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

Problem with .357 SIG round is it has a tendency to over penetrate on soft targets.

Don't get me wrong it is a great round, I myself own a Glock 31c. Highly accurate even out to 45 yards.

A pistol, in my opinion, needs to transfer all its kinetic energy into its target. over penetration = wasted energy.

.45 ACP has my vote due to its excellent stopping power at the close range you use it in.
 
I would make caliber optional but it would have to be one of 3 calibers: 9 mm, .40 cal or .45 caliber. The soldier or serviceman would have to qualify 2 times a year with his firearm of choice. He would also have to take instruction on tactical use of firearms/pistols 2 times a year too. They would have to learn about using the Mozambique Shooting Technique for extreme close range or CQB combat scenarios.
 
jimbob86 said:
It appears that 6.8 SPC would also be insufficient.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/532-wall.pdf
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Significantly increased effective range is why I prefer 6.5 Grendel over 6.8 SPC. No magic is involved here, just basic physics--higher ballistic coefficient bullets packed into an AR15-compatible cartridge. While going with 6.8 SPC would still be an improvement, in my opinion it would also be yet another mistake made in selecting the primary caliber for our infantry rifles, carbines, and squad automatic weapons for decades to come.
 
I served in combat in Vietnam & of course, back then, the .45 was the issued firearm. For what it is worth,,, I NEVER saw a pistol fired in combat during my tour !
 
Military......

The 10mm would be nice ! The 50AE would be better, and back to the 45acp would be good ! Since they can't use hollow points, the bigger the bullet, the better !!
 
Back to the trusted .45, Guys....tried and true.

Pistols (or revolvers for that matter) are not long range weapons in military use....they're officer's side arms, tanker and crew served weapons last ditch weapons etc. That said, the current 9mm Beretta M9 does not suit the job as well as the old .45 1911. The caliber is insufficient for the really close in encounters that a side arm was adopted for...trench corners, bunkers, tunnels etc. As to size, compare the M9 with a 1911...you'll find that it's wider, in both the slide area, and grip, and that it offers no real difference in height or length.

I see the M9 as a NATO compromise...the 9mm was standard with most of our allies. Theoretically, using the same ammunition, should simplify resupply problem...but on closer look, just how many mixed forces, down where it really counts at company level, run out of pistol ammunition? It does offer a larger magazine capacity....again...if you assume use in trench, bunker scenarios, large magazine capacity is not a big advantage.

So where are we....we've got a foreign company, making our service side arm, shooting a demonstrably inferior round in a bigger bulkier pistol.

Make mine a 1911 .45...and let Colt or an American corporation build it.

Rodfac
 
Last edited:
Despite all the crying about a larger caliber, when it is all said and done there is zero real world difference in any of the popular calibers.

For personal use, use whatever makes you feel better. For military use there is really no reason not to use the 9mm with the larger mag capacity.
 
My vote goes to the "Pistol Caliber Doesn't Matter In War" camp. For us, carrying day to day, the difference between a 9mm and 45 is pretty significant. In a warzone, with 20mm, 105mm, 5.56, 7.62, and 40mm munitions getting thrown around by the truckload, the difference between pistol rounds is rendered truly tiny.

Also, thought I do not carry the 9mm, I do not need to engage in pronlonged firefights, and weight makes a big difference in ammo transport capacity.
 
It appears that 6.8 SPC would also be insufficient.
Click to expand...

Don't think so. The 500 yds and out battle distance mentioned in the article isn't condusive for any infantry battle rifle. At distances where an infantryman would engage enmies armed with rifles, the 6.8 performs very well. It certainly won't be impeded by chest mag. pouches than can defeat the 5.56, nor barriers penetrated by the 7.62X39.

To paraphrase from memory (not copied) a Farnum Quip after he received a message from a correspondent in Afghanistan:

The Wall Street Journal had a picture of Iranian troops marching in a parade with their superb H&KG3 rifles chambered in 7.62X51 (AKA .308') which is their main battle rifle. These rifles will out range and out penetrate the 5.56mm even more than the 7.62X39 that our troops face now. In the words of the correspondent, WHEN our troops face them in battle.

While the 6.8 represents a marked improvement over the 5.56, the Pentagon refuses (in very stubborn fashion) to upgrade to the superior caliber, since it's so dedicated to the M4 5.56mm.

Guess we can't get enough of the M4, which further reduces the velocity/effectiveness of the M16 rifle. Not to worry---the new GREEN round is reported by Pentagon officials to solve such problems.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
To sum up

The 9X19 is the standard NATO pistol round which makes it widely accepted and mass produced. Though it might be argued it still doesn't have as much stopping power as .45, it still stops and kills bad guys. End of story. Also, you must take into account that the military now employs 90 lb. females. They have to be able to shoot this round as well. For these two reasons, the 9mm makes the only sense and should never really need to argued.

The 5.56 is still debatable, though in terms of ballistics and availability is a good enough round. The 7.62 is effective to about 300 meters while the the 5.56 is effective 200-300 meters farther.
 
Last edited:
Once again Nnobby45, I ask you to provide us with your source of information for Pentagon decissions.

I believe you are totally ignorant with your blatantly incorrect statements. You have lost all your credibility unless you respond with a reasonable response to my questions.

I ask you before, and you never responded as to what your source was on the U.S. Govt. throwing a foreign competitior a bone with the M-9 contract award.

I can only gather you are very opinionated without any basis for your postitions. Either stop posting incorrect information or provide documentation to support your post.

Yes, I am challenging you to an intellegent and documented response. This is not meant to be a personal attack, but what I believe is false information and can cause rumors and the spread of incorrect information. None of us want this.

If you can document your statement, I will gladly offer my sincere appology.
 
Last edited:
Dont care to partake in the 5.56 contest other than to say in my personal experience it was lacking in combat... End of comment on that..

As for what this thread is about 45 or 45 super would be my dream choices.
 
Once again Nnobby45, I ask you to provide us with your source of information for Pentagon decissions.

I believe you are totally ignorant with your blatantly incorrect statements. You have lost all your credibility unless you respond with a reasonable response to my questions.

I ask you before, and you never responded as to what your source was on the U.S. Govt. throwing a foreign competitior a bone with the M-9 contract award.
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't read your first request and I wasn't ducking the question--- and I don't usually respond to those who violate the board rules by attacking the individual rather than his opinion on a level consistent with a pre-pubescent.

Nor to those who only recognize my credibility if I assume the intellectually inferior position of caving in to their intimidation.

In spite of your uncalled for rudeness and disrespect of those who don't share your views, I'll give my (emphasis on MY) response that it might clear things up for others--in case any are interested.

It's never been a secret that the U.S. Government, not the Pentagon, awarded Italy the contract for the M9 because they were a NATO ally and because we need air bases in their country. Don't ask me to do research what you can do yourself.

With respect to the Pentagons' decision to defend the 5.56 NATO and reject the superior 6.8mm--- good grief, they've been opposed adamantly from the start. Blindly dedicated to the M4 in 5.56mm. in spite of reports from troops who use it in battle. Yes, they like the weapon, but not it's efficiency.

My post which paraphrased one of John Farnum's many sources in the military around the world, including Afghanistan, was just that--a condensed version of a received Quip. And, it happens that I share the opinion with re: to the stubborness of the bureaucratic Pentagon, that is unwilliing to supply or troops with a more effective battle rifle-- largly for monetary reasons when our troops lives are at steak. US Marines are breaking out the old M14 rifle in 7.62 NATO and newer versions of the same rifle have been developed. How or if they'll be deployed, I don't know.
 
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.
Click to expand...

That's astounding that, while you were working in the Army Material Command (an extension of the Pentagon beauracracy?), you had no knowledge of the politics discussed behind closed doors, at the highest levels of two governments, concerning the awarding of a military contract. To think that such politicians could make a major political decision and not even send you a memo.......well, that's just not right.:D

Hey, let's lighten up. Too many important things happening around the world and in our own country, and our own communities-- and I'm better than you are at trading insults--to no real purpose. And the football game has already started--think I'll grab a Red Bull and relax.;)
 
Last edited:
It is not the Diameter its the bullet shape.

Neither 9mm Nato, 40 SW nor 45 ACP performs well on humans with ball ammo.

Diameter does not matter as much as bullet construction.

It is a fact (IMHO) that ball pistol ammo is not good for much other than punching holes in paper.

The 9mm would be good enough for a sidearm if a high quality hollow points were used.

A 40SW or my personal favorite the 45 ACP, would work even better with hollow point bullets.

The down in the Philippines during our second war with with Muslims extremist (The Moro Rebellion 1899–1913 ) the 38 Long Colt Model 1892, a double action revolver was replaced by the older 45 Long Colt Single Action. The 45LC bullets were big chunks of soft lead that mushroomed very well, (they did not need hollow points).

No matter what bullet is use a pistol is a last chance weapon. The smart warrior carries one, but uses a rifle or carbine when ever possible.:cool:
 
Well Nnooby45, You did provide a couple of interesting responses which basically intended to laugh off my questions to the substance to your post.

My intent was not a personal attack upon you but to simply correct what I consider inaccurate information which lead to misconceptions of the hard work and dedication to the many who serve our Nations. There are a great number of military, retired military and dedicated civil servants who work for the Department of Defense, the Army Material Command and its subordinate commands which include Rock Island and Picatanny Arsenal.

Many of us had and have sons, daughters, and close friends serving in combat. Many of us also served and had ones very close to us sacrifice far more than most will ever know. I am proud to say I was a party to the above, and personally resent the misconceptions you have spread in your comments. This is why I have questioned your qualifications and data to make such disparaging and actually criminal activity allegations

I would only ask you to reconsider your views upon which some of your post in this thread might mislead others of the Forum.

I have responded in such an aggressive manner without the attempt to personally attack you. It is to let your know how poorly informed and ignorant information can hurt the perception and dedication of many hard working and concerned professionals of the Department of Defense which includes those actively serving our Proud Nation.

So enjoy your Red Bull and please respond if you think I am totally off base with my knowledge and personal beliefs. I took part of your response as a true slap in the face.
 
It is to let your know how poorly informed and ignorant information can hurt the perception and dedication of many hard working and concerned professionals of the Department of Defense which includes those actively serving our Proud Nation.
Click to expand...

Well, Lamar, I'm sorry that you feel that I disparaged the Dept. of Defense. There's the Pentagon and how they feel about certain weaponry, and there are the aforementioned soldiers you mentioned fighting for their country who have to use the weapons. Guess I should have pointed out that the 6.8mm isn't popular with members of Congress, either, for budget concerns.

My experience with the 5.56mm goes back a long time when I also actively (and voluntarily) served our Proud Nation, in another war that's been mostly forgotten--with all that's going on these days. The round worked, if the rifle did, but we didn't engage enemies across mountain ridges at 500 meters plus.

Wasn't referring to the D.O.D where the M9 contract was concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top