Posted on Jan 11, 2021
Should service members be able to bring personal weapons on deployment?
9.51K
139
88
20
20
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?
Firearms and Guns
Deployment
Small Arms
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 40
12
12
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/
https://taskandpurpose.com/gear-tech/5-crazy-weapons-banned-war/
5 Crazy Weapons That Are Banned From War - Task & Purpose
Long gone are the days when war was governed by an “anything goes” system. As weaponry has become more advanced, so have the rules of warfare. Practices
(12)
(0)
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)
(0)
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)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
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)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
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.
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)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
CW3 Harvey K. - 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.
(2)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
Cpl Mark McMiller - Then again, you can (usually) cock the hammer of a revolver (or pistol) for more precise shooting. DA only for close combat.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google