9mm Browning Replacement

[Morpheus32]

I am getting confused myself here.... ;D

Ok triple retention holsters.  My point was not against triple retention holsters but the implied need that we need to do things more police like.  Which includes percieved legal requirements in how we do business.  Triple retention holsters are requirement for police in Canada for legal and liability issues.  The army is a little different.  Triple retention holsters were not the point of the post.  So having a pistol "cocked and locked" in a single action mode, in a police environment is not on, but in an army context, it is how we do business.  I feel an external safety is a requirement so the operator can carry the pistol in whatever holster (or ammo pouch) is convenient.  If we have a glock for example, there would be a requirement to ensure the trigger area was covered for safety reasons which would necessitate a proper and approved holster.  Additionally troops are use to applying a safety.  We have it in just about every weapon system in service.  It is more in tune with our training. Also most units do not get enough training time on the firearms for troops to become proficent with them.......there is a difference between proficent and familar with a firearm. 

That being said, lets be serious here, if you are concerned about someone going for your back up pistol, make sure your primary rifle is the attackers main point of interest.  We are soldiers and if someone is going for your pistol, there are alot of other things you should be doing to distract their attention, probably from the butt of your rifle.  Have an extra retaining feature is not going to change anything. 

As I said, what is a real requirement for policing in Canada is not necessarily relevant to soldiering in a combat zone.  To quote a famous firearm instructor, "a pistol is used to fight your way to a rifle".  You fight with a rifle not a pistol.  Using a pistol to defend yourself should be a temporary state of mind while you get back to a rifle.  ;D

The needs of MPs, JTF and the like are different and that is why they have replaced the browning already.  For general field use, it is good to go.  As I said in my second post.  The army has other things it needs to spend money on rather than a replacement for the browning.....

Jeff   

 

[KevinB]

I am going to disagree with Jeff on this issue.

I feel we do need a secure locking holster for the BHP on operations - due to the cocked and locked nature.  The pistol is too easily snatched or otherwise acquired from holsters like the Bianchi (which was made for a pistol about 20% larger than ours) or the mag pouch on the LBV.  Doing vehicle searches in Kabul we would strip down and the searchers woudl noyl be carrying the pistol - [this goes for some other stuff as well...]  However with crowd of civilians (and I MEAN CROWDS) that gather it is impossible to keep them back without resorting to gunfire (and that is not on with the Canadian public) - so whiel searchign a vehcile or person - the crowd physically bumps you etc.  - several times my holster was brushed from behind - these people just don't appreciate North American personal space boundaries nor do they understand our defensive posture/perimeters  - and Jeff I am sure you can relate this to Somalian crowds as well -
So I was extremely glad I had my pistol in my Safariland SLS 6004 - for it was securely locked in and the rotational cover was enough so I could drawn and fire if need be in seconds - yet complex enough that someone could not come along and draw it on me.  My C8 had been given off to a troop to cover me searching (his weapon was usless for that task).
As well in house searches the confines of some third world dwelling/compounds are such that a North American statured individual would have to remove a large portion of hsi gear to squeeze into areas and while one can still keep their carbine they are in an awkward postion and while moving aorund one wants the pistol close - esp if something pops up behind you in a crawlspace - yet they need it safe and secure since that is a potential weapon for the enemy.


-Cheers
Kevin

 

[chrisf]

Sorry...My mistake. I was not commenting on the holster. I am not at all knowledgable about them and so have no place to comment on one. The only holster I use, or know anything about,   is the strong-side draw high-ride one made for the Glock 17 by KYDEX.

Its flat, very concealable (on someone of my size anyway) and seems to hold the weapon pretty securely. Bear in mind though that my application is for close protection work, not LE or soldiering. Not sure if it makes a difference (Bet it does) but, believe it or not, a quick draw is sometimes required in this line of work.

Kydex? The israelis use these if I recall correctly. Supposed to be top notch kit.

 

[Morpheus32]

Kevin,

I understand your point but there is a difference between a safe and secure holster and the legaleze of a triple rentention holster.   We can design something simple and comfortable to carry or HPs without using the terminology of "triple retention".   This gets clearly defined for police in terms of liablity and legal requirements.   All I am saying is the holster must be safe and secure but does not have to meet the police requirement.   We can retain the holster using a number of systems but I don't believe it has to meet the same requires as police.

At the paramount point here is we need to focus on other things that soldiers require.   This is not an urgent requirement in comparison to the other glaring shortages of kit we have.   We can barely train people to operate basic weapon systems let alone shooting pistols properly.   Kevin, you and I are the same in the our beliefs about training.   Right now we a tiny minority.   There are other ways to make a holster less accessible to being grabbed.   I still believe it is too niche for us right now.   Given a significant increase in training and an open of eyes to the importance I would agree but until then, the money would be better spent on rifle training, and accessories.   If we look at it from the big picture context.   We also have no doctrine less JTF to transition to handgun when a rifle failure takes place.   You and I think in those terms based on our training from outside the CF, but you won't find one single word mentioned in any CF manual concerning transition.   Until it comes online in the CF, our 6004s are our toys which draws the attention and ire of the CSM...not viewed as essential equipment.  We have a way to go.

I guess that is my point.   The holster is not vital ground now based on our doctrine.   It could be in the future but there is an investment that is unlikely to take place in the short term....

Jeff

 

[KevinB]

Jeff - agreed - however the folk who did some of our pre-trg did specify the transition... 
But you are correct that UNTIL the rest of the army gets online it will be seen as a frill - I think that given more SOF contact with our trg and the advent of the LI-SOC it will happen - just not today.

I'd sell of a few LAV's and buy C8SFW's and a SH*T load of ammo and teach troops to fight again...

 

[Morpheus32]

Kevin,

I would love to see our army equipped with a good balance of C7/8 with all the neccessary accessories such as lights, lasers, accessory rails, improved stocks etc.  I also would love us to develop doctrine to support transition drills but we are a long way from that.  Hopefully the contact with SOF will increase the awareness and desire to focus in this area.  But then again is this needed in the new LAVIII army?  I think yes but I believe some would say no.....

Jeff

 

[KevinB]

I would suggest the LAVIII is not needed in the Army  ;D

 

[bossi]

... However with crowd of civilians (and I MEAN CROWDS) that gather it is impossible to keep them back without resorting to gunfire (and that is not on with the Canadian public) - so whiel searchign a vehcile or person - the crowd physically bumps you etc.   - several times my holster was brushed from behind - these people just don't appreciate North American personal space boundaries nor do they understand our defensive posture/perimeters   ...

One of the interpreters taught us an INVALUABLE lesson:  Carry a stick. 
The locals know you won't shoot them, but ... beginning in kindergarten they learn about the stick - usually there are older men whose job is to herd the children (I only ever heard them referred to as "bhourra-bhourra men", I think because they say something that sounds like that ... sorry for not knowing exact name/word).

Anyway - not sure if you've ever seen pictures on TV or otherwise of riot police in countries like Pakistan - they use those extremely long canes ... (i.e. you don't need an axe handle or baseball bat).
And, yes - I realise the guy with a stick in his hand(s) needs to be covered/protected by somebody else who's pointing a 5.56 or 7.62 flashlight ... (it's a non-Olympic event "mixed pairs" event ...)

So, to make a long story short - the next time our guys had a problem with people getting too close, all they had to do was dismount with a stick in their hand ... and presto!  The kids ran away.

(and, I found it ironic - it's a long-standing tradition for Highland officers to carry ashplant canes - thus, they've already got a near-perfect piece of wood in their hands, which when used as a walking stick or cane is perfectly non-threatening ... until such time as it's needed as a baton.  Funny how some young guys and iconoclasts mock traditions ...  yet there's actually some wisdom of the ages involved, eh?)

Sorry that this tidbit wasn't handed down/passed on to you - I don't know where it got lost.

 

[KevinB]

The handover was not the best...

We took over from the 3R22eR Recce Pl and the QRF Coy at the same time - doing a few trips out side the wire to learn the city for QRF duties - we never did anything dismounted together.

 

[bossi]

Ack.  It happens.  I also posted that info in the other thread to help Roto 3, and beyond ...

 

[Laps]

I really don't mind the BHP.  I've carried it on 2 tours and it worked well for me.  When (if) we will replace them, I hope they will put some type of "combat" sights on them.  Maybe Trijicon or something you can see at night.  So far, I have been putting "liquid-paper" dots on the sight, but this is a bit "Red-Green" guntape type of fix.

As for replacement, I am all over the Five-Seven pistol.  20 rounds capable of going through Kevlar...  Or for non-warrior trades, a "mini- C-8" like the C-8CQB or the G-36C as a PDW.  If we go for PDW, I will miss having strapped to me at all times...  Something about having to get out of a burning chopper and you don't have time to find your handy little gun in the wreckage.

 

[KevinB]

The 5.7 is a woefully inadequte cartirdge - 9mm AP is a better choice - kevlar and limited (but better than 5.7) terminal effect.

G36 - Piece of SHIT - I spoke to a Norwegian SF guy while I was in Afghan (as he looked longingly at my C8SFW) he had an old G3K - and when asked why he told me they were withdrawing the G36 from servie as they were having a unacceptable failure rate with them - bodies cracking etc.  Some German guys mentioend the same issues...

IMHO (having used the BHP in addition to my carbine) the PDW is a solution looking for a problem - we would be much better served by buying nightsights and modifying the warstock pistols and a rotation of the stock - usign the remaing money to fund ammo for training... 

 

[Laps]

Kevin,

Thanks for the info.  My choices were based on the following:

- FiveSeven: 20 rounds in the mag.  5.7 bullets capable of AP.  (the military will never get into anything else than "ball" ammo, so 9mm ball is not quite good against much Kevlar)
- G36: compact and uses .223.  All that being said, I didn't know about all the technical problems they had with them.

It seems like we can agree on a the fact that we need better sights on the new (or present???) guns.  I little interesting trivia: when I got to my unit, they handed me a box with my BHP in it.  A label said: "This weapon has been inspected/overhauled"  and the date "1973".  I wasn't even born in 1973!!!  It is in great shape.

As for the PDW.  I am not too sure about it either.  Your rationale seems to be based on your previous experience (if I guess right, infantry??).  As a non-warrior guy (flying choppers), I would definetly like a little more firepower than just a handgun.  The problem is the only other thing they are willing to give us (sometimes) is the full lenght C-7 which is a problem since we have nowhere to put them but in the "trunk".  When have asked for C-8s and a "gun rack" to put them handy, but this is just not hapening.

When I was in Bosnia, the recce guys had a full complement of weapons in their Coyotes (starting with a 25mm gun, a couple C-6s, M203s... all the way to their BHPs).  We were flying with a pistol and 2 mags...  Pathetic   So maybe some type of semi-gun, semi-pistol weapon would be good for cases like us.

My 2 cents

 

[a_majoor]

From another thread: TACTICAL TERRORIZER: Springfield XD Pistols  http://army.ca/forums/threads/23306.0.html

Thinking about this thread has raised a different question; do we need pistols at all? While employed in the D&S platoon in Banja Luka, I wore a pistol on duty as a symbol of my rank and authority, but I was convinced by my troops that the pistol would be better employed on the actual gate, since it could be brought into action at close quarters (when next to a car) far more quickly than a rifle. This being said, a pistol has only limited effectiveness in this situation, since most of the bullet's energy would be expended in penetrating the car. (The "powers that be" did not agree with the reasoning).

So, what is the pistol for? Is it to indicate rank and authority? This could be done with a brassard or a different hat, and has the disadvantage of marking an individual as different, which would lead an enemy to target that person. Is the pistol for CQB and personal protection? In that case, it is of only marginal effectiveness (please, no .45 ACP vs 9mm replies) mostly due to the ergonomic issues (i.e. holding, aiming and firing).

If we are to agree that a pistol is the current thing for CQB and personal protection, then we can look to discarding the pistol in favor of a weapon that is compact, has a lot of firepower, and is fairly easy to use. If we don't want to change the supply system, then a C-8 with the stock collapsed would be ideal, since everything from ammunition to training stays the same. Next in line would be conventional SMG's like the HK MP-5 family. If we want to play around with terminal effects, then a militarized 12 gage shotgun is in order. Exotic weapons like the PW-90 or Metalstorm can be considered, since they offer a of of features which other weapons do not, but the changes to the supply system also have to be considered as well. Is the advantage great enough to offset the addition of special ammunition natures?

Historical analogies would suggest the answer right now is NO. The Enfield EM-2 pioneered the western use of "assault rifles" in the 1950s with the ".280 Ideal" cartridge, but since America was organizing and QMing NATO with millions of surplus .380 Winchester (7.62 X 51) rounds, the .280 fell by the wayside. Similarly, there is a consensus the ideal LMG round is actually 6.5 X 45, but we don't see too many of those, it is more practical for the section weapons to share the same ammo.

 

[Laps]

a_majoor,

Interesting you talk about velocity of 9mm going through vehicles and Banja Luka in the same text...  Have you heard about the negligent discharge in Banja Luka???  Seems like the 9mm round can easily go through a vehicle (from the inside anyway...) and through CORIMEC walls... ;D

 

[a_majoor]

I was in Banja Luka during both 9mm incidents, yes the round carried through several Cor-i-mecs, (which are mostly particle board or something similar, mine was in the process of "delaminating") but the internal structure of a car is both complex and made out of steel, so it is more of a fluke the bullet penetrated the van door "clean" rather than hitting the saftey cage, window mechanism, stereo speaker etc. IF something "went down" at the gate, there would be a fairly good chance for a pistol bullet to be deflected by something like that rather than striking the driver.

A weapon which is more compact than a rifle but more capable than a pistol fits the bill for security, CQB, SOF missions, personal protection for truckers, black hats, siggies and so on. While a pistol bullet "may" go cleanly through a car body and disable the driver, there is less question a 9mm moving at a higher velocity from a submachinegun will do the job, FN PW 90, C-8 or 12 gauge loaded with "deer slugs" will unquestionably penetrate a vehicle, and have the magazine capacity to carry out a longer engagement, and the ergonomics to allow the shooter to usr the weapon with a fair degree of accuracy (especially if the range is changing i.e. the driver is attempting to flee or ram the gate), and if selected from the same family of service weapons as the rest of the force uses, provides minimal logistics burden.

As always, there are certain situations where a pistol may be superior to a different choice of weapon, but much of weapons design is compromise anyway, so the choice is to try to get something which will be useful in the most likely scenarios, and is reliable and easy to use. Exotic solutions like Metalstorm are worth investigating, but from a look at the website, this technology seems better suited for area denial weapons rather than personal defense weapons and submachine guns.

 

[Slim]

Has anyone either tried or seen what shotgun ammo (specifically magnum slug) will do to an engine block? Would this stop a soft-skinned vehicle, or would something bigger be required?

Slim

 

[KevinB]

Slim - yup. More to follow afterwards

Having played with the 4" M2Corp 5.56mm PDW variants.

and the 10.3" and 11.5" C8CQB's (top is a personal lower with USNCWC C LMT Enhanced 10.3, bottom is a US M16A1 lower with 11.5 Enhanced upper w/ flip front sight and suppressor)

and POS G36C

My C8SFW (lower) and a C8A1 (top)

However I still want a backup sidearm in addition to a carbine.
"my" 7T I had in Afghan

Now that I bored you all with photo's - the small PDW's are next to worthless in terms of bullet terminal effect - so 10.3" is the smaller one can still get bullet fragmentation (I hope I dont need to start to do terminal effect workshops again?) and then only to 10M...
  So yes its is fine for gunsfights inside a car or small house (other units use more effective bullets in the 75 to 77gr area...)
So you accept then that the 14.5 (C8) is the shortest you want to go (and ditch those PDW ideas) - you get a system that is good out to 45M or so then you go to the SFW and its 16" bbl and get 95M of frag -verus 130 with the C7 20" bbl...
So we decide to effectively only issue the 16 SFW - period
Well having done stuff that the 16" is too long and for some duties you need a sidearm - you now have two guns anyway...

For me the solution is simple.



Shotguns - Use it for breaching - get the Reminton 870 Modular Combat Shotgun System in the 9" bbl with a pistol grip - it goes to a team member (your #4, MOE guy) as an 'extra'
  Shotguns slugs - not as accurate as a rifle - have less terminal effects as most ranges (hard to beleive but true) less penetration on hard targets due to the lead  of the slug deforming and absorbing some of the energy.  Shotgun mag limits are problematic and slow to reload - Did I say use it for breaching? ...
Use it for breaching.


Need to stop a car -simple C6 7.62mm NATO a few bursts will do it.  works quite well -
Pistol and Shotgun rounds will not stop a vehicle w/o direct hits to the driver in a short period of time (i.e. he is crashing the gate...)

IMHO 40mm HV from a Mk19 is MUCH more preferable - but 7.62mm should be your min option avail.

 

[a_majoor]

Not meaning to be confrontational, but the point I am trying to get at is for non SF types who have a need for compact, man portable firepower, and who are generally not issued a secondary weapon, then some of the other choices I mentioned in the earlier posts might be more suitable.

The gate guard scenarios would involve having to fire at or into a vehicle at reasonably short range i.e. the gate guard sees the vehicle exiting the "serpentine" and accelerating towards the gate rather than slowing down, or one of the passengers suddenly pulls a gun while the vehicle is along side the gate waiting for clearance to enter. If those situations had happened in Banja Luka, the gate guards would be unslinging rifles (one right beside the car in scenario 2), while I would have had to either try a long shot with my 9mm from the guard house, or go running into the firefight to close the range to the point a 9mm would make the difference. (Before you ask, my rifle was in the rack in the back of the guard house.) At these close ranges, the rifle bullets would have had a terrific terminal effect even through the structure of a vehicle, and the guards would have been able to engage from a fairly wide range band if the situation required. C-8s would be a better choice given the fairly close in nature of our work, and the very limited number of pistols (2) in our platoon inventory.

So I think my summation would be "Pistols if necessary, but not necessarily pistols".

 

[Laps]

a_majoor,

The question there is why the guy at the gate had his gun slinged?  I know in VK the gate guards always had their weapons at the "ready".