quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:

quote:

Originally posted by ggile:
I'm concerned that the 'powers that be' who make the decisions to buy, really believe that crap.

I sure hope so. Maybe then they'll commit to some actual pistol training and ammo...

Only time I saw a soldier get a decent class on how to shoot a handgun, was when I was giving it, and I have to fight for 45mins-to an hour out of the schedule to do it (I've never gotten more time than that.)

My experiance was much the same. Two senior MPs decided to mentor a young E-4. They took me to training on the .45. The next time I got any training was at Officer Basic. Learned how to clean and assemble but nothing about shooting. After that it was “familiarize fire” once a year.

It wasn’t until after retirement that my daughter got me into shooting. That’s when I actually had a class.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
... At least it is more informative than busty babes wearing tiny leather bikinis in fast boats shooting guns at the invisible enemies on the shoreline.

Speak for yourself.

'The British Armed Forces will be retiring their stock of Browning Self Loading Pistols and replacing them with Glock Model **. There will be exceptions to this, as certain elements within the British Army and Royal Marines had already transitioned to SIG P226/8 in the 1990s. These latter pistols, having been found satisfactory in service, will be retained for the foreseeable future.

Ministry of Defence'

No hype, just said it was going to get done, and then did it.

Back in the 80's when I managed my department's transition from revolvers to 9mm S&W semi autos, it was big news in the local area as we were one of the first to make the leap. There was a lot of interest in Florida because of the firepower the drug gangs were bringing into play. A TV reporter came out to interview me and I did a half hour long interview with them explaining the various differences between revolvers and semi-autos. Even let the young reporter shoot the new pistol. One of the things I pointed out was that when we tested a number of handguns with a test group of officers, they tended to shoot better scores with the pistol we selected compared to the revolver. I also pointed out that the magazine capacity of 13 put more firepower in the officer's hand. The headline the next day was that we had procured a "more accurate" and "more powerful " pistol than the old revolvers, which is not what I said at all. I took a lot of shit from other area instructors at the time who assured me that their revolvers were just as accurate and just as powerful as those new fangled pistols. One instructor from another department even challenged me on camera to a shoot off. The point is, these "journalists" and their editors will cherry pick the things from an interview that they think will stir the pot and the story they run often does not resemble the one you were trying to tell.


It should be noted that our officers with the new pistol consistently took the "top gun" award at the academy. Within a year every department in our area caught the wave and had or was in process of procuring semi auto pistols to replace their revolvers.

That's a nice story, Hayes; but the article in question has direct quotes with names.

quote:

Originally posted by 2BobTanner:
The opening paragraph said this was for “the services’ new high-tech 9mm pistol engineered to give dismounted infantry” the ability to fight in close quarters. Well, what about “mounted infantry”, what do they get to use—horseshoes?

No they have a rope

quote:

Originally posted by striker1:
I don’t fault the writer. Most of the stupid quotes are from military personnel. SIG marketing what it is, it’s obvious that the Army has swallowed the Kool-Aid by the barrel-full.

The writer and their editors should know this, and seek additional sources to confirm or contradict the PR line they're being fed. Granted, that happens with less and less frequency these days.

quote:

Originally posted by mesabi:
That's a nice story, Hayes; but the article in question has direct quotes with names.

Really? Have you ever been quotedin a press article, It is never accurate. I have even been misquoted in an internet piece with an attached video of me saying something different.

Most news content is just what the reporter felt like saying with some pictures of someone who actually was involved to make if feel legitimate.

Maybe you're just really hard to understand. However, it's more likely that you just don't have a grasp of the pimp-role of today's Army project and program managers.

Of you don't have a grenade, just throw the 320 in a room. It will go off and clear the room.