As many of you know the military has been working to replace the M9 Beretta for some time now. The army has recently select the Sig P320 as their replacement.

I've been working on a white paper that proposes a drastic change in the military's SOP for pistols. The intent is to send this white paper to my congressional reps, anyone who is willing to send it to their congressional reps, and eventually get it published. Although, I have absolutely no idea of how to go about getting a paper published.

I've had this concept in my head for a while. However, I thought it would be an exercise in futility in putting it on paper under the Obama administration with the prospect of a clinton administration. However now with the Trump administration I thought it would be worth my time. Gen Mattis being appointed as the Secretary of Defense was the final factor that gave me the motivation to put the necessary work in.

I would love to hear thoughts on this, if and only if you have read the 4 page paper. If you can't be bothered to read the paper, save your thoughts for another thread.

Without further ado.






If someone could point to a dummy's guide to posting a pdf, I'll post the pdf version.

You'll need to host the PDF somewhere, then link to it. Google Docs is probably the best host.

I don't think you'll get any traction on your idea, but don't let that stop you. My opinion doesn't count any more than yours.

Ordnance would likely prefer fewer handgun standards, not more. They already have the M9 (to be replaced), the M11 (SIG P228), Mk 24 (HK45 CT), Glock 19, and M45A1 in service.

Currently general officers are allowed to purchase a personal M9 upon retirement, but it's pulled from NOS with a special GO prefix serial number, so it isn't even one they used. (I believe USAF pistols don't have the GO number, and get polish blued, unlike the other services.)

I read about some standard M9 pistols (no special serials or finish) which were procured using personal funds and distributed to some AMU members and West Point cadets, not unlike what you're describing, and it was quickly shot down never to occur again. This was in the mid-1990's.

It's not like the old days where even line officers could use their personally owned sidearm of choice.

Some SF and SEAL team members are allowed to. Chris Kyle is one well-known example.

I think the P320 was chosen due to unit cost (best bang for the buck), not because it's the best performer. Personally I'm surprised it wasn't the Glock 17 or 19.

It just doesn't make logistical sense to have random personal handguns in service. Who'd be responsible for their repair? The military would need real gunsmiths (a rare MOS) to handle random pistol models, and a healthy supply of parts. It's just not feasible for them to support this concept.

Good on you for brainstorming it though. I agree that the best pistol is one someone chooses, trains with, and maintains on their own. It gives a certain pride of ownership, boosts confidence, and favors greater responsibility in their equipment. Many LE agencies operate under this concept.

Good luck, but it is a horrible idea. The shear logistical nightmare alone of this idea would be so problematic that it would File 13'd in a NY minute.

They've got the P320 on the way. You're wasting your efforts over a tool that is out of your hands to control. They Army knows what is best for it, not you.

You've got to ask yourself, would I have given this same effort if they went with Glock instead? If the answer is no, then you need to stop, cease and desist, and think about your thinking. I can speak for myself that had they went for Glock, even though I am against it...then again, the US Army knows what is best for them and not me. You would not be seeing me trying to stop it either.

I address this is the paper.

The answer is yes! This is not about getting my pet pistol selected (XDm), it's about exactly what the paper proposes. It's about getting away from the one size fits all for gear where one size doesn't fit all.

What is the logistical nightmare???

Where do I even begin

Ordering 87 different parts and magazines for one whole company for starters. Ordering ammunition in every service caliber imaginable just for range time and qualifications is going to drive S4 and every 92Y nutty.

Then there's this thing called a TACSOP. "Oh, the CO only wants this holster and it will be worn on this location"  so you're screwed if a certain holster only comes in limited service pistol models.

Then you'd have to increase AIT for the 91 Foxtrots and be buying 87 different tools and gauges for them.

I can go on, but really what was said is enough.

The SIG 320 is modular so it will be one size fits all.  Generally for a long gun you either get a M16 or M4.  The M16 is only one size but at least with the M4 is adjustable for length of pull.  I was a depot level repair for SOF small arms in Iraq for 2 years.  No, you don't need every shooter getting their pistol of their choice.  I had didn't have enough parts on hand for all the types of SOF weapons as 6 mos ago which would have included M1911A1, M45A1, M9, Glock 17/19/22/26, Sig 226 (Mk25), M11, Sig 239, HK 45C and Mk23 (might have missed one or two)


CD

For God's sake are you illiterate?



If you could take 2 minutes to read 4 whole pages I'd love to hear your thoughts. However, until then pound sand.

For God's sake READ the paper!

I did read it.  Now you're not going to be sending guns back while deployed.  Any additional guns in the arms room are going to get issued as again no spares.  And you fail to understand the role of the armorer in the unit.  They are just someone filling a hole to ISSUE weapons.  Guns go up the chain to the 91F which is the small arms repairman.  There he will need to have all the parts for the weapons.  NVGs or optics do go back to the manufacture for repair.  No so with small arms as the Army understands they can't afford to have those shipped.  There were some issues I had a SOF small arms repair with some items that had to go back.  The timeline was don't count on it being here during your rotation.

When any of the SOF weapons went down I was there within a few days no matter where in the battlefield with the parts to repair it!


CD

Alright these are fair points.  I have a question for you to pick on your experience. What was the most common pistol failures you dealt with that wasn't fixed by replacing the buffer spring and/or a good cleaning?

CD knows what he's talking about. I don't know about you, but when special forces combat diver speaks, I listen and zip my mouth shut.

And the unit armorer is not a trained 30 level MOS to work on 87 different pistols.

The P320 is exactly designed to fit every hand and be every size of each handgun category.

M9 locking block, lost grip screws, lost trigger spring.
Glock- lum. sights going dead or broken off. Lost pins. Brass hitting people in face, extractor issues
1911- generally feeding issues
SIGs- lost grip screws
Hk45C-There was one issue this past summer, don't remember but I fixed on spot

CD

double post so I'll add this






CD

Just need to go P320 across the board with Hollow Points. There, I fixed the handgun issue.

The P320 is modular enough to host .357, .40, and 9mm, as well as being able to make it compact, carry, or full size in any of those calibers.

Not to mention it's 1911 feeling trigger which is probably the best striker fired trigger i've ever felt.

To every problem there is a solution, brother. How well my proposed std is constructed will be critical to success of a program like this. It has to be free of politics and egos.

Problem - lost grip screws, lost trigger spring, Lost Pins
Solution - Suppliers are required to deliver the pistol with an additional set of springs and screws

Problem - lum sights going dead
Solution - No solution, night sights are a maintainable items. STD should only allow night sights that meet a 15 year design life rqmt

Problem - Broken sight
Solution - Sights brake, pistol sights are replaceable by users

Problem - Brass hitting people in face
Solution - Should be found predeployment. Fixed by replacing the recoil spring

Problem - extractor issues
Solution - Should be found predeployment. Fixed by supplier quilaty check rqmts or sending it back to the supplier

Problem - Broken extractor
Solution - Extractor design requirements (material selection, MoS) to minimize risk of a failure in country

One solution to a lot of the problems we've discussed here would be an SOP where each platoon sends one guy off to the supplier to an in depth training course for each pistol platform the platoon deploys. That warfighter returns to the platoon to serve as the resident expert and also train the other warfighters who employ that platform.

This is SOP for the Marine Corps infantry units in regards to training courses in the military such as the CQB course, the mountain warfare course, etc.

Those are not solutions and making soldiers pay to fix their stuff is gross thinking.

Problem: Too many pistols in the inventory and too many different mags, parts, and holsters.

Solution: The M17.

We're done.

I've been at this since 1982 starting as a Direct Support/General Support Small Arms Repairman in the USMC and have been serving in the Army Reserves since 1991. I am currently a CW4 915E (Senior Ground Systems Maintenance Technician) but, was a 913A (Armament Maintenance Repair Tech) until I was promoted to CW4. So, I have some experience and insight into .mil maintenance and logistics.

Not to be trite but, you have no clue as to how procurement, maintenance or logistics works. This is a typical .civ fuck fantasy about how "simple" things should work. Please don't embarrass yourself by sending this drivel to your congressman.  

Wpns Man

BINGO!

CD

Not bad.. I agree with most of it. I am just a little upset the pistol was not in 45acp. We had a lot of complaints from our combat veterans who were not happy with the 9mm cartridge performance.

I hope he listens, Chief.

The grass is always greener, etc. Real world, the same people unhappy with 9mm FMJ would've been unhappy with .45 ACP FMJ if they used it in the same scenarios, and they would've had fewer rounds to boot.

If we really need better pistol lethality, it's time to exit the 1800s and start issuing good JHP like HSTs, Rangers, and so on no matter what caliber we're using.

Well then how about fucking explaining it. "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Einstein This couldn't be more accurate.

You may be to narcissistic to realize this, so let me point this out to you. The military does not revolve around techs or any other support, it revolves around the grunts. It's sad that all you can see is how you're not getting the easiest answer. This paper was written with the Grunt in mind, not some pissey technician.

ditto

Op be getting salty

Same at this point.

Actually, the military revolves around getting the right resources to the right place at the right time more often than the other guy. Those resources can be people, fuel, explosives, food, water...
The guys have tried to outline it at a specific level, but the problem you are missing is that the military operates at two scales. HUGE and individual. There isn't much in between. Sure, those individual buys can be small units or even a whole division ordering particular items via NSN and meeting their CO's regs, but that is essentially the extra junk and NEVER something that can't be swapped out immediately for the standard issue item. If we kept it to SOF then the idea has merit, and to some extent they already operate this way. They just accept that if their personal toy goes down they may wind up with not just a new weapon but a new sling, holster, magazines, optic.... not just an easy swap. That's a tiny fraction of the numbers involved in standard units. I'm not 100% sure, but I think there are more troops in a standard infantry division than there are total SOF shooters, to give you an idea of scale. The tip of the spear can much more easily customize their gear, and also more easily have any replacements with standard gear absorbed by the general supply chain in theater. If an entire SEAL team, for example, needs to replace their rifles because it turns out some critical spring can't handle the unique environment they found themselves deployed in... No big deal, the supply chain can come up with enough standard issue replacements and probably even handle some personalization to accomodate the different ways the SEALs operate. Things like suppressors, optics, mag pouches... will probably be compatible to minimize the problems.

Let's put it in perspective. On an average deployment for a regiment there will be a certain number of weapons that go down 100% due to damage or loss. Then a certain percentage that just need new sights, new springs, replacement bolts.... This is all long researched and understood, with a certain margin for error factored in. The supply chain KNOWS how to handle this. In fact, there will be a certain number of spare weapons, spare parts and trained people along on the initial deployment then shipped in on a schedule. Out of standard replacement needs can be handled but past a certain point it becomes easier to just wait on the regular logistics chain. The more often you have out of the norm issues the more screwed up it gets. This is just how it goes, you add complexity and things will start going wrong more often. The catch here is that it isn't always even. For example, it isn't that every gun will need replacement springs or sights at X time and you just send one replacement set per gun. Hell no. By the time you had enough spare parts for that kind of system you might as well ship duplicate weapons, mags... Trust me, not happening. Instead, one gun might have a spring fail this week and next week THE SAME GUN has the same spring get lost because the grunt is now paranoid about that spring and took it out and finger f*cked it repeatedly every time he did a basic cleaning, which is once a day or more. Eventually it did what springs do and went flying, never to be seen again. Oops, he was the only guy with that weapon, and that was the only replacement spring. Now what? Supply requests a spring set, or more likely five of them. But it's not a standard spring set that the military buys by the truck load, so it is gonna take a few months to show up. Instead, the dumb but 21st century grunt got on amazon, ordered the spring and had a family member, buddy... mail it over and it arrives in a week or so. If he's got connections, or a really sympathetic sergeant or officer maybe it even shows up via a unit member who was coming and going from the states on unit business and shaves a few days. That's fine for one guy, that's not gonna fly for 15,000 in one division, much less the whole army. Instead, there are a few weapon systems that work well enough and are standardized enough that the military knows how often things REALLY break on average, not just on one weapon but across a unit in combat. Certain units will use different weapons more than others, but across a larger unit the total wear and tear is pretty standard and quantified. For every unit that's out every day and burning .50bmg like it's nothing, there's a unit that sits around guarding a supply area most of the time and mostly uses a lot of cleaning supplies and flashlight batteries checking documentation at a busy guard post. If those units have similar weapons it's one hell of a lot easier to deal with than if they don't. The data goes from being abstract and averaged to individually tracked and monitored. Sure, you COULD do it, this is not the stone age and we have the computers to handle the tracking, but you'd never be able to build a meaningful prediction of needs, which means you'd either be constantly undersupplied or oversupplied by significantly larger margins. The guys on the ground may routinely bitch about not having enough of this or that, but compared to past eras the modern US military is incredibly effective at keeping soldiers supplied with what they need BECAUSE it has built this institutional knowledge and logistics model. Hell, there are entire preloaded ships full of equipment that take advantage of it. Put the men with their personal gear on a bunch of commercial airliners and by the time the whole unit is there and sorted their logistics for the next 30 days just pulled up at the nearest port, including the trucks and fuel to MOVE those logistics. You can't do that if things aren't heavily standardized, and the advantages far outweigh any individual soldier's possible improved performance due to a personalized weapon choice. Hell, you know what a modern soldier's most valuable weapon is? A radio. Your side arm, even your rifle, is basically secondary to keeping the target away from you long enough for heavier weapons to come into play. The fact that you shoot a near perfect score with pistol X and barely make marksman with pistol Y does not make one bit of difference in the grand scheme of things. In fact, your personal survival doesn't matter either, to put it bluntly. Perfectly fitting armor? Or the ability to put everyone in armor? Sure, individuals might perform better in more perfectly fitting armor, but if the result is that 25% of your people don't have armor you created a huge hassle for staff when figuring out tasking, not to mention morale issues. A grunt might bitch and moan about armor not being quite right, but take the armor away from a unit being shot at and you would get a whole new level of complaints.

