Replies

Re your #167:

A hearty "Amen" for your suggestion to return to the good old .45ACP.

Any "soldier" too effeminate or limp-wristed to handle a real fighting sidearm needs to be back in the rear echelon behind a desk or on bedpan detail in the Hospital.

The 9MM is a study in military political correctness, and I have little doubt that it has already cost us some lives.

Although I'm not a big GLOCK fan, the plastic pistol in .45 would be pretty soldier-proof and weather-resistant I would imagine. And they can cast them in OD, which I'm sure the Army would like.

As to your rifle suggestion; we are on the same page there as well.

Have you seen the RobArms M-96, based on the STONER system?
Looks like a winner to me.

And we hear tell that the Army is experimenting with a new 6.85 X 43MM round that is way superior to the current 5.56MM.

Stay tuned!

If there was but one sidearm I could carry into a combat zone, I'd have to choose a M30 Glock in 45ACP. Talk about sturdy and unjammable! Still, to it's credit, it's dishwasher safe! LOL I just sold my M30 to my nephew so I can buy a smaller 45 for a carry gun: A ParaOrdnance "Para Carry" or the C6 as it is known to the company.

The idea that the 9mm is somehow easier to shoot is laughable. First of all the Beretta M9 has a really l-o-o-o-o-n-g trigger pull, and lots of smaller fisted ladies and gents have a hard time making the first shot double action. Then the round itself is undersized and underpowered, especially when an FMJ rd rather than a JHP or frangible rd is used. I know all that BS about it being the one with the longest record of killing folks. But the fact remains it was designed for the first submachineguns and yes, when your target takes a fifteen rd burst, he's history. But for the proverbial "one shot stop" nothing beats the cross sectional density of the venerable 45ACP.