My Kimber 1911, because I shoot it better than anything else, and it HITS WITH A RESOUNDING THUD!

Easy choice......AK-47 pistol heres why.....

7.62x39 more powerful than any standard pistol round.

Superior fire power....75 or 100 round mags. Who can argue with that?

One of the most reliable weapons in the world under combat condtions.

Ammo and parts can be found anywhere in the world.

To everyone else who played.....sorry bout your luck!

Glock 34, 9mm with high caps and nights sites, After all a pistol is what you use to fight you way back to where you left your Rifle.

I`d take my mod 29-4"....44mag......at least I`ve have some fun with it.......

My SIG 226 9mm.  It's already "been there, done that".  Not mine personally, of course.  But, so has the Beretta M9.

USP Tactical - .45 knock-down power, suppressor-compatibility, utterly reliable & accurate. All without the "clump" factor of the SOCCOM Mk23 Mod O.

Blaster out.

My vote for best sidearm would have to go with EX11B's:



For sale now at $3500.

AFARR

GLOCK 17 with as many high caps as I could carry.  Just because of the availability of 9mm.
You would have almost an unlimited supply.  I know it's not the best round and deffinatly not my favorite but it works.  The GLOCK is utterly reliable holds more ammo in one mag than any of the other pistols and is rust proof and practically weather proof.


NUFF SAID!

Quoted: Lasergrips GOOD, Hydrashock BAD.

Huh? Lasergrips bad (from a tactical standpoint)

...if you get caught with non-standard ammo in your weapon/mags, you are going to be given an Article 15 and be cashiered out, minimum. If you actually use it on someone, you are going to be locked up and the US Army is going to propsecute you as a war criminal.  They have to, because you will be putting the US in violation of International Laws of War...

The US is not bound by either the Geneva or Hague Conventions governing Land Warfare. We have never ratified either treaty, although it is the stated policy of the US (and consistent with the treaties) to abide by the general content of the treaties if:

1) We are opposing another signatory of these treaties;
2) The conflict is a declared war;
3) The parties we are in conflict with are regular, uniformed combatants of a recognized conventional military force.

None of those seem to apply to the first Somalia conflict, nor would they apply to a second under the most likely forseeable circumstances. The US has a pretty steady track record of only following the restrictions/guidelines in these treaties that are convenient and ignoring the rest. How many Iraqi EPWs got their 55 Swiss Francs per month, as required by the treaty? How many got to send letters home? We blow off the stuff that we don't like. ICM and FASCAM are both illegal, and we have used them in just about every conflict since the 1960s. What about the use of shotguns in land warfare by US forces from 1917 on? We do what is convenient, treaties be damned.

If your chain of command took interest in what your weapon was loaded with, the appropriate charges would be failing to obey lawful orders or conduct unbecoming charges, and would most likely be handled through admin or NJP channels to avoid any press outcry.

Personally, I don't see the US sticking with the ammo restricitons in these treaties much longer, anyway. They have been overtaken by events and technology.

My 92fs or my HiPower because that's all I gots right now.

Quoted: Huh? Lasergrips bad (from a tactical standpoint)

Tactically, yes.  Legally, acceptable as long as you don't turn it in with the sight on it, or break anything in the process.

...if you get caught with non-standard ammo in your weapon/mags, you are going to be given an Article 15 and be cashiered out, minimum. If you actually use it on someone, you are going to be locked up and the US Army is going to prosecute you as a war criminal.  They have to, because you will be putting the US in violation of International Laws of War... The US is not bound by either the Geneva or Hague Conventions governing Land Warfare. We have never ratified either treaty, although it is the stated policy of the US (and consistent with the treaties) to abide by the general content of the treaties if: 1) We are opposing another signatory of these treaties; 2) The conflict is a declared war; 3) The parties we are in conflict with are regular, uniformed combatants of a recognized conventional military force. None of those seem to apply to the first Somalia conflict, nor would they apply to a second under the most likely forseeable circumstances. The US has a pretty steady track record of only following the restrictions/guidelines in these treaties that are convenient and ignoring the rest. How many Iraqi EPWs got their 55 Swiss Francs per month, as required by the treaty? How many got to send letters home? We blow off the stuff that we don't like. ICM and FASCAM are both illegal, and we have used them in just about every conflict since the 1960s. What about the use of shotguns in land warfare by US forces from 1917 on? We do what is convenient, treaties be damned.

The stated policy of the United States is to follow the International Conventions.  I have not witnessed a case of us not following the portion of the laws pertaining to projectile construction regardless of the military enemy, or their status as signatories or the declaration of war.  Certain exceptions do apply to classified units in combat with terrorists.  That is the only currently approved DoD exception to the "dum-dum" bullet restriction.  In 1999, the DoD required the elimination of non-standard ammunition items from the posession of non-classified units.  This included LEOs within the military posessing flashbangs, hollowpoint ammo, linear flexible shaped charges, breaching rounds, etc.  I am unaware of any use of any hollowpoint or otherwise expanding ammunition by US forces in Somalia.  If you have documentation, please present it.

I am also curious as to how FASCAM and ICM violate the Conventions, since most of the NATO nations have both and are signatories to the treaties.  What treaty would prohibit the use of these munitions?

Where was the use of shotguns prohibited in 1917?  The Germans did not like them, but what was the prohibition?  The weapons are currently limited issue and are normally used in the course of law enforcement or physical security type duties, frequently as a less than lethal force measure.

(cont.)

Cont.

It would be convenient to nuke any nation that presented a threat and we have never signed a "no first use treaty" either, but we have not detonated one in a hostile action since 1945.  What happened to napalm and flame weapons?  Not actually prohibited, but we chose to eliminate them due to public belief that they were inhumane.  Riot Control Agents (RCA) are not actually prohibited either (and we used to use large quanntities of them), but they were pulled out of most unit training programs, except for defensive and LEO training.

If your chain of command took interest in what your weapon was loaded with, the appropriate charges would be failing to obey lawful orders or conduct unbecoming charges, and would most likely be handled through admin or NJP channels to avoid any press outcry.

There are several charges under Article 134 which would apply to an officer carrying a weapon loaded with personal prohibited ammunition, in addition to the ones you noted.  I am not sure of your service or background, but I believe that an Army officer faced with these charges would be fortunate to be offered UCMJ, but could stand before a Court Martial (likely a BCD Special or GCM), and publicity of a closed hearing would likely be minimal.  Certainly, career opportunities would be terminated, and I stand by my statement that you would receive an Article 15 and separation.  If you used it on someone, I believe that the USG would try you in a military court and ask for a term of imprisonment if convicted.

Personally, I don't see the US sticking with the ammo restricitons in these treaties much longer, anyway. They have been overtaken by events and technology.

I would respectfully disagree.  The only weapon that we have today which is subject to international prohibition is AP mines, due largely to widespread misuse by rogue nations.  The number of civilian deaths from AP mines lawfully placed by US personnel is minimal.  As a Special Forces soldier, an AP mine is one of the best weapons I have to overcome numerical disadvantage or contact.  If you have followed the OICW program, the US small arm of the future is supposed to be a grenade launcher, with a back up FMJ kinetic energy projectile (5.56mm).

What events or technology do you see causing us to abandon the ammo limitations?

Gentlemen;

If you are not a uniformed combatant...i.e.
a company man. You may well get the opportunity
to carry personnel weapons of your choice. You
would, of course, fall under covert operations
at that point. Saw several individuals with a
variety of weapons, on CNN, in A recently. Personally, I would carry a Glock 19 to back
up my M-4 ( on quick in and outs )or AK-47, if running covert and away from station for any extended length of time.

ATTENTION BARRACKS LAWYERS:

Ok guys, we know all the restrictions the military places on personal weapons, But that was not the question this guy asked.

The question was what would you Take if you had your choice. NOT UNCLE SUGARS CHOICE, but your choice.

Whoa there, SF.

First off, you would have to get caught, and someone in your chain of command would have to give a rats ---. Folks at field grade ranks would care. Below that, it would be up in the air. I have known lots of Captains who weren't carrying issued ball ammo in their sidearms (and weren't always carrying the issued sidearms) and that kind of set the tone in the unit as to what was permissable. Of course there are more charges. The military can always add more. I know of a Captain who was nailing enlisted guys wives when they were off on deployment. Among other charges, he was convicted of over 30 counts of sodomy.

