Coming full circle....actually considering the 45 ACP again. My opinion is they should have never dropped it.

Handgun article

The U.S. Army is moving forward to replace the Cold War-era M9 9mm pistol with a more powerful handgun that also meets the needs of the other services.

As the lead agent for small arms, the Army will hold an industry day July 29 to talk to gun makers about the joint, Modular Handgun System or MHS.

The MHS would replace the Army's inventory of more than 200,000 outdated M9 pistols and several thousand M11 9mm pistols with one that has greater accuracy, lethality, reliability and durability, according to Daryl Easlick, a project officer with the Army's Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia.

"It's a total system replacement -- new gun, new ammo, new holster, everything," Easlick said.

The Army began working with the small arms industry on MHS in early 2013, but the effort has been in the works for more than five years. If successful, it would result in the Defense Department buying more than 400,000 new pistols during a period of significant defense-spending reductions.

Army weapons officials maintain that combat troops need a more effective pistol and ammunition. But experts from the law-enforcement and competitive shooting worlds argue that tactical pistol ammunition -- no matter the caliber -- is incapable of stopping a determined adversary without multiple shots in most cases.

One of the major goals of the MHS effort is to adopt a pistol chambered for a more potent round than the current 9mm, weapons officials said. The U.S. military replaced the .45 caliber 1911 pistol with the M9 in 1985 and began using the 9mm NATO round at that time.

Soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have complained that the 9mm round is not powerful enough to be effective in combat.

"The 9mm doesn't score high with soldier feedback," said Easlick, explaining that the Army, and the other services, want a round that will have better terminal effects -- or cause more damage -- when it hits enemy combatants. "We have to do better than our current 9mm."

The MHS will be an open-caliber competition that will evaluate larger rounds such as .357 Sig, .40 S&W and .45 ACP.

The FBI and several major police departments recently decided to return to using the 9mm round after finding that .40 caliber ammunition was causing excessive wear on its service pistols. The heavier bullet and greater recoil over time resulted in frame damage to well respected makes such as Glock and Beretta, according to Ernest Langdon, a shooting instructor and respected competitive pistol shooter who has worked for gun makers such as Beretta, Smith & Wesson, and Sig Sauer.

"Most of the guns in .40 caliber on the market right now were actually designed to be 9mm originally and then turned into .40 calibers later," Langdon told Military.com.

Langdon served 12 years in the Marine Corps where he was the chief instructor of the Second Marine Division Scout Sniper School and the High Risk Personnel Course. He's been a competitive pistol shooter for 15 years where he has won competitions in the International Defensive Pistol Association and two World Speed Shooting titles.

Larger calibers, such as .40 S&W, have significantly more recoil than the 9mm making them much harder for the average shooter to shoot accurately, he said.

"I don't think anybody would argue that shot placement is the most important for terminal ballistics," Langdon said. "Even though you say a .45 is better than a 9mm, it's still a pistol caliber. Chances are if it is a determined adversary, they are going to have to be shot multiple times regardless of the caliber."

Many law-enforcement shooting incidents have shown this to be reality, he said.

"I talked to a Chicago cop that shot a guy eight times with a .45 to kill him and that was a 230 grain Hydra-Shok," Langdon said. "And that guy now carries a 9mm �he realized that handgun bullets suck. "You have to shoot people a lot with a handgun."

Langdon has trained numerous personnel from all branches of the U.S. military, FBI, Secret Service and other federal agencies as well as state and local law enforcement.

As part of the joint requirement process for MHS, Army weapons officials did a "very thorough cost-benefit analysis" that showed supported the effort, Easlick said.

"We have got an old fleet of M9s right now; it's costing us more to replace and repair M9s than it would cost to go get a new handgun," he said.

The Army spent years on an effort to search for a replacement for its M4 carbine, but ended up adopting the improved M4A1 version used by special operations forces.

Beretta officials maintain that the company has offered to upgrade M9 many times.

"We have submitted numerous changes or product improvements that really address a lot of the shortcomings that are either perceived or real," said Gabe Bailey, Business development manager for Beretta's military division.

The Marine Corps adopted the M9A1 in 2006 that features a rail for attaching lights or lasers, checkering on the front and back of the grip and a beveled magazine well for smoother magazine changes.

Some of the improvements Beretta offered included an enhanced sight system, changing the angle of the slide-mounted safety to avoid inadvertent safety activation and a threaded barrel, Bailey said.

Army officials, however, say the M9 does not meet the MHS requirement.

"The M9 doesn't meet it for a multitude of reasons," Easlick said. "It's got reliability issues; the open slide design allows contaminates in. The slide-mounted safety doesn't do well when you are trying to clear a stoppage -- you inadvertently de-cock and safe the weapon system."

Just read this on Fox

Sounds good

They need one

Snake

Well the 1911 in .45 ACP is still the best weapon and caliber in FMJ but it'll take the Army bean counters many decades to come to that conclusion.

I suppose they could consider a machine pistol something along the lines of an MP 38 or MP 40. Maybe even a Sten type gun.

"I talked to a Chicago cop that shot a guy eight times with a .45 to kill him and that was a 230 grain Hydra-Shok," Langdon said. "And that guy now carries a 9mm �he realized that handgun bullets suck. "You have to shoot people a lot with a handgun."

Atta Baby,..8 shots with a .45 and moves to a 9mm for more ammo...

I wonder how many servicable 1911's the army still has on hand. I'll bet they have enough to arm everyone who carries a handgun.

Would be nice to see them back with the .45, but I see them going with a .40. No real reason other than they will use the excuse that they could use LEO's ammo, which around here seems to be predominantly .40 cal.

some of the article is right on, some is just not credible. There is a video floating around I think on youtube of a guy taking three or four rounds of .40s&w in mesa, and then walking himself to the gutwagon. 8 rounds as above, ah, lets see that again.
The beretta m9 dates itself back to the 30's as i remember as to the basic system, and that open top does allow for debri collection, not to mention the safety/decocker mechanism. Friend of mine was a doorknocker in iraq, said they would remove the ball ammo and replace it with winchester jacketed hollowpoints they could buy in the village bazaars, then it worked a lot better. Against the rules tho, you know.
I would suspect there are few, if any, traditional 1911's still around, given they were last produced during WWII.

Sometimes even big, powerful guns aren't instant. Some years ago, we had a drug bust go bad in the next county over. The perp's live-in girlfriend let the cops in. The guy came out of the bedroom with a 44 mag and shooting. The 1st cop in took one to the chest. Even with that, he managed to get off no less than 28 rounds from his 9mm carbine before he died.

Especially when they miss, as cops seem prone to doing when shooting at something other than a dog.

I don't buy the Chicago cop shooting a guy 8 times with a 45 and Hyda-Shok, more like 7 misses and one hit. The 45 has a long track record of ending a fight right quick, the only thing is that you have to be able to shoot in the first place. An updated 1911 would be what I would look at. But this gets very very political, the last time they Adopted the Beretta, and from what I understood at the time, the Europeans bought more F-16's or said they would. It this current war, the rules really don't apply since the enemy is a stateless combatant, the last thing I would worry about is offending The guys in Geneva or The Hague! The object is to kill the enemy and not die ourselves.

If only such a thing existed...

If they go 45 it'll need to be double stack.

They went to the nine because the 1911 .45 was too big for all the new female soldiers to hold or shoot well. They picked a pistol that was STILL too big for most females to hold properly, but did hurt less - on both ends.

Now they claim they want a cartridge that does more damage - and my bet is that they'll pick a pistol to fire it that is once again too fat for small hands.

If they pick a .40 S&W, the conspiracy crowd will bellow that the real reason is because every other goobermint agent from the FBI to FDA meat inspectors are armed to the teeth with .40s and a bazillion rounds of ammo. "One more step to a police state!"

(They may be right, you understand.)

SF CIF companies went to Glocks, both 9mm and 40 S&W, quite a while back. They can access Army inventory 9mm for training and carry the 40's for combat.

As you stated, the gun NEEDS to be a double stack. A Glock 21 is too big for many.

Going back to a 1911 would be like going back to Cocoran Jump Boots and cotton shelter-halves. They both sucked way back when, and they would suck even harder today. The Quantico-built 1911's the MARSOC guys had broke constantly. Their new guns cost over two-grand each, and the one MARSOC guy I talked to recently said he'd swap it for a Glock in a heartbeat.

THE answer, IMO, is a Glock 37 in 45 GAP. That by-passes the large frame issue (G19/17 frame size), has adequate capacity (ten rounds) is cheap, and most importantly, won't break. The Army doesn't have much 45acp ammo left, or 9mm for that matter. Current ammo stores could be quickly depleted by current service guns as the new guns/ammo were brought on line.

And that makes for a lot of steel to carry around, with everything else they are already carrying.

one of the interesting things about my friend that was in iraq, among other things, he was a registered gunsmith. Which led into all kinds of fascinating things. There were a LOT of .45acp devices floating around for testing purposes among the higher brass, some of them pretty cool. They have started procuring for special ops units some versions of .45's.
I do remember a conversation about handguns with a special forces type just back from the stans. He said he started with a m9, ditched it not because so much he disliked the weapon, but reliability issues in the talcum like dust, went to a hi power, and spent half his tour with a glock 17. His comment was it worked all the time, that was more important than anything else.
course he also did not have ball ammo in it either.

45 GAP would make a lot of sense, I just wouldn't do it in a Glock.

I would not do a 45 GAP no way Jose. The 45 ACP is the logical choice in a +P loading.

I'm sure the armorers would be thrilled.



Travis

I don't know what the answer is, but do know the M9 is a large, heavy beast for what it is, with a safety that flipped itself off in my holster often not to mention placed too high, with a grip too large for me and many. More important than the round, IMO, is the ergo's. I sincerely hated that POS. Something like the cz sp-01 makes more sense to me as a service pistol design. Nor do I care if it's 9mm or 45acp, as either are well-handled when housed in an appropriate design; the .40 and others, not so much, if they are to be used by "the masses".

I have reviewed a lot of officer involved shootings in the course of the last 10 years or so. 45 ACP, 40 SW, 9mm, 10mm, 38 Special, 44 Special, 44 Magnum, 357 Magnum. Every one of those calibers has failed to stop armed felons before the felons could do more harm. I've debriefed a bunch of cops and military personnel who have given me their stories freely, and the common denominator is shot placement.

Unless you put your handgun bullets into vital anatomy, they won't do any good. Police departments that train their officers in anatomically correct shot placement have found caliber isn't as important as they thought it was.

45 ACP is not the answer, nor is the 1911. I think the 45 is a great cartridge and it would be my choice if I were the guy choosing it. A modernized update of the 1911 single stack concept such as the SIG P220 would be a good choice, but so would others.

The answer lies in training, not in hardware. Our SF guys know this, as do a lot of the better PD's in America.

I don't know about the small hands thing in a 1911. We had a lady on the pistol team and she was no giant. She shot as well as any man maybe better sometimes.

I have homunculus hands and the handgun that fits my hands the best is the 1911. If I can shoot a 1911 with my hands anybody can shoot a 1911.

A handgun is for self defense, a battle rifle is for fighting, and a machine pistol is for close in fighting. A handgun is not for fighting as such.

I recall reading the article about the LEO that was in this gunfight......he did land eight hits on the bad guy, not sure how many were "incapacitating" or not.

The gist of the article was that he was down to a couple of rounds in his last mag when he finally stopped the BG.....he ended up switching to a Glock 17 I believe and carries over 100 rounds for it now. He wanted more ROH for extended confrontations.......

If a soldier can't carry a rifle for some reason, then I suppose he would want a harder hitting handgun.

7 shot .357 Magnum S&W 686

I'm sure General Patton would agree....

I would want a machine pistol instead or at least a M-1 carbine.

The story was posted in detail here a couple months ago. The fight was finally stopped by a head shot.

It will be:

Polymer, with a tactical rail, tritium sights, double-stack magazine, and .40S&W.

Frankly, it probably will be the Glock and should have been the Glock back in the '80s. If it had been then, the change-over to another caliber would be child's play and cheap now.

Hey, I got an idea!!

With a thumb safety and a magazine disconnect.

I say just issue everyone SIG P220's and call it done.

There....saved millions of taxpayer dollars.

Jim;

I've heard more than once that those little carbines killed mo-better than they should have.

It was a great idea especially the M-2 model. I used the M-1 version and it was great for what it was designed for.

+1

They�re probably looking for any excuse to go to Glock�s because:

1. They�re on all the fashionable tv shows.
2. They�re taticool.
3. They will give the medics and corpsmen practice putting tourniquets on legs with bleeding femoral arteries that were shot on the firing line.

I know I�d be nervous standing next to Bubba/Snuffy Smith/gangbanger raw recruit on each side of me side-holding a pistol without a safety. I�ll believe the military really believes that�s a good idea when they remove the safety off the M4.

I agree it's still handgun ammo. Shoot 8 times and still have 8 more in the mag. Works for me. There is no miracle bullet. Maybe they need to use HP's. I think that would help a lot.

I was going to comment on this as well. The most ignorant sentence in that entire piece. Who has ever argued a pistol round has more than marginal lethality. It is the weapon of last resort. The Browning 1911 is #1 for a reason.

We don't agree on much but you are dead on on this one. I get nervous every time I see someone pull a Glock out of their range bag at the range.

While I carried a .45 caliber 1911A1 when I was in the Army, I'd recommend the Army opt for a double-action semi-auto shooting a .45 ACP cartridge to replace their M-9 9x19s.

While the .45 ACP does have a heavier recoil which makes it slower t bring down for a 2nd. shot at the same target, it's also a one-shot-stopper, so you don't always need a 2nd. shot.

Just my 2�.........


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

I am thinking that there will be no change in caliber. The girls and nancy boys that are filling the service rosters now can't shoot anything with power, and as was mentioned, NO handgun cartridge is really a stopper.
I'm betting that they have been hoarding all the .22 LR ammo, with plans in mind to switch to that caliber.

You may have a point Sam.

On the lethality of handgun ammo, obviously an article or two has been written on that, but back around 1913 or so the Germans figured out that if they put a small flat point on their 9mm Parabellum it gave the bullet a far greater shocking effect than a round nose. IIRC the picture accompanying that article showed a truncated cone with a tiny flat point by today's standards, but even that produces a greater trauma than a round nose that pushes aside tissue.

Be that as it may, a lot of handgunners over the years have proven the worth of a flat point SWC style bullet on game of all types. As long as the military has to stay with a FMJ, is there any convention or treaty that says it has to be a round nose?





On the other issue, as much as I like the old 1911 it's probably time to go to a Glock since they definitely keep on shooting. Probably need to have a frame mounted ambi-safety ala the 1911. Maybe add a cocking indicator. And a grip safety. Hmm, anybody ever looked at a Springfield XD?

This quote, taken from the aforementioned article, reveals the illusion of a man stopper handgun cartridge, except, of course, for Rancho_Loco. He teaches the experts all about the great myth of mangun stoppers.

"I don't think anybody would argue that shot placement is the most important for terminal ballistics," Langdon said. "Even though you say a .45 is better than a 9mm, it's still a pistol caliber. Chances are if it is a determined adversary, they are going to have to be shot multiple times regardless of the caliber."

That with the greatest probability of of ending a gunfight is a CNS hit, and that's not 100%, exclusive of the cerebellum. A bad guy with his heart no longer pumping can live 8 seconds, long enough to make a good guy room temperature.

The only sure way of surviving a gunfight is to not get in one. That's my primary rule of gunfighting. I'll avoid and walk away.

One of my rules for 98.6 degrees -it's way up there in terms of importance but I'm not sure of its numerical rank- is that in defensive handguns, bigger is better. The more blood out & the more air in and the faster they occur the better.

Back on topic: I'm with you here, Mink. Army should have never abandoned its loyal, tried, and true friend. The 1911A1 in .45 ACP is the king of battle handguns, except, of course, for Rancho_Loco.

Didn't the Marine Corps already answer this question?

http://blogs.militarytimes.com/gearscout/2012/07/20/usmc-orders-4036-m45-cqbp-pistols/

Probably a good idea. The thumb safety already exists.

That's what they're paid to do. If they don't like it, they can apply for a transfer. Isn't that what we hear on 24hr every day?

Mink: I knew the transition (bribery?) to the 9mm was not going to be successful back when it happened.
Shame so much tax dollars will be wasted.
The 1911 45 is hard to beat for combat/self defense.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

No, they didn't. Heavy as [bleep], 8rd capacity. It's time has passed. Model A trucks are cool too.

This is the Obama administration. I'd be careful they don't give the military some of these in .38 Long Colt.




Oh, well, as long as we don't fight any Moros it should be okay...

Yes, and just like Sigs, they don't hold up, yet. The XD is a new platform, and might just be the one to beat. Nothing Sig makes will hold up, and they are an armorer's nightmare.

Yep.

My son is in an outfit with the Navy and he uses the 45 acp in what ever pistol/suppressor he likes at the moment.
But they are chambered in 45.
Seems that the Marines were going back to that caliber a while back.

I figured this out the first 15 minutes I had one of these in hand.

I don't ever see anything replacing my 1911 45.

Does this mean that parts have to be hand fitted?

On shot placement:

Of course, excellent shot placement is desired. But it has to be good guy shot placement. Bad guy shot placement must be avoided if a good guy wants to go home. Therefore, it is better to not hit the bad guy (tactical movement) if the bad guy doesn't hit the good guy. Hence, a good guy trading his life for a bad guy's ain't a wise gunfight rule.

If you're in a gunfight, it's because a bad guy wants to kill you. It's a pretty wise idea to not help him accomplish his goal. Therefore, never be a good target. Weaver stance, target acquisition, sight alignment, squeeze trigger is old school that should've never made it to class.

Another good gunfight rule that seems to predominate is O'Reilly's Postulate: Murphy was an optimist!

I ain't sure, but I think guys were gun slingers of practical gunfightin' knowledge of the 70's:

Recommendation direct from the Oval Office.

Duhh! This has ALWAYS been a requirement for a 1911. That is why that gun costs over two grand

Whichever they go with, stock up on ammo and components NOW.

You really believe your own line of schit. You are a complete idiot

Spot on Doc..

Here's what I posted on a similar thread, in the Handgun forum:

No way it will be a 1911, even though it's a better choice than the M9. My bet will be either the HK45, or the P227.

Much as we all normal people like the 1911, it's going to be hard for any military officer to walk up to a Congresscritter or bureaucrat and say, "we want a 103 year old design" even if they say it's "reimagined" or whatever

If I were Colt, think I'd borrow a page from Sig, and build a 1911 Rail Gun with a slightly wider and longer grip, to allow 10+1 rounds, then pitch that to the military. And I'd call it the Model of 2014.

I forgot, the 1911/45 ACP didn't work in WWI, WWII, Korea or Vietnam.

Model A trucks, shelter halves,and brown Cocoran boots worked back then too, well, sort of.

220's grip is too big. The Beretta also suffers from a fat grip and long trigger reach. I would also bet against the .40 due to recoil. My guess is a 9 or 45 on a polymer frame with interchangeable backstraps and a rail.

The S&W M&P .45 with a thumb safety would be a great candidate.

I haven't shot 1911s that much probably not more than 5000 rounds a year or so at one point. And most of that through our AL framed Kimber 3 inch ones. Of course that was only for a couple of years that we played with IDPA and IPSC, the wife and I.

But I was worried about the AL frame possibly.

Never saw an issue.

But again it might take more than 20K rounds or so for them to break etc...

Glock... well yeah I got a use for them in certain instances, but just cant' warm up to them all that much.

IF we are not going to 45 acp, and why the hell wouldn't we?, then I wonder 357 Sig might not be the best of all worlds? Not impressed with 40 S/W.

Of course anyone that shoots, should have no issues with a 10mm , that the 40 still wants to be. They simply have to shoot and learn to shoot well, like anyone that risks their life, at the end of any kind of firearm.

What all my 100 pound 4 foot sometihing wife has learned to shoot over the years proves its in the head, and no where else if you can't get used to whatever is provided. Though she/I have never shot any of the nitro express rounds....

The problem is that outside of selected outfits, most people in the military don't shoot much. When I was in the regular Army we did rifle qual once a year (maybe 200 rounds) and if you were issued a pistol it was considerably less ammo then that.

The only mistake there was that they started with the .32WSL when they should have started with the .351WSL or even the .401WSL as their inspiration. That woulda made the little carbine a real wonder.

It's time has passed but I always thought an M1 Carbine chambered for a rimless .357 magnum cartridge would be a neat idea. Keep the pressure at 40,000 psi and you could get some real whomp out of a 158 grain bullet. Of course that almost duplicates the .351 WSL but that one is just a tad long for the carbine receiver (I think), whereas the .357 OAL is about the same as the .30 Carbine. Plus you could use all of the .357 diameter bullets available instead of an oddball .352" bullet.

Sure, mention items no one uses anymore. How about the M2 or M16, both over 50 years old and still in use.

The USMC did extensive testing and came back to the 1911/45ACP as a proven battle weapon. The army, well, they'll probably [bleep] it up again, just like they did with its camo decisions.

I wonder, how applicable the preferences of a bunch of lifelong shooting enthusiasts are to a handgun to be used mostly by people that are not shooters?

Once upon a time our military benefited from a pool of personnel that had a much higher proportion of shooters. Now much of it will have never fired a round until their military training.

A 1911 with an extra capacity magazine chambered in 45 Colt loaded with a 250 grain cast Keith flatnosed bullet at 950 fps would knock just about anything on its azz.

They have more money than to know how to wisely spend.

And that's sure the truth. They change camo patterns once a year, it seems.

The USMC didn't test a damn thing. Some one cooked up the idea of taking mothballed 1911's and reworking them at Quantico. Those guys can build a rifle that'll shoot but the didn't/don't know schidt from shinola about 1911's, and when the guys started shooting the hell out of them, the hardest working SOB in the unit was the armorer. He didn't get much sleep when a bunch of them were on the range all day.

Same today with most police departments, Federal, State, and local.

L.W.

If they opt for a smaller grip that Private Benjamin can hold, it'll need milder ammo for her to be able to shoot it without a lot of pain.

The titanium-frame .38 and .357 revolvers are a dream to tote, torture to shoot.

There's just no way to make shooting bland on the hand and devastating on Ahmed's and Mahmoud's chests. The immutable facts of physics get in the way.

Good point

Snake

We'll now that just isn't PC at all now is it?

Whack his PP!

I was a Huey crewchief from 82-84. NEVER saw an M16 after basic training. Was issued a Ruger Security Six 38 Spcl.
Had to qualify once a year. 25 rounds for practice and 25 rounds for score .

I was a unit armorer back in the day (late '70s, early '80s) and the 20 1911A1s in our armsroom were worn-out beyond repair, in all reality.

35-40 years of "training" with them, and some usage, and they were all but historical relics. I only had FIVE of the twenty, that we could qualify with, the others weren't functional. I tried to get them fixed "No parts available" was the tired old refrain back then.

The only parts I could get from upper echelon depots were magazines and the brown plastic grips. That was IT.

As I was supposed to be issued one, "if the balloon went up", I bought myself a LWT Commander and learned to shoot it.

Maybe the Army could rebuild a passel of them, but those I had weren't going to be rebuilt, they were good for scrap only.

I did 24 years in the military. Shot both the M1911A1 and the M9. Here's my two cents... There's no sense in issuing new pistol of any caliber unless and until the military properly trains the troops to use them. Small arms training is minimal, short, and poor. The pistol is only a tool.

I'd like to meet the man who took seven 230grain hydroshocks and wouldn't go down..I want him ony zone dodge team!

Right on!

It may be only a drop per gallon, but the upper echelons of American politico-military psyche are severely tainted with distrust of handguns in the hands of individuals.

Can't have 'em in the barracks.

Can't cultivate familiarity with 'em (let alone interest or [gasp!] hobby-level enjoyment).

It'd make more sense, IMHO, to encourage every boot to become a dedicated and skillful pistolero.

