Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: GladesGuru

I’ve also read that the Army felt that the average soldier could better keep the M9 on target. I’ve never shot the Baretta, but I have used other similarly sized 9MM semi-auto pistols. I must be the exception that proves the rule, because I shoot a 1911 better. Much better.


6 posted on 07/23/2012 8:27:53 PM PDT by Tallguy (It's all 'Fun and Games' until somebody loses an eye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Tallguy

I have a Beretta 92FS and a series 80, gold cup, national match Colt 45. I can shoot the Beretta fine, but I swat flies on the woodpile with the Colt. Granted I’m comparing an average Beretta to a Cadillac Colt.


13 posted on 07/23/2012 8:41:02 PM PDT by Usually_Disappointed (I think the tree of liberty is getting thirsty...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Tallguy

What we have here is a failure to learn history. Why was the .45 adopted in the first place. The .45 was adopted due the the Army .38 revolvers’ abysmal failure to put down Moslem insurrectionists who were whacked to the eyeballs in the Phillipines in 1902. In Iraq, post-mortems in Iraqi insurrectionists revealed that these men were doped to the eyeballs and that the 9mm and, for that matter, the 5.56mm rounds were marginal at best for bbringing them down.
Especially in its military hard-ball form, the 9mm is NOT a reliable man-stopper.


14 posted on 07/23/2012 8:45:28 PM PDT by JayVee (Joseph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson