The next .45 for the military. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The next .45 for the military.


DaveG
03-28-2011, 17:38
I know that the 1911 was the standard U.S. military sidearm for quite some time, until President Clinton forced them to trade it for the M9 so that we'd have "less lethal" weapons for our military members to use against the enemy. Don't ask me how that makes sense... Anyway, I also know that during the early part of the 2nd Bush administration, folks were talking about bringing a .45 back. A lot of people were talking about an .45 made by HK.
So... Does anyone in the military, or retired from the military know which weapon might be chosen? Would it be a 1911? If one is chosen, do you think that the U.S. would implement it???? I doubt the "enemy friendly" 9mm is going anywhere as long as Obama is in office. :steamed:

Petrie
03-28-2011, 17:41
Being as they rarely use a handgun in the military I don't see why they don't just keep using the beretta.

Hokie1911
03-28-2011, 17:47
Won't be a 1911. They are not reliable and will not withstand "hard use". :whistling:

tglahn17
03-28-2011, 17:50
I know that the 1911 was the standard U.S. military sidearm for quite some time, until President Clinton forced them to trade it for the M9

Clinton? The M-9 entered Army service in 1990 http://www.army.mil/factfiles/equipment/individual/m9.html George H. W. Bush was the President of the United States in 1990.

GJ1981
03-28-2011, 17:50
When I was in in 2005 the talk was a Glock 21. The 45 isn't coming back anytime soon.



They are not reliable and will not withstand "hard use".

I see you know about my Springfield's

:couch:

Hokie1911
03-28-2011, 17:54
I see you know about my Springfield's

:couch:

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

carguy2244
03-28-2011, 17:59
Calling a 9MM projectile to be "less lethal" and "enemy friendly" is a very ignorant statement.
Congratulations on accumulating all your knowledge from magazines and the Internet.

GJ1981
03-28-2011, 17:59
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Oddly, I don't know whether I should be :rofl: or :crying:.

Hokie1911
03-28-2011, 18:02
Oddly, I don't know whether I should be :rofl: or :crying:.

I'd be like :wow: then :faint: then :crying: then :steamed:

GJ1981
03-28-2011, 18:06
I'd be like :wow: then :faint: then :crying: then

I'm passed :steamed: and on to :drink::tequila:

expatman
03-28-2011, 18:08
I know that the 1911 was the standard U.S. military sidearm for quite some time, until President Clinton forced them to trade it for the M9 so that we'd have "less lethal" weapons ............ :steamed:

AHHH, I think you need to go back and study some history. The decision to go with the M9 was made around 1984-1986 time frame. Clinton was not in the picture at that time. In fact neither was Bush Sr. although he was the vice Pres.

Reagan was the president at the time. I entered the Army in 1988 and my first duty station was in Italy. We still carried the .45. I PCS'd and went to Ft. Bragg in 1993 and that was the first time I got to see an M9.

Sgt_Gold
03-28-2011, 18:20
I know that the 1911 was the standard U.S. military sidearm for quite some time, until President Clinton forced them to trade it for the M9 so that we'd have "less lethal" weapons for our military members to use against the enemy.

WOW:wow:, no I really mean it.:wow:

Ok, the Beretta 92 was adpoted based on the pistol trials held during the second Regan administration, around 1988.

To answer the second part of that rant, don't hold your breath. The military is NEVER going back to a single action handgun, and the Beretta is going no where any time soon.

GAFinch
03-28-2011, 18:29
I think the current debate is more along the lines of Tomahawk vs UAV, not 9mm vs .45

HotRoderX
03-28-2011, 18:33
I thought they switched to 9mm as part of the NATO ammo switch. So that countries could have a more standardized ammo pool to pull from.

DaveG
03-28-2011, 18:42
Calling a 9MM projectile to be "less lethal" and "enemy friendly" is a very ignorant statement.
Congratulations on accumulating all your knowledge from magazines and the Internet.

Well friend, we may disagree, but I'd rather shoot to kill than just piss 'em off or wound them. True, one soldier wounded by a 9mm takes two more out of the fight but I'd say our boys, individually, deserve the best, Browning's .45 ACP...:patriot:

craig19
03-28-2011, 18:45
The Army ran a bunch of trials in '05-'06 testing different rounds and pistols. After millions of dollars spent they decided to stay with M9, for now.

craig19
03-28-2011, 18:49
Well friend, we may disagree, but I'd rather shoot to kill than just piss 'em off or wound them. True, one soldier wounded by a 9mm takes two more out of the fight but I'd say our boys, individually, deserve the best, Browning's .45 ACP...:patriot:

I really don't think it matters. Everyone that goes outside the wire is supposed to have an M-16/M-4, so if you have burned through your 210 rounds of 5.56 and are relying on your side arm, you are in a world of crap.

cessnastud
03-28-2011, 18:49
Brilliant!

Brianharless13
03-28-2011, 18:54
While stationed in Italy myself, we switched to the M9's in 1989. Hey expatman, did you get to tour the Beretta Factory while there? I was a armorer and got the opportunity. Freaking awesome place.

Mr. Gekko
03-28-2011, 19:00
Well friend, we may disagree, but I'd rather shoot to kill than just piss 'em off or wound them. True, one soldier wounded by a 9mm takes two more out of the fight but I'd say our boys, individually, deserve the best, Browning's .45 ACP...:patriot:

Wow, I thought I was in another forum here on GT for a minute. Anyways, a good pissing match about 9 vs 45 is always fun to read. :wavey:

GeorgiaRedfish
03-28-2011, 19:01
Historical inaccuracies and blatant ignorance of 9mm performance.....The same old routine on GlockTalk gets old......

Havasu
03-28-2011, 19:10
In 1911, when the .45 was chosen in favor of the 9mm, the main reason was that the .45 would faulter a horse. Doesn't seem to be as important these days.

Hokie1911
03-28-2011, 19:16
:popcorn:

I wouldn't want to get shot with either.

rsxr22
03-28-2011, 19:27
i wouldnt want to get shot with either as well!!

People need to keep in mind the fact that there not necessarily using the best weapons available. There using good weapons that they can get cheap!

I dont forsee the military switching anytime soon, but my vote would be towards either G17 or G19 if they did, and honestly I think either would be a great choice for current warfare conditions and I think Glock would undercut everyone greatly in order to get the contract. There are so many M9's in service though and in like 2009, they ordered another 450,000! so i cant see them switching personally

GioaJack
03-28-2011, 19:31
Well friend, we may disagree, but I'd rather shoot to kill than just piss 'em off or wound them. True, one soldier wounded by a 9mm takes two more out of the fight but I'd say our boys, individually, deserve the best, Browning's .45 ACP...:patriot:


Am I missing something? If one wound takes three out of the fight why would you choose to have two extra people shooting at you.

Admittedly it's been a lot of mango seasons since I've played that game but have basic survival instincts really changed that much?


Jack

BlayGlock
03-28-2011, 19:39
Won't be a 1911. They are not reliable and will not withstand "hard use". :whistling:

Totally man. And my buddy, who is an ex-SEAL team Tango Down capitan told me .45 is not near as good as 9mm becase the 9mm punches through body armor better...

Hokie1911
03-28-2011, 19:41
Totally man. And my buddy, who is an ex-SEAL team Tango Down capitan told me .45 is not near as good as 9mm becase the 9mm punches through body armor better...

Seriously bro. You would think after 2 world wars, Vietnam, Korea, etc... that they would have "perfected" that 100 year old design? :dunno:

20South
03-28-2011, 20:17
Seriously bro. You would think after 2 world wars, Vietnam, Korea, etc... that they would have "perfected" that 100 year old design? :dunno:

There is only one "perfection", and it took only 4 tries.:tongueout:

Paul7
03-28-2011, 20:17
Whatever happened to all those old military 1911s? Did Clinton have them destroyed with the M-14s?

RedTape
03-28-2011, 20:52
After a bunch of testing, the military decided to stick with the M9. There are some units still using the 1911. I believe the Marines are currently looking at both the Springfield MC Operator and the Colt Rail Gun to supplement their current 1911s.

If I was stuck with ball ammo, I'd much rather have the .45, but either will work with good shot placement. I seriously doubt the military will switch the primary handgun anytime soon.

sargespd
03-28-2011, 21:09
I know that the 1911 was the standard U.S. military sidearm for quite some time, until President Clinton forced them to trade it for the M9 so that we'd have "less lethal" weapons for our military members to use against the enemy. Don't ask me how that makes sense... Anyway, I also know that during the early part of the 2nd Bush administration, folks were talking about bringing a .45 back. A lot of people were talking about an .45 made by HK.
So... Does anyone in the military, or retired from the military know which weapon might be chosen? Would it be a 1911? If one is chosen, do you think that the U.S. would implement it???? I doubt the "enemy friendly" 9mm is going anywhere as long as Obama is in office. :steamed:


Ok, if no one else is going to say it outright, then I will; you are either horribly misinformed and ignorant of the facts and reality, or you are a troll. Perhaps both. Either way, you're wrong.

DaveG
03-28-2011, 21:17
Ok, if no one else is going to say it outright, then I will; you are either horribly misinformed and ignorant of the facts and reality, or you are a troll. Perhaps both. Either way, you're wrong.

Please explain how what I said was wrong... Are 1911s still on any soldier's belts?

FLIPPER 348
03-28-2011, 21:29
I know that the 1911 was the standard U.S. military sidearm for quite some time, until President Clinton forced them to trade it for the M9 so that we'd have "less lethal" weapons for our military members to use against the enemy. :steamed:


dude, you are off your meds

Hokie1911
03-28-2011, 21:34
Please explain how what I said was wrong... Are 1911s still on any soldier's belts?

Seriously?

FLIPPER 348
03-28-2011, 21:37
Please explain how what I said was wrong..

Please provide some proof for your moronic statement.

DMF
03-28-2011, 21:38
Clinton? The M-9 entered Army service in 1990 http://www.army.mil/factfiles/equipment/individual/m9.html George H. W. Bush was the President of the United States in 1990.Actually the trials that selected the M9 were done during the Reagan administration.

It never ceases to amaze me that people, like the OP, will straight lie about the facts to reinforce their hatred of someone. Like the OP and his hatred of Clinton.

HAIL CAESAR
03-28-2011, 21:39
We won't get a 45 unless it comes in a gun from a country the US needs something from.

Or Obama gets some campaign'in money from China (like Clinton did) and they have a 45 ACP to sell us.

JBnTX
03-28-2011, 21:39
The M9 and the 9mm are going to be with us for a long time.

Drastic defense budget cuts are coming in the very near future.
Funding for a new military pistol will never happen. No way.

knedrgr
03-28-2011, 21:42
please stop feeding the troll that's off his meds.

brisk21
03-28-2011, 21:43
If the U.S. were to switch to a .45 the HK .45 or the FN .45 would probably be the two front runners. Either would be a great choice (probably better than the Beretta).

JBnTX
03-28-2011, 21:54
If the U.S. were to switch to a .45 the HK .45 or the FN .45 would probably be the two front runners. Either would be a great choice (probably better than the Beretta).


The HK45 is a fantastic pistol.
It can do everything the 1911 can do and it comes in a modern design.

It would make a great replacement for the m9.

asiparks
03-28-2011, 23:42
So, I would gather DaveG, that your own G26 is only for making bad guys feel a bit uncomfortable whilst you go get your 1911 ?

expatman
03-29-2011, 03:07
While stationed in Italy myself, we switched to the M9's in 1989. Hey expatman, did you get to tour the Beretta Factory while there? I was a armorer and got the opportunity. Freaking awesome place.

What unit were you with over there? I was in the 3/325th ABCT as an 11B1P.

I never bothered to tour the Beretta factory. I was too busy drinking and chasing skirts.

craig19
03-29-2011, 05:18
Please explain how what I said was wrong... Are 1911s still on any soldier's belts?


:faint:

a45sArtwork
03-29-2011, 06:20
Won't be a 1911. They are not reliable and will not withstand "hard use". :whistling:

:cheers:

grecco
03-29-2011, 06:40
I now of many people that ***** about the 9mm, but have yet to meet some one who is willing to put thier money where there mouth is and stand in front of one....

as far as the beretta not being able to take hard use?
its one of if not the most battle tested pistols in the world, i am talking real wars, not gun store commando & mall ninja stuff.

lawdog734
03-29-2011, 06:59
With modern day hollow points the 45 vs 9 debate is just plain silly. The only thing I ever agreed to get shot by was a taser and I'll never make that dumb decision again.....

Hokie1911
03-29-2011, 07:01
With modern day hollow points the 45 vs 9 debate is just plain silly. The only thing I ever agreed to get shot by was a taser and I'll never make that dumb decision again.....

Oh man, I wish I could have seen that. :rofl:

iLift45's
03-29-2011, 07:02
SpecOps use the 45 on the 1911 platform! The Beretta might be the military sidearm but the elite groups know that the 9mm will never come close to what the 45 does and that's put a big hole in their target.

brisk21
03-29-2011, 08:13
The HK45 is a fantastic pistol.
It can do everything the 1911 can do and it comes in a modern design.

It would make a great replacement for the m9.


I agree. The Beretta seems to work well for the troops but Id like to see them back to a .45 simply because it DOES have better stopping power and is a better backup to the M4. Our troops deserve the best, not just something adequate. The HK45 seems to be the best for what the Military requires.

brisk21
03-29-2011, 08:14
I now of many people that ***** about the 9mm, but have yet to meet some one who is willing to put thier money where there mouth is and stand in front of one....

as far as the beretta not being able to take hard use?
its one of if not the most battle tested pistols in the world, i am talking real wars, not gun store commando & mall ninja stuff.


True, but if I had to pick which caliber to be shot by, Id take the 9mm over the .45ACP.

grecco
03-29-2011, 08:39
True, but if I had to pick which caliber to be shot by, Id take the 9mm over the .45ACP.

Brisk21,
i hope you never have to choose,
but would a head shot really make a difference?
will the 45 kill you more than a 9?

yes I understand a bigger bullet means a bigger hole,
but with proper shot placement, I personally dont think it matters.

But hey, the one great thing about America, carry and shoot what you want,
sometimes i feel like a 45 , sometimes i feel like a 9.

MajorD
03-29-2011, 09:39
While in Iraq I did see just a few plainclothes and special ops types carrying 1911's -this was in 04-05
when I ended up in Afghanistan in 2008 did not see a single one even though our base was co-located with a special forces compound and we used the same chow hall(everyone that can carries only a pistol on base)
The "marines" in general are using the Beretta m9 or m9a1- only the very special ops elite USMC formations are using a 1911 and are looking to procure more- it will probably amount to something like 1/1oth of 1 percent of all pistols used by the miltiary(which won't stop all the fanatical former marines from claiming it is a new standard issue USMC gun or the company that produces it from cashing in on the USMC connection)
The beretta (which I carried for 2 tours and have complete confidence in) is the standard service pistol wehter anyone likes it or not. for a pistol not designed or likely in military use to be carried concealed and when compared to guns commonly available in the mid 1980's when it was adopted it is a pretty good gun.
The military wanted and still wants a pistol (as well as other small arms) that has a manual safety that can stay engaged during the on/ off base loading and unloading sequence,which pretty much eliminates a lot of "modern" dao or striker fired guns.
as mentioned above, nearly all troops going out on missions get a carbine or rifle too, so if you are down to a pistol you are in big trouble.
In fact on my Iraq tour most of the guys in my section were issued both a rifle and a pistol,a few months into the tour most of them turned in the pistols to save on the enormous weight we were carrying.
The only troops I have seen recently carrying only a pistol are high ranking officers (0-6 and generals). Even the traditional pistol equipped armor troops and aviators are now carrying m-4 carbines

ancient_serpent
03-29-2011, 10:07
As little as handguns get used by the majority of troops, they should have just had an updated version of the 1911 to replace the WWII ones they had and left well enough alone.
I seriously don't think we'll ever burn through enough pistol ammo to need NATO war stocks of 9mm....

brisk21
03-29-2011, 10:36
Brisk21,
i hope you never have to choose,
but would a head shot really make a difference?
will the 45 kill you more than a 9?

yes I understand a bigger bullet means a bigger hole,
but with proper shot placement, I personally dont think it matters.

But hey, the one great thing about America, carry and shoot what you want,
sometimes i feel like a 45 , sometimes i feel like a 9.


God, I hope not to. I guess a properly placed kill shot, it wouldn't matter. That being said, say a shot to a "surviveable" area, Id rather be shot with a 9mm, all other things being equal. My two favorite calibers are 9 and .45, so Im with ya with the sometimes 9, sometimes .45. By now everyone that pays attention should know that shot placement is what really matters. A good shooter can shoot anything and protect themselves in a deadly manner anyway, and that is what counts.

iLift45's
03-29-2011, 14:23
True, but if I had to pick which caliber to be shot by, Id take the 9mm over the .45ACP.

How about the shootout in Miami the FBI had with those two bank robbers. The 9mm didn't get the job done and it cost some of those Feds their lives. This is what led the FBi to pursue the 10mm. I would bet had they been using 45's the outcome would have been way different. I like shooting my 9's, but I absolutely love my 45! It hits hard and is extremely accurate!

rod727
03-29-2011, 14:41
Ok, if no one else is going to say it outright, then I will; you are either horribly misinformed and ignorant of the facts and reality, or you are a troll. Perhaps both. Either way, you're wrong.

I was just waiting on someone else to jump in first. He lost me with the Clinton administration responsible for transition. Guess that means I'm old if I can remember the pistol trials and the P85 Ruger.

Texanmile
03-29-2011, 14:52
I know that the 1911 was the standard U.S. military sidearm for quite some time, until President Clinton forced them to trade it for the M9 so that we'd have "less lethal" weapons for our military members to use against the enemy. Don't ask me how that makes sense... Anyway, I also know that during the early part of the 2nd Bush administration, folks were talking about bringing a .45 back. A lot of people were talking about an .45 made by HK.
So... Does anyone in the military, or retired from the military know which weapon might be chosen? Would it be a 1911? If one is chosen, do you think that the U.S. would implement it???? I doubt the "enemy friendly" 9mm is going anywhere as long as Obama is in office. :steamed:

Wow... your history/timeline is completely wrong as far as implementation of the M9, but lets just assume that part is right...
1. 9mm vs. .45 give me a break...
2. Do you think the president of the United States actually cares about the caliber of military sidearms, and deliberately influences him?
3. Do you think any president in history has ever wished ill towards his own military on the battlefield by deliberately given them "weaker" weapons?
4. Obama is what is keeping the .45 down?? Is Obama why you got a flat tire last week...? Is he why your girlfriend broke your heart...? I doubt even the most conservative ideologue on here is that ignorant.

If you own a weapon, which I sort of hope you don't... you are obviously no sort of professional, or ever have been, or ever will be judging by your abject ignorance and baseless ideology. Go back to your own ways of researching... Watching cheap thriller movies, buying the gun in the movie and then posting videos of yourself dry-firing on youtube....

mrsurfboard
03-29-2011, 15:14
If the U.S. were to switch to a .45 the HK .45 or the FN .45 would probably be the two front runners. Either would be a great choice (probably better than the Beretta).

I would give the node to the FNP 45 as FNH already makes a bulk of the small arms for the US military and FNH has factories here in the US, so while it is a foreign owned company, they build em here.

mrsurfboard
03-29-2011, 15:17
Calling a 9MM projectile to be "less lethal" and "enemy friendly" is a very ignorant statement.
Congratulations on accumulating all your knowledge from magazines and the Internet.

Got to remember, we are talking about FMJs here. Not high performance hollow points. With FMJs the 9mm is not as lethal as the 45. And the main reason for the switch was to standardize with NATO and to accommodate female shooters.

Mr. Gekko
03-29-2011, 15:25
Welcome. Nice job talking trash on your first post.:wavey:

Hokie1911
03-29-2011, 16:07
Wow... your history/timeline is completely wrong as far as implementation of the M9, but lets just assume that part is right...
1. 9mm vs. .45 give me a break...
2. Do you think the president of the United States actually cares about the caliber of military sidearms, and deliberately influences him?
3. Do you think any president in history has ever wished ill towards his own military on the battlefield by deliberately given them "weaker" weapons?
4. Obama is what is keeping the .45 down?? Is Obama why you got a flat tire last week...? Is he why your girlfriend broke your heart...? I doubt even the most conservative ideologue on here is that ignorant.

If you own a weapon, which I sort of hope you don't... you are obviously no sort of professional, or ever have been, or ever will be judging by your abject ignorance and baseless ideology. Go back to your own ways of researching... Watching cheap thriller movies, buying the gun in the movie and then posting videos of yourself dry-firing on youtube....

Epic first post bro. :supergrin:

:welcome:

expatman
03-29-2011, 18:17
How about the shootout in Miami the FBI had with those two bank robbers. The 9mm didn't get the job done and it cost some of those Feds their lives. This is what led the FBi to pursue the 10mm. I would bet had they been using 45's the outcome would have been way different. I like shooting my 9's, but I absolutely love my 45! It hits hard and is extremely accurate!

I try to avoid the 9mm vs. .45 debates as a general rule but I do prefer a .45. I have both and carry a 9mm for work. I find both acceptable but prefer the .45.

As for your Miami shootout analogy, in this case it is weak. IIRC one of the bad guys was shot with a 12g. slug and continued to fight. By your logic 12g. sucks and we should all use at least 10g for our home defense shotgun.

Not picking a fight. Just pointing out a quirk in your example.

craig19
03-29-2011, 20:39
How about the shootout in Miami the FBI had with those two bank robbers. The 9mm didn't get the job done and it cost some of those Feds their lives. This is what led the FBi to pursue the 10mm. I would bet had they been using 45's the outcome would have been way different. I like shooting my 9's, but I absolutely love my 45! It hits hard and is extremely accurate!

I don't know how much you can blame 9mm for those agents deaths. I'm pretty sure the one agent lost his gun when the car crashed. I know most of the other agents had .357s loaded with .38 spl rounds.

brisk21
03-29-2011, 20:55
How about the shootout in Miami the FBI had with those two bank robbers. The 9mm didn't get the job done and it cost some of those Feds their lives. This is what led the FBi to pursue the 10mm. I would bet had they been using 45's the outcome would have been way different. I like shooting my 9's, but I absolutely love my 45! It hits hard and is extremely accurate!

Well, forgive me if I cross the line with this, but I believe that the shooters are the ones who didn't get the job done, not the 9mm round. If you shoot someone in a vital area with a 9mm they WILL go down. If your talking body armor, REAL body armor, pretty much any handgun round will fail. (in fact, 9mm defeats it better than .45 ACP.) Just because they are the FBI, doesn't mean they are gun experts. Instead of worrying so much about caliber, they should have started putting M4 carbines in every car to solve the problem they had at the shootout, and maybe do some more training with their 9mms to improve their ability to hit what their shooting. That being said, I mean no disrespect to the FBI or the officers involved. They dealt with something that I could not imagine.

brisk21
03-29-2011, 20:56
Wow... your history/timeline is completely wrong as far as implementation of the M9, but lets just assume that part is right...
1. 9mm vs. .45 give me a break...
2. Do you think the president of the United States actually cares about the caliber of military sidearms, and deliberately influences him?
3. Do you think any president in history has ever wished ill towards his own military on the battlefield by deliberately given them "weaker" weapons?
4. Obama is what is keeping the .45 down?? Is Obama why you got a flat tire last week...? Is he why your girlfriend broke your heart...? I doubt even the most conservative ideologue on here is that ignorant.

If you own a weapon, which I sort of hope you don't... you are obviously no sort of professional, or ever have been, or ever will be judging by your abject ignorance and baseless ideology. Go back to your own ways of researching... Watching cheap thriller movies, buying the gun in the movie and then posting videos of yourself dry-firing on youtube....


Your gonna fit in just great around here!!!! Welcome:supergrin:

T-Rod45
03-30-2011, 05:01
I found a classified photo of the OP...

http://stuff.orly.ch/img/blog/dont_worry_sir_i_m_from_the_internet.jpg



... He is an expert in combat.

MajorD
03-30-2011, 08:30
it may be hard for those not recently in a combat zone to understand but ammo standardization is important- when I rolled into Iraq in 04 our issue ammo was all british because that was what was available.
In Afghanistan in 08 one of my guys scrounged up a grease gun but we could not put it to use due to lack of ammo. when all the ammo you are going to use has to get shipped from half a world away it is a lot tougher to keep things shooting than here at home

Kegs
03-30-2011, 08:41
I know that the 1911 was the standard U.S. military sidearm for quite some time, until President Clinton forced them to trade it for the M9 so that we'd have "less lethal" weapons for our military members to use against the enemy. Don't ask me how that makes sense... Anyway, I also know that during the early part of the 2nd Bush administration, folks were talking about bringing a .45 back. A lot of people were talking about an .45 made by HK.
So... Does anyone in the military, or retired from the military know which weapon might be chosen? Would it be a 1911? If one is chosen, do you think that the U.S. would implement it???? I doubt the "enemy friendly" 9mm is going anywhere as long as Obama is in office. :steamed:

When are you mental midgets ever going to learn that decisions like this have absolutely NOTHING to do with the POTUS.

If the president did everything you think he did he'd have to work 100 hours a day.

:upeyes:

Evolve already.

-----------------------------

Now, to address issues in your post appropriate to the forum, some double stack and single stack 1911 guns have been built, tested and issued to certain troops in the U.S. armed forces.

These will not at any time soon replace the M9, since it is already a fine cqb secondary weapon to which to supplement the M4 and M16 carbines which are most commonly issued.

grecco
03-30-2011, 09:02
God, I hope not to. I guess a properly placed kill shot, it wouldn't matter. That being said, say a shot to a "surviveable" area, Id rather be shot with a 9mm, all other things being equal. My two favorite calibers are 9 and .45, so Im with ya with the sometimes 9, sometimes .45. By now everyone that pays attention should know that shot placement is what really matters. A good shooter can shoot anything and protect themselves in a deadly manner anyway, and that is what counts.

Brisk21,
very well stated.

ancient_serpent
03-31-2011, 21:37
it may be hard for those not recently in a combat zone to understand but ammo standardization is important- when I rolled into Iraq in 04 our issue ammo was all british because that was what was available.
In Afghanistan in 08 one of my guys scrounged up a grease gun but we could not put it to use due to lack of ammo. when all the ammo you are going to use has to get shipped from half a world away it is a lot tougher to keep things shooting than here at home

Weird.
When I was kicking around the middle east in '03 we brought our own. And we had our own when I was there in '05, '06, '07, '08, '09, '10, and '11.
I figure if we'd stuck to what we already had in the system and left well enough alone, other countries would have followed our lead.
Kinda like with the 7.62 NATO, and later 5.56.
Or, just not relied on us for pistol ammo.

glock2740
03-31-2011, 21:54
Wow... your history/timeline is completely wrong as far as implementation of the M9, but lets just assume that part is right...
1. 9mm vs. .45 give me a break...
2. Do you think the president of the United States actually cares about the caliber of military sidearms, and deliberately influences him?
3. Do you think any president in history has ever wished ill towards his own military on the battlefield by deliberately given them "weaker" weapons?
4. Obama is what is keeping the .45 down?? Is Obama why you got a flat tire last week...? Is he why your girlfriend broke your heart...? I doubt even the most conservative ideologue on here is that ignorant.

If you own a weapon, which I sort of hope you don't... you are obviously no sort of professional, or ever have been, or ever will be judging by your abject ignorance and baseless ideology. Go back to your own ways of researching... Watching cheap thriller movies, buying the gun in the movie and then posting videos of yourself dry-firing on youtube....
Pretty good first post. :thumbsup: Welcome to GT:wavey:

Hokie1911
03-31-2011, 21:57
Pretty good first post. :thumbsup: Welcome to GT:wavey:

Yeah, he will fit in well here. :supergrin:

glock2740
03-31-2011, 22:00
When are you mental midgets ever going to learn that decisions like this have absolutely NOTHING to do with the POTUS.

If the president did everything you think he did he'd have to work 100 hours a day.

:upeyes:

.
Exactly. We all know he's too busy playing golf, taking vacations and making appearances on the view and other crap talk shows to have any time to do anything else. :rofl:

furioso2112
03-31-2011, 23:12
Your sorceror's ways haven't given you clairvoyance to find the stolen data tapes nor vision to find the hidden rebel base. Nothing can defeat this battle station. ccckk-uhhh....

release him, vader

as you wish

I have both. Most recently, I shot the .45. It was sweet. It had a good beat and was easy to dance to. I give it a 7.35 on a scale of 4.27 to 9.86. The 9 is sublime. I give it an A- on a scale of neptune to zenith, considering the vernal equinox on the tropic of cancer.

Batesmotel
03-31-2011, 23:32
True, one soldier wounded by a 9mm takes two more out of the fight

This line of thinking is a fallacy. It is based on what we do with our wounded. In almost every theatre we have ever fought in, enemy wounded were just a fleeting afterthought to the other combatants until the fight is over. Most armies will let the wounded die if a fight is still underway. They are only cared for if recovered after the fight.

Valdrin
04-01-2011, 01:11
When it comes down to a 1911 or a M9 for our troops, I think that they are better off with the M9. Everyone agrees that shot placement is the key to taking down an enemy, and M9 magazines have a little over twice the capacity as the 1911's magazines (15 to 7). Those extra rounds give our troops a much better chance of hitting something that will incapacitate the target. They also allow for more covering fire, etc.

BigJake
04-01-2011, 01:24
This line of thinking is a fallacy. It is based on what we do with our wounded. In almost every theatre we have ever fought in, enemy wounded were just a fleeting afterthought to the other combatants until the fight is over. Most armies will let the wounded die if a fight is still underway. They are only cared for if recovered after the fight.


That isn't true. I know first hand that people don't just leave wounded guys to die. They take them with them if it is at all possible. That goes for Afghanistan and Iraq. I couldn't say first hand knowledge of Vietnam but I know what the books said that I have read and the Cong and NVA took there wounded with them.

MajorD
04-01-2011, 07:36
Weird.
When I was kicking around the middle east in '03 we brought our own. And we had our own when I was there in '05, '06, '07, '08, '09, '10, and '11.
I figure if we'd stuck to what we already had in the system and left well enough alone, other countries would have followed our lead.
Kinda like with the 7.62 NATO, and later 5.56.
Or, just not relied on us for pistol ammo.

based on the frequency of your deployments I imagine you are in some sort of special ops formation- unfortunately straight leg units don't always think of supply with as much "enthusiasm" -expecting certain resources to be handles at echelons above them- and we know what can happen then. I agree with leaving well enough alone most of the time.
Ironically after the first month or so in country supply guys made us turn in the british ammo for U.S. made and IMI made(TZZ headstamp) due to function issues discovered in m4's with the british ammo -so much for nato standard I guess!

tuica
04-01-2011, 13:31
Yes - the switch was originally made as a military/political compromise; we would adopt the 9mm, and the official NATO rifle round would become the 5.56mm. The handgun the US military should be using? The G21 of course. Cheers

MD357
04-01-2011, 13:36
The handgun the US military should be using? The G21 of course. Cheers

Excellent idea.... they can double as a grenade.

http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/attachments/glock/7889d1205106870-glock-kaboom-glock03.jpg

BigJake
04-01-2011, 13:45
Excellent idea.... they can double as a grenade.

http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/attachments/glock/7889d1205106870-glock-kaboom-glock03.jpg


Yep every G21 will blow up

engineer151515
04-01-2011, 14:00
How about the shootout in Miami the FBI had with those two bank robbers. The 9mm didn't get the job done and it cost some of those Feds their lives. This is what led the FBi to pursue the 10mm. I would bet had they been using 45's the outcome would have been way different. I like shooting my 9's, but I absolutely love my 45! It hits hard and is extremely accurate!

Actually - if you read the details on that shootout, you would find that the 9mm round that hit Platt and stopped an inch short of his heart had traveled through his forearm first. I doubt a low velocity 45 would have performed much better. The FBI must have agreed as they were looking for higher velocity semi-auto rounds after this gunfight. Edmundo Mireles put an end to this lengthy and horrendous exchange with a .357 magnum.

engineer151515
04-01-2011, 14:03
I would give the node to the FNP 45 as FNH already makes a bulk of the small arms for the US military and FNH has factories here in the US, so while it is a foreign owned company, they build em here.

I thought this would be a good choice too.

engineer151515
04-01-2011, 14:11
When it comes down to a 1911 or a M9 for our troops, I think that they are better off with the M9. Everyone agrees that shot placement is the key to taking down an enemy, and M9 magazines have a little over twice the capacity as the 1911's magazines (15 to 7). Those extra rounds give our troops a much better chance of hitting something that will incapacitate the target. They also allow for more covering fire, etc.

That was a big consideration in the Cold War scenarios where Warsaw Pact forces outnumbered NATO 3 to 1 or more.

Before things went tactical nuclear, Europe was expected to be a holding action. We were to sacrifice land for time, blowing bridges along the way. The ammo you had was the ammo you used as resupply might not be available until most of Germany had already been over-run and air superiority could be established. We were basically facing a Soviet style "blitzkreig".

Being able to 1. have a standardized round and 2. carry a lot of it for a given weight was paramount.

Skeet732
04-01-2011, 14:20
I was told by a US Army reserve noncom that everyone was/had gone back to the .45! Is he wrong?

awpk03s
04-01-2011, 14:20
I really don't think it matters. Everyone that goes outside the wire is supposed to have an M-16/M-4, so if you have burned through your 210 rounds of 5.56 and are relying on your side arm, you are in a world of crap.

True that. +1 to this.

BigJake
04-01-2011, 14:21
I was told by a US Army reserve noncom that everyone was/had gone back to the .45! Is he wrong?


april fools right?:rofl:

expatman
04-01-2011, 14:30
I was told by a US Army reserve noncom that everyone was/had gone back to the .45! Is he wrong?

In a word; YES.

Spiffums
04-01-2011, 18:12
I saw where Taurus entered one of the 24/7 line to the latest SOCOM trials.

Shipwreck-The-Sequel
04-01-2011, 18:33
I saw where Taurus entered one of the 24/7 line to the latest SOCOM trials.

Man, I sure would feel safer with a Taurus :rofl::rofl:

Texas Bulldog
04-01-2011, 18:34
.357sig please!

god i love that round!

atl-g33
04-01-2011, 18:57
.357sig please!

god i love that round!

agreed!

MD357
04-01-2011, 22:48
Yep every G21 will blow up

Nope, but enough Glocks do to take note. :cool:

COLDSTEEL165
04-01-2011, 23:56
The Beretta 92 series is being uesd all over the world by different military & police unit's, & is a very reliable gun, when the right ammo is being used for SD, Back in the 60's when I was serving in the military, I carried a Browning Hi- Power with great result's & never any problems, I think that the Beretta pistol will be around for a long time with the military, They may change to a cal40. in the Beretta to replace the 9mm, but that's it.?

MajorD
04-02-2011, 07:37
NO plans at this time for us to go to a 45. some trials (at the request of the air force of all things) in the last couple years were cancelled and they were told you are getting more Berettas. Bulldog,With fmj ammo I do not think the additional velocity of the 357 sig would make any difference. I agree with some of the research I've seen written(no I do not recall source) that indicates FMJ's are pretty similar in rate of incapacitation at around 60-70 % one shot stops in the major pistol cals(40/9/45) and go much higher(85-95%) with hollow points the .mil is not allowed to use.

maestrogustav
04-03-2011, 19:54
I would be inclined to avoid those percentage figures. The only source from which they could come has been discredited.

this does not discredit your assessment about the effectiveness of FMJ at handgun velocities.

glkdawg45
04-03-2011, 20:02
Clinton? The M-9 entered Army service in 1990 http://www.army.mil/factfiles/equipment/individual/m9.html George H. W. Bush was the President of the United States in 1990.

Actually, it went into service, late 80's, not 1990. But maybe that was for the Army.
Reason way the change was that almost all NATO pistol ammo is 9mm, and our smart generals thought that we should have the same.

But hey, those .45's we had when I first went in were at least 40 yrs old, if not more. I could hit the target better, when I threw the pistol at the target.:rofl:

brisk21
04-03-2011, 22:00
Actually, it went into service, late 80's, not 1990. But maybe that was for the Army.
Reason way the change was that almost all NATO pistol ammo is 9mm, and our smart generals thought that we should have the same.

But hey, those .45's we had when I first went in were at least 40 yrs old, if not more. I could hit the target better, when I threw the pistol at the target.:rofl:


Yes. All those worn out .45 Colts the Military used until the 1980's became very inaccurate and actually gave the .45 and the 1911 a bad name for being inaccurate. Of course, the people who believed that are also the people who believed that Tyco (toy company) made the plastic buttstocks for the M16s.:rofl:

glkdawg45
04-04-2011, 14:39
I didn't know that TyCo made the M-16 stocks ! ! !:brickwall::uglylol:

ancient_serpent
04-04-2011, 21:31
Ironically after the first month or so in country supply guys made us turn in the british ammo for U.S. made and IMI made(TZZ headstamp) due to function issues discovered in m4's with the british ammo -so much for nato standard I guess!

HA, I love this kind of thing. All that time and energy put into standardizing ammo and it works out this way. Stay safe out there.