If you could change the U.S. Army standard issue pistol

[Elmer]

Never thought I'd say this, but I think the .40S&W is perfect for the military's needs. Since no JHP a larger caliber makes a difference and it is decidedly larger than the 9mm.

It's bad enough that American police were scammed into the .40 short&weak, heaven hope that the military isn't ever saddled with it.

Very similar wound ballistics, with more recoil, less magazine capacity, and higher cost than 9 mm. Oh Boy!

It would be nice to see a return to the .45, but other than for special units, I don't think it's going to happen.

 

[Bufford t. Justice]

A lot of comments have been made about the wide availability of 9mm ammo.

But the US Army doesn't forage for ammunition! We're not dependent on what we find lying on the ground, or in an ammo dump the enemy abandoned. We produce plenty of ammo here, and use US-made ammo almost exclusively.

And it's not that we fire thousands of tons of pistol ammo in combat -- I took 150 rounds of .357 to Viet Nam my first tour as an adviser, and fired exactly two in combat -- and that probably makes me a statistical anomaly, because I know lots of people who were in combat just as heavy, and never had occasion to fire a pistol.

But when you NEED a pistol, you need an EFFECTIVE, RELIABLE pistol. The .45 ACP and it's classic pistol, the M1911 fills that bill.

Amen my Brother!! Couldn't have said it better!!
Ok we can close this thread now. Nuff said.

 

[Ala Dan]

.45 ACP

 

[10shooter]

Remembering that the pistol is a secondary weapon, not a primary like for the police. I think the Glock 22 fit the requirements; works, lots of ammo and a grip that most hands can hold.

 

[Wags]

Nothing is going to change the current 9mm NATO cartridge as our official sidearm caliber. But if it did, I'd like to see it go back to the 45ACP. It served 3 generations of veterans in my family faithfully. No complaining.

On the other hand, why has the 9mm been the most issued official sidearm caliber of many European countries since around 1906 or so? They could of changed calibers too......... The countries that did resorted back to the 9mm.

 

[jbrown50]

Nostalgically the .45 will always have a place in my heart.

On the other hand, as already pointed out above, the 9mm makes more logical sense for the military. The 9mm's combined speed, sectional density, tapered design, light weight, small size, low recoil and world wide availability simply can't be beat.

 

[Glocker]

oh yea.... of course in .45 but g.a.p. not a.c.p.

 

[Gary in Pennsylvania]

Although I'm a huge CZ fan......


I vote for Glock 21. Reliable. Tough. High Capacity. .45acp. and relatively light.

 

[Elmer]

I vote for Glock 21. Reliable. Tough. High Capacity. .45acp. and relatively light.

And it would keep those girls, and other little folks out of the service..

 

[enfield303]

Ideally I would like to see a return to .45 ACP. Realisticaly, I think the 9mm is probably the best COMPROMISE round out there. As has been said before on this thread, a sidearm is just that, your backup for when SHTF and you NEED a backup. I would feel comfortable with an M-9(I would prefer to have an H&K USP) as my SIDEARM. If I need to fling lead in the direction of someone who is flinging at me, I would not choose to use my sidearm if I had a choice in the matter, that's what an M-4/M-16/Forward Observer/airstrike is for .

 

[The Rabbi]

The choice is substantially between the current 9mm and .45acp. Personally I will only buy autos in those calibers.
As pointed out, in FMJ the 9mm basically sucks--and Im a big fan of 9mm for street carry. The .45acp has a tried and true history. It is low pressure so it generates less wear on the guns, thus less maintenance. There is tons of ammo around as well as components.
For platform, there is only one gun chambered for .45acp that makes sense to me Its the SIG P220. "To Hell And Back" Reliable, easy to shoot, missing all those dumb safety gew-gaws another well-known gun has, easy to service, accurate as all get out. Only cost is an issue. So failing that I'd say the S&W 99 with its polymer frame.

 

[Elmer]

Only cost is an issue.

You'd be surprised how competitive SIG gets on military contracts. Sigarms USA adds quite a margin to the guns you and I buy.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Personally, I think the M1911A2 would be the ideal military sidearm. It would have higher and wider sights, with night sight capability, lowered and flared ejection port, beavertail grip safety with a bump to ensure disengagement when shooting two-handed, and 8-round magazines.

It ought to last us until 2111, at least.

 

[The Rabbi]

Personally, I think the M1911A2 would be the ideal military sidearm. It would have higher and wider sights, with night sight capability, lowered and flared ejection port, beavertail grip safety with a bump to ensure disengagement when shooting two-handed, and 8-round magazines.

I think the 1911 stinks on a lot of those issues. The array of safeties slows things down and can get downright dangerous in situations where you cant get your hand firmly on the gun. SIGS have all the good features and none of the bad ones.
WTB: flamesuit.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I think the 1911 stinks on a lot of those issues. The array of safeties slows things down and can get downright dangerous in situations where you cant get your hand firmly on the gun.

Yet somehow, the M1911 seems to be the weapon of choice in those competitions where both power and speed count.

 

[Elmer]

Yet somehow, the M1911 seems to be the weapon of choice in those competitions where both power and speed count.

I remember when the World Championship was won with a stock SIG P220.... With the European style heel clip mag release no less!

Today's game guns have very little in common with a 1911, nor would they be practical for service.

I recently had a chance to watch a group of officers transitioning to .45's, SIGs, Glocks and 1911's. The SIGs and Glocks worked fine, the 1911's, (made by one of today's top "Tactical" 1911 makers) malfunctioned and broke.

Probably wouldn't have happened with stock Colt 1911's, but still interesting.....

 

[jsalcedo]

Makarov.

I've never seen one jam or malfunction.

Decent caliber, small size proven design.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I remember when the World Championship was won with a stock SIG P220.... With the European style heel clip mag release no less!

Today's game guns have very little in common with a 1911, nor would they be practical for service.

I agree that it's difficult to design a competition that mimics combat -- and even harder to keep it "pure."

However, in stock level competition, the M1911 is far and away the favorite. One of the reasons is that it resets faster than any other automatic -- and gives up nothing in other areas.

I recently had a chance to watch a group of officers transitioning to .45's, SIGs, Glocks and 1911's. The SIGs and Glocks worked fine, the 1911's, (made by one of today's top "Tactical" 1911 makers) malfunctioned and broke.

Probably wouldn't have happened with stock Colt 1911's, but still interesting.....

To be fair, compare stock SIGs with stock Colts (or M1911s made by reputable makers.)

 

[Krag]

It would appear that those who want the .45 base their decisions on nostalgia while proponents of the 9mm base theirs on practicality.

As the military will NOT issue JHP handgun ammo (the HP bullets used by snipers are non-expanding. The HP is a result of the manufacturing process) there ain't a lot of difference between the performance of 9mm and .45 hardball.

To be completely practical about it, handguns are not needed by 99.9% of the troops and the powers that be realize this. NO war was ever won with handguns.
I get sick and tired of the old carnard "We used .45s and the Germans used 9mm. We won so the .45 must be better!" :banghead:

BS brothers! Hell, if we had been issuing .32 revolvers the outcome would have been the same.

Just last night I spoke with a friend who just returned from Iraq. He's an infantry officer and I asked him what handgun he carried. His answer was "None. Don't need it in the field." He did admit that on occassion, when off duty he carried a M11 SIG but said that it "...was a real pain lugging it around all the time. And what good will it do me against a car bomber?"

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It would appear that those who want the .45 base their decisions on nostalgia while proponents of the 9mm base theirs on practicality.

A slight correction; some of us who want the .45 base it on experience. I've used a handgun in combat, and of all those available, I choose to carry an M1911.

Many police departments have left the 9mm and gone to the .40 S&W and other cartridges -- and since they get to use hollowpoints, that ought to tell us something.

 

[Elmer]

However, in stock level competition, the M1911 is far and away the favorite. One of the reasons is that it resets faster than any other automatic -- and gives up nothing in other areas.

No question. I own a lot of them myself, and used to compete. My point was that the SIG is a very, very reliable gun. Not all of today's popular 1911 Wonder guns are. Some of them are downright junk. Unfortunately, their owners are frequently 100 rounds of light ball a year shooters, and they'll never know.

 

[Krag]

I like the .45 ACP and own a number of them for competition shooting. I also own .40 and 9mm pistols, carry them daily and compete with them. I own a 1911 (a .40) for competition but would not carry one as I don't feel comfortable with a SA pistol in a possible defensive situation.

It should be remembered that the U.S. the only nation (other then the likes of Brazil, Mexico and Norway) that adopted the .45 caliber 1911 pistol. Almost every other army that used it got them as freebie US military aid and replaced them ASAP with something else, usually a 9mm.

That doesn't mean the 1911 isn't a great pistol. It is. What it does mean is that the majority of military thinkers in the world believe there are better designs - and calibers - available. That doesn't make them stupid wimps just because they don't agree with us.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

That doesn't mean the 1911 isn't a great pistol. It is. What it does mean is that the majority of military thinkers in the world believe there are better designs - and calibers - available. That doesn't make them stupid wimps just because they don't agree with us.

Well, we have a justice of the Supreme Court who thinks we ought to use foreign courts and laws to guide us, so why not?

The US Army is unique -- it is an Army with a tradition of pistol fighting, dating back to the Mexican War, when Texas Rangers introduced the US Cavalry to the use of the revolver on horseback. That tradition continued right through WWI, when Pershing wanted every infantryman to have a .45 for trench fighting.

We look at pistols differently from Europeans.

 

[revolvergeek]

.357 Sig with a hot 130-140 FMJFP load for normal duty (maybe an XTP load for 'increased accuracy' when fighting terrorists). More energy and penetration than the 9mmP and the ordinance guys could keep 9mmP barrels around for issue to units that would be operating with NATO forces on long deployment.

 

[Krag]

It might be germane to mention that the finest cavalry in American history - the horse soldiers of the Confederate army - favored the .36 caliber revolver.

Hmmmm.................?