USMC Designates Glock 19M the M007

[dan belisle]

Hmm, Bond favoured a tiny mouse calibre .25 Berretta but in Dr No (the original novel) Q and M forced him to switch to the mighty .380 Walther, much to Bond's disgust because he thought the round unnecessarily heavy. In fact at the end of Dr No, the novel, Bond writes a nasty memo to M saying that the .380 round was ineffective against the mechanised dragons he'd encountered. But anyway, the point is that calibres used to be a lot smaller in the days before bigger men, crystal meth, and body armour; the .38 was a big step up in calibre when it became the police standard (or so I've been told, I'm not THAT old). I'm a 9mm fan myself, for the reasons that have been stated but weighted towards magazine capacity. Which doesn't mean a lot in Canada, but there you go.

He also kept a 45 Colt in his Bentley for when he needed real firepower (Casino Royale). - dan

 

[maxman1]

Hmm, Bond favoured a tiny mouse calibre .25 Berretta but in Dr No (the original novel) Q and M forced him to switch to the mighty .380 Walther, much to Bond's disgust because he thought the round unnecessarily heavy. In fact at the end of Dr No, the novel, Bond writes a nasty memo to M saying that the .380 round was ineffective against the mechanised dragons he'd encountered.

He uses a .32 PPK in the books and is stated to receive one in the film, but a .380 Walther PP was used in the film because the armourer could not procure a .32 PPK. He also carried a S&W Centennial Airweight on Crab Key.

The armourer couldn't find a Berretta 418 in .25 ACP, so Bond hands over an M1934 in .380. M claims it jammed on Bond's last mission, but in From Russia with Love, he attached a suppressor and it got caught in a holster, allowing him to be stabbed with a poisoned dagger, which was left of that film's adaptation.

And then there's Bond's "That's a Smith and Wesson, and you've had your six" line to Dent, who is holding a 1911.

 

[rkm456]

Why has Glock never made a version of the 19 in .45 ACP?

Glock 30 would be what you're looking for. No, it's not as small as a 19, but that's the consequence of using the much larger cartridge.

 

[rkm456]

Hmmm... 9x19mm is NATO STANDARD, it is also more than adequate for use against humans but please tell us why you question the choice in calibre.

Although I agree with the spirit of your post; we probably shouldn't pretend that NATO is known for it's brilliant decision making.

 

[shawn]

You may wish to familiarize yourselves with the Thompson/LaGarde tests conducted by the US military back in 1904.

The US military was unhappy with the 38 caliber as an effective round and conducted tests to determine which round was the most effective. Testing was done on LIVE cows and actual human cadavers, NOT bowls of jelly, to get a REAL determination of the bullet's effects on actual skin, muscle and bone objects.

The 9mm Parabellum was one of the rounds tested, and was found wanting.

The final results submitted to the military declared that the .45 round was the most effective and was recommended for use by the military. (These tests have since been strongly endorsed by such notable firearms experts as Julian Hatcher and Jeff Cooper.)

This policy was implemented, and remained in place until such a time as the US decided to switch to the 9mm; not because it was the better round (remember, it failed the T/G tests) but to pay lip service to "NATO standardization".

Obviously, since that time, newer, more potent rounds have been invented, such as the 10mm, 357 magnum, and the 40 caliber; but none have been tested to the same degree as in the T/G tests (Try shooting live cows and human cadavers today and see what happens).

So, for now, I'll stick with the .45 round, a proven manstopper.

You might want to actually base your love of a particular caliber on something a little newer than a 113 year old study. Or do you believe that nothing has changed in the last 113 years that might effect the out come of said study? Like oh I don't know bullet design, power composition, or bullet construction?

If all you were shooting was hardball from 1904 you might have a leg to stand on. Poor methodology and sample size non with standing.

Shawn

 

[maxman1]

Glock 30 would be what you're looking for. No, it's not as small as a 19, but that's the consequence of using the much larger cartridge.

Thank you.

Though, looking at Glock's website, the 30 seems to have a shorter barrel than the 19.

 

[Master-G]

Though, looking at Glock's website, the 30 seems to have a shorter barrel than the 19.

Glock 30: 96mm barrel length, 177mm long, 122mm high
Glock 19: 102mm barrel length, 185mm long, 127mm high

The 30 is a bit smaller in every dimension (although a smidge wider). I've also wondered why they haven't made a .45 in a G19-proportioned pistol (just a bit bigger). A factory 4.1" barrel, single stack 10-round .45 Glock would be awesome for us.

 

[Big Bad]

He uses a .32 PPK in the books and is stated to receive one in the film, but a .380 Walther PP was used in the film because the armourer could not procure a .32 PPK. He also carried a S&W Centennial Airweight on Crab Key.

The armourer couldn't find a Berretta 418 in .25 ACP, so Bond hands over an M1934 in .380. M claims it jammed on Bond's last mission, but in From Russia with Love, he attached a suppressor and it got caught in a holster, allowing him to be stabbed with a poisoned dagger, which was left of that film's adaptation.

And then there's Bond's "That's a Smith and Wesson, and you've had your six" line to Dent, who is holding a 1911.

I wasn't talking about the movies though. The books were written fairly true to real life, the films are what they are, which is ludicrous.

 

[highlander]

You might want to actually base your love of a particular caliber on something a little newer than a 113 year old study. Or do you believe that nothing has changed in the last 113 years that might effect the out come of said study? Like oh I don't know bullet design, power composition, or bullet construction?

If all you were shooting was hardball from 1904 you might have a leg to stand on. Poor methodology and sample size non with standing.

Shawn

First of, just because it's an old study doesn't mean that it was wrong. Like I stated, experts like Julian Hatcher and Jeff Cooper believe that it's valid.

Also bear in mind that these tests were done using REAL animal and cadavers, something that would obviously give a more accurate result into the real effects of the bullets, and something that the newer have not been tested with. Hard to make a comparison between two types of bullets when only one group of bullets were tested in a realistic medium.

Your right about the changes in bullet designs, construction and power composition being different than they were back in 1904; but bear in mind, these changes were made to ALL bullet calibers; so if the 9mm was improved so too was the 45 caliber.

Most important to remember is that the US military's switch to the 9mm was done for political reasons, not because the 45 was found wanting.

Personally, if my life was on the line, I'd go with the caliber that was a proven manstopper.

 

[shawn]

First of, just because it's an old study doesn't mean that it was wrong. Like I stated, experts like Julian Hatcher and Jeff Cooper believe that it's valid.

Just because it is old does not mean it is wrong. Poor methodology, a stunningly small sample size as well as changes half way through the test. Make it wrong

Hatcher and Cooper can believe what ever they want it does not make them right. Just like thousands of people think Trump is "literally Hitler" does not make it true.

Also bear in mind that these tests were done using REAL animal and cadavers, something that would obviously give a more accurate result into the real effects of the bullets, and something that the newer have not been tested with. Hard to make a comparison between two types of bullets when only one group of bullets were tested in a realistic medium.

Hard to make a comparison with such a small sample size let alone make sweeping statements of fact based off of it. And while we are talking about what was tested you do know that it was not .45 ACP that was tested right?

It was .45 Long Colt

But lets not let facts get in the way right?

Your right about the changes in bullet designs, construction and power composition being different than they were back in 1904; but bear in mind, these changes were made to ALL bullet calibers; so if the 9mm was improved so too was the 45 caliber.

And? That proves what?

Other than your biases that time and technology effect things in an absolutely linear manner, despite modern testing proving you wrong.

Most important to remember is that the US military's switch to the 9mm was done for political reasons, not because the 45 was found wanting.

I never said other wise. Also it was found wanting, too big and too heavy.

Personally, if my life was on the line, I'd go with the caliber that was a proven manstopper.

Is that .45 Long Colt or the .45 ACP you claim is the proven "manstopper"?

Which BTW none of these calibers are, as nearly 90% of people shot with handguns survive, IIRC. So your 10% "stopper" factor, or what ever you want to call it, is piss poor.

Shawn

 

[Gundoggy]

Back in the 90's gun magazines ran many articles about the Strasbourg tests where they shot goats with various rounds and timed how long it took to incapacitate them. A recent search of the Net suggests it may have been flawed or a hoax.

Evan Marshall was also collecting statistics on "one shot stops" by reviewing various shooting reports as well.

 

[Still alive]

I remember the Marshall study well. It was gospel back then!
IIRC, the Federal and Remington 125gr JHP in .357 Mag was the winner of all the calibers studied. Somewhere in the high 80% to low 90% one shot stop.
The best 9mm was the 115gr JHP, made by Federal Ammo. I think the efficacy of the 115gr JHP loadings back then is why the 115gr FMJ rounds is common today so Depts. don’t have to use the more expensive JHPs for training.
The original 147gr 9mm was for suppressed weapons (MP5?) and subsonic. But that has obviously evolved to today’s full powered 147gr loadings.

I think I still have a box of the Fed JHPs somewhere!

As for the G19M, I’ve always been a proponent of the G19. A pistol in military hands is a last ditch weapon. The caliber argument is almost pointless as anyone fighting with a handgun against rifles is likely severely undergunned, except in Hollywood!

 

[GuiltySpark]

Recoil on a 45 feels smoother to me than a 9mm.I find the latter whippish, especially in polymer guns. Still looking at picking up a Glock 19, just torn between getting the new Canadian edition gen 4 coming out in a couple months for $650 or waiting for then 5's.

Advances in ammunition closed the gap between .45acp and 9mm.

Military wise, the US military has been ****ing off the 1899 Hague Convention (declaration 3) on expanding bullets. Some special guys have already been using hollow points for a while and it sounds like the rest of the force will follow suite.

I'd be happy deploying with either Glock 19 or 1911.

 

[rkm456]

The 30 is a bit smaller in every dimension (although a smidge wider). I've also wondered why they haven't made a .45 in a G19-proportioned pistol (just a bit bigger). A factory 4.1" barrel, single stack 10-round .45 Glock would be awesome for us.

The primary purpose of a compact pistol is for CCW and the market for a low capacity gun (by pistol standards) is fairly small so it's kind of a waste of their time. I can honestly say that I don't understand the fixation that Canadians seem to have with compact handguns.

 

[Master-G]

The primary purpose of a compact pistol is for CCW and the market for a low capacity gun (by pistol standards) is fairly small so it's kind of a waste of their time. I can honestly say that I don't understand the fixation that Canadians seem to have with compact handguns.

I find the double-stack G21 size frame a bit on the large size so a single stack would be welcome. And, you know, some of us shoot handguns just because they're fun to shoot.

 

[sailor723]

The primary purpose of a compact pistol is for CCW and the market for a low capacity gun (by pistol standards) is fairly small so it's kind of a waste of their time. I can honestly say that I don't understand the fixation that Canadians seem to have with compact handguns.

I think it's the whole "forbidden fruit" thing.....you know, you always want what you can't have.

 

[rkm456]

I find the double-stack G21 size frame a bit on the large size so a single stack would be welcome. And, you know, some of us shoot handguns just because they're fun to shoot.

We all shoot handguns because they're fun to shoot.

 

[Master-G]

We all shoot handguns because they're fun to shoot.

So why do you say you "don't understand the fixation that Canadians seem to have with compact handguns"? They're fun to shoot, too. Full size all the time gets boring.

 

[Still alive]

So why do you say you "don't understand the fixation that Canadians seem to have with compact handguns"? They're fun to shoot, too. Full size all the time gets boring.

Sailor is right. It’s likely a “ forbidden fruit” thing.
You got to admit showing one off at the range has a certain wow factor for folks who can’t get the chance to own one.
Other than that, they mostly shoot like any other guns of the same caliber. Ok, maybe not a snubby M29!!

 

[Kidd X]

Good god. It was a reference to the PPK being the classic James Bond (aka 007) gun. But of course you couldn't resist an opportunity to show up an obviously tactically inferior guy like me, though, could you?

I thought of that after the post, however the data is still valid and might reduce the possibility of someone actually suggesting the PPK..

Besides being substantially larger and more powerful?

HAHA, read a book my friend...

You may wish to familiarize yourselves with the Thompson/LaGarde tests conducted by the US military back in 1904.

The US military was unhappy with the 38 caliber as an effective round and conducted tests to determine which round was the most effective. Testing was done on LIVE cows and actual human cadavers, NOT bowls of jelly, to get a REAL determination of the bullet's effects on actual skin, muscle and bone objects.

The 9mm Parabellum was one of the rounds tested, and was found wanting.

The final results submitted to the military declared that the .45 round was the most effective and was recommended for use by the military. (These tests have since been strongly endorsed by such notable firearms experts as Julian Hatcher and Jeff Cooper.)

This policy was implemented, and remained in place until such a time as the US decided to switch to the 9mm; not because it was the better round (remember, it failed the T/G tests) but to pay lip service to "NATO standardization".

Obviously, since that time, newer, more potent rounds have been invented, such as the 10mm, 357 magnum, and the 40 caliber; but none have been tested to the same degree as in the T/G tests (Try shooting live cows and human cadavers today and see what happens).

So, for now, I'll stick with the .45 round, a proven manstopper.

Again, a 114 year old test means nothing, it was valid then but far from it now. Hatcher and Cooper can believe what they like, both are long dead and gone and a lot of what they thought has been disproven. As another has posted, their opinions are simply theirs to have. Without facts to support them they are worthless.

I guess all the Allies killed with 9x19mm guns in the first and second world wars are all faking it? Would you like to be shot with a 9x19mm round anywhere on the body?? Didn't think so..

Although I agree with the spirit of your post; we probably shouldn't pretend that NATO is known for it's brilliant decision making.

Not saying that NATO is the brightest, just saying that as a member of NATO it would be logistically unsound to select a non standard calibre. 9x19mm is more than adequate..

Glock 30: 96mm barrel length, 177mm long, 122mm high
Glock 19: 102mm barrel length, 185mm long, 127mm high

The 30 is a bit smaller in every dimension (although a smidge wider). I've also wondered why they haven't made a .45 in a G19-proportioned pistol (just a bit bigger). A factory 4.1" barrel, single stack 10-round .45 Glock would be awesome for us.

Take a look at the length of a single stack 1911 magazine and note that hangs out the bottom like an inflammed hemorrhoid. Explain how such a long single stack magazine will work for a compact CCW gun?? Large capacity single stack guns simply don't exist..

First of, just because it's an old study doesn't mean that it was wrong. Like I stated, experts like Julian Hatcher and Jeff Cooper believe that it's valid.

Also bear in mind that these tests were done using REAL animal and cadavers, something that would obviously give a more accurate result into the real effects of the bullets, and something that the newer have not been tested with. Hard to make a comparison between two types of bullets when only one group of bullets were tested in a realistic medium.

Your right about the changes in bullet designs, construction and power composition being different than they were back in 1904; but bear in mind, these changes were made to ALL bullet calibers; so if the 9mm was improved so too was the 45 caliber.

Most important to remember is that the US military's switch to the 9mm was done for political reasons, not because the 45 was found wanting.

Personally, if my life was on the line, I'd go with the caliber that was a proven manstopper.

Well good thing they tested on live animals, I'm sure the hunting crowd got more information from it than the service crowd. Again, the opinions of long dead experts from half century ago are nearly worthless today.

There is no "proven manstopper" calibre from either a rifle or a handgun. Plenty of cases of good hits not stopping the threat. It's a gamble at best and more rounds means more opportunities to hit the off switch. Note that US SOCOM(that is all of them) have selected 9x19mm pistols(Glock 19's) as their sidearm of choice. That wasn't done for political reasons it was done for PRACTICAL reasons.

Here's a prime example of modern hollow point(big no no for armed conflicts) ammo from a .45ACP pistol that failed to work as so many seem to believe.

Here's the important part if you're too lazy to read the story.

At the core of his desperate firefight was a murderous attacker who simply would not go down, even though he was shot 14 times with .45-cal. ammunition — six of those hits in supposedly fatal locations.

https://www.policeone.com/police-he...ne-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

The primary purpose of a compact pistol is for CCW and the market for a low capacity gun (by pistol standards) is fairly small so it's kind of a waste of their time. I can honestly say that I don't understand the fixation that Canadians seem to have with compact handguns.

If a compact gun can do what a full size gun can then there's no need for the full size.