I'm in disagreement. Spending hundreds of millions on new pistols for staff weenies that'll never use em when the nation is now 18 trillion in the hole makes no sense. The dod should spend that money keeping more soldiers in boots! I believe a bigger military is more apt to deter our enemies than a bunch of shiny new side arms on the bug ugly leg rig holsters of senior NCOs and staff officers. Just sayin .
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
The U.S. Army wants a new gun.
- Thread starter Claybreaker!
- Start date
I'm in disagreement. Spending hundreds of millions on new pistols for staff weenies that'll never use em when the nation is now 18 trillion in the hole makes no sense. The dod should spend that money keeping more soldiers in boots! I believe a bigger military is more apt to deter our enemies than a bunch of shiny new side arms on the bug ugly leg rig holsters of senior NCOs and staff officers. Just sayin .
This...especially when we are going to do a significant reduction in force and the threat isn't going away.
Would u feel the same way if your a soldier on the ground with an outdated sidearm or no sidearm at all??
Hmm?, So Money is more important than the efficiency and safety of our soldiers, interesting?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,352
- Likes
- 386
Few if any soldiers are issued sidearms. Mps and staff weenies mostly. A pistol is a pistol. Good for civilian law enforcement or a last ditch weapon. Grenades, carbines, and crewe served weapons are what's used for offensive operations. Also the ability to call in a shit ton of ordinance will inflict a lot of pain. The move the smaller carbines is a realization that in today's battlefield a small maneuverable rifle with high capacity firepower is what's needed. Right now pistols are used by staff and many troops get a full sized rifle to get in and out of vehicles, sentenanceclear rooms and other duties a carbine would be a much better fit.
If you are relying on a pistol to defend yourself in a combat zone that's not a good sign. Personally I saw way too many staff weenies going outside the wire for field trips with just an m9. Death sentence vs ak 47
Last edited:
Actually my friend i was one of thos soldiers. You arguing with someone that spent 2 years of his life "on the ground". One year of which with an m9 on mynside. I was perfectly comfortable with that pistol. What is your experience exactly with what weapons you carried in a combat theater?
Last edited:
Define outdated sidearm? Some Marine units are issued new Colt 1911's People who have been there and done that keep telling you that pistols are not a big deal in the military and you aren't listening. I'd take an M4 over any handgun. Be more concerned about the fact that our troop strength is going down to about 1940 levels. You are just not getting it.
rkwjr has no military experience.
Last edited:
Thank you.....someone with some Brians. Anyone else notice most of the guys arguing for the military to go to a new pistol have never seen the elephant? I'd rather have more joes with me to take care of business than a shiny pistol.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,352
- Likes
- 386
Perhaps I might have been there a few times. Personally I though the French FAMAS was the way to go. 2/3 size of a m4. Pretty sweet carry and awesome for getting out of vehicles and tight spaces. Pistols meh. FAMAS was pretty nice.
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,911
- Likes
- 23,478
His experience is rooted right here crying on and on about .40 S&W and piston AR15's. Most of the people that are so worked up about this nonstory are the people who have no real idea of what they are talking about.
I actually kind of liked the M9, first gun I ever fired, and would like to add one to my collection one day for sentimental reasons. Granted, I was never on the ground, so my opinion on the Army's pistol program is worth about as much as jkwjr's.
They still are. Tight quarters in there.
- - - Updated - - -
You still don't get it........and you did not answer my question.
Last edited:
But your reasoning fails because you are normally issued one weapon. You are not issued a pistol AND a rifle. Sure some people are lucky and get both and some carry unauthorized BUG guns, but man, throw in the towel and stick to pipe fitting because you are like totally out of your league.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,352
- Likes
- 386
Dude if the enemy gets through the crew served weapons, rifles, grenade, and air support and armored vehicles then your a fail. A pistol will mean shit at that point. After 210 rounds, thousands of rounds of linked 556 and 762 I don't think a pistol is gonna help if the enemy overcomes that. You have other issues. And the policy with a weapon jam is not to pull out the pea shooter it's to clear the jam. You need high powered rounds to stop insurgents with body armor hiding behind concrete. A pistol will just get u killed
Side question: Why did the military stop allowing soldiers to buy and carry their own side arms? I can understand maybe restricting the calibers, but if a soldier wants a Glock 19 or M&P instead of a Beretta what is the harm?
Good question! Liability and command responsibility is the answer. All commanders (I currently am a commander). Sign off that the soldiers under their command are trained on all weapon systems and battle drills before going into a combat theater. If a soldier has a nd with a non issued weapon that I authorize him / her to carry I am responsible for his /her actions because i did not ensure and certify the training. Commander responsibility is serious.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,352
- Likes
- 386
Liability and safety. The army provides standard training. We have knuckleheads that can barely fire the weapons we have-never mind bring a their own weapon. Besides who would maintain them? It's bad enough some have to be hog tied and thrown into a shower for hygiene reasons. Lets keep the what can wrong to a minimum over there.
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,911
- Likes
- 23,478
LOL! I can't wait to watch jrjkjwrlol argue Army policy with you some more.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,352
- Likes
- 386
Meh. Call of duty does blur the reality line for some.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,352
- Likes
- 386
What unit are you hiding out with? Reserves/guard do tell
. I'm what the navy guys would call a mustang. 12 Years enlisted before going to ocs
At least you're not a ring-knocker. Got in trouble with Top for telling the last one I had to sit in the corner and color me a pretty picture while the adults were talking. PSGs and Top were discussing training.
Aloha
Yes national guard. Massachusetts. 5 years active. 21 years now total. 2 deployments one as a Sgt the second as a 1lt. I commanded a forward support company for three years now a light medium transportation company.
I carried a M9 on my deployments. It's not my favorite pistol, but I don't hate it, the main problem with it is the terrible magazines the Army buys. If you had good mags and the recoil spring wasn't 20 years old, it generally worked fine.
Iraq and Afghanistan had a lot of situations where having a sidearm helped. Going into meetings with local police or sheikhs or whatever, sometimes a rifle wasn't feasible and it was nice to have a sidearm because we didn't trust anyone. I know of one pistol kill when a guy got jumped on base by a local interpreter. There is more to combat now than infantry on patrol.
The Army as an institution still needs pistols. The questions about which one and how much are still valid.
Iraq and Afghanistan had a lot of situations where having a sidearm helped. Going into meetings with local police or sheikhs or whatever, sometimes a rifle wasn't feasible and it was nice to have a sidearm because we didn't trust anyone. I know of one pistol kill when a guy got jumped on base by a local interpreter. There is more to combat now than infantry on patrol.
The Army as an institution still needs pistols. The questions about which one and how much are still valid.
Good one! I actually do things the way they should be done. The officers provide the what when why and where.......the NCOs provide the who and the how. I will never let my pl's get involved in telling an NCO who to use and how to do a mission.
