Corps chooses 9mm over .45

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shot placement is everything when it comes to handguns. Caliber doesn't mean crap on the receiving end of a pistol. The biggest difference is on the shooters end, recoil, capacity, etc. I think it far better to be able to place two or three shots on target quickly and accurately than to punch a .096" (96 thousandths, i.e. Less than one hundredth of an inch) larger hole. Also, capacity is a .45 killer for me. I personally feel far more confident carrying my CZ75 SP01 with 18+1 rounds than I ever did carrying my Colt 1911. If only the Corps would consider the CZ :rolleyes:

I doubt us Medium Speed-Some Drag Marines will ever see the Glock, not any time soon at least.
 
Shoot some game with a handgun, see some people shot with them, attend a few autopsies and you'll will probably change your mind. With a shot through the abdomen upper thigh etc. or where major skeletal structures are not hit, there is not a ton of difference. When the bullet hits intervening limbs or major skeletal structures--particularly the spine--bullet diameter and mass matter. Ths particularly applies to FMJ rounds.

If we were going to buck NATO we should go to a 40/165 flat FMJ at about 1100 fps. Shoots flat, hits hard and the bid could even include a 9mm conversion, installed at armorer level, for those Godforsaken places where only the 9mm is available ;)
 
In regard to economy.....if the US military converted to .40S&W, and manufacturers tooled up to produce as much .40 as they do 9mm now, wouldn't the price of .40S&W ammo go down as the price of 9mm ammo goes up?
 
I can't answer that conclusively Seeker, but I can tell you what I think. While there might be a run on commercial 40 at first, the ammo would eventually made at US Army Ammunition plants like Lake City, etc.

From '08 to this spring I was buying ammo for a small Dept. Budget constraints were such that I could buy 2-3 thousand rounds per year, but I had to feed rifle, shotguns and backup handguns as well. When various DOJ entities started submitting purchase orders that committed millions of rounds of 40 ammo, good stuff like HST etc. was damned hard to get. I waited 6-8 months for duty ammo orders, but Id seen the handwriting on the wall and always had 1,000 on hand when I ordered.

I would expect that a military contract wouldn't have nearly the market impact those huge Fed LE orders did.
 
I'm going to guess, in a military situation, if you are forced to your handgun the difference between any handgun is not going to make a ton of difference.
 
Others prefer our troops using underpowered crap that wounds instead of kills.
Is there any evidence that people that are shot with .45 are more likely to die than people shot with 9MM.?
 
The Nuremberg code, and a seeming lack of volunteers, prevents proper testing. We are left with statistical analysis of real world events which have too many variables to adequately answer.
 
The Nuremberg code, and a seeming lack of volunteers, prevents proper testing. We are left with statistical analysis of real world events which have too many variables to adequately answer.

Agreed thats why i find statements like bellow laughable, the .45 myth is alive and well in America. The only thing the .45 has over the 9MM is a slightly bigger hole, if people think that outweighs the disadvantages thats fine. But forget about all the other rubbish regarding the .45.


Others prefer our troops using underpowered crap that wounds instead of kills.

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;
 
Last edited:
I have no doubt that the major reason for sticking to 9mm instead of moving to the more potent .45acp (no matter how you try to package the fallacious argument that there is no real difference) has more to do with $$$ than any other factor.
 
I'm going to guess, in a military situation, if you are forced to your handgun the difference between any handgun is not going to make a ton of difference.

Add to that, higher capacity combined with less bulk, makes for a good choice for a BUG/secondary weapon. Having the firearm and the ammo for it cost less also makes the decision easier when we are talking millions. Helps too in combat situations, when the dead guy you just shot, may have ammo that fits your gun.

I personally don't think this does anything to nix the argument of which is the better round tho. So carry on folks...........
 
manta said:
Is there any evidence that people that are shot with .45 are more likely to die than people shot with 9MM.?

Is there any evidence that people that are shot with 9MM are more likely to die than people shot with .380 or .32 or .22?
 
Is there any evidence that people that are shot with 9MM are more likely to die than people shot with .380 or .32 or .22?
I am not the one saying the .45 will stop you with one shot. You are making my point there is only realy anecdotal evidence, thats why i doint get why people post the .45 will do all sorts of wonderful things other calibers woint. As i said all the .45 will do is make a slightly bigger hole nothing more.
 
manta said:
I am not the one saying the .45 will stop you with one shot. You are making my point there is only realy anecdotal evidence

Definition of anecdotal:

anecdotal evidence. noun. non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts.

Makes it easy for you to disagree with any observations or studies that don't agree with your opinion, doesn't it? ;)
 
Makes it easy for you to disagree with any observations or studies that don't agree with your opinion, doesn't it
All i see is opinions i am happy to look at evidence. What we know about .45 it has more recoil, making it harder to train recurts, less capacity in single stack, not used by any other NATO army, more expensive than 9MM, and no evidence its any more effective than 9MM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top