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?
If we’re limited to ball ammo, how about we use a .45 caliber pistol that is single-stack? Stopping power, plus a smaller grip for those warriors with smaller hands.
If we’re limited to ball ammo, how about we use a .45 caliber pistol that is single-stack? Stopping power, plus a smaller grip for those warriors with smaller hands.
I’m former military and a combat veteran. Also, I compete regularly in IDPA (CDP originally, now in SSP). Based on my experience, I would suggest the Smith & Wesson M&P. It’s not spectacularly accurate but is combat accurate. You don’t have to pull the trigger to disassemble. It is made in the United States. Adjustable back straps allow it to be modified to fit the shooter. I would change the manual of arms and not use a safety…just my opinion. Regarding caliber, I would suggest the military change to hollow points and stick with the 9MM +p. Plenty effective (for a handgun caliber) and you get more rounds in the weapon and per magazine. If they aren’t willing to go this route…perhaps the .40 Smith & Wesson in FMJ…more rounds than a .45 ACP form factor in a smaller pistol although more difficult to shoot than 9mm and even .45 ACP (IMHO). Also, more wear on the pistol which reduces service life. I wouldn’t worry about not being NATO compliant….NATO isn’t much help these days.
I’m former military and a combat veteran. Also, I compete regularly in IDPA (CDP originally, now in SSP). Based on my experience, I would suggest the Smith & Wesson M&P. It’s not spectacularly accurate but is combat accurate. You don’t have to pull the trigger to disassemble. It is made in the United States. Adjustable back straps allow it to be modified to fit the shooter. I would change the manual of arms and not use a safety…just my opinion. Regarding caliber, I would suggest the military change to hollow points and stick with the 9MM +p. Plenty effective (for a handgun caliber) and you get more rounds in the weapon and per magazine. If they aren’t willing to go this route…perhaps the .40 Smith & Wesson in FMJ…more rounds than a .45 ACP form factor in a smaller pistol although more difficult to shoot than 9mm and even .45 ACP (IMHO). Also, more wear on the pistol which reduces service life. I wouldn’t worry about not being NATO compliant….NATO isn’t much help these days.
They’ll probably spend a lot of time and money on new trials and end up doing nothing.
They’ll probably spend a lot of time and money on new trials and end up doing nothing.
Lets think outside the box here. I see either we develop (or do we have them already? ) explosive bullets for pistol rounds, or we go old school and carry gladius and trident.
Lets think outside the box here. I see either we develop (or do we have them already? ) explosive bullets for pistol rounds, or we go old school and carry gladius and trident.
I just finished a book by former SEAL Team 6 sniper and veteran of the Battle of Mogadishu, Howard E. Wasdin. While attempting to exit the city with a Hummer full of wounded soldiers and SEALS, he was shot in the leg by a Somali fighter after he missed the fighter with a round from his 9mm Beretta. He had run his M4 out of his own ammo, and all the ammo of the wounded in the back of the vehicle, as he drove the Hummer and shot Somalis, and had transitioned to his pistol. He admits he rushed his first shot at the Somali, and, after being shot and nearly having his leg traumatically amputated by the AK round, he remembered his training and “Got back on my front sight” and double tapped the Somali in the head with his next two shots.
The 9 worked pretty good when the bullet was put in the right place. This is something a Green Team SEAL 6 member can do, but most of us aren’t even regular SEALs, if there is such a thing as a “regular” SEAL. The closest I can get is knowing a couple of Vietnam era SEALs.
As has been talked about thousands of times over the years in countless hunting articles in every hunting and shooting magazine, it’s all about bullet placement (There is a famous Englishman who, back in the early part of the last century, shot an unbelievable number of elephants with a plain, old 7mm. Not a magnum, just a 7mm, but putting the bullet in just the right place). In his book Wasdin says that the SEAL Team 6 burns more 9mm ammo in a year than the entire expenditure of ammo by the Marine Corps. You get pretty good burning all that ammo, but most people in a firefight rely on “Spray and pray.” A miss by a .45 is just as ineffective as a miss by a 9mm…or a 20mm for that matter.
It all comes down to training, training, training. When it came to my personal choice for a defensive pistol, being able to pick from whatever was available, I chose a 1911 in .45 (loaded with the “Flying ashtray” Corbon ammo). Time tested and proven in countless battlefields all over the world. My dad carried one all through WWII and hated it for the callous the holster wore on his hip, but he never had to use it to defend his life either. Others, such as the Marine who shot the Japanese machine gunner at something like 90 yards with his .45 did. Wasdin saved his life with his Beretta in 9mm by hitting what he shot at.
Wyatt Earp said it best: “Fast is fine, accuracy is final. Learn to be slow in a hurry.”
I just finished a book by former SEAL Team 6 sniper and veteran of the Battle of Mogadishu, Howard E. Wasdin. While attempting to exit the city with a Hummer full of wounded soldiers and SEALS, he was shot in the leg by a Somali fighter after he missed the fighter with a round from his 9mm Beretta. He had run his M4 out of his own ammo, and all the ammo of the wounded in the back of the vehicle, as he drove the Hummer and shot Somalis, and had transitioned to his pistol. He admits he rushed his first shot at the Somali, and, after being shot and nearly having his leg traumatically amputated by the AK round, he remembered his training and “Got back on my front sight” and double tapped the Somali in the head with his next two shots.
The 9 worked pretty good when the bullet was put in the right place. This is something a Green Team SEAL 6 member can do, but most of us aren’t even regular SEALs, if there is such a thing as a “regular” SEAL. The closest I can get is knowing a couple of Vietnam era SEALs.
As has been talked about thousands of times over the years in countless hunting articles in every hunting and shooting magazine, it’s all about bullet placement (There is a famous Englishman who, back in the early part of the last century, shot an unbelievable number of elephants with a plain, old 7mm. Not a magnum, just a 7mm, but putting the bullet in just the right place). In his book Wasdin says that the SEAL Team 6 burns more 9mm ammo in a year than the entire expenditure of ammo by the Marine Corps. You get pretty good burning all that ammo, but most people in a firefight rely on “Spray and pray.” A miss by a .45 is just as ineffective as a miss by a 9mm…or a 20mm for that matter.
It all comes down to training, training, training. When it came to my personal choice for a defensive pistol, being able to pick from whatever was available, I chose a 1911 in .45 (loaded with the “Flying ashtray” Corbon ammo). Time tested and proven in countless battlefields all over the world. My dad carried one all through WWII and hated it for the callous the holster wore on his hip, but he never had to use it to defend his life either. Others, such as the Marine who shot the Japanese machine gunner at something like 90 yards with his .45 did. Wasdin saved his life with his Beretta in 9mm by hitting what he shot at.
Wyatt Earp said it best: “Fast is fine, accuracy is final. Learn to be slow in a hurry.”
I seem to recall that one of the justifications for going to a 9mm handgun was to give smaller statured personnel a weapon they could use/control. And then I meet a female Army officer who told me about how her best friend washed out of Officer Candidate School b/c her hands were too small for the Beretta and she couldn’t get a proper grip on the gun to shoot accurately. Why didn’t they go to the Glock? Why not now? 60% of LEO’s use it and they have large numbers of female personnel.
I seem to recall that one of the justifications for going to a 9mm handgun was to give smaller statured personnel a weapon they could use/control. And then I meet a female Army officer who told me about how her best friend washed out of Officer Candidate School b/c her hands were too small for the Beretta and she couldn’t get a proper grip on the gun to shoot accurately. Why didn’t they go to the Glock? Why not now? 60% of LEO’s use it and they have large numbers of female personnel.
The core question is, “What does the military want a pistol FOR?”
A) a fighting handgun
B) an officer’s symbol of authority
C) a military police or security sidearm
D) better than nothing when your job description doesn’t include carrying a rifle
E) a piece of survival gear
F) whatever I didn’t think of offhand
I think the current US military uses are primarily “C” and “D.” But if you’re looking at all of them, a single weapon and cartridge is never going to be more than a compromise, and the best compromise depends on who is doing the specifying.
The military has a big “one size should fit all” blind spot, but even when the 1911 was the official sidearm, some special ops guys carried various suppressed handguns, many military police carried .38 revolvers, and survival kits could contain almost anything.
The 1911 Colt wasn’t a universal solution. The 9mm Beretta isn’t a universal solution. A .40 whatever isn’t going to be a universal solution either.
You can wish in one hand and spit in the other…It ain’t gonna happen. Now if they were able to say they wanted a more “green” bullet and need a new gun, then maybe. The best they can hope for is a truncated cone 9mm FMJ. It is a logistical nightmare not a matter of want.
You can wish in one hand and spit in the other…It ain’t gonna happen. Now if they were able to say they wanted a more “green” bullet and need a new gun, then maybe. The best they can hope for is a truncated cone 9mm FMJ. It is a logistical nightmare not a matter of want.
exemt, There was a lot of controversy during test trials when the Beretta was selected basically by default. As I recall, Sig, Glock, and Beretta all met the criteria and ranked in that order in their performance during testing. The powers that be kept changing the criteria and holding more trials with the same results. Sig and Glock finally withdrew in disgust, with rumors that they felt the Defense Department had decided before the fact that Beretta was going to get the contract no matter how their entry stacked up in test trials.
This begs the question, if Glock or Sig had got the contract would they have been designated the M-9 ?
exemt, There was a lot of controversy during test trials when the Beretta was selected basically by default. As I recall, Sig, Glock, and Beretta all met the criteria and ranked in that order in their performance during testing. The powers that be kept changing the criteria and holding more trials with the same results. Sig and Glock finally withdrew in disgust, with rumors that they felt the Defense Department had decided before the fact that Beretta was going to get the contract no matter how their entry stacked up in test trials.
This begs the question, if Glock or Sig had got the contract would they have been designated the M-9 ?
Thanks Mac. Jeff Cooper was right – again!
Whether the U.S.A. signed the Geneva or Hague conventions is a moot point as our government, especially the current regime, will do everything they can to tie the military’s hands in protecting our country, all for politically correct purposes. Against terrorists we should use anything and everything to not just kill them but to exterminate those goblins as they would do the same to us if they could. Just look at how we treat captured terrorists. They get clean clothes, books of their choice, board games, specially prepared meals, get to watch cable TV and surf the internet, and even have a multi-million dollar soccer field in stay in shape so they are in better condition to fight us again when they’re released or traded for an American deserter.
But back to the gun situation. Given that the U.S. military is stuck with ball ammo, the biggest is the best and .45 ACP is the largest common handgun round available. It’s effectiveness could be increased by using a flatnosed bullet. The .40 S&W in a Glock 22 would be OK and it carries more ammo than the .45 ACP, but with ball rounds it’s less effective than the bigger caliber and operates at higher pressures which will wear out the pistols quicker. However the military, except for specialized units, don’t shoot their handguns much, so durability may be a moot point.
The Beretta M9 and large frame Glocks like the 21 have rather fat grips so they may be uncomfortable for some shooters. I have medium sized hands and have no problems shooting the M9 and 21 well, and I own both these models and a Glock 20 also. But to be politically correct and to satisfy the feminists while protecting our soldiers, we should adopt a .45 caliber pistol with a grip size comfortable for most people, so the logical choice would be the Browning 1911 or a smaller gripped Glock in .45 ACP which I’m sure Herr Gaston and his team could design for us and crank them out faster than Keebler can turn out chocolate chip cookies.
For those who advocate having a PDW or carbine, we have tried that with the M1 carbine and it’s puny cartridge which failed miserably and we should not repeat that mistake, but learn from it. Handguns can be easily carried in a holster leaving both hands available, whereas even slinged, a carbine gets in the way, especially in confined spaces like vehicles and inside structures.
Not only do I advocate every front line combat soldier have a pistol in .45 ACP, I would like to see them issued a Cold Steel Kukri or a tomahawk, or hatchet for close range defense. Take that, Rambo!
Thanks Mac. Jeff Cooper was right – again!
Whether the U.S.A. signed the Geneva or Hague conventions is a moot point as our government, especially the current regime, will do everything they can to tie the military’s hands in protecting our country, all for politically correct purposes. Against terrorists we should use anything and everything to not just kill them but to exterminate those goblins as they would do the same to us if they could. Just look at how we treat captured terrorists. They get clean clothes, books of their choice, board games, specially prepared meals, get to watch cable TV and surf the internet, and even have a multi-million dollar soccer field in stay in shape so they are in better condition to fight us again when they’re released or traded for an American deserter.
But back to the gun situation. Given that the U.S. military is stuck with ball ammo, the biggest is the best and .45 ACP is the largest common handgun round available. It’s effectiveness could be increased by using a flatnosed bullet. The .40 S&W in a Glock 22 would be OK and it carries more ammo than the .45 ACP, but with ball rounds it’s less effective than the bigger caliber and operates at higher pressures which will wear out the pistols quicker. However the military, except for specialized units, don’t shoot their handguns much, so durability may be a moot point.
The Beretta M9 and large frame Glocks like the 21 have rather fat grips so they may be uncomfortable for some shooters. I have medium sized hands and have no problems shooting the M9 and 21 well, and I own both these models and a Glock 20 also. But to be politically correct and to satisfy the feminists while protecting our soldiers, we should adopt a .45 caliber pistol with a grip size comfortable for most people, so the logical choice would be the Browning 1911 or a smaller gripped Glock in .45 ACP which I’m sure Herr Gaston and his team could design for us and crank them out faster than Keebler can turn out chocolate chip cookies.
For those who advocate having a PDW or carbine, we have tried that with the M1 carbine and it’s puny cartridge which failed miserably and we should not repeat that mistake, but learn from it. Handguns can be easily carried in a holster leaving both hands available, whereas even slinged, a carbine gets in the way, especially in confined spaces like vehicles and inside structures.
Not only do I advocate every front line combat soldier have a pistol in .45 ACP, I would like to see them issued a Cold Steel Kukri or a tomahawk, or hatchet for close range defense. Take that, Rambo!
I think the brass needs to rethink things and add one more tool that every young soldier may really need – when he needs it:
Gosh, I miss using the Blackjack!
I think the brass needs to rethink things and add one more tool that every young soldier may really need – when he needs it:
Gosh, I miss using the Blackjack!
I would hope they would go back to the 45 ACP as there was some discussion concerning this several years ago. I also thought that Glad was proposing a gun to fit that .45 they needed. We no longer can ignor the data, no longer can ignore the testimonies, no longer can afford to risk their life when there if much better handgun ammo than 9mm.. .45 ACP power should be actively explored due to high number of people complaining of stopping power was not my chice if it passes mil spec tests is a gun like a Glock 30 (10)- smaller gun frame than beretta fs solves the smaller hand issues. GLOCK 30-.45 ACP immediately should be asked of the military to have Glock make a test run they already supplies militarism with their weapons the simply look into a better ammo such as Remington Glden Sabers, Hornady, Carbon, Wichnnchester, Federal, Speer Gold Dots NYPD uses,saw”w just to same same of the top the top law enforcement ammunitions. It sounds like a lot but would resolve all of their issues they have been experiencing for years now.
I would hope they would go back to the 45 ACP as there was some discussion concerning this several years ago. I also thought that Glad was proposing a gun to fit that .45 they needed. We no longer can ignor the data, no longer can ignore the testimonies, no longer can afford to risk their life when there if much better handgun ammo than 9mm.. .45 ACP power should be actively explored due to high number of people complaining of stopping power was not my chice if it passes mil spec tests is a gun like a Glock 30 (10)- smaller gun frame than beretta fs solves the smaller hand issues. GLOCK 30-.45 ACP immediately should be asked of the military to have Glock make a test run they already supplies militarism with their weapons the simply look into a better ammo such as Remington Glden Sabers, Hornady, Carbon, Wichnnchester, Federal, Speer Gold Dots NYPD uses,saw”w just to same same of the top the top law enforcement ammunitions. It sounds like a lot but would resolve all of their issues they have been experiencing for years now.
Non- military here, so I only have questions, not answers.
Even if deemed legal by US authorities, would expanding HP bullets have the necessary general purpose ballistic attributes to be successful on modern day army missions and battlefields?
If the M-9 contract went away, would Beretta even be manufacturing this 40 year old design, and the civilian 92 model, or would it just ride off into the sunset just like, let’s say, the S&W 645 and 639? (Just an example, I realize they weren’t military issue)
If the “9 is fine” when using high performance expanding bullets, and I don’t know that it isn’t, why does the author of this article occasionally mention carrying a Glock 30 and not a 19 or 26?
I for one am looking forward to updated pistol caliber ballistics testing and evaluation, although if the army doesn’t also test expanding type bullets, the study will have little relevance to the civilian market. Just hope it doesn’t take ten years to complete. Most importantly, if there is a better package to be had, our brave troops certainly deserve it.
Non- military here, so I only have questions, not answers.
Even if deemed legal by US authorities, would expanding HP bullets have the necessary general purpose ballistic attributes to be successful on modern day army missions and battlefields?
If the M-9 contract went away, would Beretta even be manufacturing this 40 year old design, and the civilian 92 model, or would it just ride off into the sunset just like, let’s say, the S&W 645 and 639? (Just an example, I realize they weren’t military issue)
If the “9 is fine” when using high performance expanding bullets, and I don’t know that it isn’t, why does the author of this article occasionally mention carrying a Glock 30 and not a 19 or 26?
I for one am looking forward to updated pistol caliber ballistics testing and evaluation, although if the army doesn’t also test expanding type bullets, the study will have little relevance to the civilian market. Just hope it doesn’t take ten years to complete. Most importantly, if there is a better package to be had, our brave troops certainly deserve it.
I seriously doubt the US Army’s claim of ‘need’ for more powerful handgun. It is simply not the primary weapon for 99% of all Army soldiers. What we have here is a combination of defense contracts wanting to be awarded (in exchange for the usual) and a public relations move (look, the Army is leading the way again).
You want better results from an issued sidearm (note the nomenclature), you train the shooter more effectively and far more frequently. Army marksmanship training with the pistol is, and always has been, perfunctory – the absolute minimum necessary to say ‘we trained that soldier on how to use the weapon’.
When we look for ammunition and firearms, as civilians, we usually look towards the police because they use them regularly and have well documented cases showing performance (or lack thereof). If it performs well for the cops, its probably going to perform well for everyone else.
The US Army does not document their use of handguns very well (if at all), and I’m absolutely willing to bet they use their handguns less often than police or civilians do. Common sense, because the primary weapon for nearly everyone in the Army is an assault rifle – handguns aren’t even issued to the majority of troops in the Army (I was an armorer for half my career in the Army).
The hunt for a new handgun has nothing at all to do with ‘performance’, unless you mean that term in the sense of ‘acting out a fictional drama’.
The Glock was never in the running. It does not meet the trigger spec, which is Da/Sa. Until the spec gets changed (think act of congress) no striker fired guns.
The Glock was never in the running. It does not meet the trigger spec, which is Da/Sa. Until the spec gets changed (think act of congress) no striker fired guns.
Uncle Dave, I stand corrected. Operating on memory of 40 year old event. My bad.
Uncle Dave, I stand corrected. Operating on memory of 40 year old event. My bad.
Gawd, I’d like to see the tommy gun come back, if for nothing else the “cool” factor, not to mention the intimidation factor of unloading a 100-round canister at the bad guys!
Gawd, I’d like to see the tommy gun come back, if for nothing else the “cool” factor, not to mention the intimidation factor of unloading a 100-round canister at the bad guys!
Long time regular reader and first time commenter. I was a Viet Nam era Marine Officer and qualified with the 1911 .45, M14 and M16. Background: My wife and I are now in our mid sixties. She is 5’ 6’, small to average dress size for her height and uses a small in a 511 shooting glove. We do a physical activity or workout about an hour a day 6 days a week including about 10 min with hand weights. Hopefully, any smaller current military member is her equal or better from a fitness standpoint.
Caliber – About two years ago she wanted to learn to shoot a handgun for the first time ever for home defense. I had her read “ How to Shoot a Hand Gun” (Thanks Mas) http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob85.html
Then took her to an indoor range and rented a 22 revolver as an introduction only and then 9mm, 40, 45 Glock pistols. She could handle all the calibers on the similar framed Glocks. So my feeling is if a reasonably strong person should be able to be trained shoot a 40 or 45.
Grip Size- We decided on 40 calibers and purchased 2 Beretta PX4s one compact and one full size and practiced just a little for familiarity and she was pretty accurate. I sold a 1911 Colt and a Walther PPK so we would only have 1 handgun caliber in the house. O’Tool’s Law “Murphy was an optimist”. The PX4 decision was from a safety feature stand point with the safety/ decocker and the double action/single action trigger, provided her a comfort level as new shooter. Then we went to Front Sight for a 2 day Defensive Handgun and a 1 day CCW course and she had some grip issues when she was changing magazines under time pressure and in emergency reload drills. She had a trouble reaching the magazine release. Both the Glock 23 and the PX4 with the smallest back strap are essentially identical and too long a reach. I spent a lot f time checking out grip sizes and got her a Spring Field XDM 3.8 in 40S&W. The magazine release is about 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch shorter with the smallest back strap on and she can reach it easily. In addition, there is a magazine release on both sides of the weapon. With a Large to XL glove size hand I have no issue getting on target with the grip with the small back strap. We are going back to Front sight in fall and don’t anticipate any more issues. Last Friday she shot the with the XDM for the first time at a County range her at 30 rounds on her target were all easily within a 9 inch ring of the target center. We were firing Federal American Eagle 155 .40 S&W Flat Nose FMJ with over 1100 muzzle velocity which is as close a target round as I have found to the CorBon 135 .40 S&W JHP with over 1300 muzzle velocity we load for home defense.
Final thoughts, not the 9mm bigger 40 or 45 is better with FMJ but terrorist deserve the very best- JHP. The military can solve the small person the size problem with both better grip design, multiple back straps, and duel sided magazine releases. Given O’Tool’s Law, 2 redundant safety mechanisms are preferable for military side arms. A Glock style trigger safety and a thumb safety/ decocker. The grip safety on the XDM requiring a firm grip to depress the safety even to rack the weapon still might be an issue as opposed to flipping up a thumb saftey. Better and constant training is the key to safety, accuracy and resolving malfunctions. While my M14 and M16 training was excellent the handgun was inadequate.
Long time regular reader and first time commenter. I was a Viet Nam era Marine Officer and qualified with the 1911 .45, M14 and M16. Background: My wife and I are now in our mid sixties. She is 5’ 6’, small to average dress size for her height and uses a small in a 511 shooting glove. We do a physical activity or workout about an hour a day 6 days a week including about 10 min with hand weights. Hopefully, any smaller current military member is her equal or better from a fitness standpoint.
Caliber – About two years ago she wanted to learn to shoot a handgun for the first time ever for home defense. I had her read “ How to Shoot a Hand Gun” (Thanks Mas) http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob85.html
Then took her to an indoor range and rented a 22 revolver as an introduction only and then 9mm, 40, 45 Glock pistols. She could handle all the calibers on the similar framed Glocks. So my feeling is if a reasonably strong person should be able to be trained shoot a 40 or 45.
Grip Size- We decided on 40 calibers and purchased 2 Beretta PX4s one compact and one full size and practiced just a little for familiarity and she was pretty accurate. I sold a 1911 Colt and a Walther PPK so we would only have 1 handgun caliber in the house. O’Tool’s Law “Murphy was an optimist”. The PX4 decision was from a safety feature stand point with the safety/ decocker and the double action/single action trigger, provided her a comfort level as new shooter. Then we went to Front Sight for a 2 day Defensive Handgun and a 1 day CCW course and she had some grip issues when she was changing magazines under time pressure and in emergency reload drills. She had a trouble reaching the magazine release. Both the Glock 23 and the PX4 with the smallest back strap are essentially identical and too long a reach. I spent a lot f time checking out grip sizes and got her a Spring Field XDM 3.8 in 40S&W. The magazine release is about 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch shorter with the smallest back strap on and she can reach it easily. In addition, there is a magazine release on both sides of the weapon. With a Large to XL glove size hand I have no issue getting on target with the grip with the small back strap. We are going back to Front sight in fall and don’t anticipate any more issues. Last Friday she shot the with the XDM for the first time at a County range her at 30 rounds on her target were all easily within a 9 inch ring of the target center. We were firing Federal American Eagle 155 .40 S&W Flat Nose FMJ with over 1100 muzzle velocity which is as close a target round as I have found to the CorBon 135 .40 S&W JHP with over 1300 muzzle velocity we load for home defense.
Final thoughts, not the 9mm bigger 40 or 45 is better with FMJ but terrorist deserve the very best- JHP. The military can solve the small person the size problem with both better grip design, multiple back straps, and duel sided magazine releases. Given O’Tool’s Law, 2 redundant safety mechanisms are preferable for military side arms. A Glock style trigger safety and a thumb safety/ decocker. The grip safety on the XDM requiring a firm grip to depress the safety even to rack the weapon still might be an issue as opposed to flipping up a thumb saftey. Better and constant training is the key to safety, accuracy and resolving malfunctions. While my M14 and M16 training was excellent the handgun was inadequate.
I’d be interested to see if a replacement could pass the same acceptance trials the 1911 did. For that matter, I wonder if the Beretta had to.
I’d be interested to see if a replacement could pass the same acceptance trials the 1911 did. For that matter, I wonder if the Beretta had to.
I carried an M9 as a backup gun in Iraq. I never had jam issues from sand. Granted, the stopping power of 9mm ball is poor, but the magazine capacity and ease of follow-up shots due to minimal recoil make up for this. In reality, it has more “stopping power” than 5.56, but with both weapon systems shot placement is much more important than terminal ballistics.
Sure, if I went back I’d love to carry a Kimber 1911 or a Sig P220, but if I had to provide a backup weapon to half a million soldiers I’d keep the M9.
I carried an M9 as a backup gun in Iraq. I never had jam issues from sand. Granted, the stopping power of 9mm ball is poor, but the magazine capacity and ease of follow-up shots due to minimal recoil make up for this. In reality, it has more “stopping power” than 5.56, but with both weapon systems shot placement is much more important than terminal ballistics.
Sure, if I went back I’d love to carry a Kimber 1911 or a Sig P220, but if I had to provide a backup weapon to half a million soldiers I’d keep the M9.
Some wise old dude once said something to the effect, “Those who do not know mistakes made in history are doomed to repeat them.”
The military, especially under our current pro-Islamic regime, will never allow the use of expanding bullet ammunition in warfare against another country or any terrorist organization, so we can dispense with that wishful thinking.
That being the case, we need the most effective handgun cartridge using a full metal jacketed bullet and that would be the .45 ACP, especially with a flat nosed or semi-wadcutter projectile. A look at history reveals that the United States adopted the .45 ACP after the dismal failure of the .38 Long Colt during the Philippines Insurrection in the late 1800’s. The puny .38 which replaced the .45 Colt failed to stop the Moslem Moro tribesmen who were hopped up on liquor and narcotics. Even the .30-40 Krag would not reliably stop them, but the .45 Colt did much better when they were re-issued to the troops. Obviously this hard learned lesson was not remembered in 1985 when the U.S. military dropped the .45 ACP in favor of the 9X19 Parabellum chambered in the Beretta M9 pistol, so here we are again making the same mistake which costed many lives to learn. The British made the same error when they replaced their effective .455 Webley round in the mid 20th century with the puny 38/200 which was a .38 S&W with a 200 grain, round nosed bullet at less than 700 fps and had trouble knocking over a large rat.
I don’t know how many U.S. servicepersons died because their 9mm pistols failed to stop their assailants, but I’m sure it’s much less than those who were killed when their 5.56mm rifles didn’t quickly anchor the bad guys shooting at them. So, not only does the military need a .45 caliber handgun, they need a more effective rifle round and the best choice in my humble opinion is the .300 Blackout/Whisper with a 125 grain bullet at 2300 fps which is roughly equal to the 7.62X39mm Russian round. All that’s needed to convert the current M16/M4 rifles would be a new barrel as every other part including the magazine is the same as the 5.56mm guns, so the switch is cost effective too.
Those that keep suggesting guns with multiple back straps have obviously never been in the military. It’s a supply problem waiting to happen. The armory will never have enough of one size and they will get lost.
Those that keep suggesting guns with multiple back straps have obviously never been in the military. It’s a supply problem waiting to happen. The armory will never have enough of one size and they will get lost.
OK Steve, so the industry has come up with multiple back straps as an easy workable low cost solution for a handguns to accommodate different shooters hand sizes. You don’t think the this can be done because Uncle Sam can’t keep track of 2 extra back straps with the millions of items they already have. It has been established that one size fits all dose not work for trigger and magazine reach.
Don’t tell us what can’t be done. What is your solution?
OK Steve, so the industry has come up with multiple back straps as an easy workable low cost solution for a handguns to accommodate different shooters hand sizes. You don’t think the this can be done because Uncle Sam can’t keep track of 2 extra back straps with the millions of items they already have. It has been established that one size fits all dose not work for trigger and magazine reach.
Don’t tell us what can’t be done. What is your solution?
Nothing wrong with the 9mm. What is wrong is shot placement (shooter) and type of ammunition. If the troops think a 45 ACP with ball ammo is going to “knock down” the enemy, well so sorry. Put some Hornady 9mm FTX Critical Defense or Duty, then put the bullets in center mass….no problem.
TASNSTAFL
If you get a cartridge with better terminal ballistics it will have more recoil resulting in making it harder for soldiers to get hits with, which seems to be a bigger problem than stopping power usually. If you are having problem hitting, reducing the number of rounds in the gun is likely not a good thing (less chances to win as it were). At the same time the harder recoil will result in faster wear on the guns.
Bottom Line is that the juice doesnt seem worth the squeeze to adopt a whole new platform and caliber. Keep the 9mm, adopt a new pistol if you would like preferably a polymer framed, high capacity gun that is already in limited military use (Glock). If you re going to expend anymore money and effort than that you would likely be better off with the M9.
OBTW, the Army is buying more M9s as we debate this…
TASNSTAFL
If you get a cartridge with better terminal ballistics it will have more recoil resulting in making it harder for soldiers to get hits with, which seems to be a bigger problem than stopping power usually. If you are having problem hitting, reducing the number of rounds in the gun is likely not a good thing (less chances to win as it were). At the same time the harder recoil will result in faster wear on the guns.
Bottom Line is that the juice doesnt seem worth the squeeze to adopt a whole new platform and caliber. Keep the 9mm, adopt a new pistol if you would like preferably a polymer framed, high capacity gun that is already in limited military use (Glock). If you re going to expend anymore money and effort than that you would likely be better off with the M9.
OBTW, the Army is buying more M9s as we debate this…
Off-topic nit:
I suspect you mean “TANSTAAFL.” “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”
See Robert Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.”
Sorry, I’m a compulsive proofreader. 🙂
Off-topic nit:
I suspect you mean “TANSTAAFL.” “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”
See Robert Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.”
Sorry, I’m a compulsive proofreader. 🙂
Mr Shepard above refers to the SAS being happy with the 9mm. This is not the case. In both the middle east and in Afghanistan troopers carry the .45 asthe 9mm has proved inadequate.
It is also beyond irony that ammunition outlawed under the Geneva convention as being inhumane to use against those definitely trying to kill you is permitted by both your government and mine for use against civilians!
Mr Shepard above refers to the SAS being happy with the 9mm. This is not the case. In both the middle east and in Afghanistan troopers carry the .45 asthe 9mm has proved inadequate.
It is also beyond irony that ammunition outlawed under the Geneva convention as being inhumane to use against those definitely trying to kill you is permitted by both your government and mine for use against civilians!
Comments are closed.