striker vs. hammer for MIL

[boatman]

Just curious if someone could educate me on why the .MIL uses hammer vs. striker for pistols. (I might be wrong on this but I thought standard issue is Baretta and SPECOPS uses SIGs).

I would think that for reliability through muck and preventing ND, AD, etc would lead to a striker fired pistol being a better choice?

I know in an ideal world you would say that carrying cocked and locked is just as safe, but considering the variance of people in the armed forces is this really true?

 

[alohadoug]

The current issue pistol (the Beretta M9) was adopted in 1984, before the Glock was introduced.

As for replacing it with a Striker-fired...contrary to popular belief, replacing the M9 is not high on the Military Priority list.

Aloha

 

[browncoat]

The current issue pistol (the Beretta M9) was adopted in 1984, before the Glock was introduced.

As for replacing it with a Striker-fired...contrary to popular belief, replacing the M9 is not high on the Military Priority list.

Aloha

This right here. Most, if not all, of the military units that actually use handguns in combat are already using whatever they want, which is sometimes Glocks. For the rest of the military, it hardly matters what they carry since they virtually never use side arms anyway.

 

[pcgod]

When the Army selected the Beretta they wanted a second strike capability (DA/SA).
They wanted a decocker/safety.
Of course they also wanted the 9mm caliber with lots of bullets in the magazine.
So even if the Glock was available it would not have met the criteria.

I fail to see how the Beretta with its DA/SA trigger is more likely to cause a ND or AD than a striker fired gun. These failures are when the brain is disconnected from the trigger finger and no gun deals with that.

When my brother carried a 1911 in the Army, it was loaded with a full magazine, chamber was unloaded and the hammer was down. Most folks he knew didn't carry cocked and locked. They never considered their pistols in the same way they considered their rifles. Rifles were their friends pistols were just extra weight.

 

[Gillham]

For a second I thought this thread was about your mother in law.. Carry on.

 

[goodzilla]

For a second I thought this thread was about your mother in law.. Carry on.

 

[Serapis]

The current issue pistol (the Beretta M9) was adopted in 1984, before the Glock was introduced.

As for replacing it with a Striker-fired...contrary to popular belief, replacing the M9 is not high on the Military Priority list.

Aloha

Didn't I just read they are taking bids now on its replacement

 

[alohadoug]

What DoD is going to release is a "Request for Proposals." All that means is "Tell us what you've got and maybe, we'll possibly consider releasing a Request for Submissions from some of you. And then, maybe, if someone funds it, we'll replace the M9."

DoD has issued "Request for Proposals" for M9 in the past. Several times.

Aloha

 

[browncoat]

What DoD is going to release is a "Request for Proposals." All that means is "Tell us what you've got and maybe, we'll possibly consider releasing a Request for Submissions from some of you. And then, maybe, if someone funds it, we'll replace the M9."

DoD has issued "Request for Proposals" for M9 in the past. Several times.

Aloha

It looks like the frontrunner is a slightly updated m9 anyway. Probably aren't going to see much change even if there is a change

 

[mark056]

Listen to Alohadoug. He knows what he is talking about. The Army is grumbling about a new pistol but the Army also has an open pistol contract with Beretta since 2012 calling the acquisition of 100,000 new pistols. That contract has not been completely filled. About 80,000 guns remain to be produced under the contract. The Army has rejected the M9A3 upgrade however. We will see how this plays out. A new pistol wouldn't even be fielded until 2017. I'm not holding my breath.

Some of you get all excited about military pistols when in truth, they aren't even a blip on the screen as far as the .mil is concerned. The military would ditch them if they could and tried hard when they adopted the M1 Carbine back in the early 1940's. Except for military police, aviators and high ranking officers, and maybe some medics and crew served weapons personnel, there is not much need for them. As a BUG for infantry, another aspect altogether but that will never ever happen.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/09/army-rejects-m9a3-proposal-opts-for-new-pistol.html

 

[browncoat]

Listen to Alohadoug. He knows what he is talking about. The Army is grumbling about a new pistol but the Army also has an open pistol contract with Beretta since 2012 calling the acquisition of 100,000 new pistols. That contract has not been completely filled. About 80,000 guns remain to be produced under the contract. The Army has rejected the M9A3 upgrade however. We will see how this plays out. A new pistol wouldn't even be fielded until 2017. I'm not holding my breath.

Some of you get all excited about military pistols when in truth, they aren't even a blip on the screen as far as the .mil is concerned. The military would ditch them if they could and tried hard when they adopted the M1 Carbine back in the early 1940's. Except for military police, aviators and high ranking officers, and maybe some medics and crew served weapons personnel, there is not much need for them. As a BUG for infantry, another aspect altogether but that will never ever happen.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/09/army-rejects-m9a3-proposal-opts-for-new-pistol.html

Oh wow that is interesting, I hadn't seen this thanks!

 

[alohadoug]

Based on the timing and such, I suspect that DoD isn't rejecting the M9A3 out of hand. They rejected it as an Engineering Change Proposal. I suspect that PEO-Soldier doesn't want to give the impression that they've already selected the Beretta. They're trying not to suppress Industry interest.

Aloha

 

[boatman]

I fail to see how the Beretta with its DA/SA trigger is more likely to cause a ND or AD than a striker fired gun. These failures are when the brain is disconnected from the trigger finger and no gun deals with that.

When my brother carried a 1911 in the Army, it was loaded with a full magazine, chamber was unloaded and the hammer was down. Most folks he knew didn't carry cocked and locked. They never considered their pistols in the same way they considered their rifles. Rifles were their friends pistols were just extra weight.

When you have 100s of thousands of 18-24 yr olds coming thru with not a heck of alot of training for many of them, and not all of them being the most responsible people, the brain is not always thinking to be disconnected from the trigger finger. I am not trying to slam the armed services at all or say that the IQ there is low, it's just the law of large numbers working with a percentage of irresponsible people and then accidents happen. I am by no means an expert on firearms, I have no stats to back this up, but my gut says that if you are screwing around, a DA is probably the safest. e.g. Hey John, toss me your gun, I think even if I catch it with my finger through the trigger guard, it's not going off. Same situation, hammer back, safety off, might be higher prob that with less force needed that the trigger gets moved enough to go off? In either case, it is horrible firearm safety, but bored 19 yr old males, things like this go on all the time.

I know the Army and Marines are rifle centric, however, aren't Baretta standard for AirForce, Coast Guard, and Navy (who except for specops guys, have much less time with firearms)?

Anyway, I was just questioning, trying to learn something, and realize that reason is not high on the list from an old decision. Thanks for the input.

 

[whacko]

This right here. Most, if not all, of the military units that actually use handguns in combat are already using whatever they want, which is sometimes Glocks. For the rest of the military, it hardly matters what they carry since they virtually never use side arms anyway.

This ^

90% of the m9s are issued to staff officer who have a better chance of giving live birth to a green unicorn that shits pink glitter than having to use that handgun in combat........IMHO the military should replace the m9 for something better......and issue them to the troops that might actually use it......combat arms troops. Let the staff weenies and fobits keep the m9.....it'll save money. And for the record......I'm a staff weenie.......

 

[MisterHappy]

The military is conservative WRT firearms development - just look at how each and every advancement had to be brought kicking and screaming into the Now.

Factor in that a "normal" auto pistol has been the official sidearm for 100+ years.....that's a lot of institutional inertia.

Also, as stated above, most sidearms are not actually "weapons" in the sense of them being used in battle, at least percentage wise in round count.

So...a massive change in hardware (and top-to-bottom training, from Armorer to recruit) is expensive. And, absent a pressing need, not likely.