-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
G19: This pistol could be the Army's next handgun
- Thread starter Reptile
- Start date
Im out now. If patrolling with a 240 the gunner should have an m9 as a backup.
As I mentioned earlier they were passed off from squad leaders to whoever had the 240 on a foot patrol. In vehicles we had the gun the turret along with our personal M4s.
Mike
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
As I mentioned earlier they were passed off from squad leaders to whoever had the 240 on a foot patrol. In vehicles we had the gun the turret along with our personal M4s.
Mike
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
I got to run a belt through a saw and liked it, hope at the next shoot they have a 240 to rent. Get a chance to shoot and compare a lot of guns out here at the club, everything from old jap 99 machinegun and MG 34--42s to electric mini guns in 556. When you talk hand carrying a firearm I get a good idea of what you mean by trying the guns.
In Iraq if you so much as had your picture taken holding a gun they fired you. You could carry a small knife to cut your way out of the seat belt if your truck got hit.
In Iraq if you so much as had your picture taken holding a gun they fired you. You could carry a small knife to cut your way out of the seat belt if your truck got hit.
That sucks. A kid I went to school with was a prior drone pilot and then was a contractor in Afghanistan working with drones... same shit. Hed be on a contractor helicopter going around the country with no weapon. No fricken thank you.
Mike
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
Mike
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
Its pretty bad when 3-4 combat vets are on this thread saying 90% of infantryman do not need a side arm due to weight allocation being better utilized for other necessities and the armchair warriors keep insisting a side arm for every soldier is needed because THEY would want one. Until you have put on all that kit and carried it a dozen or so miles.....then their tune will change. This is combat.....not ccw land. Some of these People need to get over it and understand that a carbine length rifle is damn sure wieldable in close combat.......that glock 19 all the fanboys love is a very weak weapon when looking at added weight vs lethality!
Today's troops go in like the paratroopers of WWII, they take everything they may need because they don't know when they will be resupplied. Today's troops can't count on logistics to keep them fighting because without air power the supplies can't be brought to them. Today's hand held anti aircraft missles like our stinger makes air re supply far more risky than in WWII.
If we ever go to war with the Russians or Chinese it will be far different than fighting the muzzies.
Edited to add, the thinking of not allowing our troops to have a handgun is the same thinking that hasn't won a war since WWII, we have the best troops in the world and they win the battles we put them in but we never win a war. 13 years in Afghanistan and no victory, the battle for Falugia Iraq with all the blood and American bodies, who runs Falugia now?
Last edited:
M60
NES Member
Amen! The guy with the machine gun should always have a backup handgun. You're not so crazy, mjb.
Your analysis is horrifically flawed, particularly in the first paragraph. But trying to explain why that's the case isn't going to be useful, since you've ignored everything else said by those of us who wore the uniform and humped the ruck. You'd ignore this also.
Suffice it to say that if your knowledge of WWII combat loads goes no further than old footage, you are doing inadequate research.
Nor, frankly, should you imply that putting one belt through a SAW at a shoot qualifies you to comment on basic load out for a machine gunner in the woods. During a war.
Last edited:
I get it, fall in line with the thinking jim because you are just wrong. Good men are dieing every day from that thinking. No sense posting a long drawn out study of warfare because it won't matter. Thinking, is the difference in all things we do and you can see people quit thinking and let others do it for them. Over 30% of this nation is going to vote for anti gun Hillary and her commie ways because they let others do their thinking for them.
We quit thinking and haven't won a war since WWII...
- - - Updated - - -
Might have misspelled it but a good number of men fought there only to have it given back to the enemy.
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,929
- Likes
- 23,544
Every NES thread that has anything to do with .mil.
Reply
ochmude
Marine Veteran
We've won a shit ton of battles, though. Winning wars is a political endeavor. We can win every battle, but if there is no tangible objective, no end-state criteria, then how are we supposed to win the war? And that has jack shit to do with whether or not a grunt has a pistol.
I'll put it more bluntly, then. I had a pistol assigned, but chose to draw a rifle instead. You're saying I wasn't "thinking" when I did so.
If that's really what you're saying, it deserves no response at all. A man who'd take a pistol over a rifle into contact is a poor soldier, and will die young.
Here is a battle that the US forces tried to help by air in Afghanistan and it failed. All the best gear and good men died...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Luttrell
See you try to make the conversation personal and you put words in my mouth I never said... Fall in line jim.....
- - - Updated - - -
So grunts are expendable?
Hes saying all soldiers should want both. And that is flawed according to vets that have humped a heavy kit....every ounce counts and given the lack of lethality afforded from a side arm.....more ammo for the rifle and extra h2o is better than the side arm. Gunners yes need....and have a side arm. Rifle men no.
A soldier with extra 556 amd h20 and a lighter load is better off than having a side arm that has almost 0 chance of making a difference given the fact he is fighting with a squad of others.
- - - Updated - - -
And you would still be wrong.
ochmude
Marine Veteran
I cannot connect the dots to how you came to that conclusion based on my statement. Not trying to be argumentative or difficult. I genuinely cannot figure how you can think that's what I was trying to say.
Survival, why do folkes take that Chemo when they know it probably won't work? It's the thinking on survival, if you have a choice to carry a handgun would you is what a person would ask themselves. You are told it's better you take more ammo for your rifle so you do as you are told. On your own in a comming fight would you leave your handgun at home?
ochmude
Marine Veteran
A person with training and experience in maneuver warfare would ask themselves if they have a better chance of keeping the UNIT alive if they carry a pistol and pistol ammo for themselves or hump extra ammo for the crew serve.
I'll try one more time, then. Civilians, once they hear I'm a veteran, always ask me if I've got any "cool Army stories."
I was in for 7 years, spanning two different components and a combat deployment (rare during the 90s). As a result, I've got a lot of Army stories. Like, A LOT of Army stories. But I've learned not to tell them to civilians.
My best story involves a stray dog, some concertina wire, an OGA guy, three gunshots, and a battalion PA with a syringe. It's a fantastic story, and I tell it well. But every time I tell it to civilians, they react with horror and shock. When I tell it to fellow veterans, they're literally rolling on the floor, crying with laughter. Same story, told the same way, with two diametrically opposed reactions. Why?
Context.
See, the story's funny for reasons that are automatically and instinctively understood by vets. Those reasons involve regulations, basic combat loads, the frought relations between the Army and OGA, the Airborne mindset, and the crushing boredom that can only be understood if you've had to guard a motor pool at 0200. If you don't get that stuff, the story's not easy to understand; if you've lived it, it doesn't need to be explained and the story can be enjoyed for what it is. Because, see, you already understand the story's context.
I guess I could make a civilian understand and appreciate my story, but I'd have to spend so much time explaining all that context that it wouldn't be worth the effort. Because, see, the civilian still wouldn't understand the story as well as the vets will.
In the many, many pages of this thread, justjim, I've noticed that you and a few other posters don't understand the context under which infantrymen make their decisions about what they carry, which in turn reflects what they value (in this case, a pistol vs more rifle ammo).
We've tried to explain it, but you don't seem interested in learning; instead, you seem interested in being "right." Notwithstanding your utter lack of qualifications to do so, you've assumed you know better than those who've experienced what, for you, is a largely theoretical exercise. So don't be surprised when we tend to respond to you with condescension and disdain.
Your opinions, like all opinions, are fine. But they're also uninformed, and they're uninformed in a thread full of guys who are informed. Please accept that your knowledge of an infantryman's context is less than mine. That's not a slam, a flame, or any other kind of insult: it's just a fact. Because I was an infantryman and you weren't. If you don't want to try to understand our context, then we'll just keep talking past each other.
That might float your boat, but I've got better things to do on a gorgeous Saturday.
Similar threads
