US Army to replace the M-9

[dragoon500ly]

Well, the ole Green Machine has decided that after 25 years that the Beretta M-9 9mm is on the way out of the door.

The Army has not yet released the new selection process, but what is known is that they are going to go with an off-the-shelf commercial product. Here is the list of known contenders:

Beretta 92A1 in 9mm
Beretta 96A1 in .40cal
Beretta Px4 in .45cal
Glock 17 in 9mm
Glock 22 in .40cal
Glock 37 in .45cal
H&K P2000 in either 9mm or .40cal
S&W M&P in 9mm
S&W M&P in .40cal
S&W M&P in .45cal
SIG-Saur P226 in 9mm
SIG-Sauer P229 in 9mm

Sadly, the only entry available from Colt is a single-action design and the Army is wanting double-action only.

[Panther Al]

Heh, Fancy that: the SiG226 is in the running. *again* That is where I would place my money, the S&W might be a good bet as well as it is a US company, but since SiG's are made in the US as well....

I don't see Beretta winning again, not because of design issues but more because of the bad name it has with the guys on the ground. Couple that with the 226 being found in .40, and in the 220, .45, well... as I said, thats where I would place my money.

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Heh, Fancy that: the SiG226 is in the running. *again* That is where I would place my money, the S&W might be a good bet as well as it is a US company, but since SiG's are made in the US as well....

I don't see Beretta winning again, not because of design issues but more because of the bad name it has with the guys on the ground. Couple that with the 226 being found in .40, and in the 220, .45, well... as I said, thats where I would place my money.

Yeah, I could see one of those two winning. I think the M&P has a better chance with it costing less and it having a clean start. The M&P also is becoming the new king with law enforcement and is building a solid image. The 226 went against and lost to the Beretta once before, that wouldn't look good for the military to adopt something that they passed on in the 1980's. I liked the Beretta, but the majority doesn't. I'm surprised it has lasted this long.

[ArmySGT.]

The Sig P226 was already adopted in the compact form as the M11 years ago. For CID Agents and others in plain clothes.

Since it exists in inventory and the manuals are already made. Plus the spare parts are in the system with NSN numbers.

I am putting my money down on the Sig for the win.

Just wish they would go back to .45 ACP

When your down to a sidearm, you need things dead right now.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by waiting4something

Yeah, I could see one of those two winning. I think the M&P has a better chance with it costing less and it having a clean start. The M&P also is becoming the new king with law enforcement and is building a solid image. The 226 went against and lost to the Beretta once before, that wouldn't look good for the military to adopt something that they passed on in the 1980's. I liked the Beretta, but the majority doesn't. I'm surprised it has lasted this long.

Actually the SiG won the pistol part of the bidding with gusto: the reason the Beretta won out in the end was that Beretta was willing to eat a lot of the support and parts cost. The process of competing for the contract made the 226: everyone saw that it was the better pistol and before SiG knew it they couldn't build them fast enough. It also helps that SiG has been aggressive in updating the design: the 226 of today isn't the one of the late 80's.

[HorseSoldier]

They already pissed away millions in taxpayer money when they decided to piggyback SOCOM's new pistol program less than a decade ago and then opted to just kill it instead. Will be under-amazed at how they fuck this one up too.

And how is Colt disqualified as SAO when Glock and the M&P are options?

[HorseSoldier]

And as a final rant -- double action requirements are fueled by cowards who run the big picture and piss themselves that Joe might have an accident when they fail to train him. This is 2011 -- fighting pistols, be they Glocks or 1911s or whatever else have one trigger pull weight. Paperweights for fobbits to look cool with in antique leather shoulder holsters can do whatever -- hell, make then black powder single shots so Maj "Got an easier degree at a state school than most of my enlisted troops" can only AD once. But for guys at the sharp end -- one set trigger weight, no external safety, and train them to use it.

[LAW0306]

I see people are reading the army and Marine times. I was just back east at a meeting for people of my ilk and the Marine Corps has no intrest in this due to us having no money to spend. We have taken the pistol away at many levels here in the Marines and dont plan to return it.We are looking to improve are rifle and see that as a way to get more bang for the buck.We wasted alot of money in the early 2000's and are trying not to do it now. The pistol is at my view a very specialist weapon and is not at this point need for mass issue. Now the army is the senior agency for small arms and could force it on us but i dont think they will after our buy in on the M27. Our Marsoc and Recon guys are currently getting a new weapon to replace the Meusoc 1911.We just cant make enough so they are looking for an open purchace .45.

[dragoon500ly]

From an ex-tanker viewpoint, I always regarded a pistol as pretty useless in just about any combat situation. Still did my qualifications and I enjoy shooting a pistol, but when facing infantry, I much prefer a M-240G, a M-16A2, a M-4 carbine or even one of the PDWs that are now available. The only advantage that the old M-3 Grease Gun had was being able to dump (slowly!) 30 rounds of .45 in the general direction of the opfor....and while they were laughing themselves silly, I would have time to attack in a different direction!

Unless they are crawling up the front slope, then my fav would be a Remi 1100 loaded with buckshot.

[Brother in Arms]

The Navy did adopt the SIG P226 but im not sure if only for use with the Seal teams.

I have never liked the beretta M92 in fact I actually prefer the Walther P-38 or P-1 over it!

That being said I have carried a Glock 19 for years and I greatly enjoy it. While 9mm may not be the answer I don't feel underquipped with it.

I have actuallt fired most of the firearms listed and they are all decent pistols. That being said I don't berretta has a chance again.

More likely then not nothing will come of this new pistol trial.

BIA

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by LAW0306

I see people are reading the army and Marine times. I was just back east at a meeting for people of my ilk and the Marine Corps has no intrest in this due to us having no money to spend. We have taken the pistol away at many levels here in the Marines and dont plan to return it.

Army basis of issue for pistols is expanding dramatically since 2001 -- the whole "badge of rank" pile of crap has long been a zombie in need of a head shot, but there's a whole bunch of situations where having a pistol (with night sights and a light on it) is needful when doing CQB, cordon and searches, whatever. Ultimately even if every joe doesn't need one as a secondary in case his primary goes down, a smartly configured MTOE is going to have some pistols organic at the squad level, maybe even fire team level. Not as bling of Zeros or secondary weapons for crew served guys but as something that can be issued out to Pvt Snuffy if/when he gets to venture into the crawl space above or below the suspected bad guy residence to see if they really have that stack of mortar rounds someone dimed them out on, etc.

We are looking to improve are rifle and see that as a way to get more bang for the buck.We wasted alot of money in the early 2000's and are trying not to do it now.

(Cough . . . M16A4 . . . cough cough)

Someday, with enough pain killers or improperly identified "edible" mushrooms in my system I'll figure out how the service that moron'ed the M16A2 and A4 into existence was the same guys who made the ACOG standard for service weapons -- literally like the same people produced refrigerator door finger paint art that would embarrass a learning disabled five year old and then turned around and painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

The pistol is at my view a very specialist weapon and is not at this point need for mass issue. Now the army is the senior agency for small arms and could force it on us but i dont think they will after our buy in on the M27. Our Marsoc and Recon guys are currently getting a new weapon to replace the Meusoc 1911.We just cant make enough so they are looking for an open purchace .45.

Anyone who is expected by mission to do CQB should be issued a pistol and properly trained to use it -- as in any schmuck who so-so'ed the ASVAB into an infantry slot. You can arms room concept it to where they're not issued out as heavily when operations aren't urban intensive, but not giving soldiers or marines a functional secondary (and the ability to use it) when gunfighting at spitting range is simply admitting to being happy to see an extra few of them coming home in boxes to save a buck or two.

[LAW0306]

MY MOS brought in the M16A4 and it's better than what you guys have on every level ( IE you dont train past 300 meters in Marksmanship and we do 500m for everone). If you want data just come and ask I'm the Officer in Charge of range control at Marine Corps Base Hawaii!!!. Also the RCO or ACOG is better that anything you have a red dot M68 is crap. our sight can do so many thing's and so Many sights have spawned off it IE (SDO,MDO). CQB is done at our CQB school (Security Force Reg ) something the army does not have......MOUT on the other hand is what you are talking about is done with a Rifle/Carbine my last choice would be a pistol (effective use of a fmj no expanding 115 grain bullet for terminal ballistics vise a SOST)

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/...ost-5-56-ammo/ ,

and I'm a grad of HRP/Gunslinger school and a few other Marine corps schools for actions with a pistol. Please before you knock another service be in for more than 4 years and have some MOS street creed to back it up. Our M27 smokes anything you have in General Service and it might be our new Service rifle if we can get the cash for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Inf...utomatic_Rifle


Yes that means every Marine would have a piston Carbine/Rifle that has a Heavy floated barrel that does sub MOA work....nothing the army has on the Table for there SF can beat that...How do I know welllllll I work with them.... I had a ODA team on my range last week and this week they will be back and they are blown away with what our basic guys do and what my scout sniper school does out here.

The amount of times a primary weapon has failed a Marine in the Global war on terror is so low we cant even find numbers for it in our Marine Corps lessons learned branch. we clean our weapons!!! we teach this in boot camp check any movie , we dont use the M4 as a machine gun and burn up the barrels and make the chamber so hot rounds cook off. I have read after actions of this from the army MANY!!!!. so a back up is for tier one operators who have a mission to use one. Ie guys trained in CQB......witch take a long time and a ton of ammo.


and no we dont make these decisions to send guys home in a box to save a buck. If you said that to my face I might eat you. We train our Marines to fight at all ranges IE Tables 1-4 ...look it up the army does not even come close to our tables 1-4.. I have viewed there training and felt bad for them....our basic guys get this..........

http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil/wtbn/MCO...74%202K%20.pdf

Your not doing CQB by definition in Iraq or Afghanistan you are doing MOUT. Look it up in your FM 90-10,FM 90-10-1 , FM 3-06 FM 3-21.8,FM 7-8, FM 7-85, FM7-92

[LAW0306]

SDO


http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/produc...pid=TA11SDO-CP


MGDO


http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcnpd/4437331410/

[perardua]

The British forces relatively recently adopted the Sig P226 for use in Afghanistan, and started issuing them to what seemed like every man and his dog. Previous British thought towards pistols is that they were only for people who had no need for a proper weapon, or for sneaky beaky types, so they used to be a relatively rare sight. My squadron, for example, used to hold a grand total of eight Browning 9mm's for 164 men. On deployment, we ended up with 172 Sigs, and the option to carry one if we wanted it.

For the first couple of weeks, everyone carried their assigned pistol because it made them feel cool. Once that had worn off, we all realised that we were carrying an extra weapon system that had too short a range, not enough stopping power or accuracy, that we hadn't fired as much as the rifle or LMG that served as our personal weapon, and that could be replaced, for the same weight, by more ammo for our personal weapon. As a result, they all went back in the armoury save for the pistols belonging to the drivers (who needed a weapon that was easier to get at when mounted than their rifle).

In FIBUA the L85A2 is, to my mind, more effective than a pistol - it is highly reliable, more accurate, has a greater magazine capacity, is fitted with a laser and torch module, can fire automatic if the situation requires it, and can be fitted with a bayonet, which is an excellent weapon to have if you come round a corner to find yourself face-to-face with someone trying to kill you and your rifle goes click - a quick thrust and twist might save your life rather than dicking around trying to draw a pistol.

As an aside, ACOGs/SUSATs/whatever other sighting system you feel like are, to my mind, pretty obligatory on the infantry rifle of the 21st century. Aside from the increase in accuracy, it gives your section tons more situational awareness even outside of shooting situations.

[Webstral]

Law, why are you yelling so much? We can hear you just fine. The guys who respect you are going to read your feedback without the implied volume. The guys who don't respect you aren't going to listen anyway.

There's a lot for us to learn from the USMC about a lot of things besides CRM. There's a rationale for training soldiers to shoot out to 300m and no further, but I've never bought into it. The Army wastes huge amounts of money on all kinds of ridiculous garbage--money that could be spent on the range.

Of course, the USMC has a different center of mass than the Army. The Corps is a fraction of the Army's size and enjoys a superior reputation. I don't know when the last time the Corps failed to meet its recruiting goals was, but if you told me it hasn't happened since the 70's I'd believe you. This sort of thing has a real impact on the quality of the troops. Since initial entry training is aimed at the bottom half of the recruitment pool, the superior motivation of the Marine recruits vis-a-vis Army Basic troops has a huge impact on the design and quality of the training. (This is not to say that the upper half of the recruits aren't challenged.)

All this said, the Army could stand to tighten its group when it comes to training soldiers on their individual weapons. The cost of small arms ammunition pales compared to the cost of the dead and wounded. The infantry should be on the range once a week; everybody else should be on the range once per month. As I've said many times, the Army could learn a lot from the USMC.

This is one of the reasons why in Thunder Empire Basic at Fort Huachuca is designed and run by the Marines who happened to be on-post at the TDM and who survived the fighting at Yuma to join with Huachuca. Although it tweaks some of the Army drill sergeants and former drill sergeants who want to do things their way, Thomason recognizes that a force with a great numerical inferiority has to have superior troops. Superior troops means superior privates. (As distinct from superior leadership) Given some of the wide-open spaces of Arizona, training riflemen to engage targets at 500m with an M16 is not unreasonable. Also, Thomason recognizes that the USMC has a superior method for instilling esprit de corps, which is another thing the troops at Huachuca are going to need when fighting potentially much larger Mexican forces.

Regardless of what labels one wants to apply, a firefight in a small room in Baghdad seems like pretty close quarters battle to me. I frankly don't give a damn what label a manual writer wants to apply, though I recognize that for the purposes of providing definitions and planning doctrine and training such labels do need to be applied.

[HorseSoldier]

MY MOS brought in the M16A4 and it's better than what you guys have on every level ( IE you dont train past 300 meters in Marksmanship and we do 500m for everone). If you want data just come and ask I'm the Officer in Charge of range control at Marine Corps Base Hawaii!!!. Also the RCO or ACOG is better that anything you have a red dot M68 is crap. our sight can do so many thing's and so Many sights have spawned off it IE (SDO,MDO). CQB is done at our CQB school (Security Force Reg ) something the army does not have......MOUT on the other hand is what you are talking about is done with a Rifle/Carbine my last choice would be a pistol (effective use of a fmj no expanding 115 grain bullet for terminal ballistics vise a SOST)

A) Just to clarify where I'm coming from when I hurt your feelings, I have 18 years in service, four and half of them as a support guy in an SF unit where I spent all that time directly assigned out to an ODA. Whatever you think I was trained to do under your understanding of army doctrine and a couple bucks might be barely adequate to get you a beverage at Starbucks.

B) Reading comprehension in the USMC must be fairly substandard if even the zeros can't grasp that my previous post praised the ACOG. I had an issued TA01 when the RCO was still a distant glimmer in an optimistic Gunner's eye, and mass issue of the TA31 is about the only thing the USMC has done right about small arms in a decade or more.

C) Sorry -- M16A4 is a wrong answer for every question the gunfighter asks about how to score okay on USMC Table 1 and do D&C -- precisely the two real reasons why the USMC picked it over the M4. Every marine enlisted guy I dealt with while issued an M4A1 was universally critical of the M16A4 for actual combat, said the M4 wouldn't be as good for Table 1, and would have traded their mother for an M4 and to be rid of their musket.

D) Whatever you think soldiers do or don't get in terms of weapons training, I personally was trained to shoot out to 600 with my issue M4, ACOG, and decent ammo (Mk 262) and make consistent hits. Our flawed qual course involves shooting to 300 meters, your fetishistic antique festival that passes for a basic qual course involves shooting to 500. Yippy skippy. Since no one has produced any data I've ever seen that actually shows marines making more hits under combat conditions I'm underwhelmed by the allegations of superiority.

and I'm a grad of HRP/Gunslinger school and a few other Marine corps schools for actions with a pistol. Please before you knock another service be in for more than 4 years and have some MOS street creed to back it up. Our M27 smokes anything you have in General Service and it might be our new Service rifle if we can get the cash for it.

The M27 is . . . like the M16A2/A4 a bunch of wrong answers for what it is supposed to do. As a base of fire weapon/automatic rifle it's going to get troops killed. Period. But it's sexy as hell. If you're an HK fanboi or live in the shadow of CAG and SEAL Team 6.

Yes that means every Marine would have a piston Carbine/Rifle that has a Heavy floated barrel that does sub MOA work....nothing the army has on the Table for there SF can beat that...How do I know welllllll I work with them.... I had a ODA team on my range last week and this week they will be back and they are blown away with what our basic guys do and what my scout sniper school does out here.

Having been in that community and seen the USMC by comparison, I have to credit the ODA you worked with for their politeness. Nobody I was ever around was overly impressed with what the USMC brought to the gunfighting table. Not bad, but notably good.

As for the M27 -- wow, so they've fixed the accuracy issue HK416s had? When the M27 was still making people scratch their heads at its T&E victories over better actual base of fire weapons, the HK416s some of our ODAs were actually running operations with were 4-5 MOA weapons (charitably) with green tip, and still 2.5-ish with Mk 262.

Maybe the 27s have fixed the crap accuracy issue, but the fact that the USMC bought a weapon with a mag well that won't accept PMags so guys can better use a Starsky & Hutch SWAT team front-of-magwell grip . . . well it demonstrates that decision makers who don't even know the right questions certainly won't get the right answers, will they? Garbage in-garbage out, as the computer types say.

(Most of our guys that got 416s issued at the team level? Ditched them and either went back to stock M4A1s or M4s with shorter direct gas uppers. One of the good parts of SF is that the works/doesn't work decision cycle happens at a much lower level, for the most part, efforts to ditch the M9 notwithstanding. Once the chicks dig it factor wore off, the 416 mostly got tossed. Lance Corporal Schmuckatelly in a line infantry unit in the USMC won't have the benefit of being able to do the same thing until someone with a lot of stars on their shoulders owns up to their mistake, which takes a whole lot longer -- if it ever happens at all.)

The amount of times a primary weapon has failed a Marine in the Global war on terror is so low we cant even find numbers for it in our Marine Corps lessons learned branch. we clean our weapons!!! we teach this in boot camp check any movie , we dont use the M4 as a machine gun and burn up the barrels and make the chamber so hot rounds cook off. I have read after actions of this from the army MANY!!!!. so a back up is for tier one operators who have a mission to use one. Ie guys trained in CQB......witch take a long time and a ton of ammo.

It's awesome you (over) clean your weapons, since the primary failure point in the M16/M4 weapon system is bad mags. I kept my M4 running for a good long time with no more cleaning than wiping the BCG down with an oiled gym sock and soaking the bolt with oil. And using good mags. Big Boy Rules and all that -- my gun always went bang when require to, and I didn't have under-employed and underqualified NCOs trying to justify their existence to senior officers but working above their level of competence.

From the perspective of my training and experience absolutely nothing demonstrates systemic leadership failure like watching Joes try to scrub the parkerizing off parts of their weapons to satisfy officers and NCOs who know pitifully less than they should about absolute basics and fundamentals.

As for not using the M4 as a machinegun -- no, as an institution you've made a collective decision to deprive the infantrymen of effective base of fire and suppressive weapons. You've made the decision to replace a belt felt weapon with one that runs on 30 round magazines, firing the same cartridge as the standard service rifle. Congratulations -- 70 years late, but you're reinvented the Bren Gun or BAR. And actually that's charitable, since at least the Bren offered a fire power differential next to bolt guns that the M27 simply doesn't provide. (And, as a side note, both those weapons came up woefully short against belt fed squad machine guns circa 1944 -- maybe the USMC never learned this lesson since they were never on the wrong end of an MG34 or 42, but since I know for a fact marines have been on the wrong end of PKMs I'd think if the people running the show were half as smart as they think they are they'd have connected the dots.)

Oh but you'll suppress via precision fire. Holy Jesus, where do I get the quality of narcotics issued to me that the decision makers who hit on that plan were smoking, shooting, and/or snorting? Was there like a gunnery sergeant convention where they were crushing Oxycontin, cooking it in a spoon, and injecting it directly into their eyeballs as they contemplated weapons procurement I never heard about?

Your not doing CQB by definition in Iraq or Afghanistan you are doing MOUT. Look it up in your FM 90-10,FM 90-10-1 , FM 3-06 FM 3-21.8,FM 7-8, FM 7-85, FM7-92

Doctrinally, you don't know what I was trained or tasked to do, so before you split hairs maybe you should also see if you can peruse a syllabus for SFAUC, SFBCC, and the like.

[ArmySGT.]

[ArmySGT.]

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Hmm why not the CZ97 or an EAA Witness in 45? 10 rd .45. Then again the Glock in 45.

Hmm if the adopted a new pistol in 10mm then maybe the price of ammo would drop as it would be made in larger quantities.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Cpl. Kalkwarf

Hmm why not the CZ97 or an EAA Witness in 45? 10 rd .45. Then again the Glock in 45.

Hmm if the adopted a new pistol in 10mm then maybe the price of ammo would drop as it would be made in larger quantities.

Didn't the FBI go with 10mm for a couple of years but dropped it because female agents couldn't handle the recoil? I'm going on dim, distant memory here and may have over-simplified the sitiuation.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by Targan

Didn't the FBI go with 10mm for a couple of years but dropped it because female agents couldn't handle the recoil? I'm going on dim, distant memory here and may have over-simplified the sitiuation.

Well, not necessarily. From what I've read (and please remember this may not be 100 percent accurate, just like everything else I say or read ) the recoil of the 10mm round was a problem for a lot of agents, not just females that were not used to the power of this particular round. The 10mm should not be confused in any way with the .45 ACP, it is a very hot round that places a lot of stress on the pistol. This was another factor: the 10mm had just come out around this time and it was found that some pistols built for it were wearing out/breaking prematurely as they (for the time) hadn't been quite sufficiently built to handle the high stress of the propellant packed into the cartridge along with the larger caliber. But again, there may be more to the issue.

In any case, experiments with the 10mm led to the development of the .40 S&W. Yes, I know macho types like to call it "short and wimpy" but if many law enforcement types and some military are actually using the round without too many complaints, then it must be doing something right.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

If we did not have to go with the stupid FMJ for military bullets the 9mm would be OK. Heck I like my 9s.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by Cpl. Kalkwarf

If we did not have to go with the stupid FMJ for military bullets the 9mm would be OK. Heck I like my 9s.

True, but then we wouldn't want to upset the fellows who read and write the Geneva Conventions to the letter...

[fisty]

for my 2c worth i say we go back with the 1911 hell i know a lot of guys carry them in country now.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

(Most of our guys that got 416s issued at the team level? Ditched them and either went back to stock M4A1s or M4s with shorter direct gas uppers. One of the good parts of SF is that the works/doesn't work decision cycle happens at a much lower level, for the most part, efforts to ditch the M9 notwithstanding. Once the chicks dig it factor wore off, the 416 mostly got tossed. Lance Corporal Schmuckatelly in a line infantry unit in the USMC won't have the benefit of being able to do the same thing until someone with a lot of stars on their shoulders owns up to their mistake, which takes a whole lot longer -- if it ever happens at all.)

Sadly, this is the Army I know (with Specialist Schmuckatelly standing in for his lance corporal counterpart).

Comparisons between the USMC and the Army often break down under analysis. The Army dwarfs the USMC and has all the attendant problems. The average Army brigade is not the same fighting force as the average Marine regiment. (I'd be happy to enterain arguments regarding the 82nd Airborne, though.) By the same token, the average Marine regiment isn't the same fighting force as the 75th Rangers or an SF group. I'm not talking firepower or equipment. I'm talking about the troops themselves. The more you restrict the pool of folks accepted, the more remarkable the end product. There's a reason the SO communities aren't hundreds of thousands strong.

For what it's worth, the former Marines in my Guard unit outshot the center of mass of my unit. The top ten percent of shooters weren't all former Marines or even predominantly Marines. However, on a standard Army qual range at Bliss, the unit as a whole shot 28 for 40. The former Marines shot 30 for 40. The XO compiled these statistics to settle an argument of the type Law and Horse are having right now. One should assign whatever significance one wants to the difference. It's worth bearing in mind that none of the targets were more than 300m from the firing positions. Coincidentally, I had a bad day on the range and fired 30 for 40 (I'm pretty reliable against targets 250 meters and closer). Were I forced to engage targets at ranges greater than 300m, I'd hit fewer than half of them. Sad but true. I can't speculate on how things would have turned out differently on a range with targets out to 500m, although you can be certain that the former Marines in my unit did.

I think there is a value to having confidence in one's ability to hit targets at long range. Personally, I'd love to have that confidence. On the other hand, maybe we should read something into the fact that the Germans, who entered WW2 with a bolt action rifle and superior marksmanship, switched to a rifle oriented towards shorter ranges. Granted, the loss of scads of well-trained manpower and its replacement by under-trained newbies would have rewarded a switch away from (comparatively) long-range riflery and to assault riflery. Nonetheless, crew served weapons exist to engage targets beyond 300m. Again, though, I've only served in the line dog world. I can't speak to how the Rangers, SF, or anyone like that does their business other than to say that those guys are far superior to me.

[LAW0306]

Since were on a forum. I guess I lose because I will never be able to sway you to my side. you will type and be a key board commando and I will goto work tommorow and do it for real. Your tougher... your cock is bigger and your wife is better looking. but if you were ever to see me and tell me i did not care (IE save money and put people in a grave) ... well we would see what way the wind blows. people on this forum have see me real world and know who I'm and where I live. Hell Chico/Jason wiser has trained with my guys at Camp. your facts are wrong plan and simple. I work with big kids at a higher level. I'm not a Gunny I'm a Gunner 0306 look it up. I just returned from the annual Gunners meeting in quantico were we did big kid stuff. sorry you win I wont talk any more.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

A) Just to clarify where I'm coming from when I hurt your feelings, I have 18 years in service, four and half of them as a support guy in an SF unit where I spent all that time directly assigned out to an ODA.

Four years in an SF unit is fairly impressive I'd have to say. They don't let just anybody in, and everyone's subject to being shown the door at any time if they don't perform unlike in a conventional army or marine unit where it's possible to kick it into neutral and coast along.
My guess is you'd have to really know your shit to last so long...

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Originally Posted by Targan

Didn't the FBI go with 10mm for a couple of years but dropped it because female agents couldn't handle the recoil? I'm going on dim, distant memory here and may have over-simplified the sitiuation.

Yeah bunch of wimps. I'm 50+ years old and by no means a strong or even beefy guy and I don't find the 10mm that bad at all. Then again I don't find the 44 mag that bad either. I can shoot my .375 H&H with little problem. Though I don't recommend firing it from the prone or bench. (let the body absorb the recoil, best in standing or kneeling, and do not lean into it). The closest thing to it would be shooting a 12ga. with 3" magnum slug loads.

I wonder if the ones that were shooting the 10mm were just a bit shy of anything that recoils during that testing.

Yup were some females like that but some of the males too. My guess is they just blamed the gals cause they are just too weak in the wrist. Or spend too much time on a keyboard.:P

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Originally Posted by LAW0306

Since were on a forum. I guess I lose because I will never be able to sway you to my side. you will type and be a key board commando and I will goto work tommorow and do it for real. Your tougher... your cock is bigger and your wife is better looking. but if you were ever to see me and tell me i did not care (IE save money and put people in a grave) ... well we would see what way the wind blows. people on this forum have see me real world and know who I'm and where I live. Hell Chico/Jason wiser has trained with my guys at Camp. your facts are wrong plan and simple. I work with big kids at a higher level. I'm not a Gunny I'm a Gunner 0306 look it up. I just returned from the annual Gunners meeting in quantico were we did big kid stuff. sorry you win I wont talk any more.

Damn, I enjoy yer Experiences, and am glad to keep hearing about them. If it puts some one else panties in a bind!?! To hell with them.

Its been a while since I have been in the Corps. I have a young nephew that spent his time in the FAST over in the sand box (Iraq) for two tours. He thought the M16a4 and the M249 SAW were fine weapons. And that was from personal experience of using the M16a4 in Urban fighting and House clearing.

[waiting4something]

The M27 is a good concept. It's only real short comings is its made by HK and it small ammo capacity. Magazine fed weapons are better for light infantry units. When the weapon is empty you jam another magazine in and your back in the fight. Belt fed weapons are slow on the reload and difficult to reload on the move. The belts also can get caught on shit from time to time and break off on you. I hated the M249. We had the full sized motherfucker. It was to damn heavy and you had a assisant gunner like it was a machinegun. Oh yeah, but it is a machinegun and it said so right on the receiver. I'm glad the Marines are looking for a automatic rifle for the automatic rifleman role. But, I just think they need to have a magazine drum that is not as bulky or difficult as those dual beta cmags.