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

The 9x18 mm failed completely in 2 out of 2 shots.

Actually shooting something teaches me much more than shooting paper or watching videos.
Click to expand...

So you don't have experience in shooting the 9mm Parabellum? U.S. troops don't use the Makarov anyway You probably should upgrade to the real 9mm...;)
 
"The dog ran away. It showed up a few days later perfectly healthy except for tiny holes in it's sides."


The only thing that tells me is that a larger caliber will never make up for poor shot placement.




"Single shot.

Nuclear tipped projectile."


BAH! I shot a chipmunk with a .995 caliber Nooklomatic loaded with Plutonium Q phase vaporizer rounds. All it did was singe the chipmunk's hair a little.
 
'Shooters' will do just fine with a .40, Grump. Non-shooters will release a miniature artillery salvo and with Divine Intervention, do OK too. ;)
 
Shot with some AF guys. They had no trouble with the 9s. Marine guy also - the 9 was fine with him.

Like I said:

Garands, 1911s, P-51s and the Iowa class BBs are all we need till the year 3000AD.
 
'Shooters' will do just fine with a .40, Grump. Non-shooters will release a miniature artillery salvo and with Divine Intervention, do OK too.
Click to expand...
I was biting my tongue when i wrote that and trying real hard to keep a straight face.

Put a 22 pistol in the hands of an expert and a .357 in the hands of the typical mall ninja Kommando types who have never been in a fight in their lives and I will put my money on the guy with the 22. I think caliber and gauge wars aren't worth serious discussion because there is little fact to back them up and lots of 'my mind is made up' opinions. Just have to get in there and yank on a leg once in awhile, its good for my mental health. :D

I had my first caliber war discussion back in 1964 with a fellow sailor who was pushing the .357 magnum as the greatest thing to happen since sliced bread. A trip to the range, 5 rounds rapid fire from behind a barrier and compare targets was decided on as a method to prove our point. They wouldn't let us use 357's at the Great lakes range so he used an issue 45 which he claimed he qualified as an expert with. I had a (4") 50' group and he had a single hole on paper. Might have been the gun but I don't think it would have made much difference if it had been a NM pistol.

I was just a beginner myself then and 4" was pretty good for me at the time. Since then I have seen this argument a thousand times. Sometimes we can get together on a range but mostly in the internet it's hard to do. I have had internet pals actually come to my house to shoot with me, one guy from Norway probably sets the long distance record but he came to learn and learn he did.

-28 degrees and we were shooting every handgun I owned at 15 to 25 yards for 2 days. Today he has as many or more guns then I do and is shooting competition in Norway. Mostly club level but he has met a lot of great guys who have helped him. I have a feeling when he shows up this fall or winter I had best be having a good day or he will clean my clock. I love it when a student does that to me. :D

Would you believe he actually had the gall to complain about my weather. I finally had to show him on a map that I lived farther north than he did and he just happened to pick the coldest weekend in about 15 years to come visit. He was sure I lived south of his home town and he could warm up for a few days.

I tell everybody, the porch light is always on and the coffee is always hot. I'm willing to put up my targets with theirs any time good bad or indifferent. I just like to shoot and its always more fun if somebody makes me try harder. Caliber doesn't matter unless you are shooting at something that can shoot back, can eat you or stomp on you if you don't do good. I have been stomped on but have avoided the being eaten part. Been chewed on a couple of times and have ended up in a tree but only because I had no gun.
 
Last edited:
Catfishman said:
I'm confident that both 9mm and .45 ACP bullets are small in comparison with most dogs and humans, sure.
Click to expand...

? point ?
Click to expand...

Well, regarding size everything is relative, so what I was saying here was that the bullets of both calibers are small objects in comparison with their targets, which should put any differences in size between them in the proper perspective--nearly negligible. It's not like the case of centerfire rifle calibers that have enough kinetic energy to cause massive damage--pistols just poke small (relative to the target) holes, and even twice as large as small is still pretty small.
 
Well, regarding size everything is relative, so what I was saying here was that the bullets of both calibers are small objects in comparison with their targets, which should put any differences in size between them in the proper perspective--nearly negligible. It's not like the case of centerfire rifle calibers that have enough kinetic energy to cause massive damage--pistols just poke small (relative to the target) holes, and even twice as large as small is still pretty small.
Click to expand...
Some time ago I was doing some calculations to determine how much tissue was damaged by a typical pistol bullet and used the FBI wound volume data set. I found that most typical self-defense pistol calibers damage about 0.1% of an average adult human male with each shot.

Or, said another way, a shot from a pistol in the typical self-defense calibers will leave the average adult male about 99.9% intact.

No one in their right mind would automatically assume a person who is 99.9% intact would be incapacitated. They would ask WHICH 0.1% of the person was damaged before making any comments about the seriousness of the injury.

