Our military – not for the first time – listens to complaints about poor “man-stopping” ability with 9mm ball ammunition in combat: http://m.military.com/daily-news/2014/07/03/army-wants-a-harder-hitting-pistol.html .
It seems to me that there’s little wrong with Beretta M9 performance that better 9mm ammunition (i.e., police-type high performance hollow point), MecGar magazines, and maintenance can’t cure. (Yes, the trigger reach is long for small-handed personnel. There are some mechanical fixes to help that, too.)
But I’m not military. Many of you reading this are, or have been.
What’s all y’all’s take on the matter?
Sir: All I know is… guns, hunting, ballistics (internal, external, and terminal), and reloading. FMJ *and* 9mm Parabellum are getting troops killed. I’ll testify before Congress on that. If they’re going to saddle us with 9mm mouserounds, GIVE US PROPER *BULLETS* (and I don’t mean “ammunition”). Sore subject with me. Iraq, ’03-’04 & ’07-’08. I have a shooter’s perspective, not a “bullet launcher’s” perspective, sir.
It’s always easier to look for hardware solutions to software problems…
Better pistol training could probably take care of a lot of the ‘need for more thump”. However, that undoubtably isn’t in the budget.
By putting this out there, the DOD achieves several objectives. It looks like they care about the troops, it “identifies a possible need”, which needs appropriations to study and make recommendations. Perhaps more importantly, it signals both members of congress and manufacturers that they need more money.
I won’t get overly cynical about whose back is being scratched, campaign coffers filled and votes solicited. Gee, it also comes in an election cycle.
Legitimately, they might find something currently on the market that might better fill the need, but pistols really aren’t that important to the war fighting mission. I put this in the smoke, mirrors and fight for budget money classification.
Mas, I’m not military either, but I’ve seen a lot of this type of thing over 40+ years. Perhaps latest example was the draft RFP that circulated a few years back and seems to have birthed the S&W M&P pistol series.
I can’t recall which officer said something like “The VC are our adversary. Congress and the media are our enemy.”
Take care.
Use the issued rifle. Who carries a pistol into combat. We didn’t in VN.
As I recall, when the M9 was adopted, the U.S. was under pressure from our NATO allies not only to conform to the NATO standard 9mm caliber, but also to award a handgun contract to a European manufacturer. They complained for years about how they had to follow our lead on rifle calibers & other weaponry, as well as about being pressured into buying weapons from American manufacturers.
In hindsight, it seems that we made a poor decision by complying with their demands because .45 ACP ball ammo has proven itself in combat to be more effective than 9mm ball ammo & because NATO standardization appears to be far less important now than it was during the Cold War. Since the NATO Standardization Agreement was enacted, our allies have rarely committed a substantial number of troops to fight alongside us in combat & even when they have the need for a common pistol caliber has not assumed any importance than I’m aware of.
Another decision that I disagree with is the one to abide by the terms of the Geneva Convention, even when fighting against terrorist organizations who violate those terms in horrific ways every day, themselves. I see no reason to refrain from using hollowpoint ammunition in any of our weapons against these terrorists & war criminals. In fact, I wouldn’t object to the use of more powerful prohibited weaponry against them with the public admonition that we will not abide by the rules of war if our enemies do not abide by them also.
In recent conflicts, it has been obvious that the need for effective small arms ammunition should outweigh the ridiculously antiquated prohibition of hollowpoint bullets, especially when compared to other legal types of ordnance. It’s okay to blow your enemies to pieces or to burn them alive, but it’s not okay to shoot them dead with an expanding bullet. Does that make sense to anyone? It’s a good thing that the provisions of the Geneva Convention were not written when flintlock muskets were the primary small arms in service.
“… it seems that we made a poor decision by complying with their demands because .45 ACP ball ammo has proven itself in combat to be more effective than 9mm ball ammo….” ~ Dave–VA
******
Exactly. If you’re going to stick us with ball ammo, at least make it large-caliber ball ammo. If we’re not going to be given bullets that expand, then at least give us bullets that are fatter and heavier than what is loaded into 9mm mouseammo.
Dave-VA, ditto. Off the top of my head, I don’t believe our troops have engaged a conventional standing army since Saddam Hussein’s National Guard was defeated. Why should side arms that are issued as last ditch self defense weapons be restricted by the Geneva Convention?
I suggest the proposed changes are more about new contracts for campaign donors and defense department pencil pusher kick-backs than troop safety.
If it’s really about helping the troops, and the non-expanding bullet must be used, why not investigate/develop a reduced recoil .50 caliber pistol round similar to the .45 GAP? Seems I have read articles on experimental work already being done in this direction for the civilian market
I’m having trouble understanding the problem.
Those are all the same issues that existed when the Beretta was adopted decades ago. Nothing has changed.
Of course as I remember it, both the 9×19 and Beretta was imposed from above, over the loud opposition of practically everyone who wasn’t part of the purchasing process. Maybe now that all those involved are retired or soon to be, things might change.
The M9 is a great Pistol, but it is difficult for those with smaller hands and shorter fingers. That is my only complaint; and I have large hands. Being an Army Medical Department officer, I train a lot of Soldiers on the M9, most of whom are not highly motivated shooters. For those who have difficulty with the girth of the frame and the long DA trigger pull, it makes matters worse. Those who are shooters in their off duty time usually have no problem with the M(, even if they don’t like it personally.
As far as ball ammo goes, I don’t see a need to go to anything larger if we’re going to be resticted to ball. 9mm, 10mm, 11.25mm; if it’s all ball what’s the difference? As far as the M9 and 9mm ball getting Soldiers killed, that’s way overblown. Just because someone was killed while carrying an M9, doesn’t mean the M9 or the 9mm was the cause.
Besides, outside of SOCOM and garrison MP duty, the M9 really is a secondary weapon. I’d rather see money spent on improving crew-served weapon training and capability, improved mobility, and improved situational awareness capabilities.
9mm with the right bullet, such as a soft nose or hollow point, is effective. Unfortunately, the rules of war prohibit the use of this ammunition so the military is left with FMJs. The only way around this is to switch to a bigger bullet or throw out the rules of war which most of our enemies seem to do anyway. One of the proposals is to switch to 40 S&W but while this round may be faster than the 9mm currently in use I do not believe it will be effective. Rounds will just be more likely to penetrate deeper or even pass through the enemy while leaving small wound channels. If anything the pass through may allow the bullets to transfer less energy to the target because they just go strait through. The 45 ACP was a solution to a problem discovered over 100 years ago when fighting in the Philippines when soldiers found their 30 caliber handguns to be lacking in stopping power. The solution has already been found and the round has been thoroughly tested and proven in multiple wars. But leave it to the government to complicate an easy solution.
Unfortunately, the Hague Convention of 1899 by which the U.S. abides does not allow the military to use any form of expanding bullets, which more or less limits us to ball ammunition. Because of this, the most efficient ammunition is that which delivers the most kinetic energy (1/2mv^2) into the target without relying on expansion. 9mm ball ammunition, given its steeper nose and smaller diameter, travels through the target with ease, delivering only a small amount of its kinetic energy into the target. Essentially, because all ball ammunition has a tendency to over-penetrate, the most efficient rounds are those with more mass, a larger diameter, and a flatter nose which assist in transferring more of its kinetic energy into the target. Therefore, it may be prudent to switch to a .45 ACP handgun when ball ammunition is the only type available.
I’m not the end all be all on guns but doesn’t most body armor stop most hollow point. Which is why I thought we use ball ammo to start with.
i seem to recall that we already did this nonsense (when was it?) only a century or so ago…
something about replacing inadequate 38 caliber revolvers that were then in use against muslim fanatics…
i guess nobody ever learns from experience…*
Good luck finding common sense among the governmental politically correct intelligensia who will reject actually adopting more deadly firearms/ammo to protect our military in battle. Remember when former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders publicly said with a straight face that the answer to street violence in America was to have “safer guns with safer bullets” …?
The military is handcuffed by The Hague Conventions. These standards prohibit the use of rounds “that easily expand or flatten in the body.” It has been ruled that ” modern hollow points” fall into this category. Perhaps the headline should have read “9mm handicapped by International Law”. Given those limits, more mass=more stopping power
The problem is the bullet, not the cartridge. I’d suggest you take your hollowpoint articles to DOD and UN for a “look, stupid” sitdown, but they wouldn’t listen.
I mean, even NYPD figured out 9mm ball is a lousy stopper.
OTOH if the people in the Army who carry pistols are having to use them very much, you have a problem that no new gun is going to fix.
IIRC, it’s the Hague Convention, not the Geneva Convention, that prohibits hollowpoint or similar. I recall reading that the U.S. never ratified the Hague Convention. A quick wikipedia search confirms my first sentence and suggests my second is incorrect. These points deserve more research (and more reliable than wikipedia/google) than I have time for, so I hope other readers will follow up with authoritative answers and credible sources.
Why? –
I mean why do we need to have a pistol for infantry troops? Or Most support troops? Sure investigative and select MP would use one, but let them pick something in use by civilian law enforcement. Support folks should have a carbine. Special forces don’t count, because they are special.
On the modern battlefield, use your rifle or an exploding ordinance (ie grenade) Grenades have been being advocated since WW2 / Korea – by at least one famous fighter Col. Jeff Cooper.
In the time it will take to get this approved, many of our infantry will be replaced with robots – or at least remotely piloted soldiers. (The FBI used one of these at Ruby Ridge about 20 years ago.) Don’t think C3PO / Terminator, rather think mini-tank, like what is used to search after a building collapse.
just my 2c
I agree with Dave–VA. Also, whenever wondering why something is done a certain way, remember to always follow the money trail. Ammunition is expensive and the government has to buy a lot of it. .45 costs more than 9mm, and hollow-points cost more than FMJ. I believe McNamara wanted to replace the M-14 with the M-16 so he could show his bosses that he was saving the government money. Obviously 5.56 NATO costs less than 7.62 NATO. Well, saving money on equipment issued to soldiers who will depend upon that equipment in combat is the wrong place to try to save money!!! Marines paid with their lives in Vietnam because the government didn’t want to pay to chrome the chambers of their new M-16s. And then to take M-14s out of the hands of Marines in the field; that was madness!
Our whole military has the outdated, aristocratic system of Napoleon, with officers and enlisted, saluting, marching in formation, haircuts and fancy uniforms. These things are obsolete and very un-American. I would keep our modern weapons, but soldiers need to all be trained as guerrillas, because that is the kind of warfare individual soldiers fight nowadays. We need a strong Navy because of the Atlantic, Caribbean and Pacific, but most of our land army could be made up of volunteer militia, who provide their own weapons and ammo. I’m thinking of a military to defend the fifty states, not a military to be the “world’s policeman.”
I think Bevin Alexander and Dick Marcinko should be listened to when it comes to thinking about the future of our military.
Re-reading that wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907): Hague Convention of 1899, third declaration: “Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Use of Bullets which can Easily Expand or Change their Form inside the Human Body such as Bullets with a Hard Covering which does not Completely Cover the Core, or containing Indentations
This declaration states that, in any war between signatory powers, the parties will abstain from using “bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body.” Ratified by all major powers, except the United States.”
Also note: “In any war between signatory powers…” How many terrorist organizations are “signatory powers” to the Hague Convention of 1899?
Dave is correct AFAIK… The othr problem with the M-9 is small hands have ‘control’ issues for one handed fire, in addition to the trigger reach issue. Never should have gone down that road IMHO.
The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibited the use in international warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body. This is why the military uses ball ammo. I guess we are supposed to be more humane in war?
As such I think the 9mm is a bit limiting in this specific case.
Mas, I just watched todays (7/1814) Dr. Phil show (http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/2178), and you should have heard him “Trash” the George Zimmerman murder trail.
It was totally “Racially Motivated”, the witnesses were “Pressured” into voting “Not Guilty”, the Prosecution was mis-handled, and on, and on, and on.
Since you had some part in that mess, thought you might be interested?
With two trigger lengths and two mainspring housing types to choose from, and with proper training, I see no damn reason why we should have allowed those European metrosexuals to determine what caliber OUR military sidearm should have been. The 1911 is a uniquely American design and we should have just told our “allies” switch to .45’s. It’ll put hair on their chests!
As far as that stupid Geneva accords, in terms of bullets, it should be scrapped; last I heard, war is not a debutante ball. You’re out there to kill people and break things. Let’s make it more efficient, not less.
It funny how many different way the Military came kill the enemy and we are still have to use FMJs. The police can use Jhps on us but not in the enemy. The military needs to look at that. The 9mm is more than capable of stopping someone in a single well placed shot.
Mas; IIRC,your studies of caliber effectiveness showed (along with other studies) that 9×19 FMJ was about as effective as .45 ball–somewhere in the low 60% range for ‘one-shot stops’, based on actual shootings. Am I misremembering?
There is another article out that indicates most SPECOPs units are satisfied with 9×19 as well, and for sure the SAS has never complained about their HPs and ammo.
http://kitup.military.com/2014/07/sof-prefers-9mm-45-caliber.html
Geneva Conventions – only ball ammo allowed.
The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use of expanding bullets in international warfare but I have always had a problem with its application in undeclared wars and when the enemy is not a signatory. In our current conflicts, we allow ourselves to be bound by the Convention while our enemy is free to use whatever projectile they can get their hands on. As Mas points out, if we were allowed to use modern expanding tactical bullets on the battlefield, as we are allowed to on the streets, a 9mm handgun would perform acceptably if not splendidly. Pilots carried a Colt 1911 in Viet Nam or a S&W .38 Special and recognized that the only reason we were so armed was to give ourselves the option of not being captured should we be shot down. No one fantasized of fighting with such hardware. Today’s troops, in today’s battles, deserve better and the shame of it is that the better solution is readily available for use with available weaponry.
Sir: I believe you are correct in your assertion that there are few things wrong with the M9 Beretta’s performance that cannot be remedied by proper maintenance and good magazines such as those made by MecGar. Using police style hollow point ammunition would certainly increase the stopping power of the 9mm cartridge, as evidenced by Marshal and Sanow’ s actuarial tables derived from actual gunfight results. However, hollow point ammo is an option denied to the US Military for the foreseeable future due to the U.S. DOD’s scrupulous adherence to the tenants of the Hague convention of 1899 & 1907 requiring signatories “to agree to abstain from the use of bullets designed to expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions”. EVEN THOUGH the USA is NOT a signatory to the Hague Convention AND the fact that the Hague Convention ‘is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them”. Given our current PC sensibilities I don’t expect that policy to change, unless and until someone is able to sue the Federal Government for compelling the U.S. Military to use handgun ammo that over-penetrates and threatens bystanders.
I served in the Active and Reserve components of the U.S Army for a total of 30 years, consequently I used both the .45 caliber 1911A1 pistol and the 9x19mm M9 Beretta pistol. I qualified Expert with both pistols and won awards in competition with both pistols. So as a matter of fact, I like both pistols. I carried the M9 Beretta for a year in Iraq. As I recall, the .45 cal. 1911A1 did everything the Army wanted a handgun to do, but by the early 1980’s the Army’s 45’s were old and wearing out, so it was deemed time to change to a handgun with more “modern “ features, such as a high magazine capacity and a double-action trigger. Regardless, the Army still demanded that I carry my M9 the same way I was required to carry the 1911A1: either in “condition three” with the chamber empty or in “condition green”, completely unloaded with a loaded magazine on my belt or in my pocket. This of course rendered the double-action trigger and the drop hammer safety of the M9 largely superfluous. Thus I regarded my primary means of close range defense, in the event my base was infiltrated by terrorists, to be my knife . As evidenced by the Tueller Drill, I figured I could be on top of any terrorist who got within 21 feet of me unexpectedly, cutting and stabbing him repeatedly with my knife, in much less time than it would take me to draw, load, aim and fire my M9. Of course I could also swing my empty M9 on the end of my lanyard and club my assailant over the head with it as well. It would make a very effective short range impact weapon.
Since I never actually shot anyone during 30 years of service my knowledge of the terminal ballistics of handgun ammunition on human beings is mostly theoretical, gained in large part from reading articles written by gun experts, experts like YOU, Mr. Ayoob. Although I do understand from years of experience at hunting that while good expanding bullets can produce dramatic results on game animals (and by extrapolation on human enemies), hitting the animal in a vital area such as the heart , lungs, liver, major blood vessels, spine or brain is even more important.
Likewise, I must imagine that if a majority of U.S. service members are dissatisfied with the 9mm cartridge , it is largely because gun writers and other “gun experts” have persuaded them that they should be. I have not heard or read of an abundance of “failure to stop” incidents with the M9 in the Global War on Terror. Since the Military cannot do the main thing that would increase the stopping power of the service handgun, which would be to increase the lethality of the bullet, it can only make changes around the margins. None of which is likely to produce dramatic or universally popular results given our existing firearms technology. Thus there will likely be no conclusive answer to this issue; there will instead be trade-offs in capability between different handgun types and different handgun calibers, all using non-expanding, full metal jacket (FMJ) bullets. For example, a larger caliber handgun will hold fewer rounds in the magazine and the faster 9mm FMJ bullet will give better penetration than the slower .45 bullet (For instance, a 9mm FMJ bullet will pierce a steel helmet , whereas a .45 FMJ bullet will not). I have also noticed during my service that soldiers shoot the 9mm M9 much better than they did the .45. But in the final analysis, perception is often reality, so if the majority of our soldiers will feel more confident with a .45 ACP caliber handgun, then by all means let’s adopt one. The .45 ACP cartridge certainly worked well in the past and thus can be expected to give satisfactory service in the future. Provided that you will be allowed to carry your handgun loaded and ready to fire when and where you are likely to need to use it in your defense.
I’m not a big fan of the Beretta for military use. I think they need a polymer design like the Glock or Springfield maybe with an external safety. 9mm would do fine with hollow points. After all it is lighter and higher capacity. Would a 40, 45 or even a 357 sig be better? Maybe but they are using them as a last ditch weapon anyway. I doubt many are used in combat so hollow points shouldn’t even be an issue
The most simple solution is for the U.S. military to re-issue the Browning 1911 in .45 ACP with an upgrade in ammunition loaded with flatnosed bullets.
However I doubt this will happen as this would be an admission that the decision to switch to 9mm and the Beretta M9 was a mistake in the first place and the U.S. military, and especially the Army, will never admit they made a mistake.
The second best choice would be a single column magazine version of the Glock 21SF. The .45 ACP has the best stopping power of current standard pistol cartridges and it operates at low pressures so the guns will last a very long time. An upgrade to a flatpoint bullet like the Hornady 230 grain truncated cone FMJ would make the .45 ACP even more effective if ball ammunition is mandated for use even against terrorists instead of troops wearing a national uniform. The standard Glock 21 has a fairly large grip so certain soldiers with smaller hands may have problems with it, but a thinner grip would help. In fact, Glock may be able to design a magazine which holds the cartridges in a semi-staggered position so nine rounds could be loaded and a compact model of this pistol could be made for military investigators and others needing a smaller sidearm. While they’re at it, Glock could also put a manual thumb safety on this pistol and equip it with metal sights and a lanyard loop too.
Changing calibers is not the answer and the Army’s argument is bogus. I was SF in RVN and Active and Reserve SF for most of 23 years. First, how often is a soldier compelled to fire a pistol in anger. IMO, it rarely occurs. Where is the data for Iraq and Afghanistan? The Army claims their Berettas are wearing out. How is this possible? There is annual qualification for those whose TO&E weapon is a pistol – which is not many. Rarely is the unit’s funding for ammunition sufficient to follow the FORSCOM prescribed training program for pistols or rifles.
The only troops who train with their pistols frequently are Special Operations units and marksmanship unit personnel. SOF units mostly use SIGs in 9mm and COLT and H&K .45s. Ironically, I have read that the FBI is considering going from .40 S&W to 9mm. Today, female Agents have the option of carrying 9mm pistols. Most people agree that shot placement is critical – especially when the opposition is wearing body armor. Further, the 5.56mm round is not exactly a “man stopper.”
It would be far better to arm personnel with an H&K MP5 or MP7 or an FN P90. They might hit something and they will have more rounds in the magazine. Again, for certain missions, SOF personnel carry this type of weapon. The Secret Service uses the P90.
The issue of the Geneva Convention is bogus. In order for it to apply, both adversaries must be signatories or obligate themselves (like the US and Russia) to follow its provisions. We have not opposed such an enemy since WWII! FMJ rounds are not legally required – period. In a pistol which can handle the slide slamming the frame, there are currently 9mm rounds whose energy exceeds that of the average police issue .40 S&W. Again, caliber is not the issue.
The average troop does not get adequate training on their assigned weapon throughout the year. Therefore, their sidearm or rifle for that matter, must be easy to shoot accurately. Optical sights on military rifles are making it easier to shoot accurately. The same type of sight can be mounted on a modern PDW.
There is no reason to issue a pistol in .40 S&W, for example, which will be more difficult to shoot accurately. Sadly, other than SOF, no one gets enough practice to shoot a pistol accurately, even if the enemy is close – under 5 yards.
This conversation has defined a military pistol as a device for use by unskilled operators in last-ditch situations (i.e. the enemy is less than 25 meters away).
So, let’s try creative thinking.
How about a version of an AR pistol in 5.56×30 or x 21?
At 2000fps the bullet would tumble, rather than poke a .45-in or 9mm hole straight through the enemy.
With the proper bullet, it would penetrate most body armor.
If you accept that we don’t give our troops enough practice to become proficient with pistols, it makes moot the argument over the nearly identical performance of .45ACP v 9mm. Does anyone argue that two hits with a 9mm is less effective than one–or no–hits with a .45? Or no hits with either one?
If an AR pistol is too creative, try this: a .22 Magnum pistol with a 30-plus-round magazine. If, you, a civilian were in a deep trouble situation with an unarmed partner, would you hand over your 1911 (or Glock 19) or your Kel-Tec PMR-30?
(Though it did not ratify the section on expanding bullets, U.S. will not violate the Hague Convention on expanding bullets…the Geneva Convention didn’t cover this. Open-tipped (OTM) 5.56 barely made the cut, thanks to some creative arguments by military lawyers.)
I
Just remember, folks;, the US abides by the Hague Convention, but is NOT a signatory to it.
I was an MP in Iraq and also unit armourer. The m9 is a high maintenance weapon,from my experience. 9mm delivered poor stopping power. If stuck w/9mm fmj would use glock or smith MP. That’s why I acquiered a 1911 45
If the issue is the effectiveness of the round…the so-called “stopping power…continuing to shoot the same old 9mm FMJ ball out of a different pistol won’t fix a thing. Either go to modern defensive ammo, or get a bigger bullet.
Dropping the 1911A1 .45 was a big mistake, an expensive big mistake. As for “stopping power”, two friends shot people using 9MM, the recipients of the bullets were not especially impressed, they remained standing. Gut shots don’t work. I’m sure “10 ring shots” would have produced different results. Both shooters were civilians, one L.E.O. one a shop owner. I don’t know what the specific projectiles were.
Now, 9MM FMJ vs .45 FMJ, acquaintances of mine shot by .45 FMJ, one shoulder hit, one leg hit were not especially impressed by the .45 at that moment, they remained standing until med personnel arrived. My conclusion is, if you want to kill, hit the vitals or use a scattergun.
Dropping the M9 is probably making the same big mistake again. FMJ bullets are in the military to stay.
Government=wasted money, fix the M9 and keep it.
I have a small hand. Beretta never did fit me. I am perfect with a Colt LW Commander in .45 and now carry a Glock 19. The Glock is definitly my second choice.
Since we are talking about a last ditch short range weapon, lets just change the barrel twist rate so that the bullet is just barely stabilized. I believe that was the original thought behind the M-16 when first issued. After impact the bullet tumbles and expends its energy inside the enemy.
Tom606 make a number of very valid point’s, not the least of which is his assertion of a Glock 21 being brought in to solve the issue. But what’s already here, in the Beretta .40, may solve this even better. We all agree that the 9mm is lousy. We also agree that a .40 + caliber round is more efficient and needed. We all have also seen the caliber swing, from .38 / .357 to the .45 and then back to the .38 / and then to the 9mm, happen. Pacman we don’t need ! Tom’s argument for a Glock 21 with a thinner grip, if that’s even possible given the current frame dimension’s, sounds good but need some serious demonstration done before anyone can say it will work. But the current Beretta M-Series, in the .40 S&W, is a serious solution that we need to look at.
