So did the army get it right when they picked the M9?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The department could have sold it to him as its not a restricted item. But why would you want that pea shooter. I checked the velocity stats on the V max 5.7 load its only going 1650 from the pistol thats 240 footpounds. Thats a 22 mag from a rifle. Wow. Yawn.
Pat
Click to expand...

Actually, IIRC, the FN site quotes 2250 fps. Also, AP. Also, 20 rounds in the magazine. Come on, that's just cool!

But, yes. I do not envision any situation in which I, or any other average law-abiding citizen would need it. Unless perps start wearing body armor, or we have to face waves of armored Jaffar... :D

Btw, has anyone heard of perps wearing body armor?
 
In answer to your question, I bought my Five-seveN from the sporting goods section of my local ACE hardware store. They had 3 in stock when I bought mine. I admit it won't do much more than my CZ-52, and the muzzle blast isn't as impresive. It's a fun, though expensive, pistol to shoot. Practical use? probably alongside my C-96, artillery Luger, and LeMat pistols.
 
Issue Pistols

People who have not been in combat have adjugded the pistol (or earlier the revolver) as "useless" "impractical", "obsolete" for issue to troops since before the Spanish American war over 100 years ago.

None-the-less, in every conflict the military has found themselves scrambling to meet the demand for "useless" pistols... Including WWI, WWII, the Gulf War etc.

Ultimately, troops say they need a sidearm... so they should have them... that simple.

And, so long as we unneccessiarly follow the 1907 Hague Accords 9mm is absolutely not the round to use... the Army had the right answer until the M9 came along... .45 ACP.

FWIW

Chuck
 
Well CXM, I have been in combat, and my TO weapon was a pistol. First a 1911 and later an M-9. In both instances I "acquired" a rifle to carry and use. First an M-14 and later an M-16. And no, I didn't take either of the pistols with me, I had enough of a load without adding to it. I could carry 3 more rifle magazines (90rounds) in the weight /space an M-9 would take up. I know all you "Blackhawk down" fans will immediately ask, "what happens when you run out of rifle ammo?" Well you die, and I would rather have 90 more rounds of rifle ammo than an M-9 (45 rounds) or a 1911 (21 rounds). Of course this is just my opinion and we all know what they are alike, however I'm still here to write about it.
 
The pistols (1911"s) in Army use in my term of service (1968-1971) were worn out antiques. I don't recall anybody back then who looked on the 1911 with the awe and worship some people give it now. They were considered old junk by most. I bought one when I left the Army, a Remington Rand WWII issue gun, with ammo, for about $175. Had it for 2 years or so and sold it in favor of .357 Magnum S&W revolvers. The idea of the .45 auto as supergun did not seem in evidence till the writings of Jeff Cooper made it so.

It's all advertising BS and salesmanship.

The service pistol is a good one, the 9mm is a great cartridge, the 1911 is over rated.
Bring back the .30-06
Mark
 
Last edited:
The 1911 is not overated. No pistol can be fired more swiftly and accurately under stress. None. Thats why top level competators use them and all the top Swat teams and Military spec opps teams. As a platform the 1911 is the easiest to shoot well once its mastered.
Pat
 
This goes to my previous post

The 1911's received virtually no maintenance while in service. The barrels were shot out, the frame/slide fit was sloppy, think of a correctable problem and it wasn't corrected. Now that we have the M9 that will catastrophically fail if not treated like a prima donna, regular maintenance is getting done. Barrels and slides are being replaced at regular intervals, constant armory checks, etc. So what folks are saying here is that the Mustang you neglected was a POS and your Pinto that got tune-ups and oil changes is the finest automobile ever invented. What a crock!
 
In my opinion the 1911 is a less than efficent platform, likewise the .45 acp is inefficent for it's size and weight. There are many other pistols out there that hold more rounds, many of these fire rounds have more muzzle energy or close to the same muzzle energy as the best .45 Acp rounds. Pistols that are lighter than the 1911 design even the alluminim frame designs. The .45 Gap held promise, however pressures were held way too low so that ballistics are barely if at all better than the .45 Acp. I believe there is a place for the 1911 and many people enjoy them a great deal. However for me I would prefer a more efficent firearms one that weighs less carries more rounds and has similar or greater muzzle energy.
on another note civilians can by the 5.7 I have handled them in two seperate stores what civilians cannot purchase is the ammo that will pierce body armor. Civilians are restricted to the hollow point round that fire a 28 grain projectile at 2099.73 fps with 274 ft pounds of energy. Not one I would by but may it have some applications.
 
The 5.7 is a joke at 1650 fps with a 40 grain bullet it has 240 footpounds and a wound pattern smaller than a standard pressure 115 grain jhp from the pistol. From the P90 its ok but from the Five N seven its a joke. The 1911 rules because of its low bore axis, short trigger reset and great ergonomics. Thats why its the choice of the pros.
Pat
 
Knew It When I Used It

The M9 sucks, plain and simple. Oh it was fun to play with, but it's apprarent to troops on the ground that when the SHTF it's not good in combat.
 
Well Capt Mike, all the troops I spoke with didn't have problems with the M-9, rather the cheap "lowest bidder" magazines. The ones with Beretta, or Mecgar magizines didn't have any complaints.
 
Don't know about the troops, but I care. I HOPE the M9 is the correct choice, if not. :banghead: That stated, EYE shoot Para P-14, the sweetie carries a P-12 concealed and a Glock 17 on her duty belt.Have shot the HK USP 40 ( love-it, want one terribly) the sig (s) were all great but I don't like'em. Own a basket full of rugers and berettas and love the reliability of the rugers and the quality of the berettas. That said, I carry a P-14. It is the best for me, and I know for a fact if the SHTF I'd use all 14 rounds from that fine/accurate/reliable/heavy pistol to fight my way to the beretta 1201fp shotgun loaded with #4 hevishot :neener:
 
Not a bad plan but load the shotgun with Buck or slugs unless your worried about attacking water foul.
Pat
 
I remember when the 1911 was our standard service sidearm. Their are a few things I remember being said about it often.
1. Something along the lines of most people couldn't hit a bull in the ass with it at point blank range. This may have been due to a couple of things. Worn out guns and very little training in the use of a pistol by most service people.
2. The guns had too much recoil. Again probably due to too little training and experience with a pistol.
3. The guns had to be carried without a round in the chamber to avoid accidental discharges. Evidently a too common occurance
4. Wild rumor about what the round could do. A favorite of mine was if you hit a man in the thumb their would be so much shock that it would break the mans arm and spin him around. Although those who had actually used them in combat reported pretty good effect with a well placed shot.
These weapons were not loved as much as many would have you believe.
 
I don't know why I have to keep repeting this. The specs on the 5.7 according to FN's site show a 28 gr hollow point round at 640 mps or 2099.73 fps which translates into 274 foot pounds of energy.
 
The Specs from Hornaday for the 5.7 40 grain V Max civilian legal load are 1650 fps for 240 footpounds. Thats sucks heck even the 270 your claiming sucks. The load is a glorified 22 mag. Most professionals in the wound ballistics field highly doubt the effectiveness of the 5.7 in a pistol. People such as the IWBA and Dr. Fackler. The round lacks energy and momentium and penetration in soft tissue. Its an overall loser for anthing but body armor penetration.
Pat
 
The 274 that is listed on the website is roughly the same as many .38 sp +p (out of 4 inch barrels however many people depend on .38 sp +p loads out of 2 inch barrels for self-defense or home protection) loads as far as energy is concerned and better also than .380 auto (another round many people count on). Does this mean that the 5.7 is as effective as the .38 sp +p or the .380 auto not nesasarily however if the round is shown to use the avaliable energy as effectively or more so than these rounds then it I see that it would have a viable place for some indviduals who would other wise use a roughly equal powered firearm with lower capacity. I realize that the size is of the 5.7 makes it not viable for most conceald carry options however size is often not a concern with home defense. On this note the effectiveness of the use of avliable energy is in question and until such issue is resolved I would not recomend this firearm. I personally don't see a place for it in my collection however I have a friend who I believe would greatly enjoy owning one.
 
Energy is not the only factor in fact its one of the least important. The 38 load you mention has over twice the momentium. It expands to approximately .55 to .60 caliber and will penetrate 12 inches. The 5.7 usually will make it 9 or 10 if your using the military ap ammo. The civiliam stuff frags before that and does not make it deep enough. The round is not adiquate for defense. Thats not just my opinion but the opinion of the IWBA and Dr. Fackler.
Pat
 
As a Ruger shareholder, I find that comment quite amusing!

Starbucks will not sell you a 20 round magazine for your Mini-14 either. Does that make them evil? Some companies sell coffee, some sell black rifles, and some sell sporting guns. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Yet Ruger is still willing to sell those 20 rounds magazines for Police and Military use. :rolleyes:

Not to mention Bill Ruger helping give the anti's that wonderfull idea to put a magazine limit in the Assault Weapons Bill.

Great job Mr. Ruger.

I own 2 ruger pistols, a 22/45 and a Blackhawk, and I will never purchase another firearm from that company until they actively support their products the same for us lowely peasants as for our ruling class.

Until then, I will give my money to other companies. Springfield gets my money for pistols, and I will give Bushmaster my money for rifles.

And you can quote me on that at your next stockholder meeting. :cuss:

I.G.B.
 
Back on topic:

-The M9 Berretta WAS the best choice when that choice was made. Lest we forget, and folks have said it in this thread, we're equipping an army not just elite groups with an armorer giving special attention to each piece. I'm a huge 1911 guy but I'm a civilian and that 1911 will likely be my only defence piece, so I'll take the time and money to trick that puppy out and make it as sweet as possible.

1911s, from back in the day, from which I own a Remington-Rand that's a sweetheart, were all handfitted to a great degree. You won't be able to do this in huge amounts anymore. The solution, were I to equip the army: Acknowledge that the M9 was the best choice at the time for an upgrade, based on what the brass wanted (NATO round, hi-cap, etc.), acknowledge that there are now better pieces to be had, and then put a glock 17 in the holster of any soldier that needs a handgun. It's easily the most forgiving gun when it comes to maintainance and care and feeding, but lacks the finesse and potential of the 1911, which would go to the elite units.

-paco
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Army Times Article on M9 vs. 45ACP
Replies
21
Views
2K
rockstar.esq
R
A
  • Locked
Did I make the right handgun choice?
Replies
3
Views
907
MrBorland
MrBorland
FL-NC
  • Locked
US Army handgun
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
163
Views
9K
9mmepiphany
9mmepiphany
Riomouse911
New Beretta M9 fail at 42 rounds
2 3 4
Replies
89
Views
3K
D.B. Cooper
D.B. Cooper
C
  • Locked
U.S. Army going with SigP220?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Werewolf
W
Back
Top