Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeAfroMan
Which pistol?Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabando
Beretta, I think it was the model 92.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeAfroManWhich pistol?Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabando
Beretta, I think it was the model 92.
The M9 is a military variant of the 92F. As for slide cracking issues, it's been fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by SickpuppyQuote:
Originally Posted by OrangeAfroManWhich pistol?Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabando
Beretta, I think it was the model 92.
no i meant the new 1911 for MARSOC the 92G corrected the slide cracking for the beretta with the brigadier slide
AMERICAN MADE FUCK YEAH
Why not get some proper Sig/Glock or the FNX once and for all?
Why do you even procure different material for each service in cases where the needs are practically the same anyway?
Afaik the FNX (45.) has been selected to replace the M9 in the army. Why cant you use that one in the navy/marines? Seems like a much better weapon than the 1911 imo.
Seems like a pretty retarded decision imo.
Always liked FN's pistol line. Might have to sell my baby glock and pick one up sometime. My S&W Centennial has successfully taken over CCW duty at this point.
Because the different branches have their own budgets and procure what they think is best for them. Preference and production ability also has a big role. The USMC doesn't have production requirements on the same level of the Army. There's also branding. An example is the USMC throwing a temper tantrum over the Army considering it's MARPAT as one of the test camo's during it's camoflague trials. In part, it's also why they're staying with the 1911 even though it's obsolete compared to other .45 modern handguns. The article calling it a love affair is spot on and also applies the M14 which should have died years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tordin Varglund
No, the FMX hasn't been selected by the Army to replace the M9. The trials are still ongoing. There will be new conferences and herp/derp on gun forums when it's officially over. Both the Army and USMC have a requirement for an exposed hammer so they can carry in condition 3 or 4 while on base. Remember that the HK45 was slated to be the next handgun of the US Army and SOCOM until the Army pulled out the SOCOM went.."meh". The same happened with the SCAR Mk16.
New military guns are a big deal and take some major push to get it going. The USMC even resisted going to the M1 Garand for a while after the Army had already adopted it. We've seen several trials this past decade come and go but not much new.
Navy has been slowly going through test trials for the M11(Sig P228) replacing the M9. They haven't said anything official, but everyone I know on VBSS teams has started talking about it. I suspect that the Navy is trying to backdoor the M11 in over the M9 to avoid most of the political bullshit with a weapon change. That said, aren't Tier 1 teams still using the Mk.16 and Mk.17?Quote:
Originally Posted by KeorytheBecause the different branches have their own budgets and procure what they think is best for them. Preference and production ability also has a big role. The USMC doesn't have production requirements on the same level of the Army. There's also branding. An example is the USMC throwing a temper tantrum over the Army considering it's MARPAT as one of the test camo's during it's camoflague trials. In part, it's also why they're staying with the 1911 even though it's obsolete compared to other .45 modern handguns. The article calling it a love affair is spot on and also applies the M14 which should have died years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tordin Varglund
No, the FMX hasn't been selected by the Army to replace the M9. The trials are still ongoing. There will be new conferences and herp/derp on gun forums when it's officially over. Both the Army and USMC have a requirement for an exposed hammer so they can carry in condition 3 or 4 while on base. Remember that the HK45 was slated to be the next handgun of the US Army and SOCOM until the Army pulled out the SOCOM went.."meh". The same happened with the SCAR Mk16.
New military guns are a big deal and take some major push to get it going. The USMC even resisted going to the M1 Garand for a while after the Army had already adopted it. We've seen several trials this past decade come and go but not much new.
Navy SEAL's have been using the full sized p226 for a while now so a transition from the M9 to that wouldn't be that much of a stretch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cue1*Navy has been slowly going through test trials for the M11(Sig P228) replacing the M9. They haven't said anything official, but everyone I know on VBSS teams has started talking about it. I suspect that the Navy is trying to backdoor the M11 in over the M9 to avoid most of the political bullshit with a weapon change. That said, aren't Tier 1 teams still using the Mk.16 and Mk.17?Quote:
Originally Posted by KeorytheBecause the different branches have their own budgets and procure what they think is best for them. Preference and production ability also has a big role. The USMC doesn't have production requirements on the same level of the Army. There's also branding. An example is the USMC throwing a temper tantrum over the Army considering it's MARPAT as one of the test camo's during it's camoflague trials. In part, it's also why they're staying with the 1911 even though it's obsolete compared to other .45 modern handguns. The article calling it a love affair is spot on and also applies the M14 which should have died years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tordin Varglund
No, the FMX hasn't been selected by the Army to replace the M9. The trials are still ongoing. There will be new conferences and herp/derp on gun forums when it's officially over. Both the Army and USMC have a requirement for an exposed hammer so they can carry in condition 3 or 4 while on base. Remember that the HK45 was slated to be the next handgun of the US Army and SOCOM until the Army pulled out the SOCOM went.."meh". The same happened with the SCAR Mk16.
New military guns are a big deal and take some major push to get it going. The USMC even resisted going to the M1 Garand for a while after the Army had already adopted it. We've seen several trials this past decade come and go but not much new.
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e2...ry7sigp226.jpg
As far as the Mk16 goes, I'm unsure. On one hand they weren't hiding the fact that they were removing it from their inventories. On the other hand they just put out an order which showed the Mk16 as being in the procurement loop. So it's kind of iffy if they're leaving their teams the option or if it was a typo. The Mk17 is still a big go but it's a niche gun and you won't see it in large numbers. It's more than likely going to replace the M14 in all forms as it is accurate enough to act as designated marksman rifle while being lightweight and ergonomic enough to work in MOUT. It also has a maintenance service unlike the M14 which is still serviced at Company level from their budget.
Speaking of SEAL armories...drool..
Nightforce optics go for between $1500-$2000 each.
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e2...alarmory14.jpg
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e2...alarmory13.jpg
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e2...mory19Mk48.jpg
The USMC famously doesn't like changing weapons platforms. Even ditching the M249 is really going back to the BAR concept. In the case of the 1911, it works for what the Marines need out of a pistol. There is also a lot of institutional memory in that. It helps (In the USMC's eyes) connect the present day Marines to the ones of the early 20th century. This is important to them. It really is a curious institution of sometimes being very innovative, and centuries old traditions for the sake of tradition. They do a lot of things to, just to be different from the army. There is an institutional paranoia about being absorbed into the army, or being disbanded, as has almost happened several times before.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeorytheBecause the different branches have their own budgets and procure what they think is best for them. Preference and production ability also has a big role. The USMC doesn't have production requirements on the same level of the Army. There's also branding. An example is the USMC throwing a temper tantrum over the Army considering it's MARPAT as one of the test camo's during it's camoflague trials. In part, it's also why they're staying with the 1911 even though it's obsolete compared to other .45 modern handguns. The article calling it a love affair is spot on and also applies the M14 which should have died years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tordin Varglund
No, the FMX hasn't been selected by the Army to replace the M9. The trials are still ongoing. There will be new conferences and herp/derp on gun forums when it's officially over. Both the Army and USMC have a requirement for an exposed hammer so they can carry in condition 3 or 4 while on base. Remember that the HK45 was slated to be the next handgun of the US Army and SOCOM until the Army pulled out the SOCOM went.."meh". The same happened with the SCAR Mk16.
New military guns are a big deal and take some major push to get it going. The USMC even resisted going to the M1 Garand for a while after the Army had already adopted it. We've seen several trials this past decade come and go but not much new.
Hey guys so i heard you know how an AK works.
http://onebit.us/x/i/lYxpPq6N1o.jpg
Pretty sure the safety is on on that rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by RazoR
Gun porn for you, sir.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdnMgYTOA70
Notice the cinder block @ 2:16 :psyduck:
Very interesting bolt throw on that puppy.Quote:
Originally Posted by RazoR
My dad just gave me his HK SR9 (civvie G3) and about 900 .308. Gonna tactical this sweet bitch up.
http://s19.postimage.org/mxuyfccz7/20121013_174137.jpg
If it turns out badly ill personally come and rip it all off again.
One does not simply fuck a G3 up without consequence.
+1ing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tordin Varglund
AK or not, tacticool is the cancer that's killing firearms.
Make sure to go through the entire tapco catalog and put a bunch of lazers on it. It will be fun!
AgreeQuote:
Originally Posted by RazoR+1ing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tordin Varglund
AK or not, tacticool is the cancer that's killing firearms.
I once had an AK squirt 11 rounds down the range on me.
the safety was on, my finger was off the trigger.
The SAS bloke who had come down to show us some various bits of kit and let us play with them just laughed and said 'yeah it does that sometimes'
:psyduck:
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by High Sierra
Safety on AK prevents the bolt and striker from moving anywhere.
http://rutube.ru/video/b3853b571c0e87732e5fd93cb70eb588
Even if the striker came through it could not possibly shoot a second time because the bolt can't cycle with the dust cover in it's way.