We all agree that the .40 + caliber round is the way to go. The .40 vs. the .45 ACP dimension’s are not that all different. The only real issue is one of actual bullet design, and that can be done fairly quickly given the vast amount of data that the Military, and any number of Medical Examiner’s (Got to love the Coroner ! ) have in their file’s. I’ve carried, over the last 28 years, both a Colt .38, to a S&W 10/13/15 and 64/65/66 series revolver, to a Beretta 92D to a Glock 23 in .40 S&W. To a one, the Beretta frame was the most manageable handgun I carried. Does it require training, and on-going proficiency ? Yes, as any weapon does to remain competent to use. But that’s a training issue, not a weapon design issue. If the issue of caliber is that important then the next step up is simple. Take the current Beretta .40 and redesign the frame and magazine’s to go to a .45 ACP round. Capacity goes up, the training remains the same and the maintenance issue are already known and factored in as a given. Why Beretta didn’t do this sooner is a mystery. Why DA and the Aberdeen and Redstone folk’s didn’t is ! Aberdeen and the Redstone folk’s ingrained with the NIMBY attitude as far as anything coming form outside of Army channel’s. it’s time that nonsense was stopped, and by the Chief of Staff no less, to make the message clear. The Service’s need ALL idea’s, not just the one’s that are convenient to the Service’s Dept. Head’s, to be looked at for use. This NIMBY attitude is too expensive to put up with, and has gotten far too many people killed because of it……………
Use of the FMJ is dictated by the geneva convention, to which there we are a singatory . The primary military weapon is the rifle only select solider need a handgun and those are fequently more symbolic than any a true weapon. look at the basic load (standard amount of ammo per person) of pistol rounds and you realise that thise not considered a combat weapon.
” The 9mm is for killing Europeans; for truly dangerous people you need a .45″ Col. Jeff Cooper
I’ll side with Ron and Doug. After spending 34 years in the military(25 active) in both the Rangers and SF and 2 combat tours(Afghanistan and Iraq), I believe good training is the key to effective use of any firearm. Shot placement will trump bullet size anytime. The Beretta and the 1911 are both fine pistols, however there are soldiers that have problems with both. No pistol is going to be perfect for each and every person. However if the military will commit to provide the ammo and opportunity for the necessary training, service members would be more competent with any pistol they carry.
One thing that hasn’t been talked about so far is the “safety issue” with using “Ball” ammunition. Anyone that had spent any time in the modern Army knows how everything is looked at from a safety standpoint above every other aspect. No matter the caliber, hollow point ammunition is safer for the soldier using it because it gives a better chance of stopping the threat than FMJ does. This fact(the safety of US soldiers) should trump any “convention” the US has decided to follow.
De Oppresso Liber
I have no military service. I read a lot (& forget a lot too)
An interesting article I read recently:
http://bearingarms.com/army-wants-new-handgun-way-can-now/
” … due to the Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, expanding ammunition is illegal for international warfare in most circumstances … ”
As I understand it, one argument for 5.56 Vs 7.62 NATO was to cause less death and more but less severe injuries. A similar argument to using FMJ ball Vs expandable bullets.
It would seem we have little choice: Ball rounds. The 9mm Vs .45ACP should need little discussion regarding stopping power & therefore risk of failure to stop. Stopping ability of a 9mm defensive (aka hollow point, expanding) may be another matter.
Generally speaking, bigger stops better. Expanding bullet enhances any caliber. Use of expanding bullet = war criminal per international law/treaty.
I don’t like it but the argument is wound Vs kill. This creates obvious problems (stopping power lost; fighting terrorists who, like criminals, don’t care about nor follow laws creating additional risk for our troops; etc)
@ * Says:
Believe that was the native Moro headhunters, on Mindanao Island, who would take their “Kris”, and go on a “Juramentado”, until they were finalally stopped by our troops, during the Phillipine insurection.
The Army finally went back to the Colt Model 1873, .45 cal. SA revolver, and it was a “one shot” stop, on the Moros, after that.
Not sure about their religion, but don’t belive they were Muslims?
Paul
@ * Says:
Believe that was the native Moro headhunters, on Mindanao Island, who would take their “Kris”, and go on a “Juramentado”, until they were finalally stopped by our troops, during the Phillipine insurection.
The Army finally went back to the Colt Model 1873, .45 cal. SA revolver, and it was a “one shot” stop, on the Moros, after that.
Not sure about their religion, but don’t belive they were Muslims?
Paul
We went to the 5.56mm for two reasons. First, the range of engagement in RVN was calculated at 50 yards. In WWII, it was 100 to 300 yards. So, it was thought that the 5.56 round was adequate for RVN. Second, the generals wanted young soldiers to carry more ammunition lessening their dependence upon frequent resupply. If the generals in 1965 had had their way, troops would have only carried ammo and water. Troops could carry more 5.56 than 7.62.
Of course, Afghanistan changed the range of engagement and we sought better bullets for greater effectiveness at longer range. They didn’t want to change calibers although selected marksmen received enhanced 5.56 rifles and 7.62 rifles.
The concept of wounding is simple and ugly. First, it takes 4 guys to evacuate a wounded troop to a collection point. Second (the ugly part) troops are drawn out of cover or concealment to retrieve the wounded trooper who, if hit by direct fire, is in a vulnerable position to which others are drawn and killed or wounded also. Killing and stopping power is required if you are trying to defend against an attack. You must stop the enemy by killing him. That is the role for crew-served weapons. Prior to Afghanistan, modern artillery accounted for 75% of enemy casualties. The ROE and fewer artillery pieces in Afghanistan took away this significant advantage which is only partly compensated for by attack helicopters and CAS.
So, it is clear that the Army made caliber choices for a multiplicity of reasons and NATO followed our choice – not the other way around. I still want to see data on the actual use of the M9 in the last 13 years of combat. I doubt that it is a significant number – the military is not a police department. As the CSM says, we need more training on our individual weapons and that requires two things: training time (scarce) and ammunition. This is a problem that the military shares with today’s American police departments. Even the Secret Service, which is supposed to qualify monthly, often fails to do so. For the military that means spray and pray. Our police cannot do that.
We went to the 5.56mm for two reasons. First, the range of engagement in RVN was calculated at 50 yards. In WWII, it was 100 to 300 yards. So, it was thought that the 5.56 round was adequate for RVN. Second, the generals wanted young soldiers to carry more ammunition lessening their dependence upon frequent resupply. If the generals in 1965 had had their way, troops would have only carried ammo and water. Troops could carry more 5.56 than 7.62.
Of course, Afghanistan changed the range of engagement and we sought better bullets for greater effectiveness at longer range. They didn’t want to change calibers although selected marksmen received enhanced 5.56 rifles and 7.62 rifles.
The concept of wounding is simple and ugly. First, it takes 4 guys to evacuate a wounded troop to a collection point. Second (the ugly part) troops are drawn out of cover or concealment to retrieve the wounded trooper who, if hit by direct fire, is in a vulnerable position to which others are drawn and killed or wounded also. Killing and stopping power is required if you are trying to defend against an attack. You must stop the enemy by killing him. That is the role for crew-served weapons. Prior to Afghanistan, modern artillery accounted for 75% of enemy casualties. The ROE and fewer artillery pieces in Afghanistan took away this significant advantage which is only partly compensated for by attack helicopters and CAS.
So, it is clear that the Army made caliber choices for a multiplicity of reasons and NATO followed our choice – not the other way around. I still want to see data on the actual use of the M9 in the last 13 years of combat. I doubt that it is a significant number – the military is not a police department. As the CSM says, we need more training on our individual weapons and that requires two things: training time (scarce) and ammunition. This is a problem that the military shares with today’s American police departments. Even the Secret Service, which is supposed to qualify monthly, often fails to do so. For the military that means spray and pray. Our police cannot do that.
I was trained and issued a 1911 about 50 years ago. It was probably older than I was at the time, so loose it rattled when shook but would still put 5 rounds under a silver dollar at 25 yds if used by someone who could shoot. (not me the first years quals later I qualified expert multiple times) Since then I have owned revolvers, Glock .40s and other “plastic” pistols and I always come back to a steel, commander sized 1911. Not only can I shoot it better I’m confident anything I have to shoot will stay shot.
I was trained and issued a 1911 about 50 years ago. It was probably older than I was at the time, so loose it rattled when shook but would still put 5 rounds under a silver dollar at 25 yds if used by someone who could shoot. (not me the first years quals later I qualified expert multiple times) Since then I have owned revolvers, Glock .40s and other “plastic” pistols and I always come back to a steel, commander sized 1911. Not only can I shoot it better I’m confident anything I have to shoot will stay shot.
Comments are closed.