Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: New military pistol, again......

  1. #1

    Default New military pistol, again......

    It looks like our government is looking at retiring the old 9mm Beretta and some Sig's. Article in Fox News said their are complaints about the 9mm requiring several shots to stop some one and the open slide on the Beretta allowing to much dirt to enter the gun and causing functioning problems. Geeze, big surprise? So sad, i wonder how many American lives were lost because of this. Open slides and 9mm ball ammo are a poor choice. I don't understand war, I thought the idea was to kill more of the enemy so they would surrender. If they are going to continue using ball ammo then they should ask Glock to build them a single stack .45 with a 5" barrel and be done with it. Fortunately most warriors use a rifle. If our government can crap out over 3 billion in a hurry to spend on illegals, we should be able to pick out a pistol in a reasonable amount of time. They should let our nations Special Operators pick the pistol and caliber, Navy Seals, Delta Force, etc. I should be in charge of this and not the politicians.

  2. #2
    Member pacific23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Whitesboro, Texas
    Posts
    534

    Default

    Some of the men have been getting NEW 1911's does that count?

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pacific23 View Post
    Some of the men have been getting NEW 1911's does that count?
    NOPE...! The 1911 is over a 100 years old and used by the military for the same length of time; and has been manufactured by everybody for years. NOW...the new Glock 45 auto long-slide would be a "NEW" gun for the military; they haven't had them before.OR the 10mm in a long-slide version would be very impressive as a military sidearm.
    " Americans will never need the 2nd Amendment, until the government tries to take it away."

    On the road of life..... Pot holes keep things interesting !

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .338 mag. View Post
    It looks like our government is looking at retiring the old 9mm Beretta and some Sig's. Article in Fox News said their are complaints about the 9mm requiring several shots to stop some one and the open slide on the Beretta allowing to much dirt to enter the gun and causing functioning problems. Geeze, big surprise? So sad, i wonder how many American lives were lost because of this. Open slides and 9mm ball ammo are a poor choice. I don't understand war, I thought the idea was to kill more of the enemy so they would surrender. If they are going to continue using ball ammo then they should ask Glock to build them a single stack .45 with a 5" barrel and be done with it. Fortunately most warriors use a rifle. If our government can crap out over 3 billion in a hurry to spend on illegals, we should be able to pick out a pistol in a reasonable amount of time. They should let our nations Special Operators pick the pistol and caliber, Navy Seals, Delta Force, etc. I should be in charge of this and not the politicians.
    A sidearm is an Oh Sh@@ gun in the military. I believe one reason for going with 9mm was uniformity with NATO countries? .45 is a beast and I love the 1911 platform. However our politicians are involved and there is no telling when a new sidearm is adopted. I first read this report quite a few years ago and if memory serves correctly the Marines did start reissuing the 1911. With drawbacks and withdrawal on horizon I doubt the politicians will move on this.

  5. #5
    Member S.B.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    680

    Default

    [QUOTE=. I believe one reason for going with 9mm was uniformity with NATO countries? [/QUOTE]
    This is the very reason America should worry more about OUR troops instead of NATO troops! If we are the gold standard they should get in line with us. Not Nato, the UN or any other group of peoples. I hate to hear of American troops under a Soviet(or any other nations) general. Just who do you think they would set out, if the feces hits the fan? But Obama and Hill have different thoughts about this, just look at Bengazi.
    Steve

  6. #6
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    The loss of life due to the new AR's were up there for sure.
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S.B. View Post
    This is the very reason America should worry more about OUR troops instead of NATO troops! If we are the gold standard they should get in line with us. Not Nato, the UN or any other group of peoples. I hate to hear of American troops under a Soviet(or any other nations) general. Just who do you think they would set out, if the feces hits the fan? But Obama and Hill have different thoughts about this, just look at Bengazi.
    Steve
    At the time of NATO's forming the USSR was the main threat.
    regardless...our our ammo size of choice isn't the greatest. Hasn't been since the 60s.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Sandpoint, ID
    Posts
    1,969

    Default

    Hopefully, whatever gets chosen, they ditch the FMJ and go with an effective bullet. I go back to the Model 10 with a FMJ 150 gr and the 1911 and an FMJ there too. A decent bullet is the answer regardless of the caliber.

    Like they say...I carry a 45 'cuz they don't make a 46...althought, I've come to like a real 10mm, not the 40 S&W.
    Somewhere along the way I have lost the ability to act politically correct. If you should find it, please feel free to keep it.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lowrider View Post
    Hopefully, whatever gets chosen, they ditch the FMJ and go with an effective bullet. I go back to the Model 10 with a FMJ 150 gr and the 1911 and an FMJ there too. A decent bullet is the answer regardless of the caliber.

