Army Wants A Harder Hitting Pistol

[Tactical Lever]

Someone jokingly suggested the 7.62x25. I don't think that's a bad idea at all. Normally, I fall on the "Elmer Keith" side of applied ballistics, but low speed ball leaves much to be desired. The high speed and a nice flat metplat would do a lot for the temporary and permanent wound cavity that a low speed roundnose could just not accomplish.

Ammo type of course is the main factor in how well it will do its job, and I think that a number of 1600 fps would be a good number to hit, with about a .280 inch flat spot to transfer that energy into the target. I strongly agree with some cast bullets being used (if feasible for non armored targets), but that would not fly.

I don't buy the wisdom of the 1911 being too complicated or recoiling too bad; my wife with her little dainty (really dainty) hands can handle it fine.

I also love revolvers, but this job is for a semi auto, to make it back to the rifle.

[Tactical Lever]

7.62, not to quibble, but ISTR, for both hardball military rounds, the 9mm needs a distance to target of over 25 yards before it out penetrates the 45ACP. While I prefer greater distances in any contact with the enemy, for distances over 25 yards, make mine a rifle!

I personally think that the difference between the cartridge's penetration for the average soldier shooting in common combat situations is small enough to make little difference anyway. While a soldier is much more likely to engage with a pistol at ranges 25m or more, you are not going to see a really big difference in penetration in most situations unless you go to 357 SIG or 10mm.

I have seen some .45 ACP Ball stopped by car doors when 9mm ball penetrated (at a slight angle, not at 90º in this case) but this was full-power commercial 9mm loads. In flesh, both will have all the penetration needed at any reasonable range - I was talking hard or soft barriers. I actually never researched whether .45 ACP ball or 9mm ball penetrate better in flesh, so I don't know.

They are all likely to be stopped by body armor or AK mags. Most soldiers won't be shooting cars much with a pistol. For most soldiers, it is something to use to get yourself out of a suddenly bad situation.

357 SIG will really penetrate a car - quite a difference between it and the others - but that is more applicable to LE and self-defense. Soldiers are using rifles to shoot cars.

I had to look up what ISTR meant

From most of the data that I have seen, .45 penetrates soft targets about as well, or maybe a bit better than a 9mm. For hard targets, I have put regular speed .45 ACP FMJ through quite a few layers of car sheet metal, and it had no problem going through the structural stuff around a shock tower either.

Also, had to refresh my ballistic knowledge on the 7.62x25, and I think it is hitting the speeds that I was after.

Might not work though, for the same reasons that a 30-30 doesn't for today's deer....

[Panzercat]

Might not work though, for the same reasons that a 30-30 doesn't for today's deer....

Didn't you know that 30-30 stops dead in the air at 150 yards?

[Bill in Oregon]

TL, the 7.62 X 25 can still defeat a lot of body armour.
I have played with this round in the Tokarev TTR30/33 platform, and the Czech VZ-52, mostly using surplus ammo. Wow that little slug gets downrange fast and straight!

[stretch]

Very interestin' discussion.

Some of my observations, (and perhaps miguided!) opinions on the conversaqtion
in no particular order:

Ammunition:

There are some cost and logistical advantages to the 9mm cartridge.
More cartridges can be carried per pound, and it's really, really common.
I like the 45 ACP better at clsoe range. 10mm would be great, but there
is the aforementioned problem of recoil.

Pistols:

The 1911 has it ALL over the M9 in terms of ergonomics, as does the
Hi-Power. The safety is awkwared on the M9, and the grip is just too big.
The Hi-Power is a superb combat pistol, and easier to field-strip than the
1911. The M9 is easiest of all to field strip.

Troops:

There have always been good troops and bad troops. In WWII, the "gene pool"
was deeper, though. Everybody went. Personally, I think we ought to bring back
the draft - with no rich kids' or college deferments. If Congress and the President had
to send their own sons and daughters, they'd be more circumspect about engaging
in unwinnable, undeclared wars in foreign lands. We have to maintain physical
standards, though. And this "politically correct" stance of women in combat is
very much misguided. Yes, I understand it's so that female officers can get
their combat tickets punched and be more elibgible for flag rank, but's it's still
a BAD IDEA. I'll accept being called a curmudgeonly, sexist, out-of-touch, old
fossil for daring to actually say so.

-Stretch

[Tactical Lever]

Might not work though, for the same reasons that a 30-30 doesn't for today's deer....

Didn't you know that 30-30 stops dead in the air at 150 yards?

That's what they say!

[Tactical Lever]

Very interestin' discussion.

Some of my observations, (and perhaps miguided!) opinions on the conversaqtion
in no particular order:

Ammunition:

There are some cost and logistical advantages to the 9mm cartridge.
More cartridges can be carried per pound, and it's really, really common.
I like the 45 ACP better at clsoe range. 10mm would be great, but there
is the aforementioned problem of recoil.

Pistols:

The 1911 has it ALL over the M9 in terms of ergonomics, as does the
Hi-Power. The safety is awkwared on the M9, and the grip is just too big.
The Hi-Power is a superb combat pistol, and easier to field-strip than the
1911. The M9 is easiest of all to field strip.

Troops:

There have always been good troops and bad troops. In WWII, the "gene pool"
was deeper, though. Everybody went. Personally, I think we ought to bring back
the draft - with no rich kids' or college deferments. If Congress and the President had
to send their own sons and daughters, they'd be more circumspect about engaging
in unwinnable, undeclared wars in foreign lands. We have to maintain physical
standards, though. And this "politically correct" stance of women in combat is
very much misguided. Yes, I understand it's so that female officers can get
their combat tickets punched and be more elibgible for flag rank, but's it's still
a BAD IDEA. I'll accept being called a curmudgeonly, sexist, out-of-touch, old
fossil for daring to actually say so.

-Stretch

Totally agree about the physical standards; IMO there seems to be a few in there that just don't belong. At least in the Canadian military.

I don't think recoil handling is a big factor, but when using FMJ ammo, most of the power will be wasted. I do think that quicker target re acquisition is an advantage of the smaller calibers that is not to be ignored.

Not sure that the ammo weight is a huge deal, as the pistol is more of a back up gun.

[stretch]

Hey, Tactical Lever!

I just HAD to look up Fox Creek, Alberta. You're a ways up there,
now aren't ya? I'm emailing you from Augusta, Maine. I like your weekly
weather forecast, by the way. We're a little bit muggy right now.

Target reacquisition IS easier with lighter loads and smaller
calibers. I always thought of that as one of the issues concerned
with recoil, but your point is well taken. Smaller calibers ARE
usually easier to shoot more quickly and accurately.

On the weight issue, I wasn't thinking about the average grunt, but
more about the supply situation. More rounds of 9mm per ton, which
may be of concern in airlift operations, for example. The guy in the
foxhole might well appreciate a single magazine of 9mm vs. NO 45ACP
or 10mm!

-Stretch

[Arminius]

The Germans had it right, again.

The 7,62 mm Mauser Dates from 1896. In the Mauser C 96, which would be mighty fine in the semi / full auto version w 20 rd mags.

The Tokarev is just a copy thereof.

Still, the PPS 43 ( the Sudayev, not the heavy Shpagin ) would easily compete with modern Sh!t like PDW´s ...

Hermann

[Malamute]

Before folks get too congratulatory about the remarkable power of the 7.62 X 25 round (or the similar Mauser round) and its applicability today, perhaps they should consult the available information. So far, I don't recall reading or hearing anyone say it had very good actual terminal results (or so-called stopping power, however one wants to call it). Fantastic penetration, but not a lot of shock effect so to speak. I think that's getting a bit off topic as to an improved military pistol round, which I believe the entire scenario is a red hearing in any event under the current fiscal and Nato realities.

[Tactical Lever]

Hey, Tactical Lever!

I just HAD to look up Fox Creek, Alberta. You're a ways up there,
now aren't ya? I'm emailing you from Augusta, Maine. I like your weekly
weather forecast, by the way. We're a little bit muggy right now.

Target reacquisition IS easier with lighter loads and smaller
calibers. I always thought of that as one of the issues concerned
with recoil, but your point is well taken. Smaller calibers ARE
usually easier to shoot more quickly and accurately.

On the weight issue, I wasn't thinking about the average grunt, but
more about the supply situation. More rounds of 9mm per ton, which
may be of concern in airlift operations, for example. The guy in the
foxhole might well appreciate a single magazine of 9mm vs. NO 45ACP
or 10mm!

