Posted in

Milley frustrated at Bureaucracy

by Jonn Lilyea••82

According to Fox News, the Army Chief of Staff, General Mark Milley expressed some frustration over the procurement process for a new handgun for the military services. The military is trying to replace the M9 pistol they began buying in the mid-80s to replace the venerable M1911.

Milley said at the conference that the program is an example of a bureaucratic system that makes it overly complicated to get field equipment to soldiers on the frontlines in a timely matter.

“We are trying to figure out a way to speed up the acquisition system,” Milley said. “Some of these systems take multiple years, some of them decades to develop.”

Milley also pointed out many issues and concerns with the MHS, particularly the $17 million price tag.

“[A] 367-page requirement document. Why?” Milley asked the crowd. “Well, a lawyer says this, and a lawyer says that, and you have to go through this process and that process and you have to have oversight from this that and the other.”

“The testing — I got a briefing the other day — the testing for this pistol is two years,” he added. “Two years to test technology that we know exists. You give me $17 million on the credit card, I’ll call Cabela’s tonight, and I’ll outfit every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine with a pistol and I’ll get a discount on it for bulk buys.”

Lawyers and politicians involved in the process of selecting firearms for the next conflict. Not a particularly timely or useful process. Not a process that either will surrender any aspect of control, either.

You might also like

BG Sinclair retires as LTC Sinclair

Defense Science Board looks at “violent behavior” in the ranks

Senators introduce stopgap to reinstate tuition assistance

82 thoughts on “Milley frustrated at Bureaucracy”

  1. I read that story yesterday and I never realized that the standard military sidearm before the M9 was a Hi Standard 1911 38 Super +P

    1. Where did you get that? The linked story has it correctly, that the 1911 was chambered in .45 (ACP). Maybe they corrected it… to my knowledge no military in the world has ever used a.38 Super as a standard military round – as a matter of fact, its popularity was as a powerful non-military alternative round in places where military calibers (i.e. Mexico) were illegal for citizens to own.

  2. Army. Intelligence. 2 words that don’t go together, when the brass get involved. I kinda like this guy from what I’ve read here, though. Maybe I should make that “Military” instead of Army. I’ve seen plenty of that in the AF, too. Dad served 24 1/2yrs between NG and active duty Army, and I can’t count the times he said Army Intelligence

    1. The version I heard was, “Perfect is the worst enemy of good enough.” But yeah – both versions are IMO absolutely true.

  4. The procurement process most certainly needs streamlined. We can start by cutting out all kinds of needless attempts to procure things that are not needed.

    Lets spend some more on a new Cammo pattern. That should burn up some money and not do a damn thing to help us kill more enemy.

    With the advances in ammo during the last 20 years the 9mm has a slight advantage over the .45 and .40 in almost every category.

    The myth of “knock down” power is exactly that…a myth. A handgun will never have more energy at impact than the amount of recoil when fired. All handguns are under powered.

    I was not a fan of the 9mm when they came out in the mid 80’s and kept my .45. This procurement process problem begins with the fabricated need to replace it with a “more powerful” caliber.

    That is pure bullshit. I own several, carry one often. Anyone that thinks there is an advantage to the .40 or .45 with todays ammo has no idea what they are talking about.

      1. It depends on the gun. If I am carrying a 9mm most of the +p rounds are pretty nice. Currently I use Hornady 135 Critical Duty +P for the 9mm.

        In .40 the Federal 180 gr Hydra Shok.

        In .45 the Hornady 200 gr XTP +P.

        There are several rounds in each cal that are just as effective.

        I recommend anyone who carries use the link here to help make a determination. Although some rounds listed appear to be slightly more effective than others, make sure you fire several boxes of your choice out of your firearm. Some rounds tend to feed improperly or have ejection problems in different guns.

        Scroll about 2/3 down the page and they provide a table with excellent data including expansion pictures from their tests.

        http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/

        Most any of them that consistently meet the FBI standards are great choices.

        2. One more question Dave. Have you ever used a 10MM pistol and if so what did you think of it?

          1. I have shot two of them. Probably only 50 rounds total. I do not own one. I have no desire to own one.

            I carry a .40 more than any other caliber. Its just a short 10mm as I pointed out.

            The 10mm packs a lot of recoil for most people. I am probably bigger than most but even I find it uncomfortable.

            Its like shooting a .454 Casull. Lots of bang and fun to play with. Ammo is expensive, the gun is expensive, and the fun stops after about 10 rounds.

            Ok, so maybe I might kinda have access to one of these.

            http://www.taurususa.com/product-details.cfm?id=702&category=Revolver

            If you want a hand cannon thats fun to shoot for far less money here you go. I don’t carry the damn thing.

            If the zombie apocalypse happens I probably would. That and the 45-70. Or, maybe if I have to be downtown Baltimore anytime soon.

            Meanwhile back at the ranch, the problem with anything like the 10mm is it costs too much to stay efficient with it.

            Using a weapon is a diminishing skill. The less you stay in practice the less skill you retain.

            Going to the range (in the rain) here in a little bit. I can put 3x the rounds down range with a 3 different 9mm’s for the same price.

            Semper Fi brother.

            1. Thanks for answering my questions as I read down. Sadly I had to sell my .45 ACP years ago but now have a S&W .38 combat masterpiece mostly out of sentiment because that’s what we carried on duty after the .45’s went away, a 9mm semi and a .357 4″ revolver which is my car weapon because I don’t want to have to jack a round. Have hollow points for the 9mm and .357. My belief is the .357 will give me the stopping power needed if I ever have to defend myself, you okay with that and the ammo?

              1. Absolutely. The .357 is an outstanding round. Again, the same caliber as the .38 and 9mm. It just has much more velocity.

                It is an under rated all too forgotten round. I would definitely recommend some type of expanding bullet. The neighbors might appreciate it if you ever need to use it.

                One thing though. I never keep a loaded weapon without a round in the chamber. There is no need to “rack” a round.

                I know many “feel” safer is the chamber is empty. The criminal meth head you encounter will already have a round in the chamber. I will never give them that advantage.

                I “feel” safer when I have any advantage I can get.

                1. nitpicking – .357 is NOT the same caliber – close to 9mms of various iterations (.354-355″)but no ceegar. I do agree it is an outstanding round, I believe according to real world gunfight data the 125graing HP .357 is still the king of one-shot stops.

              2. Manager, I don’t have a CCL because, as you know, I’m in a very low-crime area here, and at my age, I don’t like the personal discomfort. However, I do have handguns in both cars. What is your interpretation of our state law in that regard what with all that language in the law about being on a journey?

            2. Thank you Dave. I have only shot a borrowed one once. The target recovery was awful due to the recoil compared to the continued use of my .40 and .45 which I stay in constant practice with.

        3. My only issue with the lucky gunner tests is zero 3 inch barrel tests which are the majority of conceal carry guns.

          1. That is a valid point. I have talked to them about that very issue. You are correct if you are meaning the ballistics change noticeably with a shorter barrel.

            That absolutely does make a difference. If you can find a range that offers ballistic gel I would go and check out what ever carry ammo you use. Dont forget the layers of denim, that too makes a difference.

            I have a recipe for making your own gel at home. Its easy but not a clear gel so you have to dig out the round.

            1. Dave, remember our military cannot use hallow or softnosed bullets. So the greater mass(heavier grain) bullets are needed to let the SoB know he has been shot. Joe

              1. I see your point. That is true enough.

                The ballistic comparison to the 9mm and .45 in FMJ is about the same. Penetration goes to the 9mm, understanding they both over-penetrate.

                The 9mm FMJ in some ++p loads will penetrate light body armor. The .45 will not.

                1. Doesn’t ++p ammo wear the weapon out much, much faster?

                  Sure, if I had a pistol in my old pog job, I would probably still go to the range once a year. A door kicker in the sand box is putting what, a thousand rounds, in combat (my wild guess) in a deployment, plus more range time. A weapon used to train MPs is going to fire, what, thousands of rounds in a year. Will the weapon hold up for 20 years? Will someone not get a weapon that breaks in combat?

                  On the other hand–“will penetrate light body armor”–means you don’t have to shoot the bad guy in the head or neck to win. That could be the decisive factor.

        4. Except that the Geneva conventions mandate non-expanding rounds. No hollow point, expanding bullets are allowed. Ball ammo is the only choice and the .45 ACP is still the king of one shot stops.

          1. I think maybe I am not being clear. The .45 ACP is no more effective than the 9mm, even in FMJ.

            Penetration will always go to the 9mm.

            “Stopping power” or “one shot stops” is almost exactly equal.

        5. Dave, I believe the military is bound by treaty to only use ball ammunition. So, use of any hollow points would be against the law.

          So which advances in ammunition are you referring to? Projectile weight?

          1. The advances in powder, sectional density, jacket alloy’s, ballistic coefficients, primers, etc. has been significant.

            I do not hate the .45 ACP, particularly in the 1911 platform. I love the things. I own and often carry several.

            The “bigger” diameter of the .45 in FMJ is often used as a reason for it being “more powerful”. This is simply not true.

            In fact, if you remove bullet expansion from the comparison it only gets worse for the .45 not better.

            The 9mm is .38 cal or 6/16″, the .45 is 7/16. There is a 1/16″ difference in the non-expanding diameter.

            Because the 9mm has much more velocity than the .45 ACP its terminal veloicty creates more energy. It hits harder than the .45.

            Its slightly smaller diameter and higher velocity is what give is a slightly greater penetration.

            The wound cavity, both primary and secondary, created by each of them is about the same.

            With the advances in Poly frames, once again the advantage in weight/rounds carried clearly goes to the 9mm.

            The cost of manufacturing with new striker fired weapons clearly goes to the 9mm.

            Time on target for rapid fire clearly goes to the 9mm.

            I love my .45’s. But the same shot placement with a 9mm will produce the same if not superior result.

            The 9mm is simply a .38 round that has the ballistics between a .38 Special and a .357 Mag.

            Because they used the metric designation instead of its caliber people get wigged out in my opinion.

            It is a time tested, reliable, accurate, deadly hand gun. So is the .45, it just costs more to manufacture and supply than its counterpart.

            1. Did a lot of research into this caliber/ammunition vs that caliber/ammunition when buying my first handgun not to long ago. I agree with you on just about every point except the little fact that others have already pointed out: Ball ammunition performs differently from hallow points (aka JHP). So your videos about the cavity wounds many not be apples to apple comparisons. When comparing a 9mm hollow point, (JHP) or similar rounds you are 100% correct, they are similar and there is no effective difference from home defense, or other civilian use where JHPs are permitted. HOWEVER ball ammunition, which is the ONLY small arms ammunition allowed for general use by the military is a different animal. The main problem is over penetration by 9mm ball ammunition. The only way to stop that is to reduce the charge, which has the added effect of reducing the potential effectiveness of the projectile.
              See the bellow video for more details:

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8hbkXPdlks

    2. If I recall, we 9mm’d everything to make us consistent with the rest of our NATO allies, ignoring the fact that the US was by far the largest contributor to Europe’s defense and should have demanded that they adapt instead of us.

      Now there’s a “run-on” sentence if I do say so myself…

      2. It was not just meeting a NATO requirement, any round could have been chosen.

        The 9mm was adopted for the same reasons the 7.62 (.308) and the 5.56 was.

        Smaller round with about the same average performance. More rounds per weight, smaller weapon, cheaper ammo.

        The 9mm was a good choice with penetration being its advantage. Now with all the advances in ammunition, it out performs most of the other calibers.

        The .380 is just a 9mm in a shorter case.

        The .40 is just a 10mm in a shorter case.

        The .45 ACP is a 45 Colt in a shorter case.

        The 7.62 is a 30-06 in a shorter case.

        Shorter rounds developed as powder improved. It made the bolts shorter, receiver lighter, more ammo per box and overall much cheaper per round.

        2. Only part of the reason, DH. A big part of the push to go 9mm was commonality of supply with NATO allies. That was a significant consideration in the latter part of the Cold War.

          A pistol isn’t worth all that much when you run out of ammo, you’re away from US sources of supply – and the nearby allied unit with supplies uses different pistol round.

          2. I agree. If we reverse the terminology maybe that will help with my point. There are two other 9mm’s that could have been adopted as the standard.

            One was less powerful but not significantly shorter or lighter, and the other more powerful and much longer and heavier.

            What we are talking about here is the difference of chamber in the weapon. The 9mm Light is commonly known as a .38 special. The 9mm Magnum is commonly known as the .357 Mag.

            The .38 NATO is just called a 9mm. The reason it was chosen was mostly due to its superior performance and cost to benefit ratio.

            For once they made the right choice.

              1. HAHAHAHA, You know I have been trying to get the Marakov away from Soviet.

                She just won’t let go of her Soviet ways. It was actually made in Ukraine and not Bulgaria.

                That’s all I need to hear from her…”Hondo says I should keep it”.

        3. To avoid giving the wrong impression, you should state that most of the round equivalences above may use the same diameter bullets, not that a .380 is a 9mm in a shorter case. Every round listed on the left is less powerful and offers lower velocities with the same size bullet. I am assuming you are referring to 7.62×51 (7.62NATO/.308) as being similar to the .30-06 – across much of the world .30-06 is known as 7.62×57. And until recently, .45ACP did not use the same size bullet as .45 Colt – in equivalent lead bullets the ACP is a .451-452 and the more powerful Colt is properly .454.

          1. David, I’m pretty sure that “9x17mm” is another accepted name for the .380 Auto round.

            1. Was responding to his 11:24 post. .380 is also called 9mm short, 9mm Corto, 9×17, 9mm Browning and probably a few others – but saying it is the same as 9mm is dead wrong. They share a few common projectiles, but the .380 is best with different weight range bullets and doesn’t develop the same power as the 9×19 (Luger or Parabellum). And I have never heard the term .38 NATO in my life.

    3. I’ve heard this too from a friend of mine who has a 9mil at home.

      The only issue I see is, what kind of ammo does the Army buy for the M9? Do they buy the good stuff?

      I’d also be curious to know if the Army is actually getting “new” M9s? When was the last time Mother Army bought new M9s?

      1. Surplus military and law enforcement ammo is sold online by hundreds of dealers. They purchase it in bulk and often just put a new black and white label on it.

        Some military ammo is either recycled or disposed of. Law enforcement usually holds ammo for about a year and then swaps it out. No real reason for that I know of. I am sure there is some study out there that says a year is some kind of limit.

        I have shot 45-70 ammo out of my Henry that is 30+ years old with no problems. But, if I am hunting/fishing in Alaska I dont use it. Noting stops a charging Grizzly like Garrett.

        http://www.garrettcartridges.com/4570540tech.html

        A 540 grain hardened lead bullet will penetrate 11 one gallon containers of water. I know that to be a fact. My 30-06 only about 7 on a good day.

        Just dont try to hit anything over 150 yards with it.

      2. Pretty sure all military rifle and pistol ammunition DoD buys is FMJ. Something to do with a thing called the “Geneva Convention”, if I recall correctly.

        I don’t believe any of that will work for self defense as well as a good hollow point or unjacketed lead round.

        1. That is correct Hondo (as usual, Hondo is always right).

          If you shoot any ISIS member with an expanding bullet, do it in this country after you are out of uniform.

          Again, please kill responsibly.

          1. Actually, it appears we have.

            The Hague Peace Conference of 1899 agreement was incorporated, with minor modifications, into the Hague Convention of 1907 – specifically, as Convention IV: Laws and Customs of War on Land. The US is a signatory to that 1907 agreement.

            Hague 1899 remained binding on those nations who had signed the 1899 version but who elected not to sign the 1907 update.

            1. Pays you money and picks your Lawfare, Hondo; it wasn’t the Geneva Convention and the USofA didn’t buy off on the Hague of 1899.
              There’s talk afoot of military expanding rounds these days. I for one am 100% in favor.

              1. The prohibition against expanding bullets is covered under the Hague 1907 Convention’s prohibition against the employment of arms or projectiles “calculated to cause unnecessary suffering” (Hague 1907, IV, Regulations, Article 23). The US is a signatory to that agreement. Expanding and fragmenting small-arms rounds fall under this prohibition.

