OT: IRAQ vets equipment critiques...

Can't say that I fully understand but am familiar with many of these products and they are what I would choose if I were in Iraq. Sounds legitimate.

Ice
 
It is legit. We just arrive in theater and part of our preparations included reading through this and obtaining/incorporating some of the equipment/products and lessons learned mentioned on the piece.

Victor
 
how soon we forget.

the army was using .38 cal (9mm) pistols in the phillippines in the early 1900's and found it did not have enough stopping power, so they went to a .45 cal. (they were trying to stop drug crazed islamic militants then too!)

the bean counters recently decided to replace the .45 with the 9mm for a variety of reasons, but apparently the need to actually stop your enemy was not one of them.

must be a lot of .45 govt. models we could ship out that way, a bit like the folkes back home did for their boys in the phillippines when they shipped them a bunch of colt single action .45's away back when.

we also used to have some dandy long range accurate infantry rifles, like the m14 that would be just fine out in the desert.
 
Shotguns are still illegal if used against people, in my line of work we use them to gain access to buildings, move stuff around, and to "Remotely open" packages when mounted on our EOD robots. We also carry 50 caliber sniper rifles, to remotely disrupt submunitions and small UXOs. But if someone starts shooting at you and all you have in your hands is a shotgun or a 50 cal...
 
Interesting to note that the Surefire filters don't like to stay on. My bud has a red filter for his Surefire M4 and it seems very loose.
 
Some thoughts:

I don't know the legal status of the shotgun but every command I've ever heard of in the navy uses these extensively, even (especially) forward-deployed ones. It is an extremely common weapon.

M9 problems: everyone complains about its lack of stopping power. I'd like to see statistics. Fact is, very few of the people who are issued the M9 are ever going to use it in anger. How many of these soldiers who complained about its lack of firepower actually shot someone with one? (And why weren't they using their long gun instead?) As for the magazines...what are they doing to them? I'm guessing that the sand can prevent the rounds from rolling properly through the top of the magazine, but I've never witnessed an M9 magazine fail like this. The potmetal baseplates popping off are another matter. There is a scattering of tritium-equipped M11 pistols here and there; I'm not sure of how many the army got hold of or where they were sent, but I see them from time to time.

By the way, I'm not defending the M9. I don't like it either. It's not a bad pistol as pistols go but we could've done a lot better. That's why I don't like it.

M4's lack of range: it was designed to be a replacement for submachineguns. One more time: it was designed to replace submachineguns. It was thought to be a better weapon in this regard than the M3. (I agree.) I don't know what the army's line of thinking was with regards to making it a frontline weapon. It was not intended to be used at 500 yards. (It was not intended to be used at 300 yards, for that matter.) I just don't get it.

M203 "buckshot" round: this is a low-velocity weapon using the odd high-low pressure system developed by the Germans in WWII. It was not intended (and is not able) to launch things quickly. A buckshot round was tested in Vietnam. It did not work well due to its low velocity. A flechette loading was also tested. That didn't work well either. One could change the pressure system to a standard one but the recoil impulse would likely kill the firer - hence, the strange method of operation and its use for launching grenades.

How about a beehive round in 120mm instead? :)

Gerber multitool: don't leave home without it. Even us squids know that.

I won't comment on the other stuff - the comments regarding the things I have direct experience with, I agree with. For what it's worth, though, if you spend your day standing in icewater, and you're independantly wealthy, Thorlo Combat Socks are the way to go. (At ~$9 per pair, just buy one set and wear them all week.)

Edit: forgot to mention this. Regarding the safety on the M16, dimpled primers, etc...the M16's firing pin is not under any sort of spring pressure. It floats freely in its channel. If you chamber a round it will dimple the primer a bit - nothing unusual or frightening about this if you're using military ammo. (Before anyone complains about how unsafe this is, remember that the M14, M1, and Kalashnikov series of rifles - to name a few - all use the same system.) It's theoretically possible to get a slamfire upon chambering a round...but I've never seen it happen. The chances go up if you're dropping the bolt on a round already in the chamber.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the latter happened, or the soldier simply had his finger on the trigger. In any event it's always a good idea to keep your muzzle in a safe direction while chambering a round, regardless of the weapon's design.
 
Based on my limited experience, just about everything mentioned was dead on. 9mm ball ammo has practically zero stopping power (which is why Special Forces still uses .45 caliber 1911s). Most of the things they mentioned is just plain low-quality gear. It's built by the lowest bidder, always has been. That's why I always laugh when I see something advertised as 'mil-spec'. Trust me, their standards aren't that high, although they're getting better.
 
The Beretta pistol is a lousy design for the average person. I have medium size hands and can not shoot one very well. I used to be a pretty good shot, and regularly attended shoots through the NRA and DCM.
I can shoot a lot of 9s well, including the Browning and Ruger (have both), Glock, S&W, you name it.
The Beretta has a combination of a large grip and long trigger pull that is not going to work well for the average person or especially not for the smaller person. Aside from problems with stopping with the 9mm round, the most important factor in pistol effectiveness is shot placement. That requires a "shootable" pistol of good quality, and one that is reliable.
I would not trust a Beretta to save my .....
I had a single action Beretta in 380ACP. It was unreliable when new, and it just became worse. I got tired of sending it back to Beretta for repairs when the mean number of rounds between small parts breakage hit about 35!
Open slides don't make sense in the desert.
My Browning has gone more than 4500 rounds, and it will only gag on anything if the magazines haven't been cleaned for more than 800 rounds.
 
I can attest to the validity of the article: Someone in our chain had printed that same LL article out and distributed it throughout our unit prior to our deployment with OIF II (I just got back on the 12th).

As far as content...

- most of our HUMINT teams carried Glocks in place of the M9, with commercially-purchased rigs. Not because they didn't wear their IBAs all the time, but because it was easier and faster to draw the pistol from a thigh rig than from higher up on the IBA.

- Yes, the ACH (advanced combat helmet) is much more compatible with the body armor when trying to fire from the prone position. Its removable padding system is also considerably more comfortable than the old helmet band, as it distributes weight/pressure/friction more evenly across the cranium. However, its mountain bike-style adjustable retaining straps come loose constantly, and require constant readjustment. The problem is the strap buckles, which are much too loose. Also, the removable pads have gel cores, so they turn into rocks in the cold weather.

The article is pretty accurate overall. One thing that wasn't mentioned since the program hadn't been implemented yet is the Humvee uparmoring process. Soft-skinned vehicles are taken to a shop where bolt-on armor panels, ballistic glass windshield and armored doors with ballistic glass windows are added. The extra protection is great against IEDs, but the weight and configuration hampers visibility and quick-reaction time. The extra burden to the vehicles' suspension systems also increases maintenance issues. It's worth the hassle though, since our prevalent threat over there is still IEDs laid along our convoy routes.
 
arty said:
The Beretta pistol is a lousy design for the average person.
Click to expand...

I snipped the rest for brevity.

This is what I'm talking about - you're complaining about actual physical things that can be quantified that you have experience with. The grip's too big. Double action trigger pull is lousy. Both very true and I won't argue.

Like I said about the stopping power - I'd like to see some statistics. How many soldiers used theirs? (I'm guessing very, very few.) How many rounds were fired? How many hit? What were the results?

I disagree about the level of durability of the Berettas we have. We routinely run them through many of thousands of rounds, beat them up, let inexperienced shooters disassemble and reassemble them, etc. They usually burn down around 8000 rounds with a cracked locking block, but they do fine right up to that point.

Roadrunner - depending on which group of SpecWar folks you're talking about, they may or may not be using 1911's. I know for a fact that there are still plenty of M9's (and M11's) in circulation with them. There are a variety of reasons for using .45 ACP, only one of which is power.
 
Satori said:
I disagree about the level of durability of the Berettas we have. We routinely run them through many of thousands of rounds, beat them up, let inexperienced shooters disassemble and reassemble them, etc. They usually burn down around 8000 rounds with a cracked locking block, but they do fine right up to that point.
Click to expand...

8000 rounds seems pretty shltty to me. I would be careful about buying a gun that cant take 8000 for recreational purposes, let alone trust my life to it, or have it float around a militaries armory to be re-used for decades. Even if the failure is caused by a replaceable part.

As far as the 9mm caliber, I wouldnt trust my life to a caliber that I wouldnt even consider hunting deer with. Most people I know who hunt hogs tell me that its nearly impossible to kill one with a 9mm. Considering that deer are hunted under different conditions than people, I think that .40 would be my minimum for a handgun and .223 would be the absolute bare bones minimum for a rifle.
 
My Beretta was the 70s model. It really soured me toward the company.
I only know about my own personal experience with semiauto firearms, and I only have about 4500 rounds through my Browning. I would be surprised if it failed at 8000 rounds. If I get to shoot it much, I would expect a longer service life....but perhaps not with Nato pressure ammo.

I had more than 10,000 rounds through a Smith 357 model 19 before I sold it, and it was fine (the cylinder gap had grown a bit). I would hope that we could get more service life from a pistol than a revolver.

The early model Beretta 9s were reported to have problems with the locking block and slide breakage. If they are getting 8000 rounds now, with Nato ammo, that is certainly an improvement. It sounds like the complexity of the locking block is still a problem.

The size issue is important. I have average size hands, and that means that many soldiers have smaller hands than I do. I don't think that you will find many female soldiers with hands as large as the average male. One gun won't fit all, but you would hope that it would do well for most people. I can't figure out how politicians make these weapon decisions.

While I am not a personal owner of the Glock, it is much easier to shoot well for average size people than a Beretta. The Glock trigger feels like shooting a Browning without a safety, but it sure shoots well. Nice weapon!

I would rather see our soldiers carrying guns made in the U.S.A. by US owned companies, but that is another story.
 
Satori said:
Roadrunner - depending on which group of SpecWar folks you're talking about, they may or may not be using 1911's. I know for a fact that there are still plenty of M9's (and M11's) in circulation with them. There are a variety of reasons for using .45 ACP, only one of which is power.
Click to expand...

And M23 (SOCOM).

I suppose the reason for using .45 is similar stopping power to 9x19 at lower (subsonic) speeds, allowing for use of a silencer ?
 
Satori said:
Roadrunner - depending on which group of SpecWar folks you're talking about, they may or may not be using 1911's. I know for a fact that there are still plenty of M9's (and M11's) in circulation with them. There are a variety of reasons for using .45 ACP, only one of which is power.
Click to expand...

True. The fact remains that the many of the operators who are most likely to use their pistols choose a .45. That says a lot to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top