Handguns from World Wars
- Thread starter Douglas Jr.
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:Soren said:
Yes Soren you are correct. I am wrong. All of my experiences are invalid based on your book knowledge. I am sorry that I use a 9mm M9 as my primary weapon, however do not know my weapon or the effectiveness of it. I bow down to you and your infininate wisdom.
Adler I'm not saying your wrong about the M9 being a shitty pistol, infact if you look back abit you'll see I actually agree with you.
However I know from first hand experience (And not from reading a book) that the 9mm parabellum is more than enough up close, and is alot more accurate than the .45 ACP. (Hence why special forces prefer the 9mm)
Whenever going inside a building to take out the bad guys, we had been instructed always to aim for the head, and the reason is simple; There's always the likelyhood that the enemy is wearing a bullet-proof vest, so if we were to go in and aim for the torso, we would be foolishly playing with our lives, as there's a very good chance we would then be shot in return.
Inside buildings we always used pistols simply because you can maneuver better that way.
And as to the stopping power of the .45 .... well if your unfortunate enough get hit by it, its not going to make you skip across the floor as some believe, not even if it hits bone. Infact its more likely to just go straight through you, as is the 9mm. (Unless it hits bone of-cause)
The kinetic energy of the two rounds:
125gr 9mm Parabellum at 381m/s = 434 ft.lbs.
200gr .45 Auto at 297m/s = 422 ft.lbs.
Btw nice .38 8)
It does not matter to me Soren, I am not going to argue with you on my personal experiences. I know from personal experience and so does many others the opposite of what you are saying.
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
Going back to the WW2, some pics of a rare .45:
This pistol manufactured by Hispano-Argentina Fabricas de Automoviles SA in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1939-1940. This is one of the pistols ordered by the British Purchasing Agency in 1939-1940. The Ballester-Molina pistols were issued to the SOE (Strategic Operations Executive) and other British clandestine organizations fighting the Nazis in occupied Europe. Correct for the British contract pistols "B" prefixed serial number. Marked on the right side of slide and frame with British proofs, "Crown over P". The barrel displays British pressure test proofs and the caliber designation. Left side of the slide is marked: "PISTOLA AUTOMATICA C. 11.25 mm FABRICADA POR 'HAFDASA' PATENTES INTERNACIONALES 'BALLESTER-MOLINA' INDUSTRIA ARGENTINA" (in three lines). 5" barrel. 7 shots magazine. The design closely follows the lines of Colt M1911 A1, except:
a) The hammer strut on the HAFDASA pistol is much shorter than that of the M1911A1.
b) The firing pin stop on the HAFDASA pistol is not recessed on the side as it is on the M1911A1.
c) The safety lock on the HAFDASA pistol is redesigned with a larger diameter pin, and it can be applied with the hammer cocked or fully down.
d) The mainspring housing on the HAFDASA pistol is an integeral part of the frame.
e) The HAFDASA pistol has a pivoting trigger with a single extension along the right side that cams the side mounted disconnector and engages the sear.
f) The magazine catch on the HAFDASA pistol is assembled differently.
g) The HAFDASA pistol has no slide stop disassembly notch
This pistol manufactured by Hispano-Argentina Fabricas de Automoviles SA in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1939-1940. This is one of the pistols ordered by the British Purchasing Agency in 1939-1940. The Ballester-Molina pistols were issued to the SOE (Strategic Operations Executive) and other British clandestine organizations fighting the Nazis in occupied Europe. Correct for the British contract pistols "B" prefixed serial number. Marked on the right side of slide and frame with British proofs, "Crown over P". The barrel displays British pressure test proofs and the caliber designation. Left side of the slide is marked: "PISTOLA AUTOMATICA C. 11.25 mm FABRICADA POR 'HAFDASA' PATENTES INTERNACIONALES 'BALLESTER-MOLINA' INDUSTRIA ARGENTINA" (in three lines). 5" barrel. 7 shots magazine. The design closely follows the lines of Colt M1911 A1, except:
a) The hammer strut on the HAFDASA pistol is much shorter than that of the M1911A1.
b) The firing pin stop on the HAFDASA pistol is not recessed on the side as it is on the M1911A1.
c) The safety lock on the HAFDASA pistol is redesigned with a larger diameter pin, and it can be applied with the hammer cocked or fully down.
d) The mainspring housing on the HAFDASA pistol is an integeral part of the frame.
e) The HAFDASA pistol has a pivoting trigger with a single extension along the right side that cams the side mounted disconnector and engages the sear.
f) The magazine catch on the HAFDASA pistol is assembled differently.
g) The HAFDASA pistol has no slide stop disassembly notch
Good pics and info up there CB. That is a nice .45.
I am not letting it get to me, but it is not a debate when you basically are telling me that my personal experiences are wrong and the personal experiences of the people that use the weapon are wrong, based off of someone who has never used, except maybe on paper targets.
