Military sidearm question

[Belgiboy]

There is a lot of conflicting information out there on the ever-entertaining debate on which military handgun caliber is the most suitable.

The 9mm vs. .45 dilemma is always good for a fascinating read. I own both and love shooting them but I did have a question that i wanted to put before the (ex-)military members of this forum or anybody else who may have an educated answer to this. What is the military sidearm used for? What is its value in a combat situation? I would love to know or hear about some real life situations where a soldier (marine, sailor... etc) had to revert to using the issued handgun. That would help us non-military shooters form an opinion a lot better. Thanks

[Bezoar]

im not military but heres a few facts that i have seen permutated online and in print over the years.

THE medical profession "prefer" the 9mm as it just pokes a small hole through a person, while they hate the 45 as it smashes the hell out of the patient resulting in harder work for them.

Many americans anyway doubted the ability of the 9mm to kill the "corn and beef fed 240 pound american male" versus the 9mm ability to kill weak and malnurished europeans.
And ego as well, if your a huge 240 pound gorilla, you want a gorilla sized gun, and not a puppy dog sized gun.

[mpmarty]

The military side arm is issued for one of several reasons:
A status symbol for an officer
A "last ditch" defensive weapon for a person in combat, or for air crews who may be forced down somewhere unfriendly. Also issued to those who work in close quarters such as tank crews and finally office personnel (read REMF).

[NavyLT]

The military sidearm (standard Beretta 92, 9mm) is issued to higher ranking personnel (officers and E-8's and E-9's) for personal protection. It is meant to only be used in a self defense situation from 3-7 yards and training is carry in holster with round chambered, de-cocked and safety on. Draw, safety off, fire 2 shots within 4 seconds at center mass and safety back on.

The issued sidearm is not used for combat. Typically there will be many other members of a team or squad armed with M-16's and the sidearm is used for short range self defense in the event they get past the M-16 armed personnel on guard. Same is true for sidearms issued to aviators who may find themselves crashed or ejected into hostile territory - hide and escape first, shoot only at close range as a last resort.

This is Navy policy....

[mainmech48]

It's been said that if you have to resort to a sidearm in combat, you're already up to your neck in some d-e-e-e-p doo-doo. That is as true a thing as has ever been uttered.

That said, when your observations on arriving in-country tell you that there's a strong probability that you'll eventually find yourself and your mates in that kind of mess, regulations and Navy Policy aren't quite as much of a disincentive, IME.

And, speaking as a southpaw, you're pretty likely to ignore the policy that says that a 1911-A1 sidearm will be carried in a regulation flap holster, on your right hip, with five rounds in the magazine and the chamber empty, too.

In our little corner of the Bassac, after February 1968 those policies got ignored a lot more, and even the most doctrinaire Trade School Boys on the river didn't try to push 'em anymore.

Any sidearm beats no sidearm, and bigger holes are better. Your butt, your call.

[armed85]

Well I'm not office personnel and I'm only an E-3 and I'm issued the M9. I work aircraft maintenance.

I'd rather have an M16 despite how large and combersome it is onboard an aircraft.

I would rather the DoD spend the money meant for a new pistol on more and better small arms training and more ammo for small arms training.

A new pistol is useless if we rarely shoot it. There's more pressing training concerns than equipment concerns right now.

[Medusa]

Close quarters, sometimes a rifle is too cumbersome and sidearm offers the needed maneuverability.

Or if your rifle is slow-firing bolt action and you do need to cover your ass.

Or in CQB your longarm is grabbed, then let the bastah have it and use your sidearm to neutralize the bastah.

Or when I'm moving around with my rifle in bag and I need something to protect it with.

Or when the primary weapon is empty and I do need to fire NOW, I use the pistol to suppress/neutralize the enemy to get the time to reload.

[MikePGS]

It is meant to only be used in a self defense situation from 3-7 yards and training is carry in holster with round chambered, de-cocked and safety on.
I certainly could be wrong about this, but i heard somewhere that pistols were actually carried without a round chambered in the military.

[Nomad, 2nd]

Situation:
VBIED in Iraq. Driver is shot and killed, passanger bails out, and then starts running for the car (Presumably to set off the IED)

One of our Assaultmen is in a position to shoot him. He shoots him 5 or 6 times, the guy falls down and then gets up, the Sgt shoots him again 5 or 6 times (One string was of 5 and one string is of 6) Haji falls down and is getting up again when the Sgt puts 2 into his head at basically contact range.
-Furthest shot was ~ 5 meters, and the first 11 rounds from the M9 were all in the chest.

I did not see it happen, but was there.


Col Cooper's book: To Ride, shoot Straight, and speak the Truth goes into the uses, and why they are not a general issue, as well as situations where they were used.
I recommed it for that and further because it is a good and informative book.

You NEED a backup weapon for when the POS M16/M4/249 goes T!ts up... it's just that it is cheaper to bury the guys than it equip and train them with a second weapon.

Why do you think SF types get pistols, and they give us pistols in Recon?
It's b/c they have more $ invested in our training.

[mashaffer]

And then there is the penetration champ 7.62x25. [:D]

mike

[ARTiger]

Never served, but know many well who have and also was fortunate enough to have a military history class at my college years ago which I ate up.

In a combat zone infantrymen are expected to carry their battle rifle at all times, officers, many REMF's (and some NCO's) typically carry rifles only when there's possibility of direct engagement. Basically, sidearms are mainly intended for soldiers who regularly or occasionally have duties that make carrying a rifle difficult. Since unarmed soldiers anywhere in or near a war zone would be an insane proposition, these folks usually get a sidearm issued. When and if they go into a combat situation, it's rarely left behind just because they have a rifle then. That's my take on it at least. I'm sure there are many very experienced military people around here who have a much better idea on the matter.

Since ball ammo is all that can be used, the 9mm Parabellum round is generally considered less likely to quickly stop the adversary from fighting back than the .45 ACP would.

No handgun however would make sense to use in combat as a primary weapon unless a rifle is unavailable.

[tkendrick]

When I retired from the Army, they issued sidearms to officers, MP's, most pilots, tankers, cannon-cockers and most of the crew-served weapons guys, like mortar, machinegunners, etc. I found it interesting that most military professionals, especially officers, were never to keen on the idea of issueing pistols to the troops, even if there wasn't a cost issue. Most truck drivers and support personell, (I'll date myself here...we actually had field mess personell assigned at comapny level) cooks, clerks etc. spent as much time trying to wrestle with their rifles in bizarre situations, as they did actually performing their jobs. Imagine...changing the oil on a duece and a half when policy was that you had to have your personal weapon physically on you at all times.
My son says it's changed a bit.

[RON in PA]

This is an impression only, based on what I've seen on TV and the web, that in the current unpleasantness in the Sand Box because of the heavy involvement in urban warfare, house clearing, etc. the pistol is actully being used to a greater degree than in previous wars.

Anybody with firsthand knowledge please chime-in if this is wrong.

[trueblue1776]

I have seen every rank from E2 to O3 wear an M9, I wore one for a long time. National Guard and Coast Guard use them when an M16 would make people feel uncomfortable, must be PC at all times! Security details use pistols extensively, as do sweep teams and intelligence/hunter teams.

I prefer the M9 to the 1911A1, I consider myself handy with a sidearm and prefer the added capacity of the M9. I never saw the sidearm issue as that big of a deal, in my line of work it was used as a warning on my belt. In fact in a few arguments with my superiors (over my mag pouch being mounted horizontally) I volunteered to do my job unarmed, which in crowded areas with compliant subjects is less stressful for me anyways.

If I was ever going into a situation where I thought a firearm was necessary I would bring my M870.

In enclosed spaces a rifle will make your ears bleed, this I know.

[Jimmie]

Anti-hijacking... but that allows the use of HP ammo.

[cdrt]

FWIW, it is well documented that Sgt. Alvin C. York killed seven German soldiers with seven shots from his issue Colt 1911 while he was cleaning out those machine gun positions. In the movie, Gary Cooper used a Luger, but that was because they couldn't get a 1911 to work consistently with blanks.

[Novus Collectus]

Damn!!! You beat me to the York mention by a single minute!

[ar10]

1911, works every time and saves your ass when the POS M16 dies, after that the mossberg.

[trueblue1776]

when the POS M16 dies

:scrutiny: Good thing the Aberdeen proving grounds aren't located on the internet.

[Devonai]

In my National Guard unit, the following people are issued M9 pistols:

CO, 1SG, M60 gunners, mortar tube carriers, sniper section, and our medic. However, the medic does have a rifle assigned to him and he can choose to take one, the other, or both. He usually takes the M9 just for convenience sake. When he was in Iraq he carried both.

As others have already pointed out, other than Top and the Captain, the pistol is only there because those soldiers can't carry both a mortar tube, M60 or M24 and a M16A2. However, in the weapons squad and mortar section everyone else has a M16A2 (AG, ammo bearer).

I have absolute faith in my Beretta 92FS and the Mec-Gar mags and Speer Gold-Dot JHP I use with it. However, the appearance of my unit's M9 pistols doesn't instill much confidence in me, and when coupled with FMJ ammo and Checkmate magazines I can only hope I never find myself limited to one in combat.

[mljdeckard]

Here's the thing about a military sidearm. You'll probably never have to use it. But if you DO ever have to use it, that means you are in BIG trouble, and this is the time when you need every possible advantage.

I am facing deployment. I was an armorer in Germany, and I got used to carrying whatever weapon I wanted to. (That was a military arm, that is.) If I am in Afgahanistan, getting charged, in close quarters, I don't want my last thoughts to be: "Boy, I sure hope this 9mm fmj doesn't pinhole this guy repeatedly and leave him STILL charging at me."

I consider 9mm to be sufficient for defensive uses AS LONG AS YOU ARE USING PREMIUM AMMO. (147 gr subsonic would be my preference.) Since we pretend to follow the Hague Accords, which we never signed, we appease the rest of NATO by keeping 9mm, fmj. What would be better? ANYTHING. I consider 10mm too powerful for civilian personal defense, but this would make it great for war defensive use.

I have asked those in my unit who have recently returned from OIF and Afgahanistan, "Is it feasible to get and carry a 1911 in country?" The reply is; "Take 500 rds of .45 FMJ with you, and see what happens when you get there. You will find a guy with a .45 USP, Glock, or 1911 they need to sell quick because they can't take it home. Ask your local officers if they care if you carry it up front. (It depends on how close you are to the adminisphere.) Keep it in a chest holster at all times."

[Vern Humphrey]

Most truck drivers and support personell, (I'll date myself here...we actually had field mess personell assigned at comapny level) cooks, clerks etc. spent as much time trying to wrestle with their rifles in bizarre situations, as they did actually performing their jobs.

That's because in those days, the Army actually understood tactics. Right down to company level, commanders kept reserves, and when the reserve was committed, you "reconstituted" it by mustering all the cooks, clerks, mechanics and so on. So those people had to have real guns -- rifles.

During WWI, one of the first American units to go into combat was a cavalry regiment. When they got into fighting in the trenches, they found the .45 was the ideal weapon -- semi-automatic, close range. Pershing, himself a cavaryman, decided every soldier should have a .45. Unable to produce enough, the Army went to Colt and S&W and the result was the M1917 .45 ACP revolvers. But after the war, the idea died.

Personally, if I were King of the World, I would encourage officers and NCOs (E7 and up) to buy and carry their own sidearms -- to foster the warrior spirit.

[Chuhhuniban]

Personally, if I were King of the World, I would encourage officers and NCOs (E7 and up) to buy and carry their own sidearms -- to foster the warrior spirit.

It's not a bad idea. I did for fifteen years. The problem is (or, at least, was, when I was active duty) that marksmanship training with the pistol was rudimentary at best and non-existent in many cases. I saw many people who were "weapons qualified" with the ol' M-1 pencil deep in the heart of the unit personnel files. The Army, outside of the Infantry, simply doesn't value marksmanship very highly. Therefore, the only really competent shooters are those who make it their business or hobby to become such. The pistol, for most officers, is an ornament (a symbol of office if you will). The fact of its ornamental nature is one of the reasons that the ongoing debate about the 9 mm versus the .45 is just hot air. The SOF guys all use .45's as a weapon, everybody else could probably carry a paintball gun (rant off).

[Vern Humphrey]

If people buy their own sidearm, there is at least a chance they will take it to the range now and then.

[another okie]

I can't find the link right now, but if I remember correctly there was a Marine officer who won the Silver Star in the drive to Baghdad who used the machine gun on his hummer until it ran out of ammo, then his M16 until it ran out of ammo, and then pulled his M9 to finish the job.

Colonel Cooper said pistols don't win wars, but they save the lives of soldiers, who do. And that in theory no one needed one, but at the front everyone wanted one.

[KINGMAX]

Back in 1911 is was a .45 acp, still works for me, = GLOCK 21 in .45 acp.

[marksman13]

As a real life instance of reverting to a sidearm, I offer up my personal story. My platoon was tasked with raidingthe home of a known terrorist. I was the team leader for a four man stack team that entered through the back of the house. I entered a bedroom and was met by a man holding and AK-47. I switchded my M-4 from safe to semi and the slector switch broke off in my hand. I drew my M9 and fired four rounds. All four rounds hit COM and the guy survived!!! This is a true story and I don't know if having a 45 would have improved the situation, but I would feel better slinging a 230 grain chunk of lead down range if that piece of lead has to be completely enclosed in a metal jacket. As a side note, I really do like the Berretta, I only wish it were a 45.

[rmarkob]

I qualified on the 1911 in Navy OCS in 1978, where we learned to operate and fire it at the range. During my first sea tour 79-81, I was a disbursing officer. When I had to go to the bank (we paid sailors in check or cash and I had over $100K onboard in the safe), I checked a .45 out from the ship's armory and went with one or two sailors similarly equipped, but not specifically security-trained. We had two magazines on the belt, none in the gun, chamber empty. I forget if the mags had 5 rounds or were full.

On the ship's quarterdeck, the Petty Officer Of the Watch (POOW) was similarly armed, but the Officer Of the Deck (OOD) was not. This was a small ship - around 200 people - so we had no professional security force, not even a rated Master-At-Arms. The position was rotational, usually filled by an E6 or E7.

Of course, these were the days before zodiac-riding suicide bombers (USS Cole). I trust force protection is much more robust these days.

BTW, after OCS, I don't recall ever firing the .45 again. It seemed like every time the ship scheduled range time (we had to go up to a range at then NAS Miramar IIRC) something came up, or we got bumped, or we couldn't get the ammo we needed.

I did 20 years in the Navy, but never after that initial sea tour did I have occasion to carry a sidearm, so no experience with the Berettas. I did a later sea tour in the late 80s/early 90s on an aircraft carrier, where we had a USMC detachment for security. oo-RAH!

[Silvanus]

two magazines on the belt, none in the gun

I forget if the mags had 5 rounds or were full.

I don't understand those two things:confused:

Why only 5 rounds in a magazine and why not a mag in the pistol?

[Nomad, 2nd]

I entered a bedroom and was met by a man holding and AK-47. I switchded my M-4 from safe to semi and the slector switch broke off in my hand.

WTF were you DOING going through a door with your weapon on safe!?!

I call BS or a I D 10 T problem on this one.


Silvanus: In a 'non war' situation the military is ANAL about EVERY aspect of 'live weapons/ammo.
They don't want you chambering a round till AFTER you need it.... 5 rounds are easier to count keep track of...

It's different now, but you can still see the REMF foot prints all over.... untill you get outside the wire.

[MT GUNNY]

A vet told a friend of mine he came face to face with enemy,
both drew their pistols at the same time , shot at the same time,
both hit center mass, The vet went on to say the 9mm luger (luger I asume)
Is hanging in the vets home! The vet was using a 45.

[748]

The Air Force cops at the front gate and any one doing a job where they could have to use their gun keep it loaded with the safty off.
I think they call it type 1 carry.
Then they have type 2 and 3.

[Victor Romen]

The U.S. Coast Guard is transitioning to the Sig P229R in 40 S&W for its service pistol (replacing the Beretta). They are used by boarding teams all the time and are not there for show.

[Onmilo]

When I was in the Army we decided that if you are a Facist a .32acp was good enough for Military use as it is all one really needs for shooting people in the back of the head.

If you are a communist a .30 caliber was plenty good for combat because it works quite well for shooting people in the back of the head.

If you are a gunfighter you will want something bigger,,,,,,

[marksman13]

Don't know how you train, Nomad, but that's how we do it. Weapon is on safe when moving down hallways, and at the low ready. When you enter the room, weapon goes to your shoulder, and moved from safe to semi. Just because the tactics are different doesn't mean it's BS. It's called preventing friendly fire accidents. Call it what you want. If I ever find myself in Iraq with you, remind me to always keep you in front of me.

[Vern Humphrey]

Weapon is on safe when moving down hallways, and at the low ready. When you enter the room, weapon goes to your shoulder, and moved from safe to semi. Just because the tactics are different doesn't mean it's BS. It's called preventing friendly fire accidents.

Friendly fire will kill you just as dead as enemy fire -- weapons should be unloaded when not immediately needed and kept on safety until on target. And officers and NCOs have a responsibility to see that's how the troops carry them.

[Nomad, 2nd]

weapons should be unloaded when not immediately needed and kept on safety until on target.

That's BS, you don't KNOW WHEN it's gonna be needed. (That's why it's called a combat zone.)
-The lack of the 'warrior mindset' is the problem with much of today's military.

that's how we do it...It's called preventing friendly fire accidents.


TRAINING and trigger control prevent friendly fire. All I know is the Corps would NEVER operate like that. (Look into how 'fingers' turn to flippers' under stress... and the fight or flight responses...) Who is we out of Curiosity?

[Vern Humphrey]

That's BS, you don't KNOW WHEN it's gonna be needed. (That's why it's called a combat zone.)
The command is "Lock and Load" -- and it is the responsibility of officers and NCOs to control the status of the weapons of the men under their leadership.

-The lack of the 'warrior mindset' is the problem with much of today's military.
There are no doubt men here who've killed more than I have -- but I'd say I'm probably above average in that department.

TRAINING and trigger control prevent friendly fire. All I know is the Corps would NEVER operate like that. (Look into how 'fingers' turn to flippers' under stress... and the fight or flight responses...)

Training and discipline.
Who is we out of Curiosity?
The United States Army -- and every unit I ever served with. I commanded A/1-61 Infantry in Viet Nam (and my brigade was part of the 3rd Marine Division -- one of the two Army-Marine divisions to see combat in our history.)

[marksman13]

"We" are the United States Army. When we are outside the wire, we are locked and loaded. Our weapons are on safe until we are bringing our weapon to bear on our target. It's a simple operation really, and it does prevent NDs. If the Corps does it differently then someone forgot to inform all the Marines that fought beside us in Karbala and Hit. There is no need for your selector switch to be on fire unless you have identified your target and are ready to fire. To move through a building full of civilians and friendlies with your weapon on fire is utterly ridiculous.
This is really getting off topic for this thread. If you want to discuss it further, Nomad, how about starting a thread over in S & T?

[Nomad, 2nd]

;)

You answered my Questions, If that's the way ya'll do it... Ok with me.
My appoligies.
(Going into a house... about to shoot... weapons are off safe, I wasn't saying you should walk around 24/7 with weapons off safe. Although I don't think they should be unloaded at ANY time outside the wire.)

(Spent some Time in Hit/Hadetha myself... Sep 04 and Feb/March of 05. When were you there?)

[marksman13]

I spent Setember 05 through December 05 in that crap hole know as Hit. Of course, the only time our weapons were unloaded was when were cleaning them at Firm Base 1. Never knew when something would jump off around there. I apologize if I misunderstood your post. It sounded like you were running around with your weapon on fire every time you left the wire. We were trained to keep our weapons on safe until we were bringing them to our shoulder. Different strokes for different folks. Were you in 3/1, 3/25?

[nemoaz]

I don't want my last thoughts to be: "Boy, I sure hope this 9mm fmj doesn't pinhole this guy repeatedly and leave him STILL charging at me."

The answer is to aim better... but mostly to not to worry about whether you are hitting the guy 0.09 inches away from a vital area. That's how a .45 or a .355 magnum parabellum stops someone, by hitting a vital area (heart, major artery, spinal cord, maybe a major bone, etc.) and not because of some mythical creature called stopping power. I've seen many people who took multiple center mass hits from 9mm, .45, 5.56, 7.62 and many other rounds. None were knocked down. If a .45 could knock a man down, then it would knock you down too. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. That's still a law of physics and the .45 doesn't get around it. So unless the bad guy is a 21 lb bowling pin, don't rely on the mythical creature called knockdown power.

You stop them by taking out a vital organ, vessel, or nerve... it's as simple as that.

[Mortech]

OK when the SHTF lets see you properly identify where the BG's vitals are , things get really fluid when the lead flies .


5/58th ATC Bat 84'-92'

[loadedround]

I served in SE Asia and had the occasion to carry and use both the 9mm and my own personal 1911A in 45 ACP. I do not wish to rehash old war stories, but will say that FMJ 9mm ammo were POS as a man stopper. The 45 with ball ammo(FMJ) never failed to end the argument. Amen!

[mainmech48]

Silvanus: It was (is?) done that way due to it being Navy Policy/Regulations. As a simile, this can be be compared with cancer: Nobody can tell you exactly where it comes from but, in most cases, you ignore it at your peril. It was "..The Word", and the Word was God.

When I was 'supernumerary' waiting for my discharge to come through at Great Lakes in 1969, I was assigned the job of escorting prisoners to and from the brig. Regs required that I carry the 1911-A1 I was issued when the duty called for it in the regulation RH flap holster, even though I am left-handed. It came with two magazines, one loaded with five rounds of ancient ball. While actually in-transit, it was to be carried with the loaded mag in the pistol, hammer-down on an empty chamber.

Fortunately, I was also issued a night stick. Even more so, I generally only drew low-level F-ups and never had to resort to either.

[FerFAL]

This is my safety.
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/5461/250pxindexfingernl9.jpg
Safety off as soon as the gun leaves the holster on SA firearms, or only used to decock on DA/SA firearms right before you reholster, NEVER leave the safety on on DA/SA firearms. That’s the way I was taught.
I never heard of people going into harm’s way with the safety on and only turning it off when they see the threat, but I suppose there’s a first time for everything.
Hell, I wouldn’t follow that piece of advice no matter what.
When working as a team and you move leaving your friends in your line of fire ( can’t help it sometimes when working 360º), your finger goes out of the trigger guard, barrel points to the floor, perpendicular to the ground, weapon’s frame slightly pressed against the chest: 1) so that you don’t “brush” your team members with your loaded gun 2) Easier to move around in close quarters and confined spaces.

FerFAL

[FotoTomas]

This will be a bit long winded but covers lots of ground from the original post as well as several follow on comments. :)

As an Active duty soldier and later National Guardsman I carried the M1911A1 pistol as a 95B MP and as an 11B Automatic rifleman (M60 AND pistol). When I transitioned into 11H as a TOW missile gunner I was again issued the M1911A1 as a personal weapon.

Throughout my Army days the pistol was issued with anywhere from one 5 round magazine to three 7 round magazines. In addition the holster was dependent on the duty and what was in supply.

In Korea as a MP I was issued a open top leather rig with safety strap (right or left hand depending on soldier) and one 5 round magazine. New Provost Marshal came on post and we went to right hand flap M1916 holsters for all with three 5 round magazines and later 7 round magazines.

In NYC with the Armed Forces Police we had issued Don Hume basket weave leather gun belts, open top holsters and gear. During a stint in MPI I was issued a Colt Detective special with 6 rounds of ball ammo and we used whatever holster you could get. Mine was a Bianchi paddle with thumb break.

Later National Guard time and the Flap holster was on my side as a M60 gunner and the M7 chest holster was the rig when I was a TOW missile gunner on the ITV 901.

At no point did Army peacetime doctrine allow for the carrying of a M1911 with the chamber loaded UNLESS you were in combat. That is not to say what actually happened on some tours of duty. Those clearing barrels got their holes for a reason you know! :) The women MPs and MP Investigators along with Army aviators all had the advantage of a revolver issued to them and usually with full cylinders and a simple trigger pull to make it work. I preferred the revolver to a M1911 for that reason during my army days. Today I understand that the Army and the M9 pistols are often carried with a round chambered and safety on. My Iraq vet co-workers tell me they were issued two 15 round magazines for the Beretta. They put it on safe and chambered a round. The hammer automatically dropped to the DA position and the locked and loaded pistol deposited in the holster.

I have no active or guard time since 1989 and have not been issued the M9 ever. I have however used the Beretta M9 (commercial version), 92FS, 92G and 92D on numerous occasions as a police duty gun and in fact I have a Beretta 92D on my hip as I type this.

Handguns are not routinely needed in the field but there are times when they can be very comforting. I was very happy to have had the ones I did when on duty. I do know that there have been a plethora of after action reports of pistol combat in the sandbox. Several co-workers spent time in Afghanistan, Iraq or both. I was too old and fat to go back in the Guard or else I too would have been there. I have heard the stories but I take more stock in the reports.

Handguns in Iraq for example have been used in greater numbers as primary weapons for house clearing team members and other duties than most any other action. Handguns have absolute advantages in some of those circumstances. Most soldiers I knew wanted one if possible. Except for the tunnel rats in Viet Nam handguns were not so useful in the jungles. Even so they were popular as issued or field pickups.

If I were to go back into military uniform and find myself in Iraq I would opt for a M9 with reliable magazines over the M1911. The modern battlefield has far more scenarios where lots of bullets are better than a few bigger bullets. Handguns are weak pieces of crap compared to combat rifles and a .45 pistol may be slightly better in some ways over a 9mm but it is still a crappy handgun cartridge. Those 9mm europellets have done well in many of those action reports. They excel at penetrating some of the modified armor the bad guys sometimes have as well. Pelvic shots from a 9mm or a .45 seem to be right on the money as far as effectiveness, they both do great. If issued a pistol make mine a Beretta flavored 9.

The bottom line in military circles is a combination of effectiveness and cost. In many cases they are compromised. Even so I think the pistol in military circles is an asset and should be encouraged even though for most it is wasted weight on the belt. If I had my druthers I would select a handgun and cartridge (I favor the .40 GLOCK 22 for that job) as standard for those limited jobs that require a handgun and I would allow individual soldiers to carry personal weapons of their choice in the service caliber. The .40 is a viable compromise that meets the needs of the "lotsabullets" crowd and the "BIG is Better" crowd. The heck with NATO compatibility.

My opinions and worth what you paid for them. :)

[Vern Humphrey]

OK when the SHTF lets see you properly identify where the BG's vitals are , things get really fluid when the lead flies . a

Amen! Count on at least a 90% degradation in performance when the feces hits the ventilator.

[Devonai]

FotoTomas, thank you very much for your post.

[marksman13]

fotothomas, great post. Lots of points to ponder there. I like the 45 and much prefer it to the 9mm for serious social work, but against soft body armor the 9mm may be slightly more effective. Had a few gun battles, but none ever involved insurgents with body armor. I think body armor is a regional thing, or something associated with certain groups of terorists. After my experience with the 9mm, I still think I would prefer a 45 if FMJ is in the mag.

[Nomad, 2nd]

Of course, the only time our weapons were unloaded was when were cleaning them at Firm Base 1.... I apologize if I misunderstood your post. It sounded like you were running around with your weapon on fire every time you left the wire.

Misunderstanding on both parties.:o

I spent time attached to various different units of the 3rd and 5th Marines.
Hit was 1/23 I believe and Faluja was 3rd LAR. (I never bothered to keep track otherwise.)


Al Asad, Dulab, TQ, Ramadi, Faluja, Habbanea... I got around.

[marksman13]

We were directly attached to the 2nd Marine Division throughout our stay in Iraq. Never saw anything fundementally different in their tactics compared to ours. As fine a group of warriors as I have ever worked with. I did notice though that the Marine Corps is not nearly as liberal with issuing sidearms as the Army is. Maybe because they don't have the number of weapons we do. Marines seem to stricly regulate sidearms to Officers, high ranking NCOs, machine gunners and corpsman, whereas the Army generally issues pistols to all of these and gives out leftovers to whoever asks for them. Hell, I was personally issued an M4, M21, M9, M240B, and a Mossberg Model 500. All were in my name and any of these not in use were secured in my connex. It's simply amazing how much overkill we had compared to the Marines we replaced.

[McKnife]

I know this sounds ignorant and perhaps, against policy... but why don’t our personnel carry 9mm Hollow Points? It's YOUR LIFE! :banghead:

Just like some people disobey company policy by carrying concealed at work. You’re risking your job, but it could save your life. Plus, no one will know unless the SHTF.

I don’t know how it works over there, but I would damn sure keep the best ammo possible with me. If that means smuggling hydrashoks, so be it.

Comments?

[marksman13]

Mcknife, you may find that what people post on the internet and what they actually carry while there is sometimes two different things.

[Mortech]

NO kidding , during the Libyan missile attack we weren't issue ammo for guard duty while I was staioned in Wiesbaden . Lets just say with in 24 hours the local Rod n Gun club was totally out of 45ACP , 9MM and 233 rem .

[McKnife]

Thanks marksman for the clarification.

I certainly hope they'd have some common sense. But there are still those who are strict by the book and risk their lives with sub-par 9mm fmj.

They need to issue HP is mass quantities.

[marksman13]

Mcknife, you must also understand that a military courts martial, for violating the policy against HP ammo is much more serious than being fired from a job. Military prison can not be a fun way to spend many years of your life. Also, most of the real fighting is done with rifles, crew served weapons and aircraft. The sidearm, while playing a larger role than it has in previous wars, is still filling a very limited role. That said, I wish I had at least had HP ammo during my lone experience with a pistol in combat.

As tight knit as much of our military is, there are those who would quickly rat another soldier out if they found out that soldier was carrying unapproved ammo. I would not want to be standing in front of my Battalion Commander and explaining my choice of ammo. I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six, but I am wise enough to know when something is worth the risk of being judged and when it is not. I agree that it is an absurd rule, but I am a soldier. It is my job to follow orders, so long as those orders are legal.

[Nomad, 2nd]

Once again, I find myself slightly at odds with you Brother Marksman13:
-Or maby not, judging by your post about the internet.;)

I won't say anything about 'unaproved HP's...'



However, let me jump in on one point:
The 'No hp's' is according to the Hague convention (Not the Genevia(SP?) as many people think)
And states against CONVENTIONAL military forces in a DECLARED war.
Nether of which is the case in Iraq.
We were ISSUED non FMJ 5.56 made by Black hills prior to Faluja.

[marksman13]

I will be the first to concede that I may be mistaken, Nomad. We were constantly preached to about using non issue ammo. If you are issued ammo that is not FMJ, then by all means use it and never think of it again.:D

I realize that we never signed the Hague accords. I will not argue that point at all my friend. I have seen non issue ammo confiscated by superiors. Not sure if it was right or wrong for this ammo to be confiscated. Perhaps I worded my post incorrectly. We were always cautioned against using non issue ammo for whatever reasons, and therein lies the problem I see with using HP ammo. If it wasn't issued, we weren't allowed to carry it.

Hope that clears up my muddy water just a bit. Thank you for your polite attitude and the information. May all our future discussions be this courteous.

[Nomad, 2nd]

We heard the same thing about 'unissued ammo'

On a TOTALLY unrelated issue, did you ever notice when you were on the 2 way firing range there were NO 'Zeros' around?:rolleyes:


I was supprised myself by the Black hills being issued... (I was packing a 249 so didn't get any, but I made sure to see the boxes due to my supprise.)

+1 on the Politeness. It's hard to communicate over printed words, but we have managed to work through the lack of facial expressions... Thanks.

[marksman13]

I'm afraid the term "zeroes" escapes me. May be a Marine Corps thing, like Oooorah.:D Sorry, couldn't help myself. The only zero I ever heard of was in relation to POA being POI. I will say I did not see many zero ranges, and I will say that many of our guys did not check their zero nearly often enough.

I will admit to being a bit of smart ass, and I like to make jokes, but I truly hate to offend anone most of the time. I did take being called a liar rather personally though.:D I try not to ever judge someone's war stories unless I know them to be fabricated. I do understand why so many people are quick to call BS on stories that don't sound like they follow SOP. There are an awful lot of posers out there.

[Nomad, 2nd]

Again, My appoligies. I've ran into a few more 'posers' than usual lately, and it kinda gets to me. (Sorry for taking it out on you.)
Especaily since one (Just the other day) has been a friend of mine since high school...

Zeros= Officers

O-1, O-2...

VS. E-1, E-2...

Again, my appoligies.

[marksman13]

Roger, good copy. We never called them zeroes. You are right however, NCOs run the show in the sand box and officers usually step in just in time to mess things up. We had a great commander, but our LTs were FUBAR.

[rmarkob]

IRT Silvanus (Post #29) (Sorry, I can't figure out how to quote your question on this forum):

a. We were not allowed to chamber a round. We were also not allowed to put a mag in the gun. Both issued mags had to be carried in the holders on the belt.

b. Somebody else mentioned only having 5 rounds per mag. I was only commenting that I don't remember that being the case on my ship.

[G27Kevin]

Well, I can tell you from experience that the pistol is meant as a defensive weapon only, at least for the Army. Even in CQC situations, I have never seen a pistol used as a primary offensive weapon. There are so many more appropriate weapons to choose from. Nowhere in Army doctrine that I know of would a pistol be the weapon of choice for anything but defensive action.

While there does seem to be more "dual-armed" personnel on the battlefield now than in the past, there are very few that are only armed with a pistol, with medical personnel and Chaplain's staff coming to mind as examples of personnel that carry only a defensive weapon, if any at all. Also, usually very high ranking officers, such as a Task Force commander and maybe specific staff or advisers, are only defensively armed. However, these personnel always travel with a well armed security detail.

In modern combat, the vast majority of personnel are armed with an offensive weapon of some kind (sometimes multiple), typically an M4/M16, and in some cases a defensive weapon, typically an M9/M11 pistol.

Many personnel get sidearms now, in addition to the offensive weapon, most often depending on his/her job function. One category of personnel that I did not see mentioned yet that are almost always "dual-armed" are Military Intelligence, Human Intelligence (HUMINT) personnel.

Oh, and to comment on the idea of carrying a weapon in a combat zone without a round chambered. That would be asinine. On some bases in theatre (especially larger ones), yes this does occur, and some even require the magazine removed from the weapon. However, this is not the norm, and definitely should not occur "outside the wire."

[jkingrph]

When I was in the Air Force as a medical officer, initally we qualified with a 38 revolver ( 4" barrel version of my K-38) then later the M-9.

The enlisted folks qualified with the M-16. I always told them If we were sent to a place where we needed to be armed that I would be happly to trade my M-9 to the first taker for a M-16. There was always several who did not like guns and said they were willing.

[Bondo_Red]

I have no military experience,but heres my take.Iraq is probably one of the most unpredictable major warzones in history.For all you know the guy 10 feet away walking down the street has a bomb strapped to his chest and could charge you any second. when a human bomb is running at me every millisecond counts.I'd rather pull a pistol and fire away than raise my m4 to shoulder height and fiddle the safety to semi.And I haven't been shot,but I can imagine a .45 hurts a lot more than a 9mm.And as much as I admire the brave soldiers we have fighting today,they are soft compared to the vets of Nam and WWII.One of the main reasons they switched the standard sidearm from .45 to 9mm is because these college kids who have never held a gun in their life "can't handle" the recoil.The "Warrior Spirit" has unfortunately weakened over time.Some of the soldiers in Iraq right now are left wing gun grabbers!I know this for a fact.

[Jimmie]

I have no military experience
Noted.

[marksman13]

Bondo, your lack of military experience is duly noted, therefore I will cut you some slack on your lack of basic military knowledge/common sense. The plain and simple fact is that no one that I know of could possibly draw a pistol and successfully engage a target faster than I can bring my M4 or Mossberg to my shoulder and engage the same target. There are at least five extra steps to drawing and firing the pistol. You have to release the grip of your rifle, reach towards your holster, disengage at least one, most likely two rentention devices, draw the pistol upward, align the sights, swipe off the safety and fire. And you are doing all of this just to fire a round that is inferior to the one you have immediately available.

Your weapon will already be at the low ready if you are doing a dismounted patrol. How much easier is it to bring your rifle/shotgun to your shoulder, align the sights (depending on distance, may not even be completely neccessary(sp?), swipe the selector switch to fire and pull the trigger?

And do me a favor and save your assinine rhetoric about how today's troops are so much softer than those of yesterday. That is absolute crap. It is man's tendecy to compare himself favorably to his replacement. It makes people feel good to say they were tougher, faster, better shooters, etc than the people who are doing the job today. The fact is that the US military of today is the finest group of warriors ever assembled. Our training, technology, and ability to gain intel far surpass most previous and current armed forces around the world. It is a simple matter of adaptation, and I intend no offence to my fellow veterans from previous wars. They gained the knowledge that we used to improve ourselves.

You seem rather young, and are most likely still in some level of school, so do yourself a favor. Pay very close attention in your history classes. Replacing the 1911 had nothing to do with modern soldiers being recoil sensitive. We switched to a NATO round, the 9mm, to be logisticaly compatible with NATO forces around the world. Tell me how in the world today's soldiers are more recoil sensitive than those of previous wars when studies have shown that the average American is actually larger than the average American of years gone by?

Not intending to hurt your feelings, just trying to educate you a bit. If you ever reach for a pistol with a rifle in your hand, you aren't likely to go home that night. And, if you keep passing off bad info like the recoil sensitivity issue, someone is going to come along and really hurt your feelings.

Also, rest assured the "Warrior Spirit" is alive and well! We continue to fight as hard as we can, where ever we are needed, as long as we can. You have been watching too much liberal media, and once again you haven't checked your history books. There have been spineless, gutless detractors as long as there have been wars. The difference between then and now is that everyone of those disgruntled, opionated naysayers has access to a blog and a media outlet. You hear more about it now because we live in a world where media technology thrives and anyone can get their opinion out to everyone.

[Checkman]

Bondo

Sorry but I have to add that it's obvious you've never been in the military. I served 14 years (86-2000) and I met more than a few vets from WW2, Korea and Vietnam. Many of them told me that the modern soldiers are better equipped, better trained and more fit. Many of these old timers were combat arms vets.

Also do a little more research regarding the 1911. There was many a soldier who went on and on about the horrible recoil of the 45 auto and that it wouldn't hit the broad side of a barn. many of the troops doing the complaining about the 45 were WW2 troops.

I've read reports from WW1 by officers about how the soldiers had absolutely no skills with firearms and the same thing was written by northern officers in the Civil War! So much for the weakning of the warrior spirit.

There have always been liberals in the military and some of them have been very effective at being combat soldiers. General Stilwell was a classic left wing political type and he was as tough as nails. While the majority are conservative that isn't always the case. While I might not agree with them I respect a political liberal who is willing to wear the uniform and put it on the line for his or her's country. Don't go badmouthing the folks who are actually serving - regardless of their political orientation.

[coxhw]

Well I spent my time in the service, didn't have to worry about a silly little 9mm. I got them years. Know what I mean? SEA 1970

[Nomad, 2nd]

One of the main reasons they switched the standard sidearm from .45 to 9mm is because these college kids who have never held a gun in their life "can't handle" the recoil.The "Warrior Spirit" has unfortunately weakened over time.Some of the soldiers in Iraq right now are left wing gun grabbers!I know this for a fact.

Thank you for sharing with us your vast lack of knowledge.

FYI according to several 5 foot tall women I know the 9mm is more 'snappy' than the .45 and they prefer the 'push' of the .45.

As for as weak... look into the combat load of WW2 VS now...


Again thank you for sharing your OPINION.

[Walter]

As a Marine rifleman in Viet Nam in 1969 and 1970, I carried an M-79
grenade launcher for a few months. I was the "squad heavy weapons
platoon". Since the launched grenade did not "activate" until it was
about 15 meters out, they gave me a 1911-A1 as a close-in support
weapon.
I shot it as much as I could scrounge extra ammo, and grew to love
the gun. I bought a new Colt Mk. IV, Series 70 .45acp in 1973, and
haven't been without it since.
I never fired the 1911 in a combat situation, but there were many times
when I felt a whole lot better knowing I had it.
BTW, I carried it "cocked and locked" ALL the time. The only time the
round came out of the chamber was if I knew we were having a weapons inspection, which we had maybe once a month. Otherwise it was loaded
to the hilt, and I never had any problem with that.
But why should I have. We were "combat" Marines, and we were in a
combat situation. We kept our guns loaded.

Walter

[Chuhhuniban]

And do me a favor and save your assinine rhetoric about how today's troops are so much softer than those of yesterday.

Got that right. I am sure that the Regulars left from the Revolutionary War were telling the recruits in 1812 that same ol' crud — "Back in the old Army..."

[Trebor]

I believe the idea of only loading 5 rounds in a 1911 mag in the Navy was done to reduce the strain on the mag springs. The thought was five rounds would place less strain on the springs then a full 7 round load. I've run across so many mentions of the "only 5 rounds in the mag" in relation to Navy watchstanders and the like that I have to believe it was SOP for quite awhile. It makes some sense when you consider the age of the pistols and magazines and the fact that the "watch duty" mags were constantely left loaded.

That's my theory on it, anyway.

[Checkman]

No reply from Bondo Red. Heck no other postings from Bondo Red since that last one.

[mainmech48]

Was glad to see that someone (Trebor) finally mentioned the general condition of the average 1911 A-1 as a factor. IMO, it had as least as much to do with the decision to replace it as the general issue sidearm as NATO compliance, changed paradigms, politics or recoil.

No new 1911 A-1s had been purchased since 1945. Attrition was taking an increasingly greater toll on remaining inventory as frames wore out past the point of salvage. The time was fast approaching where there would not be enough servicable pistols to go around.

One major reason, again IMO, that we'd been able to stall on going to a 9x19 for so long was semantic. Not to say that there weren't practical and economic factors too, but I believe that caliber compliance kicked in with the adoption of any new standard issue weapon.

The most logical and sensible thing to do was to find a way to address all of the issues at once. That's what was done. We had to replace the rapidly disintegrating inventory of 40+ year-old weapons. That replacement was going to have to be a 9x19. Its design and features should reflect both the newer paradigm for military pistols and advances in the art. A board composed of representitives from the various services drew up the specs. Nearly everybody in the business was invited to submit their version. They all got the Whee! beat out of them in testing, and the Beretta won.

Like it or not, it beats the heck out of the way we acquired the M-16.

[marksman13]

I have to admit, mainmech, that I haven't been reading my history books nearly enough. How exactly did we end up with the M16? I've always been curious how it beat out the competition. I don't have many problems with today's M16/M4s, but from what I understand the originals were just plain bad. The only thing I would like to see changed is the 5.56mm round and maybe the gas system.

[TonyK]

I have to admit, mainmech, that I haven't been reading my history books nearly enough. How exactly did we end up with the M16? I've always been curious how it beat out the competition. I don't have many problems with today's M16/M4s, but from what I understand the originals were just plain bad. The only thing I would like to see changed is the 5.56mm round and maybe the gas system.


Hi!! This is my first post on this forum.

Marksman13: I don't wanna go into too much detail but basically, the reason the original M-16s sucked was that they were sent out into the field with dirty ammo (different from original test ammo) and no cleaning kits because it was advertised as a gun that didn't need cleaning. Well, the combination of dirty ammo, humid jungle environment, and lack of cleaning contributed to early misconseptions of the rifles poor reliability. Those problems were addressed later on but I know that if I had a rifle that didn't work when my life depended on it, I would damn it's existence forever even if it gets better. Doesn't mean it's a bad gun though. How many of the soldiers actually used their M-16s effectively against the enemy? I bet quite a few. The gas system's reliability has always been put up for debate. The whole idea behind it is simplicity, and ease of cleaning. Less parts, less movement equals more reliability, and less things that can go wrong. Sure, an AK with a gas piston system or whatever it has, is inherently more reliable IRT how many rounds can go through before you have to clean it. But, how many rounds can you put through the M-16 before it actually jams due to carbon buildup? Quite a bit. In fact, it's significantly more than what the average soldier carries on patrol. The barrel should melt before you get to that point if you are shooting nonstop, and you keep getting ressupllied with ammo. And the same will happen to the AK. Then, assuming you at least field clean the M-16, you're good to go for another engagement. Now, I've heard some people say how their weapons has this and that problem. Everything that has parts is prone to breaking, even the highly reputable Toyota Corolla and it's legendary reliability can suddenly have a bad transmission (not that I know this from PERSONAL experience). Also, bring your super duper expensive quarenteed battle tested ultimate reliable quasar gun and throw some sand on it, shoot it everyday, throw more sand on it, and see how super reliable it is then. There is no such thing as a perfectly reliable gun, so why should the M-16 be held to that standard?

Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in there...even though this forum is about the military sidearm, to which I also have an opinion about, but I'll leave that for later. I apologize for getting off track.

Markman13, I hope this at least gives you the right idea.

[marksman13]

Welcome to THR, TonyK. Thanks for your post. Like I said I don't really have any problem with the M16/M4 series of weapons. I used them extensively in Iraq and only had one malfunction, though it was a catastrophic failure at a more than inconvenient time. I was wondering more along the lines of what means Mainmech was refering to in the military's acquistion of the M16. He made it sound like there was something fishy behind the whole process.

Your post was quite informative though. I had never heard that dirty ammo was a primary cause in the failures that first run M16s experienced. Thanks for your input and enjoy yourself here at THR. You can look forward to many civil discussions with alot of good people here.

[TonyK]

"...catastrophic failure at a more than inconvenient time."

HAHAHA!!! I like how you put that so delicately!!

Thank you for the warm welcome. Well, I guess I missed the entire point of your inquiry didn't I? Sorry if I reiterated things you already knew. If anything, someone ELSE might learn from it right?

[pdowg881]

Wasn't the dirty ammo actaully the military switching the original stick powder for ball powder because it gave the round a little more range or power? But it just was a much dirtier ammo and fouled up the gas system.

[TonyK]

Wasn't the dirty ammo actaully the military switching the original stick powder for ball powder because it gave the round a little more range or power? But it just was a much dirtier ammo and fouled up the gas system.

Is that a question, or a factual rhetoric? I don't know. You seem more in tune with the intimate details. I was simply trying to demystify the M-16 platform for my own use during research.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The 'No hp's' is according to the Hague convention (Not the Genevia(SP?) as many people think) And states against CONVENTIONAL military forces in a DECLARED war. Nether of which is the case in Iraq.We were ISSUED non FMJ 5.56 made by Black hills prior to Faluja.

The 5.56mm Black Hills open tip match ammo has received JAG approval under the "laws of war" because it is not designed to expand. The open tip is merely an artifact of the process used to make an extremely uniform jacket necessary for match-grade accuracy.

Rounds that are designed to expand (like 9mm hollow-points) are still contrary to the laws of war, though as you noted, there is an exception made for non-conventional combatants and opponents who do not honor the laws of war.

[UKarmourer]

to give you guys the International flavour.
The British Army issues Sig P22 somethings (9mm) to what you would class as recon, Close Protection, SF and thats about it.
Doctors, some medics, flight crews, armoured crews etc get the tried and trusted Browning HP, usually in addition to their own Rifle, the tankies seem to be getting the new carbine version of the L85 now.

A pistol is there purely for us as a last ditch weapon, or in my recovery crew friends views, to get me to my rifle in the cab.

[BlindJustice]

Ex-USN '72-'78 I served on two different Destroyers in the Pacific. In port, the Officer of the Dec,(OOD) and Petty Officer of the Watch both
carried 1911s - WWII manufacture Remington-Rand and Ithaca. THe rule was two clips 5 rounds in each and no round in the slide. After the first
couple of watches as POOW I got a box of Remington 185 gr JHP and a couple of civvie clips in Honolulu. Carried one in my breast pocket on watch and didn't talk about it. I also had a Colt Commander for home D and used it to qualify for the ribbon.

I also had a Browning Hi-Power and it would stovepipe rounds I was not
impressed with the 9mm plinking the ocaissional attacking jug of water
etc. in comparison to the .45 ACP. FWIW

My Dad was a Radioman/Navigator in WWII. He flew 101 missions over the eastern Himilayas aka The Hump,from India to CHina in mostly
C-46 Commandos. THere's a picture of him and the Pilot & Co-Pilot
with boots, khaki pants and shirt and duty belt with the 1911 in the flap
holster, two mag pouches and a first aid kit and. He said he had another
small canvas bag off the belt with some survival gear, fishing line etc as
well as .45 ACP shot shells. The ground below the usual flight paths
nicknamed THe Trail of Aluminum for the planes lost to weather etc. He
told me when planes were lost hardly anybody survived . he said one guy
hadn't come back and it had been a couple of months so they
opened his foot locker and sent personal stuff home and divided up the rest
of the stuff. WHen the guy walked out of the jungle and got back from the hospital they gave him back more than he had had just glad to
see him. He said the shotshells worked good on small game.

I don't think the 9mm would work as well.

[Gaucho Gringo]

I have a couple observations about the posts on this subject. One poster stated that certain officers would rather enlisted men not have sidearms. Why? Are thy afraid of getting fragged or what? Also I thought the US military was smarter than it is. Over 100 years ago they had .38 as side arms. This is almost the same size as 9mm. A lot of soldiers in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War and afterwards were killed because they would empty their 38 revolvers against the Moro's and they would still kill the US soldier. This is why the 45 acp 1911 came into being. My father who joined the USMC on Dec 8, 1941 used to tell me this when I was a kid. He iused to tell me that a 38 in warfare was basically useless. He was overseas in the Solomon Islands from early 1942 to late 1944. He shipped out so early in the war that the troopship he was on had not been fully converted yet. I never really questioned him about why he felt this way but we always had a real Colt 1911A1 from WWI that was my grandfathers in the house. Unfortunately it got stolen in a burglary several years after I moved out of the house in the early 70's. I always got the feeling that the 45 acp was the defense round to have.

[GunTech]

If you are limited to ball ammunition, there is no debate - the 45 is the best stopper to be had. The 9mm can be a very effective weapon with modern expanding ammo - not an option for US troops. SpecOps types prefer the 45 for this reason.