Army likely to "Dump" 9MM for 40s&w or 45's?

Gun, shooting and equipment discussions unrelated to CHL issues

Moderator: carlson1

User avatar

olafpfj
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 661
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:03 pm
Location: Grapevine

Re: Army likely to "Dump" 9MM for 40s&w or 45's?

#16

Post by olafpfj »

G26ster wrote:
CC Italian wrote:Both of them said the only time someone used an m9 was when there rifle or shotgun malfunctioned. One even described the M9 as useful as a door stop!
I need a recent combat vet to school me on the "current" military (Army/Marine) policy on weapons issue. Back in the "olden days," from which my experience comes, pistols were not issued to everyone in the combat arms. For example, if you were a "rifleman" you carried the current battle rifle of the day, and no pistol. If you were a "heavy weapons" type that carried a light machine gun or part of a crew served weapon crew, you had a pistol. Support personnel usually had pistols or rifles dependent on duty position. When did the military begin issuing a rifle and a pistol to an individual soldier? I'm, not addressing special ops personnel, but rather the infantry type who are deployed in combat operations.
Not current or former military but...

The article states that they have 238k and are looking for 265k replacements. That doesn't add up anywhere close to general issue so it doesn't appear anything has changed. I could be completely talking out my backside but that's my parsing of the details FWIW.
"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law." -Winston Churchill

Dave2
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 3166
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:39 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Army likely to "Dump" 9MM for 40s&w or 45's?

#17

Post by Dave2 »

G26ster wrote:
CC Italian wrote:Both of them said the only time someone used an m9 was when there rifle or shotgun malfunctioned. One even described the M9 as useful as a door stop!
I need a recent combat vet to school me on the "current" military (Army/Marine) policy on weapons issue. Back in the "olden days," from which my experience comes, pistols were not issued to everyone in the combat arms. For example, if you were a "rifleman" you carried the current battle rifle of the day, and no pistol. If you were a "heavy weapons" type that carried a light machine gun or part of a crew served weapon crew, you had a pistol. Support personnel usually had pistols or rifles dependent on duty position. When did the military begin issuing a rifle and a pistol to an individual soldier? I'm, not addressing special ops personnel, but rather the infantry type who are deployed in combat operations.
Dunno what the current practice is, but I think if I were in infantry, I'd want a pistol only as a backup gun -- in case my rifle was broken/stolen/etc -- and I think only with maybe two or three full magazines (including the one in the gun). Or maybe their packs are already so heavy that they regret the weight of their own sweat... I don't know.
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.
User avatar

G26ster
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:28 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Army likely to "Dump" 9MM for 40s&w or 45's?

#18

Post by G26ster »

Dave2 wrote:
G26ster wrote:
CC Italian wrote:Both of them said the only time someone used an m9 was when there rifle or shotgun malfunctioned. One even described the M9 as useful as a door stop!
I need a recent combat vet to school me on the "current" military (Army/Marine) policy on weapons issue. Back in the "olden days," from which my experience comes, pistols were not issued to everyone in the combat arms. For example, if you were a "rifleman" you carried the current battle rifle of the day, and no pistol. If you were a "heavy weapons" type that carried a light machine gun or part of a crew served weapon crew, you had a pistol. Support personnel usually had pistols or rifles dependent on duty position. When did the military begin issuing a rifle and a pistol to an individual soldier? I'm, not addressing special ops personnel, but rather the infantry type who are deployed in combat operations.
Dunno what the current practice is, but I think if I were in infantry, I'd want a pistol only as a backup gun -- in case my rifle was broken/stolen/etc -- and I think only with maybe two or three full magazines (including the one in the gun). Or maybe their packs are already so heavy that they regret the weight of their own sweat... I don't know.
Well certainly in World wars, Korea, RVN lots of extra weapons were picked up off the battlefield due to mass casualties, but I'm not so sure about today's combat. It's not like you can just get a pistol anywhere you want, along with spare mags and ammo. Not saying it's not done, but I don't think it's the norm. But as I said, I'm from the "olden days." :mrgreen:

Chris
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 611
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:32 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Army likely to "Dump" 9MM for 40s&w or 45's?

#19

Post by Chris »

Is it undeserved bashing of the 9mm? If the benchmark of handguns is the 1911 of WWII, then what would those same US troops of the era say of being hit by a Luger or a Walther? The Germans carried twice as much ammo to the pound as the US troops did with their 45s. The whole reason they went 223 was to carry more ammo. Personally, in a military setting where help may not come immediately when it's needed 10 minutes ago, I'd take my chances with the smaller bullet and a greater quantity of ammo, than a larger bullet with ammo reduced by half.

ghostrider
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1758
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:05 am
Location: Free Republic of Texas

Re: Army likely to "Dump" 9MM for 40s&w or 45's?

#20

Post by ghostrider »

Glocks can have safeties installed.

As far as I know they're after market installations.
Glocks have come from the factory in the past with a manual thumb safety (17s) for certain police departments.


An aftermarket safety is available:

http://cominolli.com/product_info.php?products_id=29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
NRA Member
Amateur Radio Operator

longhorn_92
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1621
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:07 pm

Re: Army likely to "Dump" 9MM for 40s&w or 45's?

#21

Post by longhorn_92 »

Blah Blah Blah... Army plans to change handgun... Blah Blah Blah...

Haven't they been talking about this for years? They won't change the M9... nor the M4.
“If you try to shoot me, I will have to shoot you back, and I promise you I won’t miss!”

NRA Endowment Member
TSRA Member
User avatar

baldeagle
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5240
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:26 pm
Location: Richardson, TX

Re: Army likely to "Dump" 9MM for 40s&w or 45's?

#22

Post by baldeagle »

The performance of ball ammo in war has no relationship to the performance of hollow point ammo in civilian shooting incidents. The fact is that rifles are more deadly than pistols, which is why every Marine and every infantryman and every support personnel is issued one but only certain ranks and MOSes are issued pistols.
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member
User avatar

G26ster
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:28 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Army likely to "Dump" 9MM for 40s&w or 45's?

#23

Post by G26ster »

baldeagle wrote:The performance of ball ammo in war has no relationship to the performance of hollow point ammo in civilian shooting incidents. The fact is that rifles are more deadly than pistols, which is why every Marine and every infantryman and every support personnel is issued one but only certain ranks and MOSes are issued pistols.
I agree, but wouldn't the M240 machine gunners in an Infantry platoon be issued pistols? In my day (with the M60) they were, but I'm outdated.
User avatar

carlson1
Moderator
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 11779
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:11 am

Re: Army likely to "Dump" 9MM for 40s&w or 45's?

#24

Post by carlson1 »

Ziran wrote:If you have to use non expanding ammo (FMJ) then 9mm is a poor choice. In that situation 45 would be the way to go.

If you can use modern expanding ammunition then 9mm is an excellent choice.
:iagree:
Image
User avatar

JALLEN
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 3081
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 4:11 pm
Location: Comal County

Re: Army likely to "Dump" 9MM for 40s&w or 45's?

#25

Post by JALLEN »

Beiruty wrote:The new pistol caliber should be the new 5.7x28mm. Give a new 5.7 to each GI.
Why?

That round/weapon hasn't made a very good impression on guys who shoot other people for a living. My sense is that they rank it right down there with .22mag. They get a lot of attention because the armor piercing round penetrates 45 layers of kevlar, but then what? Nobody can buy or possess a/p rounds except them, and police.
Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.
User avatar

Beiruty
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 9655
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Allen, Texas

Re: Army likely to "Dump" 9MM for 40s&w or 45's?

#26

Post by Beiruty »

JALLEN wrote:
Beiruty wrote:The new pistol caliber should be the new 5.7x28mm. Give a new 5.7 to each GI.
Why?

That round/weapon hasn't made a very good impression on guys who shoot other people for a living. My sense is that they rank it right down there with .22mag. They get a lot of attention because the armor piercing round penetrates 45 layers of kevlar, but then what? Nobody can buy or possess a/p rounds except them, and police.
For US armed forces and LEO, this rd makes a lot of sense. Sub-machine guns and pistol rd that do have an AP, fast rd in a small package. Russian are doing just that for their pistol rds, a 9mm!.

http://www.thegunmag.com/russia-picks-n ... ing-round/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Beiruty,
United we stand, dispersed we falter
2014: NRA Endowment lifetime member
User avatar

jimlongley
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6134
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:31 pm
Location: Allen, TX

Re: Army likely to "Dump" 9MM for 40s&w or 45's?

#27

Post by jimlongley »

Chris wrote:Is it undeserved bashing of the 9mm? If the benchmark of handguns is the 1911 of WWII, then what would those same US troops of the era say of being hit by a Luger or a Walther? The Germans carried twice as much ammo to the pound as the US troops did with their 45s. The whole reason they went 223 was to carry more ammo. Personally, in a military setting where help may not come immediately when it's needed 10 minutes ago, I'd take my chances with the smaller bullet and a greater quantity of ammo, than a larger bullet with ammo reduced by half.
Part of the issue is a change in the view of combat in general. Studies of rounds fired in previous wars led the high muckety mucks to believe that the troops needed to be able to carry more rounds, thus the need to go to a lighter gun and rounds. If WWI were taken as the benchmark and declared X number of rounds were fired per enemy casualty, then WWII Was X*10, and by the time we got to Viet Nam the round count was something like X*100. I am not intending to portray the actual round count, but I have heard that an Army Quartermasters' study came up with a count of around 3000 rounds expended per enemy casualty in the 'Nam, and working backwards WWII would be on the order of 300 and WWI about 30. And that would seem to correspond with changes in weaponry associated with those conflicts: WWI bolt action rifles; WWII semi-automatics are common in the second half; and in the 'Nam we transitioned from full auto M14s to smaller and lighter full auto M16s with their much larger ammo load.

My grandpappy (enlisted in 1913, made Brigadier General in 1944) used to decry the lack of fire discipline in troops during WWII. Shots were not carefully placed, but the rifle was pointed in the general direction of the enemy and the magazine emptied, and it got worse in the 'Nam where "spray and pray" was the watchword. The Army needed to have a gun with smaller bullets so troops could carry more to spray.

The same could not be generally said of pistols and ammo, as there was so little combat experience, ie battles were not completely fought with pistols, but the view in the military that the 1911 had long since passed its prime and that we needed to carry a round compatible with our allies in NATO, led to the adoption of the relatively wimpy 9mm when the average line soldier knew, who didn't carry one, knew, on testimony of his buddy/cousin/sister in law's brother's friend, that a .45 could knock you down just by hitting your finger and tear your entire arm off if it hit your hand, but that it was pure luck if it hit you at all because it was so totally inaccurate.

Combat has changed, and a lot of pistol rounds are being expended. Our troops are generally issued carbines, not rifles, and if you watch the YouTube videos of combat in the present day, you see an awful lot of rounds go down range without much aiming taking place, but the firefights that seem to end quickest seem to have less rounds fired. Spray and pray seems to still be a normal tactic, but aimed and controlled fire can be found out there as a strategy.

I think, as we see the military finally swing back to disciplined fire, we will see more of a shift back to the tried and true, and if our NATO allies want us to shoot compatible ammo, they will have to change their guns to match our, and besides, we have more of them.
Real gun control, carrying 24/7/365

Stripes Dude
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 1:15 pm
Location: Collin County

Re: Army likely to "Dump" 9MM for 40s&w or 45's?

#28

Post by Stripes Dude »

Beiruty wrote:The new pistol caliber should be the new 5.7x28mm. Give a new 5.7 to each GI.

[ Image ]

I'm not familiar with the ballistics behind the 5.7. Is there enough stopping power to be the chosen military sidearm?

stash
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 850
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:04 am
Location: Woodcreek

Re: Army likely to "Dump" 9MM for 40s&w or 45's?

#29

Post by stash »

Off topic a bit - I just read the other day that the constable office where I live (a small office) is making the change from what ever handgun the deputy's wanted to carry to the Glock 17. Apparently it was an ammo thing as in everyone using the same caliber. It was not indicated, but I would bet they will be using HP ammo. I was proud to see that several organizations in the precinct donated money to make the purchase of the Glocks.
TSRA
NRA
TFC
USMC 1961-1966
User avatar

Beiruty
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 9655
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Allen, Texas

Re: Army likely to "Dump" 9MM for 40s&w or 45's?

#30

Post by Beiruty »

Stripes Dude wrote:
Beiruty wrote:The new pistol caliber should be the new 5.7x28mm. Give a new 5.7 to each GI.

[ Image ]

I'm not familiar with the ballistics behind the 5.7. Is there enough stopping power to be the chosen military sidearm?
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Five-seven#Ammunition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Image
Beiruty,
United we stand, dispersed we falter
2014: NRA Endowment lifetime member
Post Reply

Return to “General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion”