Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: T.O.M. on January 20, 2017, 08:54:12 AM
-
Looks like Army is going with the SIG P320...
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/01/19/army-picks-sig-sauer-replace-m9-service-pistol.html
Interesting. I've not handled or fired the SIG P320, but all I've read of it is good, and of course SIG's reputation is excellent. Article says that Glock is expected to appeal the decision. Read elsewhere that FN is also considering appealing the decision, and Smith wasn't commenting at this time. Don't know how the appeals process works. But with Glocks in the holsters of the FBI, the US Marshall's, MARSOC, and the SEALS, and with the new administration coming in, I wonder if Glock will be able to sell themselves as a cost saving measure for the entire .gov... At the same time, with Trump's "make America great again" message, maybe S&W should consider appealing as well...
Should be fun to watch.
-
Huh. Immediately veering the thread from the pistol, it is interesting to me that there is such an appeals process. From the article, the losers kinda sound like certain people in the last election. I can understand an appeal if there is some evidence of collusion, but if it's simply "they liked the Sig better", the other gun makers need to drive on.
-
Surprising. Interesting that they announced in the middle of Shot Show.
-
My only concern is I heard the process and the regulations/rules around it were somewhat convoluted. I would hope the new Defense Secretary will review this and make sure the process was correct and the pistol meets their needs.
I have seen/handled the P320 Compact. It seems like it wasn't a bad pistol. Probably a big improvement over the Beretta. Not sure it is really better than the current competitors. I bought a CZ P07 instead which is my current carry pistol. I haven't handled the full size P320.
I don't really know why the Army would need a larger size anyway.
-
The other comment I heard earlier this week was more a comment on priorities. The Army spent a lot of money on this pistol competition. Maybe that money would have been better spent on improving or replacing the Army's primary infantry weapon rather than the sidearm.
-
My only concern is I heard the process and the regulations/rules around it were somewhat convoluted. I would hope the new Defense Secretary will review this and make sure the process was correct and the pistol meets their needs.
I have seen/handled the P320 Compact. It seems like it wasn't a bad pistol. Probably a big improvement over the Beretta. Not sure it is really better than the current competitors. I bought a CZ P07 instead which is my current carry pistol. I haven't handled the full size P320.
I don't really know why the Army would need a larger size anyway.
Rubber band gun would meet that requirement.
I'm glad Glock didn't win, only thing I seem to shoot worse than a Beretta is a Glock.
-
I don't really know why the Army would need a larger size anyway.
??? Aren't military duty guns typically "duty-sized"? Besides, it's a modular gun. The size is negotiable.
As for the service rifle, didn't they just have rifle trials a few years ago? They decided to stick with what they had, as I recall.
-
Haven't handled the Sig 320 myself, but in the past, I've found that most Sig pistols (with the notable exception of the Sig P-210) just don't fit my hand very well - they don't naturally "point" where they should.
The Beretta fits my hand and "points" much better . . . but oddly enough, groups I've shot with a Beretta 92 Elite are appreciably larger than those I shoot with any other 9mm or .45 pistol. Go figure.
-
Nothing wrong with the Beretta, cheapest would have been to trade in the guns for credit on new ones and destroy\sell every old mag. M9 was reliable and very accurate I thought. I don't like da\sa but it is a lot safer in a combat environment than something like a glock.
-
??? Aren't military duty guns typically "duty-sized"? Besides, it's a modular gun. The size is negotiable.
As for the service rifle, didn't they just have rifle trials a few years ago? They decided to stick with what they had, as I recall.
My point was that for something that is just a side arm, you can get the same 15 round capacity with a compact size handgun that is smaller and lighter than the duty size. I am not sure what all their requirements are.
As far as the service rifle, I don't know what they would do myself. The point was that the budget spent for this handgun competition was pretty high for a sidearm. Maybe just complaining to complain.
-
The budget wasn't actually that high as I recall. It was like 17M for the entire selection and trials process.
We looked at just replacing the M9 with more M9's but the tech progression in pistols over the last 30 years is pretty significant, and while some folks do like the M9, the vast majority of users had issues.
I'm pretty stoked, myself. I only carry a pistol anymore and I was hoping they'd choose the Sig. I prefer the 320 to any of the other choices.
(of course we could just go old school and go back to letting officers buy and bring their own weapons. THAT would save a ton of money)
-
Just got an email from a buddy about this. From this, and what I've read elsewhere, the Army was looking for a modular handgun system, something where they could adjust the size of the handgun to meet the needs of the user. With the SIG system, they could conceivably change not only the grip size, but the overall size of the entire handgun. Buddy says that is where Glock is complaining. They offered 2 handguns (Glock 17 and Glock 19) to meet what they and others saw as two separate requests...full-sized duty gun and a compact gun for concealment needs. Allegedly, they are saying SIG isn't playing fair offering a 2 for 1 option. As a taxpayer, if they can get two handguns in terms of use for less than it would cost to actually buy two handguns, I'm all for it. Though, with what I've seen locally from Glock deals with law enforcement agencies, I wouldn't be surprised to see Glock offer something like a "buy two Glock 17s, get a Glock 19 free" deal to the Army. if they can get the deal opened through some kind of appeal.
-
Without real knowledge, just from a rather low POV, there seems to be a problem with the GOV contract appeals process. For the last 3 years, I've been siting through appeals by my current employer stopped the awarding of a new contract. Three month extension after extension, appeal after appeal and no reason given. There doesn't seem to be any threshold to offering a protest.
-
Putting aside Glock vs. Beretta vs. SIG; some people will always like one better than another. And stipulating I don't want our military not to have an effective weapon. How often are handguns really used in combat to justify all the expense. I don't understand why we didn't stick with the 1911 or just stay with the Beretta.
-
Putting aside Glock vs. Beretta vs. SIG; some people will always like one better than another. And stipulating I don't want our military not to have an effective weapon. How often are handguns really used in combat to justify all the expense. I don't understand why we didn't stick with the 1911 or just stay with the Beretta.
People keep saying this. The guns we have (and the ones we had in 1980) are wore the hell out. Done. Crap. Lots of Frame wear. We need new pistols. Since we're buying pistols anyway, why not look at what is available now instead of buying what was available 30 years ago?
When you wear your car out, you generally buy one of a newer design then the old one, right? When you buy a TV you don't go looking for a 27" tube set just because the old one was, right? Why wouldn't the Army look at new pistols? Don't you want to get the best pistol for your tax dollars?
-
Just got an email from a buddy about this. From this, and what I've read elsewhere, the Army was looking for a modular handgun system, something where they could adjust the size of the handgun to meet the needs of the user. With the SIG system, they could conceivably change not only the grip size, but the overall size of the entire handgun. Buddy says that is where Glock is complaining. They offered 2 handguns (Glock 17 and Glock 19) to meet what they and others saw as two separate requests...full-sized duty gun and a compact gun for concealment needs. Allegedly, they are saying SIG isn't playing fair offering a 2 for 1 option. As a taxpayer, if they can get two handguns in terms of use for less than it would cost to actually buy two handguns, I'm all for it. Though, with what I've seen locally from Glock deals with law enforcement agencies, I wouldn't be surprised to see Glock offer something like a "buy two Glock 17s, get a Glock 19 free" deal to the Army. if they can get the deal opened through some kind of appeal.
Well we did name the program the "Modular Handgun System". That might have given Glock a clue as to what one of the major features the Army was looking for was going to be. It's right there in the name.
-
. . .
When you wear your car out, you generally buy one of a newer design then the old one, right? When you buy a TV you don't go looking for a 27" tube set just because the old one was, right? Why wouldn't the Army look at new pistols? Don't you want to get the best pistol for your tax dollars?
I wish I could get a car like my folks' 1964 Pontiac Tempest or 1968 Sedan DeVille . . . and at the same price.
-
I wish I could get a car like my folks' 1964 Pontiac Tempest or 1968 Sedan DeVille . . . and at the same price.
The Beretta is more like an '82 K car.
-
The Beretta is more like an '82 K car.
But with better movie cred
Brad
-
People keep saying this. The guns we have (and the ones we had in 1980) are wore the hell out. Done. Crap. Lots of Frame wear. We need new pistols. Since we're buying pistols anyway, why not look at what is available now instead of buying what was available 30 years ago?
When you wear your car out, you generally buy one of a newer design then the old one, right? When you buy a TV you don't go looking for a 27" tube set just because the old one was, right? Why wouldn't the Army look at new pistols? Don't you want to get the best pistol for your tax dollars?
Again. How often are handguns actually used in combat? The best pistol for the tax dollars may not be the latest and greatest. If a 30 year old design is functional and the actual use in combat is approaching zero we shouldn't be spending so much for the latest and greatest. Also note that was a question, I don't know if the use in combat approaches zero or 100, but I suspect it is closer to zero.
I have hundreds or Firearms, probably over a hundred pistols including many of the most modern designs. I still mostly carry a 1911 type or a revolver. Now I'm not going into combat likely when I leave the house, but I'm guessing very few soldiers are actually using pistols in combat. Maybe I'm wrong, hence the question.
-
Again. How often are handguns actually used in combat? The best pistol for the tax dollars may not be the latest and greatest. If a 30 year old design is functional and the actual use in combat is approaching zero we shouldn't be spending so much for the latest and greatest. Also note that was a question, I don't know if the use in combat approaches zero or 100, but I suspect it is closer to zero.
I have hundreds or Firearms, probably over a hundred pistols including many of the most modern designs. I still mostly carry a 1911 type or a revolver. Now I'm not going into combat likely when I leave the house, but I'm guessing very few soldiers are actually using pistols in combat. Maybe I'm wrong, hence the question.
Okay, military use of handguns. I'll talk Army, since that was what I did. Issued to MP and CID personnel, of course. Flight crews. Tank crews and some other vehicle crews. A lot of medical personnel. A lot of REMFs that get sent in harms way (a lot of JAG officers get issued a handgun if they are going into theater for some reason). Dogmush, Scout, Fitz, who else am I missing?
-
Okay, military use of handguns. I'll talk Army, since that was what I did. Issued to MP and CID personnel, of course. Flight crews. Tank crews and some other vehicle crews. A lot of medical personnel. A lot of REMFs that get sent in harms way (a lot of JAG officers get issued a handgun if they are going into theater for some reason). Dogmush, Scout, Fitz, who else am I missing?
Crew served weapon team members, snipers, staff officers and NCO's
-
From what I hear, the Sig P320 appears to be a pretty good pistol. I hope it serves our troops well.
-
Again. How often are handguns actually used in combat? The best pistol for the tax dollars may not be the latest and greatest. If a 30 year old design is functional and the actual use in combat is approaching zero we shouldn't be spending so much for the latest and greatest. Also note that was a question, I don't know if the use in combat approaches zero or 100, but I suspect it is closer to zero.
I have hundreds or Firearms, probably over a hundred pistols including many of the most modern designs. I still mostly carry a 1911 type or a revolver. Now I'm not going into combat likely when I leave the house, but I'm guessing very few soldiers are actually using pistols in combat. Maybe I'm wrong, hence the question.
Fitz should weigh in. Didn't he take his own personal XD with him to the bad sandy place?
-
Thread veer- what's with the Beretta hate? To big and heavy? Outdated? Goofy decocker?
I always thought that the Beretta just felt right in the hand.
A little big, but it seemed to connect with what I was looking at, regardless of the sight picture.
-
Looks like Army is going with the SIG P320...
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/01/19/army-picks-sig-sauer-replace-m9-service-pistol.html
Interesting. I've not handled or fired the SIG P320, but all I've read of it is good, and of course SIG's reputation is excellent. Article says that Glock is expected to appeal the decision. Read elsewhere that FN is also considering appealing the decision, and Smith wasn't commenting at this time. Don't know how the appeals process works. But with Glocks in the holsters of the FBI, the US Marshall's, MARSOC, and the SEALS, and with the new administration coming in, I wonder if Glock will be able to sell themselves as a cost saving measure for the entire .gov... At the same time, with Trump's "make America great again" message, maybe S&W should consider appealing as well...
Should be fun to watch.
Mmmmm, OK.
What gun our military picks is interesting, but won't really affect my own buying decisions. Heck, I only got around to my first 1911 in 2015.
I'm tempted to say "get a Glock and be done with it", but I know there's a lot more to the decision than a gun that goes bang reliably. Logistics, armorer support. Intellectual property issues, if you need to have more than one manufacturer making the thing.
And it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't some funkiness with the appearance of impropriety in the decision process.
-
John Moses Browning is sad.
-
From what I hear, the Sig P320 appears to be a pretty good pistol. I hope it serves our troops well.
It is good. Shoots better out of the box than any of my M&Ps, even the tuned one. It is a bulky gun, but not large. I would chose it over Glocks every day.
-
Okay, military use of handguns. I'll talk Army, since that was what I did. Issued to MP and CID personnel, of course. Flight crews. Tank crews and some other vehicle crews. A lot of medical personnel. A lot of REMFs that get sent in harms way (a lot of JAG officers get issued a handgun if they are going into theater for some reason). Dogmush, Scout, Fitz, who else am I missing?
I meant actual use in combat. What was really wrong with the previous models as it pertained to actual combat use; not who carries them or not. In other words how often is a pistol actually drawn and fired at the enemy.
-
Just got an email from a buddy about this. From this, and what I've read elsewhere, the Army was looking for a modular handgun system, something where they could adjust the size of the handgun to meet the needs of the user. With the SIG system, they could conceivably change not only the grip size, but the overall size of the entire handgun. Buddy says that is where Glock is complaining. They offered 2 handguns (Glock 17 and Glock 19) to meet what they and others saw as two separate requests...full-sized duty gun and a compact gun for concealment needs. Allegedly, they are saying SIG isn't playing fair offering a 2 for 1 option. As a taxpayer, if they can get two handguns in terms of use for less than it would cost to actually buy two handguns, I'm all for it. Though, with what I've seen locally from Glock deals with law enforcement agencies, I wouldn't be surprised to see Glock offer something like a "buy two Glock 17s, get a Glock 19 free" deal to the Army. if they can get the deal opened through some kind of appeal.
I'm a Glock guy and think they would have been a fine choice, but having two different size guns doesn't make either of them modular. They didn't meet the criteria, they shouldn't have a basis for appealing the selection.
-
I meant actual use in combat. What was really wrong with the previous models as it pertained to actual combat use; not who carries them or not. In other words how often is a pistol actually drawn and fired at the enemy.
Who carries them is relevant information to that end. If they're all carried by Pentagon desk jockies, that tells you something about how frequently they're fired in anger; versus their being carried by combat medics and tank crews.
Just sayin'.
Then again, probably a better chance of needing a gat in D.C. than anywhere in country.
-
Thread veer- what's with the Beretta hate? To big and heavy? Outdated? Goofy decocker?
I always thought that the Beretta just felt right in the hand.
A little big, but it seemed to connect with what I was looking at, regardless of the sight picture.
I never handled or shot an M9, but I did have a 92FS for a while. I didn't like the grip. The trigger kind of sucked. And the pistol was larger than it needed to be for the capacity.
The M9 size was actually about normal for that capacity in the 80's. For 2017, it is over sized. The grip had that palm swell that I absolutely hate. That is more personal preference. The trigger had a long pull and it didn't fire until you dragged it all the way back to the back of the trigger well. That is how I remember the trigger anyway and I am not usually a trigger snob. I have heard they can be improved a great deal, but I never attempted that. It was very reliable for me. My brother has that pistol now.
-
How many pistols does 17 mil buy? Just think the money could be spent better. Don't get the Beretta hate either, my personal one was quite accurate and never broke, was easy to max qual score with the best down M9s too. Army want a SIG? Great, it is in the supply system, M11, order a bunch. Good pistol, qual'd with that one once.
-
but having two different size guns doesn't make either of them modular.
Actually, they have nearly 12 sizes.
Frame sizes are sub-compact, compact, carry, and full size. Then each frame size comes in small, medium, and large grip size. It isn't as easy or cheap as the M&P line, but it is a good variety.
-
I never handled or shot an M9, but I did have a 92FS for a while. I didn't like the grip. The trigger kind of sucked. And the pistol was larger than it needed to be for the capacity.
The M9 size was actually about normal for that capacity in the 80's. For 2017, it is over sized. The grip had that palm swell that I absolutely hate. That is more personal preference. The trigger had a long pull and it didn't fire until you dragged it all the way back to the back of the trigger well. That is how I remember the trigger anyway and I am not usually a trigger snob. I have heard they can be improved a great deal, but I never attempted that. It was very reliable for me. My brother has that pistol now.
This is sort of my point. I own an FS and Compact. I shoot both fairly well though I find the grips and triggers to not be ideal. I also own a couple Glocks and several SIGs. Now I do not own a P320; so I can't compare that particular model. I personally shoot best with the 1911 trigger and feel more comfortable with the width and grip of single stack firearms. I'm just trying to understand if a new firearm is really needed vs. just purchasing more of the existing at much less cost; or even possibly giving our soldiers/marines/sailors a choice as different people do better with different grips and triggers. I understand there is obviously issues with different supply chains. I guess I'm saying is it really about the best gun for each soldier or just a big contract that maybe we should rethink ...
-
This is sort of my point. I own an FS and Compact. I shoot both fairly well though I find the grips and triggers to not be ideal. I also own a couple Glocks and several SIGs. Now I do not own a P320; so I can't compare that particular model. I personally shoot best with the 1911 trigger and feel more comfortable with the width and grip of single stack firearms. I'm just trying to understand if a new firearm is really needed vs. just purchasing more of the existing at much less cost; or even possibly giving our soldiers/marines/sailors a choice as different people do better with different grips and triggers. I understand there is obviously issues with different supply chains. I guess I'm saying is it really about the best gun for each soldier or just a big contract that maybe we should rethink ...
If you want to know why they made this decision, I'm sure there are loads of articles and forum posts about it, out in the wide world of internet.
-
This is sort of my point. I own an FS and Compact. I shoot both fairly well though I find the grips and triggers to not be ideal. I also own a couple Glocks and several SIGs. Now I do not own a P320; so I can't compare that particular model. I personally shoot best with the 1911 trigger and feel more comfortable with the width and grip of single stack firearms. I'm just trying to understand if a new firearm is really needed vs. just purchasing more of the existing at much less cost; or even possibly giving our soldiers/marines/sailors a choice as different people do better with different grips and triggers. I understand there is obviously issues with different supply chains. I guess I'm saying is it really about the best gun for each soldier or just a big contract that maybe we should rethink ...
That's what no one that is complaining about the cost is getting. The bolded was not the choice. It was spend this much on new pistols, or as much or more on M9's. M9's ain't all that cheap even at DOD prices.
-
I shot the SIG320 in .45ACP. Sweet gun. I have been saving to get one simply because how much I liked the one I shot. Now that the Army is going to them all the Fanboi's will now be driving up the price and making them scarce. Bastages...
It's actually a good decision on the Army's part. It is modular which means it can be customized to solider. However, the Army neither has the time nor inclination to "fit" each soldier. It'll be "You're a female, give her the small/compact frame. You're a male, you get the full size frame." and that will be it.
Most units only fire/qualify with side arms once, maybe twice a year. Back in the 80's MP's and CID had to qualify quarterly. Praciticing and qualifying with rifles and crew served weapons (to include major weapons systems like Bradleys and Abrams) were when we went into Gunnery twice a year. We might sneak in some local range time or grab an unused range or two on MTA simply because it was in our backyard.
But other than MP's the attitude was "If you are fighting off the commies with your sidearm, you done *expletive deleted*ed up real bad."
And the ONLY reason we went with the M9 Beretta was because we had to go to 9mm to STANAG with NATO. Otherwise the Army probably would have gone with new production 1911's
-
Most units only fire/qualify with side arms once, maybe twice a year. Back in the 80's MP's and CID had to qualify quarterly. Praciticing and qualifying with rifles and crew served weapons (to include major weapons systems like Bradleys and Abrams) were when we went into Gunnery twice a year. We might sneak in some local range time or grab an unused range or two on MTA simply because it was in our backyard.
My REMF Army Reserve Watercraft Company quals 2 or 3 times a year. Some years quarterly (Depends on where we are in the ARFORGEN cycle). For everyone whose weapon is an M9 and anyone with an additional duty that could carry one (Armorer, Armed Guard, etc) that means pistol quals.
The Army shoots more than it used to. Or at least us REMF's do.
-
If you want to know why they made this decision, I'm sure there are loads of articles and forum posts about it, out in the wide world of internet.
Internet -- Sturgeon's Law times two.
-
If you want to know why they made this decision, I'm sure there are loads of articles and forum posts about it, out in the wide world of internet.
Yes. God forbid to ask such a Firearms question on a forum like Armed Polite Society. ;/
-
Again this is much ado about nothing. Troops should be allowed to carry the pistol of their choice but with the knowledge that they and they alone are responsible for the maintenance, provision of spare parts and magazines, and ammo not otherwise in the logistics system.
That said if any particular branch wanted to have their own pistol as a default for troops of a less gun-bunny nature that would be fine. Those pistols would be taken care by unit armorers as today.
I'm not military so none of this applies to me anyway but if it did I have no idea what I would select. Way too many good choices out there.
-
Yes. God forbid to ask such a Firearms question on a forum like Armed Polite Society. ;/
Yeah, but this thread started yesterday. The pistol trials (and the internet discussion thereof) has been going on for years. Get to Googlin'. :P
-
Yeah, but this thread started yesterday. The pistol trials (and the internet discussion thereof) has been going on for years. Get to Googlin'. :P
Actually the trials have been going on and off for over twenty years and the question still pertains and I would think it would be interesting to discuss with gun enthusiasts and many that at times are concerned with governments spending. Thanks for the so 'polite' response though.
-
Was your eye rolling "so 'polite'"? ??? We're talking about a military purchasing decision, so your drama is a little - odd.
-
I'm ambivalent about the P320 as I'm no longer carrying the M9 professionally. The former would have been useful for the seven years I was a gate guard just for the lighter weight, but thanks to my personally-owned 92FS (which turns 20 this year!) I never had any problem scoring expert on the Army and Air Force qual course (FWIW). I'm a fan of the Beretta, probably always will be.
I had a P250 in 9x19 at one point, but I didn't care for it. It was no fault of the pistol, I just couldn't get excited about it. I think the P320 will be fine for its intended purpose.
-
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/01/24/grapevine-us-army-pays-207-per-pistol-sig-sauer-m17-modular-handguns/
Another data point on the "Why did we spend this?" front.
P320 is going for about $200 a piece. As of the Dec 16 update to FEDLOG an M9 is $636.60 and an M11 (iron sights) is $385.00. So this route was significantly cheaper then just going with our current line up.
Side note, the first M17 I get issued is getting an RMR bolted to it.
-
Side note, the first M17 I get issued is getting an RMR bolted to it.
Is that allowed? Will it fit in the issued holster?
-
Is that allowed? Will it fit in the issued holster?
1. If I don't ask, who will say no? 2. I don't use issued holsters, and don't see myself starting.
-
1. If I don't ask, who will say no? 2. I don't use issued holsters, and don't see myself starting.
You don't have to turn it in to the armory when you go off shift?
-
Handled a p320 today. It felt pretty good to me, but I like the SIG grip angle. I would put a Hogue grip sleeve on if it was mine. Light weight. Compared to my Glock, it would be easier to get a gloved trigger finger in the trigger guard. I think the Army could have done worse...if it is as durable as it is claimed to be. My $.02 worth.
-
You don't have to turn it in to the armory when you go off shift?
I'm a Reserveist, so I usually draw my weapon for a weekend at a time. We only open the arms room twice on drills where we are shooting. The soldiers keep their weapons for the whole weekend. But even once it's turned in, it's my weapon, no one else uses it. On Deployments I have my M9 the whole time.
I have put first Crimson Traces, and then I switched to Pachmeyer grips on my M9 without an issue. Plenty of my troops have personal accessories on their M4's. (grips, slings and the like) No one really messes with it.
-
Handled a p320 today. It felt pretty good to me, but I like the SIG grip angle. I would put a Hogue grip sleeve on if it was mine. Light weight. Compared to my Glock, it would be easier to get a gloved trigger finger in the trigger guard. I think the Army could have done worse...if it is as durable as it is claimed to be. My $.02 worth.
That is pretty much my feeling. From all reports, it is a good pistol. The modularity might actually be a good match to the military supply system since the serial numbered part is the trigger and mechanism that fits in the frame.
I passed up the P320 compact to get my current carry gun. I may come back later and pick one up. We will see.
-
Does anyone but us gunnies make such a big fuss over this? Do off-road types get hyped up over a Humvee replacement? Foodies about field rations?
-
I'm a Reserveist, so I usually draw my weapon for a weekend at a time. We only open the arms room twice on drills where we are shooting. The soldiers keep their weapons for the whole weekend. But even once it's turned in, it's my weapon, no one else uses it. On Deployments I have my M9 the whole time.
I have put first Crimson Traces, and then I switched to Pachmeyer grips on my M9 without an issue. Plenty of my troops have personal accessories on their M4's. (grips, slings and the like) No one really messes with it.
Wait a sec. If your draw your weapon for a drill weekend, you take it home with you? And others take their rifles home?
-
Does anyone but us gunnies make such a big fuss over this? Do off-road types get hyped up over a Humvee replacement? Foodies about field rations?
I know that car junkies get into the selected vehicles, for different reasons. They get excited about the possibility of a civilian version being made available for sale. Foodies? They laugh at MREs, make jokes about them, and refuse to eat them.
I think gun people just like to debate gun stuff. Back when I got into guns, in the 80s, the big debate was 9mm vs. .45 ACP vs. .357 Magnum for defensive use. There was also the 1911 vs. DA autos, and revolver vs. auto for defensive/duty use. Now, the great caliber war continues, though not as hotly contested. Revolver vs. auto is over. And the 1911 vs. all other autos will live on forever.
-
I know that car junkies get into the selected vehicles, for different reasons. They get excited about the possibility of a civilian version being made available for sale. Foodies? They laugh at MREs, make jokes about them, and refuse to eat them.
I think gun people just like to debate gun stuff. Back when I got into guns, in the 80s, the big debate was 9mm vs. .45 ACP vs. .357 Magnum for defensive use. There was also the 1911 vs. DA autos, and revolver vs. auto for defensive/duty use. Now, the great caliber war continues, though not as hotly contested. Revolver vs. auto is over. And the 1911 vs. all other autos will live on forever.
I think internet discussion boards allowed a lot more people to witness those debates and participate. It also allowed a whole lot of the bad information that was floating around to be brought to light and refuted or explained. I also remember the AR vs AK wars. There were tons of old rumors and hearsay from Vietnam, etc about the M16 and AK that got brought up. I am sure I didn't see all of it. I haven't seen some of that come up in years.
I still saw the one about unloading your magazines to rest the springs pop up not to long ago.
-
Wait a sec. If your draw your weapon for a drill weekend, you take it home with you? And others take their rifles home?
I imagine that they would only be drawing them when they are going to the "field" where they will be overnight and not returning home. The whole two days(8 hours) a month is bullshit. There are more times than not we report in at 6 pm Friday night and are't leaving to go home until 5 pm Sunday.
-
Wait a sec. If your draw your weapon for a drill weekend, you take it home with you? And others take their rifles home?
I imagine that they would only be drawing them when they are going to the "field" where they will be overnight and not returning home. The whole two days(8 hours) a month is bullshit. There are more times than not we report in at 6 pm Friday night and are't leaving to go home until 5 pm Sunday.
Yep, what he said. Our ranges are usually rolled into a bunch of other stuff. Usually at least a Thurs-Sun field problem or exercise. Obviously different units are run differently, but as a watercraft guy (low-density, high operational tempo, lots of stuff to get underway) I haven't done a "Only sat-Sun, go home at night" drill since about 2005.
-
Revolver vs. auto is over.
From previous posts, I know that a lot of us here still carry revolvers occasionally, if not frequently.
-
From previous posts, I know that a lot of us here still carry revolvers occasionally, if not frequently.
I do, too. But I haven't read a real argument about full sized auto versus full sized revolver as fighting tools in a very long time. I think that the reliability of modern semiauto handguns has pretty much brought that argument to an end.
-
I think gun people just like to debate gun stuff.
Damn straight! In fact my Smith & GLOCK .9MM is way better than your Beretta Blackhawk!
-
I do, too. But I haven't read a real argument about full sized auto versus full sized revolver as fighting tools in a very long time. I think that the reliability of modern semiauto handguns has pretty much brought that argument to an end.
"Revolver vs. Auto shootout!" used to be a staple of the gun rags, something that would come up every couple years. I haven't seen it in a while. But, I haven't read a gun magazine in quite a while.
-
Bring back the harmonica gun!
-
Damn straight! In fact my Smith & GLOCK .9MM is way better than your Beretta Blackhawk!
What about the 50 mm rifle?
-
I imagine that they would only be drawing them when they are going to the "field" where they will be overnight and not returning home. The whole two days(8 hours) a month is bullshit. There are more times than not we report in at 6 pm Friday night and are't leaving to go home until 5 pm Sunday.
You forgot the dreaded MUTA 6!
-
I know that car junkies get into the selected vehicles, for different reasons. They get excited about the possibility of a civilian version being made available for sale. Foodies? They laugh at MREs, make jokes about them, and refuse to eat them.
Actually, they tend to make eating them challenges. Like getting a bucket of ice water dumped on you, shaving your head, or running in a marathon while wearing a gas mask.
What about the 50 mm rifle?
30 rounds in half a second!
-
You forgot the dreaded MUTA 6!
We don't do those often enough. We usually will do MUTA 5's when 6's would be so much better in the long run, more training time available.
Currently we do have a group doing MUTA 6's since they are preparing for a trip overseas.