When the US military switched to the 9mm

I think if I was in Iraq and wanted a sidearms sent to me from home, I'd ask for a 3" or 4" S&W 686-3 loaded up with .357MAG semi-wads. Can't ask for more where stopping unarmored badguys is concerned IMHO ;)

Yes, mag changes wouldn;t be as easy, etc. - but I'd only be using it to fight my way back to the M4 I never should have set down in the first place ;)
 
Slavex said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah I always have this experience myself, old US vets telling me the .45 was useless and they couldn't hit the side of a barn with one at ten paces they were so inaccurate, and then ten years later everyone is blathering on about the "good old days" of the .45!

Realistically, I don't give a toss what Jeff Cooper says, 9mm FMJ and .45 FMJ have a similar effect on ballistic gelatin, the only real difference is that the hole the .45 makes is 2.43mm larger in diameter. Military use of pistols is a different thing from law enforcement use, or civilian use.

I have this similar feeling when people start saying how wonderful the SLR was. I was never keen on the SLR, it was far too long, there was no bolt hold-open, and most of the SLRs in our unit had gas systems that had long since crapped out. I much preferred the SMG. Anyone says otherwise has never tried manoeuvering around the typical British terraced house with one, it was a simple task to yank the rifle out of someone's hands as they came through the door.

But now everyone goes on about the "good old days" of the SLR, forgetting how the damn things used to get wedged inside vehicles, doorways, etc. In fairness it's being compared against the SA80, but a lot of our elite units use the Diemaco C7 or the Diemaco SFW.
 
The .45acp will not knock down a human, nor will the 9mm. Both create crappy wounds with with round nose fmj. If it was a solid bullet I would choose .45swc over a 9mm swc, but would rather it be .40 155grain hp. But a determined or drugged atacker can take multiple hits from a 9mm/40/45 and still be standing. I read an article where a guy on drugs fired his double barrel shotgun at 2 cops wile taking I think 11 .45 hydrashock hp's I belive. It was birdshot, and the one cop took most of it in the vest wile returning fire.
 
cybershooters said:
Yeah I always have this experience myself, old US vets telling me the .45 was useless and they couldn't hit the side of a barn with one at ten paces they were so inaccurate, and then ten years later everyone is blathering on about the "good old days" of the .45!
Click to expand...
The Colts were inaccurate because they were old and worn out, not because there was anything wrong with the design or the caliber. I'd venture a guess that a Beretta that has seen several decades of use is not going to be particularly accurate either.
 
Even a well worn, rattly old USGI 1911 .45ACP with a dark sewer pipe bore can have reasonable "practical combat accuracy" with factory FMJ. I've proven that several times over in the past.

Anyone recall the $99 "surplus" 1911's that came out of Lever Arms around 1990? :D
 
"...what the hell did they do that for????..." Because the majority of their Government models were worn out after 60 years or so. The Beretta was selected because other NATO countries were complaining about the U.S. rarely buying any equipment from other NATO countries.
"...They went with 45..." They went back to a .45 calibre pistol because the .38 Long Colt, adopted in 1892, wasn't stopping attacking Moro tribesmen in the PI. Neither was the .30-40 Krag though.
A pistol isn't now nor has it ever been a troopie's main weapon(not even for horse cavalry. That's what sabres were for.). It's a status symbol, a last ditch ("Save me! I've done something terribly wrong.") weapon and more convenient for the Meatheads and pidgeons to lug around.
 
Also used by Officers to shoot men who refused to go over the top in WW1 . My grand-dad was at Vimy and a few other battles of note. I asked him why in gods name did he jump over the trench when the chances of surviving were slim and none. His reply, "Well if you stayed where you were the gas would kill you, if you ran the officers would shoot you and if you went forward you had some chance of survival." He managed to do it for four years of the war. Had Christmas with Jerries on the '15 and '16 Christmass but that is for anothor thread.

Take Care

Bob
 
Canuck223 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You mean like machine gunners, radiomen, officers, folks operating anti-tank weapons, tankers, etc. Granted, a pistol is a defensive weapon but you may just have to USE that weapon, especialy in urban combat. At least that's what the army is finding out the hard way in Iraq.
 
Slavex said:
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.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the M1911 had already served in TWO wars and the SAME pistols were being overhauled and reissued. Anything has a service life.;)
 
The SLR didn't have a bolt holden for a reason. It was not used so that crap could not enter the reciever in filthy or sandy conditions. If you want to hold the bolt open you have to do it manualy.
Now as to only special forces being issued .45's I am reminded that the M16 was only wanted by the air force to guard SAC bases.
Body armour? Doesn't look like the folks we have been shooting at for the last 40 and more years are using any great amount of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom