[AK_Stick]

Should of picked the glock. Cheap bastards. That's all out military cares about. How can we save money. Look at the VA hospitals for an example.

The military doesn't do VA hospitals though.....

 

[AK_Stick]

I personally don't care.
Was a grunt from 2010-2013. Never even shot an M9.
SoF does their own thing and aren't constrained to the MHS.

Been in since 03, carried an M9 since 05.

I care.

 

[AK_Stick]

Should adopt the glock 32. Then make a sub-machine gun in the 357 sig also. Canalure the bullets and crimp them to secure the bullet in the case.

Then make a longer range
AR. Say a rifle with 1/8 twist and a (gasp!) light 23 inch stainless barrel and no flash hider. Would reach out close to 1000 yards.

Get some 12 ga. Benelli shotguns for clearing houses and buildings. Train everyone on all four guns.

The snipers need a stoutly loaded 30/06 with a 25 inch barrel shooting a low drag 190 gr bullet and a straight 14 power 30mm scope.

No.

 

[AK_Stick]

OK, what's your opinion of the M9?

It’s overly large, has a poor safety location, and I’m not a huge fan of a DA/SA trigger given minimal qualification/fam fire time for new/poor shooters.

That said, it works, it’s reliable, we own billions in spare parts and magazines, and gear for them already. The low cost M92A3 conversion would have been a much better choice than the Sig.

 

[AK_Stick]

I would prefer a 1911 if it were me. And something that shot at least a .308

While I’m more than comfortable with my 45 as a CCW. I would prefer a sidearm with more than 7 rounds in combat. Especially when forced to use FMJ ammo.

Similarly, I would much prefer to carry 300-400 rounds of 5.56 in 30 round mags, than 200 rounds of 7.62 in 20’s. Either will do the job if you hit the target, but the vast majority of ammo is expelled establishing a base of fire/fixing a target. 5.56 gives you a much superior volume of fire.