45 don't kill any better or worse than 9mm or bayonet, use of appropriate ammo is what should be addressed.
We'd be the laughing stock with a damn 1911. Maybe they will consider a Ruger Vaquero 45 Colt. Hell, maybe they can dump the AR for a Winchester 94. Thats how STUPID this is.
Anyone who would take a 1911 over a Sig Sauer P227 (organic apples to GMO apples) has NEVER been in harms way...The End!
Anyone who would choose a 45 over a 9mm ain't NEVER had to hump cases of 45 ammo into combat...The End!
A serious look at how many times a handgun is used on the modern battlefield should be one of the primary considerations. I hate Glocks but believe it could fill the bill. Another consideration is woman in combat humping 45...Dats funny right there!
Well I grew up with a 1911 so I would most definitely take a 1911 over anything else with possible exception of a FN Tactical in .45 Auto.
Back in the day the combat load for a 1911 was three 7 round mags and that always seem plenty. Even in trench warfare handguns were rarely the only weapons carried. Heck, the tunnel rats of Vietnam usually carried a revolver, knife and a bunch of grenades and were pretty well armed.
This business of having to carry a handgun for general combat and case of ammo in my opinion is shear stupid. Carry a freaking rifle or machine pistol.
And last but not least, back in the day the first thing a soldier did was chuck all non-essential equipment going into battle. That option is no longer available?
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
