Military.com contributor, Capt. Eric Coulson, who wrote a thought-provoking article on the failings of the ACU, has penned another story for us that calls into question the call by an increasing number of shooters that the M9 pistol is a dog…
Read his entire article below:
The biggest failing of the M9 Beretta pistol has always been that it was not the M1911 in .45 ACP. More than 20 years after the pistols adoption as the standard sidearm of the US Armed Forces, many devotees of the 1911 and the .45 caliber claim that was a better pistol. In fact the M9 has proven itself time and time again in combat with US Forces in Panama, Desert Storm, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Although a combat proven pistol, I decided to put the M9 through its paces when I arrived in Iraq. There was nothing scientific about my testing. We do not have a fancy range to do precision shooting and make measurements. I wanted the subjective hard day-in-day-out test of the firearm with the dust and sand: Could I pull out the weapon and run through 15 rounds and make them all lethal shots at 25 meters?
I attempt to maintain my pistol on a daily basis, however I will not exaggerate and claim that it is always spotless. So when I realize we had a range and some 9mm ammunition available, I decided to forgo cleaning my M9 to see what the real consequences would be if my weapon was not clean.
On range day, I took my Beretta that had more than its fair share of dust and sand on it, four Checkmate magazines and 60 rounds of 9mm Full Metal Jacket ammunition to the range. Over a half-hour period I fired the pistol from kneeling and standing positions. I fired single shots and controlled pairs. I used the slide release and manually charged the weapon. In those 60 rounds, I had no failures to feed, no failures to eject, and no failures to fire. Had I needed the weapon that day to save my life, it was up to the task.
Shooting itself is a perishable skill, but I found that I had not lost a step after spending much of the last two years shooting my Glock 19 on private ranges back in the United States. I would not have won any competitions, but at 25 meters on a man-size target, I was able to place all of my shots in the torso or the head.
The biggest complaint from users during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom has been failures related to the Checkmate magazines. Evidently, the Department of Defense has worked with the manufacture to eliminate these problems.
I am curious if some of those problems might not be related to the amount of time the magazines remain loaded. Considering the pistol is used as a backup weapon in most instances, the magazines can remain loaded for weeks at a time if not longer. The lengthy compression of the springs can cause the springs to lose some of their strength. I rotate mine on a weekly basis to prevent excessive spring use. Users might consider this if they experience a problem.
There have been no significant developments in pistol design since the adoption of the M9 that would warrant the adoption of a new pistol. However, there are two things the Armed Forces should consider in equipping service members with pistol.
Laser sites: a pistol such as the M9 has fixed sights. The fixed site requires the shooter to focus on the blade of the front site, while aligning the rear site and the target, causing the latter two to be fuzzy. Laser sites when properly aligned allow the shooter to focus on the target, where the focus should be. There are two types of lasers on the market, external and internal lasers. The internal lasers replace the guide rod and as such replicate the path of the bullet most accurately. The next contract for pistols should include an internal laser requirement.
Night sites: even if the military adopts an internal laser, one should always have a back up. On this pistol this means relying on the iron sites. The current sites on the Beretta are three-dot plastic. The dots have worn off over the years on many of these weapons. Replacing these with high visibility tritium sites would make more sense.
The Beretta M9 is a good pistol with a proven combat capability. My own experience has increased my confidence in the weapon system. While one should always do their utmost to ensure their weapon is clean and in optimal firing condition, it is also good to know the weapon can save your life, if it has seen a few hard days moving around the battlefield. The Department of Defense has done well by this pistol selection.
{ 82 comments… read them below or add one }
Eric, SIGHTS. FMJ good for feed reliabilty, not the best knock down round. Finally, you are never ever f’ing ever going to convince the .45 faithful that the 9mm is worth two shits my friend, just the way it is.
Yeah, well… It’s still a 9mm.
Guess some of us old fashioned folks will always prefer the knock down power of a .45. …especially with some of the stories I’ve heard about insurgents/terrorists getting hopped up on adrenaline…
Put it this way, if I were Spec Ops, and could choose my weapons, I would sure NOT be using an M4 and a M9 – but probably more likely an HK 416 and HK USP .45. Germans still make the best Guns, Cars …and Women ;)
BUT, of course if I were issued the m9 and m4, I’d use them, keep my mouth shut and my cleaning kits strapped to my butt.
Maybe the 9mm is OK with modern bullets. Police don’t seem to think so, as most departments have or are transitioning to 40 S&W – the largest practical caliber in a 9mm side handgun.
With FMJ, 9mm has along history as an inadequate stopper. If I’m down to using my handgun, things have really gotten bad. The last thing I want is a marginal stopper.
Thew adoption of the M9 had more to do with politics and missile bases in Italy than the best gun for the troops. Sure, it’s adequate. But I really don;t want to see US troops equipped with a last ditch weapon that’s merely adequate.
When the Beretta can go 50,000 rounds with out a failure…
When the Beretta can be frozen, caked in mud, left in saltwater, and dropped onto concrete, but still cycle reliably…
When the Beretta’s exterior finish is as tough as diamond and corrosion proof…
When the Beretta shares parts commonality with other pistol calibers like 40 S&W, 45 ACP, 45GAP, 357 Sig, and 10mm…
Then it will still only be just as good as a Glock.
Eric:
First, thank you for both your service and M9 evaluation. A bigger issue is not necessarily the weapon hardware (‘wrapper’), rather its the caliber (‘content’). The 9mm with FMJ projectile is a marginal round; this was a issue of concern with the 9mm rounds adoption into the German P.08 pistol (‘Luger’). The .45 ACP possesses superior kill power and this is the aim (pardon the pun here) of a military projectile, be it rifle or pistol. Contrary to some ‘think tank’ arm chair military ‘experts’, a wounded enemy is almost as dangerous as a live combatant, a wounded enemy can continue to kill you after being shot, so the best caliber is the one that immediately kills or imobilizes the enemy. The 9mm and 5.56 are just barely adequate to do the job and when the enemy is crazed with either zeal or drugs (maybe both), both of these calibers is in dispute.
V/R,
LTC ED BLASH (Ret)
US ARMY
dammit.. it’s “SIGHTS” not “SITES”. You actually spell it correctly at one point. Either consistently misspell or spell it right.
See told ya so!
In any weapon, but especially a pistol, the balance is single shot stopping power versus ammo capacity.
The m9 is a great pistol from a great company. I understand completely why the govt went to it – high capacity for the weight. However the stopping power of 9mm ball ammo is near worthless. All police carrying the round use a JHP or similiar. That’s not allowed in the military. So you either carry illegal rounds or need a different pistol.
The only reason the 1911 gets so much play is we still have several tons of them in stock. I personally don’t love the recoil to second accurate shot characteristics of the 45, particularly the 1911, & especially for smaller troops. And, I also don’t like the low capacity. There are other pistols though that are quite good, like H&K for instance.
I’d prefer to go with a mid round like the 40s&w. And if I have a choice on pistol, preferably it’d be a sig, but glock & several others also make outstandaing versions.
The bigger issue to me is most troops are not allowed to have a pistol at all. They can’t get M9s issued & they aren’t allowed to bring their own (Berretta or otherwise).
Why doesn’t the US Military switch to the 96 model version of the Beretta the .40 cal round?
25 Meters!! Where is you M-16?;
A pistol is to hold ‘em off until you can get to your weapon!!
25 Meters!! Where is you M-16?;
A pistol is to hold ‘em off until you can get to your weapon!!
I personally don’t care for the M9. There are other pistols I would rather carry. But, it was the pistol I was issued, along with my M4, and it is what I carried in Iraq and Afghanistan. I maintained it, and had confidence in it. The big, hairy, caveman attitude of “one-shot-stop-knock-down-hand-cannon” is BS. It’s about your proficiency with the weapon, and shot placement. I would much rather get hit with a .45 in the pinky toe, than a .22 in the eyeball….People tend to blame equipment rather than their own failed actions. Accurately shooting a pistol takes a great deal of skill and training. I have seen many times, “the sights are off”, etc., when it is the poor skills. Malfunctions can occur from shooter actions, limp wristing, etc. I am neither a fan nor foe of the 9mm, but it sure has killed a hell of a lot of badguys in history, and currently.
Can’t argue with the shot placement philosophy – that is the key. OTOH, everyone’s trained to shoot for center mass, so the question still comes back to stopping power.
FWIW, I think both the 45 and 9mm camps are wrong. The 10mm will outperform both – it has greater stopping power than the 45 ACP and you can still get 15 of’em in a clip (Glock 20).
The 40 S&W is a short 10mm (much like the 38 is a short 357). The reason the 40 S&W took off and the 10mm didn’t is because the large grip necessary to accommodate the 10mm clip and the significant recoil of the weapon were a problem for some shooters.
But it’s still one helluva a cartridge pushing a 200 gr. bullet at 1200 fps.
I had a Colt Delta Elite in 10MM, great weapon and very accurate with good control in that frame. BUT with the wrap around rubber grips (which gave such great control) meant I had to creep my hand around to hit the mag release and I have pretty big meat hooks.
The M9 is a fine combat pistol if it is properly taken care of. So is the M1911. I have had over 40 years of military experience shooting everything issued to me.Most troops take for granted that their small arms will always be dependable, even without proper care. Bull! The M9 slide and frame have to be lubed, and often. Even Beretta factory mags have to be disassemble often and cleaned and lightly lubed.
Taking the time to take care of the small arms that may save your life is of paramount importance.
CPT RW Copenhagen (Ret.)
the biggest problem with the M9 is that it is 9mm. it lacks stopping power. it sometimes takes half a mag from it drop these guys. the 1911 on the other hand will drop a person with one or two shots to the torso. when you hear of cops shooting a person 20 or 30 times its because they are using 9mms. you have to repeatedly shoot a person with a 9 to stop them. back before everyone switched from the .45 to the 9mm you never had that problem. it just took a couple of shots to drop a person because everyone was using .45s.
Oh, boy. Talk about a can of worms. Sometimes I think the new management here posts these stories just to get the comment snowball rolling.
I’ve been following the 9mm controversy since it started over 20 years ago, and I doubt we’re going to resolve it here, but I’d like to post a few observations on its persistence.
First off, small arms are personal (literally) in a way other procurement issues aren
Three things. Front Sight, Front Sight, Front Sight! As far as lasers, bad call. Lasers are sexy on TV, and my cat loves the laser pointer, but they have a VERY limited application on a firearm, especially handguns. They are one more thing to break. They take away from skills using your iron sights. In a smokey/foggy/suspended dust environment, it shows everybody exactly where you are. Internal guide rod lasers have an inherent accuracy problem. The most a handgun needs is tritium sights. In my 15 years of being a cop, I prefer a big, white dot on my front sight, with blacked out rear sights. Also, the handgun training offered by the armed forces is woefully inadequate. Range time in the military is severely limited. There is not enough time to make proficient pistol shooters of the average troop.
The Berretta is a good weapon, but there are better. The department I work for issues SigArms, but I carry a Glock. I have been through the SAMRIC course at Camp Robinson and there I learned that The Berretta was much like the old Ruger P-85 slow to cycle and had more barrel flip than I like. I shot expert bvut I still prefer GLock. I think the Army needs to look at other weapons and think of going up to a .40 or 357 Sig gun.
I agree that most peoples problems with any pistol is not concentrating on the front sight.
I use Mil Tec on just about all of my weapons and think that CLP is to thick for the Berretta and have found that most of them preform better with a thinner oil
The M9 is certainly not a bad weapon as it shoots fairly accurately and the 9mm is a powerful enough round if the shot hits most spots in the torso and the head is pretty much a winner with all calibers. The problem with the 9mm round though is that most of the time troops fire a side arm, you can’t always hit exactly where you are trying, even more so with limited range time. The big advantage with a larger caliber is your margin of error for deadly force is larger with a more powerful round.
Its the same argument as made with the 5.56. Its a good round if you can fire it accurately into center mass, but if you miss and hit, say, in the shoulder, it has less stopping power than a 7.62.
Do you want to fire 4 rounds out of 15 of a smaller caliber to make sure the job is done or 1-2 of a larger caliber? Of course if we could all pick our own personal side arms, then alot of us would pick one of the many available larger calibers that still can hold 12+ rounds…
The problem with the Beretta 9mm is not the gun, its the Geneva convention that prevents us from using hollow points in a war time environment. The real problem is the ball ammutition creates a small wound track if you don’t it bone. Thats also why contolled pairs are a common teaching practice on the M-9 qualification courses. Hollow points would get the job done.
As an MP, I’ve carried the M9 quite a bit, in Iraq, helping to restore order after Hurricane Katrina, and while on post preforming law enforcement duties. I don’t hate the M9 but I definately feel there are MUCH better handguns out there for the money. The 9mm is not a bad round and has plenty of stopping power if…your use a hollow point round. My personal handguns are a Ruger P-89 and and XD-45 compact. I use only Hydra-shok rounds in both to ensure I can quickly and effectively neutralize any threat to me or my family. I prefer knowing that 1-2 shots are going to take down a threat rather than having to put a thrid of a clip into 1 target to get him to fall. With ball ammo, especially 9mm, you will likely have that problem, especially if they are hopped up on drugs or running on adrenaline. I think the M9 has served the Armed Forces well but it’s time has passed. The military can get a better, more reliable, more effective weapon for the close to the same price as an M9 in A Springfield XD-40 or .45ACP. They’re very accurate, easy to maintain, and very user friendly, all for about what you’d pay for an M9. The 9mm is a good round but it just doesn’t stack up to a good 40cal or 45 ACP.
Well, i dont nessecerily have a comment, but rather a question. Currently i am in DEP(Delayed Entry Program) with the Navy. And with my rate, i will be voulunteering for VBSS (Vessle Board Search and Seizure)[which is what if i rember right, that is what the 15 Brittish soldiers were doing when they were captured by Iran]. {please bear with me here, im still a depper, so chances are i am incorrect with many things here, so please correct me if i am wrong.} But i think that we use the MK18 (?) just as the Seabees carry, and i think the M9, but idk what the sidearm is for sure. Anyway, my question is this; If we carry personalized equiptment while on VBSS, do you have any recomandations with sidearms? And i have heard that the M9 is not really a bad arm, as long as you know how to use it. The only real problems with it is it’s weight and low penetration capabilities. And one thing with the M1911 is not only does it have a good stopping power, if we used the gun as a primary sidearm for nearly 80 years, and the spec ops guys still prefer it, it simply must be a good arm.
Curious George,
Your not going to get to personalize much beyond the sunglasses and underwear you wear in the military (and maybe not even that depending on how much of an ass your commander is).
Curious George:
Bill’s right — if your CO’s a tool, you’re not going to get to personalize much. Especially for VBSS; from what I’ve heard, you pretty much want everyone on the team familiar with everyone else’s gear.
Follow your Master Chief and/or CPOs’ lead. They should have it all wired tight.
As for VBSS sidearms, I think there are still some 1911s out there; the Coasties (and some Navy units) held onto theirs for years, and the MEU/SOC guys still use them. The Coasties are going to a .40 caliber Sig, but that has a lot to do with them being part of Homeland Security now.
As far as the M9 is concerned, heavy isn’t necessarily bad for VBSS: you may have to use your sidearm as an impact weapon.
You posted that the problem with 9mm FMJ is a lack of penetration. It’s more the reverse: it isn’t heavy or wide enough to dump its energy very fast in a human target.
9mm FMJ penetrates (and ricochets) pretty good. That can be a problem for VBSS. Good hollowpoints can fix that; don’t be surprised if you’re issued or can scrounge some. One thing about the GWOT is, we’re dealing for the most part with non-state actors, so (theoretically) the Hague Convention ban on bullets that “expand or flatten easily” doesn’t apply. Theoretically, hollow points can be used on terrorists or smugglers, especially if they offer the benefit of limiting ricochet and collateral damage to innocents who may be aboard.
If you don’t or can’t get hollowpoints, you might get issued frangibles, like the Mk. 254, Mod 0 9mm round I posted about earlier. I think it’s mostly a practice round, but I think it’s been certified by the Navy for VBSS. I don’t know if it works or not; either way, practice your Mozambique/Body Armor Defeat drill (2 to the chest, 1 to the head), if they give you the range time.
Good luck, and thanks for your service.
One more post for the board.
There’s a new wildcat round for the M9 envelope. You can find a pretty good writeup at GunBlast.com. It’s called the PK2224 or PK224S, and it launches .22 bullets of various weights and constructions (e.g., hollowpoints, AP) at very high velocities.
As the GunBlast article points out, it may offer an alternative to the 5.7x28mm FN PDW round — or the 4.6x30mm HK. IIRC, Saab/Bofors demo’d a similar round (6.5x25mm CBJ/MS) some time ago; the alleged selling point back then was, you could theoretically drop a conversion kit into any 9mm platform.
The interesting thing about the PK rounds is, the brass is made from cut and formed 5.56 NATO, so new brass can theoretically be drawn from some of the same tooling. So instead of adopting a new (and foreign) PDW round and launcher, we’d have a made in America round for existing 9mm platforms.
Do I think it’ll succeed? Hell no; certainly not if the Pentagon’s thinking seriously about going back to the .45 ACP. Just the same, FWIW, it’s out there.
The current Beretta mod 92 is a solid weapon. It has certain idiocyncrasies that do not always endear it to the shooter. Its main problem is the ammo. 9mm ball is equal to the .38 special. The Army dumped its .38 spl revolvers for .45 acp 1911′s because of its lack of stopping power. Now they have gone back. The Air Force was still issuing .38 special revolvers into the 1970′s. Go figure. Hollowpoint ammo, when it works, gives the 9 reliable stopping power. HArdball doesn’t.
Another issue that would come up if we were to convert to 45…Females. Although we can get into a debate about women in cobat, the reality is they are in combat situations. I have seen women who have a hard time qualifying with their M-9 because of the recoil and their lack of size. I could only imagine a female trying to qualify with a .45 who can’t handle a M-9. Thoughts!
I read a lot of informatio and misinformation in these posts.Is there one sidearm to serve on all sides? I have carried, trained, and shot semi-autos as well as revolvers of mast all shapes and sizes.I have seen one post which I believe to be true! The 9mm is a political choice. Why else are they labeled as NATO rounds. Interchangeability. Training is the key to staying alive. Use what you hae and use it well.
The writer made one misstatement of fact: the compression of the magazine’s spring due to the magazine being loaded for an extended period of time does NOT cause wear on the spring. The type of steel used in magazines and recoil buffers maintain their effectiveness while in the released AND the compressed state. It is the rapid compression/decompression action during actual firing that creates the procees of wear. So.. Load up! And don’t worry!
I think the big issue with the Beretta is the 9mm aspect, a general lack of stopping power. As to the ladies, most have small hands and a fist full of 45 might be a bit much for most. Probably with some of the guys also.
Why not have both, allow the shooter to decide which they prefer and if the can’t qualify with the 45 then they get the wonder 9.
The M-9 is like a “Boat Oar” in your hand. The 1911A1 .45 Cal. pistol has a much smaller hand grip area due to the smaller cap. Magazine (7 Rds. Max/Std. Cap. Mag.)
get some combat experience with it instead of killing sand and jacking your jaws. If you survive, then comment.
BIGGER BULLETS ARE ALWAYS BETTER
I will not carry the M-9 because of the lack of stopping power. I currantly carry my M-4 anywhere I go in Afghanistan. Even when I was offered a M-9 issued to me. I have read countless articles of incidents where the 9mm failed to stop when used (military or law enforcement). I have seen females shoot the ole M-1911A1 and qualify! It dosen’t matter if your female or male, it takes training, training and more training to get efficent with any weapon. Having served for more than 22yrs., it is about time that our troops get the best and this time,let’s keep it in our inventory. Can’t lose with a .45!
YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE REMEMBERED WHY THEY REPLACED THAT TARGET ROUND WITH THE .45.
The 45 Has the most important capability-Stopping power. The 9MM was introduced for more rounds because of “poor marksmanship”. I had 9mm that had it’s slide crack durring rainge use!. I definitly prefer the .45.
Remember most pistol use is within 8-10 feet and the .45 will definitly stop someone, even if they have body armor.
The 45 Has the most important capability-Stopping power. The 9MM was introduced for more rounds because of “poor marksmanship”. I had 9mm that had it’s slide crack durring rainge use!. I definitly prefer the .45.
Remember most pistol use is within 8-10 feet and the .45 will definitly stop someone, even if they have body armor.
Would love to hear from some acquisition/supply folks out there. For those who want to dump the M9 think about the logistical and procurement implications and waste associated with attempting to change weapons in the middle of a conflict. Do we want to somehow smoothly introduce a new pistol into units (or reissue the inventory 45s), sink a ton of money into ramping up big ammo procurement, have two types of pistols and a new type of ammo and create the associated logistics/supply problems? How about the training problems on both types at all ranges everywhere? has a single life been lost in combat due to the 9mm being not the biggest stopper out there. doubt it. we have more dead from accidents and friendly fire than anything associated with problems with the 9mm.
good point on getting some to the enlisted for back up though. why are there hundreds of officers deep on base armed with 9s and all the guys knocking down doors without a few sidearms in their teams? this issue and training is more important
The M9 might be ok without the ball ammo. I
had a problem once in Bosnia with mine the
firing pin broke. It was when I needed it
most and so my trust factor is not to high on the M9. On the other hand I had a 1911 jam, but
was able to get it to recover and fire were
I needed the rounds. My thoght on the M9 is
it would be nice if the round was heaver. One
can have great placement all day long, but
if they don’t go down YOU WILL.
WITH DOUBLE STACK MAGS AND DOUBLE ACTION IN A LOT OF 1911 AND LOOK A LIKES YOU CAN GET 12 TO 14 ROUNDS IN THEM PLUS HAVE A QUICKER 1ST SHOT.
IF YOU WANT THE FLAT SHOOTING OF A 9 AND STILL HAVE THAT 45 KICK WE CAN THINK ABOUT THE 40CAL.
IT WOULD BE THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS.
Interesting to see all these comments about the 9mm being a poor round a few days after some lunatic took down 32 people with a 9mm Glock and a .22LR Sig. Seemed to work pretty well there.
I have been in the Marines since the mid 80′s and have fired both the 45 and 9. They are both fine weapons with pluses and minuses. The 45 is difficult for everyone to handle without long hours and lots of training. This costs a unit, time, money and ammunition. The 9 on the other hand is easy to use and master. The 45 will cause more damage and incapacitate an opponent faster than the 9. So, the solution is the same as any firearm… the 9 goes to support troops who most likely not e involved in combat operations. the 45 should be issued to those troops who go outside the wire and engage the enemy in combat operations.
No one would ask a sniper to use a m6 to engage a target at 800 meters… so why ask a service member to limit their firepower on the performance of just one pistol.
“Interesting to see all these comments about the 9mm being a poor round a few days after some lunatic took down 32 people with a 9mm Glock and a .22LR Sig. Seemed to work pretty well there”
Pictures released by NBC showed the shooter used hollow points. Head shots with a .22 are easy.
i think that the answer might be going to a dao 45 cal wepon that way you get the knock down of a 45 and the simplest wepon like a m-9 so that training is easier
With all respect to Capt. C., 60 rounds is not a reasonable test of a weapon for reliability. I won’t carry a weapon until it has 300-500 rounds through it, and has proven itself to be reliable and accurate.
A 40oz (empty wt) 9mm is too much weight for too little bang, even if it did work well. When limited to FMJ ammo, 45acp is unsurpassed.
A .22LR is fine if you can walk up to an unarmed person in a locked room. Not exactly combat conditions.
WHO EVER MENTIONED VIRGINIA TECH, YOU ARE AN ASS SIR!
9MM IS A GOOD BASIC ROUND, BUT YEARS OF USE WITH THE M9, (I WROTE THE POI FOR THE M9 AT THE US ARMY MP SCHOOL WHEN THE PISTOL CAME OUT) HAS SHOWN MOST PEOPLE THAT THE ROUND IS NOT UP TO WHAT WE NEED NOW.
THE .45 IS A PAIN TO LEARN TO FIRE, ACCURATELY BECAUSE OF A WHOLE BUNCH OF, “IT’LL BREAK YOUR ARM MAN!” STORIES. THE SQUEEZE IS THE SAME AS WITH THE M9, WHEN YOU FEEL IT, THE ROUND GONE ANYWAY…
SOCOM IS THINKING .40? ARMY SF IS THINKING .45?
THEY HAVE MUCH BETTER DATA AND ACTUAL IRAQ AND AFGHAN EXPERIENCE… I WOULD GO WITH .40, P16, FROM PARA ORDNANCE IF I WAS WRITING THE CHECK…
Having used both in real world operations, the only thing that matters is whether or not the tango gets back up or moves, not training dollars or whether or not someone is in the front or how easy or hard it is to learn to use.. For my money with a 9mm and a 45 on a table in front of me and a bad dude coming at me the 45 wins hands down ……
Having used both in real world operations, the only thing that matters is whether or not the tango gets back up or moves, not training dollars or whether or not someone is in the front or how easy or hard it is to learn to use.. For my money with a 9mm and a 45 on a table in front of me and a bad dude coming at me the 45 wins hands down ……
A few quick comments. As stated above, 60 rounds is not enough of a test. 500 plus rounds would be a test. Also regarding lasers. The guiderod laser (internal) is crap. There is no adjustment and it quickly gets out of “factory” adjustment and easily breaks if the weapon is dropped. I’ve used the Crimson Trace LaserGrips (external) for years and they are far superior to any guiderod design, plus they have elevation and windage adjustments on the side of the laser. I do agree that even with a laser night sites should be employed on all sidearms. We have the technology so why not use it. Later, AF.
The “9″ is, and was developed as a wounding round, not a stopping one. In classic military thought, it takes more personnel to support wounded personnel than deceased personnel. The “9″ was adopted because of it’s availability in many models as a double action firearm, and because of it’s larger magazine capacity. The single action “45″ had to go, similar to the situation with the M-14 and the 30 cal. round. Sad to say, the military thinking of the time (and now, too) did not place much confidence in the ability of the “average” soldier to be able to master a weapon that demanded the ability to endure some “thumping”, while obtaining the skill to actually hit their intended target. Hence the “spray” or multiple fire technique used with the M-16, known as, “please God, let me hit something”, by old soldiers. Same misguided thinking with the “9″.
However, everything old becomes “new” again! Reports of our troops going to the AK, when the going gets interesting, meaning when the “16″ jams again with sand (is there sand in Iraq?), and special forces buying all kinds of interesting, but not standard issue weapons. Now the talk about going back to the “45″, a slow round, but one that hits like a boulder falling from ther sky.
Forgive me for asking, but will the “top” ever learn to actually ask the troops that do the mission, what they experience using some of the misguided equipment that they are issued, to perform said mission?
It actually comes down to shot placement and transfer of Kinetic Energy. The 9mm is a more accurate round. With it’s less recoil recovery time is improved and is capabale of carrying more rounds.
The 45cal will transfer more energy to the target thus making a bigger hole and causing more trauma. I carry an HK45 USP on duty. It is bulky, horrible grip, and heavy. I carry it because I like the comfort of the extra 45cal rounds and the margin of safety a 45cal gives. I may not hit in the perfect spot but but the damage the 45 cause should cover me.
If I got to train more and become proficient with the 9mm I would still carry the 45 just in case.
Unfortunately the times have changed and the old philosophy that if you wound one Soldier rather than killing him, you take three off the field because it takes two to carry the wounded Soldier, just doesn’t work with our present enemy. If you don’t kill the enemy now he’ll keep shooting or keep coming after you with a bunch of explosives. In today’s theater we need weapons that, if needed, kill fast and reliably. Also it is unfortunate that in today’s society not as many people are proficient with firearms. People just don’t grow up learning how to shoot from a young age as they once did. I was fortunate growing up learning to shoot at a young age and having a great deal more practice shooting before I joined the Army than afterwards. The M-9 although functionally an excellent weapon lacks the right caliber for today’s mission. I’d take an old .45 acp to the desert before I’d take a brand new 9mm out there any time. I’ve fired the SIG that the Army issues and it’s an excellent weapon, easy to use, and in .45 it has the stopping and knock down power needed for today’s mission. In my opinion though we shouldn’t rule out the .357 SIG or the .40 cal either. I especially like the .357 sig with an integrated laser site. Soldiers need an extra edge that many of them lack in experience in shooting. Just a side note as well, I’d love to see more scopes issued to Soldiers to give an extra edge, as well as even more shotguns. Soldiers should routinely qualify on more than one weapon as well, since the tool makes the job, and what works on a patrol doesn’t necessarily work well at a checkpoint. In addition we need to stop skimping in certain areas such as ammunition. The more someone shoots obviously the better they get. The only problem other than a lack of ammunition is that there just aren’t enough hours in the day to do all the training that needs to be done. We have gotten so busy that we need to prioritize our training. I’m a strong supporter of EO training, OPSEC, Anti-human trafficking, and all of those subjects, but as a Soldier first and foremost we all need to have our field skills be our top priorities. The above mentioned subjects in training should not take precedence in any way over marksmanship, combat lifesaver training, combatives, or anything else that will help Soldiers to stay alive. Having a healthy work environment is great, but staying alive and keeping fellow Soldiers alive is infinately more important in my book.
For years I’ve carried a .45 ACP Colt National Match with 230 grain semi wad cutters which you can now get with a thin copper jacket/wash. The transfer of energy from this round is not greatly effected by acute deformation or fragmentation. There are writings which describe the use of this combination in the Pacific specifically to counter enemy steel chest and belly plates. This round also has some advantages in close quarters where the penetration of thin building materials is required.
The M9 pistol has usually proven to be a very reliable weapon, especially with FMJ rounds. There are however, a number of problems with it. First is the 9mm round which does not have the immediate stopping power of either the combat proven 45 ACP or the cop proven 40 S&W. Next the pistol is large and heavy. Third, even with the slim line grips, persons with small to medium size hands often find it difficult to control due the width and depth of the grip.
As for there being no real developments in handguns since the M9 was adopted, I don’t know what part of the planet you’re from, but there have been a lot of significant developments since the US Military adopted the M9. Two significant developments come to mind – the 40 S&W round which is approved for use by Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies in huge numbers. In available “energy” to transfer to the target, it has the 9mm beat in all categories. Next is the development of Glock pistol. Say what you will about “combat tupperware”, but the Glock pistols are extremely reliable, significantly more ergonomic than the M9, have 50% fewer parts total, and 25% fewer moving parts both of which contribute to less and easier maintenance. Probably more important is 1st round accuracy. Where the M9 Double Action / Single Action takes 10-12 pounds force first round and 6 to 8 pounds trigger pull for subsequent shots, the Glock has a consistent 5.5 pound trigger pull for each shot.
Having taught dozens of Glock transition courses, shooter’s rounds on target usually increase by 10% to 25% over other brands of pistols, including the M9. This is especially true for critical first round fired hits on target.
While I would love to see the US Military return to the 45 ACP round and the 1911 style pistol, going to a round that starts in .40 or higher gets my vote. They’re both proven manstoppers. They knock you down and make you stop what you’re doing if you are hit by one or more of them, giving your body time to figure out it’s dead.
And a Glock 22 would be my choice for a replacement pistol.
I’ve not ever run into a firearms trainer with real-world experience who shares your opinion of lasers. Internal lasers are despised as increasing weapon failures, external lasers just significantly increase the time it takes to get an accurate shot off. The only time I’ve ever seen a recommendation to use a laser is for the shield guy on a police raid team, which isn’t at all the application you talk about.
Pistols suck at actually stopping people. Making big holes in people is preferable to making little holes. 9s are OK with decent modern expending ammo. If you have to use FMJ using a larger caliber is another solution, as is shooting them more times. But you will NEVER get a usable pistol to reliably stop a motivated guy with a single non-CNS hit.
If the .45 is so good, why do so many other nations, and their special forces, still use 9mm. Just because they’re not American doesn’t make them wrong.
Two comments on the M9 Baretta.
Calibre – the 9mm has always been ineffective. Practical knowledge of this dates back to WWII. The 9mm just DOESN’T stop an adversary.
Maintenance – during disassembly/cleaning, lose one little plunger spring and your M9 is disabled. That little spring is way too easy to lose.
No such problems with the good ol 1911 or 1911A1 in the original configuration prior to the extra trigger safeties of the 80′s.
in panama i put one round center mass at a pdf trooper with a 45 round it stoped him dead in his tracks….. in iraq 15 years latter it took me 4 rounds center mass to stop a rag head with that piece of crap 9mm thank god that i am retiring soon
If you can only hit someone with one shot, then a .45 is definitely better. No bullet is going to, by itself, knock someone backwards just from the force of impact. What achieves that APPARENT effect is the hydrostatic shock effect from the bullet, which acts as a ‘force multiplier’. Otherwise the same shot would knock the shooter on his butt too. Hydrostatic shock effects multiply geometrically if multiple bullets hit in close proximity in area and time. Given the recoil of a .45 vs. a 9mm, a reasonably proficient, non Shwartzeneger sized individual can put three more-or-less aimed rounds into a target in close proximity with a 9mm in the same amount of time it would take to put two rounds into the same target with a .45, thus producing 9 times the effective hydrostatic shock of one 9mm round, vs. 4 times the effective hydrostatic shock of one .45 round. In Vietnam I carried a personal sidearm (illegally), a P-38 Walther. I never had to use it in combat, but every time I fired it on the range, it worked just fine, despite having been cleaned much less often than my Car-15, which was a contrary beast that would always jam 2 or 3 times in the first magazine fired through it after it was cleaned, but would then function just fine until I cleaned it again. Go figure!!
Well Mike, [Mike Sanservino Lt. USN(R)] The main reason the FBI was so unsuccessful in “the Miami Shootout”, was not inferior firepower, but the fact that the first agents to make contact were taken out of action by their deliberatly crashing into the “perps” (Matix and Platt.) with their own vehicles. They were then at an extreme handicap in the ensuing gunfight, in which they also possessed adequate shoulder arms: 12gauge pumps, in addition to .357 magnum revolvers (albeit w/ .38+p ammo, tsk tsk – these actually delivered the final, fatal shots.) What WAS lacking was proper training in how to stop a getaway car. Most of the FBI personnel were sitting ducks as result of the wreck, either disabled, disarmed, or both. (ref: any Miami Shootout link, just don’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia.) The fact is, the two gunmen were highly trained, former military – where tactical was born. They had superior firepower, not because of the FBI agents 9mm handguns (those that arrived on the scene later), but because they were armed with a Ruger mini14 with, you guessed it, that “piss-poor amunition” for the M16. Inferior hand-guns had nothing to do with it. Both the FBI and the gunmen had .357 magnums, and those with 9mm don’t appear to have been a factor, i.e. disabled by trauma. Here’s a good summary: http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86.html
My mistake: I should have said the 9mm were not a factor – in the “Miami Shootout” – because they missed! The good thing to come out of FBI’s overcompensation was the 40 S&W round, which is what the military would probably be able to use for anyone qualified to carry a pistol. They have plenty of opportunity to train, since they have to re-qualify anyway. This would give comparable stopping power to the .45, although I don’t think we’re going to see hollow-points out there anytime soon. This is a good article, and so are the contibutions. Thanks (guess I’m an editorial nightmare too!)
My 2 Cents
45 ACP Vs 9mm
Low velocity heavy bullet 230 grain FMJ
High Velocity Light Bullet 110 grain FMJ
Problem I am looking at is dumping kinetic energy
9mm M-9 is heavy, had early problems with it’s heat treating, a few failed. The Army went to Sig sauer which is a better weapon in size and weight. Sig Sauer Makes a 45 model 220 which is the best of two worlds. Modern and light with the 45 power. The 45 Model 1911 went 80 years used two world wars, Korea and Viet Nam. Sgt York used it to take on a company of germans, it had the knock down for up and close combat, knife, entreching tool and 45 were the last choices during that combat in those treches during that teriable war.
So when one has to pull the last resort; your trusty pistol, when out of ammo, or what ever reason that you have to use a pistol in the first place. Let see 9mm….45! 3 to four shots to 1 or 2 45. We won’t see any HP ammo, nor expanding FMJ like Federal has made for the European police forces. So big heavy proven 45 is the way to go…
well there is the what I have to say…Jake Jacobson
Well written Capt. Coulson. try and get no stovepipes out of 20 plus year old 1911A1′s that are rotated over and over in a dusty enviroment. Sights wear out, springs wear out. Right on that. No weapon is perfect for every enviroment and situation. A well-maintained M9 would be my choice of the two. We do the best do with what we got. If I had my choice of any, i would be fine with the M9 holstered on me in a Combat Zone.I’ll take multiple overpenatrations anyday over hollow points that flatten and splatter on a cement wall. that’s what they have there guys. There is no wood or sheetrock in that part of the world. No trees. But they got sand. they make cement and concrete. Leave your designer hollow points at home, and shoot them again and again. I assure you, with 15 in the mag and one in the pipe, he’ll stay down before you need to reload.
“The writer made one misstatement of fact: the compression of the magazine’s spring due to the magazine being loaded for an extended period of time does NOT cause wear on the spring. The type of steel used in magazines and recoil buffers maintain their effectiveness while in the released AND the compressed state. It is the rapid compression/decompression action during actual firing that creates the procees of wear. So.. Load up! And don’t worry!” Posted by: LE_Longunner
Then why is it that my issue magazines wouldn’t feed after a considerable period of time under compression. Must’ve been bad metallurgy. One thing I’ve learned from this is don’t trust the M9 magazines.
As for the 1911, I love ‘em, but they’re past their prime as a general duty sidearm. My personal favorite firearm framework is the CZ75. I just bought an AR24, and it is an awesome ergonomic design. Whatever we go with, it needs to be THAT GOOD.
Mag spring and recoil springs do wear out, weaken from corrosion and abrasion, and take a set from extended periods under compression, as well as break from time to time. They need replacement from time to time. All springs do. The M9 was not chosen because it was the cheapest. It was chosen because it was the best model of several in a evaluation process, the most important part of which was a extended shooting period by many Marines of all levels of ability and experience. the M( was the favorite of thee shooters hands down, (over 25 years ago). Even Distinguished pistol shooters favored it over the others. We can do it again someday, and see what’s available. Nothing stays cutting edge forever. you or me going and buying a pistol does not compare with changing weapons and calibers in the U.S. military or cooperating Countries and orginazations like NATO. Keep your perspective.
We Need to revamp the Testing Procedure. Must be Approved by a Combat Vets. You haven’t been in “the Shit”, you can’t test weapons and Armor or approve Contracts.
Let them Test them for Real.
Means they get to go to war with the approved Equipment. Jamming Magizines, Untested Armor. Fouling M-4.
Most of the comments here are totally off point. The problem with the M-9 is not the weapon itself.
The problem rests in the caliber. When it gets to the point that you have to use a pistol you need the ability to put the bad guys down fast. The 9mm will if you have good shot placement but in a panic situation shot placement goes out the window for the average shooter. The .40 and the .45 both have outstanding one shot capabilities.
I am a fan of the 1911 but I will admit the weapon is antiquated. I think the military needs to find a suitable weapon in either the .40 or .45 our brothers and sisters in arms deserve the afforded close range fire power. We do not need to go along with a weaker round just because of NATO.
Stop reinventing the wheel. H&K, Glock, Beretta, and at least a few other companies have already done initial design on weapons for the last DoD pistol project that was cancelled. Our tax dollars are getting flushed down the toilet because everyone wants to start “from a clean sheet of paper.” Give me a break. And just get past the whole “.45 ACP is King” argument. Now you’ve got 9mm, .45 ACP, .40 S&W, and .45 GAP to choose from. Three of those allow for a higher capacity, lower radius grip for smaller hands, so maybe it might be a good idea to consider them.
The Beretta did not win…the Sig 226 did however Sig would not come down on their price per gun and the contract was awarded to Beretta. To be quite honest, caliber 9mm, 357sig, 40, or 45 does not matter to me as long as the gun functions. All of the above calibers have had failures to stop and the majority of these were because of poor placement.
The Miami shoot out would not have ended any differently if the agents were carrying 45. It was a failure of the type of bullet used at the time. Both the 9mm and 45 silver tip ammunition were designed for expension over penetration and had very similar penetration depths.
In closing, there is no magic bullet and placement counts so shoot your enemy to the ground because one or two rounds are most likely not going to get the job done with FMJ.
There are 2 and only 2 factors involved in stopping an aggressor by gunfire. “Knock-down power” is a farce.
The first factor is psychological. If the bad guy has the proper mind set, he will keep fighting until he is physically unable to do so. If not, he will fall down and/or quit when shot.
The second factor is physiological. When his brain quits sending signals to his body enabling him to fight, he will stop being dangerous. That happens (a) when his central nervous system is damaged by a brain or spine shot, or (b) when sufficient blood loss has occurred to shut his brain down due to oxygen deprivation…that can take a while.
The cental nervous system is a small target. We should plan on blood loss as the fight stopper. Blood loss is accomplished by the most and/or biggest bleeding wounds inflicted. Makes no difference what the caliber is – there’s only a tenth of an inch difference in diameter between a 9mm and a .45. SHOT PLACEMENT IS EVERYTHING!! SHOOT UNTIL HE GOES DOWN!!!
being comfortable with your gun is extremely important. This means grip size, recoil and weight. All of these factors play an essential role in an individuals combat effectiveness.
As far as calibers go I believe bigger is not always better, but for the sake of placement when the chips are it is. .45 ACP is a low velocity, heavy round generally fired at around 850-900 fps. as appose to the 9mm at 1150-1200 and the .40S&W at little over a thousand. All of these cartridges can be equally effective depending on the shooter; me personally however would have to go with the .45 ACP. Heres why!
Handgun rounds are deamed effective on completely different standards than rifle rounds. since the formula for the transferance of Kinetic energy is
K= m1/2 X V2 this means that if you you multiply mass by 2 you multiply energy by 2. However if you multiply velocity by 2, u increase energy by 4.
Since handgun rounds are limited in the powder charged packed into their small casings, mass and sectional diameter are more essential to stopping power than velocity.
Not only does the .45 bullet, (or about 11.75mm), have a large a large diameter, it is very accurate and because of the low pressures created by the round, generates low recoil.
FMJs are ok for certain tasks like piercing hard targets and they offer greater down-range performance due to a much higher ballistic coefficient.
I have only one thing to say about the 45acp-9mm controversey, SIG 220 45ACP. Best gun,best caliber
Why people always care about 9mm vs .45acp. I have a question for those people who concern about the bullet size. The question is “Would you be able to tell me about how you feel if you were shot by 9mm hollow point through your chest or head”. I do not think you would be able to tell me. And, also even you were holding .45acp, you would not be able to fight back. So, does not matter how big is your bullet but the important thing is where you place it. No one-shot-stop in this world, except place the bullet into heart or head.
I was just wondering where I can purchase a good hollow points for my glock 23. 40mm. Or Bullets that have pins inside the bullet.
It’s a pistol, pistols 9mm or 45 are marginal weapons that will do the job given good placement the argument between between them in the real world barely deserves mention. Ballistics between a 9mm and a 45 the 45 is slightly better the 9mm is easier to train with I’ll take a good shot with a 9mm over a lousy one with a 45., the difference seems trivial when you realize we’ve shot people with 5.56 and 7.62 that didn’t go down immediately.
I have been told by a few current and one past active duty service member that if you fire a .45 near someones head it will incapacitate them by knocking them down concussing them,etc.I would like to get straight tlk from some informed folkss as to the validity of this and any definitive sources you could cite. thank you
Having been in Iraq/Afgan and had to rely on my M9 during certain times. And having to had actually used it. I would say it is overall a piece of junk. A double tap to the chest both rounds went thru the chest and into the wall leaving the guy still standing. However next time out I was lucky enough to have to use a Sig .40 double tap to the chest nether round went thru and the person was on the floor. I would at least prefer to see the military switch to a .40 or at least allow hallow points to be used by everyone not just spec ops.
I have had many handguns and have had many situations that have made me glad to have whatever handgun i had, in hand.
Shot placement is the most crucial aspect of defense, bar none.
Outside of that, for those of you that have been told that iron rod center rounds were illegal. They are not. Or at least they are not in NM.
I have been told in writing that an iron rod round to save my life or the life of another person in perfectly fine, bar none. there is no law on the books that restrict what you can use to safe your life.
A hunter in the rocky’s told me that he gets rattle snake venom from friends in texas and puts 8 drops in each hollow point, then seal them off with wax. He has had to shoot 2 bears in the wild with these and in both instances, 2 shots with his 9mm brought the bears to their knees. Sure it was the venom, but the well placed rounds were the method of delivery.
do what you have to, to stay alive. it’s your right.
in addition i wrote the ATF, CMRRR, and told them of the above and asked for a reply. I also noted that if i got no response i would assume that what i had stated was correct.
stephen
Found sitee on yahoo, its great will be checking for updates.