PDA

View Full Version : Should the Military/LE adopt a .45 which isn't a 1911


19doberman68
September 6, 2007, 10:19 PM
It seems that once LE or the military adopts a weapon, the public is soon to follow.

Dobie

dwatts47
October 4, 2007, 08:34 PM
I vote the new HK p30 with completely user adjustable grip.

I personally would love to see the switch... If nothing else but for the fact that there are more realiable .45s now. The 1911 isn't the only one.

M14fan
October 5, 2007, 08:07 PM
Are there really .45 acp handguns out there that aren't 1911s? :D

HorseSoldier
October 5, 2007, 09:59 PM
The plan seems to have been basically to write contract specs for the HK45 or USP45CT, but when the Joint Combat Pistol went south, I think the real possibility of a return to 45 ACP went with it.

There should be a new pistol coming down the pipeline soon (at least for SOF units), but it does not look like it will be in .45.

That said, I wouldn't mind it. I don't have a problem with 9mm, either (though I don't care for the M9) -- both rounds have strengths and weaknesses. 9mm with FMJ is not an ideal manstopper, but 45 FMJ's stopping power is grossly exagerrated and mythologized on-line and in the gun rags. You do get more thump, but smaller magazine. For a civilian self-defense gun, I don't see that as a huge liability, but in a military pistol you may need 15 (or 50) rounds in the gun for the situation you find yourself in. Of course, ideally, each round would be adequate to knock down a guy or stop a truck with one hit . . . but it's all tradeoffs.

Nakanokalronin
October 6, 2007, 12:03 AM
I have a feeling its going to be the HK. However they are using 1911s there now (whenever they can get one) and would love to see the 1911 continue as the military sidearm. The new requirments the military are requesting in a new .45 throws out the 1911 though. :(

flesheatingvirus
October 6, 2007, 02:34 AM
If they could get over the lack of a safety, hell yes!!
SIG P220R

Silvanus
October 6, 2007, 03:53 AM
I vote the new HK p30

The P30 is a 9mm. The new .45 is the HK45.

MrAnteater
October 6, 2007, 09:26 AM
Some LE already have, 45 GAP.

Greg Bell
October 6, 2007, 09:31 AM
Honestly, I don't think there is anything wrong with the pistols they have now. I prefer the SIG to the Berretta for ergonomic reasons, but that is it. I wouldn't waste the money. OTOH, I do think it is time to replace their primary weapon with something more modern, in a more powerful round. I think a 6.8 416, XM8, SCAR, etc would be a big improvment.


I think the .45 is probably a little more effective than the 9mm. But honestly, the street results are so varied, I think it is clear that it is shot placement that is the critical element in stopping power. With a 9mm, the ability to carry rounds probably trumps any other edge .45 has.

Although, out of all the current .45s, the M&P and HK45 seem like the closest guns to what the military wants. My guess is that the HK45 would probably prevail in objective torture testing, but the M&P would prevail in political reality. Although HK seems to have anticipated this and opened a factory in NH.

Nakanokalronin
October 6, 2007, 09:54 AM
Shot placement is a factor when using 9mm, however in a combat/war situation I don't think they are thinking about shot placement with a sidearm when the SHTF over there. If they could do that then the 9mm would work for them with nothing but head shots which I'm sure is harder in a war.

Greg Bell
October 6, 2007, 09:58 AM
IMHO, shot placement is a factor with all pistol calibers. Heck, the recent Barrett magazine had a guy surviving a .50 BMG hit:eek::eek:

HorseSoldier
October 6, 2007, 11:20 AM
Shot placement is a factor when using 9mm, however in a combat/war situation I don't think they are thinking about shot placement with a sidearm when the SHTF over there. If they could do that then the 9mm would work for them with nothing but head shots which I'm sure is harder in a war.

We train for shot placement with pistols like lives depend on it . . .

19doberman68
October 7, 2007, 09:03 PM
What about the Glock 21, 21SF, or XD?

Nakanokalronin
October 7, 2007, 09:14 PM
Sorry, I might have worded that wrong. What I ment by shot placement is that if you hit a BG in the chest rather than the head it would be better if it was with a .45 than a 9 if you don't hit any vital organs. Of course shot placement counts as I previously said but as I've read through sidearm changes in our military, they always seem to regret going away from a .45 size round.

HDTVSELLER
October 7, 2007, 09:58 PM
xd .45 and somhow make it weigh less loaded somehow

Greg Bell
October 7, 2007, 10:22 PM
Nakanokalronin,

Of course with the 9mm you are going to be able to put more rounds downrange in the same amount of time. Plus, .45 has more dificulty with light barrier penetration.

joshua
October 7, 2007, 11:00 PM
Of course with the 9mm you are going to be able to put more rounds downrange in the same amount of time. Plus, .45 has more dificulty with light barrier penetration.

If you want barrier penetration then the handgun should not have been your primary weapon. josh

dwatts47
October 8, 2007, 03:33 AM
the HK P30 is a 9mm, the HK 45 is a .45


Sometime's my hamster falls off his wheel.... thanks. :eek:

Greg Bell
October 8, 2007, 10:28 AM
Josh,

We are discussing military guns. The military does not use handguns as their primary weapons. They are mostly used in emergency situations when their rifles aren't available.

vertigoing
October 8, 2007, 12:06 PM
For a non-1911 45 ACP, there is alot of press regarding the M&P 45 being the replacement sidearm for many LE's recently (New Hampshire State Police and Highway Patrol being the most recent). But the new HK 45 would be another top contender, the biggest deterent their would be price. Also the Sig 220 Combat, the Taurus OSS, XD 45, and the Beretta Storm all were designed to compete in the cancelled military contract, so there are plently of choices.

When it comes to which caliber, the 9mm would be my choice. Its widely used around the world, NATO forces use it for their sidearm. Its cheap. When it comes to penetration, there aren't many opponents who use body armor - so thats not an issue. The amount of ammo in the magazine, let say 8 in a 1911, 10 to 13 in a new 45ACP model, and 16 to 18 in 9mm. In a fire fight, stress in the main factor in determining a good shot, and when you got bullets flying all around, you can't stand still and take aim. My choice would be the 9mm.

MyXD40
October 8, 2007, 02:19 PM
I really think the military/LE should allow each person to use whichever handgun they feel more comfortable with. But tell the person which caliber they can use

joshua
October 9, 2007, 01:11 AM
Greg Bell,

I know that. I'm active duty for almost 22 years now and trained to convoy in a hostile area, manage my team to set up my equipment and defend the perimeter. I'm qualified in M16 A2/M4 and M9, in fact I've always shot expert. I can also use the M249 or M240 just in case our primary guys get taken out. I'm also an avid shooter and hunter when I'm back CONUS and know the limitation of the 9mm and 45ACP. Main reason why I said handguns should not be the primary weapon when you are considering barrier penetration. Good day.

josh

PSP
October 9, 2007, 07:05 AM
I guess I'm in a definite minority when I say The 1911 is not the gun I'd want in battle. Nor do I think anything bad about 9mm or the current M9 Beretta. The Beretta is an excellent weapon. The simplicity of more modern designs using poymers, higher capacity magazines, adjustable grips, quick field stripping, etc. make the 1911 obsolete. Frankly, the 1911s have a higher failure rate too. That means I do think the military and LE should leave behind the venerable and respected 1911. One of the great designs, but now relegated to sport and civilian use. IMHO

Whether the U.S. military adopts a .45 over the 9mm is the major question. The gun it fires will almost certainly be something very similar to a HK P30 or M&P. My personal guess is that in a few years the Army will adopt a new 9mm for standard sidearm issue and also adopt a similar .45 caliber weapon for more offensive use by certain units.

Greg Bell
October 9, 2007, 03:47 PM
I basically agree with you PSP.

Rasputin
October 9, 2007, 03:50 PM
theres an article on it here

http://www.gunblast.com/RKCampbell_MilitaryOpt.htm

its either a 1911 or Glock but theres still a few more picks out there.

Greg Bell
October 9, 2007, 07:49 PM
A big "yeah right" to that article.:D

Greg Bell
October 9, 2007, 10:09 PM
If they adopt something new, it is likely to have a safety. I suspect the HK45 or M&P. Since the HK 45 is to be manufactured in USA, I am guessing HK feels they have a shot.

Rasputin
October 10, 2007, 08:13 AM
Article by R.K. Campbell, For All To Read.

A Look at Military Options
by R.K. Campbell

The news that the establishment may adopt a new handgun has been met with intense interest. More than a few makers have tooled up for a special model for the military tests. Heckler and Koch and Glock are reportedly developing new versions of existing pistols. I admit to a certain excitement because after all I am a handgunner above all else. My police and life experience indicates the pistol can be a very important defensive weapon, although it is less important to the military. When teaching military men and women to handle the handgun, I stress that using the handgun should be avoided. Always use the rifle or a grenade if possible, but if caught with nothing but the pistol then we go with what we know.

Whether I regard the issue pistols as the best or the worst available, my advice is the same - rely upon the long gun and master the pistol as best you can. Just the same - if you need a handgun, you need it badly. At issue is the caliber of the handgun presently used. I have little use for the 9mm cartridge for personal defense. With ball (non-expanding) ammunition, the best reports are that 9mm ball produces a one shot stop about half of the time, or fifty per cent effective in common vernacular. The Police Marksman’s Association conducted a respectable survey over a decade ago that many felt was more realistic than any other ever attempted. The PMA found that 9mm and .38 Special ball were effective in stopping a felon about one time in four - for twenty five per cent effectiveness. Couple this with a design hard to use well, and we have a serious deficit in combat effectiveness.

The caliber is one issue, but the double action first shot of the service pistol is also a problem. I have trained peace officers who qualify four times a year. They have a difficult time mastering the Beretta’s double action first shot. (So do officers issued the Smith and Wesson and to a lesser extent, the SIG.) Double action pistols often produce a sympathetic reaction in the lower fingers that makes a good grip and good first shot accuracy very difficult. The double action first shot pistol is a triumph of the technical over the tactical. First shot hit probability, coupled with once a year qualification, is a poor recipe for success.

I doubt any type of double action first shot pistol will be adopted by the military again. While Heckler and Koch and SIG have offerings, the new pistol will probably be either a safe action or a single action. SIG has a P 220 single action converted pistol. The frame is of the type designed to accommodate a double action trigger. The finger lies above the trigger guard and arcs down to move the trigger to the rear in a double action. The single action P 220 features a single action only trigger and a safety that does not lock the slide. While now a single action the pistol maintains the high bore axis that allows greater muzzle flip than the 1911. This lash up simply takes a good double action type and makes it a very much also ran in the single action game. While it is a .45 and SIG is a reliable action this pistol is far from ideal. A locked slide is a great advantage when the pistol is being holstered.

HK has hedged their bests with pistols that have a "cocked and locked" feature. This is fine as far as it goes, but the pistol lacks the ergonomics of a true single action pistol. This leaves us with the Glock or a 1911. There are variations on either theme. The single action handling and slide lock and grip safety of the 1911 are advantages in hard use, but the Glock’s simplicity is also an advantage. Either type features only one trigger action to learn. Each has rapid trigger reset. Each type has a low bore axis that makes for little muzzle flip. The pistols have proven reliable. I had rather have the 1911, but the Glock requires less maintenance. The Glock features a very simple manual of arms. Load, holster, draw, fire. The pistol requires very little maintenance. The Glock is perceived as the more modern handgun. The Glock is not as compatible with small hands as the 1911, but there are advances in Glock frame design that may address this problem. And the .45 Glock is a high capacity pistol.

I am a 1911 man through and through, but respect the Glock. The 1911 is the handgun for a professional whose primary weapon is the handgun. For those who primary weapon is the rifle, the Glock looks good. Tactical doctrine states that the simpler a backup weapon is the better. There should be a minimum of action required to get the piece into action. That was the original criteria set forth by German national police that gave us the SIG P 220 double action pistol. There are no external safeties with the SIG, only safety features. The Glock is even simpler.

The features we need in a combat pistol are subject to some discussion, but some attributes are not debatable. Reliability is foremost. Ergonomics and human engineering are vital. But the ability to stop a determined attack with a minimum of well placed shots is most important, and the present service handgun is lacking in this regard. The present service handgun is also among the most difficult of handguns to use well quickly under stress. Despite this on many occasions our young warriors have performed beyond all expectation. But our warriors deserve a pistol worthy of their courage. They need a .45 automatic. If the pistol chosen is a high quality modern 1911 that would be fine. The pistol should have a modern Teflon based finish to handle maintenance and lubrication issues - it need not be lubricated at all with such a finish. The Bearcoat finish used by so many of us here in America, including those on special teams, has given the author excellent service. If we are not to have a 1911, then good work can be done with the Glock. The new small receiver Glock 21 may solve the hand size problem, and the piece is reliable and accurate. In my experience the Glock 21 is the most accurate of all Glocks, and a relatively soft kicking .45 automatic.

Click Link For More
http://www.gunblast.com/RKCampbell_MilitaryOpt.htm

Greg Bell
October 10, 2007, 08:21 AM
I read the article. I just disagree with the author.Sheesh!:D

Rasputin
October 10, 2007, 08:24 AM
this guy is smart, and is an authority. but i favor jeff quinn.

R. K. Campbell
An established and well-respected outdoors writer, Bob writes for Shotgun News, Handguns, SWAT Magazine, American Gunsmith, Knifeworld, Police, Women and Guns, and GunWeek, among others. He is Contributing Editor of Women and Guns and Executive Editor of Boar Hunter. Bob has also published occasionally in Tactical Knives, American Handgunner and Guns, and he is a regular at Krause Publications' Gun Digest and Handguns. He also wrote a significant portion of the 4th and 5th Editions of Assault Weapons.

Bob has also authored three books: Holsters For Combat and Concealed Carry (Paladin Press), The 1911 Semi Auto (Stoeger Publishing), and The Handgun In Personal Defense (The Second Amendment Foundation).

HorseSoldier
October 10, 2007, 09:05 AM
I doubt any type of double action first shot pistol will be adopted by the military again. While Heckler and Koch and SIG have offerings, the new pistol will probably be either a safe action or a single action.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, could be further from the truth -- at least judging by things like, say, the Joint Combat Pistol specifications they drew up. Nothing but wishful thinking on the author's part :rolleyes:

HK has hedged their bests with pistols that have a "cocked and locked" feature. This is fine as far as it goes, but the pistol lacks the ergonomics of a true single action pistol. This leaves us with the Glock or a 1911.

More wishful thinking as far as the 1911 goes. Glock is a contender, though it will have to be modified if something akin to the JCP requirements are on whatever future handgun requirements come down from Big Army. This seems likely, as the mods are things like external safeties and I can't see Big Army letting that one slide (and Glock already had a version of the 21 with manual external safety in the works for the JCP).

Ivory Grips
October 10, 2007, 09:46 AM
I'm a vet. I never could understand the civilian's concern over which handgun/or caliber is best suited for use by our combat troops. A soldier's primary weapon is his rifle, at least it was for me. And for those "Arm Chair Warriors" out there, I would suggest to them to go enlist, and see some combat up close and personal. And maybe then, they might understand just how insignificant a sidearm (handgun) actually is in combat. Ask a vet who's been there. The handgun cannot compete in the real world against the rifle.....period.

Greg Bell
October 10, 2007, 01:02 PM
Ivory,

Big Ditto.

Rasputin,

Yeah, I agree with the above poster. That guy is just listing guns he likes. The miltary has given us a list of what they are looking for, and the Glock and the 1911 don't meet the specs.

Rifleman 173
October 10, 2007, 01:26 PM
I did 19 months in Nam. Most of us over there had rifles, machineguns and grenade launchers with only a few of us carrying pistols. Only on very rare occasions, like crawling around in tunnels or confined places, did a pistol ever get used. A pistol DOES have a place in the military arsenals BUT the people who use the guns are NOT the ones who select them. In fact, none of the rifles and guns used by the average field soldier are actually chosen by the people whose lives depend upon them. This, along with political corruption, kickbacks to the Democrats and so on is what REALLY decides what gun gets used by our nation's infantryman. This is EXACTLY how and why we ended up with that useless M-16 rifle over there that NOBODY in the infantry liked. Our military personnel has NEVER really been armed with the LATEST or BEST rifles. Like we say in the Army, we're always fighting the LAST war with gear and tactics from that war. I'll give you an example of what I mean... Back in the September 1968 'The Science Digest' reported on "the new laser rifle" that was being developed. It was suggested that the laser rifle would soon be used and carried by American infantrymen. So what REALLY happened to THAT laser rifle? They've had over 40 years to make that thing a reality but nothing. Very suspicious. Same thing applies to handguns in the military. They're never right nor properly developed either.

Erik
October 10, 2007, 01:32 PM
What's wanted?

Pistols meeting certain specs designed for being serviced at the field armory level.

HK and S&W have offerings.

Everyone else? Not so much. If so, someone will come along with it any moment now...

We'll see if anything comes to fruition contract wise. That happening I don;t care so much about. What I do care about are the possibilties surrounding the future purchase of pistols I consider reasonably well thought out and constructed. Time will tell.

Nakanokalronin
October 10, 2007, 02:01 PM
Well although I have not seen combat I have read multiple articles about our soldiers trying to get their hands on any .45 1911. Some have them, and the ones who don't, want them and complain that the 9mm is'nt enough to take someone. I alos read of an incident where a soldier fired about 2/3rds of his magazine before his opponent went down. Seems to be the same complaint about the AR-15 round over there as well. Now both the 9mm and 5.56 rounds are excellent man-stoppers but they are obviously lacking over there if the military is trying to replace the 9mm and no less looking for a better 5.56 or replacing that to altogether.

I've seen the sidearm and a K9 in pictures being used there for some house clearings with a soldier or 2 in back with ARs.

davlandrum
October 10, 2007, 03:12 PM
about our soldiers trying to get their hands on any .45 1911

Having been in a combat zone as well as deployed to various "garden spots" of the world, where are the guys getting ammo for these .45s. I assume this was supposed to refer to average GIs, not special ops (who manage to get ammo for whatever the heck they want :p). Normal Army supply chain does not support .45 ammo. I can't imagine there is a lot of .45 floating around the sand-box (again, except black ops and Blackwater...).

The 100% best, knock 'em down, always function, easy to maintain weapon doesn't go "bang" unless logistics is set up to deliver ammo. Thank God for the log dogs who keep 'em fed, sheltered, and shooting.

gordo_gun_guy
October 10, 2007, 03:35 PM
Now both the 9mm and 5.56 rounds are excellent man-stoppers but they are obviously lacking over there if the military is trying to replace the 9mm and no less looking for a better 5.56 or replacing that to altogether.

I'll submit to you, in FMJ configuration, 9mm and 5.56 are excellent man wounders and man killers, but lousy man stoppers.:D (BTW, I think the 9mm is just peachy as a civilian caliber with quality expanding bullets.)

We want to believe our servicemen are armed with weapons that can drop charging Moro tribesmen or paradise-bent Haji or whomever the threat of the day is in one shot. The bean counters that send young men off to die have a slightly different perspective.:rolleyes:

If my M-4 jams and I have to transition to my pistol while facing a close-range threat, I'd rather have a cocked and locked .45 ACP of some flavor than any kind of wundernine. However, a bean counter would note that for the same weight, I'd be carrying half as much ammo in .45 vs 9mm.

Actually, on an open battlefield, the bean-counter approach has a lot of merit. Carrying more firepower to wound at range is a good thing. However, when faced with restricitve ROE in the tight confines of urban warfare, stopping power looms larger as an important consideration....

DougO83
October 10, 2007, 04:00 PM
I'm a vet. I never could understand the civilian's concern over which handgun/or caliber is best suited for use by our combat troops.

We have to pay for them. Should be our concern. Also, many people like myself, rely on weapons for our jobs and our own protection and wonder why the military isn't better equipped.

A soldier's primary weapon is his rifle, at least it was for me. And for those "Arm Chair Warriors" out there, I would suggest to them to go enlist, and see some combat up close and personal.

I love how some vets like to insult the general populace and discount our experience/ideas simply because we didn't have to don cammies in order to see combat. You want real combat? Come ot my neighborhood where I grew up for the weekend. Hell, bring all the vets you can find.


And maybe then, they might understand just how insignificant a sidearm (handgun) actually is in combat.

Obviously, you miss the point of this OP. You act as though the garbage our military calls a rifle is going to be phazed out by a sidearm.


Ask a vet who's been there. The handgun cannot compete in the real world against the rifle.....period.

This looks like a challenge. In the hands of a TRUE MARKSMAN the pistol is just as deadly. I would stake even my .38 against the M-16 any day. It is a piece of garbage, built liek a child's toy. Yes, I have one and it sucks. Anyone need a paperweight?

You know, I have the utmost respect for vets. My brother is a Marine, I have a cousin who is a Ranger, another in the Navy, and my grandpa is retired TACP. But you guys have got to step down from your high horses once in a while. In the real world, soldiers ain't the only ones that get shot at.

David Armstrong
October 10, 2007, 05:19 PM
This looks like a challenge. In the hands of a TRUE MARKSMAN the pistol is just as deadly. I would stake even my .38 against the M-16 any day.
Interesting how many TRUE MARKSMEN disagree with you. Folks like Cooper, Clint Smith, and virtually everyone suggests that if you have the chance to grab a rifle, put down the handgun and grab the rifle. Wonder why the military (including those really well-trained outfits) all choose to issue a rifle over a pistol if it is just as deadly. Sure would be a lot easier to carry around the pistol.

It is a piece of garbage, built liek a child's toy.
Again sort of interesting how many armies have chosen to use it if it is so bad, and how many MARKSMEN choose to buy one of their own (in civvie version) when they have the option of getting other weapons.

DougO83
October 10, 2007, 05:23 PM
Interesting how many TRUE MARKSMEN disagree with you. Folks like Cooper, Clint Smith, and virtually everyone suggests that if you have the chance to grab a rifle, put down the handgun and grab the rifle.

Wanna show some facts here? Oh, look at what I wrote, never mind. I said that a pistol was just as deadly. Are you going to tell me that a rifle round has some magical power that makes it deadlier than a handgun?

Again sort of interesting how many armies have chosen to use it if it is so bad, and how many MARKSMEN choose to buy one of their own (in civvie version) when they have the option of getting other weapons.


How many armies use the M-16? Come on, how many? Now, I want to see countries that bought them, not those who are carrying around US leftovers. Also, as stated earlier, price is the reason that our country uses the stupid thing. It is designed to wound. At that, it is effective, I woudl rather kill my intended target. Also, it is built like a child's toy. I own an M-16, an AK-47 and a wide assortment of rifles. Comparitively, the M-16 feels like junk. Also, show me one marksman who would rely on that cap gun.

Rasputin
October 10, 2007, 05:24 PM
The handgun cannot compete in the real world against the rifle.....period.

This Is Common Knowledge

DougO83
October 10, 2007, 05:29 PM
Quote:
The handgun cannot compete in the real world against the rifle.....period.

This Is Common Knowledge

Unless you are inside close quarters. I prefer the versatility of a handgun in such a situation. I have trained to do just that and I feel that a rifle would be cumbersome if used for this. Otherwise, yea, I would use a rifle. However, no one ever debated the efficacy of a rifle as opposed to a handgun. Not sure how that got started.

Erik
October 10, 2007, 07:07 PM
Uhh, you're gonna lose.

Long guns trump hand guns.

Even in close quarters.

M4s, subguns, and shotguns are the standard. For a reason. That reason being that those who know... know, and choose shoulder mounted guns virtually every time.

There are exceptions to every rule, and the "virtually" above there are indicates that yes, there are some. But its important to know they are exceptions, not the rule, and why.

Chui
October 10, 2007, 07:22 PM
To Hades with the foreign weapons suppliers. We need American weapon systems, guys. The S&W M&P9 or M&P45 should perform just fine.

DougO83
October 10, 2007, 07:55 PM
maybe you missed the words "I prefer." That is not a statement of expertise. My experience has shown them to be more effective, but I train with handguns about 300 days/year. I rarely have use for a long gun.

HorseSoldier
October 10, 2007, 09:08 PM
How many armies use the M-16? Come on, how many?

US military
Canada
Australia (SASR and Commando-role infantry)
Great Britain (SAS and certain other elite units)
Norway (special operations units)
Netherlands
Denmark
Argentina (Marines)


Off the top of my head. The M4 is pretty much the industry standard, or close to it, for elite military units in the developed world.

Now, I want to see countries that bought them, not those who are carrying around US leftovers.

The above nations don't fall into that category. There are a bunch of others that might be debatable or clearly discounted by your qualification (i.e. Israel).

To Hades with the foreign weapons suppliers. We need American weapon systems, guys. The S&W M&P9 or M&P45 should perform just fine.

As an end user, I'd actually say to Hades with American suppliers (if they can't provide the best weapons). I'd rather have the best than the best American design, if the two are not the same thing. Particularly since anything we adopt will be manufactured here, meaning jobs for blue collar folks even if S&W stockholders don't see a benefit.

DougO83
October 10, 2007, 09:10 PM
US military
Canada
Australia (SASR and Commando-role infantry)
Great Britain (SAS and certain other elite units)
Norway (special operations units)
Netherlands
Denmark
Argentina (Marines)

So...8 out of roughly 194 countries? Not very good odds. But thank you for putting some facts on paper.

David Armstrong
October 10, 2007, 09:21 PM
Wanna show some facts here?
Facts on what. You made a rather wild and silly claim, I pointed out that it was rather silly. You said that the pistol was just a deadly as the rifle. That is demonstrably false.
Are you going to tell me that a rifle round has some magical power that makes it deadlier than a handgun?
No, I see no need to make a claims about magic at all. The handgun is limited in range and power when compared to the rifle. That gives the rifle the edge. In equal hands the rifgle will be more accurate than the pistol over both time and distance. The pistol is just as deadly as the rifle within certain parameters. However, the rifle is deadly at parameters far outside that of the pistol. Thus the rifle more deadly. If my weapon can kill you at 300 yards and yours can't kill me at that distance, I win. Again, the facts are that virtually every TRAINED MARKSMAN out there that has weighed in on the issue has said they would prefer a rifle over a handgun if they knew they were going to be in a fight. There is a reason we outfit soldiers with rifles, not pistols, for their primary fighting weapon.
How many armies use the M-16? Come on, how many?
Right off the top of my head I can think of about 20 that use it or some variation of it.
Now, I want to see countries that bought them, not those who are carrying around US leftovers.
Why, does that somehow change the fact that they use them? I mean, is the AK-47 somehow less good because there are a few zillion old Soviet-era guns being used?
Also, as stated earlier, price is the reason that our country uses the stupid thing.
No, our country uses it because it has proven to be an effective weapon over many decades, one that does the job and is quite user friendly. When has price ever been much of an issue with the government?
It is designed to wound.
Nonsense. The weapon is designed to fire a round. It does that well. If your argument is with the round itself and how effective it is, your problems go far deeper than just the M-16, as the 5.56 round has become the round of choice in multiple weapon platforms chosen by multiple services.
Also, it is built like a child's toy.
Again, demonstrably false. Few toys are built like, or to the standards of, any decent weapon, including but not limited to the M-16 family.
Comparitively, the M-16 feels like junk.
That is just a matter of personal choice, and is irrelevant to boot. Personally, I feel the AK is built much more poorly than the M-16. But that doesn't affect the way it performs.
Also, show me one marksman who would rely on that cap gun.

Define marksman. I know lots of pretty good shots, folks who have gone in harms way and wil do so in the future, that have selected an M-16 variation as their personal gun to protect themselves and their family.

HorseSoldier
October 10, 2007, 09:29 PM
So...8 out of roughly 194 countries? Not very good odds. But thank you for putting some facts on paper.

