If the U.S. military went back to .45 ACP....

[Nom de Forum]

I doubt the military will re-adopt a .45 caliber pistol let alone the .45ACP. Most of the .45ACP pistols mentioned in this thread have grips that are uncomfortably large for many of today’s military personnel. If the military did adopt .45 caliber it would make sense to adopt a cartridge that matches .45ACP ballistics and fits into a pistol with a smaller grip. I seem to recall such a cartridge already exists and it is designated .45 G.A.P. Can you imagine what would happen if the U.S. Military adopt a Glock pistol in .45 G.A.P.? I think there may be reports of massive numbers of 1911 .45ACP fanatics having heart attacks.

 

[Rubber_Duck]

You guys are forgetting that the .mil will stubbornly cling to the requirement for a DA/SA trigger with a decocker. That rules out the Glock and M&P designs.

 

[jaysouth]

As a three tour infantryman in VN, remind me again, why do grunts need handguns?

As symbols of authority, I understand why last century officers needed a handgun to keep private soldiers to keep from deserting.

If your basic weapon is an M-4, tell me again why you need a pistol?

 

[Phaedrus/69]

Just playing devil's advocate for a moment and assuming the .45 ACP is even a remote possibility is would be easier for smaller shooters in a modern polymer gun. I'm not sure if it's engineering or the fact the frame flexes a little bit but to me modern poly guns have less subjective recoil than older steel ones despite being considerably lighter. My USP45 Tactical was a pussycat to shoot as was my FNP45 Tactical; both subjectively felt like they had less recoil than a 1911. In the case of the HK is does due to the double recoil springs.

I think an HK45/HK45c would be great service guns given the wishes of the US military (eg safety lever, decock, modular, interchangeable back-straps to accommodate different sizes of hands, pic rail, etc.).

I'd be shocked if the Army went back to the .45 ACP, though. We've all seen this movie before. The military makes noise about a new sidearm or rifle every few years and nothing ever comes of it. With the US winding down wars and cutting the defense budget it seems like an odd time to adopt a new sidearm. Still, they do sound serious this time.

 

[alexander45]

M&p 45 the grip frame on m&p tend to be friendlyer to small hands Or the very best plastic fantastic 45 on the market the fnx45

 

[jmr40]

You guys are forgetting that the .mil will stubbornly cling to the requirement for a DA/SA trigger with a decocker. That rules out the Glock and M&P designs.

I don't think so. They are more open minded and I'd not be at all surprised that the next handgun be a striker fired gun similar to, if not a Glock. I'm almost certain it will be plastic.

I do not believe they will ever go back to 45. Despite the "legend" there has never been a single test or research showing it offers any real advantages over 9mm. In fact the Army spent a lot of time comparing 9mm vs 45 right after WW-2 ended and they concluded at that time 9mm was a better option for military use. It just took 40 years before the 1911's in service were just too far gone and had to be replaced.

Unlike civilian uses where 45 works OK, the military needs handgun rounds that can do a better job of penetrating barriers and light body armor. A 45 round is one of the worst performers at this and why it performed so poorly in 1946 testing. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see a brand new round developed with this feature in mind. Of commercial loadings the 357 Sig is a contender as would be 10mm or 40 S&W. The 9mm we have isn't bad either and much better than a 45. It wouldn't surprise me at all if we just stayed with 9mm.

 

[agtman]

I have a feeling if the military went back to the 45 Auto they would do so in a 1911 platform.

And if so, it'll more than likely be a 1911 that's got a Pony on it.

I do think the Beretta is on it's way out so we will see what comes next.

Good riddance too. It never wore the Pony, and the terms "9mm" and "U.S. military" don't belong in the same sentence.

 

[Tallball]

1) They won't.
2) The cheapest one that met the requirements and passed the tests.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Is the SIG M11 failing?....

The SIG P228 and M11 formats have been around since the early 1990s.
Are these sidearms now unsat?
They also aren't TDA & have a decocker.
A NRA printed magazine item I read about 4 years ago(2011) described the sidearms of US armed forces/SOF-tier one. About 40% of these troops(in all service branches; USAF, USMC, Army Rangers, SF, SEALs/SWCC) had or were authorized to use the compact M11 9mmNATO.

As posted, a larger caliber would be ideal but a .45acp is highly unlikely for regular troops or aircrews/pilots.
A member noted how the SIG 320 has Lego like engineering which could be a benefit for the FOBbits or "rear echelon" service members.
A deployed combat soldier or Marine may not have access to a armorer or arms room to kit out a pistol for a specific caliber or op order.

Rusty
PS: I also read a article about how the elite RA Special Air Service(SAS) chose P series SIG Sauers over all other brands(Beretta, Glock, S&W, S-A, Ruger, HK) for both combat deployments and covert ops/plain clothes.

 

[CNobbe]

Though I've never owned one, I'd have to go with FNX .45. It hits all the marks, and will surely be cheaper to buy than the H&K 45.

I have small hands, and it fits in my mits just fine.

 

[skoro]

The S&W M&P would be seem to be the logical choice, but this wouldn't be a logical decision, because of the politics involved. The manufacturer with the most influence would win.

 

[Thermactor]

The SIG P228 and M11 formats have been around since the early 1990s.
Are these sidearms now unsat?
They also aren't TDA & have a decocker.
A NRA printed magazine item I read about 4 years ago(2011) described the sidearms of US armed forces/SOF-tier one. About 40% of these troops(in all service branches; USAF, USMC, Army Rangers, SF, SEALs/SWCC) had or were authorized to use the compact M11 9mmNATO.

As posted, a larger caliber would be ideal but a .45acp is highly unlikely for regular troops or aircrews/pilots.
A member noted how the SIG 320 has Lego like engineering which could be a benefit for the FOBbits or "rear echelon" service members.
A deployed combat soldier or Marine may not have access to a armorer or arms room to kit out a pistol for a specific caliber or op order.

Rusty
PS: I also read a article about how the elite RA Special Air Service(SAS) chose P series SIG Sauers over all other brands(Beretta, Glock, S&W, S-A, Ruger, HK) for both combat deployments and covert ops/plain clothes.

Nothing wrong with the M11
I have one!
It just isn't chambered in 45acp
and it isn't plastic
and doesn't have an accessory rail
The thread starter pretty much narrowed down the options to the S&W M&P45 in the first post!

 

[jeepnik]

I wasn't a grunt. But, I once had the head torn off a 5.56 round. The darn M16 (yes original not an A1) then tried to chamber another round. Not good under the circumstances.

The words of my WWII Six Armored vet rang true. Always have a handgun with you. I gave that same advice to my boys. Both Marines who did multiple tours in the sand box. While the younger one never "needed" it. My older is now married with two kids. That wouldn't have happened had he not "found" a Hi Power shortly after things began.

 

[19-3Ben]

And if so, it'll more than likely be a 1911 that's got a Pony on it.

I think there are just way too many variables to just assume that. You may be right. MARSOC picked Colt for their new 1911, but one small group making a relatively small purchase for very specific needs, is a very different animal than the entire military.

Good riddance too. It never wore the Pony, and the terms "9mm" and "U.S. military" don't belong in the same sentence.

Plenty of guns that don't have ponies on them have been saving lives of servicemen, police, and federal LEOs for a long time. Some of them were even in 9mm.

 

[Sav .250]

Biased opinions welcomed. The Military goes through a long project process when it comes to new weapons. They do their home work.

Bidders weapons must perform to the high standards in the contract. Threw many disciplines. Against many other submitters.

The 45ACp didn`t make the cut. Least wise, nobody wants to make a new version.

 

[herrwalther]

As a three tour infantryman in VN, remind me again, why do grunts need handguns?

As symbols of authority, I understand why last century officers needed a handgun to keep private soldiers to keep from deserting.

If your basic weapon is an M-4, tell me again why you need a pistol?

It is a different type of warfare now. Urban centers combined with local national workers on base mean a pistol can be very useful when the M4 isn't practical or somewhere else.

The 45ACp didn`t make the cut. Least wise, nobody wants to make a new version.

The .45/1911 was not dropped for poor ballistic performance. At the time, .45s could not have the same capacity as 9mm. Which isn't true now when you have 10-15 round .45s that are not that much bigger than the M9. Also the 9mm was adopted to simplify logistics with NATO.

I would like to see the military open up the design specifications. Have a minimal list of requirements such as magazine capacity, velocity, weight etc. There aren't that many new DA/SA hammer fired pistols being made, the shift is going to striker fire. The only design spec I don't see the military wavering on is the ammo. 9mm NATO will likely be the standard for the foreseeable future. With females being integrated into combat arms, a .45 or 10mm firearm is not foreseeable for a new handgun.

 

[Jim Watson]

Agree that the US military is unlikely to return to a .45 for GI.

BUT it has not really gone completely away, either.
The Marines have hung on to it the most, as witness the MEUSOC guns and the present Colt Marine model. I once read that USMC embassy guards were using Glock 21s.

The HK Mk 23 SOCOM monster pistol was kind of a boondoggle, but they are experienced in government contracting and I think that if you had a sufficiently elite outfit, you could easily get the HK45 which I think is something of an advance over the USP.

Likewise FN is building M16s and M4s and could probably be given a supplemental contract for the FNX45 for use by people whose job description includes actually shooting at foreigners with pistols on purpose.

I like the S&W Plastic M&P series of guns for civilian use, but I doubt they are rugged enough to get a milspec.

 

[jaysouth]

The USMC has almost quit issuing handguns.

In 1944 a Marine infantry battalion had 81 handguns issued.

Currently all enlisted and all officers under the rank of Lt. Col are issued M-4s. There is only one Lt. Col per battalion, do the math.

If defense cuts continue on, we will have more M-9s in storage that serving active duty personnel to carry them. I don't think the services are going to buy any new handguns any time soon.

 

[Nom de Forum]

The USMC has almost quit issuing handguns.

In 1944 a Marine infantry battalion had 81 handguns issued.

Currently all enlisted and all officers under the rank of Lt. Col are issued M-4s. There is only one Lt. Col per battalion, do the math.

If defense cuts continue on, we will have more M-9s in storage that serving active duty personnel to carry them. I don't think the services are going to buy any new handguns any time soon.

You may be right, you wild and crazy Redneck, but from what I hear the M9s are rapidly getting as worn out as the 1911s were in 1983.

 

[Slamfire]

As a three tour infantryman in VN, remind me again, why do grunts need handguns?

As symbols of authority, I understand why last century officers needed a handgun to keep private soldiers to keep from deserting.

If your basic weapon is an M-4, tell me again why you need a pistol?

To use if your sword breaks.



I am aware of guys in tracked vehicles needing a pistol in Iraq, but overall, a sub gun, or a M4 will have a higher hit probability than a handgun.

I can state with great confidence that the Armed Services are never going to adopt a single action auto pistol ever again. A negligent discharge by a trooper in any formation will end the career of the commanding Officer.

 

[AustinTX]

You may be right, you wild and crazy Redneck, but from what I hear the M9s are rapidly getting as worn out as the 1911s were in 1983.

None of the armorers I've spoken with have ever said that the recently-acquired M9s are getting worn out. They say the ones that are getting worn out are the ones that have been in service for many years, subjected to the generally poor .mil sidearm maintenance practices.

 

[tomrkba]

If your basic weapon is an M-4, tell me again why you need a pistol?

Transition when your rifle stops running and you're in a fight at 25 yards or less.

Jack Leuba rewrote the USMC CQB doctrine. He taught transitions to me in his classes; they were included because he had used them in Iraq.

He also told me that marines going to fight WANT handguns. I find it difficult to argue with men who are going to fight and want an additional weapon.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Poor maintaince...

I can attest to poor gun care/service in the US armed forces.
While a lower enlisted MP in about 3 different places, I saw soldiers who let rust, corrosion, wear, improper oiling, etc nearly ruin M9s, M16s, M60s, etc.


A M9 or M4 won't last very long if beat the loving #%*+ out of it.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I doubt 1911. Who are we going to pay to shoot a thousand rounds through each to break it in before it can be relied upon?

MILSPEC guns won't require "thousands of rounds through each to break it in", not for the 1911 or any other platform.

There's a reason for MILSPEC.

 

[JDR]

Our US war fighters need the M4 / M4A1 carbine in a tactical combat situation. The only real use for a pistol is to allow the combat soldier to fight his way to a functioning M4.