U.S. Marine Corps picks Colt for new pistol

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rating - 100%
42   0   0
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Messages
646
Likes
48
Location
Socialist Republic of Massachusetts
The USP handguns are no more reliable than the M&P and the ergonomics suck for a large number of people. Not to mention they are way overpriced. A MA compliant M&P 45 with an Apex kit is half the price with a better trigger and much better ergonomics.
The USP was an older generation pistol compared to the M&P, so the ergonomics are not as good. Agree with you there. However, the HK45 and P30 line of pistols are much better then the USP and M&P in that regard. I have one and there is not contest. Much better shooting pistol than the M&P.

As for the price, well, HK is expensive. The KH P30L is the most expensive gun I have owned (outside of 1911's) and it is the best shooter (outside 1911's).
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
72,298
Likes
35,853
I have one and there is not contest. Much better shooting pistol than the M&P.
The M&P bore axis is still lower.

If I shot both on a shot timer there is no doubt I would be faster with an M&P. The gun is easier to hang onto because of the ergos and the lower bore axis.

I've owned most of the USP series guns in .45 ACP (all of them except for the USP Expert) and while they were very accurate guns the ergos just don't work for a lot... and the bore axis is quite high. May not matter so much if you have oven mitts for hands... if you have big hands, the USP .45 becomes a lot easier to control.

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
9,989
Likes
3,306
Location
Green Eggs and...
I don't agree with you at all. I think a pistol should be required for all soldiers in combat zones. I carried an M9 and a M16A4. the M9 with 2 mags was not inconvenient for me to carry. I was a big fan of the peace of mind of having two weapons instead of one.
I disagree. Pistols would have been relatively useless 99% of the time we were in Afghanistan. In more of a CQB environment, maybe, the M4s were getting their legs stretched where we were. The only person to get one issued was usually the platoon Sgt and Platoon Commander, and he would give it to whoever was carrying the M240 when we were on foot. The only exception to this would be in my eyes if we were allowed to carry pistols "condition one" (chambered) while on bases.

Mike
 

Dench

NES Member
Rating - 100%
102   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
17,155
Likes
5,630
I disagree. Pistols would have been relatively useless 99% of the time we were in Afghanistan. In more of a CQB environment, maybe, the M4s were getting their legs stretched where we were. The only person to get one issued was usually the platoon Sgt and Platoon Commander, and he would give it to whoever was carrying the M240 when we were on foot. The only exception to this would be in my eyes if we were allowed to carry pistols "condition one" (chambered) while on bases.

Mike
I work in an office with a person who used an M9 in Afghanistan. it happens. I don't know why people want to remove tools from soldiers.

"oh you dont need that"
"oh i dont want to carry this because i have to maintain it"
"another serialised item?! ugh, i have to keep track of it..."

While deployed i've seen squibs, jams and other shit that have taken new rifles down. these are ammunition related malfunctions that take people out of the fight with a weapon that needs tools to fix. An M9 would be a great thing to have on you at a time like that. guns break, shit jams, ammo runs out. An M9 costs what, $550? whats the ammo with mags cost? another $50? Sounds like its worth the investment to me.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
9,989
Likes
3,306
Location
Green Eggs and...
I work in an office with a person who used an M9 in Afghanistan. it happens. I don't know why people want to remove tools from soldiers.

"oh you dont need that"
"oh i dont want to carry this because i have to maintain it"
"another serialised item?! ugh, i have to keep track of it..."

While deployed i've seen squibs, jams and other shit that have taken new rifles down. these are ammunition related malfunctions that take people out of the fight with a weapon that needs tools to fix. An M9 would be a great thing to have on you at a time like that. guns break, shit jams, ammo runs out. An M9 costs what, $550? whats the ammo with mags cost? another $50? Sounds like its worth the investment to me.
I didn't say they don't have their application and use, also, you know how much peoples experiences vary. Bear in mind the are we were deployed to they didn't even give us TOWs or even AT4s, while 40 miles away units were going through TOW missiles at the rapid rate. I think individual circumstances apply. As a general statement I don't believe every grunt needs a sidearm. I would rather see the same ammount of training time to get proficient with a sidearm go towards other things. Then again, I'd like to actually see the military make good use of our time, but thats a pipe dream.

Mike
 

Dench

NES Member
Rating - 100%
102   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
17,155
Likes
5,630
I didn't say they don't have their application and use, also, you know how much peoples experiences vary. Bear in mind the are we were deployed to they didn't even give us TOWs or even AT4s, while 40 miles away units were going through TOW missiles at the rapid rate. I think individual circumstances apply. As a general statement I don't believe every grunt needs a sidearm. I would rather see the same ammount of training time to get proficient with a sidearm go towards other things. Then again, I'd like to actually see the military make good use of our time, but thats a pipe dream.

Mike
Yeah your last sentence is really a good one. When we did the "train up" for deployment, that was about 3 months of my life that I'll never get back. The training overall sucked, the weapons training was very short and shallow and most of it was watching bullshit power point presentations.

I would be happy with an optional policy in regards to carrying a sidearm. i think that would be fair.
 

Broccoli Iglesias

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
24,287
Likes
17,774
It all depends what the situation is. Google "MARSOC Afghanistan" and you'll notice that no one is carrying a pistol, because pounds equal pain, and carrying a weapons system that is only good at extremely close ranges is pointless when your engagements are >100m. CQB is a different story, but we're not talking about SWAT teams here.
you know, they used to say the same about planes and close range guns. With the invention of the missile, planes would never have to dogfight again. Till they removed them and saw what happened.

you might fight at long ranges of over 100 meters (100 meters is not that far), but what happens when you run out of ammo?---I guess Marines never run out of ammo.
 
Last edited:

ochmude

Marine Veteran
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
6,315
Likes
1,786
Location
Yuma, AZ
What would be nice is if the guys that needed the equipment actually got it, regardless of rank. SNCO's and officers that never left the wire snatched up all the M4's because they were cool, meanwhile I (everyone else that did convoy security) was stuck in an M1114 with a M16A4 that's over 3 feet long. Nothing like making a "hasty" 360 security circle with a rifle that barely fits through the door of your vehicle. A saying about monkeys and footballs comes to mind.
 
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
1,025
Likes
259
The only person to get one issued was usually the platoon Sgt and Platoon Commander, and he would give it to whoever was carrying the M240 when we were on foot. Mike
These are the soldiers that need a sidearm the most, and your PL and PSG were alot better than some I've seen. My A-hole has never been more water-tight than after hearing "Cur-chunk" from my belt fed weapon (Granted it was a 249, not a 240).
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
9,989
Likes
3,306
Location
Green Eggs and...
you might fight at long ranges of over 100 meters (100 meters is not that far), but what happens when you run out of ammo?---I guess Marines never run out of ammo.
Affix bayonets, duh. You think they do the Bayonet Assault Course at boot camp for no reason?!? For better or worse nobody on my deployment ran out of ammo [sad]

Yea, POGs pretty much suck. Somehow some REMF NCO rates an M4 while people leaving the wire daily still have M16s. IMO give them M9s and snap caps and call it a day. They are probably more of a liability with a rifle than the enemy anyway.

Don't even get me started on our "work up." People lost their jobs over how terrible it was.

Mike
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
8,986
Likes
3,533
Location
Leoburg/Fitchminster area
Well, I think it is a lot better to have a pistol and not need it, than need a pistol and not have it. We could equip every infantryman with a pistol for not too much money. I see nothing wrong with having a back-up firearm. Of course, it will never happen.

If we used the argument that a pistol is superfluous in combat, then we can make an identical argument for civilian concealed carry because 99.5 percent fo the time a handgun is totally not needed in our everyday lives. I've yet to fire a handgun in anger at anyone, so maybe I should just stop carrying?
 

fencer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
11,815
Likes
8,976
Location
Southeastern Mass
I guess there really is a point where it stops being cruel and starts being hysterical. [laugh]
Seriously, that must have been a type-o. Right? I mean there is no way that you could put 31 rounds to the head of a cow and have it live, right? That would be one tough cow or some really bad shooting.
 

fencer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
11,815
Likes
8,976
Location
Southeastern Mass
Well, I think it is a lot better to have a pistol and not need it, than need a pistol and not have it. We could equip every infantryman with a pistol for not too much money. I see nothing wrong with having a back-up firearm. Of course, it will never happen.
I think in a perfect world the soldier should be able to carry whatever the wanted into combat. I bet a lot of them would opt to carry a side arm.
 

tdn

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Oct 29, 2011
Messages
108
Likes
11
Location
Paktia, Afghanistan
I was given an m9 this past deployment and I was thankful. I fought to get some for my guys that wanted them. Hell, even when I filled in for my gunner, I had a 240 or 249 to back up the .50 With my m4 placed by the turret, which came in handy in heavy populated areas. I was also the guy who had a very efficient and comfortable set up with a mossberg, my m4 and my m9 for dismounted combat patrols at 10k of elevation rucking up some mountain. I only had the shotgun for roughly 10 missions but it did it's job. Obviously, it would depend on the mission what I'd bring or let my guys bring, not bring or make optional.

My point is, if possible, no one should be denied a sidearm.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
9,989
Likes
3,306
Location
Green Eggs and...
No. This was bad. We had guys who claimed to have seen bad work ups, and said this was bad. I don't want to go into detail online as to how poorly our work-up went, often for the most pathetic of reasons.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom