The U.S. Army issues M9Ps! No wonder the defense budget is so high!

hepcat said:
Pablito, my friend... I'll say this as gently as possible. I'm not out to offend you or anyone else, so please hear me out. I can't speak on anyone's behalf but my own, but here's my thoughts:

The folks who have posted to this thread pose no threat to you or anyone else who wants to lead a peaceful and fulfilling life. There are no street thugs here. Most of us have served in the militaries of our respective countries. I did for five years, followed by a thirty year career in law enforcement. Whether the politics of using military power are a appropriate is a matter of opinion and the topic of a different discussion, but the folks who post here are honorable and brave men and women who have, during their respective tenures, stood between people like you and people who would do you harm.

These are the tools they used to make that stand on your behalf. You don't have to like them, and you don't have to like the people who carried and used them, but I'll ask you to respect those people for who they are and what they've done for folks like you.

"On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs" is a short essay by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman (ret.) on what differentiates people like us from the rest of society. It is a good read if you want to better understand anyone you may know who has served in the military or law enforcement. We who are posting to this thread, my friend, are the sheepdogs. We understand that other people may be frightened of us, but we would never do anyone harm unless they were trying to harm you.

This thread is harmless... its a place for those of us who have used these tools to maintain peace, and individual freedoms to reminisce a little. I'll grant you that this is a photo forum, but I ask that you cut us a little slack here. For those of us who have stood in harm's way and lived to tell about it, having the opportunity to socialize with others who share other similar interests and who have been "there" at other places and times is cathartic.

Thanks for your understanding.

Roger
Click to expand...

Amen and Amen! :D I could not have said it better myself.

The thing with firearm ownership is this: Done properly and responsibly, it harms no one.

I own a few guns; so what?? I have never used any one of the to commit any kind of crime.

I have never shot another person. I have never pointed any one of my guns at another person. When I am away from home, they are locked in a half ton safe with two inch thick steel walls, base and top all around. No burglar is going to get to them unless he shows up with a forklift, hauls the safe off and cuts it open with a cutting torch. As long as they are in my possession, none of my firearms will ever end up "in the wrong hands." I have seen to that as it is my responsibility to do so.

Who or what does the above situation hurt? No one. So for those who think guns are "creepy" or whatever else you want to think of them, think what you will; it is your right to do so.

HOWEVER: Please bear in mind that it is also my right to own and use firearms. You live your life as you see fit, I'll live mine as I see fit.

Deal?? ;)

Originally Posted by oftheherd
I used to have a M1911 that had been accurized. Sure was nice. My only problem with that type of weapon was the military ammo. Ball ammo that hasn't been taken care of well is just not very powerful. It's not a man-stopper. Hopefully that will be corrected as well.
Click to expand...
@oftheherd,
That issue was addressed long ago. Take a look at these alternatives to .45 ball:
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/23...45-acp-185-grain-flex-tip-expanding-box-of-20

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/29...ition-45-acp-185-grain-silvertip-hollow-point

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/55...p-p-200-grain-jacketed-hollow-point-box-of-20

http://www.policehq.com/Products/FC-45EX1#.Uv46v_ldUwA

My favorite among the above is the Federal EFMJ 200g. +P; it gives you the feeding reliability of full metal jacket, and it expands to .72" in test media (it did for me, anyway). I would expect that .72" would prove to be effective, if the worst were to come to pass.
 
noisycheese said:
Amen and Amen! :D I could not have said it better myself.

The thing with firearm ownership is this: Done properly and responsibly, it harms no one.

I own a few guns; so what?? I have never used any one of the to commit any kind of crime.

I have never shot another person. I have never pointed any one of my guns at another person. When I am away from home, they are locked in a half ton safe with two inch thick steel walls, base and top all around. No burglar is going to get to them unless he shows up with a forklift, hauls the safe off and cuts it open with a cutting torch. As long as they are in my possession, none of my firearms will ever end up "in the wrong hands." I have seen to that as it is my responsibility to do so.

Who or what does the above situation hurt? No one. So for those who think guns are "creepy" or whatever else you want to think of them, think what you will; it is your right to do so.

HOWEVER: Please bear in mind that it is also my right to own and use firearms. You live your life as you see fit, I'll live mine as I see fit.

Deal?? ;)


@oftheherd,
That issue was addressed long ago. Take a look at these alternatives to .45 ball:
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/23...45-acp-185-grain-flex-tip-expanding-box-of-20

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/29...ition-45-acp-185-grain-silvertip-hollow-point

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/55...p-p-200-grain-jacketed-hollow-point-box-of-20

http://www.policehq.com/Products/FC-45EX1#.Uv46v_ldUwA

My favorite among the above is the Federal EFMJ 200g. +P; it gives you the feeding reliability of full metal jacket, and it expands to .72" in test media (it did for me, anyway). I would expect that .72" would prove to be effective, if the worst were to come to pass.
Click to expand...

All well said. There are responsibilities to owning any type of weapon.

