How the 9x19 NATO managed to become the standard choice....

Status
Not open for further replies.

saturno_v

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
2,702
Location
USA
....for pistols and submachine guns in the western military forces and in general the most popular pistol round in the world??

The US was able pretty much to "impose" its designed rounds for small arms in the west after WWII.....7,62x51 NATO and 5,56 NATO.

How this German pistol round, the 9mm Parabellum, managed to become so popular?? After all the US had it 45 ACP that could be also used for submachine guns too (and there are infact such weapons in 45 ACP)

Maybe you guys did beat this horse to death but I cannot find any reliable info on the subject.....
 
I believe it all comes down to a good compromise of suitable effectiveness and higher capacity. Along with a lower weight burden on personell.
 
That's why the US went with the 5.56 over both 7.62 versions that were out at the time (NATO and x39).
 
Quite simply:
In ww2 there were three major pistol/smg rounds : 7,62x25 , 9x19 and .45
9mm is compromise and moreover its easier to produce - .45 is heavy and thus demanding on sources, 7,62 on the other hand with tapered /bottleneck case is harder to produce.
First actual SMG was chambered for 9mm luger and when Britain jumped on the train with sten/sterling there was no way back.

Anyone who ever shot Thompson knew its SMG with weight of LMG.
 
Probably WW2. The Euros produced millions of rounds of 9mm, and hundred of thousands of 9mm SMGs. After the war, there were mountains of Sten guns and others - so it was a cheap way to arm our buddies, and the most affordable SMG for criminal types.
The Euros had used 9mm since WWI and still do. The US didn't do much/any work in SMG development after WW2, so when the SEALs and others were looking for special use SMGs in Vietnam, they had to look overseas - which meant 9mms. They used them and liked them. They had no problem with performance (aside from the range issues endemic to all SMGs). Then the MP5 came, also in 9mm, and everybody liked it, too.
The US had screwed the Euros over official NATO caliber twice: "Standard rifle caliber will not be .280! It will be 7.62x51!" A few years later: "Erm... sorry about that. Standard rifle caliber is 5.56x45!" We more or less forced them to get new guns, which they didn't appreciate. The 9mm subguns we were using worked just fine against live targets, so we agreed that 9mm was plenty good enough. Besides, pistols weren't used too much then (or now).
Our newest .45s dated from 1945, and older ones from 1911-1912 - so many of them were in ragged shape, and troops were complaining. Some had been seen in the hands of Pershing's expedition against Pancho Villa. There had been millions of pistol qualification shoots by millions of servicemen over that time. Made sense to replace these ragged old guns with new ones - after all, 9mm gave double the capacity.
 
I believe one factor is the ability to get more rounds downrange due to the 5% hit rate in combat.
War is quite different then the self-defense situation a lot of us here train for.
For CCW, I'd take a 7 shot .45 because the bad guy(s) usually runs away.
If I'm going to war, 15 shot 9mm because after I drop one guy there might be 3 others I'll need to take care of. I'll take more shots over a bigger bullet.
 
War is quite different then the self-defense situation a lot of us here train for.
For CCW, I'd take a 7 shot .45 because the bad guy(s) usually runs away.
If I'm going to war, 15 shot 9mm because after I drop one guy there might be 3 others I'll need to take care of. I'll take more shots over a bigger bullet.
I'll take the rifle that I should have in my hands already if I'm at war - bigger bullets and higher capacity
 
Political decision

NATO wanted to standardize with the 9 MM and although we the US ARE NATO, We bowed to the powers to be and adapted the 9 to keep everyone happy. I understand that some special ops still use the 45.The more things change -the more they are the same.
 
NATO wanted to standardize with the 9 MM and although we the US ARE NATO, We bowed to the powers to be and adapted the 9 to keep everyone happy. I understand that some special ops still use the 45.The more things change -the more they are the same.
Spec ops have different needs than regular soldiers. Lethality is more important than volume of fire.

The 9mm really is a better round for fighting conventional wars.
 
.45 is better at killing things.
9mm is better at fighting wars.
Hey, that is a good, simple answer!

The .45's they had were getting old and expensive. They were originals, the real deal. At that point, they could just as cheaply get a whole new weapon. Since the pistol is just a personal defense weapon anyway, it isn't really intended to be used (in fact, I bet only a handful of rounds were used in combat in both of these wars by soldiers in uniform).

Take that into consideration and the fact that 9mm ammo is cheaper and lighter, and the fact you can't go lower than 9mm and get any real decent performance, plus it was already NATO, it just worked out that way.
 
I do get a bit tired of reading that "...if I were in the Army, I would never carry a 9mm..." or "I would carry a .45 because it kills people at 20 miles and blows the pieces over a 10 acre field and the 9mm won't hurt an anemic flea and...." or "...in WWII my uncle carried xxx and it was OK and he killed 25,000 Japanese Banzai fighters with a Kabar knife...."

Well, kiddies, if you were old enough to be in the Army (or any other branch of the armed forces) you would darned well carry what you were issued and nothing else. Period. And if you were caught with an unauthorized weapon or ammunition, you could get 10 years in Leavenworth to complain about all the deficiencies of the issue stuff.

And this is not WWII; the rules are different and if you ever grow up enough to be in the service, and choose not to obey the rules, see above about military prison; never been there, but I have heard it is not pleasant.

Honestly, I hope that you kiddies out there continue to like guns and shooting, and that none of you ever have to serve in combat. I was lucky enough to do my military service in peacetime, and am just as glad. Being a hero sounds like a lot of fun, until you see guys with no legs or a coffin with the flag on it. Everybody is just sure that he will dish it out, and never get hurt - it doesn't work that way. Good guys do lose, and sometimes they lose their lives. And the caliber of your gun won't matter much when an IED lets go under you.

Jim
 
9mm penetrates better than .45 ACP. It also has a flatter trajectory and weights much less.
Oh, you are reading far too much into this. The governement doesn't make changes like that based on logic. Try again. They were forced by convention.
 
I do get a bit tired of reading that "...if I were in the Army, I would never carry a 9mm..." or "I would carry a .45 because it kills people at 20 miles and blows the pieces over a 10 acre field and the 9mm won't hurt an anemic flea and...." or "...in WWII my uncle carried xxx and it was OK and he killed 25,000 Japanese Banzai fighters with a Kabar knife...."

Well, kiddies, if you were old enough to be in the Army (or any other branch of the armed forces) you would darned well carry what you were issued and nothing else. Period. And if you were caught with an unauthorized weapon or ammunition, you could get 10 years in Leavenworth to complain about all the deficiencies of the issue stuff.

And this is not WWII; the rules are different and if you ever grow up enough to be in the service, and choose not to obey the rules, see above about military prison; never been there, but I have heard it is not pleasant.

Honestly, I hope that you kiddies out there continue to like guns and shooting, and that none of you ever have to serve in combat. I was lucky enough to do my military service in peacetime, and am just as glad. Being a hero sounds like a lot of fun, until you see guys with no legs or a coffin with the flag on it. Everybody is just sure that he will dish it out, and never get hurt - it doesn't work that way. Good guys do lose, and sometimes they lose their lives. And the caliber of your gun won't matter much when an IED lets go under you.

Jim
You CAN carry different gear. Depends on your unit, but you do need the CO's signature. There is a form you have to fill out. Our Stryker unit did it on a case by case basis. Several guys took their own rifles, including an M1A Whitefeather, and I regularly used a G17 instead of the M9. We were also allowed to modify our weapons. Then again, they wanted to try different stuff with the new Strykery units and treated us different than a regular infantry unit. We'd get new guys from other units and they had a hard time fitting in sometimes, especially the "it does what it's told!" types.

Still, they had to fire NATO rounds. Some guys were gonna take .45's they were okay, until they found out our unit didn't order any ammo for it and they couldn't take any ammo with them, just the pistol. Some guys wanted to take, of course, the .44 mags, and all that junk and then the CO kind of ended it unless he kind of knew you or knew about you. Mostly the SDMs were the ones that got to pick gear because they got the short end of the stick, they got stuck with plain jane M4's and had to buy their own match uppers if they wanted them. Now some get SR25's! God how we begged for those!

Times have changed, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if this stuff has been halted again --I was in during spring '01 to summer '04. Obviously something happened between those dates. Anyway, we got a new Brigade CO, and when he came in he wanted to do everything the old way --which totally derailed two years of training and the whole point of the Stryker unit's flexibility and strength. Glad I got out the month he came in.

Believe it or not, the Ranger units were MUCH more strict about stuff like this than our unit, but they do have better and newer equipment on a whole, and they do have a greater array if I'm not mistaken. SF units, I've been in their arms rooms and they have just about everything. It is really cool. And yeah, they do use 1911's. Some are the original WWII pistols too, but most that carry a 1911 that I know of carried their own. They'd get the gunsmith in their arms room to tweak them though (their arms room came with not only more stuff, cool stuff, but with two gunsmiths and a full machine shop!).

BTW, I was a Stryker soldier, an SDM an later SDM instructor, which is how I got to know some of those Rangers and SF guys, but I mostly went to the SF compound to see the gunsmith --he helped us out A LOT.
 
Because the rest of the world found out the 9mm was easy to teach new recruits easily with it's lower recoil and muzzle blast. Lots of rounds could be carried on board. When you are typically issued only two mags for your handgun lots of rounds are a good thing. The 9mm is flatter shooting than the .45 and has better pentration. And onc you get away from urban myth you find the treminal ballistics of the 9mm and .45 are much closer than most would have you believe.
Doctors, medics, and those who work on gunshot victims will tell you tey do not know rather someone is hit by a 9mm round or a .45 until they remove the bullet. Flesh closes around a wound channel to reduce blood loss. The permanent wound track is smaller than the frontal area of the bullet because of this. After shot placement the frontal area of the bullet does th damage. Not the bullet weight. In real life the .45 is about .451 caliber and the 9mm around .356 in diameter. You really think about 1/10th of an inch makes that much difference in damage inflicted on a living target?
 
I'll take the rifle that I should have in my hands already if I'm at war - bigger bullets and higher capacity

You'll get no argument here but we are talking about sidearms.
 
Theater General Order Number One. No booze, no porn, no privately owned firearms.

I would very much have preferred to take my Kimber. I would even use FMJ bullets. OR, I would even have just packed 500 rds of 147 gr HST 9mms, if I thought I could have gotten away with it. but my CO was clear. As long as we are doing our jobs, and staying out of trouble, he will back us up on everything he can, EXCEPT violations of General Order Number One. You break those rules, you're on your own.
 
Nobody forced the U.S. military to adopt a different pistol. They kept the 1911 to the mid-80s because they didn't really need any new ones until then. The Army first looked at buying 9mm pistols in the first few years after WWII - that's where the Colt Commander (back when they were all aluminum frames) came from - a slightly smaller, lighter pistol in a lighter-kicking round.

Evidently, somebody in the Ordinance department thought the 9mm pistols our allies and enemies were using in WWII were pretty cool for some reason or other. Whether it was the lighter kicking nature, the lighter cartridges, or the larger capacity in the magazines, there was and is a lot ot say for the 9mm as a fighting pistol cartridge.
 
Weight and suppressive (read: not killing the enemy) firepower has a lot to do with it. The same as the M4/16 replaced the M1 Garand, the Beretta replaced the 1911. Both the replacements came with higher capacity and lower weight; 30 5.56 rounds vs 8 7.62x51 NATO; 15/17 9mm vs 7-8 .45. (I've heard this is also the reasoning behind the P90, with 50 5.7 rounds weighing less than 30 5.56)

Like a lot of the other guys also mentioned, having enough suppressive fire for the situation adds to the issue. Penetrative power aside, capacity and cost normally wins, so far as government procurement is concerned. Nine millimeter is just plain cheaper in component costs.

I've also heard the rumor that the US picked Beretta over the competitors so they could appease the Italians and keep a base there. Sounds like normal 'secret motive politics' to me, so all my logic could be a wash.
 
For whatever reasons, it was the caliber that the best guns of WWI and WWII era were chambered in, such as the P38, Luger, Browning Hi Power, etc.

It was efficient, not too big and not too small. An effective man stopper. Let's not forget that 100 years ago the average man was smaller than today and medical technology and availability was much less than today.

9x19 was easier for a smaller man to handle and it arguably took less "caliber" to take a smaller man down.

And of course in combat a wound is possibly as good as a kill, in many ways better (seriously wounding the other sides' men reduces their morale and consumes their resources treating bleeding, diseased, etc. who still need treatment, food, water, medical care, etc.)

More rounds = better in war
 
I think it was the fact that early in the 20th century there were not really that many manufacturers of weapons in Europe and pistol caliber is not really that important to a military. Germany was making pistols chambered in 7.62 and 9mm when FN started doing 9mm the deed was done and fates were sealed. Smaller countries followed their example.
 
I think people are forgetting that when the US decided to join the 9x19 sidearm party, the vast majority of the armies in NATO were not armed with the 1911.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top