-Stretch

Yeah, a little ways up from you. If we are having sunny weather it might be an accident, as Fox seems to be in some rain belt. Oh well, at least our muskeg growing season is generous...

[Tactical Lever]

Before folks get too congratulatory about the remarkable power of the 7.62 X 25 round (or the similar Mauser round) and its applicability today, perhaps they should consult the available information. So far, I don't recall reading or hearing anyone say it had very good actual terminal results (or so-called stopping power, however one wants to call it). Fantastic penetration, but not a lot of shock effect so to speak. I think that's getting a bit off topic as to an improved military pistol round, which I believe the entire scenario is a red hearing in any event under the current fiscal and Nato realities.

Not remarkable, but then nothing is remarkable with full patch. The great reputation of the .357 was not built on ball ammunition, but on the 125 gr. JHP at high velocity. Not a lot of penetration, but it opens up quickly in a torso to create a wide temporary cavity for shock, and a pretty big permanent crush cavity for damage and rapid blood loss.

One of the big failings is the ammunition that is allowed. With some good softpoints there would be no complaints with the 5.56 (but its still a slightly better stopper than the handgun rounds due to velocity). Which won't happen, but with a good flatpoint, I believe the 7.62x25 would be quite a bit better. I have never seen one, so maybe its an option that has never been properly explored.

No one here hunts with roundnose pistol ammo, as its generally regarded as somewhat lacking, so why would we not apply the same dynamic to military rounds?

[Arminius]

OTOH in Shanghai it was considered the most deadly round ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Fairbairn

http://www.goldismoney2.com/archive/ind ... d992da7753

"They related similar stories where the smaller caliber, high velocity rounds (such as the 7.63MM Mauser) surprised them:

We have in mind the case of a man who was hit in the arm by a solid full-jacketed bullet from a weapon of this type. Though he was in hospital within half an hour of being shot, nothing could be done to avoid amputation, so badly were the bone and tissue lacerated. Perhaps 'pulped' would convey our meaning more accurately.

They are big fans of the 1911 (state of the art at the time) because of it's reliability and speed of bringing into action as well as reloading but do not make a strong recommendation about a particular ammo except to recommend one "forget" about the .22's and .25's.

They go on to say about the Mauser:

We might add that in the particular service from whose records we have been quoting, nothing is so feared, rightly or wrongly, as the Mauser military automatic. The mention of the word is sufficient, if there is trouble afoot, to send men in instant search of bullet-proof equipment."


Badassessness:

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/fairbairn.html

Hermann

[7.62 Precision]

Kinda wondering how a micro mag would fare, like 5.7x28 or .22TCM. Military grade stuff is designed to punch through armor like butter and even the civilian stuff has enough oomf behind it to get through light steel. Throw in some nasty hydrostatic shock and it sounds pretty darn effective in theory-land. With the .22TCM specifically, you would also have the added benefit of being able to swap some parts for 9mm frame compatibility and mags.

Less weight, more ammo, minimal recoil and theoretically decent stopping power. Sadly, there's little info on live target usage, though it looks like people have used 5.7x28 for hunting (lets forgo the 'humane hunting' discussion for now). Either way, they've described as 5.56 short.

On, paper, it looks really good - like little 5.56s. In real-world use, results are mixed. I know a guy who killed a bear with one shot from a 5.7, but in realistic use, sometimes it works well, sometimes not. I think it depends on the intended purpose of the weapon, too.

For the purposes I carried a pistol for in the military, being able to put a target down quick and dead would definitely be a concern. Wounding is fine, and has a place in combat, but if I was using a pistol it would be an emergency, close, and I would want the threat gone.

[7.62 Precision]

I spent 23 years in the military, as both an enlisted member and an officer; I watched the change happen, and supported it all the way.

The US Military is a professional organization …period. It’s no longer a dumping ground. If you’ve been doing drugs, they don’t want you… go work at McDonalds; same for arrests, gang membership, DUI, High School dropout, and stupid tattoos. That stuff won’t be tolerated in the military anymore.

I agree completely. I have watched young men, teenagers, (whose high-school buddies were back home getting high, chasing girls, and playing video games in their mommies' basements since they can't hold jobs) make split-second life-and-death decisions, carry themselves with a professional bearing and shoulder responsibilities that many middle-aged corporate executives couldn't handle. I have seen them take stands against wrong and against incompetent commanders with nothing to gain for themselves.

