Army Refuses to Reconsider Beretta’s M9A3

Watch out. The old fat multicultural guy association will damn you as a heretic for suggesting anything other than a sig or 1911.

The military will never buy Glocks. No matter what you say, they won’t buy a pistol that requires the trigger to be pulled in order for takedown. That increases the risk for negligent discharge, and some __________ (fill in the blank with the rank of the unit commander) would have their career ruined by a Powerpoint slide showing how many negligent discharges happened in their unit. And yes, that kind of stuff really happens in every branch of the service. Its all about stats.

Right on cue. The Glock has not been tested in a rigorous military environment so we don’t know how much GI abuse they can take. I wonder will happen when some grunt needs a hammer and doesn’t have one so he decides to use his pistol instead. Please don’t tell me about the militaries that use Glocks because none of them have spent years in combat. My guess is that a Glock that spends it life in the US military is going to be the same piece of crap that is the fate of all military firearms.

You have a lot of people saying the military will never buy a handgun that requires pulling the trigger to disassemble; I disagree. The Glock and its variants is good enough for police orginizations around the world, it is good enough for MARSOC it is good enough for the Military. Cerakote a Glock 19 and 17 in full FDE and your good to go. Simpler training, one pull, uses existing ammo, readily available parts and probably OTD for something like $400 a unit or less for the military. With the new Gen 4 and he replaceable backstraps you solve a few of the ergo problems with the older glocks. The extended magazine release on the Gen 4 models solved others. IMO Glock is the “cheapest” off the shelf solution.

At the same time the P320 everything the army SAYS it wants a new handgun to do; but I doubt the army can afford it.

The Brits have been using the Glocks in Afghanistan for a couple of years now. That’s something.

tdiinva says:: “The Glock has not been tested in a rigorous military environment” … Please don’t tell me about the militaries that use Glocks because none of them have spent years in combat.

Complete BS. Are you saying the IDF isn’t a rigorous military environment that has spent years in combat?

The largest Glock purchase ever was for the Iraqi Security Forces, more 125,000 Glock pistols. Are you saying they haven’t spent years in combat?

One listed user is the Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command. Are you saying that they don’t know how to pick a good pistol?

Ridiculous.

“The Glock has not been tested in a rigorous military environment so we don’t know how much GI abuse they can take.”

HAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAHAAAA! Oh man that’s a good one. Oh wait my side is hurting.

Okay, I’m better now.
Need I put a bozillian links to all the Glock torture tests in this reply?
I didn’t think so.

Glocks are used by NATO armies and by defense contractors in war. But it wont be adopted by the US military it lacks a external safety and has no domestic US production facilities. I like Glocks but I don’t see it being adopting.
Overall since we will stay in 9mm I don’t see any logic to go away from the M-9.

Smyrna GA is not in the U.S?

That’s there importer and assembly the pistols are mfg in Austria.

Sorry fellows, but with the exception of the Brits none of them have been in sustained combat for ten years.

Anybody want to guess when the British Army switched to Glocks?

2013. They probably have only recently completed the transition. My statement stands. The Glock has not seen sustained use in military environment.

We have had a lot of pro and con Glock talk, but nobody has addressed my point that handguns just aren’t that important for the military. Hell, until the 80’s or 90’s weren’t some solders (like MP’s, and base guards) carrying S&W Model 10’s in .38s special for Pete sake? That is not to knock the Model 10. It is a great home defense, concealed carry, and range gun, but not a go to war gun. The army could go with M&P pistols, XD’s, Ruger’s, etc. and it just wouldn’t make much difference. They are all affordable, and practical. They would all do the job.

Art – is it 1942 and going to replace the handgun with M1 Carbine??

I had an idiot Command Sergeant Major bitch at me for wearing a shoulder rig. “too many people have been shot in the chest…” I asked who had been shot in the chest and the idiot didn’t have names but assured me that a battalion sized element had died, standing in line for chow by standing behind guys with shoulder rigs. My point being is that the retarded CSM I spoke of is EXACTLY the mentality Glock would have to over come to be adopted by conventional forces.

@Art:

That is another reason why the A3 is the likely next new pistol if the Army buys one. Path of least resistance for a tertiary weapons.

To clarify what is meant by the military environment. It is not the parade ground, garrison or range it is the actual combat environment, such as;

Months in mud and rain of the trenches on the Western Front in 1918
Months in jungles of the Solomons
Getting saturated in salt war on the Normandy beaches
Frozen solid at the Chosin Reservoir
Constant immersion in the fetid rice paddies of the Mekong Delta.

That is not an argument to go back to 1911 but it is a demonstration of the robustness required of a combat pistol. Some gun guy may be able to abuse a Glock for a few minutes and that show it works but that isn’t the same thing as operating under sustained harsh conditions.

Maybe the Glock can duplicate that performance of the 1911 but given the other factors that the Army will take into consideration such as its susceptibility to NDs the Glock is a nonstarter.

Your reasons for the army purchasing glocks do not fit the army’s current budget restraints. The previous comments point directly to this reason. If you are a glock lover just say so instead of sliding in a rediculous statement that doesn’t fit this discussion.

U.S. ARMY
RET.

Agreed.

Glock 34,35, and now 41, 42, were all made to be roughly the same size as a 1911. That should be the true “Full Size.”

If they want to market the standard Glock 17 size as the “Duty” size, that would be OK by me. Other guns should follow suit. The extra sight radius is quite helpful.

Put the full size slide (4″) on the compact and you’ve essentially got a Glock 19. Personally I prefer the DA/SA trigger and the army will insist on it and a safety, so that narrows the choices down quite a bit.

I disagree about needing a longer barrel and sight radius on this one, evidently none of you has shot the 3.25 inch barreled PX4 Compact. I likewise own the subcompact as well, while less forgiving with it’s 3 inch barrel it’s accurate for it’s intended purpose. I’ve owned the compact for the past 3 years or so, benched it on numerous occasions, and I can assure you it will shoot with my 4.9 inch barreled pistols. Try one.

I know the subcompact is a great shooter. For that matter my EDC is a GP100 Wiley Clapp which doesn’t have much more of a sight radius and I can hit 100% on a 12″ target at 50 yards with it shooting off hand.

My issue is more the fact that 9mm could use as much velocity as you can get and for that you need more barrel. If you’ve watched the shootingthebull videos you might realize that the difference between a 3″ barrel and a 3.25″ barrel might be whether or not the hollow points expand or not. I’d like a Glock 19 sized DA/SA pistol. The compact would be perfect if it had a 4″ barrel. As it is the compact weighs 3 1/2 ounces more, and it’s 1/2″ shorter. Since it’s 10 ounces lighter than my EDC I won’t grip about the weight, but I carried a Ruger P95 (3.9″) for a while and I don’t see any advantage in the shorter barrel. You can go with the full size but then you’ve got a longer grip and that’s the hardest part to conceal, and IMO the odds of needing those extra 2 rounds is pretty close to zero.

@Denver:

It may be a great shooter but at 3.25″ it will have the same ammo issues as a 3″ barrel. The longer the barrel the wider the available ammunition choices.

And then when the Marine carrying his own weapon breaks it, then what? Where does he get another one? Can’t make a run to Cabelas before the next firefight. Smash a magazine while doing your 3 to 5 meter rushes on an enemy? Oh well, maybe you can buy replacements on line and get them in a few weeks or a month.

I think your suggestion lacks a bit of realism.

@Skyler, lacks realism eh? And yet you offer no proof of that.

You clearly have not met a lot of the Marines and soldiers who are challenged to just disassemble a weapon for cleaning. How are they supposed to do advanced armorer tasks? We send people to schools for months to learn that stuff, and they are given very expensive tools to use.

And are we to expect an E1 to buy weapons? Where is he getting that money from?

Really? You are pushing troops through the training cycle who can not do basic weapon maintenance and operation? Then you are the problem, not the troops.

Amateurs talk tactics. professionals talk logistics.

The best tactic is to target your enemy’s logistics. Go figure.

No, Hotel, I didn’t say that they couldn’t do it. They do. But many are not bright enough to do too much more, and that’s ok. We want them to kill people when we tell them to kill people and being able to fix weapons is not always needed.

If Glock users are koolaid fools then some might call you a condescending prick… but I couldn’t possibly comment.

Not all of us arrived at Glocks because of perceived coolness or group consensus. I for one arrived at them after years of shooting HKs (professionally), SIGs, Berettas (professionally),1911s, S&Ws and FNs. I event went down the rabbit hole with the Caracal F. I shoot a Glock 19 because it is more controllable for rapid follow-up shots, relatively inexpensive, highly durable, it’s unfailingly (for me YMMV) reliable, requires minimal maintenance, easy to take apart and put back together, has a simple manual of arms, a semi-decent trigger and has a host of aftermarket holsters and sights available which is almost as important as the gun itself. It’s not perfect but it checks more blocks for me than all of the other pistols I have owned , currently own or used. If something that works better for me comes along then so be it. Until then, I’m all in with Glock 19s. If that makes me a “koolaide fool” then so be it.

@TxPenndude, good for you. Glock on bro!

Hollowpoints weren’t banned by Hague because they were more lethal. They were banned because they ostensibly cause “extreme suffering”, and wounds that are much harder to heal.

Given that flamethrowers are perfectly legal and used on the battlefield, it’s long overdue to ditch that part of Hague.

Really? Exactly which countries signatory to the accords uses flamethrowers on the battle field? This ought to be good.

Can you name a country which didn’t use flamethrowers in WW2? Americans used them, obviously, but also Germans, Soviets, Japanese, Italians, British etc. Not all of these were man-portable – some were tank-mounted.

Today, the classic fire-spraying flamethrowers are no longer used, generally because there are more efficient means of burning stuff. Russians in particular are using thermobaric rocket-propelled grenades with a napalm-like warhead, which effectively cause a miniature firestorm at the point of impact – RPO-A “Shmel” is the famous one and is current issue, but there were some before. In Russian language, those things are actually referred to as “flamethrowers”.

Also, it doesn’t really make sense to speak of the signatories of Hague, because it’s not a single treaty, but rather a disjoint set of conventions, each with its own signatories. None of its conventions prohibit flamethrowers. If you mean specifically signatories of Convention IV, Declaration 3 (“concerning the Prohibition of the Use of Bullets which can Easily Expand or Change their Form inside the Human Body such as Bullets with a Hard Covering which does not Completely Cover the Core, or containing Indentations”), which bans hollowpoints, then it was signed by e.g. Germany, Russia, Japan, Italy, and UK.

Really? That is the best you can do? And if you got proof that Russia is using flame weapons on people you need to get it to the UN, STAT! I just knew this would be entertaining.

I don’t understand what got you so riled up. Do you dispute that all major powers used flamethrowers in WW2, long after signing Hague? Do you dispute that Hague (or any other international convention on the laws of war) puts no restrictions on the use of flamethrowers? Do you dispute that RPO-A Shmel has been officially in service of the Soviet, and later Russian, armed forces since 1980s, and is designated a flamethrower by the very force that fields it?

The “proof” that Russian forces uses Shmel is unnecessary, since they readily admit to it (and why wouldn’t they? as noted before, it is not banned, and it’s highly effective against pillboxes and buildings). It was routinely used in both Chechen wars, and even in some counter-terrorist operations in that region (most notably, during Beslan hostage crisis, which was specifically scrutinized, and eventually admitted by the government).

You claimed “everybody” uses flamethrowers, that is bullsh*t. Get it?

You either have anger management issue, or reading comprehension issue, or both. Can you cite me where I said that “everybody uses flamethrowers”? No, because I didn’t say such a thing. This whole thread started with me saying that “flamethrowers are perfectly legal” (which is true, and which you haven’t even tried to argue against). I then said that pretty much all signatories of Hague – which constituted all major WW2 powers – have used flamethrowers on the battlefield at some point after signing the convention (true), and that some still do use such a thing (true).

I still haven’t heard from you which clause of Hague or Geneva bans flamethrowers. Go ahead, cite it or at least give its number.

Regarding Shmel being a flamethrower, like I said, that’s what the Russians themselves call it in Russian. And you know how I know about that, and about Beslan etc? No, it’s not because I’ve read the wiki. It’s because I’m Russian, and I speak the language. During Beslan, it was actually kind of a big deal, with opposition specifically pounding on that point – why flamethrowers were even used in a counter-terrorist operation involving hostages. But it is otherwise routinely used in Chechnya etc, and shown as such on Russian TV. And everybody knows that it’s one of the things that the army has, and will use if and when it’s tactically sound, it’s as simple as that.

Back to the original point. The hollowpoint ammo was banned because it causes undue suffering, which is evident from the wording of the Hague convention that banned it. Here’s the text of it:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp

Note the rationale:

“Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868”

Now go and read that declaration (it’s linked right there):

“That this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable;”

I’ll grant you that the “render their death inevitable” part of it is consistent with your claim. So we were both right on that original point: hollowpoint ammo was banned both because it is more lethal, and because it causes more suffering.

FWIW, a lot of Hague was similarly well-intentioned bullshit. For example, it banned aerial bombardment (“Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons or by Other New Analogous Methods”). Which was also signed by most everyone except for UK and US. Do you know of any country that abides by this?

Last time I read about the Hague Convention the US rejected the part about not using hollow point and expanding ammunition.

It didn’t sign it, but it still adheres to that provision as a matter of policy.

But honestly the whole thing is largely antiquated, and there’s very little there that’s worth salvaging. A ban on hollowpoints is certainly not one of those things.

I don’t even think it would be a big deal for some country to drop it. You’d probably get some whining from the superpacifist crowd, but other than that, it’s patently obvious to anyone that modern battlefield already doesn’t have a shortage of grisly ways to die. I’d rather be shot by JHP than, say, have my limbs torn off by shrapnel, or burn alive inside a tank or an APC (or a building hit by Shmel or something like it), or have my lungs literally blow up from inside by vacuum from a close thermobaric detonation etc.

I’m with you on that.

Unfortunately even army lawyers believe we signed it and believe terrorists have Geneva Conventions protections.

Geneva is a bit different (and there’s more than one), and if I remember correctly US did actually sign the relevant provisions. There are certainly cases where POWs are not entitled to most protections, but most of what Bush administration designated as “unlawful combatants” weren’t that (well, it depends on whether you consider Taliban to be a government of the Afghanistan or not – given that they controlled something like 90% territory initially, I’m inclined to say that they were). But pretty much anyone is entitled at least to Article 3 protections (which is basically just humane treatment and some basic due process; but at the very least that would preclude torture).

I’ve read Both 1 and 2. The conventions only apply to war between signatory countries and their uniformed official armies. The taliban are not a county, nor a signatory or a uniformed recognized army. And according to the conventions the taliban can be shot on sight and should be.

Article 3 (“Conflicts not of an international character”) of the 4th Geneva Convention applies to everyone in any armed conflict. Here it is, in full:

—————–
ART. 3. — In the case of armed conflict not of an international
character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting
Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a
minimum, the following provisions:
1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including
members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and
those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention,
or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated
humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race,
colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other
similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited
at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to
the above-mentioned persons:
a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all
kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
b) taking of hostages;
c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating
and degrading treatment;
d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of
executions without previous judgment pronounced by a
regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by
civilized peoples.
2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International
Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to
the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into
force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other
provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the
legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
—————–

Note that it doesn’t speak of “protected persons”, like the rest of the convention, but just “persons”. That’s intentional, and is what makes it universal.

So under Geneva IV, armed Taliban members, or indeed any insurgents anywhere, can be freely targeted so long as they are active combatants, but once they surrender or otherwise they cannot be summarily executed or tortured, and any penalties that apply to them must come from a proper tribunal or court.

This is even less murky under Protocols I and II, which extends the the status of “protected persons” (and the protections they enjoy under Geneva over and above those provided by Article 3) to any organized resistance or guerrilla forces, so long as they openly identify their allegiance and combatant status, regardless of whether the conflict is international in nature or not. But US hasn’t signed those two protocols, and so is not legally bound by them. It is still legally bound by Geneva itself, though.

You must have missed this part.

In the case of armed conflict not of an international
character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting
Parties,

The Law of Land Warfare precludes the shooing of non combatants and those who have surrendered or who have no ability to defend themselves. Example John Kerrys shooting a severly wounded unarmed VC in the back at point blank range with a 12 gauge shotgun maade him both a war criminal and a murderer.

Not at all. This is exactly what I meant – this article specifically covers the conflicts that are not between two states (“not of an international character”) and do not occur on the territory of a country that signed a war. The war against Taliban is an example of such a conflict, because Taliban is not an officially recognized government of Afghanistan, and the war did not take place on US territory.

I think we are interpreting this differently. My interpretation of not international is a civil war between parties of the same nation state. Hence our fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan translates into international.

I tried to look it up, and, apparently, it’s considered a very complicated question:

http://www.geneva-academy.ch/RULAC/qualification_of_armed_conflict.php

Thats an understatement

What we call terrorists today fall under the category Brigands/Bandits and the only rights they have is the right to be swiftly executed. Instead leftarded lawyers on all sides have elevated them to a special category with all manner of privileges, the main one being they are allowed to rape, torture, starve, enslave and murder women and children and men where ever they please. And don’t you dare fight back! That makes you the criminal.

You’re right. Look at these idiot Rules of Engagement our guys have to fight under. They are as bad as the ones our guys fought under at the beginning and the end of the Vietnam War. Its all but illegal to shoot or harm an enemy for any reason. The Brits have had it even worse.

I know several men who have been punished during the last 10 years for killing armed terrorists who were attacking troops and/or civilians. In each instance it came down to “You did not have permission to defend your life or the lives of others, you are guilty.”. Crazy, eh?!?!?

Its so crazy I’d be in jail for kidnapping a JAG officer or boot licking staff officer who tried to tell me that none of my men or I were allowed to shoot at the enemy. I’d take them down range without a gun and kick them out of the vehicle and tell them “don’t worry we won’t protect you from the enemy and violate your ROE’s!

I once told a COL who was in charge of aviation maintenance for V Corps that he was the stupidest MF I’d ever met 5 times in front of soldiers (his and mine) so telling a few more to F off, especially in a war zone, wouldnt be to tough.

What you claimed is right here in this thread, so you can twirl&spin and post cut and paste from where ever all you want. Flamethrowers are not commonly used by “everyone” today. Period. Full stop. Hollow points, or dumdums as they were called, were banned because of their lethality. Period. Full stop. Facts are facts and you are free to not accept them to your heart’s content. That does not change the facts. Now, please rewrite some more history, this is entertaining, sweety.

Oh, and thanks for admitting Russia is in violation of the Hague and Geneva accords. You do understand that copying text directly from wiki makes you look, at best, inept. You claimed that “everybody” uses flamethrowers on the battlefield today, and backed that claim by citing a rocket with an incendiary projectile which has been widely used against people, not vehicles or fortifications as it was designed to be used, and calling it a flamethrower. Wiki has lead you astray, as it so often does.

Back to the point you ran away from. Hollow point ammo was banned because of the massive damage they do to humans, killing instead of wounding. Thats lethality, sweety, and it is why they were banned. It is also why they are so popular for hunting, lethality. Get it?

Oh, and who is using napalm today? I’m sure Dow Chem would like to know who is poaching their patented goods without permission.

I didn’t say “napalm”, I said “napalm-like” – as in, a low-viscosity, sticky substance that burns hot and is hard to extinguish. Incendiary grenades for Shmel use that as a payload.

And spare us the wailing&gnashing of teeth about white phosphorus being used against people, all signatory countries stopped directing such at people quite some time ago and the instances of it hitting civilians in Gaza and West Bank have been ruled by UN as accidental. Now, the use of flame weapons by non-signatory nations and terrorists, that is a whole other kettle of fish, and you need to take that up with the muslims who keep doing that.

@Lance, I thought Nick was sponsored by FNH???

He is sponsored by both. He just being prejudice.

Didn’t we see a warning not to use NATO rounds in a polymer framed handgun?

No you can use them but they don’t work as well with higher pressure US 9mm NATO loads. Local police bought 9mm NATO ammo and tried to use them for training with there G-17s. They had many malfunctions on the range and they bought regular federal ammo instead.

I don’t believe the malfunction issue in the Glock 17.
What the warning was about was the higher pressure loads in the NATO rounds will wear out your components faster than standard loads. Where the trigger retaining pin is inserted into the polymer frame, the frame can get worn.

Not saying its written warning its just problems PPB had with 9mm NATO ammo a few years ago.

Glocks and many polymer guns have no problem with the higher pressure NATO ammo but over time can cause wear and tear issues.