What Caliber should our Armed forces be carrying as their side arm?

Maybe we should give everyone a 1911 and a Garand and fly P-51s into the year 3000 AD.
Click to expand...


Now your talking, great idea. We won wars with those weapons, ever since the US went to 22s we have to leave with our tails between our legs. It seems nothing is ever learned from history.


Jim
 
My opinion is slightly different.

As a standard issue pistol the current 9MM should continue in service. Issued to those who may need to be issued a pistol.

I would advocate that members of our Military branches should be allowed to choose their own personal protection handgun. Pay out of their own pocket (also donations, and gifts). Each member would be responsible for ammo to carry, and qualify with it. When not in authorized use it would have to be locked in the arms room/locker with the other weapons not in use.

As far as handgun's not being war winners... maybe so. But they can be a battle winner. Gone are the days of two armies facing each other on a field of battle. Now it seems more of urban/ambush fighting. I could see a handgun being a real asset in close quarters.
 
In the absence of any type of JHP or JSP ammunition I would say the .45 ACP with a 230 grain truncated cone or SWC.
 
I've even heard, depending on who's fighting were, it's better to wound than kill.
Click to expand...

If your enemy is so close that you are using a pistol, you don't want him "wounded"- you want him DRT.

As for it being better to wound and enemy soldier than it is to kill him, because that will take several other soldiers out of the fight.... that logic only works when you are fighting soldiers: Irregular troops have no supprt troops/aid station to take their wounded to. Jihadis are quite content to keep on fighting until you actually kill them. Do it right the first time, so you don't give them another crack at you.

My vote is allow anyone authorized a pistol to carry what they want. That would never fly, though.

That said, the proliferation of the M-4 carbine has replaced the need for a pistol in much the same way that the M-1 carbine did in WWII.

Instead of talking about changing the pistol ammo, we should be encouraging the replacement of the 5.56 x 45 as the infantryman's rifle round.

6.8 SPC is a start.
 
Well, since our service men and women seem to be stuck with FMJ ammo anyway, the light recoil (easy to shoot quickly and accurately) and high capacity that the 9mm offers seems like a pretty logical choice to me.

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?
Click to expand...

If you're referring to the Moros during the Philippine Insurrection, the Army was not using .38 Special revolvers but rather Colt M1892 New Army revolvers in .38 Long Colt, a cartridge much less powerful than either .38 Special or 9mm.
 
spodwo

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.
Click to expand...

Good post. Sidearms in REAL combat are the last line of defense, you're not doing to pull off a Dirty Harry fantasy on the battlefield. It IS very important to think about having a plentiful supply of a given round, even during a potential world war when thigns are tight. Perhaps .40 is the best all around solution, but the comparitive lack of availability and higher COST of .40 worldwide kills it. Uniformity with NATO was a major factor obviously for going to 9mm in the first place.
 
If I were military and things went FUBAR, my M4 required a plan B, I'd want a high capacity .45 ACP. A Glock 21 or FNP-45 would be tough to beat.
 
When are we just going to throw this topic in the same pile as IOTWAWKI and Zombies or at least just make it a "sticky" poll.
 
That's why I voted 44 magnum. Since most people in here, me included, don't have any real experience on the subject debating it is a waste of bandwidth.
 
COSteve said:
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.
Click to expand...

Penetration through what? 9mm and .40 S&W can penetrate lots of things better than .45 ACP, and with FMJ bullets they can all go completely through people.

Jim243 said:
We won wars with those weapons, ever since the US went to 22s we have to leave with our tails between our legs. It seems nothing is ever learned from history.
Click to expand...

Those may be the results, but the reasons were not and are not the weapons and ammo.

jimbob86 said:
Instead of talking about changing the pistol ammo, we should be encouraging the replacement of the 5.56 x 45 as the infantryman's rifle round.

6.8 SPC is a start.
Click to expand...

I prefer 6.5 Grendel--essentially a modern equivalent of .280 British, which we should have gone with in the first place.
 
Betcha no one who has ever had to crawl down a tunnel voted to give up their 1911a1s for a 9mm.

When it comes to digging people out of a little muddy tunnel, rifles don't work, grenades don't work, B52s don't work. You need a scrawny grunt with a pistol.

Hard ball 45 ACP works, no need for 15 or so rounds, you will only get time for two maybe.

But, like those who've had to crawl down some muddy nasty tunnel, none of us here get to vote so we are stuck with the 9.
 
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
Click to expand...

The .45ACP has already established itself as a pistol that the average person can shoot well with some training and meets the criteria you discribe.
If you're trying to compensate for the lack of training prevelant in todays military, then going to a caliber that an untrained soldier can "shoot easily" is he wrong approach.

The 9mm was chosen to replace worn out .45 Autos because it conformed to other NATO nations pistol calibers. The M9 was chosen because we tossed a NATO ally a bone in exchange for the use of their country for our military bases.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Military use of the 9mm pistol makes sense logistically and politically. The US Coast Guard is now part of the Department of Homeland Security. DHS seems wed to the .40 S&W, about a year ago they ordered 200-million .40-cal. rounds from Winchester.
 
Nnobby45 - What is your source of information for the source selection of the M9?

I worked in the Army Material Command during the source selection of the M9, and I never heard anything about throwing someone a bone for the use of bases.

I would like to hear where you got your information. I don't believe it. It certainly was not a source selection factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top