Should the military consider .40?

Should the military consider the .40?

  • Yes

    Votes: 67 32.5%

  • No

    Votes: 139 67.5%
  • Total voters
    206
Status
Not open for further replies.
yes, they should.

our military has always issued fmj rounds for the sake of international political correctness. america adheres to the hague convention, even though we did not sign or agree to anything about it.

if our guys aren't able to use jhp's, yes, a slightly bigger round with little to no loss of capacity would always be a superior choice.
 
The only reason the US military went to the 9mm from the 45 Auto was to comply with NATO standards. Our elite units that are allowed to deviate from NATO standards and opt for the handgun round of their choice opt for the 45 Auto. I doubt that they would now move away from NATO standards and go to the 40S&W. Since the Army recently ordered more M9s I don't see the 9mm being replaced anytime soon. Our European allies would never adopt the 40S&W either. Since we rammed the 7.62 down their throats in the 50s and then promptly switched to non-standard (at the time) 5.56, much to their consternation, we probably ought to just give them the 9mm. Handguns are almost never used in wartime anyway.
 
I read somewhere, can't remember where but there has been a strong movement to the 15rd Springfield 45cal. I do believe that's logical. The Beretta held more rounds, now we have a 45 that holds 15. I think personally it would be a good decision.
 
The Coast Guard (SIG P229R DAK) and Army Special Forces (Glock 22) use the .40.

With the military buying nearly a half million more M9's and the Marines specifically ordering a large number of M9A1's, the 9x19 will be GI longer than the .45 was.
 
Also, .45 FMJ is inferior to .40 FMJ plus the pistol would be larger in every dimension (HUGE if 15 +1,) much heavier, lower capacity, Etc.

While I like the ACP, it is a silly military and police cartridge choice.
 
In what way is .45 inferior to .40 in FMJ?

It's a comparison that cuts both ways. .40 has more capacity than a .45, and more energy than a 9mm. But it has less capacity than a 9mm, and makes a smaller hole than a .45. I would rather train (rookie, non-shooter) soldiers to shoot 9mm or .45 than a .40.

In the grand scheme of things, the choice of sidearm is pretty much inconsequential. No war has been determined by the choice of sidearm. I can't think of a case where HAVING sidearms made a serious difference.
 
Army Special Forces (Glock 22) use the .40
Click to expand...

Not saying it aint so ~ I sure don't claim to know everything. But I've never seen that. I went to Afghanistan in 2009-2010 as an embedded trainer. I saw the M9 used extensively and personally carried one along with an M4. You would on rare occasions see a 1911. What I did find interesting, was that in those situations where a soldier had an option and most didn't, the M9 seemed to be favored because of the ammo capacity.
 
Last edited:
The only reason the US military went to the 9mm from the 45 Auto was to comply with NATO standards. Our elite units that are allowed to deviate from NATO standards and opt for the handgun round of their choice opt for the 45 Auto. I doubt that they would now move away from NATO standards and go to the 40S&W. Since the Army recently ordered more M9s I don't see the 9mm being replaced anytime soon. Our European allies would never adopt the 40S&W either. Since we rammed the 7.62 down their throats in the 50s and then promptly switched to non-standard (at the time) 5.56, much to their consternation, we probably ought to just give them the 9mm. Handguns are almost never used in wartime anyway.
Click to expand...
I agree with almost nothing about this post which is barely germane to the question at hand.
 
I read recently that the army is looking for an automatic with a smaller grip than the berretta. The majority of pistol carriers now are women. I think going to the .40S&W is going to happen, the platform is the challenge!! The military likes having external (visible) safeties that can be seen to be engaged.
 
I don't think it matters. In the world of military small arms, rifles are what matter, not pistols. As long as a military has a reliable pistol chambered in something not entirely anemic to issue, it can move on and worry about other things.
 
I read recently that the army is looking for an automatic with a smaller grip than the berretta. The majority of pistol carriers now are women. I think going to the .40S&W is going to happen, the platform is the challenge!! The military likes having external (visible) safeties that can be seen to be engaged.
Click to expand...

The search that you're probably thinking of was cancelled. The military just ordered a boat-load more Beretta M9's. That's beside the fact that even if they went with a new gun it would almost certainly still be 9mm just to remain standard with our allies.

The M9 isn't going anywhere for a while. The 9mm NATO round itself will likely outlast that pistol and probably outlast most of our lives as the standard sidearm round for our military.
 
Carrying a pistol matters to individual soldiers. That doesn't mean that it's very important to the DOD. When I say 'a single case', I am referring to the overall outcome of a war, not to the experiences of many individual soldiers whose lives have been saved by their sidearm.
 
LOL @ the .40s&w being superior to the .45acp!

Less capacity than a 9mm AND less power than the .45acp BUT in exchange for this sacrifice you get only marginally better power than the 9mm AND snappier recoil than the .45acp cartridge. Plus, it's a nonstandard caliber for NATO. I know alot of cops like the .40 (many because it's all they know, at least extensively) but I don't see it offering too much to our military.

If the US, ever did vary from the NATO standard it would IMHO be a return to the .45acp. It would also probably be in a platform other than the 1911.
 
Even though I favor .40 S&W for my personal carry,
Click to expand...

Absolutely in a CCW, as once you go below a 4" barrel IMHO the .45ACP has lost too much velocity to have penetration you can count on, getting any expansion makes it worse.

In equivalent barrel lengths the .40S&W is typically 100-150 fps faster than the .45ACP and the sectional density of 180gr .40 is the same as 230gr .45 (penetration is proportional to sectional density times velocity, expansion greatly reduces sectional density).
 
I would imagine that the choice of caliber is made primarily based upon ammunition supply channels. Ballistic data and "stopping power" are all secondary when you are talking about a sidearm. These things are far more important to police and civilian carriers of the weapon being concerned about over-penetration. Military priorities are probably different.
 
While I like the ACP, it is a silly military and police cartridge choice.
Click to expand...

i have to agree 100%. the 45acp is probably my fav round, but it's size and weight doesn't allow soldiers to carry nearly as much ammo as 9mm, or even a 40cal would.


if your deployed in a warzone, would you rather have 200 rounds of 9mm/40cal on your person, or almost half that in 45acp?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Michael Tinker Pearce
  • Locked
The TCAH Stage 1- Perfection Perfected!
Replies
6
Views
479
bannockburn
bannockburn
A
  • Locked
Beretta PX4 .40
2
Replies
25
Views
763
js8588
J
S
  • Locked
  • Poll
Glocks
2 3 4
Replies
89
Views
4K
Onward Allusion
O
9
  • Locked
Best Deal in a New .40 S&W
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
mrmike7189
mrmike7189
george burns
  • Locked
Which do you prefer of these 2, 9mm or 40cal
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
9mmepiphany
9mmepiphany
Back
Top