Reason why the US Army dropped 45 ACP and went with 9mm...

[amprecon]

Progressivism and euro-envy

 

[GRIZ22]

Progressivism and euro-envy

Not Euro Envy. Most of the NATO STANAGS have been dictated by the US.

 

[JohnBiltz]

That nonsense (and it arguably was nonsense) also kept a lot of untrained or barely-trained troops given a gun they aren't familiar with from having negligent discharges when routinely handling a weapon, or when trying to use the weapon when the stuff hit the fan (or they thought it had hit the fan.) In that context, the nonsense made sense -- it helped prevent unnecessary blood loss, embarrassment, and disciplinary actions.

The training methods were what they were -- and the military wasn't really prepared to give everyone who might use a handgun the necessary training to make them and keep them proficient and comfortable with that weapon. Special Ops troops were certainly the exception.

Speaking as a NCO who had to explain why one of his guard posts opened up with a shotgun because a deer wandered by and being a good old boy, he just could not resist, its not that unreasonable a system.

 

[JohnBiltz]

When WWII ended we had enough 1911s around to keep us in pistol for decades. No one wanted to spend money on pistols when we had a pretty good one in plentiful supply as well as the ammo to keep them running. It would have been plain wasteful spending. No one says it but if you change the pistol caliber you have to change the sub-machine gun ammo and gun as well. The M3 was not that good of a gun but it worked.

 

[herrwalther]

NATO standardization is a political move and a pipe dream at the very best. I have done cross training with half dozen or more NATO allies. Ammo was NEVER cross loaded or shared between their firearms and ours. Those orders came down by officers wearing stars on their shoulders. If NATO standardization was really the goal of us picking the M9, there would have been no issue and even encouraged for US troops to use European ammo in 9mm NATO.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

NATO standardization is a political move and a pipe dream at the very best. I have done cross training with half dozen or more NATO allies. Ammo was NEVER cross loaded or shared between their firearms and ours. Those orders came down by officers wearing stars on their shoulders. If NATO standardization was really the goal of us picking the M9, there would have been no issue and even encouraged for US troops to use European ammo in 9mm NATO.

I wouldn't expect ammo to be cross-loaded or shared between their firearms or ours in peace time -- there would simply be no NEED to do that.

But, if we were to have a shooting war and U.S. and NATO allies were in the same area of operations and ammo was needed, it might happen.

 

[lysanderxiii]

NATO standardization is a political move and a pipe dream at the very best. I have done cross training with half dozen or more NATO allies. Ammo was NEVER cross loaded or shared between their firearms and ours. Those orders came down by officers wearing stars on their shoulders. If NATO standardization was really the goal of us picking the M9, there would have been no issue and even encouraged for US troops to use European ammo in 9mm NATO.

A lot of that comes down to money. If the German taxpayer bought the ammo, the German taxpayer wants the German army to shoot it. The US is the only one that likes to give stuff away.

The whole standardization thing started around 1948-ish when Britain, Canada and the US decided to standardize at least small arm ammunition in case hoards of Russians came pouring through Germany. Whether that's really a practical thing in reality, I dunno', but it make sense on paper.

 

[everydefense]

Same reason larger, heavier rifle rounds were dropped in favor of the 5.56... it's no mystery?

 

[JohnBiltz]

Ok, I am not and never have been an artillery or mortar man. But we are pretty much using the British improved mortar rounds and for 105mm howitzers the British light gun. We did not invent the 120mm smooth bore tank guns, that was German but its on every tank we make.

We forced the British to abandon .303 and their plans for a new round and go to 7.62. That new round probably would have been a winner and was in the range we are now looking to go to. Then promptly went to 5.56 creating a new standard that everyone is now using.

When everything is at peace or at war when things are going well is not the time when logistics are being tested. Its when things are going badly that things like commonality of ammo matters. When units are cut off from their log but need ammo. When shattered units are being reconsolidated into new ones that it matters. Commonality matters when things get desperate.

 

[milemaker13]

When WWII ended we had enough 1911s around to keep us in pistol for decades. No one wanted to spend money on pistols when we had a pretty good one in plentiful supply as well as the ammo to keep them running. It would have been plain wasteful spending. No one says it but if you change the pistol caliber you have to change the sub-machine gun ammo and gun as well. The M3 was not that good of a gun but it worked.

Its Certainly not like the US government to be wasteful. Lol

 

[cowboy77845]

Seems to me I recall ,"Standardization, Rationalization and Interoperability" were watchwords in U. S. Army Europe during the 70s.

