U.S. Brings Back the .45

[Old Dog]

When my branch finally transitioned to the M-9s, I helped our armorers pack up our 40 Colt's Government Models to send back to Crane. Some of 'em were in terrific condition in spite of their age (this was in '94, some of 'em must have been barely post-WW II vintage). I, and a couple of my buddies, almost felt like crying. Yeah, we'd asked if there was any chance we could somehow buy some ...

 

[depicts]

I'll take a 9mm

well if the DoD decides to rearm with .45's which I think is a smart idea, I'll buy one of those "left over" 9mm's and a whole bunch of ammo real cheap for a fun "plinking" gun. Maybe buy a few. Heck....they wouldn't be my first choice for defense, but I'd sure like to help Uncle Sam recover some of it's losses

 

[355sigfan]

ummm..... I think you mean .40S&W, the services are all going different ways on the sidearm issue, but a large number of Sig 229's has already been purchased and will be distributed starting in march for the next two years. Cross my heart and hope to die.

The Military has no plans on using the 40 sw.
Pat

 

[Old Fuff]

well if the DoD decides to rearm with .45's which I think is a smart idea, I'll buy one of those "left over" 9mm's and a whole bunch of ammo real cheap for a fun "plinking" gun. Maybe buy a few. Heck....they wouldn't be my first choice for defense, but I'd sure like to help Uncle Sam recover some of it's losses

No you won't. The D.O.D. is required to destroy, rather then sell surplus firearms. This started with president Lydon Johnson, and has been in effect ever since. Before L.B.J. (as sorry a Democrat that ever lived) we could buy surplus .45 1911 pistols for as little as $21.00 plus shipping.

No more, thanks to the anti-gun Democrats.

Your tax dollars at work...

 

[MCgunner]

No you won't. The D.O.D. is required to destroy, rather then sell surplus firearms. This started with president Lydon Johnson, and has been in effect ever since. Before L.B.J. (as sorry a Democrat that ever lived) we could buy surplus .45 1911 pistols for as little as $21.00 plus shipping.

No more, thanks to the anti-gun Democrats.

Your tax dollars at work...

Stupid part about it is they're PAYING to crush the things when they could be MAKING MONEY selling 'em! That's okay, we'll just raise taxes to cover the costs....

Clinton tried to kill the DCM. Our club got back in it after dropping out when Clinton made failure to dot Is and cross Ts a felony or some crap. Clinton did to the DCM what he did to the "kitchen table FFL dealers".

When I was an FFL "kitchen table dealer", I felt it my duty to arm my part of America. Every week I'd order SKS rifles and put 'em on football pots at work, make no money off 'em, just arming the citizenry who likes football puts, LOL! They were a bigger attraction on a football pot than money! I did my little part for the armed citizenry I guess, LOL.

 

[WarMachine]

I must ask,

Why are they destroying these surplus guns? Do they pose a bigger threat to the safety of the nation than their thousands of civilian couterparts? It doesn't make any sense. The military loves spending money, but making it seems to be lost on them...

 

[MCgunner]

Liberal is not a logical thing, it's all about emotion and "feel good" and being politically correct regardless of reality, or maybe in spite of. Liberals don't have an actual cephalic neurosystem. If they can think at all, they cannot reason or use logic, so just forget logic.

Destroying these guns keeps 'em from "getting to the street", donncha know. That's supposed to be a good thing whether they're out of the hands of good guys or bad. Of course it makes no sense. Being a liberal makes no sense. Socialism and communism make no sense if you know ANYthing about human nature. It's all about feeling good, whether it is logical or not.

 

[CAnnoneer]

+1 MCgunner

Sad, but true. Who is worse is the politician jigolos that service them.

The bureaucrats had better approve something American-made, like the P90. Enough financing foreigners with taxpayer money!

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

For military use a .45 FMJ might be better but ballistically it is equal to a .32 ACP HP!

How on did you come to this conclusion? Do you honestly think a .32 is equal to a .45?

 

[MCgunner]

How on did you come to this conclusion? Do you honestly think a .32 is equal to a .45?

Marshall Sanow stats on actual gun fights. I know the big bullet freaks refuse to believe they're not biased, but the .45 ball ammo has about a 60% "stopping power" rating which is about even with some .32 hollowpoint, though I think even though I do believe the M/S stats to be founded on good statistics, I'd rather be shooting .45 ball than any .32 anything, LOL!

I'd rather be shooting 9mm +P+ hollowpoint than either one of 'em, though.

Hey, but whatever works for you! Forget hollowpoint for military use, though. 9mm ball is somewhere south of 60% in M/S stats, don't remember exactly where, but it's less effective. Neither one is great, though. That's why I was wondering why they'd have to adopt a round ball? Seems like a truncated cone bullet would work a bit better, maybe even up another 6 or 8 points in actual gunfights. I know I have decent results from .357 magnum SWCs. They penetrate, yet leave a good diameter of destroyed lung tissue reliably in deer. A round nose would zip through like a field point arrow by comparison. SWCs and truncated cone shapes do more tissue damage and I don't see why, so long as they're FMJ, they would be "illegal" by the Geneva convention. Maybe it reads that it HAS to be round, don't know.

At any rate, pistols are not front line combat weapons for obvious reasons. Their "stopping power" is really a moot thing in military service. They're not meant to be used in actual battle, horse cavalry having been made obsolete a few years back.

 

[Kodiaz]

Well it would be great if they went back to the 1911. I couldn't argue with a Glock .45.


Went to the range a couple weeks ago and the guy in the next lane was shooting one of those small frame Glocks in .45. He sees my groups and takes a peek at my Kimber(TLE 2 Stainless) and start commenting on what a nice gun. So I hand it to him with a couple of mags. So I ask him about the glock how accurate is it. So I get a glock with a 2" barrel and shoot almost as tight a group as my Kimber. I think one of those little Glock .45's has a future as a BUG.

 

[thorazine]

I think the 1911 platform would be better suited for the grunts and MPs in service. At least thats what I want, what can I say I'm biased.

Indeed. Malfunction clearing is a good skill to learn and be proficient at.

 

[trueblue1776]

HOW MANY TIMES?

I'd like to see an official source cited.

If I could quote military official message traffic (which I can't) it would say, unit gunners here are your new SIG 229's. If I could take pictures inside the Arm Depot you would see crates of SIG 229's chambered in .40 S&W.

As soon as I turn in my M9 and am issued my Sig, I'll post a picture so everyone can come back to reality.

I don't even know why people are saying 1911's are going to be issued.

Pat and all you other Stateside GI's, these pictures are going to be dedicated to you.

 

[355sigfan]

Marshall Sanow stats on actual gun fights. I know the big bullet freaks refuse to believe they're not biased, but the .45 ball ammo has about a 60% "stopping power" rating which is about even with some .32 hollowpoint, though I think even though I do believe the M/S stats to be founded on good statistics, I'd rather be shooting .45 ball than any .32 anything, LOL!

I'd rather be shooting 9mm +P+ hollowpoint than either one of 'em, though.

Hey, but whatever works for you! Forget hollowpoint for military use, though. 9mm ball is somewhere south of 60% in M/S stats, don't remember exactly where, but it's less effective. Neither one is great, though. That's why I was wondering why they'd have to adopt a round ball? Seems like a truncated cone bullet would work a bit better, maybe even up another 6 or 8 points in actual gunfights. I know I have decent results from .357 magnum SWCs. They penetrate, yet leave a good diameter of destroyed lung tissue reliably in deer. A round nose would zip through like a field point arrow by comparison. SWCs and truncated cone shapes do more tissue damage and I don't see why, so long as they're FMJ, they would be "illegal" by the Geneva convention. Maybe it reads that it HAS to be round, don't know.

At any rate, pistols are not front line combat weapons for obvious reasons. Their "stopping power" is really a moot thing in military service. They're not meant to be used in actual battle, horse cavalry having been made obsolete a few years back.

Even Evan himself will tell you not to take his OSS numbers literally for prediction. A 32 acp lacks the momentium and ability to penetrate and break bones like the 45 acp ball. They do have a simular wound profile for the first few inches then the 32 stops rather shallow where the 45 ball continues on. Pistols should still be carried by the troops. Their not front line weapons but they beat your bayonet when you run out of ammo or your rifle is destroyed.
Pat

 

[IndianaDean]

Remember the military has to use ball ammo. No hollow points allowed per the Den Hague convention. There is nothing wrong with the 9mm as long as you can put some good high speed hollow points in them. For military use a .45 FMJ might be better but ballistically it is equal to a .32 ACP HP!

Actually, it's ok in some situations to use hollowpoints. This is from ar15.com:

Q. Isn't against the Geneva Convention for the Military to use hollowpoint or fragmenting ammo?
You probably mean the Hague Peace Conference held in July 1899. That was when "bullets that expand or flatten easily in the human body" were first proscribed. The United States was never a signatory to the Hague Peace Conference which meant that not only could the United States use those rounds but also that if the US entered a conflict all the other parties could use them too.

The United States did, however, sign the Hague Convention 1907, Article 23(e) which forbade: "...arms, projectiles, or material (sic) calculated to cause unnecessary suffering." As a result, US snipers used M-118 ammo, a "Match" version of M-80 ball. (7.62×51mm 173-grain solid-tipped boat tail).

In late 1985, the Judge Advocate General wrote an opinion which affirmed that expanding ammo was legal for the US to use in operations "not involving the engagement of the armed forces of another State" (like counter terrorist operations, for example).

In 1990, another opinion permitted the use of the Sierra MatchKing hollowpoint round by US snipers, reasoning that it was not designed to expand or fragment and that the hollowpoint design was a result of the requirements for manufacturing super-accurate bullets.

Then in 1993 Special Operations Command was given the go-ahead by the Judge Advocate General to equip their forces with JHP rounds (Winchester "Black Talon" at the time) for their H&K MK 23 pistols.

As for Sanov stats, I don't have much confidence in those. I base my opinion on what actual LEOs and military guys (from WWII, Korea and Vietnam) have told me and the .45 is way better than the .32, and it's better than the 9 in terms of ball ammo.

 

[Jeff White]

Trueblue1776 said;

If I could quote military official message traffic (which I can't) it would say, unit gunners here are your new SIG 229's

You can't because it doesn't exist.

Jeff

 

[GILROY]

Just by coincidence..HK is building a large new factory right next to Fort Benning in Columbus Ga. I wonder if they have some idea how the "trial" will come out already.

 

[trueblue1776]

Trueblue1776 said;


You can't because it doesn't exist.

Jeff

I'll try to get you some proof, so y'all can dine on crow. Just for curiousity sake, how many folks here will be using the new military issue sidearm in a professional capacity? Maybe not many?

 

[IndianaDean]

I still like HK's. I've calmed down and realized I'm more accurate and fast with an HK USP than any other firearm I have ever fired.

 

[GILROY]

Not silly, if you feel the need to protest that way. While I hate the Euro mindset on Muslim radicals, I am not ready to turn loose my HKs, SIGs and Mercedes. But I would gladly use any of the above to fight for freedom. (including the Merc).

 

[MCgunner]

As for Sanov stats, I don't have much confidence in those. I base my opinion on what actual LEOs and military guys (from WWII, Korea and Vietnam) have told me and the .45 is way better than the .32, and it's better than the 9 in terms of ball ammo.

Wow, now THERE'S an unbiased sample! BWAAAAA, ha, ha! ROFLMAO!

Statistics is more than hear say. It involves mathematical tests to determine the fit of each sample in the curve, the confidence of the researcher in the curve and the mean, the determination of a deviation for the sample set which is an indicator of variance. I prefer to believe numbers, not hear say. One of the things about statistical analysis you learn early on is that a LARGE and representative sample set makes for more confidence in the accuracy of the results. When you can accumulate 1500 or more representative shootings center mass one shot with a given caliber, you can do your math and be relatively certain of the sample set. If you have two or three samples, that does not bode well for a good variance and it will show up in the math. A couple of GIs that "blew 'em off their feet" do not make an adequate statistical sample.

This is why I like the Marshall/Sanow data. It is done scientifically, not conjecture, no agenda to prove anything about any caliber. It's just a statistical study of REAL gunfights to determine what won more often and what didn't. There's lots of mumbo jumbo contrived algebra out there (usually based on momentum because of its bias towards higher mass projectiles and not velocity) that "PROVE" the .45 is better than anything ever was. This is agenda driven rubbish and some of it is just absolutely hillarious.

One thing Marshall/Sanow does prove is that most of the SD calibers are at least 3/4 of the time quite adequate with a good torso hit. The best 9mm, the best .45, the best .40, the best .38 and even the best .380 are effective near or over 3/4 of the time in actual shootings with one shot. The .32 don't quite get there, is closer to 1/2. Forget the .25 and .22 because they're down around 1/4. This is one of the reasons .380 is my bottom line caliber. But, even with a .357 magnum, I'm going to shoot and shoot and shoot center mass until the threat is over. One shot is only for theory.

BTW, I and M/S data agree with you about .45 and 9mm ball. They're both pretty poor, though, compared to better SD ammo available OUTSIDE the Geneva convention rules.

 

[BsChoy]

Remember the military has to use ball ammo. No hollow points allowed per the Den Hague convention. There is nothing wrong with the 9mm as long as you can put some good high speed hollow points in them. For military use a .45 FMJ might be better but ballistically it is equal to a .32 ACP HP!

I just read the Article from the Hague and it states only, "The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power".


If Iraq didn't ratify the Hague treaty then we can use any ammo we desire.

If we aren't fighting a government army from a country that ratified the Hague than we can use whatever we want within a human rights standpoint. We are fighting rebels not organized army so within rules of war we may use mushrooming ammunition, plus we are not at war...we are fighting insurgents

 

[MCgunner]

Well, I was watching Ollie North on Fox News and they were firing a belt fed grenade laucher from a humvee. Now, THAT's more effective than any hollowpoint. Gimme one of them thangs! I don't need no "dum dum" bullets!

 

[ghost squire]

Seems to me the .45 would be more effective if it had a truncated cone FMJ design with a big, flat point. Since it won't be used in a 1911, they don't have to worry about FTFs.

The new contract specifies it has to operate with truncated cone ammunition in addition to ball.

 

[IndianaDean]

There's lots of mumbo jumbo contrived algebra out there (usually based on momentum because of its bias towards higher mass projectiles and not velocity) that "PROVE" the .45 is better than anything ever was. This is agenda driven rubbish and some of it is just absolutely hillarious.

Go out to Gunsite Ranch and tell that to Jeff Cooper and Michael Boatman.
It may be true, but I'm sure they'll have something to say about it.\