22Oct05

Feedback from the Front:

We've been working at a large military base all last week, and I had several discussions with people who are processing and collating feedback on equipment and training doctrine from the current war zone. What I find mos t interesting is:

Current M9 pistol (Beretta 92/F): Dissatisfaction with the M9 is unanimous. The M9 may end up with the dubious distinction of having the shortest tenur e of any issued pistol in the history of American military service. We'll se e a successor shortly. Issues are:

Caliber: All pistol rounds are poor fight stoppers, but 9mm hardball is nea r the bottom of the list, the worst of the worst. If high-performance bullet s are off the table, larger calibers are the only solution. When pistols are

used for close-in protection, 9mm hardball fails consistently.

Magazines: M9 magazines, supplied by a number of aftermarket vendors, are, and continue to be, incompetent. Feeding problems abound. Beretta OEM magazines work well, but they are in the minority. Admonitions from those up the food chain to "solve" the problem by, for example: charging magazines with only ten rounds, are seen as trite and thoughtless by those who are forced to actually use the pistol.

Durability: Keeping M9s running is a problem. Constant breakage of critica l parts keeps a large number sidelined.

Size and shape: The M9 is wide, long, and clunky. Concealment is difficult . Draw is slow. Grip is too fat for those with small hands.

Operating system: The last thing Marines need on a pistol is a two-stage decocking lever! Valuable training time that is currently consumed with teaching students how and when to manually decock could be better spent teac hing them how to draw quickly and hit precisely.

M4: The M4 is popular because it is light, short, and handy, a good rifle for the confined nature of fighting in built-up places. With anal maintena nce, it works reliably. It may not be the best system in the world, but it is far from the worst. A conventional, gas-piston rifle would probably work better and will probably supercede the AR-15 system some day. The more imm ediate issue is caliber.

The 223 round has been pushed as far as it can go, and it is still inadequate, any way one looks at it. With any bullet, from 55gr to 77gr, r ange and penetration are still unsatisfactory. Bullets may go 500m, but there is nothing there when they arrive. Even at close range, 223 bullets will not penetrate most layered barriers the enemy uses for cover.

The 223 lacks penetration for combat, and every attempt to remedy that has fallen short. We're wasting our valuable time trying to make believ e this round can be magically converted into anything but what it is. We need to stop kidding ourselves. A heavier rifle and caliber are desperately needed. Infantry rifles need the power to shoot THROUGH things! When did we forget that essential axiom?

/John