What should US army do?

[marksman13]

Well said, Q.

 

[JohnKSa]

Let's remember that the Army decided on the cartridge, 9X19, before chosing the gun. They did that for political reasons, a sop to NATO, which accused us of always riding roughshod over them. They did not do it because the M1911A1 was considered inadequate, too hard for recruits to learn, or somehow "obsolete."

Then WHY did they change guns instead of just changing calibers?

Picking the 9x19mm caliber (regardless of the reasons for doing so) didn't force them to change firearms, the M1911A1 can be chambered in 9mm.

Obviously they wanted to change BOTH the caliber AND the gun. I don't claim to know why they changed the pistol, but let's not pretend that picking 9mm somehow eliminated the possibility of sticking with the 1911.

 

[KINGMAX]

I like the .45 acp

I have always liked the .45 acp for close quarters combat. It is a round for stopping a man up close and personal. Designed to take a 'stoned' man off of his feet in one shot.

I say - go to the HK USP 2000

 

[Quoheleth]

Thanks, Marksman13.

Q

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Then WHY did they change guns instead of just changing calibers?

Picking the 9x19mm caliber (regardless of the reasons for doing so) didn't force them to change firearms, the M1911A1 can be chambered in 9mm.

Believe it or not, I heard one of the key decision-makers say that the 9mm was a "more modern cartridge" and needed "a more modern gun."

Now just for grins and giggles, when was the 9X19 first adopted for military use? (Hint: The Swiss adopted the Luger in 9X19 in 1902.) When was the .45 ACP developed (hint: John Browning produced the first version of the .45 ACP in 1905.)

There were some congressmen also hot for a new pistol -- one of them saying, "No one can hit anything with a .45." What log had he been living under?

 

[theP8riot]

First off the .45 is hardly a wonder weapon. Just do a little research. One incendent that comes to mind is of a State Trooper who was attacked down in La or Miss. The attacker was shot by a citzen 4 or 5 times with a .45 POINT BLANK to the torso and was still beating the trooper to death. The bystander had to put one in his head to stop the attack.

Another is of a guy who works in a local gun shop. He used to run a fast food place and was robbed right before closing one night. He put all 8 rounds from his 1911 into the robber's CM and the guy still made it outside.

I know that you can do better than a 9mm, but no handgun round is a one shot death ray. That is why the handgun in a military application is almost always a secondary weapon. Changing to a larger caliber will mean less rounds for a marginal increase in power and still not very powerful at that.

I guess the .40 would be a good comprimise, but I don't see it as likely to happen. My guess is that the 9mm is here to stay and the M9 probly is too.

 

[JohnKSa]

Believe it or not, I heard one of the key decision-makers say that the 9mm was a "more modern cartridge" and needed "a more modern gun."

one of them saying, "No one can hit anything with a .45."

They did not do it because the M1911A1 was considered inadequate, too hard for recruits to learn, or somehow "obsolete."

It sounds to me like they were misinformed, but it also sounds like that's EXACTLY why they did it.

 

[BADUNAME13]

What do you do?

You clear the malfunction asap, while being covered by the 30 to 40 guys around you.

The most likely stoppage for any military weapon is running out of ammo. The chance of having a malfunction that puts a weapon down for the count is miniscule.

Further, soldiers fight as a team, having a weapon go down is not catastrophic when the guy behind you is waiting for you to drop down to one knee to take the lead. People complain about the ineffectiveness of 5.56, and now you are going to insist that already overladen soldiers waste precious weight and room on a handgun? A tool that the vast majority of soldiers have had little or no training on? I suppose the DOD could dig into the already minimal amount of rifle marksmanship they get...

A handgun is for self-defense, not fighting.

In addition, LT, Captains, Major and Colonels are all officers, and are likely to be involved in shooting bad guys.

Something tells me you have never been shot at sir.

As to which handgun, as much as I love the 1911 (Which BTW has NEVER gone out of service with the US military since it was adopted...)
The gov't will not 'admit they were wrong' and go back to the 1911 en mass.

The Beretta is reliable, and the safety is bassackwards, the slide is not large enough to 'rack' easily, its grip frame is not developed with human mechanics in mind, the military sites suck, and it is too large for a 15 shot 9mm.

I started not to trust the 9mm when I was 17. I was doing WW2 renactments at the time and had been engaged in conversation by an 'older gentleman' who was telling me of when he fought the 'I talians' he told me of when one of them shot him (I forget 7-9 times) with a 9mm... and he said he shot him 1X with his 45 (I was wearing a 1911 in a tanker holster) As he said this he lifted his shirt, and I saw several bullet scars... as this was over 50 years after WW2 we know which one survived.

My own observations have solidified my mindset.

But in the end, what is the point... none of our discussions will matter concerning what is adopted...

 

[Cocked & Locked]

I don't see why we ever changed from the SA Army .45






Or from the 1911



Or from the 1917



Or from the S&W Victory Model .38 Special



Plenty of them still around and most of them are not that expensive.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It sounds to me like they were misinformed, but it also sounds like that's EXACTLY why they did it.

Nope -- it started with adopting the 9mm as a sop to NATO, and they got carried away with themselves.

 

[ravencon]

Ok, I'll play--of the choices given, I vote for the Sig.

The votes for the 1911 are an exercise in nostalgia. The 1911's major faults prevent it from ever being adopted anew--poor field stripping characteristics and not ambidextrous.

Future military operations are likely to involve urban adventures. A pistol may not make any significant difference in the overall outcome, but they will always be a source of comfort and security to those that have them.

 

[Mad Magyar]

i personally think that the army should keep the 9mm but in a frame size that is capabale of fitting more people, because there are many different sized people in the military

This reminds me of a little known fact..Prior to switch, there were 25 different makes and models of handguns in the duty inventories and more than a 100 different types of ammo. Some congressional critics thought this was military waste & duplication..In response of why not alter the 1911 to a 9mm format; it was thought that the majority of the Colt's were in extreme stages of wearout....

 

[pinetree64]

I voted to keep the Beretta. Why, it is a proven and fine handgun. No need to spend my money on revamping the military with new handguns. I would allow some leeway and I believe this is the case, SIGs, USGs and 1911's are used by some groups. By the way most of my guns are 1911 style guns.

tjg

 

[JohnKSa]

it started with adopting the 9mm as a sop to NATO

You're all right to this point and then things break down.

1. As pointed out, changing the ammunition doesn't require changing the gun.
2. You, yourself stated that the at least two of the reasons they changed the gun TOO were because they said "No one can hit anything with a .45." and they needed a "needed a more modern gun."

That is in direct contradiction of the assertion that: "They did not do it because the M1911A1 was considered inadequate, too hard for recruits to learn, or somehow "obsolete."

Again, it's too much of a logical stretch to claim that picking a new caliber somehow constrained them to choose a new gun as well. It may have started the ball rolling but they STILL needed reasons to change the gun AS WELL AS THE CALIBER. You provided those reasons (remember I said I didn't know what they were) and those reasons clearly contradict your earlier statement.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

You're all right to this point and then things break down.

1. As pointed out, changing the ammunition doesn't require changing the gun.
2. You, yourself stated that the at least two of the reasons they changed the gun TOO were because they said "No one can hit anything with a .45." and they needed a "needed a more modern gun."

You speak as if "they" was a single person. And as if all the decisions were made at the same time. Neither of those assumptions is true.

The decision was made to go to 9mm first, by one group of decision-makers. And it was as a sop to NATO.

It was much later that the decision to adopt a new pistol was made. And has been pointed out, at one time there was serious intention to convert the existing M1911s to 9mm -- a viable alternative. That was scrapped, since the stock of M1911s on hand were worn out.

It was only after that that they started looking for a new pistol, too.

 

[JohnKSa]

You speak as if "they" was a single person.

"They" is whoever made the decision and if you look back, you're the one who initially referred to "them" collectively as "they".

They did not do it because the M1911A1 was considered ...

Clearly your two rationale quotes were from different people and nothing I said was meant to imply that the "they" in my posts was any more collective or singular than you originally intended it.

And as if all the decisions were made at the same time.

I believe my contention was that the two decisions were SEPARATE. It has been your stance that the two decisions were so inseparable that the caliber decision drove them to change the gun as well. If anything my point has been that the two decisions are not nearly as related as you originally implied.

And has been pointed out, at one time there was serious intention to convert the existing M1911s to 9mm -- a viable alternative. That was scrapped, since the stock of M1911s on hand were worn out.

Ok, but even if they decided against CONVERTING the existing M1911s, they could still begin purchasing new M1911s in 9mm. After all they purchased OTHER new pistols in 9mm.

9mm was picked.
A new sidearm was picked.

If we accept your reasons/quotes for why the second decision was made they contradict your initial assertion. Even without the reasons you provided it's clear that those are two separate decisions--again a contradiction of the implication in your initial assertion that the caliber choice was the reason for the gun change.

 

[Cannonball888]

I guess any American-made sidearm is out of the question?

 

[nemoaz]

What are the options? The Croat HS/XD can hardly be called American. Smith? I always liked 59 series but they are outdated. M&P? I don't think the military will consider any pistol without a safety. Maybe Taurus can produce the OSS in the US? What are the other options?

 

[Eightball]

The army should do whatever it takes to stop trolls.......

 

[Geronimo45]

Sand can and does gum up guns quite well. I don't think many people have experience a place with lots of blowing sand. Wind picks up, it picks up a lot of sand. That sand will go everywhere. Besides that, there's all sorts of troubles than come when you mass-produce something. The more you make, the more 'bad ones' that will be out there.

As for handgun choice - just issue 'em more widely. If they want to change to something I like better, opt for the 5.7. I'd like those things to become cheaper. Or .45 - now this is just for me, a civvie, buying ammo. A selective-fire 5.7 pistol would be, IMO, ideal - an arrangement like the VP70, where FA was only allowed when you had the stock attached. The pistol alone would be plenty for most situations - but if they had nothing but the pistol and needed a higher volume of fire, they could put the two things together. Anybody know if those folks in Iraq/Afghanistan are wearing vests very often?
Wouldn't object to the issue of .357 magnum revolvers, either.

P.S. If they issue Webley Mark VIs, I'm signing up.

 

[marksman13]

Geronimo, the question about body armor came up earlier. Personally, I only saw two insurgents with armor in my year long tour. I think it is a regional concern and I think only the most elite jihadists are using armor. I don't know if I want to shoot a .22 caliber rifle and .22 caliber pistol, so the 5.7mm is out for me. If armor was a major concern then the penetrating factor might make me more of a fan. I am sure some who saw more armored insurgents will agree with your vote for th Five Seven.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

*sigh*

I really should keep this rant saved in a text file somewhere. God bless a time of war for giving people something to argue about...


Alright. Every time this topic comes up people blithely assume that switching weapons is as simple for the military as it is for them. As an individual you: decide you need a different sidearm, do some research, find what you want, buy it, buy some ammo and mags. And that's it. You're good to go. Takes a month tops and maybe $1000 (depending on what you bought).

For the military to change sidearms there would first have to be lots of testing. Every option would have to be run through the tests. It would cost plenty of money and takes lot of time. Then reports would have to be written, those reports would be read by some other people, who'd brief some other people, who'd report to some other people, who'd make a decision a year later.

Then the Army would have to issue a contract and get it filled. Tens of thousands of sidearms (at least) would have to be procured. Millions of rounds of ammunition likewise. If it's something besides 9mm, which seems to be what everyone wants, I expect there would have to be some tooling up to meet the demand. Plus magazines, holsters, and spare parts.

Finally, all these pistols, rounds, magazines, holsters, and parts procured at great expense and hassle would have to be distributed to a military spread all over the world and personnel would have to be trained in on the new equipment.

All of this in the middle of a war, when people have enough stuff to worry about without dicking around with a new weapon. And all the money would have to come out of a defense budget already strained by the cost of supporting the aforementioned war.


Am I saying that we should screw the soldiers because the money isn't there? No. Hell no. I'm a soldier. It's in my best interests not to get screwed. But there is nothing out there that is enough of an improvement on the M9/9mm combination to be worth the time and cost and work to procure a new sidearm. The fact that there is so much debate in this thread is a perfect example of the absence of any one true smiting-the-enemy-death-ray-blaster. The opportunity cost would exceed the few percentage points of improvement any new sidearm would provide.

 

[North Bender]

I also vote for the Single Action Army. The .45 Colt was good enough for Custer; but I would use the shorter barrel.

 

[BADUNAME13]

I also vote for the Single Action Army. The .45 Colt was good enough for Custer; but I would use the shorter barrel.

IIRC he prefered the S&W Schofield.

 

[Geronimo45]

Personally, I only saw two insurgents with armor in my year long tour. I think it is a regional concern and I think only the most elite jihadists are using armor.

Nice to hear some on-the-ground info on the topic... armor's just for the special folks over there. Makes sense: milling out AK parts can probably be done at a good machine shop... but vests take some special materials/weaving/some such.
Guess the 5.7 would be handier for bodyguard/secret service type folks. Really impressed by the low recoil of the things, myself... and that it's a sort-of descendant of the Broomhandle Mauser. But I barely know a thing about ballistics.

Still wish they'd go for a newly-made Mark VI. With moonclips. With the option for .45 Winchester Magnum.