So for military purposes, there are perhaps 3 drawbacks to the .45 ACP.

1 - Barrier penetraton. That big bullet just has a lot of surface area and it doesn't penetrate nearly as well as the 9mm against hardened barriers.

2 - Recoil. Personally I've never seen anyone who has had COMPETENT instruction not shoot a .45 ACP well. My daughter at age 12 was lights out with 230 grain hardball out of my LIGHTWEIGHT commander. But there are those sissys who whine, so I guess this is a drawback.

3 - Weight. Logistically pallets of .45 ACP are REALLY HEAVY, and the ammo is heavy to carry (not that an individual will ever carry enough that it matters). So I really just don't see this as a real big issue.

The solution?

Let's get real, the .45 ACP hasn't been upgraded for over a century now. Develop the cartridge further. Over the past century there have been a ton of very good, very viable AP rounds for the .45 ACP that the military could use and not be in violation of The Hague accords. Most employ lighter, faster moving bullets.

If we did this, we could get pistols that still have more frontal diameter, lighter recoil, flatter trajectory, and better barrier penetration.

So why doesn't the military look into cartridge development like they did when the 9mm's barrier penetration was found to be insufficient?

All I know is that when I use the FN 5.7 on Call of Duty I am totally unstoppable.



Travis

My thoughts?

E=mc^2.

Develop a bullet that goes the speed of light. Since ultimately energy has to remain constant, when the light speed bullet hits something and slows down, either it imparts energy into the target OR converts to mass in order to make things equal.

The mass then imparts energy into the target.

How can this not work?

1) 45 or 9, neither of them are worth a poop for penetrating barriers, but that's not what a pistol is used for

2) Agreed, however now that we have women and limp wristers in the military, racking the slide on a 1911 does require a bit more strength than some can muster.

3) As a sidearm is not a primary weapon, the number of rounds carried by a soldier is not a significant portion of the weight they pack. I can't imagine a soldier packing more than 50 rds of handgun ammo, and there is about 1# difference between 50 rds of 9 and 45.

It doesn't matter what the troops shoot, until you train them how to shoot.

Well, for shooting up a standard Mercedes Benz sedan from the back seat of a motorcycle, I think the 9mm FMJ would have a definite edge over the .45 ACP.

For anything with ballistic armor on it, tough, I don't think there's going to be much difference.

Exactly!

Until the military embraces a different paradigm about the role of the sidearm in military service and the training that would have to accompany that shift, the handgun for them is really nothing more than a rabbit's foot and why anyone would give a hoot what they use is beyond me.

It's kind of like asking a wino what's the best red to serve with veal.

9mm NATO typically has better barrier penetration than the 5.56 inside of 100 yards. It will also out-penetrate most .44 mag loads on barrier penetration. It's a seriously punchy little cartridge.

That's what baffles this old guy. The Army knows it's tough to train personal to be proficient with a handgun. Hence, the reason for building and issuing the M-1 carbine for many troops that would normally have been issued a 1911. Also the reason for issuing a bayonet with the battle rifle to infantry. Troops can be trained to use a battle rifle and bayonet and gain a reasonable level of proficiency with minimal time.

So what's the logic behind issuing everyone a handgun?

I am calling BS! I have shot a 44 mag and 9mm through enough cars doors to know it will not out penetrate a properly loaded 44 mag. A properly loaded 45 ACP in +P form will penetrate as good and sometimes better than 9mm on car doors.

what sort of cartridge development do you suggest. if you are limited to hard ball the only thing you can do is speed it up, which as you mentioned it could potentially have too much recoil as it is. The reason the 9mm has developed into a decent round is because bullets have developed. We have a very nice selection of modern bullets.

the other problem you left out is 45 acp always means less rounds in a pistol.

Which gets to one of my pet peeves with the wonder nine, the belief the a double stack hi-cap mag will make up for lack of shooting skills. Just because one has 15-20 rds on tap doesn't mean they are better served than having 8-10.

The Army was convinced in 1945 that the 9mm was the better military round primarily because of barrier penetration. They used old GI helmets for their test. I don't remember the details, but 45's were bouncing off the helmets at ranges over about 30'. The 9mm loads were still giving complete penetration beyond 100 yards.

It is well known that 9mm easily punches through some of the lighter body armor while 45 won't

You can bet that in future conflicts we will see more and more enemies wearing some type of body armor. Unless there is some way to make 45 better in this regard going back to the 45 would make as much sense as trading in the Hummers for horses and wagons.

I have been thinking about this. There more than likely going to stick with the 9mm. Why dosent someone come out with a truncated cone 147gr FMJ load in +P?

The flat point should boost stopping power some and the addition bullet weight should boost penetration as well.

Why not just buy +P gold dots

Cant argue with that. I was just thinking of the truncated cone bullet if there limited to FMJ.

I also have some serious doubts about that statement Kevin. How about a link to your source?

Jerry

Sure it does. If there are 11 bad guys, 15-20 would be better. Or 6 bad guys you had to shoot twice. Or 4 bad guys that were moving and hard to hit. Or 3 bad guys wearing soft armor. Or 2 bad guys who needed suppressive fire.

More bullets and less reloading is always good. If somebody's of the mindset to "spray and pray" with 15 rounds, they're the same guy who's gonna spray and pray with 8 rounds. That's a software issue, not a hardware issue.

This would really be coming full circle, as the very first 9mm ammo was a truncated cone with a small flat point-although it was 124gr. As far as +P, Most European ammo is already there.

Jer

All the 9mm ball I own comes to a pretty definite point. More so than say, .45 ball which has a very rounded nose. The 9mm stuff is a lot more pointed and certainly gives the impression that in ball configuration, it would be a good penetrator. I can't say it would out penetrate the .44 mag, but my experience with the .44 mag is with jacketed soft points or cast, and shooting against thick steel, the 9mm certainly craters the metal significantly, while the .44 causes a very large, round dent.

I don't have any steel thin enough for either of them to penetrate, so I can't definitively say one will go through where the other doesn't.

Dan

And then there is the SMG. WWII really brought that to light. It's about the number of rounds ...

+1. No way a 9mm is out penetrating the 44 on anything given the proper bullet. Would love to see the link please.

The higher the velocity the better a bullet penetrates steel no matter the construction. Use a proper constructed bullet and penetration increases again in steel. I know this from much experience shooting steel. The 44 mag has more speed than a 9mm and more momentum as well. Use a properly constructed bullet in the 44 mag and it will shooting through any part of a car or truck door, not so with the 9mm.

...in my experience, i agree with this.

while the "tiny 9" is a fabulous round--and i've fired them completely through railroad ties--they can't hold a candle to properly loaded .44's and their ability to penetrate.

i've fired 290 gr hardcast pills completely through 14 inch diameter logs, and on through a jug of water behind that, and it continued on to plow into the earth, for an awesome display of penetration and power...

regarding the potential for penetration on car doors--i'll prefer the heavy .45 auto pills with appropriate construction (rather than the 9 mm)...

Oh I don't know. 8 to 10 rounds with a 4 in front of it beats just about any 15 to 20 rounds with a 3 in front of it.

Just saying.

Yeah, at the end of the day its the need of how quickly you can drop someone at rock throwing distance before you're dead or hit.

The rest are all wants.

There isn't... But I'd prefer to carry an M1 or M4 carbine over either a 45 or a 9mm

If one takes the 45 loaded with 230 grain RJM at the original velocity of about 850 fps plus or minus and shoot a 55 gallon steel drum the bullet will penetrate the on side and dent the offside and stay inside the drum. A 9 mm with RJM will exit the drum. But increase the 45 ACP velocity to 1000 fps as much as the +P loads produce and the 45 ACP exits both sides of the drum.

@jwp475, can a 1911 take feeding those 45acp +p loads consistently?

Not sure what you mean by consistently, I shoot them or 45 Suppers exclusively. The key to a 1911 lasting with the heavier loads is that it is properly fitted all of them are not. I send mine the JRH Advanced Gun smithing if I have any concerns and never look back.

jwp475, I thought most +p loads, (9mm, 45acp) are harder on the handgun? Thought awhile back when I was looking at 9mm handguns some brands recommended NOT shooting +p loads. But it's been awhile since I've looked.

By consistently, I mean shooting the +p loads all the time, foregoing shooting regular/standard pressure loads. The 45acp seems kind of slow, so why not shoot the 45acp all the time?

Only drawback would be changing the soft shooting 1911 to something a little more snappier in recoil.

As I posted I shoot nothing but +Ps or Supers in mine. I like the performance and feel better armed witH them.

Jesus

[bleep]'

Christ



Travis

You're a [bleep]' idiot.

"Just sayin'."


Travis

If I couldn't shoot, I'd definitely carry a shotgun.



Travis

I'm betting they end up with something along the lines of the hk mp7. Low recoil, penetrates body armor, light weight gun and ammo, easy to shoot. I doubt its a good idea, but I'll bet that's where they end up. Maybe Hi-Point could tool up to submit a gun. LOL

You are probably right but that would be a stop gap measure. What's going to be needed is a shoulder fired rocket with probably a shaped charge that will penetrate body armor and blow the occupant in the body armor to kingdom come and back.

I'm thinking of medieval times when we went from chain mail only to chain mail and plate armor to firearms and gunpowder and someone said ah screw the armor.

I suppose there is this possibility as well. In the not to distant future we will have perfected hand held lasers to such a extent that we will just vaporize an opponent and than body armor won't matter at all.

Me too, except I keep blinding myself with my own flashbangs.

You want a real penitrator try the 7.62x25 it got the job done

in WW2 and works good against light steel and thick back packs

Course it dosn't have lots of expanding power as it was used as

such. With a hollow point bullet it might be the cats meoww.

Bob

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.

Well you just answered my question. What is needed is a M-1 carbine type weapon for support troops.

A PDW is a good idea, but there will always be a need for handguns. Really the M4 isn't really all that big and heavy unless you load it down with a bunch of crap. Still, some support troops would benefit from an even lighter, more compact weapon. So something like the AR pistols with the "arm brace", and an Aimpoint Micro T-2 with some simple, light back up iron sights, and maybe even a laser for low light situations (since lasers are super small and light these days). Keep it under 5lbs, and as compact as possible. Think of the AR version of the Russian Suchka (AKS-74U, aka Krink).

The M1 Carbine would still be a hell of a PDW today. For civilians who can load the Cor-Bon 100 grain JHP with the Barnes X bullet, it's VERY effective.

There's no doubt that handguns are necessary especially for special operations, police, drivers, etc. I just question giving everybody one when most people can't hit the broad side of barn with a handgun standing inside the barn.

Agreed.

A handgun is the most difficult of all guns to hit with. Not only does it take good training to become proficient, but it takes regular practice to STAY proficient. If you're not going to get that, then give them a carbine...or both.

The problem support troops have with rifles, is they tend to leave them in their vehicles, or someplace close by but not ON them. So the smaller and lighter you can make them, the more apt they are to have them with. The AKS-74U is a damn good little PDW, it fits the size and weight requirements very well. But it's a very short range proposition; and that's all it needs to be.

Now we are talking on the same page. That's what I liked about the M-1 carbine light and always handy. When I drove truck I had either a M-16A1 or A2 I forget which but I always left the dang thing in the truck. Same thing when I was a chaplain's assistant and I always left the dang thing in the jeep. I would have love to have had my M-1 carbine back. I never had a paratrooper model but they looked even handier.

That AKS-74U does look to be the answer.