What pistol caliber should NATO go to?

[AARguy]

I wasn't Special Forces, HRT, or DELTA. I was just an ordinary Field Artillery Officer who was issued a sidearm only... a 45 at the time. We used to joke that its "max effective range" was as far as you could throw it. I always made sure that my Senior NCO made sure I could reach down under my seat and find an M16 or an M4.

I always thought that if the bad guys got close enough for me to use my sidearm, we were in such deep kim chee that the fight was really over anyway.

[Famas]

I wonder if it's worth re-studying the older necked down pistol cartridges, like the 7.62x25 Tokarev cartridge? Anything particularly bad about that concept that would prevent it's reconsideration, or something similar?

As for NATO, I beg to disagree. The 5.56 and 7.62 NATO was forced onto the smaller countries. I've always like the 7.62 NATO, but hated the 5.56. NATO is like the UN, outdated and in serious need for reform or scrapping. NATO was not designed for any one country to use it as an extension of it's own foreign policy. If some people feel that it should be, then it's time for NATO to go by way of the UN, i.e. into the bin.

It is worth mentioning however that insofar as rifle calibers are concerned, I've noticed more and more discussion on various military threads (mostly non-US), about the need for an intermediate cartridge. In the UK there is renewed interest in their old .280 cartridge which they felt was unjustly shelved, and I can say that in France our defense ministry announced last Spring that a study would be made in this field as well, since there are some credible rumors that our beloved FAMAS would be retired by 2020.

[Muad' Dib]

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.

I routinely shoot 2.5" groups at 25 meters with a G26 9mm(3.46" barrel)and I have gone under 1" at the same distance with a $480.00 CZ75PO1(3.8" barrel)! Further, a stock Beretta 92FS is capable of turning in sub 2" groups at 25 meters in either the right hands, or a machine rest. I could go on and on, I see absolutely nothing in your post supported by a single fact....

[481]

Originally Posted by C0untZer0:

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

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

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

Agreed and understood and this is kinda entertaining.

[Dashunde]

I'd say 10mm running thru the right pistol would be a great choice...
If I have to resort to the pistol, I'd want the power and round count of 10mm.
How about a "HK10", or maybe a good ol G29 perhaps.

[Hal]

I could go on and on, I see absolutely nothing in your post supported by a single fact....

I've heard it quite often over the years from handloades/reloaders.
My own frustration trying to develop an accurate 124 gr 9x19 load convinced me they were right.

Had the 9x19 begun life from the ground up, instead of using a blown out 7.65 case, then .38 Super Auto potential could have been built into the round from the getgo.

[BlueTrain]

One fact that works against the pistol as a self-defense weapon in military service is that users will not receive much training or practice, enough to make they particularly proficient. That was the reason the carbine was developed and widely issued, much wider, in fact, than pistols were to begin with. And likewise, it is one reason FN developed its new personal defense weapon.

My son was a tanker in the army and served in Iraq, being station in Tal Afar and Ramadi, where his platoon was attached to a Marine battalion. A tanker's personal weapon is a pistol, yet they actually turned in their weapons and used M4s and M16s instead. So in some cases, the question is moot. He also stated, by the way, that they had some British manufactured 7.62 linked ammunition. He said it had a higher proportion of tracer rounds.

[hogwiley]

No real reason to change from the 9mm. Handguns are almost irrelevant in combat. The number of enemy KIA they account for is miniscule, so changing calibers now would be expensive and a logistical headache with little to no gain.

Having said that, the .45 is the best round for most of the rare circumstances you would need to use a handgun in, but the 9mm has a few things going for it. Increased capacity, range and penetration for instance.

I dont think .40 would be the best round for widespread military use because of the increased wear and tear it puts on guns and the fact its harder for some people to shoot well.

[Boncrayon]

.40 for sure! Hard knock down, high capacity, versitile.

[hardhat harry]

.500 S&W

[AndABeer]

That Tokarev 25mm mentioned yesterday on a syndicated NCIS episode sounded promising. Most people would only shoot it once though.

[ChrisJ715]

is there any answer here but .45 ACP?

[Seven High]

If the handgun is almost irrelevent in combat, why is the DoD purchasing up to an additional 450,000 Beretta M9s? At a cost of 220 million dollars. Something big is going to happen shortly.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The Secretary of D is issuing reports of how we are to reduce expenditures. Things like the F-35 and size of the Army will take drastic cuts.

So, we are really going to redo a tertiary weapons system? I fear the OP posted baloney. Hasn't been back to this one.

We will let in run but we've moved from reality into whether the Enterprise can beat a Star Destroyer or the Hulk can beat Superman, IMHO.

Fun discussion but started on a mythical premise.

[BlueTrain]

Beretta themselves (proudly) announced last September that it had a contract for another 15,778 pistols for DOD, to be delivered at a rate of 2000 per month. They also claimed to have delivered already 600,000 pistols. That is about enough for one in five to have a pistol in the armed forces, which is actually pretty high. But on the other hand, we have had active military operations underway for most of that period and maybe a few get lost here and there. I've heard they never wear out, however.

Where did your get that number of 450,000? That works out to $488.89 per pistol but I think you get a free cleaning kit with each one. The cost of spare magazines can really run up the cost, though.

[jimbob86]

That is about enough for one in five to have a pistol in the armed forces,

With the cuts they will be making soon, it'll be closer to 1 in 4 .....

[johnwilliamson062]

just as an aside, US forces participated in an old school cav charge in Afghanistan around 2002.

Given the amount of training given by the US government and the amount of experience brought to the table by most recruits, I don't know why we are talking about more powerful, especially "snappier," rounds like the 40 and 10mm.

I guess I keep seeing videos on youtube of petite girls who have obviously never shot a gun before(as the stock is resting on top of their shoulder) being handed a 12 gauge with a scope they put their eye right up against as some buffoon giggles in the background, so I shouldn't be surprised.

Could you do a drop-in barrel swap on the 92s and switch them to any other worthwhile calibers, even if said barrels aren't currently manufactured. Just wondering.

[trex1310]

.357 Sig. and the 7mm-08.