3
3
0
Should officers someday be allowed to qualify with their own sidearm, as long as it is within the same "family" as the issued weapon...i.e.,semi-auto, size, etc?
Personally, I would jump at the chance to use my Glock 23. Heck, I'd pay for the ammo.
Personally, I would jump at the chance to use my Glock 23. Heck, I'd pay for the ammo.
Posted in these groups: 
Weapons
Firearms and Guns
Weapons Firearms and Guns
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 23
11
11
0
After almost 30 years of service, I've learned that a day on the range is value added, the more range time you can get the better you are and typically the more disciplined that unit is. I would support a unit range day where the entire unit (not just officers) could qualify with their personally owned sidearm, that is during the normal duty day!
The value in having a specific weapon across the unit is the familiarity of the weapon as well as common ammo, magazines and etc. So, qualification and use in a tactical environment are two different things.
Allowing different weapons across unit does happen at times with some of our most specialized units insomuch as having individualized weapons, I take no issue with this as these professionals spend so much time perfecting their craft that the weapon is typically an extension of themselves!
The value in having a specific weapon across the unit is the familiarity of the weapon as well as common ammo, magazines and etc. So, qualification and use in a tactical environment are two different things.
Allowing different weapons across unit does happen at times with some of our most specialized units insomuch as having individualized weapons, I take no issue with this as these professionals spend so much time perfecting their craft that the weapon is typically an extension of themselves!
(11)
(0)
CSM Michael J. Uhlig
It does wonders for the morale TSgt Joshua Copeland and every day on the range is a great day for training.
(0)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
CSM Michael J. Uhlig, definitely a constructive way to blow off steam and get some firing time that as AF Folks, we sadly don't get enough of!
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
CSM Michael J. Uhlig going to the range and shooting with our assigned weapons is precisely why we joined the Army in the first place! I always remind Soldiers that the instant they catch themselves pissing and moaning about going to the range is the day they have to start their preparations to ETS or retire.
(4)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
CSM Michael J. Uhlig Sorry, I cut myself short there and didn't realize it. With personally-owned weapons, absolutely! Contrary to the current thinking of Big Army, this could easily be done. A day or two prior to the range-fire, all of the personally-owned weapons proposed for inclusion in the event could be brought to the Arms Room, inspected for functionality and safety. Those approved would be placed in a one spot where they could be drawn during weapons issue. Any firearm not passing, either deemed unsafe or illegal could be red-tagged and set aside. Either way, nothing would be leaving the Arms Room until the day of the shoot, and even then, only those firearms deemed legal and safe would be permitted to make it to the event. This way, you can prevent those firearms you do not want on the range from making their way there covertly. Once the event is over, you can work with the individual Soldiers to either make their firearm safe or legally compliant. As for the ammo, that too could be collected and inspected, although for safety's sake, at a time separate from firearms inspection.
As an MP in the USAR, my Soldiers work for a myriad of law enforcement organizations. I have little concern that what the vast majority of my Soldiers would bring to an event such as this would be legally-compliant. This would be a lot of fun for most troops involved as it would be akin to show-and-tell day in Kindergarten. Their would be much discussion on the merits of different makes and models, various calibers, etc.
In an AD setting, the assortment of firearms might not be quite as diverse, but for young MPs intent on pursuing civilian law enforcement careers, it would still be every bit as enjoyable.
One caveat on ammunition, and I learned this one while training MPs to deploy to Iraq for the PTT mission in 2004: You cannot take government-procurred rounds and fire them through a non-government-issued firearm! Do not get caught doing this! It is bad juju!!! In 2004, the DOJ made the call to issue the Glock 19 9mm to all Iraqi Police nationwide. Whereas the vast majority of the young Soldiers I was training had little to no familiarity with the Glock, I contacted the Glock Law Enforcement Service Rep for the State of Wisconsin. He offered to bring a contact team of 6 trainers to Fort McCoy with weapons, and put the unit through the 3-day Glock Armorer's Course, at no expense to the government. Day 3 included a familiarization fire of 50 rounds. I put in the forecast, and made CSMs and GOs heads melt! Believe it or not, it went all the way to CENTCOM for the thumbs up. It was that big of a deal! Who knew?
As an MP in the USAR, my Soldiers work for a myriad of law enforcement organizations. I have little concern that what the vast majority of my Soldiers would bring to an event such as this would be legally-compliant. This would be a lot of fun for most troops involved as it would be akin to show-and-tell day in Kindergarten. Their would be much discussion on the merits of different makes and models, various calibers, etc.
In an AD setting, the assortment of firearms might not be quite as diverse, but for young MPs intent on pursuing civilian law enforcement careers, it would still be every bit as enjoyable.
One caveat on ammunition, and I learned this one while training MPs to deploy to Iraq for the PTT mission in 2004: You cannot take government-procurred rounds and fire them through a non-government-issued firearm! Do not get caught doing this! It is bad juju!!! In 2004, the DOJ made the call to issue the Glock 19 9mm to all Iraqi Police nationwide. Whereas the vast majority of the young Soldiers I was training had little to no familiarity with the Glock, I contacted the Glock Law Enforcement Service Rep for the State of Wisconsin. He offered to bring a contact team of 6 trainers to Fort McCoy with weapons, and put the unit through the 3-day Glock Armorer's Course, at no expense to the government. Day 3 included a familiarization fire of 50 rounds. I put in the forecast, and made CSMs and GOs heads melt! Believe it or not, it went all the way to CENTCOM for the thumbs up. It was that big of a deal! Who knew?
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
I pity the 5m target with my saw-off shotgun. Don't worry lanes 1-3....I got this.
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
It was not so long ago that certain individuals (usually senior officers) were allowed to use their personally owned sidearms as their service weapon. I wouldn't mind bringing my own pistol to war. It's pretty tricked out and in a lot better shape than the clunker that's sitting in the arms room.... ;o)
(4)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
MAJ (Join to see), my issue with the M9 is not the grip. It's very slender for a doulbe stack 9mm. It's that is a very long pistol. I find that it has a lot more muzzle flip than my Glock 23. I also like the Glock's low bore axis, which makes the recoil feel more straight back vs up. I can't stand how Sigs, H&Ks and XDs feel too "tall" in my hand. Those 3 have a relatively high bore axis.
(1)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
MAJ (Join to see), and yeah, not spending $1400 on a pistol. For that much money, I'm buying another rifle....
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
LTC Paul Labrador Roger that, Sir. $1,000 is my threshold for handguns. Anything beyond that best have a stock and a scope!
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
I wonder about this every time I go to the range. Famous Service Members were recorded in WW II carrying a personal weapon. Gen Patton was not the only one.
(4)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
However, I'm sure there was quite a bit more 'overlooking' of things in WWII. The generals pretty much had the same mindset, "kill them Nazi bastards however you can."
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
There were a lot less laws & executive orders about the importing and exporting of firearms prior to 1968.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) , Great point! LTC Yinon Weiss , how do the Spec Ops guys get away with carrying their own, or at the very least, weapons that have been customized for them?
(1)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
MAJ (Join to see) - Contrary to some myths, spec ops guys are not authorized to carry weapons that are not in the military inventory. However, there is more leeway in adapting weapons for a particiuar mission set, if it's appropriate for the task.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
LTC Yinon Weiss LTC Yinon Weiss Thank you for the insight, I stayed away from the SPEC-OPs discussion. Because I also understood Kimbers and other now typical brands may be carried but are added to the property books or account for at the least. If I am correct the special weapons acquisitions and modifications are justified through "operational needs statements" (ONS).
Various individuals that have spent time supporting or working in the Spec-Ops community have occasionally brought such practices back to the conventional force, when they rotated to conventional units. I was surprised to learn that the constraints are the same on the other side of the fence. The key difference is budget and scope of the mission make building the case in an operational needs statement much easier. Plus most of those who are selected to serve in the Spec-Ops have volunteered many times in their careers so the commitment of people in the support systems and organizations have goals that are more aligned with those they support and are considerably more mission focused.
Various individuals that have spent time supporting or working in the Spec-Ops community have occasionally brought such practices back to the conventional force, when they rotated to conventional units. I was surprised to learn that the constraints are the same on the other side of the fence. The key difference is budget and scope of the mission make building the case in an operational needs statement much easier. Plus most of those who are selected to serve in the Spec-Ops have volunteered many times in their careers so the commitment of people in the support systems and organizations have goals that are more aligned with those they support and are considerably more mission focused.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) , Ah, yes! How could I forget our good friend the ONS? My Supply Sergeant during my deployment was fresh from the USACAPOC world, where his AD friends from the SF world transformed him into an ONS maestro! I would merely mention that I wished I had... and he would show up 20 minutes later with the ONS memo in hand! I am glad I had the wisdom to use his powers judiciously; no telling where I could be incarcerated today!
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
LTC Yinon Weiss and MAJ (Join to see) I have written a few myself and found if you spend the time (equal to the amount of time spent on a resume) developing a sound, clear and concise case behind your ONS, you can often get at least a portion of the request fulfilled. Commanders drive the approval process but they need the ONS to be air tight so they do not lose creditability in the process. If an ONS is kicked back, it could be budget but not entirely. The cause for rejection is budget but is the pay-off as valuable as the dollars spent. If everyone is fighting for the same money then you have to proportionally increase your effort in crafting the ONS. Now as you increase you effort to when the dollars, you have to ask yourself is the effort worth the dollars.
Gentlemen, as a new S4, I am looking at sustainment/logistic within my unit in terms of dollars and the overall impact to cost of operations. So I can inform my Squadron XO so he may present to the Brigade XO and inform the Squadron Commander's decision making process. Ultimately the goal is to equipment my Squadron's Command Team to advocate for the unit's needs. They do not know this about me yet because, I am waiting until I can anticipate what it is they want to focus on. Not that they do not communicate. They definately communicate but I am new and can only look at supporting operations planning and trainning. However, I hope to develop the ability to anticipate my leadership's needs as well with in the next few months. Sorry if I went on a tangent but this conversation inspired some good thinking. The best part most of this work will not require others to do more than they do now. In fact I might do more so they do less.
So why do I share this inspiration? Simply feedback, I am giving it and soliciting it.
Gentlemen, as a new S4, I am looking at sustainment/logistic within my unit in terms of dollars and the overall impact to cost of operations. So I can inform my Squadron XO so he may present to the Brigade XO and inform the Squadron Commander's decision making process. Ultimately the goal is to equipment my Squadron's Command Team to advocate for the unit's needs. They do not know this about me yet because, I am waiting until I can anticipate what it is they want to focus on. Not that they do not communicate. They definately communicate but I am new and can only look at supporting operations planning and trainning. However, I hope to develop the ability to anticipate my leadership's needs as well with in the next few months. Sorry if I went on a tangent but this conversation inspired some good thinking. The best part most of this work will not require others to do more than they do now. In fact I might do more so they do less.
So why do I share this inspiration? Simply feedback, I am giving it and soliciting it.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) to your comment about judicious use. That is so true and highlights the roles of NCOs and Officers. Officers proactively identify needs and required changes. NCOs and the Soldiers they lead make this stuff happen. However, all leaders must use sound judgment or else they risk becoming idea fairies. Idea fairies are nothing more than leaders failing the properly plan which would include priorities and allocation of personnel, time and resources. As FM 22-9 stated that “leaders who fail to lead their Soldiers into exhaustion”. FM 22-9 is what I recommend every leader to find a copy and read. The Army spent a lot of money on the research and the manual was printed in the sized of the FM 7-8 (cargo pocket size) and was less than 100 pages.
The manual to which I referred is no longer printed FM 22-9 Soldier Performance in Continuous Operation
The research that supports it
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA160470 (the first became on became FM 22-6)
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Panagiotis_Matsangas/publication/49740034_Sleep_and_fatigue_issues_in_continuous_operations_a_survey_of_U.S._Army_officers/links/0fcfd50d08ff71a3ee000000.pdf
The manual that replaced it is FM 6-22.5 Combat and Operational Stress Control Manual for Leaders and Soldiers
The manual to which I referred is no longer printed FM 22-9 Soldier Performance in Continuous Operation
The research that supports it
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA160470 (the first became on became FM 22-6)
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Panagiotis_Matsangas/publication/49740034_Sleep_and_fatigue_issues_in_continuous_operations_a_survey_of_U.S._Army_officers/links/0fcfd50d08ff71a3ee000000.pdf
The manual that replaced it is FM 6-22.5 Combat and Operational Stress Control Manual for Leaders and Soldiers
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
As much as I would like to carry my own sidearm, rifle into combat, I would say "no" for a logistical point of view.
Assuming you were allowed to bring your own sidearm or other weapon into theater....
1. If you need repair parts, how are you going to get them into theater? Besides having to order them and have the shipped to your location, there are export laws that may prevent companies from shipping you repair parts.
2. Some people have said they will purchase or bring their own ammunition. How much then? If you need resupply and it's not 9mm (meaning you can't acquire it from in theater), how are you going to get that ammo to you (export laws again).
Other considerations....
We have standardized weapons so that parts and ammunition are interchangeable among all branches of service and ammunition can be transferred easily between units, branches and allies in the supply system.
If there were a catastrophic malfunction with your weapon or ammunition that you acquire outside of the normal supply systems, I would think the military would give you a high five and say good luck, not their problem since it wasn't their weapon or ammo.
We complain about the differences in uniform before our branches of service and how people don't look "uniform" because people can't wear a beret correctly or place ribbons on their uniform....but we'd be okay with people running around the battlefield with their own firearms? That's inconsistent.
There are other arguments that could be made....think that's good for now.
Assuming you were allowed to bring your own sidearm or other weapon into theater....
1. If you need repair parts, how are you going to get them into theater? Besides having to order them and have the shipped to your location, there are export laws that may prevent companies from shipping you repair parts.
2. Some people have said they will purchase or bring their own ammunition. How much then? If you need resupply and it's not 9mm (meaning you can't acquire it from in theater), how are you going to get that ammo to you (export laws again).
Other considerations....
We have standardized weapons so that parts and ammunition are interchangeable among all branches of service and ammunition can be transferred easily between units, branches and allies in the supply system.
If there were a catastrophic malfunction with your weapon or ammunition that you acquire outside of the normal supply systems, I would think the military would give you a high five and say good luck, not their problem since it wasn't their weapon or ammo.
We complain about the differences in uniform before our branches of service and how people don't look "uniform" because people can't wear a beret correctly or place ribbons on their uniform....but we'd be okay with people running around the battlefield with their own firearms? That's inconsistent.
There are other arguments that could be made....think that's good for now.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
"Should Officers be allowed to".... No!
You need to qualify with the weapon(s) you are assigned, and that you will carry into (and use) in combat, just like everyone else. Qualification is about demonstrating your ability to fire your assigned military weapon(s), not your ability to fire your you personal weapons? It is also about doing it the same same task, conditions, and standards as your Soldiers.
Why on earth would we do anything that starts with "should officers be allowed to?" if no one else is allowed to? Even if you started with "should Soldiers be allowed to"... My answer would still be No!!!
You need to Lead by example, and train and excel to the same tasks, conditions, and standards as your Soldiers are required to do; right along side of them.
You need to qualify with the weapon(s) you are assigned, and that you will carry into (and use) in combat, just like everyone else. Qualification is about demonstrating your ability to fire your assigned military weapon(s), not your ability to fire your you personal weapons? It is also about doing it the same same task, conditions, and standards as your Soldiers.
Why on earth would we do anything that starts with "should officers be allowed to?" if no one else is allowed to? Even if you started with "should Soldiers be allowed to"... My answer would still be No!!!
You need to Lead by example, and train and excel to the same tasks, conditions, and standards as your Soldiers are required to do; right along side of them.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
COL Charles Williams , Sir, insofar as qualifying for record, I fully concur with you. And I agree, this is a poorly-worded question. So long as this discussion is limited to handguns and assault rifles however, once a Company-sized element has completed it's Pistol Qualification, and if time has been allotted for it on the training schedule, I would see no major issues with allowing Soldiers to bring their POWs to the range for additional shooting. The fundamentals of pistol marksmanship are the same, regardless of the style or caliber of pistol an individual is firing. This is value-added training in a fun and safe manner. One may argue that this doesn't make sense for most Soldiers, and I can respect that; but for MPs, who may be called upon to engage someone with their sidearm throughout the course of their duty day, additional range time never hurts!
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
WOW! A lot of good replies on this one in a short period of time. Thanks! It was just a shot in the dark (no pun intended) to see what you all thought about it. I do agree that being the same, or "standard" across the board is important.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Other then my though of no for reasons that SSgt (Join to see), Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS and Cpl Michael Strickler mentioned. If it is going to be "buy your own ammo" why not just let anyone qualify on any weapon as long as they are buying their own ammo?
Capt Richard I P.
Capt Richard I P.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Easily rolled in with a Joint Pistol carry qualification test on personally owned weapons as suggested in:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
No.
When you are qualifying, you are qualifying on a specific weapon system, or group of weapon systems. In the USMC, that is the M9 (Berreta 92FS) for pistol, and the M4/M16A2/M203 (AR15~) for rifle. As that standard changes, and additional weapons are added, the qualifications are updated.
But a Glock 23 is a single action Strike Fired weapon. A M9 is a single action, double action, hammer fired weapon. They are not comparable, other than the fact that they are both pistols. Just because they are both 9mm, doesn't mean they will fire the same in combat, nor will you be able to shoot them equally.
I am a VERY good shot with my 1911 .45. I am mediocre shot with an M9. If you look at the grips on the two weapons, there is a significant difference, which changes my hand placement "at the draw."
In other words, we need to qualify with the weapon (class) which we are actually going to use in combat.
When you are qualifying, you are qualifying on a specific weapon system, or group of weapon systems. In the USMC, that is the M9 (Berreta 92FS) for pistol, and the M4/M16A2/M203 (AR15~) for rifle. As that standard changes, and additional weapons are added, the qualifications are updated.
But a Glock 23 is a single action Strike Fired weapon. A M9 is a single action, double action, hammer fired weapon. They are not comparable, other than the fact that they are both pistols. Just because they are both 9mm, doesn't mean they will fire the same in combat, nor will you be able to shoot them equally.
I am a VERY good shot with my 1911 .45. I am mediocre shot with an M9. If you look at the grips on the two weapons, there is a significant difference, which changes my hand placement "at the draw."
In other words, we need to qualify with the weapon (class) which we are actually going to use in combat.
(2)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
We just need DoD to adopt Glocks..... ;o).... or get myself attached to a secret squirrel unit that uses them and has the log chaing to suppor them..... ;o)
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
The other option is to have your armorer attend the Glock classes, in anticipation of having FBI/DIA "support" at some point in the future. Last I checked it was a week long course, with no pre-requisites (I'm a former gun dealer). Alternatively, you can take the course yourself, and get it entered into your own record jacket... then if it ever comes up.....
(2)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
LoL...I can see that now: "Sooooooo, you're an ER nurse AND a certified Glock armorer.....?" ;o)
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
LTC Paul Labrador Why not? Who better to ensure that weapons are working safely?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google