Do Corpsman carry a M16 or any type of weapon? Just wondering since I'm planning to be a FMF.usmarine2007 wrote:
Hard to say. Not sure what the time line is on weapons. But hey, those weapons kept me alive, so I am satisfied I guess.ghettoperson wrote:
So you think there's a pretty good chance they'll get new weapons in the near future?usmarine2007 wrote:
I saw it, for the Marines at least, come down to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Like I said, in 1995 the gear was pathetic...Vietnam era. Then, a new commandant came in, spent a night in the field with the grunts, and basically said fuck this, you guys need new gear. And, it happened not to long after that.
Alpine their not Marines........ Also on the M-24, MARINES DON'T USE THE M40A3 ,http://www.snipercentral.com/m40a3.htmalpinestar wrote:
I didn't know those were Marines, sorry I couldnt find a picture of bicycle with 3 wheels in the back.(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
You're a Commie, and those Soldiers are US Army. You have no business posting about US Marines.alpinestar wrote:
They forgot to add new top secret vehicool to that list
http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/5162/bike4xn.jpg
The actual daily gear we have now, is 10 times better. Everything I was taught in boot camp to use and received at my 1st unit was honestly from the Korea War era, right past the Vietnam era of standard issue. The new gear, from the new camies, to the sleeping bag are great. What replaced that POS Mollie Gear, though? that backpack was horrible!
For commie insult i'll return one of an egoist which matches you perfectly. BTW it was meant to be as joke if you can't take one fuck off.
And the M9(Berreta) SUCKS, I carried one with my M16A4
The Funny thing is the pic on his sig is US SF troop in Afghanistan, and the Molle was SHIT, I broke my frame putting the pack togther(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
The actual daily gear we have now, is 10 times better. Everything I was taught in boot camp to use and received at my 1st unit was honestly from the Korea War era, right past the Vietnam era of standard issue. The new gear, from the new camies, to the sleeping bag are great. What replaced that POS Mollie Gear, though? that backpack was horrible!
EDIT:(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
Is all you do, scour thru these forums and belittle the USA? If you have nothing to say about this post, then please, try to add something positive?ghettoperson wrote:
Good post. Very interesting to read about that. So think the military will actually listen and do something about it? I don't really know how much attention the brass pay to the troops in the US army.
i have thought for a very long time that the .223-SS109 is underpowered.
it is not a killing round. its very design intends for it to rip apart organs once inside; the hydrostatic shock created is often times not enough to down someone and keep them down.
.308 FTW
barret has a great 7.62mm rifle that i know alot of personal security guys talk about like its gods gift to men. and the ones that have used it, carried it in afghanistan so they have a good idea of the desert fighting environment.
then we got the old G3.....i would definitly sport this version that i got to shoot.
http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f180/ … era066.flv
the M9 is crap.....it would be great if it was loaded for the .45 like they say.
again an issue with the hydrostatic shock limits the 9mms damage.
our big advantage is our technology, so we need to use it and get some weapons the troops can use over in the fight.
at my shooting range we donate and buy portable cleaning cloths and lube specifically designed for the M16 in a dusty environment. if they wont supply them with a weapons system that wont malfunction at least we can help out a little bit.
it is not a killing round. its very design intends for it to rip apart organs once inside; the hydrostatic shock created is often times not enough to down someone and keep them down.
.308 FTW
barret has a great 7.62mm rifle that i know alot of personal security guys talk about like its gods gift to men. and the ones that have used it, carried it in afghanistan so they have a good idea of the desert fighting environment.
then we got the old G3.....i would definitly sport this version that i got to shoot.
http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f180/ … era066.flv
the M9 is crap.....it would be great if it was loaded for the .45 like they say.
again an issue with the hydrostatic shock limits the 9mms damage.
our big advantage is our technology, so we need to use it and get some weapons the troops can use over in the fight.
at my shooting range we donate and buy portable cleaning cloths and lube specifically designed for the M16 in a dusty environment. if they wont supply them with a weapons system that wont malfunction at least we can help out a little bit.
Hollow point 5.56mm work good, I knowParker wrote:
i have thought for a very long time that the .223-SS109 is underpowered.
it is not a killing round. its very design intends for it to rip apart organs once inside; the hydrostatic shock created is often times not enough to down someone and keep them down.
.308 FTW
barret has a great 7.62mm rifle that i know alot of personal security guys talk about like its gods gift to men. and the ones that have used it, carried it in afghanistan so they have a good idea of the desert fighting environment.
then we got the old G3.....i would definitly sport this version that i got to shoot.
http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f180/ … era066.flv
the M9 is crap.....it would be great if it was loaded for the .45 like they say.
again an issue with the hydrostatic shock limits the 9mms damage.
our big advantage is our technology, so we need to use it and get some weapons the troops can use over in the fight.
at my shooting range we donate and buy portable cleaning cloths and lube specifically designed for the M16 in a dusty environment. if they wont supply them with a weapons system that wont malfunction at least we can help out a little bit.
that was probably the XM-8. Looked a lot like the weapon in starship troopers though.Ottomania wrote:
there was a assault weapon project that has been cancelled. that gun looks perfect.
i think that the landwarrior systemor OICW or whatever the hell theyre calling it now looks very promising. only bad thing again is the .223 round. but if they could incorporate a .308 round with that computer and firing system, that thing would kick ass.
Well, what I am talking about was back in like 95, 96, 97....around that time. But sourdough in an MRE......yuck.arabeater wrote:
This was like a round piece of bread cut in half. I think it was sourdough.usmarine2007 wrote:
I remember getting "bread" passed out in a single package along with MRE's. Either way, it tasted like shit.arabeater wrote:
No it came in the regular MRE package.
In vietnam that's what they did. Reputation counts.iNeedUrFace4Soup wrote:
They should throw away the M-16 and just start using AKs.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Thoughts from a gunsmith here.
I should say that I haven't had a chance to look at the internals of the M249 or the M240 extensively, but one of my co-workers was a Marine Corps armorer and has explained both guns extensively to me.Stingray24 wrote:
Thought this was very interesting:
http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240, … =marine.nl
1) The M-16 rifle: Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder-like sand over there. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also. Marines like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the picattiny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round because of its poor penetration on the cinderblock structures common over there. Even torso hits can't be reliably counted on to put the enemy down.
Understandable, it's known to have it's problems, but most come from lack of maintnence or poor quality magazines.
2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon), .223 cal. Drum-fed light machine gun: Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of junk. Chronic jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly (not fun in the middle of a firefight).
I find it hard to believe this, considering the M249 and the M240 are basically the same gun, though they shoot different calibers that shouldn't effect things like jamming. I understand the thought on stopping power, but the rest smells funny to me. In fact parts are interchangeable between the two
3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Thumbs neutral. Good gun, performs well in desert environment; but Marines don’t like the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: They’ve seen bad guys hit multiple times but continue to fight.
I find it amazing that this gun get's a neutral when the M16 gets a thumbs down. This thing has a lot of problems, the slides have a very common problem of cracking and the magazine springs tend to be crappy.
4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Thumbs up. The Marines use this weapon frequently for clearing houses with good effect.
I would never want to get into a fight with this gun in my hands, lots of design flaws that other similar priced shotguns don't have (like the Remington 870). Lots of cheaply made parts that break, and not always reliable to feed properly.
5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.308) cal. belt fed machine gun, developed to replace the old M-60: Thumbs up. Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts 'em down. Originally developed as a vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there.
See the SAW
6) The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. "Ma deuce" is still worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight stopper, and the most coveted weapon in theater.
No argument here, excellent gun
7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody who is authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get his hands on one. With few exceptions, this weapon can reliably be expected to drop the enemy with a torso hit. The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old government model .45's are being re-issued en masse.
No argument about the .45 pistol... of course since this isn't specific I'm assuming it's a 1911. And the HK isn't bad, but a 1911 is better, though it doesn't carry as much ammo
8) The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and grunts love the 7.62 round.
No argument
9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and accuracy, and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle suicide bombers (they’re actually stopping a lot of them) and barricaded enemy. Definitely here to stay.
No Argument
10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. A heavily modified Remington 700. Great performance. Snipers have been using heavily with great effect. Rumor has it that a Marine sniper on his third tour in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcock's record with over 100 confirmed kills.
Marines don't use the M24, they use the M40. Basically the same gun, but the Army uses the M24, which is built by contract companies, whereas the M40 is built by marines in house. Both are just a Remington 700 rebarreled and free floated.
Sounds like we need to get a 7.62 assault rifle for our men and get rid of the 9mm pistol for a .45 . . .
No argument, though it doesn't need to be 7.62, look into the 6.8spc round, it uses the same case as 5.56 but necked up to a larger bullet
Four Finger of Death with jalpano cheese, omlet with ham was good too.arabeater wrote:
Heres a question for all of the military types here, whats you favorite MRE?S3v3N wrote:
Thats if you can get the Saw to "accept" the magazine and actually fire the rounds, I've never had luck with that ghey magazine port.deeznutz1245 wrote:
I dont remember the cyclic firing rate of the SAW. But I do know that it will eat through a magazine faster than a PFC will get his Jalapeno flavored MRE cheese snatched up by a Corporal. errr, I mean acquired.
I wasn't a Jalapeno MRE Cheese guy myself.. Gimme your PoundCake PFC...
Okay Corporal....
Mine would have to be the Chili Mac. Or if it had Pound Cake and crackers with the jalapeno cheese spread or some Tootsie rolls, that would be a close second.
I always traded away the Country Chicken ones. Ewwww.....
Never heard that one before. Omlet with ham MRE?SgtHeihn wrote:
Four Finger of Death with jalpano cheese, omlet with ham was good too.arabeater wrote:
Heres a question for all of the military types here, whats you favorite MRE?S3v3N wrote:
Thats if you can get the Saw to "accept" the magazine and actually fire the rounds, I've never had luck with that ghey magazine port.
I wasn't a Jalapeno MRE Cheese guy myself.. Gimme your PoundCake PFC...
Okay Corporal....
Mine would have to be the Chili Mac. Or if it had Pound Cake and crackers with the jalapeno cheese spread or some Tootsie rolls, that would be a close second.
I always traded away the Country Chicken ones. Ewwww.....
I must find one.
I trained Marines on how to use the M249 and the M240, and the only interchangable part is the gas regulator.ts-pulsar wrote:
Thoughts from a gunsmith here.I should say that I haven't had a chance to look at the internals of the M249 or the M240 extensively, but one of my co-workers was a Marine Corps armorer and has explained both guns extensively to me.Stingray24 wrote:
Thought this was very interesting:
http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240, … =marine.nl
1) The M-16 rifle: Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder-like sand over there. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also. Marines like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the picattiny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round because of its poor penetration on the cinderblock structures common over there. Even torso hits can't be reliably counted on to put the enemy down.
Understandable, it's known to have it's problems, but most come from lack of maintnence or poor quality magazines.
2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon), .223 cal. Drum-fed light machine gun: Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of junk. Chronic jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly (not fun in the middle of a firefight).
I find it hard to believe this, considering the M249 and the M240 are basically the same gun, though they shoot different calibers that shouldn't effect things like jamming. I understand the thought on stopping power, but the rest smells funny to me. In fact parts are interchangeable between the two
3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Thumbs neutral. Good gun, performs well in desert environment; but Marines don’t like the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: They’ve seen bad guys hit multiple times but continue to fight.
I find it amazing that this gun get's a neutral when the M16 gets a thumbs down. This thing has a lot of problems, the slides have a very common problem of cracking and the magazine springs tend to be crappy.
4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Thumbs up. The Marines use this weapon frequently for clearing houses with good effect.
I would never want to get into a fight with this gun in my hands, lots of design flaws that other similar priced shotguns don't have (like the Remington 870). Lots of cheaply made parts that break, and not always reliable to feed properly.
5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.308) cal. belt fed machine gun, developed to replace the old M-60: Thumbs up. Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts 'em down. Originally developed as a vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there.
See the SAW
6) The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. "Ma deuce" is still worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight stopper, and the most coveted weapon in theater.
No argument here, excellent gun
7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody who is authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get his hands on one. With few exceptions, this weapon can reliably be expected to drop the enemy with a torso hit. The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old government model .45's are being re-issued en masse.
No argument about the .45 pistol... of course since this isn't specific I'm assuming it's a 1911. And the HK isn't bad, but a 1911 is better, though it doesn't carry as much ammo
8) The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and grunts love the 7.62 round.
No argument
9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and accuracy, and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle suicide bombers (they’re actually stopping a lot of them) and barricaded enemy. Definitely here to stay.
No Argument
10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. A heavily modified Remington 700. Great performance. Snipers have been using heavily with great effect. Rumor has it that a Marine sniper on his third tour in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcock's record with over 100 confirmed kills.
Marines don't use the M24, they use the M40. Basically the same gun, but the Army uses the M24, which is built by contract companies, whereas the M40 is built by marines in house. Both are just a Remington 700 rebarreled and free floated.
Sounds like we need to get a 7.62 assault rifle for our men and get rid of the 9mm pistol for a .45 . . .
No argument, though it doesn't need to be 7.62, look into the 6.8spc round, it uses the same case as 5.56 but necked up to a larger bullet
The SAW is a good weapon if you keep it clean and I have had new ones that would fire any round you put throught it, but I have also had old ones that wouldn't fire shit, the M9, I was an instructor on the pistol range and that gun had alot of problems, locking lugs breaking, triggers springs snapping, that gun sucks ass!!! The Marine Corps needs to go with H&K or SIG, If they stick with the 9mm, they should get hollow points.
Ah, I see you served under Krulak as well. Good Commandant. Sgt Mjr of the Marine Corps was a tough son of a bitch too. Lee promoted me to PFC. I was such a noob.usmarine2007 wrote:
I saw it, for the Marines at least, come down to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Like I said, in 1995 the gear was pathetic...Vietnam era. Then, a new commandant came in, spent a night in the field with the grunts, and basically said fuck this, you guys need new gear. And, it happened not to long after that.ghettoperson wrote:
Good post. Very interesting to read about that. So think the military will actually listen and do something about it? I don't really know how much attention the brass pay to the troops in the US army.
Malloy must go
I too was a Chili Mac guy. With the mini me bottle of tobasco poured in of course. My least favorite was the Potatoes o Rotten, I would rather fucking eat tree bark than even smell one of those. I will give +1 to anyone who can remember the MRE number for the chili mac. that will replace 17.5 as my new lucky number.arabeater wrote:
Heres a question for all of the military types here, whats you favorite MRE?S3v3N wrote:
Thats if you can get the Saw to "accept" the magazine and actually fire the rounds, I've never had luck with that ghey magazine port.deeznutz1245 wrote:
I dont remember the cyclic firing rate of the SAW. But I do know that it will eat through a magazine faster than a PFC will get his Jalapeno flavored MRE cheese snatched up by a Corporal. errr, I mean acquired.
I wasn't a Jalapeno MRE Cheese guy myself.. Gimme your PoundCake PFC...
Okay Corporal....
Mine would have to be the Chili Mac. Or if it had Pound Cake and crackers with the jalapeno cheese spread or some Tootsie rolls, that would be a close second.
I always traded away the Country Chicken ones. Ewwww.....
Malloy must go
My only reply to this MRE discussion is thus: You people actually EAT that stuff? It sounds disgusting!
Also, the issue with the 5.56mm round is that it's designed to wound instead of killing outright, and the insurgents/terrorists are not bothered by that, on account of being fanatics fighting to the death.
Maybe they should start working on a modification of the G3 or something similar.
Also, the issue with the 5.56mm round is that it's designed to wound instead of killing outright, and the insurgents/terrorists are not bothered by that, on account of being fanatics fighting to the death.
Maybe they should start working on a modification of the G3 or something similar.
10.deeznutz1245 wrote:
I too was a Chili Mac guy. With the mini me bottle of tobasco poured in of course. My least favorite was the Potatoes o Rotten, I would rather fucking eat tree bark than even smell one of those. I will give +1 to anyone who can remember the MRE number for the chili mac. that will replace 17.5 as my new lucky number.arabeater wrote:
Heres a question for all of the military types here, whats you favorite MRE?S3v3N wrote:
Thats if you can get the Saw to "accept" the magazine and actually fire the rounds, I've never had luck with that ghey magazine port.
I wasn't a Jalapeno MRE Cheese guy myself.. Gimme your PoundCake PFC...
Okay Corporal....
Mine would have to be the Chili Mac. Or if it had Pound Cake and crackers with the jalapeno cheese spread or some Tootsie rolls, that would be a close second.
I always traded away the Country Chicken ones. Ewwww.....
