Posted on Jan 11, 2021
SPC July Macias
5.12K
154
98
23
23
0
During my 2nd Iraq tour, our E7 platoon Sergeant got into a lot of trouble for bringing his own shotgun and AR15. He was removed from our company and we don't know the details of his punishment beyond that. But it got me thinking... Wouldn't it be a good idea to let senior NCO's and officers bring their own personal firearms on deployments? I certainly think so. What are your thoughts?
Avatar_feed
Responses: 41
MAJ(P) Eugene Chu
14
14
0
Remember that as American military, we abide by our own regulations and previous international conventions that the US agreed to. We use officially issued government weapons and ammunition when deployed based on legality and accountability

https://taskandpurpose.com/gear-tech/5-crazy-weapons-banned-war/
(14)
Comment
(0)
CW3 Harvey Keck
CW3 Harvey Keck
1 mo
Pepper spray is banned? I remember my training as "Don't p__s him off -- KILL HIM!!"
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSgt Thomas L.
SSgt Thomas L.
1 mo
All chemical weapons are banned.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth
9
9
0
Personally I am for it, but higher up generally have a cow about it, but on the other side of the coin, who doesn't think that they might be carrying their own, and think that it's ok SPC July Macias
(9)
Comment
(0)
Avatar_small
CW3 Harvey Keck
8
8
0
I recall my career Marine brother served in Korea with a S&W Combat Masterpiece revolver. I was rather young at the time, but I think it was a popular personal weapon among the troops. It might have been the advantage of a double-action sidearm in speed of firing, in contrast to a .45 with regulations stating the chamber had to be empty.
(8)
Comment
(0)
CW3 Harvey Keck
CW3 Harvey Keck
1 mo
Semper Fi, Colonel. My college roommate was issued a .45 pistol. He got an AK-47 as his "main battery", since the ball powder fouling in the M-16 was such a problem.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
Cpl Mark McMiller
1 mo
A 1911 is faster than a revolver for most people. And back then they carried it with a round in the chamber. But revolvers were considered more reliable than autos because if a revolver malfunctions all you have to do is squeeze the trigger and fire the next round but a malfunctioning auto has to be cleared before firing another round. For decades, Navy Seals and Marine Recon carried revolvers for that very reason.
(1)
Reply
(0)
CW3 Harvey Keck
CW3 Harvey Keck
1 mo
Cpl Mark McMiller - I would ask "What changed" in weapons technology to cause that change, but I know there was no such "magic" to change the practice. Things today re revolvers and pistols are still as you describe them.
It seems to be a matter of the evaluation of pistols that can take dirt, dust, mud etc. and still function. while revolvers are more sensitive to the harsh conditions of the battlefield. Better to have a sidearm that can take that punishment and still shoot, than something that is more reliable under ideal conditions.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
Cpl Mark McMiller
1 mo
CW3 Harvey Keck - I think it's also that people have a hard time hitting what they're shooting at with revolvers because the double-action long trigger pull makes it harder to keep the sights on target. Same with double-action autos on the first shot. That's why I love the 1911 with its single-action short, crisp trigger pull.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close