Apocalypse-Now
Member
cut welfare, and you can probably give the military the best arms available.
Should the military consider .40?
- Thread starter tackleberry45
- Start date
- Status
cut welfare, and you can probably give the military the best arms available.
mgmorden
Member
Not much incentive to cut spending somewhere just to waste it elsewhere. What we have gets the job done just fine.
Cut welfare to bring the national debt under control, not to simply reallocate that money to another pork-project
.Apocalypse-Now
Member
i don't consider giving out troops the best equipment available a waste. they deserve it.
many of them still have to armor their own hummers, and are using rifles/pistols that should have been decommissioned years ago. not to mention the ineffectiveness of the steel tipped 5.56 as a stopper which dr roberts has written numerous reports to the dept of defense about
Are we looking for good gamer or better twist? To upgrade firepower or try to save some expenditure? Our troops can always use better tools in the field and WE SHOULD AND BETTER give them only the best of what ever it is in what ever they need! And keep it flowing to them too!!!!
Thought I'd throw this into the mix ... Than why not look at the convincing ballistics of the 357sig, it's firearms size and capacity if I'm not mistaking is comparable to the 40 with a better ballistics ... they would never consider 10mm yet many here like it as an EDC 
that was the forebear-er too the 40
Thought I'd throw this into the mix
... Than why not look at the convincing ballistics of the 357sig, it's firearms size and capacity if I'm not mistaking is comparable to the 40 with a better ballistics ... they would never consider 10mm yet many here like it as an EDC that was the forebear-er too the 40 There is not a huge incentive to change pistol calibers for a couple reasons:
9mm is a NATO standard.
Most potential pistol rounds are going to be ineffective against body armor anyways, and most of the world's forces now wear body armor. So the only real difference would be when shooting civilians, like when imposing police states and fighting insurgents and not professional forces.
But gearing your troops to fight insurgents at the expense of what would be best at fighting professional forces is quite dangerous. You never know when we might be actually fighting a real military.
Effigy said:
Against civilians without body armor, like many insurgents this is true.
However they already had more .45 ACP pistols than they would have ever needed, and president Bill Clinton had most of them destroyed so they could never possibly end up going from the massive armories and into the hands of US civilians. (Just like he had fare more m14s destroyed than we have infantry in the military. When exactly such longer range rifles would be in high demand in Afghanistan and can be modernized to better fill such roles.)
So if you want to talk about throwing away money, destroying hundreds of thousands of .45s only to determine they could use a good .45 would be a great example.
It would make them look so unbelievably foolish that I think they would avoid a new .45ACP gun for just that reason.
The .45 ACP's ballistic coefficient and low velocity also makes it really hard to create rounds that will defeat even low level body armor, so if facing armored threats they could not issue ammo with better penetration like they can for some other calibers such as 9mm.
And finally a pistol is just jewelry most of the time, most soldiers on the battlefield have much more effective rifles and machineguns.
Battles are not won or decided by pistols. Only a small number of units actually use pistols frequently, and many of them are not limited to the standard issue sidearm and so it doesn't matter what the standard issue sidearm is.
Investing billions of tax payer dollars in something that plays almost no role in battle to purchase a bunch of pistols that do virtually the same exact thing as something they already have is just wasteful.
Doing the same thing to purchase guns that also screw up NATO supply lines for no real increased performance is just foolish.
9mm is a NATO standard.
Most potential pistol rounds are going to be ineffective against body armor anyways, and most of the world's forces now wear body armor. So the only real difference would be when shooting civilians, like when imposing police states and fighting insurgents and not professional forces.
But gearing your troops to fight insurgents at the expense of what would be best at fighting professional forces is quite dangerous. You never know when we might be actually fighting a real military.
Effigy said:
Against civilians without body armor, like many insurgents this is true.
However they already had more .45 ACP pistols than they would have ever needed, and president Bill Clinton had most of them destroyed so they could never possibly end up going from the massive armories and into the hands of US civilians. (Just like he had fare more m14s destroyed than we have infantry in the military. When exactly such longer range rifles would be in high demand in Afghanistan and can be modernized to better fill such roles.)
So if you want to talk about throwing away money, destroying hundreds of thousands of .45s only to determine they could use a good .45 would be a great example.
It would make them look so unbelievably foolish that I think they would avoid a new .45ACP gun for just that reason.
The .45 ACP's ballistic coefficient and low velocity also makes it really hard to create rounds that will defeat even low level body armor, so if facing armored threats they could not issue ammo with better penetration like they can for some other calibers such as 9mm.
And finally a pistol is just jewelry most of the time, most soldiers on the battlefield have much more effective rifles and machineguns.
Battles are not won or decided by pistols. Only a small number of units actually use pistols frequently, and many of them are not limited to the standard issue sidearm and so it doesn't matter what the standard issue sidearm is.
Investing billions of tax payer dollars in something that plays almost no role in battle to purchase a bunch of pistols that do virtually the same exact thing as something they already have is just wasteful.
Doing the same thing to purchase guns that also screw up NATO supply lines for no real increased performance is just foolish.
Last edited:
JohnBiltz
Member
I remember when we got rid of the .45. The ones we had in our armsroom were WWII manufacture, Singers and Remingtons mostly and this was in the 82D Airborne not some back water never to be deployed unit. Keeping them was not an option they were shot out and in desperate need of replacing either with new 1911s or something else. Given an option I would have bought one. Not so much to shoot, because they were terribly inaccurate, as for the history. I thought switching to 9mm was a mistake and still do. I also thought and still do it was not that important either way. Armies fight with crew served weapons and rifles. A pistol is not important.
On standardized ammo, its important. For instance during Desert Storm there was a French light armored division attached to Eighteenth Airborne Corps. Had the war went longer than 100 hours do you think the French would have been resupplying it with ammo our corps would have been? I have no doubt the French had no ability for long term support.
On standardized ammo, its important. For instance during Desert Storm there was a French light armored division attached to Eighteenth Airborne Corps. Had the war went longer than 100 hours do you think the French would have been resupplying it with ammo our corps would have been? I have no doubt the French had no ability for long term support.
Quiet
Member
NCIS also adopted the SIG P229 in .40S&W.
US Army Special Forces does not issue the .40S&W Glock 22.
A unit of US Army Special Forces does use the .40S&W Glock 22.
However, the majority of the units within US Army Special Forces use the 9x19mm Beretta M9, the 9x19mm Glock 17 & 19 and various .45ACP 1911s.
REAPER4206969
Member
Yes, but if I had posted "CAG" no one would know *** I'm talking about.
A pistol is a pistol. A rifle is A RIFLE! The U.S has had two different issued handguns in the last 100yrs. Both sufficient for their intended use. The military should consider the .40, they just wont. No real reason for them to.
Georgia1911
Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Messages
- 9
Don't ignore 38 Super or 9x23. Both have better ballistics than either 38 Special or 9mm Luger (except some +P 9MM), and would give up no magazine capacity (based on diameter) versus the current 9mm. I'm sure the DoD could develop even better rounds than currently available, and, as a 38 Super shooter, I would benefit from the increased availability.
withdrawn34
Member.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2008
- Messages
- 529
edit: nevermind, veering into politics
strange how there's no delete function for posts, eh?
strange how there's no delete function for posts, eh?
mgmorden
Member
Only relevant if you could get all of NATO to switch to it though. Realistically, one of the specific goals of the switch to 9mm was standardization of ammo with our allies. Getting marginal ballistics gains on weapons with limited usefulness in the first place isn't worth messing with that fact.
This whole concept is basically a solution looking for a problem. It ain't broke - it don't need fixin.
Georgia1911
Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Messages
- 9
That assumes NATO interchangeability is really useful. It may have been true that standardization was a goal, but was that ever really "realistic?" That these are "weapons with limited usefulness" would only be true if interchangeability is desired and/or current availability of ammo is considered. 38 Super and 9x23 are simply superior to 9mm Luger and most 40S&W, and that is without significant recent development. 45ACP did not exist before the 1911- was it a weapon of limited usefulness in 1911?
No.
I vote 10mm in JHP rounds. I'm a 10mm fan, and if they want more put down power than the 9mm provides it will do just that. Plus they can carry as much ammo as the .40. You can massage the load if you are worried about over penetration, etc, etc.
I vote 10mm in JHP rounds. I'm a 10mm fan, and if they want more put down power than the 9mm provides it will do just that. Plus they can carry as much ammo as the .40. You can massage the load if you are worried about over penetration, etc, etc.
REAPER4206969
Member
Not really. Also, could you pick anymore of an obscure list of cartridges?
Oh ya?
REAPER4206969
Member
.40 FMJ makes a larger permanent wound cavity than .45 FMJ.
.40 FMJ beats .45 FMJ in nearly every meaningful category.
You mean like, oh I don't know, say a 180gr. bullet at 995fps-1,025fps?
sixgunner455
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,052
Absolutely not true. 9mm was looked at immediately after WWII, and eventually adopted, to give the soldier a lighter gun (Colt Commander w/aluminum frame was the first gun they looked at), that was also lighter kicking. When they eventually did the M9 trials, they also wanted higher capacity - hence the two guns that passed all the tests were the Beretta and the SIG.
And to say that the M9 is too big for the small handed people ignores the fact that, if it's a real problem for someone, there's always the M11.
No, they should not change to the .40. Absolutely pointless - harder kicking than the .45, less capacity than what they have now, no advantage in performance (ball rounds, remember). 9mm all the way.
Georgia1911
Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Messages
- 9
Nothing obscure about 38 Super just because you can't buy it at Wallyworld. 9x23 maybe. If the issue on the table is what is a better round than 9mm, and one of the concerns is mag capacity, then why not 38 Super? More energy with a slightly smaller diameter and only about 2mm longer.
And, yes, 45ACP only existed as a prototype before the M1911 made it a real cartridge.
REAPER4206969
Member
.38 Super is a gamer round, other than that it sees no support or use. It provides absolutely no advantage over 9x19 in FMJ and must be chambered in a .45 frame. Not to mention it's semi-rimmed case lends to rimlock in double stack mags. At least .357 SIG fits in preexisting 9mm frames, although it doesn't have any advantage either.
.45 ACP came out in 1905 and there was the Colt/Browning M1905, M1909 and M1910 before the M1911.
.45 ACP came out in 1905 and there was the Colt/Browning M1905, M1909 and M1910 before the M1911.
Apocalypse-Now
Member
that's true! i saw mark harmon using one last night on tv!
this would be the correct post.
The Lone Haranguer
Member
In both World Wars, we acted autonomously and there was no need for ammunition or equipment interchangeability. The reality is different now that we are involved in "entangling foreign alliances."
rskent
Member
I'm with Wally
Me too
Me too
Kendal Black
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,647
Nah. Stay with the nine. 9mmP is no favorite of mine, but I must be wrong! It is in use worldwide. The Russians are fielding some 9x19 pistols ( MP-443 ) and so are the Chinese ( QSZ-92 ). Both countries still have lots of other pistols on hand but I think this an interesting trend--their most recently adopted pistols are 9x19. Of course the cartridge is in use throughout NATO and in many, many other places.
Not sure how it happened, but that's an unusual degree of convergence. It means widespread ammo availability (made everywhere) and it also suggests the round is about right for the purpose--or maybe it just means it's about as much as a broad spectrum of recruits can master in a reasonable time frame for training.
So, keep the nine for general issue and if some specialized units want or need something else, well, we have that going on now.
Not sure how it happened, but that's an unusual degree of convergence. It means widespread ammo availability (made everywhere) and it also suggests the round is about right for the purpose--or maybe it just means it's about as much as a broad spectrum of recruits can master in a reasonable time frame for training.
So, keep the nine for general issue and if some specialized units want or need something else, well, we have that going on now.
Georgia1911
Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Messages
- 9
But the M1905 was effectively a production prototype that led to significant changes before the final version was released. Only a few thousand weapons were made. The Colt "1910" was an even rarer prototype and was mostly a 1911. JMB did build a completely different design as the FN 1910 at Herstal, but it was not chambered for 45. I had a Colt 1903 in 32 at one time, and there is a clear resemblance between the FN and the little Colt.
Apocalypse-Now
Member
the model 1905 was full production and chambered for 45acp. a recent auction i went had a ton of them. they were almost a dime a dozen lol
correct, the colt 1910 is exceedingly rare.
- Status
Similar threads
