Well, actually the M9 pistol is manufactured in Maryland, just down the road from Washington, D.C., in what I think is the old F.I.E. location, although it is true that Beretta owns it, just like FN-Herstal owns a factory somewhere down south where they make machine guns for the government.
What Caliber should our Armed forces be carrying as their side arm?
- Thread starter 1873Colt
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
Let's dial it back a little bit, folks.
This has been a good thread, and I don't want to see it closed or have some posters say some things that they will regret.
This has been a good thread, and I don't want to see it closed or have some posters say some things that they will regret.
aarondhgraham
New member
Blue train is correct,,,
There is some federal provision that any foreign owned company who supplies the US Military must manufacture said goods in the US.
Beretta did not have a manufacturing plant in the US until they went after the contract for the military sidearm.
I do not know if they had to have the plant in place before they entered the 92 for consideration or if they simply had to agree to build a plant if they won the contract.
.
There is some federal provision that any foreign owned company who supplies the US Military must manufacture said goods in the US.
Beretta did not have a manufacturing plant in the US until they went after the contract for the military sidearm.
I do not know if they had to have the plant in place before they entered the 92 for consideration or if they simply had to agree to build a plant if they won the contract.
.
jgcoastie
The problem with the .40, as others have noted, would be interoperability with NATO and other allies, almost all of whom use 9mm.
For the Coast Guard, usually operating under Homeland Security auspices, this isn't usually a consideration. Besides, Homeland Security has a large supply of .40 ammo.
DOD would have to change the ammo supply, and give up common supply chains with allies. Unlikely for main line forces.
The problem with the .40, as others have noted, would be interoperability with NATO and other allies, almost all of whom use 9mm.
For the Coast Guard, usually operating under Homeland Security auspices, this isn't usually a consideration. Besides, Homeland Security has a large supply of .40 ammo.
DOD would have to change the ammo supply, and give up common supply chains with allies. Unlikely for main line forces.
jgcoastie...
... FWIW, I also prefer the P229 .40 over the M9. And I mean no disrespect to the USCG; you're the guys who have to go out into the weather that other people were too stupid not to go into in the first place. I have great respect for your multiple missions. But you definitely have a different supply line, and different logistic concerns.
Back to guns, though, I like the P229, but I also like the S&W M&P, and it holds three more rounds of .40 (15 in the mag); plus I wouldn't mind seeing an American gun as a GI sidearm.
... FWIW, I also prefer the P229 .40 over the M9. And I mean no disrespect to the USCG; you're the guys who have to go out into the weather that other people were too stupid not to go into in the first place. I have great respect for your multiple missions. But you definitely have a different supply line, and different logistic concerns.
Back to guns, though, I like the P229, but I also like the S&W M&P, and it holds three more rounds of .40 (15 in the mag); plus I wouldn't mind seeing an American gun as a GI sidearm.
Glock 17
The Glock 17 was designed as a military pistol, is nye on indestructible, light as well, kit is heavy enough. Nine mil ammo is the lightest of all mil spec ammo.
The projectiles effectiveness is impact location, period. A rapid dump of multiples increases effect also.
The Glock 17 was designed as a military pistol, is nye on indestructible, light as well, kit is heavy enough. Nine mil ammo is the lightest of all mil spec ammo.
The projectiles effectiveness is impact location, period. A rapid dump of multiples increases effect also.
Gen4 G17 has size adj. grips, ambi. mag release, bigger mag. release.
Out of the box, bit smaller, two extra bits to make it bigger, 3 magazines.
The magazines for Glocks, perfect in the middle east, do not rust, Glock would build them in Smyrna immediately.
Plus they are the best 9mm in the world.
Out of the box, bit smaller, two extra bits to make it bigger, 3 magazines.
The magazines for Glocks, perfect in the middle east, do not rust, Glock would build them in Smyrna immediately.
Plus they are the best 9mm in the world.
scorpion_tyr
New member
I know this is an older post, but I just wanted to point out that our military does use JHP 9mm ammunition. They don't issue it in war zones to the usual soldiers, but it is issued and carried in M9's by others on a regular basis.
There are many treaties the US never signed but agrees to honor. And personally I beileve FMJ ammo is actually better for most of our military since you never really know what you're going to be up against. Because of the conditions and constant abuse of the weapons I would think there's a better chance of a JHP not feeding correctly when you need it to.
The 45ACP in a newly manufactured steelframe M1911A1 gets my vote.
As an Army veteran I really think the amount and quality of training is more important that the specific pistol or caliber. In my 4 years of AD 1967-1971 I TWICE carried an M1911A1 officially but I received NO training on it and NEVER went to the range.
As an Army veteran I really think the amount and quality of training is more important that the specific pistol or caliber. In my 4 years of AD 1967-1971 I TWICE carried an M1911A1 officially but I received NO training on it and NEVER went to the range.
While I realize that 9mm NATO is standard in NATO and pretty much everywhere that armies are still buying new handguns, I don't think that is necessarily a good reason not to use something else if it's better, such as
.45 auto, for instance. And I think there are two reasons.
First, submachine guns are no longer commonly used by most armies. They have pretty much become more specialized weapons now that intermediate cartridge firearms are in widespread use. I'm not sure what specialized use calls for a submachine gun but that's pretty much the way things have worked out. Anyway, there is no longer a requirement that the handgun and the submachine gun have a common cartridge, although many armies somehow managed well enough for a while with two (or more) handgun cartridges.
Second, given that now a handgun cartridge is only going to be used in handguns, the ammunition requirements for handgun use in any unit is going to drop to very, very low. Therefore, there's hardly ever going to any need for resupply from allied forces, which really does happen with other munitions. The basic load for the .45 auto during WWII was only 21 rounds per person (on the person) and according to army staff manuals, very little was expended in combat, although the numbers quoted are averages.
.45 auto, for instance. And I think there are two reasons.
First, submachine guns are no longer commonly used by most armies. They have pretty much become more specialized weapons now that intermediate cartridge firearms are in widespread use. I'm not sure what specialized use calls for a submachine gun but that's pretty much the way things have worked out. Anyway, there is no longer a requirement that the handgun and the submachine gun have a common cartridge, although many armies somehow managed well enough for a while with two (or more) handgun cartridges.
Second, given that now a handgun cartridge is only going to be used in handguns, the ammunition requirements for handgun use in any unit is going to drop to very, very low. Therefore, there's hardly ever going to any need for resupply from allied forces, which really does happen with other munitions. The basic load for the .45 auto during WWII was only 21 rounds per person (on the person) and according to army staff manuals, very little was expended in combat, although the numbers quoted are averages.
MLeake said:
Neither fits everybody's hands perfectly, and while the M&P's grip is probably more comfortable/natural for a larger number of people, some prefer the Glock's grips outright. I believe the M&P still has a slightly shorter trigger reach than even the SF and Gen4 9mm Glocks, but that's just going by pictures. It definitely has a substantially shorter trigger reach than the regular Gen3 Glock, which while not an issue for the vast majority of people, can be a big advantage for some.
Unless I've heard wrong, Glocks and now M&Ps have been shut out of some major competitions for military and other federal agency contracts due to being striker-fired (lighter primer strikes) and/or lacking external safeties (the M&P has these as an option, though). However, if these requirements were dropped, then I think they both would make excellent combat sidearms. The primer striking force issue appears to be overrated, by the way, since I've never had a failure to ignite with either in thousands of rounds (and I've never heard of issues when using 9mm NATO ammunition).
i think we never should have gotten rid of the .45 acp its seen our milatary through a couple of world wars.... and a few others as well. You get some of these pussys who cant hit **** with em and then you start issueing the 9mm. Screw the NATO just cause of some body armor piercing. You hit some one in the femal artiry there not going far and hell I bet it would even stop em cause youll most likely be breaking some bones as well. Do head shots with a .45acp like the SAS does with 9mm and see the results you get. try shooting a horse with a 9mm and see what you get. .45 is a adversital round. you have some calvery soldiers on horse back you shoot the horse that horse is going down.. you shoot it with a 9mm that horse is still comming. just somewhat of a point Im trying to make... here.
Burrhead51
Inactive
I'm going to have to agree with Seig2006. The question was about the best caliber for our troops and that has nothing to do with what NATO or any one else is doing. We should never have moved away from the 45ACP cartridge. A 45 caliber hand gun was our first standard side arm in the late 19th century and it has proven itself many times in battle. We move away form it and always seem to return to a 45 caliber cartridge. The 1911 in 45ACP is one of the best side arms a guy could carry into battle. After all the hand gun is for close in fighting not long range and a 230grain 45 caliber bullet coming at you at 900fps is nothing to ignore. The 9mm is a low powered round in comparison, granted you can carry more rounds for the same weight but I think that 45 will settle thing a lot better.
As for the wimps complaining about the recoil, I never heard of a GI in WWII or Korea complain about that Garand and the 30-06 cartridge it shot. I like the M16 but lets face it the M14 or the Garand were a better weapon in my opinion.
As for the wimps complaining about the recoil, I never heard of a GI in WWII or Korea complain about that Garand and the 30-06 cartridge it shot. I like the M16 but lets face it the M14 or the Garand were a better weapon in my opinion.
Catfishman
New member
Good point
Seriously, a fmj 9mm is a very lousy round. I shot a medium sized dog with fmj 9x18 twice. The dog ran away. It showed up a few days later perfectly healthy except for tiny holes in it's sides.
The .45 acp and the .308 seem great to me. But this is 2010. The 10mm and the 6.5 Grendel make sense to me. The 10 is fat and very fast. The Grendel sounds great. Much more power and accuracy than the 5.56, much less recoil than the .308 and it fits in the AR platform. The Grendel seems to be exactly what is needed. The 6.8 seems to designed for "combat range" of 300 yards or less. But I would think that "combat range" would vary greatly from war to war and even from battle to battle.
I'm sure pistols aren't used much in war. But having a powerful 10mm on you side as a backup has to help morale.