TexasBill
Member
If I am going off to war and I need to select appropriate weapons, I would like to know who we're fighting and where (the Taliban in Afghanistan? the Somalis in Africa? Zombies in Arkansas?) to make a proper choice, especially when it comes to the long gun.
Since a pistol would be mostly for those occasions where the long gun wasn't handy (chow, answering nature's call, etc.), I'd probably be happiest with a my FNP-9 or PX4 Storm although the FN FiveseveN is definitely a candidate.
The Desert Eagle or S&W .500 just seem like a bad idea; I am sure they would do the job but I am not sure about the collateral damage. Besides, they are awfully heavy: I could carry both of my 9mm pistols for the same weight.
Heresy time: When I looked at the pistols proposed to replace the M9, there wasn't a standard M1911 among them. I have to agree. The .45 ACP is still a viable cartridge, but there are newer handgun designs I think would be better. The Colt SAA had its day, too, but no one is proposing it as a modern combat weapon. If I were to select a .45 pistol, it would be a Sig Sauer 220. If you want to carry a Colt, Kimber, Les Baer, or whatever, you're the expert on what you feel is best, so go for it. There are an awful lot of reasons I would buy a Colt Series 70 Government Model, but going into combat isn't one of them.
The long gun really depends on the theatre, operations and what I would be doing. Some situations call for a Remington Wingmaster 870 with a 14-inch barrel; others call for a selective-fire rifle or SMG. The M14 has a lot going for it, unless you're in a situation where most of the fighting is close-quarters combat. For that reason, I would probably go for a SIG 716 CQB or 716 Carbine. That gives me the .30-caliber bullet, 20-round magazine, and selective fire in a very maneuverable package.
Since a pistol would be mostly for those occasions where the long gun wasn't handy (chow, answering nature's call, etc.), I'd probably be happiest with a my FNP-9 or PX4 Storm although the FN FiveseveN is definitely a candidate.
The Desert Eagle or S&W .500 just seem like a bad idea; I am sure they would do the job but I am not sure about the collateral damage. Besides, they are awfully heavy: I could carry both of my 9mm pistols for the same weight.
Heresy time: When I looked at the pistols proposed to replace the M9, there wasn't a standard M1911 among them. I have to agree. The .45 ACP is still a viable cartridge, but there are newer handgun designs I think would be better. The Colt SAA had its day, too, but no one is proposing it as a modern combat weapon. If I were to select a .45 pistol, it would be a Sig Sauer 220. If you want to carry a Colt, Kimber, Les Baer, or whatever, you're the expert on what you feel is best, so go for it. There are an awful lot of reasons I would buy a Colt Series 70 Government Model, but going into combat isn't one of them.
The long gun really depends on the theatre, operations and what I would be doing. Some situations call for a Remington Wingmaster 870 with a 14-inch barrel; others call for a selective-fire rifle or SMG. The M14 has a lot going for it, unless you're in a situation where most of the fighting is close-quarters combat. For that reason, I would probably go for a SIG 716 CQB or 716 Carbine. That gives me the .30-caliber bullet, 20-round magazine, and selective fire in a very maneuverable package.
