but there is a reason they ditched the 1911's and 45acp long ago.
Yes, there is a reason we replaced the 1911A1 and the .45acp in the mid 80s.
This,
They wanted more capacity for volume of fire not necessarily for kills but to keep enemies at bay.
wasn't it.
It sounds plausible, it may even be true, but it isn't the reason we went from the .45acp to the 9mm Luger. The reason is that we
made a deal with the Europeans (NATO) back in the later 1950s, and wonder of wonders, actually kept our word, though it was nearly 30 years later.
Back then, we wanted our (then new) 7.62mm round (aka .308Win) to be the new NATO standard rifle and MG round. Several European NATO members strongly objected.
Simply put, changing to an entirely new rifle & MG round is EXPENSIVE. (switching to a new handgun round is also expensive, but significantly less expensive than changing rifle rounds).
To make a long story shorter, (and leaving out a lot of details) a deal was struck, where, if the Europeans adopted our 7.62x51mm round as the NATO standard (AND paid their own expenses to do it), then WE (the US) would adopt their 9mm pistol round as our NATO standard,
when we replaced our aging 1911A1 .45ACP pistols.
NATO members accepted that (though there was still a lot of griping and discontent), and adopted the 7.62x51mm NATO, expecting the US to convert to the 9mm NATO (aka 9x19mm, aka 9mm Luger) in a few years, as the newest 1911A1s in the US inventory were bought in 1945.
We didn't replace the 1911A1 and .45ACP until 1984. And when we did replace the 1911A1, we DID keep our word and adopted the 9mm NATO.
Many Europeans felt that it was a deliberate insult, that we waited so long to adopt the 9mm, particularly in light of the fact that a few short years AFTER they spent their own money adopting the 7.62NATO, the US adopted the 5.56mm as our new rifle round, which lead NATO member nations to have to spend their own money
again, to change to the new US standard. To say they weren't really happy about that is a huge understatement. Barking mad and foaming at the mouth isn't a huge overstatement, either.
The M1919 machine gun and 50 caliber cartridge is 98 years old and is still cutting edge.
Sorry, this is slightly incorrect. The M1919 machine gun is the aircooled version of the M1917 water cooled machine gun, and both are .30-06 caliber, not .50 cal. And neither the 1917 nor the 1919 have been cutting edge for well over 45 years now. The 1919 was replaced by the M60 as our GPMG in the 1960s, and the M60 has been largely replaced with the M240 beginning in the 1980s.
The .50BMG (Browning Machine Gun) round was developed in the 1920s, and its gun the M2 .50 cal entered service in the late 20s, and is STILL on active duty as our mainstream heavy machine gun. And for very good reason. No one has yet come up with a gun that is significantly better than the old Browning M2 design in ALL aspects.
As to the Army Chief of Staff testifying before the Senate about the "new rifle round" at this point, it means NOTHING, really. It may make the Senators happy or unhappy, but it means nothing. The round has NOT yet been chosen, and all the Chief of Staff can tell Congress is his
opinion about what is under consideration. And while his opinion may carry some weight in some circles, it may not apply to what is eventually chosen, when/IF something is actually chosen.
We are still at the point where there is a great deal of "sound and fury, signifying nothing". Yes, many people, and even some with some influence are listening to our troops requests for a round with better performance, and making public noises to show that they are listening.
However, this does NOT mean that we will adopt a new round. Sure, we ought to, but that doesn't mean we actually WILL.
I remind all of the historical precedent, that the .276 Pedersen had ballistic advantages over the .30-06, and yet we did not adopt it, we kept the .30-06 for nearly two decades after the .276 could have been adopted, which included the entirety of WW II and the Korean conflict. And then, when we did change its wasn't to the .276 round but to a new round, which became the 7.62x51mm NATO. AND which had EXACTLY the same ballistics as the .30-06 round it replaced.
Just because they are talking about it, examining possible candidates, etc., doesn't mean its going to happen soon, or even at all. It COULD, but if it does, it would be a huge change from our historical pattern. And I wouldn't put any great faith in it actually happening in the next few years, no matter what is being said right now.
Personally, I would love to see our sons and daughters provided with something more effective than the 5.56mm the MacNamara defense dept stuck us with half a nearly century ago. I do not however, believe it will happen any time soon.
I'd love to be wrong about this, but I don't think I am. Time will tell.