Beretta Moves All Manufacturing Out of Md. After State Passes New Gun Bill

[MikeK]

I was on the 9mm test committee for the Army when they decided to replace the M1911. We tested just about every model 9mm in all types of combat conditions. I can tell you with out a doubt that the decision to change and the company selected were due to politics and cronyism. A 3 star general visited our test site and asked me how the testing was going. I told him this was one of the stupidest decisions the Army ever made.[...]

I've been out of the military (Marines) since 1960 but I know enough about guns to understand and agree with exactly what you've said. That decision obviously was the Military Industrial Complex at work. The 1911 is the best military sidearm ever made and there was absolutely no good reason to replace it.

Because the M-1 Garand was the standard during my time I've always agreed with Patton that it is the "finest military implement ever devised." I was surprised to learn it was being replaced. And I was both pissed off and thoroughly disgusted when I heard about the M-16 routinely jamming during actual combat engagements in Vietnam. I still think replacing the M-1 was a bad idea for a lot of reasons.

I've never even held an M-16 but I don't like it, mainly because it looks too delicate and complicated and I've heard it requires a lot of attention to prevent jamming. Everything I've heard about the AK-47 suggests it's a better choice for ordinary infantry use but it costs less than half the price of the M-16 -- and therein lies the tale.

Eisenhower warned us and we paid no attention.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I was on the 9mm test committee for the Army when they decided to replace the M1911. We tested just about every model 9mm in all types of combat conditions. I can tell you with out a doubt that the decision to change and the company selected were due to politics and cronyism. A 3 star general visited our test site and asked me how the testing was going. I told him this was one of the stupidest decisions the Army ever made.[...]

I've been out of the military (Marines) since 1960 but I know enough about guns to understand and agree with exactly what you've said. That decision obviously was the Military Industrial Complex at work. The 1911 is the best military sidearm ever made and there was absolutely no good reason to replace it.

Because the M-1 Garand was the standard during my time I've always agreed with Patton that it is the "finest military implement ever devised." I was surprised to learn it was being replaced. And I was both pissed off and thoroughly disgusted when I heard about the M-16 routinely jamming during actual combat engagements in Vietnam. I still think replacing the M-1 was a bad idea for a lot of reasons.

I've never even held an M-16 but I don't like it, mainly because it looks too delicate and complicated and I've heard it requires a lot of attention to prevent jamming. Everything I've heard about the AK-47 suggests it's a better choice for ordinary infantry use but it costs less than half the price of the M-16 -- and therein lies the tale.

Eisenhower warned us and we paid no attention.

The problem I have with the AK is accuracy. And while the AR had some growing pains they pretty much have them ironed out. The original problem was rounds getting stuck in the chamber. They fixed this by flash chroming the barrel and chamber.
And while it may be a little more finicky about dirt,I'll take the accuracy.

 

[MikeK]

I was on the 9mm test committee for the Army when they decided to replace the M1911. We tested just about every model 9mm in all types of combat conditions. I can tell you with out a doubt that the decision to change and the company selected were due to politics and cronyism. A 3 star general visited our test site and asked me how the testing was going. I told him this was one of the stupidest decisions the Army ever made.[...]

I've been out of the military (Marines) since 1960 but I know enough about guns to understand and agree with exactly what you've said. That decision obviously was the Military Industrial Complex at work. The 1911 is the best military sidearm ever made and there was absolutely no good reason to replace it.

Because the M-1 Garand was the standard during my time I've always agreed with Patton that it is the "finest military implement ever devised." I was surprised to learn it was being replaced. And I was both pissed off and thoroughly disgusted when I heard about the M-16 routinely jamming during actual combat engagements in Vietnam. I still think replacing the M-1 was a bad idea for a lot of reasons.

I've never even held an M-16 but I don't like it, mainly because it looks too delicate and complicated and I've heard it requires a lot of attention to prevent jamming. Everything I've heard about the AK-47 suggests it's a better choice for ordinary infantry use but it costs less than half the price of the M-16 -- and therein lies the tale.

Eisenhower warned us and we paid no attention.

The problem I have with the AK is accuracy. And while the AR had some growing pains they pretty much have them ironed out. The original problem was rounds getting stuck in the chamber. They fixed this by flash chroming the barrel and chamber.
And while it may be a little more finicky about dirt,I'll take the accuracy.

As I've said, I've never even held an M-16. But if accuracy is your primary concern, having shot "possibles" offhand at 200 yards, and "possibles" sitting and kneeling at 300 yards, and I am by no means an exceptional shooter, I can tell you from experience the M-1 is one hell of an accurate rifle.

