OK, educate me here regarding pistols and the US military.

Mazryonh · #1 09-08-2010, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdAstra2009

Well like Nyles said before Infantry don't really have a use for sidearms. I was told in Infantry School that M240 gunners are supposed to be issued M9s as a personal defensive weapon. I'm assuming because the M240 can be very unwieldy and awkward to fire when not in the prone in addition to the lengthy reloading process when compared to a M4(though by this logic SAW gunners should get them also).

Complications I imagine with adopting the Glock 20 would be for example the non NATO standard round of 10mm in addition to the fact that it has no manual safety would probably be a problem with it's adoption.

Heh, I bet if H&K had their way every SAW or M240 user in the US Army would use the MP7A1 ("it's a selective-fire PDW that can be holstered like a pistol and pierces most armour!") as a backup weapon.

I've heard of modification kits to Glocks that give them manual safeties, and NATO standards can change (though not always for the best reasons or via the best methods). Otherwise, we'd still be using M14s instead of M16s. Of course, as I've said before, on-paper-effectiveness is no guarantee a weapon system or new ammunition will be adopted (sadly enough).

Excalibur · #2 09-08-2010, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

Otherwise, we'd still be using M14s instead of M16s. Of course, as I've said before, on-paper-effectiveness is no guarantee a weapon system or new ammunition will be adopted (sadly enough).

The deal with the M16's adoption was very controversial and it happened during a time in military standards where they believe what they got works and most old men of the military don't like to make their rifle ammo smaller caliber so they compromised and created the M14. Otherwise, the M1 Garand would still be in service because the M16 was so new at the time. It introduced so many new technology that frankly, the higher ups in the chain of command didn't know how to make heads or tail of. It's the old saying of if it isn't broken, don't fix it

BurtReynoldsMoustache · #3 09-08-2010, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur

The deal with the M16's adoption was very controversial and it happened during a time in military standards where they believe what they got works and most old men of the military don't like to make their rifle ammo smaller caliber so they compromised and created the M14. Otherwise, the M1 Garand would still be in service because the M16 was so new at the time. It introduced so many new technology that frankly, the higher ups in the chain of command didn't know how to make heads or tail of. It's the old saying of if it isn't broken, don't fix it

The great irony of the AR15 is that the British wanted NATO to standardize on the FAL in the .280 British cartridge, but United States refused, forced the 7.62x51 on the rest of the world, then switched to the even smaller 5.56x45 when they realized they were wrong.