Pentagon Seeks New Sidearm

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. 8-):-) 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
- 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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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).
 
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).
Click to expand...
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/
 
Last edited:
pardus said:
Hahaha, you said training. The US Army doesn't train to shoot, it just zeros... a lot! :wall:
Click to expand...

Especially with M9... :D

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

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

It's taken care of... :thumbsup: 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...
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

Similar threads

8
Kimber kisses up..................2nd Amendment issues.
Replies
11
Views
3K
Minuteman1636
M
Ravage
Faster combat power, less exposure in the assault zone
Replies
1
Views
3K
AWP
AWP
Back
Top