What Caliber should our Armed forces be carrying as their side arm?
- Thread starter 1873Colt
- Start date
True said - pistols DON'T win wars. The pistol is good for MPs in the US and for police like duty but overall a pistol to a soldier is the last shooting backup - just before the entrenching tool, knife, boot and fist....The pistol is a life safety ring when your main weapon sinks...and other than being a tunnel rat in the 'Nam - "house cleaning" is best served with shotguns [Like the Benelli M4 Short Super 90], mp5s, or M4 Commando over a pistol.
As for what would be my choice if all the 9mm ammo and M9s disappeared in the world - I would go with the .40 S&W. But how much .40 ammo is available overseas? The .40 and to the same degree, the .45 is a U.S. thing...a pistol is only as good as the availability of ammo. And there is tons of 9mm all over the world that is made by just about everyone.
And how many REALLY qualified with the .45? Versus the 9mm? Versus the 10 mm?
There is a reason the 10mm isn't widely accepted as a LEO round...it's great to say "I have 1mm more than you" but as previously stated - the round itself is just too much for a casual shooting soldier.
And the .40s are popular and used a lot here by Law Enforcement BECAUSE THEY TRAIN WITH THEM because the pistol IS the primary weapon for local police. I don't see cops with m4s strapped over their chest [as a general rule of thumb].
Soldiers need to be proficient with their battle rifle, their support weapons, big boom weapons - whatever - and then the pistol - just before the pointed stick. And the 9mm is a capable round and certainly is an easier cartridge to get proficient with.
Personally I think the .40 is a great cartridge and ballistic tables pretty much bear that out. It has some great shooting characteristics but I don't think the wishful thinking or "what if" dreams bear any reality to the here and now. The M9s are here to stay for quite awhile as the Beretta announced that they got a huge contract to deliver about 450,000 pistols to the US armed services.
Yep.
As for what would be my choice if all the 9mm ammo and M9s disappeared in the world - I would go with the .40 S&W. But how much .40 ammo is available overseas? The .40 and to the same degree, the .45 is a U.S. thing...a pistol is only as good as the availability of ammo. And there is tons of 9mm all over the world that is made by just about everyone.
And how many REALLY qualified with the .45? Versus the 9mm? Versus the 10 mm?
There is a reason the 10mm isn't widely accepted as a LEO round...it's great to say "I have 1mm more than you" but as previously stated - the round itself is just too much for a casual shooting soldier.
And the .40s are popular and used a lot here by Law Enforcement BECAUSE THEY TRAIN WITH THEM because the pistol IS the primary weapon for local police. I don't see cops with m4s strapped over their chest [as a general rule of thumb].
Soldiers need to be proficient with their battle rifle, their support weapons, big boom weapons - whatever - and then the pistol - just before the pointed stick. And the 9mm is a capable round and certainly is an easier cartridge to get proficient with.
Personally I think the .40 is a great cartridge and ballistic tables pretty much bear that out. It has some great shooting characteristics but I don't think the wishful thinking or "what if" dreams bear any reality to the here and now. The M9s are here to stay for quite awhile as the Beretta announced that they got a huge contract to deliver about 450,000 pistols to the US armed services.
Yep.
scorpion_tyr
New member
Since a handgun doesn't have a major role in warfare and is only really used to assist in getting out of a really bad situation my vote is for 9mm.
Why?
Because in the same platform a 9mm version will have a higher ammunition capacity, therefore you get to shoot more before you have to reload. For civilians the chances of being surrounded by 10 bad guys is pretty slim, for an isolated soldier or airman, the chances are a little bit better... or worse, depending on how you look at it.
Why?
Because in the same platform a 9mm version will have a higher ammunition capacity, therefore you get to shoot more before you have to reload. For civilians the chances of being surrounded by 10 bad guys is pretty slim, for an isolated soldier or airman, the chances are a little bit better... or worse, depending on how you look at it.
I hate to say all of you are all wet, but the towels are on the tables, so dry yourselves off.
The round is called a 9X23 and it exists today and is better than the 9X19.
Want to buy some, go to Midway USA.
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=614778
Jim
The round is called a 9X23 and it exists today and is better than the 9X19.
Want to buy some, go to Midway USA.
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=614778
Jim
I remember a similar discussion when we went from the M-14 (7.65) to the M-16. Many said the new gun was not enough stopping power, and the M-16 was not a side-arm but a primary weapon. Look how many years now in which we are still using the 5.56 round.
I have served in combat, but it was in the days of the M1911A1 (.45). I now have Beretta 92FS, and I would of preferred it if it had been available back then.
