don,

I agree about the confusion between OTM and HP, but the salient point is the DOD Law of War Manual (LOWM), June 2015 ed, states (I think for the first time) the use of expanding bullets does not violate international laws of war (Sec 6.5.4.4), and as I said, the Army (Rangers, SOF, and some MP units) are currently using standard, expand-like-you-read-about 147gr JHP 9mm bullets. The LOWM explains the justification for their use.

In fact, the requirements for the MHS specifically include "expanding ammunition."

The competition will also evaluate expanding or fragmenting ammunition, such as hollow-point bullets, that have been used by law enforcement agencies for years. Earlier this summer, the Army's draft solicitation cited a new Defense Department policy that allows for the use of "special purpose ammunition."

Frankly, it's about time someone in the .gov recognized 9mm ball just ain't going to get the job done.

 

[just jim]

Shortly after returning from OEF, I was the Officer in Charge (as a SSgt) of the battalion's annual pistol re qualification.

It was supposed to be a week of concurrent training and live fire, but it normally devolves into people (mostly staff & officers) coming down to the range on one day, shoot the required course of fire to qualify (until they like their score) and then go back to their duties.

It was the Marines who weren't normally armed with a pistol who I'd like to train at the range. If the ammo count allowed, I'd let them shoot some exercises before trying to qualify and earn their pistol badge. One of the benefits of being the OIC of the range (a duty most staff & officers avoided) was that almost my whole platoon earned their pistol badge.

Anyway, at this particular post-deployment range exercise, a sizable number of M9 pistols did not pass the function check on the range the first morning. In particular, the portion where actuating the safety lever is supposed to de-cock the pistol. I am not an armorer, but apparently there is a small pin (.02c) in the mechanism that causes the hammer to fall when the safety is tripped. Clearly these guns had not been LTI'd before the range was scheduled!

Yes, I know movement of the safety also rotates the firing pin out of the way, but beyond the mechanical and procedural safety considerations, dropping the hammer was an integral part of the course of fire; there were several strings of fire where a multiple shots were to be fired double-then single action. And the computer running the target array was not set up to wait on a bunch of shooters trying to get their pistols squared away.

So I deadlined all the pistols that failed the function check. Which meant not as many people could fire on a relay as there were only so many serviceable pistols availible. Which meant the time it took to come down and qualify took significantly longer. Which meant a bunch of staff & officers were pissed off.

Once the word got out, the Battalion Armorer (also a SSgt) came down to speak with me as he didn't understand the ramifications of keeping the deadlined pistols in service. He didn't like what I had to say and also didn't have the parts to fix the guns - he would have to order them. Which would take days and therefore be beyond the time we had the range scheduled for.

Shortly thereafter, the Bn Gunner (a CWO 5) came down to the range to speak with me. After explaining my reasons and decision making, he supported my position and didn't hear anything further about it. A few years later this same CWO5 recommended me for the Warrant Officer program.

Sorry for the long-winded example of what happens to "stock" weapons when they passed around, but to answer your question, I have (and still would) carry a well-worn, but well-maintained weapon from the armory. Some responsibility rests with the bearer of the firearm to read the Technical Manual (TM) and understand how it works and also to conduct proper and frequent Function Checks.

Thank you for a very informed reply. While I was never in the military I have three brothers and one nephew that were. Three of those family members in the Marines and the nephew was an armourer. I can't ride piggyback on what they know but I have been into firearms as my main hobby for 53 of my 64 years. As a contractor I did go to Iraq and was able to observe the military handleing of firearms on a daily basis.

Looking at their guns they varied in how much use they showed and many were really worn. I was hoping on every convoy that those weapons worked That I am here alive it must mean they ran good enough.

 

[dcmdon]

Thanks Scott. It is interesting that 9mm HP of the right design is as good as anything, for the most part. But FMJ is just terrible.

 

[drgrant]

Thanks Scott. It is interesting that 9mm HP of the right design is as good as anything, for the most part. But FMJ is just terrible.

FMJ is far better than the worst jhps. Some of the old jhp designs were ****ing terrible. I can't believe for example that winchester still makes the silvertip. Some of the original hydrashock, hi shok loadings were shit, too.