Congress Wants Mattis To Intervene In Army Handgun Program

[livingston]

Congress Wants Mattis To Intervene In Army Handgun Program
The Army’s troubled program to buy a new standard-issue handgun for soldiers was the subject of renewed debate on Capitol Hill. administration, Republican Sens. Joni Ernst of Iowa and Thom Tillis of North Carolina took turns criticizing the service’s XM17 Modular Handgun System (MHS) program, a $350 million competition to buy a replacement to the Cold War-era M9 9mm pistol.

At a time when Russia is upgrading its service rifle, “we continue to modify our M4s [and] many of our troops still carry M16s, the Army can’t even figure out how to replace the M9 pistol, first issued in 1982,” Ernst said
The senator, a frequent critic of the program who in 2015 retired as a lieutenant colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard, said she and others would joke while in the military that “sometimes the most efficient use of an M9 is to simply throw it at your adversary.”

Ernst blasted the Modular Handgun Program’s many requirements. “Take a look at their 350-page micromanaging requirements document if you want to know why it’s taking so long to get this accomplished,” she said.

Congress Wants Mattis To Intervene In Army Handgun Program



During Thursday’s confirmation hearing for retired Marine Gen. James Mattis to become defense secretary in the Trump

 

[218bee]

Mattis: "Glock 17 with a thumb safety.....done"

 

[Phauxtoe]

...and sell the M9s to civilians, a buy back program!

 

[Deplorable Me]

Over the years I've owned and shot the Beretta 92. It's a nice shooter but I've always thought that it was like a typical government program, overweight and the capacity fell short.

The concept of a safety on a combat handgun is also a farce. This assumes the person carrying it is going to engage it when the pistol is not in use or in the holster. Do they really expect a person carrying in combat to engage a safety? The SA/DA trigger always seemed adequate from a design-application standpoint.

The OEM magazine capacity of the 92/M9 was 15, consider the Glock 17/19 or the Sig 228/229.

 

[dsdmmat]

Over the years I've owned and shot the Beretta 92. It's a nice shooter but I've always thought that it was like a typical government program, overweight and the capacity fell short.

The concept of a safety on a combat handgun is also a farce. This assumes the person carrying it is going to engage it when the pistol is not in use or in the holster. Do they really expect a person carrying in combat to engage a safety? The SA/DA trigger always seemed adequate from a design-application standpoint.

The OEM magazine capacity of the 92/M9 was 15, consider the Glock 17/19 or the Sig 228/229.

Just for the purpose of my education. Got a question for you, ever been to combat? Do you know how many soldiers have ND in theater in a year? I do not like the safety decocker on the beretta but, I never really liked the beretta either. I own one to become proficient with it as that is what I am issued overseas.

Carrying the gun in condition red requires a safety mechanism. Even with that safety mechanism, we still have soldiers manage to have NDs, shoot their buddies, equipment and manage to injure themselves.

 

[MoMan]

Mattis: "Glock 17 with a thumb safety.....done"

OR... Glock 17 w/o safety! I know it won't fly, but why not, amiright??!!

 

[Deplorable Me]

This is what I would fear in combat, pointing the firearm, pulling the trigger and having forgotten to take the safety off. A safety is only good if people use it. I can't imagine troops actually using them in the first place. Negligent discharges can be had with or without the safety.

 

[Darth]

Just for the purpose of my education. Got a question for you, ever been to combat? Do you know how many soldiers have ND in theater in a year? I do not like the safety decocker on the beretta but, I never really liked the beretta either. I own one to become proficient with it as that is what I am issued overseas.

Carrying the gun in condition red requires a safety mechanism. Even with that safety mechanism, we still have soldiers manage to have NDs, shoot their buddies, equipment and manage to injure themselves.

Why should poor training hinder progress with new technology?

 

[dsdmmat]

This is what I would fear in combat, pointing the firearm, pulling the trigger and having forgotten to take the safety off. A safety is only good if people use it. I can't imagine troops actually using them in the first place. Negligent discharges can be had with or without the safety.

We train to unlock the gun prior to firing it. It becomes second nature, having a safety on a handgun is not an issue in combat.

 

[dsdmmat]

Why should poor training hinder progress with new technology?

Why should poor training hinder progress with new technology?

What new technology's?

 

[Defilade]

N/D's are going to happen whether MIlitary/LEO/Civilian. It's a training issue. There is a saying in the Military. "Your Safety can get you killed"

 

[Darth]

What new technology's?

A handgun with no safety?

Second nature would also be "no fingers in the trigger guard until you are ready to fire."

I don't buy the argument that if the DoD bought Glocks instead of Berettas, with a safety, the ND number would skyrocket.

"It must have a safety" is a stupid purchase requirement nowadays.

 

[dsdmmat]

N/D's are going to happen whether MIlitary/LEO/Civilian. It's a training issue. There is a saying in the Military. "Your Safety can get you killed"

I have never heard this saying in 34 years of service and never heard it from my father ( a career Marine) The Safety on weapons go beyond "soldier handling" it also addresses the environment the weapon is being exposed.

 

[dsdmmat]

A handgun with no safety?

Second nature would also be "no fingers in the trigger guard until you are ready to fire."

I don't buy the argument that if the DoD bought Glocks instead of Berettas, with a safety, the ND number would skyrocket.

"It must have a safety" is a stupid purchase requirement nowadays.

I have not heard anyone making arguments that buying one type of firearm over another will increase NDs. Does the Glock not have a safety device? I believe it does. I believe the Austrian army is issued Glocks.

 

[Darth]

I have not heard anyone making arguments that buying one type of firearm over another will increase NDs. Does the Glock not have a safety device? I believe it does.

It doesn't.