Troops who need a handgun should be issued a machine pistol. A machine pistol would be easier to learn how to shoot with limited training they get. Just make sure the machine pistol has a burst control device.

Everytime an SF team goes through SFAUC, which is typically every other year, he'll shoot at least 2500 rds through his pistol. The quality of the training varies, as the instructors come and go. Some guys get to go to Bill Rodger's course in Elijay GA. That is a 3K rd course. So, SOME guys are getting decent handgun training.

I always recall Dad's comments on his guns in WWII. He had a Springfield, shot it Expert and liked it. After the AAC realized he was a skilled mechanic he was sent to England to keep B17's flying. At some point they requisitioned his 03 and gave him an M1 Carbine, which he hated. In his words, "I pulled rank (he was a Master Sergeant and line chief by then) went to the armorers and traded it for a Thompson" He liked the Tommy Gun He also had a 1911 at one point, and always liked them, as well.

One thing glaringly missing from the story was any real discussion of bullets vs. caliber. As long as our troops are mandated to use ball ammo instead of modern LEO JHP ammo, common sense dictates... The bigger the hole, the better. Another vote for .45 ACP here, regardless of platform.

While the 1911 in 45 ACP is a proven combination, unless it is going to be just a stop-gap measure, they'll come up with an entirely new weapon and round.... just my opinion!

Phil

Anything to spend stupid amounts of money, without gaining anything at all.

Not necessarily, as far as I know the 1911 has never been used against troops wearing body armor such as our own troops wear.

Phil

The body armor our troops are issued will stop any service caliber handgun round. Hell, they'll stop 7.62x39 and 5.56 (non- armor piercing rounds).

They want low recoil for women troops and/or non-experienced males, penetration of body armor (although maybe not the solid plate armor which even a rifle won't penetrate), high capacity magazines, etc. Lightweight ammo wouldn't hurt either.

I'll make a broad statement and say that for the USA, the 20th Century belonged to the .45 ACP - an auto pistol version of the "big, slow and heavy" .45 Colt. Perhaps in the 21st Century it might be time to look at the 5.7x28.

I don't know a whole lot about the round other than its metric designation but just throwing it out there to get out of the 9mm-40-45 box.

That was exactly my point, the 1911 hasn't been up against body armor, and unless up close, it's too sloppy for an accurate head shot or even accurate placement for a disabling shot in the arm or leg area!

And maybe the army figures in the future we might be going up against better equipped aggressors!

Phil

Glock; Are you listening?

.45 ACP with 9 or 10 round (slightly staggered) magazine capacity and grip circumference similar to the 1911 so that average hands could handle the weapon easier and have better control. Overall size of the weapon would be similar to the commander sized pistols.

Barrel length should be between 4 1/2 and 5 inches and threaded muzzles should be standard or at least options. Tennifer treatment should be standard. Maybe offer a semi-accurized package that would still be reliable under field conditions.

You could have options available-grip adaptors, night sights, IR lasers. Use your basic, proven, striker fired system. Caliber options might include--let your imagination work here. Yahoo!!!!

10 to 1 anything considered will be run through all NATO countries and will be a joint effort...

Phil

A glock 40 would be hard to beat, naturally the numbnuts will need a safety of some sort. I cannot see them adopting the Croatian XDS. Which is a wish and fancy pistol anyway.

The Army had a solisitation out a few years back for a new sidearm, I believe it was called the JSOC pistol. It was to be a .45 acp double stack, polymer type pistol. I remember reading about FN's version that was submitted, it was widely thought to be the front runner at the time. Army dropped the project due to budget issues, now we're back talking about it again.

The XD Springfield 45 would be the best to replace the Beretta

The 1911 is considerably easier to maintain than the M9. But one of the Tupperware guns would be easier.

There is no shame in someone getting the answer before you.
All the army needs to do is follow the Corps example.

From what I remember, Slick Willie had all the Military 1911's cut up for scrap metal while he was in office, as he did not want them sold as Military Surplus, like M1 Garrands, were.

Crack vs. multiple hits = oh scheist!

I understand that part. Unfortunately tha tmeans folks issued a 22 pistol would suck easily as well as a 9 or 45

I was at Beretta armorers school between the two military tests for the 9mm contract competition. Beretta won the first, S&W cried foul and Beretta won the re-test.
The 9mm was accepted to be more NATO compliant, carry more rounds per pound and to allow for success to the non-shooters in the military.
I guess they have changed their mind.

Same government thinking that created the 10mm after the Miami bank robbery debacle. No plain clothes FBI's wanted to carry it, it was too heavy and hard to conceal. Hence, the birth of the 40S&W.

Now, where did the phrase FUBAR come from? Never mind.

He didn't get the 3 trees in the armory at Camp Foster in Okinawa.

If you couldn't get parts, how do you konw they were not repairable? I'm not saying you are wrong, but asking for repair parts indicates the thought they were serviceable. Not getting parts is different than a piece that can't be repaired.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Because, it was the Army that said so, and it was the Carter era, and that was that.

Absolutely. The Army is too full of its own institutional stupid to acknowledge that the familiarization they teach isn't gunfighting doctrine and that they need to look outside their organization to the one's who've gotten it right.

The surest way to increase handgun lethality against insurgents would to issue 9mm ammo with expanding bullets. Terrorists are not party to the Geneva Convention.

Personally, I think the .357 Sig round would be the optimum caliber for Military use. Better Penatration and bigger round capacity, or the ability to carry more rounds in the handgun platform. But those in charge of securing Military Contracts are not known for IQ or common sense. So we can pretty much rule out them going to a handgun in .357 Sig.

Here's what I posted on the other thread on the same subject :

The Military will buy the cheapest POS with the lowest bid, just like they did with the M9. They won't buy Sigs because they are too expensive. They won't buy 1911's because they are too expensive.

It will come down to either the S&W M&P or the Glock, IMO.

It would be nice if they went with a an American MFG, for a change.
Personally, I'd prefer the Ruger SR9 or SR45 over any M&P or better yet, a Ruger 1911, in .45 acp, of course.

They had the best and schitt-canned it!!

DUMBAZZES!!

Dumb [bleep] in the USARMY and politics is why we got stuck with a friggin 'turtle gun' for a Service Rifle!!

The Army hadn't bought any M1911A1 pistols since WW2. The ones I used to shoot were worn out junk. They had to be replaced after forty years on use.

I understand this was invented to use against modern body armor. I've seen one of these in civilian mode used and boy is it loud. In police and military mode it's available in in full auto. It must be a real blaster.

http://www.fnhusa.com/l/products/handguns/five-seven/

I wonder how they'll convince NATO to join? Germany is still really butthurt that we rejected their 5.7mm

Yep Speer Gold Dots or Federal HST's would fix the problem...

As to one posters statement about using hollow points...

Link


Phil

They just sent some out to rural PDs and Sheriff's Dept's awhile back, last year, along with M16A1s, and vehicles. Slick Willie didn't have them scrapped.

From what I understand we didn't sign the part that restricts the bullets. They just stupidly chose to follow it.

My vote is for an AR pistol. Same ammo. Same magazines. Seriously, why not?
Give them a single point sling so they can hang it under their arm or off their LBE.

Seriously you would want them to carry an M4 and then another AR pistol? Why not just shoot them with the M4?

Not for riflemen, just for people who don't have a rifle. Same concept as the M1 carbine or the grease gun.

yup, every time I take a POS Glock apart I realize it probably costs about 50 cents to make them, but a Glock 17 or 19 is a shootin machine. I have tried every 10mm, and 45ACP they make and just don't like them. The 40's are good but snappy and I would not shoot reloads in them.

That leads to an interesting point, with that little M4 available what would (should) the military expect of a pistol for general issue anyway? Personally I wouldn't want to bring a pistol to an assault weapon fight. Firepower, accuracy, body armor, weak cover and all that sort of stuff.

45acp, but not a 1911. Glock or S+W M+P. I know the Glock will stand the trials, even though I prefer the S+W myself.

So they were repairable then.

I think Ruger should still pay for Bill's anti gun stance in the 90s... and not get the contract, but then again, a US gun vs a foreign one, maybe I can forget the 90s.

All this was studied from 1898 to 1908.

Improvments:

Truncated FMJ bullets to meet all the rules.
Bump up to +P loads.


The sidearm is not a battle weapon. Simple as that.

I never understood why the 1911 was replace in the first place and the 45 ACP was shelved in favor of the 9mm since NATO countries were using it... the 45 worked well for its intended purpose.. it was reliable and well designed...

another 25 year social experiment by Washington that failed...

I have a 1927 built 45 ACP/1911... I wouldn't trade it for 5 Glocks of the caliber of my choice....this thing is built like a 53 Buick... lot of metal and tough....and the capability of any 45 ACP round needs no explanation unless someone doesn't know squat about a pistol round...

A pistol is an intermediate weapon who's only purpose is to allow you to fight long enough to acquire a rifle.

Uh huh. What do you think the stopping power is like when you can put a 3 round burst into a BG's eyeball at 25 yards?

with the amount of training and in combat situations, even if the gun is one hole group capable, putting a round or 3 in the head or eye is not in reach for about any of the shooters.

OK, I'll admit it wasn't a handgun, but a full-auto PS90 with a dot on it takes very little training.

I'd bet I could get 1/2 of a class of girls to hit a golf ball at 25 yards with it within 8 hrs of training.

A lot of units do have 10.5in uppers, great for mounted stuff. That is still no substitute for a handgun.

That pistol just makes too much sense...

ETA: I was referring to the FN five seven..

I've always wondered why the 357sig didn't catch on mo better than it did. I have very little interest in hand-guns but that 357sig sure looked like it was the sweet spot for hi-cap plastic guns.

Now that makes a lot of sense based on the types of fighting done today.

That idea is not as crazy as it sounds. I did a quick search and there are a number of companies with models already out there. Sig, KelTec, Rock Island, etc.

That's an interesting point. I guess in the back of my mind I've been thinking that myself. It would seem any pistol today would have to use armor piercing ammo to be effective.

There's a lot of truth in that statement. if one looks at all the WWII pictures of fighting airborne generals that jumped with the troops they all carry either M-1 Garands or 03 Springfields. In fact, General Ridgeway saved himself from capture because he was carry an M-1 with armor piercing ammo. He was out taking a wiz when he was attacked by a German tank trying to capture him alive. He figured what the hell and shot the tank driver through the tank. The tank went out of control and he escaped. Imagine if all he had was a 1911.

The 9mm had its own NATO pressures. The reason the 92F was picked was because we needed medium range missiles in Italy at the time. Not a well know fact but a firm belief back then by some Admirals and Generals of that era.

Let's see, Sherman tanks armed with a 75MM CANNON couldn't punch through the armor of a German tank, so this guy did it with a 3006 and AP ammo? Calling bullshit..

And is that why they recently did away with the AT4 and brought back the M1?.....

My guess is they'll go with an M&P in .40 S&W.

For the last 15 years, I've carried a P226 in my flight vest with two mags, and I've felt very comfortable with it. If I ever have to use it, I've had to ditch the aircraft somewhere bad, and I like the capacity of the 9mm in that situation.

Personally, I find a Glock 17 in .357 SIG to be about the best combo available (one lives in my nightstand), but you couldn't teach 75% of active duty personnel to shoot that cartridge well.

Agreed, but that would be the Glock 31, except in a REAL Caliber

I've got one that lives on my night stand with a Streamlight Lazer / Light Combo on it.

The mid sized version, the Glock 32 lives in the console of my F-250.

Well Ridgeway was a decorated general and did replace MacArthur in Korea so if he said so it's so. He also said he didn't think the 06 AP round would penetrate the tank but figured what the hell did he have to lose.

It's a proven fact the high speed AP rounds will penetrate amour that slow rounds will not do. Also, IIRC, it wasn't a Tiger tank, maybe a Panther or earlier. I don't have the history of the 82nd Airborne any more to check.

Looking at pictures of German WWII tanks each appears to have a viewing slit for the drivers to see. Some also appeared to have a periscope in addition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9725mm_Tokarev
7.62x25

Their a little slow on the draw on this one.

Right...sorry. Confused my Glocks...the 31.

I think the Ridgeway incident happened with an armored car, not a tank, but I might be mistaken (and it might have been Gen. Gavin, who carried a 1903, at least in Sicily, as I have some photos of him in a book with a Springfield).

All pistol cartridges are pretty poor stoppers with ball ammo. I'm not sure changing cartridges will netter much. Now changing pistols is a fine idea.

I know it is blasphemy but the capacity of the 1911 is its Achilles heel. High cap, low cost, "manstopper", easy to shoot and fit the gender neutral army: Glock 23 or some other companies version of it.

Aught to be a 40 cal something if they wanna look less stupid.

I would think with the pressure levels involved with that caliber, and the conditions we would expect a new sidearm to operate in, we might see many more failures. Just a thought.

Not to mention I would expect the females in the armed forces to have more of an issue with its recoil.

**not to side-track this into a discussion of females in the armed forces. **

40's will rip out pretty well, dont know about the meshing with the filly shooters though, their looking less stupid part comes from the a$$holes already having a billion rounds of that bought.

Got no particular horse in this discussion, but the article in the OP is drivel.

Combat handguns are facilitators, little more. They bridge the gap of extemporaneous need. Per usual, it's not the weapon as much as it is the operator.

That said, the 9mm pretty much sucks swamp water when all things are considered.

DD

Dad always said his sidearm was for use on himself so anything would do. <G>

Yep the Army is looking for a hardware solution to a software problem. In general the regular Army doesn't need anything special for a pistol. I'm not a Glock fan personally but from what I understand the service life is outstanding. Personally I was fine with the M9 and would of been fine with the Glock or a newer 1911.

Not to get into the merits of a sidearm in general, but I see this as an opportunity for them to get it right (again). IMO we should have never deserted the 1911 platform, or at a minimum the 45 acp. Room for improvement? Sure, but no different in the current selection.

Not a big fan of striker fired plastic pistols in the environments we expect our guys to operate, or the people we expect to operate them, but that is an opinion.

A new steel 45 acp is the answer to the question. But the real question is will they be able to see that without politics or bean counting figuring in. Doubtful.

YMMV

My Dad and Uncles carried ruskie and german weaponry in nam-bodia, wore enemy clothing, and got orders from Men called Westy and Plaster.

I know that MACV-SOG packed a variety of weapons. No 2 ways about it those guys were straight up warriors in every sense of the word.
I met a few guys that served in MACV-SOG when I was at Ft Bragg. Even got to meet and BS with a few that did the Son Tay raid.

Some insight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout#Weaponry_and_injuries

I know for a fact, because I had a friend that was in the US Marshall's Service that was involved in testing of handgun rounds shortly after this shootout occurred that all of the various rounds used by the FBI in this incident, including the pistol round that was adopted WOULD NOT penetrate the slanted windshield of a same model Monte Carlo used by the perps. The ONLY ROUND that DID penetrate was the .45 230 gr. hardball!

Why am I not surprised??

I can't remember where I've learned this: officers of foreign, especially Nazi, armies, carried handguns to kill their own soldiers. The US Army adopted the 1911A1 in .45 ACP as a battle weapon to kill soldiers of opposing armies.

Hence, a foreign military officer didn't need a battle weapon to shoot one of his soldiers in the nape of his neck.

It's a no brainer. Get back to the M1911A1 in .45 ACP.

Body armor is and will be more prevalent.

Therefore this....FN 5.7

High caps and easy to shoot.

How many 14-16hr days have you spent in full kit, IE body armor/plates combat load out? Choosing not to reduce an operator's kit by 20 ounces, in a fit of "nostalgia", is straight up stupid. Army SF has already answered this question for themselves, they chose the Glock.

I seen a few dozen automobile windshields shot with 9mm, from inside the vehicle and from the outside. I've never seen GI 9mm ball NOT penetrate, ever.

And how exactly is this relevant?

In the first place, the FBI agents at the Miami gunfight did not at any time attempt to shoot through the windshield of any of the cars involved. Their shot opportunities were through the open driver's window of the Monte Carlo, or at Platt as he exited the vehicle (during which he took the lethal hit from Dove's 9mm) or as he moved around the vehicles.

In the second place, if we're discussing current ammunition for current weapons such as a new military sidearm, the ammo offerings in 1986 are irrelevant. I've been present for T&E of many modern service caliber rounds, and aside from the .380, just about any 9mm, 357 SIG, or 40 S&W service round will reliably penetrate angled windshield glass and perform to FBI specs in gelatin thereafter.

But them bullets do some crazy, counter-intuitive stuff, don't they?

If you are referring to the way they refract, it's pretty straightforward physics and you can train for it. If you're shooting outside at a target inside, your bullets will hit above your point of aim by a few inches, so you aim low. Vice versa from inside. Training, not intuition.

I've used 3 different handguns in the military. 1911's when I joined, Beretta M9 a bit later and finally the a Sig P229 in 40 the last 8-10 years.

Loved the 1911, Hated the M9 and was ambivalent about the Sig.

Roger that. If a dude is six feet or so in from you and draws down on you, aim for his pelvis (The more angled the windshield is the more dramatic this effect is. So, a Jeep windshield won't cause this marked shift of impact)
The first round, maybe the second, will hit him in the sternum, most likely. Once you poke a hole the bullets will fly true. So, if you are shooting at a moving target and breaking glass each shoot, you've gotta aim low.

Keep digging, the Panther came AFTER the Tiger and there is NO WAY, NO WAY an 06 AP round will penetrate even a PKW III even. Your "proven facts" are legion around here. lol. BTW, ever look up Pinochet and Franco? feel free to apologize when you do...

Look friend, perhaps you are clueless as to what an "opinion" and "YMMV" means. But then I don't have the time or the patience to educate you, so in light of that I will just leave you with this. GFY!

So, I guess that means none.

Issue PFC Susie a 1911 with a full magazine � and a 36-inch lanyard firmly attached so that she can swing it 'round 'n' 'round while she's shrieking.

How many hours have you spent riding a ship through heavy seas, running simulated small boat attacks on combat vessels, standing watch on a ship at sea, working in the oilfield, spending hours on end in full dress out during GQ drills?

See I can ask questions too. The question is pointless when you frame it to where you and a select few are the only ones that can answer it. That does not mean that someone cannot have an opinion on a general matter, of which this is.

Please point out to me where the SF, or wannabe's, are the only one's being considered in this article.

I've logged a bit of RB-15/Zodiac time in my day. Most of it I'll admit was lobstering, snorkeling, and wake-boarding (takes real talent behind a 35hp rubber boat).

Army SF, unlike the rest of the Army, has the means and the money to buy whatever pistol they want. Unlike the Marines/MARSOC, they chose not to waste a huge sum of money on a dinosaur. That point is apparently lost on you and many others here.

Well that is where our opinions differ. I don't consider the 45 ACP a dinosaur. Not arguing specifically for the 1911 platform, as if you go back and read what I posted I mentioned the SIG P220 several times. Pretty sure those SIGs have a touch of time in the field as well.

Appreciate you are loyal to a GLOCK, and for SF that is well and good. But for average everyday dumbazzes they are getting in now, it is my opinion a striker fired weapon is not a good idea.

The Glock probably isn't the best solution for big Army. Some sort of striker-fired pistol is the best option, IMO. Maybe something yet to come.

Bill Rodgers has watched tons of brass hit the ground at his range over the last 30yr. He says Glocks and now S&W M&P's are the best thing going. The XD's and the Sigs are more reliable than a 1911 but fall far short of the two plastic guns. Don't discount the Sig 250, it may be the dark horse here, and it is truly MODULAR.

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?

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.

When I qualified with them they were listed as M-15s on the qualifications cards.

You're probably right, Dave. I may be confusing caliber and designation listed on the qualification card.

I'd have preferred the Combat Masterpiece to the Beretta 92.

That quite a statement. Don't the SEALS use Sigs?

WTF? Sigs don't hold up?

Yes. Been using them for years. Get them all covered with sand and salt water, and sometimes blood. And they're still using them.

Did he learn all about what tunnel rats used in VN while serving in the band and as a REMF pogue stateside, not once leaving the confines of the US to enter harm's way?

TAK is every bit as stupid as derby_didn't.

Just in case you guys didn't get the memo...




Travis

Bwahahahahahaha!!

Glad I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that...

rhetorical question on my part in order to solicit one of his profundities...

When my county SD in WI went to .45 ACP, they selected the SIG P220 in no small part because there were former SEALs involved in the selection process. I didn't like the single-stack configuration for patrol officers, but that was my only objection and since I wasn't in Patrol it didn't impact me personally. Most of the guys in Patrol went to quad mag pouches to keep personal loadouts at a reasonable level. Our SWAT team guys loved the P220. It was as accurate as my competition-configured 1911's, and at least as accurate and reliable. I never had my P220 puke on me in training or in competition, and never saw or heard of one puking during training or ops, no matter how wet or dirty or cold or slimy the conditions were.

That's good to hear. A P220 SAO is currently serving nightstand duty in my home.

Kevin,
While I agree with most of what you have above, there are plenty of reports of M1 Carbine in Korea failing to cycle in sub-freezing temps, and plenty of reports that the .30 carbine round failed to penetrate the quilted coats that the Chicoms wore, and that is not all on 300 yard shots. There are interviews with Korean War Vets - on both sides- that support this.

You are 100% on target with this:"... 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. "

It was never designed or intended to be a Main Issue Battle Rifle, yet was pressed into that service.

I'll also attest to its effectiveness as a PDW since that is my choice for home.

I did. The M-9 is too large for many people. I qualified expert with the M-9 (not hard standards) but my stubby fingers didn't grip them like they should! I was more proficient with the M-15.

yeah, and the garand would freeze up too, same action. Solution was to pee on them. As to the quilted chinese a lot of that is attributed to big quilted cold weather clothing and a half starved chinese. There is a clip somewhere of firing a carbine into a telephone poll. I would not want one shot at me.

My agency issued the Sig 226 and I carried them for close to 12 years.
This was during the '80s, we tested the hk usp also and liked them better but DOE admin chose the Sig and they were strong. I hated the ergo and the trigger was abysmal but with 1-2k rounds of free ammo/week you can learn to shoot anything well. They rarely broke but were difficult to dress around for concealed carry. I much prefer Glocks but would trust a Sig 226 made in Germany.

mike r

Same. For the rank and file, think it's the ergos of the present M9 that are a barrier to maximizing it's effective use, at least as much as any chambering debate. I've average or maybe smaller hands, and drawing and gripping the M9 was a fiddlyplucky affair to then shoot well, certainly not a design I felt good about whipping out under duress.

How did anybody know that, I've always wondered.

How many of those coats were examined in the snow and the ice just after battle?

Somebody ought to get one of these old Chinese quilted coats and shoot at it with a carbine, and then post it on Youtube.

I have a book at home titled �Battlefield Analysis of Infantry Weapons� compiled by Army officers during the Korean War. It is based on multiple after action interviews with front line troops about how they actually used their weapons and the effectiveness of each weapon. It covers everything from the .45 and hand grenades up to bazookas. It has a section on the carbine, I�ll have re-read it and see what it ways.

One thing I remember is that the majority of troops did not engage targets much beyond 200 yards even with their .30-06 Garands. They just didn�t think they�d hit much beyond that range and it was a waste of precious ammo to try. That makes me think the question of whether a .30 carbine could penetrate a heavy coat at 300 yards seem a bit moot. I'm sure someone will come up with a story of an exceptional rifleman shooting Chinese past 500 yards but the book covers the actions of the majority of GI's, not the exceptional individuals.

Another thing interesting while I�m thinking about this is that in Korea the BAR was actually the Queen of Battle, not the Garand. Men would hunker down at the start of a firefight and not fire their weapons until the BAR man opened up, then individual riflemen would begin firing from the area of the BAR fire spreading outward. Don�t know how that goes today since everyone has an automatic weapon but it is in interesting insight into how firepower more than accurate individual rounds inspires confidence.

