Many people seem confused on why the military ditched the venerable 1911 for the beretta, in particular due to the caliber. So what was NATO's choice based on? I love the 9mm but I thought it was garbage without hollow points so what gives?
Why did NATO choose to adopt the 9mm?
- Thread starter The Exile
- Start date
- Status
Maybe it's because many of the NATO countries had already standardized on 9mm. The Browning hi power was pretty popular. For most European countries, the 9mm was more powerful than their former military sidearms. Heck, even in the us military 38 special revolvers were issued until after WWII, and that's a much weaker round.
highlander 5
Member
I seem to remember the term "interoperational interchangability" was used somewhere,$9 term for should the Russians invade our NATO allies we won't need to worry about ammo supplies in combat.
Deaf Smith
Member
Actually the .38s were used past Vietnam!
The 9mm was adopted cause it was a 'good enough' .vs. the best and the .45, the best, was not used by many countries. The US got everyone to adopt the 5.56 mm and many the AR variants so we made the trade and adopted the M9.
They hopped up the 9mm somewhat with NATO specs.
SAAMI 9mm +p and NATO are different pressure specifications. It's higher than standard 9mm but not as hot as +P.
Maximum pressure specs:
C.I.P 9mm = 34,083 PSI (235 Mega-Pascals)
SAAMI 9mm = 35,000 PSI
SAAMI 9mm +P = 38,500 PSI
NATO 9mm = 36,550 PSI
Instead of a 115 at 1160 it became a 124 at 1200 or so depending on the barrel length.
Not a huge shift in power. Bit more kick is about it.
Deaf
The 9mm was adopted cause it was a 'good enough' .vs. the best and the .45, the best, was not used by many countries. The US got everyone to adopt the 5.56 mm and many the AR variants so we made the trade and adopted the M9.
They hopped up the 9mm somewhat with NATO specs.
SAAMI 9mm +p and NATO are different pressure specifications. It's higher than standard 9mm but not as hot as +P.
Maximum pressure specs:
C.I.P 9mm = 34,083 PSI (235 Mega-Pascals)
SAAMI 9mm = 35,000 PSI
SAAMI 9mm +P = 38,500 PSI
NATO 9mm = 36,550 PSI
Instead of a 115 at 1160 it became a 124 at 1200 or so depending on the barrel length.
Not a huge shift in power. Bit more kick is about it.
Deaf
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Every military in the free world already used the 9mm except us.
And everyone in the Communist world used the 9mm MAK.
Now the communist country's are using the 9mm too!!
rc
And everyone in the Communist world used the 9mm MAK.
Now the communist country's are using the 9mm too!!
rc
cheygriz
member
First, the pistol is more often a "badge of authority" carried by officers and NCOs than an actual weapon.
Second, the .45 has maybe half the penetration of the 9mm.
Third, the 1911 is grossly obsolete single action design that should have been replaced in the 1930s.
Fourth, if everyone else in the world can kill an enemy with a 9MM, why can't American troops?
SEALS can carry any pistol they chose. Marcus Luttrell's book, "Lone Survivor" says his team all carried the M-9.
If it didn't get the job done, why would these guys have carried it?
Second, the .45 has maybe half the penetration of the 9mm.
Third, the 1911 is grossly obsolete single action design that should have been replaced in the 1930s.
Fourth, if everyone else in the world can kill an enemy with a 9MM, why can't American troops?
SEALS can carry any pistol they chose. Marcus Luttrell's book, "Lone Survivor" says his team all carried the M-9.
If it didn't get the job done, why would these guys have carried it?
notaglockfanboy
Member
Because 45 acp is way over rated. I know someone will chime in how their 45 acp will vaporize a elephant @100 yds so spare me the 45 vs 9mm debate. 9mm has more speed, better round capacity, and will do what the 45 will do with half the recoil.
lysanderxiii
Member
Political reasons.
In the mid 1950s, the US had bullied NATO into adopting 7.62mm then unilaterally switched to 5.56mm for individual weapons, which upset many of the NATO members, especially Britain and Belgium, which had offered an intermediate cartridge of superior performance (to M193) from the start, but was summarily rejected by the US. Now, in the late 1970's NATO was going to standardize a second caliber and chances were it was going to be based on the 5.56/.223. In order to "show" that the US was not playing "my way or the highway", the US quietly agreed to adopt 9mm, a pistol round that was, de facto standardized by everyone else in NATO, and allow that to be the standard pistol caliber.
In the mid 1950s, the US had bullied NATO into adopting 7.62mm then unilaterally switched to 5.56mm for individual weapons, which upset many of the NATO members, especially Britain and Belgium, which had offered an intermediate cartridge of superior performance (to M193) from the start, but was summarily rejected by the US. Now, in the late 1970's NATO was going to standardize a second caliber and chances were it was going to be based on the 5.56/.223. In order to "show" that the US was not playing "my way or the highway", the US quietly agreed to adopt 9mm, a pistol round that was, de facto standardized by everyone else in NATO, and allow that to be the standard pistol caliber.
9mm is smaller and lighter, but still powerful enough to take someone out of the fight....being smaller and lighter means a soldier can carry more ammo.....
Studies have shown that the more ammo you throw at the enemy, the more likely you are to hit him....
Studies have shown that the more ammo you throw at the enemy, the more likely you are to hit him....
Steel Horse Rider
Member
I don't know why but I would take the .40 S&W over the 9mm any day. In the world of bureaucracies you will not find logic as a basis for any decision.
Luger_carbine
Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 77
Because eventually the stubborn short sighted old war horses who ran the DOD's procurement programs were replaced by reasonable generals who rightly appreciated the true genius of Georg Johann Luger.
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
Ad nuesem
This topic has been discussed at length many many many times on this forum,
.
If you want to look over the past forum posts, you'll find page after page on the topic of why a Beretta 9mmNATO was selected.
Here's the simple Reader's Digest(if you remember that ) version;
The 1911s were wearing out, breaking, the DoD wanted to update the military sidearms. The US Army wanted to maintain the old 1911a1 format but gave in.
T&Es were done, the XM9, Beretta and SIG's P226 9mm made the final cut but the Beretta 92F cost less per unit & Beretta already had a working factory in Maryland. A fully stocked, functioning plant in CONUS was a M9 contract detail.
Some law makers and defense industry insiders squawked & cried which led to a 2nd full scale XM9 review. Several major gun makers entered but fell short. Beretta USA won again.
The M9 9mmNATO entered service in 1985 or so. SIG Sauer later got a few special ops contracts & the compact M11 9mmNATO military contract.
Who will win the new MHS gun contract? Many insiders & industry members say the SIG P320, Glock and M&P have the best shot.
This topic has been discussed at length many many many times on this forum,
.If you want to look over the past forum posts, you'll find page after page on the topic of why a Beretta 9mmNATO was selected.
Here's the simple Reader's Digest(if you remember that
) version;The 1911s were wearing out, breaking, the DoD wanted to update the military sidearms. The US Army wanted to maintain the old 1911a1 format but gave in.
T&Es were done, the XM9, Beretta and SIG's P226 9mm made the final cut but the Beretta 92F cost less per unit & Beretta already had a working factory in Maryland. A fully stocked, functioning plant in CONUS was a M9 contract detail.
Some law makers and defense industry insiders squawked & cried which led to a 2nd full scale XM9 review. Several major gun makers entered but fell short. Beretta USA won again.
The M9 9mmNATO entered service in 1985 or so. SIG Sauer later got a few special ops contracts & the compact M11 9mmNATO military contract.
Who will win the new MHS gun contract? Many insiders & industry members say the SIG P320, Glock and M&P have the best shot.
lysanderxiii
Member
.38 revolvers, M1911s and M3 Submachine Guns were still standard issue in USAEUR until well after Desert Storm. They did not start issuing M9s until late 1992-1993.
Army pilots carried a variety of .38s mostly S&W Model 10s with Colts* a strong second and a smattering of Ruger Service-Sixes. All of them were configured with a 4 inch barreled and round butt (well, as round a grip as Colt made).
____________________________
* The Colts looked like Detective Specials with a 4 inch barrel, a combination I haven't seen in Colt catalogs
sauer1911
Member
"Third, the 1911 is grossly obsolete single action design that should have been replaced in the 1930s."
REALLY? you had to go there?
be safe.
REALLY? you had to go there?
be safe.
Barry the Bear
Member
Cause a bunch of Soldiers wanted to carry .44 magnums but the europeans were afraid of the carnage that would ensue so we backed off and adopted the ugly european child. All kidding of course.
PedalBiker
Member
I was in the Army, even though the 9mm was adopted before I got in, reserve units still had 45s. I'd take an M9 over a 1911, though I'm just as happy without either. I'd rather have a few extra grenades.
Before I was commissioned I was a private/SPC-4 in a medical unit. Enlisted didn't have to qualify on pistols, but all our officers did (doctors and nurses). They used 1911s and our doctor had a hard time qualifying, eventually I got him good enough to qualify, but the 9mm would have been easier. Our nurses had needed some coaching as well - none of our officers had shot a handgun before. Since I was a "farm boy" I was the weapons and vehicle maintenance expert.
I think the 9mm was a good choice. The vast majority of the armed forces are not gun experts.
Before I was commissioned I was a private/SPC-4 in a medical unit. Enlisted didn't have to qualify on pistols, but all our officers did (doctors and nurses). They used 1911s and our doctor had a hard time qualifying, eventually I got him good enough to qualify, but the 9mm would have been easier. Our nurses had needed some coaching as well - none of our officers had shot a handgun before. Since I was a "farm boy" I was the weapons and vehicle maintenance expert.
I think the 9mm was a good choice. The vast majority of the armed forces are not gun experts.
Synopsis of why the US adopted the 9mm isn't what the OP asked - why did NATO? was the question.
As already said, 9mm was the favorite of the European nations who were already using it from the early years of the 1900's. There the use of a pistol is very much an instrument of rank, and it's ballistic ability is based on their concepts of efficiency - not OURS. There has always been a difference of opinion, they used .380 as a police service cartridge and found it adequate.
In America it's always been bigger is better - we went .30-06 when many of them adopted 6.5mm battle rifles.
When the 1911's could no longer be refurbished there was no further reason to hide behind Congresses financial skirts and we had to put up or shut up about NATO interchangeability - especially since we had forced our partners hands early in the game with 5.56. (Not that they abandoned their service rifles in .308 until they were worn out.) And as the testing for a new service pistol was ongoing, one European member played their best card by reminding our Government they had the Mediterranean naval refueling station and an Airborne unit staged in their country. Italy.
And so the Beretta got adopted, and it was widely known by insiders even then. What has happened is that those documented black and white revelations were printed just before the internet went on line - and a whole generation is still trying to catch up. You have to have read it in a magazine or book.
Not to many libraries keep military subject matter items in the stacks 20 years later - if they ever got them.
ps I got trained on both and for what little good they are, the 1911 would be my preference. In 9mm. So, I bought a SIG P938.
As already said, 9mm was the favorite of the European nations who were already using it from the early years of the 1900's. There the use of a pistol is very much an instrument of rank, and it's ballistic ability is based on their concepts of efficiency - not OURS. There has always been a difference of opinion, they used .380 as a police service cartridge and found it adequate.
In America it's always been bigger is better - we went .30-06 when many of them adopted 6.5mm battle rifles.
When the 1911's could no longer be refurbished there was no further reason to hide behind Congresses financial skirts and we had to put up or shut up about NATO interchangeability - especially since we had forced our partners hands early in the game with 5.56. (Not that they abandoned their service rifles in .308 until they were worn out.) And as the testing for a new service pistol was ongoing, one European member played their best card by reminding our Government they had the Mediterranean naval refueling station and an Airborne unit staged in their country. Italy.
And so the Beretta got adopted, and it was widely known by insiders even then. What has happened is that those documented black and white revelations were printed just before the internet went on line - and a whole generation is still trying to catch up. You have to have read it in a magazine or book.
Not to many libraries keep military subject matter items in the stacks 20 years later - if they ever got them.
ps I got trained on both and for what little good they are, the 1911 would be my preference. In 9mm. So, I bought a SIG P938.
Last edited:
TanklessPro
Member
Over 2.7 million 1911's procured by the U.S. Government, mostly after the 30's...what the heck were they thinking. And now the modern companies make a mid-range 1911 that is hundreds more than most handguns. People can't be paying hundreds more for an obsolete handgun...wait a minute...they are."Third, the 1911 is grossly obsolete single action design that should have been replaced in the 1930s."
REALLY? you had to go there?
be safe.
The discussion is about the cartridge not the platform. I do not know why they went with the 9mm. Personally I think it was the whole smaller cartridge more ammo lets just throw a lot of rounds to "suppress" the enemy.
TanklessPro
Member
So if soldiers can't meet the set standard, lower the standard? That does not sound right to me....
If they are in the "armed forces" they should be experts.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
That's funny rat there!!
I don't care who ya are!!!
Have you ever done any military small arms training?
Or done any training of new GI's yourself???
Thought not.
rc
I don't care who ya are!!!
Have you ever done any military small arms training?
Or done any training of new GI's yourself???
Thought not.
rc
medalguy
Member
RC is right, as usual. I was in the AF as a small arms tech, and I can tell you we qualified a lot of guys with pencils. Some of the flight line and medical guys, not to mention supply, chow hall staff, and a lot more just could not hit squat with the M16 or the S&W Combat Masterpiece, so we used a pencil to get them through the course. Clear?
Clear?
TanklessPro
Member
Me...nope.
I'm being mostly sarcastic.
I think I know what your going to say. I just think it's funny that we went with a smaller caliber at the same time we turned "touchy-feelie", just saying...
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
NATO was formed in March of 1948. The majority of member nations used the 9mm already. With a few exceptions most European nations went into WWII armed with 9mm pistols and some with machine guns in 9mm. During the war the 9mm became the norm.
It should be mentioned that by 1946 the U.S. military had decided to jettison the 1911 and the 45 acp and had drawn up specs for what it wanted and had asked gunmakers to begin developing guns to meet it's desires. They wanted a gun in 9mm. Congress however thought the money was best used elsewhere then in new handguns. The U.S. did not follow up on that till 1986.
At any rate NATO agreed on the 9mm. It had shown it's worth in two world wars and many wars between then and since.
If you had to pick the one round that characterized the 20th Century it would be the 9mm.
tipoc
TanklessPro
Member
I would agree with the 9mm for a handgun, but overall I would say the 5.56,IMO.
- Status
Similar threads
