Sig Sauer wins US military pistol contract

Armies of the World
Joined: December 5th, 2014, 12:55 am

August 13th, 2017, 5:11 pm #131

Sig has what they think is a fix. A low mass trigger.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aeJKCNGin ... e=youtu.be
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 8:39 pm

August 14th, 2017, 10:11 pm #132

IcelofAngeln wrote:
Unlike the civvie P320, the M17 has a manual thumb safety.
The civilian version of the Army’s new handgun is having firing problems
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-arm ... rd%20Brief
Mark Twain:
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."
and
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 5th, 2014, 12:55 am

December 7th, 2017, 2:41 pm #133

More soldiers to be issued M-17’s then ever issued M-9’s. Plus the “special” ammo is believed to be the more issued ammo.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... der-level/
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 21st, 2010, 12:24 am

December 7th, 2017, 2:54 pm #134

The "special ammo" (M1153 JHP) suggests that the Army is quietly taking advantage of a legal loophole: the Hague Convention only applies to signatory nations, not ISIS, Taliban or Al-Qaeda. It doesn't hurt that every cop on the planet carries JHPs just to take down ordinary thugs; it makes for an easier legal sell.
The difference between "democracy" and "populism" is whether or not the ruling elite likes the outcome.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 27th, 2011, 9:14 pm

December 7th, 2017, 10:15 pm #135

TFB proves its cluelessness once again:

"...previously only senior leadership were authorized to carry handguns..."

What about weapons crews and guard and police personnel?

Why do you use these morons for a source, Surf? Do you think they make you look cool and informed? They don't.
Up and forward on the starboard side, down and aft on the port. 

The question of authority stalks the de-religionist project. (Paul Vander Klay)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 5th, 2014, 12:55 am

December 8th, 2017, 12:08 am #136

sergeante wrote: TFB proves its cluelessness once again:

"...previously only senior leadership were authorized to carry handguns..."

What about weapons crews and guard and police personnel?

Why do you use these morons for a source, Surf? Do you think they make you look cool and informed? They don't.
Serg, it is not about how a post makes you tingle or not.  It was just to stimulate some conversation.  Sorry if you were offended.  Move along.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 27th, 2011, 9:14 pm

December 8th, 2017, 1:21 am #137

Surfgun wrote:
Serg, it is not about how a post makes you tingle or not.  It was just to stimulate some conversation.  Sorry if you were offended.  Move along.
Not offended. Just really think we can raise the standards of source material. I know the people at TFB think they're the Cool Kids. And they try real hard to convince their audience to believe that they are. But they're not. They mislead their audience about as much as they inform them when it comes to armed service topics, simply because they don't seem to have any serious service experience over there. My advice would be to find independent confirmation of any service-related thing you read on TFB, and note the differences in style and domain knowledge.

In any case, back to the discussion, I'm seeing a disturbing trend in the supposed requirement for squad and team leaders to have pistols. The supposed rationale is that they've got one hand occupied much of the time. What are they doing with that hand when they should be fighting? Goofing around with electronic devices pushed too far down the chain, trying to meet reporting requirements that no fire team or squad leader really needs to meet?
Up and forward on the starboard side, down and aft on the port. 

The question of authority stalks the de-religionist project. (Paul Vander Klay)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 13th, 2008, 10:19 pm

December 8th, 2017, 1:48 pm #138

That's a complaint that was made about Pl commanders in an earlier generation.  That said I'd disagree with any low level commander looking so obviously different from his troops.  "Shoot the guys waving pistols" is age old advice.
Wider issue of pistols over this side of the water is as a supplement to long arms, not a replacement.  There are times when that makes sense and times when it doesn't.
"Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men"

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster himself."

"We take pride in the terminatory service we provide"
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 5th, 2014, 12:55 am

January 26th, 2018, 3:13 am #139

The Army thinks of the M17 as more than defensive weapon One company goes from 9 pistols to 46 with the transition.
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-arm ... ers-fight/
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 13th, 2008, 10:19 pm

January 26th, 2018, 9:47 am #140

Errrm, from about 8 in the Bn IIRC to everyone up front is quite a step more and it's still mostly defensive.  If the modern Brit has to switch to the pistol he's not really expected to do anything until he's a) killed the enemy within much too close and b) dealt with whatever made him switch.  That might be, rather unusually, very close quarters like inside a building but it's most likely a stoppage on the long weapon.
"Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men"

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster himself."

"We take pride in the terminatory service we provide"
Quote
Like
Share