Military Caliber

[Kush]

How often are handguns even used in combat today? Personally I think that if there had to be a change in handgun ammunition I would suggest 10mm, they can use ammunition loaded down to .40 s&w energy for people who can't handle the recoil like the FBI did, plus if we ever have to fight a conventional military that actually uses body armor, you can swap out the barrel for a .224 boz (10mm necked down to .223) barrel.

 

[ThePlato]

Sure the 6.8 is a step up power wise but to me it's a bit like the ACU fiasco. It'd be changed soon as the LSAT is good to go. I think it's a moot point. The 5.56 hasn't had problems stopping people.

 

[Owen Sparks]

On the modern battlefield a handgun is an emergency close range piece of life saving equipment and needs ample stopping power. The .45 ACP comes closer than anything else that is still practicle. Anyone who can't handle a .45 has no business working as a professional soldier as hand to hand combat always the last option.

 

[Eb1]

As a civilian the only thing I can say is pure speculation, but I'll chime in. I would like to see the .45 ACP come back as the designated sidearm. I think it is purely American to use the .45 ACP and 1911 platform.
As mentioned, I have not had any issues with the terminal effectiveness of the 5.56 or .223 on animals of 100 lbs to 200 lbs.

 

[Owen Sparks]

A lot of people are starting to use the 6.8 to hunt deer and hogs. With proper bullets it is suitable for "dangerous game" in the 200 pound class.

 

[Eb1]

MODERATORS - Action Requested.

Moderators, could you please adjust the poll to allow users to choose more than one selection. I goofed, and did not select this option. My apologies. Creating Polls isn't something I do very often.

 

[beatledog7]

Problem: US forces often conduct ops with NATO forces or with nations who are NATO members, and ammo compatibility is a plus in such ops. But NATO standard ammo is not necessarily the best ammo for many of the things US forces do.

Solution: Continue to be able to issue 5.56 and 9mm for combined ops with NATO forces or NATO nations. But in all cases, issue arms and ammo in the right caliber for the mission. That means, let the forces who go fight decide what they need, and supply them. I know that poses logistical challenges, after all, I"m a 27-yr loggie. But it's the right answer.

 

[kimura]

Bigger is not necessarily better especially when you're talking about a large group of people. As stated above 5.56 is lethal and low recoil, so it's manageable for all and quick to get back on target.

Regarding the .45 vs 9mm debate. Pistols generally do not have great stopping power to begin with and at every range across county there are people that can't handle a .40 or .45, but do reasonably well with 9mm. 9mm is the best choice; however, I do believe the military should go to the Glock 17 or 19 as the issued sidearm because they're simple, durable, reliable and parts are easy to come by. Also, since it is a pistol, let's just start issuing 124 grain JHPs. Makes the most sense as opposed to moving to a larger caliber. Double stack .45 IMHO isn't realistic because of the size of the grip, so if you want a .45 I think we're back to a single stack meaning, 1911 or HK 45C. 1911 requires too much maintenance on that level to be a good choice these days.

 

[RevolvingGarbage]

7776083 1911 requires too much maintenance on that level to be a good choice these days.

Theres no reason why a mil-spec 1911 needs any more maintenance than a mil-spec M9A1 or Glock 17.

Commercial 1911's can be finicky because the specifications get messed with to produce a tighter feeling or cheaper gun. A modern 1911 made to the specifications of the 1911A1 design, with a handful of modern features like tritium sights, lowered ejection port, and maybe a beavertail grip safety (I personally don't find it necessary) should be just as reliable as any modern military handgun.

Keep in mind, we used mostly the same batch of 1911A1's from 1924 to 1985, with only basic parts replacements. If we had bought another couple hundred thousand new pistols around 1975 from Colt, we would probably still be using them today instead of the M9.

 

[mljdeckard]

I would certainly prefer to use a 1911 myself. (I am awaiting delivery of a Para-Ordnance SF-45 that would be PERFECT.) That doesn't mean it's a good overall choice for all of our forces. Where we issue them with little to no training, I want the pistol that I can train my soldiers who have little to no experience with the easiest. For ease of procurement, availability of holsters and accessories, universality and ease of use, and general proof from idiocy, I would ask for a Glock 17/19.