But on the gun forums it seems to be a given that if someone is shot and isn't automatically incapacitated that something must be wrong. The caliber must be too small, the ammunition must be inadequate, etc. Those could be issues but that's not the first question that should be asked. The FIRST question to ask is: "WHICH 0.1% of the attacker was damaged by the shot?"
 
We always hear that we went to the 9mm because we wanted to be compatible with the Europeans. Why didn't we simply have them pick up the .45?
 
Ad for the original question when one considers all the factors of logistics and maintenance I go along with the US military.
I would rather trust their judgment than a lot of folks on the internet who have never faced the problems encountered by the military. Some have never served, and have less knowledge with which to make decisions.

Regars,
Jerry
 
I would rather trust their judgment than a lot of folks on the internet who have never faced the problems encountered by the military. Some have never served, and have less knowledge with which to make decisions.
Click to expand...

"a lot of folks" ...... "Some have never served" ...... generalize much?

In Jan-Feb '91, I just didn't see a whole lot of utility for my M-16a1 with it's maximum effective range of 460 meters as I looked out across MILES of empty desert...... that on a map might have maybe one flippin' contour line running through it..... "Don't bother with the pop-guns, guys- thet'll just draw attention to us. "

We had all the Artillery and Air support we could manage (and were more afraid of our A-10's mistaking us for Iraqis than of the Iraqis). I just can't imagine being in some dirt fort in Afghanistan at the bottom of a valley..... with mountains rising on two sides ..... and my personal weapon has all the knockdown of .22 rimfire past 500 meters.....
 
'Sidearms are unnessesary- they already have carbines' ..... I think that's how we got here..... IIRC, I compared th M-4 to the M-1 carbine and some .223 fanboys took offense.
 
well since they are limited to FMJs they should be issued 45s, otherwise I think the 357 sig hollowpoints are a better option than 45 if hollowpoints are allowed. They offer more capacity, penetration and power than a 45. Also the bottleneck does add a bit to the feed-ability.

I really wish they would adopt the 6.8 as the standard military rifle round. I would love to see the production of that round to go way up. I would trade in my upper if 6.8 became readily available.

The sidearm should be a Glock 31. I cant think of a pistol I would rather have in a sandy war environment (and Im a sig guy). Beretta M9s suck. ;)
 
Last edited:
Personally, I like the M-9, it's big, clunky, and, too me, atleast, it feels good riding in my holster.

However, I take issue with the 9x19 FMJs. I would love for hand gun rounds to be exempt from the various rules of war treaties so I could carry any of the literally dozens of different premium self defense rounds out there.

As far as logistics go, as long as we went with a 9x19 round, it wouldn't be the total suckfest it would be to go over to something like the .40 or .357 Sig.
 
6.8 = .280?

KAK,

A little history.

Just after WW11, the Brits (our lot) in evaluating the mess that was WW11, and where the actual fights were fought, and with what, weapons and calibres, they decided guns needed to be more maneuverable, carry more rounds, and better damage causers, for their weight, hit value, at the nominal amount that could be carried, by an assault trooper.

They came up with a bull pup, basic difference, from conventional design, the magazine is behind the pistol grip (trigger) basic problem with the Americans.

Not invented here!!

The problem in this, or any other of our Gun Blogs, if you try to change for the better, anything! You get trashed by the flag waving Yanks... Watch out, I will be one of Dem Der Yanks in April 2011! Take no notice of the accent. It only gets real strong when I get wound up!

A bull pup in 6.8, perfect! I own a 25 year old Steyr AUG, holding the front of the pistol grip, with my left hand, standing in a doorway, awesome, 16" barrel, 28" overall length, great. Barrel starts to get real hot! Three seconds, replaced.

The Israels built a nice Bull Pup, the Tavar? Think that is the name. Incredable optical sight built in.

Reference down in the Valley in Afghanistan, we produced a great weapon over here, the Brits bought a bunch, 7.62X51, that has an optical sight fitted, looks like an M16, on steroids! Hitting man sized targets, out to 500m. With standard Machine gun ammo! That we feed the M-60 with. Only single shot!

Well my skinny English bum is getting tired, have a great weekend.
 
Going nowhere - same old arguments. Quite the yawn.

Anybody have any real empirical evidence that the M9 doesn't work on the job?

Before we spend millions and millions as someone chants 45?
 
Glenn,

I agree on the leave well enough alone.

The part of supply to both Military, and LEO departments that always baffles me, no one looks at the past (and forward use) of these weapons and ammunition, as the main reason to select them.

The M1 Rifle, no magazine? You can not drill with a magazine in place!

Must be hundred of such things.
 
Uh? What do you think was used when the rounds and guns were developed?

Modern hollowpoints are relatively new. BTW, round nose 38s were used for SD for ages.

Still bored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top