Air Force dropping the M9 for .45ACP

[billamj]

Originally Posted by eodtech

Wow... that's all I have to say. Thanks buddy. I know you said you mean no offense to the Air Force... But as an Air Force guy who is currently in Baghdad and about to leave on (yet another) route clearance mission downtown in a couple hours... Ummm... Yeah I could use a 45... And how do I get that? Only if the whole Air Force gets it. Just because I am an EOD tech I am not special in the Air Force's mind. We have a hard enough time justifying 150 bucks extra per month for demo pay...
I've been blown up in my vehicle twice in the past 5 months, and shot at more times then I can count...But it's OK... the Air Force isn't playing a combat role... We just like to pretend

Hang in there my friend! Thanks for your service. You have no idea how much you are missed, even by those you don't know!

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by Cryogaijin

You were talking about 50s and 60s technology being a joke and you bring up our current examples of same?

The A-10 is spectacularly successful at what it was designed to do....whack and stack enemy soldiers in wholesale lots. They should be making more of them, it's the best Close Air Support aircraft ever built.

[AF13]

Originally Posted by eodtech

Wow... that's all I have to say. Thanks buddy. I know you said you mean no offense to the Air Force... But as an Air Force guy who is currently in Baghdad and about to leave on (yet another) route clearance mission downtown in a couple hours... Ummm... Yeah I could use a 45... And how do I get that? Only if the whole Air Force gets it. Just because I am an EOD tech I am not special in the Air Force's mind. We have a hard enough time justifying 150 bucks extra per month for demo pay...
I've been blown up in my vehicle twice in the past 5 months, and shot at more times then I can count...But it's OK... the Air Force isn't playing a combat role... We just like to pretend

I have yet to go active duty but in my AFSC (Security Forces). I have heard that we def. need some heavier fire power over their in Iraq. I have talked to numerous people that have come back in Security Forces and other AFSCs. I appreciate all you are doing for our country. Keep your tail down and come home safe.

[M2XD]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

The A-10 is spectacularly successful at what it was designed to do....whack and stack enemy soldiers in wholesale lots. They should be making more of them, it's the best Close Air Support aircraft ever built.

Amen!

Cheers! M2

[chupacabrachus]

I'm not going to go into a caliber debate, but I don't see a problem with updating the military's service pistol to .45acp. I think it's a good idea, but think we should be more concerned with a new service rifle than a new service pistol. As far as the M9's faults, I see them. Common complaints are it's grip size, overall size, and capacity limits. Grip size is the biggest reason I think they should upgrade the pistol to something with an adaptable grip (something like an HKP2000, Beretta PX4 or 90-two, walther P99, S/W M&P, etc). As far as capacity goes, 18-round flush fitting magazines are availible for 92 series berettas, the military just doesn't employ them. In regards to trigger pull, DA is heavy, SA is not. That's how it works in most SA/DA pistols. I'm in favor of a service pistol w/ a Glock/XD/Sig DAK/HK LEM style trigger.

Personally, I think an extremely simple pistol such as glock is a great option for a service pistol if they put a manual saftey onto it (I feel these are necessary for service pistols).

[nunnya]

Chupacabrachus,
Word is the Marines are updating there battle rifles soon.
My son in law is excited after some hands on with the new AHAB (I think).
It is supposidly lighter and more reliable. Also switches from .223 to .308
in the field with an easy barrel swap.

nunnya

[jeepinbanditrider]

Originally Posted by nunnya

Chupacabrachus,
Word is the Marines are updating there battle rifles soon.
My son in law is excited after some hands on with the new AHAB (I think).
It is supposidly lighter and more reliable. Also switches from .223 to .308
in the field with an easy barrel swap.

nunnya

Doubtful. We just got done investing large amounts of money in outfitting our grunts with M16A4s. Brand new rifles from FN. I'm not saying that we won't be getting a new rifle eventually but it will probably be after your son in law's time is served and he is long out.

We are also spoused to be getting a "new" upgraded version of the CH-53E but we aren't sopoused to see that for another 10 to 15 years. We are the poorest branch out of all the services, and upgrades to equipment are slow in comming. POGUEs (yeah I'm one of those guys I work on Helicopters) are just starting to get issued the Interceptor Body Armor and that stuff has been around for a while. A lot of the vests we do have are hand-me-downs from that the Army was going to toss anyway.

[TRIGRHAPPY]

You were talking about 50s and 60s technology being a joke and you bring up our current examples of same?

To speak about the A-10 like it's a useless relic from the 50's completely takes away any benefit of a doubt i gave you about military technology.

Ask the insurgents in iraq or taliban in Afghanistan what they fear the most......it's not a shiny new F-22, it's the bullet ridden, sun faded, borderline rusting A-10 that makes their buttholes pucker. As for the B-52 being old and outdated........i can see your point, but most of the tech that's loaded on the B-52's now adays make the aircrafts age irrelevant. I mean, we can load it full of JDAMs and blow **** up without leaving 5 miles from base.....or hell, put the calcms on it and blow **** up from another country. The key to the B-52's deadliness in combat is its reliability..... Hell, the B-1 holds more, goes faster, and has SOME degree of stealth.....but the fact that it takes a miracle to make it fly means we need the B-52.

As far as China's Air "Force". I mean 1 purchase of any aircraft means little. First off, the 22's would OWN the Su-30's. (as long as they don't shoot international date lines at us ) We would have air superiority in a war versus China from start to finish.....that's a simple fact, not theory. They (as in China) are still trying to buy our old used F-15's and 16's, which they have always been denied. They also tried to get a piece of our F-35 which i'm sure was laughed at when they made the offer.

Bottom line is, their Air Force is not even close. The Marines could handle an attack from their aircraft WITHOUT help from the Navy and still come out on top. They'll need much more than........what, i'll be generous, 80 Su-30's.....if they even want to make us TRY. Now perhaps, in 30 years, they will be comparable, but right now.......i'm pretty sure Taiwan could hold off their air force. That pretty much goes for every other Air Force in the world.

When the commercials say "No one comes close", it's no bull****. Same story for our Navy, no one is even playing the same GAME, much less being in the ballpark. Even at the pinnacle of the British Navy's strength, it was only as strong as the next 2 navies combined.....ours is stronger than the next 10.

Couple that with our guys on the ground being able to call for air support whenever they need it...and GETTING it.......well, it's pretty much over before it begins. These wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are against guerillas, not a "stand up and fight" military power like China. The last time any military actually tried to mount an actual military confrontation with the U.S. was Desert Storm. It was no surprise air power made the war COMPLETELY one sided.

The only way to make the U.S. Military break a sweat is with a guerilla war. The reason for that is that our air superiority becomes a much smaller advantage (in combat) because we aren't always able to use it effectively. That is not the case with a large power like China, that would be forced to move masses of troops quickly if it hoped to take, and hold, Taiwan. Our subs would keep them from using seaborn supplies, so any invasion would be cut off from substantial reinforcements. Then if they tried to supply by air, they'd be lucky to get off the ground in the first place. Any massive buildup of troops quickly becomes an easy target for air-strikes and cruise missiles.

It sounds stupid, but their best chance to invade and hold Taiwan, would be to buy millions of jet ski's and send them all across at the same time.....of course, even that is nothing a couple well-placed MOAB's couldn't fix.

[M2XD]

Back to the topic, this just came out...

Soldiers Want a Bigger Bang
May 25, 2007 01:30 PM

Nearly 80 percent of Soldiers said in a recent survey they are satisfied with their weapons, though almost half recommended a replacement for the standard-issued M9 pistol or ammunition with more stopping power.

Additionally, nearly 30 percent of Soldiers in the December 2006 survey, conducted on behalf of the Army by the Center for Naval Analyses, said the M4 carbine should be replaced or more deadly ammunition fielded.

"Across weapons, Soldiers have requested weapons and ammunition with more stopping power/lethality," the report said.

The study was commissioned by the Army's Project Manager for Soldier Weapons to address concerns raised by Soldiers returning from combat about the dependability and effectiveness of their small arms.

"This study assessed Soldier perspectives on the reliability and durability of their weapons systems in combat to aid in decisions regarding current and future small arms needs of the Army," said the study, which was obtained by Military.com.

CNA surveyors conducted over 2,600 interviews with Soldiers returning from combat duty, asking them a variety of questions about accessories, weapons training, maintenance and recommended changes to their small arms.

"The U.S. Army Infantry Center is conducting a study to refine the Army's Small Arms Strategy, which focuses on the employment of rifles, carbines, ammunition caliber, and future technologies," said Army spokesman, Lt. Col. William Wiggins, in a statement. "All Services are participating in this study, which is expected in the July/August 2007 timeframe."

The survey lends weight to Army claims that current-issued weapons are effective despite growing criticism from Soldiers and lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the service should re-assess the standard M4 - as well as the M9 pistol.

In April, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) sent a letter to acting Army secretary Pete Geren taking issue with the service's sole-source contract to buy about 500,000 M4 carbines despite evidence that new rifle technologies could provide more reliable weapons.

The study found the most stoppage problems with the M249 machine gun and M9 pistol, with an average of about 30 percent of respondents saying they experienced stoppages with each weapon in firefights. About four in ten Soldiers who said they experienced jams during combat with their pistols or machine guns claimed it took them out of the fight.

Though vocal critics of the M4 say it's prone to jamming in the talcum-like sand environments of Iraq and Afghanistan, only 19 percent of M4 users said they experienced stoppages in combat.

But of those with malfunctioning M4s, nearly 20 percent said they were "unable to engage the target with that weapon during a significant portion of or the entire firefight after performing immediate or remedial action to clear the stoppage," the report said.

Soldiers who attach accessories to their weapons experienced a disproportionate number of malfunctions, with M249 users nine times more likely to experience a stoppage "if accessories were attached via zip cord, four times more likely if attached with duct tape and three times more likely if attached with dummy cords or rails."

"Accessory attachments had a significant impact on reported stoppages," the report said. "Those who attached accessories to their weapon were more likely to experience stoppages, regardless of how the accessories were attached."

The CNA surveyors also asked Soldiers for their opinions on possible improvements to their small arms. The top request from Soldiers was for more knock-down power, reigniting the debate over America's small arms caliber choices.

"When speaking to experts and Soldiers on site, many commented on the limited ability to effectively stop targets, saying that those personnel targets who were shot multiple times were still able to continue pursuit," the report said.

A full 20 percent of M9 users said they wanted a new weapon, and "some were more specific and requested a return to the Colt .45 for standard issue pistols," including others who asked for hollow-point ammo.

Hollow point rounds have been deemed illegal for military use.

Additionally, M16 users were "consistent and adamant" in asking to be re-issued the more compact M4.

Download the entire CNA report here (2MB PDF file).

Cheers! M2

[jeepinbanditrider]

only 19 percent of M4 users said they experienced stoppages in combat.

ONLY 19% huh. That is a huge number when you are talking about the number of them fielded and the fact that this is during COMBAT.