New service weapon...

by rob , Monday, July 07, 2014, 18:15 (3734 days ago)

Just finished reading an article on the Army replacing the Beretta 92 and all I can say is pretty much whatever. The accusations are it breaks easy, it's hard to shoot, it's complicated, it's not accurate, it doesn't kill people like the 45 did. Well, the 1911 45 is supposedly "a complicated manual of arms" (I guess, if you have an IQ of four maybe...I've yet to figure out what's complicated about a 1911 or 92FS). As for stopping power, it's ball ammo. The old adage they all fall to hardball is pretty much nonsense. Change our service weapon to a 45 and the girls will whine it kicks too hard. Give them a .40 and they definitely will. I'll tell you right now I'd rather have a 92FS over ANY spur hammer 1911 any day and I'll take its reliability over 90% of the 1911's out there (and I love 1911's). I've had three 92's and I've never had a failure of any kind and every one of them was easily capable of head shots at 25 yards offhand. I think what we really need in our armed forces is less diversity and a commander in chief who doesn't hate this country. Everything else is just fluff and back room cronie capitalism. We'd have won WWI and WWII whether we had a 9mm pistol or a 45 because that had nothing to do with winning a fight. We won because we wouldn't accept loosing as an option. I'd personally like to see us adopt THAT back.