If you were an Officer of an Army, which sidearm today?
- Thread starter Elmas
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 902
- Feb 16, 2013
I would probably select either a Glock 19, or CZ P10C. Small, lightweight, but still serviceable to fight with if required. As an officer, chances are that the pistol will live in the holster 24/7, until the annual re qualification.
Fighterguy
Airman
I'll go with the 1911 Commander.
I'll stick with my trusty Baretta 96A1.
Of course, I'd probably trade it in for a rifle though...
Of course, I'd probably trade it in for a rifle though...
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Either a Sig P220...
...or a full sized 1911...
...or a full sized 1911...
parsifal
Colonel
I was trained on the Browning mk 3 which I would still offer as my first choice. I have some people I know that were in the SAS and used the HK USP (special, as we called it) and it is well liked.
The standard side arm for the RAAF is the Glock 19 which they really like.
The standard side arm for the RAAF is the Glock 19 which they really like.
Jimbob
Airman 1st Class
1911A1 over all. 9mm has a large capacity but low stopping power. When you hit someone with the .45ACP they stay down. Hence the high capacity isn't needed if you know what you are doing.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 902
- Feb 16, 2013
Classic myth of the 45 ACP "stopping power".
No pistols have "stopping power", with the possible exception of some magnum calibers. All they are good for, .45 ACP included, is punching holes in a bad guy until something important is hit, or he bleeds out. Which is why shot placement is more important than the holes being a slightly larger diameter. A flatter shooting, greater penetrating cartridge combined with increased magazine capacity is the norm. The difference in energy between the 9X19mm and .45 ACP is much less then people generally think
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 902
- Feb 16, 2013
Yes, the Hague Convention rules still apply, no expanding ammunition.
Shortround6
Major General
The rules are there, they have not been updated in over a hundred years.
Bullets that expand are bad. bullets that flip over end for end are fine.
Bullets that expand are bad. bullets that flip over end for end are fine.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 902
- Feb 16, 2013
yep, ridiculous. I think a lot of the debate and discussion about replacing the 5.56mm NATO cartridge (Or any cartridge for that matter) would be moot if they could just select the bullet type they wanted.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
...aren't snipers allowed to use "hunting"-type bullets?
Shortround6
Major General
It might be a bit of word-play.
Many match bullets are made with "hollow points", in the sense that the lead core is inserted from the front of the jacket "cup" and then swagged to final shape. This leaves a full covering on the base of the bullet and a more uniform base which is critical to accuracy. Many military bullets have the lead core inserted from the rear so the nose is "solid" and there is a bit of exposed lead in the center of the base of the bullet.
However the bullet makers make no claims as to how effective these bullets are on game and suggest very close versions that are labeled as hunting bullets for hunting.
The Match bullets have a very small opening, uniform jacket thickness from front to back and not a lot of hollow space behind the "tip".
The hunting bullets have a larger opening (less streamline but more certain expansion), perhaps a tapered jacket thickness or heat treatment (annealed?) and a larger hollow space.
The match bullet may or may not expand, the jacket may just fold up on the hollow space instead of expanding outward.
Since the match bullets are not "designed" to expand they fall into a grey area in regards to the international conventions.
Many match bullets are made with "hollow points", in the sense that the lead core is inserted from the front of the jacket "cup" and then swagged to final shape. This leaves a full covering on the base of the bullet and a more uniform base which is critical to accuracy. Many military bullets have the lead core inserted from the rear so the nose is "solid" and there is a bit of exposed lead in the center of the base of the bullet.
However the bullet makers make no claims as to how effective these bullets are on game and suggest very close versions that are labeled as hunting bullets for hunting.
The Match bullets have a very small opening, uniform jacket thickness from front to back and not a lot of hollow space behind the "tip".
The hunting bullets have a larger opening (less streamline but more certain expansion), perhaps a tapered jacket thickness or heat treatment (annealed?) and a larger hollow space.
The match bullet may or may not expand, the jacket may just fold up on the hollow space instead of expanding outward.
Since the match bullets are not "designed" to expand they fall into a grey area in regards to the international conventions.
What the troops on the sharp end of the stick are actually using, and what they're supposed to be using might vary.
How many autopsies do you think are done on dead terrorist ?
Do you think their commanding officer is doing a pat-down search on each man before he goes on patrol ?
How many autopsies do you think are done on dead terrorist ?
Do you think their commanding officer is doing a pat-down search on each man before he goes on patrol ?
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
You make a good point, and that may be the answer to my sniper question.
Makes perfect sense, too, since those bullets are made to be more accurate over a longer distance, than other types.
If I have to insert a 168 gr. bullet through the Czar's ear at 1/2 mile, a match type bullet would be my preferred projectile.
Elvis
Thank you, You beat me to it.
-I came into the US Army with the Model 1911 and was very comfortable with it. It was much more reliable than the M-9s we were first issued as they had problems with slides cracking. We had to log how many rounds were fired in each pistol.
-Personally I think the Taurus Model 92 is a better design than the Beretta; I like the ease of operating the safety, not that I would use the safety on a DA pistol in a nasty social environment.
-I've never fired a SIG but they seem nice. I did, unofficially, carry a Browning HP for a while and did not feel "naked" due to the 9mm cartridge. I've fired a few Glocks, 9mm & .45, and can't get too enthused about them.
-Some of our SOF guys carried .40 S&Ws and 10mm in Afghanistan; don't know what make but the .40s dropped out quickly.
-RE: hollowpoints, softpoints, etc. https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Law-of-War-Manual-June-2015.pdf will take you to the current (2015) US DoD Law of War Manual. You will find that there are circumstances in which FMJ bullets are not required. Remember that terrorists, per se, are not covered by the Geneva Conventions and that most countries consider acts of terrorism to be criminal acts vice acts of war.
-Personally I think the Taurus Model 92 is a better design than the Beretta; I like the ease of operating the safety, not that I would use the safety on a DA pistol in a nasty social environment.
-I've never fired a SIG but they seem nice. I did, unofficially, carry a Browning HP for a while and did not feel "naked" due to the 9mm cartridge. I've fired a few Glocks, 9mm & .45, and can't get too enthused about them.
-Some of our SOF guys carried .40 S&Ws and 10mm in Afghanistan; don't know what make but the .40s dropped out quickly.
-RE: hollowpoints, softpoints, etc. https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Law-of-War-Manual-June-2015.pdf will take you to the current (2015) US DoD Law of War Manual. You will find that there are circumstances in which FMJ bullets are not required. Remember that terrorists, per se, are not covered by the Geneva Conventions and that most countries consider acts of terrorism to be criminal acts vice acts of war.