 

[Tirod]

Considering the darker side of Globalization, you have to wonder if ammo interoperability was more a matter of reducing nationalist goals for a larger world government.

Anyway, adopting the Beretta was adopting the P38 in design intent, it was based on it and then supersized out of it's original intents. Great for a showpiece firearm to adorn those in authority, but not so much for actual carry. Tipoc addressed it - we were going 9mm in the post WWII years with a formal request for quote and actual trials to adopt a new pistol. The M39 was the most refined model offered and the Colt submission was evolutionary, too. Smith wasn't even interested but a change in leadership caused them to reverse course and work on it. Colt, however, tossed all the work on theirs and later just went with the Commander in .45ACP as their post trial offering.

Which actually made the grade when it came time for American leadership to see the handwriting on the wall? We are notoriously slow to adopt things, much like Hobbits who can recite chapter and verse but who refuse to step into the future we are building. Somebody was eventually going to put auto pistols in the holsters of a revolver monoscape here in American LEO carry. It was the Illinois State Police who actually thought it thru, partially on off duty carry considerations, and partly on addressing the changing landscape of enforcement. At that point even they could see the auto pistol as being superior in use, and 9mm as the better answer to it.

Of course, we then had to wait another 15 years for the hide bound traditionalist peacetime Army Command to literally change the guard and get modern thinkers from the Vietnam generation to make an informed decision. Entirely normal. NATO had little to do with it. Why we changed was a need to have exactly what the Pistol Trials of 1954 required, and we still missed the boat not using a compact model. We finally acknowledged that with the M18, 63 years later. Now, what was I saying about Americans not adopting the future?

BTW, the Beretta was adopted as much for it's competent design as for the fact we have an airborne brigade and naval refueling station in Italy. That "revelation" has been out in print since the '80s. Anyone who thinks Italy wouldn't jerk our chain on that doesn't understand international politics.

 

[FL-NC]

That nonsense (and it arguably was nonsense) also kept a lot of untrained or barely-trained troops given a gun they aren't familiar with from having negligent discharges when routinely handling a weapon, or when trying to use the weapon when the stuff hit the fan (or they thought it had hit the fan.) In that context, the nonsense made sense -- it helped prevent unnecessary blood loss, embarrassment, and disciplinary actions.

The training methods were what they were -- and the military wasn't really prepared to give everyone who might use a handgun the necessary training to make them and keep them proficient and comfortable with that weapon. Special Ops troops were certainly the exception.

The US military's primary function is the exportation of violence. That means weapons employment. Think of the level of proficiency our troops would have in the safe carrying of their individual weapons, marksmanship, etc. if it was trained at 25% of the level of training in drill and ceremony or PT. Or if the amount of training prior to the issue of a weapon was the same as that required to be qualified as an operator for a specific vehicle on the DA-348 (US Army driver's license). Most people would agree that a firearm is at least as dangerous as a vehicle in the hands of the untrained. As a former SF instructor, I spent a large amount of my range time with students who had come our way from the regular Army DE-training them from US Army institutional drone behavior, fear of their own weapons, etc. that had been ingrained by poor training and bad habits that had been passed down through generations of fear, incompetence, and "this is the way it has always been done" mentality. The fact that the US Army M9 qualification table is still the same one from the days of the 1911 (max magazine load is 7 rounds for any table) and the ridiculous positions mandated in the tables (NO ONE I have asked can define, or differentiate, between the "standing" and "crouched" positions dictated in the tables) also reflects the total lack of ingenuity and common sense regarding the sidearm that has been standardized for over 30 years- we'll just use the same table for the pistol that only SOCOM has been issued since the mid-80's. The funny part is that outside of units like the AMU, the 1911 is absent from any known MTOE, and the pistol that replaced it is becoming obsolete. Maybe they will get a new table for that new Sig.

 

[herrwalther]

But, if we were to have a shooting war and U.S. and NATO allies were in the same area of operations and ammo was needed, it might happen.

At the height of the Cold War, and with the mission statement of NATO, I would tend to agree. In 1985, if 10 million Russians launched across the border into Eastern Europe we might have had a need for a common ammo for rifles and sidearms. But in a modern force on force fight it would be far more important to have a common round among artillery, armor (tanks), and mortars. Which we don't have. But a standard small arms ammo is significantly cheaper and politically easier to negotiate compared to artillery and tank rounds.

I wouldn't expect ammo to be cross-loaded or shared between their firearms or ours in peace time -- there would simply be no NEED to do that.

