Remington 9 mm recall

And it's not a roundabout way to subsidize the purchase of Boeing, Caterpillar, and other products that wouldn't be competetive on the global market? If not, why does it exist? There certainly was a lot of whining when people started talking about shutting it down.

=========================================================

No American, Canadian, French, German, Japanese, Italian, British, Spanish, Belgian, Netherlands, or Scandinavian products would be competitive on the world stage without their export credit agencies (ECAs). They're a major contributor to world trade, especially for smaller companies. Regarding larger companies, it's the cost of admission to world markets. Without our ECA, the Ex-im, Boeing would be reduced to domestic sales, while Airbus ruled the world. Cat would go under. US industry would lose much of its foreign markets.

Here's a list of them:

formatting link

The US economy depends heavily on our Ex-im. We export $1.5 Trillion in goods and services. That would be slashed to a fraction of its current rate without it.

The fact is that private banks would not deal with smaller countries or smaller companies, because they're averse to risk they can't pawn off onto the government (heads I win, tails you lose). But those companies and countries, collectively, make up a large part of international trade.

Reply to
Ed Huntress
Loading thread data ...

For shooing the wax type bullets with just the primer, the flash holes are ofted drilled out much larger to help prevent that.

Reply to
Ralph Mowery

True enough, as far as it goes. But keep in mind that when it's "for keeps" (as opposed to the "funsies" of range or plinking time) my carry piece is always loaded with good reputation commercially loaded "extra-strength" goblin pills. That being the case, I judge that the risk of something like what you describe is so low as to be ignorable. Not impossible, by any means, just so low as to be a non-issue. After all, how many "BUGs to back up your BUG to back up your other BUG, to back up..." can one body carry? :)

Reply to
Don Bruder

"Anti-gun writer". Stretching for yet another fear.

I'd love to hear the technical reasons or is it just the need to spend some money to prove the Army needs a bigger budget?

And what if it does? I can only shoot you with one gun at a time. Ok, maybe two. The question is whether I'm inclined to shoot someone, not which of thousands of firearms I might choose to use. If it's anything but a derelict Saturday night special, it very likely will go bang a couple of times.

Reply to
Winston_Smith

"Anti-gun writer". Stretching for yet another fear.

I'd love to hear the technical reasons or is it just the need to spend some money to prove the Army needs a bigger budget?

=========================================================

[Ed]

They want a bigger gun. The 9mm is a wimp.

=========================================================

And what if it does? I can only shoot you with one gun at a time. Ok, maybe two. The question is whether I'm inclined to shoot someone, not which of thousands of firearms I might choose to use. If it's anything but a derelict Saturday night special, it very likely will go bang a couple of times.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

The Remington M24, a somewhat modified model 700, is our military's current sniper weapon. Except for minor modifications, it's still not much different from WWI's 1917 Enfield.

Reply to
Just Wondering

Hee, hee, back to .45 ACP ??

Reply to
Winston_Smith

Hee, hee, back to .45 ACP ??

=========================================================

[Ed]

Yes. The three cartridges reported to be in contention are the .45 ACP, the .357 Sig, and the .40 cal S&W.

Special Marine units already have a new version of the 1911 in .45 ACP, as you may know.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

formatting link
"..designed towards the end of World War I by John Browning."

"It was heavily used during World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Falklands War, and during the Iraq War and War in Afghanistan in the 2000s and 2010s. It is the primary heavy machine gun of NATO countries, ..."

"The M2 has been in use longer than any other small arm in U.S. inventory except the .45 ACP M1911 pistol, also designed by John Browning."

Reply to
Jim Wilkins

Which means NATO compatibility goes out the window.

45ACP doesn't hold enough rounds in a package that anyone without big hands can handle.

.357Sig was developed to give fancy 9mm bullets enough velocity to expand, not an issue when you have to use FMJ, so that would be pointless.

.40S&W is only slightly better than 9x19 as a stopper, not enough better to blow NATO compatibility.

All this is a tempest in a teapot. The military need for a pistol is to use to fight your way to your rifle.

.45ACP, single column mag and a double action or DAO Glock-like trigger. Maybe a Glock 36 with a longer grip.

David

Reply to
David R. Birch

Which means NATO compatibility goes out the window.

45ACP doesn't hold enough rounds in a package that anyone without big hands can handle.

.357Sig was developed to give fancy 9mm bullets enough velocity to expand, not an issue when you have to use FMJ, so that would be pointless.

.40S&W is only slightly better than 9x19 as a stopper, not enough better to blow NATO compatibility.

All this is a tempest in a teapot. The military need for a pistol is to use to fight your way to your rifle.

.45ACP, single column mag and a double action or DAO Glock-like trigger. Maybe a Glock 36 with a longer grip.

David ================================================== [Ed]

Well, Marine Recon and other special units wanted a single-column pistol with a good chamfer for fast magazine-swapping. Their new .45s, Colt upgrades to the 1911, hold the traditional 7-round magazines.

Maybe thinking has changed in the army, too.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

So what? For the USA to pick a combat round because it's what Italian soldiers shoot, even if there is a better alternative, is just plain dumb. If there needs to be compatability, let the other NATO countries follow the USA's lead for a change. After all, in recent history the USA has fielded more ground troops than all the other NATO countries combined.

Just how often has "NATO compatability" or the lack thereof actually made a difference?

Actually, the .40S&W has BETTER stopping power than the .45ACP. The .40 has a higher muzzle velocity and energy than the .45, and makes nearly as large an entry wound. Out of existing pistol cartridges, I think the military should take a closer look at the 10mm.

