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

[DanTheFarmer]

Taking this chain of thought one step back brings up the question why did our WWII allies use 9 X 19, a German round?

The answer is right after Dunkirk the British had lost huge amounts of equipment and needed to rearm fast. They saw the German submachine guns working well in 9 X 19 and just so happened to have captured about a gazillion rounds of 9 X 19 from the Italians in the East Africa campaign. They decided to build the easiest to produce submachine gun they could using ammo they already had; the Sten.

So you might say an Italian military loss lead to an economic win 40 years later.

Obviously the real answer is much more complex but it is interesting to think about what would this situation be today if the Italians had used a different chambering.

Dan

 

[Lj1941]

The fact that the 9mm can spray more lead should not come into the mix. A handgun any handgun is really a weapon of last resort. I am a veteran of Pre-VN and carried a 1911A1 for guard duty. My weapon of choice at that time was just what I was issued (An M-14) for any serious work. A pistol would have been nice to have as a backup but the US Army did not allow that then or now. We also sometimes carried shot guns on guard duty.The 1911A1 or the M-9 are both good weapons for what they are meant for ( an easy to carry, compact weapon) that you really would not have to use.

 

[Tiberius67]

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.

That wasn't it... SOF had a detailed article about the trials at the time. The two winners of the competition were the SIG P226 and the Beretta 92, Beretta won on price. Glock didn't enter the competition, I believe because they weren't ready to build a factory in the US at that time.

The sad part about that competition was how poorly the US entries from Colt and S&W performed. The Colt entry was basically junk.

 

[amd6547]

A lot of WWII vets came home with a lot of respect for the 9mm cartridge they met on the battlefield.
My father fought in Europe. Though he was lucky enough to bring home a 45, he was very happy to pick up a Radom 9mm in a trade here.

 

[hq]

.45 is better at killing things.

It probably is, but in war handguns mainly have just one purpose: to fight your way back to your rifle you shouldn't have abandoned in the first place. The purpose is not to kill but to stop and incapacitate the enemy so that he can't harm you or your buddies and, ideally, tie up another one or two enemy soldiers to help their wounded comerade. The .45 may be better for that purpose, too, but as many have mentioned, there are factors like logistics and magazine capacity to consider.

Basically, you'll have to make do with whatever you're issued and become as proficient with it as you possibly can.

 

[jmr40]

Many, many in the US military wanted to change to 9mm right after WW-2. There were lots of side by side tests done at the time that proved that there was simply zero difference in the effectiveness of 45 vs 9mm. If the 9mm could hold more rounds, with less recoil, and be equally effective there was no reason to keep the 45. Mainly because of the downsizing of the military at the time the idea was scrapped.

By the 1980's the military's inventory of handguns was in sad shape with a hodge podge of worn out 1911's along with Colt and S&W revolvers. When selecting a chambering they went with what the tests had proved best. Not with the emotional favorite.

To this day there is a lot of talk about the 45 being superior, but none is based in fact. It is all emotion and fairy tales. There have been hundreds, maybe thousands of comparisons of every imaginable type done over the last 100 years, and I've yet to see anything that convinces me a 45 ACP is any more effective than a 9mm round.

 

[wolf695]

The U.S. uses the 9mm because 3/4's of the own world uses it as a standard round. If you ever served with other nations, you know that we are all one big happy family! Until something happens to say different, then a few years later your back to being family again.

 

[HDCamel]

@hq

Why would you quote the first half and not the second half?

 

[Drail]

Because it works extremely well in subguns and the militaries of the world love their buzz guns.

 

[hq]

Why would you quote the first half and not the second half?

Mainly because I wanted to address the killing vs. wounding/incapacitating issue. Discussion about which might be the better overall war cartridge as a whole is a far too complicated subject to cover in one post. Or even ten, for that matter.

 

[ROCK6]

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.

Yeah, since about 2005, things have tightened up. I've know a few in the Stryker BCT we supported in 2006, and it wasn't as loose as before. It started out as a colonel/O6 exemption, but quickly jumped to GO levels and few want to risk their career on those types of exemptions. Those working with Iraqi/Afghan police forces did get to carry what they trained with. I had a good friend in a LRS unit during the initial invasion to Iraq and he did get to bring his own .45 (Springfield variety); when he ran out of ammo, he had to beg and borrow from other communities and it was pretty thin.

