What Caliber should our Armed forces be carrying as their side arm?
- Thread starter 1873Colt
- Start date
spacecoast
New member
My son's been in the Army for almost a year and has yet to be introduced to a handgun. I'm not sure how that will change if/when he is deployed.
US military sidearms, calibers; budgets-USSOCOM...
I only have 2 points about the last few forum posts;
1) The DoD/NATO could select any caliber or design. A .40Super or a 10mm size pistol round with improved ballistics could be R&D then fielded in 4-5 years but $$$, egos, politics, etc would get in the way.
2) The spec ops units or US Special Operations Command in central Florida gets a different budget from regular military troops. They can buy/issue weapons, equipment and ammunition under much more open procurement methods.
I only have 2 points about the last few forum posts;
1) The DoD/NATO could select any caliber or design. A .40Super or a 10mm size pistol round with improved ballistics could be R&D then fielded in 4-5 years but $$$, egos, politics, etc would get in the way.
2) The spec ops units or US Special Operations Command in central Florida gets a different budget from regular military troops. They can buy/issue weapons, equipment and ammunition under much more open procurement methods.
2damnold4this
New member
We made a huge mistake when we went away from the .45. Not the .45 ACP, but the .45 Long Colt. We should issue all our troops ivory handled, seven inch barreled, nickel plated SAAs.
In all seriousness, I think I'd rather have an extra hand grenade or rifle magazine than a pistol on my belt.
In all seriousness, I think I'd rather have an extra hand grenade or rifle magazine than a pistol on my belt.
In my opinion, 9mm is fine for military use in a backup weapon, and being so ubiquitous in that role worldwide pretty much seals the deal, although the US Coast Guard apparently prefers .40 S&W.
Personally, I think that the primary rifle caliber is more in need of an upgrade in range and terminal effectiveness, although I suppose it's still good enough (especially when backed up by a few 7.62x51mm rifles).
Personally, I think that the primary rifle caliber is more in need of an upgrade in range and terminal effectiveness, although I suppose it's still good enough (especially when backed up by a few 7.62x51mm rifles).
This could go on forever. But just a few things in the back of my mind.
A. If your primary weapon is sufficient (M4) why carry the extra weight of a pistol and pistol ammo, I would rather have more 223 ammo instead. Now if your weapon is going to fail, then it's time to get a better primary weapon.
B. The 9mm (355) is just a 38 Spl (357) dressed up to be used in a semi-auto, if it was judged insufficient for battle over 100 years ago what idiot at the DOD thought it would be OK now? Right use 17 bullets instead of 6, now there is a cost savings. Or did we change to keep our allys happy, they couldn't fright their way out of a paper bag, we have to come to their aid time after time after time after time.
C. If they were issuing Glock G-18s (full Auto) then I would consider the 9mm but otherwise a Uzi would be considered also.
D. Why don't we just get rid of both the M9 and M4 and go with a HK MP-7 in 4.6X30, easier to carry, more ammo can be carried and is more effective that either the 5.56 or 9mm. Very good for urban warfare. For long range just use a AR-10 or M-14.
Just my $0.02.
Jim
A. If your primary weapon is sufficient (M4) why carry the extra weight of a pistol and pistol ammo, I would rather have more 223 ammo instead. Now if your weapon is going to fail, then it's time to get a better primary weapon.
B. The 9mm (355) is just a 38 Spl (357) dressed up to be used in a semi-auto, if it was judged insufficient for battle over 100 years ago what idiot at the DOD thought it would be OK now? Right use 17 bullets instead of 6, now there is a cost savings. Or did we change to keep our allys happy, they couldn't fright their way out of a paper bag, we have to come to their aid time after time after time after time.
C. If they were issuing Glock G-18s (full Auto) then I would consider the 9mm but otherwise a Uzi would be considered also.
D. Why don't we just get rid of both the M9 and M4 and go with a HK MP-7 in 4.6X30, easier to carry, more ammo can be carried and is more effective that either the 5.56 or 9mm. Very good for urban warfare. For long range just use a AR-10 or M-14.
Just my $0.02.
Jim
Perhaps the factor which will determine the future direction of military calibre and ammunition type is the development of and accessibility to body armour.
I note that FN in Belgium and H&K have been experimenting with smaller high velocity rounds in the 5 - 6 mm range for several years. The problem is as always the trade-off between greater penetration and stopping power.
The Hague conventions are certainly out of date, as has been pointed out. And, in not being party to them, the US could lead the way in introducing modifications. However I suspect there is a political sensitivity issue which needs to be overcome first. There is also the question of whether warfare is evolving into something new (fourth generation?) that needs to be coupled with a new technology mindset.
A while back there was a You-tube video circulating on some Dutch or Belgian armour-piercing 9mm ammo. It was a publicity/promotional video so should be taken with a pinch of salt - but all said, the technology is already here. "A bad day for Kelvar..." the presenter told us.
The other question is the envisaged tactical role of the pistol, and of course there are different scenarios here ranging from casual or back-up to special forces use. In general, and in terms of time and resources given to training, it seems the pistol is heading towards neglect.
I note that FN in Belgium and H&K have been experimenting with smaller high velocity rounds in the 5 - 6 mm range for several years. The problem is as always the trade-off between greater penetration and stopping power.
The Hague conventions are certainly out of date, as has been pointed out. And, in not being party to them, the US could lead the way in introducing modifications. However I suspect there is a political sensitivity issue which needs to be overcome first. There is also the question of whether warfare is evolving into something new (fourth generation?) that needs to be coupled with a new technology mindset.
A while back there was a You-tube video circulating on some Dutch or Belgian armour-piercing 9mm ammo. It was a publicity/promotional video so should be taken with a pinch of salt - but all said, the technology is already here. "A bad day for Kelvar..." the presenter told us.
The other question is the envisaged tactical role of the pistol, and of course there are different scenarios here ranging from casual or back-up to special forces use. In general, and in terms of time and resources given to training, it seems the pistol is heading towards neglect.
lee n. field
New member
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
When ever I talk to a member of the military who shoots with us in San Antonio at matches, they have few complaints about the 9mm and M9. Some of them even bought the civilian version to compete with.
Lots of internet BS on the issue. Maybe we should give everyone a 1911 and a Garand and fly P-51s into the year 3000 AD.
Lots of internet BS on the issue. Maybe we should give everyone a 1911 and a Garand and fly P-51s into the year 3000 AD.
revolverrandy
New member
9mm nuf said
You want a pistol you can use quickly in a tight spot to save your neck as a backup ,close quarters battle erupts.You want a weapon with less recoil for quick shots to the right spots.
9mm
nuf said
You want a pistol you can use quickly in a tight spot to save your neck as a backup ,close quarters battle erupts.You want a weapon with less recoil for quick shots to the right spots.
9mm
nuf said
AGENT TIKKI
New member
I vote for .357 sig, cycling reliability, high velocity, and outstanding penetration. All great for military use. Especially since they cannot use hollow points.
ps lol @ Glen, good one!
ps lol @ Glen, good one!
Last edited:
hardworker
New member
I'm voting 44 magnum. Imagine if Dirty Harry had been in the Middle East, we'd already be done over there and half way done with Iran.
They aren't 'inconsequential' when your life hangs in the balance! They are not intended as main battle weapons, rather as self defense weapons, and in that role they must hit hard with a big slug.
As someone who carried and used a 1911 45acp in battle (RVN), I can tell you that the 45acp is the minimum power pistol I'd consider. The 9mm is a joke as a combat weapon. As a shooter of the 357mag, 40s&w, 45acp, and 10mm I'd recommend the 10mm followed by the 45acp+P, both in double stack pistols.
The 40s&w may be effective on civilians but a uniformed combatant is more 'armored' that a mere civilian and requires a pistol with much more penetration and power than it can deliver. The 9mm is completely inadequate for this combat role.