Comments on: Army orders 20,000 more M9s

By: Weer'd Beard

Weer'd Beard — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:08:29 +0000

Has anybody but Hollywood and Mall Ninjas with money to burn actually used the Mk 23?

Oh and he also used “Silencer” instead of Suppressor….and implied the military actually USES that monstrosity.

By: Daniel E. Watters

Daniel E. Watters — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:52:53 +0000

Rich is on the right track.

In late 1994, the US Army Armament, Munitions, and Chemical Command (AMCCOM) was disestablished. The armament and chemical defense functions of AMCCOM become the Armaments and Chemical Acquisition and Logistics Activity (ACALA). The Tank-Automotive Command (TACOM) was then assigned operational control of ACALA, the Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC), and the Belvoir Research, Development and Engineering Center (BRDEC). As a result of the added responsibilities, Tank-Automotive Command was redesignated the Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command. The acronym TACOM remained.

There has been shuffling of subordinate commands since then, but TACOM retains the procurement authority for the majority of the US Army’s small arms. It also piggybacks small arms orders for the other US service branches, Foreign Military Sales (FMS), and even Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies on occasion.

The TACOM contract for 20,000 Beretta pistols is a FMS to Iraq. This could have been easily confirmed by the StrategyPage author if he had just looked up the contract number. The contract document is publicly available online from TACOM as a .pdf file.

By: Rich in Ohio

Rich in Ohio — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:02:07 +0000

Tank and Automotive Command is the part of Army Materiel Command that has proponency for vehicles, armament, watercraft, construction equipment, etc. The weapons aren’t being ordered for TACOM, but rather by TACOM – for the Army as a whole. The overwhelming majority of personnel in TACOM are civilians.

By: Wolfwood

Wolfwood — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:22:56 +0000

Did anyone notice that this is “Tank and Automotive Command”? If these guys end up using any firearms, let alone sidearms, the situation is already badly buggered. Expecting them to carry Mk23s is just lunacy, especially as something like a P90 or MP5k isn’t all that much bigger. The Mk23 is meant to be a primary weapon; the M9 is just a sidearm. I suspect our the regular infantry could benefit from 1911s, but this procurement doesn’t seem all that odd.

By: Caleb

Caleb — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:22:49 +0000

Yes, in fact it is.

By: mike w.

mike w. — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:09:38 +0000

Isn’t the MK23 they’re so big on quite a bit larger than the M9 and about 1/2 a pound heavier as well?

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:29:34 +0000

I’m not a stickler for correct terminology, but I do notice when people who claim a certain expertise don’t use the correct words. It make me wonder what else they’re incorrect about.