Valid arguments can and have been made for a number of calibers. My own thought is that 16 rounds of .40S&W beats 9 rounds of .45 ACP. The bigger problem, if stopping power is the issue, is hamstringing troops with the NATO requirement to use FMJ ammo. If the infantry is serious about equipping soldiers with handguns, they really need something like Speer Gold Dot or Federal LE HST in their pistols.

Reply to
Just Wondering

How about this? Leave the military brass and politicians completely out of the decision. Give the elite units who actually pack pistols full discretion to buy any pistol, in any cartridge, that they want. Sit back for six months or so and see what they choose, and which pistol/cartridge combination actually works best for them under training exercises and real field conditions. Then go with that one.

Reply to
Just Wondering

So what? For the USA to pick a combat round because it's what Italian soldiers shoot, even if there is a better alternative, is just plain dumb. If there needs to be compatability, let the other NATO countries follow the USA's lead for a change. After all, in recent history the USA has fielded more ground troops than all the other NATO countries combined.

============================================================

[Ed]

Ah, NATO *does* follow our lead. The 7.62 NATO round is an American round. The 5.56 NATO round is an American round.

=============================================================

Just how often has "NATO compatability" or the lack thereof actually made a difference?

Actually, the .40S&W has BETTER stopping power than the .45ACP. The .40 has a higher muzzle velocity and energy than the .45, and makes nearly as large an entry wound. Out of existing pistol cartridges, I think the military should take a closer look at the 10mm.

Valid arguments can and have been made for a number of calibers. My own thought is that 16 rounds of .40S&W beats 9 rounds of .45 ACP. The bigger problem, if stopping power is the issue, is hamstringing troops with the NATO requirement to use FMJ ammo. If the infantry is serious about equipping soldiers with handguns, they really need something like Speer Gold Dot or Federal LE HST in their pistols.

============================================================== [Ed]

It's not just a NATO requirement. It's a part of the 1899 Hague Convention requirements, which were signed by every major country in the world -- except for the United States. But we eventually decided to go along.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

How about this? Leave the military brass and politicians completely out of the decision. Give the elite units who actually pack pistols full discretion to buy any pistol, in any cartridge, that they want. Sit back for six months or so and see what they choose, and which pistol/cartridge combination actually works best for them under training exercises and real field conditions. Then go with that one.

================================================================

[Ed]

That's not far from what the Marine Force Recon units did. The armorers were rebuilding old pistols like crazy, and said that the 1911 was the only gun that would stand up to the 80,000 rounds a Force Recon Marine would fire through a training cycle.

The decision was made not by Washington brass, but by officers and armorers who actually had to see that the Marines has guns that would stand up.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

"for a change"? We shoved the 7.62NATO round down NATO throats and after they had adopted battle rifles for it(NOT the assault rifles they wanted), we found we were fighting a guerrilla war with what was an improved WWII design, and we jumped to an assault rifle with an inadequate cartridge which we then made them adopt.

It only matters if we need to supply troops in the field with allied ammo that fits.

You keep forgetting that a major problem with any powerful handgun is that the majority of troops don't learn to shoot it effectively. Big pistols are fine for Sgt. Rock, but not so much for Pvt Benjamin.

16 rounds of 40S&W mean a grip requiring BIG hands.

As soon as we start ignoring the Hague protocols, a lot more than NATO compatibility goes out the window.

David

Reply to
David R. Birch

Sure.

The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines will each adopt what works best for their services and we get a logistic nightmare trying to keep them all fed and maintained in a war zone.

Did you think that suggestion through?

David

Reply to
David R. Birch

That may work for the USMC.

The other services will each go in a different direction because of the inter service rivalry.

How about this?

Each service gets to adopt their own version of the 1911 as made by the gazillion companies currently churning out clones. We have Remington, S&W, maybe even Colt making them plus who knows who else. And that's not even considering the imports, the Norinco 1911A1 was really well made, as are the Philippine and South American versions. My Argentine 1927 Sistema was better made than my Colt Mark IV Series 80(grumble grumble).

Might be a slight problem with maintaining them all in the field, though.

BTW, NOT a serious suggestion.

David

Reply to
David R. Birch

I have a better solution. Let the government get together with the major suppliers and those that chose to enter the competition will a design a gun using any of the features from their or any other competitor (without compensation) in this competition for the next service pistol. Pistol design to become government property (or more correctly public property) and after an initial contract period to the winner, the design is free for any manufacturer who participated in the competition to produce and the government can then pick the cheapest supplier and change them at will. Needless to say, if you want to be able to produce the pistol later, then you have to enter the competition, if you do, then the other competitors can use any features from your designs they chose in designing their entry into the competition but you also get to do the same.

It would be like the Garand. Many companies made it, but all the parts matched the government design and specs. It wouldn't be a Colt, or a S&W, but a Government Model XXX made by X, Y, or Z.

Reply to
Scout

In 1899 it may have made sense not to have hollow points or the equivelent. Not now. We have the land mined of all kinds, flame throwers and bombs of all kinds from airplanes. As the US did not sign the Hague ew should be using the HP ammo in the small arms, especially the hand guns. As the hand gun is ment as for close in usage, it needs to stop a man and not just wound him. That is part of what I understand the 45 was issued for. The 38s at the time would kill, but not quick enough. Not enough shock power to take the person out of a fight quick enough.

Reply to
Ralph Mowery

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.