Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns If money were no object...

If some consider the M9 to be a military disaster, try to point out an incident where it made a real difference in the outcome of any strategic initiative or operation...

If money were no object, I'd hire three body guards and work them in shifts each day.

It is the Sig p220 .45 ACP with Nitron finish, short reset trigger, and night sights that I bought two weeks ago.

Not exactly what you specified, but it does use the Glock frame:

http://mechtechsys.com/glock.php

Gen 4 Glock 21 with night sights and an ambidextrous frame mounted thumb safety. The M&P .45 with the thumb safety would be OK as well, but it gives up 3 rounds of magazine capacity.

As much as I love the .45 ACP, it's not a good choice for general issue. There are many troops who at most might shoot a handgun once a year, and that is at a qual. They struggle with easy to shoot guns, like the M9, so adding additional recoil may not be a good move.

I wish that it would not be the case and that all members of the armed forces would receive proper and frequent training, but that is not reality.

Picking an off the rack system, the choice would be easy, and no real surprise to many here. I would choose Glock 17s and 19s. Then, since we are not in 2nd or even 3rd generation warfare, where we fight nation states, I would issue JHPs without hesitation.

124 grain Gold Dots work well.

Furthermore, I would have 1 person per squad sized element designated and trained as a Glock armorer, so any issues could be addressed in the field, rather than back at an arms room

Now for an added "money no object" bonus....

I would also issue .45 ACP Glock 21 SFs on as needed basis to qualified individuals, complete with suppressors. Since 230 grain ball is subsonic, there is no need for special ammo.

A suppressed .45 in the right hands can solve a lot of problems, not to mention taking care of problem makers.

Next, add at least a week long intensive practical pistol training, to compliment rifle training. This should be a school that runs full time, as there are enough troops to cycle through annually.

Building off a solid foundation of the fundamentals of pistol shooting, once the troop has established his "no miss" pace, the shooter should not shoot at paper again. It takes up way too much time. Auto reset steel targets, where the shooter gets instant feedback, would be the standard.

This is exactly what John Shaw has set up at Mid South where the navy teams train. Hundreds of auto reset targets.

If you are not shooting, you are loading mags. You listen to the instructors/shooting coaches in between strings, while you load mags. Plus nobody picks up brass. Too much precious training time is spent doing this. Pay full time range maintenance crews for that.

This way Troops are getting maximum training time and a high volume of shooting/skills building.

As an example, I went through a bit over 5,000 rounds in 3.5 days at M.S. before switching over to the kill house stuff.

It is a good example of a training program.

That would be my version of "money no object"...


Cheers!

I didn't realize that wars are now being fought with thousands maybe even hundreds of thousands of pistol armed troops.

I guess I'm way behind the times. Back in the day the only people who had pistols were officers, military police, crew served weapons personal, vehicle drivers, and some support personal. The purpose of the pistol was close range self-defense NOT fighting a war. You had better weapons for that.

For me it would be an M&P, for those who think Glock is the answer, they will not pick a gun without and external safety and M&P fits the bill

I like the USPs rather well.

Its a hoot, sort of controllable if you have one of those Mako stocks for it.

How about the FNX 45. It seems to fit the bill.

I am a fan of the Beretta 92, but I agree with Mackay, a Glock 17 with more training would be the way to go. I would probably just issue 147gr subsonic ammunition instead of fielding a separate pistol.

Ah, yes ! Leave it MS to come up with the most practical suggestion yet. Well done, Sir ! E

That's what I said in the replacement thread. The FN Tactical was designed for military operations even has a threaded barrel and the steel rails in the polymer frame are replaceable.

As much as I like my 1911's that's what I would use as a battle pistol.

Frankly, I don't think there are many WRONG weapon/cartridge choices out there. Look a the variety of suggestions that have been posted by the members here--most of whom have a good deal of sense. In the hands of a trained shooter, any of a variety of handgun/cartridge combinations will work well. But, does the military have "trained shooters" to wield the new gun (whatever it may be)? I say "No, it does not."

My primary suggestion in the "money no object" scenario is simply to increase training (much like Mackay Sagebrush encouraged in his response). Give the troops time and ammo to practice with whatever handgun is issued to them!

The Army band isn't restricted to practicing their instruments once per year and then expected to play flawlessly in public. The Army Marksmanship Unit is not restricted to practicing one day per year then expected to go successfully compete in competitions. But, a soldier is expected to be able to shoot well in combat with a gun that the soldier only gets to fire once or twice per year. That is a preposterous, unrealistic expectation.

The only reason the everyday soldier doesn't get to practice more with his/her assigned weapon is money. It costs money to buy ammo and conduct shooting ranges. But, this is the "money no object" scenario! So give them ammo and the opportunity to practice!

Now, as for what handgun/cartridge to assign to the everyday combatants, I will suggest the Glock 17 for three reasons:

1. Ammo capacity. If a soldier finds himself in a situation where he's using a handgun, then he's in a very tough spot and will likely need a bunch of ammo. He's probably not able to quickly fight his way out of trouble or get to a rifle. Being able to keep bad guys at distance (regardless of whether he's scoring hits) will greatly assist in keeping him alive.

2. Simplicity. No external safety. Easy to disassemble, clean and reassemble.

3. Reliable. Like it or not, Glocks enjoy a well-deserved reputation for going bang when you pull the trigger.

To earn a military contract, Glock will be more than happy to make a custom model for the armed services. Grip size will be modified for smaller hands. Night sights will be standard. Whatever the military wants, Glock will do--then Glock will make millions by selling the "Military 17" to the public.

If the military won't accept a 9mm anymore, then go to whatever cartridge they will accept. Like I said at the beginning--most cartridges these days will get the job done. I don't dislike the 9mm, .38 Super, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, or the .45 ACP.

That's my two cents; I'm sure I'll get change back!

" Give the troops time and ammo to practice with whatever handgun is issued to them!"

This is far more important than brand issues. I had a similar discussion a few years back with some former Team guys (navy). We were on a .gov task order that mandated G19s. The punch line is that these guys did not gripe (much) about not having their Sigs, they simply trained hard to be at the level of unconscious competence with the tools at hand. Most would also admit that the Sigs were far from the latest or greatest. That being said, they trained to such a level that it did not matter.

You will not find that mindset particularly prevalent in the conventional forces. Guys will bitch if you are training, and bitch if you are not training. That is just the reality of it.

The FBI asked essentially the same question. The answer is the Springfield Professional.

http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id=3709

405wcf

I agree with more practice. However, if you are in a scenario where all you have is a pistol as a battle weapon and there is no way to contact or get help from the cavalry you are toast period. A case of ammo is not going to be of much help.

I agree 100%. Will only add that there are MOS's that are hard pressed to be able to find the time to train. Do to their mission requirements.

+1