                The 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 incorporates the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions by reference (Article 154), indicating that the 4th Geneva Convention is a supplement to those Hague Conventions for nations that are a party to either of those Hague Conventions. The US is a signatory to the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949.

                However you slice it, the US has agreed – via international treaty – that it will not use expanding small-arms rounds in warfare.

                1. But they are actively soliciting more lethal ammo than the standard 9mm ball and the RFQ apparently openly supports the submission of JHPs. Technically I am told we are not engaged with a national enemy, such as a state-sponsored military – hence they are not covered by most of the conventions and the only obligation we have to them is self-imposed. Anyone know of any legal rulings on the subject?

    4. Of course this is all speculation on my part. You Gun Nutz can never have enough ammo.

      I hear if you buy any caliber in scary black it makes it more deadly.

      Please kill responsibly.

      1. mine do. if i have any green tip around i have to keep the safe double locked because they will load themselves, turn into full auto’s and go out for a night of mayhem and destruction

    5. You just angered a bunch of old balls that proclaim the .45 is more destructive than the hand of God himself.

      Thank you.

      1. I am afraid I might be considered old balls by many.

        If they want to cling to the 1911, which I love by the way, it comes in 9mm.

        Smooth shooter. Nice weapon.

          1. Ya, there is no better trigger than the 1911. It breaks like glass. The 9mm version is smooth. Low recoil, soft shooter.

            I love the thing.

            1. Hmm… got a model 19 I’ll put up against any 1911 on the planet… or did before the tragic boating accident… lost a P35 that was a thing of joy too. Slightly fragile – somehow the magazine disconnects just seem to fall out of them…..

  5. When the Chief of the bureaucracy is saying there’s too much bureaucracy, perhaps there is too much bureaucracy.

    I just hope he doesn’t expand the bureaucracy to identify the problems in the expanding bureaucracy.

  6. Some idiot in Marsoc decided increadibly antiquated 1911 .45 should be stanard issue and now a few years later they are officially admitting to using a different handgun. Bureaucracy has its purpose but god damn does the military take it to the extreme. Not sure which is worse officers with their good judgement as is shown in u uniform decisions or this fiasco.

  7. Expecting efficiency out of Government bureaucracy is like expecting an intelligent statement from Commissar!

    1. Um, API . . . may I refer you to GEN Milley’s statements above?

      Common sense from a bureaucrat is quite rare, but it does happen from time to time. (smile)

  8. Who needs a sidearm?

    My hands do all the talking. Lethal weapons they are….

    Just like “Ranger” Cio Burrell.

  9. Seriously, if you want to start a loooonnnnnggg string in a gun forum, just raise the issue of comparative knock down power and lethality of handgun rounds.

    However, the main issue as I see it, and hasn’t been mentioned here, is the staying power in a firefight that a double stack magazine in a 9mm offers. Thirteen to seventeen rounds of 9mm versus seven or eight rounds of .45 is a no-brainer to me.

    2. Extra ammo only encourages waste & carelessness. Besides always hitting what they’re aimed at…when the 1911 clicks empty, it’s so daggum heavy you can beat the shite out of people with it. :0)

      1. Fairly certain the M9 is as heavy or heavier than the M1911A1. And you get to shoot the guy 15 times before he gets to you instead of 7.

        1. The 1911 was designed using the tools of the day, so there is a lot of excess metal that no longer needs t be there.

          I shot a new S&W. .45 last year, I was surprised how light it was when the metal is laser cut and the superfluous parts are missing

  10. I just like 1911s – they’re reliable and simple to operate. They don’t have fancy little buttons that you have to push to disassemble it. I have six including one made during WWII and they all shoot. Milley is right, it shouldn’t take two years to pick a good handgun. But then it shouldn’t take years to choose a camouflage pattern either – except to justify a duty position.

    1. My son bought a nice Kimber. I told him if he pimped it out with rails, bushing breaks, queer grips, and anything with a red dot involved…I would beat him to death with it.

Comments are closed.