Again, it's the weapon of choice for elite units in the developed world. Y'know -- the guys who get to adopt the best weapon for the task, without a bunch of political strings to wade through. But if the forward thinkers in all those 3rd World states and failed states count for more than what the SAS and SASR think . . . well, I can safely say this is the first time I can think of where someone has tried to use the small arms selections employed by nations like the Sudan or Equitorial Guinea to prove or disprove the worth of a given weapon. :rolleyes:

Greg Bell
October 10, 2007, 10:16 PM
Well the Swiss, German and French Special ops guys carry Sig 550s! And Delta force is now carrying the 416, which is a sort of G36 that looks like a M4.

DougO83
October 10, 2007, 10:25 PM
Quote:
Wanna show some facts here?

Facts on what. You made a rather wild and silly claim, I pointed out that it was rather silly. You said that the pistol was just a deadly as the rifle. That is demonstrably false.

Really? So a handgun round is less deadly than a rifle round? That is absolutely false.

Quote:
Are you going to tell me that a rifle round has some magical power that makes it deadlier than a handgun?

No, I see no need to make a claims about magic at all. The handgun is limited in range and power when compared to the rifle. That gives the rifle the edge. In equal hands the rifgle will be more accurate than the pistol over both time and distance. The pistol is just as deadly as the rifle within certain parameters. However, the rifle is deadly at parameters far outside that of the pistol. Thus the rifle more deadly. If my weapon can kill you at 300 yards and yours can't kill me at that distance, I win. Again, the facts are that virtually every TRAINED MARKSMAN out there that has weighed in on the issue has said they would prefer a rifle over a handgun if they knew they were going to be in a fight. There is a reason we outfit soldiers with rifles, not pistols, for their primary fighting weapon.

Not the question being asked. You pulled something out that was never said.

Quote:
How many armies use the M-16? Come on, how many?

Right off the top of my head I can think of about 20 that use it or some variation of it.

Show me then. What you think and real facts stand a chance of being different things.

Quote:
Now, I want to see countries that bought them, not those who are carrying around US leftovers.

Why, does that somehow change the fact that they use them? I mean, is the AK-47 somehow less good because there are a few zillion old Soviet-era guns being used?


Just an extension of the previous question.


Quote:
Also, as stated earlier, price is the reason that our country uses the stupid thing.

No, our country uses it because it has proven to be an effective weapon over many decades, one that does the job and is quite user friendly. When has price ever been much of an issue with the government?

Actually, it has been. Just like anything else. Cutting corners for their own profit is our government's specialty.

Quote:
It is designed to wound.

Nonsense. The weapon is designed to fire a round. It does that well. If your argument is with the round itself and how effective it is, your problems go far deeper than just the M-16, as the 5.56 round has become the round of choice in multiple weapon platforms chosen by multiple services.

Try finding a fact.

Quote:
Also, it is built like a child's toy.

Again, demonstrably false. Few toys are built like, or to the standards of, any decent weapon, including but not limited to the M-16 family.


I own one. I think that, unless oyu own one, I have a little more knowledge about the weapon that what you suppose.


Quote:
Comparitively, the M-16 feels like junk.

That is just a matter of personal choice, and is irrelevant to boot. Personally, I feel the AK is built much more poorly than the M-16. But that doesn't affect the way it performs.

I'm sure there was a point here?

Quote:
Also, show me one marksman who would rely on that cap gun.

Define marksman. I know lots of pretty good shots, folks who have gone in harms way and wil do so in the future, that have selected an M-16 variation as their personal gun to protect themselves and their family.

Ok, so? Stil haven't shown me a single fact. At least Horsesoldier did that.

Greg Bell
October 10, 2007, 11:39 PM
Hey guys! How did this topic get so mean? It's all good. :D:D

HorseSoldier
October 11, 2007, 09:39 AM
And Delta force is now carrying the 416, which is a sort of G36 that looks like a M4.


It's a lot less like a G36 internally than it is just like a M4 with a piston substituted for the gas tube.

HorseSoldier
October 11, 2007, 09:56 AM
Really? So a handgun round is less deadly than a rifle round? That is absolutely false.

Quote:
Are you going to tell me that a rifle round has some magical power that makes it deadlier than a handgun?

The mystical and magical power of KE= 1/2 mv*2 pretty nice sums it up. Even with "energy transfer" being discredited voodoo, the reality is that bullets still need energy to smash bones, produce temporary and permanent wound cavities, etc.

Also, as stated earlier, price is the reason that our country uses the stupid thing.

No, not really. We use it because it works. Certainly after you slap rails, ACOG, PEQ-2, and other goodies on my issue weapon it certainly is anything but cheap.

Quote:
It is designed to wound.


Quote:
Nonsense. The weapon is designed to fire a round. It does that well. If your argument is with the round itself and how effective it is, your problems go far deeper than just the M-16, as the 5.56 round has become the round of choice in multiple weapon platforms chosen by multiple services.

Try finding a fact.


You'd probably do well to follow your own advice. Show me anywhere official relating to the adoption of the 5.56mm round that makes the claim it was designed to wound rather than kill the enemy. Good luck with that, as "designed to wound" is purely an urban military myth, right up there with "you can't shoot personnel with .50 cal". Criteria for adoption of the 5.56x45 round was that it match lethality of 7.62x51 out to anticipated engagement ranges (300 meters) and in Vietnam it actually demonstrated 11% greater lethality than 7.62x51.

I own one. I think that, unless oyu own one, I have a little more knowledge about the weapon that what you suppose.

Besides owning several through the years, the Great White Father in Washington has seen fit to provide me one as my issued personal weapon in either M16 or M4 flavors for most of the last 14 years (M9 pistol as issue weapon for a few years in there as well).

I don't agree with your assessment, but regardless, you have your opinion and I have mine. There's no point in getting ugly about an opinion.

auto45
October 11, 2007, 11:03 AM
It seems that once LE or the military adopts a weapon, the public is soon to follow.


I'm not sure the public ever went away from the 45. LE have been switching a lot of their 9mm handguns to mostly 40 and some 45 for quite a while now... from what I read.

The "desire" to go from a 9mm to 45 is coming from surveys of soliders from the current conflict ...correct? Unless someone thinks they don't know what they are talking about, I'd probably "heed" their word.

The RFP's I've read indicates there will be no SA triggers, a la 1911.
There isn't a current 1911 manufactuer that could produce high quantities of reliable 1911s anyway IMHO. I think that day is "done and gone" quite a while ago.

Since Colt had their 350 million dollar order for M4's put on hold by congress, they will be testing some new rifles soon...so we will see which is best/better.

Greg Bell
October 11, 2007, 11:25 AM
Honesty though, soldiers in the field tend to be kids. If they shoot somebody with a pistol and they don't fall down they are likely to blame the round. Plus, when you are in the military a lot of hogwash goes around, and a lot of kids don't have the knowledge or critical thinking skills to filter it. There was a recent shootout where a guy got hit 17 times with .223 and .40 before he finally went down. You can bet your ass if it would have been 9mm everybody would have blamed the round rather than shot placement. There was an event in Afghanistan where a Seal was hit multiple times with 7.62x39 but was able to kill his assailants with his 9mm SIG (his rifle was out of commission). He wasn't hit in a critical area, his opponents were.

Here is a link to the .40/.223 shooting.

http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=50208&an=0&page=1#50208

The Tourist
October 11, 2007, 11:29 AM
I'd love to see a 1911 made available to our troops. In fact, there probably are many units that carry a 1911A1 for special duty, although I have not read about such use.

The reality of the situation is that any new 1911 issued for general use will have to be DA/SA with a safety for condition one and hammer-drop.

If that is the case, the H&K 23 is that weapon, already.

swman
October 11, 2007, 11:36 AM
Sure should. Its called an M&P .45 auto. It comes with a safety, single action (striker fired double action-ATFE), plastic can absorb more .45 recoil than steel, has adjustable grips for small, medium and large hands, and is inexpensive to manufacture. I'd bet your last paycheck that this is the next military handgun to replace the M9!:D

Johann
October 11, 2007, 11:45 AM
I got this from Glocktalk seems like this bloke knows what he talk about

The military is not in the market for a new, general issue pistol. The Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force have ALL placed substantial orders for M9's. There is no compelling reason to change.

The .45 with ball ammo is no better than a 9. As a matter of fact, a 9mm with ball ammo out penetrates the .45. It was pretty widely known that a german P-38 or Luger could penetrate the WWII issue M1 helmet, whereas the .45 could not.

All handguns, even with current hollow point offerings, suck at stopping BG's. That's why soldiers are issued with rifles, and only officers and specialists who need one because of their MOS get pistols. They are not effective combat arms. Period.

There is nothing wrong with the issued M9, especially now that the military has replaced most of the crapola magazines with genuine Beretta factory mags. The mags were causing all kinds of problems, that has been corrected.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the opinion of individual soldiers on their equipment doesn't mean much. You know what soldiers want, REALLY want? They want something else. But when they get the else, as often as not, they want the old gear back. They all believe that changing to this latest gadget or that latest weapon will solve all their plight. And when it doesn't it's the gear's fault. Being a soldier in a combat arms MOS engaging the enemy is not a plesant experience, and changing the brand of the pistol doesn't change that.

The command structure is not as ignorant as the PFC's believe they are. There are very good reasons why the military does not rapidly field new gear every time someone comes up with something "new and improved". First off, the army must test the gear rigerously under actual field conditions, which are always severe. If it passes that, the gear must be acquired in sufficient quantities for broad issue, and with 2 million people under arms in our armed forces, that's alot of copies. You have to prime the logistics system so that there are supplies of weapons, magazines, parts, etc in the pipeline for WHEN, not if, they go down in the field. And you have to train a PILE of folks to make things work. You need an instructor cadre, time to develop a training program, both for soldiers and repair personnel, intermediate instructors to deliver the program content to the soldiers, and you have to find time to run hundreds of thousands of men through that program. Changing gear comes at huge costs, and usually accompanies alot of teething at the outset. There have not been many systems fielded by the armed forces that were 100% right out of the gate. With an established system that you know its flaws you are often in a better position than you would be with an unknown system that may fail in an unanticipated way at and unopportune time. The devil you know is very often better than the devil you don't

The Tourist
October 11, 2007, 11:49 AM
Johann, there is no doubt for anything you have said. Personally (as an individual only) I agree with most of it, other than how modern manufacturing techniques affect the rounds. And here's my point.

Since I am not a soldier or do I have inside info, why the brouhaha over the USSOCOM .45 ACP project? We kept hearing about special ops. Do you think this was accurate, or even true.

I do not honestly know. However, the pistol exists.

DougO83
October 11, 2007, 01:22 PM
Quote:
Really? So a handgun round is less deadly than a rifle round? That is absolutely false.

Quote:
Are you going to tell me that a rifle round has some magical power that makes it deadlier than a handgun?

The mystical and magical power of KE= 1/2 mv*2 pretty nice sums it up. Even with "energy transfer" being discredited voodoo, the reality is that bullets still need energy to smash bones, produce temporary and permanent wound cavities, etc.

A handgun round can kill just as easily as a rifle round. No mathematical formula can prove otherwise. Yes, something like the .50 can definitely leave a bigger hole, but it does not make it any more deadly than my .38 that still has the same effect when used correctly. I am not sure how to make this any clearer (no offense intended, but I can't spell it out any more) Besides, that is totally beside the point. It was originally posted for someone who totally took my post out of context. If handguns were so ineffective, those of us charged with the safety of our US citizens would not be carrying them.


Quote:
Also, as stated earlier, price is the reason that our country uses the stupid thing.

No, not really. We use it because it works. Certainly after you slap rails, ACOG, PEQ-2, and other goodies on my issue weapon it certainly is anything but cheap.

Rails, NVG's and lasers are not the primary base of the weapon. It is added on crap. IT is necessary I'm sure, but does not affect the cost OF THE WEAPON.

Quote:
Quote:
It is designed to wound.


Quote:
Nonsense. The weapon is designed to fire a round. It does that well. If your argument is with the round itself and how effective it is, your problems go far deeper than just the M-16, as the 5.56 round has become the round of choice in multiple weapon platforms chosen by multiple services.

Try finding a fact.

You'd probably do well to follow your own advice. Show me anywhere official relating to the adoption of the 5.56mm round that makes the claim it was designed to wound rather than kill the enemy. Good luck with that, as "designed to wound" is purely an urban military myth, right up there with "you can't shoot personnel with .50 cal". Criteria for adoption of the 5.56x45 round was that it match lethality of 7.62x51 out to anticipated engagement ranges (300 meters) and in Vietnam it actually demonstrated 11% greater lethality than 7.62x51.

Ok, I want to see the link for the 11% greater lethality. I honestly have never seen that. I have seen, however, my M-16 not even come close to the penetration or knock down power of my AK.

Quote:
I own one. I think that, unless oyu own one, I have a little more knowledge about the weapon that what you suppose.

Besides owning several through the years, the Great White Father in Washington has seen fit to provide me one as my issued personal weapon in either M16 or M4 flavors for most of the last 14 years (M9 pistol as issue weapon for a few years in there as well).

Please tell me that you don't honestly believe that politicians make decisions with your best interest in mind. If they did, my brother would have never gone to Iraq and my cousin would not have done three tours. I would not have lost countless friends in an uphill struggle that shows little beneift for America.

I don't agree with your assessment, but regardless, you have your opinion and I have mine. There's no point in getting ugly about an opinion.

That's fine. My post was in response to the arrogance of one veteran. I get tired of alot of the military folk discounting us civvies' opinions. I've earned my stripes in combat with NO back-up, artillery, or air support. I also didn't go out looking for it. I show all our servicemembers respect and expect the same in return.

HorseSoldier
October 11, 2007, 02:11 PM
The "desire" to go from a 9mm to 45 is coming from surveys of soliders from the current conflict ...correct? Unless someone thinks they don't know what they are talking about, I'd probably "heed" their word.

Keep in mind things like the PEO Soldier Systems Op Iraqi Freedom equipment survey where troops overwhelmingly "knew" they needed more stopping power than a 9mm, but exactly no one surveyed had actually fired a handgun in anger and had any firsthand experience to base their "knowledge" on.

Alleykat
October 11, 2007, 06:24 PM
Wanna show some facts here? Oh, look at what I wrote, never mind. I said that a pistol was just as deadly. Are you going to tell me that a rifle round has some magical power that makes it deadlier than a handgun?

It's not "magical", it's physics.

JohnKSa
October 11, 2007, 10:09 PM
All right, everyone needs to calm down, there's absolutely no reason for this thread to be this heated.

Some general rules of polite debate.

1. He who makes a claim provides the facts to back up the claim. It's very poor form to make a claim and then require that others do the research to disprove that claim.

2. Light on the sarcasm and inflammatory language, heavy on the facts and logic.

DougO83
October 12, 2007, 12:28 AM
Will someone please show me how a rifle round, we'll say .223, is deadlier than a pistol round, like a 9 mm? THAT is what I said. Nowhere in there was striking distance or anything else mentioned. All factors (distance from target, location on target (let's say directly on the heart), etc) being equal, show me what part of physics says that one is more likely to cause death than the other. I know it has been a while, but I took 2 years of physics in HS and 1 in college. I do not see where the 'physics' argument is coming from. Of course, an extreme example like a .50 against a small caliber handgun would be the obvious exception, so let's use the example shown.

JohnKSa
October 12, 2007, 01:40 AM
Physic tells us that the potential of a projectile to cause damage is measured by the kinetic energy of the projectile. A typical service pistol round has kinetic energy that falls in the 200-500ft/lb range. Even a relatively mild rifle round like the .223Rem/5.56 NATO has a kinetic energy level well above 1000ft/lbs--an order of magnitude greater.

Experts agree that rifle bullets, due to their much higher energy levels, create wounding damage that is in a different class from typical handgun rounds.

That's not very instructive, so here are some figures that may tell the story a bit better.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/9mm%20US%20M882.jpg
The figures show that the rifle round creates not only a larger temporary stretch cavity (which can damage non-elastic organs) but also a larger permanent cavity which indicates the region where tissue is completely destroyed. The rifle round has also fragmented in spite of the fact that it's not an expanding round and the smaller fragments have penetrated into the temporary stretch area while the larger fragments have extended the permanent cavity.

Clearly, the 9mm would be deadly if placed properly, but it's easy to see the difference between the 9mm wound track vs the 5.56NATO wound track. The 5.56NATO wound track is sufficiently larger and more destructive that it could easily result in a lethal hit where the 9mm might be survivable--even if the two bullets entered in exactly the same spot.

Handguns are not particularly powerful in the overall scheme of things--over 80% of handgun wounds are not fatal. They are common and popular weapons because they are convenient and concealable, not because they're impressively effective.

M1911
October 12, 2007, 02:38 AM
Really? So a handgun round is less deadly than a rifle round? That is absolutely false.The numbers don't support this statement.

Here in the US, about 80% of people shot with a handgun survive. About 80% of those shot with a long gun die.

STLRN
October 12, 2007, 05:24 AM
Just as a not marksmen is the lowest level of weapons qualification in the military, and not something to brag about.

auto45
October 12, 2007, 05:55 AM
Given pistol ammo is "under-powered" anyway, it is inconceivable that bigger bullets aren't better.

The 45 has, I believe, about 40% more surface area than a 9mm. It has to be better. The only reason 9mm, in the "civilian" world is even argued as an "equal" to larger bullets is because of hollow points...meaning they expand into bigger bullets. ;) Of course, bigger bullets expand even larger. That is, assuming they expand.

IMHO, you don't "field" a 45 for other reasons, i.e. less capacity, bigger gun, more recoil, "overkill" for intended usage etc, etc. Valid reasons, depending on what you want, but smaller bullets as effective or more effective...I don't buy that.

The move away from the 9mm in the LEO circles is "telling" also. All these people aren't "dumb".

Same reasoning on rifle bullets. But, you pick the "blend" of recoil management, capacity, weight, etc that's required overall. You don't pick smaller bullets because there are better.

I agree that basing "all decisions" on the front line troops "wishes" would be a mistake, but not to really listen to the "rank and file" would be a much bigger mistake IMHO.

DougO83
October 12, 2007, 08:50 AM
I have a few problems with this stat: Here in the US, about 80% of people shot with a handgun survive. About 80% of those shot with a long gun die

1. How many of the handgun shootings are poorly aimed ghetto training exercises? Drive-bys are incredibly innaccurate and generally done with handguns. This would make that number much higher.

2. How many long guns are used? The number is probably lower for sure.

Just curious. I could not find what I was looking for to answer these questions. My network hates google for some reason.

HorseSoldier
October 12, 2007, 09:55 AM
1. How many of the handgun shootings are poorly aimed ghetto training exercises? Drive-bys are incredibly innaccurate and generally done with handguns. This would make that number much higher.

2. How many long guns are used? The number is probably lower for sure.


Even if you control for alleged discrepancies in training -- say limit your data set to exclude hit to the arms or legs (even though these can be fatal as well), you're still going to see greater lethality from long guns because of the greater energy. As JohnKSa's post illustrated, the greater kinetic energy of a rifle round means significantly greater tissue damage, it means secondary projectiles from bullet break up or shattered bone, etc.

Put either round through a bad guy's heart and 99% of the time he's dead (there's always that one exception to a rule). But rifle rounds, even relatively low powered assault rifle kind of rounds like 5.56mm or 7.62x39 are much more forgiving of shot placement because they're much more damaging when they hit the human body.

Crosshair
October 12, 2007, 10:57 AM
Remember that the pic that JohnKSa posted is from a rifle length barrel. A 16" carbine barrel is not going to fragment as well, especially at extended ranges.

David Armstrong
October 12, 2007, 01:24 PM
Really? So a handgun round is less deadly than a rifle round? That is absolutely false.
Got bad news for ya, Doug. You didn't say anything about rounds, you refernced systems. Rifle versus pistol. And yes, the rifle is deadlier because of extended parameters.
Not the question being asked. You pulled something out that was never said.
HUH?? I answered exactly what was said.
Show me then. What you think and real facts stand a chance of being different things.
Look it up yourself. You asked a question, I gave an answer, now you want more and more. Are you somehow unable to conduct basic research?
Just an extension of the previous question.
Yes, and as pointed out an extension that has no relevance to the issue.
Actually, it has been.
Actually, it hasn't been. See how easy it is to toss off these pithy answers.
Try finding a fact.
several listed there. You might try pointing out where you think that a fact is in error, if you can.
I own one. I think that, unless oyu own one, I have a little more knowledge about the weapon that what you suppose.
I own two, and have been a firearms instructor with the M-16 in the military, LE, and civilian sectors. I have a little more knowledge about the weapon than what you suppose.
I'm sure there was a point here?
You're right, there was. Did you miss it? I thought it was pretty obvious.
Ok, so? Stil haven't shown me a single fact.
Lots of facts presented. Your inability to understand them or recognize them is a different issue.

Rasputin
October 12, 2007, 02:45 PM
For every inch on the barrel is like 50 fps to the bullet.

Rasputin
October 12, 2007, 02:47 PM
There was a recent shootout where a guy got hit 17 times with .223 and .40 before he finally went down. You can bet your ass if it would have been 9mm everybody would have blamed the round rather than shot placement.

i agree on this.

PSP
October 12, 2007, 04:15 PM
Just listened to a Marine recount how his SAW jammed and he had to go to Beretta M9 mode, resulting in four dead bad guys. He seemed happy to have it on him. Heard on Sean Hanity today.

DougO83
October 12, 2007, 05:42 PM
deleted

JohnKSa
October 12, 2007, 07:19 PM
A 16" carbine barrel is not going to fragment as well, especially at extended ranges.Kinetic energy is heavily dependent on velocity. Increasing the pistol bullet velocity (as from a carbine length barrel) or decreasing the rifle bullet velocity (as from an abbreviated barrel) will change the results somewhat but even so, there's going to be an order of magnitude difference between the energy figures and a correspondingly impressive difference in the wounding capability.I have a few problems with this stat:Here is some of the information I found.

From one source.
Pistol wounds 80% to 85% survival rate.
Rifle wounds 60% to 70% survival rate.

From another source.
Rifle wounds are between 5 times to 11 times more likely to result in fatality than handgun wounds.

Here are some quotes from an FBI document on wounding:
All handgun wounds will combine the components of penetration, permanent cavity, and temporary cavity to a greater or lesser degree. Fragmentation, on the other hand, does not reliably occur in handgun wounds due to the relatively low velocities of handgun bullets. Fragmentation occurs reliably in high velocity projectile wounds (impact velocity in excess of 2000 feet per second) inflicted by soft or hollow point bullets.10 In such a case, the permanent cavity is stretched so far, and so fast, that tearing and rupturing can occur in tissues surrounding the wound channel which were weakened by fragmentation damage.11,12 It can significantly increase damage13 in rifle bullet wounds.

"In the case of low-velocity missiles, e.g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissues. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause remote injuries produced by a high velocity rifle bullet."

While there is some disagreement as to the amount of the difference in lethality, there seems to be no question that rifles tend to be measurably and significantly more lethal than pistols.

19doberman68
October 12, 2007, 09:41 PM
What about LE?

Seems the 9mm was being questioned...

A committee was formed in March of 2006, following the shooting death of Trooper Sperr in Chemung County on March 1, 2006, to evaluate the effectiveness of the currently issued Glock 17, 9 mm automatic handgun. The committee had two important criteria that the new weapon had to meet in order to be considered. First, the weapon would have to be superior to that of the current issued sidearm, and second, the level of accuracy at which our members shoot could not be compromised.

Found an article about the New York State Police:
http://www.troopers.state.ny.us/Public_Information/2006_News_Releases/11-09-06_New_York_State_Police_to%20Purchase_New_Glock_Pistol.cfm

Greg Bell
October 12, 2007, 11:00 PM
This stuff is cyclical. The pendulum will swing back and forth forever.


One thing I have always enjoyed is listening to some guy explain how his .357 Magunum snubby will obliterated anything and anybody, but how a Glock 17 is a toy. A Glock 17 loaded with 124 Grain +p 9mm is very, very similar to having an 18 shot .357 snubby.

And again, given the link I posted earlier to the guy who took 17 shots of .40 and RIFLE ammo and kept fighting, I think enquiries into the effectiveness of 9mm by police committees should be viewed with an arched eyebrows. If you don't hit something important, it doesn't matter what you are shooting.

Homerboy
October 13, 2007, 07:40 AM
I'd take my AR over an AK anyday. The M16/M6 has sent more bad guys to meet their maker than any other military firearm. The rifle has been in service for over 40 years. if you think it's such a toy, why don't you stand about 300 yards downrange and take a hit from one of these "BB guns"?

I'm keeping mine.

Chui
October 13, 2007, 08:19 AM
For those who erroneously belive a pistol round (say, .45 ACP JHP) is equally as deadly as a rifle round (say, a .308 Winchester JHP) are seriously :confused: .

:p

Army GI
October 13, 2007, 09:17 AM
It's always amusing to read these firearms forums and for people to argue back fourth why his rifle and 200 rounds if ammunition can take on the whole world. Artillery, machineguns, and until recently disease/sickness, has been the cause of most casualties in every army in history.

Greg Bell
October 13, 2007, 11:33 AM
The M16/M6 has sent more bad guys to meet their maker than any other military firearm

I like your enthusiasm, but that statement is almost surely wrong. My bet would be (1) Mauser 98, (2) Mosin Nagant, (3) AK.

BigRed82
October 14, 2007, 12:48 AM
I would agree with Greg on this. We've fought alot of people over the last 40 years, but the rest of the world has fought each other a bit more.

Mauser>Nagant>AK>maybe M16.

How about this for a great idea - instead of trying to replace the 9mm with the .45acp, just allow JHP ammunition and keep using +P 9mm. Seems like a more than logical decision to me. :cool:

Homerboy
October 14, 2007, 08:52 AM
Yeah, I was thinking that after I typerd it, but the game isn't really fair. The AK has been copied so many times over that many of them really aren't true AK's. Either way, the AR .223 platform is good enough for our military, and it's certainly good enough for me. Anything within 300 yards that I get a bead on, I can hit.

David Armstrong
October 15, 2007, 12:43 PM
A handgun round can kill just as easily as a rifle round. No mathematical formula can prove otherwise. Yes, something like the .50 can definitely leave a bigger hole, but it does not make it any more deadly than my .38 that still has the same effect when used correctly.
Thus, one would say that a hand grenade is just as deadly as a nuclear bomb, apparently. Sorry, but I think a pretty standard rule of combat has been, and is, items which kill at longer distances or in more circumstances are considered deadlier than other items that don't. Maybe I've misunderstood all these years, and we should just give all out soldiers pistols instead of rifles.
If handguns were so ineffective, those of us charged with the safety of our US citizens would not be carrying them.
Sure we would. Handguns make a nice compromise weapon, and nobody has said they are ineffective. But that compromise effectiveness is no reason to stay at that level, which i shwy those charged with the safety of our US citizens holster the handguns and grab rifles or shotguns on a regular basis when circumstances allow.
All factors (distance from target, location on target (let's say directly on the heart), etc) being equal,
Therein is the problem, IMO. When one argues "all things being equal" one needs to have "all things equal." It is precisely that inequality that creates the difference.

MythBuster
October 16, 2007, 07:32 PM
"Also, show me one marksman who would rely on that cap gun."

How about the vast majority of shooters who compete in NRA Highpower matches.

Over 90% of the shooters on the line today who shoot service rifle use "that cap gun".

They use it because of it's accuracy even on the 600 and 1,000 yard line.

Crosshair
October 16, 2007, 11:51 PM
They don't use it because if its accuracy, they use it because it is easier to make it accurate. The same reason is why you don't see many souped up Ford Pintos. No reason you can't, its just easier and cheaper to use something else.

David Armstrong
October 17, 2007, 12:59 PM
They don't use it because if its accuracy, they use it because it is easier to make it accurate.
no matter how you try to twist it, the results stay the same, the M-16/AR-15 platform is still the one that many people go to when they need to pick a winner.

easyG
October 17, 2007, 08:22 PM
No, the military/LE should not adopt a non-1911 .45ACP.

The .40S&W offers more magazine capacity and just as much power as the standard (not +P or +P+) round.