Tomb of the Unknowns Guards Begin Use of Custom M17 Pistols

Status
Not open for further replies.
You mean like when they were carrying the M9?
Uh, you mean Beretta USA made in Accokeek MD M9s?

Folks still wrapped around the axle about companies that are now incorporated in the US for years, paying taxes to the US government, hiring all US citizens, contributing to the local and national economy? And really, trying to tie in SIG-Sauer to the Nazi regime that killed Americans back in WW II?

Yeah, again, the holster ... it's heinous.
 
Uh, you mean Beretta USA made in Accokeek MD M9s?

Folks still wrapped around the axle about companies that are now incorporated in the US for years, paying taxes to the US government, hiring all US citizens, contributing to the local and national economy? And really, trying to tie in SIG-Sauer to the Nazi regime that killed Americans back in WW II?

Yeah, again, the holster ... it's heinous.

Exactly.
 
The rifle isn't loaded, or at least it wasn't pre 9-11. I know that for certain because I have seen the guards pretend to load it a few times to intimidate people who were across the rope. last time was in 1995 or so. No round ever ejected even after doing this a few times. I don't remember the guard having a handgun back then. Only the NCO that overseen the changing. There are police walking about nearby. I was told by a friends father, a former guard, that only the NCO was loaded. He guarded in the late 70s though. I'd hope they have let them change that since 9-11.
 
.455Hunter said:
Ugly yes, but my concern is that they are truely functional and reliable for low level production weapons. These guys have a higher chance of actually needing to shoot than many other armed personnel.

Guards at other locations are far more likely to need live ammo than a Sentinel at the Tomb of the Unknowns, as there are other guards and the Capital Police are available for quick backup if needed. Some sources say that the guards/sentinels at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier are no longer issued live ammunition. Others remain silent on the issue.

Here's a link to Society of the Honor Guard Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, which addresses many questions, including whether the weapons have live ammo. https://tombguard.org/society/faq/

Tomb Guards carry fully functional M14 rifles. Given the current climate surrounding the relatively recent tragic events in Canada (attack upon the guard at the Canadian War Memorial), we will no longer be answering questions relating to specifics regarding current security and armament at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. We appreciate your understanding.

Rest assured, that the US Army has the post secured as it has been since we started guard duty at the shrine in 1926.

A number of individuals addressing this topic online say that the soldiers manning guard posts at the Tomb and the Marines at the White House are performing ceremonial duties and do NOT have live ammo in their weapons. There are other armed personnel nearby (both at Arlington and at the White House) ready to respond very quickly if there an attack on the guards or facilities, or attempts to do harm at either location. The weapons of the Marines guarding embassies and consulates around the world do have live ammo -- those are NOT ceremonial duties.

That said, if someone attacks a Sentinel, they do have fixed bayonets, and a butt stroke from an M14 could also be very painful...

There seems to have been an incident in 2008, where a Tomb sentinel, in response to hearing noises near the tomb, challenged the unseen interloper(s) and fired two warning shots into the air (a required step). One of those shots hit the wife of an Army Lt. living at an apartment complex about 500 yards away; she was taken to the hospital and survived the wound. The family later sued the government and received a $50,000 settlement. (It is difficult to sue the federal government and a plaintiff is generally successful only if the government agrees to settle.) That article said that since that time live ammo is no longer issued.
http://arlingtoncemetery.net/shot-by-tomb-guard.htm

It should be noted that this information came from a link to an UNOFFICIAL site for the Arlington National Cemetery -- and such sites are not checked for accuracy; I could find no OTHER evidence that the event described ever happened. I could find NO newspaper or TV coverage on line for what was an accidental shooting.

I was also surprised to learn that there was an apartment complex so close to the Tomb, as Arlington takes up a lot of space and the Tomb is located almost in the middle of it. (500 yards is a bit more than a third of a mile.) If you look at the cemetery using Google Earth you'll see that Fort Myer, Whipple Field, The USMC War Memorial basically surround it, as do various other military facilities, like the Pentagon. and major highways. Perhaps the apartment was military housing at Fort Myer?

If you watch the a video of the sergeant inspecting the weapon carried by a new guard, opening the chamber to inspect weapon does not eject a round; if the magazine was loaded (but a round not chambered) releasing the operating rod would certainly chamber a round.

It may be that the NCO's weapon is loaded, but he's only there for a small part of the 30-minute sentinel tour.
 
Guards at other locations are far more likely to need live ammo than a Sentinel at the Tomb of the Unknowns, as there are other guards and the Capital Police are available for quick backup if needed.

I completely disagree with your threat assessment. Having the Capitol Police police or the post security office on speed dial doesn't help when the wack job or terrorist is shooting people right now, and the Tomb and it's visitors are a good symbolic target.
 
Foreign company, not country.

I know you said foreign company. That's why I was wondering if you think New Hampshire is a foreign country. See in order to be a foreign company, they have to be from a foreign country. New Hampshire clearly isn't a foreign country... so, I'm confused.

The M17 is manufactured by SIG Sauer inc. of Newington, New Hampshire, an American company.
 
You mean like when they were carrying the M9?

Or the FN produced m16 m4 rifles, or every machine gun, or any other number of goods.

I don’t get what the big deal is. They are unarmed parade style guards, for ceremony. Everything they use and do is “for show”
 
Right, so if the US military ONLY used weapons designed and manufactured in the USA and then opted for the guards to carry foreign weapons, there might be an issue. That just isn't the case nowadays.
 
.455_Hunter said:
I completely disagree with your threat assessment. Having the Capitol Police police or the post security office on speed dial doesn't help when the wack job or terrorist is shooting people right now, and the Tomb and it's visitors are a good symbolic target.

A wack job or terrorist would certainly make the first move.

How long do you think a single M14-armed Sentinel would last if a wack job or several terrorists chose to engage him or her?

And yes, there are now a few women who have met the same high standard as the men in the unit, and who have or are now sharing Sentinel duties; there are a few more in training to perform the duties!

It seems that a number of Capital police are on site at all hours, and they seem to take their job pretty seriously, too. There is also a small number of soldiers in the below-ground center at the Tomb, and they and the Capitol police would likely be the ones using the speed dial as they armed themselves and moved to the sound of an attack.

While the Tomb is certainly a "symbolic target" there are many other targets in the DC area that are equally symbolic and not guarded at all. I would expect wack jobs or terrorists to go after a target that offered the largest NUMBER of potential human victims, and that seems to be their general practice around the world. That has been the practice of home-grown terrorists here in the U.S -- from the Oklahoma City bombing and the Boston Marathon bombing, to a planned New Jersey attack on Fort Dix, and various nut-case attacks on churches and synagogues.

So, I guess I completely disagree with your threat assessment, too.

If you're interested, here's a link to a Wikipedia summary of wack job/terrorist plots and attacks since 2001, and "symbolic" attacks were hot nearly as common as attacks designed to take a lot of lives. Luckily, a lot of them never got beyond the planning stage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11
 
Sistema1927 said:
I think that the holster is the worst part of that get up. Even if they do it in patent leather it should be a holster that covers the entire barrel, and possibly a flap design.

I agree that it should have been a holster design with a "military" look, but then it would cover up all the flashiness of the custom M17. I wonder if SIG designed the holsters, too? (It may have been mentioned in all of the coverage, but if so I missed it.)
 
I know you said foreign company. That's why I was wondering if you think New Hampshire is a foreign country. See in order to be a foreign company, they have to be from a foreign country. New Hampshire clearly isn't a foreign country... so, I'm confused.

The M17 is manufactured by SIG Sauer inc. of Newington, New Hampshire, an American company.
Dear Confused, SIG is a Swiss company, Sauer is German. SIG bought Sauer, has an American presence, but is foreign owned. Just like Chrysler is foreign owned. Same for Beretta.

Despite the fact that they have a manufacturing facility in the US, they are still foreign owned. Just like Ford’s produced in another country, the profit eventually still goes to Ford in the US.

If after reading this you still think SIG and Beretta are US owned, that’s fine with me.
 
Speedo66, all of that is true, but if you think that Ford's profits from overseas manufacture benefits America, then I am sorry, no. Ford, and other big corporations, seek to pay the least amount of tax.

Even if a company like Sig or Beretta is foreign owned, if they are paying American workers, and using American resources, then they do far more for any American company that outsources production elsewhere.
 
While the Tomb is certainly a "symbolic target" there are many other targets in the DC area that are equally symbolic and not guarded at all. I would expect wack jobs or terrorists to go after a target that offered the largest NUMBER of potential human victims, and that seems to be their general practice around the world.

No, that isn't necessarily the case at all. Sometimes they go after targets where they can get high body counts. Other times, they do not. Trying to blow up American embassies was not about killing as many people as possible, for example. Blowing up a checkpoint somewhere isn't about killing as many people as possible. A lot comes down to their particular agenda and goals. Not all terrorist attacks follow the same game plan.

And, for sake of argument, what makes you think they would only be attacking one target?

If you're interested, here's a link to a Wikipedia summary of wack job/terrorist plots and attacks since 2001, and "symbolic" attacks were hot nearly as common as attacks designed to take a lot of lives. Luckily, a lot of them never got beyond the planning stage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11

Hmmm, that is a list of unsuccessful terrorist plots. Since we are using Wiki, let's look at all the successful ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

It would seem that a tremendous number of the are NOT designed to take out the most people possible. Many are in fact, symbolic.

Terror attacks take on many forms and are done for many reasons in many places, not all of which are with the goal in mind of maximizing casualties.
 
Despite the fact that they have a manufacturing facility in the US, they are still foreign owned.

No, you don't get to move the goal posts like that. You originally said "foreign company". Now you are saying foreign owned. There's a difference there.

SIG Sauer, Inc. is incorporated in the US. That makes them US a company.

Just like Ford’s produced in another country, the profit eventually still goes to Ford in the US.

Well, no, it's nothing like that at all, because again, SIG Sauer, Inc. is a different company than SIG Sauer GmbH. Both of those companies, along with Swiss Arms, are owned by L&O Holding. It's not nearly as simple a case as a German company having a factory in the US.
 
Ok, I'm confused as to why third herd need BBQ pistols in low-retention high-gloss holsters when they managed with what they had for decades.



Third Herd polishes everything it does not chrome. Just is the way they are.
This is from 2015:

note no magazine in the M-14


I note the Sergeant of the Guard in your video has a Beretta M9 with wood grips. Being the current service pistol of the US Army, I think these Sig Pistols are perfect for the Sgt. of the Guard. I like the added touches and think Sig did a good job with them by adding some tradition (esprit de corps) to the pistols.
 
No, you don't get to move the goal posts like that. You originally said "foreign company". Now you are saying foreign owned. There's a difference there.

SIG Sauer, Inc. is incorporated in the US. That makes them US a company.



Well, no, it's nothing like that at all, because again, SIG Sauer, Inc. is a different company than SIG Sauer GmbH. Both of those companies, along with Swiss Arms, are owned by L&O Holding. It's not nearly as simple a case as a German company having a factory in the US.
And everything is privately owned by two.....Germans.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
Hmmm, that is a list of unsuccessful terrorist plots. Since we are using Wiki, let's look at all the successful ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

Did you notice that in the vast majority of those attacks, from 1960 to the present, symbolism seemed to play a role, but occupied gathering places (for work, food, or religious observance) where a lot of people were gathered were far more common. If a government facility also held a lot of people, so much the better.
  • McVeigh's and Nichol's attack of the Oklahoma City Federal building was aimed at a SYMBOLIC target, but if an attack of it as a symbol was really their objective, they could have blown the place up at night or over the weekend. They wanted and got a high body count.
  • Had Al Qaeda wanted their effort to be against a symbol of the United States' values and practices, they could have flown an airliner into the Statue of Liberty, rather than the Twin Towers. The attack on the Pentagon was certainly symbolic, but there were thousands of people there, too. High body counts were clearly an objective.
Most of the other attacks listed weren't particularly effective, and didn't kill a lot of people -- but that wasn't because the attackers didn't WANT to kill a lot of people. The relatively low number of killed or wounded was apparently due to the fact that the attackers were incompetent and their plans weren't effective.

Double Naught Spy said:
Terror attacks take on many forms and are done for many reasons in many places, not all of which are with the goal in mind of maximizing casualties.

If you look up definitions of terrorism you'll see something like this (this from Wikipedia, but other sources offer similar summaries):

Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim. It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence during peacetime or in war against non-combatants.​

While you may attach symbolic significance to a place or a monument doesn't mean that others, including our enemies, will or do the same. Almost by definition -- it was a term first used during the French Revolution -- an attack that doesn't kill or wound people is not really a terror attack. Our fear of death is what makes the attacks terrible, not our fear of hallowed symbols being destroyed.
 
While you may attach symbolic significance to a place or a monument doesn't mean that others, including our enemies, will or do the same. Almost by definition -- it was a term first used during the French Revolution -- an attack that doesn't kill or wound people is not really a terror attack. Our fear of death is what makes the attacks terrible, not our fear of hallowed symbols being destroyed.

LOL, aren't you the one who listed faliled terror attacks as terror attacks. Those weren't even terror attacks at all, not because people weren't hurt or killed (nothing in the definition says such traits are prerequisites, anyway), but because they didn't happen. Now you are just backpeddling and contradicting yourself.

As for the guards at the Tomb being 'armed,' our military has a terrible history of not allowing stateside militaryguards to carry loaded guns, and in many cases, not allowing them even to have the ammo, even after 9/11. I would highly doubt that the guards at the Tomb, whose original job was to keep away picnickers and kids from being on the tomb (since you like origin history), are permitted ammunition. The Tomb is located in Arlington National Cemetery that falls under the guise of the National Park Service and is not a military installation. The guards actually have no legal authority as any sort of peace officer in civilian matters. The NPS has their own park police for that, even if they aren't without folly. http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-ne...ation-of-joint-base-myerhenderson-hall-police
 
Double Naught Spy said:
LOL, aren't you the one who listed faliled terror attacks as terror attacks. Those weren't even terror attacks at all, not because people weren't hurt or killed (nothing in the definition says such traits are prerequisites, anyway), but because they didn't happen. Now you are just backpeddling and contradicting yourself.

You have a knack for reading the words but overlooking their meaning.

I noted the term Terrorism originated with the French Revolution -- but historians have shown us that the use terror existed long before and after that Revolution. It is a term generally used to describe actions taken against unarmed non-combatants, but in more recent years, it describes actions taken against both civilian and military forces. A failed terror attack is still a terror attack because the attack's objective is what defines it.

I referred to the list you mentioned only to show that most of those acts did not have SYMBOLIC objectives; THAT was the comment to which I was responding.​

Most of the acts on the lists were intended to kill or harm a large number of people. I also said that while many of the terror attacks did not result in a lot of fatalities or injuries, that was NOT because that wasn't the objective of the attacks. Thankfully, many of the terrorist or "wack jobs" were not very competent, or were found out before they could put their plans into action.

Congress, in late 2001 passed the USA Patriot Act which (in Section 802) expanded the official definition of terrorism to cover "domestic," as opposed to international terrorism. It said that a person engages in domestic terrorism if he or they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.

My point was that terrorists or terrorist acts are, by definition, focused on human targets far more often than symbolic targets.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top