Reason why the US Army dropped 45 ACP and went with 9mm...

The 1911 inventory was getting long in the tooth. More females were enlisting. NATO standardization was a factor. Pistols are secondary arms, and rarely decisive in combat. And a whole lot of politics.

I don't know if the whole story will ever be known.

Balrog said:

It is frequently said on gun forums that a main reason the US dropped the 45 ACP in favor of 9mm was to standardize with our NATO allies.

Click to expand...

It's also frequently wrong. It's also.

The U.S. Army desired a switch to 9mm in 1946 which was a few years before NATO was formed. They drew up broad strokes of what they wanted to replace the 1911 and announced that they would take submissions. They wanted a gun that was lighter in weight than a 1911. They wanted it in 9mm, they wanted it to carry at least 10 rounds, they wanted it to be da/sa. They wanted an external safety and a de-cocker.

The U.S. military had been very impressed by the Walther P38. They were also impressed by the 9mm.

tipoc

There were no good SA .45 autoloaders when the Army asked for what became the 1911 either. Typically the military puts out a bid and industry builds to match the requirements. In other words, a .45 DA/SA was feasible if the military had truly wanted it.

Furthermore, from a logistics perspective you aren't seeing things clearly IMO. As someone who worked in supply on the civilian side overseas, I can tell you absolutely that simplifying the supply chain was a daily battle. In addition to our forces needing resupply, allied forces often need resupply as well. It's far easier to say "load that pallet of pistol ammo over there" than to go rooting through containers and storage to find the "right" ammo to send. It's not like the guys in the rear necessarily know who has what. In wars past it was common to send a collection of each type of cartridge. Reading through wartime accounts, resupplies and drops of ammo occurred that didn't match the actual weapons of the troops needing the ammo. In supply and warehousing less diversity is always better when it comes to inventory.

tipoc said:

The U.S. Army desired a switch to 9mm in 1946 which was a few years before NATO was formed. They drew up broad strokes of what they wanted to replace the 1911 and announced that they would take submissions. They wanted a gun that was lighter in weight than a 1911. They wanted it in 9mm, they wanted it to carry at least 10 rounds, they wanted it to be da/sa. They wanted an external safety and a de-cocker.

Click to expand...

All that may be true, but the U.S. Army didn't go to 9mm in 1946. It was almost 40 years later -- 1985 -- when they made the change, and NATO was playing a much bigger role in the Cold War the West was engaged in with the Communist Bloc.

A number of NATO nations had been involved in the Korean Conflict, and a number also joined the U.S. in Vietnam. Logistics were a real-world concern. While some of the reasons cited may have been the same, there's little question that commonality of ammo (not just handguns) was a major factor in the move to the Beretta M9.

Similar sized guns...10rds give or take in 45, 17rds 9mm. 230gr bullet vs 115 gr bullet plus additional case weight for 45. Seems like it’s basically the same reason they dropped from 7.62 to 5.56. 45 also wouldn’t punch through many body armor systems, even the early ones where 9mm does a little better.

It’s not so much a question of why as it is a question of why 9mm, but that was at the time (when NATO standardization happened) the hot ticket for potency in a small package. If it were happening in more recent history I believe we would see a hot 40 caliber instead of 9mm. Maybe 40sw but I would think 10mm auto would be likely just for the extra oomph to poke through armor.

Walt Sherrill said:

It was almost 40 years later -- 1985 -- when they made the change, and NATO was playing a much bigger role in the Cold War the West was engaged in with the Communist Bloc.

Click to expand...

they started in 78 I believe... All entrants failed the 81-82 tests and procurement was cancelled. then they rebooted...

As for why???? No clue.. Im sure $$$$ and back door deals were more important than logistics. kinda like Glock being so popular with LEO from the Cheetah/Gold Club days..

Balrog said:

It is frequently said on gun forums that a main reason the US dropped the 45 ACP in favor of 9mm was to standardize with our NATO allies.

I don’t think I am buying that. Our NATO allies don’t really give us much help. The US bears the burden in manpower and materiel for most NATO operations. Has there ever been a recent case when the US Army ran out of its own pistol ammo and had to borrow some from the UK, France or Germany?

I don’t doubt the military would cite NATO compatibility as a major reason to change to 9mm, but seems to me its more likely that other factors were involved. I think the military wanted to switch to a DA/SA gun back in the 70s and there were not many 45 ACP choices. I think it is more difficult to train recruits to shoot 45. I think the ammo is heavier and more expensive. All these are better reasons to explain the switch that NATO compatibility.

Click to expand...

Having actually trained soldiers ranking from PFC to LTC how to shoot .45's, .38's and 9mm's, I will agree it is easier to train them to shoot the 9mm. WE actually put the requirement on our NATO allies to standardize pistols rounds to 9mm, then didn't follow through ourselves, citing our huge inventory of 1911's and tons of ammo on hand. We could have easily done a 9mm 1911 at any time, but as the .45's got long in the tooth, (I had one in my Arms room that was made in 1918, and ironically was the best shooter, and tightest) new guns had come out, hence the tests in the seventies.

As for Glock, I blame my Dad for that one. No, really. His Dept. (St. Paul, MN) was the first major metropolitan area PD to adopt the Glock, and he got the ball started by letting his watch LT shoot Dad's G17, then the Deputy Chief shot it, the the Chief. They adopted it shortly after.

Here's my theory...

The M1911's were wearing out and needed to be replaced and the Calvary no longer needed a handgun round to dispatch horses.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Balrog said:

It is frequently said on gun forums that a main reason the US dropped the 45 ACP in favor of 9mm was to standardize with our NATO allies.

I don’t think I am buying that. Our NATO allies don’t really give us much help. The US bears the burden in manpower and materiel for most NATO operations. Has there ever been a recent case when the US Army ran out of its own pistol ammo and had to borrow some from the UK, France or Germany?

I don’t doubt the military would cite NATO compatibility as a major reason to change to 9mm, but seems to me its more likely that other factors were involved. I think the military wanted to switch to a DA/SA gun back in the 70s and there were not many 45 ACP choices. I think it is more difficult to train recruits to shoot 45. I think the ammo is heavier and more expensive. All these are better reasons to explain the switch that NATO compatibility.

Click to expand...

We switched in the 80s and the Sig 220 was right there.

Wouldn't it be nice if the guvment had picked an American 9mm pistol? Owned by Americans? Staffed and produced by Americans? All the benefits of this contract benefiting Americans?

powwowell said:

Wouldn't it be nice if the guvment had picked an American 9mm pistol? Owned by Americans? Staffed and produced by Americans? All the benefits of this contract benefiting Americans?

Click to expand...

One of the requirements for Beretta winning the handgun contract for the M9 is they had to build a plant and manufacturer the gun in the United States.

Beretta originally built the plant in Accokeek, Maryland.

There was a constant trend to go to smaller and smaller calibers. Remember that the U.S. Army had dumped the .45 SAA in the 1890's, in favor of the .38 DA revolver. It was the fanatical Moro tribesmen in the Philippines that brought out the need for a "manstopper" cartridge. The army responded by, first, reissuing revolvers in .45 LC, and then by having that .45 caliber as part of the specification for a new automatic.

The Moro tribesmen situation was an anomaly. Generally, wounding an enemy (so that he's out of the fight) is sufficient, and putting him down with one shot isn't needed. The .45 ACP stayed in the inventory so long because of inertia and historical accident. The two World Wars came along at just the right moments so that a change in caliber was not practical.

As someone who was in the military during the switch, I will say that it was a good idea. MOST Soldiers who are issued handguns rarely train with them, and fewer recruits entering the military have any experience with firearms than in the past. Also, most handgun training in the US Army is woefully inadequate- very few people are truly proficient with a handgun. There are also many more females entering the military than before. These conditions aren't conducive to the use of 45 caliber pistol of any type. Add to that, the fact that the 1911 has a reduced mag capacity, the weight of the pistol, the NATO standard thing, and the fact that most of the time, those issued the 1911 were ordered to carry on an empty chamber due to lack of confidence in the "locked and cocked" method, and a 9mm makes a lot of sense.

FL-NC said:

As someone who was in the military during the switch, I will say that it was a good idea. MOST Soldiers who are issued handguns rarely train with them, and fewer recruits entering the military have any experience with firearms than in the past. Also, most handgun training in the US Army is woefully inadequate- very few people are truly proficient with a handgun. There are also many more females entering the military than before. These conditions aren't conducive to the use of 45 caliber pistol of any type. Add to that, the fact that the 1911 has a reduced mag capacity, the weight of the pistol, the NATO standard thing, and the fact that most of the time, those issued the 1911 were ordered to carry on an empty chamber due to lack of confidence in the "locked and cocked" method, and a 9mm makes a lot of sense.

Click to expand...

