Are Europeans tops at making the 9mm? Aren't Glock, H&K, Browning, FEG, Walther, CZ and Beretta (not the American made copies)and others superior to Ruger and Smith 9's? What other 9's do American's make? Are they superior in other calibers too? Seems like the best 40's are European. It seems to me that they still fall short in the .45acp.
Do Americans make a good 9mm or only a .45
- Thread starter legion3
- Start date
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by legion3:
Are Europeans tops at making the 9mm? Aren't Glock, H&K, Browning, FEG, Walther, CZ and Beretta.... [/quote]
The Europeans have always used smaller calibers for some reason. And they are very good in those calibers. I've read, but have no factual data, that European made 9mm run higher pressures then the standard US manufacturers do in this caliber (discounting our "+P's").
Well, European automotive engines used to develop higher horsepower per cubic inch then most American engines.
Reckon it's just differences in design philosiphies...
Are Europeans tops at making the 9mm? Aren't Glock, H&K, Browning, FEG, Walther, CZ and Beretta.... [/quote]
The Europeans have always used smaller calibers for some reason. And they are very good in those calibers. I've read, but have no factual data, that European made 9mm run higher pressures then the standard US manufacturers do in this caliber (discounting our "+P's").
Well, European automotive engines used to develop higher horsepower per cubic inch then most American engines.
Reckon it's just differences in design philosiphies...
Ruger's P- series are fine, rugged pistols originally designed around the 9mm round. Sellout & Weasel more or less invented the modern DA combat auto market with the 39 and 59. Ironically, design work was launched on the 39 because the Army had coyly hinted to *&* that it was looking to replace the M1911 with a DA 9mm. This was back in the 60's, during VietNam. *&* went to work with a vengeance, visions of a massive federal contract dancing in their heads. By the time they finished work on the 39 and got it through the first round of Army scrutiny, though, the Army was more worried about funding for toilet paper than it was tens of thousands of new pistols. It would be more than ten years until the Reagan build-up when the Army would once again start looking at a DA 9mm. But this time *&* wasn't the only one invited to the dance, and the rest is Beretta history.
------------------
"..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets."
10mm: It's not the size of the Dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!
------------------
"..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets."
10mm: It's not the size of the Dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!
Will Beararms
New member
This is not a flame but who cares if we don't make our 9mm's as good as they do? The whole idea that a bunch of puke politicians and bueracrats have forced our men in the military to get away from the .45ACP makes me want to throw up. One of the reasons that we stomped the Nazi's rear ends into the ground is because we outgunned em'. The 9mm ball in the P-38 was no match for the .45ACP from the 1911 neither did the antiquated mauser stand up to the M-1 Garand.
The Kahr and Ruger will stand up to any 9mm in terms of durability but again, who cares. Even in the world of law enforcement, we have kicked the Euros fannies with the .40 S&W and the only, the only reason the .357 Sig exists is because of us.
BTW, did somebody forget to tell the socialists pukes in congress and Nato that we won WWII. They way I see it, we sould still have the .45ACP and if the rest of Nato does'nt like it, tell em to go it on their own the next time, perish the thought.
Sorry to rant but I am sick of hearing about the Europeans. Nothing they do, have or produce appeals to me. My ancestors came from there of course but they were smart enough to get out.
------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
The Kahr and Ruger will stand up to any 9mm in terms of durability but again, who cares. Even in the world of law enforcement, we have kicked the Euros fannies with the .40 S&W and the only, the only reason the .357 Sig exists is because of us.
BTW, did somebody forget to tell the socialists pukes in congress and Nato that we won WWII. They way I see it, we sould still have the .45ACP and if the rest of Nato does'nt like it, tell em to go it on their own the next time, perish the thought.
Sorry to rant but I am sick of hearing about the Europeans. Nothing they do, have or produce appeals to me. My ancestors came from there of course but they were smart enough to get out.
------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
Will,
Come on, contrary to 'Rat Patrol' and John Wayne movies, you could take the total number of WWII combat victims of both the M1911 and P38 combined and not fill up a tiny churchyard cemetary. It's a fact that during every conflict it was issued in, the 1911 wounded more of our draftees through ND's than it did the enemy. Look it up, it's why the army started looking into DA autos in the early 60s. As far as the Garand/Mauser thing goes, the Kar98k was only slightly less appropriate for the deep woods and urban CQC environment that was the ETO from Metz to Czechoslovakia than the Garand. Any WWII vet I've talked to will tell you in a minute that they far preferred the M-1 Carbine, M3 Grease Gun, or a captured MP-40 or StG44 to either of the big, antiquated longarms for the nasty, up close fighting from the Vosges to VE day.
------------------
"..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets."
10mm: It's not the size of the Dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!
Come on, contrary to 'Rat Patrol' and John Wayne movies, you could take the total number of WWII combat victims of both the M1911 and P38 combined and not fill up a tiny churchyard cemetary. It's a fact that during every conflict it was issued in, the 1911 wounded more of our draftees through ND's than it did the enemy. Look it up, it's why the army started looking into DA autos in the early 60s. As far as the Garand/Mauser thing goes, the Kar98k was only slightly less appropriate for the deep woods and urban CQC environment that was the ETO from Metz to Czechoslovakia than the Garand. Any WWII vet I've talked to will tell you in a minute that they far preferred the M-1 Carbine, M3 Grease Gun, or a captured MP-40 or StG44 to either of the big, antiquated longarms for the nasty, up close fighting from the Vosges to VE day.
------------------
"..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets."
10mm: It's not the size of the Dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Will Beararms:
This is not a flame but who cares if we don't make our 9mm's as good as they do? The whole idea that a bunch of puke politicians and bueracrats have forced our men in the military to get away from the .45ACP makes me want to throw up.
The Kahr and Ruger will stand up to any 9mm in terms of durability but again, who cares. Even in the world of law enforcement, we have kicked the Euros fannies with the .40 S&W and the only, the only reason the .357 Sig exists is because of us.
[/quote]
Never said the Europeans did better 9mm, I said they were higher pressure (wonder if that's still true?).
The 1911 is, without a doubt, a great handgun...I own two of 'em.
I just prefer 9mm. And I prefer them in Glocks (but I've a Kahr to carry too).
The decision to go to 9mm for the Military was sound IMHO. Commonality in ammo is a good idea. The NATO forces use .223, don't they?
My post was just discussing the tendency for the Europeans to use smaller calibers (when .38 spl was standard police use here, they used .32, etc. Why?...dunno...it may be due to the closer environments in most European cities.
As far as their engines (to preclude any Ford, Chevy or Chrysler fans kicking my butt), European engines were taxed based upon cubic capacity, hence smaller higher revving engines.
[This message has been edited by Ezeckial (edited May 22, 2000).]
This is not a flame but who cares if we don't make our 9mm's as good as they do? The whole idea that a bunch of puke politicians and bueracrats have forced our men in the military to get away from the .45ACP makes me want to throw up.
The Kahr and Ruger will stand up to any 9mm in terms of durability but again, who cares. Even in the world of law enforcement, we have kicked the Euros fannies with the .40 S&W and the only, the only reason the .357 Sig exists is because of us.
[/quote]
Never said the Europeans did better 9mm, I said they were higher pressure (wonder if that's still true?).
The 1911 is, without a doubt, a great handgun...I own two of 'em.
I just prefer 9mm. And I prefer them in Glocks (but I've a Kahr to carry too).
The decision to go to 9mm for the Military was sound IMHO. Commonality in ammo is a good idea. The NATO forces use .223, don't they?
My post was just discussing the tendency for the Europeans to use smaller calibers (when .38 spl was standard police use here, they used .32, etc. Why?...dunno...it may be due to the closer environments in most European cities.
As far as their engines (to preclude any Ford, Chevy or Chrysler fans kicking my butt), European engines were taxed based upon cubic capacity, hence smaller higher revving engines.
[This message has been edited by Ezeckial (edited May 22, 2000).]
Will Beararms
New member
For thirteen years I have dealt in my profession with owners of medium to large size manufacturing facilities in the Oil Field, automotive and materials handling industries.
The vast majority of these fine people fought in WWII, some in Korea and many in Vietnam. My opinion comes not from gun shop talk, post-range trip banter or some study propogated by industry executives.
I like shooting the 9mm due to its recoil and accuracy. However, I have to make sure that my kidneys are empty when I hear someone say that the 9mm ball is as effective as 1911 so that I will not have an accident.
As to the numbers of confrontations in WWII with handguns your stats may be correct but tell that to the one person whose life was saved due to the superiority of the .45ACP. The ND rate is news to me and warrants further research on my part as well. Numerous who have been there and done that have commented on the outright toughness of the 1911 and its ability to operate in harsh environments not to mention it's proven advantage over the 9mm as a close quarters entry weapon.
The switch to the nine was purely political. The 1911's were worn out and could have easliy been replaced with a double-action .45ACP affording our men and women with the most powerful, practical tool available in a semi-auto. Better still we could have procured new versions of the 1911. Instead, we chose to suck up to our Nato allies who when it is all said and done, we bank roll anyway.
As to the issue of the German Assault Weapons consider the facts. First off, Hitler was opposed to the manufacture of the these rifles and favored 9mm sub-machine guns for these applications. Most of this work went on behind his back and these implements did not see full-scale action until the war was almost over. One thing was accomplished, the Russians used this technology to build the AK 47 and then came up with this bogus garbage about a tank commander designing it. Next, since said weapons did not see widespread use during the war, we must focus our deabte on the K98 versus the M1 Garand. In which case, the Garand was superior in all aspects. We obviously have spoken with a variety of subjects since every person I have visited with who fought in The Big One had nothing but good to say about the Garand and the awsome .30-06 cartridge.
No, I am in reality and there's no Rat Patrol flashbacks here--------I don't have time for TV. All I have is anectdotal evidence from those who have been there.
Take any group of people LEO or Military, assign to a mission with a high potential of close quarters combat. Then, line up an equal number of comparable semi-autos chambered for 9mm and .45ACP and watch which ones go first.
I stand by what I originally posted. The Europeans have not impressed me with their abilities in the past nor do they now. The 9mm is an effective round in a best-world scenario when the proper round is chosen. I would trust my life to the 9mm and feel well-protected but if given the choice, I will take something larger.
------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
The vast majority of these fine people fought in WWII, some in Korea and many in Vietnam. My opinion comes not from gun shop talk, post-range trip banter or some study propogated by industry executives.
I like shooting the 9mm due to its recoil and accuracy. However, I have to make sure that my kidneys are empty when I hear someone say that the 9mm ball is as effective as 1911 so that I will not have an accident.
As to the numbers of confrontations in WWII with handguns your stats may be correct but tell that to the one person whose life was saved due to the superiority of the .45ACP. The ND rate is news to me and warrants further research on my part as well. Numerous who have been there and done that have commented on the outright toughness of the 1911 and its ability to operate in harsh environments not to mention it's proven advantage over the 9mm as a close quarters entry weapon. The switch to the nine was purely political. The 1911's were worn out and could have easliy been replaced with a double-action .45ACP affording our men and women with the most powerful, practical tool available in a semi-auto. Better still we could have procured new versions of the 1911. Instead, we chose to suck up to our Nato allies who when it is all said and done, we bank roll anyway.
As to the issue of the German Assault Weapons consider the facts. First off, Hitler was opposed to the manufacture of the these rifles and favored 9mm sub-machine guns for these applications. Most of this work went on behind his back and these implements did not see full-scale action until the war was almost over. One thing was accomplished, the Russians used this technology to build the AK 47 and then came up with this bogus garbage about a tank commander designing it. Next, since said weapons did not see widespread use during the war, we must focus our deabte on the K98 versus the M1 Garand. In which case, the Garand was superior in all aspects. We obviously have spoken with a variety of subjects since every person I have visited with who fought in The Big One had nothing but good to say about the Garand and the awsome .30-06 cartridge.
No, I am in reality and there's no Rat Patrol flashbacks here--------I don't have time for TV. All I have is anectdotal evidence from those who have been there.
Take any group of people LEO or Military, assign to a mission with a high potential of close quarters combat. Then, line up an equal number of comparable semi-autos chambered for 9mm and .45ACP and watch which ones go first.
I stand by what I originally posted. The Europeans have not impressed me with their abilities in the past nor do they now. The 9mm is an effective round in a best-world scenario when the proper round is chosen. I would trust my life to the 9mm and feel well-protected but if given the choice, I will take something larger.
------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
Hi, guys,
"We won the war because we had...."
I think I can count on the fingers of one fist the number of battles, let alone wars, that have been won because of superiority of small arms on one side or another. Too many other factors enter in.
We did have the .45. So what? The war was not a series of one-on-one gunfights. We did have the M1. There is no record of any battle that was won because of the M1.
Every battle won by Allied forces in Europe was won by overwhelming superiority of armor (in quantity, if not quality), artillery, and most of all, near total air superiority. Small arms were a minor factor.
The British won battles, too, for the same reasons, and they had bolt action rifles.
Incidentally, we may have had the better rifle, but the Germans had by far the better machineguns.
Jim
"We won the war because we had...."
I think I can count on the fingers of one fist the number of battles, let alone wars, that have been won because of superiority of small arms on one side or another. Too many other factors enter in.
We did have the .45. So what? The war was not a series of one-on-one gunfights. We did have the M1. There is no record of any battle that was won because of the M1.
Every battle won by Allied forces in Europe was won by overwhelming superiority of armor (in quantity, if not quality), artillery, and most of all, near total air superiority. Small arms were a minor factor.
The British won battles, too, for the same reasons, and they had bolt action rifles.
Incidentally, we may have had the better rifle, but the Germans had by far the better machineguns.
Jim
William R. Wilburn
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tamara:
Any WWII vet I've talked to will tell you in a minute that they far preferred the M-1 Carbine, M3 Grease Gun, or a captured MP-40 or StG44 to either of the big, antiquated longarms for the nasty, up close fighting from the Vosges to VE day.
[/quote]
I had the privilege of working side by side with a WW2 veteran of the 10th Mountain Division. Alhtough trained for Alpine Combat in snowy environs, they were posted to sunny Italy (with pac-boots and parkas, I'm sure).
I asked his opinion of the M1 Garrand and how it held up in combat. He said they were a POS and he would kill a many Germans with the one he carried and when it stopped working he would throw it down and grab the nearest one made availble through WIA or KIA and keep killing Germans. No sentimental attachment whatsoever. Tough old bird even in his 60s.
-William
Any WWII vet I've talked to will tell you in a minute that they far preferred the M-1 Carbine, M3 Grease Gun, or a captured MP-40 or StG44 to either of the big, antiquated longarms for the nasty, up close fighting from the Vosges to VE day.
[/quote]
I had the privilege of working side by side with a WW2 veteran of the 10th Mountain Division. Alhtough trained for Alpine Combat in snowy environs, they were posted to sunny Italy (with pac-boots and parkas, I'm sure).
I asked his opinion of the M1 Garrand and how it held up in combat. He said they were a POS and he would kill a many Germans with the one he carried and when it stopped working he would throw it down and grab the nearest one made availble through WIA or KIA and keep killing Germans. No sentimental attachment whatsoever. Tough old bird even in his 60s.
-William
Tamara's "reality check' is interesting but I must disagre about one thing.
Durimg the Korean War the M3 grease gun was extremely unpopular with the troops. Anyone who was issued an M3 because it was their TO&E weapon made strenous efforts to replace it with an M1 Garand or an M2 carbine. So many M3s were "lost" that I still remember that if you had to pay for one you had lost it cost you $11.95.
I have never heard a combat veteran of WWII say a good word for the M3 though many of them liked the M1A1 Thompson for close combat.
Durimg the Korean War the M3 grease gun was extremely unpopular with the troops. Anyone who was issued an M3 because it was their TO&E weapon made strenous efforts to replace it with an M1 Garand or an M2 carbine. So many M3s were "lost" that I still remember that if you had to pay for one you had lost it cost you $11.95.
I have never heard a combat veteran of WWII say a good word for the M3 though many of them liked the M1A1 Thompson for close combat.
Will Beararms
New member
I admit that I got on a tangent this morning re: the 9mm. To answer your question, the Euros make very accurate 9mm's. If that's your passion. Of those, the Glock is probably the toughest you can buy.
The Ruger and the Kahr are no slouches-----neither is the Italian-designed Beretta 92FS made in Maryland.
------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
The Ruger and the Kahr are no slouches-----neither is the Italian-designed Beretta 92FS made in Maryland.
------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
Will Said:
"Take any group of people LEO or Military, assign to a mission with a high potential of close quarters combat. Then, line up an equal number of comparable semi-autos chambered for 9mm and .45ACP and watch which ones go first."
Dan says:
Guess what? The personell who you are refering to make up a tiny portion of the military who are armed w/a handgun. The ones who are tasked with the aformentioned mission pretty much get to pick what they want (within reason, of course). They are also the troops extensively trained with thier pistols. Can you say shot placement...
The average Grunt really doesn't have much need for a pistol. If I were a Grunt, I would prefer to save the weight of the pistol & it's ammo, or carry an extra mag or two for my rifle, or better yet an extra canteen. In the modern military scheme, the likelyhood of close quarter combat that could not be resolved better w/a rifle is astronomically slim. Whereas, the potential for a dehydration or heat related illness is much morer likely.
Also, in regards to the idea that commonality of calibers among NATO forces is not important is obviously an unthoughtout statement. War (especially modern mechanized warfare) is highly fluid, very mobile. No guarantees on when, if or who will resupply your forces. I would like to know that the Bundeswehr unit, on our flank, ammo is compatible with our own...
Small arms don't win wars. Strategy and attrition wins wars. Small arms don't win battles. Tactics, air support, artillery and mobility win battles. Firepower, firepower...
I guess what I'm trying to say is, as shooters we like to think that handguns are more than what they are. Fact is, handguns in modern conflict, just don't matter.
------------------
Dan
Si vis pacem para bellum!
Check me out at:
<A HREF="http://www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm" TARGET=_blank>
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm</A>
"Take any group of people LEO or Military, assign to a mission with a high potential of close quarters combat. Then, line up an equal number of comparable semi-autos chambered for 9mm and .45ACP and watch which ones go first."
Dan says:
Guess what? The personell who you are refering to make up a tiny portion of the military who are armed w/a handgun. The ones who are tasked with the aformentioned mission pretty much get to pick what they want (within reason, of course). They are also the troops extensively trained with thier pistols. Can you say shot placement...
The average Grunt really doesn't have much need for a pistol. If I were a Grunt, I would prefer to save the weight of the pistol & it's ammo, or carry an extra mag or two for my rifle, or better yet an extra canteen. In the modern military scheme, the likelyhood of close quarter combat that could not be resolved better w/a rifle is astronomically slim. Whereas, the potential for a dehydration or heat related illness is much morer likely.
Also, in regards to the idea that commonality of calibers among NATO forces is not important is obviously an unthoughtout statement. War (especially modern mechanized warfare) is highly fluid, very mobile. No guarantees on when, if or who will resupply your forces. I would like to know that the Bundeswehr unit, on our flank, ammo is compatible with our own...
