Sphinx SDP vs. Sig Sauer P229

So, by your standards, even the BHP isn't combat tested.
Click to expand...

And yet I also said:

I'm not arguing the BHP is somehow not proven.
Click to expand...

My argument is what "combat tested" means isn't clear to me. You admit the Glock has seen combat operations by reports, but either it isn't enough combat or the reports aren't enough to satisfy you because they're not concrete. Obviously Glock was "combat" enough for the UK to change from their proven BHPs.

I'll agree it's overused. Especially if used with Glocks.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: A bias is a bias (at least that is the impression I am getting).

You're on the edge of going into an ad hominem attack by implying I am not giving combat soldiers their due. Enjoy your new year.
 
Last edited:
TunnelRat said:
You're on the edge of going into an ad hominem attack by implying I am not giving combat soldiers their due. Enjoy your new year.
Click to expand...

Where in hell did THAT come from? Getting into an ad hominem attack? Implying you're not giving combat soldiers their due?

Maybe you should practice what you preach:
TunnelRat said:
Go drink some egg-nog and relax. People are really wearing their hearts on their sleeves lately.
Click to expand...

Sheesh.
 
So, by your standards, even the BHP isn't combat tested. Good, let's drop the claim for all weapons except M9s. BHPs were used by the British in combat in the sand boxes, by the SAS (in some anti-terrorist missions, including one that ended up on TV), and by a number of Israeli commando units. Not to mention both Allied and Axis troops units in WWII. The guns they used in WWII were, in many cases, the same guns used today. We can say those weren't examples of combat, too.
Click to expand...

Reads pretty snarky to me amigo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top