Our military – not for the first time – listens to complaints about poor “man-stopping” ability with 9mm ball ammunition in combat: http://m.military.com/daily-news/2014/07/03/army-wants-a-harder-hitting-pistol.html .
It seems to me that there’s little wrong with Beretta M9 performance that better 9mm ammunition (i.e., police-type high performance hollow point), MecGar magazines, and maintenance can’t cure. (Yes, the trigger reach is long for small-handed personnel. There are some mechanical fixes to help that, too.)
But I’m not military. Many of you reading this are, or have been.
What’s all y’all’s take on the matter?
9mm ball ammo, specifically 115gr NATO FMJ, is the issue here. That load is simply not much of a man stopper. Issueing troops any decent modern JHP ammo would fix the problem. However unless we loophole or ignore the Geneva Convention we are stuck with ball ammo.
As to alternatives we are left with swapping to a new caliber. Of the available optiions .40 S&W and .45acp seem the most reasonable. A Glock 21 with an adjustable backstrap would be an excellent choice.
9mm ball ammo, specifically 115gr NATO FMJ, is the issue here. That load is simply not much of a man stopper. Issueing troops any decent modern JHP ammo would fix the problem. However unless we loophole or ignore the Geneva Convention we are stuck with ball ammo.
As to alternatives we are left with swapping to a new caliber. Of the available optiions .40 S&W and .45acp seem the most reasonable. A Glock 21 with an adjustable backstrap would be an excellent choice.
Comments are closed.