You do realize that there are PDW class weapons that fire rifle cartridges right ?
The PDW isn’t really for a tactical team. It’s not supposed to compete with rifles or SMG’s. It’s intended to replace handguns. And mostly the handguns issued to REMF’s (public affairs, supply, truck drivers, cooks, etc.). If I was forward deployed and had the choice between a 16 round handgun and a 50rd shoulder weapon (P90), I’d take the P90. If I could get a rifle, well then I’d happily do so.
I dunno. We could always bring back the M1 carbine.
On all three of my deployments, I’ve seen everyone PSG and up carrying M9s on the FOB. They just jack them from the 240 gunners when they go to the gym or chow hall. 1SGs and COs just have them…much like how their TOCroach RTOs and Supply SGTs always find a pistol on their hip somehow…
Shitty? Sure. But it’s the Big Army norm. I have never (in 7 years) seen anyone on Staff carry a rifle on deployment.
I don’t want a new pistol. I want better holsters and enough support equipment to effectively train my Soldiers with so we can make the M9 actually useful instead of just a FOB novelty.
I’m pretty sure I already said this but maybe I haven’t been clear with the opinion that I have based on what I’ve seen. If you’re going to have a two handed weapon, it may as well be a carbine. Maybe next to no one uses PDWs anymore because they only fill a very niche role. Maybe for a discreet VIP protection detail, but I can’t see them filling an effective role in a combat zone, especially as a replacement for a pistol. If you can’t put it in a holster on your belt, its a shitty replacement for a pistol. Big Army mostly issues pistols to MPs or those that will be inside a tent on a FOB during a deployment. And again, the logistics of adding a whole new category of weapon to the arsenal is ridiculous right now, especially for such a stupid reason.
I want a new pistol because I think there are much better options, and hopefully along with that will come better holsters and training, but if I had to pick between one or the other, I would choose the latter. That’s the harder option though so even less likely.
Here’s my take -
1911 .45ACP - designed when it was cost effective to have skilled machinists produce parts, and trained personnel hand fit the parts. We don’t live there any more. Depending on firing pin safety or not, the 1911 contains between 43 - 55 parts (without doubling up on grip screws and bushings); some of those parts have to be hand fitted. I’ve seen armorer training in as little as one-day for a parts replacer/trouble-shooter, two-days is the norm in my experience. 1911 aficionados freely admit ‘two is one’ because of the maintenance required with the platform when used heavily.
Glock/striker fired - designed maximizing more modern manufacturing technology, no hand fitting required. The Glock 17 has 34 parts. Glock does 1-day Armorer schools, maybe it’s me, but 4 hours of that is fluff. You can carry everything to completely rebuild a Glock in the field, including tool (except barrel) in a plastic box the size of a man’s bath soap bar.
That pretty much sums it up for me - I’d just go G17. Keep the old Master Gunners, WO’s and GO’s who have a love affair with things from their youth out of the process and choose the best pistol - if we need to, and we don’t IMO.
Some folks have been advocating a safety, not for a combat pistol IMO. If you are that worried, before the DAK Sigs, I thought the DAO 92’s were the smoothest DAO’s going. So retrofit and disable the safety/decock.
We need a lot of things more than a new pistol.
This statement doesn’t make a lick of sense. During our work up to deployment in 2008 most of my Soldiers wanted to bring their personally-owned Glocks instead of the issued M-9s. We tried to get the necessary approval but the rules and red tape made it impossible. The Glocks are a lot lighter than the M-9s and certainly the M1911 (both of which I have carried as issued).
Only an ignorant gamer would even consider the M&P Shield and the P90 as viable weapons to issue our troops. Go to your nearest Military Recruiter, do your time an get an Honorable Discharge; then come back and maybe you can come up with a more relevant post based on real (military) life.
I last played Army back when the 1911 was being phased out for the M9, and the 1911s in our inventory were nothing to write home about. I’ve heard the arguments for and against combat troops carrying a pistol, and I lean toward the concept of carrying a secondary firearm. Remember that Sgt. York effectively deployed a 1911 while reloading his rifle during the action that resulted in him being awarded the MOH. Had he not hat the 45, the outcome might have been different. Shoulder weapons are easier to shoot than handguns, but training for both must emphasize high standards; a concept that seems to have eluded military commanders on a regular basis over the years as emphasis got placed on weapons of mass destruction over individual marksmanship skills. To say that a striker fired pistol such as the Glock has no place in law enforcement is a bit off the mark. Some LE officers receive better training than others. Some are more into guns than others. The only statistics I can readily refer to however, are from internally published shooting incident reports from the old INS. Before the universal adoption of the Beretta 96, they allowed personally owned semi autos from Glock and SIG along with issued revolvers. The number of NDs was evenly split between the three operating systems. Now consider that in the military, the carrying of a handgun with an empty chamber is more the rule than the exception. Outside of SOCOM units, how much emphasis is placed on safe gun handling skills? Personally, I hope the military adopts something along the lines of the G17/19 or the M&P. That said, bureaucracy is the only thing that remains constant…
Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk
If the Glock 17 is procured by DOD, I think the Glock Stock should be an ancillary item and optional issue.
I’m an ignorant gamer without military experience… That’s low man… Real low. 
I’m an intelligent gamer with years of combat MOS experience FYI. :o
And I’ve even shot a P90 a couple times.
You heard it here first- I left my M9 in my CHU next to a stack of T-shirts and mostly only used it for late night chai.
Compliant with AR 190-11?
Nope… but it happened.
Any pistol is near useless, and can be substituted with more mags.
I’ve never heard of only getting an M9.
It’s likely they all have M16A2s sitting in a rack somewhere with a lock on it.
Does the HK MP7 with an even smaller projectile gets a pass? How long has it been in use, a decade already?
From my experience in a joint hq unit, pretty much every officer had an M9 and everyone brought a long gun of some sort with them, though if issued an M9, most people kept their long guns locked up in a rack in the MGySgt’s office. Most SNCOs had M9s too if I recall correctly.
I didn’t lock up my M4. I actually stored my M9 when going outside the wire to carry more ammo. Never fired a shot though, so I guess it didn’t matter.
That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea for big Army to issue them.
I assumed it was that way but I know for a fact that my BN’s MTOE doesn’t support that, unless it changes when you deploy but I doubt it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Your BN is only a tiny slice of the Army pie. Other BN’s, M9’s are given from O5 on down to E-whatever. The actual MTOE varies and then it gets even more complex given TPE, etc.
My experience was a sudden decline in rule enforcement once you stepped into the AOR, besides GO1.
Big Army needs to stick with what they have (M4) and spend money where it matters, training ammo. On the aviation side you never saw a rifle or carbine with a officer or senior NCO. Im sure something has changed since I left 6 years ago, I see a lot more Army pictures of aircrews with M4s in addition to their M9s and 240s.
I can see carrying a carbine as a back up in an aircraft, it would be easy to squeeze in with your equipment. If you have mechanical trouble in a hostile area, you would definitely need it.
For some it may not be practical to carry a carbine, so a good service pistol is needed. A service pistol should be simple, durable, reliable and easy to maintain.
True, though other BNs of the same type have the same MTOE so it isn’t like this is limited to just my BN. Plus, I’m in a support BN where most would expect to have more pistols.
I would entirely expect that, but again, unless the actual authorization for equipment changes based on deployment, we wouldn’t have enough M9s to issue to tons of people. I know deploying units are usually beefed up with personal and equipment, but wouldn’t expect them to give us a shit ton more M9s just because. I could be wrong there though.
From what I see, the money for ammo isn’t nearly the biggest problem. I do have a very limited scope on this aspect, but it wouldn’t matter if we had money for five rounds or 15,000 - the end state is still the same. The focus isn’t on it like it should be.
Redacted eyes and date and such. Also redacted a mustache because I was bored. Photo was taken within the last 12 months.
Pilot is a friend of mine on the right, carrying an M4. The left is a CWO. No idea what the two in the middle are carrying.