Let me right now highly encourage the US Army to go back to the 1911 for their sidearm. Yes.
Oh, not for the usual reasons. It's .45, it's a superior pistol, it's the sentimental favorite, it's downright nigh perfect. No none of that.
The 1911A1, admittedly, needs a bit of armorer support. and in 6 year or so I want a LOT of discharged E-5s with that MOS back in the civilian world. Competent 1911 pistol smiths. At least some of them will be. And it will drive gunsmithing costs down to me, the user.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Well, if your goal is to take advantage of all those Discharged Vets Gunsmithing Skills, why, you can have it TODAY!
Just start carrying a Beretta 93.
; )
The Army isn't dumping the M9, my guess. The Army is going to get whacked the hardest in the budget process (they always do after a war) and there won't be the money for a new pistol.
Hell, they haven't replaced the M4, for all of its faults, either.
I think they'll probably try to jump on the Marine's contract...
Noi way in Hell they'll be adopting an M1911 variant, even if they did just want to jump on someone else's contract. The Army will NOT go standard issue with a 1911. Handing SA semiautos to troops who are effectively untrained is a recipe for disaster. The NDs that were "acceptable rate of mishap" in 1918, 1945, 1953, and 1968, will not be tolerated now.
Heck, the MARINES don't use their 1911s as standard issue for every jarhead who needs a handgun -- that's why the Marines also type-classified the M9A1 (basically just an M9 with a rail).
Post a Comment