Recent additions

When I was in the Army there were any number of reasons why non-officers would have a sidearm. I was a logistics officer, and of the 130ish enlisted in the company I commanded a little less than 3/4 were issued M16s (they got their M14s replaced just before I arrived), the rest were issued 1911's, while many of the ones issued 1911s were Sr NCO's there were a number of various reasons that junior enlisted would be issued a pistol. For instance both members of a sniper team were commonly provided a pistol as well as their rifle system. The CQs of the headquarters were issued a 1911 during their duty. My driver had a 1911 instead of a rifle. The funny part is that almost all of the Jr Officers requested rifles instead of a 1911. Now, I usually stayed out of the way and let my Top Sgt deal with all the who and why and what not. But I told him my opinion was let the guys have whatever they were most comfortable with if possible.
 
I see.

My understanding comes from talking with my marine friends who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They were in the infantry and told me they did not get pistols and only used their rifles. And even if they could carry a handgun, they would rather carry more rifle ammo and magazines for the same weight.
 
We have a couple officers who spent time in the sand box. They were issued M9's but left them in their rooms. Didn't like the capabilities of the 9mm. One was a medic who was in a few very ugly scrapes, figured he'd want the Beretta but he preferred the rifle and more useable equipment. Ammo and medical gear.
 
heck if I had a choice between an M4 and a that pesky 9mm mess they have these days, I would pick the M4 too. Now if I could keep my 1911 or an M4...I would probably take the M4 too, though the fact they no longer have fully auto but "burst mode" makes it a little bit less useful than my old M16. I understand why they did it, but I still think it was the second stupidest decision a bean counter ever made... right after the 9mm debacle.
 
Shavru said:
heck if I had a choice between an M4 and a that pesky 9mm mess they have these days, I would pick the M4 too. Now if I could keep my 1911 or an M4...I would probably take the M4 too, though the fact they no longer have fully auto but "burst mode" makes it a little bit less useful than my old M16. I understand why they did it, but I still think it was the second stupidest decision a bean counter ever made... right after the 9mm debacle.
Click to expand...

I'm told the trend lately has been to move back to full-auto from burst. I think they've been refitting the M4 carbines to the latest M4A1 standard, with full-auto.
 
m4 may be OK for clearing buildings in built up areas. i think i'd prefer a selective fire M14 out in the open tho. of course i'm old school & prefer aiming rather than spray & pray. one shot, one kill. why waste ammo? grandpa would give you one .22 round and expect one rabbit or heaven help you. (i deliberately joined the coast guard because i'd rather be carried around than slog about on foot. got my fill of that while i spent a week at a well known army base in NJ with my college pershing rifles unit acting as VC to ambush the recruits and nat'l guard there for training. we had m14's and m60's then. couldn't carry as much ammo, but i didn't need to. (it did not normally turn out well for the platoons we (mock) slaughtered - they'd freeze like rabbits in headlights when they heard the m14/m60's let loose. the rebel yells did make a few poop their pants too.)

we used m16's in the USCG and ossifers carried .45s, some, like me had their personal ones. i occasionally used a browning 9mm hi-power for boardings & beach landings. that was for non-human wild critters in alaska tho, we used the .45's for boarding japanese and russian vessels & m16's if they were uncooperative. and very occasionally the 3inch deck gun pointed in their direction.
 
Kron, The point behind the full auto isn't spray and pray, it is spray and move. In certain parts of the world particularly jungles you don't get to aim, there is no line of sight beyond 5-10 meters. Saying 1 bullet = 1 kill in that environment is not realistic in the least. Now IF I have line of sight then of course you can select semi-auto on the M4 too. Why waste ammo? Because in some situations it isn't a waste. Very few of the engagements I was involved in lasted more than 5 minutes, and very few of those we used even 1/3 of the ammo we were carrying. Now being female, I wasn't "allowed" to be on front lines. Though were the lines were wasn't always a settled thing. So whenever my job required I go into a free fire zone, I learned from guys who patrolled down river and knew what they were talking about. That way they didn't worry about me and could focus on getting us all where we needed to be and back, safe and sound. Now things might have changed in the decades since I have been in. But the way I learned fit the environment I was in. I never make an assumption that any 1 style is appropriate in every situation.
 
full auto is fine for supressing enemy fire, or special purposes in restricted areas, but if you are up against ak47's they can suppress you a lot better from further than you with an m4. and i could suppress them from further with an m14 or 16. in built up areas i'd however want an m4-ish weapon, i hear there is a .30 variant with a bit more oomph than the .223 or pistol cartridge based carbine/submachine guns. i'd add a .45acp pistol justincase. and my hanshee. ( as noted i'm not a foot slogger so i'd get there in a vehicle, a boat if possible & carry lots of stuff). ;) in any case they get damned hot firing full auto, so you gotta watch you burst control anyway before the barrel turns red & sags (don't ask me how i know an m60 will do that).


anyhow, back to new aquisitions,

just bought this last nite, been looking for one for ages. it's a amaZulu isizenze stabbing axe, 31 in. long. wending it's way northeast to me from pensacola, floridora.

isizenze%203.jpg
 

Attachments

  • isizenze (3).jpg
    isizenze (3).jpg
    48.6 KB · Views: 2
Kron, that is an AmaZING AmaZulu stabbing axe :D 31 inches? that is just incredible, and it looks like it is in such good shape for what I am guessing is it's age. Do you have any details to share yet or is this a research project to be? Agree with Bawanna, your moat monsters and Dire Wolves must get a real test if people know about the amazing stuff you have behind that moat.
 
i gather from the seller that he actually visited south africa and the major zulu war battle sites. it's likely 19c, maybe early 19th. it's a research project. shaka barred their use in battle in the early 19c in favour of the assegai, but it could have been made after he was assassinated & could be from the zulu war era later in the century. i suspect this is thus late 19c. the chevron shaped zulu axe (my post 483 above) i have appears much older.

all the info i got from the seller was:

"Rare and highly desirable form of Zulu battle axe. These were wielded primarily by warriors of high rank and status. Item is in remarkable condition with no age cracks or splits. Nice patina on wood. Original hand hammered blade in VF+ condition, with only light pitting commensurate with age. Measures 31 inches in length. A rare opportunity to add a highly prize artefact to your collection. Very low price for artefact. First bid gets it."

he today mentioned he'd been to SA & the battle sites in a pm when he was providing dispatch info. so far i have only found three other similar ones on googling (post 483 again) and a sketch of one on wiki. the ethnographic arms site only has one other similar one, discussed as being shona (north of kwazulku territory, who made them for the zulu as tribute.. i'm awaiting comments there.

oddly another example was some little model zulu warriors on ebay with one of these and a shield.

p.s. - i got it wrong, seller is in pompano beach, fla. the opposite end of the state :)
 
Last edited:
Kron, the only other isizenze I have ever seen was at the Pitt Rivers museum. From what I remembered of it there wasn't much info about it so I took a chance and looked it up on the internet. That piece is indeed listed in their collection with a picture and description included. You have probably already seen it if you did a search on them but here is the text from the exhibit:

This is a Zulu stabbing axe (known as an isizenze). It has a haft with a bulbous head, similar to a Zulu knobkerrie (club), and the asymmetrical blade has a serrated back edge.
Such weapons were used in pre-battle rituals whereby a black bull was sacrificed in order to appease and invoke divine or ancestral powers.

That is all the information I have ever heard of the isizenze until seeing your example in the thread. One excellent addition to your collection.
 
thanks, i must have read it somewhere, that ritual usage sounds familiar, like you say, there seems to be little other info. probably like sacrificial use of the khukuri and in battle, they were also likely carried into as symbols of rank and prestige by warriors. largely obsolete by the end of the 19c, tho the iwisa (knobkerry) is frequently carried by modern zulu, as occasionally the iklwa (assegai) the isizenze axes are occasionally seen, the zulu king carries a stylized chevron shaped one as a sceptre that looks much to fragile for war use. he also seems to be carrying an iklwa and an iwisa in his left hand while also carrying his shield.

attachment.php


wayne the Zulu king.jpg

p.s. - he seems strangely familiar ;)
 
Last edited:
Yeah I thought he was familiar too. You might want to do one of them ancestor search things.
Be funny to find out your Scottish. Looks like a Mauser in his left hand to me.
 
Well maybe not quite so gosh durned good looking but there's definitely a resemblance there one can't deny.
 
Hmmmmm. I knew the South was searching for additional arms late in the hostilities....so, perhaps that ax is stamped CSA or maybe Jos. Zulu Armory - Macon, Georgia?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top