I was there for the transition too, and distinctly remember that SOP for the .45 at that time was "loaded magazine inserted, chamber empty, hammer down". In fact, when we stood watch or sentry, the OD would inspect each pistol, then we'd holster it and secure the flap, and THEN the OD would come behind us and insert a loaded mag into each weapon from the rear. And it was "DON'T TOUCH"...unless you really need it. I don't know anything about special ops methods, but for the regular Corps, cocked and locked weren't never a thing.

KYMJoeP said:

I was there for the transition too, and distinctly remember that SOP for the .45 at that time was "loaded magazine inserted, chamber empty, hammer down". In fact, when we stood watch or sentry, the OD would inspect each pistol, then we'd holster it and secure the flap, and THEN the OD would come behind us and insert a loaded mag into each weapon from the rear. And it was "DON'T TOUCH"...unless you really need it. I don't know anything about special ops methods, but for the regular Corps, cocked and locked weren't never a thing.

Click to expand...

Yep, this is the type of nonsense that makes service members afraid of their weapons and displays a lack of confidence in them to not screw up with a standard issue piece of equipment. It calls into serious question the training methods used, along with the overall competence of everyone from the privates to the senior leaders - to say nothing about the tactical inefficiency of a pistol without a chambered round carried in a suicide flap holster.

FL-NC said:

Yep, this is the type of nonsense that makes service members afraid of their weapons and displays a lack of confidence in them to not screw up with a standard issue piece of equipment. It calls into serious question the training methods used, along with the overall competence of everyone from the privates to the senior leaders.

Click to expand...

That nonsense (and it arguably was nonsense) also kept a lot of untrained or barely-trained troops given a gun they aren't familiar with from having negligent discharges when routinely handling a weapon, or when trying to use the weapon when the stuff hit the fan (or they thought it had hit the fan.) In that context, the nonsense made sense -- it helped prevent unnecessary blood loss, embarrassment, and disciplinary actions.

The training methods were what they were -- and the military wasn't really prepared to give everyone who might use a handgun the necessary training to make them and keep them proficient and comfortable with that weapon. Special Ops troops were certainly the exception.

Walt Sherrill said:

That nonsense (and it arguably was nonsense) also kept a lot of untrained or barely-trained troops given a gun they aren't familiar with from having negligent discharges when routinely handling a weapon, or when trying to use the weapon when the stuff hit the fan (or they thought it had hit the fan.) In that context, the nonsense made sense -- it helped prevent unnecessary blood loss, embarrassment, and disciplinary actions.

The training methods were what they were -- and the military wasn't really prepared to give everyone who might use a handgun the necessary training to make them and keep them proficient and comfortable with that weapon. Special Ops troops were certainly the exception.

Click to expand...

Too true. I qualified with the .45 because I was an ammo tech, and we had to be armed when moving munitions from one camp to another. But the majority of Marines that would stand watch had only fam fired with it, which was like, 2 magazine of 5 rounds, by the numbers.

Two reasons:

1. Money
2. Politics

drunkenpoacher said:

Two reasons:

1. Money
2. Politics

Click to expand...

Those two work together to ruin almost everything they touch.

The S&W 39 was available in the mid-50s, IIRC. It met all the requirements except one (9 rounds instead of 10) but the military wasn't interest then.

They could have adopted the BHP after WWII.

John_R said:

They could have adopted the BHP after WWII.

Click to expand...

Too logical. We're talking about the U.S. government here.

Pilot said:

Too logical. We're talking about the U.S. government here.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the Beretta 92, which was adopted, shares a lot in common with the BHP. 9mm, higher round capacity, etc. Word has it
that other pistols may have been passed over, when the Beretta 92 gave a passable performance, in order to win favor with the
Italian government.

As to the change from 45ACP to 9mm, 9mm is a very efficient round. Smaller, lower cost and weight.

cfullgraf said:

One of the requirements for Beretta winning the handgun contract for the M9 is they had to build a plant and manufacturer the gun in the United States.

Beretta originally built the plant in Accokeek, Maryland.

Click to expand...

The plant in MD was originally built in the 70s to manufacture guns too small to import under the GCA68. They produced the 950 in 22 short and 25 acp. Later on the 21 was made there.

The adoption of the M9 mandated large expansion of their facility in MD.

Standardization in NATO is not a bad thing. There is standardization with tank track shoes, fire control measures, 5.56 magazines, ammunition of all types and a bunch of other things. Having the same pistol caliber is just a small part of it.

Google STANAG.