SIG selected as new service handgun

[Woobie]

Which fanboys are getting mad?

Eh, re-read the thread. There are a couple who have almost let themselves slip. But Internet-wide I'll bet it's just delicious. As for in here, I don't really have a dog in the fight, I just enjoy taking the contrarian position, especially when I see an emotionally based reaction. The Army in its infinite beurocracy and limited wisdom made a choice, and this time it actually wasn't that bad. People need to feel confirmation, so they spout conventional internet wisdom to explain why the Army made a bad choice. That description only applies to a few though.

 

[Woobie]

Think the new admin will determine that a new sidearm is way down on the list functionally/financially and the M9's still have a few years left on them?

Aren't Sig magazines kind of spendy?

Well, I don't think they will be once they are made in volume. I'll bet Beretta 92 mags would have been expensive without the M9 contract.

I fully expect this to take several years to roll out. Heck, my last unit had PEQ-2's, and the Army is on PEQ-15's at this point. So yeah, there will be M9's for some time to come.

 

[Brad69]

The last two M9,s I was issued had almost no finish left on them and were beat up.
They shot ok and no malfunctions so they were good to go in my book.
Much better then the last 1911,s that could not get get though a magazine without a malfunction.
If I have to use a pistol that means I have run out of ammunition for my primary weapon, I have experienced a malfunction of my primary weapon at close range, I do not have my primary weapon on me (the last one actually happened once)

But I have been retired since 2012

Tankers, Pilots, Aircrew etc. count on a sidearm I am like oh yay a pistol!

 

[Woobie]

The last two M9,s I was issued had almost no finish left on them and were beat up.
They shot ok and no malfunctions so they were good to go in my book.
Much better then the last 1911,s that could not get get though a magazine without a malfunction.
If I have to use a pistol that means I have run out of ammunition for my primary weapon, I have experienced a malfunction of my primary weapon at close range, I do not have my primary weapon on me (the last one actually happened once)

But I have been retired since 2012

Tankers, Pilots, Aircrew etc. count on a sidearm I am like oh yay a pistol!

I thought they were overly heavy and had grips that were unnecessarily fat, but I never had problems beyond that. Yeah, the finish was gone, like you say. But they would shoot. Hopefully in a few years they'll be dirt cheap on the surplus market. I wouldn't mind refurbishing one and having a soft shooting range toy.

 

[bwframe]

I just wonder how much of a priority the sidearm is to the Army and whether this large expenditure is warranted at this time? Wasn't it already stated that all special ops already have specialty sidearms or even their choice of them?

 

[Woobie]

I just wonder how much of a priority the sidearm is to the Army and whether this large expenditure is warranted at this time? Wasn't it already stated that all special ops already have specialty sidearms or even their choice of them?

Yeah, I'm not sure. I've wondered. The M9's were getting pretty difficult to maintain. Without any finish they would just rust up in no time. But is that why they made the decision? Maybe it was down to renewal of an existing contract and it made more sense to not keep throwing good money at old pistols. I really don't know. Maybe a Senator from NH wanted defense dollars spent in his state so he rammed it through.

 

[Brad69]

I would say that it's time for a replacement pistol based on the arms room inventories I conducted in the last few years in the Army.
Most M9,s are well worn it's time to switch to the latest best pistol.
Elite / Specialized units will always have the latest best equipment that's the way we roll.

BTW all the services will adopt the standard pistol for mainstream use all of them get a vote it's not just the Army.

 

[BE Mike]

I'm wondering, with the hiring freezes, etc. now being put into place, if this expenditure might be put on hold.

 

[Woobie]

I'm wondering, with the hiring freezes, etc. now being put into place, if this expenditure might be put on hold.

I doubt it, only because of the beurocracy of federal funding. One pot of money has been lessened, but that doesn't mean another has. Also, I don't think Trump wants the optics right now of cutting defense right now, even if it were the best thing to do.

 

[bwframe]

Please don't chastise me for a dumb question. I'm not a vet.

Are most of these sidearms carried loaded or empty? I have the impression that, other than combat operations, a lot of the time military guns carried are not loaded?

 

[Woobie]

Please don't chastise me for a dumb question. I'm not a vet.

Are most of these sidearms carried loaded or empty? I have the impression that, other than combat operations, a lot of the time military guns carried are not loaded?