Technically I would say there is a need. If 9mm and 5.56 NATO were loaded the same in every country, we would not ever need to shoot ammo from another country. Because it SHOULD be the same stuff we use ballistically. But realistically it isn't. 9mm NATO ammo from the US is not going to perform the same way from 9mm from Romania. The NATO "standard" is really a range from 108 to 128 gr, just in 9mm.

 

[Panzerschwein]

So when we come across dead euros we can use their shells, mostly.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I wouldn't expect ammo to be cross-loaded or shared between their firearms or ours in peace time -- there would simply be no NEED to do that.

Technically I would say there is a need. If 9mm and 5.56 NATO were loaded the same in every country, we would not ever need to shoot ammo from another country. Because it SHOULD be the same stuff we use ballistically. But realistically it isn't. 9mm NATO ammo from the US is not going to perform the same way from 9mm from Romania. The NATO "standard" is really a range from 108 to 128 gr, just in 9mm.

WHY would there be a need in PEACE TIME to cross-load or share?. You said there "technically" was a need, but your response didn't seem to explain it. Instead you seemed to be offering a good reason NOT to do it at any time.

I understand that the ammos from different countries might not perform exactly the same, but I suspect they would work interchangeably in weapons of the proper caliber. I tend to believe that U.S. M9s, M11s, M17s, or the Glocks used by SOCOM would still run reasonably well using ammo from Germany, France, urkey, Italy, Slovenia, or Poland, even though you'd see differences if you chronographed the rounds. Most service pistols seem to be kind of "easy" in that way.

 

[herrwalther]

WHY would there be a need in PEACE TIME to cross-load or share?. You said there "technically" was a need, but your response didn't seem to explain it. Instead you seemed to be offering a good reason NOT to do it at any time.

I understand that the ammos from different countries might not perform exactly the same, but I suspect they would work interchangeably in weapons of the proper caliber. I tend to believe that U.S. M9s, M11s, M17s, or the Glocks used by SOCOM would still run reasonably well using ammo from Germany, France, urkey, Italy, Slovenia, or Poland, even though you'd see differences if you chronographed the rounds. Most service pistols seem to be kind of "easy" in that way.

I did explain. You just seemed to have missed it. Pick any caliber you shoot. Pick two brands. Do they shoot the same? Is your POI and POA the same between a 115gr vs 147gr in 9mm? Chances are no. And consider powder variations available in the US are fairly similar. The standard of NATO ammunition isn't a standard at all. Bullet weights, powders, and even pressure acceptance ranges are all different. Most US loaded 124gr 9mm NATO ammo is considered +p ammo wheras a 108gr round from another NATO country would not be. And that is using a wide berth classification of standard, +p, and +p+. "Should work accurately because the caliber is the same" is not something you want to hear in a military SHTF scenario such as a Russian invasion 30 years ago.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I did explain. You just seemed to have missed it.

I guess I missed it again.

I see where you explained the technical/performance differences that can exist between ammos from different countries, but missed how that difference would be a problem in PEACE TIME.

Are units from different countries going to cross-load or share ammo under PEACE TIME conditions? Do units from different countries, involved in joint exercises (which don't typically have a lot of live fire activity) use up so much of their own ammo that they've got to borrow from another country's supply to finish the exercise? I think that would be so embarrassing for the command staff in the units running out of ammo, that borrowing would be avoided at all costs.

In combat, if ammo must be shared, and round performance is different, I think they'd figure that out pretty quickly. And I wouldn't be surprised if someone in the supply chain would have already done a little homework, knew what the potential problems were (if there were problems), and would make an effort to give any critical guidance or information to the folks receiving the ammo before (or as) they got it.

 

[FL-NC]

FWIW, I have "shared" ammo in Europe, Latin America, Africa, and the mideast in both peacetime and wartime with our allies. Sometimes they were using US weapons, sometimes just the same caliber. Of coure, I use the term "sharing" loosely, since it was almost us giving them our ammo. Also, in the SF weapons course, all ammunition used in training is US made, with the exception of ammunition used in rusky weapons like AK's, PKMs, DSHK, etc. In that course students are trained on BHP, Glock, HK USP, FAL, G3, Galil, STG-77, FAMAS, Uzi, M12, M50, M45, L2A3, MP5, MG3, HK21, and others I can't remember plus I'm sure more that have entered to program since I left.

 

[herrwalther]

I see where you explained the technical/performance differences that can exist between ammos from different countries, but missed how that difference would be a problem in PEACE TIME.

The axiom in the military is "train as you fight." It is an unrealistic expectation to assume different ammo will perform the same way just because it is the same caliber and in a specification range.

 

[Nature Boy]

The US military's primary function is the exportation of violence. That means weapons employment. Think of the level of proficiency our troops would have in the safe carrying of their individual weapons, marksmanship, etc. if it was trained at 25% of the level of training in drill and ceremony or PT. Or if the amount of training prior to the issue of a weapon was the same as that required to be qualified as an operator for a specific vehicle on the DA-348 (US Army driver's license). Most people would agree that a firearm is at least as dangerous as a vehicle in the hands of the untrained. As a former SF instructor, I spent a large amount of my range time with students who had come our way from the regular Army DE-training them from US Army institutional drone behavior, fear of their own weapons, etc. that had been ingrained by poor training and bad habits that had been passed down through generations of fear, incompetence, and "this is the way it has always been done" mentality. The fact that the US Army M9 qualification table is still the same one from the days of the 1911 (max magazine load is 7 rounds for any table) and the ridiculous positions mandated in the tables (NO ONE I have asked can define, or differentiate, between the "standing" and "crouched" positions dictated in the tables) also reflects the total lack of ingenuity and common sense regarding the sidearm that has been standardized for over 30 years- we'll just use the same table for the pistol that only SOCOM has been issued since the mid-80's. The funny part is that outside of units like the AMU, the 1911 is absent from any known MTOE, and the pistol that replaced it is becoming obsolete. Maybe they will get a new table for that new Sig.

Well said and I’m in 100% agreement.

 

[Elkins45]

They could have adopted the BHP after WWII.

Not double action.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

The axiom in the military is "train as you fight." It is an unrealistic expectation to assume different ammo will perform the same way just because it is the same caliber and in a specification range.

That axiom -- "train as you fight" -- and many others are touted but as often ignored as observed. What really happens is that we seem to typically train as we fought in the last war, and get caught by surprise in the next one. Training sometimes catches up -- or we learn on the job.

Our military handgun training is NOT a good example of "train as you fight," as it seldom offers most trainees more than a superficial exposure to the weapon with relatively few rounds fired. (As noted, Special Ops troops DO get more advanced training.) To further complicate matters, the military training is mostly about basic handgun function and almost never addresses the best ways to use handguns in combat situations.

I did not claim (or expect) that different ammo would perform the same way just because it is the same caliber. I agreed with you that there would likely be observable differences. What I did write was that I would expect the weapons to still function -- and that the people using the ammo WOULD quickly learn what they needed to get the job done.

I suspect that there's more than a slight chance that the foreign military supplying YOUR unit with ammo (or to which your unit is sending ammo) is using the same weapons that you use -- Glocks, SIGs, and Berettas are widely used in NATO. And if the ammo worked well enough with THEIR weapons, it might work well enough in yours.

What are the options when you're in combat and ammo is low, and all that's available comes from a different NATO unit's supply chain? Do YOU refuse to use ammo that functions but performs differently than what you are used to?

 

[JohnBiltz]

When you talk about one country giving another ammo its going to be the USA giving another country our ammo. No one else has our logistical power or reach by an order of magnitude. Which is why when the USA wants something to become NATO standard it happens. No one else can project force and then keep it up and running for an extended period of time.

From what I understand the Russians were stunned by Desert Storm. Not by the fact our equipment was so good but by the fact we moved it and everything else so fast and then kept it up and running with comparative ease for 9 months with a fair amount of luxury stuff as well. Our unit had a library. We had so many books sent over we consolidated them in one place and would take one out read it and return it and get another. If you want to know how serious a country is about projecting force and keeping it in the field see how many units it has for taking local water and turning it into purified water. Not many can do it at all. We were using sea water for the most part.

 

[herrwalther]

That axiom -- "train as you fight" -- and many others are touted but as often ignored as observed.

My point, again, is if that was followed we would shoot foreign ammo. As NATO standard would be acceptable in all firearms. I would have liked to try various and foreign manufactured ammo in my M4 and M9s when we did cross shoots with other nations. I just wasn't willing to risk the 2 ranks reduction in pay. The ammo supply points were so clearly marked for "US TROOP USE ONLY" and the varying countries that even a blind man would have been able to see he was in the wrong line to get ammo.

It was not frustrating to me. It was merely curiosity on my part to shoot different ammo for comparison. I worked with a host of foreign troops and civilians overseas. They had to use their own logistical supply lines for ammo, even though we often had plenty. We had a South African contractor who did...something. Not sure what but he carried a Taurus 9mm. Could easily handle 9mm NATO rounds. But when he ran out of ammo he would have to wait to get more from his country and his logistics. We offered him our ammo and it was rejected by his command. It was frustrating for him to get 100 rounds at a time and then have to wait for more.