That's odd. I know the Seals and other Navy elements have a thing for Sig and I hear (but can't confirm) that anti-terrorism units like the HK Tactical. Why Army would go to the 1911 is beyond me, given the much less expensive and equally good quality options available.
Well, anything's better than that Beretta. I've handled that pistol a few times and it is probably one of the lowest quality handguns I've handled, if not the lowest. Glock won't get a contract with the US forces because they won't sell their patents and other such rights, but I would be awful surprised if the XD or M&P weren't given a chance as the "standard issue" pistol.
Now we need to get scrap the Hague convention. The 9mm is a fine round and modern technologies have made it more than formidable, but the restrictions the US has placed on both it and all other small arms rounds are probably killing more of our troops than the Gov't will admit by not putting a bad guy down quicker.
Ah well, another topic for another day.
I've only heard of the M-14 in use by a company sniper. Since snipers are actually doing things these days (they were under employed) it stands to reason that the sight of an M-14 is not unheard of.
The Army's designated marksman program is supposed to primarily involve the standard issue rifle (M16/M4) with an issued optic when available.
If the Beretta is the lowest quality handgun, in your opinion, why was it selected as the military side arm some (20) years ago? Beretta, HK, and Sig were the only three to complete the test trials due to quality. The quality of these (3) firearms allowed them to endure the vigorous requirements of the military testing.
Originally Posted by BAC
As has been stated, I don't believe the Beretta is the problem. It's 9mm ball ammo.
Not a military dude here, but struck me as odd about the letter was that the BGs were using GPS. I heard that we could turn off GPS to civilian use during wartime. We do still own it, right?
Yeah, but do you know how many civilian Garmins are in the hands of OUR troops and contractors? The standard Military hand held GPS unit was, atleast while I was over there in '03 was the PLGR, if that piece of junk hadn't been essential to my job, I would have junked it and used a Garmin. The PLGR is about the size of a small shoe box, and just about as useful, the only thing it was good for was loading / interfacing with equipment.
Originally Posted by paramedic70002
The PSN-11 PLGR has been/is being replaced. I can't recall the name of the new device, but it's much smaller and has more features (still doesn't compare to a Garmin but more rugged and probably has encryption.
My old platoon had 4 PLGRs, of those 1 sometimes worked. Nobody knew how to use them, and we couldn't get batteries (well before 2000 we couldn't get much of anything). Everyone just bought their own Garmin and that tended to be more accurate without the security key than the PLGR with.
I'm sure the new device is much better, but it's only been around for a couple years and probably hasn't worked it's way into all units. Many units probably don't have any navigation equipment and probably rely on what they purchase themselves.
My platoon manned ECP 5 right outside Fallujah for two of our seven months last year. The SAW wasn't ideal for dealing with the crowds that came through every day so all of our SAW gunners were given either a Benelli M4 or a Mossberg 500 pump to take out on post with them in addition to their SAW. They'd carry both out on post but leave the SAWs in one of the towers while carrying the shottys on the line.
Shotguns and pistols elicited a lot more respect from the Iraqis than the normal M16A4/M4. I think part of that is that persons in positions of authority carried pistols in Saddam's regime and in our military. Also the average Iraqi probably has a MG or rifle pointed at him atleast once a day. Plus our M9s had lasergrips installed on them and when clearing houses in low light my platoon sergeant would put that dot on every MAM coming out of a house, worked like a charm keeping them in line.
Ball ammo is a problem. I love how our own police officers can carry JHP to shoot our own citizens but we can't use it on our sworn enemies. I think we're way beyond the Hague or Geneva Conventions in this one, needs to be updated for our current radical foes.
I kept my M4 bone dry and relatively clean the entire time I was there and it never jammed once.
I don't necessarily agree with your assesment of the quality of the Beretta, but that's OK. We don't have to agree to have a discussion. Thanks for your opinion, because in the end it's just as good as anyone else's in this context.
Originally Posted by BAC
I too think the 9mm ball ammo is the problem, not the platform. But, that's just my opinion.
I do agree that there are options available in .45 that can compete with the 1911, but I would take a 1911 and be just as happy personally.
I would expect the M&P to be considered for sure and probably the XD too like you said. I know Taurus spent a lot of time and money trying to get into the new .45 service pistol market and think that was proabaly the thinking that drove the M&P and XD forward too. I also read that some Ruger pistols have been contracted by the army for rear eschelon troops, but am not if it's true and am not sure if they are in 9mm or .45. Anyone know?
Also, does anyone know why the order for a .45 service pistol was cancelled. Politics I'm sure, but I wonder if it involved more of a NATO standard lobby effort, or just a cost issue?
Either way, it sucks if we have guys getting shot or dying because the politicos are 1. trying to pacify NATO, or 2. Trying to save a few pennies.
The Taurus S14 is about the best thing going now in 1911.
It's fine sgtD; my sole experience with the Beretta in question comes from a long day at the range, and the cheap Federal FMJ stuff we feed our Glock just didn't do so well in that gun. The malfunctions left a bad taste in my mouth, one that never improved the more I saw it being used in side-by-side "torture tests" with newer/tougher models (Glocks, M&Ps, Sig's, XDs...). I will hold to my contention that the US forces could do far better.
I haven't heard anything about a standard pistol coming out in .45, but it wouldn't surprise me. SF like the caliber, which lends itself perfectly to use with suppressors, but I don't see why the standard service pistol should be a 9mm. We both seem to agree (sgtD) that the outside "committees" (Hague convention, NATO, etc.) are really limiting our soldiers' options and effectiveness.
To be honest, if offered the choice I'd sooner keep the existing weapons/calibers and simply offer better marksmanship training. You can't miss fast enough to win, and I suspect much of the negative perceptions of the 9mm FMJ is because the hits made aren't really good ones, if they're made at all.