ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,941
- Likes
- 23,582
heh, the 500 rounds I have shot through mine have been great too.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
The U.S. Army wants a new gun.
- Thread starter Claybreaker!
- Start date
heh, the 500 rounds I have shot through mine have been great too.
Honestly most of these plastic frame guns are comparable and very, very similar in design. I know everyone has their favorites but they don't differ much in reality. They'll likely all perform well enough for .gov when tested. They'll also have longer service lives than the Beretta or Sig due to the fact that the frame rails are steel vs. aluminum. And they'll very likely be cheaper on a per unit basis than the Beretta.
fencer
NES Member
LOL - when they decide to replace the 1911 some of them had a million rounds through them. The one I qualified with was a little sloppy.
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,941
- Likes
- 23,582
My post was very much sarcastic.
fencer
NES Member
Yeah, I know.. that is why it made me LOL. I should have used an emoticon.
Again none of this matters because if I could bet on DOD not adopting a new platform, I'd be independently wealthy by this point.
Every time the DOD talks about adopting a new gun I start hearing funny Calliope music.... like this:
Except that the music is real and the gun never is.![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
I mean, by now, this should be considered a running joke. I'm beginning to think this is a conspiracy, there's some kind of gun rag/gun shop commando lobby in with the Pentagon to make them produce an RFP for something that will never actually exist, just so the gun rags/commandos have something shallow to talk about for a 1-2 year interval.
-Mike
Every time the DOD talks about adopting a new gun I start hearing funny Calliope music.... like this:
Except that the music is real and the gun never is.
I mean, by now, this should be considered a running joke. I'm beginning to think this is a conspiracy, there's some kind of gun rag/gun shop commando lobby in with the Pentagon to make them produce an RFP for something that will never actually exist, just so the gun rags/commandos have something shallow to talk about for a 1-2 year interval.
-Mike
Last edited by a moderator:
M60
NES Member
Well, the Marine Corps wants them. So much so that they bought a bunch from Colt. They added a light rail. I'm betting you can drag them through mud and sand and they'll keep on running.
Last edited:
M60
NES Member
Pretty simple test. If you can carry it through mud, sand,etc. and it knocks down the bad guys afterward and you don't need to blast them 10 times before they fall down, it's a keeper.
When these come on sale to the public I think I might get one {A3}.
M60
NES Member
The problem is not so much that the 9mm blows as much as that NATO's mandating of full metal jacket blows and that we comply with NATO's mandate for full metal jacket blows even more. When is the last you heard of a NATO decision maker putting his or her butt out there on the battle field when the SHTF to back up their decisions with there butt ?
Full Metal Jacket is not a "NATO" mandate. FMJ is required by Geneva Convention (international law). Actually prohibits the use of "expanding ammunition."
Like it or not, that is not going to change anytime soon.
An well thought out piece about the Beretta M9A3 being the next Service Pistol.
For what it's worth, neither myself nor my wife nor anyone in either of our units had issues with the M9. Biggest problem is the magazines. Cheap aftermarket knock-offs. Running MEGGAR or Beretta mags we never had an issue.
As for the complaints about the open slide, I can't figure that one out. The Beretta (in one form or another) is the standard issue for most of the Middle East (Isreal, Jordan, Saudi, etc).
Aloha
Like it or not, that is not going to change anytime soon.
An well thought out piece about the Beretta M9A3 being the next Service Pistol.
For what it's worth, neither myself nor my wife nor anyone in either of our units had issues with the M9. Biggest problem is the magazines. Cheap aftermarket knock-offs. Running MEGGAR or Beretta mags we never had an issue.
As for the complaints about the open slide, I can't figure that one out. The Beretta (in one form or another) is the standard issue for most of the Middle East (Isreal, Jordan, Saudi, etc).
Aloha
Still don't get why they don't use Glocks, or anything polymer in the first place?? Light weight, high capacity, they already have a light rail, so easy to clean and fix a monkey could do it, and of course, reliable.
This business of asking manufacturers to modify a gun to suit the troops when the problem could be rectified by one call to Glock is insufferable.
This business of asking manufacturers to modify a gun to suit the troops when the problem could be rectified by one call to Glock is insufferable.
WOW, they Cerakoted an ordinary M9 and added a threaded barrel....Truly amazing stuff!!!. Now all they need to do is discover Polymer and remove that stupid hammer.
Still don't get why they don't use Glocks, or anything polymer in the first place?? Light weight, high capacity, they already have a light rail, so easy to clean and fix a monkey could do it, and of course, reliable.
This business of asking manufacturers to modify a gun to suit the troops when the problem could be rectified by one call to Glock is insufferable.
wow did you bother to read any info on it or did you just look at the picture? It's a new version 92 that addresses all common complaints, but still has the advantage of being an ECP rather than completely new design
-changed to a slim vertec frame that replicates a 1911 grip
-has a new universal slide where you can now switch out the safety and convert it to a decocker only configuration like a Sig or 92G
-removable front sight
There's no point in switching everything to Glocks because:
1) Pistols in general are largely irrelevant to 99% of soldiers
2) Pistol training in the us military is pretty much nonexistant and is going to stay that way
3) The supply chain for Beretta spare parts, armorers, and magazines is already in place
4) The soldiers that actually need pistols (SOCOM units) already have other options than the Beretta, such as Sig, Glocks, etc
When a typical soldier in a typical unit gets maybe 50 rounds of pistol training per year, it really isn't the equipment that's the issue...
Last edited:
Apart from the 1911 grip, which should be all polymer, all other "updates" are irrelevant. Threaded barrels are a dime a dozen, who needs a decocker when u can have a striker fired weapon, Glocks, and probably every other Polymer pistol have removable front sites. Sorry, but these improvements are "old news" when it comes to an "updated" pistol, it's like updating a Model T Ford.
1) If this is the case then whats the point in spending more money and updating the M9??
2) If you can operate an M9 then im pretty sure anyone can operate a Glock.
3) That supply chain could easily be substituted considering the parts availability and low cost of Glock parts, which should have been in place along time ago, and makes 1-3 irrelevant.
4) why is it limited to certain units??
Last edited:
1) This is Beretta's own money in the A3 version. They already have all the tooling and parts for the A3, because all the features came from variants of the 92 that they used to produce. They are selling it to the mil as an "ECP" rather than a new model. The mil already gave Beretta a recent contract for new M9s, and the purpose of the M9A3 ECP is to satisfy the contract without either side spending any additional money on approving and testing an entirely new model.
2) It may be easier to train somebody to shoot a glock, but you have to remember that "minimum competency" is the name of the game when it comes to pistol training in the mil. Plus, pistol shooting is one of the lowest priorities for any soldier, especially when he's got shit like maintaining M2 50cals and learning to call in artillery to do. The amount of money and time you would spend improving such a low priority skill is the definition of "government waste"
3) It's going to cost hundreds of millions of $$ to retrain armorers and have glock manufacture enough parts and magazines to support 100,000+ replacement pistols. For all the complaining NES does about the mil wasting money, this one absolutely takes the cake yet NES is strangely silent about it. It's a waste of money because the M9 already works well enough for general service use and any incremental improvement in going to glocks is probably nullified by the complete lack of training the typical soldier gets.
4) SOCOM units have budgets and leeway to get what they want, and that includes pistols to an extent. They have $$ and training that somebody in a regular unit can only dream of.
NES loves to bitch about the mil wasting money, yet somehow is obsessed with spending hundreds of millions of dollars to change something that in reality is literally at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to relevant military combat skills. Yes, we civilians deem pistols important because it's our primary tool for protection outside the home and thus probably concentrate most of our time on it. The mil world is not like the civilian world. They should be focusing on spending money to train for actually useful shit, like small unit tactics, operating crew served weapons, artillery call for fire, combined arms tactics with tanks & air, etc etc etc.
Last edited:
warwickben
bubba Kalashnikov
For the most part , The average grunt are all issued the basic weapon systems . It's all about the supply chain .
the special force groups generally have a choice of what weapons they use. The way they operate the logistics for supply chain of ammo and parts are different . If you google you can fun articles showing off the armory of one of the seal teams . At times they even use Russian guns or other non standard "American" arms . When they don't want the chance of leaving any thing behind that could point back to the uS.
After reading your posts, you are obviously a civilian gun owner and shooter, and have no idea where pistols fall into the military framework. The Spec Ops people, the folks who might actually get into pistol fights, pretty much carry what they want and are issued weapons accordingly. Some even have been known to carry personally owned handguns and the leadership "looks the other way" (this is based on first hand information, not what somebody "told me"). Generally speaking general issue pistols like the M9 are issued to personnel such are military police, aviators, and staff officers, and some crew served weapons personnel. Most everybody else gets an M4 or an M16. I was issued 1911's and M9's and I loved them. Why? Because they were easy to carry around and when we went to the field, very portable, BUT, I was part of the Cold War Army. If things got hot I vowed to get myself an M16 very quickly, either by going to see the armorer and demanding one, picking up one on the battlefield, or trading my pistol for one from the youngest dumbest private I could find who thought somehow that having a pistol would be neater than having a rifle.
As Clint Smith, one of the truly great firearms trainers of our time said: "Never bring a pistol to a gunfight" holds doubly true for combat. If I am one of the troops who is issued a pistol as primary weapon and have to rely on it, then I know that I am in very deep kimchee and the enemy has made some serious inroads into my area of operations.
There is a mystique to the pistol in the military. Perhaps because it has been traditionally been associated with rank (officers are issued pistols and for decades general officers were even issued special pistols). James Jones a very good author even wrote a novella once called "The Pistol." I think a lot of enlisted soldiers covet pistols because they can't have them. I also think that many see having a pistol as an insurance policy as BUG. I don't have a problem with this personally. Many years ago, time Major George Nonte, a gun writer most of you don't know of, but who was one of the best gun writers of his time, said why not equip each infantry man with the then new model 60 Chief's Special as a BUG? His rationale was that in the jungles of Viet Nam it might be great for back-up especially when infiltrators hit at night during down time. He said for the cost of one jet fighter an entire infanry division could be outfitted with these. Sounds a bit archaic today, but a stainless .38 was state of the art in the early 1960's. I know once Massad Ayoob opined that something inexpensive like a Kel Tec in 9mm would make a nice BUG for troops. A pistol as a back up to the primary weapon is an idea that does have merit but will never be adopted.
Another angle, you go walking around with a pistol, an enemy sniper sees you and this screams: officer, and you have made yourself a target.
So, while pistols might be important to civilians as PDW or to the police, they just aren't too important to the military which is one reason why the M1 Carbine was developed in the early 1940's. The War Department wanted to try to get rid of the pistol entirely but couldn't, so they developed a shoulder fired carbine that fired an intermediate cartridge with the approximate power of a .357 Magnum out to 50 yards. This was very successful and within the parameters of its original concept great, the problem is that it was expanded outside the original concept and some began seeing it as a main battle rifle, even with sniper variations. The pistol will probably never totally go away in the military, but it is of extremely limited value in most military applications. If the United States Army or the United States Marine Corps finds itself in a bunch of pistol fights where they come up short, you can damn betcha a newer more effective handgun will be issue, happened once and the result was the 1911. We are beyond that now and I am not saying go back to that platform. The need is just not there at this time for a major overhaul of our pistol requirements. Personally I think the M9 or some variation of it will be around for some time.
What Mark just said makes a ton of sense. If there was a major cost-savings to be had by switching to another gun, then I could see the benefit. But since the old adage of a pistol's purpose is so you can fight your way back to your battle rifle, and is a low priority in training, then why spend the money to retool and retrain as well as procure new weapons?
The other thing that I get out of this discussion is just how basic the firearms training is in the .mil. It's amazing to those of us who didn't serve, but I guess in the end shouldn't be surprising. And it really brings into perspective when an anti politician like a Gabe Gomez or a Seth Moulton spouts the line that they are trained to use these weapons, civvies shouldn't have them, bla bla bla, and in reality it seems the training a typical soldier receives is just a bit better than knowing where the bullets go in and not getting themselves killed with an ND---at least in theory.
The other thing that I get out of this discussion is just how basic the firearms training is in the .mil. It's amazing to those of us who didn't serve, but I guess in the end shouldn't be surprising. And it really brings into perspective when an anti politician like a Gabe Gomez or a Seth Moulton spouts the line that they are trained to use these weapons, civvies shouldn't have them, bla bla bla, and in reality it seems the training a typical soldier receives is just a bit better than knowing where the bullets go in and not getting themselves killed with an ND---at least in theory.
I'm curious as to your source for this statement. While I agree with the other two (I spent my last year on Active Duty training personnel with the M9 prior to deployment), I've found very few personnel that truly care about the sidearm they're issued. I spent 12 years in MI units that had more personnel trained with the M9 than most units. We had MP platoon attached to our BN as well as MI personnel (enlisted/NCO/Officer) that were authorized the M9 on deployment and in the course of their regular duties. Some complained about the weight, some complained about the size, some complained about the double action trigger. But as the First Sergeant used to say "it's when Soldiers stop complaining that you start to worry." Everyone of them complained, but sucked it up and dealt with what they were issued. Refusing to use them simply isn't an option.
During my deployment to Afghanistan (granted it was 2003), the SFG that rotated into country while I was there (supporting SOCOM) carried M9s without an issue. As one of the guys I was working with said to me "If we're worried about which sidearm we're carrying, things have gotten really bad."
Another thing to consider.... holsters (at the cost of $75m awarded late last year).
Aloha
M60
NES Member
I humbly stand corrected. Full metal jacket is not a NATO mandate. The mandate dates back to the "St. Petersburg Declaration of 18 freaking 68". Are you kidding me! 1868. Really! Update to St. Pete, Hague Convention, NATO, Geneva Convention and anyone else who contributed their stupidity in creating and prolonging the mandate of using only full metal jacket ammo . This is almost 2015! Give the troops some freaking hollow points. Holy crap! Shotgun rounds filled with steel arrows, Grenades, RPG'S, Agent orange, and Napalm have all been deemed ok but hollow points are to freaking killy, and I guess we'll just write off atomic weapons use during WW11 to use of poetic license .
Last edited:
Perhaps, and this is the rationale that I have heard for non-expanding ammunition is this: non-expanding ammunition will frequently more than likely wound than kill. Wounding requires care (in modenr "civilized armies") so factoring in medics, field hospitals etc. you are creating more logistical problems by wounding enemy soldiers than killing them.
You may accept or reject this explanation, but I have heard it offered up over the years. I have not researched it myself. It might or might not make sense in the context of your rather colorful rhetoric, but consider that Western Armies are still rooted in the Rules of Land Warfare and even in our current conflagrations, we have Rules of Engagement. It is not for me to pass judgement as to the veracity or rightness of all of this, that is veritas, at least the part about Rules of Engagement and all the rants in world about killing etc. isn't going to change things one iota, it is what it is.
In the end, your point?
As a post script: Some special operations forces do use expanding bullets.
While it may take only 5 minutes to demonstrate that technique, it will take a lot more than 5 minutes for a soldier to become proficient with it to the point that he always performs it properly under high stress. Or, if they actually procure a new gun (I'll believe that when I see it), they could simply procure one with a frame mounted safety and not have to train around a bad design.
And given how little pistol training .mil gives to most soldiers, I think a slide-mounted safety is a major liability.
Last edited:
I wonder how hollow point 9x19mm will do off a piece of body armor against an enemy who is actually properly equipped for combat.
Sooner or later the US is going to fight someone not wearing sandals and t shirts. FMJ or JHP 9x19 against people with half a clue and more than $1.25 in their clothing allowance are going to fair a tad better, probably.
Sooner or later the US is going to fight someone not wearing sandals and t shirts. FMJ or JHP 9x19 against people with half a clue and more than $1.25 in their clothing allowance are going to fair a tad better, probably.
For all the training that I did (my Unit and with my wife's Unit as well), I can't ever recall seeing a Soldier, even an Officer, have an issue with the safety.
Also the ECP that Beretta proposes includes a change to the position/angle of the safety.
Aloha
Whether the pistol is of least importance or not, that's not the question here. I'd rather carry a Glock than an over weight over complicated M9 or 1911, it's shear logic and boggles my mind why it wasn't the sidearm of choice from the beginning of its existance. So because the Army puts sidearms low on the list of priorities, does that mean the troops can't have a better, cheaper, back up sidearm?? If i had to go to my pistol I'd rather it be something other than a 1911 or an M9 , preferably polymer.... it is almost 2015.
Similar threads