Certainly, as you say, they are in combat operations. But sometimes in other operations, they are unloaded. I know some guys who were doing Catrina relief and had to lock and load, but had been empty to that point. Back in the day guards would carry an empty weapon. When the Cole was bombed no one had any ammunition loaded. Weapons are always unloaded during training, unless it is a specific live-fire event.

 

[oldpink]

Certainly, as you say, they are in combat operations. But sometimes in other operations, they are unloaded. I know some guys who were doing Catrina relief and had to lock and load, but had been empty to that point. Back in the day guards would carry an empty weapon. When the Cole was bombed no one had any ammunition loaded. Weapons are always unloaded during training, unless it is a specific live-fire event.

Different times call for different carrying policies.
When I was active duty Navy, the petty officer of the watch and roving security normally were ordered to carry the 1911 completely empty.
When we went overseas to two particularly dicey ports of call at the tme (namely Rodman base in Panama only days before the ouster of Noriega and Callao, Peru, infested with Shining Path at the time), the POOW was ordered to insert the magazine and kept the chamber empty; ditto with our M-14 and shotgun sentries.
We weren't in combat zones for either readiness mode, though; so it's a certainty that we would have gone to condition 1 ("cocked and locked") in more hostile situations.

 

[bwframe]

My father carried a "grease gun" on guard duty in Korea after the war. He often told the story that they would not let him have ammo, so he left the heavy bolt of the gun in his locker.

 

[Woobie]

My father carried a "grease gun" on guard duty in Korea after the war. He often told the story that they would not let him have ammo, so he left the heavy bolt of the gun in his locker.

Heck, why not? Might as well carry a brick around to throw at people.

 

[in625shooter]

Please don't chastise me for a dumb question. I'm not a vet.

Are most of these sidearms carried loaded or empty? I have the impression that, other than combat operations, a lot of the time military guns carried are not loaded?

It depends on the branch as each has different rules. In the USAF the Security Forces troops (MP's that did LE and resources protection) wether stateside or overseas carried their Beretta with a 15 round mag chamber loaded and a spare 15 round mag (stateside bases were issued 124 grain JhP for their M9'S). Rifles were carried empty chamber with 30 round mag and depending on mission aircraft 120, missile 180 overseas 210 rounds. M249 and 240 might or might not be half loaded and they usually were issued 18 400 GPHE grenades in a can for the 203.

So in the AF the handgun was an important tool for SF troops.

 

[Compatriot G]

I feel so old! I was around when we transitioned from the 1911 to the M-9. I was a tanker in the Marine Corps. My primary firearm was a pistol. I remember the first time we got our hands on the M-9. We liked them because they were new, had finish on the guns and hadn't been used in three wars. It sounds like the M-9's in service now look like our 1911's did in the 80's.

 

[Hohn]

I'm also just a touch surprised that people believe a YouTube channel does some sort of reliability testing that's above and beyond anything the military will do. I guess I shouldn't be, though.

I applaud that you've been able to avoid the necessary level of cynicism.

I think people think that military and police weapons procurement is ALL about politics. Yes, there's a lot of politics. But the idea that standards of testing are absent, overruled, or completely ignored in the name of politics is just too far.

Lot of good people working very hard to get quality tools into the hands of our MIL/LEO professionals. Yes they are human. But they usually aren't criminals.

 

[Hohn]

I feel so old! I was around when we transitioned from the 1911 to the M-9. I was a tanker in the Marine Corps. My primary firearm was a pistol. I remember the first time we got our hands on the M-9. We liked them because they were new, had finish on the guns and hadn't been used in three wars. It sounds like the M-9's in service now look like our 1911's did in the 80's.

They were already like that the last time I qualified on M9, which would have been about 2005.

 

[BE Mike]

I feel so old! I was around when we transitioned from the 1911 to the M-9. I was a tanker in the Marine Corps. My primary firearm was a pistol. I remember the first time we got our hands on the M-9. We liked them because they were new, had finish on the guns and hadn't been used in three wars. It sounds like the M-9's in service now look like our 1911's did in the 80's.

Thanks for your service to our country! You aren't old! My primary weapon in combat was a S&W model 10! Of course I'm a dinosaur!

 

[Alamo]

BREAKING: Glock Protests XM17 MHS SIG Sauer Win - The Firearm BlogThe Firearm Blog