In LE use weapons are regularly pointed at or near individuals when you have no real intention of shooting them. LE training programs are also not intensive enough to instill the necessary trigger and muzzle discipline to prevent NDs and accidental shootings.
Despite the “three safeties” is really is like running around with an unlocked 1911 and not everyone is responsible enough to do that. This is why we get stories of guns being fired into the pavement while somebody is being cuffed up and things like that.
Here’s why, I have short fingers, first time I held the above pistol was at the 2011 Infantry conference, I thought I was holding a 9mm 'till I looked closely.
grip that accepts a wide-range of hand-sizes (5th to 95th percentile)
Yes, which is also why a striker fire, no external safety firearm would be a terrible idea for our new standard issue sidearm as well.
Don’t get me wrong…I’m pretty much a Glock guy, and the predominant handguns in my home are Glocks and a couple XDm’s for my daughters. Glock 17 would be a fine combat sidearm for those trained enough to become familiar with the platform. But I think this whole “one service-wide” sidearm for all concept is very flawed for three main reasons:
There is a huge difference in military firearms skills and training frequency and intensity between combat (infantry, SOF, security/provost Marshall, etc.) and combat centric (combat engineers, artillery, etc.) personnel and the support troops who arm up when deployed to combat zones (cooks/logisticians/vehicle & aircraft maintenance/civil engineers/admin/personnel/finance/etc. Support folks only receive minimal trigger time which might be once in 12-24 months, with a “just in time” combat shooting skills class thrown in if the troop is scheduled to deploy to a war zone.
I drive through an Air Force Base main gate every day I go to work, and more and more, the gate guards are females, 19-22 years old, 5’2, and maybe 120 lbs with all their gear on in the rain. I have no idea how they can their hands wrapped around their issued M9, and with a drop holster, the muzzle is almost at the top of their size 4 combat boot. So whatever firearm is chosen need’s to fit an ever increasing population of petite female troops as well as the 6’5 230 lbs gorilla handed male troops.
And probably the most important reason…most young folks entering military service have never fired a real weapon in their life, other than maybe a laser tag or paintball gun, either of which taught them the opposite of muzzle discipline or the 4 golden firearm rules.
I hope the DoD gets this one right, but I won’t hold my breath. I think the modular grips are a good start, but if i were “King of the DOD”, I’d do something like this:
I would tell the SOCOM commander to lock heads with his individual service branch counterparts to get their acts together and figure out what handgun they want. No more SEALS rocking Sigs, Delta shooting Glocks, and MARSOC slinging .45’s from 1911’s. I wouldn’t even give them any guidance on caliber, safeties, size, etc…just pick a single sidearm platform that they can live with so we can buy guns, mags, and related gear in bulk. Only stipulation I’d ask them to consider would be consider if a platform that had 2 or more frame sizes that accepted common mags and holsters, like the G17/G19 relationship, would be a benefit. Once they fought it out and came up with something, I would then offer this platform to the combat units as well to help reduce the whole “SOF gets all the good shit” mentality.
Second, I’d solicit for a different sidearm for the support folks if the sidearm SOCOM chose didn’t meet my criteria for the support folks. That criteria would be an external safety, 9MM NATO, minimum 15 round magazine, adjustable/modular grip, and a consistent, double action only trigger pull. Keep it simple and relatively safe as much as possible.
I was a support troop and deployed with many other support troops. I’ve also been a “gun guy” since I was 15 years old, so while I was very comfortable with my M9 and M16/M4, I had to help out lots of other folks when they had issues cleaning and lubing their weapons during long deployments. I may be wrong, but I see it getting worse as we draw our folks away from the war zones and reduce the amount of combat shooting skills training the support community receives.
Of course, none of this will happen. The military will pick one gun and press on. I hope they choose wisely, but regardless, it is impossible for one gun to fit everyone serving and make them all happy about it.
IMHO the “military handgun” for line troops should be no bigger than a j-frame. MP’s, aircrew, artillery, and the like are better off with a PDW (P90, MP7, etc).
Given the option of strapping a 15 shot pistol vs 120-150 more rounds of 5.56 on my LBG i’ll take the rifle ammo thanks.
I’m talking about something like a Sig/HK DAO action hammer fire (single trigger pull) or a striker fire, preferably with a restrike capability, and something like an 8 lbs pull.
Better option would be to provide support troops more training/range time, but I don’t see that as a reality today.
Just need to keep it simple to operate and safe as possible.
“Zero complaints from anyone who ever used an old 45acp. You hit it, it stops. Go back to the old proven firearm in 45acp cause it works.”
“When you get to the point in combat you have to rely on your handgun, I perfered someting large and reliable. The 1911 Colt .45 filled that gap for 75 years. Going forward, I’m hoping something very close to that caliber is selected.”
“The Army was totally satisfied with the old .45 and then some clown or clowns in the pentagon (after the usual kickback) decided on th 9mm. Same old story.”
“Go back to .45 ACP and I guarantee it will feed better and have as much stopping power as 9mm hollow points.”
“Return to the 1911 - That’s been the best all 'round military pistol for more than 100 years. If the military needs a special pistol once in a while for a special need then buy it – Pistols are kind of like hamburgers–there is no best.”
The logistics of adding two very different weapons to the inventory. Clearly you know absolutely nothing about the military - you should just stick to your Call of Duty.
How many different types of rifles and pistols are already in military inventory ? With that thinking, clearly expediency is more valued than effective equipment for soldiers. If your attitude of ad hominem attacks is indicative of military culture, call of duty would likely be a more pleasant environment to attempt a discussion.
-Single-action handguns are not for the novice shooter.
-Striker-fired handguns are not for the novice shooter.
-Double-action handguns are not for the novice shooter.
-Double-action-only handguns are not for the novice shooter.
Maybe it should just be said that handguns aren’t for the novice shooter?
As someone whose father, a Marine whose happiest days with the Corps were commanding a rifle company, utterly detested the idea of an infantryman packing a handgun instead of more ammunition for his (or her, now, I suppose) rifle…
I ain’t never heard of anybody leaving their handgun in the rear with the gear. That’s not to say that it hasn’t happened, but I cannot say that I’ve ever heard of it happening - from guys carrying issued handguns to handguns being sent from home to handguns being picked up as souvenirs during the Second World War, or during Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, or Iraq (again).
I’m just trying to imagine a world where it makes any sense to issue a soldier/sailor/Marine/airman either a J-frame or any other sub-compact concealed carry BUG. Maybe for pilots. But that’s pretty much it. Nevermind that J-frames are really not for novice shooters.
That being said, tying in with what I said above, I think it would make sense to adopt a sub-5 lb. semi-automatic 5.56mm carbine/PDW for support troops (plus 5.56mm ammo optimized to work out of its inevitably insanely short barrel). But a Beretta M9A1/Glock 19/SiG Mk25/whatever fed Gold Dots or HSTs ought to be fine for those whose MOS calls for a sidearm.
Maybe you misread my original post, as i said J-frame sized. The shield is 9mm so no changes there. Adding the 5.7 to military inventory (in the case of the P90) would complicate things a bit, but there also exist PDW’s in 9mm which would negate that problem. The training would be basically the same as the pistol and rifle training already taught in basic and infantry school and adoption of a two weapon system would result in much more effective tools for those who carry either. The line troops would have something light and easy to carry in a pouch or BDU pocket not wasting space on LBG and the auxiliary and support troops would have something worlds better than a 15 shot pistol if they ever found themselves in an actual combat situation.
It just seems to me that a better solution to the 1915 era fullsize pistol mindset has already been put to use in the US military at least once before, so i really can’t wrap my head around the apparent backwards thought process. In this day and age and the better equipment available, IMO trimming the fat somewhere else to implement a slightly more complicated solution to the one sized fits all sidearm would make sense.
I realize that in the grand scheme of things the military sidearm is a tiny fraction of a percent of actually going out and making war, but that does not make it any less important to the poor SOB on the ground with bullets whizzing past their head.