I’m not clear what in that picture is the 40mm being referred to: the weapon or the cigar?
M576 Cartridge, 40mm, Multiple Projectile (Buckshot)
The 40mm automatic grenade launchers has the M1001 round loaded with flechettes.
You could get in trouble with the authorities if you have a high capacity magazine in that stapler:D:D
No. Most Colt pistols and revolvers have, historically, had this.
Not in the 80s and 90s when I was in (Marine Corps, enlisted), but we all carried a rifle. I first qualified with the M1911, then saw the debate of accuracy and number of rounds versus stopping power as they sadly (to me) phased in the M9. I’m glad the Marine Corps is bringing back the 1911. It’s a great pistol.
Sadly, you just know there have been supply people who have pushed to limit stapler capacity to reduce usage.
Piling on with this question, but in the Air Force, some enlisted personnel will carry sidearms depending on what job they are performing, and whether or not they are qualified. For example, officework (even on the battlefield, someone has to answer the phone and file paperwork.)
Note that this is mostly always in a deployed environment. On a permanent base stateside or in a more peaceful country, most folks are armed with ballpoint pens, which the Federal Voter Assistance Program commercials remind us is our greatest weapon.
Assuming this is not a whoosh:
This is not true. In the US, modification of a shotgun such that it fails to comply with minimum barrel length (18") and minimum over-all length (26") would require registering the firearm as a short barreled shotgun with a $500 fee and associated paperwork. This is true regardless of fitment of a shoulder stock.
The same goes for factory produced shotguns. The .45colt/.410 pistols have been allowed to skate by ATF, but Taurus’ 28ga version didn’t fly.
what do I type here may have been confused by the restrictions against adding a shoulder stock to a pistol, which converts it to a short-barreled rifle.
As others have said it is more job dependent than rank dependent. My last deployment to Iraq myself a lot of others in my unit dual carried M9s and M4s. Convenient because while on the FOB we could secure the rifle and not have to lug it around.
I personally can’t stand the M9. Not because of the stopping power but because I have never had a pistol that jammed so much. I know some it probably comes from the lowest bidder ammo we get at the range. I like the 1911 but if given the choice I would carry a Glock 21.
I’m guessing you mean the civilian range or your department range. I scanned the Army malfunction and suspension reports for 1305 -A363 (DoD Ammo code for 9mm ball) and found no incidents of jamming reported. A large number of pre-1992 manufacturing lots have been relagated to training only due to declining performance. 1996 had a large grouping of lots with bullet-in-bore problems due to underweight propellant fills. There were some odd lots with blown or inverted primer issues.
Army qualification range. Yes it jams. All the time. Various weapons. Multiple years. Every single time I’ve been on a range. And yet I have never had a jam with my Glocks. And I don’t know where they are getting that information. I have been in since 1989. First on active duty then in the National Guard. I have never heard of making a report of jamming. I have no idea how one could be made. You clear the jam and move on. Luckily for me I can clear a jam like I was performing a magic trick.
First fired a M9 around 92 in Fort Hood. Right out of the box. I was aircrew at the time so it was my primary weapon. Prior to that I had a .38 revolver. Yes I know how old that makes me sound.
Ah…they are replacing the M203? Damn. I liked the 203 mounted under the M16. Do you find it more or less ergonomic with the two weapons now separated or did you prefer the old integrated setup?
So, what is the official, stated reason for changing over to the M9? As someone with a scintilla of hobby target-shooting experience, I’d rather shoot a 9mm every time; I’d rather have twice as many bullets and be more accurate with them. But you could write my experience on a piece of paper, roll it up, and squeeze it through the f-holes of the world’s tiniest violin.
So why do they say they did it? Is it because ammunition is cheaper?
Isn’t that $200 per the 1934 NFA? Or $5 in some cases if a transfer?
As with Loach’s experience in the Army, I’ve never seen a situation in the Air Force where we would report a misfire. You get a misfire, you troubleshoot the weapon, and continue winning the war. I have found that slapping the base of the magazine and racking the charging handle to eject the foul round typically takes care of it.
That said, if the weapon itself went entirely inop, and could not be troubleshot by the user, then you’d probably do some kind of report on it, if only because you’d have to take it to the armory to get fixed.
EDIT: And my experience with the Beretta 92F in the civvie world lines up with Loach’s experience with the M9 in service. It misfires a lot for some reason. I’ve heard that this is partly due to the weapon being relatively light compared to other handguns, that it ends up being less tolerant of “limp-wristing”, not maintaining a rigid wrist when firing. If your wrist is slack at all, the weapon can move back more when you fire, and not enough of the force of the kickback goes into cycling the slide. Maybe a case of user error, but it’s a case that comes up far less often in other weapons I’ve used like the M1911.
That is not entirely correct. See the Serbu Super Shorty, a modified shotgun deemed by the BATFE to be classified as AOW (Any Other Weapon), requiring only a $5 tax stamp. The manufacturer/modifier alleges that the weapon is classified as such because it comes from the factory with a pistol grip, though why that specific feature exempts it from the SBS law is beyond my scope. I’ve always accepted that as true and never given it a second thought.
Also, there are AR-15 “pistols”, which are registered as such. With those you cannot add a shoulder stock or you will run afoul of the NFA, otherwise they are identical to any other AR-15 rifle.
The vagaries of the National Firearms Act are myriad, and people find new ways to confuse matters all the time.
I have not fired the new one but it does fit better on the shorter M4.
Yes limp-wristing is a problem with the M9. I see it when I am helping inexperienced people on the range. But I still have problems and I have decent form.
I’m so out of the loop. That picture of **bear nenno ** shows him with the M320 holstered as a separate weapon, and I incorrectly assumed that that was the only way the weapon was deployed, hence me bemoaning not having an M203 to mount to your M16/AR15/M4 anymore. Of course the new grenade launcher can be mounted to the assault rifle!
:smack:
Or am I wrong yet again?
please say no
Look at the second link to the wiki page. It can be separate or mounted under an M4.
Thanks. I only looked at the first picture with bearnenno in it.