If soldiers could choose their sidearm

Status
Not open for further replies.
grease gun..lol

Glock 18 with 5 mags (full auto) i guess that could be of some use ina CQB situation with 4 to 5 targets that need "spraying"...

Not much use in an area larger than a room up to 20 yards though.
 
1gun2.jpg


It would probably be a little heavy but stopping power shouldn't be a problem.

Other than that I would stick with the M9 until we get our Fazers.
 
Absolute free choice? S&W M&P R8 .357 Magnum.
Real world choice? Browning Hi-Power 9mm.
But I'd be fine with either an M1911 or an M9 in that role. I'd rather have a choice to replace that &((*&^#@#!!!! M16 that I hated the entire time I carried one in the Army.
 
If given the choice of a sidearm to carry, i would opt to carry more magazines for my rifle instead.

If i was forced to carry a sidearm, it would without question be a FN Five Seven. 100 meter range, 31rd capacity, armor penetration capability, and a fragmentation effect all in one compact package.

I would rather carry a box of rocks than a Glock.
 
Last edited:
Imo as a soldier I hate the m9. The extra weight is ok for me with carrying the .45. So my choice would have to be a G21
 
Because hollowpoints are "inhumane" according to NATO while hitting them with .50 cal and rockets is "more humane"?

The M2 is only supposed to be used against "enemy equipment". You know..... like the explosive vest he might have under his man dress.

I would rather carry a box of rocks than a Glock

Some of us do carry boxes of rocks in the turrets. It's a good attention getter for cars that get too close or whatever. But as for a sidearm I would choose a Glock 26. Easy to find ammo with the current supply and small and light enough to not get in the way. My kit weighs too much already.
 
The difference in weight is negligible...

considering the advantages of a heavier bullet, so I'd prefer something along the lines of the S&W M&P 45 or one of the other polymer-framed pistols. And frankly I'd be just fine going back to the M1911A1, although preferably a high-capacity version.

Maybe the folks at Natick do, but nobody else seems to really care how much weight we carry. With IOTV and front and back plates and side plates and DAPs on before you even pick up a weapon or struggle into your LCV you're getting darned close to the combat load of a medieval knight (but without the horse or squire).
 
I saw a lot of guys throw the Colt 1911's away into the rice patties in Nam and go with a Makarov pistols for close quarters combat. I did likewise and never looked back. I would feel totally secure today with a Mak over a 1911 today as well. In my opinion, there is nothing more durable or relaible than a Makarov PM Pistol.
Why do you think they did that? Honestly, I own both, and like both, but I don't understand the reason for doing such a thing. The Mak does carry concealed a little better, but they're both pretty heavy hunks of steel so I can't see it being a weight thing. I can understand discarding a Vietnam-era M16 in favor of a Kalashnikov in that environment, but don't see the pistol problem.

I'll quit guessing, but I would like to hear the reasoning.
 
That's what i was thinking.

I could just imagine the look on the armorers face when you told him you threw your sidearm into a rice paddy. I can think of no faster way to get slapped with a field grade article 15, lol...
 
I have a couple relatives that were in that 'war'. One found a M16 at a test fire pit unattended. He took it. Found a M79 later and did the same. I also remember seeing a 38 special revolver and issue ammo along with one of them 22 survival rifles issued to chopper pilots when I was a kid.

I wasn't there but I know bringing your issue weapons home for the keeping today would not fly very well.

Just sayin'
 
The junk that they gave us in Nam was already worn out from WWII and Korea. There was a 50% failure rate out of the crates and parts were impossible to get when I was there. We were able to get Maks all over the place for a pack of Luckies or Camels. Ammo also was no problem. Why carry that hunk of useless of pig iron, so we tossed them.

Vietnam was not a war so we had a lot of leeway to do what ever we wanted. That's the best I can explain it.

Dude, please. :rolleyes:
 
Glock 20 - 10 mm would be the best choice. Same recoil as 45 but more power and 15 rounds per mag
 
That FNP-45 is seriously nice.

The FNP-9 is really nice too. I almost bought one a few months ago when HK Specialist.com has having a KILLER sale on them, but i decided to hold out and save up for a FN 5.7 instead.

FN makes some really nice pistols.
 
Any vet that has been in the bush, and had to pack a weeks worth of kit, would chose: to leave that bullet slinger on his bunk and take a couple extra mags for his rifle, or a couple canteens more of water, maybe a couple grenades. Other than staging your own version, of Custer's last stand, what do you plan to do with a hangun in a hot area??? oh yea, if my rifle breaks,,wrong answer. Sure a couple handguns in the platoon, maybe if you are part of a heavy weapon crew or some other special unit. What i see in the pics, is light patrol units out for a walk around the block. If i had to drag along a pistol (and your gonna want more ammo for it too right?) i would take a 22.
 
If I have to pull my sidearm, it means that my rifle is down. In which case, as the last line of defense to save my sorry butt... I would take a Glock. Ugly as sin, but you can't argue with performance, as much as you may want to. For the record, I'm a Glock hater, but I'm accurate with them, and they just don't fail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top