The Army keeps rumbling that it is going to undertake what others have failed to do, select a new sidearm. Both SOCOM and the US Air Force have started new pistol programs that were later dropped virtually, before they began. This time, the Army wants to look at calibers other than 9mm. Few things get Mudge more worked up than the age old 9mm vs .45 debate so we’ll see if we can get him to go thermo-nuclear. Let’s open the argument up to every pistol caliber.
What say you? Which caliber do you think DoD should adopt? My money is on status qou, caliber, pistol and all. Even that crappy Blackhawk holster.
Okay – I’ll light the fuse with…..
.40 S&W
Better ask Colin Noir about that.
.45 all the way.
I say 120mm
I like where your head is at, Mike P.
.25 ACP?
No 10mm yet?
I flipped a coin between 10mm and .40…. 😉
.44 AutoMag
9mm for big army, socom has their own budget, let them do what they want.
Why would they spend their money on ammo when they can spend Big Army’s?
44 AutoMag all the Way Mack Bolan was Unstoppable!!
I read many of those books as hand-me-downs from my dad and uncle…they were great! 🙂
And by “great” I’m certain you mean “horrifically bad”. If we’re gonna go Mack Bolan, it’s gotta be “A mag load of +P 9mm shockers!”
FN 5.7 just to throw in some variety.
I’m kinda disappointed. Where are all of the impassioned gun experts who have descended like so many bees upon the other websites who have written about this fool’s errand?
They are scared of you. Besides, do you really want that sort washing up on your beach?
This is an insane argument…9mm has, is and will continue to be more than adequete. Its not about the caliber, its about the training. We give Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines a pistol without completely re-vamping training and we might as well give them a cell phone to call SOCOM for help…
You’re making too much sense.
Maybe it’s a testament to the readership of SSD that this hasn’t completely devolved. I personally am incredibly tired of the 9mm vs .45 debate. It really does come down to training/proficiency.
You have restored my faith in humanity.
Reminds me of an argument a friend brought up when it came to PDWs. If you just wanted to survive an unexpected encounter with rifle-armed troops, he suggested, it might be worth considering issuing a smoke grenade instead!
That’s actually a great idea! A cell phone would be much more useful to 99% of our personnel that are issued pistols. Just make sure that close air support is on speed dial.
Now instead of 9mm vs .45, can we argue about Apple vs Android?
Repeat after me: You can not fix software problems with hardware upgrades. Whatever pistol is fielded, if any pistol is fielded will have inadequate training support so there will be no increase in capability.
damn your common sense, damn you! 😉
Everybody knows a M45A1 in 45 ACP in their hands will undue their ill training and magically transform you into a pistol wielding super man. and when you shoot your enemies with 45, they will disappear into a shower of sparks and acrid smoke.
9mm. Mags hold more ammo. Easier for the average shooter to operate. Weight issue for carrying more ammo. Then work on shot placement. They should look at the S&W M&P.
If we’re going the ammo capacity route then we should go down to .22LR, you can hold a lot more .22 in a mag than 9mm and just think about how many more rounds of. 22 you could carry for the equivalent weight of 9mm? True, you won’t be able to reach out that far, and there’s not a lot of stopping power but it’s all about shot placement, right? We’ll just have to train our troops to only aim for the head/eyeball and learn to not engage until close range.
Funny Riceball and TOUCHE!
That is a Reductio ad absurdum argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
The Modular Handgun system has been in the works now for about three years it’s just not as loud as other programs/Debacles The Aim is not just a new Calibre but to finally join the 21st century and add Rails to the service pistol.
As to US socom. NAvy units adopted the Mk24 Based on the HK45C tactical. They just did it lower key.
The MArines have been replacing there M9’s with the M9A1 adding a rail and checkering to the grip. As well as the M45 a Colt based Government update.
For A while the Army was Also Issuing a M1911A2 Which was little more then a Short lived customized 1911 built to order by the Army’s marksmanship arms shop.
Really though if they want to Call it the “Modular Handgun system” they should be looking not just at the calibre but also the Options. the Dust Cover rail, A threaded barrel and the option of a mini dot sight. like the FNX45 tac. a total package pistol.
45 acp we learned in the Philippines in the 1890s and early 1900s that 38 aka 9mm wont kill a sob that on mind altering drugs but a 45 acp will and dont even star the capacity debate theres double stack 45 acps out now so the winner will be 40sw cause if the army goes back the 45acp theyll have to admit they fucked up
.38 isn’t 9×19. Don’t be stupid. Rifles kill. Handguns do most of the time. Sometimes .45 doesn’t stop people. Sometimes 9×19 doesn’t. Sometimes 5.56 doesn’t. Sometimes 7.62 doesn’t. The solution is to stop thinking one solution exists. Why can’t a soldier utilize mett-tc to decided which caliber is right for the job? Too much dependence on the warrior ethos? Maybe the Army doesn’t want individual warriors. It wants mass produced “soldiers” that won’t kill themselves or sexually harass each other. That’s all that matters to the Sergeants Major. The Army is an affront to my Warrior spirit.
gentlmen gentlemen i was joking around LOL as much as i love my 1911 and the 45 acp cartridge i know it isnt a 1 shot kill and i understand 38 is not 9mm you must understand im in good ole boy usa where if it isnt 45 acp or 30.06 it cant kill anything *rolls eyes* i just used what i picked up around me and used it to troll with great affect 😀
*effect
ty sir lol
you meant .45 Colt and not .45 ACP, Right?
That story is horse shit. I could bring up the story of how a 9mm goes through the steel helmets used in WW2 but the 45 would not. Its 2014 none of that crap matters.
Pistols poke holes, rifles tear shit up. Your in deep shit if you are a soilder and you are having to pull out your pistol.
Our troops need training and lots of it. Training to shoot their SECONDARY weapon and training on how to take care of it.
Lesson learned, I trust:
http://www.newsday.com/sports/aspiring-olympian-acts-target-shooter-protects-family-kills-assailants-1.292982
.50 Deegles x2
with a belt fed option.
And optics.
Gold plated, cause it’s more tactical
Don’t forget the pearl handles…
ivory not pearl
Army would have to mass produce elephants to ensure ivory stocks were sufficient. Also, must have an integrated laser.
How many zoos exist in this country? The economy is down and I’m sure feeding gets expensive. Elephant as the new MRE meat patty…?
Zebra stripe gold titanium nitiride, because it’s tacticalest.
For GPF, single action, striker fired, polymer framed 9mm pistol. Spend the money saved on training and updated pistol ranges. I read it somewhere else, but 9 misses of .45 aren’t going to do shit, while 2 9mm to the head can certainly make a difference.
.22
Cheap to shoot, everybody can shoot more.
Easy to shoot, makes everybody look better.
And 22 ammo would never be found again.
Lol are you in a magical place where it currently CAN be found?
While we all know that .44 AutoMag is the obvious choice (we can put America’s unemployed to work for the DoD, cutting down .308 brass and doing handloads), there are larger, less forward thinking powers at work.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some Wannabe Wonk stacks the deck for 5.7mm, reasoning that since a .22 is already being used for the standard shoulder weapon, more is better. And like the shoulder weapon, there are 20 and 30 round magazines. And 5.7mm is bigger than 5.56mm, so, our troops will be even more awesome! Easy Peasy.
If I had to put money down, I think they will stick with 9mm, but go to a different weapon. Glock would be the obvious choice, so, I’ll say ArmaLite.
no safety no chance’
Well, instead of putting America’s unemployed to work doing .44 AutoMag handloads, we can put them to work installing Cominollis and Siderlocks…
Who knows, maybe Army has figured out that no finger on the bang switch is a pretty safe way to carry a pistol.
Or, we could just keep the unemployed unemployed, and have Glock take the necessary bits from their 17S model and put it in whatever gets the contract.
Glocks can be had with a safety. Held one, and shot it. Glock has made them special for Saudi Arabia
SHORT TERM
American military commanders–and their personnel–have the potential to train to effectively engage adversaries using pistol AND carbine AND rifle AND terrain-appropriate crew served… AND MODERN PDWs like the HK/FN. Sorry, the Stoner platform is dead. We need to acknowledge that. Good hits require good guns with recoil management and optics–probably something better than what the average Loggie at a company (who also manages the GTCs) can keep running. Less substance abuse “training”–on the clock and off–and this could happen. How about working past 1500. I’m truly SHOCKED by how many battalion sized units pretend to work these days. Infantry weapons platoons have options. So should SF (and MP and CA and POGues in EVERY career field in EVERY branch that serves as bait for the bad guys far and wide) in the Mentor capacities where a 9 MM pistol is most likely to be substandard and a carbine unwieldy.
CHEAPEST AND BEST QUICK FIXES: Move the high-scoring zone on the Qual targets to areas where a hit will actually incapacitate an adversary. I’ve seen TWO units that actually had purchased Dummy Rounds for dry fire training (you need these for the M9, else they will break–especially if they’re stored [and or fired] with NO LUBE on the locking lugs because “a wet gun is a dirty gun”). How freakin’ long did it take for Army to type-classify a holster? TOO LONG. All symptoms of software problems, not hardware problems.
LONG TERM
A WWI radio looks NOTHING like an OEF X radio. A WWI vehicle looks NOTHING like a OEF X vehicle. A WWI Infantryman neither performs nor looks ANYTHING like an OEF X Infantryman. Yet individual and-crew-served ammunition hasn’t changed appreciably. There’s GOTTA be some kind of technology that leverages materials advancements in a way that transfers energy from the projectile to the target AND complies with the Law of War. Again, new guns–something modular/configurable as a pistol/pdw/carbine/rifle appropriate to the environment.
Until then, dry fire time, simulator time, MINDSET time.
lets be honest, the majority of pistols go to folks who don’t see combat. Pilots, nurses, command staff. Sure MP’s, tankers, and medics carry an M9 but they are not leaving the FOB w/out a 5.56. The M9 is well suited for the vast majority of folks who carry it. I carried one, but the whole county was condition “black” on 9mm ammo so I only carried it for show.
The folks carrying .45 are folks USING .45, not LT’s who never leave the base.
While you statement is true I would like to point out for those of use carrying both in the hope that our primary never goes down or that as a Corpsman I am not activly treating a Marine when I need to employ my pistol, the M9 is garbage. A secondary weapon system is typically your last line of defense and I would rather carry a Glock or Sig or even an M&P. If we look at the age and the design of the M9 against even what LEOs are carrying in the states its sad to see how outdated our issue pistol is. I am not going to get on a high horse and say we all need 1911s but a G17 is a very reliable plateform or if we went to a Sig there are already so many units issuing them that the transition and purchase process would be easy.
Funny, I came over here looking for gouge the moment those “other” outlets (Military Slimes, Hillitary.com) teased the “harder-hitting pistol” story.
The army is on this “old is new” kick, by the time this pistol competition is over we could have a 45 LC.
a semi in 45lc ide pay to see that
Of course the real question in the new caliber debate is if they will provide/purchase the ammo to go with it, and provide the 9mm for testing. If Darrel follows the lead of the carbine comp it will bais the submissions towards 9mm. A simular dynamic happened there.
Time and the industry day will tell.
The deck is stacked against a new caliber, just like you say, as it was with IC.
The non-9mm ammo that is.
We need to go with a cartridge with a proven track record, .357 magnum. And Coonan arms even made a 1911 style pistol for the round! Or you could opt for the desert eagle. Then our troops could carry a great round in a weapon that doubles as a kettle bell! Mudge smash puny human!
I’ve got my money on Glock .45 in a 1911.
I keep hearing about Glock 1911s–mostly from the guys who buy full-auto kits at gun shows (which get seized by Customs on the way back from the Tijuana Donkey Show).
I don’t see a Glock G-series (any generation, but certainly not G4) in a caliber other than 9 MM making a credible showing…
CZ P09 would be my choice.
9mm can do the job being asked of it by the majority of the services. Can it be improved upon? Sure, make it non NATO spec and go with a heavier slug. Ditch the M9 and simplify. The Brits went with the G17 and it was a smart move in terms of logistics. The darn safety/decocking lever has about as many parts as the entire G17. Is Glock the only option? Nope, just an example. But if you need a safety I’m sure they’ll do it for a contract that big.
And to fan the fires…keep 9mm but “up gun”to 9×23. The old 38 Super used to command some respect before the 357 Mag hit the streets. It’s a 45ACP length cartridge so with one pistol you’ve got high capacity for the grunts while your SOCOM guys can get their 45, all while simplifying the supply chain, training and support equipment.
During my 20 years of active duty and 4 years of National Guard, about every two 1/2 to three years this conversation would come up… We need a new pistol, we need a new caliber, blah, blah, blah…
Me, I say stick with the 9mm – maybe up grade to a Glock 19. Cheap, manufactured here, easy to train with and already proven in Iraq & Afghanistan. Plus a strong base here in ‘Merica! The only reason big Army won’t – it has no manual safety…
Personally, I would be surprised if this goes anywhere, the military budget is going down the drain and VERY FEW people carry a pistol, and very few of them actually use them…
Another reason why I don’t think Glocks will ever see widespread adoption by our military? They are too easy to work on. Having worked with a local gunsmith I’ve seen countless Glocks that were f***ed because someone got curious and started pushing pins, or because someone thought they needed a titanium striker or a super rocket ghost skimmer trigger. Army would have an aneurism from all the illegal bubba mods lol.
Right on about who carries them. Outside of Special Operations the pistol is the ceremonial DFAC weapon while deployed for Senior NCOs and O’s, all while wearing the shoulder holster and flagging everyone behind them. When asked about training, most respond with zero or less than 50 rnds prior to deployment.
And we wonder why Joe can’t whack a mole with the M9. Gotta be the 9mm.
I remember joking during my last tour in Iraq that if I ever had to draw my pistol as a brigade level staff weenie, things had really gone south. About three days later, I’m doing immediate action drills trying to clear my M9 because that open slide piece of crap wouldn’t feed, and I really, really needed to cap a fool. So, the answer is…everyone who carries a pistol needs to be proficient and prepared to use it, even if it is your ‘ceremonial DFAC weapon.’
Oh…and 9mm will kill a guy just as dead as anything else, IF it doesn’t jam AND you put the rounds in the right place.
My post was riddled with sarcasm and I completely agree. The average service member spends more time taking the Anti Terrorism Level 1 online course than putting rounds down range, let alone dry firing.
You guys need to be more pliable and forward thinking as it’s now 2014 and we should’ve been using something like this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet ) decades ago. With a few design tweaks here, a cost overrun there, a few delayed test firings, manufacturer delays, program funding delays, indecision from Army leadership, and voila! You’ll finally have a new family of modular weapons that all fire the same caliber round by let’s say… 2030? Too soon? How about 2040? 2050?
The hell? Isn’t that the rifle from the very first Planet of the Apes? Or one of the old Bond movies…
Gyrojet and 9×23 Largo, you two win the internets for most obscure references today.
100grain .357 Sig projectile with a hardened tool steel exposed penetrator at 1600fps for defeating combatants in Level III plates/ robots would be nice.
Glock 19. Handguns are secondary, so they should be light and quick to deploy when needed, 15 round capacity is a plus. Otherwise, don’t put anymore thought into it than that. It works, and has an easy to learn trigger.
Lets simplify the supply chain for a moment AND increase the effectiveness of a handgun round. How about we field/procure AR15 pistols. Same ammo, same magazine, same kit for everyone, certainly more effective than a 9mm. Boom!, problem solved.
The US Army is in dire need of new software and training before they should consider purchasing new hardware.
Would it not be ideal “IF” the handgun and the shoulder weapon were of the same caliber AND shared magazines??
BOOM!
How about 6.5mm CBJ?
That would be awesome. 6.5 CBJ outperforms 5.56 and 7.62 on hard armor, and offers a wider variety of projectile choices than typical PDW calibers, while retaining the 9mm OAL.
I’d really like to see a machine pistol similar to the Colt SCAMP from the 1970’s, but modernized and in 6.5CBJ.
Fold down foregrip that folds flat for holsterability, a mini RDS, and a 3 round burst option with a 21 shot magazine. Goal weight of 2lbs, 9″ OAL, with the option of a quick attach stock.
That would actually represent a serious improvement over the current handgun.
Most of the M9’s in the system are really old, really beat after 13 years of deployments, and are in dire need of replacement. My Soldiers are all dual armed and we are lucky if we can get them to the M9 range twice a year shooting 40 rounds each time. As long as that remains the norm and we are stuck with FMJ ball ammo, I don’t think it really matters what pistol or caliber is selected.
That being said, any of the S & W M & P variants with the thumb safety would be a great choice. They are accurate, rugged, durable, have three different grip sizes, an integral rail and are pretty inexpensive in their current configuration. No doubt the Army will add requirements that will drive up the price.
As far as caliber is concerned, my choice would be .40 cal. The M & P 40 has a 15 round magazine which is comparable to the M9. As soon as you go up to .45 most pistols drop to 7 to 10 rounds.
The counter argument is that the ballistic difference between 9mm and 40 cal is so small that it may be hard to justify a change. What is needed is a better bullet as opposed to a different caliber.
Yup. #1 Fix STRAC. Or at least comply with it.
#2 Any log or ops adviser to a 2-Star who deals sustainment ammo AWAY from line units should be hung from a pike outside the headquarters building with a sign detailing their crime. S/he would never THINK about dealing POL or any other resource.
It took me 3 years to get my higher to stop “dealing” my unit’s allocation for crap that they could have done the paperwork to source formally. Re-routed ammo was NOT for deployers. It was for non-deployables (2/3 of whom need to be OUT–they offer NOTHING) who needed help on their NC/OERs.
::FACEPALM::
pistols are only good so you can get to your rifle…
and there are waay too many debates about 556
So 84 mm CARL GUSTOFF’s for everyone !!!!
Charlie Gs. Nice!
Several solutions are already in place – railed versions of SIG pistols in either 9mm, .40 S&W or .45 ACP. The U.S. Government is a large enough customer that they could specify whatever features they wanted if they did not find the exact model of what they wanted. The problem is, the U.S. Government really does not know what it wants. Bullets that reliably drop people with one misplaced shot by a less than expert shooter like in the movies or video games do not really exist, but a single well-placed bullet in any of the calibers mentioned above will work well. That requires proficiency by the shooter, which means extensive training and practice, ammunition cost, and wear and tear on the pistol. The other factors are reliability under all conditions, size of the pistol, round capacity, fit in the hand of a large range of users, ability to quickly acquire the target, aim, fire and the ability to quickly and accurately place follow-up shots. Since there is no single defined problem, there can be no single solution.
“I don’t think anybody would argue that shot placement is the most important for terminal ballistics,” [former chief instructor of the Second Marine Division Scout Sniper School and the High Risk Personnel Course Earnest] Langdon said. “Even though you say a .45 is better than a 9mm, it’s still a pistol caliber. Chances are if it is a determined adversary, they are going to have to be shot multiple times regardless of the caliber.”
Many law-enforcement shooting incidents have shown this to be reality, he said.
“I talked to a Chicago cop that shot a guy eight times with a .45 to kill him and that was a 230 grain Hydra-Shok,” Langdon said. “And that guy now carries a 9mm …he realized that handgun bullets suck. “You have to shoot people a lot with a handgun.”
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/07/03/army-wants-a-harder-hitting-pistol.html
Here is an excellent study by Greg Ellifritz of the number of rounds required to incapacitate, first shot stops, etc., across several handgun calibers compared to rifles and shotguns. Note that it does not compare military ball ammunition vs. hollow point ammunition:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power
I’d like the name of that Chicago cop and a link to the news report. It would go far in shaking my faith in the .45 round.
Interesting link on ammo comparison. Thanks.
http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/
From the “Expert Analysis” sidebar of the PoliceOne article link provided by LC:
“When you fire multiple ‘lethal’ rounds into an attacker and he keeps going, you don’t have the luxury of waiting 20 or 40 more seconds for him to die while he can still shoot at you. Don’t waste time arguing the relative merits of various calibers. No handgun rounds have reliable stopping power with body shots. Pick the round you can shoot best and practice shooting at the suspect’s head.”
You need to expect more than “20 or 40 more seconds for him to die”. At best, that is the time for onset of loss of unconsciousness from massive blood loss. It may take substantially longer for onset of unconsciousness.
I rearranged Greg Ellifritz’s data:
9mm .40 .45
Luger S&W ACP
# of people shot – 456 188 209
# of hits – 1121 443 436
Average number of rounds until incapacitation – 2.45 2.36 2.08
% of people who were not incapacitated – 13% 13% 14%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) – 74% 76% 85%
% actually incapacitated by one shot
(torso or head hit) – 47% 52% 51%
% of hits that were fatal – 24% 25% 29%
One-shot-stop % – 34% 45% 39%
Let’s try this again for readability.
I rearranged Greg Ellifritz’s data:
9mm .40 .45
Luger S&W ACP
# of people shot – 456 188 209
# of hits – 1121 443 436
Average number of rounds until incapacitation – 2.45 2.36 2.08
% of people who were not incapacitated – 13% 13% 14%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) – 74% 76% 85%
% actually incapacitated by one shot
(torso or head hit) – 47% 52% 51%
% of hits that were fatal – 24% 25% 29%
One-shot-stop % – 34% 45% 39%
The data suggests that there is more skill (% accuracy) with the .45 ACP shooters which may contribute with a higher percentage of hits that were fatal, but that are more one-shot-stops with the .40 S&W.
Mudge…
Who gives a plug nickel…like it is going to matter what the boys think to the decision makers anyway.
Calm down and deal with the Trichotillomania!!!
Moto
The M9 has some shortcomings when it comes to civilian use or concealed carry, but none of these shortcomings affect its performance as a military service pistol. The Beretta does its job very well. As others have said the only issues the M9 has are from a lack of maintenance and inadequate training. The only change I think we need is more M9A1s, because weapon lights/ IR lasers are nice.
They’re expensive to maintain and they’re overly complicated. I spent half of my annual budget on locking blocks and that was after Burrito redesigned it. The M9 works, sure, but let’s realize it’s not as ideal as it was back in ’85.
How many other parts did you have to replace on a regular basis? All weapons break parts. On Glocks for example i’ve had to replace broken locking blocks, extractors, trigger bars, strikers, connectors, slide stops, all from wear and tear. Also, over complicated compared to what? An M9 is no more complicated than a SIG, HK, Walther, CZ, FN etc.
I beg…no demand! to differ. My personal, combat experience with an M9, in theater, came damn close to making my kids orphans, not that my ex would have minded all that much. The open slide design on the M9 attracts crap like a vacuum, where it all seems to get magically fed to the feed ramp and the mags. I do NOT like executing IADs, and hearing click when I needed to hear bang did not make me a happy man.
I’ll jump in… With the advance in bullet technology, we’re no longer talking about diameter’s having a meaning. It’s kinetic energy expelled into the channel wound. With the correct round, you can wallop the helloutta something, in SPITE of the diameter.
Granted, I prefer the .45 ACP with 230 grains FMJ required by the rules of engagement, the 127 grain Federal Hydrashok in my 9mm is quite significant in wound channel, and kinetic damage.
Desert Eagle .50
I know the intent of the article is to promote conversation about the topic of caliber, but in reality it’s like asking the question “what type of off-road truck is the best”? How will the truck be used? How many people does it need to transport? What types of distances will be driven? Etc etc..
The questions should be, what type of side-arm makes sense for the military to carry? (I assume we are talking about big army/military and not USSOCOM or JSOC units) How will the side-arm be employed? How many rounds does the soldier carrying it need to be able to carry? etc etc
The truth is, big army doesn’t have the time nor budget to be proficient with side-arms. Pistol shooting is a perishable skill and to maintain proficiency (or to be above average) takes a LOT of time and money. The kind of time and money big army doesn’t have.
My opinion is that the status quo is just fine for it’s intended purpose and for the soldier who may be carrying the weapon and what level of training that soldier may have (or not have in most cases).
In my day, the Beretta was carried by guys carrying ammo for an M-60/240B gunner, or carrying a tripod, and the soldiers had about 6 months in the military at most. Those cats were NOT proficient whatsoever and there wasn’t the time or budget for them to be.
USSOCOM/JSOC units have a shooting budget and time to maintain proficiency with a pistol hence, carrying what they need to for a specific mission makes sense and they have the money to train and maintain several solutions.
In my govt issued arsenal, I had 7 pistols. Each had a different purpose. That’s not feasible for everyone or every unit, but it solved the problem of which to carry and when.
Bottom line, there is no one solution but the big army has to have one solution. Therein lies the problem and why this debate even exists.
“Big Army doesn’t have the time or budget to be proficient with side-arms.”
False.
Not false. What’s the big army’s pistol marksmanship program look like? Does every soldier train with a pistol as they do with a carbine in basic training?
If a weapon system isn’t common to all (as in the basic training example) then the answer is NO. Not every soldier will be proficient with a pistol and NO the army doesn’t have time or money to get every soldier proficient with said pistol.
Read this and connect the dots… http://www.dvidshub.net/image/1163573/california-national-guard-defends-army-marksmanship-title#.U75E5fldXX4
The Soldiers certainly may not train with the pistol, but it’s not because the Army doesn’t have the time or money. I’ve been all over this problem. The reason Soldiers don’t shoot well, is a cultural and organizational leadership issue. The Army has the time, it just doesn’t know how to create excellence in Soldiers with the time it available. Sooo many NCO’s spouting off about “back in my day” … Well, if an NCO was around in 1946, how he did it back in his day is something we ought to listen to. But just about every NCO who served from the 1950’s onward, can just shut their damn mouth because they don’t know what they’re talking about. I’m so sick of hearing “watch your breathing” when I watch units doing range firing. The level of ignorance is so damn high, AMONG THE LEADERS, that the Army has little hope of fixing itself. Ranger Tabs, Long Tabs, whatever, does not equate shooting skill. Being a part of SOCOM or USASOC doesn’t mean they can shoot well. They send teams to the All Army too. We competed against cadre from an unnamed SFG SFAUC committee, Ben Fortin used to be in the unit and compete for them – now that’s a highly skilled shooter. But anyhow, the last two years, the gents from the SFAUC committee didn’t come close to our score. A regular old M9 pistol is easily capable of placing all shots in a 2″ by 3″ oval at 30 yards, a plain jane M16A2 with iron sights will easily strike a silhouette at 800 yards all day.
Bottom line up front: The army does NOT have the time or money to train every soldier entering the service to be proficient with a pistol and maintain those skills.
Units have a hard enough time maintaining proficiency with a carbine, let alone the additional time/ammo/resources required to be proficient with a pistol. That will never change because a pistol is a SIDE-ARM, not the primary weapon a soldier is required to carry. Not sure what you don’t get about that.
Nowhere did I state that JSOC units are the best at competitive shooting. They do however, have the time/money/resources to be proficient with all issued and assigned weapons. That’s the difference.
You’re mixing apples and oranges with your talk of shooting skills. The units you’re referencing as having “beaten” in competition will likely school your ass in a live fire shoot-house or more importantly in COMBAT, because their shooting programs are based on combat and realism, not competition style shooting.
If you spent all of your time shooting CQB style because that’s your job in the military, you’d likely be better at that than a soldier from the 82nd Airborne who qualifies at the range once a quarter. That doesn’t make one soldier better than the other, they are different and have different jobs. If you serve in a marksmanship unit and that’s what you do in the military, I’d expect you to be better than someone who’s job is to kill bad guys in a house.
Mudge Smash this article! Train our warfighters to use their weapons before blaming the caliber. 9mm works just as well as any other round. It’s all about shot placement…
Lets go back old school and give every one a real side arm…
Every one gets a Gladius.
Ooh, good name for a new pistol! Unless already taken
You really do not want to know what the holster for a Gladius is called.
I don’t really see the need to change the caliber, but I will say that one feature of the current pistol should be kept and that is the external safety. I became a convert and external safety zealot after a very good combatives course with simunition glocks. I’m not a fan of the 92 but I’d be less of a fan of going to glock for mainline troops.
9mm FTW.
Special Operations can continue being “special” and buy 45s for very specific purposes or use their own 9mm handguns (whatever), but the Army itself? stay with 9 mil.
The Serpa and G-code holsters should go immediately and should have never been adopted.
Ya know, I bought a crap load of the G-Code holsters and goodies for my Sig229 and M&P40….I love the system but was not and still not impressed with the function. I thought it was just me
Though I’d prefer a more powerful cartridge, I’m content to stay with 9 x 19 as long as I get a different handgun. While I personally feel 9mm is a bit underpowered for military use (mostly due to being limited to FMJ slugs, ), I have nothing against the cartridge overall. It’s the platform I’m issued, the M9/Beretta 92FS that I really, really don’t care for.
As far as a new pistol, if we stay with 9mm, FN FNX (user friendly controls, we already contract so much to FN), CZ P-09 (proven design, and 19+1), SIG P228/M11 (already issued in some quantities, though expensive). I’d accept a Glock, though I don’t care for them.
As far as a new cartridge AND a new pistol…I am not a fan of .40 S&W as I believe it is a failed compromise. You lose the power of 10mm Auto to reduce recoil, but in anything smaller than a .45/10mm frame the recoil is still unpleasant, so you end up with either an underpowered large frame weapon or a snappy small frame.
I would say the three best choices available that meet reasonable prices for the platform, reliablity, power, capacity, weight, etc. would be:
1. FN FNP-45 (.45 ACP, 15 +1), big but still less clunky than an M9, proven Browning design, SIG-style controls, beefy enough to handle the recoil while still light enough to be handy because of the polymer frame, we already contract to FN for just about all other small arms, etc..
2. Glock 20 (10mm Auto, 15 +1), its a Glock, which I personally don’t care for but nobody else seems to have a problem with, and whose performance record I won’t argue with despite my reservations, standard issue of Danish Sirius Patrol since they discovered 9mm was inadequate against polar bears, delivers massive kinetic energy and improved penetration due to higher velocity for similar recoil to .45 ACP
3. Convince FN to produce the FNX in 10mm Auto
That’s all I’ve got.
i like the fnp idea
I have a G20 Glock which I shoot often. I have average size hands. A small stature shooter would struggle with a G20. The standard G20 has the ergonomics of a brick. Besides, most commercial 10 MM ammo is loaded pretty close to .40 S & W.
My FNX .45 has a 15 round magazine for 230 grains of goodness, a threaded barrel and raised sights for a suppressor, a top slide that is pre-drilled for optics, and an ambidextrous magazine release and external safety/de-cocking lever. That would be ideal for SOF elements.
For the rest of the masses, a Glock 19 would be perfect as it is police and military tested, simple to operate (an external safety is NOT needed if the troop is well trained) and fairly inexpensive. I did not like my 92F as it was heavy and the slide design allowed for too many jamming possibilities
For a soldier, a pistol is an “Oh SHIT!” weapon of last resort and since ball ammunition is all that is allowed (minus unique exceptions) by the Geneva Convention, it helps to have a high capacity if possible.
number 1 ist the hague convention and actually you can use hollow point as long as the nation or people your fighting didnt sign the treaty as well