Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns US Military and the .45 ACP

Regarding the .44 mag, notice I said "most" loads. "Most" factory loads for .44 mag are JHP and JSP, 9mm will out-penetrate (not by much) those loads on barriers and soft body armor. 9mm will NOT out penetrate .44 magnum hard cast.

In soft body armor 9mm NATO is pretty much the benchmark.

I know that our troops wear hard plates under the soft.

word is the "administration" is leaning towards a 7 round pistol in the 7 x 20 Nambu cartridge.

I bet they wind up with a .40 S&W but maybe not cause it might hurt a dainty wrist (male or female).

Maybe, instead of compromising between two 100+ year old cartridges, it is time something a little more "cutting edge" was adopted.

A 200gr. flat nose FMJ 10mm loaded at 1050fps would be the best option I can think of. More capacity than a .45 in the same size gun without the high pressure, durability issues of the .40s&w. Will also penetrate as well or better than 9mm.

My opinion is if the recoil of a mild 10mm intimidates you, you have no business wearing a badge or being on a battle field.

A 45 Super pressure 27 to 28 thousand psi which lower than the 40 S&W will penetrate a very long ways in flat point configuration. So will a 255 grain hard cast flat point, IMHO a +P loaded ACP would give a 9mm a run for its money in the penetration department with a rather large wound channel.

Looking more and more at it, seems like the Sig P227 would be a prime contender.

That would be a bad azz load, but you know the sissy city boys and the little girls will whine like little babies if they were made to shoot that.

Going to war ain't for the feint of heart.

It's sounding more and more like what's needed is a machine pistol.

Perfect, a strong 45 for the strong

and these for the city boys and little girls...

It is not about size it is about learning to shoot one correctly. I have seen enough small women shoot even a 44 mag very well. A 1911 even in 45 Super form isn't hard to hit with in my experience.

I've yet to see a machine pistol that was worth a chit. They're cool and fun, but I can do a WHOLE lot more damage with a semi-auto than pretty much anyone could do with a machine pistol.

Yep. My daughter when she was 12 actually prefered my LW Commander with .45 hardball, and she shot it quite well. At that point I doubt she broke 100lbs on the scale.

Back in the '90's my female room mate of maybe 120lbs soaking wet shot my 4" Anaconda as well as it could be shot.

The secret, they had trust in the person teaching them, and they were taught right.

I also started them small and worked up to the bigger guns; something the military really doesn't do.

Maybe they ought to just reserve the fighting to the country folk who aren't scared to death of a firearm.

If you have to shoot each of those 11 guys twice with the 9, that's still a reload and more time on target than one shot each with the 45. Of course that opens up a whole nuther can of worms. It seems that the troops that are likely to be taking care of business with a handgun and have the option to choose go with the 45, and likely for good reason.

The MP38 and MP40 seem to do alright in the right hands. The Sten didn't seem to do to bad either. Surely we can do as well today manufacturing something like them.

Sub-machine guns are not the same as machine pistols

While the Germans called it a machine pistol, the rest of the world called that a sub-machine gun. If you're talking about SMG's, that's a different subject. But personally I thought the MP40 sucked. All things considered the STEN was the best SMG of the war. VERY reliable (far more than the MP40), effective, easy to control, and CHEAP. At the height of production they were costing the British government $9.00 per copy to produce.

I use the German term from WWI and WWII. Live with it.

These days you can build a .223 carbine at the same weight of a SMG and the ammo is lighter. The SMG is a very specialized weapon for very specific role.

All the huff and puff over the "PDW", the answer is staring them right in the face right now. Put a lightweight 12" barrel on an M4, a small optic and you're ready to go. You'd be best off if the weapon were semi-auto. Yeah the lightweight barrel will heat up, but let's remember, this is NOT a front line weapon, this is a weapon for support troops.

I'm well aware of all of that. As to what was better well that's subjective. I'm not saying we should resurrect those firearms but that what is needed is something like them for the average troop. Handguns have always been considered as personal defense weapons for certain personal NOT major battle weapons for everybody. The primary purpose of the old M-1 carbine was to give the average troop a personal defense weapon that just about everybody could use.

Heck, you have convinced me to get back to handgun shooting because handguns require much more practice to be proficient than any rifle. My rifles now just sit in the safe. I can grab a rifle, a hundred rounds and be reasonable proficient in a short time not so with a pistol.

If pistols are going to be a major battle weapon now then practice is going to be needed to be proficient and stay proficient. If the purpose of giving everyone a personal weapon for shooting someone under 7 yards, the standard handgun combat range, than a .45 ACP or even the 9MM should do. Heck, even a .380 should do.

So the question is has the pistol become a major battle weapon for the average troop or is the pistol a last ditch weapon for close self defense? Personally, I'd rather have a good reliable battle rifle with a good bayonet such as a M-1 or M-14. Even a reliable M-1 carbine with a bayonet is a good choice for many applications.