Now, that comment would be true if I had been inferring that the troops don't have a pistol that works reliably. But I wasn't the one who said that...
Good idea - let's do put things in perspective. A military perspective, not a handgun enthusiast's perspective.
- It is a rare event, even in Afghanistan, where one of the troops actually pulls the trigger on a pistol - and that fact wouldn't change if they were armed with Sigs customized with Novak sights with tritium inserts, lasermax sights, and every other doo-dad we could find to hang off them.
- When the troops do their part, then the weapons techs do theirs, and the result is the current pistols being carried by the troops function reliably and do exactly what they're supposed to when they're supposed to.
- Troops are not being wounded or dying because they are armed with Inglis pistols instead of Sigs, nor are their missions being compromised because they're armed with Inglis pistols rather than Sigs.
- Unless the stock of previously unissued/barely used Inglis pistols and spares have been exhausted, it is cost effective to continue to have the weapon maintained by weapons techs who already have a wealth of experience with the weapon.
- The tax dollars available for defence spending is nowhere near so deep that replacing a pistol that is doing its' job is anywhere near being on the priority list for the military. Spending the money to replace the Inglis with Sigs would not make the troops measureably safer, given the amount of combat use our pistols get, nor would it improve mission performance. What it would do is use up funding that could purchase equipment that is more critical to both troop safety and mission performance. It would be nice to have the money and resources to replace everything in the CF with new kit once some beancounter had determined we had arrived at the point of having gotten our money's worth - but that's not how it works.
That's perspective for you.
The point was - and is - your saying you "question" someone's experience with a pistol on operations is ridiculous, particularly as a tactic of debate. You don't have enough operational experience with a pistol to question ANYBODY's experience. Nor do I. In fact, given the amount of actual use of handguns in firefights by Canadian troops, I doubt there's many Canadians who can - excepting those who spent time in Rhodesia or whatever. And perhaps some of those who have been doing private work over in Iraq.
In short, for anyone including yourself to personally designate themselves an authority qualified to "question" somebody's experience is so ridiculous it borders on the humourous.
And having said all of that, Medak, the Maslenica Bridge, and all the other little unnamed spats that went on in Yugo at that time are pretty insignificant "combat experience" in the scheme of things these days. But they are still one hell of a lot more instructive and relative to "combat experience" (as you put it) than time spent on a pistol team. At least that's my opinion, having done both.
As I mentioned already, I suspect we have not yet run out of unissued/barely used Inglis pistols and the spares for them to the point where it is no longer economical to keep them in the system. But... I might be wrong on that... I'm sure somebody will correct me if I am.
Huh? Whatever are you talking about?
Lemme see... my only mention of that sight was this:
I can't quite imagine guys doing the same with a C6 that constantly jammed, a broken Elcan sight, etc..
And you take that one single mention of the Elcan - in that context - to suggest some sort of cheerleading for that piece of equipment? Getting a little desperate, aren't you?
Now, if you did know anything about me, you would know I was on the battalion s**t list almost that entire tour, over complaints and redresses dealing with that sight that ended up going all the way back to NDHQ. So implying I'm the poster child for the Elcan is a bit ridiculous. That aside, what would it take for me to be one of those "real soldiers" if being among the first troops equipped with the Elcan and carrying it in Yugo doesn't qualify me - do I need to go to Australia on a pistol team?
A friend in Calgary who helped set up the teams says otherwise. You may have more accurate or more current information than he does, but I will ask him again to make sure I didn't misunderstand him.
I never had any trouble teaching troops to do that while instructing; I can put aside some time to teach you how next time I am in Calgary, if you like.
If you think back to your experience on operational deployments, you'll recall that pistols often were in hand as you "wandered about" during cordon and search and other operations where there wasn't enough room to maneover a rifle. Remember crawling around in the half collapsed rubble of houses, clearing police bunkers when we were seizing their weapons in the UNPA's, contact man on high risk vehicle searches at the Whiskey Charlies, etc?
It was actually a pretty regular occurance - probably everywhere in Yugo at that time - remember? And probably in Afghanistan as well these days doing similar operations, but I'd have to ask.
Anyways, this is getting old. Somebody drop me a PM if and when our guys start taking casualties because our guys on the ground are armed with the Inglis instead of a Sig variant.
We now return you to the original topic of this thread which was: "What is the current CF issue pistol".