The great advantage of the M-16 and the M9 over their predecessors is the capacity of ammo in the magazines and the weight of the ammo (not to mention the weapon weight).
Also remember, there is a significantly greater number of females now serving our Nation in the military. I would suspect a majority of them can handle the 9mm with great effectiveness than a larger caliber.
I would really like to hear the experienced voice of the few who have carried both pistols in combat vs. just an inexperienced bias to a larger caliber.
I have served in combat, but it was in the days of the M1911A1 (.45). I now have Beretta 92FS, and I would of preferred it if it had been available back then.
The great advantage of the M-16 and the M9 over their predecessors is the capacity of ammo in the magazines and the weight of the ammo (not to mention the weapon weight).
Also remember, there is a significantly greater number of females now serving our Nation in the military. I would suspect a majority of them can handle the 9mm with great effectiveness than a larger caliber.
I would really like to hear the experienced voice of the few who have carried both pistols in combat vs. just an inexperienced bias to a larger caliber.
Cheapshooter
New member
All very interesting thoughts, and if it were possible I would like to see the 10mm as the standard sidearm of our military. BUT!!! Everyone has missed the point of why the 9X19 is the standard issue. NATO!!! It is the predominate military sidearm round throughout the world!!!
Superior, no. Adequate, probably. Readily available, yes.
Superior, no. Adequate, probably. Readily available, yes.
Cheapshooter
New member
My bad. I didn't read every post, and yours made my point exactly.
9mm. It is perfectly functional and pistols are only used as adjunct firearms in the military; or for special purposes. I used a 9mm Hi Power, and S&W Model 39 in Vietnam and would dispute any claims that they did not do the job for me. I also used a 39 Special with ball rounds and wonder of wonder, it worked well too.
9mm, because you can carry more ammo. Smaller, lighter, faster with enough punch, and a FMJ might go right through them and hit another enemy.
Just because a shot doesn't kill them right away, it doesn't mean it's not going to stop them.
I've even heard, depending on who's fighting were, it's better to wound than kill. We don't leave our dead or injured soldier's behind, at least that's our modo unlike a lot of our enemy's.
Just because a shot doesn't kill them right away, it doesn't mean it's not going to stop them.
I've even heard, depending on who's fighting were, it's better to wound than kill. We don't leave our dead or injured soldier's behind, at least that's our modo unlike a lot of our enemy's.
I have two thoughts on the subject...
Firstly, I can drop a 500 lbs bomb on your head, burn you with a flame thrower, fire an AT-4 down your cave or kill you with a 155 mm, blow of your leg with a landmine, heck, I could even nuke you as a last resort, but I can't use expanding or explosive ammunition?
That's archaic and frankly makes no sense. BTW. Military pistol bullets are the same as they were when the 9mm was invented in 1902.
The US is NOT a signatory to the Hague Convention that bans such bullets in warfare. How about giving the soldier a truly lethal, high tech bullet.
Let's take a look at the 1899 Hague convention...
Here's the text in question:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp
Here's the text in the same treaty that bans launching projectiles or explosive from balloons.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague994.asp
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-01.asp
Sorry, this treaty is outdated and as I pointed out, we didn't even sign the document. I wonder if the Taliban follows the 1899 Hague convention? Where's the article on car bombs? Oh wait, I guess the car had not been invented in 1899.
I think the 10mm has a lot of promise as a personal defense cartridge, especially with low recoil armor piercing rounds or explosive tipped rounds. The later isn't legal...yet...but I firmly believe it should be developed and fielded.
This particular 10mm round is 120 grains. 10mm offers a larger case capacity and high working pressure. Steel isn't as dense as lead, so it helps to have a larger diameter and greater case capacity. It's difficult to cram these large, but lighter than lead bullets in a case as small as the 9mm.
http://www.fsdip.com/website/VBRBel...mammo/VBRB10mmAutoammo/tabid/294/Default.aspx
Firstly, I can drop a 500 lbs bomb on your head, burn you with a flame thrower, fire an AT-4 down your cave or kill you with a 155 mm, blow of your leg with a landmine, heck, I could even nuke you as a last resort, but I can't use expanding or explosive ammunition?
That's archaic and frankly makes no sense. BTW. Military pistol bullets are the same as they were when the 9mm was invented in 1902.
The US is NOT a signatory to the Hague Convention that bans such bullets in warfare. How about giving the soldier a truly lethal, high tech bullet.
Let's take a look at the 1899 Hague convention...