The only downside to the M-1 I can think of is it's 9.5 pound weight. It's big and heavy to lug on a march but it is supremely reliable. And although I'd never been in combat, the Garand is what I want to have in my hands if people are trying to kill me.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I was on the 9mm test committee for the Army when they decided to replace the M1911. We tested just about every model 9mm in all types of combat conditions. I can tell you with out a doubt that the decision to change and the company selected were due to politics and cronyism. A 3 star general visited our test site and asked me how the testing was going. I told him this was one of the stupidest decisions the Army ever made.[...]

I've been out of the military (Marines) since 1960 but I know enough about guns to understand and agree with exactly what you've said. That decision obviously was the Military Industrial Complex at work. The 1911 is the best military sidearm ever made and there was absolutely no good reason to replace it.

Because the M-1 Garand was the standard during my time I've always agreed with Patton that it is the "finest military implement ever devised." I was surprised to learn it was being replaced. And I was both pissed off and thoroughly disgusted when I heard about the M-16 routinely jamming during actual combat engagements in Vietnam. I still think replacing the M-1 was a bad idea for a lot of reasons.

I've never even held an M-16 but I don't like it, mainly because it looks too delicate and complicated and I've heard it requires a lot of attention to prevent jamming. Everything I've heard about the AK-47 suggests it's a better choice for ordinary infantry use but it costs less than half the price of the M-16 -- and therein lies the tale.

Eisenhower warned us and we paid no attention.

Hell, I'd take an AK-47 over an M16 (especially the M2). I've put a lot of corrosive rounds down range, in adverse conditions, and never had that thing misfire or jam. AK is more like an M1 Garand than an M16.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I can aim so I never had a problem.

How many center of body shots would you put into a charging maniac with a knife if you have a 9mm?

With a 45 you just need one hit.

With a 9mm you need lots of hits.

No, you don't. Even a shot in the heart will not stop some people. They will continue to fight till they bleed out internally. The only thing that's almost guaranteed to drop a bad guy is a hit to the brain.....not head, but brain. And that is well protected. All of this "one stop shot" horseshit is just that...horseshit.

Real world shootings consist of multiple shots fired, a PJ friend of mine said it best, "I don't expect any particular bullet to do any particular thing, I place the shot assess the situation and repeat as necessary."

A .44 Magnum, .454 Casull, or .480 Ruger to the sternum will stop ANYONE. If your caliber of choice will not...you need something with more steam!

 

[Jarlaxle]

The 1911 is a great gun and I know many who carry it and most of em are vets. You can't beat the 1911.

Oh yes you can.

Gun Review: FNX-45 Tactical [P320 Entry] | The Truth About Guns

Shoot it one time and you'll never go back to a 1911. And you get fifteen rounds in the mag instead of eight.

Nope. Not designed by John Browning.,..I'm simply not willing to trust my life to it! (Yes...for me, it really is that simple.)

 

[Jarlaxle]

I was on the 9mm test committee for the Army when they decided to replace the M1911. We tested just about every model 9mm in all types of combat conditions. I can tell you with out a doubt that the decision to change and the company selected were due to politics and cronyism. A 3 star general visited our test site and asked me how the testing was going. I told him this was one of the stupidest decisions the Army ever made.[...]

I've been out of the military (Marines) since 1960 but I know enough about guns to understand and agree with exactly what you've said. That decision obviously was the Military Industrial Complex at work. The 1911 is the best military sidearm ever made and there was absolutely no good reason to replace it.

Because the M-1 Garand was the standard during my time I've always agreed with Patton that it is the "finest military implement ever devised." I was surprised to learn it was being replaced. And I was both pissed off and thoroughly disgusted when I heard about the M-16 routinely jamming during actual combat engagements in Vietnam. I still think replacing the M-1 was a bad idea for a lot of reasons.

I've never even held an M-16 but I don't like it, mainly because it looks too delicate and complicated and I've heard it requires a lot of attention to prevent jamming. Everything I've heard about the AK-47 suggests it's a better choice for ordinary infantry use but it costs less than half the price of the M-16 -- and therein lies the tale.

Eisenhower warned us and we paid no attention.

The problem I have with the AK is accuracy. And while the AR had some growing pains they pretty much have them ironed out. The original problem was rounds getting stuck in the chamber. They fixed this by flash chroming the barrel and chamber.
And while it may be a little more finicky about dirt,I'll take the accuracy.

Per my brother (Marine NCO, combat veteran), the M-16 (and M-4) are still finicky. The military should never have replaced the M-14! (Heck, how hard could it be to modify an M-14 to shoot .223 rounds?)

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I've been out of the military (Marines) since 1960 but I know enough about guns to understand and agree with exactly what you've said. That decision obviously was the Military Industrial Complex at work. The 1911 is the best military sidearm ever made and there was absolutely no good reason to replace it.

Because the M-1 Garand was the standard during my time I've always agreed with Patton that it is the "finest military implement ever devised." I was surprised to learn it was being replaced. And I was both pissed off and thoroughly disgusted when I heard about the M-16 routinely jamming during actual combat engagements in Vietnam. I still think replacing the M-1 was a bad idea for a lot of reasons.

I've never even held an M-16 but I don't like it, mainly because it looks too delicate and complicated and I've heard it requires a lot of attention to prevent jamming. Everything I've heard about the AK-47 suggests it's a better choice for ordinary infantry use but it costs less than half the price of the M-16 -- and therein lies the tale.

Eisenhower warned us and we paid no attention.

The problem I have with the AK is accuracy. And while the AR had some growing pains they pretty much have them ironed out. The original problem was rounds getting stuck in the chamber. They fixed this by flash chroming the barrel and chamber.
And while it may be a little more finicky about dirt,I'll take the accuracy.

As I've said, I've never even held an M-16. But if accuracy is your primary concern, having shot "possibles" offhand at 200 yards, and "possibles" sitting and kneeling at 300 yards, and I am by no means an exceptional shooter, I can tell you from experience the M-1 is one hell of an accurate rifle.

The only downside to the M-1 I can think of is it's 9.5 pound weight. It's big and heavy to lug on a march but it is supremely reliable. And although I'd never been in combat, the Garand is what I want to have in my hands if people are trying to kill me.

9.5 lbs. isnt all that bad. My AR is just shy of 11 lbs. with a full mag of 28 rounds.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I've been out of the military (Marines) since 1960 but I know enough about guns to understand and agree with exactly what you've said. That decision obviously was the Military Industrial Complex at work. The 1911 is the best military sidearm ever made and there was absolutely no good reason to replace it.

Because the M-1 Garand was the standard during my time I've always agreed with Patton that it is the "finest military implement ever devised." I was surprised to learn it was being replaced. And I was both pissed off and thoroughly disgusted when I heard about the M-16 routinely jamming during actual combat engagements in Vietnam. I still think replacing the M-1 was a bad idea for a lot of reasons.

I've never even held an M-16 but I don't like it, mainly because it looks too delicate and complicated and I've heard it requires a lot of attention to prevent jamming. Everything I've heard about the AK-47 suggests it's a better choice for ordinary infantry use but it costs less than half the price of the M-16 -- and therein lies the tale.

Eisenhower warned us and we paid no attention.

The problem I have with the AK is accuracy. And while the AR had some growing pains they pretty much have them ironed out. The original problem was rounds getting stuck in the chamber. They fixed this by flash chroming the barrel and chamber.
And while it may be a little more finicky about dirt,I'll take the accuracy.

As I've said, I've never even held an M-16. But if accuracy is your primary concern, having shot "possibles" offhand at 200 yards, and "possibles" sitting and kneeling at 300 yards, and I am by no means an exceptional shooter, I can tell you from experience the M-1 is one hell of an accurate rifle.

The only downside to the M-1 I can think of is it's 9.5 pound weight. It's big and heavy to lug on a march but it is supremely reliable. And although I'd never been in combat, the Garand is what I want to have in my hands if people are trying to kill me.

A regular M-1 is big and bulky...but what about the M-1's T26 "Tanker Garand" variant? Basically: it's an M-1 with a shorter (18") barrel and different stock, about 2 pounds lighter.

 

[R.C. Christian]

"I don't want no teenage queen, I just want my M-14"

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I was on the 9mm test committee for the Army when they decided to replace the M1911. We tested just about every model 9mm in all types of combat conditions. I can tell you with out a doubt that the decision to change and the company selected were due to politics and cronyism. A 3 star general visited our test site and asked me how the testing was going. I told him this was one of the stupidest decisions the Army ever made.[...]

I've been out of the military (Marines) since 1960 but I know enough about guns to understand and agree with exactly what you've said. That decision obviously was the Military Industrial Complex at work. The 1911 is the best military sidearm ever made and there was absolutely no good reason to replace it.

Because the M-1 Garand was the standard during my time I've always agreed with Patton that it is the "finest military implement ever devised." I was surprised to learn it was being replaced. And I was both pissed off and thoroughly disgusted when I heard about the M-16 routinely jamming during actual combat engagements in Vietnam. I still think replacing the M-1 was a bad idea for a lot of reasons.

I've never even held an M-16 but I don't like it, mainly because it looks too delicate and complicated and I've heard it requires a lot of attention to prevent jamming. Everything I've heard about the AK-47 suggests it's a better choice for ordinary infantry use but it costs less than half the price of the M-16 -- and therein lies the tale.

Eisenhower warned us and we paid no attention.

Hell, I'd take an AK-47 over an M16 (especially the M2). I've put a lot of corrosive rounds down range, in adverse conditions, and never had that thing misfire or jam. AK is more like an M1 Garand than an M16.

You can put thousands of rounds through an AR and never clean it.
Today's rounds are way cleaner then they use to be.
My thoughts on the two battle rifles? I'd rather be able to hit you out to four hundred yards. You wont be doing that with an AK.
Dont get me wrong,I like the AK and it's positives. I'd just take the AR over the peasant rifle.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The 1911 is a great gun and I know many who carry it and most of em are vets. You can't beat the 1911.

Oh yes you can.

Gun Review: FNX-45 Tactical [P320 Entry] | The Truth About Guns

Shoot it one time and you'll never go back to a 1911. And you get fifteen rounds in the mag instead of eight.

Nope. Not designed by John Browning.,..I'm simply not willing to trust my life to it! (Yes...for me, it really is that simple.)

I've put well over a thousand rounds through mine without a single misfire or jam.
We're talking FAL here,they make nothing but quality.
Just shoot one and you'll know what I'm talking about. Hell,if you live near Houston I'll let you run a couple hundred rounds through it and I promise you you'll go away with a different mind set. And I'll even pay for the rounds.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I've been out of the military (Marines) since 1960 but I know enough about guns to understand and agree with exactly what you've said. That decision obviously was the Military Industrial Complex at work. The 1911 is the best military sidearm ever made and there was absolutely no good reason to replace it.

Because the M-1 Garand was the standard during my time I've always agreed with Patton that it is the "finest military implement ever devised." I was surprised to learn it was being replaced. And I was both pissed off and thoroughly disgusted when I heard about the M-16 routinely jamming during actual combat engagements in Vietnam. I still think replacing the M-1 was a bad idea for a lot of reasons.

I've never even held an M-16 but I don't like it, mainly because it looks too delicate and complicated and I've heard it requires a lot of attention to prevent jamming. Everything I've heard about the AK-47 suggests it's a better choice for ordinary infantry use but it costs less than half the price of the M-16 -- and therein lies the tale.

Eisenhower warned us and we paid no attention.

The problem I have with the AK is accuracy. And while the AR had some growing pains they pretty much have them ironed out. The original problem was rounds getting stuck in the chamber. They fixed this by flash chroming the barrel and chamber.
And while it may be a little more finicky about dirt,I'll take the accuracy.

Per my brother (Marine NCO, combat veteran), the M-16 (and M-4) are still finicky. The military should never have replaced the M-14! (Heck, how hard could it be to modify an M-14 to shoot .223 rounds?)

I've shot both and I prefer the AR. Low recoil and the ability to carry twice the rounds.
Dont get me wrong,I love all guns,but if I had to carry one rifle it would be the AR.
If I had to carry one pistol it would be the .45 (FNX-45 Tactical)

 

[Politico]

No you don't have 13 take downs. Again no one with any training or real world experience would fire one shot at a target.

That is how I was trained to get my CCW.

What if there's more zombies around? Might need to save that ammo.

Sorry. You are busted. No CCW trainer would tell you to only fire one shot. Just to get a permit you are required to hit a target center mass multiple times with both your dominate and weak hand. That aside I was talking about real world experience. I have shot people. You have not. You shoot more than once.

 

[Geaux4it]

I've been out of the military (Marines) since 1960 but I know enough about guns to understand and agree with exactly what you've said. That decision obviously was the Military Industrial Complex at work. The 1911 is the best military sidearm ever made and there was absolutely no good reason to replace it.

Because the M-1 Garand was the standard during my time I've always agreed with Patton that it is the "finest military implement ever devised." I was surprised to learn it was being replaced. And I was both pissed off and thoroughly disgusted when I heard about the M-16 routinely jamming during actual combat engagements in Vietnam. I still think replacing the M-1 was a bad idea for a lot of reasons.

I've never even held an M-16 but I don't like it, mainly because it looks too delicate and complicated and I've heard it requires a lot of attention to prevent jamming. Everything I've heard about the AK-47 suggests it's a better choice for ordinary infantry use but it costs less than half the price of the M-16 -- and therein lies the tale.

Eisenhower warned us and we paid no attention.

Hell, I'd take an AK-47 over an M16 (especially the M2). I've put a lot of corrosive rounds down range, in adverse conditions, and never had that thing misfire or jam. AK is more like an M1 Garand than an M16.

You can put thousands of rounds through an AR and never clean it.
Today's rounds are way cleaner then they use to be.
My thoughts on the two battle rifles? I'd rather be able to hit you out to four hundred yards. You wont be doing that with an AK.
Dont get me wrong,I like the AK and it's positives. I'd just take the AR over the peasant rifle.

Then you are leaving behind a fine firearm. Mater of fact, I take my SKS over my M4 in some situations

-Geaux

 

[JimBowie1958]

No you don't have 13 take downs. Again no one with any training or real world experience would fire one shot at a target.

That is how I was trained to get my CCW.

What if there's more zombies around? Might need to save that ammo.

Sorry. You are busted. No CCW trainer would tell you to only fire one shot. Just to get a permit you are required to hit a target center mass multiple times with both your dominate and weak hand. That aside I was talking about real world experience. I have shot people. You have not. You shoot more than once.

Lol, what bullshit.

Yes, I was trained to shoot one shot for legal reasons. The defense you use in civil court depends on excessive force. The Mogadishu shit you are talking about is for a WAR ZONE and if you triple hit some teen age kid you are going to get cleaned out in a great many courts across the land.

You are not shooting a criminal to kill, in theory, but to STOP them, that's it. Even one head shot is hard to defend against in court. One shot center of body, and repeat till they stop coming at you. THAT holds up in court. not 'Your honor, that is how I was trained to fight in a war.' The judge just might throw the fucking book at you.

Have you ever considered that your military training is NOT appropriate for civilian use?

Don't be so presumptive.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I can aim so I never had a problem.

How many center of body shots would you put into a charging maniac with a knife if you have a 9mm?

With a 45 you just need one hit.

With a 9mm you need lots of hits.

No, you don't. Even a shot in the heart will not stop some people. They will continue to fight till they bleed out internally. The only thing that's almost guaranteed to drop a bad guy is a hit to the brain.....not head, but brain. And that is well protected. All of this "one stop shot" horseshit is just that...horseshit.

Real world shootings consist of multiple shots fired, a PJ friend of mine said it best, "I don't expect any particular bullet to do any particular thing, I place the shot assess the situation and repeat as necessary."

No one is going to take a 45 ACP round to the heart and keep coming at you.

'Repeat as necessary' is the key. If one shot will do the job, and it likely will if I have done my part right, then why waste bullets? You might need them for the next zombie.

 

[MikeK]

A regular M-1 is big and bulky...but what about the M-1's T26 "Tanker Garand" variant? Basically: it's an M-1 with a shorter (18") barrel and different stock, about 2 pounds lighter.

Actually I've never seen one of those and had forgotten about it until you mentioned it. But I wouldn't mind owning one.

The shorter barrel undoubtedly affects long range accuracy. I've never been in combat but based on things I've read and heard from those who have I tend to believe reasonable accuracy within 200 yards would accommodate all but the very rare and exceptional need. And I would think an 18" barrel would be more than adequate at that distance.

Am I mistaken?

 

[Jarlaxle]

AFAIK, it was prototyped and a dozen or so were made, but it never entered regular production. (The M1 carbine is a completely different weapon.)

 

[MikeK]

The problem I have with the AK is accuracy. And while the AR had some growing pains they pretty much have them ironed out. The original problem was rounds getting stuck in the chamber. They fixed this by flash chroming the barrel and chamber.
And while it may be a little more finicky about dirt,I'll take the accuracy.

As I've said, I've never even held an M-16. But if accuracy is your primary concern, having shot "possibles" offhand at 200 yards, and "possibles" sitting and kneeling at 300 yards, and I am by no means an exceptional shooter, I can tell you from experience the M-1 is one hell of an accurate rifle.

The only downside to the M-1 I can think of is it's 9.5 pound weight. It's big and heavy to lug on a march but it is supremely reliable. And although I'd never been in combat, the Garand is what I want to have in my hands if people are trying to kill me.

9.5 lbs. isnt all that bad. My AR is just shy of 11 lbs. with a full mag of 28 rounds.

Actually, with an 8-round 30.06 clip in place and a leather sling the Garand weighs in at 10.5.

PS: I'm surprised to learn the M-16 weighs that much, because I'd believed the main reason for replacing the M-14 was size and weight.