Today, it's very much the exception and much more strict, even with the straight leg Infantry guys. I haven't seen anything outside of issue since 2007.

I like to CCW a .45 at home, but I think the 9mm NATO is more than adequate for combat. For me, it's a hand-held suppressive fire weapon designed to get my ass to cover or to a rifle. Hell, this deployment, all I have is a 9mm and there's no way I'm going on the attack with that! My only complaint is using just FMJ. Yeah, coventional rules...but if a 9mm JHP was authorized, it would really improve my love for it as a decent combat sidearm caliber.

ROCK6

 

[CapnMac]

Some history is germane here. Just before WWII the world had all sorts of pistol calibers. European police carried sidearms in .25acp and .32acp, and several 7.62 types. Also in use were 9x17 and 9x19, and a great rafts of French and Russian revolver ammo. The Brits were using .38webbley and the .455webbley.

A lot of militaries in the 30's chose the round named for war, 9x19 parabellum.

Quite a number of those forces wound up in the UK. The Brits had started to embrace the BHP/GP-35 as a sidearm, so they had reasons enough to produce 9x19 in huge quantity.

After the war, quite a lot of Europe was already set up to turn out 9x19 (those places that were not, ah, 'committed' to using 9x18 that is). Even the French, contrary as they often are, had taken up using 9x19. So, when NATO expanded to be all of Western Europe, one of the things everyone had in common was 9x19. The Soviet Juggernaut was just off to the east, too--which had a way of capturing attentions in the way that full Corps, Armies, and Theaters will.

Then, somebody, some un-heralded (or under-heralded) snuffy started working up the sealift needed to meet the US mission requirement in Europe of being able to resupply engaged forces in not more than 30 days. Defense-in-Depth and the need for maneuverability in the face of Soviet armored assault could mean falling back past one's own munitions factories.

Those are powerful motivations to pick a single caliber for as many things as possible.

It was in that environment that DoD had to take up the case of a new side arm to issue to US forces. Which meant 9x19 was nearly a given; really the only debate left was which one.

Now, about the same time, USDoT decided to upgrade USCG's sidearms (for much the same reasons as DoD). What DoT & CG chose was the SIG 220 in .45acp. They even ordered enough that the nice people at SIG changed from a heel magazine release to a "left thumb" style mag release.

 

[Nordeste]

Powerful enough, good penetration, flat trajectory, good capacity, manageable recoil. What's not to love?.

Spain had a tradition of using the 9mm "Largo" some decades ago. It was then decided to transition to the 9mm "Luger", as it is called in the US, over here we prefer to call it "Parabellum". The reason was, on one hand, uniformity with the surrounding countries, and the milder recoil of the 9 Pb over the Largo.

 

[sixgunner455]

Originally posted by Tiberius67

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperBoomTurbo View Post

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.

That wasn't it... SOF had a detailed article about the trials at the time. The two winners of the competition were the SIG P226 and the Beretta 92, Beretta won on price. Glock didn't enter the competition, I believe because they weren't ready to build a factory in the US at that time.

Glock didn't enter the competition for 2 reasons: their pistol did not meet the parameters of the RFP, and they knew that the Beretta was favored for adoption before Glock's pistol even entered the market. The Glock 17 entered the market in 1982. An early variant on the Beretta 92 was selected for adoption in a non-competitive selection process in 1980. The process of selection was challenged, and that resulted in the competition process that lasted until 1985, when the Beretta was again adopted. There was a later test to confirm that choice in 1988, with the same results.

Glock was never even on the radar for DOD. It wasn't what anyone had in mind.

 

[jbrown50]

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

During the Korean War our military learned a valuable, painful lesson regarding the importance of capacity in small arms during wartime.

Our push deep into North Korea caused the Chinese great concern mainly from the massive potential of refugees flooding across the border. In response the Chinese deployed thousands of troops into North Korea and simply overran our positions with massive numbers. The M1 Garands and M1 Carbines that the majority of our troops had just weren't good enough for these brute force attacks.

From then on, we'd be dealing with fanatical enemies that were willing to attack us by sacrificing bodies in waves and these enemies have plenty of bodies with which to accomplish it.

The battle rifle is the main weapon for a foot soldier. The majority of ammo that a soldier will be carrying will be for the battle rifle. Handguns are merely backup weapons. Knowing the traits of my enemy, if carrying a handgun, i'd want one with a relatively high capacity and with an ammo type that is quite common and therefore easier to acquire.