Let's select a new handgun for the military.

[Prof. Fuller Bullspit]

Just to start a topic: As expected there are reports of the 9mm full metal jacket not having enough stopping power in combat. For a minute imagine what it would be like to be on the comittee charged with selecting a new service pistol for the United States. Assume that you had to pick from existing pistol designs.

What current production pistol would make the best service side arm for the United States?

What criteria would you use to make your choice?

Explain your reasons.

If you want more fun, pretend for a moment that the 1911 doesn't exist.

[New Hampshire]

Ok, Ill play.  First of all I would not consider the 1911 for GENERAL issue simply because women and, dare I say it, some of the weaker men would probably have serious problems qualifying (no problem for them ramboesque Spec Ops guys though.)
If we WERE to go with a .45 it had better be a heavy framed Stainless Stell one to help soak a bit of recoil up, and a smaller grip frame so smallish hands can get around the beefy grips that are common to .45s.  
But I think, being the .45 fan I am, that I would go elswheres for a cartridge.  I think the .40 S&W has to get the most serious nod, even though the recoil can be a bit on the high side, sometimes more so than the .45.  And I would go with a time proven design, perhaps one that lost out only because it was underbid by the Italians.........So my answer would be?!?!?!?


Sig P226 in .40 S&W.

The 9mm version was just as reliable in the Military tests and lost the contract only because Berettas bid was lower.  Cetain units still use it in the 9mm version, so that would be a plus.

You could also consider the .45 gap, I guess, but even with all the bells and whistles it just aint quite like the good ole .45   .
Brian M.

[Questor]

Interesting topic.

Can anyone confirm or debunk the rumor that, under the Clinton administration, a lot of our soldiers got small arms training that was so minimal that they were not issued ammunition, but were required to yell "bang!" when they intended to fire?  I've heard this a couple of times and it seems a little too wild to be believable.

I'd like to know what the soldiers actually have to say about this. What do they actually do with handguns? I really don't know.  Is it a backup weapon for infantrymen? Is it something that is used by soldiers who are not rifle-carrying infantrymen?

[Dave in WV]

Para Ordance LDA single stack with Officer model frame and Commander length slide. One handgun for all uses. The USAF was going to change from S&W M15 .38s to this format but in single action before Congress rammed the M9 Beretta down the military's throat. The reason for the LDA is it requires less training time to qualify.

[Donna]

Well, when I was in the military Clinton was not around. On the surface craft that I was assigned to, during a repel-borders drill shotguns and boxes of shot shells were given to everyone of the security team but the shot shells were so tightly rapped up it would take a howitzer to brake into it but we never said “bang”.

Good question but a tuff one to answer without the 1911. The Para Ordance LDA looks like a 1911 just a bit wider so lets not discount the 1911 specially since there has never been anything better. It has also been proven by the FBI report that the .45ACP outperforms the 9mm in stopping power and the 10mm outperforms the .45ACP in stopping power. But most police agencies, FBI, and the CIA feel that the 10mm has too much recoil to be a viable defensive/offensive weapon. So S&W cut down the 10mm to make the 40S&W but the problem is that the 40 is cut down so far that it is now less effective than the .45ACP. If people in the military and law enforcement cannot handle the 10mm then maybe they should go to the range more often until they can handle it. My vote is for a combination of the 1911 and Para Ordance LDA in either the .45ACP or the 10mm.

Donna

[myronman3]

Interesting topic.

Can anyone confirm or debunk the rumor that, under the Clinton administration, a lot of our soldiers got small arms training that was so minimal that they were not issued ammunition, but were required to yell "bang!" when they intended to fire?  I've heard this a couple of times and it seems a little too wild to be believable.

I'd like to know what the soldiers actually have to say about this. What do they actually do with handguns? I really don't know.  Is it a backup weapon for infantrymen? Is it something that is used by soldiers who are not rifle-carrying infantrymen?

 
 well buddy, consider it confirmed.  billy screwed the military every chance he could.  and yes, we were told to say "bang, bang, bang" to simulate firing our weapon because the gutless leaders were too busy chasing skirts to care about americas sons' and daughters' lives.   i could go on and on, but i will leave it at, yes, that is a fact.  and for the record, i was in one of america's premier special ops units; not some no-go college bound support groups.   (i just got done listening to my neighbor whine about some nephews who were upset because they  signed up for college money, not service; and they got called up).  

handguns are issued to officers, drivers, pilots, some senior enlisted to name a few.  it mostly depends on your m.o.s..  there are few infantrymen who are issued pistols because they want you using your rifle or gun.   you are not allowed to bring your own.  however, once in battle, it isnt uncommon for troops to aquire pistols.  they cannot bring them back, though.   i think every infantryman should be issued a quality pistol that is theirs for life; along with their rifle.    it is the least the nation could do to show some gratitude.  

now.  what to issue.  my choice would be a high capacity.  i have shot almost every one i could think of, except a glock.   were it me, i would want a 1911.  so i would say a 1911 with a double stack high capacity magazine in either 45auto; or if you want a new age twist= 10mm.   and if you say absolutely no 1911's; i would say a h.k. usp tactical in 10mm.   good subject!

[Iowegan]

Dave & Brian,
The Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) carried the gun Dave eluded to. It wasn't exactly as he described but close. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay (famous Commander of the Stragic Air Command) actually designed the gun and the Air Force Armory at Lackland AFB, TX built them. They took standard issue 1911A1 GI 45's, cut the slide and barrels to 4.25" (same as a Commander) then cut an inch off the bottom of the grip. It was issued to all 2500 OSI Agents world wide and came with an Alessi hi-ride holster and an Alessi magazine holder. Each gun had two standard 7 round GI magazines and one special 6 round magazine with a finger rest (carried in the gun). From 1980 to 1985, OSI agents, yes even the petite females, carried this gun cocked & locked with a total of 21 rounds of GI 230 gr ball ammo. The OSI 45 replaced the S&W Mod 36-3, a 3" Chief Special (38 Spec). This semi-worthless gun wouldn't hold up to the GI 130 gr +P ball ammo. In 1985, OSI turned in their 45s for Berettas (GI version of a 92). They carried one spare magazine which gave them 30 rounds vs 21 with the 45. They lost on raw power, concealability, and tradition. All Agents had to be retrained on the "first shot D/A" concept that many grew to hate.

I was with DOJ during that time period and worked very closely with OSI. We tested several of their guns for function, safety, accuracy, and reliability. The guns were great and passed all tests. We tried to get them transferred to DOJ when OSI got rid of them but no luck. I wasn't real fond of the short grip but I must admit they shot very well.

Finding a military sidearm that fits all needs is nearly impossible. Consider the different climates, uniforms, size and weight restrictions, compatability with NATO, air, sea and land, on and on. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines all have different needs. Within the forces are Special Ops, Seals, Rangers, pilots, etc. I don't think anyone could come up with a better gun than the good old 1911.  If it weren't for Geneva Convention restrictions on ammo, 38 Super, 40 cal, or even 9mm would do fine. Unfortunately, one of the only cartridges that doesn't need to mushroom to be effective is the 45 cal. Any chosen gun would have to be simple to operate, disassemble / reassemble, and would have non-precision parts that would be field replacable without gunsmithing. I'd vote for a Commander sized gun in 45 ACP.

[Duffy]

A selective fire MAC10 in 45 Super.

[leverfan]

I don't know if round nosed ammo is still the common issue, but going to truncated cone (basically flat point) for the bullet shape would help right off the bat.  My wife is a pipsqueak, but she's shot 10mm, hot loaded 45 Colt, 45 ACP, and 44 mag without any complaints, along with plenty of other hard kickers.  

She's never griped about the grip being too large to use, and the last gun that she picked out was a CZ 85, and they aren't exactly known for being an ideal choice for folks with mitts as small as hers.  Packing it cocked and locked shortens the trigger pull a bit, so that may help.  In fact, the CZ 75 in 40 S&W, loaded with truncated cone ammo for times when hollow point isn't P.C., would make a fine side arm.  It's available in several sizes, so easily concealed versions would be available for the troops that required them.  I don't have any experience with the CZ 97B in 45 ACP, or I might be recommending that.

[unspellable]

First, the Geneva Convention has nothing to do with this subject.  It's the Hague Convention that deals with bullet types.

Second, the original loading of the 9 mm Parabellum had a truncated cone bullet.  This raised objections and the Germans went to a round nose.

Third, we are stuck with a round nosed hardball.  Now dump all the anecdotal stories, dump all the stopping power theories, and simply count how many stopped doing what they were doing when hit.  There is no significant statistical difference between the 9 mm Parabellum, the 40 S&W, and the 45 ACP.  Despite its legendary status, the 45 ACP hardball does little if any better than the 9 mm Parabellum.

Fourth, the 9 mm Parabellum is the NATO standard, there's a lot of inertia to overcome trying to change it.

Bottom line is, like it or lump it, we will be using the  9 mm Parabellum cartridige.  Only after you accept that is it time to worry about what you're going to use it in.

[Dave in WV]

Iowegan, I was able to handle a 1911 target pistol that had been built at Lackland AFB,TX. Of all of the 1911s I've handled, none come close to the workmanship and features that one had. The pistols the OSI had you mentioned are what was to have been general issue. Guns and Ammo did an article about them. The AF had Hornady make the flat nosed ball rounds for more knock down power. I guess they started producing the .45s and then we got stuck with the POS Berettas. What really sucks is SIG lost out for under $10 a pistol on the bid.

[Questor]

Interesting thread. An acquaintance of mine just went into the national guard, deployed to Bosnia. He got the strange idea of getting a personal sidearm, chambered in 9mm, even though he was to be issued a service sidearm.  We recommended against it, citing that it might be in violation of something that could get him into trouble.

After reading this thread, it would seem that he could get into much greater trouble if he were to use modern self-defense ammo instead of ball ammo. The reason is that in the case of the gun, he'd be violating some US internal rules, and in the case of the ammo, he'd be violating an international convention.

Could he get into trouble if he used expanding or frangible bullets in his government issue Beretta 9mm?  How much trouble?

[Mikey]

Hmmmmm, a new military handgun and not a 1911.  Ok, ya'll asked fer it so here it goes.........  I would opt for one of my own design, a design I put on paper 36 years ago to handle a cartridge I was not able to design and develop for another 20 years.

The pistol is a combination of the Walther P-38s double/single action but with an 1896 Mauser pistol (Broomhandle) type front loading magazine and an AR-7 type interchangeable barrel system for different calibers and barrel lengths.  Initially chambered in the 45 acp with interchangeable barrels availble in my own 40 caliber application, or the 10mm, the 38 Super/9x23mm, with smaller versions available for the smaller calibers.  

The current handgrip magazine would be replaced with a 'drop-out' 'T' stock for shoulder firing and longer eye relief.

I figured that 40 caliber of mine would go farther and hit harder than the 45 would, and the piece could be used as a sidearm or as a carbine.  

But that was just my two cents worth 30 some-odd years ago and I'm thinkin' I shoulda, hada, oughta charge more fer it now - mebbe 3 cents.  Mikey.

[Dragon31]

You folks seem to have a pretty good handle on the topic.  Only some officers and senior NCO are issued side arms.  The current M9 in double actions (first round out of the barrel) has a really long trigger reach for folks with small hands.  I had to take the time to teach one of my young Majors she didn't have to go by the book to shoot well (I had her cock the hammer on drawing the weapons), rather than reach for the trigger.  Several years back some of the National Guard units did experience shortages of 9 MM ammo.  I made sure my people shot plenty of .22 and dry fired the 9's.
The perfect combat hand gun is a rifle.  
Real life experience some many years ago in Viet Nam my 1911A1 was to heavy for me to pack around for days in the bush.  Because of weight I carried few rounds and I lived for long periods of time with out resupply.  My .45 was lost to "battle damage" and in trade I got a Browning Hi Power.  With a mag in the pistol and four more on my belt I had 70 rounds of pistol ammo plus my .30 carbine and what I could carry for it.  Real life stopping power.  Small statue targets, with no body armor at pistol range, I was not able to tell any difference between .45 and 9 mm.  Two legged Mammals act just like deer when hit, what stops one does not stop another.  One of the most effective combat weapons I have witnessed was a 9 mm Swedish K.  Shooting hot sub gun ammo the 9 mm round where more than enough for penetrating all targets fired on.  remember that combat is not police work and that the requirements are entirely different.  
To make a long story short I still like the Browning and it is my go to gun.  I could think of worse pistols to carry.

[Iowegan]

I stand corrected on the Geneva Convention. It was indeed the Hague Convention, July 29, 1899 that prohibited "the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions". It was later revised to include "dumdums" and other expanding bullets.

We are not stuck with the 9mm forever. Nato doesn't have any rules that mandate the use of 9mm, only "standardization" policies. It would be "politically incorrect" to stray from NATO's policies but it wouldn't violate any laws. I know the Navy Seals were using the H&K in 40 S&W. Of course that's a special case but still not "illegal". Many NATO countries still carry arms that aren't a 9X19mm, 5.56mm, or 7.62mm NATO.

There have been years and years of disagreement between the 45 ACP and the 9mm. The big hole theory vs penetration. Personally, I wouldn't want to get shot by either one. The 40 S&W was developed as a compromise between the two. It has almost as good penetration as the 9mm and almost as big of a hole as the 45 ACP.  I suspect the military gun of the future will follow the same path as law enforcement and go with a 40 cal. I still prefer a good old 45 ACP.

[New Hampshire]

Since the topic was hypothetical then we are simply having some fun.  But truth be told unspellable hit the nail right on the head.  Handguns are basically useless on the modern battlefield.  Handguns PERIOD are weak when it comes to outright killing power.  Who here would not rather carry a rifel over a handgun assuming we wouldnt get strange looks (and strange they would be.)  The importance of handguns in the military is that they offer a more handy and compact weapon for when someone cant always have a rifle with them.  And in Afghanistan the handgun proved helpful in cave fighting.  But if you could get the (full) power of a .223 rifle into a handgun sized package then that would be the instant solution.  Be that as it may, the fact is this:  Handguns kill by making holes, so the bigger the better.  Rifles kill by shock power, so boresize is not too important (save for what you want it to do over the long range.)
Brian M.

[Will]

Not to step on anyone's toes, but it seems like to me like a bunch of the folks who really push the 1911 over handguns like the Beretta do so because of tradition. Don't get me wrong, the 1911 is a fine handgun, and no doubt one of the best ever made for combat. But the Beretta has also proven itself in combat. Both are pistols however, and neither one will ever be the equal of a rifle. Personally, after firing numerous 1911's as well as HK's and Sigs and other brands, I prefer my Beretta. It's easiest for me to shoot, utterly reliable, and very accurate. I don't feel a bit undergunned with it, and the younger folks I've talked with who are in the military now (and didn't really know that much about guns to start with and therefore aren't biased one way or the other) really like the Beretta. If it comes time to use a handgun, the bad guy, whether he's a mugger on the street or a terrorist in a foreign land, isn't going to know the difference in a 9mm Jennings and a .45 Gold Cup when it hits him. He'll just know it hurt. I say stick with what we've got.

[myronman3]

as far as handguns being worthless in combat; not so.   city fighting they are quite nice- no long barrel poking around the corners to tell them your coming.  m16  and s.a.w. are awfully long to hand in tight areas.  nice to have when your sleeping, too.  worth carrying.  
   
will said "If it comes time to use a handgun, the bad guy, whether he's a mugger on the street or a terrorist in a foreign land, isn't going to know the difference in a 9mm Jennings and a .45 Gold Cup when it hits him."
  i disagree wholeheartedly.   my granddad never told me stories of how his trusty 9mm not only stopped a german cold in his tracks, but also moved him back some.   or the time he hit one in the knee and the enemy did a total flip in the air from the impact.   and my dad never told me to "trust your 9".   no sir.  two men in two different wars with different experiences and more experience in combat than i would ever want swear by the 45.  and both have seen both calibers in action.  
  the only bad thing about the 1911 is the low capacity.  one needs more ammo per mag in my opinion.

[halfacop]

I agree. There are guy's over in Iraq that have been issued the 9 and are using there own money and resources to fill their holsters with 1911's. That to me say's alot! I myself work part time on a sheriffs dept. and would not carry anything less than a 40! Even my back up is bigger than a 9.

[Dave in WV]

Will,the problem with the Beretta is the grip is too big for many shooters. I have short fingers and had difficulty shooting it as well as I can several other brands of automatics. A 1911 with a flat main spring housing fits more shooters hands. If I had a choice between a Beretta or a SIG P225 or P228 I'd pick a SIG because they fit my hand.

[unspellable]

When retricted to hardball loads there is no significant difference between the 9 mm Parabellum cartridge and the 45 ACP.  No theories, no anecdotes, just shoot 'em and count 'em.  I have large hands so I'd be happy with either in a double stacker, but I'd have no problem going with the 9 mm to accomodate smaller hands.

On the other hand, I am no great fan of the Beretta.  While I'd be happy with the 9 mm cartridge I'd wish for a different platform to launch it from.  The Ruger P89 ought to make a decent service pistol.  The Daewoo triple action would be a nice pistol assuming it has the reliability.  Solves the DA vs self cocking only controversy.

[Will]

Like I say, everyone has a different opinion on what makes a good handgun. But I agree with unspellable that there's probably not much difference in 9mm and .45 hardball. What difference there is I think is made up with accuracy and controllability. I've never fired a .45 that I could hit with as rapidly as I can with my Beretta. I also have large hands and long fingers. Now, I've shot some 1911's and HK's that were very easy to hit with, but with my Beretta, I can recover much quicker and put a second round right where I want it to go if I need to. I guess my main complaint is that folks seem to have a bias against my favorite handgun that has never shown anything but good service to me.

[Dave in WV]

I agree there is not much difference between 9mm & .45acp ball ammo if the enemy is not wearing body armour. If he/she is, then the .45 has an edge for stunning them long enough to get a chance for a head shot. We are not the only country issuing body armour.
The Beretta has a record for dependability. After Desert Storm the USMC has tried to convert to .45 SIGs more than once. Maybe they know something about close quarters combat. :wink:

[myronman3]

you guys are entitled to your opinions, but i want to know where you get that there isnt much difference between a 9 and a 45.   i dont care a hoot what type ammo i am shooting; if MY life was on the line,  i choose a 45 without any thought.   as far as being able to get a second shot, put one round in the target and move on. if you cant trust your weapon to get the job done then maybe you are on to the reason so many of us are fans of he 45.   and i dont buy into the argurment that the 45 kicks too hard.  squeeze off a few 44 mags or even a 454 and you will quickly see how much of a pussycat the 45 auto is to the shooter.

[williamlayton]

Not a flame or any conceivable put down intended
Why are the .357SIG, 10mm, or the 9x23 not spoken of more than I read here?
If it is an issue with small framed people, women/men, it would seem training would accomplish the end results. The 9x23 would provide some of the range I find expressed as a disadvantage and it certainly does not carry any recoil negatives.
With the seeming abundance of body armor, heavy clothing I would think the penetration of these calibers, even to consider the .38 super, would be a prime consideration. Remember that it was Frank Hamer, when chasing Bonnie & Clyde, that opted for a .38 super for penetration purposes. That speaks a lot from a Texas Ranger who was of the Original .45 school.
OK MIKEY--why not a longer barrel, say a 6" or 7" slide ?
Blessings

[Mikey]

williamlayton - Mornin'!  A 6 or 7 inch slide would be too long for the average soldier.  A bunch of years ago they found that the 4 inch revolver was about optimal for the average person and it may hold true that the current 1911 configuaration is about optimal for the average soldier.  Some may even prefer the shorter Commander length.  Usually, you find that either the longer barrel or the shorter barrel, say 6" on the long end and 2" on the short end, have a tendency to allow the shooter to exagerate his or her inaccuracy.  Although I like the 38 SUper/9x23 and am a fan of the 10mm, I think they are a bit too heavy (recoil) for the average GI, and with proper springs the 45 is quite easy to shoot.  

Although I am a fan of the 45 caliber, I have carried and used 9mms before.  As with unspellable I have found that in close quarters combat there is little perceptable difference in the effect on enemy soldiers between the two calibers when hit.  Close quarters military combat, for those who have the experience, is much different than police work:  in combat, you simply continue to shoot until the enemy is down and it doesn't seem to matter if its a 9mm or a 45 in that regard - it sure ain't hollywood and you don't stand there waiting for him to drop his gun and put his hands up after you've popped him a time or two.  I believe it is a much different scenario in police work.

And all this before my first cup of coffee - ugh!  Wouldya all believe I got up early this Saturday morning to watch Venus rising - gonna be a long day until the 8th rolls around (LOL).  Hope ya'll have a great weekend.  Mikey.

[williamlayton]

Mikey-
agreed with the thought on difference between police and combat work.
The primary thought was on penetration in combat work since this seems to be a major concern here, knockdown capabilites withstanding.
Blessings

[Dragon31]

Mikey:

You are totally correct that a combat hand gun is a totally different animal than a police weapon.  The military, as an organization has, is and always will be an organization that changes slowly.  My military career started in 1961 and ended in 2002, you count the years.  I've worked from the company level to corp battle staff and every where in between.  Given no body armour the 9 mm does the job just as well as the .45.  In 1962-1963 I was issued a .45 1911A1 and heard all the bull about what a great man stopped it was.  Against numerous 110 lb Viet Cong, never once did I see it "knock" anyone off their feet, make them fall or tumble (except when their legs were broken by the bullet) or act in any way than anyone hit with any other round would do, many were not totally in incapacitated by only one round.
The Army at the time did not take women very seriously either (I never saw an American female until I arrived at the Hospital for treatment), Now look, some of the best soldiers are woman. acceptance of a new hand gun will always be a hard sell becasuse it means change, just like accepting that women can make good soldiers or that a .45 is just another round.
If I could figure out how to send pictures I have a supply from Iraq of both private contractors, other government employees and numerous soldiers, none are carrying weapons that they have purchased privately. all are proficient in a variety of small arms and crew served weapons.  All would agree only a fool brings a hand gun to a firefight.  In MOUT, urban warfare for you all non soldiers the best weapon is some kind of carbine not a pistol.  All fire arms are a compromise.  My sniper weapon of choice is a 155, map and a radio.  I never lost many people either.

[myronman3]

dragon said " Against numerous 110 lb Viet Cong, never once did I see it "knock" anyone off their feet, make them fall or tumble (except when their legs were broken by the bullet) or act in any way than anyone hit with any other round would do"
 
 my grandfather and father say otherwise.  

and "Now look, some of the best soldiers are woman."  
 
the best soldiers are ones who have proven themselves; rangers, green berets, seals, and many other units that women arent allowed.   until i see a women met the same standards that men meet i will disagree with you.  if they want the same honors EARN THEM.  

also, " the best weapon is some kind of carbine not a pistol."  
     actually,  a shotgun beats them all.   and it isnt like guys can carry three different weapons and use what the moment calls for.  

 and finally "My sniper weapon of choice is a 155, map and a radio."  assuming that is available.   remember somolia?  politicians (clinton) wouldnt stomach the use of any big guns.  and we got shot up pretty good.  now what are you going to do?    i agree if it is available, use it.  but when things can go wrong they will and everything rarely goes as planned.   and there are alot of missions where that kind of support isnt available.  
  i cant say i have ever shot anyone with a 45 or a 9mm.    but my grandfather surely did, and my friends dad did, as did my father.  and these mens' word is beyond any doubt better than gold.

[Old Griz]

:cb2: Well, if a 9mm and a .45 are equal in power, then I'll take the one that makes the biggest hole and causes the enemy to bleed the most!

My wife is basically a non-athletic wimp physically, but not mentally. She was never taught anything about recoil, so her favorite fun gun to shoot is my Glock 21. It's too big for her to carry concealed, so she totes a small .357 instead. She was taught to focus on the front sight, so that is what she focuses on. And by the way, she's good. She has regular medium sized female hands to go with her 5'5" medium sized female body. So the idea that women can't handle .40s and .45s is a myth. Paxton Quigley said the gals going through her school liked the Ruger GP100 (.357) and the 1911s the best. Does this sound like women can't shoot real guns to you?

Had the military waited another 6 months to conduct their trials, I believe our soldiers would be carrying Glocks today instead of Berettas or Sigs. Since Glocks seem to be able to function in extremely dirty conditions when other guns won't, I'd like to see the military carry Glock 21s. They are easy to double tap, hold 13+1 rounds, and anyone who can't handle one really doesn't need to be in a combat position anyway.

Prof. Fuller Bullspit you did this just to get people worked up didn't you!
 :-D