You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is the military dumping the 9mm ?
- Thread starter Newton
- Start date
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
psychophipps
Member
Neither is the 5.7.
Incorrect. The 5.7x28mm round was developed by FN under strict guidelines provided by NATO. The fact that it has yet to be adopted by this agency has nothing to do with the fact of wether it's "NATO accepted" or not.
Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )
Crosshair
Member
Is it just me or does it seem like everyone (In the military) is afraid of SA designs? I fail to see why people are wary of them because every military rifle that I know of is a SA design. Why is SA OK for rifles, but not pistols?
/Just wondering
/Just wondering
Retro
Member
good point... how come no DA rifle exists? I never thought of that.
Rifles are offensive weapons, intended for precision shooting, therefore single action. A double action rifle would require extensive marksmanship training.
Pistols are intended as a last line of defense, and a double action is preferred to prevent accidental discharges. It is difficult under combat conditions to control the disposition of a short barreled sidearm, and every possible safety measure is recommended that still allows instant use. In plain English, it means that nobody feels like getting killed because some sh** for brains was screwing around with a loaded single action pistol. It is hard enough trying to maintain barrel discipline with rifles and machine guns.
I liked the 1911 that I carried, even though it had been rebuilt many times, but I am 100% in favor of DAO pistol for general issue.
As I recall, some years ago Mossberg experimented with a Double Action shotgun for the military. I don't think it caught on.
Pistols are intended as a last line of defense, and a double action is preferred to prevent accidental discharges. It is difficult under combat conditions to control the disposition of a short barreled sidearm, and every possible safety measure is recommended that still allows instant use. In plain English, it means that nobody feels like getting killed because some sh** for brains was screwing around with a loaded single action pistol. It is hard enough trying to maintain barrel discipline with rifles and machine guns.
I liked the 1911 that I carried, even though it had been rebuilt many times, but I am 100% in favor of DAO pistol for general issue.
As I recall, some years ago Mossberg experimented with a Double Action shotgun for the military. I don't think it caught on.
tegemu
Member
IMHO the .40 Cal would be out of consideration for the additional ammunition acquisition costs and commonality issues, while current .45 ACP or 9MM are currently in the supply system and suffice for the military's requirements..
Crosshair
Member
If you can't trust someone with a SA pistol, then what are you doing trusting them with machine guns, gernades, rockets, etc. If that sh** for brains can't handle a SA pistol then how do you know he won't throw the pin and drop the gernade, or put the rifle on full-auto instead of safe. Dismissing designs like the XD and others outright because they are SA is irresponsible and a bad idea. Thinking like that resulted in magazine cutoffs, missle-only fighters, etc.
/Not trying to troll, just trying to generate discussion on this topic.
/Not trying to troll, just trying to generate discussion on this topic.
CAnnoneer
Member
"DAO for safety reasons" seems to me silly as well. If some guy is screwing around with a gun, discipline the bum, not the gun.
I shoot SA far longer and more accurately than I can DA. Never had an accident either.
Policemen like the DAO because they want to shave off the second it would take to flip the safety. They also do not expect to shoot 100s of rounds in the same day either. The military are in a completely different situation.
I shoot SA far longer and more accurately than I can DA. Never had an accident either.
Policemen like the DAO because they want to shave off the second it would take to flip the safety. They also do not expect to shoot 100s of rounds in the same day either. The military are in a completely different situation.
Sgt Stevo
Member
SAME OLD
I looked into this and get more different answers then I can count. It seems that everybody has there own favorite handgun and wants it to be the next issue piece.
I used Berettas for twenty years and they work fine. we broke some, but we were not easy on these things.
But I trusted my life to them a lot. I feel the .45 is better at stopping targets. But the one shot stop does not mean much if you empty your gun though a door at BG who just shot at you. something with a smaller grip for females would be good. Lighter is always better. Nite sites? sure. Double action or single, as long as there is manual safety. It would be ok.
I think if the XD-45 had a manual safety it would be about right. Most brit troops still carry the p-35.
So what the average 19 year troop needs is not what the seasoned CCw/hobby shooter needs. And would not be safe with it. I have been trained to higher level, POST, etc. But most the troops just Q with the M-9 and the M-4. In a support unit, it is only a couple of times a year. Right or wrong this is way it is.
Sf guys are better trained then anybody, they can carry anything and be safe. So what they want or need is not an issue. They are in there own world. they earned that right by going though ungodly amounts of training. I never fired an M-P -5 until a cop buddy let me shoot his a couple of years ago. I also never got to grow a beard in the field.
I looked into this and get more different answers then I can count. It seems that everybody has there own favorite handgun and wants it to be the next issue piece.
I used Berettas for twenty years and they work fine. we broke some, but we were not easy on these things.
But I trusted my life to them a lot. I feel the .45 is better at stopping targets. But the one shot stop does not mean much if you empty your gun though a door at BG who just shot at you. something with a smaller grip for females would be good. Lighter is always better. Nite sites? sure. Double action or single, as long as there is manual safety. It would be ok.
I think if the XD-45 had a manual safety it would be about right. Most brit troops still carry the p-35.
So what the average 19 year troop needs is not what the seasoned CCw/hobby shooter needs. And would not be safe with it. I have been trained to higher level, POST, etc. But most the troops just Q with the M-9 and the M-4. In a support unit, it is only a couple of times a year. Right or wrong this is way it is.
Sf guys are better trained then anybody, they can carry anything and be safe. So what they want or need is not an issue. They are in there own world. they earned that right by going though ungodly amounts of training. I never fired an M-P -5 until a cop buddy let me shoot his a couple of years ago. I also never got to grow a beard in the field.
You know, you'd think that... and you'd be wrong. Evidently losing parts off their M9 is a favorite pastime for soldiers, so there are more SA M9s than you might believe.Is it just me or does it seem like everyone (In the military) is afraid of SA designs?
"The only reason the Military might be considering a return to the .45acp and specifically why the SOCOM group would want a return is the fact that .45acp is easier to suppress and quieter than most 9mm suppressed versions while retaining greater impact energy than a 9mm cartridge set up for suppressor use."
Can you expand on this ?
I have never heard a .45 ACP suppressed handgun fired but I have read that they are significantly louder than a suppressed 9mm handgun. I own a suppressed 9mm handgun (Glock 34/AAC Evolution9 suppressor) and was very impressed with it. After hearing a DeLislie (in .45 ACP) I decided that I needed to buy a .45 ACP suppressor but everything I read said that they were NOT as easy to suppress as a 9.
The second part about impact energy is obviously quite true.
Can you expand on this ?
I have never heard a .45 ACP suppressed handgun fired but I have read that they are significantly louder than a suppressed 9mm handgun. I own a suppressed 9mm handgun (Glock 34/AAC Evolution9 suppressor) and was very impressed with it. After hearing a DeLislie (in .45 ACP) I decided that I needed to buy a .45 ACP suppressor but everything I read said that they were NOT as easy to suppress as a 9.
The second part about impact energy is obviously quite true.
leadcounsel
member
First, I think the 9mm and the Beretta 92FS have no place as a sidearm in the military.
This caliber is probably about 4th or so on the list of effective common calibers after the 10mm, .40, and .45 and .357 Sig. Women and small men can't shoot it? Too bad. Train them to be stronger and better soldiers. In the Service that I want protecting us, there is no place for a "lowest common denomiator" bullet.
As far as the platform, sure the 92FS is okay, but there are several BETTER platforms such as Glock, Sig, HK, CZ, 1911s, and the list goes on and on. I understand that one requirement is a decocker on the sidearm. We don't have a decocker on our M4 rifles do we? Not necessary for a sidearm.
So, we can do better with the caliber and the platform.
NOW, let's talk about practicality. I don't think that the sidearm in the normal military is a HUGE priority and I don't care to spend a lot of money on the transition. I would be fine with a slow transition into a new caliber and round. I'd rather have that money earmarked for projects that have more practical effect on combat. How many battles are won and lost on the caliber of our handguns?
Not a lot of testing is really even necessary for the common calibers and handguns available because there is plenty of data on these. My thinking is to just research available data on caliber and platforms, run some tests and switch 'em out. It's not rocket science.
This caliber is probably about 4th or so on the list of effective common calibers after the 10mm, .40, and .45 and .357 Sig. Women and small men can't shoot it? Too bad. Train them to be stronger and better soldiers. In the Service that I want protecting us, there is no place for a "lowest common denomiator" bullet.
As far as the platform, sure the 92FS is okay, but there are several BETTER platforms such as Glock, Sig, HK, CZ, 1911s, and the list goes on and on. I understand that one requirement is a decocker on the sidearm. We don't have a decocker on our M4 rifles do we? Not necessary for a sidearm.
So, we can do better with the caliber and the platform.
NOW, let's talk about practicality. I don't think that the sidearm in the normal military is a HUGE priority and I don't care to spend a lot of money on the transition. I would be fine with a slow transition into a new caliber and round. I'd rather have that money earmarked for projects that have more practical effect on combat. How many battles are won and lost on the caliber of our handguns?
Not a lot of testing is really even necessary for the common calibers and handguns available because there is plenty of data on these. My thinking is to just research available data on caliber and platforms, run some tests and switch 'em out. It's not rocket science.
good point... how come no DA rifle exists? I never thought of that.
There was a 5.56 DA rifle in the '80s, the LAPA, out of Brazil if I recall correctly.
The differences in common handgun calibres is seriously overrated. There's really not a whole lot to suggest/support any differences in effectiveness between any of the calibres you cited (particulary with FMJ ammunition) while logistics, capacity and training favour the 9x19.This caliber is probably about 4th or so on the list of effective common calibers after the 10mm, .40, and .45 and .357 Sig.
The M9 is perfectly adequate--as good as anything else available--as a general issue military handgun. Personally, I would prefer the M11, but personal preference is all it would be.
Vern Humphrey
Member
If you can't trust someone with a SA pistol, then what are you doing trusting them with machine guns, gernades, rockets, etc. If that sh** for brains can't handle a SA pistol then how do you know he won't throw the pin and drop the gernade, or put the rifle on full-auto instead of safe.
Some people really can't be trusted with things like grenades. Max Cleland ("I never really said I had a Purple Heart, but if people want to think I do, hey, who am I to argue with them?") is a sterling example. John Kerry is another.
This is combined with the idea of training soldiers until they are good with the .45 ACP? I think soldiers get minimal training so they can meet some qualification score. The extra training time is $$$.I don't think that the sidearm in the normal military is a HUGE priority and I don't care to spend a lot of money on the transition.
Of course this arguement is on the level of being primarily concerned with the color of a new car, when there are a lot of things more important.
I think the military could do a lot worse than the XD45 Service model (4 inch bbl).
It's torture test tough, not sensitive to the environment, has a good level of safety, a Melonite corrosion resistant finish, high capacity, it's suitable for smaller hands, comparatively cheap - and of course it holds 14 big fat .45ACP rounds.
I would choose it over an M9 any day of the week, and twice on Tuesdays.
It's torture test tough, not sensitive to the environment, has a good level of safety, a Melonite corrosion resistant finish, high capacity, it's suitable for smaller hands, comparatively cheap - and of course it holds 14 big fat .45ACP rounds.
I would choose it over an M9 any day of the week, and twice on Tuesdays.
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 614
