Army Times calls for 9mm to be dropped 45 brought back.

[Krag]

The army will readopt the 1911 pistol about a month after they admit their mistake and begin reissuing .45-70 Trapdoor Springfields! :banghead:

My experience with guys from Fort Bragg who have returned from Irag/Afghanistan is that they want a reliable, light weight pistol that holds lots of rounds. That being said, most have told me that they don't bother carrying a pistol as they'd rather carry more ammo for their primary weapon, water, comgear, etc. than lug a pistol and 2 extra mags around. This thing is being blown all out of proportion. The M9/M11 are excellent pistols and the 9mm will do what is needed of it if our GIs are trained to shoot them well.

Just my 2/100s of a $ worth.

 

[Island Beretta]

cut the chase.. the guys even complain about the .223 M16.. 9mm is not the problem, the Beretta is not the problem, the 1911 was not the problem, TRAINING AND APPLICATION IS THE PROBLEM..100 years from now this debate will rage even after we have .60 handguns..move on..

 

[BroncoGlenn]

Single-action-only pistols – like the 1911 design that require the hammer to be cocked before the first round is fired – have been ruled out as an option, Dean said.

I don't see why they immediately would rule out a SA design. Heck, the M16/M4 rifle is a single action design, but maybe it isn't as scary as a C&L 1911 since the hammer is hidden from view.

Oh wait, this is the new kinder and gentler Army. Bunch of damn poofters running the show now is what it is.

 

[KurtC]

Standard issue military rifles, such as the M16, have a 2-stage trigger to prevent accidental discharges. I suppose you could put a 2-stage trigger on a 1911, but that would be worse than any DAO.

 

[Onmilo]

Considering that the whole Shebang tied into the Department Of Homeland Security bought H&K USP handguns in three styles and three different calibers it wouldn't suprise me if the Military selected something from this lineup as their next service handgun.

My guess is the .40 USP, full size, with the LEO trigger set-up and tritium sights as standard.

 

[allen268]

I think the number one deciding factor in caliber choice is availability, while deployed over-seas one would have little problem locating 9mm ammo in an emergency since it's a standard NATO round. That’s a tough obstacle to get around if they decide to switch to a non-NATO round and I doubt that will happen, at least not in the standard issue side arms.

 

[mordrid52]

If overseas availability is really a concern, how did we survive almost the entire Cold War using .45 instead of 9mm?

 

[allen268]

If overseas availability is really a concern, how did we survive almost the entire Cold War using .45 instead of 9mm?

We switched in the mid 80s and I believe that was part of the reasoning behind it, I love the .45 and would much rather carry it then any other round, but while I was in the Balkans we performed alot of joint operations with different allies and they all carried the 9mm as well. I’m sure that’s not the only reason but from what I’ve heard during my 20yrs in the military I do believe it was a big factor.

 

[Russ]

I heard and read one of the main reasons the Beretta was selected as the current issue side arm is that Beretta sold them for $150 to the USG. Not a bad price considering a civilian model cost about $600 at the time. I don't know if the military weapons were inferior in quality because of that. Make me wonder.

I would leave this decision to those who have to use the pistol in actual combat situations. I think in the last few years they should have some good data on this. One of my friends was a Marine for many years and he preferred he .45. I personally would feel better with a .45 but I have never been in combat and I am probably too old to get called up now.

 

[Onmilo]

US Military standardized on 9mm back when we were all chummy, chummy with NATO and the UN.
We are not so chummy, chummy with either any more and caliber selection will have more to do with US Servicemember insight than what handgun ammunition NATO wants us to use, just my personal, educated, opinion, of course.

 

[chopinbloc]

The complaints about the M9 I've heard from vets out of Iraq center on reliability and caliber, not trigger mechanism.

the m9 is a fine pistol and extremely reliable, user friendly - for a da. it suffers, like you said, from an underpowered cartridge and terrible mags. the issue magazines are absolute trash. if you purchase decent mags personally the pistol runs great.

as for a hi-cap, dao, manual safety .45, it sounds like just what the doc ordered. the dao and manual safety mean that we are less likely to be constricted by panty-waisted co's not allowing loaded chamber carry. there are plenty of folks who are scared by condition one carry and a new pistol skirts that issue nicely. as much as we all like the ol' slabsides, that doesn't mean there aren't decent, accurate autos out there that can do as well or better, especiall in capacity.

 

[agtman]

Get rid of the 9-minimeter ...

Yep, most of the returning vets I've talked to have indicated an intent to purchase a .45 for personal and home defense as soon as they can scrounge the money together. Some have already bought one. Others mention an interest in the .40S&W, typically in a Glock.

These guys clearly believe the 9mm was not a combat effective cartridge for those times when a pistol was needed and/or brought into use. Having seen it's ineffectiveness first-hand, they "vote with their wallets" and, for protecting themselves and their family, get something other than a 9mm.