How good is the side arm?

[ArmyAviator]

The Hi power was a great weapon but it has been overrun by technology.  The old single action, single sided safety catch, requires more trg than most units give/get to carry it safely in a cocked and locked state (and for a lefty it would be unsafe).  Yes a tuned up Hi-power is a good weapon.  Agreed shot placement is more important than anything else when it comes to pistols: they are all under powered when compared to an assault rifle.  However, technology is out there that make modern pistols easier to shoot adequately for the average user and reduce some of the training time required to safely carry a weapon with "one up the spout".

If they want to keep the browning the CF should modify them with the light double action hammer and trigger group (A la the Para-Ordnance LDA) and an ambidextrous safety (important even for right handed shooters).  If not, sell them off and issue out the Sigs.

 

[KevinB]

AA - I will dispute you comments a bit.

Ambi Safeties are available - as are Night Sights - these could easily bring the BHP back into the modern way.

Secondly while I dont like Glocks as much as Sig's, the G17 is a much better pistol for the CF (its cheap too)
It is the "perfect stupid persons gun"
Drawn gun - pull trigger - go bang - repeat as necessary - reload and reholster.

The Decocker on the Sig and the DA/SA trigger chnage from first to second shot does not make it a great gun to train people on a limited trg budget/timeframe.  I've seen a number of Sig users attemtp to reholster a gun still cocked -as they where not familiar enough with the system to use it safely.

IMHO while it may be cheaper to fix the BHP's (mag safety removed, ambi safety, night sights) the problem with the mags in the system,the lack of a real holster for them - and general poor knowledge in the CF about the use of them - We'd be better suited by getting the G17.


I dont want to go down the Para Ord road - they have poor QC and the LDA systems have not held up well -- Browning now makes a DA version of the BHP but why try to reibuild them

 

[paracowboy]

gotta agree with Kev. I prefer the Sig (he says, like he's some sort of expert), but the Glock is the better choice for a military like ours, that refuses to admit that soldiers require time with a weapon to learn how to use it. Fewer buttons and levers. Draw gun, point gun, pull trigger, throw gun, die in place because you didn't learn how to aim gun.

 

[BITTER PPLCI CPL]

KB. is your 226 a 9mm or .40 S&W. I'm going to purchase a 226, right now I'm just getting people's own opinion and experiance first!

 

[KevinB]

You can find 9mm at any wide spot in the road, anywhere... 

I have no use for .40 - its expensive to train with and in the event the world comes to an end, hard to find...

 

[ArmyAviator]

AA - I will dispute you comments a bit.

Ambi Safeties are available - as are Night Sights - these could easily bring the BHP back into the modern way.

No dispute here.  I know they have them available commercially.  Can I get it in the CF?  (Not a comment; a true question.  Can the armourers do this mod?)

Glocks:  100% agreement.  They are the closest things to "Pilot Proof".  (Yes I know I'm slamming my own MOC ;D but we get very little trg time and not any real instruction on shooting techniques other than how to put rounds into a figure 11 and not put one in your foot.  Even then I don't trust some of my compatriots not to put a round in my foot .  This is one of the reasons I took up IPSC and IDPA shooting, plus I just enjoy shooting.)

Draw gun, point gun, pull trigger, throw gun, die in place because you didn't learn how to aim gun.

ROLFLMAO :blotto:

 

[KevinB]

Weapons Techs - could do the mod (it would be in theory illegal) I tried to get a tech to drift out the front sight and replace it with a Novak Trijicon front - but no dice.

We deactivated a few mag safeties when the original Dart ('96) stood up - but they went back to issue state pretty quick when someone found out.

 

[Good2Golf]

AA, KevinB, re: decocking and mags to do so (unless you have a ridiculously long scrawny finger than can find its way up the BHP's ubt and decock without the risk of an ND from inserting a still loaded mag, etc... 

I suppose I'm old school, but I'd go BDA9 (to have the BHP with the newer DA and decocking function), and to be honest, my jury is still out on what I'd take next...17, 226 or 92F...all nice pistols.  Probably lean towards a 226 for commonality but haveing shot all three I like the Glock 17 for sheer idiot-proofness (as AA alluded to), the 92F shoots AND looks nice...the 226 shoots decently but it looks butt ugly...although there a lot of other users out there and armr support is probably pretty decent.


p.s.  anybody running a hip or thigh holster for the BHP in theatre...I'm thinking that the bra aircrew holster they gave me, which I've never liked anyway, is more of a hinderence than anything...I was thinking of a nice, discrete pancake hip holster that isn't overtly obvious under a slightly looser cbt shirt...?  Bueller? Bueller?  ;D

Cheers,
Duey

 

[KevinB]

As far as holster go - I've gone Kydex and wont go back (unless somethign extremely revolutionary comes out)  They hold the gun so much more securely.  For belt (semi concealed or concealed usage) I would go with Blade-Tech as they make an excellent rig

I dont like 92-F's I sold my first years ago to an Ottawa Cop (who is still abuddy so he obviously likes it) They are good for suppressing and in that use it can find a role (albiet in Secret Squirrle Camp).  None of the new Browning desings have done well, so thats why I am for adopting a proven system (Glock or Sig.)

 

[Good2Golf]

As far as holster go - I've gone Kydex and wont go back (unless somethign extremely revolutionary comes out)   They hold the gun so much more securely.   For belt (semi concealed or concealed usage) I would go with Blade-Tech as they make an excellent rig

I dont like 92-F's I sold my first years ago to an Ottawa Cop (who is still abuddy so he obviously likes it) They are good for suppressing and in that use it can find a role (albiet in Secret Squirrle Camp).   None of the new Browning desings have done well, so thats why I am for adopting a proven system (Glock or Sig.)

Kevin, which model of Kydex did you get?  Was it for the BHP...their stuff seems only to list for Berretta, Glock and SIG...?  ???

Thanks,
Duey

 

[KevinB]

Blade Tech Inside the Waist Band Holster

They make them for many models... 
They have them for BHP's - I got an OD version - it is not ideal under a combat shirt unless you leave two buttons undone.  I got it for a course that I had to carry concelead on - I've used it at work but w/o a cbt shirt on.

I think for the sort of role I envision pilot (stepping out of lane) a belt mounted 6280 (the belt version of the 6004) would work.  I despise shoulder holsters - as they pretty much require breaking the laser rule suring the draw.  But I can see why some (crewmen etc.) may like them.

In armour you will need some drop so a high riding 6004 will work well (cinch it up and only use the bottom leg strap - the top would be too high)  Consensus over at Lightfighter driven by real shooters was this was the way to go -- I tried it and it does much better than the lower leg mounted way (at least for me).

 

[Good2Golf]

Blade Tech Inside the Waist Band Holster

They make them for many models...  
They have them for BHP's - I got an OD version - it is not ideal under a combat shirt unless you leave two buttons undone.   I got it for a course that I had to carry concelead on - I've used it at work but w/o a cbt shirt on.

I think for the sort of role I envision pilot (stepping out of lane) a belt mounted 6280 (the belt version of the 6004) would work.   I despise shoulder holsters - as they pretty much require breaking the laser rule suring the draw.   But I can see why some (crewmen etc.) may like them.

In armour you will need some drop so a high riding 6004 will work well (cinch it up and only use the bottom leg strap - the top would be too high)   Consensus over at Lightfighter driven by real shooters was this was the way to go -- I tried it and it does much better than the lower leg mounted way (at least for me).

Thanks Kevin, that looks about right.   I'll be mingling with others, not legging it on partol , so it's more to make sure I have something on me but not look like Dirty Harry packing an arsenal...cheers!  p.s. I also may look at the outside-belt version.

Duey

 

[paracowboy]

gentlemen, you do realize that you may be setting yourselves up for some serious legal issues by concealing your sidearms while in uniform? 
I can't say yea/nay definitely, but I do recall a huge stink a few years ago, with soldiers 'concealing' sidearms. Something about Soldiers in Uniform (dah dah daaah!) having to carry arms openly, or else be liable to charges of espionage or some such.

If anybody does check, wouldja mind letting me know how it turns out?

 

[KevinB]

AFAIK there is nothing prohibiting soldier from carrying (issue) pistols while in Uniform - some hubbub I knwo of was when a 2VP (Roto 7)attached Artillery Reserve Officer was carrying it concealed while out of uniform and attempting to do operations with other forces etc.

If you are not in uniform and carrying arms concelead you no longer have Geneva and Hague convention protection (big fat hairy deal in the theatre of operations) the authority for those sort of ops comes from higher.

 

[paracowboy]

I remember now, someone decided that it violates the Hague Convention. La!

Laws of War :
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899
The Convention

Annex to the Convention
Article 1
The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the following conditions:
To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
To carry arms openly; and
To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Thus, any soldier caught with a 'concealed' sidearm is not legally required to receive proper treatment under the Geneva Conventions. Considering that none of our enemies since WW II have ever been signatories...
I don't know if that has been declared official policy.

 

[Good2Golf]

gentlemen, you do realize that you may be setting yourselves up for some serious legal issues by concealing your sidearms while in uniform?  
I can't say yea/nay definitely, but I do recall a huge stink a few years ago, with soldiers 'concealing' sidearms. Something about Soldiers in Uniform (dah dah daaah!) having to carry arms openly, or else be liable to charges of espionage or some such.

If anybody does check, wouldja mind letting me know how it turns out?

PC, not to go into too much but subdued (not concealed) carry is part of my skit...JAG already made sure I and others are suited up doing what we'll be doing to ensure compliance with G.C. and other LOAC policies.  I would be considered an identifiable combatant according to Ch 1 of the G.C.(note Art.13, Para. 1 says nothing about having to openly carry weapons...you are identified through uniform and insignia)  Article 13 provides greater detail of individuals not belonging to the armed forces of one of the combatant forces (including inhabitants taking up arms in the conflict) and provides details as follows:  

Chapter 1 of the Geneva Convention (c. 1949)

Article 13 (to Chapter 1)

The present Convention shall apply to the wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea belonging to the following categories:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Govemment or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces. provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territor,v who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

2 more ¢

Cheers,
Duey

 

[TCBF]

It doesn't mean you have to carry ALL arms openly.  You can still have stuff in your pouches and ruck, covered by other gear, etc.  Spirit of the law, and all that.

Tom

 

[garb811]

Laws of War :
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899
The Convention

Annex to the Convention
Article 1
The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the following conditions:
To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
To carry arms openly; and
To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
]

In other words, provided a militia or volunteer corps meets those four conditions, they are to be treated as if they were a regular army.  So, if they are captured, they are to be considered prisoners of war, If they fail to meet any of these conditions, then the laws, rights and duties of war do not apply.  As Duey pointed out, you're already clearly identified as a member of an Army provided you are in uniform.

 

[paracowboy]

I'm not worried about them being captured, or any other enemy action. It's our side, that I'm concerned with. I'm worried about some crusty ol' Sar'nt-Major comin' down on 'em like a...well, like a crusty ol' Sarn't-Major.

Personally, as far as the Conventions and Protocols go, I see no reason why we can't carry concealed, since they (the Conventions and Protocols) clearly state that weapons MAY be carried so, until such time as you commence hostile actions. In other words, you can legally carry subguns stuffed in your pants ("Why yes, ma'am, that is all me. Yup, my package. Signed for it an' everything.") and as long as you carry them openly before you open fire, you're good. I learned that and a lot of sneaky stuff from a couple of very devious JAG-types (or is that a redundancy?) on the Law of Armed Conflict course.

But, it was dinosaurs with just enough knowledge to be dangerous that caused the kerfuffle I'm thinknig about.

 

[Good2Golf]

I'm not worried about them being captured, or any other enemy action. It's our side, that I'm concerned with. I'm worried about some crusty ol' Sar'nt-Major comin' down on 'em like a...well, like a crusty ol' Sarn't-Major.

Personally, as far as the Conventions and Protocols go, I see no reason why we can't carry concealed, since they (the Conventions and Protocols) clearly state that weapons MAY be carried so, until such time as you commence hostile actions. In other words, you can legally carry subguns stuffed in your pants ("Why yes, ma'am, that is all me. Yup, my package. Signed for it an' everything.") and as long as you carry them openly before you open fire, you're good. I learned that and a lot of sneaky stuff from a couple of very devious JAG-types (or is that a redundancy?) on the Law of Armed Conflict course.

But, it was dinosaurs with just enough knowledge to be dangerous that caused the kerfuffle I'm thinknig about.

PC, quite true..."we have seen the enemy, and it is us."  ;D  Always lots of little things that baby-JAGgers will tell you on the sly while [toungue in cheek, totally unfair stereotyping] the bigger folks sit back and have a $20 stogey and think about ways to spend their $145K+/yr all from the comfort of their office on the muddy Rideau.[/toungue in cheek unfair stereotyping] 

Cheers,
Duey