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

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

Fine sand in a Glock mag can definitely cause the follower to hang up in the middle of the mag body.
 
Fine sand in a Glock mag can definitely cause the follower to hang up in the middle of the mag body.

Same thing happens to M9 magazines.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just some additional comments because I'm too lazy to quote anything else:

When my battalion was fielded M4s prior to deployment (2005) they were supposed to the a 1-for-1 trade for our M9s. The Div S-4 Officer told me (via email) make sure the pistols got cleaned and processed for turn in. Well, we got the M4s into our armory and never turned the pistols in - they went on deployment with us. We had plenty of pistols for those who wanted one (so long as they had qualified with them).

I carried my M9 IWB (condition 1) just behind my hipbone in a Bladetech holster and two spare magazines on the off side. I could effect a good draw stroke even while wearing my Interceptor Body Armor as long as I kept the bottom button undone on my cammie blouse.

When inside the CP, I kept my M4 in a rifle rack, but when I went to the chow hall, the laundry, the head or out on patrol I took it with me. If I was walking around camp I'd have two 30-round magazines in the front slash pockets of my pants. If I was leaving the wire I had the typical complement of seven rifle magazines on my IBA.

There were occasions when I'd keep my rifle on me while in the CP - during large confirmation briefs or operations orders where a few of our Iraqi "allies" were present I'd bring it just in case.
 
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.

I disagree. In some instances. If you look at all the gelatin tests of bad HPs that don't expand, the wound channel created by the unexpanded HP is a good deal bigger than a FMJ.

I agree with you in the instance of a hp that grenades in the first 2 inches and then stops.

Don
 
I disagree. In some instances. If you look at all the gelatin tests of bad HPs that don't expand, the wound channel created by the unexpanded HP is a good deal bigger than a FMJ.

I agree with you in the instance of a hp that grenades in the first 2 inches and then stops.

Don

You're assuming that every bad JHP is going to fail the "good" way, which is that it will turn into overpriced ball ammo. That wasn't the case with a lot of the lightweight 9mm JHPs. A lot of that stuff would literally overexpand and slog its own progress, so you end up with lack of penetration. Underpentration = may not reach vitals = bad.

I'd take FMJ over JHPs that don't meet the FBI penetration minimums, based on the stuff that I've seen. Thankfully the whole issue is mostly moot these days given that there is very little defense ammo that sucks that bad anymore, and even a lot of the shitty stuff fails the good way instead of the bad way.

-Mike
 
I agree with everything you said.

Other than strange boutique ammo designed to grenade in the first couple of inches (G2 RIP, Glaser Safety Slug) almost nothing fails in the "bad" way.

And like you said, its so easy to use known good stuff (Stick with HST, Ranger, XTP, etc) that there isn't any reason to not use it.
 
Does that make the M9 more effective and reliable than the Glock 19 in those circumstances?

No. I suppose my comment was a little off subject, until the subject turned to the need, or lack of need for a handgun in combat. When the handgun is needed, whatever goes bang is the correct choice.
 
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

I can only speak from my own experience. Having been issued a 1911 as a back up weapon, there were a few times when I'd have been in deep doo doo without the 1911. The 1911 never failed to fuction, never had an accidental discharge, even though I always carried on half cock, in a flap style holster, never required more than one shot per target and humping the extra weight through the boonies was a labor of love after the first time I needed it. It may not be for everyone, but for me, it more than proved itself as a vital combat tool. I suspect that anyone else here on NES that has needed to resort to the handgun in a tight spot, agrees with me whole heartedly.
 
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
So, what do they do today, when they run out of ammo in a fire fight and for whatever reason they can't get resupplied fast enough and their designated caliber is not .556, so they can't borrow ammo from others near by?
 
I can only speak from my own experience. Having been issued a 1911 as a back up weapon, there were a few times when I'd have been in deep doo doo without the 1911. The 1911 never failed to fuction, never had an accidental discharge, even though I always carried on half cock, in a flap style holster, never required more than one shot per target and humping the extra weight through the boonies was a labor of love after the first time I needed it. It may not be for everyone, but for me, it more than proved itself as a vital combat tool. I suspect that anyone else here on NES that has needed to resort to the handgun in a tight spot, agrees with me whole heartedly.

Totally agree. But RVN was a different war. There weren't any wide open spaces, we weren't mechanized, we walked, and PAVN's quickly learned to get up close and personal to negate US artillery. RO's, 60 gunners, M79 gunners, 2nd LT's, some medics, carried 1911's. You could carry whatever you could talk the armorer out of. And if that didn't work there was always the black market. I carried a .38 inherited from a buddy who rotated home. It was perfect for clearing tunnels. Concede that Iraq/Afghan are different environments and less need for pistols. Seems like a perfect environment for a 7.62mm but Pentagon got rid of those when they decided we would never fight long range wars.

I never saw any two soldiers pack the same way other than the basic load of ammo and a wound bandage carried on a shoulder strap. You carried what you wanted. Heading out on an op you might be handed a spare ammo can or a spare radio battery. If you wanted to carry a machete, great. If you wanted an entrenching tool, it's yours. If you wanted a third canteen, fill it up. I fail to understand the necessity of every soldier packing identical gear. Sounds like a rigid military hierarchical mind set.
 
So, what do they do today, when they run out of ammo in a fire fight and for whatever reason they can't get resupplied fast enough and their designated caliber is not .556, so they can't borrow ammo from others near by?

My point isnt that pistols are worthless, it is that in most environments I'd rather have 3-4 extra mags of 5.56 than an M9. MOUT, tunnel clearing, etc is a different ballgame. There are times where I'd definitely want a sidearm (clearing small places, close combat). Sustained long range firefights the extra rifle ammo is way more useful.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
My point isnt that pistols are worthless, it is that in most environments I'd rather have 3-4 extra mags of 5.56 than an M9. MOUT, tunnel clearing, etc is a different ballgame. There are times where I'd definitely want a sidearm (clearing small places, close combat). Sustained long range firefights the extra rifle ammo is way more useful.

Mike

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

What does you rifle weigh and can you shoot it well with one hand?
 
Late to this thread. 13 pages and ummm.... The military is not going to replace the M9 pistol any time soon. As a Soldier who carried it overseas, qualifies with it yearly, owns a 9mm civilian type and shoots it fairly regularly I will say YES, the M9 is a fine pistol
There are pro's and cons with it, the simple fact is it works.
Every single item manufactured from the beginning of time has flaws.
The question about round counts in the firearms. Its not exact science. But say there are 50 Soldiers to fire on 5 lanes. Each Soldier shoots 40 rounds. Then the unit knows that the 5 M9's on the range a minimum of 400 rounds that day. The unit gets extra ammo because there are some people who just suck at shooting. Round it up to 600. When the firearm hits mandatory round counts parts are replaced, if it malfunctions, parts get replaced.
Overseas we function checked every weapon before leaving the fence and then a live fire once we cleared the berm (UH60 15T20 it was a M240H) when I had to DART it was the M4 and M9. I have never had a M240 not work when I needed it to.

That tax payer BS in the beginning of the thread, dude uncalled for. I'm national guard. I pay taxes just like you. It sucks but something must pay for beans, bullets, a roof, and equipment but it comes out of my pocket just as well. I hate seeing 30-40% of my pay check go away to mystery land. I volunteered for this at 18 years old when I was in college. I didn't go through OCS/ROTC I didn't have uncle sam pay my school. I don't see you doing much besides being a keyboard warrior.

IDK how this 13 pages got off the possibility of the G19 being a new sidearm. I doubt it for the reasons the commander stated previously.
In a perfect world every Soldier would carry the guns I want to carry in combat. That-a-way we can all share the same stuff. The 5.56 it flat out works for what we do. Do I think it should be a 308, yes. But I'm a helicopter pilot. If I'm using my rifle or sidearm something has SERIOUSLY F'd up. As a sidearm, I would like to carry the Sig 227 tacops. I'm 6' tall 190#'s and sit fat dumb and happy in a Blackhawk talking about how great life is. That 5'6" 145# grunt is wearing 100#+ of gear. I'm sure he would be real pissed to carry the extra weight on top of his required loadout. When he sleeps in a bag I sleep in a airconditioned room. Its necessary to put yourself in the grunts shoes in order to make the military work.
I once heard that for every grunt there's 50 soldiers supporting him, why because it most likely SUCKS. I've never climbed my way up a mountain in Afghanistan knowing what I have on me needs to last until theH60/47 brings me more rounds and food. Hopefully theres fresh socks and t-shirts in there. I am glad to support the grunt, fly him safely and bring him home hopefully with all the body parts he came into country with. I have nothing but the greatest respect for anyone that has raised their right hand in an oath to protect this country.

Before you go spitting that tax dollar crap put youself in their shoes, writing your own Will at the age of 17 before you're allowed to vote, drink, or smoke.
 
yeah cause if my rifle went down id transition to one handed pistol shooting. If I got shot I can shoot an M4 with one hand... again crazy hypos vs reality.

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

A lot of men have fought on with a handgun, Sgt York was a good example. "Crazy" no just not one to "fall in line".
 
I admit to be slightly horrified that modern US army infantry grunts didn't have two weapons by default.

For me as an armchair hand waver : the concept of being in a situation as an individual where rounds had the chance of being exchanged without two working firearms is just wrong.

I under stand that in a combat situation with a team as the individual unit, your buddies firearm is your firearm. But still.

We have light weight accurate and durable sidearm options. It doesn't make sense to me for them to not be a thing we issue.

Thanks to lethal weapon series, I still want a Beretta some day. I've looked at them hard and would probably grab a solid 1911 first. Or a vp9. Or.. Or.. Or..

There are so many pistols the army could select and run hard which would make more sense for them to field.

Every time this topic of "which pistol" comes around, I always lock into the fact that not all soldiers carry a side arm on them 24-7 and breaker reset.


Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
 
While we do have the brightest and bravest troops those who make the decisions on the lines you must fall into seem to think as beaucrats. 9mm was adopted because it was the nato round that all the allies use. We gave up a proven killer in the 45 to replace it with falling in line with common caliber. While it's true it saves in logistics in a war when you and your friends can all shoot the same caliber, the 9mm isn't the best when you have to shoot ball ammo.

Don't get me wrong, there are times you must fall in line to meet a common goal but since it seems by what the military folkes say here that handguns are so rarely used then why 9mm? Give your men the best weapons possible to defeat your enemies, you won't get a second chance.
 
That's the issue. Today everyone gets a trophy and everything is whimpified. It will take a different approach to defeat our enemy. No congressman want's to admit it but we're fighting a war traditionally against an enemy which does not play by any rules at all. Its not much of a war anymore (traditionally speaking) where our enemy wears a uniform, yet we still fight like one day they will have an organized force.
Its still moving in a direction that keeps them over there but by dropping ODT, rangers, seals or small units in strategic areas is keeping them at bay its not going to win this war. I am already going on a rant here.
The military is fighting with one hand tied behind their back, its time to unchain them and defeat this enemy. Over 13 years over there, just think about that. Some people at the beginning of the war had a child and its now in middle school. Its retarded to think that we defeated our enemies in WWII in under 4 years. That was a massive force on two parts of the globe and we defeated the enemy. Today we are just policeing the middle east.
I'm not a war monger but if you're going to fight than fight, not show up and occupy.
 
Takes more than just brave soldiers to win a war, logistics to keep them supplied and the best tools for war along with a strategy to win. Japs had really brave men but lousy tools and no logistics but they all fell in line and fought with the tools they had.

Edited to add, read how the war is being fought, it takes the bravest of our men to fight under these conditions...

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016...nton-commander-chief-half-military-gonna-get/
 
Last edited:
I admit to be slightly horrified that modern US army infantry grunts didn't have two weapons by default.

For me as an armchair hand waver : the concept of being in a situation as an individual where rounds had the chance of being exchanged without two working firearms is just wrong.

I under stand that in a combat situation with a team as the individual unit, your buddies firearm is your firearm. But still.

We have light weight accurate and durable sidearm options. It doesn't make sense to me for them to not be a thing we issue.

Thanks to lethal weapon series, I still want a Beretta some day. I've looked at them hard and would probably grab a solid 1911 first. Or a vp9. Or.. Or.. Or..

There are so many pistols the army could select and run hard which would make more sense for them to field.

Every time this topic of "which pistol" comes around, I always lock into the fact that not all soldiers carry a side arm on them 24-7 and breaker reset.


Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

Hike around Bridgeport with full kit for a few days and suddenly you realize how valuable every ounce is. In less than 2 weeks I lost 20lbs, was eating plenty, was doing mounted ops half the time, and we all had reduced loads since we didn't have time to acclimate (no SAPIs). I've talked to many guys who've lost 40-50lbs doing the full 6 week course, ours was about 12 days.

You guys seem to keep ignoring the BTDT folks in this thread. And I'll reiterate for the umpteenth time, anecdotes are not a rule. Situation dictates but it has been my experience as an infantryman that 99% of the time the weight/kit space could be better allocated than to a sidearm when talking warfare. SITUATION DICTATES means that in certain circumstances I'd want one and people should have one instead of extra mags, extra water, food, etc, and in others the 3-4lbs is better spent elsewhere.

As to the .45 vs 9mm debate, I'm not even going to wade into that one.

Mike
 
Last edited:
.38 super duper would be cool in a carbine. 1500 FPS for a large projectile out of a 5-8" bbl? Good for most unarmored targets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hike around Bridgeport with full kit for a few days and suddenly you realize how valuable every ounce is. In less than 2 weeks I lost 20lbs, was eating plenty, was doing mounted ops half the time, and we all had reduced loads since we didn't have time to acclimate (no SAPIs). I've talked to many guys who've lost 40-50lbs doing the full 6 week course, ours was about 12 days.

You guys seem to keep ignoring the BTDT folks in this thread. And I'll reiterate for the umpteenth time, anecdotes are not a rule. Situation dictates but it has been my experience as an infantryman that 99% of the time the weight/kit space could be better allocated than to a sidearm when talking warfare. SITUATION DICTATES means that in certain circumstances I'd want one and people should have one instead of extra mags, extra water, food, etc, and in others the 3-4lbs is better spent elsewhere.

As to the .45 vs 9mm debate, I'm not even going to wade into that one.

Mike

I can see for ground pounders it's too much weight to carry....
 
You may as well discuss 5.56 vs 7.62 and when weight is an issue, it matters how many rounds you can carry.

Weight matters but stopping power matters more. In RVN, the VC were putting up a wall of fire with their AK's. An M14 on full auto is an anti-aircraft gun. Along comes the AR in 5.56. Now we can put up a wall of fire. (but have to carry twice as many rounds to do it)

We were sold on the switch by propaganda that stated the bullet tumbled in flight and the shock turned flesh to a quivering mass of jelly. Experience in RVN was the 5.56. didn't stop shit. Especially in jungle where 5.56 rounds headed off to who knows where upon encountering the first twig. Once the 60's came on line (7.62mm), VC kept their heads down.

5.56 is not an effective military cartridge.
 
Weight matters but stopping power matters more. In RVN, the VC were putting up a wall of fire with their AK's. An M14 on full auto is an anti-aircraft gun. Along comes the AR in 5.56. Now we can put up a wall of fire. (but have to carry twice as many rounds to do it)

We were sold on the switch by propaganda that stated the bullet tumbled in flight and the shock turned flesh to a quivering mass of jelly. Experience in RVN was the 5.56. didn't stop shit. Especially in jungle where 5.56 rounds headed off to who knows where upon encountering the first twig. Once the 60's came on line (7.62mm), VC kept their heads down.

5.56 is not an effective military cartridge.

What's next, you're gonna tell us the M16 was made by the mattel corporation.....? [rofl] I think your last point is debateable, though... and its very subjective. Even changing bullet types can have a radical effect on wound ballistics, particularly within the first couple hundred yards.
 
It's the math of logistics, they even know right down to the # how much ice it takes to keep a soldier going. In Iraq they used paper coins to run the PX, real coins cost too much to fly over there. When it gets right down to the study it's weight of material flown over there to kill how many enemies.

Everything about the M16 was lighter than the M14 and the new mobile infantry needed less weight. Sad they didn't test the M16 better before it was issued but then I remember the M9 pistol had issues too in the beginning.

If they do bring in another handgun the odds are it will take a decade to get them issued to all branches. I don't think they will sell the used M 9s to the public to offset the cost of new guns, they will melt them as scrape and throw away millions of dollars doing it.
 
For better or worse I never shot anyone with an M4, or anything for that matter. I do however have plenty of friends whove shot people with various things and unfortunately been shot with various things. 5.56 does its job where needed. Shot placement remains an important point. My good friend is mostly fine after getting hit with a PKM round to the shoulder on our deployment. If it hit in a different location it would have been a different ball game.

As a machinegunner by trade I have a special fondness for MGs, and they serve their purpose. Supression is one of their primary roles, be it .308 or 5.56, etc.

Mike

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