My understanding is that one that isn’t is the .45 M1911 / ACP, which probably should be around in a modified form instead of Glocks and the like.
If only because it’s a bloody big lump of metal that’s handy in a trench fight.
Also, it looks bloody nice.
Then again, I couldn’t hit a tree stump with it at about twenty five or so yards a long time ago. But the tree stump looked bloody frightened! Not as frightened as I did aged about thirteen or so and previously limited to .22. rifles.
This is probably way out of date, but about ten years ago I attended an Army open day where they were firing M60s when I thought our Australian army had gone all Austrian on Steyrs and the like.
Spoke with a sergeant who said, not in as many words, Sir, because sergeants call civilians Sir when they don’t just after the civilians have got into uniform, but all the GPMG’s we tried are shit and the M60 is the best we’ve got, and that Steyr is a piece of shit if it ever gets into battle. Which is what has been said by some of the few Australians - not Austrians - who’ve actually used one in something passing for battle, and a very experienced Australian armourer whose opinion was ignored by the big wigs.
The sergeant and I confirmed our view that the 7.62 SLR is a very good weapon for pissing the enemy off and that anyone who can’t shoot over open sights shouldn’t be in the army. The sergeant said that most soldiers he’d met didn’t know what open sights were, and that was just the male recruits. I think that the sergeant, unlike me, might actually have fired various weapons at people with sufficient results to form a base of practical information about what rounds are effective in the field. Which is the last thing the procurement wallahs would want, given their glorious history of ignoring the opiniions of users over wankers in high positions. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/13b-helicopter-project-dumped/2008/03/05/1204402556104.html