Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 6/28/2003 7:29:30 PM EDT
The other day I was driving on to the base that I work at and I got to thinking about the 9mm round that is currently issued to the men and women who are charged with our defence. IMHO the .45 is a vastly supperior round as far as stoping power goes. I know that we don't use HPs or JHPs because of the geneva convention so my quesions is :
Since we already are restricted to type of round why dosn't the millitary opt for the round with the most stoping power?

JIM

Link Posted: 6/28/2003 7:52:50 PM EDT
1. Weight and space savings per round. 2. Less recoil. 3. Cheaper ammo. 4. NATO.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 8:08:36 PM EDT
Well I still think there idiots for doing it. they make 12 rnd mags for the HK USPs thats only a 3 round diffrence. As to the recoil, I am a small guy 130lbs I can handle my un-compensated spring 1911A1 even at rapid fire speeds. Its all in the training. These kids they got using these things just need to spend a little more time at the range. Quality over quanity I say. JIM
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 8:53:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/28/2003 8:55:58 PM EDT by Tex78]
As to the recoil, I am a small guy 130lbs I can handle my un-compensated spring 1911A1 even at rapid fire speeds. Its all in the training. These kids they got using these things just need to spend a little more time at the range.
View Quote
I think the difference is that you and I are shooters. We get out to the range often. We take our time when we are there, and make sure we are doing it right. Shooters enjoy the hell out of shooting, and have been doing it for years. Unfortunately, the service personel most likely the get issued a pistol (officers, and rear area support personel) rarely ever get to shoot. They get re-qualified every so often, but thats about it for most. From what I understand, it is not any different for the M16, BUT...rifle skill is intuative, like the old "riding a bike" saying. Pistol skill as you know is extremely perishable!! If your not shooting often, you can simply forget about being very effective with your pistol. Now If it were up to me, I would go with the .40S&W. Light recoil, bigger hole than a 9mm, but still offers some weight/recoil savings. And all military personel would get at least mothly range-time. Tex78 Edited cuz i caint spel
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 11:17:45 PM EDT
"There's a right way of doing things...then there's the army way of doing things." -Sgt. Zeke Anderson, Tour Of Duty When using FMJ rounds only, I would agree that the .45 ACP is a superior cartridge. But there are lots of things to consider. We have lots of women in today's military and the 9mm is probably easier for them to control (which amazes me why they chose the Beretta with it's huge grips). The 9mm round is also standard NATO issue, so that's always another consideration. There's a ton of things that go into these decisions and sadly, it often isn't the grunt in the field who has the final say as to what they get. Regardless of what pistol or round is used, I think the sidearm should be viewed as a secondary weapon. Always opt for a rifle or shotgun in a situation where it can be used. I have been noticing lots of troops in Iraq on the news using handguns in a capacity where a rifle or carbine would be much better suited. Whether frontline or rear echelon troops, give em a long gun if they are doing a job where said rifle/shotgun doesn't interfere with performing their duties. -Charging Handle
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 7:08:57 AM EDT
I wasn't justifying the change merely pointing to a few reasons... Yes, range time is a problem, especially for the non infantry types. I spend more time on the shooting my privately owned weapons than I ever get to with issue ones. Should be the other way around in my opinion...
We have lots of women in today's military and the 9mm is probably easier for them to control (which amazes me why they chose the Beretta with it's huge grips). The 9mm round is also standard NATO issue, so that's always another consideration.
View Quote
Yeah, this doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense does it... Personally I like the Beretta. I picked one up to get familiar with it since it is what I'll be carrying as an aviator. (I'm in flight school) The grips are perfect for my large hands, but the ladies tend to have a problem with the size and weight of it. For better or worse women are having an impact on todays fighting forces...
Link Posted: 6/29/2003 10:24:17 PM EDT
Well, apparently we(USA) pushed NATO for adopting the 5.56mm round for rifle calibers and when the time came to adopt a new NATO approved round for pistol ammunition it was decided to go with the standard european perfered round which was the 9mm. It was mainly for NATO standardization is whatI have read!
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 6:33:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2003 7:46:28 AM EDT by glock23carry]
I think the truth is no one gives a sh*t. They've got MLRS, Abrams tanks, FA-18s, JDAMs, etc. To the Armed Forces, the type and caliber of pistols, the majority of which never get fired anyway, is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things. So what if a tank commander has a 1911? The main tube on that tank is what they're concerned about, not what pistol is in his holster. For troops that actually use a pistol (SEALs, Marine Recon) they can get 45s or whatever they need. For infantry, most fighting officers carry an M4 now, so they don't look like officers. Heck, the French just adopted the SigPRO for goodness sake. G23c
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 3:47:34 PM EDT
please, this is getting old.i would rather have a 9mm over a 45 anyday.45's are too slow and have no more energy than a 9mm so i would rather have a couple more rounds in my mag.personaly the goverment should switch to the 357sig.
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 5:38:01 PM EDT
The reason is NATO. All NATO countries agreed to used 9MM cause it was more widespread. Europeans don't like to use pistols for combat. Again it was because of NATO. CRC
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 5:08:18 AM EDT
sfitter777 -- Energy has nothing to do with anything, the size of the hole is what counts. .45ACP starts off bigger and makes bigger holes. .357 Magnum is just another 9mm. Put JHP bullets in .45ACP or any of the 9mm and they still make smaller holes. Other than a lack of lanyard loop my Beretta 8045 looks enough like the M9 to pass most "holster inspection" looks. My combat experience with 9mm (Browing High Power) mirrors that of the recent Iraq War. I went back to the M1911 as quick as I could. Yep, 8 effective rounds vs. 14 marginal at best. I have a couple 9mm pistols but consider them secondary to my .45ACP pistols. -- Chuck
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 11:17:45 AM EDT
I'm not debating the .45 better than 9mm issue (don't have the time), but I have something to say about the 1911. I shoot IPSC and IDPA all the time. My buddy has a glock 19 9mm and I shoot a Ruger P95 9mm. Neither of us has had a SINGLE malfunction during competition in 1000+ rounds of ammo through our guns. Almost everyone else (about 15 other guys) shoots a 1911 of some kind. Every night we see one or two of those 1911s malfunction. I'd rather have a 9mm that works than a 1911 that doesn't work. Sorry for the thread hi-jack. Some things just have to be said.
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 11:36:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/1/2003 11:46:28 AM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
There is no legitimate reason to have replaced the .45 with the 9mm. It was strictly a combination of NATO politics and the 1911 fleet being so worn out that they had to be replaced with SOMETHING. All other arguments on behalf of the 9mm were invented after the fact, to defend the decision from critics. The correct decision would have been to simply ordered a contest for NEW M1911s. DaPhotoGuy. You are making a big fallacy in your observaton about the 1911s you shoot against. You cannot treat ALL 1911 pistols as a single group. Unlike your Ruger and your friends Glock there is no ONE source for M1911 pistols, there have been literally dozens spanning the last 92 years and there are about a dozen on the market right now. A Colt 1911 is as unique from a Springfield or Kimber as your friends Glock is from your Ruger. The fact they look the same and the parts are supposed to interchange is irrelevent cause different people assembled them. The reports from Iraq, where pistols were used heavily for a change, show that the Beretta fleet is starting to wear out now too. And indeed about the same time has passed between the M9's introduction and now as between the M1911's introduction and the M1911A1's. Rather than buying M9A1's, we should ditch it and hold a contest for a supplier for a M1911A2, using the Marines MEU/SOC pistol as a pattern. Since we have to spend money anyways, why not spend slightly more money and do the job right. Colt, Kimber, Springfield, and now Smith and Wesson could all enter canidates. That is actually a rather wide field for a military contract. Perhaps Wilson as well, but their production facilities might not be big enough.
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 12:29:19 PM EDT
The biggest reason for the change was political. We needed bases in Italy, and Berretta is an Italian company. So the military gives the contract to Berretta, and we got our bases. The lack of effectivness of the 9MM is not something new. The FBI changed back to the .45 long before Desert Bash 2, as have some other police departments. But the big factor is most are moving away from 9MM to 40S&W (which is barley much cheaper in volume than 45ACP), which just shows that the wonder9 is being relegated back to where it used to be. Just because it says NATO doesn't mean squat. The British SA80 shoots underpowered M855, but it is still headstamped with the NATO cross, even though it has problems cycling the M-16. So much for a standard load......
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 1:20:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LTCetme: Well I still think there idiots for doing it. they make 12 rnd mags for the HK USPs thats only a 3 round diffrence. As to the recoil, I am a small guy 130lbs I can handle my un-compensated spring 1911A1 even at rapid fire speeds. Its all in the training. These kids they got using these things just need to spend a little more time at the range. Quality over quanity I say. JIM
View Quote
I 100% agree. I would much prefer the bigger bore when restricted to ball ammo. Of course I have never seen any use for the 9mm anyway.
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 5:23:34 PM EDT
I've always used a Gold Cup .45 for years, I recently purchase a S&W 9mm with 15 shots using +P+ Ammo -- Lots of Ammo down range idea. I use to carry Model 19 S&W .357 Mag with 2 speedloaders -- 18 rounds just aren't a lot of rounds when you start shooting and producing cover for Presidential/Celebrity Protection (back in the old days).
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 7:01:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sfitter777: please, this is getting old.i would rather have a 9mm over a 45 anyday.45's are too slow and have no more energy than a 9mm so i would rather have a couple more rounds in my mag.personaly the goverment should switch to the 357sig.
View Quote
.45s too slow? I take it you have never seen an IDPA/IPSC match, have you? That will QUICKLY put to rest the myth that the .45 is hard to shoot fast and accurately. A lot of shooters use factory hardball in their .45s, not the wimpy, watered down loads that many shooters use merely to satisfy power factor requirements (which are a joke).
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 6:55:52 AM EDT
i dont believe that crap about the US needig italian bases. pure BS. we need to replace the .45s that were 50yrs old and it was deemed important to follow nato. especially after we shoved 5.56 down their throats.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 7:34:08 AM EDT
Actually, we didn't shove 5.56x45 down their throats. We shoved 7.62x51 down their throats back in the '50s. They wanted a smaller caliber all along, although not necessarily a .22 (6 or 7mm). It was after Vietnamn, and the effects that 5.56x45 was having on humans, that everybody else took a long hard look at that little varmint cartridge. The soviets did pretty much the same with the 5.45x39. So, 7.62x51 was pretty much forced on our allies, 5.56x45 was adopted on its own merit.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 9:08:57 AM EDT
Also, the 9mm had the backing at the time of the flawed 1970's Army/DOJ wound ballistics study that produced the infamous 'Relative Incapacitation Index'. Because 9mm FMJ was faster and had a larger temporary cavity, now known to be meaningless, it was thought to be as or even more effective than .45 ball. Also the training system used during the M1911s service days was seriously flawed. It was only changed to employ modern shooting techniques in 1988, after the M9's introduction. And that book FM23-35 is well overdue for a update again. With a proper training program there is no reason even a novice shooter cannot shoot the M1911 well enough to defend themselves. And handle it safely even in condition one.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 12:00:39 PM EDT
The 1911 is a point and shoot weapon. CRC
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 1:44:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CRC: The 1911 is a point and shoot weapon. CRC
View Quote
Yes, and?[>:/]
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 5:20:37 PM EDT
It is my understanding this was NATO's call.
Link Posted: 7/4/2003 5:01:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/4/2003 7:08:57 PM EDT by 123whisper]
Over at tactical forums-terminal effects, there is some discussion about a sharp cutting edge being better on wounding than a blunt pushing round nose. Maybe if we made up some 9mm bullets out of brass or copper rod, they would have better effectiveness. Only at the privacy of your own home, don't want to get caught with [i]scary cop killer bullets[/i]!!! Which by the way, that was passed Sept 1994 like the AWB, so does it also sunset? I really would like to do some experimenting with brass bullets.
Link Posted: 7/8/2003 8:09:37 AM EDT
Re: grip circumference, I have small hands (but big feet, so there! heh) and any of the stagger-stack pistols are very hard for me to shoot with any consistancy. I've actually gone to the slim grip panels for my 1911-A1's; the standard panels are too thick.
Link Posted: 7/8/2003 9:13:55 AM EDT
I have to agree with G23c: war is waged with tons explosives, not 9mm or even 5.56mm rounds. The Spec Ops guys are much different than front line troops. Even still, the most effective weapon they have is a radio and a laser designator. The 45 to 9mm was all about politics and money.
Link Posted: 7/8/2003 9:52:39 AM EDT
While I agree that air power and arty are pretty impressive, it is of little use when you have an enemy appear suddenly only a few feet from you. In a situation like that all the technology in the world is of little use. It goes back to the most basic element of combat....you vs. them. And when that happens you damn well better be faster, hit first and hit hard. I think all troops, regardless of occupational specialty, be trained heavily in combat skills. While it was never planned for the 507th Maintenance group to seek out and engage the enemy in Iraq, it happened anyway. Things don't always go as planned. So my point is, if the troops need a gun at all, give them the best. Long guns are better than handguns but a .45 is better than a 9mm if only FMJ hardball is to be used. This mentality of "well, they probably aren't gonna need it anyway so we'll just give em a 9mm" is crazy. -Charging Handle
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 2:08:04 PM EDT
I'll take my M1911 .45 any day over ANY other pistol in any other caliber for my personal defense. In the last 3-5000 rounds I've fired I've not experienced a single malfunction of any sort. Previous to this my only malfs were due to my shoddy reloads or cheapo no name mags. I've carried the Beretta M9 and was very happy to have it as we retired our Model 15 .38s later I discovered the .45 and M1911. If they'd have introduced me to the old slabside in the USAF I'd never want to change to the 9mm. Damn Nato anyhow does anyone really think they'd come to OUR defense???
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 2:29:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mr45auto: I'll take my M1911 .45 any day over ANY other pistol in any other caliber for my personal defense. In the last 3-5000 rounds I've fired I've not experienced a single malfunction of any sort. Previous to this my only malfs were due to my shoddy reloads or cheapo no name mags. I've carried the Beretta M9 and was very happy to have it as we retired our Model 15 .38s later I discovered the .45 and M1911. If they'd have introduced me to the old slabside in the USAF I'd never want to change to the 9mm. Damn Nato anyhow does anyone really think they'd come to OUR defense???
View Quote
Out of curiosity, what make/model 1911 do you shoot?
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 2:46:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/9/2003 2:48:10 PM EDT by Mr45auto]
Springfield Armory government model purchased in 1992. Best gun I've ever owned and certainly the most reliable. The stock sights were worthless being GI spec and it has since been modified to fit my likes. If I could own only one firearm it would be this one.
Top Top