Mk 23 Offensive Handgun

[Basenshukai]

Disclaimer: I have used the "search" option on this site with the key words such as "Mk 23", "Mk 23 SOCOM Pistol" and "Mark 23" with no results. I have also used "Google" with the same search parameters and read those links. I didn't quite get the answer to my question. So, here it goes:

I'm trying to verify some information I overheard regarding the development of the Mk 23 Mod 0 Offensive Handgun.

I heard that the Mk 23 was developed with the intention of it being a primary weapon for very specific mission requirements (as opposed to a secondary or "backup" weapon).

So, here are my questions:

1. Was the Mk 23 Mod 0 developed as a primary weapon for specific mission requirements?

2. What mission requirements prompted the development of a handgun as a primary weapon?

3. Was the Mk 23 Mod 0 ever designed, or considered, a secondary, or "backup", weapon to a "long gun" such as the M4 SOPMOD?

If R&D questions warrant OPSEC considerations please send me a PM. Thanks.

EOM
BAS SENDS

[Psywar1-0]

I always understood it was duel use. Pistol/Boat-anchor

Sorry Bro, Now Im in the Capitol enjoying the AC and other such things that are not part of a recently coverted cow pasture

[The Reaper]

It was a horse designed by committee, with SOCOM in charge, and an undue amount of influence from the Navy.

TR

[Team Sergeant]

From what I know the SEALS requested and received the gun. It turned out to be too friggin big for their purposes. They have tried to "give" them away with no takers. The gun that would have been perfect would be the scaled down model, the HK Tactical.

[82ndtrooper]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

From what I know the SEALS requested and received the gun. It turned out to be too friggin big for their purposes. They have tried to "give" them away with no takers. The gun that would have been perfect would be the scaled down model, the HK Tactical.

I have to admit that I own the Mk23, civillian dubbed the MARK 23. Yeah, it's big, it's bulky, and when outfitted with the suppressor (Knights OHG) and the Insight LAM 450 is like holding an SBR in your hands !! Performance wise, I do not have another handgun that is as "Spot On" as the MARK 23 .45 ACP. It's advertised as "Match Grade" NIB, but in my hands, it's not that much different than a decent 1911. At first I was all over the target, but after some range time, it's the only handgun that I have punched two rounds through the same hole !! Guess I need to spend more time with my other handguns ?

If the SEALs wanted an "Offensive Handgun" with the added components of the suppressor and a laser/light aiming module, then why all the development costs and time to produce a weapon system that is sitting as a "Safe Queen" in the thier armory's ?

Seems to me that a mere drop in threaded barrel in the Sig P226 with a rail adapter for a laser/light aiming device would have sufficed without introducing a whole new sidearm weapon system to the men of NSW. This would have proved much cheaper to the tax payers, and a more welcome affection from the men that supposedly thought they needed an "Offensive capability" with a sidearm. IIRC Dick Marcinko was the driving force behind H&K developing an "Offensive Handgun" platform, that later proved to be a stinker to the men that had to carry them.

[KBAR_O4]

I saw exactly one of these during my time at CJSOTF-S in Khar. It was strapped to the leg of a SEAL LT, not for an op but just strolling around our base...

Ive shot these and they are very accurate range guns. For carry, Im dont know why the USP Tactical model wouldnt have sufficed.