 

[JHenry]

i think too many countries in NATO, inluding us, are expierencing too many economic woes to spend time/money in re-equipping the military. Some cuts on other military endevours, such as some of these ridiculously frivolous missile programs that get outdated in a matter of years, than a switch could be possible but at the end of the day dont hold your breath on anything like this happening under Obama, not because of his beliefs or anything like that but because he simply isnt a military man and the process would take forever if at all

 

[ball3006]

Why is a M16/M4 a prison offence? Keep the 223 and conduct training in that caliber for long range shooting. chris3

 

[USAF_Vet]

Why is a M16/M4 a prison offence?

It's not, as long as you have the appropriate documentation. But I assume you already knew that and the question was rhetorical.

I have no issues with the M-9, but I have big hands so the grip felt right. I've seen smaller guys and a lot of females struggle with the M-9 due to grip width. A double stacked .45 would have the same problems. I feel that, for the most part, our current choice of sidearm is fine. I've seen an M-9 employed in combat, but only once and to little effectiveness.
As per the rifle caliber, I wouldn't mind fielding something like the 6.5 Grendel, or the 6.8 SPC, but I just don't see it happening any time soon. With the budget cuts, financial meltdowns, etc. we might be hardpressed to keep up with the demand for 5.56. (ok not really, we've got enough 5.56 stockpiled to outlast the apocalypse) But despite having plenty of 5.56 around, what we don't have are massive stockpiles of 6.5 or 6.8. Having enough available for specialty missions is enough.

Keep the 5.56. Most rear eschelon pogues will wield a rifle a handful of times in their careers. Most combat vets will employ the 5.56 with decent effectivness. Ramp up training and create marksmen in the military again, not just bullet sprayers, and we'll do just fine in the next war.

 

[BullfrogKen]

I personally think that we should be using a double stack .45 ACP for our issued sidearms

Yeah, a double column .45 ACP pistol is huge. It simply wouldn't fit the hands of everyone we have serving.

 

[mljdeckard]

^^I agree. I have one, and I like it, but it would be even bulkier than the M-9 my female soldiers have a difficult time holding correctly.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Why is a M16/M4 a prison offence?

As I understand it the current issue version of the M16 as well as the M-4 were not made prior to the March of 1987 ban on new machine guns. Sure you could jump through the hoops and buy an older one IF YOU ARE RICH but most of us can't. A doctor in my town paid SIXTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for a twenty five year old rifle. A used semi-auto AR of the same age and condition can be had for less than a thousand dollars. The closing of the machine gun registery has priced a legal M-16 if out of reach for 99.9% of Americans and getting caught with an unregistered copy of "our" service rifle will get you ten years in prison and a 20 thousand dollar fine.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I read a really fascinating account of the Iraq war by a reporter embedded with a marine recon platoon or company. Again and again, they'd be stopped by small groups of shooters in typical cement/cinder block buildings along the road. And each time they'd have to call in air or bring up the mortars before they could proceed because those buildings were essentially bullet-proof against the 5.56. And of course, when that recon unit was stalled the entire echelon behind them was also stalled.

Somebody from regiment or division finally sent up a couple of men with M14's who would proceed to shoot those buildings full of holes and force the occupants to flee. This saved a lot of time and a lot of money and sped up the entire advance.

It would seem like there is a place for a heavy rifle down at the small unit level. Of course, they have the M-240B, but that's a crew served weapon that isn't as versatile or portable as a rifle.

 

[USAF_Vet]

With enough rounds, even a .22LR can penetrate concrete.

I took a cinder block to the range one day, mostly to hold up the targets. I found out 10 rounds of .22LR will put a dime sized hole in the cinder block. Then pulled out the M-44. the 7.62x54r reduced it to small chunks and a cloud of dust.

Yes, every fire team should have something heavier than the 5.56 for thos just in case moments like Kodiak alluded to above.

 

[Kendal Black]

About the 9mm

China and Russia have developed 9mmP military pistols, and the round is already in use nearly everywhere else, making the cartridge one of more widely produced internationally.

Sort of neat--and possibly valuable--that you can acquire this size ammo in many places.

Switching away from the nine, at this point, reminds me of the joke the English tell about themselves. They will change their driving habits, to drive on the other side of the road, when the rest of the world changes.

It is not a favorite of mine, but the 9mm seems to be right on the balance point of being controllable enough that most people can shoot it, including recruits without prior pistol shooting experience, and powerful enough to be a useful military round.

In enhanced penetration loadings, the 9mm would seem preferable to the .45, because of its smaller diameter and higher speed. Increased use of body armor by forces of all sorts seems a certainty in the future, so the .45 would be progress in the wrong direction.

 

[Gizards'n'Gravy]

Hello everyone, I asked my JROTC instructor this same question about a year ago. He is retired from the Air Force and was in some sort of special forces. He told me the 5.56 is perfectly adequate and could do it's job fine. He did say though that it is a good idea for someone to have a weapon that can reach out a bit further if necassary but it all depends on the mission. According to him, in special forces,the type of mission you will be going on determines what gear you bring. Every enviroment has different needs(urban,jungle,etc). He did tell me though that special forces operate differently than larger units, as in an infantry platoon on a long range patrol probably will not have the same gear options as a special forces A-team doing a similiar type of mission. It's not really the rifle or cartridge that does the most damage but using your assets and training wisely is what wins the day. Of course he had to throw shot placement in there to, doesn't matter how big your gun is if you can't use it effectively. We had a long conv ersation about it but I don't remember all of what was said. In the end though he gives the 5.56 a thumbs up.

 

[Sam1911]

I read a really fascinating account of the Iraq war by a reporter embedded with a marine recon platoon or company. Again and again, they'd be stopped by small groups of shooters in typical cement/cinder block buildings along the road.

If that book was Generation Kill by Evan Wright, you'll also recall that their squads included Mk19s, useful for leveling the kind of structures they encountered.

because those buildings were essentially bullet-proof against the 5.56.

You know, of course that mud brick and other masonry structures are also pretty effectively bullet-proof against 7.62 Nato as well, right? .30 cal rounds may have a bit of an advantage at penetrating light cover, but walls of earth or concrete block are resilient enough to make shooting at a target hiding behind one really not worth the trouble.

And each time they'd have to call in air or bring up the mortars before they could proceed ... And of course, when that recon unit was stalled the entire echelon behind them was also stalled

Which is pretty much the role of the combat infantryman. Relatively few enemy casualties are due to rifle fire. The way we fight wars is to maneuver our troops to pin down, hem in, or merely get a visual fix on enemy formations and then call in air and artillery support to destroy them. Even if every soldier was armed with an M14 and every other one had a .50, a rifle battle is too slow and costs too many of our soldiers' lives in the best of cases.

Find them, hem them in, pin them down, drop a bomb, and roll on.

The 5.56 does that job just fine.

 

[Sam1911]

Two most recent threads on this topic merged.

 

[kimura]

Theres no reason why a mil-spec 1911 needs any more maintenance than a mil-spec M9A1 or Glock 17.

Commercial 1911's can be finicky because the specifications get messed with to produce a tighter feeling or cheaper gun. A modern 1911 made to the specifications of the 1911A1 design, with a handful of modern features like tritium sights, lowered ejection port, and maybe a beavertail grip safety (I personally don't find it necessary) should be just as reliable as any modern military handgun.

Keep in mind, we used mostly the same batch of 1911A1's from 1924 to 1985, with only basic parts replacements. If we had bought another couple hundred thousand new pistols around 1975 from Colt, we would probably still be using them today instead of the M9.

Sorry, didn't say or mean to imply that a 1911 with the right parts wouldn't be reliable. It just takes more maintenance to keep them that way. Spring changes need to happen more often. Parts are not drop in, they have to be fit to a 1911, so when you have to go and replace parts, you have to fit them. That takes time. Guys that have used them on that level believe that there is a better mousetrap now. Larry Vickers and Ken Hackathorn both believe that the HK45 in either the full or compact version is a better choice for the military. Kyle Defoor has openly said that there are very few 1911s that he has seen run hard without problems.

For an individual, sure, if you like the pistol enough to keep up with it. They're amazing guns. But for a military unit, that's asking your armorer(s) to do a lot when they already have a lot to do. I read somewhere that the MEUSOC guns get torn down every time they go back to the armory. Sometimes they'll replace everything except the frame and slide.

Personally, I love the 1911, but in 2011 there are just choices that make more sense for a military unit or police department. Ones that require less maintenance and are just as accurate.

 

[KodiakBeer]

If that book was Generation Kill by Evan Wright,

No, this was a newspaper article. I have Generation Kill, an interesting book but not the story I'm referring too.

You know, of course that mud brick and other masonry structures are also pretty effectively bullet-proof against 7.62 Nato as well, right?

No, they're not. AP rounds will zip right through cement and most other building materials.

I'm not arguing to replace the 5.56 with the old 7.62 NATO, just saying there is still a role at the small unit level. The point of the article, or more correctly the point I took from the article was that in this situation they saved time by not having to halt and call up artillery every kilometer or two in this advance.