TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:51 pm

narcissist wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:50 am

abom2 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:35 pm I will stick with what I know works for me. Of course I am pigheaded. I joined the Marines when it was not cool, only stupid people who could not hold a Real Job in the World joined.

Carried the 1911 for more than a decade before the transition to the Beretta. Unit I was in kept all of the Beretta's in the armory after six months of fooling with them. Used our Unit's Special Training Funds to acquire a "Modern pistol" chambered in .45 ACP for each line person in the unit. Carried those in DS and again in 2004 in Al Anbar province.

School of Hard Knocks degree is what I follow. It works for me, others can do what works for them. After all that is why we can choose between mustard or ketchup, or both.

You brought up the 1911, im sure by the time you used it all the kinks were worked out. My Father also my Uncle said in Vietnam the 1911s were inaccurate and malfunctioned a lot. Any Vietnam Vets on here remember this and if so maybe if you dont mind telling us you're experience with the weapons. Also in nam, they had the M1 Garand then changed to the M-16 near the middle of the war. Which weapon did you prefer? Sorry off subject but....

In Vietnam, they switched from the M14 to the M16, not from the M1 Garand to the M16. The M14 entered service in 1959. It was replaced by the M16 in 1968. The M14 was similar to (but not exactly like) the M1 Garand, but it had different furniture, an external removable box magazine, different gas-piston, different caliber (.308/7.62 NATO as opposed to .30-'06), a roller bearing added to the right-side bolt lug, a different operating rod, different sights front and rear, the addition if a flashhider, and let’s not forget the all important select fire lever with a setting for "full boogaloo". But yeah, other than those minor differences, it was "the same rifle".

Bet with the 7.62 x51 at "full boogaloo" <--(good one) was pretty hard to handle but of course needed. My father said they trained him at basic on what I realize now is the M14 ( im know he said it was the M-14 I just forgot ) but when he got to the field they had the M-16s. I can't remember if or how much training he said they did do with the M-16s. Guessing not much. Not to long ago we were at a gun show looking at the M-14 ( not full auto ) maybe called something different example:M-4/ Ar-15, anyway it was made by Springfield in full synthetic stock. Picked it up and they are solid as a Rock! Good feel also. Price was around $1650.00, not bad it had a rail infront of the action for a scope. All around good gun, felt like it could of been dragged behind a truck for 10 miles and it would of still operated.

abom2 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:35 pm I will stick with what I know works for me. Of course I am pigheaded. I joined the Marines when it was not cool, only stupid people who could not hold a Real Job in the World joined.

Carried the 1911 for more than a decade before the transition to the Beretta. Unit I was in kept all of the Beretta's in the armory after six months of fooling with them. Used our Unit's Special Training Funds to acquire a "Modern pistol" chambered in .45 ACP for each line person in the unit. Carried those in DS and again in 2004 in Al Anbar province.

School of Hard Knocks degree is what I follow. It works for me, others can do what works for them. After all that is why we can choose between mustard or ketchup, or both.

You brought up the 1911, im sure by the time you used it all the kinks were worked out. My Father also my Uncle said in Vietnam the 1911s were inaccurate and malfunctioned a lot. Any Vietnam Vets on here remember this and if so maybe if you dont mind telling us you're experience with the weapons. Also in nam, they had the M1 Garand then changed to the M-16 near the middle of the war. Which weapon did you prefer? Sorry off subject but....