Twenty years ago, the US Department of Defense decided to replace the .45-cal M1911 handgun with the 9mm M9 Beretta as the standard-issue sidearm.
To say this decision was controversial is an understatement.
You will find plenty of defenders of the M9, such as this one, but also many, many critics. The critics say the M9’s 9mm bullet lacks the “knock-down” power to immediately disable a human being. If this human being is shooting at you, you’d also prefer a bullet that could make this person stop.
I give you the Air Force Future Handgun program, which has just entered the market survey phase. The air force says it “may specify” a .45-caliber round, which is larger than the 9mm and the same size used on the M1911 phased-out in the late-1980s.
The air force program comes several months after the army and Special Operations Command cancelled the Joint Combat Pistol program, which also sought to bring back the .45-calibre sidearm.
History may be repeating itself. Legendary Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay kept interest alive in the Colt M16 rifle while the army hopelessly pursued the Springfield M14. Will the air force now usher the .45-calibre sidearm back into the inventory, with the army again forced to play follow-the-leader?
{ 122 comments… read them below or add one }
Here we go again… Didn’t we beat this to death a few posts back. Damn I’m tired.
Seems like a no-brainer to me… Bring back the .45
…or at least give the option of a .45 to the folks on the ground who may have to count on it someday to knock someone down with one shot.
have to say though – those guys in the pic aren’t exactly inspiring any confidence in me, regarding their shooting skills. ;)
Ya no shit! That was my very first impression when I say the photo. Those guys couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if they where standing inside it!
Why oh why does it have to be the .45? Can’t we have a bake-off between the .357 SIG, the .40 S&W and the .45? Or, maybe, let’s come up with something new and interesting, ala .68 SPC?
Dave
I thought the .68 SPC was a rifle round? I know that DPMS now offers AR’s in SPC.
Is there a use for it in a sidearm?
Whoa Chief, finger off the trigger! And guys the 6.8 (not .68SPC) SPC is a rifle round.
JAFO – AF guys, they’re lookin for the HUD.
Shoot a 5-gallon water can sitting on a post with a 9mm, and another with the .45.
It will be immediatly clear why the .45 is a superior stopping weapon. The .45 knock the can about 10-15 feet off the post, and blows the hell out of the can. The 9 mm can not do that in any fashion even close.
These office bound pistol clicking Air Force turkeys should stick to practicing what they are supposed to be good at.
Aircraft.
These office bound pistol clicking Air Force turkeys should stick to practicing what they are supposed to be good at.
Aircraft.
the airforce has ground troops. thats just like telling the navy to not have navy seal and stick to ships
45 is the best made semi auto on the Market expensive but worth every dime, every manufacturere who make the 45 uses the 1911 model if it ain't broke don't fix it.
finally, good news, the M9 is trash, they ones i have used are not accurateat all, granted im not a great pistol shot, but a .45 has stopping power and if i get shot down thats what i want stoping power.
Well, I know of 32 ex-students who would dispute that a 9mm lacks stopping power.
Excuse me for a moment while I regroup after Jonathan’s current events related observation.
… words fail me…
Anyway, I was going to comment on the “History repeating itself..” line in the article, where the AF championed the Colt M-16 over the M14: given the events of Nam and now Iraq/Aghanistan, it would appear that they bet on the wrong horse.
I think that they’re right about the .45 – hands down it’s better than the 9mm – but the M16/AR15/M4 is a real dog.
Just a point to add to the discussion.
Companies such as Para in Toronto Canada have updated the 1911 type pistol with both a double action type and a high capacity magazine.
This would cut down on the bidding process but it does bring the argument down to which is the better cartridge
WTB
Having learned to shoot with the M-14 and then the M-16 (quite a few years ago), Uncle Sam would have been better off with the M-14!
Following the USAF’s lead on anything is suspect in my eyes – how many soldiers and Marines have died trying to unjam their M16?
My $0.02…
Hasn’t the military begun developing a .45 sub gun on an M-16/M-4 frame? I thought I saw a special on Weaponology that the services are looking again for the close combat round. The Thompson was way too heavy in the day and the lil Greasegun I carried as a tanker was butt ugly, had limited use in open areas, and didn’t have any options to add (M203, etc.) just that in the old days there was a suppressor that even slowed the round down more. I’d love to see a selective fire, .45 ACP PseudoCarbine able to accept stick or drum magazines – or even task an engineer’s brain to come up with a stacked round system that is caseless for such a weapon that would pump out 250 grain FMJs at @ 1000 fps! Talk about a crowd pleaser and best weapon for a fight in a phone booth! Put two individuals qualified to carry this lil wonder in each squad along with the old Colt 1911 modified to accept staggered rounds and machined to accept a suppressor. Makes my mouth water already! Thanks for taking the time to read my post!
Bad Looey:
“Hasn’t the military begun developing a .45 sub gun on an M-16/M-4 frame?”
Don’t know if DoD is doing that. IIRC, a few years ago LaFrance Specialties developed one called the M-16K/45. It was a new upper, with a block for the mag well, not unlike the Colt 635 9mm SMG. I think you can find more details in Jane’s Infantry Weapons, or the photo gallery at SecurityArms.com.
The Army went back to a 45 caliber cartridge durring the Phillipine Insurrection because of the lack of stopping power of the new .38s. In 32 years in law enforcement I saw us go from 38s to 357s to 9mm to 45s. We finally settled on the model 21 Glock with a cartridge that would end most encounters quickly and decisively. The 9mm, while high in velocity, is just too small to be an adequate man-stopper. There are new modern 45s on the market that have higher capacity mags than the 1911, better safeties and better accuracy.
Even though relatively few troops will ever have to depend on a handgun, the ones that do deserve the best we can supply.
Bottom Line Equasion
6 Bad Guys and you have only 6 rounds of ammo, Your choice .45 of 9mm? My choice= .45
Plus there are many Hi Cap .45s on the market right now. My normal carry weapon is a Springfield XD .45, 13 in the mag and one up the tube.
1. The individuals depicted in the article were seated in chairs during a firearms refresher training course. Even in this classroom environment you’ll note NO ONE covered another individual with his pistol. Know all the facts before you start pontificating about “Air Force turkeys” and individual “shooting skills”. Have you seen their range cards? Didn’t think so.
2. There is no difference in basic operation between the .45 1911 and the 9mm Beretta semiautomatice pistols. Insert a loaded magazine, rack the slide, point, press, bang. The functional differences are in safety mechanisms and the Beretta’s having a double-action capability.
Also, John M. Browning did NOT invent the 9mm or the Beretta. He did, however, invent the 9mm Browning pistol, the 1901 which eventually became the 1911, and an entire arsenal of awesome weapons. Hats off to a man of astounding vision and capacity!
Otherwise, I concur with the heavier caliber thoughts for both pistol and rifle. The.45 has greater instantaneous knockdown power and the 7.62 (or 30 cal) rifle has the greater penetration required for the modern battlefield. I refer you to the lessons learned during the Phillipiine excursion. History is indeed repeating itself.
Okay Class pay attention this didnt say any thing about the M16 VS the M14 in the title. It is talking about the 9mm VS the .45.
I carry a 9mm daily and before any one jumps up and says that it isnt a fight stopper consider that some ass clown at VT just showed that shot placement is every thing. I like the .45 and on occasion carry one.
what ever weapon that you use you need to practice with it. Every time I hear people say that they emptied a pistol/rifle into someone and it didnt stop them I think that they are really trying to say that they shot a mag into the air.
Consider this, what ever you shoot on a static range in group size will open up twice that when you are under fire. Alot of people fall into the “caliber is every thing mind set” but how many people are killed each year with .22,32,380 and other “minor” calibers.
I hardly ever shoot less the 500 rounds when I go to shoot the norm is 1000 rounds. when I was running with a diffrent crowd we would shoot on average 3000 rounds per man in a weekend, each time we went to the range, mulitiply that by 12 guy’s and you see that the ammo quickly added up, the cost of 9mm is roughly half of what .45 cost so you see another reason that the military went to the 9mm.
Sooner or later the military will go back to the .45 and having seen the pistols that Glock, Sig and Springfield were offering up for testing it will come about, just as soon as the Reg. Army and SOCOM get on the same sheet of music.
Only the hits count in a gunfight.
Your average serviceman/woman cannot hit with a .45 ACP unless they receive more training than the services are willing to provide.
With the 9 mm hits are better achieved.
The lack of adequate power can be made up by relaxing the ROE and allowing multiple shots to be fired into the enemy targets.
4 in the chest and one in the head makes Ali Baba a good dead Fred.
4 in the chest and 1 in the head WOULD certainly incapacitate an assailant. But note that this assessment essentially stipulates that the 9mm requires 5 rounds in order to incapacitate a SINGLE assailant. Do you want a gun that requires 5 rounds to take out a single assailant? What if you have only 3 rounds left? What if you have 8 rounds left and have 2 people aggressing towards you? What if the person has a knife and is ruunning at you from about 10 feet away? You would not have time to get off 5 shots before he sinks the knife into you.
9MM VS 45 ACP
The ammunition is the real source of the knockdown power, the military is using ball ammunition and contrary to the current hollow point ammunition currently available the ball ammunition is not very effective. I understand that this is due to the Geneva Convention but terrorists did not sign off on it and that leaves us at a slight disadvantage. Maybe using some of the non-hollow pint rounds that deform like hollow points is the answer. Their is ammunition out there that does function that way and could increase the stopping power of the current 9MM Beretta. I am a 45AC fan and would like to see the military go to the 45, but as other have already voiced their is not enough firearms training given to the soldiers and would require more initial training and annual training to keep the soldier proficient. My two cents.
At least one comment I agree with whole heartedly….. give our troops the best
yes, I agree
Like everything else I have saw in my 25 years of guvmnt service, it all boils down to the allmighty “benjimins”, the brass hats can say what they want about a pistols ability to perform in combat, but their is enough empirical data from the worlds conflicts to show which weapon works best for what mission. Its all about the “almighty dollar” when it comes to arming and training large masses of people to go to war. To care about the troops, why were the humvees not uparmored until the press bitched?
big bullets better
During my time in the Coast Guard, I got 3 trips to the pistol range. The first two times, they attempted to qualify me on the 45. I did awful, many bullets fell outside the rings, and wound up shooting the leg off the target stand next to mine. For the third trip to the range, they had just rearmed with the 9 MM Beretta – qualified as marksman!
Stopping power means little if you can’t hit the bad guys in the first place.
.40 S&W settled the dispute between 9mm vs .45 a long time ago….
Well, WMEC616, I was an expert with the .45 cal. I didn’t get to the range much either, in those days. I was an ET, but I carried that good piece of steel during forced boardings and many nights on perimeter patrol in the coconut groves. I trusted my weapon and my training with it. Sure, it was hard to shoot well, but so was troubleshooting the radar… I felt if I needed to shoot, I would stop what I was aiming at. Period.
well wmec616aeo if all you could do was shoot the legg off the stand you better ger your eyes and wrists cheaked for weekness , i was in just a little while ago and have been out a short time i went and bought a .45 springfield 1911 A1 and i can hit the target in the rings 85% of the time at 50 feet , i dont soo what the prob is with that . and for thoes of you who think the .40 is a great happy medium , you are lost . the 40 sucks , ya smae capacity as the 9 but shure does not have the stoping force as the good old .45 and to this day i will take the .45 them a pissy 9 !!!!!!
There was never anything wrong with the Colt 1911A1 .45 ACP. Bring it back where it belongs.
But, they will probably specify a double action semi auto.
Way back when I thought the decision to go to 9mm was stupid. Currently I’m a Police Officer and we switched several years ago from 9mm to 40Cal. As far as people not being able to hit the target with a 45, It’s simple don’t be afraid of the weapon, keep your eyes open, have proper grip. The guy/gal who couldn’t qualify with the 45 just needs to excercise the wrist and not be afraid of the boom!
Stay Safe, Keep your powder dry!!!
Charlie
My interest in this stuff is purely academic, but I’d personally favour accuracy and good recoil characteristics over sheer stopping power; if you can consistently put five rounds into a three-inch group, calibre doesn’t matter too much. A good muzzle velocity doesn’t hurt, of course, but only if the shooter has the necessary upper-body strength to control any additional recoil.
Oh, and introducing hollowpoint rounds or anything remotely like them would be a Very Bad Idea. Basic body armour costs what, a couple of hundred dollars? Ball ammunition won’t penetrate it, but it’ll deliver a much greater punch, enough to maybe crack a rib and certainly knock the target off their feet. Hollowpoints probably won’t.
Something that does sound like it’s worth looking into is the new 5.7mm SS-190 round that FN have developed for the P90 SMG. It’s big for a pistol cartridge (slightly longer than a .223 round as I recall), but a sidearm capable of chambering it does exist, and it reportedly packs a hell of a wallop for relatively little recoil. Bit on the pricey side, though.
After 30 years of handling a sidearm from .22 cal to 44 Mag all I can say is more training! During the late 70s those downloaded .38 Specials I had, while in the U.S. Air Force, were far from powerful. I would have welcomed the .45 ACP on those cold perimeter patrols around my RADAR squadron’s remote location.
The choice should be up to the operator(s). If they can’t handle a .45, amp them down to a .40. If they can’t handle a .40 give them a 9mm. If they can’t handle that, what are they doing with a weapon in the first place?
The lives of our operators is what matters more than some untrained soul when it comes caliber choice. The most effective caliber, is the .45, however, any caliber will do in trained hands. But get them the training, for Christ’s sake and quit this nonsense.
Okay whoever advocated amping down in caliber is just plain wrong.
First that would mean sending 3 or more different loads into the field. So resupply is a pain.
2nd if you can’t handle a .45 you don’t need to be holding a weapon in the first place and I would think that your command needs a serious psyche eval for even contemplating you as fit for combat.
Now hear me out. I have what some would consider to be small hands. However I qualified on a Colt 1911A1. I prefer that as my sidearm. I can field strip the sucker blindfolded and that is no small feat.
I remember when DOD was making the move to the Baretta and thought what a waste of taxpayer funds. Nothing wrong with the weapon but I’d much rather have the A1 in my hand. This is not bravado but simple honest opinion.
THEY ALSO CAN THINK ABOUT THE 40CAL.
PENATRATION AND AND CAPSITY OF THE 9MM BUT THE KOCK DOWN OF A 45CAL.
NATO WOULD JUMP AT THE 40 FASTER THAN THE 45.
How many times have you read about someone being shot eight times with a 9mm and survived. If you are shooting at me, I want to stop you with one round. .45 hands down.
And the band plays on…same tune diff. cal.
i shot them all 38. 38.p+ 9mm. 40.45acp.41mag and the 44mag. Best all around hands down the 45acp with 230 gain round ball.I carryed one in the Army and as a city police officer ( off duty gun )Our 38s. would not put a person down some time with 6 bullets in them. Nor would they break car glass windows 80% of the time. A trooper in the next state shot a robber with his 9mm 4 times and the robber shot the trooper twice with a 45., killing him dead. One of the 45 bullet travel thru the police car door. the robber cross the highway and walk a 1/2 mile before he died. Guess who got shot first. we waste so much time and money going in circles. Just like they did wth the m-14, replacing it with the m-16, one reason was the soldiers could not shoot it and deal with the recoil. I do not have to tell any of you vietnam era vets the price we paid for that change. a 45 is my choice of carry weapon then as it is still. I not leave home with out one…NEVER.
Go back to 45ACPs, learn the weapon and train like your life depends on it. real training. With the new gun design of today you can not go wrong.
This will be a waste of time, money, and effort. The program will test a few pistols, fire some rounds, and the generals will not make a darn decision. Then the program will be canceled. I can solve this simply. Call up Springfield Armory, order 40,000 TRP pistols. As a currently serving Security Forces member, I beg the generals to read this, and heed this.
Didn’t some nut just kill 32 people with a 9mm and .22 caliber pistols at a university? The 9mm is an effective round, the .45 may be more so, but I think it really just comes down to preference.
I was an MP on Okinawa in the mid 70′s and all we had was the 45 and it did stop what you shot. When the Marines got the 9mm it was a waste of big money because everyone wanted the 45. I shot, 1 kill is all it takes.
The 9MM round decision was a NATO compromise, read “politically driven”. Given balistic characteristics of ball ammo the .45 is the best choice. A .40 flat point may perform as well. I like the 1911 but think there are better options available today. From a more bang for the buck stand point; convert the M9 to .40 cal. Replace the magazine, slide barrel and recoil springs; done. The drawback is the M9 didn’t correct the grip size problem, it is shorter but not smaller than the 1911. The reality is our weapon will always be made by the lowest bidder, Beretta beat SIG by $5 a gun.
But that nut at the universty only killed 33 when he could have killed many more. he wounded about 60 in one classroom alone. some of those wounded being shot multiple time, some in the chest. the only advantage M9 has over the M1911 is a larger magazine. the recoils not that bad. first time I shot one I was 13 and I handled a the .45 just fine
David’s comment is indicative of people who do not shoot. The Virginia Tech shooter did not shoot people who were wearing body armor nor were those students trained in defense, otherwise the murders would not have been as successful. The 9mm is a very weak round. It has no mass and velocity is a little faster than a 45. The 45 on the other hand, is BIG and even if it isn’t going over 1000 feet per second it is carrying plenty of mass. So even is the enemy is wearing protection, a 45 will get his/her attention compared to a 9mm. The 9mm is worthless unless it is in a backup gun. HK has been working on a very good replacement for the 1911 and I would think so has Sig. If the AF chooses either one of these they couldn’t go wrong. When I flew in Desert Storm 1, the AF issued me a 38 revolver and a zip lock with bullets. When I saw what I had, I purchased a Ruger P-85. Had I had more money at the time, I would have gone with a 1911… I still have the P-85 but I usually shoot my 45′s, a 1911 or a Glock 21. Thank god the AF is realizing what the other services know but are unwilling to spend the money to get. 45ACP is the round of choice for any military interested in protecting their troops.
Yes the 9mm is an ok round, and yes some nut did kill alot of poeple with it. having said that the .45 cal is a better round for military uses. It has more know down power, so even if you don’t hit center mass your target is going to know they’ve been touched. It also causes massive wounds, the current thinking in war fighting being that if you wound a person it takes two others to carry him off the battlefield thereby reducing the enemy by three. Now that is nice if you’re fighting an army but with suicidal terrorists who fight alone or in small groups you want them to go down and stay down behind you, which the .45 will do. Also with the advances in body armor it won’t be long before we face an enemy as well protected as our forces, the .45 has more penetrating power to breach body armor. Lastly, yes the 9mm can house more rounds than the .45 but it also takes more rounds to neutralize a target negating that advantage.
The .45 ACP has undergone some interesting upgrades since the
DoD had the original M1911. Some of the high tech improvements from private handgun manufacturers make this 21st Century
pistol the solution to all the DoD’s issues for personal sidearms.
With all the urban and convoy requirements for a pistol that can knock down an insurgent with one well placed round at close range, the rebirth of an improved .45 semi-automatic now resides on testing the many variants for the best of the best.
Yes the .45 and .40 are better than 9mm. but 9 is not just NATO standard but almost world standard. Pistols have been a nearly useless weapon except as a symbol of office for officers and sidearm for military police, especially when gauging price compared to any standard long arm (or carbine version) and their effectiveness. A carbine or PDW weapon would provide vastly superior defensive or offensive capability for the buck. Save the buck wasted adopting a new pistol for a more capable defensive/offensive compact weapon. Put the .45 out to pasture where it belongs.
PS: price was the least of the reasons the M9 was adopted for. PB had a better sales lobbying team than the Swiss/German competition. The Army acknowledged the superiority of the sig and its cost effectivness.
Bad LT;
Go to Youtube and type in Metal Storm. See what a real devious mind developed. And it works in calibers up to 40mm grenades. They allege they can use it with mortar calibers.
Enjoy.
Some of you may be as old as I but I was around in WW II. At that time there was the question of what was better the Colt .45 or the German Luger 7.65. The 45 won hands down because of it’s hitting power. Many people complain that the 45 was not very accurate. As a pistol instructor I demonstrated that the pistol was quite accurate and was a dependable side arm. (Of course neither pistol could compete with my Colt .357 magnum)
Actually, the .45 is an old slow round that should never be used again. It is guilty of slow velocities, bad accurracy, hard recoil, and a large frame handgun compared to the .40 caliber.
The .40 is much faster and more accurite and has more reliable expansion with a hollow point and expands to the same size as a .45. (Even though the military does not normally use hollow points)
The .40 Smith & Wesson is a far superior round in every way. There are no facts to prove otherwise….
Spending 13 years in the Marines we were stuck with what the Army didn’t want. One of those items was the aged old .45 Auto a trutee weapon at close range. I am and have been a Police Officer for 28 years now and also a firearms instructor and sniper for our Department. I have shot alot of .45 Auto as well as .40 S&W and the .40 far surpass’s the .45 in many areas, accuracy, velocity and with that velocity, knockdown. I would urge the Air Force to take a look in the area of the .40 S&W before bringing back the old trustee “slooow” .45 slug. Semper Fi
The biggest disadvantage to any side arm is that they just arn’t very effective at total stopping power especially when compared to a carbine or rifle. However with that acknowledged, first remember that the Military must use ball ammunition according to the geneve convention. The statement earlier about a .40 being as good as or beter than a .45 is true when you use hollow point ammunition like our police do. But when you compare the ball rounds it is another ball game all together. The .40 like the 9mm has a sever over penetration problem while old and slow .45 if it penetrates a human most like you’ll find the round a couple feet behind the target. As fas accuracy is concerned you’ve never shot any of the new M1911 clones or the XD etc. they are just as accurate as any 9mm or .40. Like the old military sying goes, if you don’t fix it on the first swing try a bigger hammer.
To be honest with all of you, I dont agree with the .45 or .40 cal, if we are going to get serious, lets go with the 10mm. I have a Golck 29 and dont leave home without it. I know its been compared to the .40 cal, but it has superior power and range over the .40 “short and weak”. I like to refer to it AS a .40 cal on steroids. I know the ammo is costly, but like all things, the demand will drop the price if we use it. I keep cor-bon hydra-shock rounds in mine which provide more than ample knock down power.I am a Homeland Security Officer for the Army, and we use the M-9 Baretta which I do not feel comfortable with but I am forced to go along with it. Anyone else have any better ideas, would welcome them to challenge the 10mm.
To be honest with all of you, I dont agree with the .45 or .40 cal, if we are going to get serious, lets go with the 10mm. I have a Glock 29 and dont leave home without it. I know its been compared to the .40 cal, but it has superior power and range over the .40 “short and weak”. I like to refer to it AS a .40 cal on steroids. I know the ammo is costly, but like all things, the demand will drop the price if we use it. I keep cor-bon hydra-shock rounds in mine which provide more than ample knock down power.I am a Homeland Security Officer for the Army, and we use the M-9 Beretta which I do not feel comfortable with but I am forced to go along with it. Anyone else have any better ideas, would welcome them to challenge the 10mm.
We started with the .45 1911 in 1961 then we went to the .38 then the 9mm Beretta. For the Military the .45 is a good roung, when you hit something you want to stop it not just through a lot of lead and have it still coming.
If DOD would do a Collecctive Cranial-Rectumotomy and get the Hell Away from Ball Ammunition and go to lighter and much more effective hollow points and better powders as MANY Law Enforcement agencies have – then we wouldn’t be Re-inventing the Wheel on this hand gun issue.
Face Facts !! A LOT of people Can NOT Handle a .45 ! Just get a better weapon than that #+**# Barretta, of which there are Many available and shift gears.
Hollow Points ? Geneva Convention ? Well, using Shot Guns and .50 cal weapons on personnel are No-No’s per the Convention, too, but we Are using them at THIS VERY MOMENT quite effectively in Several points of the World in Conflict. Get your Ducks iN ORDER, Brain Children ! Finnish Playig with Effective new weapon systems, Field them for Evaluation (Not at some play gound in CONUS) and get feed back on Really Needed Systems and Quit Squabbeling about Hang Gun Calibers, All-ready !!!!
I get so sick and tired hearing about the stopping power of a 45 when it is not true. To prove my point, Baby Face Nelson, who was NOT a big man at all, and one of his henchmen got in a gun fight with two FBI agents.
Getting mad about shooting back and forth across a road and not hitting a lot, Nelson just walked across the read toward the agents firing his Thompson Sub-machine as he went. After killing the two agents, Nelson turned his underling and said, “You Drive, I’m hit.”
Then he crawled into the back seat and died. When he was autopsied, they found at least 17 45 Cal. bullets in his body!
SEVENTEEN 45 CAL. BULLETS HIT A SMALL MAN AND DID NOT KNOCK HIM DOWN OR STOP HIM.
So people, a 45 may stop some people and not others. In my view, it depends on where someone is hit AND/OR who is hit
Ok, so you want the .45 over the 9mm, why not just move up to the .50 Desert Eagle? I can honestly say I’ve never used a firearm against another person. I’ve owned and fired 9mm, .40, and .45, and as far as accuracy, I did my best with the 9mm. In actual combat, with which I have no experience, I would imagine that the larger caliber would do the most damage to an enemy. Where do you draw the line? What is too much to carry as far as number of rounds/weight of firearm and ammo? So far, I see using the 9mm as doubling the amount of ammo available for use. One shot/one kill is not realistic as has been proven in combat that soldiers will empty magazines very quickly.
I think Jeff Cooper had the right idea when he championed the 10MM (.40 cal bullet with superior performance). It is by all technical data and tests the best compromise between bullet mass, penetration power and in the newer guns, ammunition capacity. The FBI tested this round and at one time selected it as their standard issue. H&K even makes a version of their MP sub gun the MP10 in this caliber and it is highly effective from what I have heard. No one round will do everything, but the 10MM appears to provide the bullet mass, power and capacities that would seem to make it the best overall compromise. I have shot the Colt Delta Elite in this round for years and it is one of my favorites. It also performs well in the Glock version. I would agree that it is much more expensive commercially but in military procurement volumes the cost can be mitigated. Even the material costs are a good compromise between the 9MM and the .45ACP.
All this being said, I would expect the Army
I see alot of lip service on the 9mm,.45.40 and 10mm pistol. But I see no scientific tests.
I’ve owned a .45acp 1911 and still thing that its a top piece of kit, but have any of you guys thought about those nasty little calibers. Like I’m talking about things like the HK MP7 in 4.5x30mm or that sweet little FN FiveseveN pistol in 5.7x28mm. These little buggers are made to make mince meat out of most types of body armour (and yes we aussies put a u in ARMOUR).
I have no complaints about the reliability of my Beretta, it feeds and functions well and is very comfortable to shoot. I would NOT want to rely on my standard 9mm ball ammo to stop an attacker,thats what my M-16A3 is for. I am also a die hard fan of the .45 and would much rather carry one as my sidearm. However a good percentage of the modern military is female, and I have yet to find a female who can handle a .45 anywhere near as well as they can handle a 9mm. The M9 is a fine weapon,what is substandard is the ammo that we are saddled with.
-ELI, 29th Infantry DIV(currently deployed)
-29th…LETS GO!!!-
The Army did away with Colt .45 in the 1880′s and went with .38. In the early 1900′s they found themselves confronted by a bunch of Islamic terrorist called the Moros out in the Phillipines. The few officers and men who equipped themselves with a .45 Colt were able to stop the Moslems. The Army decided, in the interest of “killing” the enemy to go back to the .45 but in the new .45 ACP. They tested several weapons including the Luger in .45 before settling on the Browning designed M1911 by Colt. They did not have to be concerned with political correctness then all they had to do was get a weapon that would kill the enemy into the hands of the troops.
who ever said the 9mm was a good round,must have fired our Isral amo, they got the good stuff we got the smelly end of the stick and a certen group of people got a good chuck of change. the .45 is a bettr round if you want more shots get a para ordance they are great.the seals i know love them.can’t get better than that, i don’t care what the FBI says about the .40 they just want to be different.get back the .45 and teach the woman how to shoot it.my wife is 55 years old 4 foot 10inches 85 lbs and she does just fine..keep the .45.
RE: “No tests” Consider history.
Ron
I carry a .45 now on the street and carried one in the Navy. It is a much superior round. But the mfg of the round is the important issue here if you have the 9mm now. A new bullet filled with plastic that disintragetes on contact and will not penatrate a person and go thru the shell of a aircraft. This is new technology!
EXTREME SHOCK is the neww kid on the block.A 500 pound boar is taken from a single 9mm round. This is serious, check em out on line.
It’s about time. I was trained in the Navy on the .45 and found the weapon fit my hand well and once I got used to it, was able to put rounds where they were supposed to go. I think the .45 is superior to the 9mm. I have owned a 9mm and didn’t like it at all. I plan on returning to the .45 very soon.
I applaud the possible return of the .45 cal pistol. It should have never been taken out of service, simply updated if necessary. I entered the Air Force Air Police in 1960 (later Security Police) and carried it until we went to the .38 cal revolver and which I might add on my base was initally Colts. As I recall, first was a Model 10 .38 police special and then finally got the S&W Model 15 Combat Masterpiece, which was okay, but again NO real knock down power.
Retired just before the final decision on the Baretta was made. As a Deputy Sheriff, I also carried a Model 15 Combat Masterpiece .38 until 9mil came the “big” thing. When later approved to do so, I and others, went back to either.40 and .45 cal.
Why, because NO 9mm knock down and stay down power.
The two(2) issues I ever heard about the .45 was “no-one could fire it and hit anything”. This was straight up “BS”, as I and others,in the Air Force, fired EXPERT on the weapon. It is simply a matter of PROPER TRAINING and PRACTICE, and (2)the 9mm carried more rounds. This one is true; however I would gladly exchange round capacity for getting the opponent “down for the count” the first time out of the box. Bring it back and have a real weapon for the troops once more.
To all those who are and have, Thanks for Serving
I think that people get the Geneva Convention and the Hague convention mixed up a lot.
“The Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties formulated in Geneva, Switzerland, that set the standards for international law for humanitarian concerns.
They chiefly concern the treatment of non-combatants and prisoners of war. They do not affect the use of weapons in war which are covered by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the Geneva Protocol on use of gas and biological weapons of 1925.” Wikipedia*
The Hague convention only applies when both sides have signed.
One thing to remember, if we switch to hollow point, etc. the other side can too.
But for my choice – I will always take the 1911 in 45acp. I have been to a lot of bowling pin matches and watch 9mm’s in action.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see the Airforce leading the way. Our Army seems to have its collective head up its ass. My drill sergeants used to have to smuggle in their own cleaning fluid for the M-16s we shot in Basic. I would thing someone in the US military would have discovered the .40cal/10mm (short?) round by now. Afterall, it WAS developed by our guys @FBI & S&W.
I remember when we got the M9 in the Marines. I had already shot expert 4 times with the old, worn out M1911A1′s. I was one of the first M9 pistol coaches a LeJeune. The Corps made the qualification requirements harder, because the M9 just shot so much easier than the M1911. It also incorporated double tapping in the qual. the design of the 1911 was such that average shooters just had a hell of a time hitting well. the M9 naturally pointed and recovered onto target much better. With the increased capacity the likelyhood of turning a dangerous adversary into a sieve was in every Marines’ hands. It took a cool, eqperienced shooter to get a high hit percentage with a 1911A1. I wanted my guys to get 15 9mm hits over maybe one .45 in action. accuracy matters most, and most servicepeople, including Marines, are not that experienced or capable with a handgun. “It’s not the Noise, or the Smoke, but Hits that Count” I’ll take the M9 anytime, and shoot until he’s mush, then reload and shoot him again.
The change in rounds, from .45 to 9mm, was political. All NATO used 9mm (in submachineguns mostly) and so did the police there. We forced 5.56mm rifle ammo on them, and got 9mm in return. Different guns perform differently in different conditions. Different camoflage works the same way. Nothing is perfect. The .45 won’t penetrate even Kevlar. Nor will any other pistol bullet. Just shoot them until they slow down then “Two in the head, you know he’s dead.” The M9 was just easier to shoot for the average seviceman. I know it first hand. The old 1911A1 were almost useless in the average shooters’ hands. It just didn’t point or recover well.
The 9mm is too small, too often it doesn’t carry the energy to penetrate the target and the .45cal has the energy to do the job. I commend the USAF in taking the front on this problem. I currently use a Sig P220 that after comparison to its competitors puts the Sig as one of the best balanced, best shooting, most comfortable, accurate pistols made. Now the .40cal is right in the middle between the 9mm and the .45cal but you need only to guess what I think about what getting half way means with something as important as our solders lives at stake. The .45cal is an excellent and proven round and is what our armed services should have and my experience with the Sig P220 accuracy, comfort and reliability has been exceptional. From my excellent experience of when I served in the USAF I would expect the men in blue to again lead the way on the fast track to getting the .45cal back in service weather it’s with a Sig, Colt, Glock or hybrid version of them, but this is a definite issue that needs to be corrected by all branches of our United States Military. I’m only disappointed that our men and women have had put up with the little 9mm pea shooter as long as they have. If I’m carrying a weapon I want it to work effectively meaning that it terminates the target when asked to do so and the .45cal is much more capable in this role.
The .45 is the better (best) combat round. It is my position that the 9mm was standardized to accomodate a lesser hand and wrist strength. I was a Marine Corps “Sharp Shooter” with the M1911 .45 and “Expert Rifleman” with the M1 and M14. I was proficient with various weapons of “oppurtunity” within the various military around the world. It ain’t a game!
Retiring after 22 years in the Corps and having the pleasure of qualifying numerous time with the M1911A1 .45 Cal pistol.
I can honestly say that if given my choice between the .9 MM and the .45 it would be the old faithful every time.
I had 12 years of high expert and my last was 385 out of 400 possible and that was with a worn out sloppy range pistol.
As I told my troops when shooting the 45 if you think you can’t be hit just walk down rang about 25 yds and give me one mag and then tell me wher eyou hurt the most.
Semper Fi
E.W.Wilbur
GySgt USMC
Ret.1955 to 1975
Gunny, you and I could handle it. the average grunt who only shot a single qual week, or maybe only a fam fire, was not able to get the numbers. I was distressed about the percentage of rounds that hit the frame, or went under the target completely. the 1911A1 in a novices hands was a difficult pistol to use effectively. It did not point natually, or recover on target near as well as a M9 I could handle a 1911, as could you obviously. The avearage young 9or not so young) Marine had a hell of a time. The more you and I shot, the more we applied the fundamentals, the better we did. I was a Scout-Sniper for five of my eight, 79-88. I got the basics down, and then some for sure. Still got it. The average 18 or 19 year old didn’t get the opportunity to practice, or the solid personal instruction needed. A good coach taking time really helped. My charges’ rifle and pistol scores went way up regardless of how they did previously, when I made the time for them on the line. The M9 was so much easier to hit with, the Corps made the qual much harder, and they still improved the percentage of hits on target, including double-taps on a target facing towards and away rapidly. The Marines we much more capable and confident with their pistols after.A 1911A1 is not the pistol for a novice. It takes experience, training, and many rounds downrange to become competent with either, but much moreso a 1911. I know the military will probobly consider more modern designs. Good. they should. I was comfortable with both. but still prefered the M9. If they got that close, I would have popped the Claymores anyway, and called in “Danger Close”!
“Two in the head…” You know the rest, right?
Are we talking about range issues specifically or what is best combat? As a former Paratrooper before going into Naval Aviation, I have experience with both weapons. The M1911A1 would be better in close combat. You need the knockdown power. Maybe a longer clip may resolve the number of rounds issue, but if the enemy is that close, you’re not only in “danger close,” but in severe danger of being overrun and hand to hand combat. Marksmanship is just as important, if not more important than volume of fire. You can put out all the rounds you wish, but if you hit nothing the results are the same. Alot of kicked up dust and “they’re still coming.”
Interesting that the realization is finally a topic again… the 9mm is to weak and the 45 cal to difficult to hit… why don
Well, for the person who posted I was wrong regarding any caliber versus being properly trained. To restate my position, or perhaps clarify it a bit. I have served in the United States Marine Corps and shot expert with everything given to me. I have served in the United States Army, as a Cavalry Scout, and shot expert with everything given to me. I took a state and the next year a regional championship in IDPA using a Kimber 1911.
Point being, I’ve shot targets that just sit there and don’t shoot back, and I have shot targets full of hate and discontent, that do shoot back. In all the years of both, nothing, and I mean nothing beats proper training.
On a quick side note, I have been shot twice. Once with a 9mm and once with a .45. Thank God they were ricochets. My own dear sweet wife shot me with a ricochet bouncing back from a steel plate, (she aimed low on purpose I think) and it struck me in the left rib. It hurt like hell and I dropped to one knee.
The second time was also a range related incident, in which a fellow shooter shot low on a pepper popper. The 230 grain .45 bounced back and hit me in the ass. I was the range safty officer at the time. That’s a HUGE 5 second penalty for getting too close to the target, (DUDE!) The .45 round knocked both of my legs out from under me, and I landed right where I got shot.
Perhaps my view is slightly jaded due to the fact my wife was one of the shooters, but I’d let her do it again, (vest included this time) than take the .45 hit again! I go about 6′, 210 lbs. And still got knocked on my butt. I’ll take the .45 any day as a personal sidearm. Maybe add some 117 grain hollow points, and it shoots as fast as a .40 with better terminal ballistics.
I will clarify my comments. Most young servicepeople do not get the opportunity to become highly skilled with any handgun. the ability to put a high perentage of rounds in the vitals is a skill that needs practice, and the inherent design of the weapon impacts result tremendously. Many of my counterparts did not get the oppotunity to requal even with a rifle on some years, due to training, deployments, transfers, duties. Pistol qual for those who were issued one was often a luxury. The average young person does not have a prior backround in the use of M16′s, Saw’s, LMG, BMG, or large framed, holster-carried pistols needed in the military. Training, close instruction, expense of time and ammo, and practice is what it takes to become skilled. Handguns are not easy to use, even at 15 yards or less. Bad guys don’t hold still and cooperate. A M9 is a good weapon for the realities of close combat. We keep talking about M1911A1′s. I think we can safely say that that model is obsolete for military service. “Two in the head, you know he’s dead”
Shooting somebody in the ass or foot with any handgun is not going to cause instant death. I get enough patients shot with everything from 22′s to 44 hollow points to know. But most torso hits do disable pretty quick, with shock, hypovolemia, and bone and organ damage. Hits count the most. Even Rifle bullets don’t instantly kill unless in the heart or CNS. Keep shooting until they stop moving, then give them another to be sure. “One Shot, One kill, No Remorse” is for Marine Scout-Sniper use only. They have the skills developed. That’s why everybody else has automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Anybody want to make a 1903 in 30-06 standard issue today? We old farts can talk from decades of practice. These young folks weren’t even born when I got out in 88. We were just like them, but our gear was worse. I wish I had the weapons and equipment they have now.
After reading all this talk about the 9mm vs .45 cal, I have to agree with those writers who support not the size of the round, but where you hit the bad guy. Like it was stated, even at point blank range a .45 cal will not penatrate most body armour.I have seen many bodies that were dropped with a round to the head, most of them were not .45′s. During my 32 years as a Sheriff Officer. I have seen more bullet damage to bodies up close and personal, and have attended the following artopsy to see just what the “internal”damage was, to form the opinion that location is more important than size. I might also add that the speed at which the round enters the body also added to the extent of damage that is caused. Not to put the 45 down,I have trained soldiers with both the .45cal and later the 9mm, but I would rather have 16 chances to stop the bad guy than 7 or 8, also in case there is more than one of them.
Terry
Ret. Sheriff LT.
Ret. MSG. USAR
The AF stated they were looking for a frame that is adaptable to other calibers, meaning they were not necessarily committing to the .45 or any other specific round. Also, the older Vets I have talked to all agreed that the .45 performed well in combat…when shot, the enemy usually stayed down. The AF pilots (and AAF) said the .38 was good for putting a round in your head but they all preferred a .45 as a combat piece. And I don’t think the majority of people who CAN handle the .45 should be penalized for the less than 1 percent who can not. Give me knock down power any-day. There are .45 options out there now that offer more than 8 rnds, so the limited clip size is not a argument any more. And yes, I was a third generation law enforcement and ex military (USAF SP), and I fire competition.
I was 18 the first time I ever shot a pistol. M9 berrtta in basic hardly qualified. Got to my unit shot a worn out 45 that the slide rattled side to side if shool qualified expert everytime. Carried 45 to desert storm. Transition to M9 when returned to states only got marksman with brand new pistol. Give me M1911A1 shoots good has better knockdown power (try shooting bowling pin with both)and fits in the hands better than fat M9
Good Luck and God speed to all in the sandbox now
Yes, please bring the good ol’ .45s in !! Beretta M9 is too puny model .. We want more power than 9mm …..
during the 1960′s I was aMarksmanship Instructor with the USAF. In Viet Nam the USAF did not use the .45 ACP pistol both th security police and the flight personel carried the S & W Combat Masterpiece revolver, so where does this bring back the 45 cal pistol come from?
I fought in Vietnam and was a contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan during thier conflict. The .45 has the knockdown and you only need 8 shots. The 9mm you need 15 shots one won’t usually do it. It’s safer for collateral damage but in combat you don’t care when your life or your buddy’s is threatened.
No where does the article state it wants to bring back the 1911A1, it states a desire to field a weapon that can accomodate up to .45 but has the option of being adapted to other calibers. A great many of you are trained observers…that includes READING all the info. Personally, give me all the knock down power that can be squeezed into a hand-cannon. Kinetic knock-down power is where its at as far as I’m concerned. Even when hit wearing a vest, a .45 will knock a “bad guy” off his feet in many cases…a 9mm will not in any case.
Geez — 100 comments and counting on an RFI. The RFP’s going to turn into a free for all.
Just for shits and giggles, here’s the original RFI referenced in the PDF continuation at the link in the original story:
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
AIR FORCE HANDGUN
Responses Requested By November 14, 2006
The United States Air Force is seeking information from prospective commercial suppliers for a new Air Force Handgun.
FAR 52.215-3, Request for Information or Solicitation for Planning Purposes (Oct 1997) applies to this request for information.
(a) The Government does not intend to award a contract on the basis of this solicitation or to otherwise pay for the information solicited except as provided in subsection 31.205-18 Bid and Proposal (B&P) Costs, of Federal Acquisition Regulation
(b) Although “proposal” and “offeror” are used in this Request for Information, your response will be treated as information only. It shall not be used as a proposal
(c) This solicitation is issued for the purpose of planning and budgetary forecasting by the government.
Objectives
We are seeking this information for a new handgun with improved capability as compared to the current M9 pistol. Our objectives are as follows:
Whoops — this just in, per an article at DefenseNews.com yesterday:
Congress Halts U.S. Air Force Plan for New Handgun
By RICK MAZE
Congressional negotiators have put a hold on the U.S. Air Force
The Army was very STUPID to follow the Air Force’s lead in getting the POS M-16! I had an M-16 when I was in the Marines, it was always jamming when it got a little dirty. I’ll take an M-14 any day! I was also there when we had to turn in our M1911′s for that POS Beretta 9mm, it was a very sad day. Anyone that knows anything about firearms, knows the 45 and the 308 calibers far outperform the 9mm and 223 rounds. The little girls out there that love the 9mm and 223 ought to be thrown into combat and have to learn the hard way. The only good thing about an M-16 is that you can put a bayonet on it, but I guess that would make the M-16 to heavy for the little girls to carry!
I don’t see why they need all that money to perform a “study”. There’s already a 45ACP handgun in production that far outperforms the Beretta in every aspect. The Springfield Armory XD45ACP.
I have at present 14 handguns.Most popular cartridges.The pistol that i carry the most is the one i’d most trust my life to in any concievable tactical situation.The caliber is not even under consideration by anyone.The pistol is obvious,but also not considered.The round was created for the FBI but it turned out that FBI agents were intimidated by the recoil of the round and the guns then available cound not stand up to the powerful round for very long.Of course now things have changed.There is a very dependable pistol proven to take such punnishment in stride,it kicks like a 9mm and it has a 15 round magazine.Sturdiness,reliability,low kick,high capacity and more power than a 45acp or a 357 magnum.The combo that i trust my life to out of my 14 handguns is the GLOCK model 20C in 10mm Auto with CORBON full power 200gr RNPN full metal jacket bullets. Had a Springfield Armory 1911a1,not reliable,jamned a lot..Got an XD9mm but i worry about feeding problems because there is excess room in mag for rounds to tilt forward and jam.Have p90 Ruger 45acp but it only holds 8 rounds.My second favorite is another Glock,the model 32,a compact 13 shot 357 sig,that has as much power as a 357 magnum revolver but with twice the ammo capacity.The Glock 31 is the full size 15 shot 357 sig.To sum up,if i were in a combat situation besides a good strong Russian AK47 i’d carry a GLOCK 20C 10mm 15 shot Auto.The FBI wimped out not need for the military to do so.Also check out Smith and Wesson M&P,i’d pick 357 sig,even though i have one in 40.
It is my understanding that many special forces units are already using different side arms..ie the Kimber 1911 45acp.
I have traveled all over the world and have seen more museums on guns battle fields and history. Air guns over powder, most 50-75cal. It all comes down to this you have to hit something first,in scared untrained hands. Most of the blab I have read has been from old-Ret.types or good shooters gun lovers GREAT you know your Sport. But most people get in the military and only see a gun on T.V. or Basic Training for a short time. Some when they stand a Armed Watch or Guard. Books and Reports are full of accidental shootings from Instructors. Full of himself that thought his Gun was unloaded and killed the roof. Too the Billy the Kid,Whit-Earp,Civil-War Reenactors. Most small arms don,t see action in the NAVY there good paper wights and the term Sailor proof goes a long way boys with Toys. The 38.revolver is good for this. Trigger down safe simple relieve the watch. Most 45,s are abused thrown across rooms,Not cleaned take a licking and keep on ticking,TANKS. 9mm 92f Beretta a good pretty gun. To bad the slide came back in your face and killed you. 9mm BROWNING-HI POWER Great. 45.s have blown up but you lived to tell the story. 9mm Up-dates are better and for the most part. The over all best for most. I,m left-handed my 1911-A1 is fun. I got Qualed at Basic and it is the only Weapon I have ever put in a Human Face and almost shot as Military Police Gulf-WAR. But it is heavy and takes more training to operate safely. All in all a 22cal. or a good Rock will kill you in the right hands. Ask David. And thats it! the right weapon for the JOB? Combat special Weapons, all others maybe just a good Night-Stick.
Please, let us clear up some misinformation.
The mechanism that holds and feeds the ammunition to the firearm is a magazine–not a “clip.” A “clip” holds the ammunition and may assist to feed it to the magazine. Secondly, no one is talking about bringing back the Colt 1911 for military use–just the .45 caliber. Third, the army has already tested, and put into use with special forces, a .45 caliber handgun: the H&K Mk. 23. The Mk. 23 far exceeded the Arm’s demands and beat out the Kimber, Glock, and Springfield Armory .45′s. Why the USMC is looking to the Kimber .45–a great weapon, to be sure–is anybody’s guess. The USMC could accept the Army’s evaluation of the .45 or conduct its own, not look to the LA SWAT for a combat weapon. Finally, the M-16 initially failed b/c the government procured cheaper rounds with substandard powder and, further, did not chrome the chambers–another corner/cost-cutting measure that failed and got people killed. (They then tried to put a band-aid on the situation by coming out with the M-16A-1 which had the infamous “forward-assist.”)
It makes me laugh when I here the talk about the magazine capacity of the 9mm compaired to the 45 .A ctr shot with a 45 will usually stop an enemy,but the 9mm will usually take 2or3 shots to make a stop. You tell me who has more fire-power..
Capacity is not an issue for the .45 ACP pistols. The Springfield XD holds 14 rounds, for example. The weakest body armor is rated to stop the 9mm Parabellum, so penetration is not the issue. The .45 will certainly knock anyone down, even with body armor. I would not want to take a .45 in the chest. The aim is not necessarily to kill, but to incapicitate. The .45 can do that. 9mm pistols are good guns, it is just the .45 is better. Also, 9mm’s can over penetrate, but a .45 will not. Therefore, risks to bystanders are minimal with the .45.
45 is hard to shoot? BS. My dat ‘taught me to shoot it one weekend, when I was 15. We shot a whole 6 mags. I put it down and didn’t shoot agin for 40 years. Then I picked up the 45 again when I was 55. I went to a field, put up a target with 6 in center at 25 feet, and fired a mag. Every round in the center. Aim, Squeze, aim, squeze. How hard is that?
I solved the problem. I cary a 9mm
in my shoulder holster and a .45 compact in a behind the back belt holster. 16 rounds up top and 11 from behind. 27 rounds some one needs to look out.
Yeah, let’s bring back the .45 ACP… The round that bounces off even the cheapest Level I body armor. After all, all the good guys would ever wear kevlar, right?
And by all means, let’s pick a pistol with a 12 or 14 round magazine capacity. Everyone in the military wears extra-large gloves and can palm a basketball, after all.
What a bunch of BS I’m seeing posted here.
Stop being a whimp E boy. All the female Ofcrs on my Dept. carry 45 Calibre Autos and some are only a little over 5-2. And yes they are very good at hitting what they aim at!
10mm hands down!
With all this time they are messing around with the 9, .40 and .45 they could have mass maufactured 10mm by now.
The AFFH (Air Force Future Handgun) was intended to be bought in enough quantities to supply all the services, not just the AF. It was never gonna be another 1911.
They tried to take the lead after the Army’s Future Handgun System (FHS) was merged w the SOCOM’s Special Operations Forces Combat Pistol (SOF-CP) program into the Joint Combat Pistol (JCP) program. Army and SOCOM couldn’t agree on details, so the Army pulled out and it went back to the CP for just SOCOM again, then that was indefinitely postponed.
The AFFH has been shot down twice by Congress. Last time (May 07) they directed everybody get together w the AF or somebody else on another joint program. Rumours are the USMC is actually willing to work w the AF as long as it’s a 45. The Army is open to other things and still wants to call the shots, so it seems stalled.
At a demo at Kirtland AFB got to try the new HK45/HK45 compact, Glock 21SF, S&W M&P45, XD45, Px4/45, and FNP45. Liked the M&P45 the best of the bunch. YMMV. FWIW, I was in from 78-98 and was issued the M15, M1911A1, M9, and M11. CCW now w 1911 and M&P45.
There are those who want something new in 9mm, something new in something else, and those who want to save the money for other things. They are all jockeying for control.
Will be interesting to see if this goes anywhere, and who ends up taking it there.
need a glock 23sf sounds wonderful
I find it really interesting that in all of these postings buy such self professing experts, that I keep see this nonsense about “Knock Down” and body armor. Lets get one thing stright, no handgun in .45 or 9mm or of any other size will “knock down” anyone in body armor. If you had a handgun in your hand that could knock anyone over it would knock you down as well and what good would that do. If your advesary is wearing body armor, you can shoot him with a rifle and not cause that person to fall over. I have watched demonstations of body armor in which a hand gun (44 maq) and a rifle (308) was held point blank to the indiviual and fired, the individual hardly moved after being struck with the round. Most body movement after being hit is from the persons own body not the round hitting them. So is the .45 a better round than the 9mm? I would say yes, but is it the best round ever? I would say no. Can any one shoot a 9mm pretty much, a .45? not really. Lets be honest the .45 is a nice round and the 1911 is a great gun, but with the advances in technology it is not the round or the gun that is needed in todays world. There are several guns that are better, I would just like to see it made and designed in the US not else where.
It’s back!
10–Modular Handgun System
Solicitation Number: W52H0928APR08MHS
Agency: Department of the Army
Office: U. S. Army Materiel Command
Location: U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command – Rock Island
The Program Manager for Soldier Weapons (PM-SW) , on behalf of the US Air
Force, has a requirement for a nondevelopmental handgun. This effort will beconducted in three phases consisting of a Competitive Down-selection Phase, System Development & Demonstration (SDD) Phase, and a Full Rate Production (FRP) Phase. This Sources Sought Notice does not reflect a complete listing of all requirements for a Modular Handgun System.
Caliber, capacity, action TBD. Basically looking for a compact and full size handgun w manual safety to start.
A high pressure .40 that is light to carry and makes a big hole is what we want.
My glock 23 has served me well
show all kinds of caliber 45
I will put my .357 SIG against your 9′s and 45″s
Glock 31 15+1
Most of you readers would piss your undies if
confronted with a intruder in your home late at night.Doesn’t matter what type hand gun or shot gun you have, most likley your first shot will miss it’s mark. Best home protection is a big dog
they don’t get rattled and will eat ass.
I AGREE with everyone that mentioned training as THE key.
I spent 16 year in the U.S. Navy as an MM.
We (generally speaking) had no reason to qualify with firearms. We shot a 1911 in bootcamp in 1980(FamFire) which was chambered to a .22 , after that, the next time I had to go to a range was 1993. Luckily I grew up on a farm and hunted alot, so I had no probs with the quals, however it seems that I was an exception. I had to qual with the M-14, the 1911 and a 12 ga. (Mossberg 500).
We were then sent to a Medeterranian homeport. As Quarterdeck watch we were required to carry the .45. While I could qual with it on a combat course, but even some of the gunners had difficulty. The best decision came when the command decided to finally arm the watch with a shotgun. Face it, Lack of training was the key here. We shot yearly, not weekly, and who wants ACP rounds bouncing around inside steel walls? A shotgun with 00 buck was the best solution for narrow passages and to defend the brow which was 40′ off the water and only 3′-4′ wide X 40′ long.
Good afternoon. The only difference between a rut and a grave… is in their dimensions.
I am from Laos and too poorly know English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “We also offer a full range of travel services to satisfy every.”
:-( Thanks in advance. Yale.
PWEDE KO BANG MKITA YONG MGA BAREL NYO SA ENTERNET ANO ESE2RCH KO PARA MAKITA KO SA ENTERNET
Am a Mobil police man in Nigeria and i will like to become a Militery man from a reputable defence force from any english country. have being in the mobile force for the past 10yrs,and i stood as a corpral presently [RANK]
.45 hands down same with m14. It was the wiz kid MacNamara who shoved the m16 down the Army/Marines throat just as he did the fatigues and black shoes. One Uniform, One color of footwear and one weapon for all…..makes procurement easier and cheaper.
Thank the good Lord that I was one of the last of the brown-shoe army!
Oh yeah, aren't those pistoleros shown in the articles photo closing their left eyes and squinting down the barrels…. maybe it's a new shooting technique that everyone will have to follow the Air Forces lead on this too!