More on '9s in "The 'Stan"

[D.W. Drang]

I didhn't see this elsewhere, even though the URL for the article in the "Jarheads on .45's" thread is numbered one higher than this one.
Afghanistan vets criticize M-9 reliability, lethality
Soldiers who fought in combat in Afghanistan are saying they want a better pistol. The one they have now, they say, isn't doing the job. An unclassified U.S. Army "Lessons Learned" report indicates some soldiers were dissatisfied with the performance of the M-9 9 mm Beretta pistol, the Army's standard-issue sidearm - the same one used by soldiers during operations Anaconda and Mountain Lion in Afghanistan.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=9802

When you read the article, note that it says they interviewed less than 20 guys about the M9, and only one actually used his in combat.
He, however, needed 4 rounds to do in the charging Moro juramentado... er, Al-Qaida warrrior eager to meet 72 Virginians... :p

[Blackhawk]

New article on a much discussed topic. But it looks like a rehash of the previous "information" including Hackworth's "contributions".

[STLRN]

If you read the article, it combines both Hack's work and the report. No where does the report state how many rounds were used to stop anyone. The AAR that was going around the military via E-mail mentioned that all those that called for the upgrade in caliber never shot anyone with there pistol and also mentioned that at the time their were no verifiable "kills" via M9 fire.

[Tamara]

Remember: The Last Weapon Was Always The Best Weapon.

The guy who gets issued the pistol shooting the 4.5mm Caseless AP rounds is going to lament the good ol' days of the Mighty M9, while the guy who gets the 3mm Gauss pistol is going to wistfully recall how "they all fell to 4.5mm Caseless AP". ;)

[croyance]

I think there are several threads on this currently in the General Discussion forum.
1.) Anybody in a combat situation wants something "better". In WWII, German soldiers liked to pick up .45 ACP's for its increased power. American soldiers liked getting 9 mm's for its lower recoil without substantial loss of power. Sometimes different equates to "better".
2.) I thought, and I could be wrong, that there has been no reported combat use of handguns in Afganistan. Can you really get any sensible opinion from that?
3.) Refering back to the Moros, the real lesson is that any handgun is ineffective. After the .38 showed that it could not stop a charging Moro, the old SA .45 was reissued to soldiers in the Phillipines. It was then found out that you could empty a .45 into a charging Moro and still get hacked up. Only the shotgun was found to be effective. The soldiers themselves felt more secure with the bigger .45, even though it did not work any better.
4.) So it took 4 9mm hardballs to stop an Al-Queda fighter. Is there any real evidence that .45 ACP would do better? What was the shot placement?

[Tamara]

...on the Eastern Front in WWII, Russians valued captured 9mm weapons for their "greater knockdown", while Germans liked getting their hands on captured 7.62x25 firearms for their "superior penetration". The grass is always greener...

[CWL]

croyance,

First (and perhaps only) use of the M9 in Afghanistan was by a CIA field agent when those surrendered Al Queda rebelled inside that castle. This was the event when 'Mike" Spann was killed after talking to John Walker Lindh.

If you ever can get your hands on CNN videos, you can see the second CIA operator drawing a M9 out of his robes when the rebellion/breakout happened. He used this pistol to get outside of the compound.

[VVG]

Here's the original report, which was more concerned with clothing than weapons. The factoids were:

- Soldiers had problems with the magazine springs becoming too slack.
•25% felt that the bullets need to be more powerful and of higher manufactured quality.
•50% reported rust and corrosion problems, especially with the barrel.
•63% reported confidence in the M9.

Natick Soldier Center Lessons Learned (http://www.sftt.org/afghanlessons_files/frame.htm)And here's a comment by a career officer (that I agree with 100%).

"I'd like to make a few comments on the "lessons learned. I have seen men hit multiple times with the M16A1 in Viet Nam, and have also seen men take multiple hits with the AK-47. I have a good friend who took 8 hits from an M1 [30.06] and survived.

Most troops have no experience with any other weapon, and are not experts on firearms in general. They unrealistically expect a man shot to just drop, and when he doesn't, they think a bigger bullet will solve the problem...."

[cheygriz]

VVG,

Thanks for your post. That career officer made more sense than all of the arguments that I've seen on this, and other forums.

Many LEOs watch the "shoot 'em ups" on the boob tube, and they can't understand why the goblin they (or a fellow officer) shot with their 9MM/.40/.45 etc, didn't go down as if he had been struck by lightning.

[Foxy]

“We went into Vietnam with a bad weapon, the M-16 rifle, which was responsible for killing thousands of our soldiers,” he wrote. “What the M-16 was to Vietnam, the Beretta is to Afghanistan.

Gawd, I didn't realize that thousands of our troops were dying in Afghanistan because their Berettas were jamming and underpowered.

:rolleyes:

[JohnKSa]

He, however, needed 4 rounds to do in the charging Moro juramentado... er, Al-Qaida warrrior eager to meet 72 Virginians...

Interestingly enough, another soldier was interviewed in the same article (I'm assuming the one I'm talking about is the same one you're talking about based on the similarities) and made an almost identical statement about his .45 but cased it in glowing terms.

The two statements were somewhat separated in the article, but for a careful reader it made the anti-9mm bias very apparent.

My paraphrase on the two quotes

This worthless 9mm pistol took 4 shots to down that soldier--it's going to get me and others killed.

Several shots from this marvelous 45 pistol immediately downed the charging soldier--this thing is a lifesaver!

:barf:

[Selfdfenz]

Lets,
Every time I hear that kind of comment I wish I owned stock in the company.

Now I have to struggle with the 97 vs P-01 issue again. What to get next?

I can't see the picture either but that's ok. I trust the poster.

S-

[D.W. Drang]

As for GIs grabbing P08s and P38s during WWII for whatever reason--I note that no one suggested "souvenir value"--Col Applegate pushed for the adoption of the Browning Hi Power for added accuracy, lower recoil, and improved ergonomics.

The obvious answer to all this is, as Col. Cooper has suggested, anyone who is authorized to pack a pistol is authorized to buy the pistol of his or her choice at the PX. (NOTE: I haven't been to a post where the sales department of the Rod and Gun Club WASN'T a subsidiary of the PX in years.) He/she must supply his or her own authorized accoutements and ammo.

The politicians--in and out of uniform--will have flaming dysantary, of course. :p

(:D I talked about Applegate and Copper in the same post and lived to tell the tale! :D )

[Der Grosse]

D.W.: Letting everyone pick their own pistol to take into combat is probably not a good idea for a number of reasons:

Do wealthier soldiers get to buy themselves better weapons (probably not good for morale)?

Won't having to stock multiple types of ammo and spare parts create a logistical nightmare?

Wouldn't it be a bummer to run out of ammo in a firefight and be unable to turn to your buddies for extra ammo since they are all using different calibers?

Uniformity in equipment is simply essential in the armed forces. That's not "dysentery", that's common sense. What makes me sick is Congress pushing Osprey's that have a proven track record of killing our troops or F-22 fighters that are designed to fight foes who don't exist anymore.

[Foxy]

Der grosse:

A bit OT, but I'd rather not see the US's military geared towards picking on itty bitty guerilla nations, and be totally unprepared for a full out war against China. The F-22's needed.

[D.W. Drang]

Grossie:
Do wealthier soldiers get to buy themselves better weapons (probably not good for morale)? 1) Very few "wealthy" soldiers in uniform nowadays.
2) This assumed that they would be authgorized to carry a pistol. That generally means they're an officer or senior NCO. Since they were told they could buy it from the PX, they would have a few models to choose from.

Won't having to stock multiple types of ammo and spare parts create a logistical nightmare? I said they would be responsible.

Wouldn't it be a bummer to run out of ammo in a firefight and be unable to turn to your buddies for extra ammo since they are all using different calibers? 1) I said they would be responsible.
2) As Col Cooper observed about the switch to 9mm Parabellum/Luger/NATO, the whole "commonality of ammo" argument depends on your acutally running out of ammo, sharing a foxhole with a guy who uses the same ammo, and him being willing to share. The chances of 2 guys sharing a foxhole both of whom are armed with issue pistols are pretty slim.
3) Pistols are not significant in a firefight. Peope armed with pistols by the military have other duties, like flying the plane, driving the tank, or making sure the grunts are shooting in the right direction.

Uniformity in equipment is simply essential in the armed forces. Why? What differance does it make if everyone is carrying the rabbit's foot they feel most comfortable with?
And are you basing this on experiance, or a book?

That's not "dysentery", that's common sense. I was referring to the reactitn politicians would have to the idea that individual soldirs be encouraged to purchase their own pistols and taking them with them to the sharp end.

[bountyh]

When the British deployed the Spitfires en masse in WWII, the head of the LuftWaffe was whining that he needed a squadron of them (he said the ME-109's were just not good enough any more).

Truth was, the Spits were hard to build, hard to maintain, hard to fly, and hard to land. If you look at the numbers of aircraft deployed and combat hours flown in the RAF, you find out the Hawker Hurricane actually won the Battle of Britain. Wasn't as fast or sexy, but the pilots loved them because they were very maneuverable and heavily armored in the cockpit area. BTW: the ME-109 was hell of a good airplane as well. It had a fuel injected engine (not carbureted like the Brits) so it maintaned full power even in the steepest of dives. The carbureted engines would lose power in steep dives because of the effect of gravity on the carburetor float setup. Once the Germans figured this out, they used dives to get away from RAF planes.

No matter what they have, some General somewhere is bitching that it isn't as good as what they used to have and it isn't as good as what the OTHER guys have. Get used to it.

[DMK]

No matter what they have, some General somewhere is bitching that it isn't as good as what they used to have and it isn't as good as what the OTHER guys have.

Basically it boils down to nothing more than diverting the blame off yourself when you aren't up to the task of doing your job.