When the US military switched to the 9mm
- Thread starter Sgt Striker
- Start date
dangertree
Business Rep
- Location
- NL/ON/FL/PL
echo4lima said:
I remember the MPs (SP?) at the USN base here switching to the Beretta in '89. I was going to a function at the base school and spent a few minutes at the gate shack while they cleared us through. I noticed the new pistol on his hip and asked about it, he said they had just got them. I asked a bit more and he pulled it out, popped the mag, and handed it to me. (today, sounds like BS, I know, but hey, it happened). I remember asking him what he thought of it, and he sorta shrugged and said he'd only been to the range once with it but it seemed ok.
Weird... the stuff you remember.
DT
Sgt Striker
CGN Regular
- Location
- Great White North, Eh!
whitbyman said:
The odd thing that I read in this artical, it mentioned that they were only looking for a pistol with a "single" stack mag????
dangertree said:
As much as you think this sounds like BS, several years ago, I had the same happen to me but it was an RCMP member, we were discossing his S&W and Black Talons...I thought it odd at the time, but hey if someone offers you their side arm to inspect, I'm gonna take it and play with it...yes I did give it back, but to see if it was a lapse in judgement, as the discussion went on, he did it twice more to show me a few other features of the gun....
dangertree
Business Rep
- Location
- NL/ON/FL/PL
OT Sorry, but to 'pay it forward', I don't know how many times I handed off an unloaded C7 to a wide-eyed kid in the years that followed, but there was more than a few of them. Kinda hope some of them are carrying one now.
OK, so let's look at it in simple terms.
Who in the US Army are issued pistols? Who are liable to use them regularly? We gun folk like to debate, but the truth is that the armed forces of the world still use rifles. Pistols are an afterthought for all but the most specialized units.
Most of the people issued pistols are the least likely to actually need a firearm, but common sense says they must be armed. That isn't to suggest that all who need a pistol will continue to get the M9, but to suggest the M9 or all the 9mm pistols will be dropped in favour of another caliber is simply silly.
Who in the US Army are issued pistols? Who are liable to use them regularly? We gun folk like to debate, but the truth is that the armed forces of the world still use rifles. Pistols are an afterthought for all but the most specialized units.
Most of the people issued pistols are the least likely to actually need a firearm, but common sense says they must be armed. That isn't to suggest that all who need a pistol will continue to get the M9, but to suggest the M9 or all the 9mm pistols will be dropped in favour of another caliber is simply silly.
Whatever pistol the US adopts it is still a pistol and no army that I know of has ever gone to war armed solely with a pistol!
The .45acp and the 1911 came into it's own during the brief period of time the US was involved in WW1 where the the 1911 had significantly more firepower than rifles for close encouters in trench warfare. Beyond that the pistol is a last resort kind of weapon in most instances. Uncle rode with one in his tank during WW11. Never fired a shot with his pistol. Kind of a good thing since is was a .38 S&W in the old webley. Better than throwing rocks but not much better!
My bet is the US adopts a plastic gun D/A S/A in .45acp. Not a big bet either. I would also go out on the limb and suggest they go with a 200 gr FMJ round styled after the H&G LSWC.
Take Care
The .45acp and the 1911 came into it's own during the brief period of time the US was involved in WW1 where the the 1911 had significantly more firepower than rifles for close encouters in trench warfare. Beyond that the pistol is a last resort kind of weapon in most instances. Uncle rode with one in his tank during WW11. Never fired a shot with his pistol. Kind of a good thing since is was a .38 S&W in the old webley. Better than throwing rocks but not much better!
My bet is the US adopts a plastic gun D/A S/A in .45acp. Not a big bet either. I would also go out on the limb and suggest they go with a 200 gr FMJ round styled after the H&G LSWC.
Take Care
you have to be careful as to which branch of the services as well - my toe dated 1972 lists the 9mm as the"standard" for usn shore parties and seals/udt-that's how old it is- now granted the usn has always done things it's own way, and the firearm listed is a s&w 39( the 59 was just in the development stage) , they list the "army "( thats what "they called it) 45 is listed as a subsistute second and the old S&w model 10 is also listed- so there's a mish-mash in every era you want to speak of- or it depends on who wrote your particular reference book- a later version lists the beretta
Sgt Striker
CGN Regular
- Location
- Great White North, Eh!
If I was a grunt these day, fighting in a built up area, I sure as hell would like to have a pistol strap on my leg, on in a pouch on my kit. Yea, the rifle is your main weapon, but in that type of fighting, it would be nice to have a back up...
Sgt Striker
CGN Regular
- Location
- Great White North, Eh!
Canuck44 said:
I'm talking back up, not more ammo. Things happen in combat, like you rifle getting hit, jam's or take a hunk of shrapnel. Something to help get your butt out of there, when things go bad, if need be...
I seem to see "alot" of troops in Iraq and Afganistan carrying side arms. More so than is past conflicts...
The reason the US is switching back to the .45 is because they actually shoot people, and have lots of expierience doing it. For the same reason Canada gets by with 60 year old Inglis p-35's, we never shoot anybody with them, so they work fine.
Remember, militarys have to use fmj bullets, and rn at that. The 9mm can be pretty wicked with hp's.
Remember, militarys have to use fmj bullets, and rn at that. The 9mm can be pretty wicked with hp's.
buckbrush
Nope, the reason they still use the Hi-Power is because they still have a boat load of them in stores and the pistol is about the last thing our Army needs right now. Not sure the Hi-Power is any worse a design than a host of new pistols on the market save and except some are lighter. Good for officers and back room staff and in a pinch when you have nothing else and for boys who ride but carrying an 80 lb pack along with another 38 oz pistol that you are never likely ever going to need would see me ditching the thing first chance I got.
Pistols are fine for couch commandos and police who seldom use them but for doing the job the rifle wins hands down. The 230 gr RN .45acp isn't a whole lot better than a 9MM FMJ unless you think you die faster when hit by a round that is .097 bigger than the 9MM.
Our Army has been shooting people since Korea. Liberals just can't get around to admiting that peace keeping was more than just wearing the UN blue. Belgium Congo comes to mind among a host of others. Last time I looked Afganistan isn't exactly a stroll in the sand either.
Take Care
Nope, the reason they still use the Hi-Power is because they still have a boat load of them in stores and the pistol is about the last thing our Army needs right now. Not sure the Hi-Power is any worse a design than a host of new pistols on the market save and except some are lighter. Good for officers and back room staff and in a pinch when you have nothing else and for boys who ride but carrying an 80 lb pack along with another 38 oz pistol that you are never likely ever going to need would see me ditching the thing first chance I got.
Pistols are fine for couch commandos and police who seldom use them but for doing the job the rifle wins hands down. The 230 gr RN .45acp isn't a whole lot better than a 9MM FMJ unless you think you die faster when hit by a round that is .097 bigger than the 9MM.
Our Army has been shooting people since Korea. Liberals just can't get around to admiting that peace keeping was more than just wearing the UN blue. Belgium Congo comes to mind among a host of others. Last time I looked Afganistan isn't exactly a stroll in the sand either.
Take Care
Last edited:
Gents,
Having just come from a US Military conference on Training amongst other things. I can tell you, there are no plans to replace the 9mm pistol for a 45. This is, much like the 5.56 vs 7.62 rifle, M14 vs M16, much on emotion, limited on reality. The gun rags, like soap operas....give you want you want to hear...they are in the business of entertaining. So to sum up. 9mm staying....M16 series.....staying.....M14....in use but will be replaced by the 7.62 SR-25/AR10ish SASS rifle, 5.56mm, staying....7.62mm in the C6/240B Machine Gun....did I miss anything....So feel free to have an arguement about which bullet or gun is best......
Grab another slurpie while you are at it!
Oh...I forgot....you might want to watch the news more....our troops have been in contact with enemy just about every other day for a couple of months.....we are doing lots of shooting...
Cheers
Jefff
Having just come from a US Military conference on Training amongst other things. I can tell you, there are no plans to replace the 9mm pistol for a 45. This is, much like the 5.56 vs 7.62 rifle, M14 vs M16, much on emotion, limited on reality. The gun rags, like soap operas....give you want you want to hear...they are in the business of entertaining. So to sum up. 9mm staying....M16 series.....staying.....M14....in use but will be replaced by the 7.62 SR-25/AR10ish SASS rifle, 5.56mm, staying....7.62mm in the C6/240B Machine Gun....did I miss anything....So feel free to have an arguement about which bullet or gun is best......
Grab another slurpie while you are at it!Oh...I forgot....you might want to watch the news more....our troops have been in contact with enemy just about every other day for a couple of months.....we are doing lots of shooting...
Cheers
Jefff
The High Power is a newer and better gun than the 1911.I will never understand the americans irrational obsesion with the 45.The best reason I can see for a 45 cal SF weapon is a subsonic bullet is easyer to supress and no need for another kind of 9mm shell in stores.Also SF guys should get whatever the #### they want if it makes the hard job they do a little easier.
Canuck223 said:
The pistol is issued as a 'side arm', period. As some have stated, the rifle is the firearm of choice and the main firearm, the AR platform whether in the 16A2/A4 or M-4 variants. The M9 is the back-up firearm or sidearm. As stated in case of rifle failures. Not all troops are issued a sidearm. Generally troops who operate crew-served weapons, armor, APCs, pilots are all issued the M9. All Ruperts are issued the M9, USMC Corpsmen are issued the M9. However, having said that, depending on branch of service, and given today's battles, many officers have opted out of just an M9 for the M9 + M4. Also, many troops, more so now than in the past are issued both. You will tend to see more Marines issued M9s as a B/U gun than army bubbas. It is a strange world over there, the rules change daily...
I still remember all the quotes in the gun rags when the switch to 9mm was being done. Vietnam vets, Korea vets all complaining about the useless .45, how the guns were junk, and failed to do much of anything beyond not work. They were all quite excited to see changes coming, and many wished to have had the 9mm when they were serving in combat.
Sgt Striker
CGN Regular
- Location
- Great White North, Eh!
The artical I was refering to was in "Combat Arms".... not that this really means anything. And I kind of thought it sounded kind of funny, quote "The U.S. military's request for a replacement for the Beretta M9 calls for a single-stack in .45ACP." unqote. Then they go on to say that the specifications had to be very carefully written to prevent the 1911 from entering the competition. Huh??? why the heck, if they "were" going to switch back to the 45 would they only want a single stack mag??? Me thinks that Mr Jeff is right, it's just a bunch of hooie..
