Let's select a new handgun for the military.

[Prof. Fuller Bullspit]

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

Yes!  

I've been reading this thread with a lot of interest. The quality of thought has been great and I appreciate people who have been there and done that adding thier anecdotal evidence to the mix.

I remember when the current pistol was selected. I was shocked that our military would choose an Italian gun as the service side arm. That was before I handled one. Excpet for the issue of the double action first shot I think our current pistol isn't too bad. The military handgun is a conundrum. Typically they are issued to non-frontline troops. However many of those troops go to great lengths to acquire one on thier own if they are provided one. That is interesting. The handgun will always be inferior to a rifle, or a howitzer, but when you need a handgun you typically need it really badly and really fast, often to get back to your primary weapon that you left sitting up against that berm, just over there.

When I started this thread I thought it would be interesting to see what criteria people would establish in the selection process. Things like:

Ease of training
Size
Caliber
Capacity
Reliablity
Durability
Ease of maintenance
Etc.

And in truth, when I started this thread I had my own notions about the best candidate based on those criteria. That would have been the Glock 21. For patriotic reasons I'd love to see a Ruger (or other American born and bred) pistol in the holsters of our troops.

The 9mm vs. the .45 debate is still interesting even though it has been going on for almost a hundred years and probably won't be through in another hundred years although by then I expect it will be a historical discussion rather than a practical one. Aren't those handgun sized particle beam weapons about ready yet?

[Old Griz]

:cb2: Perfecting the handgun sized particle beam weapon wasn't a problem. However, the backpack sized reactor that powers them still weighs over 700 lbs. :-D

[myronman3]

well even though i disagree with some on this; i think this is one of the best threads i have read in quite a while.  if nothing else i enjoyed it.

[michbob]

My Two Cents:  Why are people concerned with the selection of the most insignificant weapon in the average soldier's arsenal?  Baring use by aviators, MP's, etc., the pistol has to be the most underutillized weapon in combat service.  You have rifles and carbines and MG's, Oh my!  Not to mention the lowly hand grenade.  How many of those do you suppose are issued out, in comparison to pistols?

As far as WW 2 was concerned, my Grandpa got the scenic tour of southern France (Operation Dragoon), Germany, and even Austria.  Even then, they believed In Garand We Trust.  Pistols, if issued or liberated, were primarily a security blanket for those cold, dark nights in the foxhole.  Grandpa, by the way, picked up an old Lebel revolver, of all things, and carried it all the way through the war.  Just in case.

Sincerely,

Michbob.

[Old Griz]

:cb2: I would hardly call it insignificant. I have read plenty of accounts on Guadalcanal and other islands where waves of attacking Japanese troops were cut down at night by troops fighting back with their semi-automatic handguns. They were so easy to swing back and forth from target to target, and the attackers couldn't even be seen until they were really close. They were quick to reload and much easier to use in close quarter combat.

The European theater and the Pacific theater were quite different in that the enemy fought in different styles. My father knew when he got his orders to go to the Pacific after V-E Day he was going to die. Everyone he knew who was sent to the Pacific was dead. Waves of suicide fighters was not as popular among German troops as it was with the Japanese. Korea and Vietnam were different still.

Today, if urban warfare takes you inside a building its much easier to use and control a handgun than a rifle. I don't blame our troops for buying their own handguns and carrying them into battle. You never know when the situation will call for one.

[unspellable]

mryonman3,

The point that there isn’t much difference between the  9 mm and the 45 is not a matter of opinion; it’s a cold hard fact.  The problem with the 9 mm vs. 45 controversy is that for years it was all based on opinion and no facts.  Anecdotal stories are fun to listen to and on occasion suggest a line of investigation but they do not prove anything.

After 60 or 70 years of anecdotal stories, heated opinions, and no facts, somebody finally decided to find out what the facts were.  There are no opinions in this, no theories in this, no anecdotal stories in this.  Simply compile the statistics of cases where some one took a hit fair and square from either cartridge and then count how many stopped doing what they were doing.  Surprise!  No significant statistical difference!  60% stops for the 9 mm hardball vs 63% for the 45 hardball.  Really not all that good for either, but we are restricted to hardball loads here.  Now before you get excited about the 3% difference you have to understand a little about statistics and proof of a hypothosis.  The 3% difference is insignificant and considered due to random chance in the sample size available.

Even if we grant the 3% difference, it is so small that I think it is outweighed by the reduced recoil and increased firepower available with the 9 mm.

You might keep in mind that between WWI and WWII the British switched from the 455 to the 380 and found no significant difference in stopping power.  Now the 455 throws a bigger and heavier slug than the 45.  The 380 throws a 200 grain slug at rather modest velocity.  (Its more or less the same as the 200 grain 38 S&W Police Load which is considered a pipsqueak compared to the 38 Special or the  9 mm.)

See Sanow on stopping power.

[myronman3]

well i guess i have to say a bit more.  i am not sure whether or not they used hardball ammo or something else.   maybe this is the variable here.  but i KNOW  grandpa and dad were not stretching the truth at all on what they had experienced.    it isnt something vets sit around an joke about; most carry a very heavy burden from what they have seen and done.  
   and as far as studies and statistics go;  they can be twisted to reflect about anything one wants to.   i will take grandpa's and dad's word over any study or stat.  
   one last question here.  has anyone ever shot people here with  45 ball AND 9mm ball ammo?  or is everyone just as stubborn as i am in their opinion?   it needs to be both; or how else are we going to have first hand perspective?

[unspellable]

Yes, grandpa probably really did get that fabulous one shot stop.  But it's still an anecdote.  You didn't hear from the guy who didn't get a one shot stop.  That's the trouble with anecdotes.  At least two elephants have been killed with one shot from a 22 LR but would you take a 22 LR elephant hunting on the basis of that?

Yes, it's possible to twist the statistics but properly done statistics reveal the truth, they don't hide it.

As for hits with 9 mm vs the 45, again I reiterate, Sanow, et al, have done the study with real statistics properly done, exactly as you ask for.  Please look up their books on stopping power and read them.

The statement that there is no significant difference in stopping power between the two hardball loads is not opinion, it is not theory, it is not supposition, it's a real world comparison of actual facts.

[New Hampshire]

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=ZYw12chaq7&isbn=0873649532&itm=1

An excellent book that dispells the nasty roomers that float around about handguns.  I highly suggest giving it a read.
Brian M.

[michbob]

Fending off banzai attacks with a pistol?  Which book was this, 'cause I never heard of any such incident.  Indeed, Europe and the Pacific were very much different situations; but the fanaticism of the enemy was never in doubt in either case.  Talk to someone who faced SS or Hitler Youth wackos.  They wanted to fight to the end, too;  but they used TACTICS.

Sorry, that was off topic.  They key to the debate is: is the M9 doing the job?  Not apocryphal stories, now, no "I read it in a gun rag", "my uncle's brothers' nephew in East Timor says...".  The M9 has been in service for almost 20 years now, give or take.  If there were serious, widespread problems with the design, they would have come to light.  Example: the 30mm canon mounted on the Apache.  It's not as reliable or accurate as the Army would like, and they have been trying to sort it out.

Michbob

[leverfan]

Yes, it's possible to twist the statistics but properly done statistics reveal the truth, they don't hide it.

As for hits with 9 mm vs the 45, again I reiterate, Sanow, et al, have done the study with real statistics properly done, exactly as you ask for.  Please look up their books on stopping power and read them.

The statement that there is no significant difference in stopping power between the two hardball loads is not opinion, it is not theory, it is not supposition, it's a real world comparison of actual facts.

The work of Marshall and Sanow has been called into question by dozens of other folks that study gun shot injuries.  It's also easy to find inconsistencies in the work itself that lead one to believe that Marshall and Sanow are, at the very least, NOT the final say on wound ballistics.  

That being said, when a spectacular stop does occur in a real world shooting, e.g., the person being shot does one heck of a flip, I do not believe for a moment that the bullet itself is doing the work.  What you're seeing is a huge muscle spasm triggered by the injury, and the person that's been shot does the work with his own muscles.  

Many people have tested this "knock-down" theory by hanging 160 lb. bags in trees and shooting them.  Even when the bullet fails to penetrate very deeply, that bag doesn't move a whole lot.  If the bullet penetrates several inches, as bullets tend to do in flesh, the energy is imparted to the bag over an even longer period, and it just isn't going to swing around.  In fact, most shoulder fired weapons can't move a 160 lb. bag very much, and handguns sure can't.

Hunters see this often.  One deer just folds in its tracks when it falls to the shot, but the next manages to flip itself 6 feet to one side at impact, despite being hit with identical rounds.  Some deer act as if nothing happened at all, or they just flinch.  It's not the bullet moving the critter, it's the critter.  The same thing goes for defensive shootings and war, if someone flings himself back upon being shot, it's purely a body's own reaction to a very unpleasant, sudden event.

