Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'US Army Forum' started by dberry, Sep 8, 2006.
I heard that the army purchased some Ruger P95's.Any of you soldiers use them?
I believe these were purchased for transfer to foriegn militaries, just as the Smith & Wesson Sigmas were obtianed for the Afgan Army. Who the Rugers are for, I don't know. I do expect that they will perform well for whoever gets them.
My Army Times had an article about this.
The Armored Command bought Ruger 9MM autopistols
for issue to the tankers.
Don't remember any more details, but will try and find them.
Sorry to burst your bubble but these P95's are for other countries GOV contracts. tankers and all others are stuck with the Beretta unless authorized other weapon systems.
and i thought it couldnt get any worse than the m9
Could these Rugers be for contract guards working at Army bases? I've seen them at Ft.Myer and Ft.Hood.
While I won't say 100% I am a shift supervisor in the ANG Security Forces and we were going through the contractor security phase as well. As a supervisor I was able to read over the contract to prepare on what looked like a set in semi firm jello on things to come. The way the legalities were drawn up the contractors would have been armed with M9's and M 16's/M 4's. It mentioned we could support an already issued weapons system easier. The Guard Bureau decided not to go with them (contractors)at the last minute at least on the Air side.
DOD police are issued M 9's but that is a different entity than contractors.
The Army doesn't supply weapons to contractors. The contracted company is responsible for providing any weapons stipulated in the contract. Most DoD contract security companies go with Berettas because their biggest recruiting pool tends to be ex-military. The familiarity with the Beretta platform is already in-place and makes weapons training and qualification that much easier.
The P95s, last I heard, were purchased to put into the hands of US servicemembers. It appears that the Beretta M9's are being 'consumed' at such an alarming rate that the DoD needed to make sure it had an authorized substitute available and ready for issue if we run short of M9s.
The P95 is big, ugly, chunky, accurate and relable as a brick. I would not be surprised if the service life of the P95 ends up far exceeding that of the M9. Personally I'd have no problem carrying one into combat.
bharen I'm afraid you heard wrong. The military IS NOT REPLACING the M9 anytime soon. The military purchaced a few Rugers along with S&W Sigmas and a couple other brands for distribution to forign goverments. Like the new one in Afganistan. The military just recently reordered 50 some odd thousand M9's. For the military to replace a stadard issue firearm a full scale evaluation would be conducted. This would inclued all reputible companies that manufactured small arms to be allowed time submit X number of samples for the selection process. If not the GOV would be sued agian and they would have another selction process (like what happened in the mid 80's). Also all compaines would be given what specifications the military wanted on their service pistol.
Even if the military decided today they wanted to change the general issue sidearm you are talking another 8-15 years before that would happen. Specs issues, comanies turn in test models, GOV tries out models ang the longest they make a decision.
I'm afraid you read wrong he never said they were REPLACING the M9 he said they were being "consumed" and incase they run short they can have a back up.