U.S. Army New Sidearm XM17 MSH !
- Thread starter GOYABEAN
- Start date
oc shooter
.223 Rem
waste of tax payer money in my opinion
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I agree. A handgun in combat hardly ever gets fired.
Well the M9s would eventually wear out and need to be replaced. Its cheaper to replace them with SIG P320s than new Berretta 92s.
As for the absouloute need..... its minimal but still important enough to bother issuing them. I understand that a side arm is extremely useful when working vehicle checkpoints and handling detainees for example, two tasks that can require a free hand.
As for the absouloute need..... its minimal but still important enough to bother issuing them. I understand that a side arm is extremely useful when working vehicle checkpoints and handling detainees for example, two tasks that can require a free hand.
oc shooter
.223 Rem
Problem is that it’s not just the pistol it’s everything else holster and especially training not only for active it reserves and national guard. It’s a huge expense for zero true gain.in my opinion replacing the M16/M4 would be more beneficial
Every time they look at replacing the M16/M4 they come to the same conclusion: There is nothing out there that is enough of an improvement to justify the effort and expense.
oc shooter
.223 Rem
Can’t we say the same for the M9 except the M16 platform is I think 50 Year’s old and there are definitely better options out there. Love our military have 2 grandsons serving now both agree that a new pistol is a waste and both agree that a new rifle should be a priority along with an new caliber
I think the Army wanted a lighter handgun precisely because they are little used. There is no point in procuring a new rifle until there is a drastic step forward in cartridge tech to make it worthwhile.
I don't care what the article says the only people getting these handguns are officers. The only reason these handguns were purchased was becauae officers. They hated the Beretta because they were old, broken most of the time and heavy. This has nothing to do with soldiers or combat. Take it from a guy who's primary weapon by Army regs was the m9 but when I got to a unit I was issues an m16 and the officers of that unit that had no business carrying one, had them.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I saw the same. Only officers. In the beginning (90's), corpsman and medics, and smaw, dragon, and javeline gunners had them. Eventually they got them taken away and were issued an M16 or M4.
Catskillkid
.450/400 Nitro Ex
And supposedly the military P320s won't drop when fired, unlike the ones us civvies get.
The Army version has an external safety and are not supposed to be carried with a round in the chamber.
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
"The 10-year agreement calls for Sig to supply the Army with full-size XM17 and compact XM18 versions of its 9mm pistol. MHS comes with Tritium sights as well as 17 and 21-round magazines."
OK, so the Army has clearly defined what constitutes a standard magazine for "the militia". It's time to have a court uphold that.
OK, so the Army has clearly defined what constitutes a standard magazine for "the militia". It's time to have a court uphold that.
Doc8404
.450/400 Nitro Ex
We carried both M4 and M9
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
You were special.
I carried an M9 and two M60Ds. Normally only carried the M60s to the helicopter and back to the Arms room.
I wish I could have just carried an M9. Instead I had to jump in and out of HEMTTs and M270s with a a clunky ass A2 which never made any sense to me, even the mechanics at least got M4s. It was even worse when I got to 1st Cav, DIVARTY commander insisted every HEMTT and M270 also carry an M249. We didn't even have pintle mounts or ring mounts on the damn vehicles! If they wanted us to have the extra defensive firepower the should have given us the proper mounts and M240s. Army logic is often not........ logical however.
In an MLRS battery everyone is all spread out and isolated in lightly armored or unarmored vehicles with only 2-3 soldiers per position.
Didn't matter what small arms we had, if we were engaged by the enemy directly we would've been dead anyway. Mobility and stealth were our best defensive assets. The M16A2 was only ever an encumbrance to me.
In an MLRS battery everyone is all spread out and isolated in lightly armored or unarmored vehicles with only 2-3 soldiers per position.
Didn't matter what small arms we had, if we were engaged by the enemy directly we would've been dead anyway. Mobility and stealth were our best defensive assets. The M16A2 was only ever an encumbrance to me.
Doc8404
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Yes and we still are to this day.
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Do you remember in the other thread when I said that the military doesn't even teach you how to hold it right? Look at those pictures.
Should of went to a 40cal or 10mm more stopping power.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
How so? A .400 diameter hole vs a .355 diameter hole isn't going to make a difference when they would both shoot clean through both sides of a human chest. They aren't shooting bear where you need 40 plus inches of penetration.
Army doc says we use ammo to wound not kill.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I don't know. When I went to bootcamp, our DI's made us say, "Kill! Kill! Kill!" all the time. Maybe it's an Army thing?
I don't know. When I went to bootcamp, our DI's made us say, "Kill! Kill! Kill!" all the time. Maybe it's an Army thing?
Mine too but look at the ammo we use and the army documentation. Look at how we train to fight. It's nothing like ww2 or Vietnam. Rules of engagement have changed.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
It's nonsense no matter what the manual says.
That is a myth!
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
From a historical warfighting standpoint, wounding an enemy combatant is more advantageous than killing them. Wounded enemies fight ineffectively if at all. Wounded enemies require the support and assistance of other enemies; thus decreasing the combat effectiveness of more enemy troops. In the end, the enemy can be forced to deplete resources and manpower on their wounded without further expenditure of allied effort or material.
That is true. But that doesn't mean that is our tactic. When you shoot at someone do you try to wound vs. kill? Aren't you really trying to stop them?
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Depends on what ROE are forced upon the troops by administration bureaucrats in Washington.
But to your point, you're correct...theory and reality don't always coincide. Of course you want to stop the enemy. A dead enemy will not fight. A wounded enemy may not fight. Certainty would be at a premium in combat.
In any case, I've got zero actual military training. So, I'll defer to experts.