I would rather carry a box of rocks than a Glock.
Because hollowpoints are "inhumane" according to NATO while hitting them with .50 cal and rockets is "more humane"?
I would rather carry a box of rocks than a Glock
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 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.
Sure you did.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.
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.