Do you s'pose the rumors are true - Page 3

fed_wif_a_sig · January 30th, 2006, 10:31 PM

I just dont see the USP getting in. Even the d-boys dont like it like they did their 1911's. Who gets it is a good guess, but I doubt it will be a single action for general issue. I do know that socom is looking real hard at the 6.8mm (.270) and 308. Heck the pulled out a bunch of M-14s already due to the sucky stopping power of todays war.

Its a different story. In the old days, we wanted to wound as many enemy as we could (takes 5 to care for 1 wounded), but today the issue is putting them down hard and fast. Different war, different mentaility and thus different equipment. (Damm it looks like I did learn something from all those evening walks with Rummy)

Bud White · January 30th, 2006, 10:34 PM

Need to go back totally old school 30-06 in a M1 and go hollowpoint the hague convention was so long ago it doesnt apply to todays warfair

Euclidean · January 30th, 2006, 10:38 PM

Ruger did get that contract for 5000 pistols for tank crews. I'm sure if there's a chance, they'll submit a design. Honestly, they don't have a lot to choose from if they insist on second strike capability and an external safety.

NaturalSelection · January 31st, 2006, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bud White

date of that article is 2004 so it donesnt have to do with this go round

obviously we're discussing the military and this article deals with homeland security, but it clearly establishes their presence with US government and law enforcement.

Bud White · January 31st, 2006, 12:42 AM

well sure but what im saying is it doesnt cover this go round of bids.. Mil have been using HK's for a long time. So it would be nothing odd for them to choose the Usp for use ..Cant seem um outfitting everyone with a Socom 23 though.

i wouldnt mind to see them use a HK would prefer somthing here made in USA first but nothing i can really see them choosing

I really doubt they will go 1911 again as much as many people and colt would love them to do .

The rugers though a fine and almost indestructable gun i just cant see them going for not enough rounds..

Glock probley a no go as i said in first post..

Smith well no in the 1911 and probley not in there regular autopistols they should have stuck to wheelies

Sig that dang safety thing again in low mag capicity

I really only see it as between the HK and Glock or maybe the XD basically same amoutn of rounds but that no external safety thing is gonna hurt um for a general issue Weapon

OD · January 31st, 2006, 12:54 AM

I don't see them going with the Rugers either Bud.
IIRC, the 5K the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command procured were for issuance to Iraqi and Afgani security forces.

PatrioticRick · January 31st, 2006, 03:31 AM

It's about time, they've more trouble with the M9 in sand conditions, that I was an option to use the 1911 again during Desert Storm

Tangle · January 31st, 2006, 08:58 AM

From talking to Army personel, they get almost no training with a handgun. In fact, I had a couple of soldiers come up from Fort Benning to shoot my AR-10; which, BTW, they fell in love with. But these guys that qualified Expert with their M-4, were pathetic when it came to handguns. And they readily admitted that they get very little handgun training and part of the training isn't shooting.

So I suspect one of the reasons the 9mm ball isn't working, is they're not getting good shot placement. It is also interesting that SEALs that use a Sig 226 9mm and gets lots of training with it, don't complain about the round. In fact, one SEAL publicly posted something to the effect, "Once I hit you twice in the COM and once in the head, it won't matter what caliber it was."

So the real issue appears to be that our troops shoot handguns quite poorly, because they get very little training. And as all too often, the bullet gets blamed instead the real problem. Troops are comparing stops with rifles to stops with handguns; we all know what wins in that comparison.

I mean no disrespect in any way, but soldiers may not be a good resource on the effectiveness of bullets. I realize many of them have shot far more people than us civies, but I'm not so sure they really analyze and report accurately the events. E.G. They shoot a guy five times with a 9mm and he doesn't go down, so the round doesn't work. Let's keep in mind, the troops get very little, if any, handgun training.

I just looked up the effectiveness of .45 fmj and 9mm fmj in Marshall and Sanow's "Stopping Power". Here's what they list for one shot stop percentages:

9mm
Win 115-gr FMJ - 70%

.45 ACP
Rem 230 gr FMJ - 62%
Win 230 gr FMJ - 62%
Fed 230 gr FMJ - 62%

Let's try to keep in mind that Marshall and Sanow are not promoting one shot stops, but rather simply looking at cases where there was a torso hit, that one shot stopped the fight, and which bullets did that with the highest percentage.

The problem with the bulk of our troops is, not only are they poor handgun shots, but they have nothing but a rifle to compare their handgun to. Even those SpecOps that use the .45, they get lot's of training time with the handgun and one would expect better results. But is it the round or the the placement?

ExSoldier · January 31st, 2006, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tangle

So I suspect one of the reasons the 9mm ball isn't working, is they're not getting good shot placement. It is also interesting that SEALs that use a Sig 226 9mm and gets lots of training with it, don't complain about the round. In fact, one SEAL publicly posted something to the effect, "Once I hit you twice in the COM and once in the head, it won't matter what caliber it was."

So the real issue appears to be that our troops shoot handguns quite poorly, because they get very little training. And as all too often, the bullet gets blamed instead the real problem. Even those SpecOps that use the .45, they get lot's of training time with the handgun and one would expect better results. But is it the round or the the placement?

Ever see the training regimen for a SEAL team for sidearms? They train to hit a 4x6 white card situated on the forehead of a standard silouhette target and to "HAMMER" (two fast ones) it on the move.

The average team will shoot something on the order of 5,000 rounds per week 9mm alone. That's one reason the SEALs switched from the M9 to the P226 early on. The M9 slides showed signs of cracking. We all heard this as rumor after the M9 went into service. It was the SEALs training. That's why I find it difficult to believe this SEAL spoke of the Mozambique. They can put two into the forehead on the run. I'm not questioning YOU, Tangle. But there are so many wannabe SEALs that there is a special website to insure the frauds are outed!

I read an account of the TORA BORA campaign of two SpecOps guys clearing a cave complex from one of many directions this team took the very cramped area and others were handling the other approaches. They rounded a hairpin in the tunnel and it opened out to a larger cavern, lit by a lamp and showing three "tango's" studying a map. One seated, two standing. Ak's were either slung or leaning against an unoccupied chair. The operators get within say thirty feet in the gloom outside the lamp glow before they're detected. All hell breaks loose. One operator has a M9 Beretta and the other an H&K MK21. The guy seated has the closest grab to a weapon, he catches rounds from both and slumps over. The guy on the right is taken by the H&K. One shot he goes down. This operator automatically swings his weapon to back up his buddy. THAT tango is still on his feet, the Beretta is still speaking and the H&K has time to join that conversation. I dunno if these were Delta, Rangers, or what. Because the presence of two different types of weapons and calibers seems to suggest either a "personal weapon of choice" in contravention of the regulations or a loose unit TO&E.

I do agree that most soldiers get very little training on their sidearms, but that is usually where the sidearm is a secondary weapon and not a primary. When I was on active duty a Company Commander only carried a 45 and not a rifle, as was the case for the battalion, brigade and Division staff and the medics. M60 ammo bearers carried a 45 as well. All these folks got to qualify on the 45 and it wasn't "PASS/FAIL." All these groups (in my outfit) got extra time for training and practice.

Each year there was a post wide pistol competition. For kicks my first year on active duty I asked my boss if me and a couple other LT's could take an arms room 45 (one for each of us) and go "bust some caps" in the competition. We were classified "new shooters" since we weren't on post the previous year. There were about 500 "new shooters" and I'd guess about 1500 others from across the post. 9th ID only. We didn't let the 2nd Ranger Bn play!

That year, I scored #2 out of the new shooters and #9 overall. I found myself on a Special Duty" assignment to the Division Pistol Team. Thankfully some doctor from Madigan Medical Center outranked me so he got to be the OIC and I could just shoot. There were 10 other NCO's on the team. We got match ammo, Olympic grade Gold Cups and S&W M41's in 22LR. Olympic level coaches. My entire working day consisted of hammering rounds downrange and spotting for others. We were the "Composite Bullseye" team, so we competed in the classic style. quartering the target, one hand in the pocket, weapon extended in the other hand. Squeeze a round once every five seconds. The combat pistol team had to sprint 400 meters in full gear and shoot for score the instant they stopped. Out doors. We were in the MTU indoor range. Nice and dry, warm & cozy. Hot coffee. What a great time I had! ~sigh~ Those were the days. However, I know my career suffered for that assignment, because I wasn't leading my troops and that eventually cost me a company command. I got a bump to the Division Staff (G4) and got out a few years later.

I also doubt the results of the Sanow tests. There have been countless such tests and studies. There was the Fackler study which was also shown to be somewhat specious. You can take this back to the old legendary days of the GOAT test for medics in Special Forces....

OD · January 31st, 2006, 11:15 AM

This isn't intended as a flame Tangle, just curious as if you have seen them.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/mars...crepancies.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/mars...l-analysis.htm
http://www.stoppingpower.net/commentary/

January 30th, 2006, 10:31 PM	#21
fed_wif_a_sig Distinguished Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Denton, TX Posts: 1,369	I just dont see the USP getting in. Even the d-boys dont like it like they did their 1911's. Who gets it is a good guess, but I doubt it will be a single action for general issue. I do know that socom is looking real hard at the 6.8mm (.270) and 308. Heck the pulled out a bunch of M-14s already due to the sucky stopping power of todays war. Its a different story. In the old days, we wanted to wound as many enemy as we could (takes 5 to care for 1 wounded), but today the issue is putting them down hard and fast. Different war, different mentaility and thus different equipment. (Damm it looks like I did learn something from all those evening walks with Rummy) __________________ Steve "Respect all ... Fear none!!!

January 30th, 2006, 10:38 PM	#23
Euclidean VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 3,213	Ruger did get that contract for 5000 pistols for tank crews. I'm sure if there's a chance, they'll submit a design. Honestly, they don't have a lot to choose from if they insist on second strike capability and an external safety. __________________ I am The Armed Educator.

January 31st, 2006, 12:54 AM	#26
OD VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Vatican City Posts: 3,302	I don't see them going with the Rugers either Bud. IIRC, the 5K the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command procured were for issuance to Iraqi and Afgani security forces. __________________ OD "Slow down, you'll get a more harmonious outcome...." -------------------------------------------- *"The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." - Jeff Cooper*

January 31st, 2006, 03:31 AM	#27
PatrioticRick VIP Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rigby, Idaho Posts: 4,691	It's about time, they've more trouble with the M9 in sand conditions, that I was an option to use the 1911 again during Desert Storm __________________ Μολὼν λαβέ USN/USAF Retired/Desert Shield/Desert Storm DAV Life Member NRA Life Member Last edited by PatrioticRick; February 1st, 2006 at 05:59 AM..

January 31st, 2006, 11:15 AM	#30
OD VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Vatican City Posts: 3,302	This isn't intended as a flame Tangle, just curious as if you have seen them. http://www.firearmstactical.com/mars...crepancies.htm http://www.firearmstactical.com/mars...l-analysis.htm http://www.stoppingpower.net/commentary/ __________________ OD "Slow down, you'll get a more harmonious outcome...." -------------------------------------------- *"The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." - Jeff Cooper*

January 30th, 2006, 10:34 PM	#22
Bud White VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Gone from Here Posts: 17,375	Need to go back totally old school 30-06 in a M1 and go hollowpoint the hague convention was so long ago it doesnt apply to todays warfair

January 31st, 2006, 12:42 AM	#25
Bud White VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Gone from Here Posts: 17,375	well sure but what im saying is it doesnt cover this go round of bids.. Mil have been using HK's for a long time. So it would be nothing odd for them to choose the Usp for use ..Cant seem um outfitting everyone with a Socom 23 though. i wouldnt mind to see them use a HK would prefer somthing here made in USA first but nothing i can really see them choosing I really doubt they will go 1911 again as much as many people and colt would love them to do . The rugers though a fine and almost indestructable gun i just cant see them going for not enough rounds.. Glock probley a no go as i said in first post.. Smith well no in the 1911 and probley not in there regular autopistols they should have stuck to wheelies Sig that dang safety thing again in low mag capicity I really only see it as between the HK and Glock or maybe the XD basically same amoutn of rounds but that no external safety thing is gonna hurt um for a general issue Weapon

January 31st, 2006, 08:58 AM	#28
Tangle Senior Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Chattanooga Posts: 6,611	From talking to Army personel, they get almost no training with a handgun. In fact, I had a couple of soldiers come up from Fort Benning to shoot my AR-10; which, BTW, they fell in love with. But these guys that qualified Expert with their M-4, were pathetic when it came to handguns. And they readily admitted that they get very little handgun training and part of the training isn't shooting. So I suspect one of the reasons the 9mm ball isn't working, is they're not getting good shot placement. It is also interesting that SEALs that use a Sig 226 9mm and gets lots of training with it, don't complain about the round. In fact, one SEAL publicly posted something to the effect, "Once I hit you twice in the COM and once in the head, it won't matter what caliber it was." So the real issue appears to be that our troops shoot handguns quite poorly, because they get very little training. And as all too often, the bullet gets blamed instead the real problem. Troops are comparing stops with rifles to stops with handguns; we all know what wins in that comparison. I mean no disrespect in any way, but soldiers may not be a good resource on the effectiveness of bullets. I realize many of them have shot far more people than us civies, but I'm not so sure they really analyze and report accurately the events. E.G. They shoot a guy five times with a 9mm and he doesn't go down, so the round doesn't work. Let's keep in mind, the troops get very little, if any, handgun training. I just looked up the effectiveness of .45 fmj and 9mm fmj in Marshall and Sanow's "Stopping Power". Here's what they list for one shot stop percentages: 9mm Win 115-gr FMJ - 70% .45 ACP Rem 230 gr FMJ - 62% Win 230 gr FMJ - 62% Fed 230 gr FMJ - 62% Let's try to keep in mind that Marshall and Sanow are not promoting one shot stops, but rather simply looking at cases where there was a torso hit, that one shot stopped the fight, and which bullets did that with the highest percentage. The problem with the bulk of our troops is, not only are they poor handgun shots, but they have nothing but a rifle to compare their handgun to. Even those SpecOps that use the .45, they get lot's of training time with the handgun and one would expect better results. But is it the round or the the placement?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode