What pistol caliber should NATO go to?

[Jim243]

Interesting, very interesting. I too am a proponent of the 45 ACP for our troops in the field. But a lot of good points both ways were brought up as to what NATO should use. A lot of them have made me rethink my view and opinion. The sub-machinegun for one and it's wide spread use in Europe for Police and Military does make sense to use a single caliber for both, but it is not a common practice here in the US for the police to carry them. We are a shotgun society slowly changing over to a AR society both for police and civilians. And a 223 in a sidearm would be just too big and uncomfortable to carry around all day in a holster. And a Five-Seven while carryable is still an unproven round (takes about 40 years to get acceptance on a new caliber).

While a 20 round pistol (Five-Seven) and 100 round rifle (PS90) would be beneficial (Some police departments have gone to the PS90) it is just too radical at this time (but time will tell).

While a big time fan of the 45 ACP for self-defense, the size and weight of a full bore 1911 and limited capacity (8 rounds) of the pistol make it one I would not carry as a conceled weapon (recoil is more manageble than a 9 mm). And I too jumped on the 40 S&W bandwagon and felt it was very good at giving close to 45 ACP results in a lighter (plastic) gun with more rounds (15 vs 8). But the truth be told, because of the size and weight of the bullet it is a less manageable pistol round and more difficult to shoot well.

Which brings us back to full circle to my latest pruchase a CZ 75 P-01 in 9mm. Which would be my carry gun, if the jerks in Illinois ever pass a right to carry law. I have been shooting 9mm since 1973 and know it's limitations and it's advantages (short recovery time and excelent shot placement). So 5 rounds of 9mm should be just as effective as 2 rounds of 45 ACP.

But as to what our troops should be carring, this was decided almost 100 years ago, when the US changed over sidearms to the 45 ACP.(for a good reason) and nothing has changed except political considerations. It is a shame that todays US leaders have learned nothing from history. So our troops will need to relive the mistakes of 100 years ago.

As to platforms take a look at the FNH FMP-45 Tactical 45 ACP with 15 +1 rounds.

Thanks for putting up with my rant.
Jim

[Lee McNelly]

A super soaker

[ClydeFrog]

In the non fiction book; Killing Bin Laden, author "Dalton Fury"(not his real name), a former US Army spec ops officer(CAG/Delta Force) wrote that most "operators" toted the 1911a1 or Glock 21 .45acp pistols with a few using the milspec M9s or M11(SIG Sauer P228) in 9mmNATO.
Retired US Army CSM(E-9) Eric Haney who also served in the US Special Operations Command & Delta(now called the Combat Applications Group) wrote that the 1911a1 .45acp was used the most too.
The new HK45c LEM & a few other spec ops pistols are in service by OGAs(other government agencies) but I doubt the M9 & M11 9mmNATO will be replaced anytime soon.

By the by, other NATO troops use the Glock, Walther & HKs. The P-35 Hi-Power 9x19mm was a standard for decades with the SAS(Special Air Service) but many now like the SIGs in P226Rs, P229Rs, etc.

To my knowledge, German troops pack the HK P30 9mmNATO.

[Mike38]

Why are some of you talking like NATO and the US DoD are the same thing?

Maybe because the USA funds 65% of NATO?

[BlueTrain]

Although it makes little difference one way or the other, there really isn't much of a reason not to use the .45 in some handgun, although using it in a handgun designed when the army used bolt action rifles doesn't sound all that progressive. But as someone here said, people don't learn from history. Maybe they do, then choose to ignore it.

When the army consisted of ordinary men and regular units fought wars, not special ops, someone decided that the .45 automatic was not the best thing for a lot of soldiers, so the .30 carbine was developed. You can go ahead and argue whether a .45 ACP is any better or worse than a .30 carbine cartridge but time has moved on. The latest concept is a personal defensive weapon, which is a very modern way of saying something and as the military loves to do, shortens it to PDF, not to be confused with a PFD. Anyhow, the idea is that a pistol is still too difficult for ordinary soldiers to use effectively, a debatable point. The Russians actually tried it ages ago with the Stechkin, which itself is nothing more than a large pistol with a shoulder stock attachment. Several other pistol and revolver models had that feature, too, and it isn't a bad idea. Personally, it at least sounds better than FN's PDF, which could just as easily be left somewhere rather than always there in the holster. And anyway, an M4 carbine doesn't leave all that much to be desired when compared to a pistol or even a submachine gun.

[Hal]

The sub-machinegun for one and it's wide spread use in Europe for Police and Military does make sense to use a single caliber for both, but it is not a common practice here in the US for the police to carry them. We are a shotgun society slowly changing over to a AR society both for police and civilians

True and true ,,however..
IMHO - we're (the USA) just one major terror event away from permanent armed uniformed troops stationed in airports. Two or three away from troops being stationed at other places where there's a very high civilian presence.
Sporting events,,,etc.

Presently, the USA is fighting a "war on drugs". On that "front" a shotgun does a splendid job.

OTOH - an AR or shotgun in a crowded airport would be a disastor.
We travled to Vegas after 9/11 when the National Guard troops were deployed to airports.
I remember thinking what a mess it would make if one of the NG troopers actually had to use his/her M16 in that crowd.

What's needed is a cost effective, reliable and highly accurate select fire with the small profile of an Uzi and/or MP5.

The 9x19 cartridge falls short there. The tapered case just requires too much expensive tooling to make the 9x19 accurate.

[Pilot]

There's a reason why most combat pilots and grunts buy their own .45's instead of carrying their issued hand weapon.

That may have been true in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia, but today if a U.S. pilot or "grunt" carries something other than is issued, they will be in a world of trouble. Air Force issues the M9 to pilots, and Navy issues the M11 to aviators for the most part.

But as to what our troops should be carring, this was decided almost 100 years ago, when the US changed over sidearms to the 45 ACP.(for a good reason) and nothing has changed except political considerations. It is a shame that todays US leaders have learned nothing from history. So our troops will need to relive the mistakes of 100 years ago.

The .45 ACP was developed as a Cavalry round, from the .45 Colt. While I absolutely love the cartridge, and the 1911, last time I checked, horses were not being used in war anymore.

The only thing wrong with the 9MM is that we're forced to use FMJ instead of more modern bullet technology.

[Mrgunsngear]

The only thing wrong with the 9MM is that we're forced to use FMJ instead of more modern bullet technology.

^^^This.

I love the 45acp, but there is nothing wrong with quality 9mm JHP rounds.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

No evidence that a change is really contemplated yet, is there?

Just another 9mm vs 45 thread?

Speak not mistruths or unsubstantiated cliches. I'm seeing such.

[jhenry]

We have basically stated and restated two things. Firstly, that a sidearm in most instances is at best secondary, and in most any instance a non issue. In these cases who cares what the caliber is? Anything within the realm of acceptable self defense cartridges is fine. Secondly, many of those who will have a higher likelyhood of actually relying on a pistol, and who have a choice, often times opt for something other than the 9mm. Hmmm say I.

In my little perfect world, undisturbed by cost considerations and politics, I would return the the 45 ACP. For the folks unlikely to ever use the thing other than for qualifications, who cares, and at least they have something substantial if they do have to use it. The other guys, MP's, USAF SF, raiders of one stripe or another, etc. have what they need without procurement gyrations.

For what it is worth, I have no idea what the status is at this point regarding the actual enforcement of private pistols in a combat zone. It has always been a no no, it has just been rather unequally enforced. I have seen for example, a chopper pilot with a blue Smith Model 29 in a shoulder holster, a AF officer with his Vietnam bring back Tokarev in a GI flap holster (no kidding), a 2/75 Ranger very upset about his lost in the dirt stainless 1911, and more than one Argentine P35. The High Powers we used to be able to get in Central America pretty cheap. I failed to get one, silly me. All in combat zones or very warm places. No one said a word.

[jimbob86]

The .45 ACP was developed as a Cavalry round, from the .45 Colt. While I absolutely love the cartridge, and the 1911, last time I checked, horses were not being used in war anymore.

You should check more often.

http://www.reocities.com/futuretanks/ponysoldiers.htm

I am not on the ground there, and don't pretend to be an expert, but there seems to me to be many similarities between the Afghan War and the Indian Wars of the latter half of the 19th Century ....... only now the Cavalry comes riding in on rotaty wings or in the form of precision guided bombs ......

[jimbob86]

What caliber should NATO go to?

.22lr ..... they could afford that. They can't afford anything spendier....... either that or all the member countries need to end their welfare-state policies ......and you know that ain't gonna happen.

[Sheikyourbootie]

The 45acp was developed to emulate the only handgun cartridge that was effective in stopping the muslim extremists of their day, the Moro warriors. The Army was using the 38 long colt which had muzzle energy similar to a .380 (though it was a heavier bullet than a .380 (130 grains at about 770fps, I think?)

From "wikipedia" ... "The Cavalry had fielded some double action revolvers in .38 Long Colt. They determined that the .38-caliber round was significantly less effective against determined opponents, such as the warriors encountered in the Moro Rebellion of the Philippine–American War, than the .45 Colt. The current issue rifle at the time, the .30-40 Krag, had also failed to stop Moro warriors effectively;[3] the British had similar issues switching to the .303 British, which resulted in the development of the Dum-dum bullet."

So, Pilot, the 45acp development had NOTHING to do with the use of horses or the lack thereof. It was developed in response to the 38 caliber round of its day being very lacking in effectiveness. It's also interesting that the Brits developed expanding ammunition as a solution to the same problem...it's a pity expanding ammunition can't be used in war, then the 9mm versus 45 debate would become moot.

[Pilot]

Sorry Sheik. You're wrong. Why the .38 was given up in the Phillipines has nothing to do with the development of the 1911, and .45 ACP.

You should check more often.

http://www.reocities.com/futuretanks/ponysoldiers.htm

I am not on the ground there, and don't pretend to be an expert, but there seems to me to be many similarities between the Afghan War and the Indian Wars of the latter half of the 19th Century ....... only now the Cavalry comes riding in on rotaty wings or in the form of precision guided bombs ......

Now this is really interesting. I did not know that we were using horses in combat again. However, I don't see it as being widespread, and from what I read they are more pack or support animals, although the article did indicate some combat troops riding them.

I do think that the enemies AK-47's, and Moisin Nagants, etc are more effective on Mr. Ed than a .45 ACP, but still an interesting read none the less.

[RC20]

Actually the contention was that they wanted to get back to a round the could spot better for long distance pistol shooting the did at times. Or they longed for their old bullet size!

Frankly its all nonsense as the essence of a self defense round is penetration and expansion . As long as you use a FMJ, then the diameter difference between a 45 and a .357 (9mm) is so minute that in .0000000001 to the tenth power would the diameter make any difference.

Of the choices, the .357 Sig actually would be the best due to its ability to penetrate (which the military wants a lot of). Unless we issue good SD ammo though its all mute as you still don't get any, let alone good expansion .

There's also another facet of the NATO pistol caliber that goes unsaid in all these discussions.
The sidearm may or may not be that big of a deal.
The submachine gun OTOH, is a big deal.
What goes in the NATO sidearm also goes in the subguns.

Let's not forget the other two "wars" we're fighting.
The "war" on terrorism and the "war" on drugs.

It's no coincidence that the use of a subgun has increased in the last 40 years worldwide.

I keep going back to my initial response.
The 9x19 is not an accurate enough round for a low cost to manufacture, reliable and highly accurate weapon.
It's possibly the perfect example of the engineering adage of pick any two.

Sub machine is valid, but where the hell does this repetitive thing about a 9mm not being accurate come from?

Its plenty accurate in the cheapest ammo I can find.

[BlueTrain]

It is my impression that the use of the submachine gun in military forces world wide is less now than it was, say, fifty years ago, not the other way around. The reason is that for most purposes, the issue intermediate caliber rifle, especially in carbine form, makes it obsolete. Guns like the M4 carbine weigh no more than a submachine gun and often less, yet have a more powerful cartridge with the same firepower.

But returning again to pistols, I think two things brought up here and in similiar threads are mistaken ideas. One is the importance of standardized ammunition and the other being the relative importance of politics in weapon caliber selection, in this case pistols.

I still insist there was nothing special about the 9mm that resulted in its eventually being a world standard for military pistols and for all I know, even on Mars. That is true only recently, however, since the Eastern Bloc countries mostly used the 9mm Makarov cartridge, though not always in a PM. It could just have easily been a .45 or a 9mm Browning Long, which actually outlasted the 9mm in Swedish service because their 9mm pistols wore out quickly from using extra powerful submachine gun ammunition, or so I am led to believe. If nothing else, that suggests that the goal of commonality of ammunition is not always a Good Thing. But I also claim submachine guns are not the useful things they once were, so the point becomes moot. If so, there should be no demand for large quantities of pistol ammunition in the army in the field, so standardization with whatever another army uses is not so very important. The same cannot be said for other small arms ammunition, however.

For better or for worse, I think the army was on track for adopting the 9mm in the late 1940s, just not in any hurry to do so.

[C0untZer0]

In 1989, NATO published document D/296 which called for the investigation and trial of possible calibers to do a number of things – one of which was to possibly replace the 9mm cartride. NATO called for two types of weapons chambered for a new cartridge—one a shoulder-fired weapon, and the other a handheld weapon. They called these PDW – personal defense weapon – and they were to provide "personal protection in last-resort situations when the user is directly endangered by the enemy.

It's my understanding, and the above description seems to confirm, that this caliber / weapon systems were not intended to be a replacement for the main battle rifle / assault rifle.

Specifications for these weapons were:

The new cartridge was to have greater range, accuracy, and terminal performance than the 9×19mm cartridge. Additionally, it was to be capable of penetrating certain types of body armor.

The shoulder-fired personal defense weapon was to weigh less than 3 kg (6.6 lb), with a magazine capacity of at least 20 rounds.

The handheld personal defense weapon (pistol) was to weigh less than 1 kg (2.2 lb), although a weight of 700 g (1.5 lb) was deemed desirable; it was to have a magazine capacity of no less than 20 rounds.


Both weapons were to be sufficiently compact to be carried hands-free on the user's person at all times, whether in the cab of a vehicle or the cockpit of an aircraft, and were to perform effectively in all environments and weather conditions

FN’s Five-Seven was rated superior to other entries in the evaluation – including H&K 4.6 system. The German delegation halted any further progress on the effort and nothing ever really came of it. It’s been adopted by some SF groups of some NATO countries.. but nothing much more than that (as far as NATO adoption).

So here we are in 2012 and I haven’t seen or heard of any official NATO-wide effort to explore replacing the 9mm.

Despite the fact that the U.S. leads NATO and funds most of NATO – the U.S. is not NATO.

So I ask again, where is the official NATO Request to explore replacing the 9mm ?

[jimbob86]

The shoulder-fired personal defense weapon was to weigh less than 3 kg (6.6 lb), with a magazine capacity of at least 20 rounds.

sounds like a bare-bones M-4 fills that already at no additional cost.

In a serious fight, a pistol is pretty ineffectual.

As for subguns (pistol caliber full auto carbines/ machine pistols) in the .mil ...... why would you want one when a SBR AR will do everything a sub-gun will, and many things it can't. The day of the subgun is over.

[jhenry]

Why was the Nato standard the 7.62x51? And after that, why was the Nato standard the 5.56? Usually in the real world the dog wags the tail and not the reverse. I see no reason to wait for Nato to do a darn thing.

We should just switch to what we deem to be the best option for us and be done with it. In this particular climate however, costs will be the deciding factor. It will not always be so.

[481]

Originally Posted by C0untZer0:

So I ask again, where is the official NATO Request to explore replacing the 9mm ?

Without something of the sort, it would seem that this thread is just a lot of speculation about what will likely not transpire- at least in the foreseeable future.

So what's the point of all this?

[Datguy781]

I personally don't want a sidearm as it labels you as "important" to the enemy. Also the weight of full battle rattle and a ammo load out is weight enough. So why go with a bigger cartridge that is gonna add weight (after a certain distance with a lot of weight every ounce counts)? I would prefer it just remain 9mm paired with the M9.

[jhenry]

Again, why would Nato have anything to say about it. We adopted the 7.62x51 so Nato then adopted it. We adopted the 556 so then Nato adopted it. We don't need Nato to tell us what to do with pistols. We are not the tail, we are the dog.

[C0untZer0]

Without something of the sort, it would seem that this thread is just a lot of speculation about what will likely not transpire- at least in the foreseeable future.

So what's the point of all this?

I like talking about guns and I have nothing better to talk about until SHOT Show 2012. But you're right this is just speculation because as far as I know NATO hasn't initiated an effort to replace the 9mm.

This thread is becoming less of a 9mm vs caliber x, and more about how the U.S. should dictate to the British, French and Germans what caliber their troops should use in their handguns and sub-machine guns.

We're the big dog and they're the tail...

[The_Shadow]

If it were France's choice it would be NERF Guns!

Now if were my choice...10mm! It can be had form mild to wild with many bullet designs and weights. Another thing 10mm guns are very adaptable to 10mm, 40S&W, 357Sig and 9x25Dillon cartridges with nothing more than a barrel swap.

Then there was .224BOZ, but the 10mm could also be necked to 7.62 and any other caliber in between, 6mm, 7mm

[RC20]

Without something of the sort, it would seem that this thread is just a lot of speculation about what will likely not transpire- at least in the foreseeable future.

So what's the point of all this?

We are just arguing and will make not difference.

I do think the one pistol cartridge that is widely available and can be had in virtually all the current production guns is the 357 Sig has advantages.

Again, military is not interested in stopping power as the FIRST criteria, its poking holes in objects (windows, doors, walls, light armor on vehicles and persons).

First concern is an enemy that uses body armor like we do and then the various objects and vehicles they ride in that we have to poke holes in.

Poke enough holes in someone and they die of something sooner or latter.

A good point would be made for carrying (or issuing) two different rounds with most of them anti personal and the rest hole pokers. Won't happen any more than modular barrels, but it would allow them to actually do mission tuning (and always a proportion of the other for the unexpected). We read how they want to tune it all to be precise then they do not use the tools we have NOW to do so. All BS then.

Ah well. What the 357 Sig has is the velocity to be used with a penetrating round to meet any criteria.

And if the US decided to change, we would change and NATO would either follow or not. Makes zero difference. It doesn't look like the Russians are coming soon, minimum allied assistance and we all run our own logistics trains.

Britain doe snot use the same tank round that the US and Germany do, France has their own still.

Best money spent is communications so we can talk to each other (if they show up)