To: tortoise
Well, we both have our opinions on this. Apparantly some of the guys on the ground see it both ways:
The most significant negative comment was reference [to] the M-4s range, the Army report stated. In the desert, there were times where soldiers needed to assault a building that may be 500+ meters distant across open terrain. They did not feel the M-4 provided effective fire at that range.
To: Prodigal Son
May I point out to everyone one important fact?
When it comes to standard military ammo, the 45acp beats the hell out of a 9mm any time. However, this is the problem.
The 9mm with standard 115 gr +p hollowpoint ammunition is quite a sufficient manstopper. I carry the Cor Bon version in my Glock 26.
As long as our troops are saddled with FMJ military ball ammunition, the M-9 will continue to be an insufficient manstopper.
Attack the ammo, not the gun.
Until then, get a new bullet, or go back to a proven manstopper, the 230 Gr ball 45 auto round.
32 posted on
07/13/2003 4:38:35 PM PDT by
Armedanddangerous
(The first rule in a gunfight is to have a gun...)
To: Prodigal Son
"...soldiers needed to assault a building that may be 500+ meters distant across open terrain. They did not feel the M-4 provided effective fire at that range."
No kidding. Now just htf do you "assault" a building at 500 meters? Geesh. 500m = M-60, M-2 or artillery.
97 posted on
07/13/2003 9:22:41 PM PDT by
Justa
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson