Should the military consider .40?


PDA






tackleberry45
June 2, 2011, 09:34 PM
So if the JCP came up again do you think the military should consider going to the .40? I got into a long discussion at my LGS and as you can imagine the opinions flew!

If you enjoyed reading about "Should the military consider .40?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Apocalypse-Now
June 2, 2011, 09:54 PM
yes, they should.

our military has always issued fmj rounds for the sake of international political correctness. america adheres to the hague convention, even though we did not sign or agree to anything about it.

if our guys aren't able to use jhp's, yes, a slightly bigger round with little to no loss of capacity would always be a superior choice.

7mmb
June 2, 2011, 10:21 PM
The only reason the US military went to the 9mm from the 45 Auto was to comply with NATO standards. Our elite units that are allowed to deviate from NATO standards and opt for the handgun round of their choice opt for the 45 Auto. I doubt that they would now move away from NATO standards and go to the 40S&W. Since the Army recently ordered more M9s I don't see the 9mm being replaced anytime soon. Our European allies would never adopt the 40S&W either. Since we rammed the 7.62 down their throats in the 50s and then promptly switched to non-standard (at the time) 5.56, much to their consternation, we probably ought to just give them the 9mm. Handguns are almost never used in wartime anyway.

wally
June 2, 2011, 10:21 PM
Stay with the world standard 9mm , or go back to the .45ACP.

MaterDei
June 2, 2011, 10:23 PM
I'm with Wally

Girodin
June 2, 2011, 10:24 PM
I don't see it being worth the expense to change.

CZ57
June 2, 2011, 10:24 PM
+2;) Stick with the 9mm or go back to the .45ACP.

Ole Coot
June 2, 2011, 10:26 PM
I read somewhere, can't remember where but there has been a strong movement to the 15rd Springfield 45cal. I do believe that's logical. The Beretta held more rounds, now we have a 45 that holds 15. I think personally it would be a good decision.

REAPER4206969
June 3, 2011, 12:17 AM
The Coast Guard (SIG P229R DAK) and Army Special Forces (Glock 22) use the .40.

With the military buying nearly a half million more M9's and the Marines specifically ordering a large number of M9A1's, the 9x19 will be GI longer than the .45 was.

REAPER4206969
June 3, 2011, 12:22 AM
Also, .45 FMJ is inferior to .40 FMJ plus the pistol would be larger in every dimension (HUGE if 15 +1,) much heavier, lower capacity, Etc.

While I like the ACP, it is a silly military and police cartridge choice.

miles1
June 3, 2011, 07:23 AM
+3 9mm or 45ACP please.

mljdeckard
June 3, 2011, 08:24 AM
In what way is .45 inferior to .40 in FMJ?

It's a comparison that cuts both ways. .40 has more capacity than a .45, and more energy than a 9mm. But it has less capacity than a 9mm, and makes a smaller hole than a .45. I would rather train (rookie, non-shooter) soldiers to shoot 9mm or .45 than a .40.

In the grand scheme of things, the choice of sidearm is pretty much inconsequential. No war has been determined by the choice of sidearm. I can't think of a case where HAVING sidearms made a serious difference.

PRM
June 3, 2011, 08:28 AM
Army Special Forces (Glock 22) use the .40

Not saying it aint so ~ I sure don't claim to know everything. But I've never seen that. I went to Afghanistan in 2009-2010 as an embedded trainer. I saw the M9 used extensively and personally carried one along with an M4. You would on rare occasions see a 1911. What I did find interesting, was that in those situations where a soldier had an option and most didn't, the M9 seemed to be favored because of the ammo capacity.

mshootnit
June 3, 2011, 08:50 AM
The only reason the US military went to the 9mm from the 45 Auto was to comply with NATO standards. Our elite units that are allowed to deviate from NATO standards and opt for the handgun round of their choice opt for the 45 Auto. I doubt that they would now move away from NATO standards and go to the 40S&W. Since the Army recently ordered more M9s I don't see the 9mm being replaced anytime soon. Our European allies would never adopt the 40S&W either. Since we rammed the 7.62 down their throats in the 50s and then promptly switched to non-standard (at the time) 5.56, much to their consternation, we probably ought to just give them the 9mm. Handguns are almost never used in wartime anyway.
I agree with almost nothing about this post which is barely germane to the question at hand.

peyton
June 3, 2011, 08:58 AM
I read recently that the army is looking for an automatic with a smaller grip than the berretta. The majority of pistol carriers now are women. I think going to the .40S&W is going to happen, the platform is the challenge!! The military likes having external (visible) safeties that can be seen to be engaged.

wally
June 3, 2011, 09:10 AM
No war has been determined by the choice of sidearm.

True.

I can't think of a case where HAVING sidearms made a serious difference.

Sgt. York might disagree.

Geckgo
June 3, 2011, 09:20 AM
+4 9mm or 45ACP

harmon rabb
June 3, 2011, 09:23 AM
I don't think it matters. In the world of military small arms, rifles are what matter, not pistols. As long as a military has a reliable pistol chambered in something not entirely anemic to issue, it can move on and worry about other things.

mgmorden
June 3, 2011, 09:40 AM
I read recently that the army is looking for an automatic with a smaller grip than the berretta. The majority of pistol carriers now are women. I think going to the .40S&W is going to happen, the platform is the challenge!! The military likes having external (visible) safeties that can be seen to be engaged.

The search that you're probably thinking of was cancelled. The military just ordered a boat-load more Beretta M9's. That's beside the fact that even if they went with a new gun it would almost certainly still be 9mm just to remain standard with our allies.

The M9 isn't going anywhere for a while. The 9mm NATO round itself will likely outlast that pistol and probably outlast most of our lives as the standard sidearm round for our military.

mljdeckard
June 3, 2011, 09:51 AM
Carrying a pistol matters to individual soldiers. That doesn't mean that it's very important to the DOD. When I say 'a single case', I am referring to the overall outcome of a war, not to the experiences of many individual soldiers whose lives have been saved by their sidearm.

Unistat
June 3, 2011, 10:43 AM
Stay with the world standard 9mm , or go back to the .45ACP.
Even though I favor .40 S&W for my personal carry, I agree with this. If I had to have FMJ, I'd want a .45 ACP.

InkEd
June 3, 2011, 10:44 AM
LOL @ the .40s&w being superior to the .45acp!

Less capacity than a 9mm AND less power than the .45acp BUT in exchange for this sacrifice you get only marginally better power than the 9mm AND snappier recoil than the .45acp cartridge. Plus, it's a nonstandard caliber for NATO. I know alot of cops like the .40 (many because it's all they know, at least extensively) but I don't see it offering too much to our military.

If the US, ever did vary from the NATO standard it would IMHO be a return to the .45acp. It would also probably be in a platform other than the 1911.

wally
June 3, 2011, 11:02 AM
Even though I favor .40 S&W for my personal carry,

Absolutely in a CCW, as once you go below a 4" barrel IMHO the .45ACP has lost too much velocity to have penetration you can count on, getting any expansion makes it worse.

In equivalent barrel lengths the .40S&W is typically 100-150 fps faster than the .45ACP and the sectional density of 180gr .40 is the same as 230gr .45 (penetration is proportional to sectional density times velocity, expansion greatly reduces sectional density).

rhodco
June 3, 2011, 11:18 AM
I would imagine that the choice of caliber is made primarily based upon ammunition supply channels. Ballistic data and "stopping power" are all secondary when you are talking about a sidearm. These things are far more important to police and civilian carriers of the weapon being concerned about over-penetration. Military priorities are probably different.

Apocalypse-Now
June 3, 2011, 11:19 AM
While I like the ACP, it is a silly military and police cartridge choice.

i have to agree 100%. the 45acp is probably my fav round, but it's size and weight doesn't allow soldiers to carry nearly as much ammo as 9mm, or even a 40cal would.


if your deployed in a warzone, would you rather have 200 rounds of 9mm/40cal on your person, or almost half that in 45acp?

Nushif
June 3, 2011, 11:29 AM
if your deployed in a warzone, would you rather have 200 rounds of 9mm/40cal on your person, or almost half that in 45acp?

This is very important to the discussion, I think.

Keep in mind that military shooting largely doesn't care about overpenetration, uses volume of fire as a tactic and that there is no such things as a "average three round engagement."

FFS, we have machine guns. Ammo capacity and "carriability" is a huge factor. And under fire, while the adrenaline is pumping and in the dire circumstance that you can't use your rifle ... I doubt I'd shoot *anything* just once or twice. It's getting at least five. No matter the caliber.

Civilian self defense is an an entirely different matter and as such calls for an entirely different weapon. Both in terms of ammunition and design.

Cards81fan
June 3, 2011, 11:35 AM
Voted No for two reasons:

1) NATO interchangeability is a Good Thing™
2) Cost of 9mm versus 40 (consider how much goes handgun caliber matter in modern military engagements?)

It is just that simple, to me.

Apocalypse-Now
June 3, 2011, 11:37 AM
1) NATO interchangeability is a Good Thing™

why? we don't swap ammo with "NATO troops" lol


i think if it came down to it, most, if not all of the 45acp folks on here would opt for 9mm r 40cal if they were told they were being deployed tomorrow. that's the point where they'd really consider how much ammo they can carry....

Cards81fan
June 3, 2011, 11:41 AM
No, but who do you believe manufactures a boatload of NATO ammunition and sells it between each other?


(Hint: The NATO-member countries)


The more we have in common with them, the more we can keep prices in line with economies of scale. It's a simple budgetary decision.

Apocalypse-Now
June 3, 2011, 11:48 AM
^^what difference does that make? our military uses ammo made in in america.

mgmorden
June 3, 2011, 11:49 AM
Yep - also, in the event of a BIG war - WW3 type scenario, the reality is that allies might very well be supplying each other with ammo. Stopping machines and reconfiguring them is a pain. You don't want to be reconfiguring to 9mm when British troups request a batch then to .40S&W when the US troops need some and then back to 9.23mm Maple Leaf when the Canadian troops need ammo. It's quicker and flat out more efficient if you know that you and all your allies use the same handgun ammo - setup those machines and let the production roll.

Heck I'm surprised if eventually there wasn't a push to standardize the magazines as well. Pick a good 17-round magazine to standardize on and any new pistol design needs to be setup to accept those magazines from the start.

Cards81fan
June 3, 2011, 11:54 AM
^^what difference does that make? our military uses ammo made in in america.
Because we all import and export ammo between countries, regardless of what our military uses exclusively. If we sell some of the 9mm ammo we manufacture to other NATO member countries, and they buy and sell it between themselves, the ubiquity of that caliber selection means it is cheaper for us as well (in spite of increased overall demand).

See also Price Elasticity of Demand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand)

Apocalypse-Now
June 3, 2011, 11:54 AM
compatibility during a world war is an interesting point :)

i don't think we did that during WWI or WWII though....

Cards81fan
June 3, 2011, 11:57 AM
Thanks. My formal schooling is in Economics. I tend to (often cynically) look at things from a "Dollars" perspective. I admit my vote has little to do with round performance.

Heck, I own and shoot .40 and .45 myself (and sold off my 9mm, though not because I felt under-gunned with it.).

Cherokee
June 3, 2011, 12:03 PM
Stay with 9mm or go back to 45ACP

DesertVet
June 3, 2011, 12:13 PM
I was deployed twice and carried the 9mm in combat. Luckily I also had an M-4 carbine with M-203 40mm Grenade launcher attached and an abundance of fragmentation grenades. We had 50 Cal machine guns or MK 19 40mm automatic grenade guns mounted on our vehicles next to an M-240 or M-249 SAW depending on the mission along with AT-4 rocket launchers, Claymore mines and short barreled pump shotguns.
We were often operating in small groups for extended periods of time and supply chain issues and the ability to carry more ammo was an issue.
Even when carrying another sidearm WAS an option, our guys didn't opt for a weapon they would have difficulty getting rounds for.
I was not all that impressed with the 9mm performance in combat having seen it's effect on enemy combatants up close more then once. We trained to double-tap the pelvis, then double-tap center mass for pistol shooting. I once even saw an Iraqi EPW being treated at the CSH in Balad who had 9mm rounds glance off his SKULL!! I still believe that 9mm being available in just about ANY theater, being in use by our allies, and giving you the ability to carry more ammo with you on patrol makes it optimal choice for now and it is unlikely that the MAJORITY of pistols in the Military's inventory will be anything else. Also 9mm ammo is interchangable with lots of SMG ammo that the Military supply chain already has in the system. Hey I would rather carry a 1911 .45 any day but coming up with ammo to feed it in a forward area is tough.
These days I carry .40 as it is issued by my Agency I work as a Law Enforcement Officer for. It is fine enough but is purely "American" cartridge and it is unlikely it would be adopted by the Military IMHO...but Uncle Sam HAS suprised me before! LOL

fatcat4620
June 3, 2011, 12:15 PM
If we went to. 40 I guess we would have to change all our rifles to 6.8 SPC. It would only make sense.

wlewisiii
June 3, 2011, 12:27 PM
No. Stick to 9mm.

For what the military actually uses sidearms for, it's the best all around. InkEd's comment describes my feelings quite well.

RevolvingGarbage
June 3, 2011, 12:27 PM
I think in terms of which is the better cartridge for wounding and effectiveness, its hard to say the .40 isn't an improvement over the 9mm. This being the case, the economic and logistical concerns are also legitimate, and that will always matter much more to those in charge.

P.S This is the case only up until the moment a hostile race of large extraplanetary beings decides to invade and destroy us, at which time the government will dump the M9/9x19mm round instantly, and begin cranking out 10mm and placing orders for thousands and thousands of G20SF pistols ;)

leadcounsel
June 3, 2011, 12:50 PM
Nope. I've spent 5 years in the Army, and much of that deployed to Iraq.

I've been in very high speed units like the 101st and SF.

To my surprise, the number of people indifferent about guns is alarming. And the military is comprised of very average build people; small men, women, non-athletic types, etc.

Pistols are usually reserved for defensive measures. The 9mm is adequate for its role and will do the job if the shooter does.

I agree that we should start using hollowpoints and get away from the archane ideas of the mid-1900s.

And lets not forget about the supply chains and the additional costs of the .40 caliber. The money could be spent elsewhere, including on better training.

However, I do think the Beretta 92 platform needs to go.

Apocalypse-Now
June 3, 2011, 12:55 PM
However, I do think the Beretta 92 platform needs to go.

what was your experience with the beretta? i hear so many conflicting stories about it's reliability with the military in middle east.

thanks :)

DesertVet
June 3, 2011, 01:18 PM
M-9 worked in the Middle East as long as it was CLEAN wich was a challange at times. Checkmate brand mags in the Military supply chain caused some failures. If used with FACTORY MAGS, the M-9 performed as intended. Teflon lube on slide rails and avoiding over lubrication helped.

Smaug
June 3, 2011, 01:26 PM
They should go back to 45 ACP, IMO.

Carry capacity is a valid point, but if 38 Special didn't have enough poop in the late 19th century with lead round nose bullets, why would 9mm be any better with FMJ and a slightly smaller caliber?

I'd rather have half as much 45 ACP. If women and wimps want to join the Army, they need to be able to shoot the guns, just as they need to be able to run and do push-ups.

mgmorden
June 3, 2011, 01:28 PM
i don't think we did that during WWI or WWII though....

Nope, but using hindsight, it probably would have been better if we had. Notice that when the Springfield 1903 couldn't be made in sufficient numbers in WW1, we went to factories that were setup to make the Enfield P-14 and had them modify the tooling to produce that rifle in .30-06 (our round, instead of the .303 British that they were using). If we had been using the same ammo that retooling wouldn't have been needed.

Similarly, when the British couldn't produce their Webley revolvers in sufficient number, we retooled the S&W Model 10 to shoot their .38/200 round. Again, wouldn't have been an issue if we were using the same bullets :).

mgmorden
June 3, 2011, 01:31 PM
I agree that we should start using hollowpoints and get away from the archane ideas of the mid-1900s.

The treaty (Hague Convention) banning their use actually goes back to the late 1800's :). We didn't sign that one though, so we technically aren't required to obey it - we only do so as a gesture.

In rifle rounds though, we'd probably use it anyways. FMJ from a rifle kills well enough and has better barrier penetration. For handguns though JHP's probably would be a good idea.

mgmorden
June 3, 2011, 01:35 PM
but if 38 Special didn't have enough poop in the late 19th century with lead round nose bullets, why would 9mm be any better with FMJ and a slightly smaller caliber?

The .38 revolvers fielded by the Army in the late 19th century were .38 Long Colt, not .38 Special.

To put into perspective:

.38 LC 125gr bullet Muzzle Velocity: 772 ft/s
9mm Luger 124gr bullet muzzle Velocity: 1200 ft/s

Completely different animals.

Those .38 revolvers they were using were about 20% weaker than a .380 ACP.

Tennessee Ned
June 3, 2011, 01:41 PM
Of course they should consider it and maybe they've already done so?...

Effigy
June 3, 2011, 01:52 PM
Since they're required to use FMJ, I think switching to .45 makes the most sense. Plus the rounds are subsonic by default so they're well suited for use with a suppressor.

Jim K
June 3, 2011, 01:58 PM
Oh, good. Then we could have three calibers of pistol ammo in service, four if you consider that some .38 Special revolvers are still around. Plus our ammo would once again not be interchangeable with that of our allies.

Why not adopt a pistol in .40mm Bofors? A bit awkward to carry and slow to draw, but it should satisfy even the most extreme advocates of "knock down" power.

Jim

PabloJ
June 3, 2011, 02:06 PM
No. They already have fine sidearm and frankly our military budget is already past what we as county can afford. Buying into different caliber or weapon would just be waste of money.

Apocalypse-Now
June 3, 2011, 03:22 PM
No. They already have fine sidearm and frankly our military budget is already past what we as county can afford. Buying into different caliber or weapon would just be waste of money.

cut welfare, and you can probably give the military the best arms available.

mgmorden
June 3, 2011, 03:26 PM
cut welfare, and you can probably give the military the best arms available.

Not much incentive to cut spending somewhere just to waste it elsewhere. What we have gets the job done just fine.

Cut welfare to bring the national debt under control, not to simply reallocate that money to another pork-project ;).

Apocalypse-Now
June 3, 2011, 03:27 PM
Not much incentive to cut spending somewhere just to waste it elsewhere. What we have gets the job done just fine.

i don't consider giving out troops the best equipment available a waste. they deserve it. :)

many of them still have to armor their own hummers, and are using rifles/pistols that should have been decommissioned years ago. not to mention the ineffectiveness of the steel tipped 5.56 as a stopper which dr roberts has written numerous reports to the dept of defense about ;)

RinkRat
June 3, 2011, 04:14 PM
Are we looking for good gamer or better twist? To upgrade firepower or try to save some expenditure? Our troops can always use better tools in the field and WE SHOULD AND BETTER give them only the best of what ever it is in what ever they need! And keep it flowing to them too!!!!

Thought I'd throw this into the mix :confused: ... Than why not look at the convincing ballistics of the 357sig, it's firearms size and capacity if I'm not mistaking is comparable to the 40 with a better ballistics ... they would never consider 10mm yet many here like it as an EDC :scrutiny: that was the forebear-er too the 40 :rolleyes:

Zoogster
June 3, 2011, 04:45 PM
There is not a huge incentive to change pistol calibers for a couple reasons:

9mm is a NATO standard.
Most potential pistol rounds are going to be ineffective against body armor anyways, and most of the world's forces now wear body armor. So the only real difference would be when shooting civilians, like when imposing police states and fighting insurgents and not professional forces.
But gearing your troops to fight insurgents at the expense of what would be best at fighting professional forces is quite dangerous. You never know when we might be actually fighting a real military.


Effigy said: Since they're required to use FMJ, I think switching to .45 makes the most sense.

Against civilians without body armor, like many insurgents this is true.
However they already had more .45 ACP pistols than they would have ever needed, and president Bill Clinton had most of them destroyed so they could never possibly end up going from the massive armories and into the hands of US civilians. (Just like he had fare more m14s destroyed than we have infantry in the military. When exactly such longer range rifles would be in high demand in Afghanistan and can be modernized to better fill such roles.)
So if you want to talk about throwing away money, destroying hundreds of thousands of .45s only to determine they could use a good .45 would be a great example.
It would make them look so unbelievably foolish that I think they would avoid a new .45ACP gun for just that reason.
The .45 ACP's ballistic coefficient and low velocity also makes it really hard to create rounds that will defeat even low level body armor, so if facing armored threats they could not issue ammo with better penetration like they can for some other calibers such as 9mm.


And finally a pistol is just jewelry most of the time, most soldiers on the battlefield have much more effective rifles and machineguns.
Battles are not won or decided by pistols. Only a small number of units actually use pistols frequently, and many of them are not limited to the standard issue sidearm and so it doesn't matter what the standard issue sidearm is.
Investing billions of tax payer dollars in something that plays almost no role in battle to purchase a bunch of pistols that do virtually the same exact thing as something they already have is just wasteful.
Doing the same thing to purchase guns that also screw up NATO supply lines for no real increased performance is just foolish.

JohnBiltz
June 3, 2011, 08:41 PM
I remember when we got rid of the .45. The ones we had in our armsroom were WWII manufacture, Singers and Remingtons mostly and this was in the 82D Airborne not some back water never to be deployed unit. Keeping them was not an option they were shot out and in desperate need of replacing either with new 1911s or something else. Given an option I would have bought one. Not so much to shoot, because they were terribly inaccurate, as for the history. I thought switching to 9mm was a mistake and still do. I also thought and still do it was not that important either way. Armies fight with crew served weapons and rifles. A pistol is not important.

On standardized ammo, its important. For instance during Desert Storm there was a French light armored division attached to Eighteenth Airborne Corps. Had the war went longer than 100 hours do you think the French would have been resupplying it with ammo our corps would have been? I have no doubt the French had no ability for long term support.

Quiet
June 3, 2011, 10:49 PM
The Coast Guard (SIG P229R DAK) and Army Special Forces (Glock 22) use the .40.
NCIS also adopted the SIG P229 in .40S&W.

US Army Special Forces does not issue the .40S&W Glock 22.
A unit of US Army Special Forces does use the .40S&W Glock 22.
However, the majority of the units within US Army Special Forces use the 9x19mm Beretta M9, the 9x19mm Glock 17 & 19 and various .45ACP 1911s.

REAPER4206969
June 3, 2011, 11:15 PM
Yes, but if I had posted "CAG" no one would know *** I'm talking about.

357 Terms
June 3, 2011, 11:41 PM
A pistol is a pistol. A rifle is A RIFLE! The U.S has had two different issued handguns in the last 100yrs. Both sufficient for their intended use. The military should consider the .40, they just wont. No real reason for them to.

Georgia1911
June 3, 2011, 11:48 PM
The .38 revolvers fielded by the Army in the late 19th century were .38 Long Colt, not .38 Special.

To put into perspective:

.38 LC 125gr bullet Muzzle Velocity: 772 ft/s
9mm Luger 124gr bullet muzzle Velocity: 1200 ft/s

Completely different animals.

Those .38 revolvers they were using were about 20% weaker than a .380 ACP.
Don't ignore 38 Super or 9x23. Both have better ballistics than either 38 Special or 9mm Luger (except some +P 9MM), and would give up no magazine capacity (based on diameter) versus the current 9mm. I'm sure the DoD could develop even better rounds than currently available, and, as a 38 Super shooter, I would benefit from the increased availability.

withdrawn34
June 4, 2011, 12:11 AM
edit: nevermind, veering into politics

strange how there's no delete function for posts, eh?

mgmorden
June 4, 2011, 12:29 AM
Don't ignore 38 Super or 9x23. Both have better ballistics than either 38 Special or 9mm Luger (except some +P 9MM), and would give up no magazine capacity (based on diameter) versus the current 9mm. I'm sure the DoD could develop even better rounds than currently available, and, as a 38 Super shooter, I would benefit from the increased availability.

Only relevant if you could get all of NATO to switch to it though. Realistically, one of the specific goals of the switch to 9mm was standardization of ammo with our allies. Getting marginal ballistics gains on weapons with limited usefulness in the first place isn't worth messing with that fact.

This whole concept is basically a solution looking for a problem. It ain't broke - it don't need fixin.

Georgia1911
June 4, 2011, 12:42 AM
Only relevant if you could get all of NATO to switch to it though. Realistically, one of the specific goals of the switch to 9mm was standardization of ammo with our allies. Getting marginal ballistics gains on weapons with limited usefulness in the first place isn't worth messing with that fact.

This whole concept is basically a solution looking for a problem. It ain't broke - it don't need fixin.
That assumes NATO interchangeability is really useful. It may have been true that standardization was a goal, but was that ever really "realistic?" That these are "weapons with limited usefulness" would only be true if interchangeability is desired and/or current availability of ammo is considered. 38 Super and 9x23 are simply superior to 9mm Luger and most 40S&W, and that is without significant recent development. 45ACP did not exist before the 1911- was it a weapon of limited usefulness in 1911?

JROC
June 4, 2011, 01:13 AM
No.

I vote 10mm in JHP rounds. I'm a 10mm fan, and if they want more put down power than the 9mm provides it will do just that. Plus they can carry as much ammo as the .40. You can massage the load if you are worried about over penetration, etc, etc.

REAPER4206969
June 4, 2011, 01:59 AM
38 Super and 9x23 are simply superior to 9mm Luger and most 40S&W

Not really. Also, could you pick anymore of an obscure list of cartridges?

45ACP did not exist before the 1911

Oh ya?

REAPER4206969
June 4, 2011, 02:05 AM
and makes a smaller hole than a .45.

.40 FMJ makes a larger permanent wound cavity than .45 FMJ.

LOL @ the .40s&w being superior to the .45acp!

.40 FMJ beats .45 FMJ in nearly every meaningful category.

You can massage the load if you are worried about over penetration, etc, etc.

You mean like, oh I don't know, say a 180gr. bullet at 995fps-1,025fps?

sixgunner455
June 4, 2011, 02:21 AM
The only reason the US military went to the 9mm from the 45 Auto was to comply with NATO standards.

Absolutely not true. 9mm was looked at immediately after WWII, and eventually adopted, to give the soldier a lighter gun (Colt Commander w/aluminum frame was the first gun they looked at), that was also lighter kicking. When they eventually did the M9 trials, they also wanted higher capacity - hence the two guns that passed all the tests were the Beretta and the SIG.

And to say that the M9 is too big for the small handed people ignores the fact that, if it's a real problem for someone, there's always the M11.

No, they should not change to the .40. Absolutely pointless - harder kicking than the .45, less capacity than what they have now, no advantage in performance (ball rounds, remember). 9mm all the way.

Georgia1911
June 4, 2011, 03:00 AM
Not really. Also, could you pick anymore of an obscure list of cartridges?



Oh ya?
Nothing obscure about 38 Super just because you can't buy it at Wallyworld. 9x23 maybe. If the issue on the table is what is a better round than 9mm, and one of the concerns is mag capacity, then why not 38 Super? More energy with a slightly smaller diameter and only about 2mm longer.

And, yes, 45ACP only existed as a prototype before the M1911 made it a real cartridge.

REAPER4206969
June 4, 2011, 03:22 AM
.38 Super is a gamer round, other than that it sees no support or use. It provides absolutely no advantage over 9x19 in FMJ and must be chambered in a .45 frame. Not to mention it's semi-rimmed case lends to rimlock in double stack mags. At least .357 SIG fits in preexisting 9mm frames, although it doesn't have any advantage either.

.45 ACP came out in 1905 and there was the Colt/Browning M1905, M1909 and M1910 before the M1911.

Apocalypse-Now
June 4, 2011, 04:34 AM
NCIS also adopted the SIG P229 in .40S&W.

that's true! i saw mark harmon using one last night on tv!




.38 Super is a gamer round, other than that it sees no support or use. It provides absolutely no advantage over 9x19 in FMJ and must be chambered in a .45 frame. Not to mention it's semi-rimmed case lends to rimlock in double stack mags. At least .357 SIG fits in preexisting 9mm frames, although it doesn't have any advantage either.

.45 ACP came out in 1905 and there was the Colt/Browning M1905, M1909 and M1910 before the M1911.

this would be the correct post.

The Lone Haranguer
June 4, 2011, 06:59 AM
In both World Wars, we acted autonomously and there was no need for ammunition or equipment interchangeability. The reality is different now that we are involved in "entangling foreign alliances."

rskent
June 4, 2011, 07:47 AM
Me too

Kendal Black
June 4, 2011, 08:48 AM
Nah. Stay with the nine. 9mmP is no favorite of mine, but I must be wrong! It is in use worldwide. The Russians are fielding some 9x19 pistols ( MP-443 (http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNV_enUS400US400&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=MP-443+Grach) ) and so are the Chinese ( QSZ-92 (http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNV_enUS400US400&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=QSZ-92) ). Both countries still have lots of other pistols on hand but I think this an interesting trend--their most recently adopted pistols are 9x19. Of course the cartridge is in use throughout NATO and in many, many other places.

Not sure how it happened, but that's an unusual degree of convergence. It means widespread ammo availability (made everywhere) and it also suggests the round is about right for the purpose--or maybe it just means it's about as much as a broad spectrum of recruits can master in a reasonable time frame for training.

So, keep the nine for general issue and if some specialized units want or need something else, well, we have that going on now.

Georgia1911
June 4, 2011, 09:45 AM
...

.45 ACP came out in 1905 and there was the Colt/Browning M1905, M1909 and M1910 before the M1911.

But the M1905 was effectively a production prototype that led to significant changes before the final version was released. Only a few thousand weapons were made. The Colt "1910" was an even rarer prototype and was mostly a 1911. JMB did build a completely different design as the FN 1910 at Herstal, but it was not chambered for 45. I had a Colt 1903 in 32 at one time, and there is a clear resemblance between the FN and the little Colt.

Apocalypse-Now
June 4, 2011, 10:02 AM
But the M1905 was effectively a production prototype that led to significant changes before the final version was released. Only a few thousand weapons were made. The Colt "1910" was an even rarer prototype and was mostly a 1911. JMB did build a completely different design as the FN 1910 at Herstal, but it was not chambered for 45. I had a Colt 1903 in 32 at one time, and there is a clear resemblance between the FN and the little Colt.


the model 1905 was full production and chambered for 45acp. a recent auction i went had a ton of them. they were almost a dime a dozen lol

correct, the colt 1910 is exceedingly rare.

Chindo18Z
June 4, 2011, 10:43 AM
I read somewhere, can't remember where but there has been a strong movement to the 15rd Springfield 45cal. I do believe that's logical. The Beretta held more rounds, now we have a 45 that holds 15. I think personally it would be a good decision. I think the .45 XD would be a good candidate if we ever again decide to do pistol trials in a serious way.

In the grand scheme of things, the choice of sidearm is pretty much inconsequential. & I don't think it matters. In the world of military small arms, rifles are what matter, not pistols. As long as a military has a reliable pistol chambered in something not entirely anemic to issue, it can move on and worry about other things. Bingo. We have winners. The M9 does the job. Are there better pistols? Yes. Does it really matter? No.

The majority of pistol carriers now are women. How do you figure? The majority of pistol carriers are Green Berets, Military LEO, and bazillions of Staff Officers/NCOs. The last time I checked, the total Active Duty female complement was about 15% of the force (all services combined).

i have to agree 100%. the 45acp is probably my fav round, but it's size and weight doesn't allow soldiers to carry nearly as much ammo as 9mm, or even a 40cal would. if your deployed in a warzone, would you rather have 200 rounds of 9mm/40cal on your person, or almost half that in 45acp?
Neither. Pistol ammo weight is inconsequential except to logisticians planning ship and aircraft movements for pallets of ammo. I've carried both 9mm and .45 in combat zones and the usual load out is 3-5 magazines depending upon caliber. I just spent the last year in Iraq and never carried more than 33 rds of .45 (4 x 8rd mags plus one in the chamber). Usually just carried 3 magazines. Where would you even put 200 rds on your kit? ;)

They already have fine sidearm and frankly our military budget is already past what we as county can afford. Buying into different caliber or weapon would just be waste of money. & Investing billions of tax payer dollars in something that plays almost no role in battle to purchase a bunch of pistols that do virtually the same exact thing as something they already have is just wasteful. Sad but true. Major defense cuts are looming and DoD will not be wasting a shrinking budget on the non-critical replacement of things that work well enough.

With the military buying nearly a half million more M9's and the Marines specifically ordering a large number of M9A1's, the 9x19 will be GI longer than the .45 was. 9x19? Maybe. M9? Probably not. IMHO, the M9 will not remain in service as long as the 1911 for two reasons:

1. The 1911 has almost a 75 year fielding head start on the M9 and continues in service to this day (admittedly in tiny numbers only).
2. The reason we are buying ~500,000 new Berettas is that the originally fielded fleet of weapons have worn out after less than 25 years. There isn't an originally issued (1985-1994) M9 left in my arms rooms.


what was your experience with the beretta? i hear so many conflicting stories about it's reliability with the military in middle east.
It's functionally reliable but susceptible to mechanical parts failure (locking block, trigger spring, trigger return spring) with high round count usage. My unit shoots more 9mm out of Berettas than any equivalent sized element in the US Army. We break a lot of them. On the other hand, at more modest usage levels, the weapon will reliably feed and shoot anything you can stuff into the chamber, delivering decent accuracy under all environmental conditions. Good hits count and we don't see a pattern of 9mm failing to kill, even with FMJ.

US Army Special Forces does not issue the .40S&W Glock 22.
A Joint unit of USSOCOM does use the .40S&W Glock 22.
However, the majority of the units within US Army Special Forces use the 9x19mm Beretta M9, the 9x19mm Glock 17 & 19 and various .45ACP 1911s. This. We issue some M11 SIGs as well.


I'd like to see the Armed Forces move to .40 as I think it's a better cartridge than 9mm with regards to barrier penetration and there is more room for effective load development in the .40 envelope. However, there is no current appetite (nor money) for equipping the entire force with a new pistol or a new caliber. .40 S&W recoil would also be more difficult for the majority of novice military pistol shooters to handle (in comparison to 9mm). What we need to do is simply issue modern effective expanding 9mm. If it's good enough for police and homeowners to use on American felons (US Citizens), it's good enough for everyone else on the planet. ;)

Apocalypse-Now
June 4, 2011, 10:49 AM
9x19? Maybe. M9? Probably not. IMHO, the M9 will not remain in service as long as the 1911 for two reasons:

1. The 1911 has almost a 75 year fielding head start on the M9 and continues in service to this day (admittedly in tiny numbers only).
2. The reason we are buying ~500,000 new Berettas is that the originally fielded fleet of weapons have worn out after less than 25 years. There isn't an originally issued (1985-1994) M9 left in my arms rooms.


Quote:
what was your experience with the beretta? i hear so many conflicting stories about it's reliability with the military in middle east.
It's functionally reliable but susceptible to mechanical parts failure (locking block, trigger spring, trigger return spring) with high round count usage. My unit shoots more 9mm out of Berettas than any equivalent sized element in the US Army. We break a lot of them. On the other hand, at more modest usage levels, the weapon will reliably feed and shoot anything you can stuff into the chamber, delivering decent accuracy under all environmental conditions. Good hits count and we don't see a pattern of 9mm failing to kill, even with FMJ.


wow, that doesn't say much about the beretta's durability :eek:

thanks for posting your experience. :)

ugaarguy
June 4, 2011, 12:45 PM
45ACP did not exist before the 1911- was it a weapon of limited usefulness in 1911? Standardization wasn't even a thought, considering smokeless powder itself was still pretty new back in the early 1900s.

Scipio Africanus
June 4, 2011, 01:18 PM
.45 ACP with 230 gr. jacketed truncated cone bullets get my vote. Just like Cooper said.

Harley Quinn
June 4, 2011, 01:53 PM
I go with the majority on this one, NO...:)

Logistics/supply etc.. 9mm is way to go imho...

wow, that doesn't say much about the beretta's durability

Not many can match the Beretta for dependable imho...

rhodco
June 4, 2011, 02:19 PM
The Beretta 92FS is VERY dependable as long as you maintain it properly. If you are going to drag your pistol through the desert and never clean it, you will be much better off with a Glock. They handle abuse much better. A know a guy at the range that has over 4 thousand rounds through his G19 and has never cleaned or lubricated it. He's waiting to see how much it can take before the first malfunction. Amazing.

Chindo18Z
June 4, 2011, 03:36 PM
I think 9mm Berettas will give any modern pistol (including Glocks) a run for their money when it comes to reliable function under crappy conditions. Jams are a rare event with the Beretta. I've never noticed a bit of performance difference between Berettas, Glocks, SIGs, CZs, Rugers, BHPs, Walthers, Makarovs, or HKs in the desert. Or 1911A1s for that matter. I can't speak for S&W M&Ps or Springfield XDs (as I've not seen them on the battlefield), but I'd expect near identical good performance out of them as well.

I view apocryphal stories of pistol endurance torture events with a jaundiced eye. Any of the above pistols will go thousands of rounds trouble free with a little lube. Cleaning not actually required until you've put about 800+ rounds through a piece in one session. At that point, "carbon" buildup starts to make most any semi-auto pistol slide run a little sluggish. A prudent shooter would break it in half, wipe the crud off the rails and barrel with a rag, add a few drops of oil to contact points, and slap it together to start shooting again. If it's severely dusty, muddy, or coated in sand, hit it with a shaving brush for about 10 seconds. About two minutes worth of the most basic maintenance. As it would be a day for ice skating in hell if a combatant ever went through 50 pistol rounds in a defensive engagement, stories of Maxim-like endurance are kind of irrelevant when it comes to handguns.

The M9's problem is simply one of metal fatigue affecting a few critical parts. It runs great right up to the point that something shears or snaps.

Not much you can do with military weapons other than to keep track of total round count, replace parts preemptively, and hope that it doesn't die someday when you desperately need it.

I've heard folks occasionally suggest going to a .40 Beretta (M96). As currently designed, I don't think the weapon's durability would improve if we went to a .40 cal version of the M9. I think we'd just have that much more wear and tear on the weapons. Additionally, shooting scores would also drop a bit for those assigned a pistol who are also infrequent shooters.

Gig 'em
June 8, 2011, 12:48 AM
+1 Chindo18Z. You took the words right out of my mouth...errr off my fingertips... :)

Sport45
June 8, 2011, 02:08 AM
Yes, they should change to the .40 (or anything else). But only to free up some 9mm ammo to the surplus market. I have the same reason for wanting them to get away from the .223. :D

mnhntr
June 8, 2011, 04:30 PM
no they should go back to the .45

If you enjoyed reading about "Should the military consider .40?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!