• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Should the military consider .40?

Should the military consider the .40?

  • Yes

    Votes: 67 32.5%

  • No

    Votes: 139 67.5%
  • Total voters
    206
Status
Not open for further replies.
if your deployed in a warzone, would you rather have 200 rounds of 9mm/40cal on your person, or almost half that in 45acp?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
1) NATO interchangeability is a Good Thing™
Click to expand...

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....
 
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.
 
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.
 
Apocalypse-Now said:
^^what difference does that make? our military uses ammo made in in america.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.).
 
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
 
If we went to. 40 I guess we would have to change all our rifles to 6.8 SPC. It would only make sense.
 
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.
 
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 ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
i don't think we did that during WWI or WWII though....
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Michael Tinker Pearce
  • Locked
The TCAH Stage 1- Perfection Perfected!
Replies
6
Views
483
bannockburn
bannockburn
A
  • Locked
Beretta PX4 .40
2
Replies
25
Views
772
js8588
J
S
  • Locked
  • Poll
Glocks
2 3 4
Replies
89
Views
4K
Onward Allusion
O
9
  • Locked
Best Deal in a New .40 S&W
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
mrmike7189
mrmike7189
george burns
  • Locked
Which do you prefer of these 2, 9mm or 40cal
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
9mmepiphany
9mmepiphany
Back
Top