Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

A place to talk about all things military, paramilitary, tactical, strategic, and logistical.
User avatar
Termite
Probably Unemployed
Posts: 8699
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:32 am
Location: central Louisiana

Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby Termite » Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:14 pm

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley opened fire on the process at the Future of War Conference, saying he has asked Congress to grant service chiefs the authority to make the call.

"We are not exactly redesigning how to go to the moon, right?" Milley said at the conference according to Military.com. "This is a pistol. ... And arguably, it is the least lethal and important weapon system in the Department of Defense inventory.".........

................."The testing -- I got a briefing the other day -- the testing for this pistol[XM17 MHS ] is two years," he added. "Two years to test technology that we know exists and works. 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."

LINKY

Can I get a "Hell yeah!". :D
"Life is a bitch. Shit happens. Adapt, improvise, and overcome. Acknowledge it, and move on."

User avatar
308Mike
Moderator
Posts: 16442
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:47 pm
Location: San Diego area, People's Republic of Kommiefornia

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby 308Mike » Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:19 pm

"Hell yeah!"
POLITICIANS & DIAPERS NEED TO BE CHANGED OFTEN AND FOR THE SAME REASON

A person properly schooled in right and wrong is safe with any weapon. A person with no idea of good and evil is unsafe with a knitting needle, or the cap from a ballpoint pen.

I remain pessimistic given the way BATF and the anti gun crowd have become tape worms in the guts of the Republic. - toad

User avatar
PawPaw
Active Shooter
Posts: 4493
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 9:19 pm
Location: Pineville, Louisiana

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby PawPaw » Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:56 pm

Personally, I never liked the M9. On several levels I didn't like it, and caliber was the least of those levels. It is big, heavy, didn't fit the hands well, too many places for dirt to get in, un-necessarily complicated, I could go on and on.

As much as I love my 1911s, I have to say that if I were going to pick a service pistol today, it would either be one of the Glock or SW M&P models. Take your choice. I've used both during the past 10 years, and while Glock has been around longer, the M&P is every bit as fine as the Glock. Take your pick.

But, General MIlley is right. The procurement process is a cost-laden, byzantine process that takes too long for simple systems. They argue over minuscule trivia while overlooking operational necessity. (We need them NOW).
Dennis Dezendorf
PawPaw's House

MarkD
Active Shooter
Posts: 3791
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby MarkD » Tue Mar 15, 2016 4:23 pm

PawPaw wrote:Personally, I never liked the M9. On several levels I didn't like it, and caliber was the least of those levels. It is big, heavy, didn't fit the hands well, too many places for dirt to get in, un-necessarily complicated, I could go on and on.

As much as I love my 1911s, I have to say that if I were going to pick a service pistol today, it would either be one of the Glock or SW M&P models. Take your choice. I've used both during the past 10 years, and while Glock has been around longer, the M&P is every bit as fine as the Glock. Take your pick.

But, General MIlley is right. The procurement process is a cost-laden, byzantine process that takes too long for simple systems. They argue over minuscule trivia while overlooking operational necessity. (We need them NOW).



On the topic of size, I often wondered about that. I shot a Beretta 92F (I think that's the civilian version of the M9 isn't it?) once, and found it too big for my rather large hands, I had trouble getting to everything without shifting from a proper firing grip. I wondered how people with smaller hands could handle it.

User avatar
Termite
Probably Unemployed
Posts: 8699
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:32 am
Location: central Louisiana

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby Termite » Tue Mar 15, 2016 6:51 pm

We got the M9(92FS) in 1985 because:

#1. NATO, to standardize on 9x19mm, and..
#2. Kiss a little Italian ass, so we could station missiles in Italy.
"Life is a bitch. Shit happens. Adapt, improvise, and overcome. Acknowledge it, and move on."

Langenator
Loose Cannon
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:10 pm
Location: Brazos County, TX

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby Langenator » Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:13 pm

If you read the whole statement, he correctly puts blame where a whole lot of it belongs - lawyers.

The massive specifications and detailed testing protocols are exist because, almost inevitably, one or more of the companies whose offering wasn't chosen will go to court, claiming they should have won, and Uncle Sam's lawyers need to be able to say, "See, right here, on pages 1,362-2,769, of the request specs, it shows why we selected Brand X instead of the plaintiff's offering."
Fortuna Fortis Paratus

User avatar
Durham68
Loose Cannon
Posts: 985
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:36 am
Location: CT

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby Durham68 » Tue Mar 15, 2016 8:33 pm

MarkD wrote:
PawPaw wrote:Personally, I never liked the M9. On several levels I didn't like it, and caliber was the least of those levels. It is big, heavy, didn't fit the hands well, too many places for dirt to get in, un-necessarily complicated, I could go on and on.

As much as I love my 1911s, I have to say that if I were going to pick a service pistol today, it would either be one of the Glock or SW M&P models. Take your choice. I've used both during the past 10 years, and while Glock has been around longer, the M&P is every bit as fine as the Glock. Take your pick.

But, General MIlley is right. The procurement process is a cost-laden, byzantine process that takes too long for simple systems. They argue over minuscule trivia while overlooking operational necessity. (We need them NOW).



On the topic of size, I often wondered about that. I shot a Beretta 92F (I think that's the civilian version of the M9 isn't it?) once, and found it too big for my rather large hands, I had trouble getting to everything without shifting from a proper firing grip. I wondered how people with smaller hands could handle it.


The M9 and M16a2 are just too damn big. Must have been a pack of 6'+ soldiers testing those things.
"Unattended children will be given an espresso and a puppy"

User avatar
JKosprey
Trigger Junkie
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby JKosprey » Tue Mar 15, 2016 9:30 pm

G19 and be done with it.

User avatar
HTRN
Probably Unemployed
Posts: 10676
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 4:05 am
Location: Under your bed with a knife
Contact:

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby HTRN » Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:07 pm

Termite wrote:We got the M9(92FS) in 1985 because:

#1. NATO, to standardize on 9x19mm, and..
#2. Kiss a little Italian ass, so we could station missiles in Italy.

This, invariably, a new weapon purchase by the military is some backroom political payoff, usually to some committee member or the state he/she represents... more often than not, the requirements are designed to exclude everybody but the company they want to win.
EGO partum , proinde EGO sum

Describing what HTRN does as "antics" is like describing the wreck of the Titanic as "a minor boating incident" ~ First Shirt

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

Aesop
Good Christ I Need A Life
Posts: 6149
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:17 am
Location: Califrutopia
Contact:

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby Aesop » Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:28 pm

Durham68 wrote:The M9 and M16a2 are just too damn big. Must have been a pack of 6'+ soldiers testing those things.


WTH, over???

If you consider the M-16A2 "too big", Ruger makes a fine assault rifle in .22LR, called the 10/22. :lol:
Presumably at some point in your life, you've handled an M1903, an M1 Garand, and/or an M-14? Just for actual comparison?

The A2 was the first M-16 in a quarter-century of trying that wasn't an unmitigated POS out of the starting gate, finally correcting most of the serious deficiencies of the original design. (And to prove the point about bureaucracy designing a horse, adding in the wholly asinine three-round burst bastardization.)
All the subsequent M-4gery series did was admit, for the Army primarily, that any sort of serious riflery was considered an ancillary pursuit which was functionally optional for 99.998% of their troops. Given that, they should just adopt AK-47s, and be done with it.

On the OP topic, the general has finally noticed that the inmates run his asylum. Welcome to the Army, sir.

If he was serious, he'd simply eliminate the pistol top to bottom, make everyone carry the M-4, and spend the savings on ammo for actual training and qualification. Like any serious army would.

And with respect to the general's position, his math sucks balls.
"$17M on the credit card" would get "every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine" a roughly $17.00 pistol, worth every penny you put into the gumball machine to buy it. I think next time he talks about numbers, he should either refer to someone who graduated sixth grade for subject-matter expertise, or else take off his shoes and get down to some serious calculating. He is an innumerate moron, and promoted far beyond any explanation of the Peter Principle, however right he may be about the endless regulations in weapons specs.
If he meant to imply he could, for that price, get a total of 34,000 actual sidearms, which may well be all that he needs, he has a bare chance of being right.

When he suggests appointing a weapons board composed of the editorial board of Guns & Ammo, and any 25 combat arms sergeant majors from the Army and Marines, along with a MCPO from the Seal teams, and supervised by a single chief warrant officer from Ordnance, and who shall collectively and by majority vote have thirty days in seclusion to carte blanche test and select the next service sidearm for the next 30 years, based on utility, functionality, durability, reliability, accuracy, and cost, you'll know he's serious.

We'd also have new pistol before the first of May this year.
Last edited by Aesop on Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"There are four types of homicide: felonious, accidental, justifiable, and praiseworthy." -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

User avatar
PawPaw
Active Shooter
Posts: 4493
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 9:19 pm
Location: Pineville, Louisiana

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby PawPaw » Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:38 pm

JKosprey wrote:G19 and be done with it.

I pretty much agree with you, but I'd have said G17. Either way, be done with it.

Durham68 wrote:The M9 and M16a2 are just too damn big. Must have been a pack of 6'+ soldiers testing those things.

