Are there any militaries where soldiers can still choose and

>>31497213

No.

Because those armies don't want to have to stock meme ammo like 10mm or Dardick Trounds

>>31497213
Armies belonging to african warlords who just use whatever they can steal, maybe.

Logistically, its incredibly dumb not to standardise. Not just for stocking ammo but also replacement parts, having people qualified to repair stuff, etc.

US Rangers were offered group buys on double stack Para. 45 blackops 1911, which they were able to carry if enough people purchased them to fulfil a full order. After deployment they were able to keep the pistol

>>31497225
But if it is a personal sidearm why would the military need to issue ammunition or parts. Seeing as how a sidearm isn't common issue, why not allow troops who want one to purchase one?

>>31497213

>used to be common

Where? When?

File: IMG_0022.jpg (120KB, 640x719px)

120KB, 640x719px

>>31499217
Revolutionary War, America, c. 1780

>>31499217
Britain in both world wars for starters.
>>31497225
Literally a noj issue. Police departments already allow you to choose your own side arm, it just has to meet certain criteria like a decocker.

Authorized pistol calibers: 9mm, 45 stronk, 10mm for non pussies

>>31497225
>Trounds

Best officer caliber

>>31497213
Don't most soldiers not even carry a sidearm anymore?

>>31497213
Bong military.

Not buy their own sidearms but there's like 6-7 different types of handguns they can use as long as they request it from their QM and pass the necessary skill at arms test

>>31499237
>allow you to choose
>make YOU *buy* a gun out of an approved list

>>31499265

Personally I think this is a horseshit policy if one soldier dies on deployment cause their rifle failed them someone needs to be fired.

>>31501864
Except that doesn't happen. If you die because your rifle failed, it means all of your friends with functioning rifles died as well