Army to replace 9mm pistol with more reliable gun packing better
'knock down' power
Any guess as to what the replacement will be?
How about an M1911?
Duh, no wonder we haven't been able to win a military conflict since 1945.
I don't have any specifics. But, I can list the
paramaters the military is likely to use:
* Will turn out to be less knock down power. After
all, our POTUS doesn't want to hurt enemy soldiers.
* Will be a caliber never used before, and not
interchangeable with existing ammo.
* Production ammo will have high rate of misfires.
However, it will be eco friendly steel or other
non toxic projectile (aluminum?) and use minimal
* Existing pistols will be cut up and melted down
before new pistols are issued.
* Ammo will be made only in Iran and China.
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 19:19:55 -0400, Stormin Mormon
That has already happened with the old green tipped 5.56 round. The
new M885A1 is a solid copper bullet with a steel penetrator, no lead.
I suppose the new pistol round will follow suit and I doubt they can
maintain lethality in 9mm.
Special Ops guys are already using a .45 H&K pistol and the preferred
9mm is a SIG. The open question is what "green" bullet they will
decide on. There has been talk of tungsten cores but that is a tough
metal to get in quantity without importing it from countries that may
not like us much. (China and Russia are the major producers)
What? war is to keep peace, right? Then Iraq war was lost cause.
I was part of Korean war, Vietnam war, at best draw or lost too.
When America will learn to finish what she started? Eisenhower and
Nixon ended them, never finished.
On Monday, July 14, 2014 1:16:02 AM UTC-4, Tony Hwang wrote:
IDK on what basis the Korean war was a draw or lost. South Korea was
invaded by the commies from the north. They were driven out of South
Korea. Today you have 50 mil people living in prosperity and freedom
in the south. And 25 mil starving under a brutal dictatorship in the
north. That's a huge victory, any way that you look at it.
Exactly how would you propose we do that? And no idea what you're talking
about with the Eisenhower comments. What are you saying, that Eisenhower
should have gone to war with China? Good grief.
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 07:55:41 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
The mistake in Korea was MacArthur believing that he could take over
North Korea. When he went above the 38th parallel, he brought in the
Chinese and the war was lost. It just took us 3 more years of fighting
to figure it out.
If we had simply stopped at the current DMZ in 1950 and negotiated the
same deal we ended up with 3 years later, we could call it a win for
all the reasons you cite.
On Monday, July 14, 2014 11:51:06 AM UTC-4, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On what basis do you claim it was lost? South Korea has 50 mil people
living in peace, freedom and prosperity. If the war had been lost, they
would be starving in a commie cult death camp, ie North Korea.
It just took us 3 more years of fighting
Kuwait morphed into the Iraq conflict but it was originally supposed
to stop when Saddam left Kuwait.
Only the neocons in the US insisted we stay involved and try to get
rid of Saddam, mostly to protect Israel.
Those were on both sides of the aisle
Wichita is a long way from the the Mexican border. I figure once Mexico
reclaims Texas and the rest of the south west, they'll be happy to stay
there. Since I already speak some Spanish, I'm not worried.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.