Oh heck no! -1 reply

Please wait...

s2ua7

Sealab Slacker

50 XP

5th September 2002

0 Uploads

362 Posts

0 Threads

#1 15 years ago

I was reading something about rumors for 1.7 on AAfiles main page and I noticed that it said that sidearms could possible be in 1.7 and that they knew thay Baretta 92 for the USARMY side, but didnt know what they were going to use for the OPFOR side. didnt I see one of the DEVS say that there would never be anyside arms?? That would suck if we got them in. I see no need for them. I never run out of ammo on any weapon I use. I think it will suck if they bring them in. Anyone elses opinion?




(AKA)zer0

(KRT)zer0

50 XP

21st March 2003

0 Uploads

176 Posts

0 Threads

#2 15 years ago

i think the sniper should get a side arm, but that's it.




ratbag_88

Whoopin azz with the 203

50 XP

11th December 2002

0 Uploads

461 Posts

0 Threads

#3 15 years ago

sniper needs a gun, or AT LEAST some nades to help defend themselves, because wat r they going to do with smoke?




alco64

4 1337 56|

50 XP

8th April 2003

0 Uploads

61 Posts

0 Threads

#4 15 years ago

Try and snap them in the head with a smoke grenade hahahahaha. maybe it'd knock em out :P




azzkiker

I pretend I'm cooler than AzH

50 XP

5th January 2003

0 Uploads

4,259 Posts

0 Threads

#5 15 years ago

lol @ alco...but, i think berretas would be cool! :D Maybe DUAL berretas??? :lol:




Xenomorph VIP Member

Validating my existance

50 XP

8th July 2002

0 Uploads

2,636 Posts

0 Threads

#6 15 years ago

What combat unit in real life goes akimbo with any gun?




[21stAir]HumanShield

Weapons Specialist

50 XP

10th February 2003

0 Uploads

209 Posts

0 Threads

#7 15 years ago

hmmm.....we all know how the army uses dual berretas......in our army snipers eather have 1. a spotter or 2. an m4.




USMC12

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

22nd December 2002

0 Uploads

28 Posts

0 Threads

#8 15 years ago

The Baretta 92 sucks. The military should never had stopped using the Colt .45, there was nothing wrong with it, it never jammed, and it was reliable, and had excellent stopping power.

So why is the military using the Baretta instead of the Colt? Because the Baretta was rushed into the military by the government and the military industrial complex just like the Piece-of-sh*t M16A1 that was used in Vietnam.

The Baretta has no stopping power because it's a 9mm, and it jams all the time in dirty conditions like you have in Afghanistan and Iraq. And how do you expect to stop some wild-eyed raghead which is high on khat (they chew on the leaf of the plant which contains a natural narcotic) with a lousy 9mm mouse-gun?

There have been stories from the soldiers that were in Afghanistan about the uselessness of the Beretta. One Ranger used a whole 12+1 magazine trying to shoot a wild-eyed Al-Queda toilet-paper head. And did all 13 bullets kill the raghead? No. The soldier used up another 2 bullets from his next mag and finally killed him. A 45 like the Colt would have done the job with only 2 or 3 bullets.

Police that work in drug infested areas will tell you that a 9mm is useless. All of them prefer a 45 because of its stopping power and it's ability to put the most drugged up perp on the ground permanently.

I wouldn't touch a Beretta with a ten foot pole. I'll just stick with my Glock 21 45 and Baby Eagle 45.




GeorgeWS(baron)

to much time here!

50 XP

11th February 2003

0 Uploads

309 Posts

0 Threads

#9 15 years ago

My Grandpa worked in the pentagon and he himself was the one who made the switch because the 92FS had a highercapcity and you did not have to **** it, the safty is better and so on, more accurate, but not quite as powerful. and as for the opfor gun give them a tokerov like i have its 9 MM. and looks alot like the colt and the russians used it!

err the profanity cheacking took out c ock wich i thought untill now ment load the gun




Insaniac

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

21st April 2003

0 Uploads

23 Posts

0 Threads

#10 15 years ago

I would like to see a bazooka still LOL :P