This is not the same army that I have heard about from older soldiers, where moral was at rock bottom, drug use was rampant, and discipline was lacking. A lot of soldiers and officers worked very hard to build what we have today, and I benefited from their work.

Now can we get back on subject.... .45 is better than 9mm

But only if it has "Colt" (or an abbreviation thereof) in its name . . .

[Old Ironsights]

...
For the purposes I carried a pistol for in the military, being able to put a target down quick and dead would definitely be a concern. Wounding is fine, and has a place in combat, but if I was using a pistol it would be an emergency, close, and I would want the threat gone.

The purpose of a Bayonet is...

"To KILL! Drill Sergeant!"...

When I'm in up-close & personal Go Time, it's Incapacitate or Nothing.

"Wounding" doesn't cut it. Big Holes, Lots of Bleeders & broken Bones. Deep, ugly and traumatic. And if you aren't "allowed" to use High Performance Ammo, then Big, Heavy and Slow works better at incapacitation than through & through Ice Pick holes...

[Lastmohecken]

We just got through burying one of my co-worker/friend's father who was a career soldier (special forces) and served 3 tours in Nam, and I think in Korea, also. His handgun of choice for Nam at least was the Hi Power 9mm. I got to handle it after he passed away, and his oldest son owns it now. This man seen a fair amount of action and could have had a 1911 if he had wanted one, I would surly think. I am sure he must have considered it when choosing the nine.

When handling his particular weapon, I noted that it was smoother and better finished, with springs which were in better balance then just about every later modern Hi Power that I have handled, owned or shot in the past 25yrs or so, with the possible exception being one 40 cal I owned that had been customized by Cylinder and Slide. So, regarding his particular weapon, I could see maybe why he would have chosen it over the usual military issue 1911, but normally I am a 1911 guy, and would choose a good one, almost every time, over a 9mm.

And in all fairness I have shot the M9 and variants of it, and liked it very well, other then the bulk of it, and in civilian form, I have found the mags to be of better quality then lots of 1911 mags, however how they might have preformed in the sandbox, I don't know.

I work with a couple of vets from the Nam period, and both had little use for the 1911. Both will claim that the ones they shot in the Army, were terribly inaccurate, but they and I figured that the weapons they shot were wore out, and maybe poorly fitted. But then maybe they didn't really have much training with the 45 to start with. One of them saw combat duty in Nam and ended his tour with a chopper ride out of the combat zone, after a close encounter with a gook while walking on point. He was hit in the arm from shrapnel after a round from an AK 47 struck his M16, rendering it useless. He was not carrying a pistol to fall back on at that time, but I guess he didn't need it, as his buddy finished the gook off with an M60, along with some other fire support.

My friend didn't like the 1911 because he felt it was not worth carrying the extra weight in the bush, and he had to carry so much gear anyway. He did carry one at first, but quickly found out that if you were a private and had a 1911, you got asked to go in the holes from time to time and he didn't want to do any tunnel rat work, I must admit I don't much blame him there.

So, anyway, I always thought that most soldiers wanted a pistol in combat for backup, but I guess not everyone.

[Malamute]

Not remarkable, but then nothing is remarkable with full patch. The great reputation of the .357 was not built on ball ammunition, but on the 125 gr. JHP at high velocity. Not a lot of penetration, but it opens up quickly in a torso to create a wide temporary cavity for shock, and a pretty big permanent crush cavity for damage and rapid blood loss.

One of the big failings is the ammunition that is allowed. With some good softpoints there would be no complaints with the 5.56 (but its still a slightly better stopper than the handgun rounds due to velocity). Which won't happen, but with a good flatpoint, I believe the 7.62x25 would be quite a bit better. I have never seen one, so maybe its an option that has never been properly explored.

No one here hunts with roundnose pistol ammo, as its generally regarded as somewhat lacking, so why would we not apply the same dynamic to military rounds?

I agree with most of your points, though the 357 had a pretty decent reputation before even jacketed hollowpoint 158's were available. The factory swc loads weren't all bad. I had one jack rabbit simply blow up with a Winchester Lubaloy 158gr hit (pretty decent swc profile) from a 6" barrel, I never had a jack blow up from a 55 gr 223 soft point. 2" exit holes, but not blow up. The original Mauser pistol round velocity is a little under the original 357 velocity of 158 gr/1550 fps in an 8" barrel.