The problem with the ammo you mention (as much as I like the looks of them, especially the Federal), is that they are forbidden by the Geneva Conventions, and the USA is a signatory. Those type of rounds can be used by the military in the USA, for law enforcement, or permitting foreign countries, but not against combatants in conflicts, wars declared or not. Kind of hard to argue since that means we presume they will not use them against us.

Thanks for the links.
 
oftheherd said:
All well said. There are responsibilities to owning any type of weapon.

The problem with the ammo you mention (as much as I like the looks of them, especially the Federal), is that they are forbidden by the Geneva Conventions, and the USA is a signatory. Those type of rounds can be used by the military in the USA, for law enforcement, or permitting foreign countries, but not against combatants in conflicts, wars declared or not. Kind of hard to argue since that means we presume they will not use them against us.

Thanks for the links.
Click to expand...
@oftheherd -
Based on what I have read, expanding ammunition can be used under certain circumstances without violating the Geneva convention.

If there is a war, all belligerent nations must be signatories to the Geneva Convention. All belligerents must field regular army (uniformed, active duty) troops in the war. If those conditions are met, the use of expanding ammunition is prohibited.

All bets are off if -
A belligerent nation is not a signatory to Geneva;
A belligerent nation utilizes civilian combatants;
A belligerent nation utilizes mercenary troops;
A belligerent nation utilizes irregular troops;
A belligerent nation utilizes non-uniformed (disguised) regular army troops;
Or any combination of the above factors.

I read somewhere of a U.S. Army reserve unit that was placed on active duty and deployed to Iraq during the recent hostilities there. The troops brought their own high performance (expanding) .223 ammunition and used it against Taliban and/or Al-Qaeda fighters without legal consequences. Needless to say their high performance ammo was considerably more effective than M193 ball.

As far as my recommendation of the expanding .45 ACP ammo I provided links to, I was thinking more along the lines of personal self defense use rather than use by military forces. Hope that bit of clarification helps...
 
tbarker13 said:
Baers are very nice. Have had a couple, including my current Custom Carry without the front cocking serrations.
They are very tough to beat in the world of semi-custom firearms.
They have to be one of the tightest 1911s made - but nothing a couple thousands rounds won't smooth out.
Click to expand...

No firearm should require thousands of rounds just to break it in.

I had one and while it was accurate, it should not require a mallet to disassemble and reassemble. LB makes their guns too tight.

Other guns are capable of having the same accuracy without the frame/slide tightness. Tighter does not mean it is a better gun.
 
E__WOK said:
No firearm should require thousands of rounds just to break it in.

I had one and while it was accurate, it should not require a mallet to disassemble and reassemble. LB makes their guns too tight.

Other guns are capable of having the same accuracy without the frame/slide tightness. Tighter does not mean it is a better gun.
Click to expand...

My Baer did not require breaking in - it was just fine from the get-go, although it was indeed "tight." It still is.

Les Baer builds his 1911s the old time way - It's called a hard fit. When the slide and frame of a newly machined Baer 1911 come off the CNC mill, they will not fit together; each are a few thousandths over-sized at the rails, where the frame and slide mate up. Les hand hones each 1911 to the point where they fit and cycle smoothly. His 1911s do not have the built in "slop" that assembly line built 1911s have. Same with the barrel and barrel bushing - there is no slop. They fit but just barely.

This loose fit vs. hard fit issue has been a bone of contention with 1911 makers and connoisseurs for decades. Without going into the pros and cons of each philosophy, I will just say that my Baer 1911 has always been 100% reliable with quality magazines and ammuniton year in, year out.

In closing, here are a couple of interesting videos that address the disassembly and reassembly of Baer 1911s:

#1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH0lIrLwy0k
#2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJhPari7dpc
 
noisycheese said:
@oftheherd -
Based on what I have read, expanding ammunition can be used under certain circumstances without violating the Geneva convention.

If there is a war, all belligerent nations must be signatories to the Geneva Convention. All belligerents must field regular army (uniformed, active duty) troops in the war. If those conditions are met, the use of expanding ammunition is prohibited.

All bets are off if -
A belligerent nation is not a signatory to Geneva;
A belligerent nation utilizes civilian combatants;
A belligerent nation utilizes mercenary troops;
A belligerent nation utilizes irregular troops;
A belligerent nation utilizes non-uniformed (disguised) regular army troops;
Or any combination of the above factors.

I read somewhere of a U.S. Army reserve unit that was placed on active duty and deployed to Iraq during the recent hostilities there. The troops brought their own high performance (expanding) .223 ammunition and used it against Taliban and/or Al-Qaeda fighters without legal consequences. Needless to say their high performance ammo was considerably more effective than M193 ball.

As far as my recommendation of the expanding .45 ACP ammo I provided links to, I was thinking more along the lines of personal self defense use rather than use by military forces. Hope that bit of clarification helps...
Click to expand...

I don't wish to offend anyone, but am curious if anyone can relate to my uncertainty.

I've always been troubled by these kinds of selective rules of engagement, especially when the spirit of the law is violated by warmongering lawyers.

Obviously, the Geneva Convention has a background history from The Great War, the first modern conflict of unlimited warfare. The intention of the Convention's signees was to dial back the cruelty and carnage possible with modern weaponry by attempting to define what was and wasn't cruel and inhumane behavior in warfare.

Which is a noble cause, except for all the clauses built into the convention that effectively emasculate it of moral authority, like this example whereby the use of expanding ammunition is considered immoral, unless of course the opposing combatants don't conform to certain particular requirements. Or the fact that civilian law enforcement can use such ammunition against their own citizenry without fear of international censure.

This reminds me of the moral relativism surrounding recent interpretations of the US founding documents, whereby "all men are created equal," unless they aren't actually US citizens, or if they are but have aligned themselves with opposing forces, or if they aren't white, male landowners, or if they hold certain religious, political or ethnic views, etc.

In retrospect, it's a noble but naive cause to attempt to define some limited rules of warfare. Ultimately, once people begin to function from their reptilian brains, motivated by fear and uncertainty, all bets are off, there are no rules that can limit the extent of carnage and cruelty. That's the sad reality history teaches us.

That said, I do appreciate fine mechanical devices, whether they be cameras, firearms or typewriters. I happen to own examples of all three, including a 1911 Colt Commander.

~Joe
 
JoeV said:
I don't wish to offend anyone, but am curious if anyone can relate to my uncertainty.

I've always been troubled by these kinds of selective rules of engagement, especially when the spirit of the law is violated by warmongering lawyers.

Obviously, the Geneva Convention has a background history from The Great War, the first modern conflict of unlimited warfare. The intention of the Convention's signees was to dial back the cruelty and carnage possible with modern weaponry by attempting to define what was and wasn't cruel and inhumane behavior in warfare.

Which is a noble cause, except for all the clauses built into the convention that effectively emasculate it of moral authority, like this example whereby the use of expanding ammunition is considered immoral, unless of course the opposing combatants don't conform to certain particular requirements. Or the fact that civilian law enforcement can use such ammunition against their own citizenry without fear of international censure.

This reminds me of the moral relativism surrounding recent interpretations of the US founding documents, whereby "all men are created equal," unless they aren't actually US citizens, or if they are but have aligned themselves with opposing forces, or if they aren't white, male landowners, or if they hold certain religious, political or ethnic views, etc.

In retrospect, it's a noble but naive cause to attempt to define some limited rules of warfare. Ultimately, once people begin to function from their reptilian brains, motivated by fear and uncertainty, all bets are off, there are no rules that can limit the extent of carnage and cruelty. That's the sad reality history teaches us.

That said, I do appreciate fine mechanical devices, whether they be cameras, firearms or typewriters. I happen to own examples of all three, including a 1911 Colt Commander.

~Joe
Click to expand...

Joe, a well considered and well written treatise. I wish more people understood the vagueness associated with these issues you describe.

Just some random tangent thoughts:

An interesting point of law... at least once upon a time in California (and having not lived there for some fifteen years I don't know if the legal concept(s) are still in place) there were a couple of concepts that the entire body of law was based on. First was that each citizen has a duty... a positive duty, to submit to arrest by a peace officer. You have no right to resist, delay or otherwise interfere in an arrest, regardless of whether or not you think it appropriate or lawful. The Courts held for years that it was THEIR purview to review the Executive Branch's activities.

So, law enforcement was free to use whatever force was required to overcome the resistance offered in making an arrest. That seems to be forgotten these days. The other was that you had no recourse if you were involved in committing a "dangerously inherent felony" crime. So, for example, if you were committing a burglary in an occupied dwelling and confronted the homeowner who beat the daylights out of you, you had no recourse. That also seems to be forgotten.

By the way, law enforcement now uses ammunition that is designed to stop the threat with as few rounds being fired as possible. At least that's the idea. Whether the damage inflicted is minimized or not, or is fatal or non-fatal really isn't of much concern as long as the person who is on the receiving end of being shot stops doing whatever it was that caused them to be shot at in the first place. That's a much different concern than those given voice in rules of engagement in war.
 
Joe does make some good points.

I have never quite been able to grasp the concept of "rules of war." It seems like an exercise in irrational thinking to take the position that "Well, if you must have a war, then kill the enemy with 'nice' bullets." Whaaaaa?? :confused:

I do not think it is okay for soldiers to kill civilians in a war - unless the soldier is under attack by civilians and is forced to kill them in order to survive himself.

I don't think it's okay to torture, maim and kill prisoners of war, either.

As for what happens on the battlefield between two uniformed armies that are at war, though - it seems that in regard to being nice to each other, that ship has long since sailed.


I think the best course of all though is to not have wars to begin with. Of course, that would require politicians to set aside their narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic and egotistic compulsions - which is akin to asking a leopard to set aside its spots.

...And we're back to having wars again. :rolleyes:
 
Great thread!
248cc.gif


hepcat said:
I dunno... I really prefer medium format. :D
Click to expand...

I've been thinking of going medium format soon myself. :D
 
I thought the thread was deleted. I found it only when searching for Kobalux threads.
Good to see it's still around. And good to see that it's perfectly civil!

Phil Forrest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom