9mm Sucks B@lls > Give 'em back the .45

[Raincity]

In combat I would take a Thompson .45 over any Wop 9 any day of the week and twice on Sunday. For personal defence, I will take a properly made 9mil "Glock and HK" with Glaser safety slugs always.

Rain

 

[Hammer]

I pretty much agree with everything the Chief says. I also favor the 9mm.

 

[misle]

I watched a documentary on the Discovery channel about the Navy SEALS and they discussed the stopping power of a 9mm. The head SEAL / Trainer they talked with said something to the effect of, "When you put 2 in their heart and 1 in their head, you don't need to worry about it."

I suppose he means that all Navy SEALs are very well trained in marksmanship with pistols and firearmes in general.

Personally, I've never shot pistols. I've shot a lot of different rifles. So I don't really have an opinion.

 

[js1973]

I'm more particular to the construction of the pistol itself than the caliber. I just can't get used to a polymer framed handgun. It's a shame that the only 1911 style 9mm you can buy is a Springfield or STI which are way more expensive than I can afford. I would like to try shooting a 9mm out of a 1911 platform before I could really form an opinion on which caliber I prefer.

On a side note, isn't it a rare thing for one of our soldiers to ever have to pull his sidearm out in combat?

 

[burnedout]

I think Col. Hackworth is a muckraking POS.

He's long been considered by some, myself included, as very self-serving even though some of the old bird's logic holds merit.

For real, expert advice, I'd probably ask MOH awardee, Col (Ret) Robert L. Howard. Now there was a real soldier and E1-O6 success story. Heh, that dude was so crazy, he got relieved as an O-5 Battalion Cdr. in Korea because he tried to run a grunt battalion like an SF Group. If glenn1 is around, he can probably enlighten everyone about Col Howard.

 

[Broncho]

I always heard that the momentum that the heavier .45 ACP carried when it hit the target was more than the 9mm. That is why it has the better stopping power. If you get hit in the chest with a carpentry hammer and a sledge hammer, they both hurt but the sledge will knock you off your feet. That is the kind of correllation in my mind.

I don't know if this is true or not, but you might find this interesting. Back when the 1911 was first gaining acceptance and use by the millitary, it had to go through the standard qualification. I don't know why they did this, but someone suspended a hankerchief in front of the target and then fired the pistol at the target. Because of the amount of air pushed along by the bullet and the momentum it carried, the round pushed the handkerchief up and out of the way and continued on to the target. I have never had a chance to try this out for myself, although I would like to so I can see if it is true. Anyone else heard this or know it to be wrong?


edit: for clarification

 

[TNTrulez]

Berettas. . lmao. . . good thing the primary firearm is still powerful.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Broncho
I always heard that the momentum that the heavier .45 ACP carried when it hit the target was more than the 9mm. That is why it has the better stopping power. If you get hit in the chest with a carpentry hammer and a sledge hammer, they both hurt but the sledge will knock you off your feet. That is the kind of correllation in my mind.

edit: for clarification

Momentum is simply mass x velocity, so yes, a heavier bullet will probably have more momentum and might throw the target back farther, although with any handgun this momentum is not as much as you might thing -- certainly not enough to make someone fly back 5 feet like in the movies. What is more important is kinetic energy, or 1/2 mass x (velocity^2). A lighter but faster bullet will generally have more energy than a heavier but slower bullet and will consequently deliver much more energy to the target. To use your example, a slow-moving sledge hammer may knock you down harder, but a faster moving carpentry hammer will actually cause more damage. Make sense?

 

[Tominator]

A real soldier leaves the pistol at home and takes a couple extra magazines for his rifle.....

What we are discussing are enemy encounters lasting seconds or less. Mostly in the self defense roll and not as the primary weapon.

The 9mm has less recoil. Combine this with more women and minorities of lesser stature now in the military and a compromise is what we get.

Through the fact that unlike in the past many Americans joining up are doing so for purely selfish reasons and have no experience with firearms. The 9mm is eaiser to shoot.

Make note that the .40 S&W round was the search for a compromise. The penetration and cross section of the .45 is damn near perfect. The 9mm lacks cross section and does not transfer the energy to the target as good as a .45. The .40 is a detuned 10mm. It came into being because the FBI found the 9mm lacking in real world circumstances. The .40 has a wider cross section. That equals more force transfered to the target. It kicks only slightly more than the 9 while penetration approximates the .45. The gun shooting it can hold more rounds than the .45 in a smaller package. All that and hollow point rounds do not expand much of the time.

All because women and miniorties are being hired.:disgust:

Hitting what you shoot at has always been the real problem.

I own a highly customised Officers Model Colt and a Glock 21 both in .45ACP and have shot at least a hundred other different pistols in every caliber you can name. Make mine in .45ACP whatever the design!

If I were to own a 9MM it would be a Browning Highpower....I'd shoot bunnies with it.....

 

[boi]

I own a highly customised Officers Model Colt

Best handgun eva.

 

[glenn1]

For real, expert advice, I'd probably ask MOH awardee, Col (Ret) Robert L. Howard. Now there was a real soldier and E1-O6 success story

Hell yeah... the only man in history ever nominated for the Medal of Honor for THREE seperate acts of exceptional valor. One of America's greatest sons.

On the subject at hand, i'm not a huge fan of the M9 (Beretta model 92F), the skeletal slide was a b!tch for collecting sand and other debris, and in stock configuration it's one of the worst semiautomatics in terms of being prone to stovepiping. Still though, they were a step up from the 50 year-old crusty POS M1911s most units had in their arms rooms in the 1980s. John Browning's classic is a royal PITA if it's not lovingly maintained, and many armorers either didn't have the time or resources to keep them running tip-top.

Now, if you ask me, if the powers that be were dead set on going with the 9mm like they turned out to be, the mililitary SHOULD have gone with the Sig Sauer P225 instead of the Beretta, but that's a personal preference. The Sig lost by a whisker to the Beretta in trials, due to the price for the Beretta in quantity being a handful of dollars less. IMHO, the Sig P225 in .45ACP rather than 9mm would have been even a better choice, but, c'est la vie.

But all this is water under the bridge now. I agree that the .45 would be a superior cartridge, but the military has far more pressing equipment needs than a new sidearm right now.

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: smp

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: smp Here comes the gangbang .... WTF am I blabbering about? Are you asking me to blabber some more then? Cause I can ... you sure you want me to? Cause I will. I don't care about 308nato or whoever likes guns, fine you like guns, way to go I don't care. It's that article that I have a problem with. I find it racist. If you don't, then fine but I'm entitled to my own goddamn opinion and if I think it's fvckin racist and you disagree I don't give a damn.

Go hug a tree and pet a bear... If you saw a racist comment in that artical then you have a serious serious problem. You are the only one in here using racist slurs. Open the Yellow pages and look up Psychotherapists i think you might need to use thier services.

Always the same sh!t .. I say something and people call me a liberal when they don't have a fvckin clue. The common argument among your type is go hug a tree or whatever, it's always the same. The article paints 'the enemy' as being non-human .. when you read that article you aren't reading about humans, you are reading about rabid dogs that foam at the mouth and are bent on killing in the name of Allah ... to me it's rasict and objectifying, to you it's not ... that's fine, I don't hate people for disagreeing with me, unlike you. Go ahead and hate me though I don't fvckin care.

I saw nothing mentioned in the article about rabid dogs, foaming at the mouth, or Allah.
Could you point them out to me?

Not knowing the race or even the nationality of the enemy soldier is also making it difficult for me to find the alleged racism.

 

[brtspears2]

Yikes, 9mm is surely a bullet to injure, but surely not a bullet to stop quickly. I personally like the damage of the black talon cartridge though.

.40 S&W seems to be a good compromise round.

 

[danzig]

Give them a BFG

I like my 9mm. I have 5 30 round magazines and 4 20 round magazines , all full of Corbon armor piercing ammo.

 

[Tominator]

all full of Corbon armor piercing ammo

Corbon makes no claim of 'armour piercing' and no ammo in North America is marketed making that claim.

 

[glenn1]

I have 5 30 round magazines and 4 20 round magazines , all full of Corbon armor piercing ammo.

I wasn't aware that CorBon? even made "armor piercing" rounds, or any rounds of the type generally thought of as being in that category, whether Teflon coated, or non-lead/exotic alloy (tungsten, beryllium, depleted uranium, or other). Of course, i haven't been to a gunshop lately, so i may simply be unaware that they are making such rounds nowadays.

 

[EdipisReks]

the beretta 92 is a very fine combat pistol. keep in mind that more people worldwide have been killed by 9mm ammunition than any other caliber ever made.

 

[AndrewR]

One of the key facts missing from this discussion is the fact that if you're relying on a pistol in a combat situation, you are already in a world of trouble. The difference between a .45 ACP and a 9mm round doesn't amount to a hill of beans in light of that.

In any case, this argument typically tracks the argument favoring the M14 over the M16. There are two general philosophies with military small arms. The first is that you train your people to be marksmen and give them a big caliber weapon with little ammunition with which they can kill an enemy in one shot. The second is that you train your people adequately and give them a smaller weapon with more ammunition so they can fire many shots, hopefully connecting with a few.

The U.S. military has decidely gone into the second philosophy because money and time do not favor giving rigorous marksmanship training to all those who might need to fire their weapons in combat. It is far easier, and cheaper, to give a soldier an M-16 and train him to a reasonable level of proficiency, then load him up with several hundred rounds. It takes more time and more money to arm him with a 7.62mm weapon because it's simply harder to learn to shoot a heavier weapon for most people (recoil, or fear of it, makes accuracy more difficult). If you doubt this, take someone who has never shot a rifle before then hand them a .22LR gun and a 8mm Mauser. See which one they can shoot better first.

Sure, special forces often arm themselves with larger weapons like the M-14, but they have the time and money to rigorously train themselves to peak proficiency. The non-special forces in the military simply don't have that luxury. I don't have current information, but I would be very surprised if the Marines around here trained every week on the rifle range with their weapons. Of course, special ops units don't need large weapons if they are precise marksmen either, reference the SEALs comment above. I imagine the choice is dictacted by the mission as you don't really need 7.62mm in a CQB situation.

All of the above can be applied to the .45/9mm discussion as well.

 

[Evadman]

IF it were my life on the table, I am not going to compromise. The 45 will transfer more of the energy to the target than a 9mm will. If I am bounding down the stairs trying to shoot an intruder in my house, I want his ass on the ground immediately. jumping down the staris will screw up my aim. the 45 will atleast knock that target over. a 9mm will not. The only way for a 9mm to be as effective is to make a shot to the head or the heart. not something I want to have to worry about.

that being said, I would take a 50 cal handgun. That way, my target will have a 50cal hole in his chest, so will my wall, and every house within line of sight for 1/2 mile.

Lol. New idea. Go to shooting range, try to shoot a 50cal one handed.

Ok, I changed my mind. Gimme a shotgun.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
One of the key facts missing from this discussion is the fact that if you're relying on a pistol in a combat situation, you are already in a world of trouble. The difference between a .45 ACP and a 9mm round doesn't amount to a hill of beans in light of that.

In any case, this argument typically tracks the argument favoring the M14 over the M16. There are two general philosophies with military small arms. The first is that you train your people to be marksmen and give them a big caliber weapon with little ammunition with which they can kill an enemy in one shot. The second is that you train your people adequately and give them a smaller weapon with more ammunition so they can fire many shots, hopefully connecting with a few.

The U.S. military has decidely gone into the second philosophy because money and time do not favor giving rigorous marksmanship training to all those who might need to fire their weapons in combat. It is far easier, and cheaper, to give a soldier an M-16 and train him to a reasonable level of proficiency, then load him up with several hundred rounds. It takes more time and more money to arm him with a 7.62mm weapon because it's simply harder to learn to shoot a heavier weapon for most people (recoil, or fear of it, makes accuracy more difficult). If you doubt this, take someone who has never shot a rifle before then hand them a .22LR gun and a 8mm Mauser. See which one they can shoot better first.

Sure, special forces often arm themselves with larger weapons like the M-14, but they have the time and money to rigorously train themselves to peak proficiency. The non-special forces in the military simply don't have that luxury. I don't have current information, but I would be very surprised if the Marines around here trained every week on the rifle range with their weapons. Of course, special ops units don't need large weapons if they are precise marksmen either, reference the SEALs comment above. I imagine the choice is dictacted by the mission as you don't really need 7.62mm in a CQB situation.

All of the above can be applied to the .45/9mm discussion as well.

A real soldier leaves the pistol at home and takes a couple extra magazines for his rifle.....

From my above post...

A study was done after WWII involving what factor most determined how much damage was inflicted to the enemy. The study not only found that marksmanship was not the number one factor but neither was the caliber. What one stat came to light as THE way to inflict casualties on the enemy was simple....put more bullets in the air!

Also in the vast majority of soldier on soldier confrontations the range was less than 150 yards and rarely did a soldier engage another at ranges over 300 yards. The SEALS and other Special Ops group's main mission is to gather intelligence. If they are involved in combat they always run! Hit and run or you are dead....

Combine that with the problems with supplying ammo to front line troops and the defects in the M1 Garand causing soldiers on the front line to completely emty the clip used in the Garand because it could not be 'topped-off' with ammo and needed to be 'shot dry' before it was reloaded, and ammo was used up at a nearly unsuppliable rate! Most soldiers shot until the rifle expeled the clip, 8 rounds, even though they only needed 2 or 3 rounds.

Let's not discuss the M14 as it was NEVER used in combat for any length of time. It's stock warped...it's heavy....

The Garand shot the .30-06 round. The M16 shoots a 5.56 round that weighs less than half as much therefore a soldier can carry twice as many rounds without 'gaining weight!' Part of the logistical problems are solved.

The 5.56 is easily effective to 350 yards or more in a steady hand...and the object is to wound and not kill. Every wounded soldier requires two to be pulled from other tasks to tend to the wounded soldier....Even with the 30-06 the rule in the Pacific was "Shoot'm in the big part and shoot'm agin!"

But back to the ammo/pistol discussion...

A pistol usually is carried in a combat situation by non coms or above. They are normally involved in tasks that are administrative. Looking at maps. Using the radio. Inspecting the troops. He needs both hands free....a pistol is carried on the hip leaving both hands free and is not drawn except when there is an immediate threat to life. It is imperative that when a pistol is drawn, not only should it function, but it's round should be the best available!

The .45ACP has a battle proven record unequaled by the 9MM and the 9 is an older round! When my life depends on it, I'll always pick what works.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Tominator
The .45ACP has a battle proven record unequaled by the 9MM and the 9 is an older round! When my life depends on it, I'll always pick what works.

So which is it? The .45 is good because it is old but the 9x19 is bad because it is old?

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: Scipionix

Originally posted by: Tominator
The .45ACP has a battle proven record unequaled by the 9MM and the 9 is an older round! When my life depends on it, I'll always pick what works.

So which is it? The .45 is good because it is old but the 9x19 is bad because it is old?

The 9MM is substandard when compared to the .45ACP. Get it?

 

[Russ]

These discussions are always entertaining. As is always the case, it's painfully obvious who has actually fired the weapons being discussed, and who has never seen a gun outside of a dangerous game of CS.

As long as the military prohibits the use of hollow points then, of course, the .45 will have more stopping power then the 9MM. Stoke them both +p hollow points, and the 9MM will hold it's own quite nicely, with an easier learning curve and a bonus of a large capacity magazine. I've fired both extensively, like both, but prefer my Beretta over any other handgun, including the Sigs.

BTW, I use Corbon in all my handguns. Where can I get me some of that "armor piercing" stuff. Bwuahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Russ, NCNE

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: Scipionix

Originally posted by: Tominator
The .45ACP has a battle proven record unequaled by the 9MM and the 9 is an older round! When my life depends on it, I'll always pick what works.

So which is it? The .45 is good because it is old but the 9x19 is bad because it is old?

The 9MM is substandard when compared to the .45ACP. Get it?

No, I think it's personal preference. This debate has gone out without resolution for 90 years.

 

[Tominator]

In ball form the .45 ACP is not just better, it is superior!

The 9MM was adopted for a political purpose while the .45 was developed to give US Soldiers a workable tool. Argument over. The debate can only be furthered by the ignorant....imho...