[Will]

Jim Carmicheal wrote an interesting article for Outdoor Life a year ago about why some animals fall dead in their tracks and others run a ways, even when hit in the same place with the same round. He had done some questioning with some experts (don't ask me to recall whom) and one theory is what cycle of the heartbeat the animal is on when the bullet hits. In other words, if the vessles are full of blood at the time of impact, it can cause a theoretical surge to the brain, causing the animal to pass out. Of course, when animals come off their feet and are slammed down, this is their response, not the bullet pushing them.

So far as the new service handgun debate rages, I saw someone had written several posts ago if anyone was going to change their mind or if this would go on forever. I'd say it'll go on forever. I don't know which one stops bad guys better, the 9mm or .45. It's really sort of insignificant. If I've got either one of them with me in a crisis, I'll be fairly confident. Maybe the .45 does have an edge in stopping power. But I know that Beretta is a fine handgun, resonably powerful, easy to hit with and provides good firepower. This has been a fun post though.

[Old Griz]

:cb2: Hey--I KNOW the .45 is more powerful, cuz I saw "Last Man Standing" with Bruce Willis, and every time he shot someone with one of his 1911s it picked the bad guy right up off the floor. And when he kept shooting the guy while he was in the air, he kept getting pushed back another 10 feet or so. He shot one guy so many times with both guns (never missing of course) that it carried him through the door and a good 15-20 feet out in the street.

So there. It's true. I saw it with my own eyes. :-D

Hollywood wouldn't lie! :bye:

[AZ223]

Hey, I saw one like that -- Kevin Costner in "Open Range" got 18 shots out of a six-shooter!  :shock: Plus, it blew the bad guys backward just like the Bruce Willis flik!! So, here we go: Not only is it powerful, but it gets a three-fold return on every round you load into it! The money savings could pay for some of those high-tech weapons in Men in Black, if only Hollywood would turn loose of them... :?

[Old Griz]

:cb2: It's been a loooooooooong time since I've seen The Sons of Katie Elder but I remember that John Wayne got a heck of a lot of shots outta his at the end of that movie, too! Gee, what was their secret??!!?

[williamlayton]

Double stack cylinders?
Blessings

[Old Griz]

:cb2: Maybe a magazine hidden in the grip??!?

[DirtyHarry]

I would choose the 45.....
 I dont buy all the "statistics" from Marshall and Sanow, they admit to simply ignoring what I would call critical variables and information. They needed to do this IMO in order to push their "small and fast" theory so they could sell books.....

[Dragon31]

I base my analyses on personal experience from behind the trigger.  Never could I tell any deference in the 9mm .45 acp.  Few individual in the military really need to carry a hand gun, anyway.  Maybe, some individuals in the Division or Corp TOC The General, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, and the SGM's.  The various verisons of the M16 do get in the way.  Each individual has their own opinion on this topic of big vs small and fast but very few of those with opinions have been behind the trigger of both rounds.  If big round really did knock people off their feet then my .50 cal gunners would have had to go into the next county for body counts.
Yes, I understand statisics, really well,  I know Confidence levels, can work Chi Square and three way analysis of variance without a calculator (taught the under graduate course at the university).  The average 11B has no need for a hand gun and any NCO or junior officer should take take contraband weapons away from the soldier, for safe keeping, when they find them.
As far as any military hand gun, even for the brass and without thought to the caliber, it needs to be GI proof, meaning few, big (no little parts), simple parts that are difficult to lose, break or go home with the soldier.  It also must go "BANG" each and every time you pull the trigger (much more important than caliber).  Mag should be near indestructible and go in gun easily and quietly in the darkest of the night and the worst of conditions.  Mag must load rounds into the mag easily, without tools.
This is not to put anyone down these are from my personal experiences

[papajohn428]

Any military weapon for the masses is a compromise, period.  9mm vs 45?  Basically irrelevant, with hardball ammo.  Shot placement still rules.  Having more bullets points to the 9.  So in the end, the M9 is probably the best weapon for the job at hand.  While I'd RATHER have a 45, I'd still feel comfortable with the Beretta.  I just don't happen to like the feel of the grip, which is why I traded my department-issued Beretta  in for a S&W 681.  The Chief thought I was nuts, but he'd thought that for a long time, anyway. :roll:

PJ

[Camp Cook]

I vote for the Glock 20 and Glock 29 in 10mm with high capacity 15 round mags......

The American forces used the 45acp for years and now the 9mm which I understand no body is really happy with. Col Jeff Cooper is for the 45acp but states in a very recent magazine article that the 10mm can do anything the 45acp can but really starts performing out beyond 50 yards.