I've read a couple books about the Chosin Reservoir campaign that repeat the claim that bullets from M1 carbines bounced off the Chi-Coms' quilted coats, but there was/is no real evidence of that happening.

It's possible that at the extremely low temperatures at that battle, some cartridges may have failed to ignite properly, I suppose... but I really doubt that a quilted cotton coat would repel even the lowly 30 Carbine bullet. I suspect that a lot of ChiComs were shot with carbines and failed to fall down immediately, even though they'd received serious GSW's.

But further to your post, it seems that most of the firefights that occurred in the Chosin campaign were conducted at very close range... the hilltop stand of Fox Company certainly did! Nobody had to worry about adjusting his point of aim for distances at all in most of those fights.

bullet placement is the key to handgun stopping power

Yep...practice, practice, practice...then more practice. A new (harder hitting) handgun isn't gonna solve the problem...

Well, training first, then practice, practice practice...

People gotta be given good basic training in handgun fundamentals. Unfortunately, I see a lot of ex-military guys who apparently weren't taught good handgun fundamentals. Practicing bad technique ain't gonna get the problem solved.

Second thing, if you don't know which parts of the bad guy to shoot with your blaster, you're much less likely to get an incapacitating hit.

Insufficient training is, always has, and always will be the biggest problem in any military.

Sufficient training trumps all else. Arguing whether a Glock is better than a Beretta or a Sig is worse than a Glock is a complete waste of fugging time.

And anybody that blames the handgun for their inability to shoot well, can't shoot.

Period.



Travis

I�ve never seen it, and I don�t believe it. At long range, heavy clothing can hinder the bullet, but inside 100 yards, no clothing is stopping or significantly slowing a .30 Carbine FMJ. I�ve heard that story repeated countless times, but I�ve never seen any official military report or test to substantiate it. There was some conjecture in some military reports that said that �could� be a factor, that�s all I�ve seen. I say failures to stop were due to either highly motivated enemy soldiers, or shots at ranges beyond the intent of the M1 Carbine.

The M1 Carbine has sights graduated for 300 yards, and I can hit out to that distance with my carbine. But the cartridge is really a 150 yard round. Beyond that range and you should expect that effectiveness goes down pretty quick. So I say that those failures were due to longer shots. Until I see some substantial testing that shows otherwise, that�s what I�ll choose to believe. Most tests I�ve seen show the M1 Carbine out-penetrating the 5.56 out to 150 yards. So I maintain that within the rifle�s intended purpose, it was not only adequate for the job, but damn near ideal.

Dammm good choice sir. The M1 Carbine is a super reliable rifle, and so easy to shoot that with just 10 minutes of training, you can have a brand new shooter connecting consistently at 100 yards. The only problem with the cartridge has been cartridge development, the power is there if you load it right. The best round I�m aware of is the Cor-Bon with the Barnes 100 grain X bullet. Inside of 200 yards I�ll confidently say it will put anyone down with much more authority than a 5.56 FMJ. And a .30 Carbine soft point will also put people down with great authority inside of 150 yards. As long as barrier penetration isn�t too much of a concern, the Winchester 110 grain JHP is just devastating. At 100 yards it hits like a .357 magnum at the muzzle.

Even FMJ�s are pretty effective out to about 150 yards, and the .30 Carbine FMJ is really very good at barrier penetration. I shot a round THROUGH a small 12� pine tree at about 50 yards.

I share your enthusiasm. My GI Carbine is the one rifle everyone in the house not only knows how to use, but they�re both confident and competent with it. Good choice my friend.

Late 60's, 11-B-10 A.I.T. (light infantry training), I recall maybe a couple of hours at most, all in only one day, of basic general familiarization - disassembly/cleaning/reassembly - and firing a few clips through the 1911. No qualification requirements whatsoever. The 1911's we used for training were no telling how old and for the most part all but wore out.

This myth apparently will never die. An M-1 Carbine military ball load will penetrate Level III soft body armor, which is thicker than the armor typically worn by law enforcement officers.

Maybe we should issue quilted Chinese Army winter coats to all of our police departments instead of Kevlar vests.

The only way an M-1 Carbine bullet will fail to penetrate a quilted winter coat (and the person who is wearing it) is if it doesn't HIT the quilted winter coat.

What's that old saying about the army is always preparing for the previous war...?

I'd want a semi auto in 308 and something like an HK in 45 ACP.

Practice and train all you want.

But the game changes when you are shooting at a real man who most likely is shooting back at you or has some other weapon that can kill you and can move in three dimensions while you are trying to shoot him.

How do you practice that?

Some of these ex-military guys with bad fundamentals are still here. I'm sure many of them that have seen action must know something about how to survive a real gun fight.

Just sayin...

I admit, it's hard to practice that.

But you can train for it. I've been involved in multiple such training events. Force-on-force training with Airsoft or SIMUNITION does wonders for preparing people to shoot much, much better in subsequent deadly force situations. Combine that with computer simulator training and solid square-range handgun fundamentals, and you can produce some pretty good officer-involved shooting results. I know of a good number of agencies that have done exactly that with their cops' inservice training, and their hit ratios in real street shootings have dramatically improved.

Going from 20% hit ratios to 90%+ hit ratios is pretty convincing proof of the value of reality based training, in my view.

That's also why some folks (like me) can kill a bull moose with a 270.

I attended a CQB course put on by Northern Red back in August. The lead istructor, Tom Spooner, is a retired US Army Detachment D operator. I specifically asked him what "the unit" uses and he said pretty much to the man, Glock and M&P. They used the M9 then converted to 1911, which were unreliable, then adopted the Glocks and Smiths. I love my 1911s but I carry a 220 everyday. Apart from it being a boat anchor, it never not feeds or goes bang.

Until you had to carry it all.

Dad had me laughing about issued weapons when he told the story of his carbine. As a skilled mechanic they kept him in England during WWII, keeping B17's in the air. At some point someone noticed he still had his 03 Springfield, which he liked and used to qualify Expert. His Springfield was requisitioned, and he was issued an M1 carbine, which annoyed the hell out of him. In his words, he "pulled rank" (he was a Master Sergeant by then) with the armorer and claimed a Thompson SMG. He liked the Thompson.

Thompson's are a heavy chunk of steel to lug around.

Why are they even bothering? They still won't learn how carry or use them correctly.

So who said you'd be so dumb as to be IN the tunnel when you tossed the frag, hmm?

yep, since he was in England, I'd have made them give me a pistol, instead of a longarm. Why lug around either the carbine or the tsmg.? What are you scared of, some drunken Limeys?

Dam Boy...........

My question was also rhetorical (Jorge). Never mind that Sigs have been one of two ( ok, I'll give you three) of the best rated pistols ever produced. And the SEALS don't usually choose a sidearm based on it's coddling requirements.

Based on that, I've had a P220 or P226 for years. Never once has either tripped over a line.

Well, maybe not all the teams, but Seal Team 6 sure did (ie, M66 .357 Smiths. :-)

I knew that the old Sharkman was lying when he said how many rds that they put thru those styofoam guns , of "full charge magnum ammo".

You can't simulate somebody trying to kill you.

I understand we can only do the best we can to prepare for those situations. I get it.

My point is: nobody knows how they are going to respond in real combat, where somebody has got to live and somebody has got to die. Some guys that can't shoot worth a damn pull through every time and some guys that are excellent shots on the range wind up dead.

Have several, with the Rockola and Winchester my favorites.

Then again, I have several that have been completely reworked for .45 Win Mag...yes, that's right. No questions about quilted Chicom penetration with those!!!

Sometime back I actually did acquire a National Postal Meter M1. Need to shoot it one of these days. The good bullets designed for it are not easy to find, however.

I think one outfit has now got an AR lower which can use grease gun magazines in .45 ACP, which are still fairly easy to buy. Combined with an appropriate .45 ACP upper, one would gain decent velocity and power, and still have a fairly handy weapon.

.223 It's an AR15 pistol.

what is the difference between a 357 Sig and a 357 magnum ?????

norm

.357 Sig is a necked down .40 S&W.

If the military ever gives up on the 9mm, the .40S&W is the most likely replacement. The .45 ACP fans are just dreaming.

Mostly the rim means revolver.
semi-rimmed means better feeding in semi auto pistols.

Some of you 1911 fans need to talk to some real armorers. Not gun queers. Not hobbyists. I mean guys that stand in a room and fix broken schit for 8 hours a day.



Travis

Well, that's where the science says you're wrong.

First example: since WWI, students of aircraft dogfights have known that pilots who survived/won 3 or more dogfights would go on to become multiple aces the vast majority of the time. But the majority of rookie pilots were shot down and killed before they got the necessary combat experience. Boelke and Richtofen used that information to teach new pilots how to survive their first 3 dogfights, and those guys became overwhelmingly successful.

The US found this to be true, and taught dogfighting until the VietNam era. They stopped in the late 50's and in the skies over Viet Nam our fighter pilots got their tails waxed by Chinese and North VietNamese pilots. We started teaching dogfighting again (eg, the Navy's Top Gun program) and once again our pilots enjoyed success in combat.

Switch to current reality based training. Up until the late 90's police gunfight performance was abysmal... hit probabilities of less than 20% nationwide, and lots of officers getting shot in gunfights. Agencies that have implemented RBT protocols are now seeing hit probabilities of 90% and greater, and far fewer cops are getting hit by incoming rounds. One agency I know of had their hit probability go to 97% and the outcomes of all their OIS's in the 2 years following their RBT training were extremely positive: 34 OIS's, all 34 felons were shot and incapacitated, 27 of them DRT (=low lawsuit probability) and ZERO officers shot.

Training people in combatives under realistic conditions greatly increases the probability that they will perform to expectations successfully in actual combat.

Our forces have been pussified to the point that they can't physically handle a weapon that worked well for close to seventy five years.

Go figure.

I'm pretty sure there were a bunch of combat infantrymen and officers in the European and Asian theaters who couldn't hit the side of a barn with their issued 1911s.

Some could, and those are the ones we heard about.

My Dad was one - not a combat officer but a surgeon about a mile behind the lines. Even as a medical officer he was issued a .45. Said he couldn't hit squat with it. He got a Luger and said he liked it much better and could actually hit things with it.

He did like the 1911 since it made a good club. He was a boxer in college and pretty good at handling physical confrontations. He stayed in Europe until 1946 and he said after the war a lot of the "German boys" (he was about 32 years old when the war ended) were pretty disgruntled by the outcome and there were some random assaults on American soldiers but he felt more confident walking the streets of Frankfurt with his "club".

That's a Marine. That's a first model MEU-SOC 1911.

Simunitions or something equivalent. Even airsoft will do, but you train for it with force on force training.

Okay mark this day down in history, because I'm calling it. The US Military will NEVER adopt the .40 S&W. It MAY find some use in small units but it will never be adopted for general use.

The main reason being that the .40 S&W beats pistols to death, and sends them all to an early grave. With the energy it generates, it really should be in a pistol the size of a .45 ACP, then it would have some real longevity.

My cousin was a Marine armorer who served in Iraq. He found the 1911 preferable to work on over the M9.

Bullchit. I trained with people from SEAL team 2 in the early 1990's. I've trained with guys who were from 2nd Ranger BN back then also. And I've trained just a couple of years ago with a US Army Reserve unit. And I'm here to tell you, from what I saw, the Army Reserve unit of today, would wipe the floor with Spec-Ops soldiers of days past.

Just my observation, YMMV

Crane is the repository for the Department Of The Navy, but regardless, point being, they are NOT using POS M-9s..

I have spoken to them and when a 1911 is built correctly it is extremely trouble free.

friend of mine locally owns a gun store. He had about ten boxes of m1carbine ammo, headstamped 1942, 30buck a box. I should have bought it all, as the carbine was one of my first collection addictions.
You trip accross it but have to look, cmp sometimes sells it.

It all comes down to everything being held to a strict specification. The 1911 of today suffers from the same issue that plagues a lot of IBM compaitble PC's, and that is; none of them (with the exception of the Taurus) are 100% built by one builder.

The original military 1911 actually required very little hand fitting of parts, and it was more than sufficiently reliable. That's because the US Military's requirements for holding spec bordered on oppressive.

When I worked on surplus 1911's, we had several thousand that needed re-finishing. All were stripped of parts, all the parts were thrown into bins with no concern about keeping the parts with the original gun (something I protested, but I lost that protest). Then guns were randomly assembled form bins of parts. The only part that gave us consistent problems was the safety; everything else just dropped in, and the guns worked perfectly. Really quite amazing when you think about it.

But we don't have that kind of uniformity today. That's why so many parts are made oversized and now require so much hand fitting.

So in some ways, the 1911 is better than ever, but in other ways the design has regressed.

So it's harder to be a military armorer for 1911's today than it was in WW II.

My cousin said he still would rather work in 1911's all day long than M9's. And he had a rather passionate hatred for the Sig 228. The 228 is a great pistol, unitl you tear the lower down; then you think it was designed by a mad man.

You guys must have spoken to different armorers than I have.



Travis

[/quote]My cousin was a Marine armorer who served in Iraq. He found the 1911 preferable to work on over the M9. [/quote]

I love my M9's. That said, they have a LOT of parts. If you've ever watched the video of one of Beretta's top armorers at Beretta Italy doing a complete disassembly and reassembly, you'd see what I mean. The process is something beautiful to watch, though.

I love my M9's. That said, they have a LOT of parts. If you've ever watched the video of one of Beretta's top armorers at Beretta Italy doing a complete disassembly and reassembly, you'd see what I mean. The process is something beautiful to watch, though. [/quote]

Things get real exciting when a locking block breaks. It's a two man job with the gun in a vise to get the slide to open. Chuck the gun in the vise, one guy takes a hammer and a pin punch to drive the locking lugs down out of the slide, while the other pulls back on the slide.

If one states differently IMHO and experience he doesn't completely understand the 1911 design criteria. There are certainly brands of 1911's that are POS

My non-expert answer: the 357 Sig was meant to replicate the 357 magnum ballistics with a 125-grain bullet with a rather fast burning powder. IOW, spit that pill at about 1400 fps. I believe that the heaviest bullet in in a commercial Sig loading is 147-grain at ~ 1200 fps. Heavier than that, I don't think the Sig can keep up with a 357 magnum and slower powders and a longer revolver barrel.

However, I can say with the light bullet loading, I can pick out a dinner plate-sized target at a hundred yards and scare it badly with my P226. For a pistol loading it's quite flat shooting. I haven't fired any of the 147-grain loads but they should be as good depending on the pistol.

She is a flat shooting little sucker, that's for sure.

The ones I have spoken to understand and appreciate the design.

They simply see them come across their bench more than other designs.



Travis

That could suggest a lot of operator error as well Travis

When I was in 2nd Armor Division
HELL ON WHEELS in 1974 we were issued a 45 caliber pistol.
The women WAC's were given 38 special revolvers.
Maybe the thinking was that the enemy soldiers the women might encounter would not be determined warriors?
whelennut

thought i would take a picture of this, off topic but the m1carbine has been mentioned in this thread:
Lake City 1942 head stamp m1carbine .30 ball, in the original unopened boxes. First year production i think as the carbine came into existence around then. Bet it still works


whats interesting is four boxes of this would fit in a small fanny pack/200rounds

Operator error is one of many realities a pistol faces.


Travis

I guess you didn't think about the queer and women soldiers and sailors who can't rack the slide let alone qualify with a 45.

Get shed of the non combat trash in the military and go back to the 45 ACP..

Out of curiosity, for what outfit did you serve?

My mileage does vary.

g

I was in the 501st CAB, a medic, radio operator.. I think my unit was across the road from Whelennut, but I might be wrong, don't remember.
I wish I'd had a 1911 then. Today it is my favorite hand gun.

I'd venture that those that come across their bench weren't correctly fitted to begin with. That is a curse of the 1911 they need proper fitting and usually that means a bit of hand fitting which drive the cost up. The marines claim that they stayed with the 1911 because of their trouble free ability through thousands of rounds.
I have my 1911's checked for proper fitting before I put many rounds through them and have zero issues that way.