Not that there is that magic round or anything, but .45 has a lot more one stop shots then the 9mm or the .40. Just my 2 cents worth.
no one wants lower capacity, a Glock 21 with 13 rounds would make sense, but they aren't going away from 9mm.
Not that there is that magic round or anything, but .45 has a lot more one stop shots then the 9mm or the .40. Just my 2 cents worth.
They need something light (polymer frame) hi-cap (14+1) and .45 ACP.
let me guess, a glock right? sorry, but I think we make great guns in this country, and I think that our military should spend the millions and millions of tax payer $$$$ in America, not Austria, or Italy, or anywhere else. I don't believe for one second that any U.S. soldier would have his life endangered b/c the gun was made in America. personal opinion, go back to the 1911, but higher capacity. Will that happen? Probably not. But they are other very good options made here in the StatesI'd rather have the best gun...
M9 is a piece of junk.
let me guess, a glock right?
I wish I'd have been able to bring my G21 with me to my deployments. I went through 4 M9s, and they were all garbage.
Ahhh...not really. I dunno whose stats you are looking at but Marshall/Sanow/Ayoob stuff shows the top hollow-points in 9-40-45-357 to all be within 5-9% of each other. Not a HUGE margin for anything really.
And the larger problem is with military we aint talkin' hollow-points....were talking about old-school anemic BALL ammo. I suppose a .45 BALL round should be slightly more effective than 9mm size ball round...BUT the 9mm is going a hell of a lot faster so they probably aint all that far off from each other. If we can agree that BOTH kinda suck wouldn't you want the one that holds more? But as I said in an earlier post I think the M9 was a poor choice due to it's awful grip/back to trigger face dimensions.
And the Marshall/Sanow tripe has absolutely no basis in fact that has ever been seen. They have never submitted any evidence for their assertions and statiticians cringe at work like theirs.
I skipped a couple of pages. So I must have missed that. I just saw the one you posted about the G19. I hope you understand where I am coming from on that point though. I just like American made products. I know how much guys like certain others (Especially Glocks). Not saying they are P.O.S. or anything like that. Personally, don't like them. But they are not bad guns. Iam the same way about vehicles. (grandfather worked for Ford 36 years, I get it honest lol). Lets hope they get the troops something they like like and that is dependable.yeah, that's why I said 9mm M&P earlier in the thread, right...
I only mentioned the G19 because USASOC is using them currently.
It wouldn't surprise me if FNH USA FNS-9 pistols didn't get in the action too.
And then were back to ENORMOUS grip dimensions. Even the XDm 45 with the smallest back panel is fairly large. Springfield couldn't make the 45 double stack XDm conform to the nice slim 9 and 40 versions of the gun. That's why the XDm in 45 is the ONLY XDm that shares magazines with it's chunkier papa XD line.
If you big-handed guys love your huge grip guns that's great but the US Military is 'supposed' to be nearly all inclusive so to me choosing a gun like the M9 is just so much BS.
If they want USA made that throws out the XD(Croatia). Glock is made in Smyrna, Georgia, Sig Exeter New Hampshire and the FNs are made in Columbia South Carolina. I don't see why they would change calibers, all of NATO use 9mm NATO. It is effective. I don't know how many have first hand knowledge of the power of the 9MM NATO, but I do, it saved my life twice. Two one shot kills. I don't see a problem with the Beretta, as an armored I serviced 100 of them. All with several thousand rounds through them, and no reported malfunctions ever. If you take of your weapons they will take care of you. Also if one of my soldiers went through 4 pistols I would begin to question his technique and his maintenance.
oh really there are numerous industry experts who would disagree......as well as every man I've been serving withpersonally, i would like to go back to the 1911 in .45acp. Most the complaints about them was that they were worn out. Well, as with any weapon, when its worn out its not going to function as well, not really the fault of the pistol. Besides the 1911 lasted how many years before it was replaced. Personally I think we should make NATO conform to US, after all, they need us more then we need them. I have worked with other NATO nations as well. As for the 9mm size, its the same thing they say about the 5.56 round, proper shot placement is key. Well, when people are trying to kill you, you aren't always going to be able to get the best shot placement. Also, we pick those rounds because they are wounding and it will supposedly take more people out of the fight. When are they going to realize, most of the other countries or enemies that we fight, dont give a crap about their wounded. I want a round that takes them out of the fight completely. Not that there is that magic round or anything, but .45 has a lot more one stop shots then the 9mm or the .40. Just my 2 cents worth.
I would like to see the decision left up to the soldiers. Give each soldier an allowance to buy whatever he/she wants. Say a 1000$. If they want something more expensive than their allowance they pay the rest. Make some general rules like it has to be in one of three calibers or something. If it needs to be replaced it is taken out of their pay or they can use something issued. Just a different idea. I think anyone who serves should be able to choose their weapons to some extent.