Poll: If you could choose your combat sidearm.
- Thread starter Old_Dog
- Start date
warrior poet
New member
M-11 AKA Sig 228. I carried one guarding brass, and I loved it.
Praetoriani
Inactive
HK USP .45
arktravler
New member
I pretty much favor my HK45
Glockstar .40
New member
if i had to bring my own? id bring my AR and my G23
FairWarning
New member
I already have it: HK USP .45. 
Although the Browning Hi Power has its merits, and is very practical to use with a Mec-gar 20 rd mag (works perfectly with 21). I guess I would eventually run out of JHPs, so if I have to make due with FMJs, I'd feel slightly better about the .45.
Although the Browning Hi Power has its merits, and is very practical to use with a Mec-gar 20 rd mag (works perfectly with 21). I guess I would eventually run out of JHPs, so if I have to make due with FMJs, I'd feel slightly better about the .45.
italianbreadman
New member
I'd have to go with the Glock 17 from the ones you listed. High capacity, consistent action, and a large user base to grab mags and such.
But I guess that idea defeats the purpose of the question. Once I run across one dead guy, I'm obviously picking up his gun, too.
But I guess that idea defeats the purpose of the question. Once I run across one dead guy, I'm obviously picking up his gun, too.
in combat
first choice would be a 1911a1.
second choice an american made FNX
Why, well the 1911 has proven itself for over hundred years and number one factor in combat zone, reliability. I feel of the "modern" design's, the FNX is reliable and has all the features for action in a combat zone with gloves on, and they are ambitextrous (important if injured).
first choice would be a 1911a1.
second choice an american made FNX
Why, well the 1911 has proven itself for over hundred years and number one factor in combat zone, reliability. I feel of the "modern" design's, the FNX is reliable and has all the features for action in a combat zone with gloves on, and they are ambitextrous (important if injured).
Southern Shooter
New member
Gen 4 Glock 17 or Ruger P-89
I have both.
Our agency has used the Ruger P-89 for 2+ decades. Ugly. Heavy. Rugged. Durable. Reliable. No tack drivers. But, at 25 yards will put the lead center mass all day long. I am amazed at the abuse these guns have taken and keep working. I have, many times over the years, seen and heard these guns hit the concrete from 3-4 foot heights. So, don't make fun of my P-89
My experience with the Gen 4 Glock 17 is far less than my Ruger. But, I have not seen any reason to fear taking this gun into life or death situations. Again, ugly. Not so heavy. Rugged. Durable. Reliable. No tack driver. But, will hit what I aim at.
I have both.
Our agency has used the Ruger P-89 for 2+ decades. Ugly. Heavy. Rugged. Durable. Reliable. No tack drivers. But, at 25 yards will put the lead center mass all day long. I am amazed at the abuse these guns have taken and keep working. I have, many times over the years, seen and heard these guns hit the concrete from 3-4 foot heights. So, don't make fun of my P-89
My experience with the Gen 4 Glock 17 is far less than my Ruger. But, I have not seen any reason to fear taking this gun into life or death situations. Again, ugly. Not so heavy. Rugged. Durable. Reliable. No tack driver. But, will hit what I aim at.
Last edited:
leadcounsel
Moderator
For some reason, our 'leaders' don't see to have the first clue how to arm Soldiers, spend resources wisely, or fight wars.
This goes right down to equipment, weapons, and tactics.
For instance, we wasted billions of dollars testing and implementing the most worthless, sorry, and embarrassingly useless Army Combat Uniform digital garbage ever invented, only to thankfully be bested by the Navy blue camo. Total garbage. Terrible useless camo, thin easily torn and worn material, and fades, and the velco is aweful.
As for caliber, the 9x19 is fine for combat, IF we could drop our international standard and go with HPs rather than FMJs.
Same is true for the M9. So many better options - maybe not 20 years ago, but definitely today. Granted, wars are not won and lost on the marginal difference in pistols, however, it makes a difference to living or dying from time to time in battle. I don't care for the M9. Too heavy and big. Something more slim, light, better is needed. I voted Glock, but would say that M&P, XD, or CZ would be great. Capacity, reliability, weight...
This goes right down to equipment, weapons, and tactics.
For instance, we wasted billions of dollars testing and implementing the most worthless, sorry, and embarrassingly useless Army Combat Uniform digital garbage ever invented, only to thankfully be bested by the Navy blue camo. Total garbage. Terrible useless camo, thin easily torn and worn material, and fades, and the velco is aweful.
As for caliber, the 9x19 is fine for combat, IF we could drop our international standard and go with HPs rather than FMJs.
Same is true for the M9. So many better options - maybe not 20 years ago, but definitely today. Granted, wars are not won and lost on the marginal difference in pistols, however, it makes a difference to living or dying from time to time in battle. I don't care for the M9. Too heavy and big. Something more slim, light, better is needed. I voted Glock, but would say that M&P, XD, or CZ would be great. Capacity, reliability, weight...
Time to look at FN.
my G20.Off the list:
Glock 17 (specifically, Gen 4, with the medium beaver tail backstrap).
Not on the list:
Glock 22 (Gen 4, also wearing the medium beaver tail backstrap)
For concealed carry as a civilian, I'm very happy to carry a Glock 19. In a combat application, I'd be able to carry a larger frame, would love the option of using 22 round spare mags, and would like the extra hard barrier penetration of the .40 over the 9mm. The trade off wouldn't be an issue, because the 22 gives me a slightly more manageable frame, and I would toss a Surefire X300 on the front to add even more weight/controlability to the firearm to offset the increase in recoil impulse.
In the event of a rifle --> pistol transition, I would not want a DA first pull, or to have to disengage a safety. If I'm making that transition, it's probably in a close quarters firefight, and a fast first hit is critical.
Glock 17 (specifically, Gen 4, with the medium beaver tail backstrap).
Not on the list:
Glock 22 (Gen 4, also wearing the medium beaver tail backstrap)
For concealed carry as a civilian, I'm very happy to carry a Glock 19. In a combat application, I'd be able to carry a larger frame, would love the option of using 22 round spare mags, and would like the extra hard barrier penetration of the .40 over the 9mm. The trade off wouldn't be an issue, because the 22 gives me a slightly more manageable frame, and I would toss a Surefire X300 on the front to add even more weight/controlability to the firearm to offset the increase in recoil impulse.
In the event of a rifle --> pistol transition, I would not want a DA first pull, or to have to disengage a safety. If I'm making that transition, it's probably in a close quarters firefight, and a fast first hit is critical.