How Many Mistakes Can You Find In One Story On Guns?

[jonp]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/12/army-boss-takes-aim-at-bureaucracy-over-sidearm-choices.html?intcmp=hpbt3#

[Handloader109]

Do you really expect a reporter who most likely has never picked up a gun, to get their facts right?

[runfiverun]

in the story or in the comments section?

having them pick a round, never mind a fire arm, is gonna take more than 2 years and nobody is gonna be happy about the decision.
think about them switching arms and then whether or not all of those M-9's will be coming into the civilian market that say's enough.

[Mica_Hiebert]

Well fact is the 9mm choice was nato's and so to have interchangability with our allies we are stuck with 9mm plain and simple. Hard saying what they will choose military typically give list of criteria to be met and then goes with whom ever can produce the number they want in a set period of time the lowest cost. I laugh when I see something that is advertised as "mil-spec" as if it's a selling point when in reality most of our military is furnished with the cheapest not the best

[Outpost75]

Anyone with a minimum understanding of the military's RDT&E and acquisition process understands that the objective is NOT to get the best equipment which money can buy, but the cheapest which can meet the minimum requirements.

[jonp]

Read the story? Among other problems i missed where the standard sidearm until the m9 was adopted was a Hi Standard 1911 in 38 Super +P

[Tackleberry41]

There are mistakes in the article, but the sad fact is the whole process is a mess. A 375 page document to detail what the military wants? Its a pistol, not like this is WW1 and they are inventing something revolutionary. I really doubt the various $500 pistols anybody can walk into a gun shop and buy wont do the job. Few of us are going to buy unreliable guns. Glock, S&W, Ruger etc all have a pistol in this price range that will do the job. No the military has to spend a pile of money on this, just has to and of course take 10 yrs to do it. By then well the whole technology they are dealing with has moved forward and they are buying something out date already. Just as that $500 gun any of us can buy, will end up costing $1000 ea.

And of course the caliber issue comes up. 9mm FMJ is not that effective, but the military cant use HP. So if they want something more effective they have to move up in caliber. Yes we all love the 45 ACP, but it is not the easiest to use. Yes there are women who can use it, many do not like it. The guns are heavy, plus the grips tend to be a bit big. That really only leaves one caliber the 40 S&W, yes i know many do not like it, friend of mine is like that, hates it. Why? Just hates it. But it fits in 9mm guns so is more user friendly for smaller people. Has more capacity than 45, and the military is stuck with FMJ. 40 is still effective in FMJ format. They bring up the NATO issue, uh huh and when was the last time a US soldier turned to his NATO ally and said do you have some ammo to spare for this last frontal assault?

[runfiverun]

the US isn't bound by the whole ammo thing.
we bound ourselves to nato for some odd reason then do all the work.
it's like Costello said......... ..why? I dunno.. third base. [shrug]

[popper]

We and the military know all the ballistics of the various calibers. Near a century of testing. It's about standardization, reliability, firepower. Battle situations for pistols really haven't changed since the Mexican/American war. I do agree that the 40SW is probably most effective, with the 10mm for SBR. good version of the 300BO for 30 Cal carbine replacement, AR10 for 308W. Special requirement weapons whatever is required. Like a 45ACP canned for suppressed. Most of the changes are just lobby attempts and big $$.

[Schrag4]

Read the story? Among other problems i missed where the standard sidearm until the m9 was adopted was a Hi Standard 1911 in 38 Super +P

I guess I'll have to plead ignorance. I know practically nothing about our military's history when it comes to sidearms short of M9 since the 80's and .45 1911 in WW2 (and a long time before/after that?). I read the whole article and I didn't really find anything that sounded all that implausible.

I do agree that picking a sidearm should not be such a monumental task. Shoot, it doesn't seem like they should even have to acquire any guns or ammo to test alternatives, since that has been done over and over, countless times, by other federal agencies and state/local LE. There's a wealth of info available on every possible alternative, or at least it seems that way to me. That's my lay-person's perspective, anyway. Feel free to correct me - I am pleading ignorance, after all.

[Markbo]

Name me one federal agency that does NOT make monumental tasks. That is the first thing you learn when you go to work for any government. How to keep the money flowing. Of course it shouldnt be a monumental task, but look at the new F35 Jet Fighter. Enormously over budget AND a complete dog!!!

Your government at work. 375 page project manual. What a joke. Buy 100,000 S&W M&Ps for about 2/3 retail price and everyone is happy and the problem is solved.

[KYCaster]

Read the story? Among other problems i missed where the standard sidearm until the m9 was adopted was a Hi Standard 1911 in 38 Super +P


I guess I'll have to plead ignorance. I know practically nothing about our military's history when it comes to sidearms short of M9 since the 80's and .45 1911 in WW2 (and a long time before/after that?). I read the whole article and I didn't really find anything that sounded all that implausible.

I do agree that picking a sidearm should not be such a monumental task. Shoot, it doesn't seem like they should even have to acquire any guns or ammo to test alternatives, since that has been done over and over, countless times, by other federal agencies and state/local LE. There's a wealth of info available on every possible alternative, or at least it seems that way to me. That's my lay-person's perspective, anyway. Feel free to correct me - I am pleading ignorance, after all.



I'm with you Schrag....I guess I slept through that period when 38 Super +P was the US Army standard. I know Hi Standard made 1911's, but so did a dozen or so others.

I read the whole article and saw some opinion that I don't agree with, but nothing I'd call a "mistake".

Concerning the cost of development.....surely you don't expect the procurement committee to make a decision without first visiting all the other NATO countries to study the problem. And you shouldn't expect them to take such a prolonged junket and leave their family behind.

Business as usual........
Jerry