Pistol Problems – | @TheRhinoDen | Home Of All Things Military

Though you’d be hard pressed to find anyone that actually preferred the damn thing to a 1911, the M9 did its job well enough that it stuck around for 30 some odd years.

The Army, however, realized that, although the M9 was adequate, technology was still marching along, and it was probably time for a replacement. And so they sought out to look for one.That was a decade ago, and according to the Washington Times, Congress is getting sick of their shit. Apparently, the Senate Armed Services Committee is set to release a report entitled “America’s Most Wasted: Army’s Costly Misfire” that puts them on blast for it.

The report claims that, in the last decade, the only thing the Army has done to update its service sidearm is come up with a bizarrely complicated series of requirements that manufacturers will have to put up with.Okay, let’s ignore the fact that the Army just wasted a decade coming up with the rules for a new pistol without actually getting to the part where they start looking for one, or the fact that one of America’s most powerful leaders can’t pun to save his life.

How hard is it to dream up the perfect pistol?

Source: Pistol Problems – | @TheRhinoDen | Home Of All Things Military

Some folks love the M9 (or its civilian variant). Me, I’ve never liked it. But that’s merely a matter of taste.

The real issue here isn’t the pistol. It is the acquisition process.

Senator McCain wants to light up the Army for the lengthy, costly pistol replacement program. The problem with that is, the Army isn’t the one who set up the rules that is has to follow to buy a new pistol. Congress did that.

Let’s face it, the choice of a pistol, for all the emotional energy spent on it, is one of the more secondary concerns for the services. There are literally dozens of fantastic guns out there the Army could choose, and the advantages and disadvantages over any other choice would be so marginal as to be virtually invisible. It’s just a pistol.

But because the acquisition law is what it is, the Army has to go through the process of first determining the benchmarks it will measure a competition by, and then through the entire solicitation process, then the competition, and then awarding a contract, and then dealing with the invariable protest by the losing bids, which the GAO will almost automatically endorse, which puts the entire program on suspension, wasting more time and money, and often forcing the Army to start the entire process over again, right from square one.

Can you imagine GEN George Marshall having to fiddle with this mess while trying to build the host that became the US Army in World War II?

The guy in charge of small arms program management in the Army is a Colonel. An O-6. In Marshall’s day, he never would have seen a scrap of paper cross his desk on such a small issue. The Colonel would choose what he thought was best, and let the contracts.

But the Army can’t simply go to the Armed Services Committee and say, you know, we’ve taken a look at a bunch of pistols, and want to buy the Glock/Smith and Wesson/Colt/you name it.

That would be too simple.

15 thoughts on “Pistol Problems – | @TheRhinoDen | Home Of All Things Military”

  1. At this point, just make a decision. Glock, HK, S&W, whatever. Just pick a better weapon in whatever caliber, authorize hollowpoints and drive on. If the DoD can’t even buy something better than those shit M9s in less than a decade of effort, then we have much bigger problems than it would appear to the casual observer.

    1. I would go with the USP45F, but the M45 is extremely acceptable to me. Or put the 1911A1 back in production. Surely someone, somewhere knows how to still make one. 🙂

      Precious, my SIG P250C/45, ( it was my Birthday Present ), is a very good pistol, but I think t’s more an LE pistol than a military one.

      For me, the grip angle of the GLOCK is wrong, and I would be better off throwing it at the target.

  2. I would guess McCain et all are also speaking to their colleagues in Congress about the aquisition rules with this report.

  3. The Army, however, realized that, although the M9 was adequate, technology was still marching along, and it was probably time for a replacement.

    Stuff and nonsense. 1911 technology still works just fine!

    I would be interested to know what the track record of actual pistol use from (say) 1990 to 2015 indicates. Is there actually a problem with the M9 that needs fixing?

  4. I’m surprised our beloved host didn’t get a jab in at me and my love for the Beretta here – he certainly makes fun of my for it enough when we go find a wash out in the desert and make loud noises and destroy things.

    The big problem with the M9 pistol – slides implanted in foreheads – was resolved decades and decades ago. Are there still problems with it? Sure. There’s lots of problems with ANY piece of issue gear that gets used, abused and maintained only indifferently. (Note: I’m going by what I saw in the Navy for that.) I hated the M9 when I was issued one. It was loose. I couldn’t shoot it for shit. Parts broke. But that was an issued M9.

    A Beretta that’s been lovingly cared for since it was brand new in the box is a thing of wonder and beauty.

    Well, to me it is, anyway. I loved the 1911’s that I’ve owned (I’ve had at Sig and a Kimber, as well as a 1917 Colt USGI model), and I’d love to have more of them someday. But, I think I’m better with the 92FS. Even the subcompact PX4 that I carry doesn’t feel as RIGHT in my hand as my 92.

    1. I don’t really like your 92SF. But I understand that’s a personal preference. Me, I personally love your FiL’s G21.

      Part of what the Army wants in the next pistol is a Picatinny rail to mount flashlights or lasers.

  5. Another dang corporate welfare boondoggle on the way. If they think they need a new handgun I wish they’d buy off the the self. Maybe something like the Springfield XD, its tough, cheap and comfortable and comes in just about any caliber you could want. To be honest I see no good reason for pretty much any troops other than stateside MPs to even carry handguns too often. The whole reason they brought back carbines in the 40s with the M1 was that pistols didn’t provide rear area troops with enough fire power to protect themselves. The weight and space taken up by a pistol with its ammo would be better used to carry more ammo for the soldier’s carbine.

  6. Any reason the Army can just flip a coin between 9 mm and .45 – or just say “yes” – and tell the troops to buy their own sidearm? Providing a one-time stipend for purchase and bumping the uniform allowance to support magazine replacements would have to cost less than this dog-and-pony show.

    1. Seriously Jeff, can you see the U.S.Army letting the troops buy their own weapons? I sure can not.

      Paul

  7. Ask anyone who’s been an armorer for mass quantities of 1911’s how awesome they AREN’T. It was a state-of-the-art pistol a century ago- things have moved on.

    Consider simplicity and maintainability. Like ’em or not, Glock wins hands down in that department: Only 35 parts in the pistol and only an eight-hour course to train an armorer.

    What do “other activities” carry when they are allowed to purchase COTS pistols? That is what we call a clue. 🙂

  8. From 24 Sept 2015:
    “Glock Inc.,* Smyrna, Georgia, was awarded a $12,400,000 firm-fixed-price contract for weapons, magazines and spare parts. Bids were solicited via the Internet with two received. Funding and work location will be determined with each order. Army Contracting Command, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, is the contracting activity (W15QKN-15-D-0111).”

Comments are closed.