All the pistol rounds would benefit from a good TC flat point bullet, including the 9mm and 45. That may be the simplest way to improve performance with the budget and treaty issues to consider. They've used better rifle bullets in the 5.56.

[7.62 Precision]

The purpose of a Bayonet is...

"To KILL . . ."

. . . with the cold blue steel!

What makes the grass grow?!

The idea of the TC bullets makes sense to me. What ever happened with the deforming bullets the military was looking at a few years ago? Did that ever go anywhere? I never really followed it past the initial mention.

[Arminius]

All the pistol rounds would benefit from a good TC flat point bullet, including the 9mm and 45. That may be the simplest way to improve performance with the budget and treaty issues to consider.

The Germans in WW I with the original, weaker loading tried TC bullets for better stopping power in Africa, IIRC.

Also there´s the Hornady "Air Force" bullets in 9 mm and .45: Jacketed, TC bullets.

I heard they were ( are ) very accurate, too.

Hermann

[Streetstar]

Before folks get too congratulatory about the remarkable power of the 7.62 X 25 round (or the similar Mauser round) and its applicability today, perhaps they should consult the available information. So far, I don't recall reading or hearing anyone say it had very good actual terminal results (or so-called stopping power, however one wants to call it). Fantastic penetration, but not a lot of shock effect so to speak. I think that's getting a bit off topic as to an improved military pistol round, which I believe the entire scenario is a red hearing in any event under the current fiscal and Nato realities.

Not remarkable, but then nothing is remarkable with full patch. The great reputation of the .357 was not built on ball ammunition, but on the 125 gr. JHP at high velocity. Not a lot of penetration, but it opens up quickly in a torso to create a wide temporary cavity for shock, and a pretty big permanent crush cavity for damage and rapid blooduld we not apply the same dynamic to military rounds?

I became a 357 fan in general when my particular Army unit was issued Smith 66s in the late 80s. When I later learned the seals had been using 357 for at least a decade prior that sealed the deal for me as a.young and impressionable gi. Smith 66 s and 357 magnums in general were killing machines.

[Arminius]

I became a 357 fan in general when my particular Army unit was issued Smith 66s in the late 80s. When I later learned the seals had been using 357 for at least a decade prior that sealed the deal for me as a.young and impressionable gi. Smith 66 s and 357 magnums in general were killing machines.

for 6 rounds ... then there had to be a break in the fighting ...

[Griff]

There are times when a knife is more practical than a pistol. There too, training is a great starting tool... but it's the trainee that makes a great pistolero, or knifeman... not necessarily the tool.

[Blackhawk]

"Perfumed Princes"



Recruits get to display a "yellow card" when they're stressed!

[Bill in Oregon]

Then there is this one. Slow to reload, but no one ever complains about the knockdown ...

[Streetstar]

I became a 357 fan in general when my particular Army unit was issued Smith 66s in the late 80s. When I later learned the seals had been using 357 for at least a decade prior that sealed the deal for me as a.young and impressionable gi. Smith 66 s and 357 magnums in general were killing machines.

for 6 rounds ... then there had to be a break in the fighting ...

Doubtful --- pistols have never been considered primary offensive weapons for military purposes --- not many would complain if the 1911 came back and in stock form it only holds 7 in the mag itself

[vancelw]

Doubtful --- pistols have never been considered primary offensive weapons for military purposes ---

Texas Rangers might disagree with that
Back when rifles were single-shot front stuffers, the Rangers wanted something that shot enough so they could shoot as many times as the Comanches could with their arrows, so they carried 2 to 4 revolvers. After they developed the Walker, I wonder if any of them tried to carry 4 of those

[Grizz]

I became a 357 fan in general when my particular Army unit was issued Smith 66s in the late 80s. When I later learned the seals had been using 357 for at least a decade prior that sealed the deal for me as a.young and impressionable gi. Smith 66 s and 357 magnums in general were killing machines.

I am a civilian and not qualified to discuss combat with you experienced men. But I killed a lot of deer with various firearms and some even with a pinned and recessed 66 loaded with keith semis. Very accurate firearm, but not my favorite meat gun. Compared to the terminal effects of the 44 mag, the 357 doesn't compare. I suppose I could have tried the stuff I load now, but'cept the internet didn't exist, and I was conservative, using published loads from books.

(I know, right?) books, whoda thunkit?

with the 44 there is a palpable, repeateable, observeable, increase in effect of an order of magnitude. they won't get many girls or metros to learn to shoot anything that effective. although my daughter doesn't have any trouble making meat with her sbh.

'Course now I think elsiepea with Tim S's hardcast bullets will do the job. BUT, not anything like the 44 does

Grizz

[7.62 Precision]

Doubtful --- pistols have never been considered primary offensive weapons for military purposes --- not many would complain if the 1911 came back and in stock form it only holds 7 in the mag itself

Certain special ops organizations use them more heavily than normal soldiers. And the 1911 in stock form holds only 7 in the mag itself . . . and that is the key to the reason it replaced revolvers in military service.

[FWiedner]

I had one jack rabbit simply blow up with a Winchester Lubaloy 158gr hit (pretty decent swc profile) from a 6" barrel, I never had a jack blow up from a 55 gr 223 soft point. 2" exit holes, but not blow up.

Depth of penetration to achieve a sufficient body cavity to allow a full temporary wound cavitation effect is required to blow them up rather than simply producing an enormous exit wound.

I've taken several shots on running jacks, the infamous "Texas heart-shot".

With the required 7"-10" of penetration, and full cavitation, a jack will pop like a balloon when hit with a 55gr .223 SP or even a FMJ.

[7.62 Precision]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQYep23-onw

Sorry, not sure how you embed these things.

[Tactical Lever]

Not remarkable, but then nothing is remarkable with full patch. The great reputation of the .357 was not built on ball ammunition, but on the 125 gr. JHP at high velocity. Not a lot of penetration, but it opens up quickly in a torso to create a wide temporary cavity for shock, and a pretty big permanent crush cavity for damage and rapid blood loss.

One of the big failings is the ammunition that is allowed. With some good softpoints there would be no complaints with the 5.56 (but its still a slightly better stopper than the handgun rounds due to velocity). Which won't happen, but with a good flatpoint, I believe the 7.62x25 would be quite a bit better. I have never seen one, so maybe its an option that has never been properly explored.

No one here hunts with roundnose pistol ammo, as its generally regarded as somewhat lacking, so why would we not apply the same dynamic to military rounds?

I agree with most of your points, though the 357 had a pretty decent reputation before even jacketed hollowpoint 158's were available. The factory swc loads weren't all bad. I had one jack rabbit simply blow up with a Winchester Lubaloy 158gr hit (pretty decent swc profile) from a 6" barrel, I never had a jack blow up from a 55 gr 223 soft point. 2" exit holes, but not blow up. The original Mauser pistol round velocity is a little under the original 357 velocity of 158 gr/1550 fps in an 8" barrel.

All the pistol rounds would benefit from a good TC flat point bullet, including the 9mm and 45. That may be the simplest way to improve performance with the budget and treaty issues to consider. They've used better rifle bullets in the 5.56.

I don't disagree. Just saying that the .357 worked well with the SWC lead bullets (as it should), but the 95% one stop shot reputation came along with the 125 gr. JHP.

[Tactical Lever]

Doubtful --- pistols have never been considered primary offensive weapons for military purposes --- not many would complain if the 1911 came back and in stock form it only holds 7 in the mag itself

Certain special ops organizations use them more heavily than normal soldiers. And the 1911 in stock form holds only 7 in the mag itself . . . and that is the key to the reason it replaced revolvers in military service.

The new mags available hold 8. Plus one in the chamber where it belongs, is a full 50% increase in capacity, barring the 7(?) shot .357 that they have now. And for most people, its quite a bit quicker reloading with a mag vs. a speed loader.

[Panzercat]

On, paper, it looks really good - like little 5.56s. In real-world use, results are mixed. I know a guy who killed a bear with one shot from a 5.7, but in realistic use, sometimes it works well, sometimes not. I think it depends on the intended purpose of the weapon, too. For the purposes I carried a pistol for in the military, being able to put a target down quick and dead would definitely be a concern. Wounding is fine, and has a place in combat, but if I was using a pistol it would be an emergency, close, and I would want the threat gone.

Yeah, like I said, a lot of theory crafting. Though videos like this one get me to wonder. The performance versus bulletproof glass isn't surprising. The hog shoulder test at the end gets messy, however. Compared to the 9mm performance, it's pretty eye-opening in terms of potential.

[Malamute]

I don't disagree. Just saying that the .357 worked well with the SWC lead bullets (as it should), but the 95% one stop shot reputation came along with the 125 gr. JHP.

Yes, the 125 gr loads turned out to be pretty darned good, though I believe the 158 gr JHP's also did very well in actual use.

The entire "% of one shot stops" thing turned out to have a less than sterling reputation. Some very credible sources have called it outright misleading or dishonest, and all the data being suspect in the reports/book.

[Streetstar]

Doubtful --- pistols have never been considered primary offensive weapons for military purposes --- not many would complain if the 1911 came back and in stock form it only holds 7 in the mag itself

Certain special ops organizations use them more heavily than normal soldiers. And the 1911 in stock form holds only 7 in the mag itself . . . and that is the key to the reason it replaced revolvers in military service.

Yes, faster reloads and all that ----- but a special ops organization that seemingly has carte' blanche to use anything from 1911's to giant MK23 HK's to PDW's , Glocks and almost anything and everything else can hardly be compared to the other 99.5% of the armed forces

The reason a SEAL team from the late 70's would be using 357 magnums as opposed to 1911's or Hi-Powers? Knockdown power - granted, there was a limited selection of autos then as compared to now, but the Hi-Power was still high capacity

But the reason certain people from my organization were issued them in the late 80's was because there werent enough 92's to go around ------ I was not involved in an "extra sneaky" MOS , just marginally sneaky (same general reason revolvers were issued to certain troops in ww2 as well, really)

[AJMD429]

I'd like an 'improved' (slightly longer ramp and lower angle feed*) 1911 design, with a cartridge somewhere between the 38 Super and the 10mm, in a double-stack design. Personally I like the 45 ACP in a double-stack 1911, but haven't fired mine enough to say it's "absolutely" dependable. *That 'bump, flip, bump, chamber' thing that happens in so many of the 1911 designs makes me nervous, but I'll have to admit - it works.

[Grizz]

would you call it the Dr 9.5 or the Less Than 10 Thin Thing?

[BAGTIC]

Combat handguns are an anachronism along with bayonets and officers swords. If you can not the job with a rifle you won't be able to do it with a pistol.

"Use enough gun" and "Do it right the first time".

[7.62 Precision]

Combat handguns are an anachronism along with bayonets and officers swords. If you can not the job with a rifle you won't be able to do it with a pistol.

"Use enough gun" and "Do it right the first time".

Really? If my rifle is jammed really well, or damaged, a pistol might look really good. If a guy is 10 feet away, a fat barrel and 10x scope make a pistol seem pretty useful.

As far as swords for officers go, I have known several officersI would have loved to have given swords to, sat them on the hood of a HMMWV, and charged the enemy.

[Blaine]

Combat handguns are an anachronism along with bayonets and officers swords. If you can not the job with a rifle you won't be able to do it with a pistol.

"Use enough gun" and "Do it right the first time".

I disagree.....

[jkbrea]

Combat handguns are an anachronism along with bayonets and officers swords. If you can not the job with a rifle you won't be able to do it with a pistol.

"Use enough gun" and "Do it right the first time".

I disagree.....

The military has changed dramatically since I was in back in the mid 80's. Although we did have MOUT, (I think it stood for Mission Oriented Urban Training), most training was the traditional open area combat training. Nowadays, aside from fighting in mountains and villages, you see our troops conducting building to building, room to room searches of buildings to weed out attackers. Too many non-combatants to just go in and level a building. In those circumstances a handgun is an absolute necessity. If a rifle jams, goes dry or becomes disabled, a soldier may not have time to reload or fix the stoppage and in that case must be able to transition to a sidearm.

[Streetstar]

Combat handguns are an anachronism along with bayonets and officers swords. If you can not the job with a rifle you won't be able to do it with a pistol.

"Use enough gun" and "Do it right the first time".

I disagree.....

The military has changed dramatically since I was in back in the mid 80's. Although we did have MOUT, (I think it stood for Mission Oriented Urban Training), most training was the traditional open area combat training. .

I was in in the late 80's and most of the training at the time was for Vietnam style jungle settings -- then Panama reinforced the need for jungle ops training seemingly --------- then Desert Shield/Storm came and threw a monkey wrench into all that great jungle capability

The Army is always fighting the last war in training it seems

[horsesoldier03]

Personally, I get tired of hearing how the military has such poor quality weapons and our Soldiers are under gunned. I am curious how many of todays Soldiers have been in a situation where they were forced to rely on their service pistol to defend themselves. I will concede to the Special Operations Soldiers, I think they would be best served by a .45 ACP or 10mm. However, they have the option to use higher caliber firearms other than the 9mm already.

Today's Soldiers are already armed with some of the best primary weapons available such as M16 and M4 carbines. They are also augmented with several versions of sniper rifles, the M14, Defensive Shotguns, M249, M240B, the M2 .50 cal, the MK 19 and M32 grenade launchers. With all the improvements in the arsenal of weapons and ammunition available to our Soldiers today, it seems extremely trivial to worry if you have a 9mm or .45ACP sidearm.

Griff pretty much nailed it with the comment that it all comes down to TRAINING!


My unit first received our M9 pistols prior to deploying to Desert Storm back in 1990. Weapons were very limited and there was no option to have both a pistol and a carbine or rifle, it was an either / or affair. At the time I was issued a 1911 that I was forced to trade in for an M9. Needless to say I was not satisfied and jumped at the chance to get an M16A2. Of course I would have even opted for the M16 even if I still had the 1911. I had several Soldiers who were only issued the old M3 grease gun as their sole weapon. Times have changed indeed.

[7.62 Precision]

Personally, I get tired of hearing how the military has such poor quality weapons and our Soldiers are under gunned. I am curious how many of todays Soldiers have been in a situation where they were forced to rely on their service pistol to defend themselves. I will concede to the Special Operations Soldiers, I think they would be best served by a .45 ACP or 10mm. However, they have the option to use higher caliber firearms other than the 9mm already.

I never had to rely on a sidearm to save my life in the military. I have known and known of a number of soldiers who did. I had to surrender my pistol after arriving in Iraq, once, (along with out new up-armored HMMWVs, because they had air conditioning) to the big-brass fobbits, who wanted air-conditioned vehicles to drive on the FOB and pistols so they didn't have to carry M16s to chow. We were heavy on sidearms going in, but our unit lost all but a couple. One of the vehicles we ended up using was an old soft-top HMMWV with no top and a welded up pintle for a machine gun made from pieces of pipe from one of Saddam's palaces - sort of an American technical! Soon more of the newer HMMWVs came in and we got ours, but we did not get our pistols back until the end of the deployment.

I also am tired of the whining about poor weapons when it comes to the M4/M16. It is a great system. The M240 family is great as well, and the M2 just keeps going. The M249 and the M9, though, could be improved upon.

[horsesoldier03]

I was issued a M4 carbine and M9 pistol as well. About 2 months into the deployment, they were complaining that they needed more M9 pistols at BN HQ. I immediately volunteered my M9 as my personal opinion was it would only save me time at the clearing barrels each day. We ran combat logistic patrols every day and it was nothing to clear weapons 8-10 times a day. Of course I might not have the same opinion if I was a grunt and not mounted. As it was, my platoon had at least 20 crew serves M2 and M240B. My personal vehicle was also one of the old HMMWV with a home made body armor kit and a weapons pintle welded up from the floor as well. It was the only HMMWV without the UPARMOR Kit within our BN that rolled out the gate everyday. I put 2 sets of springs on it before they finally agreed that we could use the springs off a M1114 Uparmor. That was from JAN04 to FEB05.

[Old Savage]

Blaine, don't bring a trumpet to a tuba fight.

[Blaine]

Blaine, don't bring a trumpet to a tuba fight.

Is that supposed to be smart alec?? I'll send you a ticket: Come make fun of my MOS to my face. BTW, we trained secondary mission all the time. Combat MPs, patrols, QRFs, etc.....I get sick of people like you putting down Bandsmen....

[Streetstar]

Blaine, don't bring a trumpet to a tuba fight.

.....I get sick of people like you putting down Bandsmen....

Does that strike a sour note?

[vancelw]

Discord among us?