The first military rifle I toted was a Vietnam era M16A1. Pretty good rifle, but worn out. The second military rifle I toted was an M14. Fine battle rifle, but big, heavy. Still a fine rifle. The third military rifle I toted was an M16A2. Fell in like with the damned thing. Easy to shoot, very accurate, they actually got that one right. The M16A2 was pretty close to a true "rifleman's rifle". It was very easy to hit targets out to 500 meters with iron sights. At the time, I was 5'10" tall, weighed 170 lbs. I had no problem using the A2. Preferred it over other rifles.

Oh, and the soldiers who carried the Garands across the beaches at Normandy were, on average, 5'6" tall and weighed 155 lbs.
Dennis Dezendorf
PawPaw's House

User avatar
randy
Moderator
Posts: 7166
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:33 am
Location: EM79

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby randy » Wed Mar 16, 2016 1:01 am

Aesop wrote:When he suggests appointing a weapons board composed of the editorial board of Guns & Ammo, and any 25 combat arms sergeant majors from the Army and Marines, along with a MCPO from the Seal teams, and supervised by a single chief warrant officer from Ordnance...


Throw in a rep from Combat Control or the PJs and I vote aye.
...even before I read MHI, my response to seeing a poster for the stars of the latest Twilight movies was "I see 2 targets and a collaborator".

User avatar
JKosprey
Trigger Junkie
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby JKosprey » Wed Mar 16, 2016 1:30 am

"Too big" really depends on the mission. I liked the A2 better than the M4, but I traded in my A2 for an M4 when I could, because the length of the rifle would get in the way if I needed to treat a patient. If I'd have been over in Afghanistan, where a long-range firefight was a good possibility, I probably would have kept the A2.

As for the M9, I found it unremarkable. I have big hands and long fingers, so it fit me just fine, but there's nothing about it that's particularly memorable. My biggest issue is that it's really heavy considering it's only a 15 shot 9mm. That's why I'd vote for the glock 19 over the 17. Either would do the job, but the 19 will fit more troops hands while only losing 2 rounds to its big brother.

User avatar
JAG2955
Active Shooter
Posts: 3044
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby JAG2955 » Wed Mar 16, 2016 1:58 am

Aesop wrote:
Durham68 wrote:The M9 and M16a2 are just too damn big. Must have been a pack of 6'+ soldiers testing those things.


WTH, over???

If you consider the M-16A2 "too big", Ruger makes a fine assault rifle in .22LR, called the 10/22. :lol:
Presumably at some point in your life, you've handled an M1903, an M1 Garand, and/or an M-14? Just for actual comparison?

The A2 was the first M-16 in a quarter-century of trying that wasn't an unmitigated POS out of the starting gate, finally correcting most of the serious deficiencies of the original design. (And to prove the point about bureaucracy designing a horse, adding in the wholly asinine three-round burst bastardization.)
All the subsequent M-4gery series did was admit, for the Army primarily, that any sort of serious riflery was considered an ancillary pursuit which was functionally optional for 99.998% of their troops. Given that, they should just adopt AK-47s, and be done with it.


No, it is. It needs a collapsible buttstock in the worst way. Put on a plate carrier, or if you're really feeling masochistic, an MTV, adjusted properly, then try to get eye relief on an ACOG/RCO. You'll be mounting the ACOG in the farthest rear position, and you'll still have scope shadow and be craning your neck uncomfortably. It's too long to get in and out of up-armored HMMWVs. It's a little easier in MRAPs, but still not ideal.

Aesop wrote:On the OP topic, the general has finally noticed that the inmates run his asylum. Welcome to the Army, sir.

If he was serious, he'd simply eliminate the pistol top to bottom, make everyone carry the M-4, and spend the savings on ammo for actual training and qualification. Like any serious army would.


Agree with you there. Of course, I'd go so far as to say an 11.5" barrel one with a slightly shorter collapsible stock, like LWRCI's Compact Stock, for support troops. Vicker's slings all around.

Aesop wrote:And with respect to the general's position, his math sucks balls.
"$17M on the credit card" would get "every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine" a roughly $17.00 pistol, worth every penny you put into the gumball machine to buy it. I think next time he talks about numbers, he should either refer to someone who graduated sixth grade for subject-matter expertise, or else take off his shoes and get down to some serious calculating. He is an innumerate moron, and promoted far beyond any explanation of the Peter Principle, however right he may be about the endless regulations in weapons specs.
If he meant to imply he could, for that price, get a total of 34,000 actual sidearms, which may well be all that he needs, he has a bare chance of being right.


The 17 million price point comes from the cost of testing, I believe. For TWO YEARS of testing commercial, off the shelf pistols, that probably exist in my gun safe. Hell, I wish someone would have called me up and asked for my opinion.

Aesop wrote:When he suggests appointing a weapons board composed of the editorial board of Guns & Ammo, and any 25 combat arms sergeant majors from the Army and Marines, along with a MCPO from the Seal teams, and supervised by a single chief warrant officer from Ordnance, and who shall collectively and by majority vote have thirty days in seclusion to carte blanche test and select the next service sidearm for the next 30 years, based on utility, functionality, durability, reliability, accuracy, and cost, you'll know he's serious.

We'd also have new pistol before the first of May this year.


*Puts on Captain bars*
For fuck's sake, do not involve a Sergeant Major in ANYTHING, unless you want a really, really dumb answer. Grab a Marine Gunner, but make certain that they have experience in small arms. Some of them know only missiles, or mortars, for example.
*Removes Captain's bars*
Sorry, so many, many bad experiences.

Here's the way this test and selection should go:
A board is assembled, and they're put in a room with a Glock 17 and an M&P 9. They have 30 days to shoot the pistols and try to break them. At the end of the test, a coin will be flipped, heads for Glock, tails for M&P.

Whichever is selected would be a fantastic choice, and so much better than the M9. My money is on the M&P9 for the better safety, sights, grip, and people don't think the Glock is made here.

User avatar
PawPaw
Active Shooter
Posts: 4493
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 9:19 pm
Location: Pineville, Louisiana

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby PawPaw » Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:32 am

JAG wrote:*Puts on Captain bars*
For fuck's sake, do not involve a Sergeant Major in ANYTHING, unless you want a really, really dumb answer. Grab a Marine Gunner, but make certain that they have experience in small arms. Some of them know only missiles, or mortars, for example.
*Removes Captain's bars*
Sorry, so many, many bad experiences.


I have known several good Sergeants Major, but most of them were in the Guard or Reserves. One was a practicing attorney who had parlayed the GI Bill into a J.D. after Vietnam service and stayed in because he liked the Infantry. He was a great Sergeant Major. Ran a big REMF reserve outfit with an iron fist.

The other was a Guard CSM who had also parlayed his GI Bill into a Master's Degree in some management field, but loved the military and all things GI with a passion. Great guy, who trained good soldiers. He was the CSM of a Guard armor battalion, and got promoted up to brigade.

But, of all the Sergeants Major I worked around, those two were the only ones that were worth a shit. Most of the rest weren't worth their chow bill.
Dennis Dezendorf
PawPaw's House

Langenator
Loose Cannon
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:10 pm
Location: Brazos County, TX

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby Langenator » Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:41 am

You sure involving the Gunner Mafia is the best idea? Didn't they keep Uncle Sam's Misguided Children using the M16A2/A4 with iron sights for the longest time? In addition to being the ones responsible for the stock length on same.

Speaking of which, I've shot qual in IOTV using an A2 with iron sights with no issues. But I'm a bit over 6'2" with long monkey arms.

I'm honestly not sure why getting a replacement for the M9 is so important. Big picture, figuring out how to deal with losing the use of cluster munitions, replacement/upgrade for pretty much everything on tracks in the inventory, new tube artillery, upgrading/replacing the TOW, replacing the current generation of helos, and revitalizing air defense (especially counter drone) are all higher priority than infantry small arms of any sort.

That's with my gold oak leaf from my cube four floors below LTG McMaster's office.
Fortuna Fortis Paratus

User avatar
308Mike
Moderator
Posts: 16442
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:47 pm
Location: San Diego area, People's Republic of Kommiefornia

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby 308Mike » Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:53 am

Langenator wrote:That's with my gold oak leaf from my cube four floors below LTG McMaster's office.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ;) ;) ;)

http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/12/hr-mc ... ured-army/

Gen. H.R. McMaster Injured After Leaping Off Roof Wearing Homemade Wings

FORT EUSTIS, Va. — Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster is in stable condition at the Fort Eustis clinic after he sustained serious injuries while making an attempt to fly late Sunday evening, sources confirmed.

Army officials confirmed that the leap was not a suicide attempt, as had been suggested by some, but merely an attempt to experience flight using innovative techniques.

McMaster reportedly crafted the “wings” using feathers from a ripped-open pillow, popsicle sticks, and Elmer’s glue. After the glue dried, he strapped them onto his back and walked through his offices and a nearby barracks, flipping fellow soldiers off and yelling “so long, losers whom I’ve always hated!”

The 52-year-old general is the commander of the Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC), which handles Force Management for the Army. ARCIC is a sub-command of TRADOC, the command which handles training for all soldiers in the entire Army. All changes to equipping, fielding, manning, training and recruiting are generated by, and approved at, ARCIC.

McMaster is also the hero of the fabled “Battle of 73 Easting,” the tank battle of the Desert Storm campaign. A captain at the time, McMaster’s company of M1 Abrams tanks happened upon a large Iraqi Republican Guard armor unit on Feb. 26, 1991, and in the ensuing battle, his company destroyed more than 80 enemy tanks, while American forces lost zero.

