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

[alohadoug]

To supplement Whacko's experience, the Military Officers and SNCOs that I've had to process to go to CRC at Ft Bliss enroute to assignments in theater are no longer authorized M9, must draw M4. Only exceptions are with a 1 Star Memorandum.

The M9 is limited use in combat. The USMC has begun transitioning all rifle(wo)men to the M4 specifically because of the Urban Combat issues with the M16A2/A4 (length of weapon).

The Military Police will have the most impact/input to the change. They are required to qualify most often ("Road" MPs are required quarterly quals). Hell, I know some SNCOs who've gone a 20+ year career without being in a position to qualify.

The money could be much better spent on items that would affect the safety of the Soldier. Let's spend it on new flame retardant fabrics, lighter armor, etc....

Aloha

 

[just jim]

Again, the guys that come back alive say they didnt need a handgun, the dead ones don't get to speak on the subject..

 

[crazymjb]

Are you speaking from experience, because the vast majority of KIA have not been because they didnt have a pistol, or requested it and didnt get it. Im sure its happened, but its an exception not the rule.

If you had 80lbs of pistols and SL3 for a given platoon or 80lbs of if ammo, 99% of the time that ammo would be more likely to save their ass than everyone having a pistol if it were coming down to one or the other. Which it does.

Mike

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

 

[M1911]

Again, the guys that come back alive say they didnt need a handgun, the dead ones don't get to speak on the subject..

IIRC, the majority of fatalities that we've had have been due to IEDs -- a better pistol wouldn't have saved those guys.

 

[Horseman508]

Whacko, I'm not allowed to spread any more karma your way....keep keeping on.

 

[bigblue]

IIRC, the majority of fatalities that we've had have been due to IEDs -- a better pistol wouldn't have saved those guys.

Beat me to it and that is backed up by anecdotal evidence as well.

 

[just jim]

Are you speaking from experience, because the vast majority of KIA have not been because they didnt have a pistol, or requested it and didnt get it. Im sure its happened, but its an exception not the rule.

If you had 80lbs of pistols and SL3 for a given platoon or 80lbs of if ammo, 99% of the time that ammo would be more likely to save their ass than everyone having a pistol if it were coming down to one or the other. Which it does.

Mike

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

As I said I was never in the military but had family who was. My brother was a marine Sargent in the Vietnam War and his main firearm was the M79 grenade launcher he was also issued a 1911 and it saved his life. Fight got so close in the jungle that the M79 rounds wouldnt arm when he fired them so it was 45 and hand to hand. Got the bronze star for saving one of his men.

Good friend crashed his helicopter during a heavy fight and killed a commie that was trying to kill him. Friend had a 38 revolver, Bruce was badly wounded and passed out from bloodloss from the battle. History is full of those saved by a handgun but they don't talk about those killed because they didn't have one

 

[whacko]

As I said I was never in the military but had family who was. My brother was a marine Sargent in the Vietnam War and his main firearm was the M79 grenade launcher he was also issued a 1911 and it saved his life. Fight got so close in the jungle that the M79 rounds wouldnt arm when he fired them so it was 45 and hand to hand. Got the bronze star for saving one of his men.

Good friend crashed his helicopter during a heavy fight and killed a commie that was trying to kill him. Friend had a 38 revolver, Bruce was badly wounded and passed out from bloodloss from the battle. History is full of those saved by a handgun but they don't talk about those killed because they didn't have one

Well today we have a thing calles an m 203. It replaced the m79 like 30 years ago. The launcher is attached to the m4 rifle. "Back in da day yes a grenadier needed a side arm cuz he had no carbine size rifle. Things have changed. GuArandamtee you if you ask a modern grenadier if he wants an m9 to go along with 210 rounds of 556 a rifle with the extra launcher attached and his 20 grenades he will tell you to **** off.....his kit weighs enough as it is. Again.....things have changed

 

[bigblue]

Well today we have a thing calles an m 203. It replaced the m79 like 30 years ago. The launcher is attached to the m4 rifle. "Back in da day yes a grenadier needed a side arm cuz he had no carbine size rifle. Things have changed. GuArandamtee you if you ask a modern grenadier if he wants an m9 to go along with 210 rounds of 556 and his 20 grenades he will tell you to **** off.....his kit weighs enough as it is. Again.....things have changed

They don't carry the M1 anymore either, its called progress. Do they issue sidearms with the 249 or did they with the Pig?

 

[just jim]

Well today we have a thing calles an m 203. It replaced the m79 like 30 years ago. The launcher is attached to the m4 rifle. "Back in da day yes a grenadier needed a side arm cuz he had no carbine size rifle. Things have changed. GuArandamtee you if you ask a modern grenadier if he wants an m9 to go along with 210 rounds of 556 a rifle with the extra launcher attached and his 20 grenades he will tell you to **** off.....his kit weighs enough as it is. Again.....things have changed

Things do change, alot more vehicles in today's wars against the muzzies. Today if you survive the ied and have to abandon the vehicle a handgun would be on your person while you wait for pickup from the next vehicle. Lots of the troops on our convoys had their rifles set up with straps to keep the gun but watching the drivers they had no room for the rifle.

 

[M1911]

Things do change, alot more vehicles in today's wars against the muzzies. Today if you survive the ied and have to abandon the vehicle a handgun would be on your person while you wait for pickup from the next vehicle. Lots of the troops on our convoys had their rifles set up with straps to keep the gun but watching the drivers they had no room for the rifle.

There are guys in this thread who have been deployed overseas, who have ridden in convoys in theater, who have said that they left their pistols in the FOB.

 

[bill o]

Things do change, alot more vehicles in today's wars against the muzzies. Today if you survive the ied and have to abandon the vehicle a handgun would be on your person while you wait for pickup from the next vehicle. Lots of the troops on our convoys had their rifles set up with straps to keep the gun but watching the drivers they had no room for the rifle.

Basically you have better insight into this than do the combat veterans?

 

[just jim]

There are guys in this thread who have been deployed overseas, who have ridden in convoys in theater, who have said that they left their pistols in the FOB.

I was never in the military, rode in convoys in Iraq as a contractor and wasn't allowed a gun. Worked out of Anaconda (balad) air base hauling jp8 to help the troops in the fight. Just because a man hasnt been in the military it doesn't mean he hasn't seen how it all works...real close...

 

[just jim]

Basically you have better insight into this than do the combat veterans?

I have better insight for what's best for my own life. If I had a choice I would carry a handgun on the battlefield, they did allow knives for us.. So since you are keying up for a discussion, the cops know best, do you carry what they do?

 

[crazymjb]

They don't carry the M1 anymore either, its called progress. Do they issue sidearms with the 249 or did they with the Pig?

SAW gunners (at least in the USMC) don't usually have a sidearm, even our M240 gunners would usually carry the M240 and have no M9 of their own, and the Platoon Sergeant and/or platoon commander were usually all too happy to let the M240 gunner keep their rifle in the truck and take their M9 to go with the M240. This might vary a bit unit to unit.

Jim, neither person you referenced had a rifle as a primary weapon, I submit they would have been better off with a rifle instead of a pistol in both circumstances, but I suppose we'll never know. We still have grenadiers in the USMC that carry the M32, and they carry an M4, not a sidearm. I actually wonder why they didn't give your brother an M16 to go with his M79, I figured M79 gunners would have a rifle as well as the M79 is much lower profile than the M32 and those guys always have a rifle.

Yeah... a pilot will always have some means of armament if they go down. I've heard of both rifles and pistols being issued, but someone else can better comment on this.

Your point that a handgun is always better than no-handgun assumes "if unarmed a handgun is better than no handgun," which of course is true but is not the case or at least should never be the case in today's military.

Mike

 

[just jim]

SAW gunners (at least in the USMC) don't usually have a sidearm, even our M240 gunners would usually carry the M240 and the Platoon Sergeant and/or platoon commander were usually all too happy to let the M240 gunner keep their rifle in the truck and take their M9 to go with the M240. This might vary a bit unit to unit.

