# Pentagon Seeks New Sidearm



## BloodStripe (Dec 4, 2014)

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Se...on-taking-bids-for-replacement/5191417641526/



> The Pentagon announced it will actively seek a new manufacturing contract to replace Beretta as the primary sidearm of the United States military.
> Gun manufacture Smith & Wesson and a division of General Dynamics have already announced plans to enter a jointly-produced firearm based on Smith & Wesson's M&P, an already popular polymer pistol used by law enforcement agencies around the world.



I always hated the M9. It was nice that it was ambidextrous for us southpaws, but overall I just never cared for it. There seemed to be too many malfunctions (stove pipe seemed to be the most common) even on the range. Fortunately, the only time I ever had to conduct a transition was during CQB school and not during an operation.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 4, 2014)

Hopefully they'll take the trials seriously this time and pick a solid pistol.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 4, 2014)

Never had a problem with the M9.
I am not convinced we will see a new pistol though.
How many pistol tests has the Army/AF run? 2?4?

Just buy Sigs (won't happen) or M&P.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 4, 2014)

We got Glocks in group and they were pretty slick.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 4, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> We got Glocks in group and they were pretty slick.


9MM?


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 4, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> We got Glocks in group and they were pretty slick.


 
I like Glocks well enough, but do you really think the Pentagon is going to trust Joe with a pistol with no manual safety?  Not saying I agree with that thought process, but that's how I think the winds will blow.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 4, 2014)

Totentanz said:


> I like Glocks well enough, but do you really think the Pentagon is going to trust Joe with a pistol with no manual safety?  Not saying I agree with that thought process, but that's how I think the winds will blow.


That's why M&P will do well.
RumInt says the AF wanted .40 cal M&P's but the Army whined and killed the competition before they could finish it.
Then told everyone the M9 was good enough.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 4, 2014)

SOWT said:


> 9MM?



Yeah


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 4, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> We got Glocks in group and they were pretty slick.



I have had my Glock 17  for years. Thousands of rounds, and never a problem. I had an FBI/FTU upgrade several years ago, by one of their FTU guys, return spring, tritium sights, and some grip enhancements. It carrys pretty well in a SafariLand paddle rig. It rides a bit high on the hip, but stays out of sight even under short jackets.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 4, 2014)

1911. WTF more do you need.


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 4, 2014)

I can't comment first hand on the Marine Corps 1911, so I will just stay in my lane and direct you to those who have

http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=3250


----------



## Mac_NZ (Dec 4, 2014)

Whatever they buy I'd be more interested in seeing them issue enough ammunition to competently train the main user group (read medics, officers and other critters) to be able to hit the broadside of a barn at 15 yards.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 4, 2014)

SOTGWarrior said:


> I can't comment first hand on the Marine Corps 1911, so I will just stay in my lane and direct you to those who have
> 
> http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=3250


 
The article talks generically about 1911s and doesn't specifically mention the Marine Corps CQB M45.  The link basically says 1911s suck. Kyle Lamb says 1911s suck. I'm not one to contradict Kyle Lamb because I admire the guy very much, but I don't agree with this. Get an old 1911 with a slide that works like butter, something that's been broken it real good, bluing all wore off and shoot the crap out of it and it's a Zen freakin level of enlightenment thing.  Yeah I know, SOWT disagrees because he's an M&P guy and I'm stuck in the Middle Ages.  But everytime I turn around some agency or another is going through a handgun identity crisis.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 4, 2014)

The big issue is the ability to train people quickly with retention of skill on minimum time and rounds. The M9 is a hard pistol to learn to shoot well, it takes more maintenance knowledge and devotion. Smart armorers to check locking blocks, replace springs, firing pins, etc. Most units military wide do not maintain the M9 or the M11 to schedule or properly for that matter.

Training wise, I've taught thousands on the M9 and have taught hundreds on the Glock. The Glock is stupid easy and I can have a person with little to no experience combat effective with it in about 6 hours and 250-300 rounds. M9 double the round count and time frame. I'm not talking qualification, I'm talking combat affective.

I think the M&P 9 w/ thumb safety would be the most logical option for troops and keeping the brass happy, G17 would be the best option IMO.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 4, 2014)

Ocoka One said:


> The article talks generically about 1911s and doesn't specifically mention the Marine Corps CQB M45.  The link basically says 1911s suck. Kyle Lamb says 1911s suck. I'm not one to contradict Kyle Lamb because I admire the guy very much, but I don't agree with this. Get an old 1911 with a slide that works like butter, something that's been broken it real good, bluing all wore off and shoot the crap out of it and it's a Zen freakin level of enlightenment thing.  Yeah I know, SOWT disagrees because he's an M&P guy and I'm stuck in the Middle Ages.  But everytime I turn around some agency or another is going through a handgun identity crisis.


No SOWT had a 1911 as his first issue weapon.
I have 1st hand experience with a weapon that receives so-so care.
There were some issues with the M45 acquisition process, I assume the Marines got them fixed; that said, I assume the MARSOC .45's have a higher caliber armorer (when compared to the average Marine Armorer) taking care of them, the Marines using them (again an assumption) are better trained then the Marines in more conventional forces.
I also know Ms SOWT's 1911 isn't as reliable as my M&P. 
Her 1911 is babied, and shouldn't have as many FTF's as it has (but reading the link SOTGWarrior posted explains a lot).
I am not convince we need .45's; 9mm and .40 cal with better training may be more effective than buying new 1911's.

What I want is a pistol with a rail, weapon light (maybe with a laser too), different grips (or backstraps) for people with different sized hands, use the money saved by not buying $3K 1911's to buy more ammo so we can train personnel properly.  Use the money saved to send Unit Armorers to Factory (Manufacturer) Armorer's Courses so they are better trained.

have a good evaluation, and write the requirement based on what is needed, not based on the weapon some CSM wants (MK 45 as a prime example).


----------



## Gunz (Dec 4, 2014)

I'm an old opinionated bastard and spout off sometimes after a few beers. Of course I defer to your experience and expertise in the matter of modern tactical sidearms. My 1911 never let me down but that doesn't mean they're perfect...or right for present day use. It just means I'm predjudiced and pig-headed.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 4, 2014)

Ocoka One said:


> I'm an old opinionated bastard and spout off sometimes after a few beers. Of course I defer to your experience and expertise in the matter of modern tactical sidearms. My 1911 never let me down but that doesn't mean they're perfect...or right for present day use. It just means I'm predjudiced and pig-headed.



One of the issues besides NATO for doing away with 1911's was maintenance, again not enough skilled armorers to keep them serviceable. Most of the units that kept 1911's had highly skilled armorers and the shooters were as knowledgeable as many of the armorers/ smiths. Units like service shooting teams tier one SOF, etc.

My issue with 1911's is capacity and parts. Too many parts, not enough rounds and heavy. That said a well tuned and maintained 1911 is one the most accurate firearms I've ever used. Seconded by the M9 which can produce 1 1/2 " groups at 25m. Again lots of parts, heavy and difficult to learn/maintain properly.

Most polymer framed pistols offer much better reliability, easy maintenance, simple trigger system and accuracy above most peoples capability. Also the service schedule is normally longer (I.e. how many rounds before re-springing and detail strip inspection, etc).

The firearms industry and technology has advanced considerably over the past 25years. It doesn't mean old faithful (1911) sucks or is not capable. Just means there are better tools, that reduce cost and extend service life, that offer higher capacity and easier trainability.

Pvt snuffy hunting down his recoil spring that just went across the room, is not something I enjoyed screwing with training time when I had to do a 12 HR PMI in 3-4 hours.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 4, 2014)

Ocoka One said:


> I'm an old opinionated bastard and spout off sometimes after a few beers. Of course I defer to your experience and expertise in the matter of modern tactical sidearms. My 1911 never let me down but that doesn't mean they're perfect...or right for present day use. It just means I'm predjudiced and pig-headed.


Don't get me wrong.
I like the 1911, I just think there are better weapons for CONVENTIONAL Military units.  
The M9 would be better if the folks writing the specs knew what the words meant (i.e. tolerance for trigger pull is 7-9 lbs, that's a pretty wide margine, especially for new/inexperienced shooters)


----------



## Viper1 (Dec 4, 2014)

SOWT said:


> .... train personnel properly.  Use the money saved to send Unit Armorers to Factory (Manufacturer) Armorer's Courses so they are better trained.



This.  I got looked at sideways when I wanted to send 18Bs and the company arms room guy to the Glock Armorer's course.  Yeah....


----------



## policemedic (Dec 4, 2014)

Viper1 said:


> This.  I got looked at sideways when I wanted to send 18Bs and the company arms room guy to the Glock Armorer's course.  Yeah....



You're shitting me.  It's all of 8 hours, for fuck's sake.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 5, 2014)

Ocoka One said:


> The article talks generically about 1911s and doesn't specifically mention the Marine Corps CQB M45.  The link basically says 1911s suck. Kyle Lamb says 1911s suck. I'm not one to contradict Kyle Lamb because I admire the guy very much, but I don't agree with this. Get an old 1911 with a slide that works like butter, something that's been broken it real good, bluing all wore off and shoot the crap out of it and it's a Zen freakin level of enlightenment thing.  Yeah I know, SOWT disagrees because he's an M&P guy and I'm stuck in the Middle Ages.  But everytime I turn around some agency or another is going through a handgun identity crisis.



Before I go any further, let me provide some context.  I religiously carry one of two different 1911s off-duty, either a Wilson Combat CQB or a Colt Rail Gun.  Both are equipped with Surefire lights and both run like Singer sewing machines.  The Wilson is more spendy, and it shows in some ways.  But the Colt is utterly reliable and it's the base gun from which the USMC M45 CQB pistol was born.  Simply put, I am firmly in John Moses Browning's camp.  When I'm working I carry either a full-size or compact HK45.  1911s don't suck; properly maintained and in the right hands a 1911 is probably the epitome of defensive pistols.  My unit issues Smith and Wesson M&P .40s; we beat the shit out of them.  I have nothing bad to say about the M&P platform (although I believe the Glock trigger is better out of the box).

Now...let me commit heresy.

For the average pistol shooter, particularly in the military, a Glock is the best choice.  It's easy to shoot, has a decent magazine capacity, and it's stupid simple to maintain.  Full breakdown requires one punch (and a hex driver if you're going to  mess with the front night sight; a rear sight pusher is nice but rear sights can be drifted in).  Armorer school is 8 hours and it's cheap.  The gun has a rail for lights and doodads.  Parts are widely available, as are holsters.  The M&P, by comparison, is built more solidly and in some ways maintenance at the armorer level is simpler.  But you need several punches, a hammer, and sometimes three hands to get the thing detail stripped.  So, while I think the M&P is a better engineered gun the Glock still wins based on reliability and simplicity of design.

1911s should be reserved for professionals if they are meant to be put to defensive use.  They require a smart shooter who understands their cycle of operations and who knows how to maintain them.  With that caveat met, you can't beat a good 1911.  But most people, and particularly PV1 Snuffy fresh out of Ft. Sam, do not fit that description.  The gun will be treated like a lawn mower.  Glocks will still run under those conditions.

As an aside, I'll be interested to see if HK submits a gun or two for the new trials.


----------



## Viper1 (Dec 5, 2014)

No matter what pistol the Army chooses, unless weapons maintenance and regular training is enforced, the same issues brought up with the M9 will continue to re-surface.  There is an anecdotal saying from GEN Mulholland that says we should be able to call a pause in the middle of a fight, switch gear and weapons with the enemy, and then still beat the enemy cleanly.  Part of that should be due to properly using and maintaining our equipment.

Parts will inevitably break and be replaced.  Maintenance and training set the proper foundation for weapon longevity and usefulness.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 5, 2014)

Viper1 said:


> No matter what pistol the Army chooses, unless weapons maintenance and regular training is enforced, the same issues brought up with the M9 will continue to re-surface.  There is an anecdotal saying from GEN Mulholland that says we should be able to call a pause in the middle of a fight, switch gear and weapons with the enemy, and then still beat the enemy cleanly.  Part of that should be due to properly using and maintaining our equipment.
> 
> Parts will inevitably break and be replaced.  Maintenance and training set the proper foundation for weapon longevity and usefulness.



This brings us around to a doctrinal issue.  Outside of a few CMFs, pistol training in the military is horrible.  One could even argue it's the definition of deliberate indifference.  I agree wholeheartedly that Big Army needs to pull its head out of its ass and provide proper pistol training to every Soldier who is expected to carry one.  From what I've seen, this kind of training doesn't really exist outside SOF.


----------



## AWP (Dec 5, 2014)

- I'd be willing to bet .40 is a non-starter because it isn't a NATO round. I have no dog in the "9mm vs. .40" fight, but stepping outside of NATO's ammo trinity (9, 5.56, 7.62) will take a fight. A huge fight. That's a major reason we won't see a 6.8 (or anything non-5.56) in the near future.

- Manual safety, grip safety, "this is my safety"....none of that matters. Sure, it does to a risk adverse society, (that's YOU, Department of Defense), but in practical terms it is a garbage argument. I'd bet if you took all of the ND's from M9's vs. Glocks in the GWOT, an the US has a LOT of Glocks out there) the M9 will lose. Why?

- Training, training, training. Until the military decides to invest the capital and brain power in training all of this is moot. Training involves money, we are risk adverse and training involves risk...I think the dots are easy enough to connect. Besides, with budgets shrinking do we really expect an influx of 9mm rounds to bring Snuffy up-to-speed on a new platform?

- It will pick something safe and politically acceptable in 9mm. Like it or not, I think the M9 has about a 1 in 3 chance of remaining our sidearm.

The reality is, and maybe I'm "arrogantly ignorant," but I don't think you need to be a weapon's guru to see the above. What's sad is the Mil exists to shoot people in the face (or drop a bomb on them) and yet it has the most jacked up weapons acquisition process and mentality in the history of ever.


----------



## compforce (Dec 5, 2014)

I have one reason and one reason only for hating the M9 as a standard issue sidearm.  I, along with many others in the military, have small hands.  The grip on the issue M9 means that I am barely holding the pistol securely when I am firing.    During reload I have to move my firing hand out of position to release the slide or I have to wait to present until I can release it with my non-firing hand and then get that back in position.  The 1911 fits my grip perfectly from about 90% of manufacturers.  I can reach everything without changing grips. I can start my presentation while the slide is still moving forward.  I am more accurate with the 1911 because I'm not having to squeeze the grip to keep from losing the weapon. 

I don't really care all that much about which round they choose (it WILL be the 9mm).  I don't care so much about manufacturer as long as it is a quality weapon.  I don't care about whether I have to take care of it or not.  I care that I can bring it to bear effectively, hit what I am aiming at and, when I really really need it, it's there and working.

Fortunately, I no longer have a dog in this hunt.  I'll keep my 1911's and God help the person that decides to threaten me or mine.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 5, 2014)

compforce said:


> *I have one reason and one reason only for hating the M9 as a standard issue sidearm.  I, along with many others in the military, have small hands.*  The grip on the issue M9 means that I am barely holding the pistol securely when I am firing.    During reload I have to move my firing hand out of position to release the slide or I have to wait to present until I can release it with my non-firing hand and then get that back in position.  The 1911 fits my grip perfectly from about 90% of manufacturers.  I can reach everything without changing grips. I can start my presentation while the slide is still moving forward.  I am more accurate with the 1911 because I'm not having to squeeze the grip to keep from losing the weapon.
> 
> I don't really care all that much about which round they choose (it WILL be the 9mm).  I don't care so much about manufacturer as long as it is a quality weapon.  I don't care about whether I have to take care of it or not.  I care that I can bring it to bear effectively, hit what I am aiming at and, when I really really need it, it's there and working.
> 
> Fortunately, I no longer have a dog in this hunt.  I'll keep my 1911's and God help the person that decides to threaten me or mine.


Bold face part-which is why adjustable grips/backstraps should be part of the requirements.
I agree that it will be a 9MM, but the 9MM isn't a bad round.
Shot placement, which means training, is more important then round size.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 5, 2014)

policemedic said:


> ... But the Colt is utterly reliable and it's the base gun from which the USMC M45 CQB pistol was born.  Simply put, I am firmly in John Moses Browning's camp...properly maintained and in the right hands a 1911 is probably the epitome of defensive pistols...1911s should be reserved for professionals if they are meant to be put to defensive use.  They require a smart shooter who understands their cycle of operations and who knows how to maintain them.  With that caveat met, you can't beat a good 1911...


 
These three statements epitomize what I meant but lacked the thoughfulness and the contemporary point of view to express properly yesterday. Being out of uniform as long as I have I don't have much contact with the average snuffy...so I tend to forget that there are guys/girls in uniform who were/are not as proficient or competent with firearms as the men I served with then and shoot/hunt with now. I think my main beef is not with caliber it's with the "jacked up acquisition process and mentality" so eloquently stated by FF. I just love the hell out 1911s and have since I first achieved my Zen Enlightenment with them many years ago. My apologies for my crude outburst above.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 5, 2014)

Ocoka One said:


> These three statements epitomize what I meant but lacked the thoughfulness and the contemporary point of view to express properly yesterday. Being out of uniform as long as I have I don't have much contact with the average snuffy...so I tend to forget that there are guys/girls in uniform who were/are not as proficient or competent with firearms as the men I served with then and shoot/hunt with now. I think my main beef is not with caliber it's with the "jacked up acquisition process and mentality" so eloquently stated by FF. I just love the hell out 1911s and have since I first achieved my Zen Enlightenment with them many years ago. My apologies for my crude outburst above.



I don't think what you said was crude at all; you were right.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 5, 2014)

Without training a new toy means nothing. 

.02 cents.


----------



## pardus (Dec 5, 2014)

Mac_NZ said:


> Whatever they buy I'd be more interested in seeing them issue enough ammunition to competently train the main user group (read medics, officers and other critters) to be able to hit the broadside of a barn at 15 yards.



Hahaha, you said training. The US Army doesn't train to shoot, it just zeros... a lot! :wall:

When the USMC conducted it's 1911 trials, they found that the Colt pistol's frames were cracking after around 13,000 rds IIRC. 
There is nothing wrong with the M9 at all, it's old and abused, but that is an armorer's issue, not the pistols (not that the army has real armorers anyway).


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 5, 2014)

pardus said:


> Hahaha, you said training. The US Army doesn't train to shoot, it just zeros... a lot! :wall:
> 
> When the USMC conducted it's 1911 trials, they found that the Colt pistol's frames were cracking after around 13,000 rds IIRC.
> There is nothing wrong with the M9 at all, it's old and abused, but that is an armorer's issue, not the pistols (not that the army has real armorers anyway).


Still needs updating.
M9A1 adds a rail, and I just saw where a company created an add-on rail for older M-9's that replaces the handgrips with a polymer handgrip/rail 

http://soldiersystems.net/2014/12/0...grip-rail-system-beretta-9296-series-pistols/


----------



## pardus (Dec 5, 2014)

SOWT said:


> *Still needs updating.*
> M9A1 adds a rail, and I just saw where a company created an add-on rail for older M-9's that replaces the handgrips with a polymer handgrip/rail
> 
> http://soldiersystems.net/2014/12/0...grip-rail-system-beretta-9296-series-pistols/



Agreed.
It wouldn't be my choice of pistol, but my point is that it's fine as a service weapon, just like 9mm is fine as a service round.


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 5, 2014)

pardus said:


> Hahaha, you said training. The US Army doesn't train to shoot, it just zeros... a lot! :wall:


 
Especially with M9... 

I'd rather have more training and a half-decent pistol than a great pistol and no training.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 5, 2014)

Totentanz said:


> Especially with M9...
> 
> I'd rather have more training and a half-decent pistol than a great pistol and no training.



Put it in your training schedule sir.... You have that ability. If you are carrying pistols downrange, you have a responsibility to be well trained in them. Those JCETs require a lot of low vis pistol carrying. I also recommend getting your dudes to a course where you can wear civilian clothes and practice drawing your service pistol from under a jacket/shirt. I don't think range control will let you get away with that, fucking dooshes that they are.


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 5, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Put it in your training schedule sir.... You have that ability. If you are carrying pistols downrange, you have a responsibility to be well trained in them. Those JCETs require a lot of low vis pistol carrying. I also recommend getting your dudes to a course where you can wear civilian clothes and practice drawing your service pistol from under a jacket/shirt. I don't think range control will let you get away with that, fucking dooshes that they are.


 
It's taken care of...   On this side of the house it's much easier to justify and obtain, as well as resourcing and practicing the nonstandard stuff.  I'm also fortunate enough to live close to a range where I can take a 92 and practice on my own.

The comment was more directed at the Army's broad strokes (ie FORSCOM) - in general, training on anything further than basic fam/qual check-the-block training is seen as unnecessary for everyone but MPs.  I'm of the belief that all personnel, regardless of occupation should be able to handle M4 and M9 with as much competence as they start their car, and that the key to reducing weapon incidents is MORE contact with firearms (both with and without ammo) with enforced standards of conduct and handling, not the approach that we need to handle them less (so reducing accidents).  Yeah, if you never start your car you reduce the odds of an accident, but the first time you pull on to I-95 having not driven in a year you're relying more on luck than on skill to stay alive.  Again, a general rumination/bitching...


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 6, 2014)

In FAST, we shot roughly 1,000 rounds a month, sometimes more and sometimes less, but it was great for training and proficiency. After I left FAST and got to my next unit, they issued everyone a 9mm for our deployment to Iraq, most of those Marines never having stepped foot on a pistol range. They all got 50 rounds when we got to country and we had to teach them on those 50 rounds... A lot of time was spent dry firing when that time could have been used doing other things.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 6, 2014)

SOTGWarrior said:


> In FAST, we shot roughly 1,000 rounds a month, sometimes more and sometimes less, but it was great for training and proficiency. After I left FAST and got to my next unit, they issued everyone a 9mm for our deployment to Iraq, most of those Marines never having stepped foot on a pistol range. They all got 50 rounds when we got to country and we had to teach them on those 50 rounds... A lot of time was spent dry firing when that time could have been used doing other things.


I use to shoot in 72 hrs (Rifle/pistol) more then my wife will shoot in a 25 year career, and I did it every six months.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 6, 2014)

9mm rounds cost money


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 8, 2014)

Marine0311 said:


> 9mm rounds cost money


Not as much as dead people 

What's funny is the Wing Commander never figured out how we got so much ammo every year.
He always cut our allocation back to Group C Standards, and we always shot Group A+  .


----------



## AWP (Dec 30, 2014)

CNN has Beretta's entry.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/29/news/companies/beretta-army-gun-m9a3/index.html?hpt=hp_t4


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 30, 2014)

I'd put my money on the Beretta.


----------



## x SF med (Dec 30, 2014)

SOWT said:


> I'd put my money on the Beretta.



the grip on the m9 (92 series) is hugely uncomfortable for me....  to the point that it makes it nearly unuseable for me.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 30, 2014)

I've got mungo hands and despise the M9. Fuck Beretta.  I'd vote for glock, even though I don't LIKE them. They ARE reliable, they ARE easy to maintain and they ARE simple to train with.


----------



## pardus (Dec 30, 2014)

Ranger Psych said:


> I've got mungo hands and despise the M9. Fuck Beretta.  I'd vote for glock, even though I don't LIKE them. They ARE reliable, they ARE easy to maintain and they ARE simple to train with.



I agree about the Glock, I was issued one for about 6mths, not long enough for me to make a real review. I'm not a fan but they are hard to beat for reliability, and that is a major factor in a back up weapon. I really do hate the way they break down with those fidgety fucking things on the side, I never got used to them.

Give me a Sig.







ETA, I'm NOT a pistol guy by any measure.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 30, 2014)

That's why you should leave the fighting to those without arthritis...  I never had any issues taking down my service weapon for cleaning.


----------



## pardus (Dec 30, 2014)

Ranger Psych said:


> That's why you should leave the fighting to those without arthritis...  I never had any issues taking down my service weapon for cleaning.



Two points. First of all, fuck you! 

Ah... that pretty much covers it.


p.s. were you issued a Glock?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 30, 2014)

When I was an armed guard. Not while active duty, we only had M9's at that point and while I carried one in Iraq, I still disliked the entirety of function. Slide mounted safeties are arguably the stupidest and out of easy manipulation position that you could possibly put them. It also adds more complexity for the slide than necessary, when the safety can be more easily incorporated into the frame.  The only things a slide really need are a firing pin and firing pin block as far as "part of what makes it go bang system".


----------



## x SF med (Dec 31, 2014)

Well..............  our issued sidearm was the 1911....  for the most part... we'd carry other sidearms occasionally.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 31, 2014)

x SF med said:


> Well..............  our issued sidearm was
> 
> 
> 
> ...



fixed


----------



## x SF med (Dec 31, 2014)

my brother.... I wish I could multi hate your post........


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 31, 2014)

x SF med said:


> the grip on the m9 (92 series) is hugely uncomfortable for me....  to the point that it makes it nearly unuseable for me.


This one has multiple grips for different sized hands.
The Army will always insist on and safety (decocking lever) for it's pistols. Average Joe is too dangerous otherwise (and big Army will never spend money on quality weapons training for those most likely to carry a M9 as their only weapon).


----------



## policemedic (Dec 31, 2014)

pardus said:


> ETA, I'm NOT a pistol guy by any measure.


 
Come see me in the spring; we'll go shooting and change that and then raid the countryside for Amish eats.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 31, 2014)

x SF med said:


> the grip on the m9 (92 series) is hugely uncomfortable for me....  to the point that it makes it nearly unuseable for me.


 
I've always held one, strong opinion on the M9 series.

Fuck Beretta and the POS M9.  That's about it.

There are people who can shoot it amazingly well (Super Dave comes to mind) but they are not average shooters by any means and shoot at a high level with whatever you put in their hand.   We should dump that POS paperweight for so many reasons.


----------



## pardus (Dec 31, 2014)

policemedic said:


> Come see me in the spring; we'll go shooting and change that and then raid the countryside for Amish eats.



That sounds like a most excellent plan!


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 31, 2014)

I think logistics will carry the M9 into victory lane, that and some articles suggest the current contract allows the Army (and other services) to switch into the M9A# as part of the current contract.
The Marines already order the M9A1, so that argument (existing contract allows) may be correct.
So not needing a huge logistics/part swap is why I think this pistol will win, and win without a competition.
I do not consider myself to be a great shooter, but with practice I became an above average M9 shooter (usually in the top 3 when my unit did their semi-annual quals).
Overall, I like it; but I would contract with Wilson Combat to make it a better pistol.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 31, 2014)

SOWT said:


> This one has multiple grips for different sized hands.
> The Army will always insist on and safety (decocking lever) for it's pistols. Average Joe is too dangerous otherwise (and big Army will never spend money on quality weapons training for those most likely to carry a M9 as their only weapon).



I have no problem with a safety and decocker. Before I bought my LEM equipped USP Tactical, for years I carried decocked, on safe... drilled as such, and still had as a best time 0.92 from concealed holstered to 2 rounds on target at 7 yds. I don't get to shoot as much, but THAT wasn't an issue..... because it was a frame mounted safety.


----------



## busdriver (Dec 31, 2014)

I would really like a Glock or M&P with a frame mounted safety.  The M9 is way too big in the hands, and I have big hands.


----------



## pardus (Dec 31, 2014)

busdriver said:


> I would really like a Glock or M&P with a frame mounted safety.  The M9 is way too big in the hands, and I have big hands.



You must have little big hands...


----------



## policemedic (Dec 31, 2014)

busdriver said:


> I would really like a Glock or M&P with a frame mounted safety.  The M9 is way too big in the hands, and I have big hands.



A frame mounted safety is an option on the M&P; Ive installed a few for our guys.


----------



## AWP (Jan 1, 2015)

Years ago I shot a Glock for the first time and hated it. Something about it felt "off," the ergonomics or whatever. Now I own two and prefer them over my M&P.

Minus units that shoot a lot, the Army would choose a Makarov or PPK over a Glock.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 1, 2015)

busdriver said:


> I would really like a Glock or M&P with a frame mounted safety.  The M9 is way too big in the hands, and I have big hands.


I have a M&P .45, fit my hands better then the Glock.  Grips on a Glock just don't work for me.
I think the M9 with adjustable back straps will take care of most fit issues, some people are just too big, or just too small.
M&P has fixed the trigger issue, so I think it would make a nice pistol.
Does Glock have a US Factory?  Berry compliance could take them out of the game.
In the end it won't matter.  beretta has the contract, they can buy A3's under that contract and probably will.
Beretta parts will fit either model in stock, and that will drive the procurement decision.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 1, 2015)

SOWT said:


> I have a M&P .45, fit my hands better then the Glock.  Grips on a Glock just don't work for me.
> I think the M9 with adjustable back straps will take care of most fit issues, some people are just too big, or just too small.
> M&P has fixed the trigger issue, so I think it would make a nice pistol.
> *Does Glock have a US Factory?*  Berry compliance could take them out of the game.
> ...



Smyrna, GA.

I'm not exactly a connoisseur, but one of the best 45 ACP pistols I've yet handled was an M&P 45 with an Apex trigger.  That was a sweet shooting gun...


----------



## AWP (Jan 1, 2015)

Totentanz said:


> Apex trigger.


 
I don't know how anyone could shoot an M&P without Apex triger parts or doing some welding to limit the travel range.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 1, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I don't know how anyone could shoot an M&P without Apex triger parts or doing some welding to limit the travel range.


I have an Apex on my M&P, RumInt say Smith and Wesson's trigger fix was to drop Apex Triggers (or something VERY close) into the pistol eliminating those issues.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 1, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> When I was an armed guard. Not while active duty, we only had M9's at that point and while I carried one in Iraq, I still disliked the entirety of function. Slide mounted safeties are arguably the stupidest and out of easy manipulation position that you could possibly put them. It also adds more complexity for the slide than necessary, when the safety can be more easily incorporated into the frame.  The only things a slide really need are a firing pin and firing pin block as far as "part of what makes it go bang system".


Went back and loked at the USP Tactical, looks like a good pistol, need to fire one in the future.
I agree with the comments on the decocker/safety.  All my other pistols have a safety on the frame, which makes manipulation very easy.  If we stay with Beretta, then I'd like to see the low-profile safety's from Wilson Combat added, but it won't happen because some 1% person will complain they can not use it.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 1, 2015)

The USP Tac is a poor man's Expert with arguably more benefits. Uses any USP fullsize holster, adjustable sights to clear a can, same fire control and match trigger as the expert, slightly lighter than the expert. Oh, and it's illegal in california.


----------



## CDG (Feb 12, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> I'd put my money on the Beretta.



The Army rejected the M9A3 upgrade.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/02/11/army-declines-m9a3-upgrade/23243689/


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 12, 2015)

CDG said:


> The Army rejected the M9A3 upgrade.
> 
> http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/02/11/army-declines-m9a3-upgrade/23243689/


Beretta can still submit for the contract.

This will be interesting to watch as gun guys go against safety weenies.


----------



## pardus (Feb 12, 2015)

CDG said:


> The Army rejected the M9A3 upgrade.
> 
> http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/02/11/army-declines-m9a3-upgrade/23243689/



Not surprised.


----------



## Viper1 (Feb 12, 2015)

No matter what they end up purchasing, problem #1 is fixing the lack of training within the force.


----------



## pardus (Feb 12, 2015)

Viper1 said:


> No matter what they end up purchasing, problem #1 is fixing the lack of training within the force.



Which is why we are moving straight to problem #2.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 12, 2015)

How many units have the ability to contract with outside instructors who might actually teach something useful?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 12, 2015)

It's not even that, it's the fact that over 2/3 of the pistols in the army are secondary weapon systems for those individuals, and they don't honestly get what I would consider adequate training with those due to time, lack of ammo allotments, etc.... to be able to also train on their secondary system to any level of proficiency.

What good is contracting with an outside instructor when they'd have no rounds to shoot at the class with?


----------



## policemedic (Feb 12, 2015)

Good--and depressing--point.


----------



## BloodStripe (Feb 17, 2015)

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/sto...stols-approved-for-marsoc-operators/23548847/

MARSOC news.


----------



## Teufel (Feb 17, 2015)

[cross-thread comment] In response to the other MARSOC pistol thread: This pistol is only authorized for MARSOC because the Marine Corps would have to pay for it if it was fielded to the general purpose force as well.  SOCOM only pays for SOF specific equipment.


----------



## fox1371 (Feb 18, 2015)

I am a little surprised to see it limited to the 19.  I personally prefer the 17 if I don't have to carry concealed.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Feb 18, 2015)

Don't be surprised, the 19 was selected & not because all of MARSOC has porno-hands.


----------



## pardus (Jun 17, 2015)

Round two begins...

*Army restarts road to replacing M9 pistol*


----------



## Totentanz (Jun 17, 2015)

pardus said:


> Round two begins...
> 
> *Army restarts road to replacing M9 pistol*



So if I'm reading this correctly, they didn't get what they wanted from round one, and are redefining the requirements and going at it again?

I also found this odd.  

"The XM17 will provide Warfighters with greater accuracy, target acquisition [and] ergonomic design," Col. Scott Armstrong, program manager for Solder Weapons, said in the release. "The new handgun will also be more reliable, durable and easier to maintain."

While I don't doubt that they can find something that can outperform the M9 in those areas, it's an interesting statement to make when you don't even know what handgun will replace it and your last run at the handgun market failed to produce the desired results.


----------



## AWP (Jun 17, 2015)

Totentanz said:


> "The XM17 will provide Warfighters with greater accuracy, target acquisition [and] ergonomic design," Col. Scott Armstrong, program manager for Solder Weapons, said in the release. "The new handgun will also be more reliable, durable and easier to maintain."



Basically, a Glock with a RMR or something similar.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 19, 2015)

I've never shot someone with a pistol, but if I was going to train someone, or actually get the chance, I would want it to be accurate and functional. 

I think Glock is the best option, but honestly question how knowledgeable M9 haters are when they hate on it for function and accuracy.

But what the hell do I know?


----------



## pardus (Jun 19, 2015)

JAB said:


> I've never shot someone with a pistol, but if I was going to train someone, or actually get the chance, I would want it to be accurate and functional.
> 
> I think Glock is the best option, but honestly question how knowledgeable M9 haters are when they hate on it for function and accuracy.
> 
> But what the hell do I know?



 Glocks are great pistols, I don't like them personally, but they are great pistols.
M9's are also totally fine. I think all/most of the venom against them, comes from people using M9s that are old and worn out i.e. not functioning as they should be, which is not surprising for a pistol that's been in service since what, 1987?
I hear worse things about 1911's but they are still in service with tier one units. 

For the record, though I like it, I'd never buy an M9. Personal preference. 

Everyone has their individual tastes and experiences. Results may vary!


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 19, 2015)

pardus said:


> Glocks are great pistols, I don't like them personally, but they are great pistols.
> M9's are also totally fine. I think all/most of the venom against them, comes from people using M9s that are old and worn out i.e. not functioning as they should be, which is not surprising for a pistol that's been in service since what, 1987?
> I hear worse things about 1911's but they are still in service with tier one units.
> 
> ...


 
I agree, my issues with the M9 are weight and capacity. I owns 2 of them and standing bye for the M9A3, but I've spent a lot of time behind them.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 19, 2015)

I've had 3 personal M-9's.  I have one in the nightstand.
Never had reliability problems.  I wish they had gone with a frame mounted safety rather than putting the de-cocker on the slide.
Accurate (I have always shot expert with the M-9, and I am not a great shooter by any standard).

Poly pistol, with a RMR or laser of some sort is the only way to say it's more accurate as the current pistol is more accurate than most of the shooters toting it around.


----------



## x SF med (Jun 19, 2015)

Even as as early as the 80's I did not like the feel of the Beretta 92 series pistols...  just me...  I was proficient, but the shape of the grip and the angle of the grip were not comfortable to me, just like the angle of the Glock grip is not very comfortable to me.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 19, 2015)

x SF med said:


> Even as as early as the 80's I did not like the feel of the Beretta 92 series pistols...  just me...  I was proficient, but the shape of the grip and the angle of the grip were not comfortable to me, just like the angle of the Glock grip is not very comfortable to me.


Agree with the Glock feeling uncomfortable.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jun 19, 2015)

I couldn't stand the Beretta when I was in. I'm gonna stick with my Springfield.


----------



## policemedic (Jun 19, 2015)

The Beretta has problems aside from grip size and angle.   I wouldn't use it for a boat anchor.

It'll be interesting to see how this goes.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 19, 2015)

Yeah, never been a fan of the Beretta, and that's what I did my combat pistol course with... fatter/heavier/less accurate/harder to manipulate than any HK I've owned.


----------



## reed11b (Jun 21, 2015)

Being a grunt, I have never cared about what pistol we use since it was of limited use to me anyway (carried one in the sniper section, but never trained on it) but now that my civilian job is an armed position for the Department of Army, I'm really curious to see what we get and to see how it effects my opinion of the m9.
Reed


----------



## RetPara (Jun 30, 2015)

traded my 1988 Italian Made Beretta M9 for a CZ P-07....  but damn I dropped it in a lake....  fit my hand better too.


----------



## Six-Two (Jun 30, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> The USP Tac is a poor man's Expert with arguably more benefits. Uses any USP fullsize holster, adjustable sights to clear a can, same fire control and match trigger as the expert, slightly lighter than the expert. *Oh, and it's illegal in california.*



Seems to be the mark of every good pistol. 



pardus said:


> Glocks are great pistols, I don't like them personally, but they are great pistols.



I totally agree. They've always felt a little "off" to me, but there's no denying that they're a rock-solid platform. That said, I have a SEAL friend who hated them until he re-contoured the grips a-la Lone Wolf Distributing's Timberwolf Frames, and now he and most of his guys love them. He also said some CAG guys he worked with carried 19's. I haven't fingered a re-contoured Glock, but I wouldn't really argue with CAG guys and Navy SEALs about... Well, anything, really.

There's a DIY version of this using AcraGlas that's pretty simple as well - obviously not a viable option for big army folks, but for your personal piece it's a fun project that removes one of the big negatives from the Glock platform. I've attached Brownell's Grip Reduction/Custom Beavertail tutorial here for any interested parties. 

Then again, I probably won't have to worry about any of it.

-62


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 30, 2015)

so.... $150+ for grip shit, eleventy billion hours with a soldering iron fucking your polymer frame's grip up doing "stippling"..... plus all the time and cost in parts you replace in a glock to make it shoot "good" (Disconnectors and all that other jazz I keep hearing about including aftermarket barrels and other crap).

or, just buy a FN or HK and fucking slay bodies out the gate, good to go.

Did I mention I've got easily over 200K Rounds thereabouts on *stock everything minus the front sight post replaced to a tritium Big Dot* on the Expert? What's worn? Some holster wear, and the chamber block on the barrel is effectively chromed on top due to repeated slide contact.

pew pew.

*Edited in bold...* Only disadvantage of the stock sights on the Tactical or Expert is that they're target sights, so not the hottest for low light use, although adequately functional with a taclight providing downrange illum. The Expert would have Trijicon adjustable sights, but Shooters in Columbus was a box of rocks about ordering them (ordered for 4 months, they came in and the store sold them out from underneath the standing order they had to even get the fuckers) so I went with what was available at the "late" English Range FBGA Rifle/Pistol club.


----------



## Six-Two (Jul 1, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> so.... $150+ for grip shit, eleventy billion hours with a soldering iron fucking your polymer frame's grip up doing "stippling"..... plus all the time and cost in parts you replace in a glock to make it shoot "good" (Disconnectors and all that other jazz I keep hearing about including aftermarket barrels and other crap).
> 
> or, just buy a FN or HK and fucking slay bodies out the gate, good to go.
> 
> ...



As always @Ranger Psych, points well made (and very entertainingly so). Like I say, I'm not a Glock guy, but I think the target demo for those modifications are people who already have a Glock and wanna improve 'em (though SEAL friend said he just "sent it out to his guy", and I'm scarcely qualified to speculate on CAG guy's choices). Plus sometimes it's just pretty damn fun to futz around with your toys. 

That said, you make a pretty damned compelling case for the HKs. What FN's do you like? I wanted to get the FN-S or an FNX (edge going to FNX on trigger reviews), but CA reared its draconian head and I went with an XD9. Pretty happy with it, but if I get stationed outside of CA when I get out of boot, I'll swap my residency to that and pick up some fun toys. Just hoping I don't wind up in New York. :|


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 1, 2015)

FN-P45. 15+1 of .45 is glorious for someone like me.  The only things holding me back from a flat out changeover is triggers on the FN's vs HK USP match triggers, even the LEM "match" one.... and cost. I'm looking at >$3,500 thereabouts for a 1 for 1 "exchange" of HK firearms and accessories for the same for the FN's.


----------



## Six-Two (Jul 1, 2015)

OOF. $3500 would buy a lot of ammo. You using it for USPA/Hobby, or professional use?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 1, 2015)

Primarily our CCW's. The Tactical was also my duty gun while doing bail work.


----------



## Six-Two (Jul 1, 2015)

Cool, thanks for the info, man. Always enjoy your arsenal insights.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 1, 2015)

The weapon that gets picked will have an external safety, so forget Glock unless they can modify it.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jul 1, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> The weapon that gets picked will have an external safety, so forget Glock unless they can modify it.



I love my Glock, but the "safety" is a joke. I too would like to see another external safety for the Glocks.


----------



## Totentanz (Jul 1, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I love my Glock, but the "safety" is a joke. I too would like to see another external safety for the Glocks.



M&P.  I'm with you on the Glocks - love 'em.  But the M&P isn't that far different, has roughly the same track record in terms of "goes bang every time",  is of comparable maintenance as the Glock, has arguably better ergonomics, and has an optional 1911-style safety (i.e. an improvement over the slide-mounted decocker on the M9).  IMO, if you want a Glock with a safety, you just described an M&P.

I like the Glock trigger (even stock) over the M&P, but I don't see trigger quality being something that DoD is going to put a lot of weight on - logistics, reliability, and safety will determine this question.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 1, 2015)

Totentanz said:


> M&P.  I'm with you on the Glocks - love 'em.  But the M&P isn't that far different, has roughly the same track record in terms of "goes bang every time",  is of comparable maintenance as the Glock, has arguably better ergonomics, and has an optional 1911-style safety (i.e. an improvement over the frame-mounted decocker on the M9).  IMO, if you want a Glock with a safety, you just described an M&P.
> 
> I like the Glock trigger (even stock) over the M&P, but I don't see trigger quality being something that DoD is going to put a lot of weight on - logistics, reliability, and safety will determine this question.



M&P has a redesigned trigger, reset which corrected a lot of the problems (Apex Tactical makes the ultimate M&P trigger IMO).
Rumint says the AF was leaning towards a M&P in .40 cal when the Army shut the program down (nothing like a good inter-service rivalry).


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 14, 2015)

I just read this whole thread again, and my brain hurts.


----------



## policemedic (Dec 14, 2015)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I just read this whole thread again, and my brain hurts.



I know, right? 1911, FTW.


----------



## Brill (Dec 21, 2015)

Looks like business as usual in WDC.  What a cluster.  Although I will say that just a few months ago SWHC was just $9.



> The U.S. Army has spent the better part of a decade trying to pick a new handgun for its soldiers. Ten years -- and one 350-page Request for Proposals -- later, it still doesn't have one.



The Army's M9 Beretta Replacement Will Cost Twice as Much as We Thought --  The Motley Fool


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 21, 2015)

lindy said:


> Looks like business as usual in WDC.  What a cluster.  Although I will say that just a few months ago SWHC was just $9.
> 
> 
> 
> The Army's M9 Beretta Replacement Will Cost Twice as Much as We Thought --  The Motley Fool


SWHC?

Anyway, I didn't read the RFP, ammo being included in the contract is stupid, and will just force some companies out of business (making it harder for civilians to buy ammo).

The RFP has to be overly detailed because the losers will file a protest with the GAO and you have to be able to prove all your requirements were written down.

SOCOM already went Glock, so saying this becomes a SOCOM buy, may be a stretch.
Meanwhile the Marines continue to buy the M9A1 model while the Army blindly sticks to the original M9.


----------



## Brill (Dec 21, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> SWHC?



Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 12, 2016)

I think I have a new favorite General:

_"The testing -- I got a briefing the other day -- the testing for this pistol is two years," he added. "Two years to test technology that we know exists. You give me $17 million on the credit card, I'll call Cabela’s tonight, and I'll outfit every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine with a pistol and I'll get a discount on it for bulk buys."_

Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearm choices | Fox News


----------



## AWP (Mar 12, 2016)

Similar threads merged.


----------



## Etype (Mar 12, 2016)

1911??? No way, it's 2016. Exposed hammer? When you need your pistol, you REALLY need it. No point in needlessly exposing critical parts to damage.

Manual safety? The holster is the safety, when you take it out, you really need to shoot it fast- forget about a safety.

That pretty much narrows it down- they need to do the right thing and buy Glocks.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Mar 12, 2016)

Glock 20 for the win........10 mm....donesky!!!!!
:-"


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 12, 2016)

There are a host of striker frames available.
That said, Glock is in the system so expanding it from SOCOM to every service could be done legally (but only after SOCOM's buy was complete)


----------



## Etype (Mar 13, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> There are a host of striker frames available...


Yet none of them are anywhere near as well proven or accepted by industry experts as Glocks.

Savage makes bolt guns, but if you really want something worth having you get the Remington 700-know what mean?


----------



## Brill (Mar 13, 2016)

Etype said:


> Manual safety? The holster is the safety, when you take it out, you really need to shoot it fast- forget about a safety.



Said like every Bravo I know.

Especially to us support guys, if we had to use our pistol, WE were in a tough spot and the pistol needed to be ready for immediate action.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 13, 2016)

Etype said:


> Yet none of them are anywhere near as well proven or accepted by industry experts as Glocks.
> 
> Savage makes bolt guns, but if you really want something worth having you get the Remington 700-know what mean?


I am not arguing against Glocks.

The problem is the procurement system (which was actually designed by Congress) which prevents a direct buy in most cases.
The Services could start buying Glock once the SOCOM buy is complete, and use the fact that their respective SOF units have the pistol as a sole-source justification.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 13, 2016)

I agree with Etype for the most part. But I do have to be honest, The Army has wasted too much time and money already. It's a fucking pistol, who gives a fuck, make it light weight, reliably, trainable, good service life and be done with the bullshit. S&W vs Glock, 1911 vs Pick your polymer poison, etc. They're really dumb arguments to be having in 2016. As I've said before, there is no super new advance in pistol technology, some of the most respected firearms and bullets are century old design's.

What has been proven time and time again, is that .45 acp will not "knock down a 200lbs man" because its slightly larger in diameter than a 9mm. Things like well trained people vs "you'll never see your sights so practice point shooting" types. I liken it to the "most lethal karate experts of the 1980's" it's time to stop spreading bullshit and get with the reality.

Glock 19, is the right choice, its cheap, it works, its easy to work on, and its easy to train people to use. And yes, all the untrained dirtbags will shoot themselves, have ND's and big mother Army will come up with some gay shit to counter it vs kicking out dirtbags and properly training soldiers. But what the hell, at least the soldier who actually needs a pistol, will have something reliable, light weight and accurate.

Its crazy, I've been on this forum for 8 year's and this was a topic that actually brought me to SS, 8 year's later, different thread but same comments.


----------



## Brill (Mar 13, 2016)

H&k is off the table?


----------



## policemedic (Mar 13, 2016)

So, a few things strike me. 

The first is the Army needs to spend time actually training people to shoot a pistol instead of engaging in the ballistic abortion most troops currently get. 

Second, the 1911 is a proven service handgun. It has been in use for so long in so many different environments that any concerns about exposed hammers and safeties are really moot.  Agency requirements are pushing me towards a 9mm Glock, but I have carried 1911s and HK45s for years.  I am no slower with a 1911 or HK (first shot is the same from the holster; splits are faster with 1911/HK). It's all about training; if you're slower because you have to disengage a thumb safety then you need to train more.  Sorry, but there it is. 

Assuming the same shot placement and the same bullet, bigger calibers will do more damage than smaller ones. 

All that said, the clear choice is a Glock.  Not because it's easier to shoot, but because it's a reliable pistol with a short learning curve and easy maintenance.  1911s are pains to maintain, require special training and fitting of parts where the Glock simply doesn't.  Add in higher capacity, RMR compatibility for units that will benefit from it, cheaper ammo and lighter weight and the fact it's already in the procurement system and you have to wonder why we're even debating this.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 13, 2016)

When I was with the IG, I had a chance to spend some time with several police agencies who were going from .357 revolvers to Glock, and similar weapon makes. The USAF was still training us with .38 cal. I was impressed by the Glock, so much so that I grabbed a 17 not long after, and have been shooting with it for decades now. If there was another weapon I would go with, should Glock not have been there, would be the 1911. It is a different weapon all together, but rugged, reliable and great stopping power.

My $.02.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 13, 2016)

Does Glock have a US Factory?


----------



## policemedic (Mar 13, 2016)

Yup; Smyrna, GA. No issues with that.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 15, 2016)

Here!

Now everyone can be happy!


----------



## RetPara (Mar 15, 2016)

What was wrong with the M11?  We need to stay with 9MM, just for the ease of ammunition procurement/interoperability OCONUS.    How many duty positions actually require handgun or a secondary weapon?    The M1 Carbine was partially designed to fill the void between a handgun and main battle rifle.  A semi-auto M4 with a simple 3X optic would work for probably have the people that are MTOE'd a pistol.  The other I'm a XXXXXXXX and need a pistol needs to be STFU and STFD.

Also no one mentions the CZ lines of handguns...  Does CZ not want to compete.


----------



## AWP (Mar 15, 2016)

RetPara said:


> Also no one mentions the CZ lines of handguns...  Does CZ not want to compete.



Can they? They don't manufacture in the US so can they compete for a gov't weapons contract?


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 15, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Can they? They don't manufacture in the US so can they compete for a gov't weapons contract?


They can build a factory after winning the contract.

The RFI is jacked up as it also has the pistol team running an ammo plant, which will force partnerships that normally do not exist, and puts the weapons makers at risk (IMO) of a hostile take over.


----------



## AWP (Mar 15, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> They can build a factory after winning the contract.
> 
> The RFI is jacked up as it also has the pistol team running an ammo plant, which will force partnerships that normally do not exist, and puts the weapons makers at risk (IMO) of a hostile take over.



The first part is just stupid, but I guess they'll make enough to justify the expense and have a North American plant more or less paid for by the USG.

Your second part just highlights how broken our acquisition process has become.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 15, 2016)




----------



## AWP (Mar 15, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> View attachment 15086



ZOMG! Where's the safety?!?!!? Did John Moses Browning design it?? Does it shoot .45 ACP? Does Delta use it? Is that even a pistol?!?!?!?


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 15, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The first part is just stupid, but I guess they'll make enough to justify the expense and have a North American plant more or less paid for by the USG.
> 
> Your second part just highlights how broken our acquisition process has become.


Opening a plant in the US is cost effective when you consider the volume being made, and don't forget civilian sales; all the fan boys will buy the latest SOCOM/USMIL weapon.
Compare Glock 17 prices to a few months ago, then do the same for the SIG P226 who went up and who went down?


----------



## Gunz (Mar 15, 2016)

Etype said:


> 1911??? No way, it's 2016. Exposed hammer? When you need your pistol, you REALLY need it. No point in needlessly exposing critical parts to damage.
> 
> Manual safety? The holster is the safety, when you take it out, you really need to shoot it fast- forget about a safety...



You convinced me and I agree with you. You don't need a safety, I don't need a safety and plenty of other people don't need a safety. But this is a service-wide acquisition and that means everybody will get the same handguns, right?

I just remember hijacking a gook truck and going into Danang, right out of the bush, to buy film and pogey-bait for my bros...and seeing Marines at III MAF Disbursing with red wooden blocks inserted in the mag wells of their M16s. That told me--as did the horrible Beirut bombing episode--that the muckity-mucks  don't trust the snuffies with loaded weapons, even in hostile zones. I just don't see general's approving a design without a safety. Even though, you're right, when you need it you need it bad and the trigger is the only mechanism that should matter.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 19, 2017)

Sig won.

> U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE > Contract View


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 19, 2017)

mmmm...interesting, I liked the P228 (M11), but not the P226.  Wonder what Sig will field.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 19, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> mmmm...interesting, I liked the P228 (M11), but not the P226.  Wonder what Sig will field.



Probably something almost as good as a Glock but for twice the price.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 19, 2017)

5 years in and this is what they select.  The job should have been done in less than a year with simpler requirements that yielded a better pistol for the troops.

Hopefully SOF will continue to have the option to select their own pistols.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 19, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> mmmm...interesting, I liked the P228 (M11), but not the P226.  Wonder what Sig will field.





Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Probably something almost as good as a Glock but for twice the price.



Their offering was the P320, which is roughly comparable to Glock's pricing (last I checked it was $580 w/ night sights, $500 without... varies based on who's selling)


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 19, 2017)

policemedic said:


> 5 years in and this is what they select.  The job should have been done in less than a year with simpler requirements that yielded a better pistol for the troops.
> 
> Hopefully SOF will continue to have the option to select their own pistols.



You can not have simpler requirements anymore, the losers will file a challenge and your requirements have to be ironclad.  
SOF will have a choice between this and Glock 19's.



Totentanz said:


> Their offering was the P320, which is roughly comparable to Glock's pricing (last I checked it was $580 w/ night sights, $500 without... varies based on who's selling)


Government should be paying 60-80% of the going rate.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 19, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> You can not have simpler requirements anymore, the losers will file a challenge and your requirements have to be ironclad.
> SOF will have a choice between this and Glock 19's.
> 
> 
> Government should be paying 60-80% of the going rate.



I was simply pointing out that it's approximately par with Glock's price point is all (responding to the "twice the cost of a Glock" bit).  It's somewhat apples/oranges - private purchasers aren't purchasing the additional parts, magazines, etc that will come with this contract.

RE: your first point, my memory isn't perfect - didn't that happen after the 92 was selected to be the M9 back in the 80s?  (losers challenged the decision).  To some extent I get it - when hundreds of millions are on the line, the job should be done right.  In this case, however, I think it was perfect being the enemy of good.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 19, 2017)

Totentanz said:


> I was simply pointing out that it's approximately par with Glock's price point is all (responding to the "twice the cost of a Glock" bit).  It's somewhat apples/oranges - private purchasers aren't purchasing the additional parts, magazines, etc that will come with this contract.
> 
> RE: your first point, my memory isn't perfect - didn't that happen after the 92 was selected to be the M9 back in the 80s?  (losers challenged the decision).  To some extent I get it - when hundreds of millions are on the line, the job should be done right.  In this case, however, I think it was perfect being the enemy of good.


I don't know if Sig protested (ironic if Beretta protests).
I just hope the new pistol is reliable.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 19, 2017)

Totentanz said:


> Their offering was the P320, which is roughly comparable to Glock's pricing (last I checked it was $580 w/ night sights, $500 without... varies based on who's selling)



Looks like another clunky large frame for a small round.


----------



## SgtUSMC8541 (Jan 19, 2017)

I've put more than a few rounds through the 320.  All 3 frames as well as the 9, 40 and 45.... I was very happy with the performance. I have also put more than a few down rage with the M9... and in my mind, its not even close. Would take the 320 every day... as for the Glock, Ive never been a fan ,but I appreciate a good firearm, and the Glock is one... the 320 vs Glock is very close.. but I prefer the 320.


----------



## 104TN (Jan 19, 2017)

Probably helped that Sig was the only company to submit a sidearm that was actually modular.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 19, 2017)

Caliber can be converted on the modular Sig: 9, 40 or 357sig.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 20, 2017)

rick said:


> Probably helped that Sig was the only company to submit a sidearm that was actually modular.





Ocoka One said:


> Caliber can be converted on the modular Sig: 9, 40 or 357sig.



I'm not sure either of these features are necessary.  But that's just me, YMMV.


----------



## 104TN (Jan 20, 2017)

policemedic said:


> I'm not sure either of these features are necessary.  But that's just me, YMMV.



Not to split hairs, but the award was for the XM17 Modular Handgun System (MHS) Contract. :) 

One of the requirements laid out was for the pistol to allow for different grips, mags, barrels, etc. Out of the list of contenders I think only Sig had an offering that is actually modular. Uncle Sugar probably could've saved a ton of money by just buying the P320 after putting it through whatever testing was needed when no other company submitted a gun that actually met the requirements of the contract.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 20, 2017)

policemedic said:


> I'm not sure either of these features are necessary.  But that's just me, YMMV.



The Sig gives you options and I like modular systems. It's like having a Lego gun. But you make a valid point. There's a lot to be said for simplicity.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 20, 2017)

I've personally never cared for Sig, never shot one that actually hit POA/POI, they always seem to shoot high. 

For the life of me, I cannot figure out what in the hell is wrong with the Army. Glock 19 should've been the pick, practically all the trigger puller SOF units are using G19's, DSS, CIA, PMC guys, are all using G19's. Fuck the goddamm Iraqi Police are using G19's. The FBI would call this a clue...but nope, Sig 320 it is.

As for the price point, Sig is generally over priced. 

I've owned a few 226's and one 228, I couldn't sell those guns fast enough. Had a good buddy that was a Sig nut, about a year after I'd sell one he'd talk me back into buying another, just so I could get disappointed and mad all over again.

That all said, at least they are finally getting rid of the M9.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 20, 2017)

rick said:


> Not to split hairs, but the award was for the XM17 Modular Handgun System (MHS) Contract. :)
> 
> One of the requirements laid out was for the pistol to allow for different grips, mags, barrels, etc. Out of the list of contenders I think only Sig had an offering that is actually modular. Uncle Sugar probably could've saved a ton of money by just buying the P320 after putting it through whatever testing was needed when no other company submitted a gun that actually met the requirements of the contract.



The pistol does meet the contract requirements, there's no argument there.  I'm simply saying many of those requirements aren't necessary.

Interchangeable grip panels and back straps? OK.  That makes good sense.  But the chassis system, caliber changes...meh.

Pick one caliber.  In reality, we all know it's going to be 9mm virtually across the board. Those units who want something else already have the ability to source whatever they want. If the reason is battlefield pickup, I'm not buying it. If the reason is the service may go to a different caliber at some unknown future date, then pick a new handgun at that point (technology will be better then and we may be issuing PV1 Snuffy with a phaser).

This would have been cheaper and faster if they had simply spec'd out x number of full size and x number of compacts in the same caliber (Glock 17 and 19 for example).

And besides, the SIG looks like a Hi-Point .


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 20, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I've personally never cared for Sig, never shot one that actually hit POA/POI, they always seem to shoot high.
> 
> For the life of me, I cannot figure out what in the hell is wrong with the Army. Glock 19 should've been the pick, practically all the trigger puller SOF units are using G19's, DSS, CIA, PMC guys, are all using G19's. Fuck the goddamm Iraqi Police are using G19's. The FBI would call this a clue...but nope, Sig 320 it is.
> 
> ...




All those units went to glock because it's reliable, cheap, and better than the M9. That's it. 

Glocks are not some sort of holy grail of a pistol, there's lots out there that's just as reliable nevermind more reliable all the while being more accurate to boot.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 20, 2017)

Ranger Psych said:


> All those units went to glock because it's reliable, cheap, and better than the M9. That's it.
> 
> Glocks are not some sort of holy grail of a pistol, there's lots out there that's just as reliable nevermind more reliable all the while being more accurate to boot.



Nope, no way, never in a million years...:-"

I agree there are all types of great pistols out there that can meet the needs. Glock is still a better option in my opinion. Stupid simple to maintain,  stupid long history of being more reliable than all others (gen 2 and 3's anyway), more accurate than most soldiers can shoot it, easy to train soldier on, about retard proof and yes inexpensive. I could also go down the severe life and inexpensive maintenance schedule, or the widely avaliable parts throughout the world, or the fact that it's the most popular pistol in the whole damn world. I mean just getting a holster becomes a shit ton easier with Glock, but yes there are many other options, well all others accept HK's in 45ACP, because only giant people should carry those.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 20, 2017)

Hillary clinton was the most popular candidate for the us population, therefore shes the best hands down right?


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 21, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I've personally never cared for Sig, never shot one that actually hit POA/POI, they always seem to shoot high.
> 
> For the life of me, I cannot figure out what in the hell is wrong with the Army. Glock 19 should've been the pick, practically all the trigger puller SOF units are using G19's, DSS, CIA, PMC guys, are all using G19's. Fuck the goddamm Iraqi Police are using G19's. The FBI would call this a clue...but nope, Sig 320 it is.
> 
> ...



External safety.
Funny, Sig had two examples at SHOT, both under glass and they wouldn't let anyone play with them.
They also had P320s with external safeties.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 21, 2017)

Why was the contract for modular? Seems odd....its a pistol for the military, a secondary firearm for most....primary for a few MOS's that does not need a modular firearm.


----------



## Etype (Jan 21, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> Why was the contract for modular? Seems odd....its a pistol for the military, a secondary firearm for most....primary for a few MOS's that does not need a modular firearm.


A modular bolt gun was a good idea, a modular pistol seems like complete lunacy.


----------



## AWP (Jan 21, 2017)

I thought CID carried the P226 instead of a fullsize Beretta? I had to look it up, but it is called the M11 so it would make sense if they continued that with a "modular" pistol.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 21, 2017)

AWP said:


> I thought CID carried the P226 instead of a fullsize Beretta? I had to look it up, but it is called the M11 so it would make sense if they continued that with a "modular" pistol.



P228.


----------



## AWP (Jan 21, 2017)

Totentanz said:


> P228.



Thank you for the correction. I are goodest reader on the board.


----------



## SgtUSMC8541 (Jan 21, 2017)

Minor point, but the fact that it is modular, makes it super easy to clean.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 22, 2017)

External safety on a pistol is stupido. The holster is the safety.

Modular, really? Not buying the bullshit being sold on that one.

Give people who need to conceal it a small size gun, give everyone else a normal size gun...

Or better yet, just give each soldier a one time stipend of $500 and tell them to buy whatever the fuck they want as long as its in 9mm, and let them just carry whatever the fuck they want. It is a pistol... or just give them a modular thingymabob.


----------



## 104TN (Jan 22, 2017)

SgtUSMC8541 said:


> Minor point, but the fact that it is modular, makes it super easy to clean.


Modularity also allows for one sidearm to be used by grunts, pilots, MPs, CID agents, etc..

I can also see how going modular potentially simplifies the training of armorers (one system to learn vs multiple), could allow multiple support contracts to be consolidated, and would reduce the variety and quantity of parts kept in inventory for spares.

Unless the P320 is a turd with sights, this is an instance where I think the Army ignoring the layup (G17/19/26) and adhering to the requirements laid out in the contract may have actually been a good thing.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 22, 2017)

AWP said:


> I thought CID carried the P226 instead of a fullsize Beretta? I had to look it up, but it is called the M11 so it would make sense if they continued that with a "modular" pistol.



yeah, both CID agents and CI agents are issued the P228 (M11).


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 22, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> External safety on a pistol is stupido. The holster is the safety.
> 
> Modular, really? Not buying the bullshit being sold on that one.
> 
> ...



The holster is the safety.... mmmhmmm, ok, right... get the fuck outa here


----------



## policemedic (Jan 22, 2017)




----------



## policemedic (Jan 22, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> External safety on a pistol is stupido. The holster is the safety.
> 
> Modular, really? Not buying the bullshit being sold on that one.
> 
> ...



A (well designed) safety on a pistol is a good thing.  More to the point, it doesn't slow you down at all.  As to the holster being the safety, well...I can point you to numerous people who shot themselves due to holster issues.

Agree on the modular issue.

Disagree on the run what ya brung idea.  Too many reasons ranging from quality to logistics to list now, but it would be bad mojo.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 22, 2017)

policemedic said:


> A (well designed) safety on a pistol is a good thing.  More to the point, it doesn't slow you down at all.  As to the holster being the safety, well...I can point you to numerous people who shot themselves due to holster issues.
> 
> Agree on the modular issue.
> 
> Disagree on the run what ya brung idea.  Too many reasons ranging from quality to logistics to list now, but it would be bad mojo.



Plenty of examples of people who shot themselves with pistols that have external safety's as well. But I do agree a quality holster is paramount. I've ran all types of pistols over the years, competitive, EDC, instructing, etc. I by far prefer a striker fire trigger with no external safety, for all of the above. I still love my 1911's and quite a few others with safety's,  but for all practical purposes Glock is my go too. Been carrying a Glock for about 15 years now, the not having a safety isn't an issue. The funny thing, before I was forced to carry a Glock, I hated them. After I put in the time, and did a honest evaluation of it, I've become their biggest fan. Its funny how evolution happens sometimes.

As for the run what ya brung, it was meant as a joke. We all know big Army ain't having any of that.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 23, 2017)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> External safety on a pistol is stupido. The holster is the safety.
> 
> Modular, really? Not buying the bullshit being sold on that one.
> 
> ...



External safety is great for folks who don't pump thousands of rounds down range annually (i.e. the majority of the folks in the military).
I haven't seen what the Army describes as modularity, but S&W, and Glock (maybe others) offer different sized backstraps for pistols, so one size fits all shouldn't be the standard.

Give Soldiers $500 to bring the 9MM of choice?  Who buys spare parts, where are those parts stored and how do you get those parts into theater?    Logistics turns the tide of war.



policemedic said:


> A (well designed) safety on a pistol is a good thing.  More to the point, it doesn't slow you down at all.  As to the holster being the safety, well...I can point you to numerous people who shot themselves due to holster issues.
> 
> Agree on the modular issue.
> 
> Disagree on the run what ya brung idea.  Too many reasons ranging from quality to logistics to list now, but it would be bad mojo.



Having a safety doesn't slow an average shooter down (thumbing the safety on my M&P became 2nd nature for me).
SERPA gained a reputation for being a "Dangerous holster", I never had a problem, but then I don't put my finger on the trigger until engaging/clearing.
Fewer SHARP classes and more weapons time might be beneficial.

For those who say it's no big deal because it's only a pistol.  I disagree, and I submit this photo :


----------



## Gunz (Jan 23, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> External safety is great for folks who don't pump thousands of rounds down range annually (i.e. the majority of the folks in the military).
> I haven't seen what the Army describes as modularity, but S&W, and Glock (maybe others) offer different sized backstraps for pistols, so one size fits all shouldn't be the standard.
> 
> Give Soldiers $500 to bring the 9MM of choice?  Who buys spare parts, where are those parts stored and how do you get those parts into theater?    Logistics turns the tide of war.
> ...




I like that picture of SgtMaj Bradley Kasal, who is a total fucking Marine stud who got shot about 7 times and iced a fucking insurgent with his handgun, and I agree that we need to give our combat arms guys a reliable sidearm for the extremely rare times when he/she is up shit alley and has to pull the hogleg. Does the military necessarily need a _modular_ system? The guys at the sharp edge need a handgun that's going to work when their life depends on it and that's got enough capacity and punch to penetrate and kill.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 23, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> I like that picture of SgtMaj Bradley Kasal, who is a total fucking Marine stud who got shot about 7 times and iced a fucking insurgent with his handgun, and I agree that we need to give our combat arms guys a reliable sidearm for the extremely rare times when he/she is up shit alley and has to pull the hogleg. Does the military necessarily need a _modular_ system? The guys at the sharp edge need a handgun that's going to work when their life depends on it and that's got enough capacity and punch to penetrate and kill.



The modularity is most likely going to end up like the M4. Not everyone's going to get the entire kit as far as caliber changes, but they'll get the basics to be able to throw on stuff that will make things work better for them.

Which puts them in a much better position than the M9.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 23, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> External safety is great for folks who don't pump thousands of rounds down range annually (i.e. the majority of the folks in the military)
> 
> Having a safety doesn't slow an average shooter down (thumbing the safety on my M&P became 2nd nature for me).
> 
> ...



Agree with all the above.

As a long-time 1911 / H&K shooter I know thumb safeties are a good thing that don't slow you down, but do add safety and an additional degree of control over the pistol when shooting.

The SERPAs are problematic for poorly trained people.  But they aren't the only holster with issues.  People who should know better shoot themselves at the local police academy range when reholstering because they forget to keep their finger out of the trigger guard (and there's no thumb safety to engage).  This happens frequently enough to be a thing, unfortunately.  

I never understood the viewpoint that it's only a pistol and pistols don't matter.  I get that most engagements for most troops will be with a rifle, and so a sufficient amount of training time must be dedicated to that platform.  But as has been said, when you need a pistol you really fucking need it and you either perform well or you die.  If you are issued with a pistol then there is a personal/professional responsibility to be competent with it and a concurrent duty on the part of the service to ensure that you have the training time to develop and maintain that skill level.

So, yeah--more shooting and less SHARP.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 23, 2017)

SIG Sauer M17 Handgun Chossen by the U.S. Army, Replaces M9 Beretta

The M17 Pistol will apparently have some modifications before fielding. Also appears to be the mid size platform with a mid size and full size slide and barrel, with mid size or an extended magazine. An external safety is big added and the ability to remove the guts of the gun to trade frames will be fixed to the mid size frame, so that the end user cannot take it down past field stripping. Basically a modular pistol that has become not so modular.  @Ranger Psych hit the nail on the head, looks like it will be a fixed platform with the ability to add a suppressor and RMR. 

Sad part is at least the Glock and M&P offer interchangeable back straps for different hand sizes. The M17 will not have that option, and for you big handed mofos, it looks like your pinky finger will be hanging on the butt of the mag, or griping on the extended mag. Something I've always hated personally, but not a deal breaker. 

I have been digging online trying to hunt one down with MIL/LE discounts. Looks like this is the closest version, won't have the safety and milled slide and threaded barrel.

SIG P320 Compact  at Quantico Tactical

I think I'll be waiting a few months to see if the offer a civilian model that replicates the M17. I'm sure Sig will poke people in the eye for it, like they did with the Mk25's.

Might hit uo the local shop and see if I can at least get some rounds out of a mid size, to get a basic idea of the gun. From a visual aspect, I'm on the fence. Like the FDE, like the RMR milling, hate the extended slide and Mag stuff, and really hate the standard high bore axis look of Sig. But past experiences, recoil difference was not much different in the 226's and 228's from G19 or M&Ps I've shot.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 23, 2017)

"I never understood the viewpoint that it's only a pistol and pistols don't matter."

Pistols do matter....the average pistol on the market are quality, and as a secondary firearm, will function well for the user.  Few MOS's have the pistol as a primary. You and I, as civilian LEO's, have more than just a passing thought about pistols...they are our life.  But for the military as a whole....why add the whole modular issue?

Just pick a quality firearm and add training to it.


----------



## Etype (Jan 24, 2017)

Shooting yourself is a perfectly viable route to self-selection.

I don't think we should take any measures to prevent the reccurence of accidental self-inflicted gunshot wounds.

If you have so little respect/awareness with a gun that you would shoot yourself in the leg, then I'd like to know that about you sooner rather than later.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 24, 2017)

Etype said:


> Shooting yourself is a perfectly viable route to self-selection.
> 
> I don't think we should take any measures to prevent the reccurence of accidental self-inflicted gunshot wounds.
> 
> If you have so little respect/awareness with a gun that you would shoot yourself in the leg, then I'd like to know that about you sooner rather than later.




QFT. That's some beautiful shit right there.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 24, 2017)

For a military that digs uniformity, the DoD sure likes everyone to have something different.  I don't give a rat's ass if the DoD issues the SIG, the M9, the 1911, the Glock, or a Hi-Point, for crying out loud can't we have one, just one, handgun for all the services??*

*Special needs units exempted


----------



## Gunz (Jan 24, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> "I never understood the viewpoint that it's only a pistol and pistols don't matter."
> 
> Pistols do matter....the average pistol on the market are quality, and as a secondary firearm, will function well for the user.  Few MOS's have the pistol as a primary. You and I, as civilian LEO's, have more than just a passing thought about pistols...they are our life.  But for the military as a whole....why add the whole modular issue?
> 
> Just pick a quality firearm and add training to it.




In my unit in Vietnam, only the pig handler got a sidearm. When I humped the 60 I had a .45. When it came time to rotate weapons, I handed the 60 off and the .45 with it. I did _not_ get a sidearm when it was my turn to hump one of the M79s. I had the bloop and a shitload of 40mm HE and lume and a Kabar. That was it. So after a week or so of feeling pretty naked (especially in heavily wooded/trail/jungle areas where the close vegetation restricted the 79s effectiveness and presented the risks of tree bursts), I asked one of my counterpart buds to get me a sidearm on the Black Market. He got back to me a few days later with a .38 of unknown manufacture, a holster and six bullets. I think I gave him ten bucks.

Point is, if you're in a combat arms MOS, and even if you never have to use it, it does provide some measure of security and confidence.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 24, 2017)




----------



## DA SWO (Jan 24, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> For a military that digs uniformity, the DoD sure likes everyone to have something different.  I don't give a rat's ass if the DoD issues the SIG, the M9, the 1911, the Glock, or a Hi-Point, for crying out loud can't we have one, just one, handgun for all the services??*
> 
> *Special needs units exempted


We do, conventional forces all use the M9, and will transition to the M17.


----------



## Etype (Jan 24, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> I did _not_ get a sidearm when it was my turn to hump one of the M79s. I had the bloop and a shitload of 40mm HE and lume...


Too bad you folks didn't have these, they're a great way to set the tone on initial contact.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 24, 2017)

Etype said:


> Too bad you folks didn't have these, they're a great way to set the tone on initial contact.View attachment 17826




No spacegun like you Starship Troopers ...but I did have to hump one of these motherfuckers...on a whim from the XO who thought it might "even the playing field." It weighed a fucking ton. I sent it back a week later on the resup 46 requesting either a tank or a helicopter to mount it on. They sent me out a rifle the next day. It would've been fine as a mounted weapon or a defensive weapon on a perimeter...or in open country. But not for a small mobile unit like ours.

XM174, automatic 40mm GL with an oval 12 round mag (for HE only) and a selector for full or semi. I test fired it in the open rice paddies and the ARVNs thought I was a fucking god...but forget it for close contacts. Weight was a serious problem. It was an ammo pig and another Marine had to be assigned to carry extra ammo. Getting rid of it freed two of us up.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 27, 2017)

Of course, you always have a protest: GLOCK Protests XM17 Modular Handgun System Award - Soldier Systems Daily


----------



## CDG (May 10, 2017)

Steyr Arms is suing Sig for patent infringement.

Sig Sauer Is Getting Sued For Patent Infringement Over Pistol The Army Just Bought


----------



## DA SWO (May 10, 2017)

CDG said:


> Steyr Arms is suing Sig for patent infringement.
> 
> Sig Sauer Is Getting Sued For Patent Infringement Over Pistol The Army Just Bought


All I can say is.....


While the Army......

:-/
:wall:
:blkeye:
:dead:

Still not convinced they went the right way pistol-wise.


----------



## The Hate Ape (May 10, 2017)

It's still a dream to shoot. Fuck the haters, these nerds had the chance a long time ago in the way back machine to contest the P250 as well as Baretta's APX. They're just pissed they didn't get the US Army Contract.

Glock for life.

H/A


----------



## DA SWO (May 10, 2017)

The Hate Ape said:


> It's still a dream to shoot. Fuck the haters, these nerds had the chance a long time ago in the way back machine to contest the P250 as well as Baretta's APX. They're just pissed they didn't get the US Army Contract.
> 
> Glock for life.
> 
> H/A


Maybe, but they were already suing Beretta for the same infringement.
I shoot Glock for the most part, have .45 lying around that  will get expended, that pistol (M&P .45) will then get sold off.

I am not convinced that 3 frames per pistol won't be a logistical pita.
2 backstraps per frame takes less room than 3 frames per shooter (I assume they will develop an estimate on hand sizes, but who knows)


----------



## The Hate Ape (May 10, 2017)

not to mention most shooters in conventional forces suck major ass at pistol regardless of hand size, backstraps, frames or how close they stand to the target.


----------

