Letters to the Editor - Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Letters to the Editor

The pistol after this one

If the Army must choose another pistol, it should keep the 9mm cartridge, and either adopt something from Beretta like the M9A1 or the Smith &Wesson M&P 9mm Long Slide [“Aiming for a better pistol,” Aug. 29].

While I am not a fan of the M9, I do own one for a couple of reasons. First, the Army does not provide adequate training with pistols — training that would prepare someone to skillfully employ a weapon to kill. Next, since the M9 is — at the moment — the service pistol, it is in my best interest to master it.

With a suitable level of the most rudimentary training, qualifying “expert” on the laughable Alternate Pistol Qualification Course or Combat Pistol Qualification Course is something any soldier should be able to do in his sleep. That soldiers cannot routinely do so is a solid indictment of the poor quality of pistol training, or more accurately the absence of the skills and abilities required among leaders to create small-arms mastery among the force.

Most of the problems associated with the M9 reside squarely in training. But the U.S. military typically addresses its challenges with technology, rather than elbow grease, so I expect to see a new pistol or more likely a new “Personal Defense Weapon” altogether. The FN P90 in 5.7mm or the HK MP7 in 4.6mm are both off-the-shelf options. If the Army takes a page from the design of the new M855A1 bullet and uses the same principles to create a new bullet for the MP7 in 4.6mm, that would be a leap ahead in terms of sidearm accuracy and lethality that isn’t going to come from a pistol.

— Sgt. 1st Class Jose A. Garcia, Paso Robles, Calif.

I hate it [the M9]. There was nothing wrong with the 1911, I still carry one every day I can. The single action is easier to squeeze, thus it is easier to shoot. There is no problem with carrying cocked and locked; there are several experts that say it is very safe.

It is a 100-year-old gun that has survived World War II, and every action up to Desert Storm, and then was carried longer by Special Forces and other government agencies. The 45ACP is far superior to the 9mm; there are too many reports to back this up. Look to see what professional shooters, trainers and civilians carry.

— Sgt. Daniel Boyle, Warren, Ohio

As soon as I read “Aiming for a better pistol” in the Aug. 29 issue, I knew taxpayers can look forward to paying millions of dollars on another unnecessary study. The Army is planning to repeat tests that have already been conducted on weapons that have also proved their capabilities with law enforcement officers for two decades.

The best carbine for the infantry is a real rifle. Likewise, the best pistol for people who need it for self-defense in a combat zone is a carbine. The M4 carbine should be adequate for those people who have been relying on a pistol for self-defense. I have many experiences in my law enforcement career that qualify me to say that you need something better than a 9mm or .38 caliber when someone is trying to take your life.

For those who really need a pistol, like plainclothes investigators, I would suggest the Glock 23, which is a .40 caliber and a little shorter than the Glock 22. These weapons are already thoroughly tested and used in law enforcement for 20 years.

— Former Spc. Roger Harris, Roanoke, Va.

The Army should first focus on replacing the very outdated M16/A2 that many soldiers are still carrying in Iraq and Afghanistan. The majority of service members who carry an M9 pistol do not have to use it for anything because they either work in an office all deployment or they just do not go on missions. Before the Army talks about replacing the pistol, it really needs to think about ridding the Army of this 30-plus-year-old rifle.

— Staff Sgt. Gregory Berges, Killeen, Texas

Like the ongoing Army Individual Carbine competition you, cannot expect to receive the best technical solution from industry when you do not specify key performance specifications like caliber. The Air Force does not ask for a new aircraft without specifying its required range or maximum load-carrying ability. The same applies to small arms.

The terminal effect (“lethality”) of small arms is not that of the firearm but the projectile it launches. Asking for an “increase in permanent wound channel” is not a function of the pistol but of the caliber and specifically the projectile it fires. The Army should test and then down-select the best caliber and round that meets the terminal effects requirement and then request proposals in that caliber. To do otherwise is a predictable failure.

— Former Staff Sgt. Jim Schatz, Lovettsville, Va.

What makes a leader

In reference to “Strong leaders: What makes a good one?” per Army Times dated Aug. 22, the following sentences will attempt to define the adjective “good.”

On assumption the question pertains to Army leaders in particular, [these are people] who reflect true acknowledgment of serving the people of the United States and upholding the Army Values in both their personal and professional lives. With a keen sense for recognizing danger, the ability to see beyond superficial issues, the allowance for two-way dialogue and a command presence for adhering to and enforcing standard, these individuals will receive the utmost respect from subordinates, peers, superiors, both laterally and vertically within and external to their chain of authority. These individuals will embrace zero tolerance for any signs of belittling, berating, degrading or humiliation within the confines of that authority. Quite the contrary, they will develop, train, mentor, support and respect every soldier with whom they are associated. Any leader holding these attributes will not only be a good leader, but a “virtuous” one.

— Maj. Debbie Lipscomb, Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

Retirement unfairness

I’m responding to the article in reference to changes to the retirement plan [“Hatching a new nest egg,” Aug. 8]. I don’t want the proposed change. I want my normal retirement. If the Pentagon is worried about cutting the military’s spending, then it should think about cutting the civilian contracts. Give the military back to its soldiers. Also, I don’t believe that someone serving five years should get anything; minimum 20, keep it that way.

— Sgt. 1st Class Shawn Peterson, Grand Prairie, Texas

I find it alarming that an officer and enlisted, when compared, their retirement benefits are so far apart. Why does an enlisted soldier receive $43,000 and an officer receives almost five times that amount, $211,000? The pay gap between officers and enlisted is ridiculous. When will Americans and Congress look at the pay scales and start closing the grand canyon of a gap? How about they reduce the officers’ pay and benefits and see how that will help the budget?

— Staff Sgt. Paul Martin, Fort Riley, Kan.