Soren said:
I am not letting it get to me, but it is not a debate when you basically are telling me that my personal experiences are wrong and the personal experiences of the people that use the weapon are wrong, based off of someone who has never used, except maybe on paper targets.
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Again I didn't say you or the people you've talked to were wrong about the M9 being a lousy pistol, infact I totally agree with that. Also I've used a 9mm in actual combat, just not the M9, so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't come with such comments as these again: the personal experiences of the people that use the weapon are wrong, based off of someone who has never used, except maybe on paper targets
But the 9mm parabellum doesn't lack 'so called' stopping power, I've seen how it acts on live flesh.
But maybe where we missunderstand each other is on how we define "stopping power" - I define stopping power as the ability of the round to take down a human target quickly and efficiently, others (Like you I suspect) define stopping power as the power of the round to literally stop a crazed man running towards you dead in his tracks by a shot to the upper torso. And of-cause in this last department the .45 is superior, although not by a whole lot, and not even the .45 will actually stop a man running towards you, however he 'will' drop.
But Adler please don't take it as me trying to say that your experiences are wrong, cause Im not, just telling you what "I" know. I'm sure you know something I don't, Im not trying to dispute that.
I don't want this little debate to create a bad vibe between us, so if anything I've said sounds offensive to you then I'll let you know it definitely wasn't meant that way.
Adler,
Talked to one of my old buddies yesterday who's got alot of experience with the M9, and surprisingly his opinion is strictly the opposite of what you and I think of the M9.
Here's what he thinks:
The reasons the 9mm M9 has replaced the old M1911 are ever so simple. In the early 80's the U.S. was the only NATO country not using a 9mm as the standard issue sidearm, and that was a real disadvantage logistically. Also the M9 has a 15 round clip, whereas the M1911 only has a 7 round clip, and that is a 'really' big disadvantage for the M1911, as running out of ammo is the very last thing you want to happen in a combat situation.
Another reason is the ammunition - the M9 fires the 9mm parabellum round which is generally a more accurate round than the .45 ACP (Especially under rapid fire), and has considerably lighter recoil. However the M9 itself isn't amongst the more accurate of 9mm pistols, and some .45's are just as accurate, but it 'is' accurate enough however. Also there's the fact that the fast-moving 9mm round is more likely to penetrate soft body armor. Also, the larger number of rounds carried inside the M9 and replacement magazines means that the soldier can stay in the fight longer before having to perfect his/her pistol throwing skills. A typical issue rig includes the pistol with magazine, holster, belt, and mag pouch containing two spare magazines. This gives the soldier carrying an M9 rig a 45-round capacity, as opposed to only 21 for a similar ensemble using an M1911. It has also been documented that the average recruit can be trained to shoot and hit targets with the softer-recoiling 9mm much more easily than with the .45 ACP
Another crucial reason is that the difference in actual stopping power is relatively small between the two rounds - The FBI concluded in tests that the 9x19mm round was a better choice than the .45 ACP.(And no, these following test results are not based on how high a % each round will have of actually stopping a man running towards you right in his tracks, but on how quickly he drops dead) The FBI's tests concluded that the .45 ACP normally had a 78-94 One-Shot-Stop percentage, while the 9mm normally had a 83-91 One-Shot-Stop percentage. This is the reason why the FBI choose the 9mm as their standard round for sidearms.
Now after hearing this, again take into account that the M9 has 15 highly effective rounds in its clip, compared to the M1911's only 7 equally effective rounds. I know which one I would pick....
Additionally he provided me with this link to the FBI's Gelatine test results: http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/ammodata.htm
I can't say I agree with him on all accounts, but I have however never detected any real different behavior of a target being hit by .45 ACP compared to being hit by a 9mm, and the similar kinetic energy of the two rounds seem to confirm this to be the case as-well.
Talked to one of my old buddies yesterday who's got alot of experience with the M9, and surprisingly his opinion is strictly the opposite of what you and I think of the M9.
Here's what he thinks:
The reasons the 9mm M9 has replaced the old M1911 are ever so simple. In the early 80's the U.S. was the only NATO country not using a 9mm as the standard issue sidearm, and that was a real disadvantage logistically. Also the M9 has a 15 round clip, whereas the M1911 only has a 7 round clip, and that is a 'really' big disadvantage for the M1911, as running out of ammo is the very last thing you want to happen in a combat situation.
Another reason is the ammunition - the M9 fires the 9mm parabellum round which is generally a more accurate round than the .45 ACP (Especially under rapid fire), and has considerably lighter recoil. However the M9 itself isn't amongst the more accurate of 9mm pistols, and some .45's are just as accurate, but it 'is' accurate enough however. Also there's the fact that the fast-moving 9mm round is more likely to penetrate soft body armor. Also, the larger number of rounds carried inside the M9 and replacement magazines means that the soldier can stay in the fight longer before having to perfect his/her pistol throwing skills. A typical issue rig includes the pistol with magazine, holster, belt, and mag pouch containing two spare magazines. This gives the soldier carrying an M9 rig a 45-round capacity, as opposed to only 21 for a similar ensemble using an M1911. It has also been documented that the average recruit can be trained to shoot and hit targets with the softer-recoiling 9mm much more easily than with the .45 ACP
Another crucial reason is that the difference in actual stopping power is relatively small between the two rounds - The FBI concluded in tests that the 9x19mm round was a better choice than the .45 ACP.(And no, these following test results are not based on how high a % each round will have of actually stopping a man running towards you right in his tracks, but on how quickly he drops dead) The FBI's tests concluded that the .45 ACP normally had a 78-94 One-Shot-Stop percentage, while the 9mm normally had a 83-91 One-Shot-Stop percentage. This is the reason why the FBI choose the 9mm as their standard round for sidearms.
Now after hearing this, again take into account that the M9 has 15 highly effective rounds in its clip, compared to the M1911's only 7 equally effective rounds. I know which one I would pick....
Additionally he provided me with this link to the FBI's Gelatine test results: http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/ammodata.htm
I can't say I agree with him on all accounts, but I have however never detected any real different behavior of a target being hit by .45 ACP compared to being hit by a 9mm, and the similar kinetic energy of the two rounds seem to confirm this to be the case as-well.
No you are correct, a person hit with .45 and a 9mm is going to drop depending on where you hit them. I have never used a .45 in combat so I can not compare them in actuallity. I do however say and so does the majority of the US Army that it does not have a very good stopping power, and I will never change my opinion of this.
The 9mm Baretta is a crappy weapon, that is not accurate and the stopping power sucks. Yes Soren as you said if you hit a guy in the head with it, yes it will take you down (name me a bullet that will hit someone in the head and not take them down), however hitting someone in the arm, chest, or leg is not going to take them down with a 9mm Baretta, it does not have the stopping power to take them down there. In the heat of a real battle you are not going to get very many head shots with a 9mm, you are going to get the chest, arms, and legs and it does not have the stopping power for that.
The 9mm Baretta is a crappy weapon, that is not accurate and the stopping power sucks. Yes Soren as you said if you hit a guy in the head with it, yes it will take you down (name me a bullet that will hit someone in the head and not take them down), however hitting someone in the arm, chest, or leg is not going to take them down with a 9mm Baretta, it does not have the stopping power to take them down there. In the heat of a real battle you are not going to get very many head shots with a 9mm, you are going to get the chest, arms, and legs and it does not have the stopping power for that.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
It is my understanding that the FBI has gone at least as an option to a .40 calibre round because the 9mm did not stop perps consistently without several additional rounds. The other reason was that they would not admit they were wrong about the .45/9mm after they publicly announced the 9mm was enough. One of the reasons the FBI helped develop the .40 was several instances where people were shot in the head with a 9mm and the round traveled under the skin and exited the skin on the other side without severly damaging the perp.
It is also my understanding the .45 was developed after the Phillipeno campain in the early part of the century because the .38 (essentialy 9mm) would not put down a Phillipeno tribesman. While the kinetic energy may be close the .45 transfers that energy much better than the smaller round.
I'm not an expert but thats what I've picked up from my interest in the .45 in particular.
wmaxt
It is also my understanding the .45 was developed after the Phillipeno campain in the early part of the century because the .38 (essentialy 9mm) would not put down a Phillipeno tribesman. While the kinetic energy may be close the .45 transfers that energy much better than the smaller round.
I'm not an expert but thats what I've picked up from my interest in the .45 in particular.
wmaxt
Thankyou for that post. You have just confirmed everything that I have stated about the 9mm.
Soren here is report on a study being done by the US Army at Fort Benning.
Fort Benning tests current M-9 sidearm, future alternatives
By Spc. Nikki St. Amant
January 28, 2005
FORT BENNING, Ga. (Army News Service, Jan. 28, 2005) - The Directorate of Combat Developments and Soldier Battle Lab began an experiment Jan. 24 analyzing the current-issue M-9 handgun and possible alternative weapons.
"I want to make it clear, this is not a selection of a new pistol," said Charley Pavlick, project officer with DCD's Small Arms Division. "We are responding to concerns we have from (Soldiers deployed for Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom) that report a lack of confidence in the M-9 for several reasons. This is an analysis of different features and characteristics that are available with other weapons platforms."
Some of the concerns with the M-9 include many stoppages, uncomfortable function control and the low lethality of the 9mm ball round, Pavlick said.
The Army hasn't made an official decision to make a move from the M-9 to a new sidearm, Pavlick said. DCD will rewrite the draft requirements documents after the experiment is complete, and then officials will make a decision.
Army officials decided to switch from a .45-caliber sidearm to the 9mm in 1954, but that change wasn't fully implemented until 1984, Pavlick said. It was only when the supply of rebuilt .45s began running out that the Army finally started the 9mm Personal Defense Weapon program.
"The decision to switch was strictly logistical," he said. "The United States was trying to move toward NATO joint operability, and we were fighting the Cold War. Target effect wasn't a factor in that decision. Now it is."
The performance of better sights, larger calibers and double-action-only firing mechanisms are what DCD analysts will be taking a look at.
The test firers for the experiment are representative of the force, Pavlick said. Soldiers of varying rank, military-occupation specialty and gender are included.
The testing started this week with a baseline qualification to assess the basic marksmanship of the firers with the M-9 and familiarization fires with alternative weapons.
Staff Sgt. Michael Morten is one of the test firers. He fired the .45-caliber version of the Smith and Wesson 99.
"You can really feel the difference," he said of the Smith and Wesson. "It fits better in my hand. The sights are easier. I thought it would have more kick being a .45, but the recoil is the same as the 9mm. I thought it was excellent."
(Editor's note: Spc. Nikki St. Amant is assigned to the Fort Benning Public Affairs Office.)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/01/mil-050128-arnews02.htm
And another report:
The push for more pistol punch
Army tests new ammo, technology in search for future handgun
By Matthew Cox
Times staff writer
The Army is testing potent pistol ammo, including .45-caliber rounds, as a possible alternative for 9mm, the M9 pistol round often criticized for its lack of stopping power.
Since World War I, the 9mm cartridge has seen action in conflicts all over the world and is the standard pistol caliber for NATO forces. Still, soldiers have questioned the performance of the lightweight ammunition since the Army chose it as a replacement for the combat-proven .45 two decades ago.
Continued complaints from soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan since the war on terrorism began prompted officials at the Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga., to take a serious look at alternatives to the M9 pistol.
"The feeling is that we need to assess a caliber beyond the 9mm," said Maj. Glenn Dean, chief of the small arms division at Benning, citing the most common complaint from soldiers: "We'd like more stopping power."
;Complaints about reliability and a lack of accessories also prompted Dean's office, the Army's proponent for small arms, to scour the commercial pistol market last summer for off-the-shelf options for a Future Handgun System. "We are assessing the current technology to define what a future handgun should do, and send it to the Army," Dean said.
As a combat developer, Dean's job is to stay on top of the needs of soldiers and turn them into future small-arms requirements for the Army.
Since the U.S. military began operations in Afghanistan in 2001, small-arms officials at Benning have talked to soldiers who say they have little confidence in the M9 9mm in the combat zone, Dean said.
Under the Soldier Enhancement Program, Benning officials began looking for solutions on the commercial market. They started out with about 85 different semi-automatic handguns from major manufacturers such as Glock, Sigarms Inc. and Smith Wesson.
The goal, though, was not to find a perfect pistol, Dean said. Instead, 14 pistols, in a mix of 9mm, .40 and .45 calibers, were selected for soldiers to shoot, so small-arms officials could study how individual features such as calibers and safety devices performed, Dean said.
Ten soldiers participated in two weeks of shooting tests. They were men and women, commissioned and noncommissioned officers. Their job specialties ranged from infantrymen and military police to drill sergeants and signal soldiers.
Officials examined collected data such as shot placement, qualification scores, reliability and safety, Dean said. Other factors studied included how fast soldiers could recover from the shot recoil, aim and shoot again.
Some of the features examined in the test that could show up in the Future Handgun System proposal are based on past complaints about the M9, Dean said. Some of these include magazine releases that can be operated easier while wearing cold-weather gloves and safeties and decocking devices mounted on the pistol frame rather than the slide for simpler, one-handed operation.
The test also looked at pistols like the M9 that feature double-action/single-action operation versus single- and double-action-only models.
The M9 allows soldiers to shoot in double-action mode — pulling the trigger with the hammer in the down position — and in single-action mode, in which the hammer is cocked to the rear before the first shot to make the trigger easier to pull. Revolutionary improvements in triggers over the past five years could fix this, Dean said.
In both modes, the hammer remains in the rear position after each shot and requires a decocking device that lets the soldier drop the hammer safely while a round is in the chamber when the shooting is over.
A double-action-only operation eliminates the need for a decocker since the hammer remains in the down position after each shot, Dean said.
The data gathered from the experiment will likely be ready sometime in March, Dean said. If his office decides to make a recommendation, Dean said it could go before the senior leadership by this summer.
If the Army decides to move forward, weapons developers hope to invite commercial pistol makers to participate in an open competition to select a new service pistol.
"We do expect to release a [request for proposal] by late summer for a Future Handgun System," said Col. Michael Smith, the head of Army's Project Manager Soldier Weapons. "It really is an exciting time."
