Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Should the military consider .40?

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by tackleberry45, Jun 2, 2011.

?

Should the military consider the .40?

  1. Yes

    67 vote(s)
    32.5%
  2. No

    139 vote(s)
    67.5%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tackleberry45

    tackleberry45 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    303
    Location:
    Tampa area of Florida
    So if the JCP came up again do you think the military should consider going to the .40? I got into a long discussion at my LGS and as you can imagine the opinions flew!
     
  2. Apocalypse-Now

    Apocalypse-Now Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,148
    Location:
    deluxe apartment in the sky
    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.
     
  3. 7mmb

    7mmb Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    Messages:
    327
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    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.
     
  4. wally

    wally Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Messages:
    12,365
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    Stay with the world standard 9mm , or go back to the .45ACP.
     
  5. MaterDei

    MaterDei Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,517
    Location:
    Houston
    I'm with Wally
     
  6. Girodin

    Girodin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,550
    I don't see it being worth the expense to change.
     
  7. CZ57

    CZ57 member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,533
    Location:
    Heart of Texas
    +2;) Stick with the 9mm or go back to the .45ACP.
     
  8. Ole Coot

    Ole Coot Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    561
    Location:
    WV
    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.
     
  9. REAPER4206969

    REAPER4206969 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,037
    Location:
    Idaho
    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.
     
  10. REAPER4206969

    REAPER4206969 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,037
    Location:
    Idaho
    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.
     
  11. miles1

    miles1 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    556
    Location:
    Ohio
    +3 9mm or 45ACP please.
     
  12. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,705
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    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.
     
  13. PRM

    PRM Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,060
    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: Jun 3, 2011
  14. mshootnit

    mshootnit Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,074
    I agree with almost nothing about this post which is barely germane to the question at hand.
     
  15. peyton

    peyton Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2006
    Messages:
    658
    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.
     
  16. wally

    wally Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Messages:
    12,365
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    True.

    Sgt. York might disagree.
     
  17. Geckgo

    Geckgo Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Messages:
    784
    Location:
    Southern Louisiana
    +4 9mm or 45ACP
     
  18. harmon rabb

    harmon rabb Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,699
    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.
     
  19. mgmorden

    mgmorden Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,570
    Location:
    Charleston, South Carolina
    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.
     
  20. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,705
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    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.
     
  21. Unistat

    Unistat Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    502
    Location:
    SE Michigan
    Even though I favor .40 S&W for my personal carry, I agree with this. If I had to have FMJ, I'd want a .45 ACP.
     
  22. InkEd

    InkEd Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,575
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    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.
     
  23. wally

    wally Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Messages:
    12,365
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    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).
     
  24. rhodco

    rhodco Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2010
    Messages:
    155
    Location:
    Georgia
    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.
     
  25. Apocalypse-Now

    Apocalypse-Now Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,148
    Location:
    deluxe apartment in the sky
    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?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page