US Military Dumps the 9mm

Originally posted by Browno
If the US Military is going back to the .45 ACP, They should look at these!!!!!

server.idpubs.com...

server.idpubs.com...

Whoah there, those are seriously hardcore!

server.idpubs.com...

The .45 model can carry 17 rounds?!?
"Thatsa spicy meataball!"

I wouldnt get all excited over a 17 round .45ACP handgun. One of the problems with these and even large frame revolvers is can one satisfactorily handle a weapon like this. They are heavy when you load them with 17 rounds of .45ACP ammo. Like alot of stuff ..this looks good on paper but not practical for the bulk of peoples. This is one of the reasons they looked at the 9mm in the first place.

Remember something else too. The original .45ACP also known as the Automatic Colt Pistol is still a large relatively heavy pistol. I carried mine for a number of years before I bought a .357 revolver with a four inch barrel. Up until that time I never knew there was such a difference in the overall weight of this revolver and my Colt.
I carried my Colt Government .45ACP with me when I was about town today. I have great confidence in this weapon and my revolver too.

In the military they dont view a sidearm like a pistol as ones primary weapon. Mostly it was like the .30 Carbines, the M1 Garand, later replaced by the M14 and the M14 eventually replaced by the M16 series of rifles.

I am a bit olde school here. I was never enamoured of the 9MM cartridge. Always liked the .45ACP and the .357. Besides if I want to carry something in that range and bullet weight ..I will load my .357 mag with .38+p specials.
My carry load for .357 is 158grain JHPs. Most 9MM loads are much lighter.

Properly used there is nothing wrong with the 38 special either. I use .38 special light handloads for practice as they are very easy on the wallet when lightly reloading them with lead bullets. This bullet measures close to the diameter of a 9mm on a Micrometer. In todays magnum velocity thinking dont ever be dumb enough turn your nose up at someone with a .38 special who knows how to use one.

No matter what the manufacturers or the magazines say..velocity is not everything. This is definitely so with the .45ACP The matter at issue with any tool like 9mm, .45 ACP , ,38/,357 caliber...is still how well you can use them. Are you any good with what you have. No substitute for practice..... Practice, practice, practice

Don't you need colossal hands to wrap it around the grip with 17 .45ACP rounds crammed in there? looks like a nice gun though, if someone would buy me it i'll be most pleased (although I don't know if I will be able to resist the temptation to sell it for a number of other guns)

Orange is absolutely right, it makes a lot of difference if you are trained shooter or not, the best marksman couldn probably take anyone with a .22 pistol if he had to while a bad shot with a .45 would not hit a single thing.

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Military history has shown us time and time again that the MOST effective handgun rounds use large, heavy bullets moving at modest velocities.

Granted, history does advocate larger calibre pistols. However, it is only recently that body armour has been used to such an extent. The War on Terror is only part of the armed forces doctorine. Our primary goal is still the ability to defend against foreign armies, most of whome use armour.

Armour piercing abilities are useful in many circumstances. These include shooting through cover, shooting someone who is wearing a lot of kit or clothing, shooting through cars at VCPs etc.

I have to say that from a military perspective, volume of fire is of serious importance. My only experience of using a pistol in combat is during a firefight in Op Telic 2, when I was taking cover in a house. I was reloading my rifle, when I came under fire from close range through a door. I pulled my pistol and started putting rounds down in quick time while changing cover to finish reloading my rifle. I was thankful for all 12 rounds in my pistol, and for the ability of these rounds to penetrate the door. Would I still be alive if I had not been able to put this volume of fire down to cover myself? If I was carrying a 1911 I would have only had 8rds. Was it those 4 extra rounds that saved my life? Personally I would rather not have to chance it.

Originally posted by Lonestar24
And BTW, the HK MP7 is optimized for the 4.6X30mm PDW round. The 5.7x28mm you quote cartridge for the FN P90.

Quite right, I was thinking about the FN round, but more for the Five Seven pistol than the P90.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I wouldnt get all excited over a 17 round .45ACP handgun. One of the problems with these and even large frame revolvers is can one satisfactorily handle a weapon like this. They are heavy when you load them with 17 rounds of .45ACP ammo. Like alot of stuff ..this looks good on paper but not practical for the bulk of peoples. This is one of the reasons they looked at the 9mm in the first place.

Alas, I am but an armchair enthusiast, for I have no experience in the practical use of such a weapon. That's not likely to change either, seeing as I live in the U.K!
That is unless I feel like buying one of those 'Section 1' Taurus .357 or .44 magnum revolvers with the stupidly long barrels.
I envy those with comparitively unrestricted access to small arms!

Originally posted by Captain_Sensible

Originally posted by Browno
If the US Military is going back to the .45 ACP, They should look at these!!!!!

server.idpubs.com...

server.idpubs.com...

Whoah there, those are seriously hardcore!

server.idpubs.com...

The .45 model can carry 17 rounds?!?
"Thatsa spicy meataball!"

23 9mm. rounds?! *drools* I wan't it. I wan't it now!

That is one great firearm there.

I'm with ch1466. The pistol is a special forces/officers weapon that has sweet FA use in a squad.
For officers, all they are going to do with it is wear it and wave it, whatever the calibre is, so what we're looking at here is which round is best for SF. The .45 is excellent; Lots of stopping power with subsonic velocity. The 9mm parabellum on the other hand, is all over the place; pretty much every subgun in production is chambered for it. A special forces team, operating long term, deep in enemy territory will find it easier to procure 9mm ammo than .45. The .45 may be more effective, but the 9mm is more practical.

In the end, it's the soldier's choice. For a short, fast stealthy mission they might choose a .45, maybe the Mk.23, maybe the USP Tactical, maybe whatever else they prefer. For a longer insertion they might choose a 9mm of thier preference. Or they might not.

Ultimately, SF soldiers will do what they damn well want, and the opinions of us armchair experts will affect them not at all.
If it doeth unto the enemy before they doeth unto you, do you really care about the number on the cartrige?

In Strike ops, the choise is pretty much the preference of the operator.

In prolonged combat (the type that most soldiers do) you need mag capacity so i'd go for 9mm or .40cal rounds (my personal choise would be hot .357SIG but rounds are poorly available around here)

In long SF ops i'd choose the caliber most available in area of operations (9mm Para or 9mm Makarov in most parts of the world)

Originally posted by SurfDiveSail
I'm with ch1466. The pistol is a special forces/officers weapon that has sweet FA use in a squad.
For officers, all they are going to do with it is wear it and wave it, whatever the calibre is, so what we're looking at here is which round is best for SF. The .45 is excellent; Lots of stopping power with subsonic velocity. The 9mm parabellum on the other hand, is all over the place; pretty much every subgun in production is chambered for it. A special forces team, operating long term, deep in enemy territory will find it easier to procure 9mm ammo than .45. The .45 may be more effective, but the 9mm is more practical.

In the end, it's the soldier's choice. For a short, fast stealthy mission they might choose a .45, maybe the Mk.23, maybe the USP Tactical, maybe whatever else they prefer. For a longer insertion they might choose a 9mm of thier preference. Or they might not.

Ultimately, SF soldiers will do what they damn well want, and the opinions of us armchair experts will affect them not at all.
If it doeth unto the enemy before they doeth unto you, do you really care about the number on the cartrige?

I would disagree with you when you say that a pistol is of "FA use" in a section. There are many uses for a pistol in conventional ops, eg VCP searcher, dog handler, medical personnel, military police or any one else who needs to keep both hands free but may need a weapon on them at all times. For the infantryman, a pistol is a 'rather have and not need than need and not have' piece of kit, just like a field dressind. Generally speaking, when you need it you REALLY need it (see my last post)!

What happens when you're doing a house clearence and your rifle is too big to bring to bear quickly in an enclosed space? What happens when you are in a contact and your primary weapon gets hit? What happens when you are in a close contact and your weapon runs out of ammo close to the enemy? Do you waste valuable seconds reloading or do you put some rounds down with your pistol while you find cover to reload?

Yes SF do get more choice as to what weapons they use, but 99.9% of soldiers do not. The question is simply when the rest of the forces get issued a new pistol, would we rather it be .45ACP or 9mm Parabellum?

Fair comment Paddy. I stand corrected. Nice to hear from someone who has been there.

As an aside, and because I don't like posting one-line replys, here's a misquote from a US Navy SEAL: "There's been a lot of folks complaining about the 9mm's lack of stopping power. Well, when I put two of them in their chest and one in their head, they won't be complaining any more."