"The Army's new handgun already has some serious problems"

[DeadeyeJack]

Just think how much money they could have saved if they just went with Hi-Points.... low cost is not typically best value.

If there were a way to run the numbers, I wonder if this may actually be true.
Issue, use. Discard after a certain round count instead of replacing parts. These retail for what, $200? with a dealer avg markup of 40% this puts dealer costs at roughly $140? These could be manufactured in bulk at near $100 each. Just use and dispose. It would be cheaper in the long run. Remove feelings and nostalgia from the decision. It is a tool, not an heirloom in the making. If it goes bang, it did its job. It does not need to go bang 1,000 times, just two magazines times (30 times?) then the soldier is out of ammo. If it is still in spec, recharge magazines. How many rounds until it is out of spec? 500? 700? once it reaches that point, replace it. Get rid of the supply chain of parts.

 

[joma352]

If there were a way to run the numbers, I wonder if this may actually be true.
Issue, use. Discard after a certain round count instead of replacing parts. These retail for what, $200? with a dealer avg markup of 40% this puts dealer costs at roughly $140? These could be manufactured in bulk at near $100 each. Just use and dispose. It would be cheaper in the long run. Remove feelings and nostalgia from the decision. It is a tool, not an heirloom in the making. If it goes bang, it did its job. It does not need to go bang 1,000 times, just two magazines times (30 times?) then the soldier is out of ammo. If it is still in spec, recharge magazines. How many rounds until it is out of spec? 500? 700? once it reaches that point, replace it. Get rid of the supply chain of parts.

then use the hi point carbine also and be able to use the same mags bam

 

[tkd4life]

If there were a way to run the numbers, I wonder if this may actually be true.
Issue, use. Discard after a certain round count instead of replacing parts. These retail for what, $200? with a dealer avg markup of 40% this puts dealer costs at roughly $140? These could be manufactured in bulk at near $100 each. Just use and dispose. It would be cheaper in the long run. Remove feelings and nostalgia from the decision. It is a tool, not an heirloom in the making. If it goes bang, it did its job. It does not need to go bang 1,000 times, just two magazines times (30 times?) then the soldier is out of ammo. If it is still in spec, recharge magazines. How many rounds until it is out of spec? 500? 700? once it reaches that point, replace it. Get rid of the supply chain of parts.

This is a great idea assuming logistics doesn’t exist. It’s very expensive for the military to acquire, store, and supply spare parts to their forces spread literally across the globe. I heard a great quote about this type of stuff from a loggy at work referencing combat "Good leaders study tactics, great leaders study logistics".

 

[DeadeyeJack]

This is a great idea assuming logistics doesn’t exist. It’s very expensive for the military to acquire, store, and supply spare parts to their forces spread literally across the globe. I heard a great quote about this type of stuff from a loggy at work referencing combat "Good leaders study tactics, great leaders study logistics".

See those last two sentences in the post you quoted?
The last one alone states "Get rid of the supply chain of parts".

A good debate, even if it is adversarial, should demonstrate a comprehension of the subject material.
The whole idea is acknowledging the cost and problems of maintaining the logistics of spare parts and maintenance. Which is currently exists. Now.

 

[tkd4life]

See those last two sentences in the post you quoted?
The last one alone states "Get rid of the supply chain of parts".

A good debate, even if it is adversarial, should demonstrate a comprehension of the subject material.
The whole idea is acknowledging the cost and problems of maintaining the logistics of spare parts and maintenance. Which is currently exists. Now.

Fair enough, I just read your post as saying we should have disposable pistols. Disposable things don’t work so well in the military as they tend to be really expensive.

 

[govwontletmebuycoolguns]

Deleted...wrong thread

 

[ssgswjohnson]

This is a pretty good discussion going on!

I've had the opportunity to train pretty extensively with the M9 and I enjoyed it quite a lot. I believe that age, weight, and size are what lead to it being replaced.
Age:
The Army is currently in a "new is better" phase and believes that something like this, or this stupid uniform I'm wearing that replaced the more stupid uniform I wore (bring back the BDU!!!!), will help keep people around and happy. Maybe even something to hold over the USMC in recruiting (not that it would work... what teenager doesn't want to slay dragons??)

Size: The M9 is not small and the average size of Soldier is actually smaller than the average across the US. Also, the huge push for women in combat roles. A more modular pistol helps here.

Weight: unless you train with it, the thing feels like someone took all the weight of a full size M16A1 and condensed it into something for one hand. I found that Soldiers were having issues controlling it due to the weight. (I would have my Soldiers go to the arms room and sign theirs out regularly just to practice holding it still. Helped immensely on qual day even though they hated me for it)

The big thing is, in support MOS's (which is a lot of freaking people) the M9 is ONLY going to be carried by senior leadership because they can't be bothered to carry a heavy M4 everywhere they go on deployment. Support senior leaders are not concerned with things like accuracy, reliability, capacity... they are only concerned with how much it will get in their way. During deployments, an M9 was your early indication that an approaching service member was going to be of high rank, and we would then be able to prepare to either yell out "GOOD MORNING SARNT MAJOR!!" or render a salute and mumble "hey sir".

As far as the tactical piece, none of the above matters as much as reliability and capacity. We were trained that the pistol only came out if we had a malfunction on our main weapon system. In that case, we needed to be able to continue to repel the enemy just long enough to get to better cover, or until a buddy could lay down cover fire and we could fix our MWS. We were told that it didn't matter so much that we hit the bad guys, but that they knew they MIGHT get hit.

In the end, I'm cool with a new sidearm because I am just some enlisted punk and it won't matter for me. The officers are going to carry it around while I'm still carrying an M4. And, now that I am as non-tactical as it gets, if I need either weapon to win a battle, I am already screwed so... there's that.

Also, I doubt this added anything to the conversation. Just my rambling thoughts as I was reading through!