agntsa
The military needs a new sidearm. Something in 45. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 16th, 2011 at 10:17 am
This article and most of the comments are utter nonsense. Ask any Infantry Marine or Soldier about pistols – you’ll get a shrug – because they are worthless on the battlefield.
The M9 was an improvement over the old .45 because it was easier to learn in the 5 minutes of pistol training enlisted Marines receive (versus 3 weeks of rifle training in Boot Camp followed by weeks of training at the School of Infantry and in the Fleet). The M9 also had more than double the magazine capacity – since 90% of pistol shots past 10 yards are misses that is a massive advantage. The M9 is also lighter and has lighter ammo – which really matters when humping up a mountain.
Nobody in the article talked about body armor. A .45 is just as worthless as a 9mm against Level III body armor. Someday we will fight a real war against a real army wearing real armor. Why gear up with a new obsolete weapon? I would never carry a 5.7mm FN Five-Seven in the civilian world, but in a military setting it is probably the least useless option.
February 16th, 2011 at 10:20 am
A biased article…..And with terribly misspelled words.
February 16th, 2011 at 11:40 am
I love 1911’s and I love the .45 ACP cartridge. Its a great cartridge for a lot of purposes but its obsolete as a military sidearm.
I’m not a fan of the M9 myself, but its all subjective. As a military sidearm it works, since SF units can get specialized handguns there is no need to waste time procuring another sidearm.
Silly article.
February 16th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
I don’t care what caliber/capacity it chooses for its new handgun so long as the bullets are coated with lard.
February 16th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
MMMMMMMMM, lard.
February 16th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
You guys don’t get it. If the US goes to the Springfield XD as a service weapon, under federal law they have to be made in a US factory. Google “Beretta, Accokeek, MD” for an example of how this worked last time around. The US military got a nice Italian pistol (making a NATO member state happy) and made them in Maryland ONLY because they had to do so.
The author obviously doesn’t want to buy a gun made in Eastern Europe, for some reason, and wants the same gun to be made in the good old US of A. He is just too timid to come right out and say so.
February 16th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Whatever. The M16A2’s made by FN (in FL I think) were always much tighter and more reliable than the Colts made models.
February 16th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
I had a Colt’s M-16A2, and I liked it plenty. Got Expert five times with one. Never used the A4’s, but my buddy who’s about to pick up E-6 in the USMC HATES the FN M-16A4’s. They’re made in Columbia, SC, not FL.
That being said, does anybody really seriously think the military is going to stop using 9mm and adopt a plastic fantastic hi-cap .45? Honestly? Seriously? We’d be better off adopting HP 9mm, or EFMJ, or at least Truncated Cone bullets in 9mm, and it would be much cheaper. The USMC just ordered tens of thousands of M9A1’s, so don’t hold your breath on the .45 getting readopted in 2014. They were talking about re-adopting the .45 when I decided I wanted to be a Marine in MIDDLE SCHOOL, back in the 90’s. Tom Clancy even mentioned it in his book “MARINE”. It ain’t gonna happen, people.