    Like they say...I carry a 45 'cuz they don't make a 46...althought, I've come to like a real 10mm, not the 40 S&W.
    yep. A good bullet goes a long way.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lowrider View Post
    Hopefully, whatever gets chosen, they ditch the FMJ
    Quote Originally Posted by .338 mag. View Post
    Open slides and 9mm ball ammo are a poor choice. I don't understand war, I thought the idea was to kill more of the enemy so they would surrender. If they are going to continue using ball ammo then they should ask Glock to build them a single stack .45 with a 5" barrel and be done with it. Fortunately most warriors use a rifle.
    They can't "ditch the FMJ" and they are going to continue to use the FMJ. The Geneva Convention and the Laws Of Armed Conflict (LOAC) require the use of FMJ bullets. FMJ ammo does less damage to a person and is, somehow, more "humane." The old philosophy was if you wounded an enemy combatant, you removed three combatants from the field-the one you wounded plus two to carry him back to an aid station. Obviously, the times have changed, but the US is still a signatory to the Geneva Convention.

    By the way, all of the military's rifle ammo is "ball" ammo, too.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amigo Will View Post
    The loss of life due to the new AR's were up there for sure.
    Beat me to it!! Rep points sent!

    How many guys died face down in the mud in Vietnam with a cleaning rod stuffed down the barrel of their POS M-16. And, somehow, that is THE longest serving military service arm in US history. Go figure.

  12. #12
    Member S.B.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yukon Cornelius View Post
    At the time of NATO's forming the USSR was the main threat.
    regardless...our our ammo size of choice isn't the greatest. Hasn't been since the 60s.
    Have you heard Putin, lately?
    Steve

  13. #13

    Default

    My Springfield 1911 is my favorite pistol and the 9mm with a +p+ 127 grain hollow point is a decent hand gun combo at reasonable pistol ranges. A Glock is easier for shooters to learn, should be as reliable as a 1911 and should be lighter and cheaper. It is also warmer to the bare hand in cold weather and the big trigger area and trigger is more user friendly to a gloved shooter then a 1911. A .45 will never leave less then a .45 caliber hole, as we all know. "Special Forces/Team Guys" should always be allowed to carry what they want.

  14. #14
    Member S.B.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    680

    Default

    .338, ever heard of the Versailles(sp?) treaty. in war, no hollow points allowed. Why the .45ACP, and still is, the best choice, in many opinions. Talk to combat experienced veterans not the behind the lines guys. It's been doing it for over a century. Don't listen to todays gun scribes either.
    Steve

  15. #15
    Member Akheloce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Homer
    Posts
    1,135

    Default

    Neither the Versailles treaty nor the Geneva conventions say anything about ammo. That's an old rumor.

    The Hague conventions prohibit the use of expanding ammo, but the US did not agree to that stipulation. There are several instances where US military uses expanding ammo. I carried hollowpoints in my M9, and several units use 77 gr OTM bullets in 223
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  16. #16
    Member S.B.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    680

    Default

    Thank you for this clarification. But, my opinion still stands.
    Steve

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S.B. View Post
    Have you heard Putin, lately?
    Steve
    I don't speak Russian.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akheloce View Post
    Neither the Versailles treaty nor the Geneva conventions say anything about ammo. That's an old rumor.

    The Hague conventions prohibit the use of expanding ammo, but the US did not agree to that stipulation. There are several instances where US military uses expanding ammo. I carried hollowpoints in my M9, and several units use 77 gr OTM bullets in 223
    It would not have been the Versailles Treaty, which ended WWI.

    However, if this is an "Old Rumor" it is an "Old Rumor" that has been taught by representatives of the Judge Advocate General (military attorneys) at every single LOAC course I ever took at every single base I ever took one, which totals six classes in 6 six years at three bases. (Basic Training plus annual ancillary training. Twice in the Army and four times in the Air Force).

    So, if it's an old rumor, it's a rumor the US military is confirming by teaching it.

  19. #19
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,214

    Default

    AKheloce is correct. The Geneva Conventions dealt with how both combatants and non-combatants are to be treated/dealt with within a war zone and surrounding areas. The Geneva Conventions did not address use of weapons/munitions.

    Rules of war requiring use of ball ammo were set out here:

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp

    and were ratified by every relevant country except the U.S.
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  20. #20
    Member Akheloce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Homer
    Posts
    1,135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FL2AK-Old Town View Post
    It would not have been the Versailles Treaty, which ended WWI.

    However, if this is an "Old Rumor" it is an "Old Rumor" that has been taught by representatives of the Judge Advocate General (military attorneys) at every single LOAC course I ever took at every single base I ever took one, which totals six classes in 6 six years at three bases. (Basic Training plus annual ancillary training. Twice in the Army and four times in the Air Force).

    So, if it's an old rumor, it's a rumor the US military is confirming by teaching it.
    It doesn't surprise me that some people in the military teach that. Old rumors die hard in the military, but the SJA should have known better, obviously.

    Like I said, the US did not sign the expanding ammo ban, and is not legally prohibited in any way from using expanding ammo. However, as an unwritten rule, the majority of US forces use ball ammo since it is a generally accepted practice of "civilized nations." Many forces, myself included, used expanding ammo for specialized circumstances.

    Another example of an oft repeated rumor is the prohibition of .50 cal against people in the open. There is no such prohibition, and .50, 20mm, and 30mm are used regularly against troops. Legend has it that a fire base commander in Vietnam was having supply problems getting 50 BMG, so he told his men not to waste it on troops in the open. That somehow morphed into a false belief that it was illegal.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •