What pistol caliber should NATO go to?

[hlds54]

120 mm Smoothbore to match the M1A Abrams tank.

Now thats one shot stopping.

I second that

[pvt.Long]

The 9mm is substandard for U.S military and police forces. It as a handgun round is to small,light and travels way to fast to effectively neutralize a target. The 9mm was put into service because it allowed soldiers to carry more ammo, as well as didn't have the same kick and noise that came with a 45.(the same reasons they switched to the m16 from the m14) Why they switched from a U.S made weapon to the P.O.S. from Italy, I don't have any idea. Why should we keep the 9mm when the Russians are switching to the .40? I'm not a Glock fan sorry it may be the first polymer but like Colt being the first semi auto,but there are better designs out there. Ive taken a gander at the list of handguns the army is considering and they are finaly looking at ambidextrous handguns like the Smith and Wesson M&P as well as the FN Herstal. I'm partial to the FN Herstal, its a well balanced, fully ambidextrous easy to control very accurate straight out of the box. For the cal, Id say for them to switch to the 40, Its not as expensive as the 10mm or 357 sig, will neutralize a target more effective then the 9mm,and isnt as heavy,big or loud as a 45.

[Rugerismisticness]

Yeah I too think 9mm is the best route, but if they could lower the costs to 9mm levels, .38super or 9x25dillion is the best way without killing capacity. I also think that the military roles of handguns should shift to extended to ranges up to 100yards.

[lcpiper]

Drail, we are saying almost the same thing. The decision to replace the current weapons will be political, monetary, and influence based, not based on balistics, training, and combat effects.

[RC20]

Because U.S. D.O.D. will do whatever NATO tells them. At least they have for the last 40 years or so.

US went to 7.62, NATO went to 7.62 (.308). Brits had a really good .270 caliber that was well researched (6.5 of 6.8 now)

US went to 5.56, NATO went to 5.56.

Whose tail wagged which dog here?

What part of history am I missing. If we decide, they will ignore or follow. If they decide we will ignore if its something we don't like (good or bad).

[blchandl2]

50AE........go big, or stay on the porch.




Seriously, I see no point in changing given the inventory and infrastructure built around the 9X19. If it were not a functional round, it would not exist after all of these years.

[Sheikyourbootie]

Redraw the Hague and Geneva conventions to allow hollow point ammo...then the 9mm would be fine. Otherwise...45 acp all the way.

[BGutzman]

Time to step up to something worthy of being carried..... 460 Rowland leve the whimpy 10mm at home...

[nate45]

Its amazing to me, given the current state of ballistic wounding effects knowledge, together with the fact that that information is readily available; some people still believe there is a significant difference in the wounding potential between the FMJ 230 gr .45 ACP and FMJ 112 gr 9mm Parabellum.

Fact is they are both equally lethal and both equally poor at tissue destruction.

[RC20]

The 9mm is substandard for U.S military and police forces. It as a handgun round is to small,light and travels way to fast to effectively neutralize a target. The 9mm was put into service because it allowed soldiers to carry more ammo, as well as didn't have the same kick and noise that came with a 45.(the same reasons they switched to the m16 from the m14) Why they switched from a U.S made weapon to the P.O.S. from Italy, I don't have any idea. Why should we keep the 9mm when the Russians are switching to the .40? I'm not a Glock fan sorry it may be the first polymer but like Colt being the first semi auto,but there are better designs out there. Ive taken a gander at the list of handguns the army is considering and they are finaly looking at ambidextrous handguns like the Smith and Wesson M&P as well as the FN Herstal. I'm partial to the FN Herstal, its a well balanced, fully ambidextrous easy to control very accurate straight out of the box. For the cal, Id say for them to switch to the 40, Its not as expensive as the 10mm or 357 sig, will neutralize a target more effective then the 9mm,and isnt as heavy,big or loud as a 45.

Wow, what a load of horse manure (not to mention mixing things up). Fast with the right bullet gets you better than slow with the right bullet.

To fast? Hm, and a 357 magnum does what? Fast is one way to go. 6 guns in that were the best option for State Troopers at one point. We have moved on.

9mm compared to anything up through .45 ACP that is used by police departments has as good a record as any of them (or as poor, a handgun is not a good fight stopper, its just the best you can carry). ALL field statisttics say the same thing, it makes no difference what round you use. The only thing that changes things is SHOT PLACEMENT.

Most LEO does not deal with people with armor. Oddly enough, our misbegotten war in Iraq did not either and a 9mm is just fine for that (or would be if they had anything other than ball). 9mm with a good SD bullet works as good as the rest do. Its also cheaper. Ergo, 9mm is the best solution as its more cost effective and anything else gets you no more effective and more cost.

Afghanistan is the same. People with no armor. Perfect LEO thing (maybe more so).

Answer is to carry some good SD ammo. Practice with the ball.

And how often do troops use their side arms? Its simply not the primary weapon, so its not going to be invested in. 5.56 rounds are oriented to poking hole in armored things so its not optimized to kill people.

No round, no caliber not bullet is going to work in all situations. Its all a compromise. Are they the right compromise? Not if you get killed, but you cannot custom tune to a situation that you do not know is going to happen or not.

[WyMark]

I think they should go with something else.

But only if that means they dump tons of 9x19 on the open market, for me to have a cheap lifetime supply.

[LockedBreech]

Originally Posted by pvt.Long

The 9mm is substandard for U.S military and police forces. It as a handgun round is to small,light and travels way to fast to effectively neutralize a target. The 9mm was put into service because it allowed soldiers to carry more ammo, as well as didn't have the same kick and noise that came with a 45.(the same reasons they switched to the m16 from the m14) Why they switched from a U.S made weapon to the P.O.S. from Italy, I don't have any idea. Why should we keep the 9mm when the Russians are switching to the .40? I'm not a Glock fan sorry it may be the first polymer but like Colt being the first semi auto,but there are better designs out there. Ive taken a gander at the list of handguns the army is considering and they are finaly looking at ambidextrous handguns like the Smith and Wesson M&P as well as the FN Herstal. I'm partial to the FN Herstal, its a well balanced, fully ambidextrous easy to control very accurate straight out of the box. For the cal, Id say for them to switch to the 40, Its not as expensive as the 10mm or 357 sig, will neutralize a target more effective then the 9mm,and isnt as heavy,big or loud as a 45.

Oh, please, "The POS from Italy". Dislike 9x19 if you like, but early slide and magazine issues have been resolved and the Beretta 92FS/A1/M9/A1 is an excellent firearm.

[9x19]

I understand that NATO is and has been looking to replace the 9mm round...

Can you cite a source for that?

[C0untZer0]

^ +1

What source for claiming all of NATO is looking for a new pistol caliber?

I have heard that U.S. DOD will look at replacing the M9.

That doesn't mean switching from 9mm - it just means looking at replacing the M9.

If the U.S. DOD replaces the M9, that doesn't mean that all of NATO switches from 9mm sidearms.

[RC20]

Europe is cutting back on its already anemic spending on defense.

US is in a wind-down from Iraq (or its over and been winding down for some time).

Afghanistan is the only active theater and we pull out ? Well who knows.

If we get into a fight with Iran, its precision guided munitions and the big expensive stuff.

We are not going to even see M9 replaced (which they should have never bought but oh well).

No one is going to replace the 9mm when it serves fine for the purposes most user have it for.

Special forces who do use their pistols can get what they want and the ammo to go with it.

So low on the list that fixing the toilet bowel float in the tent in Kandahar is higher. Ain't happening, though it allows me to vent and thats good

[pvt.Long]

I got first hand knowledge that the military is looking for a new firearm and possibly a new round. Military.com might have something on it Army Times and Marine Times did a few articals.
My s/n is not just something cleaver i thought of. I was a pvt with the TXNG 36th infantry. Soon to be PFC in march when I reenlist. The 9mm NATO is not fine is is inadequate therefor substandard for combat applications.I can honestly tell you that the beretta is not meant for the harsh environments that the army might get shipped into for example the sandbox I had more then my fair share or jams and with its design sand that's finer then baby powder can mix with the lubricant and inst healthy for it. I have done 2 tours and done my fair share of CQB clearing room to room. and a lot of time an m4 was to long and a shotgun over kill. What is left for the soldier.marine or sailor to rely on? Shot placement is good, you can kill someone with a pellet gun if you got your shot placed right. Makes a big difference if you got someone that's not very happy to see you and gets a bounty for every soldier he bags shooting at you with a bigger meaner faster gun then yours and your not exactly bullet proof. Also makes a big difference if you can hit him with a heavy enough round to make him not shoot at you. The 9mm NATO is well known for its over penetration problem. Meaning it hits a target, travels through the target and does not stop the target. I even asked my Co i could have a better gun sent to me he said no, A co can turned a blind eye to the UCMJ but that puts his rank in rank. Its kinda hard to bring personal weapons or buy personal ammo when its expensive and frowned upon. The UCMJ has specific rules and regs about what kind of what can be carried by who.

[IDAHO83501]

...............45 auto......that was easy

[Microgunner]

.357 SIG. A hotrod 9mm that feeds uber reliably due to it's bottleneck design.

[Noreaster]

The 357 sig was given serious consideration by specops a few years ago. It does not feed reliable in a sandy environment, (can of worms here we go, sorry it had to be said!)

The US military was looking to replace the 9mm with a 40 S&W or 45 auto, (I said was because of the current defense cuts I don't know what is going forward and what was cut.) The 9mm is a decent 50 yard cartridge, but most of the pistol use by our forces is up close where a larger and heavier bullet does more damage. As far as NATO standard goes well the USMC and US Army have sniper rifles in 6.5 and 300 Win mag, not a NATO round.

To those of you who say a pistol is not a big deal for military use, then do away with them completely. I have a few buddies who had to rely on pistols in the sandbox from time to time. The cost of replacing pistols in the US Army is small compared to a few bomb runs.

[jmr40]

The 9mm is substandard for U.S military and police forces. It as a handgun round is to small,light and travels way to fast to effectively neutralize a target.

For all the talk, I've never seen a single actual test that showed that the 40, 45,10mm 357 mag, or 357 Sig, or any other round had a significant advantage over 9mm on humans. Any way you test them, ballistic gelatin, shooting goats, autopsy reports, one shot stop percentages, the 9mm is right up there with all of them.

[Seven High]

IMHO the DoD should keep the 9mm round and spend money on the development of the round. Make it as lethal as possible within its limits. Apparently the DoD does think highly of the Beretta M9 as they recently ordered an additional 450,000 pistols.

[C0untZer0]

Ugh... I've said this before...

First of all, for most combat personell (excluding SF), they are not going to be exchanging fire with the enemy with a handgun period - I don't care if it's 45 or 9mm or anything else. There are better weapon systems. the standard assault rifle / or battle rifle if you're a DM. I always manevered myself in the MTOE so I was assigned the M203... I think instead of carping about the pistol most people would just grab a rifle (I am too old to go back into the service but I'd sure want one of those M25s) a bayonet would be my last choice only after a handgun.

The sidearm is one teeny tiny insignificant weapon system in the grand scheme of things. Pistols do not determine the outcome of a battle - they just don't, and they don't determine the outcome of a war.

This is not like preparing to defend yourself for a possible robbery outside a gas station - its apples and oranges.

[hlds54]

"The 5.7×28mm cartridge was designed in response to NATO requests for a replacement for the 9×19mm Parabellum cartridge.[9][11] According to the NATO requirement, the new cartridge was to have greater range, accuracy, and terminal performance than the 9×19mm cartridge."[21]

Source Wikipedia

[checkmyswag]

Countzero good point. The pistol in most combat situations is a last ditch defensive weapon. They are of course issued to officers and others who's duties or equipment make a rifle impractical. The large capacity of the 9mm pistol may be more important than the round fired. The level of firepower on a modern battlefield is tremendous. I suppose people look at the pistol as the equivalent to a civilian police officers weapon. Good job on negotiating the MTOE. I was always assigned the M249.

[TunnelRat]

First off, I expect this to be locked before too long as I already can smell disagreement and name calling in the air, but hey maybe I'll be wrong this time?

Secondly, does this conversation even matter? Honestly. For all of you who have had buddies that did use handguns in combat I congratulate them on their service to this country but I guarantee you they make up a small minority. If I have to rely on my sidearm in a war zone I am in one hell of a bad situation. Does that happen? Sure. But the days of WWII are long behind us folks, they just are. The handgun has a certain nobility in the minds of Americans for its use in the past, but the simple fact is that it is far from being vital or even mildly important. I can tell you with 100% certainty that there are far more important questions facing our armed forces at this point in time in regards to many, many other weapon systems that pistol caliber isn't even in the top 100.