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

Very good post - sounds a lot like the Warren Commission.

Well that just ain't so; sorry. Don't get me wrong, the 9mm has proven itself quite well, but we know that a .45 does do more damage.

Ain't many laughing at the US Marines, they just keep buying 1911's and it's working fine for them.

The Sig Sauer IS more reliable than a 1911, I'll give you that. That doesn't mean the 1911 is unreliable. The 1911 has proven time and time again to be sufficiently reliable for the mission. Seriously, if it goes 1,000 rounds and the Sig goes 3,000 rounds before a stoppage, what bearing does that have on combat? Since when has anyone fired anything more than a few dozen rounds from a handgun in combat? In the history of warfare, has anyone EVER fire 1,000 rounds from a handgun in a firefight? I love reliability, but you need to keep the discussion relevant.

Also, a 1911 is FAR easier to maintain than a Sig. Ever taken the lower half of a Sig apart? It's a small parts and springs nightmare. Regardless, I think we'd be better served with the Sig.

Now that's some truth. Cases of .45 are DAMN heavy!!

I agree, if it's a 9mm. There are some serious down sides to the Glock, but the benefits of that type of weapon system just make SO much sense for a modern military. Maintenance and repair of a Glock is as simple as things get, and the price of the gun is much lower. A real down side to the plastic frames is that they can be broken from impact, and that WILL happen; it happens in LE use, and they're comparatively easy on guns. But the plastic frame is corrosion resistant, will go oodles of rounds, never has to be refinished, and cheap to replace if it fails. That design just makes sense. The G21 is just too big and fat for anyone, male or female, with small hands. I have pretty big hands (I wear an 11 1/2 ring), and I dont care for the grip. But a single stack .45 or just G17 would be good.

I just can't count how many women I've seen or know who shoot a .45 ACP 1911 just fine; it's a training issue. My daughter at age 12 gained a PREFERENCE for my LW Commander in .45 ACP, and believe me...you just wouldn't want that 12yo shooting at you. Now she's 16, doesn't shoot all that much, but will still drill a 50 yard IPSC target every last shot with that LW Commander. It always comes down to training. As for the weight of the gun, a full sized 1911 isn't all that bad, especially if you can carry it non-concealed.

Did ya miss the Thompson LeGarde test of 1904? Yeah, that's over a century ago, but when talking non-expanding bullets; nothing has changed since then and the test is just as relevant today as it was in 1904.

The .45 ACP does produce a larger wound; that's just physics.

Now the question I think you're getting at is; is it enough to make any practical difference? If that's your statement, than yeah, I don't know of any test that has shown that there's an actual difference in incapacitation. There was the "Strasbourg" tests, but they were in "secret" and the methods were not open to peer review, and thus cannot be taken as credible science.

BTW, I'm quite confident the "Strasbourg" tests were not in Strasbourg France, but in Texas.

Kevin, I disagree with you on the Glock 21 being too big for people with small hands.

We carried G21's for 11 years, and never had anyone fail to qualify with it. And we have hired some fainty fellas. I believe the reason they don't fail is because we have a no bones policy that if you fail a firearms qual, ( which you get two attempts at). You are done. Unemployed. Full stop. With that knowledge up front i think our guys spend the time learning to shoot it.

Well you can't exactly kick someone out of the military for failing to qualify with a pistol. Also consider that the motivations of a GI and a police candidate are very different. Sure within some of the elite forces soldiers will be far more motivated, than police. But for those who are truck drivers, they may be a good deal less motivated and may take it far less seriously.

But you make a good point, training can overcome a LOT of obstacles.

Training. That just brings us full circle. If they were going to train soldiers to shoot, they wouldn't need a new handgun.

You can hit a man in the pinky and knock him to the ground with a .45.

Well the Beretta is getting a bit long in the tooth, and going to a more modern design like the Glock type pistols will have some real logistical advantages. But yeah, if you hit them square, it won't make a whole lot of difference.

And of course, if they actually got their .45's just as soon as they hit the field in real combat, you'd hear people whining about insufficient barrier penetration in comparison to the 9mm.

I still think the bestbthing to do is tell the Hague accord to GFY and issue our guys Hollow points

There are so many truths in this lengthy thread that they tend to get lost.

- The 1911 in .45 was chosen over 100 years ago based on its effectiveness

- by the 1930's, shortcomings of having troop with just a pistol led to the development and adoption of the M1 carbine to give officers more firepower

- Korea showed that the M1 carbine did not like the cold weather, and the .30 carbine round did not always penetrate the quilted coats of the Chicoms. So, out with the .30 Carbine

- by 1985, the Browning Hi Power in 9mm was all the rage, so we went with 9mm NATO

- Women don't handle the 1911 well, and women are all in the service

- Troops that get shot at want something more effective than the 9mm

Did I miss anything?

The .30 Carbine has NEVER had a penetration issue. Inside 200m, it will out-penetrate a .223. The problem with the Carbine in Korea was using it beyond 300m, something it was never intended to do. The Carbine was so loved and so favored, and so damn good at what it did, people forgot that it wasn't a main issue battle rifle. They kept asking more and more of the design, and were surprised and offended when they found the limits. By today's standards, the M1 Carbine is a damn good PDW.

Neck the .30Carbine down to .224", 6mm or 6.5mm and it'd be a whole different animal in terms of a battlefield weapon.

Agreed. In all platforms.

A 53 gr TSX in the 5.56 changes things dramatically, as would an X in the 9x19.

You missed DD saying that in Vn. the tunnel rats liked using grenades.
I wonder why I never thought of that? With all that room for a full arm swing and no problem w/ concussion in a confined space what could be better? That kind of critical thinking is rare and precious.

mike r

It's my understanding the Hague accord doesn't apply to ISIS and insurgents. If the military used expanding bullets in our M-16s and M-4s there would be less ISIS and insurgents walking around.

The M1 carbine was loved because it was a viable option for those stuck with a relic (Marines and the M1903) or Officers and those of smaller build stuck carrying an 11 lb fencepost (M1 Garand).

Sometimes it's not how good the option is, it's how much better it is than what you currently have.

I qualified 3 times on the M38 before finally getting a chance to qualify on the M9. The M9 was gold when you've been stuck with an M38.

You're right..but i speak in generalities. Regardless of who we are fighting we shoild say GFY to the Hague

DD was in the band.

Just sayin....

M38?

M38 was the USAF designation for the Smith & Wesson Model 15 which was the official sidearm of USAF from 1962 to 1992.