|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Army Confirms 9mm for Modular Handgun System
Submitted by:
jac
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Army today confirmed the caliber for its new Modular Handgun System will be 9mm, one week after the service announced it selected a version of Sig Sauer’s P320 to replace the M9 service pistol.
Army officials sent out a press release with additional details on the MHS but did not explain why the service chose 9mm, a decision that Military.com asked the Army to explain its reasoning behind.
The selection of 9mm is a shift from one of the goals of the MHS effort. Army officials at Maneuver Center of Excellence said in 2014 that the Army and other services want a sidearm chambered for “a round that will have better terminal effects — or cause more damage — when it hits enemy combatants” than the current 9mm round.
|
| Comment by:
laker1
(2/1/2017)
|
| Must not have the memo about hire American Buy American |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
