TexasCHLforum.com

This. http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/07/10/harde ... -nonsense/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OldCannon wrote:This. http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/07/10/harde ... -nonsense/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very good article. Thanks for sharing.

ghostrider wrote:

... even Frigidaire could be making the next combat pistol

Not necessarily a bad thing:
# during WWII the Inglis (washing machine) company made hi powers.
# during WWII the Singer Sewing made 1911's
# the Glock 17 came from a company that made plastic curtain rod rings :-)

You left out what is probably the most famous example of all...

The Rock-Ola jukebox company made M1 carbines!

I recall shooting a 50 caliber machine gun made by some washing machine company when I was in the Army. I don't recall if it was Maytag or whatever, but my fellow Army buddys thought it hilarious.

Abraham wrote:I recall shooting a 50 caliber machine gun made by some washing machine company when I was in the Army. I don't recall if it was Maytag or whatever, but my fellow Army buddys thought it hilarious.

"During WWII even Frigidaire had halted production to contribute to the war effort by building Browning .50 caliber machine guns, aircraft parts and other military items. In 1947, after production had resumed, a laundry product line was added. By 1958 Figidaire had built its 50 millionth product and in 1965 the automatic icemaker was introduced. It delivered ice cubes to the door, which is a popular option today."
http://history.gmheritagecenter.com/wik ... aire_Story

Non expanding bullets? 45acp with 12-15 rounds. That's the route they should go!

karder wrote:Given all the challenges our fighting men are facing, upgrading the M9 seems like small potatoes. That being said, I agree that this should not be a really tough nut to crack and they certainly should pick an American supplier. The problem is that you can't keep everyone happy no matter what you do. If you get a good, hard hitting round like .45, a big segment will complain about not having enough capacity. If you go with capacity like 9mm, another group will complain about stopping power. If they get .40, the argument will be that it is too hard for many to control. The only thing you can count on is no matter what pistol is chosen, a large group will form who will loudly complain about the choice.
1911 gets my vote.

My Glock 21 holds 15 rounds and it's easy to shoot.

ShootDontTalk wrote:I have sort of a different take on this. The real problem isn't the pistol, it's the ammo. The Geneva Convention dictates that military ammo cannot be of the hollow point variety. Basically hideous wounds are more humane than quick death. (Mind you that same convention protocol did not outlaw napalm (whose effects on a human must be seen to be believed) and allowed signatory states to use all manner of hideous weapons in certain circumstances if attacked, all in the name of being humane.)

If we demanded another treaty that allowed for the realities of war we might not need to spend more money for more pistols. In any event the real war fighters in the military told the pinheads this would happen, and it did. My opinion anyway.

This was my thought as well, the 9mm is fine but they cant use hollow point due to the geneva convention....yet as you said they can use napalm

OldCannon wrote:This. http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/07/10/harde ... -nonsense/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

QFT.

FormerTSgt wrote:

OldCannon wrote:This. http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/07/10/harde ... -nonsense/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

QFT.

That's a good article, but let's face it, at the highest level the military is run by politicians in uniform and has made poor decisions about weapons from just about the start. This isn't about the guns it's about the money. Someone in a position of power is using that power to enrich himself and his cronies. When I was in I never met a single man with stars on his shoulders that wasn't a perfumed prince, a brown noser, or a perhaps once decent officer who hadn't advanced his thinking from 20 years past. Granted, I didn't meet that many flag officers, so maybe I just ran into all the bums. OTOH, I don't think the brass today is that much different from the brass that was trying to put one of the greatest American generals out to pasture on the eve of WW2.

BTW, I like my 92 A1. It's fine shooting gun.

rentz wrote:

ShootDontTalk wrote:I have sort of a different take on this. The real problem isn't the pistol, it's the ammo. The Geneva Convention dictates that military ammo cannot be of the hollow point variety. Basically hideous wounds are more humane than quick death. (Mind you that same convention protocol did not outlaw napalm (whose effects on a human must be seen to be believed) and allowed signatory states to use all manner of hideous weapons in certain circumstances if attacked, all in the name of being humane.)

If we demanded another treaty that allowed for the realities of war we might not need to spend more money for more pistols. In any event the real war fighters in the military told the pinheads this would happen, and it did. My opinion anyway.

This was my thought as well, the 9mm is fine but they cant use hollow point due to the geneva convention....yet as you said they can use napalm

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I vote 10mm +P

<runs>
<hides>

Maybe FN 57?

OlBill wrote:

rentz wrote:

ShootDontTalk wrote:I have sort of a different take on this. The real problem isn't the pistol, it's the ammo. The Geneva Convention dictates that military ammo cannot be of the hollow point variety. Basically hideous wounds are more humane than quick death. (Mind you that same convention protocol did not outlaw napalm (whose effects on a human must be seen to be believed) and allowed signatory states to use all manner of hideous weapons in certain circumstances if attacked, all in the name of being humane.)

If we demanded another treaty that allowed for the realities of war we might not need to spend more money for more pistols. In any event the real war fighters in the military told the pinheads this would happen, and it did. My opinion anyway.

This was my thought as well, the 9mm is fine but they cant use hollow point due to the geneva convention....yet as you said they can use napalm

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ah yes Hague....myself and obviously others confuse that one.

Beiruty wrote:Maybe FN 57?

The 5.7 was designed as an armor-defeating submachinegun round, intended to make up for the lack of individual wounding/damaging ability of each bullet with a large number of bullets, essentially all at once (much like the VZ Skorpion or a round of 00 Buckshot, except at higher velocity). Putting that kind of round into a pistol just does not make much sense, especially if you're not going into urban combat against Solid Snake and his body armor.

Modern expanding bullet construction has come a long way from the "dum-dum" bullets of the time of the Hague. The difference in effectiveness between the 9mm and the .45 is fairly small with modern bullets, and nigh-nonexistent between 9mm / .40 and .40 / .45. Ditch that silly prohibition on expanding ammunition, stick with the 9mm, and use a quality hollowpoint. The only reason I can see to ditch the M9 and take up a different handgun would be ease of use, as the M9 can feel a tad "large" to many folks. I would recommend an older, time-proven design, the Browning High Power.