Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Army wants a harder hitting handgun

I think your on to something there. It makes sense to me.

Make it an expensive lanyard of course.

I have two glocks and I like shooting them and they are great weapons. I bought my G21 when i was in the army to carry if deployed, but I'm seriously not a fan of no safety. Yeh I see all the threads about its all about user stupidity. But it still gives me the creeps to have a hot round and no safety when I'm not actually on the firing line. Before you go off on me, I probably have fired 30,000 rounds of ammo in my life so I'm not untrained in their use.

Me, just personally, I much prefer my HK USP Tactical for a duty type carry weapon because I can carry hot and flip the safety when I draw and it still has a reasonably firm double action pull. If i want to take a slower but more accurate shot like when im trying to hit a target at 30 plus yards i just cock the hammer. I just think a weapon with a reliable safety is a must have if you are talking army wide issue. Remember that many soldiers are not SF or Batt-boys and have minimal weapons training and then throw in fatigue and stress and there ya go.

I suspect a HK would have less than 1/2 of the accidental discharges of a glock in the long run.

45 don't kill any better or worse than 9mm or bayonet, use of appropriate ammo is what should be addressed.

We'd be the laughing stock with a damn 1911. Maybe they will consider a Ruger Vaquero 45 Colt. Hell, maybe they can dump the AR for a Winchester 94. Thats how STUPID this is.

Anyone who would take a 1911 over a Sig Sauer P227 (organic apples to GMO apples) has NEVER been in harms way...The End!

Anyone who would choose a 45 over a 9mm ain't NEVER had to hump cases of 45 ammo into combat...The End!

A serious look at how many times a handgun is used on the modern battlefield should be one of the primary considerations. I hate Glocks but believe it could fill the bill. Another consideration is woman in combat humping 45...Dats funny right there!

Well I grew up with a 1911 so I would most definitely take a 1911 over anything else with possible exception of a FN Tactical in .45 Auto.

Back in the day the combat load for a 1911 was three 7 round mags and that always seem plenty. Even in trench warfare handguns were rarely the only weapons carried. Heck, the tunnel rats of Vietnam usually carried a revolver, knife and a bunch of grenades and were pretty well armed.

This business of having to carry a handgun for general combat and case of ammo in my opinion is shear stupid. Carry a freaking rifle or machine pistol.

And last but not least, back in the day the first thing a soldier did was chuck all non-essential equipment going into battle. That option is no longer available?

Too sloppy for an accurate head shot? Really? It is a true pleasure to hear from an expert such as yourself. I hope everyone was taking notes...

I have the beretta and I have a 1911.

I've shot the beretta a handful of times and to me it feels like I'm holding a brick in my hand. I keep it because of its reliability and readily available ammo.

I love the 1911.

Personally I don't think I'd like it nearly as much if it were double stacked. I'd rather just carry extra clips.

Easier to hold and carry in a body holster, IMO'

of course that is all good and well when you're kicking around the woods or a range. If what I held in my hand determined if I came back alive, I might feel differently about it.

nah...probably not.

Still think that the Ruger P345 would fill the need well.

derby is one stupid [bleep].



Travis

The miltary is restricted to using BALL ammunition. With that a given, the 45 is the winner. Big holes better than small holes.High capacity vs 7 or 8 round standard magazines is not as much an issue IMHO because the lowest standard of handgun PRACTICE has to be anywhere in the US Armed Forces. Translated: the definition of firepower = an increased number of misses per encounter. With rifles the stage was set when I saw most guys burning through magazines on full auto like there was no tomorrow yet when we checked out the dead, they usually sported one or two actual hits. With the exception of head shots, the 7.62 won that derby. Go with the bigger hole.

Funny how everyone thinks with their heart. If we started thinking/voting/holding those accountable with our minds, I believe this country would be better off with a smidgeon more common sense than the laughing stock we've become. It seems all decisions bear one common denominator especially when it comes to politics (which is what this thread is really about). All you need to focus on is the MONEY TRAIL!

So, the army will come to a conclusion and we will all probably wonder how they arrived there and of course bitch about it over then next 2 decades. But their decision and the money trail will look a lot like this:

1. A company will be chosen because of their lobbying power
2. A politician (or small group of politicians) will determine the outcome and gain some kind of personal compensation for their decision in one way or another.
3. All loose ends will be tied up so the taxpayer and soldier will be left in the dark.
4. Cycle will repeat once the next decision outweighs the financial gain to the parties involved for the following future upgrades.
5. Soldiers are stuck with whatever end result.

Sound about right?

Pretty much the description of government procurement across the board right there.

IIRC when dealing with non-uniformed combatants it was determined they could use hollowpoints. Which helps the 9mm, as well as the .45.

For a general issue pistol/sidearm a 9mm is somewhat easier to shoot and learn, especially for women. For the serious badasses, let their units pick what's best for the mission, be it a Grock, 1911, or whatever. I'm personally pleased with the H&K P30LS in 9mm; it seems the best of the plastic pistols, to me. Of course, it's also the most expensive of the plastic pistols

and pistols need manual safeties...

There has NEVER, I repeat NEVER been a single study, test, or any other documentation that shows 45 is any better than 9mm when using the same exact ammo. Compare FMJ vs FMJ or modern HP vs modern HP in 45 vs 9mm and every single one of them shows a tie.

Historically the 1911 and 45 ACP were not particularly well liked during WW-1 through the Korean war. It was only the largely fictional writings of Jeff Cooper that lead to the "legend" of the 1911 and 45 ACP. That and pure nationalism wanting to avoid a gun and caliber used by one of our enemies.

The army wanted to ditch both after WW-2 and go to a hi-cap 9mm.. Their testing at the time showed no difference in performance against humans, but the 9mm outperformed 45 easily in barrier penetration. The 45's were bouncing off steel GI helmets at fairly close ranges while 9mm still penetrated at ranges of over 100 yards.

Going back to the 45 would be a step backwards. Our enemies are starting to use body armor and 45 has always sucked at defeating that. 40 S&W, 357 SIG or 10mm might be a step in the right direction, but the current 9mm is just fine.

Add a grip to the front and a reddot and this would be perfect.

Desert Eagle 50 cal.? something in 454 Causal perhaps?

Is that why Navy Seals, Spec Ops guys etc virtually emptied out armories (like in Crane, Indiana for the USN) of 45s after 9/11 and sustained combat operations?

Don't confuse the issue with facts


Snake

Haven't read the whole thread, so I apologize if this has been addressed - are there any statistics out there on how many times a handgun has been used in, say Iraq, and what the results of those uses have been? Seems everything is quantified these days and I wondered if such statistics were available.

Are you sure there has never been a test comparing the two?

The Thompson-LaGarde tests specifically compared the .45 ACP vs. various other FMJ rounds including the 9x19. They shot both live animals and human cadavers, something that would be hard to duplicate today. Page 6 of this link shows their conclusions:

http://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/TLGR/TLGR6/tlgr6.html

"All of the bullets used in the experiments lodged in the body, so that every particle of energy was delivered with each bullet. The animals invariably dropped to the ground when shot from three to five times with the larger caliber Colt�s revolver bullets, and they failed in every instance to drop when as many as ten shots of the smaller jacketed bullets from the Colt�s automatic and Luger pistol had been delivered against the lungs or abdomen. This failure on the part of the automatic pistols of small caliber set to rest at once the claims of the makers that the superior energy and velocity of their weapons was a controlling factor in stopping power. The Board was of the opinion that a bullet which will have the shock effect and stopping power at short ranges necessary for a military pistol or revolver should have a caliber not less than .45."



It's interesting that they also recommend a "cupped" bullet as being far superior to any FMJ - an early version of a hollow point. Gee, who'da thunk?