Nah, it just didn't meet their requirements for accuracy. It is an excellent short range fighting rifle, but if need to engage anything over 100 yards the AK is hopelessly outclassed by the M4. And the Marines, who are notorious for their marksmanship, would never have chosen the AK.SRH78 wrote:I guess since the Marine Corp didn't adopt the AK47, it isn't a fighting rifle?
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Who decided a 1911 is a "fighting pistol"?Other guns aren't.”
- Mon Oct 01, 2012 6:47 pm
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: Who decided a 1911 is a "fighting pistol"?Other guns aren't.
- Replies: 21
- Views: 2225
Re: Who decided a 1911 is a "fighting pistol"?Other guns are
- Sun Sep 30, 2012 7:26 pm
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: Who decided a 1911 is a "fighting pistol"?Other guns aren't.
- Replies: 21
- Views: 2225
Re: Who decided a 1911 is a "fighting pistol"?Other guns are
If this were it, and I'm not saying that it isn't, then, with the exception of skins on the wall, Glock and one or two others can also be considered fighting pistols. I don't have a problem with calling a 1911 a fighting pistol, however I don't think that just any 1911 is. It is a great design, but there are some brands that are not as reliable as others that we might not consider a fighting pistol due to that lack of reliability.Topbuilder wrote:Reliability, knockdown power, round capacity, good simple target acquisition. All things which must be included in a pistol designed to bring to a fight. To win fights. That is a 1911. A 1911 is designed to win fights. That is what makes it a fighting pistol.
I submit there have been a few that could be added to the list since 1911...