- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Army Picks Sig Sauer's P320 Handgun to Replace M9 Service Pistol
Posted on 1/21/17 at 11:32 am to jbgleason
Posted on 1/21/17 at 11:32 am to jbgleason
quote:
The Modularity actually makes perfect sense and is a huge money saver.
No it doesn't and it was no more than another bullet-point to justify wasting money on something like so many past small-arms projects by the DoD.
quote:
There are currently multiple handgun weapons systems in place due to mission profile. A perfect example is the M9 carried by uniformed MP's and the Sig P229 M-11 carried by CID for concealed carry. In a large organization like Army this is a huge expense. Multiple parts caches, multiple magazine types, tracking all that disparate equipment, multiple armorers, different training courses, etc. All because you needed a more compact pistol. With the Modular Sig, the intent wasn't ever for a soldier to be swapping parts in the field. Rather, the idea is if a Command decides they need 50 compact pistols for a mission that their Armorer can go into the parts bin and put them together without any major purchasing / supply issues. And guess what? The soldiers issued the "new" pistol don't need additional training or quals. And it's not just slide and barrel length. They have different sized grip frames, lengths, threaded barrels for silencers, light mounts, etc. Modular is a good thing.
Load of BS. If commonality of parts, training, armorers, etc was so important than the DoD should have scrapped the whole program the instant Beretta offered the M9A3. It offers 95% of what this Sig does and would cost the Army less than the current M9's while retaining significant commonality of parts already in inventory. No commander outside of SOCOM is going to ask his armorers to reprofile all the handguns they have in the vault for a mission. No commander with half a brain is going to put themselves in a position of having to inventory, secure, and have spare weapons parts hanging around like that on their property book. His S4 would tell him to pound sand too. There's no such thing as "parts bins" these days, everything goes on the books and everything is inventoried monthly.
quote:
The long DA / SA trigger is hard to shoot well without lots of practice and the pistol is bulky and heavy.
That's a BS excuse too and the fix with a D spring is peanuts compared to the more than half-billion this contract costs. Guess what, practice is the problem that this Sig isn't going to solve. The Army doesn't give commanders enough time and ammo to focus on live fire pistol training for those that can be assigned a pistol. I've gotten 5 emails this week from Division about LBGTQ, religious tolerance, EO, and other crap and not one in the last year concerning anything on better small-arms training. Well, I'm sure the S4 got a few about ordering less ammo this year due to our continued "fiscally constrained environment"...
This post was edited on 1/21/17 at 11:34 am
Posted on 1/21/17 at 11:43 am to Clames
quote:
Load of BS, BS, BS.
Someone with more stars on his shoulder than you disagrees. Not saying that makes them right but it is what it is.
As far as the Logistics issue, it might not make sense to you at your level but it does to me at the Program level. I have worked a Program from Solicitation and bid through down select and award. Have you? Because seemingly small issues like I mentioned become big issues at that level.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News