Sunday, November 1, 2015

McCain: Halt Army Handgun Program, Choose the Bullet First

"The Army should suspend or cancel the current [request for proposal] until it can conduct a caliber study to determine what caliber and cartridge is optimum for the next handgun to meet current and emerging threats."
But that's not the most embarrassing thing the Army ought to be concerned about in this report. THIS is:
"Meanwhile, the Army maintains that it adopted the requirement for a new modular handgun from the Air Force in October 2013."
You. Have. GOT. To. Be. Kidding. From the Junior Birdmen? Really? Not the Marines mind you, not the SEALS. You might as well try to excuse your own mistake in selecting an ICBM by saying you got the requirements from the Coast Guard.


Anonymous said...

This is another example of crony capitalism. Also, the result of faggot friendly idiots running all branches of the armed forces.

Gary said...

Well, they relied on the Air Force choice once before when both the Army and Marines selected the M16 after the Air Force decided it was the perfect base defense weapon to replace the M1 carbine.

The handgun replacement should be simple, since the perfect one has been around for nearly 100 years.

Anonymous said...

Some fellas shoot better with and prefer a nine. Others shoot better with and prefer a .45. Why this false premise that we must do more "studies" to find out the statistical "best" when the actuality is that - when it comes down to it- the endgame is ONE Airmen, Soldier, Seaman or Marine defending their life in the singular moment?
Shouldn't we relent to the truth that even if a "study" says a .45 is "better" most of the time that the guy more proficient and more comfortable with a 9 ought to HAVE that 9 in THAT moment when it matters most?

Our military cannot have both 9s and 45s available to fill that particular line item?
For Christs sake, wehave to end this fighting war by statistics BULLSHIT!

Anonymous said...

To be fair to the Army; they have been trying to replace the M9 for almost 10 years but Congress keeps cutting the funding for those programs and forcing them to cancel them. The current program spun out of a joint Army and Air Force program. Another way to look at it is that the M9 sucks so bad that even the Air Force knows it and were trying to replace it.

Anonymous said...

Having actually carried a handgun in combat, unlike yourself, and ironically in over 75 close air support mssions in support of men like your son, I'd like to know one thing. Would you have the guts to call me a " junior birdman" to my face?

Dutchman6 said...

Sure! Now all you have to do is be slightly more than anonymous. Drop me an email. The term is one of semi-derisive endearment for all ground pounders whether Army or Marines. It dates from the World War II era, which is where I first heard it from veterans of that conflict. Getting pissed off about it is similar to Marines getting upset about being called Jarheads or Gyrenes or GIs being called any of the many names your branch calls them. Regardless of whether aircrew carry or not, they only use handguns as a last resort, infrequently, whereas the grunts and operators train and use daily. That's my point. Lighten up.

Anonymous said...

@November 1, 2015 at 12:57 PM

Wow, you sound like a high school kid.
So i assume you'd assault a 70+ yr old, with serious medical conditions?
Hmmmm, so much for HONOR!
But thanx for serving.

Anonymous said...

You arent one of them. They have earned the use of " terms of endearment", you haven't. You can backpeddle if you want, but your disrespect for an entire branch came through loud and clear. That is all.

Uncle Elmo said...

Don't forget Dear Leader still has over a year to accomplish his 'fundamental transformation' of America.

Next year in light of the switch to a kindler, gentler, more transgender military, we'll probably be seeing an RFP for the Army's new sidearm in 25 ACP.

Anonymous said...

See, Anon @ 12:57. This is why no one likes junior birdmen.

A Grunt who went to war with more than a pistol.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous takes umbrage, because he "carried" a pistol during close air support missions.

Notice the "carried" part. Unless "carried" is the new "used in combat."

Good grief.


Allen said...

anon 12:57

lighten up, francis.

my dad used to call the marines Seabees on Light Duty.

and don't forget the coasties "captain we've lost sight of shore how will we find our way home?"

and you can call me Squid all day. I'll buy you a beer, call you a zoomie, and we'll have a grand time telling stories.

Anonymous said...

Hail, Audie Murphy!

Anonymous said...

This from a guy who likes 45ACP and 10mil. 9mm is a good handgun/subgun round and is a proven performer on the battlefield. Why not stick with what works. Bullet and load advancements have made it better over the last 20 yrs. Plenty of lethality studies have already been done, ad nauseum. For example, this from luckygunner: By no means exhaustive, but does indicate 9mm can be quite effective with the right projectile/load. And is compact enough to afford lots of rounds for load out/#, while weighing less than bigger bore rounds. Quicker proficiency with less practice for troops pulled in off the street also has to count for something.

Seems to me to be a no-brainer. Stick with 9mm. A high capacity sidearm that is absolutely, utterly reliable in the hands of an average GI. DoD should put on man pants and move beyond ineffective ball rounds to hollow point and AP (like the Russians). Good G_d, you're trying to KILL your enemy, not wing 'em. If Special Ops wants something different, fine, let 'em buy what they need/want like they have been for decades.

Why does dotmil have to make nearly everything they do so damn complicated?? Let me solve the winner take all contract problem for you. Whoever wins does get the lions share, say 50% of the volume, but a minimum of two other certified manufacturers in completely separate parts of the country will also produce the same firearm, per accepted design, under license, for dotmil. Just good logistics practice. Handguns are just not that proprietary in their design that a 'standard' design can't be shared without causing undue harm to anybody's commercial business.

Quit efg around and just get 'er done. -Yes, I've dealt with PITA gubmint contracts...

-Seasoned Mechanical Engineer

Anonymous said...

I thought it was settled yesterday, that the nine round .22 revolver was the best handgun.

Anonymous said...

In the mid-1990's The USAF had been hollowed-out so much that we on active duty referred to it as "US Air Lines".


Gary said...

Sad to see that the divisiveness promoted by the administration has also infected those who took an oath to defend the republic.

Every branch of the military has those who risk their lives and sometimes die because the oath they took was taken seriously, and every branch of the military has members who will never hear a shot fired in anger. To use an issue like sidearm procurement to deteriorate to the point of exchanging personal insults is disgusting! Good natured banter is one thing, but nasty insults are something entirely different, whether against an individual or a service branch.

Congratulations on being successfully manipulated pawns in Obama’s war on those who serve!

Defensive Training Group said...

Agree with Gary (2 Nov @ 0620), having served with Army, Navy, and Marines during my career in the Air Force ('73-'94); even went to an Army school or two. Most of the units I interacted with were infantry, a few weren't. Most of us knew what we were capable of and those who didn't quickly learned during inter service tests, exercises, and 'war games' who we could rely on, no matter the branch. Funny thing, I never heard anyone in the infantry world complain about the Air Force when they needed a CAS mission, good food from a decent chow hall (Ft. Hood was the WORST circa 1978 for chow), a ride somewhere in a 130 or 141, or needed to link up with our troops in the field, or came into a 'bare base' perimeter manned by AF troops, nor us when we needed them for support on with anti-air, armor, or training. Same with the USMC; same with the Navy during the first Desert War in '91. All the branches were grateful for the medevac 'nightingale' birds the Navy drove from Kuwait to Ramstein or Sembach ABs. All branches were grateful for the Landsthul hospital ran by the Army; basically, all the branches were appreciative of what each other could do. So the inter-service rivalry and 'banter' is basically something to while away the time between deployments.

As to the issue of weapons procurement, it's not the Air Force's fault the Army can't figure out workable requirements for a general purpose pistol on its own. To use a line from the original Star Wars franchise, "Who's the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him?"


Anonymous said...

Defensive Training Group,

Repectfully, your position is aged and reflects a time of a less politicized Air Force/higher command. Now-a-days, the threat of collateral damage from CAS prevents most commanders from even asking, much less the regional command blessing off on the use much less the Air Force prioritizing their mission to getting a bird your way. See where I am going with this? There is a reason that the Marines guard their internal air assests so jealously and that is because those guys cant tell them to kick rocks. Not to say that they are not good for a ride. They are. No one could dispute that, even when the damn thing breaks down and you are stuck in whatever port for days.

The sad fact is that in todays military, there are an aweful lot if things we no longer do. Ask an Infantryman when the last time the practiced any fieldcraft or dug a fox hole. Cooks no longer cook and many 88M's cannot turn a wrench beyone a dash 10 level. We are the best in the world at raiding but we have outsourced about everything else. Just a sign of the times.