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

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?
Great questions. Round counts are only kept on mortars and artillery pieces not small arms.

As commander i certified the training. The functionality was different. As far as certifying all weapons are functional....before a deployment to combat all small arms are turned into a maintenance activity for full inspection. I had to verify that all weapons had gone through the depot. Theae depots are mostly civilian run these days....but all are gone through before deploying with them. When a unit returns the weapons are turned in again to go through "reset" along with all other sensitive equipment. Keep in mind worn parkerizing does not mean the weapon is worn out. A soldier is basically married to that weapon for a year....they are not treated like grandpas heirloom deer gun! Most of what is seen on the external is cosmetic wear. Itll still butter your bread!!!
 
Last edited:
So if the Glock gets accepted, what will its designation be? M13?


Just to stir the pot, I think it will be the most effective solution that the US military has had in that role.
 
?? I'm not a Glock guy, so I'm not in the know, but I hadn't heard this. What's up with Glock magazines?

The original non-drop free mags sucked, because non-drop free. I think they would have been better off with steel magazines as they would have had a thinner all thickness, thus allowing a smaller grip circumference.

But all in all, I really don't have a problem with Glock mags. They are cheap and they work.
 
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?

I was in and out prior to 9/11, but I doubt the VERY cavalier Army attitude toward pistols has changed for the most part.

I was "assigned" a pistol in just one of my jobs (HHC XO), but I never drew it because my unit's culture was rifle-based; I just drew a rifle when we went to the field. And yes, that rifle had been through several prior soldiers' hands, maybe a dozen or so (the M4s we had hadn't been fielded very long). And no, I never lost any sleep over that, even when we deployed operationally.

If the unit armorers are properly trained and supervised, the weapon should perform when needed. In seven years in the Army, all of mine did.

I forgot: I did once draw an M9, when doing a jump with some visiting Paraguayans. Because my role was basically administrative and because I was short, I just didn't feel like jumping a weapons case.
 
Our Staff and Officers had pistols... basically so they didn't have to carry rifles around when we were somewhere where we needed to be armed (Camp Leatherneck). That said, they often got passed off to the guys with the M240s on foot patrols so they wouldn't have a rifle slung along with their M240.

I was never "issued" an M9 but I've had one in transit to guard weapons and equipment on our bus when it's proper "owner" had to be somewhere else.

In theater if given the option I would have rather not taken one, fortunately I never had to take one. If it was some crazy sustained shit and my M4 went down a pistol would probably be useless anyway, and if we were in a position where we were getting over-run someone would probably not need their rifle any more. I see why the HSLD guys have them as they work in small teams, or why dudes clearing houses constantly would want one, but on patrol in Afghanistan with a 22 person squad they would have been pretty useless. The weight would be better allotted to literally anything else.

Mike
 
Our Staff and Officers had pistols... basically so they didn't have to carry rifles around when we were somewhere where we needed to be armed (Camp Leatherneck). That said, they often got passed off to the guys with the M240s on foot patrols so they wouldn't have a rifle slung along with their M240.

I was never "issued" an M9 but I've had one in transit to guard weapons and equipment on our bus when it's proper "owner" had to be somewhere else.

In theater if given the option I would have rather not taken one, fortunately I never had to take one. If it was some crazy sustained shit and my M4 went down a pistol would probably be useless anyway, and if we were in a position where we were getting over-run someone would probably not need their rifle any more. I see why the HSLD guys have them as they work in small teams, or why dudes clearing houses constantly would want one, but on patrol in Afghanistan with a 22 person squad they would have been pretty useless. The weight would be better allotted to literally anything else.

Mike
Absolutely agree. Seems most of the people out here complaining about the mil needing a new side arm have never had the opportunity to draw one for a mission. I was issued an m9 in iraq.....it was awesome inside the wire. Whenever i went out I left it in the arms room And took the m4. The pistol is just extea weight and more shit to get hung op on in the hmmwv when mounting and dismounting.
 
The buy and bring your own will never fly on a large scale because of the logistics. What armorer is going to repair 10 or 20 different pistols? Where are the spare parts going to come from when it breaks on the other side of the world? What happens when you drop all your mags in a TIC and need replacements? What if you lose your holster?

As nice as it sounds, the supply chain just doesn't support the idea.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
 
The buy and bring your own will never fly on a large scale because of the logistics. What armorer is going to repair 10 or 20 different pistols? Where are the spare parts going to come from when it breaks on the other side of the world? What happens when you drop all your mags in a TIC and need replacements? What if you lose your holster?

As nice as it sounds, the supply chain just doesn't support the idea.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
This! There is a reason all equipment is identical.....logistics for parts. If your full on awesome cz pistol needs a new extractor and your in the middle of east bum **** zimbabwe and the supply activity only has parts for other pistols what r u gonna do? Plus the armorer training is simplified be keeping it to identical weapon platforms accross the board.

imagegif
 
Last edited:
To be fair I never remember having a problem I couldnt fix that could be fixed by the armory... maybe something they needed special tools for or to order parts for, but they arent exactly blacksmiths. but seriously as 0331s we new our weapons well, to include going beyond what we were "supposed to" in cleaning them (ie pulling M240 top clvers completely apart).

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
Absolutely agree. Seems most of the people out here complaining about the mil needing a new side arm have never had the opportunity to draw one for a mission. I was issued an m9 in iraq.....it was awesome inside the wire. Whenever i went out I left it in the arms room And took the m4. The pistol is just extea weight and more shit to get hung op on in the hmmwv when mounting and dismounting.

Do many soldiers like the M9?
 
Do many soldiers like the M9?
Most carrying them are staff officers and senior ncos and they are happy just to not be carrying a rifle around on the base. The special ops guys seem to be getting better side arms anyway so...... I would not spend $ on new side arms
 
Most soldiers aren't issued pistols.


I know you enlisted guys are gonna hate on me for this but in four years of Army ROTC, we were handed the M9 once for training. We had rifle training (M16A2) monthly the first two years and that increased up to weekly my senior year. Even though they issue officers the M9, it is really more of an afterthought.

I think the amount of attention being paid to an issued sidearm is completely out of whack with how often it will actually be used in combat. From someone who wasn't deployed and went through ROTC twenty years ago so take that with a grain of salt. $0.02
 
Last edited:
I know you enlisted guys are gonna hate on me for this but in four years of Army ROTC, we were handed the M9 once for training. We had rifle training (M16A2) monthly the first two years and that increased up to weekly my senior year. Even though they issue officers the M9, it is really more of an afterthought.

I think the amount of attention being paid to an issued sidearm is completely out of whack with how often it will actually be used in combat. From someone who wasn't deployed and went through ROTC twenty years ago so take that with a grain of salt. $0.02

Just to be clear, I didn't serve.

What you've said here is consistent with what I've read -- that pistols are not a very important weapon for the military.
 
I really should stop reading these threads...

This "selection" program is driven by Congress, not the DoD. SOCOM has looked at CoTS sidearms several times over the last couple of years. (SOCOM was the Executive Office for sidearms.) They made the determination that the M9 was acceptable for general use, but wanted a different sidearm for SOF because of different mission requirements. The Glock 19 was selected. SOCOM elements had previously used a variety (including the Glock 26 for plain clothes assignments). DoD looked at SOCOMs testing and input from Army Marksmanship Unit (as primary instructors) and US Army Military Police School (Ft Leonard Woods, MS) since they are the largest user group, and determined that current CoTS sidearms did not represent a cost-benefit increase. I.e. it's too expensive to retool, retrain, and rearm for limited advantages. Most of the Soldier complaints (I've read the reports done by PEO Soldier) related to magazines (95% of the faulty ones have been replaced) and sidearm weight. But for the most part, Soldiers see it as just another tool.

The COL that runs the Small Arms Program has said in several interviews that he would rather spend the money on replacement of the other M9 (bayonet) than on the sidearm. He points out that the USArmy has not purchased a new M249 in 20 years (they are all rebuilds) and is in need of new M2s as well.

Congress heard complaints from a small number of Soldiers (some of whom actually said "My 1SG said that in Somali the M9 would shoot right through them and not stop") and felt the DoD was doing a disservice to the Soldiers. THEY ordered the program. Same as with the M4. And it will be the same result. The DoD will spent $17milllion dollars as directed by CONGRESS to determine that existing CoTS technology does NOT represent a significant enough increase in the Military advantage to justify the cost.

Aloha
 
Do many soldiers like the M9?
*****They suck. To big and heavy especially for a 9mm. Anyone w/small hands(woman) is going to have a tough time shooting the pistol accurately. When I drive/ride thru the gate at Hanscom and see these female SP's carrying the M9 I'm thinking there's no way she's going to be able to deploy/shoot the pistol in a stressful situation rapid fire. The G19 is much more user friendly.
 
*****They suck. To big and heavy especially for a 9mm. Anyone w/small hands(woman) is going to have a tough time shooting the pistol accurately. When I drive/ride thru the gate at Hanscom and see these female SP's carrying the M9 I'm thinking there's no way she's going to be able to deploy/shoot the pistol in a stressful situation rapid fire. The G19 is much more user friendly.

I like mine- but I have larger hands.
 
The retarded thing about this whole issue is that (insert some sidearm here) and an M4 is probably under a grand per soldier unit cost. The DoD could literally give every new soldier a set of guns (particularly the guys who actually pull triggers on bad guys) and the cost would get lost in the noise. NVDs and other stuff like that cost a shitload of money, the guns are relatively cheap.

-Mike
 
Just to be clear, I didn't serve.

What you've said here is consistent with what I've read -- that pistols are not a very important weapon for the military.

I suppose, for the greater majority of those serving, what you have said is true, but for those few who are put in harms way, in a close up and personal situation, with multiple targets advancing, the rifle or machine gun is, or may well prove to be to long and or heavy to wield in a productive, results oriented manner. For these few, the handgun will never be unimportant. This is not a roll the dice issue. Since we can't know in advance who will be one of these unfortunate few, ( insert your name here ) as the unfortunate soldier in this scenario, I believe for your sake, that .gov should rethink the importance of the M9. So will you. Unfortunately, after the fact.
 
I suppose, for the greater majority of those serving, what you have said is true, but for those few who are put in harms way, in a close up and personal situation, with multiple targets advancing, the rifle or machine gun is, or may well prove to be to long and or heavy to wield in a productive, results oriented manner. For these few, the handgun will never be unimportant. This is not a roll the dice issue. Since we can't know in advance who will be one of these unfortunate few, ( insert your name here ) as the unfortunate soldier in this scenario, I believe for your sake, that .gov should rethink the importance of the M9. So will you. Unfortunately, after the fact.

The dead guys will never be able to say they needed a handgun in the fight, it's only the living that can say they didnt.
 
I suppose, for the greater majority of those serving, what you have said is true, but for those few who are put in harms way, in a close up and personal situation, with multiple targets advancing, the rifle or machine gun is, or may well prove to be to long and or heavy to wield in a productive, results oriented manner. For these few, the handgun will never be unimportant. This is not a roll the dice issue. Since we can't know in advance who will be one of these unfortunate few, ( insert your name here ) as the unfortunate soldier in this scenario, I believe for your sake, that .gov should rethink the importance of the M9. So will you. Unfortunately, after the fact.

Does that make the M9 more effective and reliable than the Glock 19 in those circumstances?
 
I suppose, for the greater majority of those serving, what you have said is true, but for those few who are put in harms way, in a close up and personal situation, with multiple targets advancing, the rifle or machine gun is, or may well prove to be to long and or heavy to wield in a productive, results oriented manner. For these few, the handgun will never be unimportant. This is not a roll the dice issue. Since we can't know in advance who will be one of these unfortunate few, ( insert your name here ) as the unfortunate soldier in this scenario, I believe for your sake, that .gov should rethink the importance of the M9. So will you. Unfortunately, after the fact.
its been put out here many many times....90% of m9 pistols issues are in shoulder and drop leg holsters with staff officers and senior ncos. If the time comes a brigade med staff officer or s1 (human resources officer) needs that m9 shit got so ****ed up heads will roll all the way to the chief of staff!!! The units that actually need a side arm due tonthe possibility of actually needing one Already hAve better hamdguns. Amd before you flame me.....i carried an m9 on my second deployment on the fob in iraq.....i felt comfortable with it.....when i went on missions the pistol got turned in and i took my m4

the regular rifleman in an infantry company does not need an m9 for every soldier. They go into combat in larger groups.with plenty of fire power and if you offered every grunt a handgun and mags and ammo to go with it hell more than likely tell you **** that i got enough shit to hump......spec ops going in with small units yes they need a side arm and they are not carrying the m9
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom