Posted on Mar 28, 2016
Should the military buy their new weapons off the shelf?
9.06K
99
56
4
4
0
I share his frustration and anger over the current process. Remember it was this same process that gave us the 9mm Beretta (aka M9) which replaced the old reliable 1911 45cal APC. Frankly with all the improvements made on John Brown's pistol and advancements in ballistics...the 45 APC is now a weapon of choice for many. The Chief is right, we need to move on.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2016/03/27/army-chief-you-want-new-pistol-send-me-cabelas-17-million/82132450/
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2016/03/27/army-chief-you-want-new-pistol-send-me-cabelas-17-million/82132450/
Pistol Shooting
Equipment
Procurement
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 16
5
5
0
One other item which I feel compelled to remind folks about: Replacing the M9 is only marginally mor important to the overall effectiveness of the U.S. armed forces than the color of issue underwear.
In military operations, the purpose of a pistol is to make reassuringly loud bangs while throwing tiny metal rocks in the general direction of the enemy to discourage them from chasing while the soldier runs to safety (or at least to get closer to friendlies whose job it is to actually kill the enemy).
In military operations, the purpose of a pistol is to make reassuringly loud bangs while throwing tiny metal rocks in the general direction of the enemy to discourage them from chasing while the soldier runs to safety (or at least to get closer to friendlies whose job it is to actually kill the enemy).
(5)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
LTC Thomas Tennant - meh.....even as a gunslinger, it's STILL just a pistol. Better than nothing, but if it's the only weapon you have in full fledged firefight, you are in a bad spot regardless of how good you are with it. Again, it's what I'll use to keep the bad guys at bay until I can find something more effective.
(2)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
Exactly, LTC Paul Labrador.
If your name isn't Alvin York and you're using a pistol against guys with rifles and machine guns, LTC Thomas Tennant, then you're almost certainly a reluctant target trying to discourage unwanted attention, not a shooter trying to attrit the enemy.
And if my primary weapon is already a rifle (or carbine), then 3 or 4 more magazines for feeding said rifle would be a more generally useful addition to my combat load than a pistol plus 3 magazines of any caliber.
If your name isn't Alvin York and you're using a pistol against guys with rifles and machine guns, LTC Thomas Tennant, then you're almost certainly a reluctant target trying to discourage unwanted attention, not a shooter trying to attrit the enemy.
And if my primary weapon is already a rifle (or carbine), then 3 or 4 more magazines for feeding said rifle would be a more generally useful addition to my combat load than a pistol plus 3 magazines of any caliber.
(2)
(0)
LTC Thomas Tennant
LTC Paul Labrador - I know what you mean, but if I am drawing my sidearm then things have gotten up close and personal. I just bought my Smith & Wesson MP-15 and put a red-dot sight with Magpol pop-up sights as backup. SWEET....And Nothing like the damn M-16s I had to use in the 1980-90s. Bottom line....use the right tool for the situation.
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
LTC Thomas Tennant, being just an infantry-type guy, I had no problem with using M16A1s (or even the XM16E1 that I happened to get assigned) back in the 1970s and 1980s. And those old rifles gave me more options than any pistol for when things were distant as well up close and personal. "Sweet" was not a term I used to describe any of the tools I trained with -- they weren't there to provide any satisfaction, they were just there to do a job with minimal fuss.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
The RFI process should have proven to us that we can get top notch off the shelf equipment quickly and relatively cheaply. For things like small arms and tactical gear, there really isn't a reason to go through the whole R&D process when proven designs are already commercially available.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
GEN Milley's procurement wet dream really begins and ends with "let me go buy it and not go through nine years of scrutiny". Because contractors are notoriously sore losers, somebody will have to void all of the existing avenues for protesting a contract to get away from that pre-award paperwork dedicated to minimizing the post-award legal challenges from the folks who didn't get to fondle GEN Milley's notional credit card.
(4)
(0)
LTC Thomas Tennant
Spoken like a JAG officer.... ;-)
To get around the contracting issues you raised, I would give the choice of firearm, in this case pistol, to the individual service member. We give them a clothing allowance, why not give them a "pistol allowance" and hold them accountable for proper execution of this expenditure.
The only controls I would put in place is caliber (9mm or 45APC), the pistol had to be "full sized" and that the individual go through 40 hours of handgun training where they are exposed to different pistols before they buy. The end state is a individual who has a CCDW and is competent to carry. Another control I would even entertain is the idea they could only buy from an approved list of pistol types and manufacturers.
Now cost control comes in the form of getting manufatures to give military discounts and cost savings. An example is that Glock has the "blue label" program for military and law enforcement which chops off $100 to $150 off the MRP. If I am sure other gun manufactures can be enticed to have similar programs.
I personally carry a Glock 19 but also have a Ruger SR1911 45cal pistol I carry from time to time. I carry a number of smaller pistols and revolers in an ankle holster. I love my Beretta PX4 Storm Compact 9mm but it is a little heavy for day to day concealed carry when compared to my Glock 19. The same could be said about my Ruger SR1911, however all would be acceptable for a personal weapon for our soldiers.
Now, if we can get our leadership to eliminate the "gun free zone" status of most military bases....I think we will be right where we should be...2nd Amendment Heaven.
To get around the contracting issues you raised, I would give the choice of firearm, in this case pistol, to the individual service member. We give them a clothing allowance, why not give them a "pistol allowance" and hold them accountable for proper execution of this expenditure.
The only controls I would put in place is caliber (9mm or 45APC), the pistol had to be "full sized" and that the individual go through 40 hours of handgun training where they are exposed to different pistols before they buy. The end state is a individual who has a CCDW and is competent to carry. Another control I would even entertain is the idea they could only buy from an approved list of pistol types and manufacturers.
Now cost control comes in the form of getting manufatures to give military discounts and cost savings. An example is that Glock has the "blue label" program for military and law enforcement which chops off $100 to $150 off the MRP. If I am sure other gun manufactures can be enticed to have similar programs.
I personally carry a Glock 19 but also have a Ruger SR1911 45cal pistol I carry from time to time. I carry a number of smaller pistols and revolers in an ankle holster. I love my Beretta PX4 Storm Compact 9mm but it is a little heavy for day to day concealed carry when compared to my Glock 19. The same could be said about my Ruger SR1911, however all would be acceptable for a personal weapon for our soldiers.
Now, if we can get our leadership to eliminate the "gun free zone" status of most military bases....I think we will be right where we should be...2nd Amendment Heaven.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google