U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-22-2017, 10:24 PM
 
Location: Kirkland, Washington
2,479 posts, read 2,001,888 times
Reputation: 3675

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
True enough. Handguns do have their niche, but they are certainly not primary weapons. I do believe that the M1 carbine was intended to be a replacement for the sidearm. If I were tossed into an escape and evade situation I would rather have the carbine than a pistol. I certainly would not want to be stuck with just a pistol in a battlefield situation. Not in any caliber.


I'm actually surprised that the military hasn't given aviators a carbine/SBR option to a pistol. I suppose for some cockpit space and the ability to have the weapon stay with you in a bailout is certainly a concern. Fighter pilots springing to mind. For those guys I suppose a good pistol is the best option. Still, I don't see an insurmountable issue with the theory.


The sidearm will always have its place. They are handy. But you are quite correct about "knockdown power" really being far less of an issue than the attention given it implies it to be. At least as far as military use is concerned. Indeed, if your down to a pistol in the face of the enemy, that's really only about a half step better than hearing "fix bayonets".
To point of the thread, seldom met a SIG I didn't like, w/one exception: P230, Walther PPK clone. It bit me! Hope that new SIG is truly modular, that is quite useful and clearly the future.

I've shot enough Beretta 92FS...and didn't like it much... to believe they're like my old SIG P226 (which I liked much better): nice to have 15 rounds of 9mm +P if you have the space to carry the weapon, but I'd hate to use it for "offense" per se. I trained with the P226 in a desert, no idea if the M9 was as reliable.

I'm personally most fond of FN, too bad in a sense they didn't win the contest. Nor did the SCAR, earlier. Fine weapons, though. All of them.

After firing a PS90, speaking of pilot weapons, they're a fine little thing for that purpose. Useless unless select-fire, though: semi auto was much like shooting a 22 magnum carbine (if such a thing exists). Guess that would be one more kind of ammo for the military to support, though (5.7) and that's probably more work than they want or need.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-23-2017, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Pérouges
560 posts, read 562,905 times
Reputation: 1297
We (2éRep) and several other parachuting regiments use the Glock 17A. It did it's job.

In the alley ways and small segmented housing of a few places I've been it was easier to pop that around a corner and let off a few rounds than it was to swing around a rifle and try and fire that whilst tied in a knot.

Sometimes a pistol is just what you need.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2017, 09:56 AM
 
3,257 posts, read 1,493,476 times
Reputation: 2850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiko View Post
There are photos of Vietnam era helicopter pilots with M1 and M16 carbines in their Apache cockpit.
No there aren't. The Apache was introduced in 1986 - a bit late to be featured in photos from the Vietnam war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2017, 10:40 AM
 
537 posts, read 221,960 times
Reputation: 435
Not to start an argument, but personally have never been a fan of Sigs. Love Glocks and XDs but then of course that clearly didn't answer the mail for the Army.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2017, 10:40 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
12,110 posts, read 9,336,388 times
Reputation: 11028
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
No there aren't. The Apache was introduced in 1986 - a bit late to be featured in photos from the Vietnam war.

I noticed that as well. I just figured he actually meant Cobra or Iriquois. On the subject of this new pistol, I have to admit that a modular weapon is a good idea. A drunken monkey can keep an M 16/M4 type rifle running if the parts are available. Having a pistol with those features in general issue can't be a bad thing. I do believe, personally, that they should go back to the .45 ACP cartridge rather than keeping the 9 or worse, going to the .40. The .45 is far superior to either especially given the military limitation of having to use ball ammo.


When you consider that last factor 230 grains of 45 vs either 115 grain or 160 grain of 9 or 40 respectively, (yes I know both can be had in heavier bullets but they still don't match the .45) I would prefer that 230 grainer. It performed more than adequately in at least 4 major conflicts and numerous brushfires in the 1911 and 1911 A1 platform. The old girl managed to still be around well after the adoption of the M9 up through Desert Storm.


However, it is more difficult to work on in the field, as is the M9, and a modular setup is a good idea. This is 2017 after all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2017, 11:52 AM
 
3,257 posts, read 1,493,476 times
Reputation: 2850
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
I noticed that as well. I just figured he actually meant Cobra or Iriquois. On the subject of this new pistol, I have to admit that a modular weapon is a good idea. A drunken monkey can keep an M 16/M4 type rifle running if the parts are available. Having a pistol with those features in general issue can't be a bad thing. I do believe, personally, that they should go back to the .45 ACP cartridge rather than keeping the 9 or worse, going to the .40. The .45 is far superior to either especially given the military limitation of having to use ball ammo.


When you consider that last factor 230 grains of 45 vs either 115 grain or 160 grain of 9 or 40 respectively, (yes I know both can be had in heavier bullets but they still don't match the .45) I would prefer that 230 grainer. It performed more than adequately in at least 4 major conflicts and numerous brushfires in the 1911 and 1911 A1 platform. The old girl managed to still be around well after the adoption of the M9 up through Desert Storm.


However, it is more difficult to work on in the field, as is the M9, and a modular setup is a good idea. This is 2017 after all.
Good points. However, as long as the US is a member of NATO, I think we are going to be stuck with the 9mm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2017, 12:09 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
4,300 posts, read 2,000,590 times
Reputation: 2932
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
No there aren't. The Apache was introduced in 1986 - a bit late to be featured in photos from the Vietnam war.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. It was Cobra pilots
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2017, 12:17 PM
 
3,257 posts, read 1,493,476 times
Reputation: 2850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiko View Post
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. It was Cobra pilots
I figured that's what you meant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2017, 12:46 PM
 
Location: New Mexico U.S.A.
22,641 posts, read 33,996,515 times
Reputation: 26217
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Good points. However, as long as the US is a member of NATO, I think we are going to be stuck with the 9mm.
I am not sure if that is true. I could not find a document which says we have to use NATO designated ammunition although I had always heard that for 40+ years...

Here is some interesting reference to 9mm, but not the answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%C3%9...O_9mm_standard

Last edited by Poncho_NM; 01-23-2017 at 12:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2017, 01:22 PM
 
3,257 posts, read 1,493,476 times
Reputation: 2850
Quote:
Originally Posted by poncho_nm View Post
i am not sure if that is true. I could not find a document which says we have to use nato designated ammunition although i had always heard that for 40+ years...

Here is some interesting reference to 9mm, but not the answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%c3%9...o_9mm_standard

Quote:
the department of defense then decided to synchronize the weapons of all five branches of u.s. Forces. The ground combat branches of the services found this decision highly contentious, but was meant to eliminate the need to buy replacements for worn out m1911 frames and to establish a common nato pistol round to simplify logistics in case of war with the soviet union in europe. In 1979 the joint service small arms program began searching for a replacement for the venerable m1911, and the 9×19mm parabellum round was selected for compliance with the nato standardization agreement (stanag).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/beretta_m9
I generally dislike Wikipedia as a source, but that summary pretty much matches my recollection from when it was happening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top