I never said any units deployed to Somalia used special ammo or made any other violations of the law of land warfare, although someone needs to take a serious look at the actions of Marine Corps units deployed in the latter part of 1993.

I think the OICW will not make the grade, and the concept has been overtaken by technology advances in other fields. The main wounding mechanism of the grenade launching system is fragmentation followed by blast. Advances and wide deployment of personal armor systems will (or already are) negate the lethality of that system. The ballistic profile of the 5.56 fired from the 10.5" G36 rifle component of the system is also not very good, and can and will be easily negated by commonly available body armor. I forsee the next step in small arms evolution being a move towards heavier, higher velocity rounds that can penetrate body armor but still cause incapcitating wounds, and the plain-jane FMJ will not hold up. Modern, high-performance ammunition just makes more sense; screw what the other nations of the world think. War is inherently inhumane. Most of the countire who push this crap (like the mine ban, which we had better not sign) haven't exactly displayed a whole lot of aptitude at winning wars, anyway.

BTW, I can personally attest to the fact that military law enforcement still has flash bangs; I trained with MPs last fall who had Def Tech #25s, although none of them had ever deployed one, even in training (we fixed that, though). Also civilian and military CIC agents still carry hollowpoint ammunition, or at least the ones I meet with on a regular basis do.

As far as the US use of shotguns goes, there were treaties in place prior to the Geneva and Hague conventions that forbade their use, but we used them anyway, and continued to use them in direct ground combat despite the prohibitions. My points were in no way meant as criticisms of US policies; quite the opposite. I think we are doing the right thing by going by our own "moral compass" and not letting the arbitrary decisions of people who have been dead for a few decades guide how we conduct (and win) armed conflicts.

sako96:

Different situation altogether.  Original question was for military situation.  I'm a 1911 man, so any 1911 in .45, with more rounds the better, like a Para P-14.

natez:

No quibbling, just wanted to see where you were coming from.  In my current job, I tend to be a rule or reg kind of guy.  

I think most of us do a risk assessment before doing anything illegal - is the potential payoff worth the risk?  Unless you are in a really bizarre situation, I cannot see where a CPT, who has a lot to lose, stuffing an issue weapon with personal Hydrashocks in Korea.  Unless the NK 3rd Horde Army has crossed the DMZ, then all bets are off.

I agree with the OICW being a POS.  On the other hand, while we might be going to faster projectiles, I do not see us going to faster and heavier, unless you have some inside info on a special program.  Faster and heavier equals more recoil and heavier weapons and ammo as well.  Last I heard, they were looking at SLAP, flechettes, etc., but the wounding was inadequate.

In the fall of 1999, the non-std items were removed.  As of Feb 01, the military SRT units I worked with still had not gotten them back.  If they finally did, great.  CID has hollowpoints because they are after criminals, not military.  In other words, they can shoot a GI or civilian with one, but not an enemy soldier.  Legally, I suspect that they are issued ball upon being assigned to a combat zone.

What was illegal about ICM and FASCAM?  What treaty or international law prohibited that?

Still curious about what treaty or law prohibits use of shotguns as well, but I have rarely seen them used in other than security roles.

Just trying to understand your position, I am always looking to learn something new.

If I could use hollow points I'd want a H&K 40. If I had to use ball ammo then a H&K 45. Five mags for either one.

Why do so many people chose a 9mm based on the availablity of ammo ? This baffles me.  I would just take a case of ammo for whatever gun I was using over with me. No way you are gonna need more then that. And if you are using a pistol you are really shit out of luck anyway. So what is the big concern about getting more ammo ?

I'm also surprised that more people are not going for revolvers becuase of their reliablity.

On another note, I was thinking of starting a topic about what sidearm would you take into the Vietnam war? Using that era's weapons ? Using weapons of today ?

i want a ruger 22 to match the shit ballistics from my short barreled m16 that there going to give me.

no sersuly id take a 1911 been proven in combat to many times.

Ok, Who won?

handguns are the last chance weapon after all highpower weapons are exhausted.It would have to be a one shot stop.45acp is very damagen at close range.so a springfield or wilson 1911 and wilson clips with night sights to help focus in the heat of battle would be helpful.remember when your down but not out nothing takes the place of a 45 to have faith in at the moment of truth

SF

I guess that I'm dating myself. A number
of years ago more than a few SF guys were
seconded to Langley. They had 'carte blanc'
on weaponry. Clinton etal must have had a
hand in hosing the company. Many retirees are
being brought back these days. If only
Bill and a few of the old OSS were still
around.

I still like my Glock 19, have even
fired it at 10 metres depth. It I can depend
on! That is also the best quality of the AK,
if you are freezing your arse off at 4,000 metres in some hellhole or knee deep in mud, it will fire. Personally, my favorite civilian weapon is my FN-FAL Carbine. However, I know its limitations in extreme conditions.

HK new model PDW.  

Quoted: SF I guess that I'm dating myself. A number of years ago more than a few SF guys were seconded to Langley. They had 'carte blanc' on weaponry. Clinton etal must have had a hand in hosing the company. Many retirees are being brought back these days. If only Bill and a few of the old OSS were still around. I still like my Glock 19, have even fired it at 10 metres depth. It I can depend on! That is also the best quality of the AK, if you are freezing your arse off at 4,000 metres in some hellhole or knee deep in mud, it will fire. Personally, my favorite civilian weapon is my FN-FAL Carbine. However, I know its limitations in extreme conditions.

sako96:


The question was:

"Ok, so say you are already in the military or you get drafted - which pistol would you take with you when they deploy you to Somalia and other mid eastern/african countries? and why ?"

To me, that implies that you are a soldier, not an Agency employee, and the question was about handguns in the Mid East or Africa.

I have friends working for Langley as well, and their limitations are not the same as ours.  

I am not a SCUBA qualed guy, but I have dived a few times and I have never seen anything I wanted to shoot at down there.  The Glock is a solid piece though.  The AK is not an accuracy piece, but it is simple to build and maintain, eats anything, and it goes boom every time when you pull the trigger on a loaded chamber.  The FAL is more accurate, well made and looks like a woirk of art.  It is relaible, though perhaps not quite as reliable as the AK in terms of MTBF.


Looks like we need a couple of new threads:

What rifle/shotgun/pistolgrenade/mine would you take if a non-DoD Agency which shall remain nameless should deploy you to Country X.  Hell, lets pick a cold, wet, forested European country, an African jungle nation, an Asian mountainous nation, a South American tropical nation, an Australian desert area, a North American urban area, and an Antarctic cold weather environment.

I gotta agree with Minman:   Fearandloathing37 gets my vote.

Lot's of .45acp rounds gotta make for a good skinny-stopper. . . even though it makes my heart bleed to have the .45 be a Glock instead of a 1911.

Fearandloathing37 - Email me your address and stickers will be on their way.

Thanks to all who played - lots of good info and discussion topics and I learned a lot of sh*t about how restricive the military is on personal weapons and ammo - I never knew. ....

Colt .45....the one and only! BIG, slow-moving bullet won't have the same chance of over-penetration, and it's like shooting a bowling ball down the barrel. Not only that, but if it comes to Hand-to-hand, it's big and heavy enough to really knock his block off with a half-way decent swing.

SIG P226 9mm with 20 round factory magazines.
It's reliable and accurate. More than likely your contact would be rather close so accuracy shouldn't be that much of an issue.
Under 15 feet?

Quoted: schapman43: The SOCOM Offensive Handcannon?  World's only crew served pistol?  Holy cow Batman!!  The intimidation value!!   Due to its size and weight, it is the most effective club of all the pistols. With the suppressor, even better than the Desert Eagle .50 and it shoots the same round as the Lightweight Officer's Model! Hey, kidding guys, pick what you want.  Just my .02, YMMV. cpermed: I think you are on the right track.

Does this mean I lost?

Definitely my trusted P226 in 9Para.



For the record: mine unfortunately has no can. Big NO, NO and politically very incorrect overhere.

C-2-6

Not much of a contest here - I would take my Sig P226 because it's the best combat handgun in the world.  Now give me my prize!