Small arms don't win wars. Strategy and attrition wins wars. Small arms don't win battles. Tactics, air support, artillery and mobility win battles. Firepower, firepower...
I guess what I'm trying to say is, as shooters we like to think that handguns are more than what they are. Fact is, handguns in modern conflict, just don't matter.
------------------
Dan
Si vis pacem para bellum!
Check me out at:
<A HREF="http://www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm" TARGET=_blank>
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm</A>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tamara:
Any WWII vet I've talked to will tell you in a minute that they far preferred the M-1 Carbine, M3 Grease Gun, or a captured MP-40 or StG44 to either of the big, antiquated longarms for the nasty, up close fighting from the Vosges to VE day.
[/quote]
While I normally agree with most of the things you say, I have to take exception to this statement. The M3 was disliked by most troops, and a captured weapon was hardly the main arm for 99% of the troops, one major problem, where would they be getting ammo? As far as picking the M1 Carbine over the M1 Garand, that would be a good choice if all you had to do was carry them around. OTOH, if you actually got into battle, you'd be wishing for the M1 Garand, rather than the ineffective Carbine.
Any WWII vet I've talked to will tell you in a minute that they far preferred the M-1 Carbine, M3 Grease Gun, or a captured MP-40 or StG44 to either of the big, antiquated longarms for the nasty, up close fighting from the Vosges to VE day.
[/quote]
While I normally agree with most of the things you say, I have to take exception to this statement. The M3 was disliked by most troops, and a captured weapon was hardly the main arm for 99% of the troops, one major problem, where would they be getting ammo? As far as picking the M1 Carbine over the M1 Garand, that would be a good choice if all you had to do was carry them around. OTOH, if you actually got into battle, you'd be wishing for the M1 Garand, rather than the ineffective Carbine.
William R. Wilburn
New member
"Will Beararms"
Actually, I don't think I'm underestimating the .30 Carbine round.
It's simply not in the same league as the 30-06, it's really that simple. Try hunting something human sized, say mule deer, with a .30 Carbine and you'll get the idea. A 200 yard shot is pretty much of a dream if you want enough retained energy to even get his attention.
Actually, I don't think I'm underestimating the .30 Carbine round.
It's simply not in the same league as the 30-06, it's really that simple. Try hunting something human sized, say mule deer, with a .30 Carbine and you'll get the idea. A 200 yard shot is pretty much of a dream if you want enough retained energy to even get his attention. I don't usually like to get involved in the 9mm vs. 45 debate, but it seems that the 9mm needs a little bit of defence in this discussion.
Come on now, as good as the 45 is, the 9mm cannot be that bad a round as it is in use by almost ALL the major elite/special forces around the world. Because it is a good round.
It does not mean the 45 is not a good round to admit that the 9mm is a good round.
I don't doubt that the 45 is an effective round, but I won't let sentimentality get in the way of judgement. The 9mm has proven its worth to many units around the world for a very long time, I don't think that this point should be discounted.
Its all irrevelant to me, I only punch holes in paper anyway.
I choose to shoot 9mm primarily, because that is what I was trained with, during my time in the forces. I am very confident in its abilities. And I like its characteristics.
Shot placement is key.
I'd rather be grazed by a .45 than center punched with a 9mm any day.
JMO
Come on now, as good as the 45 is, the 9mm cannot be that bad a round as it is in use by almost ALL the major elite/special forces around the world. Because it is a good round.
It does not mean the 45 is not a good round to admit that the 9mm is a good round.
I don't doubt that the 45 is an effective round, but I won't let sentimentality get in the way of judgement. The 9mm has proven its worth to many units around the world for a very long time, I don't think that this point should be discounted.
Its all irrevelant to me, I only punch holes in paper anyway.
I choose to shoot 9mm primarily, because that is what I was trained with, during my time in the forces. I am very confident in its abilities. And I like its characteristics.
Shot placement is key.
I'd rather be grazed by a .45 than center punched with a 9mm any day.
JMO