1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Should the military consider .40?

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by tackleberry45, Jun 2, 2011.


Should the military consider the .40?

  1. Yes

    67 vote(s)
  2. No

    139 vote(s)
  1. tackleberry45

    tackleberry45 Well-Known Member

    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!
  2. Apocalypse-Now

    Apocalypse-Now Well-Known Member

    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.
  3. 7mmb

    7mmb Well-Known Member

    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.
  4. wally

    wally Well-Known Member

    Stay with the world standard 9mm , or go back to the .45ACP.
  5. MaterDei

    MaterDei Well-Known Member

    I'm with Wally
  6. Girodin

    Girodin Well-Known Member

    I don't see it being worth the expense to change.
  7. CZ57

    CZ57 member

    +2;) Stick with the 9mm or go back to the .45ACP.
  8. Ole Coot

    Ole Coot Well-Known Member

    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.
  9. REAPER4206969

    REAPER4206969 Well-Known Member

    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.
  10. REAPER4206969

    REAPER4206969 Well-Known Member

    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.
  11. miles1

    miles1 Well-Known Member

    +3 9mm or 45ACP please.
  12. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Well-Known Member

    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.
  13. PRM

    PRM Well-Known Member

    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.
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2011
  14. mshootnit

    mshootnit Well-Known Member

    I agree with almost nothing about this post which is barely germane to the question at hand.
  15. peyton

    peyton Well-Known Member

    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.
  16. wally

    wally Well-Known Member


    Sgt. York might disagree.
  17. Geckgo

    Geckgo Well-Known Member

    +4 9mm or 45ACP
  18. harmon rabb

    harmon rabb Well-Known Member

    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.
  19. mgmorden

    mgmorden Well-Known Member

    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.
  20. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Well-Known Member

    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.

Share This Page