AABEN
Member
I like the 28 & 586
yes it does unless your object is to kill. Which just one can do. And for combat the goal is to take enemys out of the fight 1 wounded 2 helping him get off the battlefield equals 3 enemys not fighting. Professionals know this. Administrator or not your wrong.
That's quite an assumption. It is baseless.Posted by strykerfire: yes it does [only take one] unless your object is to kill.
yes it does unless your object is to kill.
Which just one can do.
And for combat the goal is to take enemys out of the fight
1 wounded 2 helping him get off the battlefield equals 3 enemys (sp) not fighting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously the Beretta 92, Glock 17 and the Sig 226 are famous for being combat pistols. What would be the best choice for a revolver?
288 posts until we hit shear rediculousness.Militarily, there is no difference between the best and worst combat handgun. Only thing they're for is to make soldiers feel good, so choose whatever makes you happiest. Handguns are so irrelevent on the modern battlefield that using 1836 Colt Patterson's as your combat revolver wouldn't make any difference over using the latest and greatest Wonder 9 40 Super Zapper Tupperware.
Thank you!!! Half this eight page thread has been off topic.Haven't we killed a whole lotta electrons arguing a point not in question? My opinion is if you aren't comparing the merits of revolvers that may get pressed into combat, you are off topic. At the very minimum you are beating a thoroughly dead horse.
1 wounded 2 helping him get off the battlefield equals 3 enemys not fighting. Professionals know this.