Thoughts on change

[Ole Cowboy]

The 1911 was replaced by first the Beretta then the Sig. I have several of the Beretta's and I like them, I don't have the Sig, but may get one someday. But I am an old school guy especially when it comes to critical use weaponry. The 1911 has a track record that is unrivaled in America history of combat and I still wonder if we should have kept it in use? Especially in that it comes in so many different sizes and calibers. If the Beretta was better than the 1911 and the Sig is better than the Beretta its got to be one of the best guns in the world?

Lets us not forget the FREE Beretta upgrade to the M9A3 that was offered by Beretta and IMO stupidly turned down. Its cost a LOT of taxpayers money to switch over to the SIG and the Delta between the SIG and the M9A3 would be razor thin, in fact I would give the M9A3 the overall edge...

Now they are looking at replacing the Ma Duce with a new and improved MG that fires .338 Norma Mag. A great rd certainly, but it's not the only great rd. Lot to pick from at that level, just wonder how many they looked at? Yes, the old M2 is old, heavy and fires a big and heavy rd. That said it like the 1911 is unrivaled in American combat.

When it comes to the military change has to be done deliberately with extensive research before making a move, far to much is riding upon the outcome to start knee jerking to requirements at the same time we do not need a repeat of a 50 year run of a choice that was marginal and not properly and comprehensively tested before release (5.56).

What I am seeing or at least it's my perception that a military flush with more money than they have had in decades is grabbing at anything and everything. Just as I was thinking we are making a move to standardize on the 6.5 CM as our combat soldiers rd I see where the 6.8 is getting a relook...WTH, thought they had died (and it should have). Then I just read where the Army is developing a rd based upon the .260...huh? With the plethora of great rd out there that are COTS, do we really need to try and reinvent the wheel. The cost to develop a new rd, then field it and promulgate it across NATO would be staggering and a waste of taxpayers dollars. Just to much to pick from in the COTS world to follow that path.

The AR10/15 is one of the best formats for a combat rifle ever developed IMO due to its scaleability. Improve the quick change bbl system of the AR10 platform and you have multiple cals and bbl length with the same upper/lower just by a bbl change and or bbl/BCG. This can be done in the field by the individual soldier with a kit based upon mission requirements.

 

[oldag]

I got rid of almost all my non-1911 pistols, replacing them by adding to my 1911 collection.

Reliable, will last for many generations. And the .45 ACP is a great defensive round.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

I got rid of almost all my non-1911 pistols, replacing them by adding to my 1911 collection.

Reliable, will last for many generations. And the .45 ACP is a great defensive round.

I have the 1911 my dad did the Pacific Island tour with back in the 40's, he carried it till he retired in '62 and I carried it till I retired in '94, over 50 years of military service, still a decent shooter. That says a LOT!

 

[TheMailMan]

I always wondered about the switch from the 1911 to the Beretta. It was said at the time that the 1911 was too big for the hands of smaller soldiers and the Beretta wasn't. Whomever came up with that one was a complete and total moron.

No one ever questioned the combat effectiveness of the .45 ACP. Now we see the military is once again trying to polish a turd and make the 9mm more lethal.

They've been trying to make the mouse gun more lethal for a couple of decades. Of course they keep making the barrel shorter which doesn't help. I carried a M16A2 with the 20" barrel. Current M4 barrels are 30% shorter. Current ammo is so high pressure that it's causing premature bolt failure. Of course the short length of the gas system doesn't help a bit. Now some units are moving to constant suppressor use which will increase gas pressure once again. At least the Marines are moving to a piston rifle which should solve some problems.

The US military is always preparing to fight the last war, and trying to do so with one size fits all tools. The weapons needed by the infantry are different depending on the battle area, open mountain area vs urban combat.

Personally I feel we need to just trash the 5.56x45 and move up in caliber to something that has the ability to reach out a bit more. Something with a bit more umph.

 

[Moonpie]

One of the reasons the .45cal 1911 became obsolete was the guns were worn out. Most were made in 1945 or earlier.
They had seen a lot of use.
Another reason was the U.S. wanted to move to standadize on the NATO 9x19mm round.

 

[paulbow]

Waste of money at this point. There’s no need to change.

 

[Dawico]

With the military magazine capacity is a concern. The shot fired to hit ratio is very low (training doesn't help that number either).

More smaller rounds in the same size weapon seems to be the trend.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

I always wondered about the switch from the 1911 to the Beretta. It was said at the time that the 1911 was too big for the hands of smaller soldiers and the Beretta wasn't. Whomever came up with that one was a complete and total moron.

No one ever questioned the combat effectiveness of the .45 ACP. Now we see the military is once again trying to polish a turd and make the 9mm more lethal.

They've been trying to make the mouse gun more lethal for a couple of decades. Of course they keep making the barrel shorter which doesn't help. I carried a M16A2 with the 20" barrel. Current M4 barrels are 30% shorter. Current ammo is so high pressure that it's causing premature bolt failure. Of course the short length of the gas system doesn't help a bit. Now some units are moving to constant suppressor use which will increase gas pressure once again. At least the Marines are moving to a piston rifle which should solve some problems.

The US military is always preparing to fight the last war, and trying to do so with one size fits all tools. The weapons needed by the infantry are different depending on the battle area, open mountain area vs urban combat.

Personally I feel we need to just trash the 5.56x45 and move up in caliber to something that has the ability to reach out a bit more. Something with a bit more umph.

For that reason I think they should adopt the AR10 format, it offers more choice in bbl and calibers. Its one frame and then you kit it out depending upon mission, jungle, desert, city.

As for size, the 1911 footprint comes in more sizes than one can imagine and in more than one cal.

 

[Sam7sf]

Hm...thought I'd share my thoughts as a machinist/fabricator who worked in the industry.

The 1911 if not some cheap pos, is a nice gun. Mine is accurate and looks sexy. The thumb safety doesn't bother me. I have no issues carrying mine. On the other hand it's an outdated design. No matter how we defend it, It mechanically is not the best choice. For example, and this is gonna sound odd, but lets say I wanted to pass down a 10mm to my son. My choices are a ruger sr1911 in 10mm and a glock model 20 or 40. I'm picking the glock to last. Now if this were 45 acp I would pick the 1911. 1911's coming back into the 10mm market is an old trick and unless metallurgy has changed drastically I can't say I trust the locking lugs to the 10mm. Its an old problem. Older designs are harder to give new life in new roles. I still love the 1911 and will always trust my life to a nicely built one.

As for the 9mm and other trends...I was troubled by sig winning. I get it. They offered the lowest bid but I have witnessed problems when the p320 first came out (mine choked on ball ammo...I traded it for an xd mod2 service) then the rumors and documented evidence of them not putting sig threw the gauntlet as hard as glock. Plus all the issues that seem to keep popping up with these guns. I like sig, I have an mcx rifle. The military made a bad call. Yes it is cheap initially. But at what cost down the road for maintenance and possibly letting someone down on duty? Everyone has failer rates. It just seems to me sig may be dropping the ball on qc. I get wanting to save money but I like the idea of saving lives better. The military would have been better off picking glock; hell cz. Lol hell the 1911. I hate the p320 series. Plus I wanted to see the military step away from 9mm.

 

[TheDan]

Lets us not forget the FREE Beretta upgrade to the M9A3 that was offered by Beretta and IMO stupidly turned down. Its cost a LOT of taxpayers money to switch over to the SIG

It's not their money, what do they care...

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Hm...thought I'd share my thoughts as a machinist/fabricator who worked in the industry.

The 1911 if not some cheap pos, is a nice gun. Mine is accurate and looks sexy. The thumb safety doesn't bother me. I have no issues carrying mine. On the other hand it's an outdated design. No matter how we defend it, It mechanically is not the best choice. For example, and this is gonna sound odd, but lets say I wanted to pass down a 10mm to my son. My choices are a ruger sr1911 in 10mm and a glock model 20 or 40. I'm picking the glock to last. Now if this were 45 acp I would pick the 1911. 1911's coming back into the 10mm market is an old trick and unless metallurgy has changed drastically I can't say I trust the locking lugs to the 10mm. Its an old problem. Older designs are harder to give new life in new roles. I still love the 1911 and will always trust my life to a nicely built one.

As for the 9mm and other trends...I was troubled by sig winning. I get it. They offered the lowest bid but I have witnessed problems when the p320 first came out (mine choked on ball ammo...I traded it for an xd mod2 service) then the rumors and documented evidence of them not putting sig threw the gauntlet as hard as glock. Plus all the issues that seem to keep popping up with these guns. I like sig, I have an mcx rifle. The military made a bad call. Yes it is cheap initially. But at what cost down the road for maintenance and possibly letting someone down on duty? Everyone has failer rates. It just seems to me sig may be dropping the ball on qc. I get wanting to save money but I like the idea of saving lives better. The military would have been better off picking glock; hell cz. Lol hell the 1911. I hate the p320 series. Plus I wanted to see the military step away from 9mm.

The problem, I have is not with SIG itself, but the issue was to save money, yet Beretta had gone thru the gun, taken user input and offered a no cost upgrade, yet it was turned down????

IMO something just stinks, the SIG is not a better gun and it was an all new platform and the military has hundreds of 1000's of them to the cost to take on SIG is how many years to recapture??? IMO I don't think they can hold on to the SIG long enough to recapture and realize the cost savings.

What I would like to know was WHO was pushing for SIG and what stake did they have in it? Something is ROTTEN IMO.

 

[TheMailMan]

I can't wait to see those old worn out M9 pistols for sale at the CMP for $1k each.

 

[Sam7sf]

The problem, I have is not with SIG itself, but the issue was to save money, yet Beretta had gone thru the gun, taken user input and offered a no cost upgrade, yet it was turned down????

IMO something just stinks, the SIG is not a better gun and it was an all new platform and the military has hundreds of 1000's of them to the cost to take on SIG is how many years to recapture??? IMO I don't think they can hold on to the SIG long enough to recapture and realize the cost savings.

What I would like to know was WHO was pushing for SIG and what stake did they have in it? Something is ROTTEN IMO.

We may never know that. I currently don't have a Beretta but I have good things to say about the 92 fs stainless I used to have. Unfortunately the cz 75 is the best fit for me now. I worry Beretta is on the downward spiral and that's a bad thing because outside of the guns they produce they are one of the worlds most advanced manufactures. Yeah sig ain't no bum but they don't have the facility Beretta does. Most don't. They, like a few other companies, help make the gun world go round and produce parts or take on jobs. In the gun world as with much of fabrication, very rarely does someone produce 100 percent of their product. Sorry I'm getting off topic...just ranting about how Beretta has done more for the gun world than sig. The military may have gotten tired of Beretta. For what reasons I don't know. Maybe new faces wanted to reinvent the wheel? The modular idea is great...I just feel they produced a sub standard product and the military fell for it.

The military is no different than a business and by that I mean the decisions we make should be as balanced as possible. I'm all about cost savings, but today it seems this concept has gone to the extreme. I mean take my shoes for example...yes I enjoy my Chinese or Vietnam low cost shoes but at a higher price I would consider an American made set with attention to detail and better materials. The p320 is not even half the gun my third gen glock is, or my cz75, 1911, and fyi I got myself a 19x cause I wanted to see what the hype was about...aftering having a p320 and a 19x...all I have to say is it came down to price. I didn't think I would like the 19x but I do. Its a great gun. I will gladly defend that guns design.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

We may never know that. I currently don't have a Beretta but I have good things to say about the 92 fs stainless I used to have. Unfortunately the cz 75 is the best fit for me now. I worry Beretta is on the downward spiral and that's a bad thing because outside of the guns they produce they are one of the worlds most advanced manufactures. Yeah sig ain't no bum but they don't have the facility Beretta does. Most don't. They, like a few other companies, help make the gun world go round and produce parts or take on jobs. In the gun world as with much of fabrication, very rarely does someone produce 100 percent of their product. Sorry I'm getting off topic...just ranting about how Beretta has done more for the gun world than sig. The military may have gotten tired of Beretta. For what reasons I don't know. Maybe new faces wanted to reinvent the wheel? The modular idea is great...I just feel they produced a sub standard product and the military fell for it.

The military is no different than a business and by that I mean the decisions we make should be as balanced as possible. I'm all about cost savings, but today it seems this concept has gone to the extreme. I mean take my shoes for example...yes I enjoy my Chinese or Vietnam low cost shoes but at a higher price I would consider an American made set with attention to detail and better materials. The p320 is not even half the gun my third gen glock is, or my cz75, 1911, and fyi I got myself a 19x cause I wanted to see what the hype was about...aftering having a p320 and a 19x...all I have to say is it came down to price. I didn't think I would like the 19x but I do. Its a great gun. I will gladly defend that guns design.

You are right about that.

I was a Program Manager for a key Army Program my last 8 years on Active Duty. My budget that I controlled was almost $130Million. I was pressured by various Sr folks to do this or that, award contracts to various companies. I never gave into any of that. In fact one General Officer had me and my Program Audited by AAA out of the Pentagon and the way a triple A starts out is they show up at your office about 0830 and their Jag officer reads you your rights. You immediately leave the office, turn over all pass words on your computer and they tell you to go home where you can be reached.

I ran a tight ship personally and professionally and they found nothing. I was told post audit that they had been informed that a contractor had either bought or was making payments on my new sports car and that I was traveling back to Dallas on a regular basis to visit family while I was under orders for duty travel. I had to produce my taxes going back to the date of the time I was assigned as the PM, they pulled my leave record, I mean they tore me inside out, but I ran a clean ship, the General wanted me to award a contract to one of his buddies companies. I would not do it!

I will tell you this, at the PM level there an opportunity to do a LOT of things with that money. Most PM's went to work for mil contractor upon retirement. I left the system completely, went home to Dallas and worked in Corp America with no ties to the mil or the govt.

 

[easy rider]

Maybe Sig has better lobbyists.

 

[pronstar]

Considering how long they stuck with the 1911, the M9 should have a service career of at least several more decades.

Especially when one considers how many times a pistol is used in combat...if our soldiers are frequently relying on pistols in modern warfare, something has gone terribly wrong.

But the military is like any other government agency. If they don’t show a need for a budget number, they lose it.

So it’s in their best interest to show a growing need to spend more money year over year.


The AR platform seems to be on the “must upgrade” list and has been for some time.

At least this makes some sense...rifles are heavily relied upon in combat.

But we still have the AR platform yet are on our third pistol variant over the AR’s lifespan?
With the last two pistols firing the same 9mm round?
This makes no sense.

As far as the AR goes, I dunno if it’s the rifle itself or just the round that is under review - I’m guessing it’s mainly the round.

But any move away from 5.56 NATO will surely bring in a new rifle IMHO, for the reason stated above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Considering how long they stuck with the 1911, the M9 should have a service career of at least several more decades.

Especially when one considers how many times a pistol is used in combat...if our soldiers are frequently relying on pistols in modern warfare, something has gone terribly wrong.

But the military is like any other government agency. If they don’t show a need for a budget number, they lose it.

So it’s in their best interest to show a growing need to spend more money year over year.


The AR platform seems to be on the “must upgrade” list and has been for some time.

At least this makes some sense...rifles are heavily relied upon in combat.

But we still have the AR platform yet are on our third pistol variant over the AR’s lifespan?
With the last two pistols firing the same 9mm round?
This makes no sense.

As far as the AR goes, I dunno if it’s the rifle itself or just the round that is under review - I’m guessing it’s mainly the round.

But any move away from 5.56 NATO will surely bring in a new rifle IMHO, for the reason stated above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

A new rifle as in a all new design. I am not seeing that and I try to keep up with this stuff, being an old Infantry soldier.

The Stoner design is a scaleable platform and having a separate upper and lower really makes great sense. The AR 15 was designed around the 5.56 rd, the original AR 10 was designed around the 7.62 NATO as a result the AR 10 really opens up to the use of many different rds using the same AR 10 footprint.

It appeared they are going with 6.5CM, but to be honest the messages coming out of the Army are so mixed and seem to change almost daily it difficult to pin down.

The USMC on the other hand has it nailed:

Marine Corps announces sweeping changes to ground-combat forces

The Marine Corps is making sweeping changes to the structure and equipment of its ground-combat forces aimed at improving lethality and agility on the battlefield.

Officially announced last week, the modifications are the result of nearly two years of study and experimentation known as Marine Corps Force 2025 and Sea Dragon 2025. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert Neller spoke about them earlier this month at a gala for the service’s top officers and enlisted ground-combat leaders in Arlington, Va.

Changes will be felt at almost every level of Marine Corps life.

https://www.stripes.com/news/marine...5/15/18&utm_term=Editorial - Early Bird Brief