ammo.crafter
New member
the dabate continue...
Thanks for the laughs, guys.
Thanks for the laughs, guys.
Is the caliber debate over?
- Thread starter DeusComedis
- Start date
- Status
The bigger the hole the better the chance of nicking something important. Train for the recoil if it's a problem. In many cases it can be overcome with a very slight increase in the time between shots. I'll take extra fractions of an inch at the cost of fractions of a second. The first shot might be the most important anyway and the extra recoil doesn't matter there.
While I don't have a cite, the story that has been around for decades is that the US went to the 9mm because of a political deal, done back in the late 50s. The US was pushing NATO to adopt the new 7.62x51mm round, and Europeans balked, the compromised reached was that they would adopt "our" new rifle round as NATO standard, and we would adopt the 9mm as NATO standard handgun round, when we replaced our "aging" 1911A1 .45s.
NATO adopted the 7.62x51mm, then got kind of stung, by two things, first, the MacNamara defense dept. adopting the 5.56mm as the US standard rifle round just a few years later, AND by the fact that we didn't replace our .45s until the 1980s.
The Berretta just happened to be the pistol that won out in the 9mm trials, for various reasons.
Basically what we're seeing is the FBI admitting that after decades of trying, they can't prove that they're getting any real-world benefit from issuing a heavier caliber than 9mm and therefore they can't justify the penalties (less capacity, more recoil, more expense, etc.) of remaining with the .40S&W.
That it's coming from the FBI is news, but the conclusion, in and of itself isn't really news. It's always been true that no one has been able to prove real-world terminal performance superiority of one member of the service pistol caliber class.
In other words, even prior to the FBI's statement, the opinion that caliber choice within the service pistol class makes a real-world difference in terminal performance was formed and held without real-world evidence to support it. It's unreasonable to assume that opinions formed and held in the absence of supporting evidence will now be abandoned due to the lack of supporting evidence.
The debate isn't over and, in my opinion, won't ever be over.
That it's coming from the FBI is news, but the conclusion, in and of itself isn't really news. It's always been true that no one has been able to prove real-world terminal performance superiority of one member of the service pistol caliber class.
In other words, even prior to the FBI's statement, the opinion that caliber choice within the service pistol class makes a real-world difference in terminal performance was formed and held without real-world evidence to support it. It's unreasonable to assume that opinions formed and held in the absence of supporting evidence will now be abandoned due to the lack of supporting evidence.
The debate isn't over and, in my opinion, won't ever be over.
the357plan
New member
As long as you're not carrying what I'm carrying, there's going to be a debate. 
Dusty, I don't care what caliber you shoot me in the head with. It doesn't matter. No matter what one you use, it's really going to piss me off.
44, Information provided at the time was that the contract had expired on the 1911. Those pistols were being worn out, an many of them were scrapped every year. This provided incentive to replace it, and yes, in the interest of using the same round as NATO, we agreed. We had no obligation to adopt their pistol so we went to all that trouble and chose, better or worse, the Beretta.
This entire post is based on one assumption. I assume that neither the men who made the decision or the men who reported it lied.
44, Information provided at the time was that the contract had expired on the 1911. Those pistols were being worn out, an many of them were scrapped every year. This provided incentive to replace it, and yes, in the interest of using the same round as NATO, we agreed. We had no obligation to adopt their pistol so we went to all that trouble and chose, better or worse, the Beretta.
This entire post is based on one assumption. I assume that neither the men who made the decision or the men who reported it lied.
The "contract" on the 1911 expired in 1945. Essentially. The last time the Govt. bought any quantity of 1911A1s was 1945. The end of WW II ended the need for more pistols (and a great many other things, as well), so we simply stopped buying more.
I was a Small Arms repairman in the Army in the mid/late 70s. I saw a large number of 1911A1a and even a few 1911s. I inspected a LOT of them. I only worked on a handful during those years, simply because the guns didn't often need repair. The most common thing that needed repair were the sights! (gun dropped on concrete, sight mashed).
Those guns were sometimes somewhat worn LOOKING (though only a few) but they were far from "worn out", and I don't believe that "many of them were being scrapped" every year.
Having been one of the inspectors, I can tell you that the ONLY standards applied to the 1911A1s in service was one of general serviceability (function). IF the gun passed its function checks, it was serviceable. If it didn't, it was repaired until it did. Some of the guns I saw were as new and tight as they were when they left the factory. Some were loose and sloppy fitting. ALL were serviceable, and in service until they failed, which rarely happened.
It will never be over!
But I've got enough tied up in loading 9mm supplies that it is probably over for me (oh, and in guns too). Until I decide to focus on loading a different pistol caliber, I mean, I DO have a LOT of .45 ACP brass laying around.
You spelled Chevy Silverado 1500 wrong...
But I've got enough tied up in loading 9mm supplies that it is probably over for me (oh, and in guns too). Until I decide to focus on loading a different pistol caliber, I mean, I DO have a LOT of .45 ACP brass laying around.
You spelled Chevy Silverado 1500 wrong...
Not if you need to take a couch or 1000 pounds of rock along. I prefer my Dodge Ram for such things, but I will not fault anyone for choosing the Ford. Now Chevys or Toyotas are commonly known by the feds to be marginal in there ability to haul common household stuff. I saw a chart online with pictures, circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, so I know that it has to be true.
A pause for the COZ
New member
Those that can, Carry a XD's 45. Those that cant, Carry a XD's 9mm.
My dakota could carry me, my daughter, a moron, a nice assortment of trash, the moron's bicycle, and a few bags of groceries.
Nobody needs anything more than that, and if you buy anything bigger than that, it's just harder to drive, and most people can't do it.
God, I hate the beatles,.
Nobody needs anything more than that, and if you buy anything bigger than that, it's just harder to drive, and most people can't do it.
God, I hate the beatles,.
- Status