Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/10/2002 8:05:59 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 8:32:48 AM EST
First he rags on the 1911A1 .45 in [u]About Face[/u], calling it responsible for more friendly fire accidents than any other weapon, and now he wants it back? Sometimes Hackworth sounds like more of a politician than a soldier. I saw a program on SEAL BUDS training the other day and they were all shooting what looked like USP .45s. There are plenty of modern semiautos out there that pack more punch and are more reliable than an M9. I love mine, but I would never use it for carry. I believe it was more of a NATO compromise than common sense that selected the 9mm round anyway. I'll stick with my Glocks and 1911A1s for carry.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 9:24:36 AM EST
I'm confused: 1. (Some) people claim that the M16/M4 doesn't have the range to get the job done in Afghanistan, but then they start talking about hand to hand combat and pistol shots at 40 yards? Which is it, and where are the documented cases of H2H or CQB? Do you really want to engage at close range with the unwieldy M14, as good as it is? 2. The one-shot stop statistics that I've seen bring the 9mm within 5% of the .45, and the Taliban were not employing body armor. I'm beginning to think that this is becoming a self-perpetuating myth. 3. As far as reliability goes, I'd take the M9 over 99% of the M1911A1 pistols in the military inventory. Even NEW M1911A1 pistols will not feed as reliably as the Beretta (and I'm no Beretta fan), unless you want to spend $2500 a pop. 4. Fuck Hackworth. I've seen him on TV claiming that he only owns one pistol and nothing else. He's no authority on ANY weapon system, and he'll print any letter bashing the M16 or the 9mm. The more this guy speaks, it becomes clearer that he's only there to keep his name in the pages.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 9:46:06 AM EST
I believe in the .45 round more than any other and I have a Sig P220 and a Ruger P90 when I carry .45. I just prefer a DA/SA pistol instead of cocked and locked. I am by no means putting down the 1911, as it is tried and true. Just my preference. I did carry one for a while. As far as the caliber goes, I am not adverse to carrying a 9mm. Some weeks I carry 9mm, other weeks .40, and then I carry .45 for a week. I feel comfortable with any of the calibers. As has been noted, shot placement is a lot more important than caliber.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 10:06:19 AM EST
Keep in mind that the troops are using ball ammo, not a +P hollow point, so a 9mm is not going to have a lot of stopping power. If you read the article, the troops are noticing that the terrorists are taking khat, which apparently has an effect much like amphetamines. Would you want to take on a terrorist loaded up on crank with 9mm ball ammo?
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 11:26:40 AM EST
RamblinWreck, I remember that too in About Face, where Hack castigates the 1911 and is pleased when the US finally replaces it! Someone posted a while ago about how the troops in Afghanistan were complaining about the stopping power of the 9mm, when no one actually even used their pistols. And in that article, .38 is worse than 9mm? Hack is a total idiot. And I love how no sources are given for any of his quotes. Poor old Hack never checks his sources about anything, and his works are always filled with factual inaccuracies as a result. It is comical how one guy critizes the 9mm for requiring multiple shots to down the bad guys, and then another guy says the .45 is superior because it only took him three shots to down a bad guy with his .45. Anyone else detect a contradiction there? Does Hackworth even read the stuff he writes? I have no idea if the Beretta is junk and the 9mm too weak, but if the folks in the Army really want to get rid of that combination they need to get some scientific data and a spokesman with a lot more credability.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 11:48:18 AM EST
[b]Exactly how many rounds have been spent with M9 pistols in combat use in Afganistan..... I do respect his service for your country but it seems Hack is always on the lookout for something he can start whining about. Did you see the report posted by a member here from ACTUAL U.S Army records of soldiers being asked to review the weapons they had been fightign with in A-stan, if im not mistaken the M4A1 and M9 were generally trusted tools.[/b] [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:10:43 PM EST
There is NO SUCH THING as a more reliable pistol than the M9.
Originally Posted By RamblinWreck: First he rags on the 1911A1 .45 in [u]About Face[/u], calling it responsible for more friendly fire accidents than any other weapon, and now he wants it back? Sometimes Hackworth sounds like more of a politician than a soldier. I saw a program on SEAL BUDS training the other day and they were all shooting what looked like USP .45s. There are plenty of modern semiautos out there that pack more punch and are more reliable than an M9. I love mine, but I would never use it for carry. I believe it was more of a NATO compromise than common sense that selected the 9mm round anyway. I'll stick with my Glocks and 1911A1s for carry.
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:24:09 PM EST
Here is a post STLRN made a while back about how Afghan vets feel about their weapons: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=126434&page=5[/url]. 63% reported confidence in the M9. I love this part:
25% felt that the bullets need to be more powerful and of higher manufactured quality. (although no one actually shot anyone with their M9)
View Quote
So people who have never shot anyone are complaining about the stopping power! That is too rich.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 1:00:27 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 1:08:32 PM EST
Originally Posted By RichinCM: Keep in mind that the troops are using ball ammo, not a +P hollow point, so a 9mm is not going to have a lot of stopping power. If you read the article, the troops are noticing that the terrorists are taking khat, which apparently has an effect much like amphetamines. Would you want to take on a terrorist loaded up on crank with 9mm ball ammo?
View Quote
9mm NATO is supposed to be a fairly hot 9mm load. Umm, there's a few problesms. 1) It's PISTOL ammo, you should only use it to buy time to get to your carbine, rifle, or belt fed MG. 2) Don't stop shooting until the bullet recipient is out of the fight. 3) It's PISTOL ammo, in the real world, too many people think that real weapons have the effect that Hollywood movies show bullet impact having. Unrealistic expectations almost always lead to disapointment.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 1:16:30 PM EST
The guns in the seal training show on discovery were sig 226 9mm
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 1:16:43 PM EST
Aimless That is why I doubt the veracity of the claims in this letter. The two conventional units, from the 101st and 10th Mountain, didn't have any pistol engagements. Now we are to believe that the Rangers in the same battle got in a lot of fights that involved the use of pistol, at 30-40 m's no less. But since the Rangers follow the MTO/E of a light infantry unit, that would only mean like 4-6 M9s per Platoon, the CO, 1st Sgt and a couple of others in the company. Yet there were so many fire fights involving pistols? Than we are also believe that everyone has a private weapon? Last time I served with the army they were pretty anal about PCC/PCI and I cannot believe that so many people in the chain of command would allow violation of the standing order in the army to not allow the use or deployment with personal fire arms.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 1:21:47 PM EST
The perfect round would be a 12 ga slug that was accurate to 1500 yards and had the recoil of a 9mm and could be fired from a small platform such as a 1911 or m9. Who are we kidding. There is no magic formula. Too many variables. Pick the weapon and team to suit the situation, if you can choose where and when you fight.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 1:30:38 PM EST
I'd like to confirm Tripp's comment that the gun used by the Seals was the Sig 226 in 9mm. And by the way, the Seals use hi velocity hollow points when they emerge from the water and board oil tankers running oil out of Iraq.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 3:06:01 PM EST
Originally Posted By dissipator16: I'd like to confirm Tripp's comment that the gun used by the Seals was the Sig 226 in 9mm. And by the way, the Seals use hi velocity hollow points when they emerge from the water and board oil tankers running oil out of Iraq.
View Quote
The main pistols in use with the U.S Navy SEALs, are the SIG Sauer P226 and the Mk 23 Mod 0. The SEALs did not use hollow point ammunition against Iraqi soldiers. Expanding projectiles are forbidden by one of the Hague treaties and cannot be used when two independent nations are in war with each other. They are allowed for use in counter terrorist operations.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 3:16:42 PM EST
Originally Posted By dissipator16: I'd like to confirm Tripp's comment that the gun used by the Seals was the Sig 226 in 9mm. And by the way, the Seals use hi velocity hollow points when they emerge from the water and board oil tankers running oil out of Iraq.
View Quote
I'll confirm it for ya. It seems that the Discovery Channel has a fetish for SEALs (new episode every month [;)]). Every show they've shown has the P226 and MP5 prominently featured. Even had one of their TV regulars aim the P226 towards the camera and expound about it (and the 9mms) effectiveness.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 3:21:30 PM EST
Originally Posted By DakotaKid: There is NO SUCH THING as a more reliable pistol than the M9.
View Quote
You forgot the prefix, "IMHO." Personally, My P226 was more reliable than my M9 ever was. [;)] Oh, IMHO.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 3:37:19 PM EST
My Beretta 92FS has been 100 percent reliable, and it's very accurate to boot. Only thing I don't like is that damn DA first shot. Of course, I could always cock it I suppose. [;)] As for Hackworth, I think his head has been sloshed around a bit too much from excessive combat. Kinda like what happened to McCain.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 3:48:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/10/2002 3:50:19 PM EST by 03shooter]
Originally Posted By DakotaKid: There is NO SUCH THING as a more reliable pistol than the M9.
BaawwHaHaHaHaHa!!!!
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 4:43:41 PM EST
Sheesh. ANY pistol is a *last resort* for soldiers engaged in infantry combat, and regular grunts aren't even issued sidearms. Though personally I'd like to see the military switch to the Baretta 96F (the .40S&W version of the 92FS/M9) or any other .40S&W if they wanted to change the sidearm.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 4:48:07 PM EST
I have not seen a problem with any M9 I have seen used in my unit (MP company) the three years I have been in the Army. It is accurate (scored 49 out of 50 on qualification) and never had a jam. It's good enough for me
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 5:28:52 PM EST
Originally Posted By Aimless: How often do regular forces use pistols? Other than special forces, officers, Military Police and ??? armor/helicopter forces do many soldiers have pistols?
View Quote
Who really cares? A pistol is a last ditch weapon, and I think the 15 rounds of 9mm to keep the enemy's head down until you can get a rifle or better weapon is the real value of the Beretta.
Top Top