Jim, neither person you referenced had a rifle as a primary weapon, I submit they would have been better off with a rifle instead of a pistol in both circumstances, but I suppose we'll never know. We still have grenadiers in the USMC that carry the M32, and they carry an M4, not a sidearm. I actually wonder why they didn't give your brother an M16 to go with his M79, I figured M79 gunners would have a rifle as well as the M79 is much lower profile than the M32 and those guys always have a rifle.

Yeah... a pilot will always have some means of armament if they go down. I've heard of both rifles and pistols being issued, but someone else can better comment on this.

Your point that a handgun is always better than no-handgun assumes "if unarmed a handgun is better than no handgun," which of course is true but is not the case or at least should never be the case in today's military.

Mike

You guys should know I have the greatest respect for you because I risked my life under your protection to get you things you needed to fight with. I am just voicing an opinion and because you guys put your life on the line so I can voice it. Handgun or no handgun I would hope you guys doing the fighting have a choice, I just hate to think men who really fight for us can't have a handgun if they want it.

 

[crazymjb]

Things do change, alot more vehicles in today's wars against the muzzies. Today if you survive the ied and have to abandon the vehicle a handgun would be on your person while you wait for pickup from the next vehicle. Lots of the troops on our convoys had their rifles set up with straps to keep the gun but watching the drivers they had no room for the rifle.

The unit were attached to was ****ed, then, and their leadership needs their head examined. Every swinging dick in our patrols had a rifle, period. If they brought an M240 when they dismounted then they left their rifle in the truck and usually had hte PCs or PSs M9. A pistol will help you at the last second... if you are in a complex ambush and need to abandon your vehicle you are good as useless if you don't have a rifle against the enemy.

I agree, a pistol is better than nothing, but having a pistol you don't need is stupid, and everyone outside the wire who doesn't have a specialized weapon system that precludes them from carrying an M4 should have an M4 with them. I'd be shocked if any units are still running with their drivers not having a rifle. My wife was motor transportation doing convoys in Afghanistan in 2011 and she, all the drivers, VCs, gunners, etc had M4s. Nobody had "just an M9" outside the wire. I'm not doubting your story but that command ****ing sucks and someone should be relieved if they were letting dudes leave the wire without rifles. If dudes had rifles but they were secured and inaccessible in the vehicle, likewise heads should roll for that shit (isn't that what happened with Jessica Lynch?).

Mike

 

[just jim]

I didn't write the post good enough, on our convoys every soldier had a rifle but I noticed the drivers couldn't hang on to theirs and drive. When the fugging ieds would go off you couldn't see a fugging thing with all the dust so I wondered if the guys could even find their rifles.

 

[whacko]

I was never in the military, rode in convoys in Iraq as a contractor and wasn't allowed a gun. Worked out of Anaconda (balad) air base hauling jp8 to help the troops in the fight. Just because a man hasnt been in the military it doesn't mean he hasn't seen how it all works...real close...

When were you there? My unit escorted white trucks all over Iraq in 2003 to 2004. I was all over the country back then

 

[Picton]

I didn't write the post good enough, on our convoys every soldier had a rifle but I noticed the drivers couldn't hang on to theirs and drive. When the fugging ieds would go off you couldn't see a fugging thing with all the dust so I wondered if the guys could even find their rifles.

Why would the driver be shooting instead of driving, and what would his/her target be? The dust cloud? You seem as though you're desperately coming up with weird examples to support your preconceived idea, an idea which every sandbox veteran is this thread has told you is wrong. A number of us pre-sandbox types can tell you this idea has been wrong for decades.

Soldiers prefer rifles, always and forever. Most will ditch their pistols in favor of more rifle ammo. Most have a chain of command who believe the same thing.

Accept it.

 

[just jim]

Why would the driver be shooting instead of driving, and what would his/her target be? The dust cloud? You seem as though you're desperately coming up with weird examples to support your preconceived idea, an idea which every sandbox veteran is this thread has told you is wrong. A number of us pre-sandbox types can tell you this idea has been wrong for decades.

Soldiers prefer rifles, always and forever. Most will ditch their pistols in favor of more rifle ammo. Most have a chain of command who believe the same thing.

Accept it.

You are right, I am wasting my time. People either see the point by expearience in their personal lives or they missed because they can't relate.

Edited to add, however when you just had your vehicle blown up by an ied and you can't find your weapon because the destruction and dust from the explosion is really big a handgun on your person might help while you wait for the very last truck in the convoy to pick you up.

 

[M1911]

You are right, I am wasting my time. People either see the point by expearience in their personal lives or they missed because they can't relate.

Have you considered that perhaps they are right and you are wrong?

 

[crazymjb]

I don't think anybody is disagreeing that having a pistol is better than nothing in combat (which seems to be what you are saying) so much as they are disagreeing that it is always the best allocation of weight and logistics for everyone to have a pistol. The former is true, the latter is not. It's not the .gov being cheap either, an M9 would be among the cheapest piece of gear as part of standard kit, behind NVGs, Optics, Lasers, Rifle, Armor, and pack systems. I think the military pays less than 300 for those things (M9s). They pay over 100 bucks for some fire resistant gloves...

Some dudes here were probably in the mountains of Afghanistan, I was in the desert but I've also been to MWTC in Bridgeport where you learn very quickly how ounces add up... and we didn't even do the full 6 week package.

Mike

 

[just jim]

Have you considered that perhaps they are right and you are wrong?

They are right, it's the way they fight so I am wrong to want a handgun. Just a little off course here, when I got my ccw the cops told me I didn't need a gun but I didn't listen to them because it's my life and not theirs. The military makes decisions, if you are part of it you live with it. Those decisions don't always keep you alive.

 

[crazymjb]

I still think you are missing the point. If handguns offered the safety and security you seem to think they do, we'd all carry them (at least in the current logistical environment where a pistol is pennies compared to other individual gear). To certain individuals they absolutely are a necessity, to most they are weight and resources that could be better allocated to something else in the name of keeping one alive and accomplishing the mission.

Mike

 

[just jim]

I don't think anybody is disagreeing that having a pistol is better than nothing in combat (which seems to be what you are saying) so much as they are disagreeing that it is always the best allocation of weight and logistics for everyone to have a pistol. The former is true, the latter is not. It's not the .gov being cheap either, an M9 would be among the cheapest piece of gear as part of standard kit, behind NVGs, Optics, Lasers, Rifle, Armor, and pack systems. I think the military pays less than 300 for those things (M9s). They pay over 100 bucks for some fire resistant gloves...

Some dudes here were probably in the mountains of Afghanistan, I was in the desert but I've also been to MWTC in Bridgeport where you learn very quickly how ounces add up... and we didn't even do the full 6 week package.

Mike

Guys on convoy duty didn't have great loads of gear to carry. Rarely saw even a pack. The roads were just killer after bombs and ieds had blown them to pieces. You had to have two hands on the wheel at all times. You drove as fast as it took to keep up with the convoy and if your truck was blown up you waited for the last truck in line to pick you up...

 

[bigblue]

Great: Another circular troll job by jimbo.

This thread started out as the M9 vs the G19 not an armed vs unarmed discussion.

I have yet to see any points made in favor of the M9 over the G19 nor in favor of the amount of money being spent to figure it out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[just jim]

I still think you are missing the point. If handguns offered the safety and security you seem to think they do, we'd all carry them (at least in the current logistical environment where a pistol is pennies compared to other individual gear). To certain individuals they absolutely are a necessity, to most they are weight and resources that could be better allocated to something else in the name of keeping one alive and accomplishing the mission.

Mike

If they are worthless the military wouldn't issue them. Maybe they should get rid of them ?

 

[crazymjb]

Let me quote myself:

To certain individuals they absolutely are a necessity

The military generally doesn't issue them to people who don't need them.


Also, I didn't hold my rifle as I drove or as I gunned... it didn't mean it wasn't in arms reach. I also drove on a paved road all of once in Afghanistan, and have been on a patrol where we had a truck blown up, and responded to others, so I know exactly how it goes.

Mike

 

[bigblue]

So how are Glocks in the sand...? We didn't have much sand in the 90's. They blew through Iraq pretty fast the first time, that was before me, and barely anyone saw combat so there wasn't anyone with a CIB to ask.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk