quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Yes. Absolutely they need more training.

What would that training look like for a line company of infantry? I ask because I think our periods of service overlapped a bit.

When I got to Germany in January of '87, it would be six more months before we switched over to M16A2's. We didn't have any Berettas, and the "newest" 1911 we had in our arms room was manufactured by Colt sometime in the late '60's. As much as I would have loved to have spent a week at Gunsite with my unit going through Pistol 250, that was never going to happen, nor would they have sent an NCO, to said class, to come back and train the trainer. In a world where even in secondary MOS's a rifle is still likely to be the most common weapon, I could not imagine the Army spending a significant amount of time training troops on a VERY secondary weapon system.

Now I know it's been a minute since my service, so I'll grant circumstances may have changed. Also you and Captain 127 are right, pistol training is terrible, and like you I'm a big proponent of striker fired guns with a red dot. I'm just not sure how that works out in a line Infantry unit. I could see it in specialty units. But again curious on your take. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by stormin:

quote:

Originally posted by lechiffre:
What's the chances of getting some surplus P8s out of DE these days?

My LGS has had two P8A1’s for sale in the past few weeks. They were also posting them on Gunbroker. Not sure if they were true issued pistols, but they’re out there…

Bundeswehr issued guns have their own serial numbers and a Bw acceptance stamp on the slide. P8s for the civilian market have the typical date code and a HK style serial number (should be 115-xxx)

And it`s true, outside of the German army and perhaps former soldiers the P8 has nothing over the USP

Surprised it's not a PDP but the P-10 platform is great, I have several of them. Certainly can't say it doesn't shoot well or is unreliable or overpriced.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig Sauer: For Hire:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Yes. Absolutely they need more training.

What would that training look like for a line company of infantry? I ask because I think our periods of service overlapped a bit.

When I got to Germany in January of '87, it would be six more months before we switched over to M16A2's. We didn't have any Berettas, and the "newest" 1911 we had in our arms room was manufactured by Colt sometime in the late '60's. As much as I would have loved to have spent a week at Gunsite with my unit going through Pistol 250, that was never going to happen, nor would they have sent an NCO, to said class, to come back and train the trainer. In a world where even in secondary MOS's a rifle is still likely to be the most common weapon, I could not imagine the Army spending a significant amount of time training troops on a VERY secondary weapon system.

Now I know it's been a minute since my service, so I'll grant circumstances may have changed. Also you and Captain 127 are right, pistol training is terrible, and like you I'm a big proponent of striker fired guns with a red dot. I'm just not sure how that works out in a line Infantry unit. I could see it in specialty units. But again curious on your take. Thanks.

First off the last USGI 45 ( outside the relatively recent M45A1 buy for limited issue in the USMC) was made in 1945.

I was issued an essentially brand new M9 when I deployed to Iraq in 04. With the environment involved dust storms banging on vehicle etc, while barely fired ( about 200 rounds by me total including predeployment training and whenever I could scrounge ammo and range time - me being motivated by being a gun guy which most troops were not) it looked almost stainless when I turned it in.
Repetitive field stripping and excessive cleaning are the most responsible for wearing out military weapons not firing. Even old surplus guns when referred to as “shot out bore” are usually
Eitehr worn from excess cleaning, or eroded from firing corrosive primed ammo and then not cleaned promptly
When it comes to handguns, more recently more units are apparently getting more issued. Years ago as a young enlisted guy, in a unit of 200 troops we would only have maybe a dozen pistols. Might be dated, but in typical infantry companies usually only the commander/XO possibly 1st sergeant and each platoon leader and medic had pistols so a very small number. On the other hand when I deployed to Afghanistan with a cavalry squadron ( ground not aviation ) every member of the unit had both a carbine and pistol.

Any reasonably accurate and reliable pistol ( I had no quarrel with the M9 at all) and a training event equal to a gunsite 250 is going to put troops MUCH farther ahead in competency with a pistol than constantly chasing the next new fangled design.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig Sauer: For Hire:
But again curious on your take.

It’s really not going to look much different than your average cop training. Well, what it should look like. Learning to be proficient with a pistol isn’t a secret recipe. I would run a two week range, then at a battalion level quarterly after that. At a company level, just like group PT, have dry fire and drop in sessions.

Now, the same parallels exist. Not everyone will be a ghetto gunfighter. But, they’ll at least be safe and could use the pistol if they need it. Some guys will put the work in and be really good.

Decide who needs to be trained on the pistol, and actually train them.

On the army side, most of the doctrine comes out of CAG. It takes 3-5 years to make it to Army SOF units from range 37. Then it takes another 5 years to make it to the line units. By that time, CAG may be doing something completely different. Training most of your instructors should be closer to range 37 to cut the time lapse, and cut away the whole learned it from a guy who knows a guy who deployed with a guy whose uncle was a doc with CAG.

I like CZ. I own several. But have you held a P 10 F? It’s like holding a damn mop handle. It’s so long. And I have big hands. It’s just awkward and weird.

I’d bet they’re looking for another pistol in five years. Cz aren’t the most durable pistol manufactures and I doubt the German military is going to love the reduced service life.

How did hk and Walther not make the cut?

quote:

Originally posted by mercedes560:
Cz aren’t the most durable pistol manufactures and I doubt the German military is going to love the reduced service life.

You don't think durability was part of the P13 trials? If they failed to reveal a pistol's lack of durability, then that's a flaw in the testing as much as it is in the pistol.

quote:

How did hk and Walther not make the cut?

Many suspect it was price. The finalists were CZ P-10F, Arex Delta 4AMP, & Glock 17.

quote:

Originally posted by ruger357:
I like CZ. I own several. But have you held a P 10 F? It’s like holding a damn mop handle. It’s so long. And I have big hands. It’s just awkward and weird.

lmao!
The P-10 C is a perfect size, cant imagine it longer!

quote:

Cz aren’t the most durable pistol manufactures and I doubt the German military is going to love the reduced service life.

Says who?