|
Post by solaris on Jun 18, 2018 18:22:13 GMT
If I were going into combat, which is very unlikely at this point in my life, the last thing I'd want would be a pistol. There is an inverse relationship between how important a weapon is in the military and how much discussion there is about it. There was more discussion in Congress over a new pistol than a new jet airplane, probably because when it comes to pistols, everyone's an expert. (Parkinson's Law). My son was a tank crewman in the army. When they deployed, they all had pistols. But at some point in the 15 months he was there (yes, 15 months), they turned in their pistols and everyone either got an M4 or an M16. That is curious because the army is very liberal when it comes to distributing weapons. The infantry platoon they worked with was issued with the so-called port firing weapon (M231) but they stayed packed up in their shipping container. Even as a tank unit, they were issued with .50 caliber rifles, which I guess was a Barrett, but they passed them on to another unit, apparently not of much use to a tanker. They also possessed some captured Russian weapons but there was no interest in using them and there was no ammunition source anyway. I was in Amphibious Assault in the Marines. we rated an M4, but since we were broke at the time (Clinton years) we had M-16A2 and an M9 when we made NCO.
If you have to pull your pistol in combat, you're either clearing a very small room, or your day is really sucking. A rifle is always your best bet, but when you run out of rifle ammo, your pistol becomes a great option.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jun 18, 2018 23:00:45 GMT
Apparently the M4 has become the general issue rifle, which I'm not so sure is a good idea. I've handled one and the way they are loaded up, they are rather heavier than an old-fashioned M-16, now over 50 years old, which is hard to believe. The AK series is only about ten years older.
The M-16 and its cartridge, the 5.56 (originally .222), has generated a lot of controversy over the years. But it should be remembered that has been true of just about everything the army ever fielded. The M-1? Inaccurate, should have kept the 1903. The 1903? Awful, stiff, Mauser action. Should have kept the Krag: smooth as silk. The .45-70? Lost stopping power: should have kept the .50-70. The M-14? Oh, we still have them.
And so on.
|
|
|
Post by reynolds on Oct 29, 2018 3:23:50 GMT
Had a 1903 in 380 for a while ) Me, too, in 1970. i had a smith add a set of real sights and an extension to that tiny safety. then it was very accurate and reasonably fast to use. But the Star 380 Pony let me hot load a soft lead 80 gr lhp, made by hollowpointing and hollowbasting a 95 gr lrn cast bullet to almost 1300 fps. So the browning went to somebody who wanted it a lot worse than I did. regular 380 jhp's wont reliably stop a chuck or a coon, but then, neither will .45 ball ammo from a 5" barrel.
|
|
|
Post by reynolds on Oct 29, 2018 3:27:57 GMT
Since I last posted in this thread, I have finally acquired a Colt Government Model in .38 Super. There was a 50-50 chance that I might have bought a .45 auto but I came home with the .38 Super instead. Somewhere I think I read something about an experimental pistol in some proprietary caliber (they all were at one time) sometime between the wars. It was supposedly a slightly scaled-down Government Model in a .38-sized caliber. I don't remember where I read it and I don't think I ever found anything on the Internet about it either. In any case, Colt found no buyers and the project went nowhere. Handguns in the military aren't really used that much and last a long time, so it's not surprising they couldn't sell any. Lugers were still being used into the 1980s in some places. I'm trying real hard not to want another Luger. They made a "Officer's" model of the 1911 in small numbers for generals. it was either ACP or commander length, steel frame, I forget which.
|
|