Discussion in 'General Weapons Discussion' started by PhotonGuy, Jun 4, 2015.
Huh. Coulda fooled me...
Somehow Im not surprised.
Well, you know, if we judge by your posting record here, it would sure seem that you do NOT follow your own advice.
Well, it's like most of the things you post: you don't know **** about it.
I will have you know that I am quite knowledgable and I've got quite a background with firearms, do you?
I will have you know that I'm the rightful Emperor of Fredonia!!
Back to topic. Aparently the US Navy Seals is using S&W 686 revolvers(.357 mag) for some operations, because of its reliability when constantly being in and out of water. Several of Richard Marchinko non-fiction books feature Seals with stainless model 66 and 686 revolvers, for those interested.
so in one post you admit they are used "sometimes" and then still claim they dont use them? Well if you have actually "known AND spoken" someone who are we to say anything
And you thought I was referring to police officers and not military officers in my post back at 146
OK, what is the supposed "safety issue" of a striker fired handgun?
You do, perhaps, know that the Glock pistol was designed specifically to meet the requirements of an Austrian military contract?
Sure they did, back in the 80s. Richard Marcinko's non-fiction books and the events he describes in them take place in the 80s and earlier. Do they still use revolvers today?
What Im claiming is most of the time they still don't use them. The links provided by other posters talk about relatively recent events where Glocks have been approved for use by small specific groups in the military such as Marines special forces. I wasn't aware of those current changes but from what I've been told the vast majority of the people in the military still don't use Glocks on the job.
No, I knew perfectly well you were referring to the military. I just knew that you were (once again) wrong.
So what is the "safety issue" you apparently also "know" exists with striker fired pistols?
I bet it's every bit as real as your claim that the US Military does not use Glocks...
Huh. Allow me to repeat myself.
Coulda fooled me...
What is it about which you consider yourself "quite knowledgable [sic]?"
The Glock only has one safety locater right in the trigger. From what I've been told the U.S. military doesn't consider that to be safe enough and the risk of an accidental discharge is too great. There might be some exceptions such as the Marines Special Forces but most of the military doesn't like Glocks for that reason. As for the Austrian military requirements those would be different.
This is (drum roll please...) incorrect.
Glock firearms have a trigger safety, a firing pin safety and a drop safety.
That's three. Not one. Three. Three is more than one. It's actually three times as many as one.
The reference to Marcinko's book was for the pictures, if anyone was interested in that. The link I gave in the preceding sentence, which refered to current use, refers to weapons used by Seals today. I also found another reference to revolvers being used in some operations today in the list of modern seal weapons on navyseals.com with the following description:
"Smith & Wesson 686 .357. This is an excellent 7 shot revolver that is used primarily for Over The Beach or Dive Operations for its reliability in and out of the water."
Of course, as those sites appear to be civilian, I don't know how accurate or updated they are.
Which supports the statement that revolvers have begun a niche weapon.
On the other hand, reliability after being immersed in water (it's pointless to fire a gun underwater) is a function of the ammunition. Modern ammunition is not prone to leaking. I'd be interested in seeing any facts that support the idea that a revolver is more reliable after immersion.
Considering they have used revolvers for this use, at least since the 1970's, one would think they know what they are doing.
I believe the Austrian Navy uses SUB machine guns........123
Separate names with a comma.