Going into battle: I'll take . . .

Status
Not open for further replies.
Were I unexpectedly dumped into a battle situation, I'm with Bill... in the tank

Yeah, the title of the thread only asks what you would take into battle.

In that case, I'll take my S&W 642 snubbie 38 with me.

That little 642 would sure be more comfortable than a 1911 on my hip while jammed into the cockpit of an A-10 :evil: :neener: !

Seriously, before I went to college I seriously considered a military career. I thought the A-10 would be a cool plane to fly (or an F-15, talk about extremes), but I know at 6'7" I'd probably have to fly around without a canopy ... DOH!!!
 
I used to be a tank crewman. I love the tank. The M-1 is 68 tons of security.

But you know what?

The guy I hung out with in Germany who taught me most of what I know about combat has made his entire military career being a mortar crewman in armor units. His California guard unit was activated to go to the sandbox, and his guys were exited. "Yes!! We get to paint our tanks brown and go blow some stuff up!!" WRONG. They didn't need armor. They have little use for the armor that's already there. Too big, cumbersome, and VULNERABLE. (One molotov cocktail might not be a big deal to armor, but TEN is a VERY big deal.) They left their tanks at home, and the sole infantry platoon in the battalion, my friend's 11Cs, got to take the lead in reminding the tankers how to rely on basic infantry gear and tactics.

Again, if you ever actually have to USE your sidearm, it means all other systems, air support, heavier weapons, WHATEVER, have failed or are somehow not helpful in this case. This is the situation, MORE THAN ANY OTHER, when you absolutely must have the very best gear possible.
 
Easiest solution for 'poor one-shot performance' of 9mm FMJ: shoot twice. Three times even.

The choice between my CZ SP-01 and P226 would be difficult - but the CZ is more trustworthy IMO, so that would be the choice.
 
If I were sure I was going into battle I wouldn't worry so much about what gear I had, (other than to insure its reliable) I'd be spending time at interactive ranges (with copies of issued weapons, borrowed or self bought) spending time making sure my skills were reliable.

Not only spending time shooting, but also practicing malfunction clearing on my primary (rifle) and secondary (pistol) to the point where it becomes automatic.

Just MHO
 
SMLE with one of those massive sword-bayonets. That allows me to pop off rifle grenades, and have an almost-high-cap evil-bolt-rifle with a bayonet that can do some real damage. Matter of fact, I think the SMLE's foot-long hook-quillion (sp) bayonet is one of the finest anti-zombie, riot-control tools out there.

A FN Five-Seven would be nice to have, too - since this IS the handgun forum, not the rifle forum. Maybe even a CZ P01 with the bayonet mounted on it. :cool:
 
For me I'd probably take the standard M9. Because I'm in the military the Beretta 92 was the first pistol I bought on my own (just as an AR15 was the first rifle I purchased on my own), the pistol that I practice with every weekend on my own dime, and the pistol that I am most familiar with in use and maintenance. I'm a firm believer that you practice with what you fight with. I also do not rely on any pistol for a 'one shot stop,' no matter what the caliber, as I have always been taught that you keeping shooting until the threat is neutralized.

Additionally, the Beretta has the added benefit of having a support network in place should it break. The only thing I might try to do differently is take Beretta magazines with me as it seems most of the problems I've had with military issue M9s and my own Beretta comes from worn out or cheap magazines not made by Beretta.
 
Understanding that the pistol is always simply a means to get to my rifle if I was in battle I would choose the Glock 21. If I had to abide by the Geneva convention. If I could use hollowpoints or other expanding ammo I would choose the Glock 23 or the Glock 19.
 
If everybody else is going to be carrying 9mm's, i'll take a Glock 17 or 18:evil: or even a 34, since I would trust any of these guns.


If we all switch to .45ACP, one of two guns would be good for me: Either my Glock 21 or possibly a HK USP.
 
If you were knowingly going to war, your rifle would be right next to you already.

"Fighting my way to my rifle" is a civilian concept, not military.
 
Just my $.02

I would take a couple Glocks in 9mm.....

Now, I would also want an AR Pistol with an unlimited ammo supply....

and a pony.
 
I will absolutely agree, that no matter what sidearm you wind up using, anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. (At least.) The best way to maximize the effectiveness of a pistol whether it has (you believe) 60% or 90% first-shot stop likelihood is to repeat hits.
 
I think it was Patton who said: The best use of a pistol in war is to fight your way back to a rifle. but he had a pair of nickeled SAA's with Ivory handles

Clint Smith said that, not Patton. Patton carried a Colt SAA and a S&W Registered Magnum (as well as a Colt M1903.) Patton competed in the Penthalon (riding, running, swimming, fencing and pistol shooting) in the 1912 Olympics and was a superb pistol shot. He actually killed two enemy with that SAA during the Mexican Punitive Expedition.
 
Actually, much as I love my steenking pistolas, I'd probably prefer to carry a couple of extra mags for the rifle. Every ounce counts when you have to carry it. If I was vehicle based and could afford to take such heavy luxuries, it would be 1) H&K, 2) SIG, 3) Glock.

I don't want accuracy, I wanna be able to hit a dinner plate at 15 yards, I don't want tight, I want a big old girl that rattles when you shake it and works after you tripped over and sunk it in the mud and will feed anything you stick in it and I want tough so I can whack a guy upside of the head and not have to throw it away afterwards.

I'd also want it to be shooting the same ammo as the other guys around me and these days, that means 9mm.

Mick.
 
Rifles are obviously superior to handguns; we all realize this - no need to state it.

The arm chair generals seem to rag on the 9mm and M9 a lot. I wanted to know what people's opinions were as far as what would be supiorior to the M9 and 9mm that gets so much flak.
 
CZ75 , cheap enought to replace if I had to leave it behind . Note ,, if you have a really nice commander you can get your weapons added to the units TOE so the can be brought back .
 
Only military has to use ball ammo, so I'd take a Glock 19 9mm as my sidearm because 9mm is abundant overseas...

If not subjected to finding ammo over there, I'd go with a .45 because ball or hollows work fine and I'd take a Glock 21 or 21SF. I love 1911's but if I'm in a sandy area I wouldn't be fond of trusting a jam-o-matic 7 round 1911. Great for city or putting holes in paper, but gimme a high-cap reliable sidearm like the Glock. Mags are cheap, too, unlike Hk or even Sig...

TRL
 
I'd take my XD-40, its rock solid, reliable, shoot's a good round, even with FMJ ammo. I would just make sure I had a 5000 round case of ammo going with me.:D
 
The Medusa Revolver and a load of .357. When that runs out, stick in some 9mm. When that runs out, if it's rougly a 9mm round, stick it in and fire it. :p

I'd probably take a Sig of some manner...maybe the Target model with that 5" barrel for better accuracy? Ammo commonality is key; if you pick a 1911, unless you're alongside some marines or someone packing a 1911 varient, you're up a creek, and it's just that simple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top