Dean remains optimistic but knows that the program will have to compete against other expensive programs, including an effort to replace the Army's M16s and M249 squad automatic weapons.
"The challenge is actually getting the requirement approved," Dean said. "To be realistic, no army has won a war based on a pistol."
Many see fewer pistols in the Army's future, Dean said, describing how ultralight, compact carbines may replace pistols for tank crewmen and other soldiers who operate in tight places.
On the other hand, carrying a pistol as a backup weapon has always been a top priority among American soldiers.
"Ever since the Revolutionary War, all the soldiers have wanted a pistol and a big knife," said Charlie Pavlick, project officer for individual and special purpose weapons. "Soldiers have found ways to get them whether they were authorized them or not."
But the Army's current pistol has never truly won the confidence of soldiers since the Army chose it as a replacement for the M1911A1 .45 automatic pistol in 1985.
The lighter 9mm round gave soldiers 15 rounds, compared to the seven-round capacity of the 1911. But it came at a cost of knock-down power.
The Army adopted the M1911A1 to fill the need for greater stopping power after the .38 service revolver often failed to put down determined Moro warriors during the Philippine Insurrection at the turn of the century.
Soldier complaints about the M9 often deal with unreliable magazines and a lack of mountable accessories such as some type of integrated laser sight system, Dean said.
Special operations soldiers are the ones using pistols most often in combat, but a desire for more hitting power, Dean said, is a common complaint his office could not ignore.
"There is a certain percentage of those comments, we think are echoing other comments, but we have heard it enough from folks that are actually operators," Dean said.
http://www.armytimes.com/print.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-705222.php
Soren here is report on a study being done by the US Army at Fort Benning.
Fort Benning tests current M-9 sidearm, future alternatives
By Spc. Nikki St. Amant
January 28, 2005
FORT BENNING, Ga. (Army News Service, Jan. 28, 2005) - The Directorate of Combat Developments and Soldier Battle Lab began an experiment Jan. 24 analyzing the current-issue M-9 handgun and possible alternative weapons.
"I want to make it clear, this is not a selection of a new pistol," said Charley Pavlick, project officer with DCD's Small Arms Division. "We are responding to concerns we have from (Soldiers deployed for Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom) that report a lack of confidence in the M-9 for several reasons. This is an analysis of different features and characteristics that are available with other weapons platforms."
Some of the concerns with the M-9 include many stoppages, uncomfortable function control and the low lethality of the 9mm ball round, Pavlick said.
The Army hasn't made an official decision to make a move from the M-9 to a new sidearm, Pavlick said. DCD will rewrite the draft requirements documents after the experiment is complete, and then officials will make a decision.
Army officials decided to switch from a .45-caliber sidearm to the 9mm in 1954, but that change wasn't fully implemented until 1984, Pavlick said. It was only when the supply of rebuilt .45s began running out that the Army finally started the 9mm Personal Defense Weapon program.
"The decision to switch was strictly logistical," he said. "The United States was trying to move toward NATO joint operability, and we were fighting the Cold War. Target effect wasn't a factor in that decision. Now it is."
The performance of better sights, larger calibers and double-action-only firing mechanisms are what DCD analysts will be taking a look at.
The test firers for the experiment are representative of the force, Pavlick said. Soldiers of varying rank, military-occupation specialty and gender are included.
The testing started this week with a baseline qualification to assess the basic marksmanship of the firers with the M-9 and familiarization fires with alternative weapons.
Staff Sgt. Michael Morten is one of the test firers. He fired the .45-caliber version of the Smith and Wesson 99.
"You can really feel the difference," he said of the Smith and Wesson. "It fits better in my hand. The sights are easier. I thought it would have more kick being a .45, but the recoil is the same as the 9mm. I thought it was excellent."
(Editor's note: Spc. Nikki St. Amant is assigned to the Fort Benning Public Affairs Office.)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/01/mil-050128-arnews02.htm
And another report:
The push for more pistol punch
Army tests new ammo, technology in search for future handgun
By Matthew Cox
Times staff writer
The Army is testing potent pistol ammo, including .45-caliber rounds, as a possible alternative for 9mm, the M9 pistol round often criticized for its lack of stopping power.
Since World War I, the 9mm cartridge has seen action in conflicts all over the world and is the standard pistol caliber for NATO forces. Still, soldiers have questioned the performance of the lightweight ammunition since the Army chose it as a replacement for the combat-proven .45 two decades ago.
Continued complaints from soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan since the war on terrorism began prompted officials at the Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga., to take a serious look at alternatives to the M9 pistol.
"The feeling is that we need to assess a caliber beyond the 9mm," said Maj. Glenn Dean, chief of the small arms division at Benning, citing the most common complaint from soldiers: "We'd like more stopping power."
;Complaints about reliability and a lack of accessories also prompted Dean's office, the Army's proponent for small arms, to scour the commercial pistol market last summer for off-the-shelf options for a Future Handgun System. "We are assessing the current technology to define what a future handgun should do, and send it to the Army," Dean said.
As a combat developer, Dean's job is to stay on top of the needs of soldiers and turn them into future small-arms requirements for the Army.
Since the U.S. military began operations in Afghanistan in 2001, small-arms officials at Benning have talked to soldiers who say they have little confidence in the M9 9mm in the combat zone, Dean said.
Under the Soldier Enhancement Program, Benning officials began looking for solutions on the commercial market. They started out with about 85 different semi-automatic handguns from major manufacturers such as Glock, Sigarms Inc. and Smith Wesson.
The goal, though, was not to find a perfect pistol, Dean said. Instead, 14 pistols, in a mix of 9mm, .40 and .45 calibers, were selected for soldiers to shoot, so small-arms officials could study how individual features such as calibers and safety devices performed, Dean said.
Ten soldiers participated in two weeks of shooting tests. They were men and women, commissioned and noncommissioned officers. Their job specialties ranged from infantrymen and military police to drill sergeants and signal soldiers.
Officials examined collected data such as shot placement, qualification scores, reliability and safety, Dean said. Other factors studied included how fast soldiers could recover from the shot recoil, aim and shoot again.
Some of the features examined in the test that could show up in the Future Handgun System proposal are based on past complaints about the M9, Dean said. Some of these include magazine releases that can be operated easier while wearing cold-weather gloves and safeties and decocking devices mounted on the pistol frame rather than the slide for simpler, one-handed operation.
The test also looked at pistols like the M9 that feature double-action/single-action operation versus single- and double-action-only models.
The M9 allows soldiers to shoot in double-action mode — pulling the trigger with the hammer in the down position — and in single-action mode, in which the hammer is cocked to the rear before the first shot to make the trigger easier to pull. Revolutionary improvements in triggers over the past five years could fix this, Dean said.
In both modes, the hammer remains in the rear position after each shot and requires a decocking device that lets the soldier drop the hammer safely while a round is in the chamber when the shooting is over.
A double-action-only operation eliminates the need for a decocker since the hammer remains in the down position after each shot, Dean said.
The data gathered from the experiment will likely be ready sometime in March, Dean said. If his office decides to make a recommendation, Dean said it could go before the senior leadership by this summer.
If the Army decides to move forward, weapons developers hope to invite commercial pistol makers to participate in an open competition to select a new service pistol.
"We do expect to release a [request for proposal] by late summer for a Future Handgun System," said Col. Michael Smith, the head of Army's Project Manager Soldier Weapons. "It really is an exciting time."
Dean remains optimistic but knows that the program will have to compete against other expensive programs, including an effort to replace the Army's M16s and M249 squad automatic weapons.
"The challenge is actually getting the requirement approved," Dean said. "To be realistic, no army has won a war based on a pistol."
Many see fewer pistols in the Army's future, Dean said, describing how ultralight, compact carbines may replace pistols for tank crewmen and other soldiers who operate in tight places.
On the other hand, carrying a pistol as a backup weapon has always been a top priority among American soldiers.
"Ever since the Revolutionary War, all the soldiers have wanted a pistol and a big knife," said Charlie Pavlick, project officer for individual and special purpose weapons. "Soldiers have found ways to get them whether they were authorized them or not."
But the Army's current pistol has never truly won the confidence of soldiers since the Army chose it as a replacement for the M1911A1 .45 automatic pistol in 1985.
The lighter 9mm round gave soldiers 15 rounds, compared to the seven-round capacity of the 1911. But it came at a cost of knock-down power.
The Army adopted the M1911A1 to fill the need for greater stopping power after the .38 service revolver often failed to put down determined Moro warriors during the Philippine Insurrection at the turn of the century.
Soldier complaints about the M9 often deal with unreliable magazines and a lack of mountable accessories such as some type of integrated laser sight system, Dean said.
Special operations soldiers are the ones using pistols most often in combat, but a desire for more hitting power, Dean said, is a common complaint his office could not ignore.
"There is a certain percentage of those comments, we think are echoing other comments, but we have heard it enough from folks that are actually operators," Dean said.
http://www.armytimes.com/print.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-705222.php
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
Your Welcome Adler. I don't think the 9mm is a bad gun/round but it will never be a 1911A1 and I've heard very few are happy with the change.
wmaxt
wmaxt
Exactly, but what do I know? Ive actually used the gun!
wmaxt,
The reason the FBI are beginning to favor the .40 S&W round is not at all because they don't want to admit being wrong about anything. The reason is simply that the .40 S&W will stop man more consistently than either the 9mm or the .45, as the wound cavity of the .40 is much larger. FBI gelatine tests have confirmed this, as-well as proving that the most effective man-stopper to date is the .357.
