The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Noreaster · December 30, 2011, 09:04 PM

The 357 sig was given serious consideration by specops a few years ago. It does not feed reliable in a sandy environment, (can of worms here we go, sorry it had to be said!)

The US military was looking to replace the 9mm with a 40 S&W or 45 auto, (I said was because of the current defense cuts I don't know what is going forward and what was cut.) The 9mm is a decent 50 yard cartridge, but most of the pistol use by our forces is up close where a larger and heavier bullet does more damage. As far as NATO standard goes well the USMC and US Army have sniper rifles in 6.5 and 300 Win mag, not a NATO round.

To those of you who say a pistol is not a big deal for military use, then do away with them completely. I have a few buddies who had to rely on pistols in the sandbox from time to time. The cost of replacing pistols in the US Army is small compared to a few bomb runs.

December 30, 2011, 09:04 PM	#44
Noreaster Senior Member Join Date: January 30, 2011 Location: New England Posts: 1,449	The 357 sig was given serious consideration by specops a few years ago. It does not feed reliable in a sandy environment, (can of worms here we go, sorry it had to be said!) The US military was looking to replace the 9mm with a 40 S&W or 45 auto, (I said was because of the current defense cuts I don't know what is going forward and what was cut.) The 9mm is a decent 50 yard cartridge, but most of the pistol use by our forces is up close where a larger and heavier bullet does more damage. As far as NATO standard goes well the USMC and US Army have sniper rifles in 6.5 and 300 Win mag, not a NATO round. To those of you who say a pistol is not a big deal for military use, then do away with them completely. I have a few buddies who had to rely on pistols in the sandbox from time to time. The cost of replacing pistols in the US Army is small compared to a few bomb runs.