You haven't heard the argument that they won't increase NDs? You just made that argument yourself a few posts ago?

 

[ArmedCorgi]

What were the reasons for getting rid of the 1911? Was it just magazine capacity? Why not bring it back?

 

[dsdmmat]

It doesn't.

You haven't heard the argument that they won't increase NDs? You just made that argument yourself a few posts ago?

Our “Safe Action”® System. Always safe and always ready. | GLOCK USA
Yes it does and no I didn't.

 

[Deplorable Me]

Just for the purpose of my education. Got a question for you, ever been to combat? Do you know how many soldiers have ND in theater in a year? I do not like the safety decocker on the beretta but, I never really liked the beretta either. I own one to become proficient with it as that is what I am issued overseas.

Carrying the gun in condition red requires a safety mechanism. Even with that safety mechanism, we still have soldiers manage to have NDs, shoot their buddies, equipment and manage to injure themselves.

We train to unlock the gun prior to firing it. It becomes second nature, having a safety on a handgun is not an issue in combat.

I'm perceiving a paradox. It seems there are ND's with or without the safety.

I also don't have a preference of one handgun over another. Each model has it's own unique operating requirements.

Combat is hell, training can only prepare one so well then reality sets in. I'm no expert and I have seen LEO's and veteran's make common sense firearms safety mistakes at the range.

 

[Defilade]

I have never heard this saying in 34 years of service and never heard it from my father ( a career Marine) The Safety on weapons go beyond "soldier handling" it also addresses the environment the weapon is being exposed.

Once again it is part of training. We were taught to know the condition of your weapon at all times! Part of that training is knowing if your safety is on or off. It can get you killed one way or another in the heat of the moment.

 

[dsdmmat]

What were the reasons for getting rid of the 1911? Was it just magazine capacity? Why not bring it back?

Capacity had something to do with it but, the new breed of soldiers could not handle the 45. A majority of the recruits now a days have never seen a handgun outside of TV and Movies let a lone handle one. It is easier to train a novice on a 9mm.

 

[Deplorable Me]

Why should poor training hinder progress with new technology?

New technology? I'm not seeing any proposals for advancing it, switching to an alternate existing model maybe.

 

[Darth]

Our “Safe Action”® System. Always safe and always ready. | GLOCK USA
Yes it does and no I didn't.

Are you serious?

Everyone, including you when you said:

Carrying the gun in condition red requires a safety mechanism. Even with that safety mechanism, we still have soldiers manage to have NDs, shoot their buddies, equipment and manage to injure themselves.

knows what we mean by "safety."

An active safety. One you must manipulate before you can fire. Hence making NDs "less probable." The reason even for this discussion and the M9 and all that.

Everyone understands this. "A Glock with a thumb safety..." etc.

?

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Capacity had something to do with it but, the new breed of soldiers could not handle the 45. A majority of the recruits now a days have never seen a handgun outside of TV and Movies let a lone handle one. It is easier to train a novice on a 9mm.

I see. So why not just go to a 9mm version of the 1911?

 

[dsdmmat]

Once again it is part of training. We were taught to know the condition of your weapon at all times! Part of that training is knowing if your safety is on or off. It can get you killed one way or another in the heat of the moment.

On that I agree, I have never heard that statement though. I have seen way too many NDs because people did not know thier weapons status. I have even seen an ND that involved a weapon that was slung over the Soldier's back. As he was removing his rifle the trigger got caught up on his gear and discharged. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[Darth]

New technology? I'm not seeing any proposals for advancing it, switching to an alternate existing model maybe.

I bought a new truck last year.

New!? It's just a tin can with an internal combustion engine and 4 wheels! Been around for decades!

Clearly it's new technology to learn and get familiar with to the party in question.

Did everyone forget the English language today?

 

[dsdmmat]

Are you serious?

Everyone, including you when you said:

knows what we mean by "safety."

An active safety. One you must manipulate before you can fire. Hence making NDs "less probable." The reason even for this discussion and the M9 and all that.

Everyone understands this. "A Glock with a thumb safety..." etc.

?

Not quite, I never stated nor do I believe the weapon needs an external safety. I stated every weapon carried in condition red needs to have a safety mechanism. The Glock has a safety mechanism.

 

[dsdmmat]

I see. So why not just go to a 9mm version of the 1911?

People with Small hands have difficulty with the 1911, maybe?

 

[Darth]

No, I never stated nor do I believe the weapon needs an external safety. I stated every weapon carried in condition red needs to have a safety mechanism. The Glock has a safety mechanism.

Ok.

That would make every modern handgun in existence eligible though.

Not sure how a Glock "safety" prevents NDs, but I'm game...

 

[Deplorable Me]

Capacity had something to do with it but, the new breed of soldiers could not handle the 45. A majority of the recruits now a days have never seen a handgun outside of TV and Movies let a lone handle one. It is easier to train a novice on a 9mm.

My dad was a Korean War draftee. He never served overseas but patrolled up and down the east coast with a mobile artillery unit. Two years of non-stop training with field artillery, 1911's and Garands. He and several other veteran's I know love the 1911. The sights could be improved but none the less the guys all loved them. MY WIFE loves the 1911 (yes .45 ACP), but hers has Novak sights. Maybe people are scared of the size of the brass coming out of the ejection port.

 

[Marine Cpl]

It's definitely a training issue. Handgun training for some reason is neglected compared to rifle training. I was never officially trained on the M9 yet I was given one as soon as I made Corporal at different times for no reason whatsoever. Still had the m16A2.

As far as the safety goes, due to the shear number of troops from all walks of life, you will get those that just can't get it. Every unit has the 5 clumsy guys that still can't follow the safety rules no matter how many times you smoke them for fucking up.