Considering the marksmanship (or lack thereof) of those special populations that primarily carry a pistol, is it worth the reduced round count to carry a .45?

quote:

---

That's a lot of features in an off the rack gun.

Article says the safety and reliability are the problem. Safety on the slide does seem odd.

---

While it can be used as a safety, that isn't the main purpose of the slide mounted safety/decocker. It's a DA/SA gun, so its designed to be carried with the hammer down and the safety off. Think of the safety/decocker as primarily a decocker and it doesn't seem as odd.

Reliability will be a problem with the next pistol regardless of what they pick, and would have been a problem with the Sig if they'd adopted it in the 80s as well. That's because the Army is going to buy the cheapest magazines possible, the guns are unlikely to get springs replaced at proper intervals, and they're going to shoot the hell out of them over the course of the next 30 years.

As other people have said, pistols are really just not that important to the majority of the Army. Those who need a pistol for anything other than being able to walk around on base without a rifle can get what they want if they're not comfortable with a Beretta, so in the end it really isn't that big of a deal....but lots of gun owners enjoy owning the issued pistol, so we're going to pay way more attention to this than it deserves.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

B) STG 2nd Class Matthew Axelson would beg to differ concerning engagements with pistols. (I'm sure there are plenty of other records of pistols being used in combat - he is just the first case that came to mind).

---

SOCOM != standard Army issue sidearm

---

A Sig 9mm and a Beretta 9mm fire the same round.

---

This thread is discussing the weapon, not the ammunition. How many super secret squirrels use their side arms doesn't have much of a bearing on what the army issues to its tank drivers.

---

The topic for which I was quoted had to do with the adequacy of a 9mm round, and whether it was really ever used in battle as it pertaoned to a poster questioning why the Army even has a sidearm. I pointed out that, in this part of the discussion, the platform is irrelevant because a 9mm is a 9mm once the primer is popped.

I hope that helps.

quote:

---

Ball 9 vs. Ball .45.... Not much of a difference.

---

Yes there is. Granted, it is not a night and day difference, but a .45 ball has 2x the mass as a 9mm ball round, and moves slower. More energy is imparted into the target.

The biggest drawback with 9mm ball is that the ogive design combined with the speed of the round does not lead to as much transfer of energy into a soft target - the round tends to punch through.

I still have no desire to get hit with one, dont get me wtong.

quote:

---

quote:

---

A) FMJ military ball in 9mm is not the same as civilian HP ammo. Ball pretty much sucks for anything outside of punching holes in paper. And since we adhere to certain treaties, HP or expanding ammo is illegal on the battlefield.

---

The conflation of expanding bullets with explosive bullets should be ended by executive order i.e. the United States no longer interprets the prohibition of explosive projectiles under treaty to include hollow point or expanding bullets. It is asinine that the military lacks the same tools as just about every police department in the US.

Next step, an evaluation of terminal ballistics of ball vs. Hornady XTP. That would make the 9x19mm very adequate in most cases.

---

Manufacturing capacity for ammo was seemingly outstripped last time. Dunno if we could produce enough HP ammo for the military during the next one.

quote:

---

Dunno if we could produce enough HP ammo for the military during the next one.

---

ATK has huge IDIQ contracts with DHS, state, and local law enforcement. The capacity exists within the scope of those contracts. In any case, this is slight adjustment on the production line after the bullets are cast and formed. It's not as if the difference in trajectories would cause a modification to the point of aim on a fixed site pistol.

quote:

---

What's wrong with the M9 that it needs an upgrade? I'd argue that the M16/M4 platform is more due for an upgrade than the M9.

I'm actually surprised the Marines are supposedly moving towards a new 1911 platform considering it isn't double action and only holds like 7-8 rounds. Otherwise I would've said that any gun that isn't double action had no shot.

---

Replace the M4 with what, exactly? The SCAR? LOL... HK416? Hmmm

The M4 is not the issue. Again, moving away from FMJ would resolve a lot of issues

We've refined the AR15/M16/M4 platform so much that it would take a major leap forward to really make a large scale change worth it.

quote:

---

We've refined the AR15/M16/M4 platform so much that it would take a major leap forward to really make a large scale change worth it.

---

Agreed. Like a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range leap forward.

quote:

---

We've refined the AR15/M16/M4 platform so much that it would take a major leap forward to really make a large scale change worth it.

---

bingo. consider all of the other hardware the armed forces use (A-10, Apache, M4, Huey, F18) all of these machines have been optimized and well tuned and still get the job done. If you are going to replace with technology (osprey, scar, f-35, SAW) be prepared to drop lots of money, time, and resources that our current president doesn't want to spend money on. My bet is they won't invest in another main battle rifle until a new technological advance enhances small arms (like tracking point)

quote:

---

Ball 9 vs. Ball .45.... Not much of a difference.

---

The only path away from the M4/M16 Stoner rifle is to break the STANAG that keeps us on the 5.56mm NATO cartridge.

Paradoxically, the only way to begin breaking down the reliance on the 5.56mm NATO cartridge is by incremental upgrades to the massive installed base of M4/M16 Stoner rifles in the inventory. Losing that sunk-cost is unthinkable in the present budgetary environment. Therefore, an upgrade that relies mostly on the refurbishment of the barrel, chamber, and upper receiver into a new more potent chambering would allow for incremental migration to a new cartridge that would retain most of the existing inventory of lower receivers, magazines, and most of the upper receiver assembly.

The link below is almost a decade old but it makes a pretty good case for how to retain the use of our existing hardware by making an upgrade to a cartridge in the 6.5-6.8mm range that is still based on the Remington Fireball casing that is the bases for the .222, .223, and 5.56x45mm.

5.56mm Alternatives

Forgetting the idea of a new cartridge, if cost were not a factor I believe that the Marine Corps would move immediately to replace the M4/M16 with an M27 IAR for every Marine. The M27 is a slightly modified HK 416 but it costs the government about $3500 per rifle rather than ~$900 (without and RCO) for an M4.

wow.... angelfire.com link, must be legit!

quote:

---

quote:

---

Ball 9 vs. Ball .45.... Not much of a difference.

---

---

I return to TA to see my thread about 9mm vs .45 FMJ somehow disappeared. Anyway here are two slow motion videos of 20% military ballistics gel.

9mm 124 gr M882 FMJ:



.45 ACP 230 gr FMJ:



As you can see in the video the 9mm ball creates a larger wound channel. Both rounds penetrate the gel completely. This kills the myth that "9mm ball over penetrates and does nothing". Coupled with this and an overall higher mag capacity the 9mm is more effective than the .45 in the FMJ configuration. The military does not need to switch calibers.

quote:

---

Reliability will be a problem with the next pistol regardless of what they pick, and would have been a problem with the Sig if they'd adopted it in the 80s as well. That's because the Army is going to buy the cheapest magazines possible, the guns are unlikely to get springs replaced at proper intervals, and they're going to shoot the hell out of them over the course of the next 30 years.

---

100% correct. The common cause of malfunctions in any semi-auto gun is magazine related. That is why I advocate carrying an extra mag to those with CHL's. You more than likely wont need the extra ammo but putting in a fresh mag solves the majority of your problems

Don't know about the army but I want one

Just going away from FMJ sounds great in theory, but it's more complicated than we make it out to be. The Hague Convention is not the only reason that FMJ is used by the .mil - it is certainly a factor, no doubt, but reliability in the field is another major consideration.

Like it or not, FMJ ball is simply the most reliable ammo out there in terms of feeding during the most adverse conditions. HP ammo has inherent issues - one being the design may work in one platform, but not another because of the ogive radius. It feeds less reliably. Open HP is subject to plugging with mud, sand, ice, etc. - all common enemies on a battlefield.

The 5.56 isn't the greatest of rounds out there, but it could be made to be a much better round if heavier weight projectiles were used, polymer tipped projectiles were used, etc. But that won't happen, so a transition to a 6.5, 6.8 or something like a .300 BO would take an M4 platform and make it a whole lot better without costing an absolute fortune to the Defense Department.

quote:

---

Just going away from FMJ sounds great in theory, but it's more complicated than we make it out to be. The Hague Convention is not the only reason that FMJ is used by the .mil - it is certainly a factor, no doubt, but reliability in the field is another major consideration.

---

you guys are on it in this thread! we have to remember the types of bad guys the mil comes across. They aren't just wearing t-shirts and jackets sometimes. They are also driving in vehicles, behind walls, etc. The mil spends lots of money validating what they use, and FMJ fits the bill most of the time. FMJ projectiles are fairly cheap to manufacture, easy to load into cartridges, have very little deviation from the standard, etc. Until someone develops the barrier blind, soft tissue stopper, $0.01 round that is laser designated, you have to have a very strong usage case for the Army to adopt in mass. Spec Ops is another story, and they do tend to deviate from standard issue stuff (Rangers did/do field SCAR 17's and whatever that Remington DMR rifle is)

quote:

---

Don't know about the army but I want one

---

Still rather have a Wilson tweaked one, but the A3 does look nice and fixes some issues.

Having served in the Marines for 18 going on 19 years(Active & Reserves), most Marines also prefer the 1911 style .45 over the 9mm. The 9mm has a rep of being called a glorified pellet gun in the Corps. My experience is the 9mm has no stopping power, no balls. If your shooting at a motivated enemy and don't hit the vitals, those guys keep coming and remain a threat. You have already seen the Marines start using the Kimber & Colt Marine M45 Close Quarters Battle Pistol. I can tell you every old 1911 in the armory prior to the 9mm are still in service and Marines fight over those old 1911's. Sure if you use the right 9mm ammo, you'll get as much tissue damage as you would from a similar .45 but in the Military you don't have that capacity.

In a combat setting the avgerage Marine needs to shoot fast and accurate under less than perfect conditions, such as moving, with a flashlight to see, and with motivated people shooting back who could also be on the move in close tight quarters. This is where the .45 is the better handgun in those conditions.

9mm M882 ball:



.45 acp ball:

Generally speaking, the bigger the bullet, the greater the mass. The greater mass, the greater the stopping power. I've seen the .45 stopping power first hand.