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

[Corpral_Agarn]

They should have adopted the BHP after WWII.

Fixed it for you.

 

[jmr40]

The Army WANTED to adopt a 9mm of some type after WW-2. And in 1946 the BHP would have likely been the choice. The simple truth is that they were disappointed with both the 45 cartridge and the 1911 by the time the war ended. Most of the soldiers who carried it didn't like it and that is why it never gained a following in law enforcement or civilian use for years after the war. The plan was shelved because there were thousands of perfectly good pistols in inventory and a handgun was a very low priority weapon.

Despite the rhetoric and hyperbole testing at the time proved 9mm was equally effective against human threats. But it's biggest advantage was barrier penetration. Not to mention that it held far more ammo and had less recoil. For a combat pistol 9mm is a far better option than 45 and always has been.

The 270 Winchester was on the chopping block set to be dropped by Winchester. It had been on the market for 25 years and sales were pitiful. Until Jack O'Connor started writing about it. The same was true of the 1911 and 45 ACP until Jeff Cooper started his writings. Most of which should be under the fiction section in the library. He revived the round and developed range games that were designed so that no other gun or cartridge could compete.

Based on Coopers writings we have many still today that think the 1911 and 45 are much more capable than they really are. Don't get me wrong, I like both the round and pistol. I have 4 altogether, but I like them for their nostalgic value. Neither the platform nor cartridge would be my 1st choice for defensive purposes.

 

[earplug]

NATO 9MM out of a 5" barrel is running close to a 357 out of a four inch revolver.
Pick up fifty rounds of 9MM and 45 ACP. which would you rather ship and hump?

 

[Jim Watson]

I figured our alleged allies had gotten so used to being supplied from USA that they favored standardization. We eventually went Euro 9mm well after pressuring them into 7.62x51, comparable to .30-06. We roundly dismissed their well balanced intermediates... until we stumbled into a varmint rifle.

 

[reddog81]

My theory is that more rounds of an adequate cartridge is viewed as a better option than less rounds of a slightly hard hitting round. If I was going into a battle situation I know I'd rather have a gun that can hold 15 rounds than one that hold 8. 2 reloads of a 1911 will get you a total of 22 rounds (8+7+7). 2 reloads of a 92FS will get you 46 shots. 46 is better than 22.

I don't remember where I read it but I do recall seeing an article where they analyzed what the largest factors for winning a battle was. The number of rounds available to each side was one of the largest factors. The power of the cartridges on each side had a negligible impact. What percent of shots fired in a firefight hit their intended target? Having nearly twice as many rounds/shots available for the same weight was one of the deciding factors for switching from .308 to .223. I imagine this logic applies to handgun rounds also.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The Moro tribesmen situation was an anomaly. Generally, wounding an enemy (so that he's out of the fight) is sufficient, and putting him down with one shot isn't needed.

If you're a logistician, that may be true, but as an Infantryman, I assure you that when you are fighting at pistol range, you DEFINITELY want to put the guy down, right now! Once you've had a "dead" man try to shoot you in the back, it clarifies your thinking on this issue.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

The Moro tribesmen situation was an anomaly. Generally, wounding an enemy (so that he's out of the fight) is sufficient, and putting him down with one shot isn't needed.

The MOROs may not have been as much of an anomaly as you might think.

It can be VERY DIFFICULT to knock a determined attacker out of the fight, when using a handgun. It's not until a round is traveling at very high speeds (greater than 2,000 fps) that the secondary wound channel begins to play an important role in the damage done to the person being shot -- increasing the likelihood of a quicker strop. Most handgun rounds don't go that fast.

That's why soldiers are typically armed with rifles and carbines shooting smaller (than handgun) bullets that travel at much higher speeds than handgun bullets. Bullet damage is always important but the related tissue damage of rifle ammo (to muscle, blood vessels, and smaller bones surrounding the wound channel) can be devastating.​

I've read of shootings where police hit an armed attacker center mass with multiple .357 Magnum or .45 rounds and the attacker just kept coming (and firing). "Bad guys" or attackers can be particularly resilient if the attacker is experienced and/or hardened (i.e., has been shot before), or is on stimulants.

A central nervous system hit may be the only sure way to get the attacker out of the fight if you're using a handgun, and that's not likely be easy.

 

[herrwalther]

The Army WANTED to adopt a 9mm of some type after WW-2. And in 1946 the BHP would have likely been the choice. The simple truth is that they were disappointed with both the 45 cartridge and the 1911 by the time the war ended. Most of the soldiers who carried it didn't like it and that is why it never gained a following in law enforcement or civilian use for years after the war. The plan was shelved because there were thousands of perfectly good pistols in inventory and a handgun was a very low priority weapon.

I am certainty glad the BHP wasn't accepted to replace the 1911. That firearm and I do not get along, ergonomics wise. As far as the 1911 and 45 being disapproved of, I disagree. The US, and the World, just fought a huge war. Most countries did not want to get in large scale force on force fighting. In 1947 the focus was on containing Communism so it could burn itself out. And a handgun is rather low on the military budget totem pole (still is) when it comes to fighting small containment wars. The 1911 stayed more for budget than anything else. By the time 1985 rolled around, NATO seemed like a worthwhile endeavor against Soviet invasion of Europe. A standardized "dream" caliber was adopted for handguns and service rifles with the theory of cross logistics that rarely, if ever, gets put into practice.

 

[highlander 5]

Somewhere when the switch to 9mm was proposed it was said that the 9 mm was an easier round for female troops to handle which was a load of crap as far as I could tell but a term popped up as well interoperational interchangeabilty. We wouldn't have to ship ammo should the Russians invade little did I know that I I was a pipe dream.

 

[Jim Watson]

There were no female combat troops ca 1950 when we agreed with our friends who used to be our enemies to go to 9mm when we bought a new service pistol.

I wonder if all those USAF S&W M15s (and at least one contract of Ruger Service Six) were meant to put off having to buy everybody a 9mm.
Note that the first trials of 9mm were, like the M16, run by the Air Force. Of course everything had to be done over to suit the Army.

 

[cp1969]

That's why soldiers are typically armed with rifles and carbines shooting smaller (than handgun) bullets that travel at much higher speeds than handgun bullets. Bullet damage is always important but the related tissue damage of rifle ammo (to muscle, blood vessels, and smaller bones surrounding the wound channel) can be devastating.​

I've read of shootings where police hit an armed attacker center mass with multiple .357 Magnum or .45 rounds and the attacker just kept coming (and firing). "Bad guys" or attackers can be particularly resilient if the attacker is experienced and/or hardened (i.e., has been shot before), or is on stimulants.

A central nervous system hit may be the only sure way to get the attacker out of the fight if you're using a handgun, and that's not likely be easy.

A CNS hit is the ONLY way to take an attacker out of the fight immediately, whether rifle or handgun is used. If an animal (which includes humans) does not collapse at the shot, it is not out of the fight, no matter how devastating a wound was inflicted. It may be fatally injured, but can and may continue to fight until blood loss causes unconsciousness. That can take seconds or minutes. The will to carry on can be unbelievable but a CNS hit removes the connection between 'will' and muscle.

Prime examples of each: Platt and Matix of the Miami Shootout. One was dead on his feet, the other knocked out of action by a non-fatal head wound. Another non-fatal CNS 'stoppage'...Gabby Giffords.

 

[hdwhit]

Balrog wrote:
I don’t think I am buying that.

Okay.

But if you really want to know "the truth" then why don't you go to the National Archives (or any of the regional libraries throughout the country that have access to the collection), read the documents for yourself and then reach your own conclusion.

When you have done that, you can come back here and speak to the issue with more authority than simply your gut feeling that you don't buy the standardization argument.

 

[RETG]

After working for the US government and retiring after 30+ years, I have learned:

A 9mm round can effectively make a person as dead as any caliber. The 9mm (9x19) is very popular and found in many countries so that makes it easy to keep the gun loaded.

And most importantly, never try and understand what the US government is going to do, and why it did what did. That alone can cause a person to go crazy and/or turn into an alcoholic. (Not only the US government, but I have had a few friends who work for GB, Israel, and a few others tell me their governments are also slightly screwed up.)

 

[Walt Sherrill]

A CNS hit is the ONLY way to take an attacker out of the fight immediately, whether rifle or handgun is used.

But as you note, it may not really be a STOP unless it's a FATAL CNS shot.

When you read the details of the shootout, you find that several of the FBI agents shot by Platt using the .223 Ruger, were knocked out of action, but there may have been only ONE CNS fatality, when Platt shot Agent Dove twice in the head late in the gun battle. Dove had previously hit both Platt and Matix.several times.

Special Agent Dove was one of the first to hit Platt, and his first shot hit Platt in the arm and then passed through his lung and lodged near the heart. The doctor who did Platt's autopsy said Platt was already dying and probably had only 5-10 minutes left to live when he finally Special Agent Mireles' CNS shots.

Special Agent Grogan hit Matix but was later killed when Platt hit him with one shot to the chest. (There is no mention of this being a CNS, but it may have been.) Once hit he was out of action.

Special Agent McNeil was knocked out action by a Platt .223 shot that hit him in the neck, paralyzing him for a couple of hours. (I don't know if that it considered a CNS shot, but it had essentially the same effect temporarily.) If it was a CNS hit, it was certainly non-fatal, and it stopped McNeil abruptly. Before that happened, however, McNeil hit both Matix and Platt with several shots.

Matix and Platt were hit many times by .38 special rounds from revolvers, by 9mm rounds from agent S&W 459s, and by rounds from two agent's S&W Model 19s (.357 guns, but shooting .38 Special +P ammo)

Matix who was unconscious for several minutes, later revived and briefly continued the fight despite serious wounds.

The FBI agents' shotguns didn't play a big role in the shoot-out, although they were used several times.

Special Agent Mireles started out using a shotgun, but it was a PUMP model, and when he was hit in his left hand (he was right handed) he fired five more rounds using only one hand and then switched to his Model 19.

The ONLY CNS shots that stopped anyone were fired by Platt. Special Agent Mireles fired the final six round that hit both Matix and Platt; the both received a (spine-severing) CNS shot but It is likely they would died within a few minutes from their previous injuries.

One agent didn't fire a shot -- his weapon was lost in the auto stop that started the battle. A different agent in the battled wasn't wounded. There was 145 shots fired in the almost 5 minutes of the battle. Pretty intense.

 

[cp1969]

But as you note, it may not really be a STOP unless it's a FATAL CNS shot.

Yes, it can. That's why I listed Gabby Giffords.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I generally agree, but I'm just less CERTAIN than you about the inevitable consequences of all non-fatal CNS hits.

I wrote "it may not really be a STOP unless it's a FATAL CNS shot." You could argue that a non-fatal CNS shot MAY or CAN be a stop -- but I don't think you can claim that it MUST be a stop. There are just too many possibilities and variables at play. A shot to the brain or high on the spinal cord that stops nervous system function will be quickly or almost instantly fatal, and a certain stop. But, if a shooter who is HIT while prone (perhaps while making a shot), or if hit while shooting from a seated position (maybe in a car) and the shot permanently or temporarily paralyzes the shooter from the waist down, that non-fatal CNS hit won't necessarily keep the shooter from squeezing off another shot or two.

 

[racoonbeast]

If ammo consistency between NATO forces was the reason we switched, I most likely was not so that we could borrow ammo from them. It was probably so that we could supply them with their ammo, like we supply them with everything else.

 

[Klint Beastwood]

This topic is still going on.
There is no publication, I’m aware of, that says anywhere that they wanted to get rid of a .45 as a caliber specificly “ *due to*___reason”
As far as I know, the military as a whole wanted to get rid of the old 1911s. They were falling apart and around the 80s they finally decided to “modernize” their handgun choice.
The m45 that is still used to this day is a modern 1911 with novak cuts, dual recoil spring match barrel etc. it stays in service for those allowed to use it.
9mm when they were looking to replace the 1911 was on the menu specificly due to meeting horrible lethality standards of that time, cost, and speaking of cost, we do as a country have the biggest tab for supplying NATO.
Have a problem with it? Write your congressman or go into politics and make the changes you want to see.
As far as 9mm vs .45 acp
This is a never ending debate, whose numbers on the books aren’t that much different SINCE greater development in technology in the 9mm.
It’s funny, the .40 was all the rage for awhile until the FBI stopped using their own flavor, now it’s back to 9mm.
At the end of the day, on a soft target, the momentum of a .45 as well a permanent cavitation will always be greater than a 9mm when using a comparable type ammo. Ie; if we are comparing a 147gr +p then you need to be fair and use a comparable +p with a .45 acp. If not, then you are just trying to show bias in your own research and will not do yourself any good.
There is, often times a temporary cavity as well with handgun rounds, from energy transfer. However as someone posted above, most common handgun cartridges do not have enough ass behind them to create soft tissue damage, which is a separate effect, and although often hand and hand, different then cavitation. Devitalized tissue has a particular look to it. If you are a hunter who pays attention then you probably have seen It, and it’s proably why you cut around that part of the meat.

 

[lysanderxiii]

The Army WANTED to adopt a 9mm of some type after WW-2. And in 1946 the BHP would have likely been the choice. The simple truth is that they were disappointed with both the 45 cartridge and the 1911 by the time the war ended. Most of the soldiers who carried it didn't like it and that is why it never gained a following in law enforcement or civilian use for years after the war. The plan was shelved because there were thousands of perfectly good pistols in inventory and a handgun was a very low priority weapon.

Despite the rhetoric and hyperbole testing at the time proved 9mm was equally effective against human threats. But it's biggest advantage was barrier penetration. Not to mention that it held far more ammo and had less recoil. For a combat pistol 9mm is a far better option than 45 and always has been.

The 270 Winchester was on the chopping block set to be dropped by Winchester. It had been on the market for 25 years and sales were pitiful. Until Jack O'Connor started writing about it. The same was true of the 1911 and 45 ACP until Jeff Cooper started his writings. Most of which should be under the fiction section in the library. He revived the round and developed range games that were designed so that no other gun or cartridge could compete.

Based on Coopers writings we have many still today that think the 1911 and 45 are much more capable than they really are. Don't get me wrong, I like both the round and pistol. I have 4 altogether, but I like them for their nostalgic value. Neither the platform nor cartridge would be my 1st choice for defensive purposes.

Actually, the BHP didn't make it to the short list.

The Colt in 9mm and what would become the S&W Model 39 were the short list.

Neither of the two 9mm pistols fared as well as the M1911A1 (control)

From the 1955 evaluation report:

SUBJECT: Smith and Wesson 9mm Automatic Pistol and Colt Commander 9mm Automatic Pistol, evaluation of

CONCLUSIONS

It is concluded that:

a. None of the test items evaluated, although considerably lighter in weight and shorter in length, offers superior performance over the
control items, Colt Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M 1911A1, and the Smith and Wesson .38 caliber revolver, Model M&P.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that no further consideration be given the these items.

 

[FL-NC]

I've seen quite a few people shot by small arms. I've seen men survive sucking chest wounds from 5.56 and 7.62 x 39, because they received prompt medical care, whether self-aid or from someone else, and I've seen enemy flop around and try to get away for a while after being hit in the chest. I've seen an enemy soldier crawling away minus a leg, after a machinegun bullet removed it. He also left behind his AK. I believe he wasn't firing it because he CHOSE not too, but if he was able to crawl away after getting a leg removed, he COULD have fired that weapon had he desired. All of this was with rifles or machineguns. Look at the damage animals like deer survive with, and the distance they can cover, after being shot at close range by expanding high power rifle rounds! ANY handgun is a poor choice of weapon in a gunfight, but as civilians or police in the US, they tend to be what we have when things happen. Consider how many criminals are shot by the police- often multiple times- and survive. Is there some science involved? Sure. But I think folks really overthink it. Just keep it as simple as possible- the goal is to put multiple bullets into critical plumbing in the upper body, until the fight is OVER. In my experience, this ends a fight. Yes, the head is also an option.

If the 9mm sucks so bad, why is it the most common handgun round world-wide, and why is it considered sufficient everywhere except the US? Think about it.

Practice makes perfect, but perfect practice is best.

 

[Klint Beastwood]

I've seen quite a few people shot by small arms. I've seen men survive sucking chest wounds from 5.56 and 7.62 x 39, because they received prompt medical care, whether self-aid or from someone else, and I've seen enemy flop around and try to get away for a while after being hit in the chest. I've seen an enemy soldier crawling away minus a leg, after a machinegun bullet removed it. He also left behind his AK. I believe he wasn't firing it because he CHOSE not too, but if he was able to crawl away after getting a leg removed, he COULD have fired that weapon had he desired. All of this was with rifles or machineguns. Look at the damage animals like deer survive with, and the distance they can cover, after being shot at close range by expanding high power rifle rounds! ANY handgun is a poor choice of weapon in a gunfight, but as civilians or police in the US, they tend to be what we have when things happen. Consider how many criminals are shot by the police- often multiple times- and survive. Is there some science involved? Sure. But I think folks really overthink it. Just keep it as simple as possible- the goal is to put multiple bullets into critical plumbing in the upper body, until the fight is OVER. In my experience, this ends a fight. Yes, the head is also an option.

If the 9mm sucks so bad, why is it the most common handgun round world-wide, and why is it considered sufficient everywhere except the US? Think about it.

Practice makes perfect, but perfect practice is best.

The 5.56 is pretty common rifle round, NATO wide, and it sucks according to a series of critics. As well as my own opinion. Also people around the world suck when it comes to recoil management and the concept of consistent isometric tension on pistols. Thats a generalized statement. Like you (I’m assuming) I’ve dabelled with other well trained foreign forces. The 9mm is more forgiving for sloppiness. I wouldn’t consider trends of the world a way to determine a cartridge superiority debate that’s been going on since the mid 80s.

 

[Varminterror]

For 9mm vs. 45acp, standardization, and adoption - as FL-NC quite aptly put it - US fighting forces EXPORT violence. In support of said, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to ship 9mm, or even cheaper still to procure locally... I've seen the stats for "war winning factors" mentioned above, and the aspects of money spent vs. round shipped, troops supplied per ton transported, and shots fired per troop all win wars. It's simple logistics: more ammo per shipment = more dead enemies.

 

[FL-NC]

The 5.56 is pretty common rifle round, NATO wide, and it sucks according to a series of critics. As well as my own opinion. Also people around the world suck when it comes to recoil management and the concept of consistent isometric tension on pistols. Thats a generalized statement. Like you (I’m assuming) I’ve dabelled with other well trained foreign forces. The 9mm is more forgiving for sloppiness. I wouldn’t consider trends of the world a way to determine a cartridge superiority debate that’s been going on since the mid 80s.

In my experience, the 5.56 round is a very versatile and effective round, as is the 9mm. Many of the cartridges out there, such as the M855 (SS109) and all ball handgun ammunition (not just 9mm) leave a LOT to be desired in terminal performance. I have also observed that everything sucks to those who like something else.

 

[Klint Beastwood]

In my experience, the 5.56 round is a very versatile and effective round, as is the 9mm. Many of the cartridges out there, such as the M855 (SS109) and all ball handgun ammunition (not just 9mm) leave a LOT to be desired in terminal performance. I have also observed that everything sucks to those who like something else.

My experience like you said was watching dudes walk away from getting hit by m855.
I’ve never seen superb performance in many versatile things.
Then again ive seen a dude get hit by 5 hell fire and only lose a leg, a hand, and have a softball size sucking chest wound on the left lateral abdomen and some burns before we snatched his ass up.
Point being, there being numerous variables and such and the fact that a person just doesn’t fall down and die isn’t what I’m getting at. I’m just saying 5.56 is something is nothing to wright home about.
I didn’t say the 9mm sucked. I was just using the example in the same concept.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I think going 3 pages and 70+ post and 10 days, on this time tested subject, is enough for this go around.

Let's move on to a different subject