View Single Post
Old November 19, 2012, 04:09 PM   #25
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 4,498
Quote:
I've bet a dollar to a doughnut that if the military today switched to the latest wiz bang handgun a majority of service members would cry foul and say how they miss the M9.
+1x10^9.

Quote:
I agree with Leadchucker, if it had a safety switch it would be no contest. Especially if they fielded a G34.
There are striker-fired pistols out there with safeties and have been so for years. Honestly I still think they'll prefer a hammer fired gun. Think about Tevye in Fiddler on the Rood: "Tradition!". (and yes I know that striker fired pistols have been around a long time).

Quote:
The military isn't in the habit of buying the best of anything. Cost plays a much larger role.
Yes and no. The idea that all military gear is crap is simply wrong. The M9, the M16, the M1A1 Abrams, from small to big these are all decent tools. Are they the absolute best? No probably not, though I'd argue "best" is subjective. In terms of performance, in terms of cost, or in terms of a mixture of both?

I'll say this again, how important is a military sidearm, really? Now for us civilians who mostly carry sidearms, it can be very important. But wars are not won/lost on pistols. The primary issue to US soldiers is a rifle for good reason. A pistol is a last ditch defense. In the grand scheme they are not that important, and with the deficit we're facing and the DoD cuts to come it isn't even on the list to worry about.

Quote:
What SOCOM wants SOCOM gets.
This is no exaggeration. The amount of sway they have and their budget per capita are nuts.
__________________
Guns don't kill people. Apes with guns kill people! - Robin Williams
TunnelRat is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.06510 seconds with 7 queries