What pistol caliber should NATO go to?

hlds54 · December 30, 2011, 04:32 PM

I know similar threads have been made, but I feel this is a little diffrent, any who. I understand that NATO is and has been looking to replace the 9mm round for a while, what round do you think they should go to? Feel free to give your thoughts

Last Escape Pod · December 30, 2011, 04:42 PM

.45 Auto of course.

Webleymkv · December 30, 2011, 04:45 PM

I don't really think that there's any semi-auto cartridge that will serve them significantly better than 9mm, so I think they should stay with that.

redbeard135 · December 30, 2011, 04:48 PM

10mm. Incredible power, nearly the same mag capacity of 9mm, and since when is the DoD concerned with cost? But that will never happen so its a moot point anyway.

checkmyswag · December 30, 2011, 04:49 PM

I vote 40 to increase power without reducing capacity as much as 45 would.

manta49 · December 30, 2011, 05:01 PM

No sensible hand gun caliber has much advantage over the 9mm. So i don't see why they would change. I would hope that NATO would have more sense than to jump on the.40 bandwagon.

There would also be the cost when most military budgets are being cut.

federali · December 30, 2011, 05:08 PM

The military has different tactical needs than the average CCW or police officer. They are probably well-served with the 9mm but if a change in caliber became necessary, I'd go to a flat-point FMJ in .40 S&W.

LockedBreech · December 30, 2011, 05:10 PM

Coming from a guy that shoots .40 primarily, NATO should stick with 9x19.

It's a sensible cartridge. Handguns don't win wars, and most of the world's militaries are most familiar with 9x19. In addition, it's light to carry and easy for beginners to shoot, while having decent power and great capacity.

nate45 · December 30, 2011, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawScholar

Coming from a guy that shoots .40 primarily, NATO should stick with 9x19.

It's a sensible cartridge. Handguns don't win wars, and most of the world's militaries are most familiar with 9x19. In addition, it's light to carry and easy for beginners to shoot, while having decent power and great capacity.

I second that senitiment and its coming from someone who prefers larger calibers.

There is nothing wrong with the 9mm Parabellum as a service cartridge.

I'll add one more item to LawScholar's list, on hand supply. Why would NATO switch to a different handgun cartridge, when they have millions of rounds of 9mm in stock?

hoytinak · December 30, 2011, 05:33 PM

9x19 works just fine....

ClydeFrog · December 30, 2011, 06:09 PM

I really like & support the .40Super caliber as a duty/sidearm/defense pistol but it never quite caught on in CONUS.

Overall, the 5.7mm round has merit(large ammo cap, low recoil, deep penetration, aim) but it's not popular either now. 2020? 2030? Maybe.

The small arms/PDW research has been going on for decades.
R&D in NATO or milspec weapons takes a long long time.

JerryM · December 30, 2011, 06:15 PM

Stay with the 9MM.
Jerry

jason_iowa · December 30, 2011, 06:18 PM

10mil is the ideal autoloader cartridge. It also makes a great sub machine gun round. Since the 45acp its the only truly progressive round we have seen. Everything else has been regressive or lateral.

Hal · December 30, 2011, 06:24 PM

IMHO - the 9x19 was a mistake that should never have come into being in the first place.
The tapered case keeps the round from living up to it's full accuracy potential without a lot of high dollar work done on the gun.

Witness the Sig 210.
& plase don't counter that the 210 has other things that make it as expensive as it is.
A 1911 in .38 Super Auto can more than hold it's own & cost a whole lot less & be every bit as nice.

If old George Luger had decided to put together a new cartridge from scratch, instead of blowing out the shoulder on the 7.65mm Luger, things would have been better.

He didn't and things aren't...

I'm afraid though, that given the huge investment in 9x19 hardware NATO has, it's not going away any time soon.

540EdgeFlyer · December 30, 2011, 06:29 PM

Quote:

.45 Auto of course.

This.

RC20 · December 30, 2011, 06:46 PM

120 mm Smoothbore to match the M1A Abrams tank.

Now thats one shot stopping.

C0untZer0 · December 30, 2011, 06:53 PM

Since when is all of NATO looking to replace 9mm as the sidearm caliber?

lcpiper · December 30, 2011, 07:01 PM

As much as I would wish it different, none of your logical suggestions will have anything to do with what round NATO, may or may not choose as a replacement for the 9x19mm. The decision will be about money and who is going to make it. The different arguments made here will be part of the excuse for change, not the reason for change. The people arguing for a new handgun round will be the ones not currently making the money that the current winners are making now. That means a lot more for than against.

Remember that statement, "let's make a deal".

drail · December 30, 2011, 07:04 PM

NATO (or the U.S. Dept. of Defense) does not believe that a sidearm is relevant or even particularly useful in war. They look at caliber as a purely logistical supply issue. Individual soldiers on the ground tend to have a completely different opinion on this. Unfortunately the people upstairs make the rules with no regard as to what the people on the ground think. The guys on the ground are irrelevant and expendable and don't cost much compared to the machinery of modern warfare.

cocojo · December 30, 2011, 07:06 PM

Glock 9mm

lcpiper · December 30, 2011, 07:09 PM

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

drail · December 30, 2011, 07:10 PM

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

theyallhurt · December 30, 2011, 07:15 PM

Voicing my personal opinion here, so here goes. Hands down, the .45ACP is the proven choice.

The 9mm is a good cartridge and had served the adversary's military well in WWII and beyond, but stopping power is dependant on shot placement. Same for the 10 and the 40...pretty powerful and deadly, but... There's a reason why most combat pilots and grunts buy their own .45's instead of carrying their issued hand weapon. Add to this Corbon or alike ammunition and the informed argument ends,

They all kill, quite well. But the car analogy might apply here...what would rather send a threat their way, a sports car or a freight train. Both will do the job, but the freight train guarantees an end to the threat regardless of where it's hit.

lcpiper · December 30, 2011, 07:16 PM

No, the DoD will do what they and the rest of NATO agree on, in committee, by vote, or however. The USA is a member of NATO and takes part like the rest. At one time this was a matter of national survival and it has proved valuable for the last decade as well.

drail · December 30, 2011, 07:28 PM

NATO would be a committee made up of people that know very little about engaging in and winning a war. The people now in D.O.D. all believe they have a future in Washington politics if they play their cards right and that's all they think about. It's not like it used to be. The Dept. of Defense used to be called the War Dept. Ever wonder why we changed the name? Think about that.

December 30, 2011, 04:32 PM	#1
hlds54 Senior Member Join Date: November 3, 2011 Location: Martinsburg WV Posts: 129	What pistol caliber should NATO go to? I know similar threads have been made, but I feel this is a little diffrent, any who. I understand that NATO is and has been looking to replace the 9mm round for a while, what round do you think they should go to? Feel free to give your thoughts

December 30, 2011, 04:45 PM	#3
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 9,404	I don't really think that there's any semi-auto cartridge that will serve them significantly better than 9mm, so I think they should stay with that. __________________ Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar

December 30, 2011, 04:49 PM	#5
checkmyswag Senior Member Join Date: January 29, 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 1,328	I vote 40 to increase power without reducing capacity as much as 45 would. __________________ No brass. No ammo.

December 30, 2011, 05:08 PM	#7
federali Senior Member Join Date: August 1, 2011 Location: Nassau County NY Posts: 378	Militry needs differ The military has different tactical needs than the average CCW or police officer. They are probably well-served with the 9mm but if a change in caliber became necessary, I'd go to a flat-point FMJ in .40 S&W. __________________ Int'l Assoc. of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors

December 30, 2011, 05:10 PM	#8
LockedBreech Senior Member Join Date: July 6, 2009 Location: Wyoming Posts: 2,289	Coming from a guy that shoots .40 primarily, NATO should stick with 9x19. It's a sensible cartridge. Handguns don't win wars, and most of the world's militaries are most familiar with 9x19. In addition, it's light to carry and easy for beginners to shoot, while having decent power and great capacity. __________________ Beretta PX4 .40 - Colt 1968 Detective Special .38 Spc. - Ruger LCP .380 - Daniel Defense M4V1 Carbine 5.56 - Ruger 10/22 .22LR - Remington 870 Express Tactical 12GA

December 30, 2011, 04:42 PM	#2
Last Escape Pod Member Join Date: December 1, 2011 Posts: 25	.45 Auto of course.

December 30, 2011, 04:48 PM	#4
redbeard135 Junior Member Join Date: October 14, 2011 Posts: 6	10mm. Incredible power, nearly the same mag capacity of 9mm, and since when is the DoD concerned with cost? But that will never happen so its a moot point anyway.

December 30, 2011, 05:01 PM	#6
manta49 Senior Member Join Date: July 15, 2011 Location: N Ireland. UK. Posts: 835	No sensible hand gun caliber has much advantage over the 9mm. So i don't see why they would change. I would hope that NATO would have more sense than to jump on the.40 bandwagon. There would also be the cost when most military budgets are being cut.

December 30, 2011, 05:33 PM	#10
hoytinak Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 5,708	9x19 works just fine....

December 30, 2011, 06:09 PM	#11
ClydeFrog Senior Member Join Date: May 1, 2010 Posts: 3,835	.40Super or the 5.7mm... I really like & support the .40Super caliber as a duty/sidearm/defense pistol but it never quite caught on in CONUS. Overall, the 5.7mm round has merit(large ammo cap, low recoil, deep penetration, aim) but it's not popular either now. 2020? 2030? Maybe. The small arms/PDW research has been going on for decades. R&D in NATO or milspec weapons takes a long long time.

December 30, 2011, 06:15 PM	#12
JerryM Senior Member Join Date: April 5, 1999 Location: New Mexico Posts: 1,731	Stay with the 9MM. Jerry __________________ Ecclesiastes 12:13 ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

December 30, 2011, 06:18 PM	#13
jason_iowa Senior Member Join Date: July 30, 2011 Posts: 569	10mil is the ideal autoloader cartridge. It also makes a great sub machine gun round. Since the 45acp its the only truly progressive round we have seen. Everything else has been regressive or lateral.

December 30, 2011, 06:24 PM	#14
Hal Senior Member Join Date: October 10, 1998 Location: Ohio USA Posts: 6,974	IMHO - the 9x19 was a mistake that should never have come into being in the first place. The tapered case keeps the round from living up to it's full accuracy potential without a lot of high dollar work done on the gun. Witness the Sig 210. & plase don't counter that the 210 has other things that make it as expensive as it is. A 1911 in .38 Super Auto can more than hold it's own & cost a whole lot less & be every bit as nice. If old George Luger had decided to put together a new cartridge from scratch, instead of blowing out the shoulder on the 7.65mm Luger, things would have been better. He didn't and things aren't... I'm afraid though, that given the huge investment in 9x19 hardware NATO has, it's not going away any time soon.

December 30, 2011, 06:46 PM	#16
RC20 Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2008 Location: Alaska Posts: 1,422	120 mm Smoothbore to match the M1A Abrams tank. Now thats one shot stopping.

December 30, 2011, 06:53 PM	#17
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	Since when is all of NATO looking to replace 9mm as the sidearm caliber?

December 30, 2011, 07:01 PM	#18
lcpiper Senior Member Join Date: May 15, 2011 Posts: 1,034	As much as I would wish it different, none of your logical suggestions will have anything to do with what round NATO, may or may not choose as a replacement for the 9x19mm. The decision will be about money and who is going to make it. The different arguments made here will be part of the excuse for change, not the reason for change. The people arguing for a new handgun round will be the ones not currently making the money that the current winners are making now. That means a lot more for than against. Remember that statement, "let's make a deal". __________________ Colt M1911 \| Kimber Ultra Carry II \| SIG P238 \| Berreta 85B Cheetah \| Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG / 38SPCL\| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA.\|[/B] Ruger Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR

December 30, 2011, 07:04 PM	#19
drail Junior member Join Date: February 2, 2008 Posts: 3,150	NATO (or the U.S. Dept. of Defense) does not believe that a sidearm is relevant or even particularly useful in war. They look at caliber as a purely logistical supply issue. Individual soldiers on the ground tend to have a completely different opinion on this. Unfortunately the people upstairs make the rules with no regard as to what the people on the ground think. The guys on the ground are irrelevant and expendable and don't cost much compared to the machinery of modern warfare. Last edited by drail; December 30, 2011 at 07:11 PM.

December 30, 2011, 07:06 PM	#20
cocojo Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2000 Posts: 425	Glock 9mm

December 30, 2011, 07:09 PM	#21
lcpiper Senior Member Join Date: May 15, 2011 Posts: 1,034	Why are some of you talking like NATO and the US DoD are the same thing? __________________ Colt M1911 \| Kimber Ultra Carry II \| SIG P238 \| Berreta 85B Cheetah \| Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG / 38SPCL\| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA.\|[/B] Ruger Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR

December 30, 2011, 07:10 PM	#22
drail Junior member Join Date: February 2, 2008 Posts: 3,150	Because U.S. D.O.D. will do whatever NATO tells them. At least they have for the last 40 years or so.

December 30, 2011, 07:15 PM	#23
theyallhurt Member Join Date: December 28, 2011 Location: New England Posts: 62	Voicing my personal opinion here, so here goes. Hands down, the .45ACP is the proven choice. The 9mm is a good cartridge and had served the adversary's military well in WWII and beyond, but stopping power is dependant on shot placement. Same for the 10 and the 40...pretty powerful and deadly, but... There's a reason why most combat pilots and grunts buy their own .45's instead of carrying their issued hand weapon. Add to this Corbon or alike ammunition and the informed argument ends, They all kill, quite well. But the car analogy might apply here...what would rather send a threat their way, a sports car or a freight train. Both will do the job, but the freight train guarantees an end to the threat regardless of where it's hit. __________________ RETREAT HELL!

December 30, 2011, 07:16 PM	#24
lcpiper Senior Member Join Date: May 15, 2011 Posts: 1,034	No, the DoD will do what they and the rest of NATO agree on, in committee, by vote, or however. The USA is a member of NATO and takes part like the rest. At one time this was a matter of national survival and it has proved valuable for the last decade as well. __________________ Colt M1911 \| Kimber Ultra Carry II \| SIG P238 \| Berreta 85B Cheetah \| Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG / 38SPCL\| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA.\|[/B] Ruger Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR

December 30, 2011, 07:28 PM	#25
drail Junior member Join Date: February 2, 2008 Posts: 3,150	NATO would be a committee made up of people that know very little about engaging in and winning a war. The people now in D.O.D. all believe they have a future in Washington politics if they play their cards right and that's all they think about. It's not like it used to be. The Dept. of Defense used to be called the War Dept. Ever wonder why we changed the name? Think about that.