You've nailed both issues with our standard issue weapons. They work, but you have to clean them constantly. I never had any jamming issues and neither did my squad. Of course, I had a standing order that field strip cleaning take place when ever we stopped for more than a few minutes. Amazing what a little PLS will do when you don't have time to do a decent clening job.hate&discontent wrote:
i had absolutley no problems with the m249 in normal condictions, in the desert though, it took alot more cleaning to keep it up and running. the 9mm sucks balls, .45acp all the way!!! the .223 or 5.56 (what ever floats your boat) is great weapon to train with, but not worth a shit for stopping power. i totally agree with going with a 7.62 x 51 or a 7.62 x 39 assault weapon.
The 5.56 tumbles too much and rides the stability edge a little too close. It can be effective en masse, but who wants to go through half a mag to put someone down? The 7.62 has always been the fav and it would be nice to see the m14 rifles reissued in an updated form; i.e synthetic stocks - the rest is cherry.
Still I wouldn't mind owning an AR, civilian version of the m16. They were fun to shoot.
As for the 9mm/.45 debate...who wouldn't want a .45. It was designed to do its job and well. Stopping an enemy isn't enough; I want the bullet to pick him, sommersault him through the air, slam him on his ass, ask him "Where you think you're going?", then exit out the back in a chunky red vapor, hopefully spraying blood, muscle, organs, and bone on his comrades. Nothing like a little demoralization to go along with your killing.
+1 Weapons are made to kill the enemy, not wound them.sgt_mango333 wrote:
...who wouldn't want a .45. It was designed to do its job and well. Stopping an enemy isn't enough; I want the bullet to pick him, sommersault him through the air, slam him on his ass, ask him "Where you think you're going?", then exit out the back in a chunky red vapor, hopefully spraying blood, muscle, organs, and bone on his comrades. Nothing like a little demoralization to go along with your killing.
the NATO standard should change to the Rem. 6.8 for rifles and the good old .45 for pistols... that would clear up alot of the problems... and i really don't understand why the US military won't incorporate the Barrett 468 (It is a M4, but modified for the 6.8 cal round, which was actually designed by an ex-spec op)
Last edited by IsaacLeavitt (2007-01-25 11:42:19)
Actually my co-worker explained it today. The M240 and the SAW are damn near identical in design, just the 240 is a little bigger. He said he thinks the reason the SAW gets a bad rap and the 240 gets a thumbs up is because the 240 is in fewer situations to get dirty. It's usually a mounted gun and doesn't get thrown in the mud the blood and the beer nearly as much as the 249. Both guns are finicky about being clean, but the 240 just doesn't get nearly as dirty because it performs a different role than the SAW.SgtHeihn wrote:
I trained Marines on how to use the M249 and the M240, and the only interchangable part is the gas regulator.ts-pulsar wrote:
Thoughts from a gunsmith here.I should say that I haven't had a chance to look at the internals of the M249 or the M240 extensively, but one of my co-workers was a Marine Corps armorer and has explained both guns extensively to me.Stingray24 wrote:
2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon), .223 cal. Drum-fed light machine gun: Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of junk. Chronic jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly (not fun in the middle of a firefight).
I find it hard to believe this, considering the M249 and the M240 are basically the same gun, though they shoot different calibers that shouldn't effect things like jamming. I understand the thought on stopping power, but the rest smells funny to me. In fact parts are interchangeable between the two
Sounds like we need to get a 7.62 assault rifle for our men and get rid of the 9mm pistol for a .45 . . .
No argument, though it doesn't need to be 7.62, look into the 6.8spc round, it uses the same case as 5.56 but necked up to a larger bullet
The SAW is a good weapon if you keep it clean and I have had new ones that would fire any round you put throught it, but I have also had old ones that wouldn't fire shit, the M9, I was an instructor on the pistol range and that gun had alot of problems, locking lugs breaking, triggers springs snapping, that gun sucks ass!!! The Marine Corps needs to go with H&K or SIG, If they stick with the 9mm, they should get hollow points.
And I don't want to rain on your parade, but the H&K's aren't much better than the Beretta. The Sig is a damn good gun, though by design it has a problem with weak firing pin pressure, so you'd better make sure you've got good primers in your ammo. To be honest, the 1911 is the way to go, it's exceedingly simple, I can have one 100% disasembled and 100% put back together in about a minute and a half and all you need is a punch and a hammer. But it does have the ammo capacity issue.
Personally, I'd want a CZ-97 as my sidearm. Shoots .45acp, has a double stacked mag, so holds more ammo than a 1911, is a very reliable design, the CZ-75 which is the .40S&W and 9mm version is used by more police worldwide than any other gun, and I really can't point out any problems the gun has... plus it's cheaper than the beretta.
Don't they make a double-stacked 1911, now? I know someone in my Stargate campaign found one...ts-pulsar wrote:
To be honest, the 1911 is the way to go, it's exceedingly simple, I can have one 100% disasembled and 100% put back together in about a minute and a half and all you need is a punch and a hammer. But it does have the ammo capacity issue.
Personally, I'd want a CZ-97 as my sidearm. Shoots .45acp, has a double stacked mag, so holds more ammo than a 1911, is a very reliable design, the CZ-75 which is the .40S&W and 9mm version is used by more police worldwide than any other gun, and I really can't point out any problems the gun has... plus it's cheaper than the beretta.
I believe Springfield has a .45 that will hold more than the standard 1911. Not sure on the exact count.
Edit: Found it. http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod- … 5acp.shtml
Edit: Found it. http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod- … 5acp.shtml
Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-01-25 13:44:19)
Could one of the Ex Marines explain how they are trained please? Are you trained to aim and shoot or spray and pray in CQB? I know that the 5.56 rnd was picked by NATO a while back so the infantryman could carry more ammo than with 7.62 - As a Brit I can only go on what British troops have said, and this is going back to the Falklands Islands campaign of 1982.
The SAS and Marine Commando Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre were issued M16s if preferred, while the rest of the British task force and Argentine opposition had 7.62 mm L1a1 SLRs or the FN FAL. The Spec ops lads complained then the 5.56 had no stopping power compared to the 7.62 rnd but still carried the M16 as it was lighter and if they had to go full auto the barrel didn't rise as much as a heavier calibre rifle. The Brit L1a1 was semi auto only but the Argentine FALs were full auto I think.
If I can also add a further matter to answer: I've read Bing West, Evan Wright and Tim Pritchard and to me they suggest that longer range firefights were usually decided by humvees with 50 cals, LAV 25 mm or the optically sighted M240s on the Abrams. However, in CQB which we saw in Fallejuah and Basra, etc the grunts does all the work so......Would you prefer ( and do you need ) a return to a weapon with longer range and stopping power or something lighter which is more convenient in downtown Sadr City? Thx
The SAS and Marine Commando Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre were issued M16s if preferred, while the rest of the British task force and Argentine opposition had 7.62 mm L1a1 SLRs or the FN FAL. The Spec ops lads complained then the 5.56 had no stopping power compared to the 7.62 rnd but still carried the M16 as it was lighter and if they had to go full auto the barrel didn't rise as much as a heavier calibre rifle. The Brit L1a1 was semi auto only but the Argentine FALs were full auto I think.
If I can also add a further matter to answer: I've read Bing West, Evan Wright and Tim Pritchard and to me they suggest that longer range firefights were usually decided by humvees with 50 cals, LAV 25 mm or the optically sighted M240s on the Abrams. However, in CQB which we saw in Fallejuah and Basra, etc the grunts does all the work so......Would you prefer ( and do you need ) a return to a weapon with longer range and stopping power or something lighter which is more convenient in downtown Sadr City? Thx
Yeah they do, but it's not very comfortable, the grip is too wide for most people, plus none of the doublestack magazines are very good quality. Really the only magazines I'll touch for a 1911 are factory Colt mags, I haven't found any others that work. By working, I mean they can load 7 empty round into the chamber without jamming... of course I've also modified the feed ramp in the gun to allow this, but it still only works with Colt mags. If it'll load an empty, it'll load anything.Skorpy-chan wrote:
Don't they make a double-stacked 1911, now? I know someone in my Stargate campaign found one...ts-pulsar wrote:
To be honest, the 1911 is the way to go, it's exceedingly simple, I can have one 100% disasembled and 100% put back together in about a minute and a half and all you need is a punch and a hammer. But it does have the ammo capacity issue.
Personally, I'd want a CZ-97 as my sidearm. Shoots .45acp, has a double stacked mag, so holds more ammo than a 1911, is a very reliable design, the CZ-75 which is the .40S&W and 9mm version is used by more police worldwide than any other gun, and I really can't point out any problems the gun has... plus it's cheaper than the beretta.