Posted: 12/11/2004 1:21:19 PM EDT
|
Does anyone know what the Navy SEAL's requirements were for an offensive handgun? Why did the SEALs need an offensive handgun when they have so much firepower available to them? Have the SEALs finally stopped using the HK Mk 23 Mod 0 and if so what have they replaced it with? Thanks! |
I heard , but no facts or proof to date , most SF have traded the M-23 in for HK USP tacticals. Less weight , same system. Don't know why they made the m-23 so dang big in the first place. Too big to wear on your hip without the suppressor,light and laser. Why do they need em, easier to use indoors and tight spaces than a carbine.
|
Doesn't matter the firepower available to you, a handgun is a good thing to have if you are changing rifle mags or if your rifle jams in a firefight. Also handy for maneuvering in very tight places. Case in point- my father. Not a SEAL but Army Infantry in Vietnam. He carried the suppressing firepower, the M60. But on two occassions when the assistant M60 gunner wasn't able to be there to get him more ammo, his 1911 saved his life. |
|
I think those pistols that cost 2K or more are pretty offensive to me! And those 'safety' pistols Sarah B. et.al. want the gun manufacturers to build are DEFINITELY OFFENSIVE! As far as Seals go...pretty much it's just their bark I find offensive  I thought they used Sig also. Saw a picture of someone in the Middle East Current Affairs who was supposedly a SEAL and was wearing a Sig. Isn't there a website for Seals where you could ask them straight on? I'm thinking of the one where they also expose SEAL imposters. |
No it's not. The HK Mk23 is actually listed as an offensive weapon, it's the only handgun in the inventory of the US military that is listed that way. |