And as for your argument that the .45 was developed after the Phillipeno campaign because the .38 would not effectively put down a Phillipeno tribesman, true, but saying that therefore a 9mm would probably neither is stretching reality quite abit.... I'm sure you'll agree that there's a considerable difference between the 9mm's up to 445 ft/lbs of energy and the .38's 230 ft/lbs of energy. So saying that the .38 is essentially a 9mm is very far from the truth indeed.
--------------------------------------------
Adler,
I wonder how many of those who complain about the 'Stopping power' of the 9mm and want to switch to the .45 have actually seen the difference between the two on live flesh. I can safely say that spec ops soldiers have no complaints over the 9mm, it works just fine for them.. Switching over to the .45 won't change anything.
Adler in the heat of battle it is relatively easy to hit a man in the head, as long as your properly trained to do so, and as long as your enemy is neither to far or to close to you. However 'if' the enemy is to close or to far away, then yes it will be a problem, and hitting the torso or the limbs is much more likely, and a 9mm pistol round does lack so called 'stopping power' here, but here comes the the point, "So does a .45".
Hitting a man in the arm with a .45 as apposed to a 9mm won't change matters in any real way, and the guy hit will be just as pissed at you as if hit by a 9mm. Hitting a guy in the chest with a .45 won't change matters significantly either, as the wound cavity of the .45 and 9mm are about the same, the .45's being a little larger of-cause. I will however agree that the .45 ACP will transfer its energy into the target more efficiently, but the .45 also generally has a little less energy work with than the 9mm, and this could be a problem if the bad guys are wearing kevlar.
Its popular belief that hitting a man with a .45 will make him skip across the floor, or stop a man midflight jumping at you. All of this is of-cause untrue, and insulting to our intelligence. Hitting a man in the chest with a .45 will not litterally "knock him down", it will usually stop him however, but by him collapsing to the ground, and its the exact same story with the 9mm.
So does this mean that the .45 is ineffective ? NO, certainly not, its very effective at bringing down a man, but so is the 9mm, and the people who say it isn't haven't tried both in similar conditions.
What people need to understand is that Pistol rounds won't knock a mans body to the floor, but hit a man in the middle of his chest with a 9mm, and it will shatter his spinal column, and he's both incapacitated and killed instantly. Its all about knowing where to aim.
If one wants to make sure that he/she can bring down a man instantly with the first shot nomatter where one hits him, then go buy a shotgun and fill it with slugs, cause pistols don't work that way.
-------------------------------------------
Over to the issue of the M9, yes Adler I fully agree, my experiences with it also tells me it is a gun inadequate for its role, but switching it with the Browning High Power I think would change matters significantly as its not the round that's the problem.
However there are those who are satisfied with the M9, even after using it in actual combat, so what do ya know...
The reason the FBI are beginning to favor the .40 S&W round is not at all because they don't want to admit being wrong about anything. The reason is simply that the .40 S&W will stop man more consistently than either the 9mm or the .45, as the wound cavity of the .40 is much larger. FBI gelatine tests have confirmed this, as-well as proving that the most effective man-stopper to date is the .357.
And as for your argument that the .45 was developed after the Phillipeno campaign because the .38 would not effectively put down a Phillipeno tribesman, true, but saying that therefore a 9mm would probably neither is stretching reality quite abit.... I'm sure you'll agree that there's a considerable difference between the 9mm's up to 445 ft/lbs of energy and the .38's 230 ft/lbs of energy. So saying that the .38 is essentially a 9mm is very far from the truth indeed.
--------------------------------------------
Adler,
I wonder how many of those who complain about the 'Stopping power' of the 9mm and want to switch to the .45 have actually seen the difference between the two on live flesh. I can safely say that spec ops soldiers have no complaints over the 9mm, it works just fine for them.. Switching over to the .45 won't change anything.
Adler in the heat of battle it is relatively easy to hit a man in the head, as long as your properly trained to do so, and as long as your enemy is neither to far or to close to you. However 'if' the enemy is to close or to far away, then yes it will be a problem, and hitting the torso or the limbs is much more likely, and a 9mm pistol round does lack so called 'stopping power' here, but here comes the the point, "So does a .45".
Hitting a man in the arm with a .45 as apposed to a 9mm won't change matters in any real way, and the guy hit will be just as pissed at you as if hit by a 9mm. Hitting a guy in the chest with a .45 won't change matters significantly either, as the wound cavity of the .45 and 9mm are about the same, the .45's being a little larger of-cause. I will however agree that the .45 ACP will transfer its energy into the target more efficiently, but the .45 also generally has a little less energy work with than the 9mm, and this could be a problem if the bad guys are wearing kevlar.
Its popular belief that hitting a man with a .45 will make him skip across the floor, or stop a man midflight jumping at you. All of this is of-cause untrue, and insulting to our intelligence. Hitting a man in the chest with a .45 will not litterally "knock him down", it will usually stop him however, but by him collapsing to the ground, and its the exact same story with the 9mm.
So does this mean that the .45 is ineffective ? NO, certainly not, its very effective at bringing down a man, but so is the 9mm, and the people who say it isn't haven't tried both in similar conditions.
What people need to understand is that Pistol rounds won't knock a mans body to the floor, but hit a man in the middle of his chest with a 9mm, and it will shatter his spinal column, and he's both incapacitated and killed instantly. Its all about knowing where to aim.
If one wants to make sure that he/she can bring down a man instantly with the first shot nomatter where one hits him, then go buy a shotgun and fill it with slugs, cause pistols don't work that way.
-------------------------------------------
Over to the issue of the M9, yes Adler I fully agree, my experiences with it also tells me it is a gun inadequate for its role, but switching it with the Browning High Power I think would change matters significantly as its not the round that's the problem.
However there are those who are satisfied with the M9, even after using it in actual combat, so what do ya know...
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Guys, from a Special Ops point of view, both work effectively... Ive used both in combat and never had a jam or misfire from either... I have knocked a Skinny backwards several feet from a .45 at close range to the chest, so I dont know where ur comin up with that one Soren... One minute he's 5 feet from the wall, the next he's lying against it... It may be inertia that does that, but it still happens...
Unless it is an intelligence gathering op, u go into an enemy position looking for headshots as Soren stated.... The 9mm and .45 both work in this aspect, but it is a secondary weapon, not primary....
That being said, I preferred to carry the .45 simply due the damage the .45 round does... U hit a baddie in the shoulder with a 9mm, he might go down... U do it with a .45 and he IS down, with major damage and blood loss... He is no longer a problem...
But still, the 9mm is a fine weapon to use as a personal firearm... JUST AS LONG AS U KEEP IT CLEAN!!!
Unless it is an intelligence gathering op, u go into an enemy position looking for headshots as Soren stated.... The 9mm and .45 both work in this aspect, but it is a secondary weapon, not primary....
That being said, I preferred to carry the .45 simply due the damage the .45 round does... U hit a baddie in the shoulder with a 9mm, he might go down... U do it with a .45 and he IS down, with major damage and blood loss... He is no longer a problem...
But still, the 9mm is a fine weapon to use as a personal firearm... JUST AS LONG AS U KEEP IT CLEAN!!!
That is a fact, and I can attest to the validity of that statement..
lesofprimus said:
Yes thats partly due to the inertia, chok, and most likely also because skinny's don't have alot of weight to put up against the round, if you know what I mean.
I do think you actually hit bone on that though, which would explain the 5 ft.A 9mm would have done much the same.
Soren I am not going to discuss this with you anymore. I have used a 9mm in combat, so I know how it works and how it will take some one down or not. You telling me how a 9mm works in combat is pointless because I have used it, you on the other hand I seriously doubt.
So have I, as-well as the .45, and they collaps to the ground. They are not thrown down, and I'm sure you'll agree with that.
A man shot 'point blank' where the bullet either expands or hits bone, will because of the chock and energy step backwards and fall, as the bullet shifts his point of balance backwards. This is what Les experienced first hand, unless he can prove he actually flew those 5 ft.
And here, for anyone who's interested, the internal ballistics of the 9mm and .45 ACP FMJ rounds: (Bare in mind the pics are not identical in scale)
And a expanding 185gr .45 JHP silvertip:
Doesn't mean anything to me Adler, I know what I've experienced. Its just a shame you absolutely want to be so hostile in this discussion.
Anyway, I've forgotten this by the end of the week so it means nothing to me... Just hope you've lost your grudge by then
Be cool pal 8)
I have no grudge and I have not gotten hostile at all. I am just tired of someone basically telling me that I have no clue what I am talking about. Are you next going to tell me how fast a Blackhawk helicopter can really fly? I am sure you know better about that subject than me, I just work and fly on them everday, I dont know anything.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
To keep this going, I have shot several individuals with a 9mm round and they did nothing but either keep coming, slump forward or spin and drop where they were hit.... With a .45, the individual does not keep coming, he's either knocked backwards or spins and drops... I dont think I need to get anymore graphic than this....
Compared to my experience with the .45, and the experiences of my Teammates, the 9mm does not possess the same stopping power, or inflict the same damage...
BUT....... The point is, all the baddies that I've had the displeasure of firing a sidearm at, never got back up, and never had the need for a Corpseman...
But again, the .45 stops people better than a 9mm does, charts and graphs aside... Everyone I served with would agree with this statement...
Compared to my experience with the .45, and the experiences of my Teammates, the 9mm does not possess the same stopping power, or inflict the same damage...
BUT....... The point is, all the baddies that I've had the displeasure of firing a sidearm at, never got back up, and never had the need for a Corpseman...
But again, the .45 stops people better than a 9mm does, charts and graphs aside... Everyone I served with would agree with this statement...
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
