What is a Combat Handgun?

Submitted by Eric Daniel

Read this article the other day about the Air Force’s $90 million request for new pistols getting nixed and instead they were granted $5 million to “study” joint combat pistol needs with the Army.  This, in turn, reminded me of a piece I’d written several years ago on the H&K Mk. 23 Mod 0 SOCOM.  A lot of money was invested in building that state of the art pistol, and there’s no arguing that it is in fact, one hell of a handgun; but you don’t see too many of them around.  Of all the SOF personnel I saw in Iraq, none had anything other than the M9 Beretta, and of the several I spoke to about the .45 SOF pistol, none had ever seen one. 

To be sure, I’m sure there are more SOF folk than there are SOCOM pistols, and there might be some sort of SOP regarding the use of the SOCOM, but if that were the case, why go through all that trouble to make such a superlative firearm and either not issue it in greater numbers, or restrict the use of the ones you do have?

Now, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.  I am not a “gun” guy.  As a soldier, I use firearms as the tools of my trade. I can take them apart and put them back together, and I know how to troubleshoot them when something does not work right.  What I can’t do is quote chapter and verse on muzzle energy, knockdown power, stopping power, fit, feel, or functionality of any particular firearm or bullet.  This having been said, however, I think, even given my own limited “gun” knowledge, I could come up with a replacement for the M9 for less than 5 million dollars.

Take my experience with the M1911A1 .45 pistol and the M9 Beretta.  The thing I liked best about the M1911A1 was the fact that it was made out of forged steel; You could drop it, kick it, crawl on it, you could do anything to it short of melt it, and you wouldn’t affect it’s reliability.  Moreover, properly blued or parkerized, the M1911A1 was very forgiving of the elements.

Not everything on the M1911A1, however, was perfect.  I thought the ejection port on the slide to be too narrow and I remember that “stove piping” was a constant issue, where the spent casing would extract from the chamber, but would not eject clear of the slide.  Now I don’t know if this issue was the result of the small ejection port or some other issue, but it was something I noticed with the pistol.  The lack of removable or adjustable sights seemed to me to be a viable point of improvement.  While I understand that the inclusion of such features would obviously drive up the price of the weapon, I would have, at a very minimum, liked to have seen replaceable sights on the pistol.  Many, many of the .45s I saw had mangled front and rear sights, no doubt the result of decades of service.  Adjustable sights might have been something of a luxury for a strictly “defensive” weapon, but I believe replaceable sights would have been an improvement.  Finally, some complained about the recoil from the .45, that it was too powerful, or that the weapon, being made from steel, was too heavy.  I personally thought the recoil was manageable (more than the M9 to be sure, but not alarmingly so) and when compared to all the other gear I was hauling around, the extra 2 pounds from the M1911A1 was hardly noticeable (not to mention a loaded M9 weighs almost the same.)

As for the M9 Beretta, it fired well, it was easy to take apart and put back together, and since it was made of a non-ferrous alloy, it was again very tolerant of the elements.  Moreover, it did have a nice big ejection port (right out the top of the slide.)  On the downside the M9 was made of a non-ferrous alloy, which made it significantly more susceptible to damage from what I would consider routine exposure to the combat environment.  I’ve seen M9s crack when dropped off of vehicles, suffer significant gouging, and pinching of the frame.  With the M1911A1 if I could get the slide to work I had faith that the pistol would work, and work safely.  Not so with the M9.  Moreover, the M9 was a SA/DA (single action/double action) pistol, which meant that you didn’t need to thumb cock it like you did with the .45 or rack the slide to cock the hammer, you could just pull the trigger and the hammer would cock itself and fire.  However, with the Beretta the trigger, in DA mode (hammer down) was WAY out there and for some folk, reaching all the way out there with one finger was literally quite a reach (I’ve even seen folk “double pull” the trigger where they pull the trigger partway and then readjust their finger position to complete the process.)  For me, coming from a M1911A1 background, I always thumb cocked my M9 during qualification.  This may not have been the standard, but it was how I “grew up” and I didn’t see the need to go to a different method simply because TRADOC said so.  Others have also complained about the “fat” double stacked, 15-round magazine, but again, with my big hands, that wasn’t an issue.  Finally, as with the M1911A1 the M9 does not have removable or replaceable sights, though again, in the grand scheme of things, this isn’t really a deal breaker as much as it would have been means of maintaining the accuracy of the pistol over its service life.

(Now, before anyone mentions it, I intentionally did not address the physical characteristics of the bullets themselves.  Over the course of my military career the only thing I’ve ever “killed” with my pistol was paper and plywood, so I can’t comment on the combat utility of either the .45 ACP or the 9mm Parabellum.  But bullet lethality is a whole ‘nother can of worms, which we will get to shortly.)

My question before the court is this.  What is a “combat handgun” and what is it that we really need and what do we want it to do.  I would think that really what we’re talking about here is a defensive/back up/bail out weapon, not one that you would use as your primary offensive arm (yes there are many situations where a pistol is superior to a long gun in offensive operations, like searching confined spaces, vehicles, or what have you, but I don’t think a pistol would be my first choice for assaulting an enemy position or defending my perimeter.)  Again, I’m not a gun guy so I’m not going to tell you what that ought to be, but let all of you take the ball and run with it.  To better organize the discussion, though I thought it might be helpful to break down the discussion into a couple of functional areas.

Automatic or revolver?  Yes, it seems a bit antiquated to ask the question, but it’s as good a place as any to start.  In terms of sheer reliability I would thing there would be nothing more reliable than a revolver.  Up until the introduction of the M9 in fact, aviators were still issued a .38 revolver.  They were small, easy to operate, and very reliable.  On the down side however, I would think that, unless you trained regularly with one, reloading one under combat conditions would be something of a disaster waiting to happen (I have visions of Stanley Baker as Lt. Chard in Zulu trying to reload his revolver with shaking hands) but the same could be said of any weapon I suppose. 

Something else to consider is action type.  Should the pistol be SA (single action) only DA (double action) only or SA/DA?  Many law enforcement agencies are adopting DA only pistols for liability purposes, but should this be a consideration for military personnel as well?

Construction.  Steel or alloy?  As I said, I grew up with the all-steel M1911A1 and then transitioned to the alloy M9 and now there are “plastic” polymer handguns, of which I have only very limited experience with (while deployed in ‘05 I carried a Glock Model 19 9mm compact.)  I like the durability of the steel over the alloy M9, but the Glock also seemed to hold up well (it had a steel upper on a polymer lower.)  Furthermore, what kind of finish should the pistol have?  Blued?  Parkerized?  Stainless steel or some other exotic metal?

Size.  How big should the pistol be?  Full size (4+ inch barrel) or compact (2 inch) barrel?  Should it have a double stacked magazine or single stack?  Over the years many folk have complained about the weapons they were issued, that there were certain aspects regarding them that they didn’t like, but I’ve never heard any say that they couldn’t use a weapon.  Another question along these lines is, should the services field different sizes of the same caliber, or just a single unit?  Should we have a pistol with a single stack or double stacked magazine?  More is always better, but as would be the case with a double-stacked .45-style pistol, you’re talking a lot more (in terms of grip size, that is.)

I think there is a tendency now a days to look for a “satisfy everyone” approach (the XM-8 with it’s golf bag of mission flexible barrels, for example) rather than a “satisfy the requirement and learn to deal with it” approach (here’s your M1911A1, have a nice day.)  We don’t have his and hers M-16s or M2s or M249s, so coming up with five different flavors of handgun so that everyone can pick the one that “feels” best to them is, in my opinion, a waste of resources.

Cartridge.  Ok, here comes the can of worms.  Traditionally, this discussion tends to degenerate into .45 v. 9mm.  Again, I have absolutely zero experience with actually using either cartridge for anything more than killing qualification targets, a task for which both are more than adequate.  What I do know about them is they have both been around FOREVER, and their ballistic characteristics are well known.  At a purely visceral level, when it comes to bullets, I tend to believe that bigger is better, so I like the .45, but is that really a proper basis for selecting a cartridge?  Moreover, while the 9mm and the .45 are proven, they’re also old.  There are many new (relative to the .45 and the 9mm) cartridges out there, such as the .357 SIG, .40 S&W, 10mm Auto, just to name a few.  Should we consider one of those?

Economics.  While talking about guns is great and wonderful, buying them is a completely different experience, and the bottom line here is, regardless of what the services decide to adopt as their service handgun, economics will play an important, if not THE most important, roll in the process.  We currently have a lot of 9mm pistols in our inventory, and a lot of 9mm ammunition to go with them.  So do our allies.  Complain all you want about the 9mm, but it will require big bucks to replace the Beretta and its legacy (ammunition, spare parts, etc…) But it can be done.  The Coast Guard did it just recently when they dropped the M9 and went to the SIG-Sauer P229R DAK in .40 S&W while the USSS (United States Secret Service) went to the SIG-Sauer P229 in .357 SIG, citing its armor penetrating qualities among others (that’s something else that has advanced significantly since the introduction of the .45 and 9mm; the proliferation of both soft and hard body armor.)

Finally, there is the question of going custom or COTS (Commercial, Off The Shelf.)  Every couple of years someone will write in to ARMOR magazine about the need for a PDW (personal defense weapon) for tankers and other armored vecicle crewmen.  The M4/M16 are too large they say, the M9 is too small – what tankers really need is a custom weapon that is sort of M9ish, and sort of M4ish, but completely unique to their needs.  Rubbish.  If tankers really needed a “bail out” gun, and there is a compelling argument for such a need, especially with all the urban action going on (though seriously, unless the tank’s on fire, you’ve lost turret power, none of your MG’s work, or your stuck in front of an enemy ATGM factory, you are generally safer inside the tank than outside) there are plenty to choose from.  Yes the M4 (or the full auto version, the M4A1) will work just fine, but if you want something  more “exotic” then go with something from the Heckler&Koch MP line, such as the MP5K-PDW.  I thought it sadly humerous that the Army announced the development of a “combat shoulderbag” after claiming that they couldn’t find a suitable bag on the civilian market.  To say the same about a handgun I think would just border on criminal insanity.

The bottom line here is there are enough guns out there that surely we can find one that meets our needs (you’ll notice that there isn’t a member from any law enforcement agency in all of America walking around without some sort of duty weapon) and I don’t think it would take $5 million to figure out which one we need.

Comments

[John Moran]

All the hooplah about a new pistol is rubbish. COmmercial off the Shelf (COTS) is the way to go. The Army/DOD loves to reservh things to death. Why doesn't the DOD just follow the lead of civialian police departments. The Glock 22 in .40 auto is used by about 60% of the police departments in the Unite States. This weapon has proven itself to be relaible, lethal and easy to train people to use. All of the accessories are already out there for it. All the DOD needs to do is send purchasing agents out, buy a bucch of pistols on the open market and test them. The most relaible one wins the contract. The system that the DOD uses is completly retarded, some contract specialist writes up a proposal, then all the arms manufacturers try to modify there existing designs to fit the need that a contract specialist, not trigger puller speciefed. That is why so many wepons systems are failures.

[john.moran]

Here's another idea. Why doesn't the militayr just authorise private purchase of side-arms. There is historical precedent for this. Up through WWI, and as late as Vietnam many soldiers carried personal weapons. The DOD just needs to write up a policy on it, specifying basic parameters, and just let people get there own gear.
the Police Dept. I work for issues a great weapon, a MMatte Stainless Steel Colt 11911 .45 Auto with a few sspecified add on parts like aambi thumb safety and mmemory groove grip safety. If you don't like that you ccan carry just about any other revelvor or auto ppistol in 9mm, .38, .357, .40 auto, 110mm or .45 Auto. If you wwant to carry some really bbizarre weapon not made by a mmajor manufacturer, then your answer will be no.
So the DOD should just specify that 9mm, .40, .45 whatever is the standard cartridege and publish a list of acceptable pistols that you can purchase and use. I have to buy my own uniforms, I carry my own knife and Camelback, I use my own Tactical Tailor web gear, why should my pistol by any different?

[Scott Baumann]

I enjoyed reading your article on the combat handgun, but thought I would throw in my two cents. I too think the Air Force is wasting money researching new sidearms. For as often as they are called to use one, they should just accept whatever the Army has.

As for the guy that replied about the Glock; it is a great weapon but it has its deficiencies too. The reason the military is unable to go COTS and get the glock has to do with the safety. It is a requirement for our military sidearm to have a positive safety independent of the trigger. That requirement still stands today, and thus the Glock's trigger safety precludes it from being purchased.

Another point that really caught my attention in the article was the quote "Of all the SOF personnel I saw in Iraq, none had anything other than the M9 Beretta, and of the several I spoke to about the .45 SOF pistol, none had ever seen one." What SOF personnel did you talk to? I bet they were all Army. I deployed with Navy SOF, and we had plenty of these in our armory. However, few SEALs like to actually carry them because they are bulky and rather long. The holsters for them are even worse, and then if you start adding attachments to the pistol it catches on everything. Everyone I was with preferred the Navy SIG 226 in 9mm due to its size. Of course, very few Iraqis are wearing body armor so penetration was not a big worry. Many of the Army SOF guys I saw went old school. Their favorite was the match grade M1911 Colt .45. The ones I talked to had all seen the SOCOM, but they also disliked it due to its size. Army guys seem to like big bullets though, hence they like the M1911. It's also slim and easy to jam into your chest rig and is small enough to still leave room for M4 pouches in your chest rig.

I did find it interesting that many of the Army guys also mentioned that they would love to switch to a .40 cal or .357 pistol. Many different types were mentioned during these discussions, so I won't go into greater detail there. Meanwhile, on the Navy side, the preference seemed to run towards staying with the SIG brand but going to the 229 as being more preferrable. The SIG 229 is slightly smaller than the 226 and is a little lighter. So, there's my experience and two cents on the article.

[Dave]

Interesting presentation. I agree that the 1911 is just about perfect A 1911A2 with some modification to the original design would be fine by me, but it will never go. It's an early 20th century design, expensive to machine, and fairly easy to beat in a competitive test. Colt flogged it to death already.

The SOCOM pistol, IIRC, was intended to be a primary offensive weapon with its silencer attached. It isn't a sidearm - It's a cavalry hogleg.

Here's one problem with shopping around. While Europeans view pistols as officer status badges, we actually expect to draw our sidearm and dispatch a bad guy with authority. Europeans just don't quite get it.

Here's my shopping list:
1. Real defensive capability. No placebos, please.

2. Modest size and weight. If you have to carry an M4 and ammo anyway, don't cause excessive misery by having our guys carry a pistol and 2 more magazines. Also, it allows for concealed carry by those that may require it.

3. Modest magazine capacity. Let's be frank - defending yourself with a pistol against a rifleman is a poor situation. 15 pistol rounds does not equal 1/2 of an M4. Don't try to even the playing field.

4. Frame-mounted safety. I'm not small, but my thumb is too short to sweep off the M9's safety. Ambidexterous is good.

5. High visibility sights. If we're putting optics everyplace else, at least give the pistol some tritium dots.

6. Close attention to ergonomics. One other problem with the Glock is that the grip angle isn't exactly right. It naturally points high for many people.

Choice? I dunno. HK may be close with several of their models. A Double-action Browning P35 variant in .40S&W might be good. I'm glad I don't have to make everybody happy all of the time.

[CSM Wells]

There more .22cal Deaths around the world than any other round, then next is the 9mm! So just give the grunt a pistol and he or she will shoot to kill. A pistol is a back up to a grunt, I'm going to kill you with my rifle frist and a M-67 Frag.

[steelcobra]

The biggest reason the SOCOM wasn't adopted en masse was size - it's as big as the Desert Eagle.

As for Army Special Forces, I don't know about the SF battalions, but in the support batt's arms room we have M9's, SIG P228's, and 1911's.

[Coolhand77]

I'm not a soldier, but I am a thinker, and an admitted "gun person".
I have a couple of suggestions for a couple of problems mentioned, plus one OTS suggestion for a sidearm.
Problem 1: Glock Safty
Solution: I do belive that there is a drop in safty mod for the glocks, so that is moot. If there isn't then go with something like the Browning High Power or the soon to be ressurected Bren-10. Both can be chambered for 9mm, 10mm Auto, or .40 S&W (though I prefer .45 myself), both are based on the reliable Browning "linkless" design, and both have slightly improved ergonomics over the 1911 (including the frame mounted safty). In addition, both are da/sa but have a shorter pull than the M9. Many of the similar CZ based pistols would also be worth while to look at.
Problem 2: Tankers want PDW.
Solution: Kriss V. Chamber it for your pistol cartridges. ITs bulky, but its smaller than an M4, and more controllable on FA. It hits a hell of alot harder than the 5.7 or 4.5mm offerings that have been all the rage lately.

SOme other offerings would be the NEW HK45 (not a big fan, but oh well, gotta be fair), the S&W M&P series, and the Springfield XD family (has a grip safty, not sure if that counts as the "positive safty" feature specified). All are double stacked, but even in .45, with 13 rounds, the XD is comfortable and easy to shoot in my hands (I wear a medium sized glove snugly).

Just the opinion of a talanted amature. Of course, as with the shoulder bag, its not so much a matter of there not being something OTS that they can use, its a matter of NIH (Not Invented Here) Syndrome.

[Andy]

I love the feel of a Glock, but i also love the feel of a 1911, i HATE the feel of the M9 why? IT'S TOO DAMN FAT! if you could get the glock tactical practical in 10MM with a thumb and grip safety, you would have a winner every time.

[gh]

In my opinion, the Air Force is the biggest money wasting branch of the DOD. They always cry, bitch and complain about funds. And yet, their airmen are the least professional mebers of the military (in general, there are exceptions). I served in the marines, and let me tell you; we get the lowest budget of any U.S. military organization. However, we are an elite organization and have an unparalleled fighting readiness. I had someone in my unit that had been in the Air Force and then came in the marines. She said a story about how they salvaged parts from other jets to make one jet fly, and yet had new carpets every six months. In our barrcks the arimen got paid hardship duty pay, because they were sleeping in marine barracks and they did not have enough space. Apparently they had to have so much square feet per person. Boohoo. Even if they get all the money they ask for, they'll invest it in new carpets rather than training and weapons. The weapon is a tool, and it's not the weapon but the marine. Anyways, let's turn our attention to the combat pistol. I fired the 9mm, the .40S&W and the .45ACP. If I were to look for a new weapon I would look for a new cartridge. The 9mm is accurate but has no stopping power. The .40S&W is fitted in a 9mm cartridge and just like the .45ACP the whole cartridge does not sit in the chamber. A small part in the end sticks out. This can be a problem if the brass is faulty as the round can explode and break the weapon and possibly injure the shooter. I'd rather we designed a whole new cartridge and handgun. Let the weapon be single and double action, double stacked , accurate and reliable. The cartridge should be 180+ grains, fast and a flatshooter.

[Joe Noplis]

I have been in the Air Force for over 20 years as a cop, and a cop on the streets of some of the worst areas in the U.S., Glock .40 is all you need, the Glock not having a safety is crap is that....crap. Great Weapon is the Glock .40!! Proven, get rid of the 9mm crap!!

[Joe Noplis]

gh.....you are very narrowed minded....each service has its own purpose, the U.S. Air Force is the best in the world, Just as the U.S. Marines are the best ground troops in the world. Don’t be hating because we live and are treated better….you chose the Marines….I choose the Air Force for the first class operation and my ASVAB scores were really high, we accept a ton of really smart men and woman. That is why we are the ones trusted with a huge stockpile of nukes.
Different missions and both Military Branch’s are the best at what they do respectfully!

U.S. Marines should be their own branch…not just a small part of the U.S. Navy!

Aim High Baby!!

[Lucas Gray]

I dont understand how the colt could last so long as a sidearm in the US army and not be used anymore. If the Army would spend its money on updating and improving old, but reliable and perfectly effective weopens and not buying into the newest fanciest whatever, many problems would be solved.

[Lucas Gray]

I dont understand how the colt could last so long as a sidearm in the US army and not be used anymore. If the Army would spend its money on updating and improving old, but reliable and perfectly effective weopens and not buying into the newest fanciest whatever, many problems would be solved.

[Eric Daniel]

Scott,

With regard to your comment about the SOCOM, yes they were Army guys and I am under absolutely no illusions that the SOCOM is out there I just would have thought that for the money that was spent developing the thing that SOF guys would be going out with three or four of them in their pockets. (When I was active duty we used to joke about the rumor that the Army had started about there being a post in Hawaii; no one had ever been stationed there, no one ever trained there, no one ever PCSed there, so an Army base in Hawaii, we joked, was just a vicious rumor they perpetuated before shipping folk to Kansas. Clearly there is a post in Hawaii, and we all know it, it was just in all our collective years, we’d never met anyone from there.)

I have “heard” (not via first person mind you) of the issues regarding the SOCOM’s size and weight and that folk didn’t like to carry it for those very reasons, which again begs the question, “Why did it get built in the first place, and did anyone talk to the folk you were building it for to see if this is what they really wanted?”

I agree with your comments regarding the M1911A1s size. As a single stack automatic, it was very thing, and it was easy to “stuff” anywhere. Updating the M1911A1 to incorporate more modern features, such as a decocking lever, ambidextrous safeties and magazine release, would certainly make it an acceptable alternative for the M9 (if this hasn’t already been done with a different firearm that is.)

A number of you have also commented that it would be nice if we could simply purchase our own firearms. Yes this would be nice, but I think that that idea has a snowball’s chance in hell of ever seeing the light of day. As a police buddy of mine once said about comparing the qualities of available patrol cars, “…The Caprice Classic is gone…Dead. And it isn’t coming back. Get over it and move on…”

As for the SIGs, my only experience with one is the P226 in 9mm. A wonderful firearm, with all those features I mentioned earlier, my only critical comment of it would be that it didn’t really like water. Now I don’t know if this was a finish issue or what, but you could literally see corrosion stains forming after several hours exposure to rain. Beyond that though, I thought it a well-designed weapon.

Oh, and Joe, please understand that I am not bagging on the AF. If the Air Force says it needs a replacement for their inventory of M9 pistols, I'm not in a position to question that. What really cought my attention though, was the decision to invest $5 million to "study" what kind of gun was really needed.

[SD]

The foriegn made .45s are all nice weapons, but check out the Kimber Warrior made for the USMC SOCOM contingent. American made in NYC. Its probably the same cost as an H&K, and Kimber makes fine weapons.

[Mark W. Lewis]

A few points if I may.

1) The M-9 is oversized for a 9mm, and has some of the worst ergonimics of any weapon I have ever used. If it could be slimmed down and the grip angle adjusted a bit it could be a very acceptable weapon.

2) Caliber selection, the 9mm is accurate and fast, but with ball ammunition it is low on stopping power. When shooting ball, a greater surface area is desirable. Also, most pistol encounters are short ranged, so the slightly better trajectory of the 9mm vice .40 S&W or .45 ACP is negated.

3) If going OTS, the .40 S&W is the best compromise between accuracy and stopping power.

4) The pistol should be rugged, which to me and most of the saliors on my boat means steel, though polymer has potential.

I would suggest the P229, or a similar midsized weapon, with a caliber of .40 or .45, it is plentiful, inexpensive, and accurate for the ranges at which a pistol is made to be used, while still offering substantial stopping power and capacity.

[Stephen Carroll]

Honestly I think we should go to the Glock 22 or a Sig Sauer there very reliable even one with a double stacked mag is small enough for anyone.

[Regolith]

I'm not sure if any of this was addressed in some of the comments (I only read a few), but here goes:

I am not, nor never have I been in the military, but I am somewhat of a self professed "gun guy."

Many of the improvements you suggested for the M1911 platform have been implemented into civilian PDW's. Adjustable sights (or no sights; just a "gutter" for fast target acquisition on one model), improved ammunition feeding, etc. have already been developed. Hell, I think some companies even make M1911's with double stack 9mm mags (I think STI does). Perhaps the military should look towards these as examples.

Because the handgun is the main weapon for civilians for defensive purposes, there's been heavy research and development into perfecting the platform, and there's something out there for everybody. The military, on the other hand, seems to have little interest in perfecting what most see ass a last-ditch, seldom-used weapon that isn't even issued to most troops.

As to .45ACP vs. 9mm: There isn't a huge difference. The .45ACP is arguably better in terms of damage to an assailant, but the 9mm isn't that much worse, and it has other benefits (such as allowing for a larger capacity magazine). Either will work for the intended role, in my opinion, as with both shot placement counts more than any other factor (and both are so much less powerful than the rifle that most soldiers carry that it will not usually be the preferred method for killing things if it can be helped).

[Gene]

OOOOHHHHHH.....you just had to start this up.....I'm out. Cheers, guys.

[D.Bolden]

I agree, the issue is durability and stopping power. The .45 acp has the power to put down an individual with one shot, the M9 needs two or three. Mag capacity isn't an issue since there are extended magazines on the market if needed. In my opinion there are better options than the M9 and have been for years. But like everything else in the service, regardless of what the politicians puff their cheeks out with, it's the lowest bidder that gets the contract and not what is best for job.

[rick]

.40 guys - GLOCK - plenty of bullet weight - knockdown energy - bullet speed to do the job. What else does one want. Easy to tear down - clean - and shoot. Fits the hand well. You otta see them drop when hit!!!

[Chris]

Having personally taken a combat handgun class from a former British SBS(Special Boat Service) operator, I have a very good idea of what a "Combat Handgun" ought to be. My choice would be the Glock 34 9mm. The .45 cartarige is a very impractical and ineffective cartarige for combat use. It travels at a sub-sonic speed and the energy difference between it and the 9mm is less than 30 ft pounds. With that said, take a standard 9mm handgun which has a 15 round magazine and a standard .45 caliber handgun with a standard 8 round magazine. Multiply the energy of a Black Hills +P bullet of 9mm(431 ft lbs) and a .45(460 ft lbs) with the mag capacity and you will see that the 9mm has more total firepower. Secondly, no handgun round except the 5.7x28 has Hydro-Static Shock or (HSS) but handgun rounds have Permenately Crushed Cavity (PCC). HSS is what most people call "Knock-down power" and it only exists in rounds that travel at least 2000 fps. In other words it only exists in rifle calibers. Therefore in a pistol caliber it doesn't matter how big the bullet's diameter is (in a rifle caliber it would be). But a 9mm penetrates 14 inches of ballistic gelatin while a .45 only penetrates 6 inches. The 9mm, because it is supersonic, is much more ballisticaly superior to the 45. Some people point a finger at the incident in miami, however that was with the abnormal 147 grain 9mm and not the normal 115 grain bullet because they tried to make it like a .45 and failed miserably. A Glock 34 not only has an extended barrel, it is light and extremely reliable. It is also very accurate.

[chris]

Both 9mm and a .45 take a triple tap or 3 shots to insure a kill. Trust me....

[chris]

In case any of you are wondering the gentleman that I took the class from has a website. His name is Bill Davison and he, if anybody, knows the answer to this issue.
www.tacproshootingcenter.com

[Miki]

WELL AS USUAL POLITICS AND MONEY PLAYS A PART IN EQUIPING OUR MILITARY. I AM PRIOR USAF. AT THE TIME I WAS IN I WAS SECURITY POLICE NOW CALLED SECURITY FORCES. I WE CARRIED A S&W MODEL "10" 38 CAL. PISTOLS. IF YOU WERE ARMED FORCES POLICE YOU CARRIED A 1911A1. I GOT OUT IN 1985 AND THE FOLLOWING YEAR THE USAF WENT TO THE BERETTA M9. I AM A GUN GUY. I COMPETITION SHOOT PISTOLS. I PERSONALLY CARRY THE SPRINGFIELD XD45. MY COMP GUN IS THE NEW TAURUS PT1911. MY SWITCH UP CARRY GUN IS A SIG P220. THERE IS NO DOUBT THE 45. CAL ROUND WILL KNOCK YOU DOWN AND DO YOU IN. TO ME A 9MM ROUND IS A PRACTICE ROUND. WITH THAT ROUND YOU HAVE TO MAKE A PRECISION SHOT TO PUT SOMEONE DOWN. IF WANT A ROUND THAT IS RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE A 40. CAL DOES THE JOB AND IS THE ROUND OF MOST POLICE DEPT. AS FOR THE CHOICE OF MANUFACTURERS WELL THE GOV'T NEEDS TO LOOK AT OUR POLICE DEPTS FOR THAT. MOST DEPTS CARRY SIG,GLOCK,SPRINGFIELD,S&W, AND ARE NOW LOOKING AT S&W M&P SERIES PISTOLS AND SPRINGFIELDS XD SERIES PISTOLS. GOTTA GIVE IT UP TO THE COAST GUARD. THEY WENT WITH THE SIG. SPECIAL MARINE DETACHMET KIMBER WARRIOR. THERE IS NOT TO MUCH STUDYING TO BE DONE IF THEY LOOK AT THE TREND THERE. BOTTOM LINE IS MONEY AND POLITICS

[coolhand77]

One other little comment from me. Just found out that the XD family now has an available active, ambidexterous saftey. Why did they do that? Probably because of the DAMN MILITARY REQUIREMENT FOR A SERVICE PISTOL TO HAVE ONE.
ahem.
Oh, one other little thing, if the 9mm was so effective then the 1911 and the .45 ACP would have never been adopted. Back when the army was duking it out with drugged up Moro tribesmen in the Phillipines, they found out that little .38 caliber revolver just wasn't stopping them fast enough. You may have a great, high speed little pill with "plenty of energy" but if it doesn't deliver it well enough (or you miss) you won't STOP the target. End result, he bleeds to death AFTER you get hacked up by his machette instead of preventing said hacking. Yes, Hollow points and Fragnable ammo solve the problem, but the military doesn't like those. They want hardball. .40 is a compromise. .45 ACP has been proven.

Oh, and I find my XD compact/duty pistol VERY tuckable, thankyou. ITs also got alot less moving parts to break/wearout than my dad's 1911s

Once again, the opinions and knowledge of a talanted amature.

[bpeters]

Never been a big pistol user myself, but it was nice to have one handy just in case. Bulk is usually the bigger issue with all of the other 'gear' one has to haul around. Not every person is John Wayne and can handle a Desert Eagle/Baretta with ease, that's something DoD needs to consider. A side arm is just that, soldiers and law enforcement should all be carrying M4's these days. Combat is up close and personal in the 21st century, we're not fighting in the fields enmasse no more. Small and quick rules the day. That's my two cents. Out.

[steelcobra]

The M9 is definitely oversized.

The Sig P228 has too straight of a grip angle for me, it tends to aim upwards.

The 1911 feels right.

And I've shot the USP .45 Compact. It's one hell of a gun.

As for other statements:
A: Users didn't like the SOCOM's size, so they scaled it down to the excellent USP .45 Tactical.
B: .40 chamber detonations are caused by the guns not being reinforced properly. Glocks, which were made for 9mm, were scaled up and had that problem. USP's, which were made for .40/.45 originally, did not.

Also, Caps Lock is cruise control for cool.

[Rhyno327/lrsd]

If ur looking to equip thousands of troops, the price per unit will drop. I brought a .40cal S&W Sigma for just over $400. 12 rnds, 4 inch barrel, stainless steel. The .40 would be a good compromise. SIG makes great pistols, they are in a class with H&k. The Secret Service has a nice pistol, as does the Coast Guard. A pistol is used for different situations, but getting out of a jam is my fear. So, I want 12, 14 or more for my pistol. I have a Springfield sub-compact that holds 16 w/ magazine extension. Thats the one i carry. So, a .40 cal. that can hold 12 or more would be something to think about.

[Lee Brimer]

I don't know about the Socom but my son was over there in 2006 and was assigned as a como man for a sof sniper team and he said they issued him a H&K USP Tactical .45

[SGT Kinsella]

I'm very disappointed with the way this site has gone. Originally, and as the name implies, it was about gear that you could use to make your life in the field easier.

I think it should now be renamed to "Guns and Camping" because the last two dozen posts have nothing to do with military life in the field - or even in garrison.

Let's face it. Unless you are talking about the weapons issued by the US Military, it doesn't make sense to post comments about any weapons here. No matter how much you rail against the use of the current firearms, the M9, the M4, the M16 - it's not going to change. It would be more productive, and more to the point of this forum, to talk about how to IMPROVE or AUGMENT the current weapons without going outside of regulation.

What I would like to see is commentary on Taclights, commentary on certain grips, or sights. Stories about how the weapons were carried - how they slung them. Tac grips, wolfslings, custom carries...

Also, modifications to gear - how people set up their LBEs, how they set up their rucksacks, what improvements they have made over the years that really work for them. I'm in an Infantry company, and everyone has a trick - Let's see those tricks!

What about vehicles? What about how you can augment you vehicle to increase comfort and survivability? I know every turret gunner has their own system - I know my setup was different from the other gunners in my squad. Let's hear some stories and see some posts about that.

Personally, talking about which handgun is better than the M9, and how the 9mm has no stopping power, and how the H&K "whatever" would make a better rifle than the M4, and What mess kit the boy scouts use, and the jacket I found in my basement, has no meaning or use to me.

Real commentary, on useful gear, and useful tricks - that's all I want.

I can go elsewhere to hear stories (lies) about who used what weapon in country.

Eric Daniel - Come to the rescue. Don't let me down.

[Jeff the Baptist]

The SOCOM is what happens when the list of handgun requirements is longer than your arm and the only one you're willing to wave is weight.

Chris, your ballistic data is incorrect. With ball (which is all that matters for military applications) both with penetrate through entire blocks of ballistic gelatin. Furthermore the Miami incident was fought with 115 grain JHPs. The 147 grain loads came about to increase penetration because of the lighter rounds results.

Coolhand77, the .38s used in the Philippines were chambered in .38 long colt. Not the hottest cartridge around. .38 special puts them to shame and modern 9mm NATO (which is would be +P+ if SAAMI rated it) is hotter yet. Any comparison to modern cartridges is of limited usefullness.

Personally I'd like to see the army adopt something in .40S&W. It seems to be the winner in the magazine capacity vs. individual round stopping power debate. The military isn't going to go to Glocks though. They like redundant safeties and hammer fired pistols with good reasons for both.

As for the Army post in Hawaii, isn't that just the Hale Koa? ;)

[Chris]

The US adopted the .45 back in the phillipines because it was readily available in the US and it wouldn't require an import from Germany. There is a reason why the entire rest of the world uses 9mm. British SAS and SBS do not complain about 9mm "not being powerful enough", neither does German GSG-9, neither does the Navy SEALs, nor DELTA force. The 1911 is a very outdated design. Everything must be working properly for the gun to function. It is especially cumbersome when it gets gummed up in a desert environment. I've seen them break and I've seen them fail. You're arguing against someone who has actually seen combat and implemented both firearms. The 9mm delivers much more than the 45 being that it penetrates more, carries more, has better ballistics and has an energy difference less than 30 ft pounds. Even though the .45 is a very impractical caliber for combat, I am not against 45. The only one that I would recommend is the Para-ordinance 1911 with a 14 round magazine. The XD is a very good firearm, but GLOCK makes a much better one.

[gh]

gh.....you are very narrowed minded....each service has its own purpose, the U.S. Air Force is the best in the world, Just as the U.S. Marines are the best ground troops in the world. Don’t be hating because we live and are treated better….you chose the Marines….I choose the Air Force for the first class operation and my ASVAB scores were really high, we accept a ton of really smart men and woman. That is why we are the ones trusted with a huge stockpile of nukes.
Different missions and both Military Branch’s are the best at what they do respectfully!

U.S. Marines should be their own branch…not just a small part of the U.S. Navy!

Aim High Baby!!

Posted by: Joe Noplis | February 08, 2008 at 12:19 PM

First, if we were not smart, we would not be entrusted with guarding embassies, and most importantly we would not be where we are today. But the most important thing is that if we become our own branch, then we'd lose our flavor. We rely on the Navy for transport and other support functions. Consider this: Arty is the king of battle, but the king can't swim. That's where the Navy comes in. If we went solo things would get more complicated, we'd probably increase in size and then we'd lose our uniqueness. We would not be an elite anymore. We'd be more like the Army. We could also lose our perpetual state of readiness. That would be bad, because the Navy-Marine Corps team can get anywhere in the world within 96 hrs. If you can recall the saying; Speak softly and remember that you have the biggest stick in the world. Well, we are the stick. And one more thing; MANY PRESIDENTS HAVE TRIED TO DISSOLVE THE MARINE CORPS. However, we exist because the american people want us, they do not need us. That was the general consensus until recently (the fall of communism). We had to justify our existence to the american people. But oh, how things have changed. Now it's the Air Force, Army and Navy that have to justify their existence to the american people. The beauty of it is, that these organizations do not make sense to their leaders as well. They don't have a well defined mission. They are trying to change and copy us. By the way, we still do what we have done for over two centuries. I know you will come up with something to say, especially about the fact that the Air Force has to justify its existence and the Marines don't, so let me point out recruiting numbers. Most americans hate the war in Iraq. As a result, recruiting numbers have gone down and the military could not meet its quota. The marines have always met their quota. We were turning people away, even when we were expanding by 1,000 more marines. The people we turned away, went right next door to the Air Force recruiter. Now that's got to hurt. Well, there's a little service rivalry for you. Don't mess with the marines, unless you are one. Because as everyone knows there are only two groups of people who have a firsthand knowledge of the marines; the marines themselves and the enemy. Everyone else has a secondhand opinion. Semper Fi.

[keith colovos]

overall i thing that DOD needs to take a good look at the knock down power of all the weapons that there sevice members use.
The Pistols and rifles they have are not to badly flawed, But rather lack the knock down power they need to get the job done. Now that being said.
You are in combat, and you run out of ammo for your primary weapon. Do you want to waste 3 shots at on target to put out the lights, or do you want to use one. Having more rounds to cover your ass?
From my personal experiances, and enemy target wwich is high on some type of ddrugs(hashiesh) they tend to take 3 shots center mass either from a 5.56mm or a 9mm. but fear not, a 7.62 put um right on thier asses. one shot one kill.

[Gene]

Knockdown power??? 3 shots vs. 1 shot for taking down a bad guy? PLEASE show me the GUARANTEE that 1 shot will down a bad guy, every time. Reality check. Squared. I am not gonna argue (again) the finer points of SHOT PLACEMENT vs. big bullet. But, self-styled gun magazine experts just don't get it.

[Joe Noplis]

First, if we were not smart, we would not be entrusted with guarding embassies, and most importantly we would not be where we are today. But the most important thing is that if we become our own branch, then we'd lose our flavor. We rely on the Navy for transport and other support functions. Consider this: Arty is the king of battle, but the king can't swim. That's where the Navy comes in. If we went solo things would get more complicated, we'd probably increase in size and then we'd lose our uniqueness. We would not be an elite anymore. We'd be more like the Army. We could also lose our perpetual state of readiness. That would be bad, because the Navy-Marine Corps team can get anywhere in the world within 96 hrs. If you can recall the saying; Speak softly and remember that you have the biggest stick in the world. Well, we are the stick. And one more thing; MANY PRESIDENTS HAVE TRIED TO DISSOLVE THE MARINE CORPS. However, we exist because the american people want us, they do not need us. That was the general consensus until recently (the fall of communism). We had to justify our existence to the american people. But oh, how things have changed. Now it's the Air Force, Army and Navy that have to justify their existence to the american people. The beauty of it is, that these organizations do not make sense to their leaders as well. They don't have a well defined mission. They are trying to change and copy us. By the way, we still do what we have done for over two centuries. I know you will come up with something to say, especially about the fact that the Air Force has to justify its existence and the Marines don't, so let me point out recruiting numbers. Most americans hate the war in Iraq. As a result, recruiting numbers have gone down and the military could not meet its quota. The marines have always met their quota. We were turning people away, even when we were expanding by 1,000 more marines. The people we turned away, went right next door to the Air Force recruiter. Now that's got to hurt. Well, there's a little service rivalry for you. Don't mess with the marines, unless you are one. Because as everyone knows there are only two groups of people who have a firsthand knowledge of the marines; the marines themselves and the enemy. Everyone else has a secondhand opinion. Semper Fi.

Marine…..….I have protected Air Force One and four Presidents, three joint commands in my Air Force career.
I was in charge of Marines, Sailors and Soldiers, the U.S. Marines have there purpose, for instance if you tell a Marine to take a hill, he will say yes sir and attempt to take it at all costs, I respect the U.S. Marines but……in my years of experience supervising all four branch’s I would rather have a thinker than a military man who just says yes sir for the sake of saying yes. A troop who thinks will get the job done and not take chances just because he has been told he is invincible.
The U.S. Government has entrusted the U.S. Air Force with weapons that could kill the entire world within an hour 10 times over, no other branch could handle or have the lucid of mind to do it 24/7 365 for over 50 years.
Justify our existence, please no other entity could do what we do…..we are self assured in who we are, we don’t have to look over our shoulders…….….ever!
The U.S. Marines as you know are a small branch and the others are much larger, I was a recruiter for 6 years, we only took the top 12% of High School seniors, our man count was four recruits a month, we always had that met three four months in advance (on average).
I came in the Air Force in 1984, when I was 18 I went to the recruiter row in Pensacola every day at different times for two weeks, the Air Force recruiter was never there, but guess who was always standing out side? You guessed it a Marine and a Soldier, telling me how great there branch was and why is that you my or may not wonder, the Navy and Air Force recruiters had already met there man count and were playing golf.
“recruiting numbers have gone down and the military could not meet its quota.”
The Air Force has always……….yes for the last 50 years met its man count.

Getting back to the original issues-
The Air Force does live better, it’s just the way we conduct business and the U.S. Government takes care of its favorite sons.
I’m a civilian now and live in Tampa, I work as a Law Enforcement Officer, I’m a Sgt and have 8 LEO’s that work directly for me, 6 of the 8 are prior service, I have two problem children, guess what they are both former Marines.
They both are retired and have had an issue with adapting and leaving the Marines behind; I receive at a minimum two calls per month from citizens complaining about harassment or excessive force from them.
The other 6 maybe one or two a year.

I’m just stating the facts.
BTW.....The Glock .40 is the way the Military should go!

Semper Fi my friend.

[Tom Maczynski]

Why do people have the idea that old weapons are outdated relics? Look at our military in Iraq and you will find quite and array of old work-horses in use. The M-14 rifle has made a glorious return to the battlefield. The M-2 .50 caliber machine gun is still an old and dependable mainstay. Even the M-16 has been around since 1959.
So much for old designs being relics, it just isn't the case.
So, why has the M-14 been showing up in greater numbers on the battlefield? Knockdown power. That is the bottom line in combat. The 9mm is somewhat lacking in that department but the .45ACP has never had that problem. There are other cartidges that can fit that bill, but the M1911 in .45ACP served with distiction for decades and is still one of the most popular sport and personal defense pistols today. The 1911 didn't need to be replaced, it just needed to be updated with today's sophisticated machine techniques and design tweaks. Combat pistols don't need fancy sights. Anyone who spends time debating one sight over another has never been in combat. In combat at pistol range, nobody is paying attention to sights, it's point and shoot. That fact dictates that the pistol must be a natural grip for the shooter to effectively harness their instinctive aim. Knockdown power and a comfortable, natural grip - both found in the 1911. No need for 15 rounds in the mag if you can't hit what your shooting at... then again, if you do hit your target you just might need all 15 if you can't knock that target down to stay. As for me, I'll just keep my .45
Tom M
USMC Beirut 1983

[Chief Hand]

I carry a Glock 40S&W. I like the nock down power and the accurate shooting. It holds 15 in the mag and 1 chambered. I find the kick is not a problem. The .45 auto will only carry something like 8 rounds. We were tought if you hit your target in the finger, they will go down. Not sure how true that is, but the .45 dose have great nock down capabilities. I think I would have to vote for the Glock .40S&W.

[TJ]

What a bunch magazine reading in the rear with gear pukes... Most of you have read way to many combat handgun weekly magazines... Knockdown power... what do you know about knockdown power?? Whats with this my gun is bigger than your gun B.S. All I care about is knockdown power too... so thats why I carry a bazooka with me at all times. If you think knockdown power is the end all of a handgun, then you don't know... snd if you don't know... keep on talking about it on stupid threads. Because those that do know... don't give a crap about your theories.

[Joe Noplis]

Tom M, I salute you for your service and being in Beirut in 1983!! I have a great friend I served with in the Gulf War (90-91), he also was in Beirut and told me many stories.
Great points with knock down power, I will keep my Glock .40!
Semper Fi!

[jon dickey]

To all of the people saying the military does not like anything other than ball ammo, like has nothing to do with it. Only ball ammo is allowed under Geneva convention rules. As far as what handgun would be better in combat it is hard for me to say since I have never been to combat, but I am in the Marine Corps and am required to qualify with the M9. I own a Kimber 1911. I can shoot more accurately with my Kimber than I do with my service pistol. I do not like the grip of the M9 nor the DA/SA. All of the magazines I have read comparing ammo always rates the .45ACP better than the 9mm as far as energy and take down power are concerned which to me seems more important than trajectory when the majority of the time a handgun is used is within 15 yd of the intended target.

[Bill Brown]

I read many of the replies. Now I would like to add my 2 cents. Being a Coastie, I started with the M1911A1, then switched to the Beretta and now we're using the Sig P228.

I fired the 1911 and qualified every time I went to the range. When We switched to the Beretta, it took me months to get used to firing it before I could qualifiy with it. Once I learned the balance points and the feel of the weapon, I got much better at fire it.
If the question is what to carry in combat. The Beretta is should not be a choice in my opinion. It lacks the stopping power. The Sig P228 on the other hand is .45cal, and very nice to carry. But many of our guys are having trouble qualiying. If the military was considering a weapon change, they better buy 5 times the amount of ammo necessary to get everyone through the range. I agree 100% with Sig's safety design. The best safety in the world is no finger on the trigger and a firing pin block with the hammer is at rest.

[Gene]

The last time I checked, the Sig P228 was only available in 9mm. It has never been .45. The 220 is .45. the 226 and 229 are available in .40, .357 sig and 9mm.

As far as changing weapons, you simply have a transition class. If your shooters are proficient in the basics, and apply them, they should be able to accurately employ any quality pistol.

[Gene]

The CG has switched to the P229 DAK in .40. Not the P228.

As a former LE firearms instructor, and former SIG armorer, I have to say, I don't understand why your CG guys would have trouble qualifying with a P229 in .40. My previous agency issued this, and we had nothing but good experiences with it. An outstanding pistol. Maybe it's just the shooters..

[deltaalpha]

This makes a very good sidearm....Built strong and durable and is a .45 calibur...Tested to withstand all kinds of abuse and environments..If it works use it.

[Nick GMCS]

Hey brothers with 3 tours to the sand box I have to agree with the .45 is the better weapons system then the 9mm in the right hands I worked with the 24th MEU and the special ops teams carried Kimber .45's and loved them I tried to trade my M9 for one but no joy! after extensive training the M9 is a accurate pistol even out to 100 yards the first shot double action 15 lbs trigger pull always has novices shooting low and the 6 lb single action shot has them shooting high it takes a hell of alot of training to master the Baretta.

[gh]

Marine…..….I have protected Air Force One and four Presidents, three joint commands in my Air Force career.
I was in charge of Marines, Sailors and Soldiers, the U.S. Marines have there purpose, for instance if you tell a Marine to take a hill, he will say yes sir and attempt to take it at all costs, I respect the U.S. Marines but……in my years of experience supervising all four branch’s I would rather have a thinker than a military man who just says yes sir for the sake of saying yes. A troop who thinks will get the job done and not take chances just because he has been told he is invincible.
The U.S. Government has entrusted the U.S. Air Force with weapons that could kill the entire world within an hour 10 times over, no other branch could handle or have the lucid of mind to do it 24/7 365 for over 50 years.
Justify our existence, please no other entity could do what we do…..we are self assured in who we are, we don’t have to look over our shoulders…….….ever!
The U.S. Marines as you know are a small branch and the others are much larger, I was a recruiter for 6 years, we only took the top 12% of High School seniors, our man count was four recruits a month, we always had that met three four months in advance (on average).
I came in the Air Force in 1984, when I was 18 I went to the recruiter row in Pensacola every day at different times for two weeks, the Air Force recruiter was never there, but guess who was always standing out side? You guessed it a Marine and a Soldier, telling me how great there branch was and why is that you my or may not wonder, the Navy and Air Force recruiters had already met there man count and were playing golf.
“recruiting numbers have gone down and the military could not meet its quota.”
The Air Force has always……….yes for the last 50 years met its man count.

Getting back to the original issues-
The Air Force does live better, it’s just the way we conduct business and the U.S. Government takes care of its favorite sons.
I’m a civilian now and live in Tampa, I work as a Law Enforcement Officer, I’m a Sgt and have 8 LEO’s that work directly for me, 6 of the 8 are prior service, I have two problem children, guess what they are both former Marines.
They both are retired and have had an issue with adapting and leaving the Marines behind; I receive at a minimum two calls per month from citizens complaining about harassment or excessive force from them.
The other 6 maybe one or two a year.

I’m just stating the facts.
BTW.....The Glock .40 is the way the Military should go!

Semper Fi my friend.

Posted by: Joe Noplis | February 09, 2008 at 08:01 PM

First, we are not a branch of the military. We are part of the Navy. It's like saying SOCOM is a branch of the military, too. Now, it is true that the Air Force has been entrusted with the nukes, but we have been entrusted with keeping you nut jobs from using them. We put out small fires before they burn out the whole world. The next point I want to make is that in the 1980's, the Air Force was in pretty good standing, due to the cold war. During that time you guys were at the center of attention, because you had the power of nuclear strikes and also the logistics to stop them. But with the fall of the cold war, the huge fleet of the aircrafts are no longer needed. Take foe example the F-22. It's an amazing weapon. It kicked ass during simulations. The F-15, F-14 and F-16 pilots didn't even see their "demise" coming. The problem with the F-22 is that it has no opponents. The Air Force at large has the same problem. It did good in the early days of the Iraq war, but now there is no use for them anymore. This is also affecting them with the acquirement of funds. But hey, the Air Force should adapt to the new environment. It does not matter how well they live so long as they can accomplish a mission in the new environment. A good example would be the intel from the satellites, predators, etc. The Air Force has a great potential, but its leaders do not realize it.
You also said that you went through Pensacola. I was stationed there and I know that if you went through there, you must be from a military family. So far as those two marines go; you try dealing with marines in a regular basis. I'm not talking about the wing side. Those guys are pretty docile. I'm talking about dealing with grunts, tankers, cannon cockers, who only think about blowing things up. I have a couple of suggestions for you. Sit them down, and have a talk with them. Explain the mission , where they fit, what they are doing wrong, what they are doing right, how you would have handled the situation, etc. It'll make things easier down the road.
One more thing! I think we should adapt the 10mm rather than the .40S&W (.40 Short & Weak). A lot more power, more accurate because is a flat shooter. Hooraaah!

[Gene]

One. Pistols are a defensive weapon. The SOCOM was a super-lame attempt to make a pisto an offensive weapon. It is a beast, and, I bet you could beat on it with a 10# sledge and it would still work, but, pistols are not, and never will be, OFFENSIVE.

10mm, please. With all the whiners, do you really think anyone will handle the hottness of the 10mm?...

BTW, apparently, the BREN TEN is about to make a comeback. Google it.

Pistols are defensive. The are intended to give you time to fight your way to your rifle/shotgun, or, extricate yourself from a realllllly poopy situation.

And, again, for the record, and the armchair-gun-magazine-self-appointed-experts, there is nosuch thing as "knock down power". God, even a BASIC understanding of physics (equal and opposite reaction) gets around that. In My Not So Humble Opinion, any weeenie that gets knocked down by a pistol round, well, he probably deserves it. You guys watch WAY too much Hollywood......

[Gene]

And, as far as the "flat shooter" 10mm, actually, that is pretty danged irrelevant in a handgun that you will dobtfully be employing at a range farther than 3 - 7 yards. That is the range most police officers engage a threat. NOBODY uses pistols in a lethal force capacity more than police officers.

Flat shooter....snort....chuckle...It's not a sniper rifle, for chrissakes....