|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 31, 2019, 09:28 AM | #51 | |
Junior member
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,374
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by agtman; January 31, 2019 at 07:18 PM. |
|
January 31, 2019, 10:41 AM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 11, 2006
Posts: 626
|
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. |
January 31, 2019, 04:30 PM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 26, 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 714
|
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. |
January 31, 2019, 05:44 PM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2015
Posts: 777
|
Quote:
A PCC is leaps and bounds more effective for a solder than a pistol. |
|
January 31, 2019, 05:54 PM | #55 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2015
Posts: 777
|
Quote:
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. |
|
January 31, 2019, 06:24 PM | #56 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,820
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
January 31, 2019, 08:00 PM | #57 |
Junior member
Join Date: August 11, 2018
Posts: 198
|
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."
|
February 2, 2019, 08:58 AM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 1, 2013
Location: Now relocated to Texas
Posts: 2,943
|
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.
|
February 2, 2019, 09:04 AM | #59 |
member
Join Date: June 3, 2017
Location: South
Posts: 1,422
|
|
|
|