military handgun choice discussion

[agtman]

I love the Colt M45A1 but I'd feel like I was willing to cut off my nose to spite my face if I were willing to send our folks into battle with anything less than a hi-cap nine. I mean, we're talking combat with a lot of targets.

Nobody loses or wins wars because of the particular pistol issued to troops.

Looking at it across all branches of service, most soldiers don't get issued one anyway.

The purpose of the pistol is really to give a last-ditch survival chance to that individual soldier holding it, once his primary combat weapon (his rifle) is empty, disabled, or lost. The pistol was never a crew-served weapon, nor even issued for the benefit of the soldier's squad or platoon.

Pilots got them for E&E after being shot down because a pistol (or sometimes a revolver) stored in the post-crash survival kit was thought handier to store there than a full-size rifle.

But if you're going to issue an effective last-ditch survival tool to certain select ground troops, where the ammo is some form of FMJ-ball, the venerable .45acp still has it for lethality (or 'stopping power') over a FMJ 9mm alternative.

[imp]

The .30-06 is a far superior "man stopper" than the 5.56mm, yet the general issue rifles have been 5.56mms for the last 50+ years.

Capacity and volume of fire are just as important in close range engagements as they are distant targets.

[peacefulgary]

The Glock was the obvious choice.
Even before the adoption of the Sig, plenty of military units were already using a Glock.
And plenty of military units still use the Glock.

[TBM900]

Originally Posted by seeker_two

Until the military gets away from FMJ, any talk on caliber or pistol is pointless.

Now, can we dump the wall talk and stay on topic?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

FMJ kills people just fine.
A PCC is leaps and bounds more effective for a solder than a pistol.

[TBM900]

Originally Posted by agtman

Nobody loses or wins wars because of the particular pistol issued to troops.

Looking at it across all branches of service, most soldiers don't get issued one anyway.

The purpose of the pistol is really to give a last-ditch survival chance to that individual soldier holding it, once his primary combat weapon (his rifle) is empty, disabled, or lost. The pistol was never a crew-served weapon, nor even issued for the benefit of the soldier's squad or platoon.

Pilots got them for E&E after being shot down because a pistol (or sometimes a revolver) stored in the post-crash survival kit was thought to be handier to do than a full-size rifle.

But if you're going to issue an effective last-ditch survival tool to certain select ground troops, where the ammo is some form of FMJ-ball, the venerable .45acp still has it for lethality (or 'stopping power') over a FMJ 9mm alternative.

Agreed except for the last part....

In soft targets like people, there is almost no practical difference between 9 & 45.
On hard targets/barriers, 9mm actually tends to do better than 45.

Don't take my word for it, our military did all the testing you could ever want decades ago on this very subject. It's one of the main reasons we switched to 9mm from the 45 since we are sort of stuck with FMJ.

[44 AMP]

It's one of the main reasons we switched to 9mm from the 45 since we are sort of stuck with FMJ.

I think I'd say it was one of the main reasons we didn't object to adopting the 9mm. The oft stated "main reason" was political. We wanted NATO to adopt our rifle round (at the time the new 7.62x51mm) and a deal was worked out, NATO would adopt our rifle round, we would adopt their pistol round (9mm Luger), when we replaced our current inventory of 1911A1s.

NATO members assumed we would do that within a few years, and got a bit put out when we didn't replace our .45s until the 1980s, but we did keep our part of the deal. Just not as soon as they assumed we would.

We didn't adopt the 9mm because of the round's performance, we adopted it because of a political deal.

[Leaf]

Agtman, I agree with your post #51 but for your comment on the .45 in a limited magazine capacity formation being somehow superior to a high cap nine because of claimed superior "stopping power." I count on placement and round count for "stopping power."

[Ibmikey]

Agree with Rodfac, definitely not a status symbol when that is all you are armed with in hot areas. I carried a 1911 while working my dog in the dmz, he had great teeth but having a .45 and half dozen mags was also very comforting.

[Carl the Floor Walker]