Remington 9 mm recall

One premise of war is that you DO want to wound, not kill. That way they are a burden to their military while they are recuperating.

A lot of the competition for military use was from 9 mm arms. That is a penetrating round. It's useful to shoot through walls before you enter a shack but has it's down side in the open.

Reply to
Winston_Smith
Loading thread data ...

They had a bigger gun FFS. The .40 Short & Weak is mostly good for beating pistols to death that were designed for 9mm. 10mm and .357 SIG will teach them the lesson the Feebs learned; that's a really powerful cartridge. Too bad our people can't hit anything with it. I see Glock 21's om the horizon.

I am curious though. Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I had first hand experience 1911's were generally carried by officers and others who weren't really expected to use them. Grunts got real weapons. I think the USMC has went with the M4 as the primary weapon for ranks below colonel. So, who besides the assorted snake eaters gets the new Modular Weapon System if they ever agree on one?

Reply to
rbowman

Realistically, that leaves the .45. If you're doing Little Red Riding Hood, the .40 is too weak, the .357 is too hot, and the old warhorse is just right. I'm sure the troops will love it. A few more pounds added to their 80 pounds of crap to hump.

Yeah, well, the Crotch is a bunch of traditionalists. They had to pry the M-14s from their cold, dead fingers.

Reply to
rbowman

"David R. Birch" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news1.newsguy.com:

Most of the people we are fighting aren't civilized anyway.

Reply to
Thomas Paine

Do you think the average soldier is going to do any better with a 10 than the FBI?

Reply to
rbowman

Winston_Smith wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Um, suicide bomber? Think, even if it hurts.

Reply to
Thomas Paine

Is that a common military target? Particularly for officers?

Does it even meet the definition of "war"?

Reply to
Winston_Smith

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.

===================================================== Yeah, they'd shoot the drugged-up Moro warriors in the Philippines with a .38, and they'd just keep coming. That was a major issue that provoked the army to go for the .45.

Even under the Hague agreements, we don't have to use ball ammo if we're fighting non-signatories. At least, that's how it was originally. I don't know if that's changed under any provisions of international treaties.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

That's a done deal. SIG 226/228's and Glocks.

Reply to
rbowman

When someone is within handgun range with a gun you want to kill them, not wound them. If they can move their head and arms so they can shoot you at hand gun ranges (say less than 50 yards) they are a serious threat and not a burden to their military.

That wounding BS is fine at long ranges, but not up close.

Reply to
Ralph Mowery

The average soldier is not issued or trained in the use of a handgun of ANY kind. I think that those who need a handgun should have the opportunity to be armed with the one that will do them the most good. I didn't say that should be the 10mm, only that the military should take a closer look at it.

Reply to
Just Wondering

The military was never big on thinking stuff like that through. Consider the M-14 and M-60. Hump belts for the gun and when push comes to shove, start taking the belts apart. So, they adopted the M-16.

I won't even go into the flavors of multi-million dollar aircraft favored by each branch, the camo fiasco, and so forth. Don't worry about the Marines; they'll just steal what they need. They're used to being the red headed step child when the new toys are handed out.

Reply to
rbowman

Nonsense. The different branches might choose three different cartridges, no more; I don't see that as a logistical nightmare at all, as each branch provides its own logistic support anyway.

Reply to
Just Wondering

Yeah, I caught onto that trick after a while.

Reply to
rbowman

That would make entirely too much sense...

Reply to
Don Bruder

I remember reading some where, the .45 was developed after the less than civilized Philipinos refused to die, having been shot several times with a .38 special.

It is likely that the less than civilized folks out there are refusing to stand down, having been hit by Luger rounds.

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

The problem is that a .45 with a round in the chamber and the safety on is the best choice for a trained expert and the worst for an unpracticed newbie. Our MPs had sand barrels at the barracks entrance to point and dry-fire their weapons into while unloading them, since clearing to go indoors without dropping the chamber round (or the hammer) can be tricky with cold, wet, calloused hands.

-jsw

Reply to
Jim Wilkins

Reportedly the Moros were doped up enough to not feel pain so they could reach and stab their enemy before blood loss disabled them.

Reply to
Jim Wilkins

Winston_Smith wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

You don't get out much, doyou?

Reply to
Thomas Paine

Stormin Mormon wrote in news:644Dv.125664 $ snipped-for-privacy@fx17.iad:

Precisely. Though there us some amount of "legend" attached to it. The Moros would take drugs and bind thier testicles in a way that the pain overrode what was to come. They they would rush the US Army, sreaming. Inconveniently, the .38 caliber revolvers issued at the time could only arrange for them to die at a later time, having breached the lines and chopped up a number of soldiers first.

Reply to
Thomas Paine

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.