When the US military switched to the 9mm

Sgt Striker

Sgt Striker

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
132   0   0
Location
Great White North, Eh!
as their pistol cartridge, I was scratching my head, thinking what the hell did they do that for???? Well..... I just read a artical that they are now looking at going back to the good old 45acp!! Good for them, I hope they do it, and I think it would be great if Canada went 45 as well. My vote would be for the Glock 21. I have one and love it.
 
Last edited:
slicknick said:
I believe they went to 9mm somewhere in the early eighties. I think it was either '83 or '85
Click to expand...

Yea, I can remember the big trials they had to decide which pistol to adopt. And I'm sure they when 9 milli to be NATO standard, but it seem like a real step back IMHO. They went with 45 back in the early 1900's because they found the 38 cal. they were using at the time, just didn't have the man stopping power they needed.... Is not the 38 basically the same caliber as the 9mm? I have a feeling like most things, this was decided by some polititions, and not the military.
 
My understanding was that body armour was the main switch to the 9mm. It did better then the 45ACP ball. This and other cartridge developments were all based around defeating light body armour soldiers would be wearing. The 223 and 5.7FN would be others that come to mind.

Now that the 'future' conflicts are going to be 'soft skinned' adversaries in urban environments, the momentum to change is going to larger cals at slower velocities.

I read a very interesting comparison that developments like the 6.8SPC and other larger bore assault cartridges mimic the thoughts during the civil war era leading to such cartridges as the 45LC and 44-40 being used in lever actions.

Of course, we know that the Russians have had much success with the 7.62Russian and are also looking to move back from their present 22cal AK 74's.

Jerry
 
i was under the impression that only select units (SEALS/Delta/SF) were using 45 and that the 9mm will stay in the holsters of pretty much everyone else?
this reminds me of the "M14 is replacing the M16...." threads you see on the US gunboards....yes, in special circumstances/situations that is correct but not the whole armed services.....
 
the width of the bullet is only part of it, 357sig is the same bullet as a 9mm, but with more velocity. 7.62 NATO is narrower than 9mm, but will kill you quite nicely.
 
why do people (.45fans) always compare 115gr (lightest) 9mm to the 230gr (heaviest) .45? But never 147gr 9mm to 165gr .45 :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Sgt Striker said:
...They went with 45 back in the early 1900's because they found the 38 cal. they were using at the time, just didn't have the man stopping power they needed.... Is not the 38 basically the same caliber as the 9mm? I have a feeling like most things, this was decided by some polititions, and not the military.
Click to expand...
I thought it was because the 38 wouldn't knock over a horse. Not really necessary these days. :D
 
At least one arm (US Coast Guard) of the US military has changed out their
9mm sidearms...but they opted for 40S&W (Sig 229 DAK) rather that 45ACP!
 
I remember reading that the FBI had tried out the10mm at one point, but found some of their smaller agents had issues with the recoil. The .40S&W doesn't have as much recoil or range for urban collateral damage as the 10mm, but offers significant energy advantages over the 9mm. The 9mm is the NATO standard and I think U.S. figured that they were never going to get the others to switch. Also heard the body armour penetration story.
 
A Speer 124 grain +P Gold Dot scores higher on the FBI one shot stop index than any 230grain FMJ .45 ball ammo...
 
Stopping power is a myth.......the only thing that will drop someone in their tracks with no chance of retaliation is a hit the the CNS. Whether it's a .22 or a .50 cal it's the same result if you don't hit the CNS..........dude will shoot back. Bigger hole will greatly increase death by bleeding out.....but that takes a while.
 
they switched to 9mm because it made sense; it offers higher capacity, cheaper ammo cost, better penetration and lower recoil.

Lets face it the main differences between 9mm and other/bigger calibres are lower capacity and higher ammo cost ;)
 
I am not sure of the switch back to .45, but I can tell you that it was the late 80's before the swap. The early 80's might have been the trials and tenders, but when I was in boot camp in 88 we shot the .45, by the time I hit my FMF unit, we had 9mms and had to qualify all over again.

We have always had .45s remaining in our inventory, we the Marines kept the .45s, tricked them out and they became the MEUSOC .45, rebuilt by our own armorers. The like the .357 revolvers, .22 suppressed High-Power, MP-5N etc are all 'mission specific' firearms and issued to personnel when they are needed for specific reasons. I am not sure if the Army/Navy or Airforce retained any of their .45s after the switch.
 
Yea, I guess there are good arguments on both sides of this coin. I was just checking some of the ballistic charts that compare the different cartridges and I'd say a good choice would either be the new FN 5.78x28 (20 rds per mag) or the 40SW good hitting power. But still for personal defence my choise would still be a 45ACP 230gn JHP...... Ouch!! (yes, I know you can't use JHP in the military)
 
I was listening to GunTalk on the American version of XM Satellite Radio last week (channel 166) and the conclusion was that the US army is switching to 45. A contract for 750,000 pistols is expected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom