Military sidearm question
- Thread starter Belgiboy
- Start date
- Status
mainmech48
Member
Was glad to see that someone (Trebor) finally mentioned the general condition of the average 1911 A-1 as a factor. IMO, it had as least as much to do with the decision to replace it as the general issue sidearm as NATO compliance, changed paradigms, politics or recoil.
No new 1911 A-1s had been purchased since 1945. Attrition was taking an increasingly greater toll on remaining inventory as frames wore out past the point of salvage. The time was fast approaching where there would not be enough servicable pistols to go around.
One major reason, again IMO, that we'd been able to stall on going to a 9x19 for so long was semantic. Not to say that there weren't practical and economic factors too, but I believe that caliber compliance kicked in with the adoption of any new standard issue weapon.
The most logical and sensible thing to do was to find a way to address all of the issues at once. That's what was done. We had to replace the rapidly disintegrating inventory of 40+ year-old weapons. That replacement was going to have to be a 9x19. Its design and features should reflect both the newer paradigm for military pistols and advances in the art. A board composed of representitives from the various services drew up the specs. Nearly everybody in the business was invited to submit their version. They all got the Whee! beat out of them in testing, and the Beretta won.
Like it or not, it beats the heck out of the way we acquired the M-16.
No new 1911 A-1s had been purchased since 1945. Attrition was taking an increasingly greater toll on remaining inventory as frames wore out past the point of salvage. The time was fast approaching where there would not be enough servicable pistols to go around.
One major reason, again IMO, that we'd been able to stall on going to a 9x19 for so long was semantic. Not to say that there weren't practical and economic factors too, but I believe that caliber compliance kicked in with the adoption of any new standard issue weapon.
The most logical and sensible thing to do was to find a way to address all of the issues at once. That's what was done. We had to replace the rapidly disintegrating inventory of 40+ year-old weapons. That replacement was going to have to be a 9x19. Its design and features should reflect both the newer paradigm for military pistols and advances in the art. A board composed of representitives from the various services drew up the specs. Nearly everybody in the business was invited to submit their version. They all got the Whee! beat out of them in testing, and the Beretta won.
Like it or not, it beats the heck out of the way we acquired the M-16.
marksman13
Member
I have to admit, mainmech, that I haven't been reading my history books nearly enough. How exactly did we end up with the M16? I've always been curious how it beat out the competition. I don't have many problems with today's M16/M4s, but from what I understand the originals were just plain bad. The only thing I would like to see changed is the 5.56mm round and maybe the gas system.
Hi!! This is my first post on this forum.
Marksman13: I don't wanna go into too much detail but basically, the reason the original M-16s sucked was that they were sent out into the field with dirty ammo (different from original test ammo) and no cleaning kits because it was advertised as a gun that didn't need cleaning. Well, the combination of dirty ammo, humid jungle environment, and lack of cleaning contributed to early misconseptions of the rifles poor reliability. Those problems were addressed later on but I know that if I had a rifle that didn't work when my life depended on it, I would damn it's existence forever even if it gets better. Doesn't mean it's a bad gun though. How many of the soldiers actually used their M-16s effectively against the enemy? I bet quite a few. The gas system's reliability has always been put up for debate. The whole idea behind it is simplicity, and ease of cleaning. Less parts, less movement equals more reliability, and less things that can go wrong. Sure, an AK with a gas piston system or whatever it has, is inherently more reliable IRT how many rounds can go through before you have to clean it. But, how many rounds can you put through the M-16 before it actually jams due to carbon buildup? Quite a bit. In fact, it's significantly more than what the average soldier carries on patrol. The barrel should melt before you get to that point if you are shooting nonstop, and you keep getting ressupllied with ammo. And the same will happen to the AK. Then, assuming you at least field clean the M-16, you're good to go for another engagement. Now, I've heard some people say how their weapons has this and that problem. Everything that has parts is prone to breaking, even the highly reputable Toyota Corolla and it's legendary reliability can suddenly have a bad transmission (not that I know this from PERSONAL experience). Also, bring your super duper expensive quarenteed battle tested ultimate reliable quasar gun and throw some sand on it, shoot it everyday, throw more sand on it, and see how super reliable it is then. There is no such thing as a perfectly reliable gun, so why should the M-16 be held to that standard?
Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in there...even though this forum is about the military sidearm, to which I also have an opinion about, but I'll leave that for later. I apologize for getting off track.
Markman13, I hope this at least gives you the right idea.
Last edited:
marksman13
Member
Welcome to THR, TonyK. Thanks for your post. Like I said I don't really have any problem with the M16/M4 series of weapons. I used them extensively in Iraq and only had one malfunction, though it was a catastrophic failure at a more than inconvenient time. I was wondering more along the lines of what means Mainmech was refering to in the military's acquistion of the M16. He made it sound like there was something fishy behind the whole process.
Your post was quite informative though. I had never heard that dirty ammo was a primary cause in the failures that first run M16s experienced. Thanks for your input and enjoy yourself here at THR. You can look forward to many civil discussions with alot of good people here.
Your post was quite informative though. I had never heard that dirty ammo was a primary cause in the failures that first run M16s experienced. Thanks for your input and enjoy yourself here at THR. You can look forward to many civil discussions with alot of good people here.
"...catastrophic failure at a more than inconvenient time."
HAHAHA!!! I like how you put that so delicately!!
Thank you for the warm welcome. Well, I guess I missed the entire point of your inquiry didn't I? Sorry if I reiterated things you already knew. If anything, someone ELSE might learn from it right?
HAHAHA!!! I like how you put that so delicately!!
Thank you for the warm welcome. Well, I guess I missed the entire point of your inquiry didn't I? Sorry if I reiterated things you already knew. If anything, someone ELSE might learn from it right?
pdowg881
Member
Wasn't the dirty ammo actaully the military switching the original stick powder for ball powder because it gave the round a little more range or power? But it just was a much dirtier ammo and fouled up the gas system.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Nomad2d said:
The 5.56mm Black Hills open tip match ammo has received JAG approval under the "laws of war" because it is not designed to expand. The open tip is merely an artifact of the process used to make an extremely uniform jacket necessary for match-grade accuracy.
Rounds that are designed to expand (like 9mm hollow-points) are still contrary to the laws of war, though as you noted, there is an exception made for non-conventional combatants and opponents who do not honor the laws of war.
UKarmourer
Member
to give you guys the International flavour.
The British Army issues Sig P22 somethings (9mm) to what you would class as recon, Close Protection, SF and thats about it.
Doctors, some medics, flight crews, armoured crews etc get the tried and trusted Browning HP, usually in addition to their own Rifle, the tankies seem to be getting the new carbine version of the L85 now.
A pistol is there purely for us as a last ditch weapon, or in my recovery crew friends views, to get me to my rifle in the cab.
The British Army issues Sig P22 somethings (9mm) to what you would class as recon, Close Protection, SF and thats about it.
Doctors, some medics, flight crews, armoured crews etc get the tried and trusted Browning HP, usually in addition to their own Rifle, the tankies seem to be getting the new carbine version of the L85 now.
A pistol is there purely for us as a last ditch weapon, or in my recovery crew friends views, to get me to my rifle in the cab.
BlindJustice
Member
Ex-USN '72-'78 I served on two different Destroyers in the Pacific. In port, the Officer of the Dec,(OOD) and Petty Officer of the Watch both
carried 1911s - WWII manufacture Remington-Rand and Ithaca. THe rule was two clips 5 rounds in each and no round in the slide. After the first
couple of watches as POOW I got a box of Remington 185 gr JHP and a couple of civvie clips in Honolulu. Carried one in my breast pocket on watch and didn't talk about it. I also had a Colt Commander for home D and used it to qualify for the ribbon.
I also had a Browning Hi-Power and it would stovepipe rounds I was not
impressed with the 9mm plinking the ocaissional attacking jug of water
etc. in comparison to the .45 ACP. FWIW
My Dad was a Radioman/Navigator in WWII. He flew 101 missions over the eastern Himilayas aka The Hump,from India to CHina in mostly
C-46 Commandos. THere's a picture of him and the Pilot & Co-Pilot
with boots, khaki pants and shirt and duty belt with the 1911 in the flap
holster, two mag pouches and a first aid kit and. He said he had another
small canvas bag off the belt with some survival gear, fishing line etc as
well as .45 ACP shot shells. The ground below the usual flight paths
nicknamed THe Trail of Aluminum for the planes lost to weather etc. He
told me when planes were lost hardly anybody survived . he said one guy
hadn't come back and it had been a couple of months so they
opened his foot locker and sent personal stuff home and divided up the rest
of the stuff. WHen the guy walked out of the jungle and got back from the hospital they gave him back more than he had had just glad to
see him. He said the shotshells worked good on small game.
I don't think the 9mm would work as well.
carried 1911s - WWII manufacture Remington-Rand and Ithaca. THe rule was two clips 5 rounds in each and no round in the slide. After the first
couple of watches as POOW I got a box of Remington 185 gr JHP and a couple of civvie clips in Honolulu. Carried one in my breast pocket on watch and didn't talk about it. I also had a Colt Commander for home D and used it to qualify for the ribbon.
I also had a Browning Hi-Power and it would stovepipe rounds I was not
impressed with the 9mm plinking the ocaissional attacking jug of water
etc. in comparison to the .45 ACP. FWIW
My Dad was a Radioman/Navigator in WWII. He flew 101 missions over the eastern Himilayas aka The Hump,from India to CHina in mostly
C-46 Commandos. THere's a picture of him and the Pilot & Co-Pilot
with boots, khaki pants and shirt and duty belt with the 1911 in the flap
holster, two mag pouches and a first aid kit and. He said he had another
small canvas bag off the belt with some survival gear, fishing line etc as
well as .45 ACP shot shells. The ground below the usual flight paths
nicknamed THe Trail of Aluminum for the planes lost to weather etc. He
told me when planes were lost hardly anybody survived . he said one guy
hadn't come back and it had been a couple of months so they
opened his foot locker and sent personal stuff home and divided up the rest
of the stuff. WHen the guy walked out of the jungle and got back from the hospital they gave him back more than he had had just glad to
see him. He said the shotshells worked good on small game.
I don't think the 9mm would work as well.
Gaucho Gringo
Member
I have a couple observations about the posts on this subject. One poster stated that certain officers would rather enlisted men not have sidearms. Why? Are thy afraid of getting fragged or what? Also I thought the US military was smarter than it is. Over 100 years ago they had .38 as side arms. This is almost the same size as 9mm. A lot of soldiers in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War and afterwards were killed because they would empty their 38 revolvers against the Moro's and they would still kill the US soldier. This is why the 45 acp 1911 came into being. My father who joined the USMC on Dec 8, 1941 used to tell me this when I was a kid. He iused to tell me that a 38 in warfare was basically useless. He was overseas in the Solomon Islands from early 1942 to late 1944. He shipped out so early in the war that the troopship he was on had not been fully converted yet. I never really questioned him about why he felt this way but we always had a real Colt 1911A1 from WWI that was my grandfathers in the house. Unfortunately it got stolen in a burglary several years after I moved out of the house in the early 70's. I always got the feeling that the 45 acp was the defense round to have.
If you are limited to ball ammunition, there is no debate - the 45 is the best stopper to be had. The 9mm can be a very effective weapon with modern expanding ammo - not an option for US troops. SpecOps types prefer the 45 for this reason.
- Status
Similar threads
