New service weapon...

by Sarge , Central Misery, Tuesday, July 08, 2014, 01:25 (3734 days ago) @ rob
edited by Sarge, Tuesday, July 08, 2014, 01:31

Just a couple of thoughts here.

Pistol engagements sometimes produce complete misses. If misses are expected, tolerated and pooh-poohed in training, misses in combat are the predictable result. If I can teach girls to shoot well enough with 40's to qualify on my course, the armed services can do it too. The difference is that I'm not going to settle for anything less. In the rare instance where one of either gender cannot or will not apply the basics and qualify, after two attempts with remedial instruction? They're gone. The policy states they shall be terminated- not 'may'.

Pistol engagements also produce hits; and some of those hits are going to impact support structures necessary for the opponent to remain ambulatory, upright and fighting. Right there is where a larger, heavier bullet pays dividends. The patriarchs were not wrong on this.

PS- I actually like the 92/M9 except for its upside-down safety mechanism. They should have fielded the G model from the outset.