-
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
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,352
- Likes
- 386
Dare I say we're you in Iraq with the 101st en?
Beretta says the new ones are cheaper than the old ones. Replace the old ones with the new ones as they fail. No need to rush the transition. Turn future orders for A2 into A3s.
A3 isn't going to happen apparently. DA has nixed it, although if I understand it correctly Beretta would have done it as a PIP for the remaining 80,000 guns on the Army contract and sell new ones at a better price than the current cost of the M9. In the end, though we will see what happens. I suspect the M9 will be with us for some time to come.
I said still as I know they were trying to get better PDW weapons for crewman or something better if its decided to throw out an LP. I remember good ole M3 grease guns but 60A3's much roomier than M1s
Well aware of space or lack there of, but my mentioning it was to point out that until Uncle Sam starts buying something like MP5Ks, pistols still serve a PDW role for many troops in harms way in todays forces and MTOE beyond medics and ez carry inside the wire.
Correct. And if you read back through the thread my first statement on this subject i said a limited acquisition of a new pistol for spec ops and combat troops might be an acceptable compromise. Spending a shit ton of money replacing every m9 in the inventory when 90% of em are issued to staff officers and commanders is wasteful. We actually agree on this......you just didn't realize it
If this post doesn't define switching to something better then i've lost all sense.
So there's no issue with liability and safety with an M9, or removing it from the soldier completely, Ha? Lets be honest, there are plenty of better sidearms, i can think of a couple right off the bat.
I never claimed i knew anything about Army policy, thats you twisting what im saying. I'm giving my opinion, i don't believe i'm far off base. Does anyone really need to be a soldier to know that there are better sidearms than an m9, even though it works.
I use company provided tools everyday, they work, but there are much better on the market, but if they want the job done safely and efficently instead of being cheap they would make more money. penny wisw dollar stupid.
If a superior approached a group of soldiers and asked them what they wanted, an M9 or a polymer wonder pistol, i think we all know what the majority would choose.
You have clearly never operated on or managed a large budget have you? Sometimes you don't get everything g you "want" just because you want it. Many people that have actually served have already told you......given the choice between a new pistol service wide or more battle buddies fighting beside them they'll take the extra troops and leave the m9 in srvice a bit longer. But hey......you've never served so in don't expect you to understand what its like to see your army gutted and friends being forced out......good troops......while shit overseas is getting worse knowing you'll be back there in a few years with fewer in the ranks. We don't need a new pistol......give us more men. Listen to what the guys that have been on the ground are telling you.......a polymer wonder pistol in the hips of staff officers is not going to make our military more powerful.......more troops will.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,352
- Likes
- 386
You are lost. Pistols in most cases are hip candy. Best answer is to keep it and use what we have. Pistols will be phased out at some point. You are off base. Read previous posts and listen to folks that have been there. How about asking these soldiers what they would prefer to take on the road in Iraq-a pistol or a carbine. Frankly pistols are not really needed except for a select few in the military. So a new pistol would do what? Ok a rail and polymer and that's so superior to what we have and justifies another huge expenditure? More troops are needed-not staff toys
While I mostly agree with your sentiment, the Army won't get or keep many Soldiers for the cost of replacing ALL M9s.
The Army has approximately 200,000 M9s. I can't remember exactly, but I think my old unit's property books had them listed at $200-something. We'll say they cost the Army $300. A replacement will probably cost about the same. But, let's say $350, which is on the high end. That's $70,000,000.
Now, let's look at personnel. A Soldier costs the Army, on average, $158,000 per year. We'll not even factor in the fact that a deployed Soldier costs on average of $800,000 per year, or the high cost of initial entry training. Based on $158,000, that $70,000,000 to completely replace all of our M9s will net us 443 Soldiers for just one year. Spreading that out over 6 years would give us only 73 new Soldiers. A couple extra platoons? Not really a strong argument.
This is all moot anyway though, because the Army is downsizing. There is no room for extra Soldiers.
All of this said, I would rather have most of the money go towards additional training and range time. Yes, much like more Soldiers, we won't get a whole heck of a lot of training for that $70mil, but it's worth it in my mind. If we're going to head towards a new pistol, then let's give it to combat arms first, and then gradually replace the rest of the M9s when they get deadlined. Oh, and one major sidearm change that I would like to see regardless of all this, is a change in the Mechanized Infantry MTOE. Bradley crew members really should have M9s. There's no reason for Mechanized Infantry MTOE to allot 2 M9s for a Company. Tankers get M9s but Bradley crew members don't? Doesn't make sense.
Last edited:
True, but what is that, another few million? We get another couple of squads for a few years? Anyway, that's moot. The Army is downsizing.
I still contend that the money would be better spent on training. And I really don't know why there are so many people complaining about the M9's unreliability. I've found them to be very reliable, as long as they were cleaned(dirt brushed off) and lubed.
- - - Updated - - -
Oh goody, craptastically wasteful spending on more craptastic SERPA holsters.
Magazines were my only problem also. My mags were mostly ruined, I think I had one that worked and 2 that were so bound that there was literally zero spring tension in the body of the mag. Zero replacements.
That said, a Glock or Sig as a replacement wouldnt hurt.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,352
- Likes
- 386
Most of the mags were Shyte. No one ever unloaded them and the springs developed memory. Nothing to do with armorer. Called laziness. Because m9's were hip candy, all the new mags went to the higher ups. Hence the posts about canning the new pistol and using the money for more troops-something that would help the common joe.
Leaving a magazine loaded most likely doesn't hurt the springs. For M4s, it can hurt the feed lips, but springs are worn out by cycling them, not by leaving them loaded.
Regardless, my comment about Dench's armorer had to do with the fact that he never got replacements. Also, if all the new magazines in your unit went to higher ups, then that is also evidence of a bad armorer. A good armorer will placate leadership with something shiny every once in a while, but also ensure that there's enough to get to the people who really need it. I will say though, that this is easier in a line unit compared to a staff unit.
One of the biggest issues is when replacements are given out, but nobody actually destroys the bad magazine and takes it out of circulation.
Whether it was rifle or pistol, if we found a bad mag it was stomped on and replaced.
Generally, there aren't small arms repairers at the battalion level. The armorers are in supply roles. I'm only speaking for a combat arms unit, but this is what the MTOE is supposed to be:
Company: The armorer is supposed to be the Supply Sergeants clerk, an E-4 supply MOS position. However, most units don't actually have the personnel for this, or choose to just make one of the Infantrymen the armorer as a side job(as what happened to me for a couple years). The armorer actually has very little authorization to fix broken weapons and mostly maintains accountability of the sensitive items for the Commander, keeps track of all the maintenance schedules and orders spare parts/magazines as needed. Though, I'm willing to admit that I did repairs above my authorized level to keep the Company combat effective.
Battalion: No armorer position, aside from the headquarters company's own armorer. The S4 is responsible for all the spare parts/supplies that are ordered. I think they were responsible for the Battalion maintenance schedules too, but I can't remember.
Brigade: This is where you will actually start to see Small Arms Repairer MOSes. They will usually have a shop to handle the repairs above the level of the Company armorers, but below the depot level. They also coordinate with the Company armorers to schedule periodic gauging of all weapon systems.
- - - Updated - - -
As it should be
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2013
- Messages
- 1,165
- Likes
- 170
Sorry for the tangent...
I had a guy in my division on my first ship get a 'Letter of Instruction' to take a shower every single day, and to change his uniform... He wore glasses... The glasses were leaving corrosion residue on the sides of his face. I have never seen anything so ridiculous. He eventually went 'sad' and was booted out later that deployment.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
Generally, there aren't small arms repairers at the battalion level. The armorers are in supply roles. I'm only speaking for a combat arms unit, but this is what the MTOE is supposed to be:
Company: The armorer is supposed to be the Supply Sergeants clerk, an E-4 supply MOS position. However, most units don't actually have the personnel for this, or choose to just make one of the Infantrymen the armorer as a side job(as what happened to me for a couple years). The armorer actually has very little authorization to fix broken weapons and mostly maintains accountability of the sensitive items for the Commander, keeps track of all the maintenance schedules and orders spare parts/magazines as needed. Though, I'm willing to admit that I did repairs above my authorized level to keep the Company combat effective.
Battalion: No armorer position, aside from the headquarters company's own armorer. The S4 is responsible for all the spare parts/supplies that are ordered. I think they were responsible for the Battalion maintenance schedules too, but I can't remember.
Brigade: This is where you will actually start to see Small Arms Repairer MOSes. They will usually have a shop to handle the repairs above the level of the Company armorers, but below the depot level. They also coordinate with the Company armorers to schedule periodic gauging of all weapon systems.
- - - Updated - - -
As it should be
You know your stuff. Its just a little outdated. There are definatley small arms repairers at bn level now. Every combat arms Bn has a forward support company now......they handle all the logistics......fix fuel feed transport supply. In the "FSC" there is an armament section that does all repairs on all the weapon systems for the bn. The logistics support has been pushed down to Bn level for all combat arms units so the bn commander has a company commander that works for him that knows logistics........and is the principle advisor to the Bn S4
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,352
- Likes
- 386
Disagree with the spring comment. Leave the mags loaded for a year and they turn to junk. My 9mm rounds just rolled out of my mags. Springs were dog shit and beat down. Since we did not commit to a Stalingrad effort in Kabul I'm thinking is was the duration of being loaded versus thousands of rounds being cycled through the mags.
I've got mags that have been loaded 24x7 for 20+ years.
