http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/01...320-handgun-to-replace-m9-service-pistol.html
I think it should be in 40s&w.
I think it should be in 40s&w.
That may be for weight restraints. but do you think they might have souped up the 9mm.It looks like they might be sticking with the 9:
"Two sources confirmed to Military.com that Sig submitted to the Army .40-caliber and 9mm pistols for consideration. One source said the Army ultimately selected the 9mm version."
Sent from my SM-S765C using Tapatalk
I love you man... :tango_face_crying:"What didn't you understand? It's a hundred year old .45 ACP, I fear NOTHING at all!"
I had M3s (and 1911s) in my inventory when I took over my company armory in '88. Loved that old gun, and think we could probably hand those out to a lot of folks who are currently issued an M4 or M9. Combat handgun skills are different than SD/HD/CCW folks ... one shot one kill with a pistol is for the movies. Anyone drawing a pistol is putting rounds on target until it stops moving, then proceeding to the next target. Tight groups, reliable feed, high capacity trump everything else in that environment - which makes a strong argument for a submachine gun over a pistol in many cases.
I've seen formal proposals put forward that we really need to drop handguns all together, and switch to PDWs ... and idea with merit honestly. But the Army bought the SIG, and so the rest of us will have to do likewise.
Lloyd, no one but you has suggested a .45 anything will blow anyone off his feet no matter where he's hit.
If the goal of arming the military before sending them into gun fights is to give them something that won't tear up their frail girly hands too bad they should be issued .22 rf rifles and handguns. Yes, it would take a bit more practice to learn to shoot as well with a larger caliber but it would only add maybe an extra day in boot camp to become equally competent with a .45, not months. Truth is, and contrary to common legend, the recoil of military .45 ACP ball ammo is not fearsome.
Experience in the field has forced military 9mm hard ball ammo to be heavier than originally loaded and loaded hotter; that extra bullet weight has significantly decreased velocity and the increased pressure has increased recoil. The difference between 9mm/.45 recoil is significantly less than is often supposed.
Our military went to "spray and pray" shooting with the introduction of the M1 Garand in 1942 but it's been proven in the field that you can't shoot and miss enough to win a gun fight. Same as in 1776, it's hits that count on a battlefield and gaining combat level accuracy at handgun ranges with a 1911 Colt is only a little more demanding than with a 92 Beretta.
For whatever it's worth to anyone thinking about it, understand that any .45 hit starts as large as a 9mm even after excellent 9mm hollowpoints have fully expanded, and .45's usually have almost twice the mass to insure good penetration.
Deer have been killed with a .22 rf but that's a bad choice. I would feel silly about deer hunting with a 9 mm or even a .45 ACP - sure, it can be done but that's not what they are expected to be used for. Most of us have rifles for that kind of work.
I can't speak to the Army, but I know in the Marine Corps, weapons selection requirements are overseen by Gunners, Infantry Warrant Officers, most of whom are combat veterans who opted to become technical experts in tactical weapons. These are guys who have put millions of rounds down range, in kinetic and static environments, through all sort of different weapons, and have been instructors in their use and employment. If they think the 9mm works, there's a reason, and its probably not due to limp wristed shooters.
And yes the DOD now practices fire superiority by volume, but that is still regulated by precision. Again, I can only speak to the Marine Corps, but we train to the highest of standards, using quality weapons, ammo and optics, and we primarily shoot on single-fire; 3 round burst is reserved for special events, and we don't have select fire option on the A4 or M4 issued. This is a far cry from spray and pray, but its also not single shot across a grassy field. This is using the tool to accomplish the desired end state. Yeah, if you've never been in, or you haven't been in for a few years, it probably doesn't make sense. A lot has changed for me since I first joined in 87, and I've had to adapt to the new marksmanship programs. I thought switching to all optics instead of iron sights was sacrilege, but now I'm putting microdots on my personal handguns. Combat evolves, we evolve with it.
Lloyd - "You say someone can get competent in an extra day? I say bs."
I say bs to what you say I said because I didn't say that at all. I said an extra day of training with a .45 should obtain an equal level of competency ... and I stand by that.
I also said the difference in recoil between military ball ammo in the 1911 and 92 is small ... and I stand by that.
You easily switched from what YOU said about modern girly men's fear of recoil and then try to make an issue about seals as if I had said it all - which I didn't. What's with that? Fact is, I've been suggesting that, unlike you, I don't believe modern city men - or women/girls, like my own wife, daughters and grand daughters - are all that wimpy!
The rest of your essay misses what I said about equally. I've said what I believe and will now let it stand on it's own no matter how you twist it to make your points.
The single reason the modern muscular .40/10mm handgun rounds exist is because the FBI recognized the terminal deficiencies of the 9mm. You may argue with them if you wish but I just don't care.
9mm: 115 Gr @ 1,250 FPS = 399 FT-LBS
.45 ACP: 230 Gr @ 845 FPS = 365 FT-LBS