User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 3:50:19 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How well is that glass gonna work after getting dragged through the sand when Mr. truck driver has to dismount after an IED strike? Better have a quick release. Sights don't look sturdy either.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Things the M9 needs and doesn't have, just to even keep up with the times. - Picatinny front rail. - Lightened and blacked stainless steel uppers and alloy or polymer frames/components for lighter weight and corrosion resistance. - Micro pistol RDS mounting capability like the M&P pro series CORE. (while retaining irons for backup). - At least 17 rnd capacity. - grip size flexibility for all hand sizes (this is the current reality, not everyone is a NFL player sized soldier in today's army) If you could make something like this, but hammer fired for second strike, you'd better getting close. http://i61.tinypic.com/6odjxv.jpg Weight on the above pistol, with RDS is 26 oz. An M9 weighs 34oz with just military irons, will rust and can't have anything mounted on it. How well is that glass gonna work after getting dragged through the sand when Mr. truck driver has to dismount after an IED strike? Better have a quick release. Sights don't look sturdy either.... Truck drivers don't get CCOs on their rifles, why should they get them on their pistols? That RDS may not be the one that works best, but having the rails precut into the slide makes it easy to put a Trijicon or whatever other micro RDS you want, or none. The Beretta A3 doesn't address that. Could they? sure, but they didn't. They are patching up an old horse, not coming out with any fresh ideas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 3:52:04 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Truck drivers don't get CCOs on their rifles, why should they get them on their pistols? Umm. Yeah they do. And last time I checked truck drivers don't drive for the Infantry, Cav, SF, MP's..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 3:53:19 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still doesn't excuse Army from their lack of training and blaming equipment instead of their lack of training. I know plenty of folks that do rough and tumble work in Government both on the LE and Mil side that have no problem with the Beretta 92FS. But it comes down to proper training.... Big Army doesn't do it. They're pulling a FBI and blaming equipment instead of looking in the mirror and admitting that they fucked up in training. The best thing to do is replace worn out M9s with the current contract and increase training cycles and get folks properly qualified on pistolcraft. This is the same shit I heard with the M1 Carbine from Korea. 9mm doesn't do the job. .30 Carbine doesn't do the job. Blah, blah, blah.... if folks are trained with it right and hit what the fuck they're aiming at. Badguy will die. Simple as that. Yes, I know... FMJ, Body Armor, etc... but the primary issue is lack of training. Not the necessary need for the latest flavor of the month. The Beretta can and still does a good job at killing people. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The M9 works. Yeah, but that's about the best you can say for it. If we used that logic we would still be issuing the Colt 1851 Navy as the standard sidearm. There are better pistols out there. Lighter, corrosion resistant, more ergonomic, more adaptable to multiple roles, more modular, the M9 is none of those things. The issue with Big Army is training. They don't fucking do it! Carrying a Beretta on a empty chamber is the result of lack of training. Not mechanical faults of design. The Army is going through the same shit the FBI did after the Miami Shootout. Instead of admit they had bad training, they blamed equipment and went through the whole issue with S&W and 10mm Auto. There are pistols that have more capabilities than the M9 and weigh much lighter....in addition to not being hampered by the slide mounted safety/decocker. I know plenty of folks that do rough and tumble work in Government both on the LE and Mil side that have no problem with the Beretta 92FS. But it comes down to proper training.... Big Army doesn't do it. They're pulling a FBI and blaming equipment instead of looking in the mirror and admitting that they fucked up in training. The best thing to do is replace worn out M9s with the current contract and increase training cycles and get folks properly qualified on pistolcraft. This is the same shit I heard with the M1 Carbine from Korea. 9mm doesn't do the job. .30 Carbine doesn't do the job. Blah, blah, blah.... if folks are trained with it right and hit what the fuck they're aiming at. Badguy will die. Simple as that. Yes, I know... FMJ, Body Armor, etc... but the primary issue is lack of training. Not the necessary need for the latest flavor of the month. The Beretta can and still does a good job at killing people. If the Army wants it to defeat body armor, it's gonna need to go with something a lot more sporty than either the .45 or the 9mm. Now I'm back to my fap fest that they'll choose a 10mm and ammo will become widely available and cheap. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 3:56:25 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not really. Not capabilities that translate into shit that's going to make our soldiers do their jobs better anyway. And certainly nowhere even approaching added capabilities that would justify a switch. There's really no need in replacing the M9 with anything that still uses the metallic cartridge / nitrocellulose system. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There are pistols that have more capabilities than the M9 and weigh much lighter....in addition to not being hampered by the slide mounted safety/decocker. Not really. Not capabilities that translate into shit that's going to make our soldiers do their jobs better anyway. And certainly nowhere even approaching added capabilities that would justify a switch. There's really no need in replacing the M9 with anything that still uses the metallic cartridge / nitrocellulose system. Did you read any of the past pages? The Army is going to replace over half of it's pistols. They might as well go to a new gun that is lighter, light rail, modular, etc, etc. ETA: Nevermind, Daemon already told you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 3:56:26 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds like it was an "unsolicited proposal". Army is under no obligation to evaluate them. Especially when the Rfp hadn't been posted yet. How to propose your pistol and Army's needs will be spelled out in L&M of the RFP. Beretta was just trying to prevent it from being solicited in the first place, because they have an IDIQ contract with room to order 80k more pistols at Army's discretion. Sounds like the Army isn't going to be doing more orders on the IDIQ. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They could have easily made the slide mounted safety/decocker just a decocker. I don't think the m9 is the best option but not to evaluate it is just stupid. Sounds like it was an "unsolicited proposal". Army is under no obligation to evaluate them. Especially when the Rfp hadn't been posted yet. How to propose your pistol and Army's needs will be spelled out in L&M of the RFP. Beretta was just trying to prevent it from being solicited in the first place, because they have an IDIQ contract with room to order 80k more pistols at Army's discretion. Sounds like the Army isn't going to be doing more orders on the IDIQ. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Agreed, likely an unsolicited bid like you said, and will be ignored. That said, when the DRFP or RFP comes out, let’s hope it’s not an LPTA award. I’ve seen a lot of SB set asides in this administration that makes you wonder WTF, so, let’s hope they don’t do weapons acquisitions of any kind as a SB set aside or on an LPTA basis.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 3:59:06 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Umm. Yeah they do. And last time I checked truck drivers don't drive for the Infantry, Cav, SF, MP's..... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Truck drivers don't get CCOs on their rifles, why should they get them on their pistols? Umm. Yeah they do. And last time I checked truck drivers don't drive for the Infantry, Cav, SF, MP's..... OK then that has changed since OIF I. They were using A2s with irons only during the ambush of 507th Maintenance Company convoy during the Battle of Nasiriyah, for example. But if you have an M68 quality CCO, what difference does it make? Aimpoint has micro red dots built to same specifications. They are made to be dragged though the sand. Do you want to modernize the Army, from it's sidearms on up, or not. I guess that is the overwhelming question. Nobody likes old school better than me. But at some point, you have to progress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 4:02:35 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed, likely an unsolicited bid like you said, and will be ignored. That said, when the DRFP or RFP comes out, let’s hope it’s not an LPTA award. I’ve seen a lot of SB set asides in this administration that makes you wonder WTF, so, let’s hope they don’t do weapons acquisitions of any kind as a SB set aside or on an LPTA basis.... There is pretty much zero chance it being a SB set-aside. Not with the overall cost, nor with the market research yielding that all your major pistol manufacturers would not qualify. LPTA isn't automatically the worst thing in the world. Funny, everyone screaming about the costs and that they should just buy a COTS pistol is essentially arguing for a LPTA contract....whatever meets the minimum requirements and is the cheapest. Honestly, I always prefer best value cost evaluations because it allows the gov't to apply more common sense and discourages an outright dive for the floor which never works out for anyone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 4:03:55 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Truck drivers don't get CCOs on their rifles, why should they get them on their pistols? That RDS may not be the one that works best, but having the rails precut into the slide makes it easy to put a Trijicon or whatever other micro RDS you want, or none. The Beretta A3 doesn't address that. Could they? sure, but they didn't. They are patching up an old horse, not coming out with any fresh ideas. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Things the M9 needs and doesn't have, just to even keep up with the times. - Picatinny front rail. - Lightened and blacked stainless steel uppers and alloy or polymer frames/components for lighter weight and corrosion resistance. - Micro pistol RDS mounting capability like the M&P pro series CORE. (while retaining irons for backup). - At least 17 rnd capacity. - grip size flexibility for all hand sizes (this is the current reality, not everyone is a NFL player sized soldier in today's army) If you could make something like this, but hammer fired for second strike, you'd better getting close. http://i61.tinypic.com/6odjxv.jpg Weight on the above pistol, with RDS is 26 oz. An M9 weighs 34oz with just military irons, will rust and can't have anything mounted on it. How well is that glass gonna work after getting dragged through the sand when Mr. truck driver has to dismount after an IED strike? Better have a quick release. Sights don't look sturdy either.... Truck drivers don't get CCOs on their rifles, why should they get them on their pistols? That RDS may not be the one that works best, but having the rails precut into the slide makes it easy to put a Trijicon or whatever other micro RDS you want, or none. The Beretta A3 doesn't address that. Could they? sure, but they didn't. They are patching up an old horse, not coming out with any fresh ideas. All the 34ID guys did in Basra, so did 1ID and 36ID when they rotated through. Didn't matter the MOS. Everyone had em. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 4:07:52 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you read any of the past pages? The Army is going to replace over half of it's pistols. They might as well go to a new gun that is lighter, light rail, modular, etc, etc. ETA: Nevermind, Daemon already told you. You can rotate in new M9s gradually, without missing a beat. Rotating in a completely new gun (and magazine, and training doctrine, and armorer training, and maybe even holster) gradually would be a fucking nightmare. Nothing like doubling your logistic needs for a piece of equipment that's about #87 on a soldiers list of priorities, and doesn't do the job any differently than what we have now. Switching pistols would be fucking stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 4:09:39 PM EDT
[#10]
 I thing to consider. This isn't just a pistol for Big Army. They want to be able to mount suppressors and red-dots.
While some units get money from JSOC (I don't think you'll see CAG giving up their pistols), USASOC gets equipment from Big Army and right now has a large diverse pile of under supported pistols. I've heard plenty of stories of ODAs training up with a pistol (1911s) only to not have enough to deploy with, so they deploy with M9s, and e they get overseas oncreceive P226s, M11s, and Glocks based on where their particular unit is working. If you can't see a HUGE problem with that you're willfully blind. COTS is not an acquisition strategy long-term. It's an "oh crap we need something right now" method of procuring small numbers of specialized items. It's fine for pouches or assault packs, but for an individual weapon that needs support at higher than the unit level it's the worst way to try to support things. This whole MHS seems very similar to the programs that left us with the M16. The Army needed to replace an aging diverse fleets of M1s, M14s, Grease guns, thompsons, M1 carbines, and other quickly sourced long arms. Now the army needs to replace 60-70% of it's fleet of aging M9s while consolidating the fleet of aging 1911s, P226s, M11s, G19s, G17s, etc... Now, during a drawdown, is the time to wholesale replace your fleet. Long before you have to jump back into war and play catch-up. It's always said that we plan to fight the last war. Now you guys want to plan logisitics for the next war based on the "oh crap we are actually going to war" of 2003? COTS is what you do when you are issued several racks of worn out M9s and get permission to purchase just enough guns to keep your unit going for the next few years. It's not what you do when you need to replace and standardize hundreds of thousands of pistols in active service. I get it, you want your pet pistol. How about we follow federal law, and reduce our long-term spending by not keeping a dying platform on life support. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 4:14:07 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK then that has changed since OIF I. They were using A2s with irons only during the ambush of 507th Maintenance Company convoy during the Battle of Nasiriyah, for example. But if you have an M68 quality CCO, what difference does it make? Aimpoint has micro red dots built to same specifications. They are made to be dragged though the sand. Do you want to modernize the Army, from it's sidearms on up, or not. I guess that is the overwhelming question. Nobody likes old school better than me. But at some point, you have to progress. My question on the glass was non-model specific. I might be getting old, but a Soldier doesn't need to wonder if his glass is turned on or the battery good when he's reaching (again in an oh shit moment) for his sidearm. He needs simple, rock solid, and easy to use. Joe isn't an "operator". He doesn't go in on a chopper and come out a few hours later for beers around the pool with the nurses. He sits in the mud at his little FOB and bitches about how boring it is and why the internet doesn't work, and his shit's all dusty and (sometimes) even rusty. Then all fuck breaks loose and he might need to put a hole in something a few yards away RTFN. Same for convoys. Long bored dusty then boom oh fuck bangbangbang MAN DOWNBANG. That's the last time in the world he needs to be fucking with little batteries in a laser, a light, or a fancy little optic. Front sight. Press Press MOVE Front sight Press Press Grab rifle MOVE. Optics on a handgun? Ain't nobody got time fo dat unless they're a top secret navy seal. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 4:14:51 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can rotate in new M9s gradually, without missing a beat. Rotating in a completely new gun (and magazine, and training doctrine, and armorer training, and maybe even holster) gradually would be a fucking nightmare. Nothing like doubling your logistic needs for a piece of equipment that's about #87 on a soldiers list of priorities, and doesn't do the job any differently than what we have now. Switching pistols would be fucking stupid. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Did you read any of the past pages? The Army is going to replace over half of it's pistols. They might as well go to a new gun that is lighter, light rail, modular, etc, etc. ETA: Nevermind, Daemon already told you. You can rotate in new M9s gradually, without missing a beat. Rotating in a completely new gun (and magazine, and training doctrine, and armorer training, and maybe even holster) gradually would be a fucking nightmare. Nothing like doubling your logistic needs for a piece of equipment that's about #87 on a soldiers list of priorities, and doesn't do the job any differently than what we have now. Switching pistols would be fucking stupid. They did it with the M4s pretty easily. Supply to USASOC, then Big Army Infantry, then Big Army, then Reserves, then National Guard. We did it with the M4>M16 switchover without missing a beat. Switching pistols allows you to scrap the old magazines, which after over a decade of war and wear would be a GOOD thing. Plus, if our training sucks it makes it easy to swap in a new pistol doesn't it? Training being a downside to a platform switch is only a problem if you're training enough. Either we aren't trianing enough for it to make a difference or we are too well trained to afford a switch-over. Can't play both sides of that coin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 4:16:32 PM EDT
[#13]
a lot of butthurt about the beretta bit here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 4:18:07 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My question on the glass was non-model specific. I might be getting old, but a Soldier doesn't need to wonder if his glass is turned on or the battery good when he's reaching (again in an oh shit moment) for his sidearm. He needs simple, rock solid, and easy to use. Joe isn't an "operator". He doesn't go in on a chopper and come out a few hours later for beers around the pool with the nurses. He sits in the mud at his little FOB and bitches about how boring it is and why the internet doesn't work, and his shit's all dusty and (sometimes) even rusty. Then all fuck breaks loose and he might need to put a hole in something a few yards away RTFN. Same for convoys. Long bored dusty then boom oh fuck bangbangbang MAN DOWNBANG. That's the last time in the world he needs to be fucking with little batteries in a laser, a light, or a fancy little optic. Front sight. Press Press MOVE Front sight Press Press Grab rifle MOVE. Optics on a handgun? Ain't nobody got time fo dat unless they're a top secret navy seal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OK then that has changed since OIF I. They were using A2s with irons only during the ambush of 507th Maintenance Company convoy during the Battle of Nasiriyah, for example. But if you have an M68 quality CCO, what difference does it make? Aimpoint has micro red dots built to same specifications. They are made to be dragged though the sand. Do you want to modernize the Army, from it's sidearms on up, or not. I guess that is the overwhelming question. Nobody likes old school better than me. But at some point, you have to progress. My question on the glass was non-model specific. I might be getting old, but a Soldier doesn't need to wonder if his glass is turned on or the battery good when he's reaching (again in an oh shit moment) for his sidearm. He needs simple, rock solid, and easy to use. Joe isn't an "operator". He doesn't go in on a chopper and come out a few hours later for beers around the pool with the nurses. He sits in the mud at his little FOB and bitches about how boring it is and why the internet doesn't work, and his shit's all dusty and (sometimes) even rusty. Then all fuck breaks loose and he might need to put a hole in something a few yards away RTFN. Same for convoys. Long bored dusty then boom oh fuck bangbangbang MAN DOWNBANG. That's the last time in the world he needs to be fucking with little batteries in a laser, a light, or a fancy little optic. Front sight. Press Press MOVE Front sight Press Press Grab rifle MOVE. Optics on a handgun? Ain't nobody got time fo dat unless they're a top secret navy seal. It will be a long time before handgun optics become widespread in military service. But I take it as a good sign that those making the decision are looking forward. Plus, the more modular (threaded bbl, optics mount) it becomes the more useful it will be to the larger majority of both conventional and non-conventional end users. What's the problem with having a quality pistol we can issue and tailor for everyone from the truck driver to the AWG member to the Ranger Recce platoon? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 4:21:40 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can rotate in new M9s gradually, without missing a beat. Rotating in a completely new gun (and magazine, and training doctrine, and armorer training, and maybe even holster) gradually would be a fucking nightmare. Nothing like doubling your logistic needs for a piece of equipment that's about #87 on a soldiers list of priorities, and doesn't do the job any differently than what we have now. Switching pistols would be fucking stupid. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Did you read any of the past pages? The Army is going to replace over half of it's pistols. They might as well go to a new gun that is lighter, light rail, modular, etc, etc. ETA: Nevermind, Daemon already told you. You can rotate in new M9s gradually, without missing a beat. Rotating in a completely new gun (and magazine, and training doctrine, and armorer training, and maybe even holster) gradually would be a fucking nightmare. Nothing like doubling your logistic needs for a piece of equipment that's about #87 on a soldiers list of priorities, and doesn't do the job any differently than what we have now. Switching pistols would be fucking stupid. DoD already has a contract with Beretta for a shitload more M9s. Have the broken M9s gutted for usable parts and replace with new M9s... Hell, go with M9A1s if need be for the light rail or have Surefire whip up bolt on rails. We already have an entire inventory support system in place for a weapon that can still do the job. The money that would be saved overall should go to training. I would love for DoD to go .40 S&W but even I know it is a waste of time. Do we have an issue with COTS clogging up supply? Yup, slowly weed them out, replace with new M9s, train the troops better, and kill badguys. I'm all for updating our armed forces. I'm against wasteful spending. A new sidearm isn't needed. Updated training and new stock is needed. Not an entire new model. A pistol still does the same shit as it did thirty years ago. So if Army is swapping out what about Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. Navy is happy with their M9s and so is the Air Force. Coast Guard is under DHS with their Sig P229R DAKs. Is USCG swapping out to whatever Army goes with? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 4:27:23 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thing to consider. This isn't just a pistol for Big Army. They want to be able to mount suppressors and red-dots.While some units get money from JSOC (I don't think you'll see CAG giving up their pistols), USASOC gets equipment from Big Army and right now has a large diverse pile of under supported pistols. I've heard plenty of stories of ODAs training up with a pistol (1911s) only to not have enough to deploy with, so they deploy with M9s, and e they get overseas oncreceive P226s, M11s, and Glocks based on where their particular unit is working. If you can't see a HUGE problem with that you're willfully blind. COTS is not an acquisition strategy long-term. It's an "oh crap we need something right now" method of procuring small numbers of specialized items. It's fine for pouches or assault packs, but for an individual weapon that needs support at higher than the unit level it's the worst way to try to support things. This whole MHS seems very similar to the programs that left us with the M16. The Army needed to replace an aging diverse fleets of M1s, M14s, Grease guns, thompsons, M1 carbines, and other quickly sourced long arms. Now the army needs to replace 60-70% of it's fleet of aging M9s while consolidating the fleet of aging 1911s, P226s, M11s, G19s, G17s, etc... Now, during a drawdown, is the time to wholesale replace your fleet. Long before you have to jump back into war and play catch-up. It's always said that we plan to fight the last war. Now you guys want to plan logisitics for the next war based on the "oh crap we are actually going to war" of 2003? COTS is what you do when you are issued several racks of worn out M9s and get permission to purchase just enough guns to keep your unit going for the next few years. It's not what you do when you need to replace and standardize hundreds of thousands of pistols in active service. I get it, you want your pet pistol. How about we follow federal law, and reduce our long-term spending by not keeping a dying platform on life support. Round up the COTS guns and send them to DRMO for US LE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 4:27:58 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They did it with the M4s pretty easily. Supply to USASOC, then Big Army Infantry, then Big Army, then Reserves, then National Guard. We did it with the M4>M16 switchover without missing a beat. There's a shitload of commonality (particularly on the "software" side) between the M16 and M4... not really a fair analogy. Switching pistols allows you to scrap the old magazines, which after over a decade of war and wear would be a GOOD thing. If the military was good at shit like deadlining old worn out magazines, a huge part of the bitching about our current issue weapons wouldn't exist in the first place. Plus, if our training sucks it makes it easy to swap in a new pistol doesn't it? Training being a downside to a platform switch is only a problem if you're training enough. Either we aren't trianing enough for it to make a difference or we are too well trained to afford a switch-over. Can't play both sides of that coin. Our military handgun training does suck (although it does seem to be getting a bit better). Diluting training budgets even further by having to develop doctrine for a whole new pistol is going to make it suck even worse. And at the end of the day, you still just have a pistol shooting shitty FMJ pistol ammo. You don't gain anything even close to justifying the expense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 4:32:42 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Optics on a handgun? Ain't nobody got time fo dat unless they're a top secret navy seal. Concerns like reliability and battery life aside: A dot on a pistol, especially a slide mounted one, isn't nearly as much of a "game changa" on a handgun as it is a rifle. It just doesn't add as much speed as a rifle RDS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 4:32:53 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My question on the glass was non-model specific. I might be getting old, but a Soldier doesn't need to wonder if his glass is turned on or the battery good when he's reaching (again in an oh shit moment) for his sidearm. He needs simple, rock solid, and easy to use. Joe isn't an "operator". He doesn't go in on a chopper and come out a few hours later for beers around the pool with the nurses. He sits in the mud at his little FOB and bitches about how boring it is and why the internet doesn't work, and his shit's all dusty and (sometimes) even rusty. Then all fuck breaks loose and he might need to put a hole in something a few yards away RTFN. Same for convoys. Long bored dusty then boom oh fuck bangbangbang MAN DOWNBANG. That's the last time in the world he needs to be fucking with little batteries in a laser, a light, or a fancy little optic. Front sight. Press Press MOVE Front sight Press Press Grab rifle MOVE. Optics on a handgun? Ain't nobody got time fo dat unless they're a top secret navy seal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OK then that has changed since OIF I. They were using A2s with irons only during the ambush of 507th Maintenance Company convoy during the Battle of Nasiriyah, for example. But if you have an M68 quality CCO, what difference does it make? Aimpoint has micro red dots built to same specifications. They are made to be dragged though the sand. Do you want to modernize the Army, from it's sidearms on up, or not. I guess that is the overwhelming question. Nobody likes old school better than me. But at some point, you have to progress. My question on the glass was non-model specific. I might be getting old, but a Soldier doesn't need to wonder if his glass is turned on or the battery good when he's reaching (again in an oh shit moment) for his sidearm. He needs simple, rock solid, and easy to use. Joe isn't an "operator". He doesn't go in on a chopper and come out a few hours later for beers around the pool with the nurses. He sits in the mud at his little FOB and bitches about how boring it is and why the internet doesn't work, and his shit's all dusty and (sometimes) even rusty. Then all fuck breaks loose and he might need to put a hole in something a few yards away RTFN. Same for convoys. Long bored dusty then boom oh fuck bangbangbang MAN DOWNBANG. That's the last time in the world he needs to be fucking with little batteries in a laser, a light, or a fancy little optic. Front sight. Press Press MOVE Front sight Press Press Grab rifle MOVE. Optics on a handgun? Ain't nobody got time fo dat unless they're a top secret navy seal. Yeah, I mean I agree in essence with what you are saying, I am not arguing one way or the other that fobbits or 91Bs need optics on their pistols or rifles. All I am saying, is if we are going to spend the money on new sidearms, let get some that have the capability to be used in that capacity if needed. You don't have to mount the glass. But if you have the rails already there, you don't have to have two or more pistols in the inventory. That's what I mean by adaptable and modular. In other words a pistol as adaptable and modular as the M16 and AR15 have become. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 4:34:06 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's the problem with having a quality pistol we can issue and tailor for everyone from the truck driver to the AWG member to the Ranger Recce platoon? This is the point I have been trying to make. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 4:43:12 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is the point I have been trying to make. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What's the problem with having a quality pistol we can issue and tailor for everyone from the truck driver to the AWG member to the Ranger Recce platoon? This is the point I have been trying to make. If you were starting from scratch, sure. But the M9 switch happened when we were spending Reagan fuck-you money on defense to fight the Cold War, and our troops weren't doing a whole lot of foreign land ass kicking. And it still took forever and was a clusterfuck. Trying to do something like that now would be a nightmare. The most likely result would be a shitload of units without any sidearms at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 4:44:17 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And at the end of the day, you still just have a pistol shooting shitty FMJ pistol ammo. You don't gain anything even close to justifying the expense. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: They did it with the M4s pretty easily. Supply to USASOC, then Big Army Infantry, then Big Army, then Reserves, then National Guard. We did it with the M4>M16 switchover without missing a beat. There's a shitload of commonality (particularly on the "software" side) between the M16 and M4... not really a fair analogy. Switching pistols allows you to scrap the old magazines, which after over a decade of war and wear would be a GOOD thing. If the military was good at shit like deadlining old worn out magazines, a huge part of the bitching about our current issue weapons wouldn't exist in the first place. Plus, if our training sucks it makes it easy to swap in a new pistol doesn't it? Training being a downside to a platform switch is only a problem if you're training enough. Either we aren't trianing enough for it to make a difference or we are too well trained to afford a switch-over. Can't play both sides of that coin. Our military handgun training does suck (although it does seem to be getting a bit better). Diluting training budgets even further by having to develop doctrine for a whole new pistol is going to make it suck even worse. And at the end of the day, you still just have a pistol shooting shitty FMJ pistol ammo. You don't gain anything even close to justifying the expense. A lot of M16s are still in service.  From what I've seen. A lot of A2s and A4s have been getting conversion stocks. Also I know a lot of inventory was swapped out to M4 configuration with changing barrels. Upper and Lower receivers were kept. When we started going M4 across the board, that just meant less A2s and A4s ordered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 4:55:19 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was about to mention that... the M16 to M4 conversion was just that. A conversion. A lot of M16s are still in service. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v389/CAR-AR-M16/A2M4.jpg From what I've seen. A lot of A2s and A4s have been getting conversion stocks. Also I know a lot of inventory was swapped out to M4 configuration with changing barrels. Upper and Lower receivers were kept. When we started going M4 across the board, that just meant less A2s and A4s ordered. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They did it with the M4s pretty easily. Supply to USASOC, then Big Army Infantry, then Big Army, then Reserves, then National Guard. We did it with the M4>M16 switchover without missing a beat. There's a shitload of commonality (particularly on the "software" side) between the M16 and M4... not really a fair analogy. Switching pistols allows you to scrap the old magazines, which after over a decade of war and wear would be a GOOD thing. If the military was good at shit like deadlining old worn out magazines, a huge part of the bitching about our current issue weapons wouldn't exist in the first place. Plus, if our training sucks it makes it easy to swap in a new pistol doesn't it? Training being a downside to a platform switch is only a problem if you're training enough. Either we aren't trianing enough for it to make a difference or we are too well trained to afford a switch-over. Can't play both sides of that coin. Our military handgun training does suck (although it does seem to be getting a bit better). Diluting training budgets even further by having to develop doctrine for a whole new pistol is going to make it suck even worse. And at the end of the day, you still just have a pistol shooting shitty FMJ pistol ammo. You don't gain anything even close to justifying the expense. A lot of M16s are still in service. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v389/CAR-AR-M16/A2M4.jpg From what I've seen. A lot of A2s and A4s have been getting conversion stocks. Also I know a lot of inventory was swapped out to M4 configuration with changing barrels. Upper and Lower receivers were kept. When we started going M4 across the board, that just meant less A2s and A4s ordered. Jarheads will be keeping M16s AFAIK though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 5:45:05 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can rotate in new M9s gradually, without missing a beat. Rotating in a completely new gun (and magazine, and training doctrine, and armorer training, and maybe even holster) gradually would be a fucking nightmare. Nothing like doubling your logistic needs for a piece of equipment that's about #87 on a soldiers list of priorities, and doesn't do the job any differently than what we have now. Switching pistols would be fucking stupid. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Did you read any of the past pages? The Army is going to replace over half of it's pistols. They might as well go to a new gun that is lighter, light rail, modular, etc, etc. ETA: Nevermind, Daemon already told you. You can rotate in new M9s gradually, without missing a beat. Rotating in a completely new gun (and magazine, and training doctrine, and armorer training, and maybe even holster) gradually would be a fucking nightmare. Nothing like doubling your logistic needs for a piece of equipment that's about #87 on a soldiers list of priorities, and doesn't do the job any differently than what we have now. Switching pistols would be fucking stupid. No, continuing to oay for a pistol that is obsolete for military function is stupid. As far as doubling logistic needs, what part did you miss about this program looking to replace 4-5 pistols with 1? GWOT is over. Now is the perfect time to do this. As far as individual equipment training, its only a fucking pistol, not a space shuttle. Give me an afternoon and a PMI and that task is done. We get in new equipment all the time, most of it much more complex than this. Save the drama. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 5:46:16 PM EDT
[#25]
So if the USMC is keeping the A4s, are they keeping their own inventory of pistols including the M9 and M9A1? What about their MARSOC 1911s?
What about the USN? Are they keeping the M9s? What about USAF? USCG with their Sigs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 5:48:59 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trying to do something like that now would be a nightmare. The most likely result would be a shitload of units without any sidearms at all. You obviously have no idea how new equipment gets issued. There is doctrine in pkace for this, you dont have to come up with the solution all by yourself. Weve played this game a few times before. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 5:50:31 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, continuing to pay for a pistol that is obsolete for military function is stupid. Get fucking real.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 5:55:32 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if the USMC is keeping the A4s, are they keeping their own inventory of pistols including the M9 and M9A1? What about their MARSOC 1911s? What about the USN? Are they keeping the M9s? What about USAF? USCG with their Sigs? Marines have approx. 80K M4s and 160K A4s; we technically changed the TO&E weapons for all Marine SNCOs and officers under the rank of Col to the M4, however we kept all the pistols and they are now as required items. So commanders can determine how they issue them out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 5:57:00 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everything you said makes sense except for adopting a new platform. If 60%-70% are worn out that means another 30%-40% are good to go. Gut the worn out ones for usable parts, replace them with new production stock, and increase training. We have an entire support system in place for the M9 and it does a good job. Round up the COTS guns and send them to DRMO for US LE. How do you guys think this works? The MHS is adopted and everyone throws their M9s into the dumpster? 
They will be phased in based on MTOE and current operational status. M9s still serviceable will be shifted to replace those that aren't in units not set for wholesale switch yet. Those remaining 30-40% left will still see the end of their service life either in the meantime waiting for a company MHS as a sub-lin, or as excess in the company arms room. My MTOE switched a few years ago from the M203 but I still have tons of them we still use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 5:59:16 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Get fucking real. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, continuing to pay for a pistol that is obsolete for military function is stupid. Get fucking real. You ever been in the military? Because your fundamental understanding on how any of this works is pretty poor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 6:00:10 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wouldn't surprised at the frame option either. I would imagine modular in this case means more the accessories, and the internals being able to be swapped between all frames regardless of size, to simplify the O&S. I also agree, almost a dead bolt lock it will be a thumb safety. Also agree probably no grip safety, because while that might appease legal, there's enough decision makers in the chain to know everyone is just going to slap riggers tape on it and render it always hot, ala the Marines and their 1911s. I kind of hope SOF keeps out of it entirely. All they will do is complicate the requirements and then do their own procurements anyways before the ink dries on the contract for this thing. Plus, their mission changes much more frequently than the major service components, so it doesn't make sense for them to go with a 30+ year pistol. They are not a one size fits all organization, so why shoehorn them into a one size fits all pistol? As for the threaded barrel, for selfish reasons I think we should hope it is in there. If big Army adopts a service pistol that comes mandatory with a threaded barrel, and they start really increasing the use of suppressors, beyond specops units, that is a pretty big nod to the fact that suppressors aren't just a tactical stealth tool, but are there just as much for hearing protection. Such a nod can only help the rest of us ultimately get them removed from the NFA list for civilians in the long run. Maybe a pipe dream, who knows. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess we will see, but a manual safety on a polymer striker fired gun is one instance where I can see it happening. Whoever wants to make that money will come up with guns. We also have yet to find out what the term "modular" really means with regard to this gun, I'm hoping it's just accessory interface and grip modifications. I have a sneaking suspicion they may ask for a full frame/short frame option. I don't know how they'll handle magazines. I'd like to see them adopt a full size, with a compact version where it's needed. The middle ground on this would be a compact size frame with a 4"-5" barrel and full size slide. I think threaded bbl may be on the list, but I don't think it'll be a priority across the board. I think the RMR or other red dots may be an option for SOF. A pistol light will be part of the deal. I'm pretty sure it'll have a thumb safety. I don't think it'll have a grip safety. I really don't see them changing anything. I think it'll be an 18 month circle jerk and then nothing changes. I wouldn't surprised at the frame option either. I would imagine modular in this case means more the accessories, and the internals being able to be swapped between all frames regardless of size, to simplify the O&S. I also agree, almost a dead bolt lock it will be a thumb safety. Also agree probably no grip safety, because while that might appease legal, there's enough decision makers in the chain to know everyone is just going to slap riggers tape on it and render it always hot, ala the Marines and their 1911s. I kind of hope SOF keeps out of it entirely. All they will do is complicate the requirements and then do their own procurements anyways before the ink dries on the contract for this thing. Plus, their mission changes much more frequently than the major service components, so it doesn't make sense for them to go with a 30+ year pistol. They are not a one size fits all organization, so why shoehorn them into a one size fits all pistol? As for the threaded barrel, for selfish reasons I think we should hope it is in there. If big Army adopts a service pistol that comes mandatory with a threaded barrel, and they start really increasing the use of suppressors, beyond specops units, that is a pretty big nod to the fact that suppressors aren't just a tactical stealth tool, but are there just as much for hearing protection. Such a nod can only help the rest of us ultimately get them removed from the NFA list for civilians in the long run. Maybe a pipe dream, who knows. Big Army isn't going to issue suppressors. ETA: For pistols... Large parts of SOF use what Big Army uses. I think if they go with the 17 or M&P, it'll stay that way. The part of Army SOF that doesn't use the M9 is using a 9mm Glock now anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 6:07:46 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if the USMC is keeping the A4s, are they keeping their own inventory of pistols including the M9 and M9A1? What about their MARSOC 1911s? What about the USN? Are they keeping the M9s? What about USAF? USCG with their Sigs? The MHS is an Army/Air Force program, however that doesn't exclude other branches from reaping the benefits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 6:07:54 PM EDT
[#33]
"We can make this new pistol for less than the current M9". You all remember that when the M9A3 is released and retails for $300 more than the M9/M92FS...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 6:16:07 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if the USMC is keeping the A4s, are they keeping their own inventory of pistols including the M9 and M9A1? What about their MARSOC 1911s? What about the USN? Are they keeping the M9s? What about USAF? USCG with their Sigs? Navy still has M14s shipboard IIRC. Wouldn't surprise me if they did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 6:17:44 PM EDT
[#35]
I carry the piece piece of shit M9 on a near daily basis. I don't want an upgraded version of that POS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 6:22:34 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's because big Army passes M9s around to different people and it gets treated like a drunk stripper in the barracks. Then after a few years you get a beat to hell pos pistol that desperately needs to be rebuilt or replaced, but since the commander and his staff get pencil whipped at the range, nobody cares enough to do it. Frankly, IMO, the way the Army handles pistol issue and operator/armorer maintaince is criminal. Whatever your flavor of choice, glock, S&W, etc; if they are constantly mistreated and abused by the Army like the M9 is, you're going to end up with racks of fucked up pistols that barely shoot straight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is nothing wrong the current Beretta big army says you're wrong. Although I do think this will turn into a big dog and pony show of bids and they will stick with the beretta in the end due to "budget concerns" like the last 3 times it was up for re consideration. That's because big Army passes M9s around to different people and it gets treated like a drunk stripper in the barracks. Then after a few years you get a beat to hell pos pistol that desperately needs to be rebuilt or replaced, but since the commander and his staff get pencil whipped at the range, nobody cares enough to do it. Frankly, IMO, the way the Army handles pistol issue and operator/armorer maintaince is criminal. Whatever your flavor of choice, glock, S&W, etc; if they are constantly mistreated and abused by the Army like the M9 is, you're going to end up with racks of fucked up pistols that barely shoot straight. What fucked up POS unit do you belong to? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 6:36:09 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are correct, I have no idea what one of the defining criteria is... but I can make an educated guess that the magazine on any small arms should be at the top of the list...Don't you? You forget the Checkmate debacle that caused a lot of issues with M9's in a sandy environment early in the GWOT... The Original Made in Italy M9 mags had a smooth finish on the inside of the magazine to allow the individual rds to roll as they are pushed up the mag well by the spring and follower... When Checkmate received the contract due to the increased need in more magazines, they parkerized the entire magazine body, giving it a rough finished that caused the rds along with sand to bind up causing failures to feed... once the eliminated that part of the manufacturing process, that problem went away...but it took years for troops to get over the anything with Checkmate on it.. Is the RFP going to be written for use as a General purpose pistol?? If it is, then you can bet SOCOM will want to have a say in some of the requirements, or will they just continue to do what they do and get what they want and not care about a RFP for a general issue pistol. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
..The M9 and 1911 you speak of were not COTS purchases, and if you think they were you don't understand what that means. This is of course true. But, the pistol world has moved on since the late 80's. If the list of requirements some dorks at DoD come up with can't be met by COTS, then the requirements are fucking stupid and should be pointed to and laughed at, and not used as the basis for a multi-million dollar competition. This...that's what I'm saying...the requirements will be ambiguous and left open to DOD interpretation vs. a clear concise list of requirements that can be measured with a pass/fail criteria that leaves no room for interpretation if the requirements have been met or not. hell, the biggest problem that all small arms seem to be plagued with are the ammunition magazines that feed them, So if DOD were smart, the first requirement would be to pick a system that has the most reliable magazine for durability and longevity. So that should put Glock up at the top of the list... And you hapve no idea if better magazines are one of the defining criteria. They very likley could be. That was an issue already brought up with the JCP. What is it exactly you are complaining about? Should the Army go down to the local blue label Glock dealer with a GPC and just "make a purchase"? You are correct, I have no idea what one of the defining criteria is... but I can make an educated guess that the magazine on any small arms should be at the top of the list...Don't you? You forget the Checkmate debacle that caused a lot of issues with M9's in a sandy environment early in the GWOT... The Original Made in Italy M9 mags had a smooth finish on the inside of the magazine to allow the individual rds to roll as they are pushed up the mag well by the spring and follower... When Checkmate received the contract due to the increased need in more magazines, they parkerized the entire magazine body, giving it a rough finished that caused the rds along with sand to bind up causing failures to feed... once the eliminated that part of the manufacturing process, that problem went away...but it took years for troops to get over the anything with Checkmate on it.. Is the RFP going to be written for use as a General purpose pistol?? If it is, then you can bet SOCOM will want to have a say in some of the requirements, or will they just continue to do what they do and get what they want and not care about a RFP for a general issue pistol. People like to bitch about Beretta magazines being "shitty", however, I would like to point out the KCI Glock magazines as an indicator of exactly what would go down as soon as the DOD needs a shit-load of magazines, and Glock either can't, or won't, keep up with demand. Congrats, your shiny new G19 now has shitty magazines, too! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 7:26:39 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You ever been in the military? Because your fundamental understanding on how any of this works is pretty poor. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, continuing to pay for a pistol that is obsolete for military function is stupid. Get fucking real. You ever been in the military? Because your fundamental understanding on how any of this works is pretty poor. No, just worked with them. Your fundamental understanding of how pistols and economics work seems pretty poor. You want to spend 87 zillion dollars for no appreciable benefit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 7:50:24 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everything you said makes sense except for adopting a new platform. If 60%-70% are worn out that means another 30%-40% are good to go. Gut the worn out ones for usable parts, replace them with new production stock, and increase training. We have an entire support system in place for the M9 and it does a good job. Round up the COTS guns and send them to DRMO for US LE. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I thing to consider. This isn't just a pistol for Big Army. They want to be able to mount suppressors and red-dots.
While some units get money from JSOC (I don't think you'll see CAG giving up their pistols), USASOC gets equipment from Big Army and right now has a large diverse pile of under supported pistols. I've heard plenty of stories of ODAs training up with a pistol (1911s) only to not have enough to deploy with, so they deploy with M9s, and e they get overseas oncreceive P226s, M11s, and Glocks based on where their particular unit is working. If you can't see a HUGE problem with that you're willfully blind. COTS is not an acquisition strategy long-term. It's an "oh crap we need something right now" method of procuring small numbers of specialized items. It's fine for pouches or assault packs, but for an individual weapon that needs support at higher than the unit level it's the worst way to try to support things. This whole MHS seems very similar to the programs that left us with the M16. The Army needed to replace an aging diverse fleets of M1s, M14s, Grease guns, thompsons, M1 carbines, and other quickly sourced long arms. Now the army needs to replace 60-70% of it's fleet of aging M9s while consolidating the fleet of aging 1911s, P226s, M11s, G19s, G17s, etc... Now, during a drawdown, is the time to wholesale replace your fleet. Long before you have to jump back into war and play catch-up. It's always said that we plan to fight the last war. Now you guys want to plan logisitics for the next war based on the "oh crap we are actually going to war" of 2003? COTS is what you do when you are issued several racks of worn out M9s and get permission to purchase just enough guns to keep your unit going for the next few years. It's not what you do when you need to replace and standardize hundreds of thousands of pistols in active service. I get it, you want your pet pistol. How about we follow federal law, and reduce our long-term spending by not keeping a dying platform on life support. Round up the COTS guns and send them to DRMO for US LE. Wow! I bet it will be super cheap to strip down every pistol we have in service, inspect every single part for wear, categorize it according to wear and build new guns off of it. And those 30-40% pass, but I'm going to make the assumption that most of those are close to the end of their life too, so it's not like 30-40% of the guns are brand new. Do you realize that's exactly what they've been doing in the USMC with the SAWs and 1911s? All it did was lead to a crap ton of "good" guns that had to be repaired at FOBs by unit armorers into semi-workable guns. What you've done has already been tried and failed at significantly smaller scale. ETA: You want to take the newest guns from the units that actually have a culture of handgun shooting and give them M9s that they decided as an organization didn't work for them?
How about we phase in a new pistol based off the requirements across the Army and the 30 years of increased handgun knowledge and training. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 8:48:08 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, just worked with them. Your fundamental understanding of how pistols and economics work seems pretty poor. You want to spend 87 zillion dollars for no appreciable benefit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, continuing to pay for a pistol that is obsolete for military function is stupid. Get fucking real. You ever been in the military? Because your fundamental understanding on how any of this works is pretty poor. No, just worked with them. Your fundamental understanding of how pistols and economics work seems pretty poor. You want to spend 87 zillion dollars for no appreciable benefit. LOL. You worked with a servicemember, huh? 
Well, thank you for telling me what I need and don't need, even though you have no clue about my needs, training, or logistical constructs. Care to explain to me more about how this replacement would lead to units with no pistols? I love a bit of humor at the expense of people who have no shame in talking when they have no clue what they are talking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 9:31:18 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wow! I bet it will be super cheap to strip down every pistol we have in service, inspect every single part for wear, categorize it according to wear and build new guns off of it. And those 30-40% pass, but I'm going to make the assumption that most of those are close to the end of their life too, so it's not like 30-40% of the guns are brand new. Do you realize that's exactly what they've been doing in the USMC with the SAWs and 1911s? All it did was lead to a crap ton of "good" guns that had to be repaired at FOBs by unit armorers into semi-workable guns. What you've done has already been tried and failed at significantly smaller scale. ETA: You want to take the newest guns from the units that actually have a culture of handgun shooting and give them M9s that they decided as an organization didn't work for them? How about we phase in a new pistol based off the requirements across the Army and the 30 years of increased handgun knowledge and training. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I thing to consider. This isn't just a pistol for Big Army. They want to be able to mount suppressors and red-dots.While some units get money from JSOC (I don't think you'll see CAG giving up their pistols), USASOC gets equipment from Big Army and right now has a large diverse pile of under supported pistols. I've heard plenty of stories of ODAs training up with a pistol (1911s) only to not have enough to deploy with, so they deploy with M9s, and e they get overseas oncreceive P226s, M11s, and Glocks based on where their particular unit is working. If you can't see a HUGE problem with that you're willfully blind. COTS is not an acquisition strategy long-term. It's an "oh crap we need something right now" method of procuring small numbers of specialized items. It's fine for pouches or assault packs, but for an individual weapon that needs support at higher than the unit level it's the worst way to try to support things. This whole MHS seems very similar to the programs that left us with the M16. The Army needed to replace an aging diverse fleets of M1s, M14s, Grease guns, thompsons, M1 carbines, and other quickly sourced long arms. Now the army needs to replace 60-70% of it's fleet of aging M9s while consolidating the fleet of aging 1911s, P226s, M11s, G19s, G17s, etc... Now, during a drawdown, is the time to wholesale replace your fleet. Long before you have to jump back into war and play catch-up. It's always said that we plan to fight the last war. Now you guys want to plan logisitics for the next war based on the "oh crap we are actually going to war" of 2003? COTS is what you do when you are issued several racks of worn out M9s and get permission to purchase just enough guns to keep your unit going for the next few years. It's not what you do when you need to replace and standardize hundreds of thousands of pistols in active service. I get it, you want your pet pistol. How about we follow federal law, and reduce our long-term spending by not keeping a dying platform on life support. Round up the COTS guns and send them to DRMO for US LE. Wow! I bet it will be super cheap to strip down every pistol we have in service, inspect every single part for wear, categorize it according to wear and build new guns off of it. And those 30-40% pass, but I'm going to make the assumption that most of those are close to the end of their life too, so it's not like 30-40% of the guns are brand new. Do you realize that's exactly what they've been doing in the USMC with the SAWs and 1911s? All it did was lead to a crap ton of "good" guns that had to be repaired at FOBs by unit armorers into semi-workable guns. What you've done has already been tried and failed at significantly smaller scale. ETA: You want to take the newest guns from the units that actually have a culture of handgun shooting and give them M9s that they decided as an organization didn't work for them? How about we phase in a new pistol based off the requirements across the Army and the 30 years of increased handgun knowledge and training. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 9:37:27 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agreed, likely an unsolicited bid like you said, and will be ignored. That said, when the DRFP or RFP comes out, let’s hope it’s not an LPTA award. I’ve seen a lot of SB set asides in this administration that makes you wonder WTF, so, let’s hope they don’t do weapons acquisitions of any kind as a SB set aside or on an LPTA basis.... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: They could have easily made the slide mounted safety/decocker just a decocker. I don't think the m9 is the best option but not to evaluate it is just stupid. Sounds like it was an "unsolicited proposal". Army is under no obligation to evaluate them. Especially when the Rfp hadn't been posted yet. How to propose your pistol and Army's needs will be spelled out in L&M of the RFP. Beretta was just trying to prevent it from being solicited in the first place, because they have an IDIQ contract with room to order 80k more pistols at Army's discretion. Sounds like the Army isn't going to be doing more orders on the IDIQ. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Agreed, likely an unsolicited bid like you said, and will be ignored. That said, when the DRFP or RFP comes out, let’s hope it’s not an LPTA award. I’ve seen a lot of SB set asides in this administration that makes you wonder WTF, so, let’s hope they don’t do weapons acquisitions of any kind as a SB set aside or on an LPTA basis.... Army's not going to do a "prestige" item as LPTA or set aside. Don't forget, officers, including senior officers, will carry the pistol (carry being the operative word, not use). Their flair has to be appropriately fashionable. Don't forget, the M9 was the "it" gun for a while in the 80's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 9:40:07 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Army's not going to do a "prestige" item as LPTA or set aside. Don't forget, officers, including senior officers, will carry the pistol (carry being the operative word, not use). Their flair has to be appropriately fashionable. Don't forget, the M9 was the "it" gun for a while in the 80's. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They could have easily made the slide mounted safety/decocker just a decocker. I don't think the m9 is the best option but not to evaluate it is just stupid. Sounds like it was an "unsolicited proposal". Army is under no obligation to evaluate them. Especially when the Rfp hadn't been posted yet. How to propose your pistol and Army's needs will be spelled out in L&M of the RFP. Beretta was just trying to prevent it from being solicited in the first place, because they have an IDIQ contract with room to order 80k more pistols at Army's discretion. Sounds like the Army isn't going to be doing more orders on the IDIQ. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Agreed, likely an unsolicited bid like you said, and will be ignored. That said, when the DRFP or RFP comes out, let’s hope it’s not an LPTA award. I’ve seen a lot of SB set asides in this administration that makes you wonder WTF, so, let’s hope they don’t do weapons acquisitions of any kind as a SB set aside or on an LPTA basis.... Army's not going to do a "prestige" item as LPTA or set aside. Don't forget, officers, including senior officers, will carry the pistol (carry being the operative word, not use). Their flair has to be appropriately fashionable. Don't forget, the M9 was the "it" gun for a while in the 80's. All true, but I disagree about the 'it gun' thing. That followed after the Army adopted the M9 and Beretta became the flavor of the month. Big Army needs to get away from the pistols are status symbols mindset. But that's a whole different subject. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 9:46:52 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL. You worked with a servicemember, huh?
Well, thank you for telling me what I need and don't need, even though you have no clue about my needs, training, or logistical constructs. Care to explain to me more about how this replacement would lead to units with no pistols? I love a bit of humor at the expense of people who have no shame in talking when they have no clue what they are talking about. I'm sorry dude, but you're the one talking nonsense about the M9 being obsolete for military use. That's just fucking preposterous. I qualified as a DoD contractor on the Army's M9 qual. The gun does everything a miltary sidearm needs to do just fine. Nothing out there does it much better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 9:52:56 PM EDT
[#45]
Go polymer or don't go at all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 10:07:41 PM EDT
[#46]
Wait... I got it.
HK just needs to revive its UCP program. Expensive .22WMR pistols for everyone!!! But hey, it will have a cool threaded barrel and a light rail.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 10:17:43 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sorry dude, but you're the one talking nonsense about the M9 being obsolete for military use. That's just fucking preposterous. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sorry dude, but you're the one talking nonsense about the M9 being obsolete for military use. That's just fucking preposterous. There's better out there, the pistols have to be replaced anyway, and for the first time in 13 years we aren't engaged in major conflict. Thanks for your opinions, but yeah....now is the time for a new gun. Quoted:
Wait... I got it. HK just needs to revive its UCP program. Expensive .22WMR pistols for everyone!!! But hey, it will have a cool threaded barrel and a light rail. Since you know all about what I need, how many times have you used night vision and a handgun? Or a handgun in a confined space like a cave? Not rhetorical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 10:26:48 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder what new Beretta is going to come in this new M2A1 ammo box? This was posted on their Facbook page today and they say its a new 90 series that will be in the box when sold, but will not be revealed until SHOT. People already guessed a M9A3 and Beretta said "Nope" If it's just the 92G-SD, yawn. If it's a frame mounted safety 92 anything,  .
http://i.imgur.com/uO4tAzA.jpg The m9a3 with a frame mounted safety would be my next "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY" purchase. ETA: its difficult to believe the Army will choose a polymer pistol. Grunts are known to break anvils and unravel ball bearings. Nothing is safe from the destructive force of the USGI. The berettas at our unit on ft Lewis were beat to shit and the barrel ends drooped when you put a laser marker in them, but they worked and I qualled with it easily. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 10:31:14 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The m9a3 with a frame mounted safety would be my next "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY" purchase. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I wonder what new Beretta is going to come in this new M2A1 ammo box? This was posted on their Facbook page today and they say its a new 90 series that will be in the box when sold, but will not be revealed until SHOT. People already guessed a M9A3 and Beretta said "Nope" If it's just the 92G-SD, yawn. If it's a frame mounted safety 92 anything, .
http://i.imgur.com/uO4tAzA.jpg The m9a3 with a frame mounted safety would be my next "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY" purchase. Id like to see them release an American made production Stock. My guess is it's not a 92 variant at all but their MHS entrant, based on the military ammo can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 10:35:47 PM EDT
[#50]
I
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since you know all about what I need, how many times have you used night vision and a handgun? Or a handgun in a confined space like a cave? Not rhetorical. I've played with a few of my pistols and my PVS-14, but that's about it. I've never claimed any different, I'll just defer to all of the combat vets here that are clamor ini for a new service sidearm. Let's see that would be you and.... Oh wait, it seems to pretty much be just you,... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
