Mk 23 Offensive Handgun

Basenshukai · 10-26-2004, 21:33

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 · 10-26-2004, 22:51

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** · 10-27-2004, 06:05

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

TR

**Team Sergeant** · 10-27-2004, 07:03

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 · 08-27-2006, 21:18

Quote:

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 · 09-22-2006, 08:53

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.

swatsurgeon · 09-22-2006, 17:36

If I'm not mistaken, just before I left HK, they developed a 9mm version of the tactical model for a suppressor, that was the size of the USP compact. I don't know if they went full production or not or just used the full size 9 with threaded barrel.....

ss

Air.177 · 09-22-2006, 22:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by swatsurgeon

If I'm not mistaken, just before I left HK, they developed a 9mm version of the tactical model for a suppressor, that was the size of the USP compact. I don't know if they went full production or not or just used the full size 9 with threaded barrel.....

ss

I have seen/sold several HK "compact tactical" pistols over the last 6 months-year. They look like USP compacts with threaded Bbls, and they come in the zipper HK "attache" case like the normal tacticals do. Don't know if they were a special run for a particular distributor or what, but they were kind of cool.

82ndtrooper · 09-23-2006, 12:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air.177

I have seen/sold several HK "compact tactical" pistols over the last 6 months-year. They look like USP compacts with threaded Bbls, and they come in the zipper HK "attache" case like the normal tacticals do. Don't know if they were a special run for a particular distributor or what, but they were kind of cool.

I believe that the H&K compact Tactical is a current production item. IIRC they come with the LEM trigger and longer threaded "O" ringed barrel just as the Mk23 and the USP Tactical .45 ACP. H&K has also produced the USP .40 Tactical with an threaded "O" ringed barrel.

I dont know about any USP compact in 9mm with the threaded barrel, but they do currently produce a USPSD 9mm with a threaded barrel, however the SD 9mm model lacks the "O" ringed barrel, but it does come standard with rear adjustable sight and V1 controls.

Mk23's are scarce ! Before H&K made a formal announcement that they were dropping production you could find them all day long on Guns America.com. Now your lucky to see one or two a month. When you do see them, they are asking as much as $2000-2500 for used. Some tan framed models were available, but many an H&K enthusiast has steered from them due to the lack of the "Maritime" finish on the slide. The finish, on the tan frame models, seem to be merely the USP type finish, not the sought after laquer black that was the original "Maritime" finish that was advertised as salt water and fresh water resistant, including the internals, barrel, and the mags. For what it's worth.

82ndtrooper · 09-24-2006, 08:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

The USP Tactical was actually brought to the table after the Mk23 MOD O project. Taking it's cues from the Mk23 for the civillian and LEO market, though LEO, at least to date, had no need for such a sidearm. There are a wide range of differences in the Mk23 and the USP Tactical model. Internals are completely different, separate decocking lever from the safety that is only engaged in the hammer cocked position, unlike the USP V1 controls, not to mention the size of the two guns.

As TR once said, it's a "Horse that special committee made into a camel with undue influence from the Navy"

For what it's worth, the Mk23 is a superb handgun. In fact, possibly the finest .45 ACP that I haver fired and owned. I dearly love my SA TRP Operator .45 ACP, but it's been a jamo-matic and I'm not even taking it anywhere but the range on sunny days.

Karl.Masters · 10-03-2006, 19:24

Morbid curiosity got the better of me one day and I took a Mk23 Frankenpistol complete to the range. I will admit that I liked the action, the stability, and the accuracy of this weapon.

After attaching the suppressor, however, and firing a couple of mags, I found myself wondering if there was a bipod somewhere in the suitcase full of kit that was issued to me with the weapon.

My analysis: Mk23 is a heavy, durable, reliable, accurate crew-served pistol....

82ndtrooper · 10-04-2006, 19:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karl.Masters

Morbid curiosity got the better of me one day and I took a Mk23 Frankenpistol complete to the range. I will admit that I liked the action, the stability, and the accuracy of this weapon.

After attaching the suppressor, however, and firing a couple of mags, I found myself wondering if there was a bipod somewhere in the suitcase full of kit that was issued to me with the weapon.

My analysis: Mk23 is a heavy, durable, reliable, accurate crew-served pistol....

I'd be curious how you felt the suppressor (Knights) performed. Did you fire it "DRY" and "WET" and were you impressed with the sound reduction ? I own the Knights OHG that was designed for the Mk23 MOD O project, and also the SWR HEMS II .45 ACP suppressor. Both suppressors fired "DRY" are incredibly loud !! Though no hearing protection is needed, neigther suppressor provides a sound reduction that would be considered impressive if compared to 9mm suppressors, let alone .22Lr suppressor.

Both suppressors, the Knights and the SWR are incredibly quite when used with an ablative such as water. I generally just pour some distilled water down the tube coating the baffles as I place my thumb over the end as to allow for the water to stay inside in the suppressor as I tilt it back and forth to allow for all baffles to be coated then simply shake out the excess water. This proves to be incredibly quite with both suppressors.

What was your take on the sound redcution and the POA and POI shift with the use of the Knights ?

Karl.Masters · 10-08-2006, 13:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by 82ndtrooper

I'd be curious how you felt the suppressor (Knights) performed. Did you fire it "DRY" and "WET" and were you impressed with the sound reduction ? I own the Knights OHG that was designed for the Mk23 MOD O project, and also the SWR HEMS II .45 ACP suppressor. Both suppressors fired "DRY" are incredibly loud !! Though no hearing protection is needed, neigther suppressor provides a sound reduction that would be considered impressive if compared to 9mm suppressors, let alone .22Lr suppressor.

Both suppressors, the Knights and the SWR are incredibly quite when used with an ablative such as water. I generally just pour some distilled water down the tube coating the baffles as I place my thumb over the end as to allow for the water to stay inside in the suppressor as I tilt it back and forth to allow for all baffles to be coated then simply shake out the excess water. This proves to be incredibly quite with both suppressors.

What was your take on the sound redcution and the POA and POI shift with the use of the Knights ?

Shot the Knights suppressor dry only. No instrumentation on the range. This was strictly a "back of the cocktail napkin" operational assessment (to personally validate other opinions that mattered orders of magnitude above mine). There was no way that any individual could come close to accumulating the volume of test data needed to have a learned technical discussion with USSOCOM, and no need. They had some great technical data. But I was in the position of defending other COAs to the HQ and explaining opposition to this particular solution. I wanted some quality time with this weapon, so it was me, the Mk23 system complete and the woodpeckers...

On paper, Mk23 is the heat. Individually, many technical performance metrics of the Mk23 are outstanding. Collectively, these individual performance metrics, even though they are individually impressive, combined to produce a design solution that did not enjoy operator acceptance.

This gets us back to the point of the thread. Without a clearly articulated definition of an "offensive handgun", the SOF community wound up with what was perceived as a pig, when in fact, as you have noted, the Mk23 is a high performance weapon - on the range. Note that the range in this case does not mean the shooting house.....

The classic problem materiel developers and manufacturers face is the compromises in the design elements. The operational requirements document for the system must articulate the user's tactical concerns and priorities in the "shortcomings of existing systems", "concept of employment" (now CONOPS) and the "capabilities required" paragraphs. And not just the technical specs. It is the required operational capabilities that lead to the critical operational issues and criteria used to test/assess the design solution - in an operational context - that will determine success or failure of that solution. The bottom line is the military and tactical utility as assessed by the user.

There is a sign on the wall in 22 SAS that sums this up nicely: "The tactical concept of employment leads to the equipment requirement".

In the case of the Mk23, the materiel developer did not adequately articulate in the requirements document the priority of the multiple operational and technical metrics associated with an "offensive handgun". Instead, the materiel developer focused on the technical performance metrics - all of them - with no trade space for the multiple competing design elements. The loser here was overall system performance in an operational context and ultimately, user acceptance by operators accross USSOCOM.

The teaching point for me was to pay close attention to what was going on with the 4 star HQ and blue requirements documents, because sometimes they try to change colors on you downrange when there is no longer an opportunity to influence the outcome, and a Mk23 in a green box shows up on your doorstep....

As an aside, it is also possible to take a perfectly good rotary wing aircraft, load it with "good ideas" such as refuel probes, jammers, nav aides, FLIRs, primary weapons, back up weapons, ammo for all the above, etc. to the point where the lift, range and speed of the platform no longer meets the original operational requirement for infil. In the first gulf war we also proved that helos modified in this incremental fashion will only fly in a circle until they burn off fuel.

The point is that any system can become a victim of an incomplete/ill-defined requirement, multiple good ideas, too many user reps and number one priorities, and mission creep. Mk23 is the small arms poster child for this undisciplined approach to materiel development. Nothing a little systems engineering and configuration management can't fix-but only in the requirements analysis phase of the project - and only if there is operational and technical tradespace. If everything is important, you get suboptimal hardware. But once you have the logo on a coffee cup it's too late and you're hosed.

v/r
Karl

**The Reaper** · 10-08-2006, 18:50

Great analysis.

When I was at SOCOM, there was a never ending stream of good ideas and attempts to design items for tactical requirements without ever talking to anyone with any ground tactical experience.

Then they wonder why shooter loads exceed 125 lbs. and no operator wants to hump their pet rock in his ruck.

Hmmm....

TR

NousDefionsDoc · 10-08-2006, 19:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karl.Masters

Morbid curiosity got the better of me one day and I took a Mk23 Frankenpistol complete to the range. I will admit that I liked the action, the stability, and the accuracy of this weapon.

After attaching the suppressor, however, and firing a couple of mags, I found myself wondering if there was a bipod somewhere in the suitcase full of kit that was issued to me with the weapon.

My analysis: Mk23 is a heavy, durable, reliable, accurate crew-served pistol....

LOL