Do Americans make a good 9mm or only a .45

Legion 3: I've played with both Govt & Cmdr 1911s in 9mm. There's just zilch for recoil; rapid-fire, small groups are a piece of cake. Since this was back before they made "magic" ammo for the 9mm and all you could get was hardball, I stayed with the .45ACP...

A Lightweight Commander, all dehorned and refinished, would make a delightful 9mm carry-gun.

FWIW, Art
 
I am a 9mm fan and have some good quality 9mm pistols. Only one of them is American, the S&W 5906. I like this gun, it is very well balanced and points well. Also it is ultra reliable. The only thing I can say it needs improvement seems to be in the accuracy range. My Glock and SIG and HK all shoots better groups than the 5906. I also heard/read the quality control is not as good for S&W as some others. I believe this is true. There seems to be better QA on HK/SIG/GLOCK. For example, I have never heard a SIG 9mm bad out of the box, but have heard some bad stories about S&W's lack of consistency. Recently someone even made the comments, on another thread, that the finish on Italian made Beretta 92FS is better than the US counter parts. I believe we have top engineering, but QA is the key to quality. :)
 
Are we only taking into consideration the actual manufacturing of firearms? Or are we including design? Cuz' if I recall correctly, some guy named Browning designed a decent 9mm.
 
Hurrah for John Browning!!!

He did design both the 1911 and the Hi-Power. Stating that in the Hi-Power he was correcting his mistakes on the 1911. How many gun designers would like that as a mistake?

Interesting discussion thus far and lots of good points all the way around.

Must take exception however with the statement that German machine guns were better. Again, John Browning designed one that was second to none.

While tanks, planes, tactics and all the other big stuff does win a war, it ULTIMATELY comes down to the grunt. You cannot win a war with airplanes alone. Case in point; Gulf War 1991.

Wars were fought long before the advent of tanks, planes, bombs and satellites with the deciding factor always being the "grunts" slugging it out in close combat.
 
SKS:

You are dead on! Does anyone think that D-Day could have been done without Grunts and a dependable small arms? Does anyone think that only mechanized armor and planes could have won the Battle of the Bulge? We tried the "grunts holding ground doesn't matter" technique in Vietnam and you know the rest of the story------God Bless those who were there.

Sure the 9mm is effective but why not empower our people with the best? Sure wars are fluid and the rest of the world uses 9mm but would it be hard for the strongest economy in the history of mankind to supply its forces with the venerable .45ACP. Heck it might even create some new manufacturing jobs in the process IN THE U.S.A.

Yes, special units have access to special weapons but why not give everyone the most effective tools? Besides, in the heat of the battle, anyone may be called on to do a close-quarters entry. Yes, ammo and water are probably more important than a handgun but would'nt a soldier sleep better with a pistol in tow while in the field versus a rifle? I know I do when I am in a Hotel room.

What if victory is a combination of air power,Armor,logistics,Grunts, big arms and small arms? Now that's a novel idea isn't it? Granted, no battles may have been won by a pistol but tell that to the person who is using one as a last resort to stay alive. The handgun is minor in the scheme of things but again, why not supply the most effective tool for the task at hand?

All of you have made great points and I apologize again for steering us off of the real issue which is why the Euros seem to do better with the 9mm. As someone eluded to earlier, the 9mm is the primary Euro round and they have had years to perfect it.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
A good argument could be made that the P-51 Mustang had a lot more to do with the allies winning WWII than the 1911-A1 and the M-1 Garand.

--Rich

------------------
Nothing threatens freedom so much as self rightous ignorance.
 
A better case than the P-51 would be that we had the industrial capacity to replace our losses; the B-17 and the Lancaster, etc., ensured that the Nazis did not.

Even more importantly, we made fewer mistakes at the command-decision level than they did. Clausewitz invented the concept of "General Staff"; the Germans improved upon it--but we used it more efficiently.

Most important, however: We had less red tape in our bureaucracies, as hard as that might be to believe. Our "stuff" moved faster from factory to front line.

FWIW, Art

"Any political system wherein its citizenry must stand in line for toilet paper is a total failure."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top