TL:DR - Individuality means higher cost, less availability, less ability to preposition and plan, resulting in lower total unit readiness over time. Personal weapons being insignificant in the total calculus of war, any potential improvement would be a drop in the bucket compared to the costs and difficulties even if it never resulted in a weapon being unavailable.

Actually you're the one being narcissistic so let me point this out to you. The military does not work the way you think it should or does work. The 30 level MOS's were created to support them and at first it ws just sad that you didn't see it but now it's both hilariously sad as well as pathetic sad that you're being deliberately obtuse and have argued with a 30 level small arms maintainer, an 18 series special Forces MOS, and now a warrant officer and still you refuse to get it that your idea is not only bad, it is gross.

You don't know logistics. We've explained to you that the logistics of your scheme will not work. This is chess, not checkers.

First off, thank you for taking the time to write this. Most of this I knew from a top level, but it was very enlightening to hear it talked from the down and in position.

From reading this I'm assuming you're talking from an Army point of view. Nothing wrong with this, I just want to make sure my assumption is correct.

"On an average deployment for a regiment there will be a certain number of weapons that go down 100% due to damage or loss. Then a certain percentage that just need new sights, new springs, replacement bolts.... This is all long researched and understood, with a certain margin for error factored in."

This is not true of the P320 the Army just selected. This won't be understood until we are well into the next engagement. Whether my proposal takes hold or the military as a whole selects the P320 I think the following is the way to go.

A new 21st century concept exists in that it is often more cost effective to trash and replace as opposed to performing maintenance and repair. M&R is very expensive. The Space Shuttle program was essentially a case study in this. The shuttle required an Army of techs and engineers to keep it flying. This is why NASA has went retired it to go with the SLS deep space (1xs use) rocket for the future of America space exploration. It's cheaper to build a new rocket for every flight than it is to M&R a multiple use vehicle. Back to the issue of pistols. It will be cheaper to keep extra P320s on hand to replace broken/problem units than it will be to plan and keep the logistics required to M&R them. Then you send the broken P320s back to the supplier in the states, a small unit in the states responsible for this, or trash the pistol. This will be true in small part due to the small footprint that a few extra pistols will require. We're not talking about keeping extra crew served wpns in the inventory.

Added: or instead of trashing keep a couple of broke units on hand to repair minor problem (e.g. springs).

For most of the reasons you presented I'd never imagine that this individualism would be possible for rifles, trucks, tanks, arty, or the like. However, pistols don't fall into that category of criticallity to the success of the unit's mission. The pistol is solely about the capability and survivability of the individual. Currently, about 10% of combat troops (basic grunts) in a firefight have an M9 backup pistol. It's easily repaired by the unit, but when 1 in 10 war fighters have an m9, how does that increase the capability unit or survivability of the grunts ? Under my proposal, we'll likely see 9 out of 10 war fighters with a pistol back up. It may not be capable of being repaired in short order, but they're still much better off in an Urban Environment firefight than they are today. So if a guy who wouldn't otherwise have a sidearm, is without his for 4 weeks because the unit doesn't carry the needed extra parts, he's still better off than he is today, when it is working.

I understand where you're coming from and do respect your stance on logistics. However, the truth is the military does and always will revolve around the success of the boots on the ground.

"Actually, the military revolves around getting the right resources to the right place at the right time more often than the other guy. Those resources can be people, fuel, explosives, food, water..."

I do agree with your first line in that our logistics capability is in large part what makes the US military the greatest military in world history and allowed us to prevail in previous, drawn out theaters of war. However, it's not what took Iwo Jima and the beaches of Normady. If our grunts aren't winning the battles, kicking in doors logistics is a mute point.  

I will add that in respect to your points on the shear volumes of grunts in the Army and how it does revolve so strongly around logistics this may not be possible. However, my Marine Corps would fall somewhere between SOCOM/SOF and big Army. I think the proposal has a lot of merit for the Corps. We thrive on doing more with less.

I was referring to the whole US Military, from the National Guard through SOCOM. You are correct, that the smaller the organization the easier it is to allow individuality in some respects, but in others it is harder. You have a smaller supply chain structure to work with, fewer numbers to average out across. If you wound up with, just to spitball, 20 permitted handguns, it would be much easier for a 15,000 man division to handle than a single regiment or company in theater. At 15,000 troops you might have 5,000 sidearms (totally estimated and obviously varies dramatically between unit types), and 4000 of those are whatever the standard issue weapon is because the soldier didn't care or happens to like that one just fine. The other 1,000 might be mostly split between a few similar weapons with a few outliers, but that is where the problem comes in. You just made it REALLY hard to know which weapons will see the most use and have the most wear. You made it almost impossible to keep the right spares in the pipeline at the right time unless you have a lot of surplus spares. What do you do with the five HK P2000's that guys pick? Are they in the field a lot or are they REMFs? What is the failure rate of each component in that soldier's job and situation? Ok, so you keep one extra and some springs and other parts HK says are most likely to fail. When the first one goes down and you replace it, how long to get another? Does your parent unit HAVE any others? Are there any in theater that can be transferred?

With the Sig, they will have to build some knowledge, but they can also use scale to balance it out. There will be issues at first, but I bet the solution is simply that as they are issued the support units will get sufficient spare parts to deal with the realistic immediate needs and there will be available stocks to replace those parts quickly. It doesn't take long when you have huge numbers of units in the field to figure out a rough need on the parts and you can fine tune it over the years. You also have an easier situation since you don't need to worry about having multiple failures of an odd item over a short period, if you have five thousand of them in the unit then your spare parts bins will be able to handle it when a whole squad screws up and uses some cleaning method that destroyed a spring or modular grip piece or something else not expected to fail until after this training cycle. You've got that covered because you had parts for a full cycle with the whole unit. Sure, you'll need to put in a request for more, but in the mean time you're fine. Do that when you have a huge variety and it's a mess.

Let's look at how a supply room might be setup, just as a basis for seeing how this will go badly from a storage point of view.
Parts bins are in racks designed to fill the space. They come in a few sizes, but none of those sizes are really efficient for holding three spring sets for that pistol two guys selected. Hell, they're not even efficient for the three spring sets, replacement sights, replacement trigger and replacement slide stop. You stopped there because you only have so much budget to go around and those parts aren't available nearly as cheaply as the M9 or P320 due to volume buying. The logistics guy basically had to buy them from Brownell's at wholesale, which is twice what the issue parts run. So, now you've got a 4x4x6" bin half full of parts that will, in all honesty, get used once a year at most. By that I mean, something from that bin gets touched other than to be counted once in a year. Multiply that by 20 and you have a couple rows of a typical rack taken up by pistol parts that are mostly pointless but you can't NOT have them. To add insult to injury, someone has to inventory them, adding 20 more bins, with mixed parts, to the already annoying task. In contrast, for the P320, M9, M1911 and maybe another pistol or two depending on the unit, there is one row of bins with each of the normal parts used for servicing those weapons. There is then storage containers of some sort with the EXTRA, in boxes, labeled neatly with ID number, quantity and date information. It's probably even got a nice handy bar code to scan that treats it as a package deal rather than requiring any additional input during inventory or deployment prep. This is how everyone from a medium sized store to the big box stores and any significantly sized government agency operates when they can. So when Bin 0023 - P320/mainspring assembly/standard tension is low enough someone goes to the larger container, gets out a smaller container that has 5, 10, 20... whatever, and dumps them in the bin. The larger container has it's quantity information updated to subtract one box worth and hopefully someone slaps a blank sticker over the bulk quantity barcode, or at least sharpies it so the lazy inventory person next week doesn't just scan that and not look to see there is only two sub boxes left out of twenty. Oh, it gets better. That supply room? It's already stuffed to the gills, in 1960 it was ok, but now it is unable to keep up with the increased storage needs. It doesn't help that two more units got consolidated to that location over the past twenty years. They built new barracks, gyms and messhalls, but the weapon maint. room for sidearms wasn't exactly a priority. The new armory got that space because putting optics on all the rifles made them take up more space. So, instead of having those extra storage containers in the actual parts area they are in some shipping container half a mile away and only a few folks have the key for obvious reasons.

If you got what you are hoping for, a reasonable spread of side arms across a unit rather than just a few main ones and then a couple oddballs in small numbers, you'd have a real nightmare even ignoring getting the parts and keeping them available in the first place. This isn't even in theater, just back in garrison. Now you need two or three times as many storage bins worth of parts because you've got a bunch of glock 17's, a bunch of 19's, a bunch of Springfield 1911's, a bunch of Kimber 1911's, a hundred Sig P220, a bunch of HK's in various flavors.... Just enough of each to need a couple storage containers worth of parts (think storage tote, not big metal shipping container, thankfully). Someone's gotta keep track of all this stuff, actual hands on counts... so you can't just shove it all in the shipping container and close the door. In comparison, from what I gather they are replacing whole units at a time with the P320, starting very soon. A friend's son just finished tanker school and got to his unit and they're not even doing the paperwork to assign an M9, it will be a P320 right from the get go. I'm not sure what unit but I think he said they were in Georgia, which narrows it down slightly. lol. By doing whole units at once, and completely phasing out the M9 in each unit as they go, they can much more easily keep spares in storage along with in the individual parts bins while taking up WAY less space. Over time the rack will get adjusted, maybe they find that they go through a lot more mainsprings than they did on the M9's, but not as many triggers. The trigger bins will shrink to one, the spare bin will become mainsprings. Not to be ignored, there will be some hassle finding spots for the various modular parts, let's face it, they weren't a factor on the M9 and there's no bin currently assigned to each of the grip pieces and such. But, compared to having 50 different weapons involved it's a piece of cake. So you shipped out too many of half the parts initially, no big deal, the unit will order fewer next cycle. As things start to wear out they'll have sufficient stock on hand to deal with platoon or company sized maint. cycles without running out of anything and time to request more before the next big group. Let's face it, there's only a couple guys doing this work for a relatively large number of weapons/grunts. You aren't talking depot level work refurbishing 5000 pistols that have seen twenty years of service and their rails are practically gone and the mag well has craters the size of the grand canyon. The problem isn't "can we get the parts" it's whether it's practical to even bother.

Honestly, it all comes down to return on investment, the minute you leave the world of SOF, and let's even leave the Rangers out of this, the potential gains do not justify the hassle and expense. If you are using your handgun, and it matters what you are carrying, you're so far past any normal situation it's not even funny. You might as well go back to issuing trench knives. If you're down to using a handgun, you should have grabbed the nearest dropped M4 or gotten on the crew served weapon that is no longer being served. Sure, they have their roles, but that role is not one where personalization matters. The amount of hassle it involves even if you open it up to 5 choices exceeds the cost and hassle of just increasing training with the primary choice. I'm a 1911 guy, it's what I shoot best and I've carried one most of my adult life. No question that on the range I am better with one than anything else I've used in terms of handguns when discussing practical shooting rather than precision target shooting. BUT, is the difference between my shooting with a 1911 and a Glock 19 or M9 or Sig P220 or S&W 622 all that different in the scenarios the military cares about for general issue handguns? Not even remotely. I can take any new shooter off the street, hand them any decent handgun and train them to hit the target somewhere in the center of mass with their first round under moderate stress in about an hour. Severe stress takes training that has little to do with shooting, and is something the military already does well at, particularly the USMC. It doesn't matter what the gun is, for practical results, as long as it's there and it works. Half the reason for the P320 is to reduce the total number of sidearms as it is. The modularity and modern design let it replace several existing sidearms in various roles. Is it as good at all of them as what it replaces? Eh, maybe, maybe not. But it's good enough and the folks who get enough training to notice the difference probably get to pick what they want to use anyway.

The military isn't about individuals, despite the "Army of One" campaign a few years back. The military is about teamwork at the squad level all the way through the services cooperating as much as possible. (stop laughing, damnit).

Again, you do not know a thing about logistics.

Brother you just made my case for not maintaining pistols at the unit level. Carry extra pistols, replace pistols that need maintenance, and get new pistols to restock the supply of extras. The unit should carry enough pistols to meet it's needs (y) plus a few extras (x). As you pointed out we will be able to refine exactly what x should be after some field time. Then with some time under the iWASP proposal the units will be able to lower y.  So what does that do to logistics if that becomes SOP?

Any iWASP pistols should and will be maintained by the user. If it goes down and the unit deems that they need a pistol, the unit issues them a sidearm from their inventory.

Let's eliminate another variable. Each unit is required to select 2 pistols for the unit armory. Now is logistics really a problem for the individual's pistol who's maintenance is not the responsibility of the unit?

"The military isn't about individuals," I couldn't agree more! However, gear is to some degree. If your boots fail you in country you will likely only get 1 option for replacement and that's okay. But back in the rear during predeployment you have a few options.

One thing that keeps getting over looked because of the focus on logistics is all the combat forces that aren't issued a pistol now nor will be under the new P320. Per current SOP every gunner should be issued an M9. We've more often than not seen that they don't get the M9 as the officer needs it so he doesn't have to carry a rifle around base. A standard MArine Corps Infantry squad of 13 will likely only have 2 M9s (at least in my experience). I don't see this changing with the incoming P320.

In a conventional war a pistol may not be needed, in a jungle war like Vietnam it was probably not worth the weight it added. However, in urban warfare a sidearm backup can mean the difference between life and death. A gunner going down the street and some rag head comes up in his blind spot to quick for them to swing the 240 around or it's to close to use the mk19. A jarhead is clearing a room when his mag runs dry or he has a FTF, they need that sidearm available to them as a quickly deployable backup to the rifle to be deployed just long enough to get them back to their rifle. iWASP fixes this problem to a very large degree. Sure there will be logistical hurdles., but they will be well worth working to overcome.

define unit? As the guys above already clarified, small units don't do their own, it happens further up the chart. That's the problem, you're not talking about pistols for a single company having to be managed. Forget individual soldiers being responsible for upkeep of their own, just doesn't happen. For starters, how many sets of tools do you plan to have around? Are the troops expected to keep their own? Then you get into the fact that other than on deployment they generally don't HAVE their sidearms. They get them from the armory, go to the range or duty, then return them. Any that need work are then sent to a completely different set of people and facilities to be worked on. I'm sure there are places where the two happen to be located in the same building or even co-located, but they aren't the same folks.

Trash and replace sounds great until you have a half million or so units and can actually have depot level repair facilities and get factory support. Yes, handguns are relatively cheap, but they're also relatively reliable. Minor upkeep on average for many years of use. If you throw them out every time they need something that can't be swapped out while field stripping the weapon then your service life is much much shorter. If you had to keep people and facilities around JUST for those handguns then it may not make sense to not just do complete swaps, but the same people work on a variety of weapons, many of which cost significantly more and require much more regular work. As you pointed out, handguns in most units are a small time thing, but it adds up. Another factor is space and weight. It doesn't sound like a big deal one on one, but space and weight can be at a premium when moving things to the other side of the world. The military does not operate at a profit, but they do operate on a budget, right down to the individual small units. It's a lot cheaper to repair a pistol than replace it, particularly since you still need trained people to determine what is wrong and whether to replace it at all. As the guys mentioned, more often than not they could fix something quickly and easily, so a $5-20 part got a $300 weapon back in the field. Over a couple years it might have cost $100 per pistol to keep it going in terms of parts. Since we're talking about the organization that still has M9's floating around from decades ago, even M1911's that date from before the M9....

Basically, what you're talking about works great for smaller units, maybe company sized and smaller, that operate outside the normal logistics flow. Heck, maybe even a battallion if it isn't one that has a higher than average number of pistols. That's a very different animal than a multi-service plan spanning decades of use. Could it be more efficient? Maybe, if you recreated the whole military logistics system for that kind of thing. More than likely you'd see something a bit different. A unit would deploy with N+X pistols. N being the number actually being issued, X being the number of spares estimated to be needed if absolutely ZERO repair work is done until the unit returns stateside. They would then turn in pistols to the armory as they failed and get a replacement. Upon return to the states the whole set would go off for depot level service and probably be replaced, with the refurbished ones going to a different unit when they were done. To make this practical the unit would be doing the same with rifles, LMG's and maybe even HMG. Basically, no service work done while deployed, store it and get a fresh one out of the plastic. However, you'd have to do this at a large enough scale that you DID replace those trained folks and their dedicated equipment and parts bins. Worse, many of the weapons they service are not normally rotated with the troops and stay for use by the next folks. Oops, who's servicing those? Let's face it, those crew served toys are the real firepower for the grunts and when they go down you need someone with a clue, tools and parts, it's not practical to ship them out just because a spring or extractor broke. So you'd still need SOME service available for those, at which point the added equipment and parts for a few handguns is not really a big deal, probably no more than having the replacements, in the long run. In addition, as I'm sure you're aware, the military gets kind of anal about keeping track of things. Given the choice between keeping track of an extra 20% in pistols that are being swapped out in theater, or keeping track of some parts where you probably don't wind up being seriously chewed on if a few are missing at the end of a cycle.... One pistol missing from inventory, or a slightly higher than expected and improperly logged spare parts use... hmmmm, Yeah, I'll take NOT having my backside probed with a rusty pitchfork.

That also ignores lawyers.

It was always explained to me that the reason a person could not bring a personal weapon downrange was because it violated the rule of land warfare. 87 different pistols? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Maybe you should send this letter to Gen Hawk and CC 1SG Duke.

You know what would be way more useful than this?

Better USGI socks.

No, sorry dude its just not how it works. Besides, the P320 solved your "this gun doesn't fit me" argument.

The next objective in military small arms should be a free float extended rail/handguard for the big army's M4A1 and standardizing on a modern ammunition load. They already wasted enough of our money on pistols.

Usually even G.O.s get into "receive mode"  when senior Warrants start 'splainin' stuff.....oh well.  

It will never happen unless you can paper clip a stupidly large check to the congressmen and then that's just to read it and smile at you while thinking you're a rube he can rob.

I would recommend redirecting your efforts elsewhere. This pursuit is fruitless.

Sorry OP, it won't happen.

The USMC guys brought personal pistols during Desert Shield/Storm. Many didn't still.

They disallowed it after that. Can't remember, but logistics was an issue.

I'd like to bring my own since units don't issue most the time. Still though, they allowed it in the past, but now you can't even use decent pickups.

Most soldiers aren't trained, some would want to use junk guns, use junk mags, junk holsters, etc.

It's not happening.

I don't want politicians dictating stuff like this to the mil. In fact, time to reverse the political dictations.