Nato question

[doubleg]

So the main excuse most people use to explain why the US military issues 9mm pistols is because it is the standard NATO cartridge. Why not work to adopt .45 acp as a second NATO pistol round. It has done more than enough to prove its effectiveness in battle. They could give members of the millitary a choice as to wich caliber they want to carry. NATO already has two different rifle cartridges the 7.62 and 5.56 why not?

 

[Nightcrawler]

Honestly? I don't think NATO standardization is important anymore. The more time passes, I think, the less relevant NATO becomes, and the less likely the signatories of the North Atlantic Treaty are to fight a major war (that'd be a logistical hassle) together.

Geopolitics what they are, this could change, possibly. But with the emergence of the EU and and the possibility of emerging surpa-national confederations of nations in other parts of the world, I think the US should just arm its troops with whatever it wants. We're not likely to be sharing much ammo with european nations anymore, and if we do, more than likely it'll be standard rifle/machine gun ammo. Pistols are still a very minor weapon on the battlefield.

I think the US should standardize on one pistol, though. I mean, I think different branches could have different pistols if they really wanted, but within each service it makes sense to have one standard design (with the possibility of a compact variant for special issue). They're working on a .45ACP Joint Combat Pistol (or somesuch) right now, I believe.

 

[SoCalShooter]

Here is my understanding (I am sure I will be corrected)

Ok well the 9mm is not a bad round its just not a knock down round and it was not meant to be. Its accurate its fast and you can carry a lot of it.
The .45acp however is a knock down round but it also is heavier thus you really cannot carry as much of it. With the 9mm you can carry 15 round magazines. .45acp maximum (in the time period of choosing the new weapon) was only 8 round mags. Its kinda the same reason we changed from .308 or 30-06 to 5.56 you can carry more ammo and the actual bullet will do a "Different" kind of damage to soft tissue.

In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine. ERWIN ROMMEL

So if you take the quote literally and I am sure it can be interpreted many ways, basically the guy who still has ammo to shoot in his mag wins.

Personally I prefer to shoot .45acp for HD, SHTF and light loads for bullseye but for service pistol I prefer to shoot the beretta 9mm, less recoil and the bullet has a flatter trajectory.

It would however be nice to see the US forces go back to .45acp. Preferable in a 1911 frame but honestly I dont see that happening, they want lighter with more capacity and lessened recoil. IMHO the 1911 is the best combat handgun (BHP is nice too).

 

[Autolite]

I was under the impression that the reason for the 9mm pistol was due to the increased magazine capacity. Wasn't it the concept that a double tap of 9mm was much more effective than a single shot of .45 ACP???

 

[SoCalShooter]

I was under the impression that the reason for the 9mm pistol was due to the increased magazine capacity. Wasn't it the concept that a double tap of 9mm was mush more effective than a single shot of .45 ACP???

I would not want to get hit by either to be honest but I would be much more concerned about getting hit once from a .45acp round than a double tap from a 9mm.

It is also my understanding that the 9mm has a longer wound channel which can cause more trauma but the .45acp will kill'ya

 

[RNB65]

Because the handgun is the weapon of last resort and most soldiers could care less about what caliber it is. The rifle in their hands is what they're concerned about, not the handgun on their belt.

 

[Z_Infidel]

There is no longer a request for quotation on the JCP, the whole issue has been pretty much dropped for now. Some operators will be able to use what they deem best (I would guess, as I'm no insider by any means) but for now the M9 will remain general issue. This is public information easily available, which is the only reason I know about it.

 

[Nightcrawler]

They dropped the JCP program? Huh.

Honestly, they could just upgrade the Beretta. Add a light rail and better magazines (and hell, make 'em the +2 17 round magazines) and it'd do most of what they want. Still a little big in the butt, but not terribly so.

As for all the recommendations of the 1911....there is definate institutional bias towards that design. Newer designs, even .45s, are larger capacity, simpler to field strip, and are lighter; polymer pistol frames are impervious to the elements and require no rust preventative measures.

My choice for an issue .45 pistol would be an XD-45, 4", modified with an ambi frame-mounted thumb safety. (The military prefers manual safeties.) Make sure the barrel is stainless steel and/or chrome lined, and make sure it has steel sights, and I think you'd have a pretty rugged gun. Stainless, well-made magazines are an absolute must, too. THe magazine is the weak point of a semiautomatic pistol; most of the trouble with the issue Beretta is the Checkmate-brand lowest-bidder magazines the military bought for 'em. I had those for my pistol when I worked in Qatar, and they were absolute CRAP. You'd take the top round out of the magazine, and the follower wouldn't rise...

 

[doubleg]

In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine. ERWIN ROMMEL

the irony in that is he was defeated in battle by a man who carried revolvers

 

[Jim K]

The original agreement with NATO was that the U.S. would adopt the 9mm if/when it went to a new pistol. When the U.S. finally went to another pistol, we abided by the agreement and went to 9mm.

We rammed the 7.62x51 down NATO's throat, then said "oops we changed our minds" and rammed the 5.56 down their throats. So now you think we will be able to get them to go to .45? No offense intended to our allies, but to get all the nations in NATO to agree on anything is like the joke about herding cats. And as the member nations become wealthier and more independent of us and more involved with the EU, and as the Soviet threat retreats in memory, NATO becomes less and less relevant. Fageddaboutit!

Jim

 

[zinj]

If I may make a tangent, if we issued .45's there would be guys complaining about how they need a 9mm so they can put more rounds into an opponent. For all of the 9mm vs 45 hoopla the simple fact is that auto pistols simply don't have to power to reliably incapacitate someone with a single hit.

If the Europeans were right about anything, it was that pistols in a military sense are more symbols of authority than weapons. Give me a rifle or even a shotgun anyday.

 

[wildburp]

zinj

Your assertion that an auto pistol can't incapacitate someone is doubious, to say the least. At what range? What caliber? A .22 will surely incapacitate one if fired into the ear, for instance from one inch. A .45 will knock your a@# down period, from any range up to and probably exceeding 50 yards.

wb

 

[GoRon]

A .45 will knock your a@# down period, from any range up to and probably exceeding 50 yards.

If not with first hit at least by the second or third.

 

[zinj]

I didn't say they couldn't I said it isn't reliable. The rounds don't have enough velocity to initiate hydrostatic shock, and unless they hit the CNS, heart or a major blood vessel there is no guarantee of a stop, and the circulatory hits will still need several seconds for the target to lose conciousness. Even if someone is going to die within seconds they can still put a few rounds into you, especially at the distances handguns are commonly employed.

 

[wildburp]

zinj

Reliability of a weapon is the product of a human's application (weapon quality and type, combined with judgement and skill) and the need to use it. At close range in confined quarters, I'll take a grilled cheese sandwich everytime. Or maybe a tuna melt. Pistols will always rule at a certain distance, and rifles always take over a little farther out. Shotguns come in between, and then some. But nothing beats a really good sardine sandwich. See?

wb

 

[51Cards]

I thought one of the reasons for the 9mm was because of the training curve with the .45, re felt recoil, etc., especially with "smaller" users. Seems to me, if the sidearm is a "last resort," more bullet is better than more bullets, if you're that close.

I can see 9mm in a MP5, say, but that's a different application. I think, if you're close enough for a handgun, you want a brick, not a flyswatter.

Among the few guys I know who've been in service, and certainly here at THR, the M9 seems to be universally despised. (I tried to talk myself into a 92 a couple of times, and failed. Fired 'em a few times. Nice, long sight radius. Crappy trigger. Too much gun for too little bullet. My $.02)

Re Rommel, his comment was probably due to UPS not delivering. Once the Med. line got cut, he was lucky to have water.

PS
Rather put 200 through a 3" 1911 than 50 through a KT .380, or 100 through a .40. Grip size/capacity is the issue. .45 hi-cap is too big for my paw to hold comfortably. .45 is not a difficult round to shoot, by far. Fat & accurate.

 

[51Cards]

Ya know, people talk about M1 carbine rounds "bouncing" off Chinese quilted padding in Korea --- but my friend's Dad remembers actually buying an M1 on the way through Italy (he wasn't an officer or tanker), because the Garand was a bear to swing through a doorway --- and survive. Scatterguns notwithstanding, reaching around a doorway and populating a room with handgun fire could be a very safe way to do that kind of ugly business.

Now that I'm exhausted and babbling --- here's a fun experiment I tried with a non-shooting friend. Had him take his shoe off, and dropped --- just dropped --- a .45 ball on his foot. He couldn't believe it. That was, what? maybe 10-15 feet/sec. Jack that up to 850 ...

Flying ashtray.

 

[zinj]

Scatterguns notwithstanding, reaching around a doorway and populating a room with handgun fire could be a very safe way to do that kind of ugly business.

I can't imagine shooting blindly around corners with a handgun is terribly effective. A soldier has grenades for clearing a room.

The handgun is trying to be justified as a short range weapon, but why would you switch from a carbine with significantly superior firepower when you are involved in close combat. A rifle isn't any harder to hit with at close range than a pistol, since many people seem to forget it can be pointed in a manner similar to a shotgun.

I didn't state it clearly enough, but my main gist is that one of the reasons the .45 is so revered is that it just isn't used that often. If a .45 became the standard issue pistol we would begin seeing reports on how there were opponents that didn't drop dead from a "solid" hit. If the military and the police departments moved to .45 we would probably begin hearing similar sentiments as we hear now towards the 9mm, although a little tweaked, like "Man, I wish I still had that Glock 17 with the seventeen round magazine! I had to run my G21 dry trying to stop those two guys! Imagine if there had been another!"

People love to haul out the old Moro anecdote where SAAs were brought in to the Philipines because there were guys taking multiple hits of .38." What so often gets neglected is that the Moros were taking multiple hits of .38 Long, which is a cartride that gives only 195 ft-lbs of force at the muzzle. The 9mm Parabellum, on the other hand, runs above 350 ft-lbs, which coincidentally about what the .45 ACP runs.

Perhaps the greatest endorsement of the 9mm is the number of countries that issue it. If it was so ineffective why does it see such widespread use? Even Russia is now issuing their own hot version of the 9x19.

Basically what I am trying to say is that if you drop the 9mm for the .45 you will find that there will be just as many complaints, as pistols are just not that powerful. And in combat they are a last ditch weapon, despite how much people glamourize them.

 

[SOT]

A .45 will knock your a@# down period, from any range up to and probably exceeding 50 yards.

Wow, I was unaware the laws of physics didn't apply to the .45ACP.

 

[El Tejon]

Because allowing the two different pistol calibers in an affront to the Name of Holy Ungendered Progress. The "main excuse" is exactly that doubleg, an excuse. We have the 9mm because of politics.

Congressperson Patsy "Boohoo" Schroeder of Colorado observed that female MPs carried .38 revolvers while male MPs carried .45s upon touring Fort Carson in her home state of Colorado. The Congresswoman was outraged, treating men and women different could not be allowed! Being prominent positions of influence in Congress and DACOWITS allowed Schroeder to ensure that a 9mm pistol for everyone was adopted.