Here's the text in question:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp
Here's the text in the same treaty that bans launching projectiles or explosive from balloons.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague994.asp
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-01.asp
Sorry, this treaty is outdated and as I pointed out, we didn't even sign the document. I wonder if the Taliban follows the 1899 Hague convention? Where's the article on car bombs? Oh wait, I guess the car had not been invented in 1899.
I think the 10mm has a lot of promise as a personal defense cartridge, especially with low recoil armor piercing rounds or explosive tipped rounds. The later isn't legal...yet...but I firmly believe it should be developed and fielded.
This particular 10mm round is 120 grains. 10mm offers a larger case capacity and high working pressure. Steel isn't as dense as lead, so it helps to have a larger diameter and greater case capacity. It's difficult to cram these large, but lighter than lead bullets in a case as small as the 9mm.
http://www.fsdip.com/website/VBRBel...mammo/VBRB10mmAutoammo/tabid/294/Default.aspx
Last edited:
Amin Parker
New member
A high capacity pistol chambered for 762x25 tokarev round would be very hard to beat
I know that I'm going to get trashed for raising this argument but...
Despite all the so-called adherence to the Hague Convention, I get the itchy feeling that the use of fmj in general and 9mm in particular have more to do with the practicality of not having to deal with lead fouling in battle and also expense per round. The latter may be more important currently than the former. The more complex the composition of anything, including a bullet, the more expensive that item is to produce. JHPs will have a higher rejection rate than FMJs because there is more surface of the bullet to malform or be unevenly coated, etc. Yes, there are major cost savings from economy of scale, but those savings are greater in the simpler configuration. In addition, the current scale of 9mm has made it the .22lr of the centerfire pistol world. A quick look at Ammoman and other sites shows that 9mm is generally cheaper than .45 and even .38 special in similar configuration.
For all the talk of "no expense spared for our boys," the military still has to stay within a budget. If using a cheaper pistol round frees up budget money for other things, that's what they'll likely do. I'm not saying that I agree with it or that this kind of policy is ethical, moral, or less fattening, it just seems to be the way it is.
Despite all the so-called adherence to the Hague Convention, I get the itchy feeling that the use of fmj in general and 9mm in particular have more to do with the practicality of not having to deal with lead fouling in battle and also expense per round. The latter may be more important currently than the former. The more complex the composition of anything, including a bullet, the more expensive that item is to produce. JHPs will have a higher rejection rate than FMJs because there is more surface of the bullet to malform or be unevenly coated, etc. Yes, there are major cost savings from economy of scale, but those savings are greater in the simpler configuration. In addition, the current scale of 9mm has made it the .22lr of the centerfire pistol world. A quick look at Ammoman and other sites shows that 9mm is generally cheaper than .45 and even .38 special in similar configuration.
For all the talk of "no expense spared for our boys," the military still has to stay within a budget. If using a cheaper pistol round frees up budget money for other things, that's what they'll likely do. I'm not saying that I agree with it or that this kind of policy is ethical, moral, or less fattening, it just seems to be the way it is.
skydiver3346
New member
Pistols for military?
.45acp is hard to beat for close quarters combat.
However, the 10mm is very intriguing and definitely something they should consider. The 9mm (out of a pistol length barrel) isn't sufficient enough (in my opinion) for all the different combat scenarios. Sure, the 9mm Beretta holds more bullets, but the effectiveness (as compared to the .45acp and especially the 10mm) is not quite up to par when all things are considered, (again just my personal opinion).
.45acp is hard to beat for close quarters combat.
However, the 10mm is very intriguing and definitely something they should consider. The 9mm (out of a pistol length barrel) isn't sufficient enough (in my opinion) for all the different combat scenarios. Sure, the 9mm Beretta holds more bullets, but the effectiveness (as compared to the .45acp and especially the 10mm) is not quite up to par when all things are considered, (again just my personal opinion).
a sidearm is only for self defense /fpf. why not go as big and as deadly as possible. the only time you would use it is to save your bacon, who cares how loud the boom is or how stiff the kick is. i want the sob on the other end of it cryin about how big the hole in his chest is. imo
This thread is a good example of Parkinson's Law. Not only are handguns not widely issued within the army, it is becoming less so. My son was a tanker during his time in the army, including in Iraq, so he was issued a pistol. I had a photo of him with his personally owned drop-holster with him standing in front of his tank (not personally owned), also armed with a shotgun. I have no story to tell about the shotgun, but curiously I also have a photo of my father armed with a shotgun. (I never saw one when I was in). But anyway, sometime early in their tour in Iraq, they turned in their pistols. Everyone got an M4 or M16. His favorite weapon, I think, was an M249 machine gun for which they sometimes received British manufactured ammunition.
And that's why there are NATO standards.
And that's why there are NATO standards.