- Dec 27, 2007
- Yuma, AZ
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.
The USP handguns are no more reliable than the M&P and the ergonomics suck for a large number of people. Not to mention they are way overpriced. A MA compliant M&P 45 with an Apex kit is half the price with a better trigger and much better ergonomics.
I have one and there is not contest. Much better shooting pistol than the M&P.
I don't agree with you at all. I think a pistol should be required for all soldiers in combat zones. I carried an M9 and a M16A4. the M9 with 2 mags was not inconvenient for me to carry. I was a big fan of the peace of mind of having two weapons instead of one.
I disagree. Pistols would have been relatively useless 99% of the time we were in Afghanistan. In more of a CQB environment, maybe, the M4s were getting their legs stretched where we were. The only person to get one issued was usually the platoon Sgt and Platoon Commander, and he would give it to whoever was carrying the M240 when we were on foot. The only exception to this would be in my eyes if we were allowed to carry pistols "condition one" (chambered) while on bases.
I work in an office with a person who used an M9 in Afghanistan. it happens. I don't know why people want to remove tools from soldiers.
"oh you dont need that"
"oh i dont want to carry this because i have to maintain it"
"another serialised item?! ugh, i have to keep track of it..."
While deployed i've seen squibs, jams and other shit that have taken new rifles down. these are ammunition related malfunctions that take people out of the fight with a weapon that needs tools to fix. An M9 would be a great thing to have on you at a time like that. guns break, shit jams, ammo runs out. An M9 costs what, $550? whats the ammo with mags cost? another $50? Sounds like its worth the investment to me.
I didn't say they don't have their application and use, also, you know how much peoples experiences vary. Bear in mind the are we were deployed to they didn't even give us TOWs or even AT4s, while 40 miles away units were going through TOW missiles at the rapid rate. I think individual circumstances apply. As a general statement I don't believe every grunt needs a sidearm. I would rather see the same ammount of training time to get proficient with a sidearm go towards other things. Then again, I'd like to actually see the military make good use of our time, but thats a pipe dream.
It all depends what the situation is. Google "MARSOC Afghanistan" and you'll notice that no one is carrying a pistol, because pounds equal pain, and carrying a weapons system that is only good at extremely close ranges is pointless when your engagements are >100m. CQB is a different story, but we're not talking about SWAT teams here.
The only person to get one issued was usually the platoon Sgt and Platoon Commander, and he would give it to whoever was carrying the M240 when we were on foot. Mike
you might fight at long ranges of over 100 meters (100 meters is not that far), but what happens when you run out of ammo?---I guess Marines never run out of ammo.
I guess there really is a point where it stops being cruel and starts being hysterical.
Well, I think it is a lot better to have a pistol and not need it, than need a pistol and not have it. We could equip every infantryman with a pistol for not too much money. I see nothing wrong with having a back-up firearm. Of course, it will never happen.