A level 2a vest (basically the lowest level of vest-- I haven't seen a level 1 vest in two decades) will easily stop a .45. It currently costs a couple of hundred dollars. I'm sure it will be even cheaper in a few years once China figures out how to make it. The terrorists in Iraq are more and more commonly carrying vests and even night vision right now. Just because the gunrag commandos think a slow poke .45 is the end all be all doesn't mean it's true.
Air Force staying w/ the M-9
- Thread starter rc135
- Start date
- Status
A level 2a vest (basically the lowest level of vest-- I haven't seen a level 1 vest in two decades) will easily stop a .45. It currently costs a couple of hundred dollars. I'm sure it will be even cheaper in a few years once China figures out how to make it. The terrorists in Iraq are more and more commonly carrying vests and even night vision right now. Just because the gunrag commandos think a slow poke .45 is the end all be all doesn't mean it's true.
Quiet
Member
It's not just the armchair commandos. Every branch of the US military is advocating the return of the .45 ACP in a sidearm.nemoaz said:
This most likely comes from the satisfactery use of the .45 ACP FMJ round by the US military for approximately 70 years, over the usage of the 9x19mm FMJ round that has been in use for approximately 20 years by the US military.
So, like any old dog, the US military is going back to something they liked.
otomik
Member
If I had godlike powers to restructure the US military weapon systems I'd go with:
9x90mm MEN Heavy Machinegun and Sniper Cartridge
6mm Optimum Rifle cartridge
10x25mm Norma Handgun/Carbine/PDW cartridge with Abraham Flatau's ring airfoil penetrator bullet design.
These are all rationally considered in relation to one another unlike the cartridges the military actually uses. So none of these what ifs are relevant, the fact is the M9 isn't that old, it works well (esp with right magazines), and there's no dramatic improvement available that would justify the costs of a changeover. Wait till the stocks of M9s are worn out, should take 10-20 more years.
9x90mm MEN Heavy Machinegun and Sniper Cartridge
6mm Optimum Rifle cartridge
10x25mm Norma Handgun/Carbine/PDW cartridge with Abraham Flatau's ring airfoil penetrator bullet design.
These are all rationally considered in relation to one another unlike the cartridges the military actually uses. So none of these what ifs are relevant, the fact is the M9 isn't that old, it works well (esp with right magazines), and there's no dramatic improvement available that would justify the costs of a changeover. Wait till the stocks of M9s are worn out, should take 10-20 more years.
jaholder1971
Member
My God! History repeating itself.
Troops overseas fighting a nasty little Islamic insurrection using a .38 pistol after having their .45 pistols replaced. The .38's didn't knock down the bad guys so the .45's were reintroduced.
Iraq? No, the Philipines after the Spanish American war.
Troops overseas fighting a nasty little Islamic insurrection using a .38 pistol after having their .45 pistols replaced. The .38's didn't knock down the bad guys so the .45's were reintroduced.
Iraq? No, the Philipines after the Spanish American war.
The Air Force has changed their training tactics recently, according to a friend of mine who is a high ranking NCO who has just returned TO the "Sand."
Airmen are now being trained in the tactics of the Army and Marines, rather than the traditional "hunker down" defensive strategies of the past. In other words, they are being trained to advance under fire in an offensive manner and take the fight to the enemy and kill him.
This being said, Airmen are being issued the M9 for their sidearms, of course.
Taking the fight to an Islamic extremist who plans to die anyway in an attack with a "pop gun" for a sidearm is crazy. Our foe is not going to be some lazy Communist block "Cold War era" draftee who doesn't really want to fight . . . No, our current foes, when they choose to attack, are gonna keep coming through a nasty barrage of small arms fire . . . until they bleed out. 9mm hardball ain't gonna cut it and really, the .223 rifle round also leaves something to be desired on targets larger than prarile dogs.
I propose we abandon the wimpy little 9mm but not return to the proven .45ACP. Instead, we should adopt a "politically-correct" new round in a metric measurement of . . . oh, let's say a little larger than eleven millimeter, with a 230 grain FMJ bullet.
Bigger holes and heavier handgun bullets thump 'em better and they bleed out and die faster . . . thus saving lives.
Same with the rifle . . . get away from the "poodle-killing" little .22 bullet and get an AK-sized round with a little more thump that will stop more of the bad guys instantly.
Airmen are now being trained in the tactics of the Army and Marines, rather than the traditional "hunker down" defensive strategies of the past. In other words, they are being trained to advance under fire in an offensive manner and take the fight to the enemy and kill him.
This being said, Airmen are being issued the M9 for their sidearms, of course.
Taking the fight to an Islamic extremist who plans to die anyway in an attack with a "pop gun" for a sidearm is crazy. Our foe is not going to be some lazy Communist block "Cold War era" draftee who doesn't really want to fight . . . No, our current foes, when they choose to attack, are gonna keep coming through a nasty barrage of small arms fire . . . until they bleed out. 9mm hardball ain't gonna cut it and really, the .223 rifle round also leaves something to be desired on targets larger than prarile dogs.
I propose we abandon the wimpy little 9mm but not return to the proven .45ACP. Instead, we should adopt a "politically-correct" new round in a metric measurement of . . . oh, let's say a little larger than eleven millimeter, with a 230 grain FMJ bullet.
Bigger holes and heavier handgun bullets thump 'em better and they bleed out and die faster . . . thus saving lives.
Same with the rifle . . . get away from the "poodle-killing" little .22 bullet and get an AK-sized round with a little more thump that will stop more of the bad guys instantly.
Phantom Warrior
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,073
****!!! WHAT!?!? THE AIR FORCE IS STAYING W/ THAT UNDERPOWERED EURO 9MM CALIBER POS BERETTA????
Yeah, good. It does the job. Go back and read Checkman's post about how a sidearm is not an essential piece of equipment to most soldiers. (It's Post #22, on the first page). And even beyond that, very few soldiers even have a sidearm.
If you really want to, PM me and I'll tell you how little the half a dozen people in our sections us their M9s. Here, I'll save you the trouble. Most of them don't even load them...
The M9 is not an essential piece of equipment and it does its job adequately. There is nothing out there that is enough of an improvement to be worth spending billions of dollars to replace all the pistols (and parts and magazines), replaces the mountains of 9mm ammo the military stocks, AND retrain everyone on the new gun. Esp in the middle of a war. Get used to the M9.
Yeah, good. It does the job. Go back and read Checkman's post about how a sidearm is not an essential piece of equipment to most soldiers. (It's Post #22, on the first page). And even beyond that, very few soldiers even have a sidearm.
If you really want to, PM me and I'll tell you how little the half a dozen people in our sections us their M9s. Here, I'll save you the trouble. Most of them don't even load them...
The M9 is not an essential piece of equipment and it does its job adequately. There is nothing out there that is enough of an improvement to be worth spending billions of dollars to replace all the pistols (and parts and magazines), replaces the mountains of 9mm ammo the military stocks, AND retrain everyone on the new gun. Esp in the middle of a war. Get used to the M9.
I'm a low ranking Airman (E-3) in aircraft maintenance for C130s at Little Rock AFB. Many of the NCOs and a none of the airmen in my shop have completed the Army training S&Wfan speaks of.
I deploy in Jan. or Feb. 2008 to somewhere in the middle east
I will not complete the Army training until after my deployment, so it doesn't do me much good.
As for the M9, maintenance personnel qualify once every 2 years. I would rather see the money spent on this new pistol be spent on qualifying every 6 months and more of the Army training.
It doesn't matter if ya'll give us 9mm or .45 if the only traning we get is shooting 100 rounds at a stationary paper target every 2 years. The training needs an upgrade more so than the pistol.
I deploy in Jan. or Feb. 2008 to somewhere in the middle east
I will not complete the Army training until after my deployment, so it doesn't do me much good.
As for the M9, maintenance personnel qualify once every 2 years. I would rather see the money spent on this new pistol be spent on qualifying every 6 months and more of the Army training.
It doesn't matter if ya'll give us 9mm or .45 if the only traning we get is shooting 100 rounds at a stationary paper target every 2 years. The training needs an upgrade more so than the pistol.
kcmarine
Member
Jragsdale brings up a good point. If you only get that much experience with your weapon in training, you will NOT be as effective with it as you would be otherwise.
I say the military needs to take at least a passing look at the .40 S&W cartridge. I know it's not a 9mm or a .45, but nearly every post on here has pointed out what problems exist with one of those two rounds and why the other is better. So go for the middle and use a round that is being used by police officers as their only easy- access arm. And develop a JHP that can be used by soldiers. I really don't care if some treaty says that we can't use them. That treaty was written up by a bunch of diplomats in some nice hotel in some hoity- toity town in Europe. Those guys don't know what the soldier needs.
I also don't care how much the damn thing costs in taxes. I don't have to pay taxes yet (I'm only 16), but I'd rather pay a figurative arm and leg in taxes for the implementation of a pistol that is satisfactory to everyone than have a soldier pay a real arm and leg because he didn't have what he needed.
No piece of equipment should ever be considered less important because it is less likely to be used, like sidearms. If it is important enough to be carried by a soldier into battle, it is important enough to be the best.
If the M9 really is that bad, get a new pistol. Rebuild the M9s, gather all the ammo, and give it to the CMP to sell. Call it a day.
If not, stick with them.
I say the military needs to take at least a passing look at the .40 S&W cartridge. I know it's not a 9mm or a .45, but nearly every post on here has pointed out what problems exist with one of those two rounds and why the other is better. So go for the middle and use a round that is being used by police officers as their only easy- access arm. And develop a JHP that can be used by soldiers. I really don't care if some treaty says that we can't use them. That treaty was written up by a bunch of diplomats in some nice hotel in some hoity- toity town in Europe. Those guys don't know what the soldier needs.
I also don't care how much the damn thing costs in taxes. I don't have to pay taxes yet (I'm only 16), but I'd rather pay a figurative arm and leg in taxes for the implementation of a pistol that is satisfactory to everyone than have a soldier pay a real arm and leg because he didn't have what he needed.
No piece of equipment should ever be considered less important because it is less likely to be used, like sidearms. If it is important enough to be carried by a soldier into battle, it is important enough to be the best.
If the M9 really is that bad, get a new pistol. Rebuild the M9s, gather all the ammo, and give it to the CMP to sell. Call it a day.
If not, stick with them.
Yes, gun magazine commando syndrome is quite evident from all of this talk. Especially an flyboy general thinking that 6 rounds of .357 at 1400 fps is far superior than 15 rounds of .355 at 1300 fps.
I agree. We shouldn't equip our soldiers with outdated low velocity ammo, especially not .38 S&W. Luckily our guys today do not.
No, 100 rounds every two years isn't enough to teach you proficiency with any weapon, but it goes farther with a carbine or shotgun. (I assume that the average REMF would not be limited by a shotgun because they probably cannot shoot well enough with a pistol to make hits beyond the range of a shotgun anyway.)
I have seen people take multiple shots of .45 and read many a report of the same. The gun magazine commando myth of 45s enormous stopping power is no more real than Zeus and Apollo. It is just a piece of lead that puts a hole in about 13 inches of flesh. No more, no less. I have seen wounds from 9mm, .45, .38, 380, 44 etc and you really cannot tell the difference. You can tell large handgun fs. rifle, and large handgun vs small, but that is all. FMJ makes pistol rounds relatively ineffective.
Yes, history does repeat itself. Just as the .45 pistol were proven to be inadequate in WWI and WWII, the military should decide to replace all of the sidearms with carbines. Regardless of what the gun magazine wannabes think, I doubt putting .45s in the hands of flyboys (or soldiers and marines) would save a single life. They can't kill what they can't hit and if they could shoot, a 9mm to the CNS or heart/lungs will kill someone as quickly as a .45.
Phantom, being a real warrior, your opinion doesn't count as much as a gunrag commandos. Be prepared to be told how your experience (or scientific evidence of wounds from ballistic gellatin or actual flesh) don't count.
I agree. We shouldn't equip our soldiers with outdated low velocity ammo, especially not .38 S&W. Luckily our guys today do not.
No, 100 rounds every two years isn't enough to teach you proficiency with any weapon, but it goes farther with a carbine or shotgun. (I assume that the average REMF would not be limited by a shotgun because they probably cannot shoot well enough with a pistol to make hits beyond the range of a shotgun anyway.)
I have seen people take multiple shots of .45 and read many a report of the same. The gun magazine commando myth of 45s enormous stopping power is no more real than Zeus and Apollo. It is just a piece of lead that puts a hole in about 13 inches of flesh. No more, no less. I have seen wounds from 9mm, .45, .38, 380, 44 etc and you really cannot tell the difference. You can tell large handgun fs. rifle, and large handgun vs small, but that is all. FMJ makes pistol rounds relatively ineffective.
Yes, history does repeat itself. Just as the .45 pistol were proven to be inadequate in WWI and WWII, the military should decide to replace all of the sidearms with carbines. Regardless of what the gun magazine wannabes think, I doubt putting .45s in the hands of flyboys (or soldiers and marines) would save a single life. They can't kill what they can't hit and if they could shoot, a 9mm to the CNS or heart/lungs will kill someone as quickly as a .45.
Phantom, being a real warrior, your opinion doesn't count as much as a gunrag commandos. Be prepared to be told how your experience (or scientific evidence of wounds from ballistic gellatin or actual flesh) don't count.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Biggest complaint I have heard about the M9 is the magazines.
Apparently a big batch of current issue magazines are substandard.
Considering that the Air Force side arm traditionally has been a
revolver, .38 Special, with a downloaded 130gr FMJ, an M9 with
decent magazines (and a few factory original Beretta magazines
should NOT constitute a UCMJ offense) is a step UP.
That said on thread, going off-thread: for civilian use, my son had
a Beretta 92. HAD. He now has a .45 USP and I have a .45 1911A1.
The 92/M9 grip just did not fit our hands. One size cannot fit all.
Otherwise the Beretta 92 (M9) was OK. 9mm v .45 is mostly a
question of what do you need? Penetration or punch? That depends
on whether you will be facing armored versus un-armored. Our local
car jackers and home invaders are usually un-armored and armed
with knives or baseball bats.
Apparently a big batch of current issue magazines are substandard.
Considering that the Air Force side arm traditionally has been a
revolver, .38 Special, with a downloaded 130gr FMJ, an M9 with
decent magazines (and a few factory original Beretta magazines
should NOT constitute a UCMJ offense) is a step UP.
That said on thread, going off-thread: for civilian use, my son had
a Beretta 92. HAD. He now has a .45 USP and I have a .45 1911A1.
The 92/M9 grip just did not fit our hands. One size cannot fit all.
Otherwise the Beretta 92 (M9) was OK. 9mm v .45 is mostly a
question of what do you need? Penetration or punch? That depends
on whether you will be facing armored versus un-armored. Our local
car jackers and home invaders are usually un-armored and armed
with knives or baseball bats.
Quiet
Member
Not carbines, PDWs (Personal Defense Weapons).
The PDW concept should be brought back and implemented.
Shadow Shock
Member
The H&K MP7 way out preforms the 5.7x28mm FN P90, is the size of a large pistol, and way better. So in my eyes our troop should be issued with it instead of a true pistol.
Check it out http://www.hkpro.com/pdw.htm
Check it out http://www.hkpro.com/pdw.htm
Shadow Shock
Member
4.6x30. It can penatrate body armor at 200m, and can accuratley shoot that far. great design
Carl N. Brown
Member
PDW Personal Defense Weapon
It was not common but not unheard of to
put an M2 carbine in an M1A1 folding stock
(inlet for the selector switch), tack weld a
front sight on the barrel band lined up with
the original front sight, and chop the barrel
about two inches in front of the barrel band.
That was a personal defense weapon.
The only people who got away with that
were special units.
It was not common but not unheard of to
put an M2 carbine in an M1A1 folding stock
(inlet for the selector switch), tack weld a
front sight on the barrel band lined up with
the original front sight, and chop the barrel
about two inches in front of the barrel band.
That was a personal defense weapon.
The only people who got away with that
were special units.
Tomcat47
Member
I would like to make a couple of points for discussion. History has revealed that the 45 is a hard hitting round and that it is a lethal round.
It has average accuracy in a military issue sidearm. (Tack driver when customized.) It usually has 8-10 rnd capacity.
The 9mm first offerd the same capacities back then in single stack. Now offering as much as 15-20 rnds with above average accuracy in military issue sidearm, due to control issues regarding recoil (my opinion). The discussion usualy is around the body armor and how to get around it. First off the 9 was actaully designed to be a multiple hit take down weapon, designed to mame and not kill....although it can when shot placement is considered. The above idea was to take down one person via wounding and take out 1 or 2 comrades that would attend to the wounded.
Hence dont shoot at the armor! Shoot around the armor.
There was a lot of thought behind the 9mm. But I am convinced the only perfect round is the one you are holding when you need it. And remember if you cannot engage your target for what ever reason...accuracy, recoil, or any other reason you might as well throw rocks!
It has average accuracy in a military issue sidearm. (Tack driver when customized.) It usually has 8-10 rnd capacity.
The 9mm first offerd the same capacities back then in single stack. Now offering as much as 15-20 rnds with above average accuracy in military issue sidearm, due to control issues regarding recoil (my opinion). The discussion usualy is around the body armor and how to get around it. First off the 9 was actaully designed to be a multiple hit take down weapon, designed to mame and not kill....although it can when shot placement is considered. The above idea was to take down one person via wounding and take out 1 or 2 comrades that would attend to the wounded.
Hence dont shoot at the armor! Shoot around the armor.
There was a lot of thought behind the 9mm. But I am convinced the only perfect round is the one you are holding when you need it. And remember if you cannot engage your target for what ever reason...accuracy, recoil, or any other reason you might as well throw rocks!
LightningJoe
Member
1] It's the Air Force
2] It's a handgun
This just isn't worth the time and effort. The Air Force is 99.99999% about airplanes. Handguns don't alter the outcome of battles for any branch of the service, but definitely not the Air Force.
2] It's a handgun
This just isn't worth the time and effort. The Air Force is 99.99999% about airplanes. Handguns don't alter the outcome of battles for any branch of the service, but definitely not the Air Force.
"First off the 9 was actaully designed to be a multiple hit take down weapon, designed to mame and not kill....although it can when shot placement is considered. The above idea was to take down one person via wounding and take out 1 or 2 comrades that would attend to the wounded."
That's probably been said about every caliber since the U.S. switched from the Trapdoor Springfield. Handguns are up close and personal, what good does it do me if you have to be dragged off by your buddies AFTER you've beaten my head in with your trench tool?
That said, the 9 is fine. What was it Col. David Hackworth said about the 1911, something like, "It's the only weapon fielded by the U.S. military that caused more friendly causalties than enemy casualties?" You can probably make that case for any pistol in military use.
That's probably been said about every caliber since the U.S. switched from the Trapdoor Springfield. Handguns are up close and personal, what good does it do me if you have to be dragged off by your buddies AFTER you've beaten my head in with your trench tool?
That said, the 9 is fine. What was it Col. David Hackworth said about the 1911, something like, "It's the only weapon fielded by the U.S. military that caused more friendly causalties than enemy casualties?" You can probably make that case for any pistol in military use.
WeThePeople
Member
If the Hon. Carolyn McCarthy gets hold of this thread she'll be introducing a bill to ban M-9s because they are used by the Air Force to bring down planes.
longeyes
member
Stop with the PC crap, load it with +P+ hollow-points, and it will do the job of a reasonable backup sidearm.
longeyes
member
I get it. Hollow-points are banned but mini-guns are okay. Right.
otomik
Member
generally speaking yes but if we're not talking percentages, talking absolute numbers there are still a lot that do use handguns, I'd be interested in hearing more from Air Force AP/SP/SF and Special Forces.
you can look it up but NATO conducted tests because they wanted to decide on a standard PDW cartridge and 5.7x28mm won. 5.7mm outperforms 4.6mm according to NATO.
- Status
