reply to post by centurion1211
As a warrior, stationed in various conflicts, and a weapons collector, I find this decision to be wise. The unmentionable "sidearm", you refer to,
is probably the worst piece of crap I had the displeasure of using (only in training). I will, of course, be keeping one for my collection. Same could
be said about most US light-infantry weapons...goes to show just how high US Policy-makers regard the soldiers...give them the cheapest available
weapons, and let them sort it out (it does keep unemployment statistics down, after all).
Fortunately, I was not US military. I also had the fortune, and money, to equip myself, and my partner. However, your post, not because of it being
your intention, is a bit misleading.
I "worked" along side many US forces, in Somalia, Iraq I, in the Balkans, and Afghanistan, and none of them used that ridiculous "Sidearm". Guess
it was only for infantry, and those whose families didn't have money, or means, to send them a proper gun.
I had very little contact with USA's light infantry, but I saw, and was told, that most of them used personal weapons, sent by family, or bought on
the nonofficial local markets.
All US forces I worked with where issued other sidearms: HKs in 45 ACP; 1911s in 45 ACP; various models of the SIG P228 (M-11); Heckler & Koch MK23;
SIG P226-9-NAVY; M-45 MEUSOC (based on the 1911, chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge); SIG P229R DAK (chambered in .40 S&W or .357 SIG); Heckler &
Koch HK45, along with some other, more "exotic" guns - anything but the Beretta M9, that was reserved for the "poor bastards" that, either didn't
have the money to buy something else, or where commanded by some "by-the-book" pencil-pusher.
As such, the M9, even though officially adopted as the universal sidearm, was never universally accepted...
Good riddance, you where never remember, so cannot be forgotten.
Just hope, this time, they are more concerned with soldiers safety, and well-being, then with the budget.