According to senior defense officials, McMaster apparently mounted the roof of ARCIC Headquarters using a ladder in the fourth-floor stairwell. After gauging the wind with the standard licked finger method, he backed up ten or twelve steps, screamed “Attica!” and charged headlong at the ledge. Witnesses report that he was flapping madly the entire time. Once he was out over the open air, he hung in empty space for almost ten seconds.

This was a long enough time for him to turn in mid-air toward observers and pull out a sign which read “YIPES!” before plunging to earth.

McMaster sustained a broken left leg, broken left collarbone, several broken ribs and spinal bruising. He also got a severe case of Piano Teeth, but that has since worn off. Army Spokesman Col. Bob McDonald assured reporters that McMaster would make a swift recovery and will soon be back at work.

“It’s actually much less serious than earlier this year,” said McDonald, “when the general tried to demonstrate those rocket skates for the Chief of Staff. Or last year, when he attempted to show the Vice President the effectiveness of our hole-making black paint. He gave himself a concussion charging headfirst into that wall.”

For his part, McMaster is optimistic and looking forward to returning to work, although he did have one complaint.

“I was having a pretty good time, since my battle brought my Xbox in here,” he said while gesturing from his hospital bed at the TV, where he had Grand Theft Auto V paused. “And eating lots of jello, and letting the pretty nurses fluff my pillow. But then Gen. Odierno came to visit and brought all my homework. Now it’s not as much fun.”

POLITICIANS & DIAPERS NEED TO BE CHANGED OFTEN AND FOR THE SAME REASON

A person properly schooled in right and wrong is safe with any weapon. A person with no idea of good and evil is unsafe with a knitting needle, or the cap from a ballpoint pen.

I remain pessimistic given the way BATF and the anti gun crowd have become tape worms in the guts of the Republic. - toad

User avatar
Mike OTDP
On a list somewhere
Posts: 2376
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby Mike OTDP » Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:29 am

Langenator wrote:If you read the whole statement, he correctly puts blame where a whole lot of it belongs - lawyers.

The massive specifications and detailed testing protocols are exist because, almost inevitably, one or more of the companies whose offering wasn't chosen will go to court, claiming they should have won, and Uncle Sam's lawyers need to be able to say, "See, right here, on pages 1,362-2,769, of the request specs, it shows why we selected Brand X instead of the plaintiff's offering."

This. I've been involved in the source selection process, and a tremendous amount of effort goes into avoiding a successful protest. We desperately need new acquisition laws.

User avatar
mekender
Probably Unemployed
Posts: 13189
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby mekender » Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:17 am

JKosprey wrote:As for the M9, I found it unremarkable. I have big hands and long fingers, so it fit me just fine, but there's nothing about it that's particularly memorable. My biggest issue is that it's really heavy considering it's only a 15 shot 9mm. That's why I'd vote for the glock 19 over the 17. Either would do the job, but the 19 will fit more troops hands while only losing 2 rounds to its big brother.


My biggest problem with the M9 is the same one that I have with the 92fs and its various knock-offs... It is basically the only main stream pistol, still in production, that has a manual safety that slides upward... So for any service members that are in the reserves or NG that have regular jobs in a PD or any number of other agencies public or private, they will almost certainly be using a pistol that has a safety that moves in the opposite direction (if they work for a place that uses pistols with safeties). Especially considering how many agencies use some form of Sig pistol with a manual safety.
“I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.” - Norman Thomas, a six time candidate for president for the Socialist Party, 1944

Langenator
Loose Cannon
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:10 pm
Location: Brazos County, TX

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby Langenator » Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:14 pm

308Mike wrote:
Langenator wrote:That's with my gold oak leaf from my cube four floors below LTG McMaster's office.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ;) ;) ;)

http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/12/hr-mc ... ured-army/

Gen. H.R. McMaster Injured After Leaping Off Roof Wearing Homemade Wings


He actually is a great guy to have as a boss. (OK, big boss - he senior rates my senior rater.) Although it can be exhausting, because he's [Boston] wicked smart [/Boston] and his brain runs about 4x faster than most people in the building. Plus he can jump from one problem set to another without stopping to catch his breath.
Fortuna Fortis Paratus

User avatar
blackeagle603
Probably Unemployed
Posts: 8963
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:13 am
Location: SoCal
Contact:

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby blackeagle603 » Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:48 pm

Striker fired w/ no external safety in the hands of typical military member. Not only no but oh heck no.
"The Guncounter: More fun than a barrel of tattooed knife-fighting chain-smoking monkey butlers with drinking problems and excessive gambling debts!"

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic;" Justice Story

Langenator
Loose Cannon
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:10 pm
Location: Brazos County, TX

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby Langenator » Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:12 pm

So...CZ SP-01 with the decock option then?
Fortuna Fortis Paratus

User avatar
blackeagle603
Probably Unemployed
Posts: 8963
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:13 am
Location: SoCal
Contact:

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby blackeagle603 » Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:21 pm

Well if you _must_ do something all new and trendy -- sure.

Nothing wrong with a CZ-75B. :) I'm partial to Czechs, married one.
"The Guncounter: More fun than a barrel of tattooed knife-fighting chain-smoking monkey butlers with drinking problems and excessive gambling debts!"

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic;" Justice Story

User avatar
Vonz90
Active Shooter
Posts: 3018
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:05 pm

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby Vonz90 » Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:44 pm

Pistols are almost never used in combat meh

User avatar
JAG2955
Active Shooter
Posts: 3044
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby JAG2955 » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:53 pm

Huh, this thread ate a post that I tried to make last night.

User avatar
PawPaw
Active Shooter
Posts: 4493
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 9:19 pm
Location: Pineville, Louisiana

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby PawPaw » Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:18 am

blackeagle603 wrote:Striker fired w/ no external safety in the hands of typical military member. Not only no but oh heck no.

No problem. SW M&P. They have a thumb safety as an option. My BIL has one. I laugh at him, but he has one.

The SW M&P is a whole lot better platform than a lot of people give them credit for. The stock trigger becomes very good after about 300 rounds, to the point where an upgrade (which you reallywant when you buy the pistol) isn't necessary after those 300 rounds. Accurate to a fault, easy to disassemble, the SW M&P was the reason that Glock came out with their Gen4 pistols.
Dennis Dezendorf
PawPaw's House

User avatar
308Mike
Moderator
Posts: 16442
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:47 pm
Location: San Diego area, People's Republic of Kommiefornia

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby 308Mike » Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:52 am

Vonz90 wrote:Pistols are almost never used in combat meh

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

Marine 1st-Sgt. Brad Kasal, bloodied but unbowed, was being helped from house-to-house fighting in Fallouja by lance corporals Chris Marquez and Dane Shaffer. In one hand, Kasal gripped his 9-millimeter Beretta, in the other, his K-bar knife.

Now the image has been turned into a bronze sculpture by Wyoming artist John Phelps. Titled "No Man Left Behind," the sculpture was unveiled last week outside the Wounded Warrior West site at Camp Pendleton.


But when you NEED one, you damned sure want the thing to work - doncha'?
POLITICIANS & DIAPERS NEED TO BE CHANGED OFTEN AND FOR THE SAME REASON

A person properly schooled in right and wrong is safe with any weapon. A person with no idea of good and evil is unsafe with a knitting needle, or the cap from a ballpoint pen.

I remain pessimistic given the way BATF and the anti gun crowd have become tape worms in the guts of the Republic. - toad

Langenator
Loose Cannon
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:10 pm
Location: Brazos County, TX

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby Langenator » Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:55 pm

I have yet to hear of any major mechanical issues with the M9, except for the magazines (which I think has been fixed), as long as the springs are replaced at proper intervals.
Fortuna Fortis Paratus

User avatar
g-man
Trigger Junkie
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:40 pm
Location: Northern Calfrutopia
Contact:

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby g-man » Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:37 pm

mekender wrote:
JKosprey wrote:As for the M9, I found it unremarkable. I have big hands and long fingers, so it fit me just fine, but there's nothing about it that's particularly memorable. My biggest issue is that it's really heavy considering it's only a 15 shot 9mm. That's why I'd vote for the glock 19 over the 17. Either would do the job, but the 19 will fit more troops hands while only losing 2 rounds to its big brother.


My biggest problem with the M9 is the same one that I have with the 92fs and its various knock-offs... It is basically the only main stream pistol, still in production, that has a manual safety that slides upward... So for any service members that are in the reserves or NG that have regular jobs in a PD or any number of other agencies public or private, they will almost certainly be using a pistol that has a safety that moves in the opposite direction (if they work for a place that uses pistols with safeties). Especially considering how many agencies use some form of Sig pistol with a manual safety.


Nota Bene: Press your thumb against the side of the slide above and to the rear of a M9 safety. Holding same against the slide firmly, slide down and forward, as though you are disengaging the safety of a 1911. Your thumb will catch the angled rear edge of the M9 safety, and pivot it up, thus disengaging it. Yes, the thing is designed all ass-backward, but using the same thumb motion produces identical results.

I should really post a Youtube about that at some point...
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum

User avatar
JAG2955
Active Shooter
Posts: 3044
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby JAG2955 » Thu Mar 17, 2016 9:20 pm

Langenator wrote:I have yet to hear of any major mechanical issues with the M9, except for the magazines (which I think has been fixed), as long as the springs are replaced at proper intervals.


Cracking slides and cracking locking blocks.

User avatar
randy
Moderator
Posts: 7166
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:33 am
Location: EM79

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby randy » Thu Mar 17, 2016 9:52 pm

JAG2955 wrote:
Langenator wrote:I have yet to hear of any major mechanical issues with the M9, except for the magazines (which I think has been fixed), as long as the springs are replaced at proper intervals.


Cracking slides and cracking locking blocks.


To be fair, the reports I saw on this issue in the late 80's (amazing what kind of stuff shows up in your In Box when you have "weapon" in your job title :D ) that was supposedly related to high volume shooting in a short period of time (i.e. SEAL teams training) using very hot loads.

Haven't heard if the issue has persisted for weapons used in a more normal usage rate with standard pressure ammo.
...even before I read MHI, my response to seeing a poster for the stars of the latest Twilight movies was "I see 2 targets and a collaborator".

User avatar
randy
Moderator
Posts: 7166
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:33 am
Location: EM79

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby randy » Thu Mar 17, 2016 9:55 pm

g-man wrote:Nota Bene: Press your thumb against the side of the slide above and to the rear of a M9 safety. Holding same against the slide firmly, slide down and forward, as though you are disengaging the safety of a 1911. Your thumb will catch the angled rear edge of the M9 safety, and pivot it up, thus disengaging it. Yes, the thing is designed all ass-backward, but using the same thumb motion produces identical results.

I should really post a Youtube about that at some point...


I've heard of that before, but never had to practice it as the only time I was issued a side arm it was a .38 revolver and my personal pistols (except for the Glock) all have properly functioning safeties as designed by JMB (PBUH)
...even before I read MHI, my response to seeing a poster for the stars of the latest Twilight movies was "I see 2 targets and a collaborator".

User avatar
JAG2955
Active Shooter
Posts: 3044
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby JAG2955 » Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:11 pm

randy wrote:
JAG2955 wrote:
Langenator wrote:I have yet to hear of any major mechanical issues with the M9, except for the magazines (which I think has been fixed), as long as the springs are replaced at proper intervals.


Cracking slides and cracking locking blocks.


To be fair, the reports I saw on this issue in the late 80's (amazing what kind of stuff shows up in your In Box when you have "weapon" in your job title :D ) that was supposedly related to high volume shooting in a short period of time (i.e. SEAL teams training) using very hot loads.

Haven't heard if the issue has persisted for weapons used in a more normal usage rate with standard pressure ammo.


It has. I saw some broken locking blocks. Never did see a split slide though.

TheArmsman
Case Shiner
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby TheArmsman » Fri Mar 18, 2016 2:45 am

I ran the rifle/pistol range at MCAS Yuma, 1990-1992. Saw first hand the back of a M9 slide break off and hit the lateral edge of the orbital socket. She was lucky she did not lose the eye. I can shoot the hell out of one, but still do not like the way the fit in the hand. And never heard of the magazines getting any better.
When death is inevitable, style counts.

Survival trumps programming.

User avatar
Vonz90
Active Shooter
Posts: 3018
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:05 pm

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby Vonz90 » Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:09 pm

TheArmsman wrote:I ran the rifle/pistol range at MCAS Yuma, 1990-1992. Saw first hand the back of a M9 slide break off and hit the lateral edge of the orbital socket. She was lucky she did not lose the eye. I can shoot the hell out of one, but still do not like the way the fit in the hand. And never heard of the magazines getting any better.


Crap happens when firearms are fired a lot. The bolt on my M4 disintegrated when I shot it the first time (when training for my A'stan deployment).

User avatar
308Mike
Moderator
Posts: 16442
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:47 pm
Location: San Diego area, People's Republic of Kommiefornia

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby 308Mike » Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:18 am

Vonz90 wrote:The bolt on my M4 disintegrated when I shot it the first time (when training for my A'stan deployment).

THAT would give me a LOT of confidence (NOT) in the firearm I was taking to combat!!! I sure hope you got to pick another! :)
POLITICIANS & DIAPERS NEED TO BE CHANGED OFTEN AND FOR THE SAME REASON

A person properly schooled in right and wrong is safe with any weapon. A person with no idea of good and evil is unsafe with a knitting needle, or the cap from a ballpoint pen.

I remain pessimistic given the way BATF and the anti gun crowd have become tape worms in the guts of the Republic. - toad

User avatar
Vonz90
Active Shooter
Posts: 3018
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:05 pm

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby Vonz90 » Sun Mar 20, 2016 1:32 am

308Mike wrote:
Vonz90 wrote:The bolt on my M4 disintegrated when I shot it the first time (when training for my A'stan deployment).

THAT would give me a LOT of confidence (NOT) in the firearm I was taking to combat!!! I sure hope you got to pick another! :)


No, they just replac2the bolt and called it good.

User avatar
SoupOrMan
Good Christ I Need A Life
Posts: 5418
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:58 am
Location: The Village Hidden in Bureaucracy

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby SoupOrMan » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:26 pm

I actually had a M9 slide crack on me during familiarization training at Cannon. Our squadron needed someone to guard our spare ALQ-99 parts, so every shop sent volunteers to guard them. Then someone decided that we needed to be armed for it, followed by training on said armaments.

The third magazine in, the frame cracked. Clearly I forgot the rules of weapons familiarization training for non-SP/non-special operations/non-aircrew in the Air Force:

1. Stop looking at your firearm or it will break.

2. SERIOUSLY, STOP LOOKING AT IT. DON'T EVEN BREATHE NEAR IT, OTHERWISE IT WILL BREAK AND YOU WILL GO TO LEAVENWORTH.

3. If you are ever issued the correct non-dummy ammunition for your firearm, DO NOT LOAD YOUR FIREARM WITH IT EVER. It will break.

4. If you are ordered to load your firearm with the issued ammunition, remember that it is the trainer's job to remind you that federal military prison awaits.

5. HOLY SHIT YOU FIRED YOUR WEAPON AFTER BEING ORDERED TO DO SO ARE YOU KIDDING ME OH THAT'S IT YOU ARE GOING TO LEAVENWORTH RIGHT NOW MISTER

6. Failure to attend your yearly re-qualification means that your range officer no longer has a job and you will go to federal prison for denying a man his right to a job.

Seriously, for a group of people telling me I needed a sidearm they were sure antsy about actually providing me the training to use it. But hey, it was the Clinton presidency at the time. Ammunition was a luxury.
Remember, folks, you can't spell "douche" without "Che."

“PET PARENTS?” You’re not a “pet parent.” You’re a pet owner. Unless you’ve committed an unnatural act that succeeded in spite of biology. - Glenn Reynolds

User avatar
PawPaw
Active Shooter
Posts: 4493
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 9:19 pm
Location: Pineville, Louisiana

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby PawPaw » Wed Mar 23, 2016 4:41 pm

Hot Air is all over it.
Let’s get on the stick here, Army. This is a challenge you could solve with a stroke of the pen and then brag to Congress about the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars you saved. And besides… who doesn’t want a Glock?
Dennis Dezendorf
PawPaw's House

User avatar
JAG2955
Active Shooter
Posts: 3044
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby JAG2955 » Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:21 pm

SoupOrMan wrote:Some pretty accurate stuff


If we are going to go the trigger safety-only route, we really, really, really need to demistify Condition 1 to both the troops and the safety nazis.

User avatar
randy
Moderator
Posts: 7166
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:33 am
Location: EM79

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby randy » Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:25 pm

Supporters of Milley’s plan point out that they could easily get permission to stock up on hollow points instead of the default civilian round.


I think they have this bit a little backward. And displaying ignorance.

I don't know of any civilians, LE or private citizen, using FMJ for serious social purposes outside jurisdictions that ban their citizens from using effective ammo (NJ IIRC?)

And while I know there have been "findings" that allow the use of HPs for police functions and for accuracy under international treaties, I believe the default military bullet profile is still FMJ.
...even before I read MHI, my response to seeing a poster for the stars of the latest Twilight movies was "I see 2 targets and a collaborator".

User avatar
Termite
Probably Unemployed
Posts: 8699
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:32 am
Location: central Louisiana

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby Termite » Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:26 pm


You just gotta love this comment over at HotAir: ;)
"You're so wonderfully naive. How are all those donors make their 10,000% on their donations if you allow uncontested purchases 'just because millions use them successfully every day'? Not even talking about all the former procurement officers that need jobs after retirement at age 45. You're chipping away at the very base of the military-industrial complex....... that's Un-American...."

:lol: :lol: :lol:
"Life is a bitch. Shit happens. Adapt, improvise, and overcome. Acknowledge it, and move on."

User avatar
SoupOrMan
Good Christ I Need A Life
Posts: 5418
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:58 am
Location: The Village Hidden in Bureaucracy

Re: Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearms

Postby SoupOrMan » Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:29 pm

The only firearm where I use FMJ is in my .32ACP. I think it might penetrate further than the JHP when hitting center of mass/sternum or other thick bone structures. It's also the only thing available locally should I be in a "need it now" situation.
Remember, folks, you can't spell "douche" without "Che."

“PET PARENTS?” You’re not a “pet parent.” You’re a pet owner. Unless you’ve committed an unnatural act that succeeded in spite of biology. - Glenn Reynolds


Return to “The War Room”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests