Corps chooses 9mm over .45

Status
Not open for further replies.
The arguments boil down to this: The .45-caliber round is the bigger bullet, so it has the “knock down power” to neutralize any adversary with one shot; while pistols that fire 9mm rounds are generally more accurate
Click to expand...

Do tell how 9mm pistols are more accurate than 45ACP pistols..... :confused: I mean really, if they found this out in their research it could really lay rest to these internet caliber debates.

The .45-caliber round is also more expensive than its 9mm counterpart, Clapperton said. For all of these reasons, the FBI is moving from Smith & Wesson .40-caliber pistols back to 9mm handguns
Click to expand...

Ok so because .45ACP costs more (and is apparently less accurate) than 9mm the FBI is switching from 40S&W to 9mm? wait wut?
 
BUTBUTBUTBUTBUT...

.45! John Moses Browning! 'Murica! Lazor Beem of Splooshy Deth!

This is a dark day in America's history...

:p
 
Not the first time the military has gone to a .38 (9mm).

It'll be interesting to see how long it takes them to correct it this time. ;)
 
It's about time. The Army proved in 1946 that the 9mm was the better round. Despite the legend both the 45 and 1911 were viewed as lacking after both WW-1 and WW-2 and by 1946 the Army wanted to dump both. The only reason it didn't happen 70 years ago was due to a huge supply of perfectly good 1911 handguns and no urgency, or budget, to replace them.
 
Cant speak for marines but this old Airborne Infantryman would choose a RIFLE.

The only time I felt the need for a pistol in combat, was when I was carrying an M-60. We had to carry a weapon with us at all time.

Any pistol, preferably a small one, beats carrying an M-60 machine gun through the chow line.
 
Never can be sure if that's what the "expert" actually said or what the "journalist" thought he said after not understanding a word of it and misinterpreting it all.
Kind normal these days.
Click to expand...

This is so true. I have a hard time believing that a ballistics expert would say that.

On the same note, the final choice comes down to a government decision, often made with the same level of brain power as the journalist.
 
You have to keep in mind this is for Raiders only. Not regular infantrymen. As mentioned in the article, part of the decision was a need for a gun that could be concealed as well as openly carried.

My understanding is there are increasing cases of enemy combatants being equipped with body armor which has led to some changes in training. NONE of the common pistol rounds are effective against body armor, so putting rounds where body armor is not present is increasingly important.
 
Again, only the hits count. I carried the M191A1 twice during my active duty days, I received ZERO training on it and NEVER went to the range.
 
I can see going with the 9mm but the Glock19? What a joke! Why not the CZ75 or the CZ,P-01,Sig226??? A plastic striker fired gun.Dumb IMO.
 
Well one more thing to think about is if we really wanted the best pistol caliber we would go with the 357sig & the sig226 pistol to shoot it. Make all our m16/m4's piston guns in 6.8 & the pistol's in 357sig. Tell NATO that "WE THE USA ARE GOING WITH new calibers". WE pay most of the bills for NATO so they go along with it or stay with there s**ty calibers & pay for it them self! Done deal. JMO.
 
I carried the 1911A1 both stateside and nam, qualified expert with it, that started my love affair with JMB's pistol. While in country I carried my 45 cocked, locked, shoved in the waist band of my trousers, yes it actually saved my bacon a couple of times.
That's part of the reason I still carry one today, it worked for me then I see no reason why it won't work for me now.

As for the Marines choice in going with the 9mm Glock a lot of it's politics, some of it's not.
That being said I wonder what the end users think of the choice.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
 
Saves money, samo samo lowest bidder. A 9 is easier to shoot than a .45 tho. And Glocks are cheap and easy to shoot.
 
Kraigwy you answered the question in my head, how important is a sidearm overall in a combat role? There are always exceptions, law enforcement/MP role comes to mind, but I always assumed the sidearm wasn't terribly crucial. I was never in a combat role but was active duty Air Force Secutiy Police from 92'-96'. We carried A1's , then ultimately A2's, I was qualified on a 203 and I was a M60 gunner. We were divided into two sections, Law Enforcement and Security Specialist. Security Specialist never even qualified on or carried a pistol, it wasn't until they did away with the split and combined us into Security Forces that we ever even qualified and carried a M9 and that was mainly due to LE duties.
I have wondered but have never asked how many combat vets have ever even used a sidearm in a combat role, I can only imagine that if it came down to that the situation has gone south in a hurry.
I think the Glock 19 is as good of a choice as any for the military, good capacity, reliable, simple function, reasonable cost.
 
Though far from a jarhead or frontline, when I had to carry a sidearm (M9), it was because I was going somewhere (combat flight or materiel protection) that I was unlikely to survive if we had a problem.
So... more of a bureaucratic vaccine than a real combat weapon.

I am, absolutely, not a fan of the M9. Nor do I like 9mm ball for defense. But 15 rounds is arguably better than 6, for the average troop.


Yes, but the M60 probably gets you an extra roll.
Click to expand...
Nah. Just something for other people to look at.
Once upon a time...
After seeing 'bigger' and 'bigger' weapons go through the chow line in a particularly crappy place in Afghanistan, there evlolved an impromptu one-upmanship battle. Over the following weeks, we saw M60s, 249s, 243s, and even an Mk 19 go through the line. The next day after the Mk 19, one of our (larger) guys fashioned a sling for a GAU-2/M134 and a chute running to an ammo can; only to walk into the chow hall to find two guys with M2s strapped to their backs.

Whether it was the pain of carrying them, mutual resignation, or running out of (semi-) man-portable weapons; that was the end. After that, it was a return to normalcy (M4s, M16A2s, M9s, and the odd M14, shotgun, 1911, or HK).

All anyone ever got for carrying a "bigger and better" weapon was a pain in their shoulder and a few 'are you kidding?'-looks from fellow chow hall visitors.
 
Last edited:
I'd bet if there was a Rep in the WH, the choice would be .45acp :)

Others prefer our troops using underpowered crap that wounds instead of kills.
They forget that American Troops and some EU's are the ones who stop
to help another fellow soldier out, most of the bad guys we face,
leave a wounded man in the dirt unless they win the fight,
to be a burden on the American Military because we then have to put
a buncha soldiers on that "captured wounded militant".
Or maybe they know it far too well...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top