If I had to carry a handgun in the armed forces I couldn't think of a better round than the 10mm.
Cam

[strider72]

Glock 22 .40 or the 23 for CID use. Even with ball it would be better better than 9mm. I would issue Powerball because the War on Terror isn't convential warfare and tell the UN to kiss off.

[myronman3]

issue Powerball because the War on Terror isn't convential warfare and tell the UN to kiss off.

i dont know about the 40sw; but i agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your statement.   i would rather pack a 40 than a nine, though.

[strider72]

I think this whole deal about 9mm vs. .45 is dead . If it were my choice and it isn't ,I would issue the troops Powerball in their Berettas until I could come up with a better solution. I do not understand all the crap about carrying ball when there is better more effective loads available. Yes I know about the Geneva/Hague Convention horse crap about humane warfare and bullets. Most people don't know the Germans complained about us using Buckshot on them in WW1. I think we need to give our troops ammo, be it 9mm, .40, or .45 that will put the enemy down with the most effectiveness so our boys and girls can make it home safely. Again, the UN and anybody with a problem with that, people who usually aren't losing their troops in war by the way, can kiss off. And believe me I prefer more colorful words for that type of people but I will be civilized today.

[Old Griz]

I agree about the Geneva/Hague garbage. The terrorists didn't sign it. What's humane about warfare in the first place? We know from Vietnam that you cannot win a "humane" war. World War II was not a humane war, it was a TOTAL WAR. This generation does not know what that means. You must be willing to be as ruthless as the enemy. You do whatever it takes to win. If not, the enemy is always gonna win. The VC understood this, and so do the terrorists and the militants in Iraq. What's humane about a car bomb, a bomb aboard a school bus, or 9/11? (Do you think our politicians in Washington have already forgotten 9/11?) Use explosive bullets for all I care. We used an atomic bomb to save American lives once, and now we can't even humiliate the enemy--not torture--humiliate them. Remember the "safer guns, and safer bullets"? Let's send our troops Hydra-Shoks or Gold Dots.

Sorry. My blood pressure is going up and it's affected my brain. Forgive me.

[Dragon31]

I guess I would be a lot more impressed by some of your opinions on military hand guns if I knew what service you served in, what years you served, what MOS you had and what rank you earned.  
For a poor fellow like myself who's military career covered a lot of years what some of you folks are saying indicates to me that you've never had the opportunity to play in the dirt, sand and mud while someone was doing his best to shoot you.  
Write'em down and lets see what kinds of combat experience we got here.

[strider72]

I never served but signed up for the Air Force. However an epileptic seizure made my decision for me. However, I learn as much as possible about military and Law Enforcement firearms as possible and personally carry a Glock 19 when possible. I have seen the 9mm vs. .45 debate rage since I was 17 yrs. old and I am sure some of you fellows have seen it raging for more than my 31 yrs. of life. All of my opinion is just drawn from what I have come across in articles and the internet. And most of the troops of the last 30 yrs never fired a 9mm or .45 in defense, excluding 'Nam,Grenada,Panama,Kuwait, and the current unpleasantness a.k.a "The War on Terror"(Afghanistan and Iraq). So how many of us have genuine experience. I rely on my 9x19mm Glock 19, but I stoke it with the best I can, in this case 124 gr.Gold Dot +P. Our troops don't even have that. If they are using a Nato Spec 9mm, which is 124gr. ball,it is a load that was first used in the P08 Luger in 1908, although I may be wrong about the year. I think it is time to bring the military load up to snuff or get a catridge that is. Again this is from an "armchair warrior",so take it for what it is, my opinion. But I support our warriors, from my very soul. I just want them to have the best equipment and training so they make back. I also have a son age 3, that if they have the right stuff now maybe the "War on Terror" will be a memory when he comes of age and serves. Sorry, I am usually a pessimist but being a father brings out a little optimist in me.

[myronman3]

I guess I would be a lot more impressed by some of your opinions on military hand guns if I knew what service you served in, what years you served, what MOS you had and what rank you earned.  
For a poor fellow like myself who's military career covered a lot of years what some of you folks are saying indicates to me that you've never had the opportunity to play in the dirt, sand and mud while someone was doing his best to shoot you.  
Write'em down and lets see what kinds of combat experience we got here.

    first, you dont have to have been in the service to have an opinion on this.  
    second, most deer and bear hunters have more experience on what kills than the average INFANTRYMAN.  while the military man knows only ball ammo, the rest of us know the incredible difference bullet type makes.   and the vast majority of soldiers never fired a weapon before being in the military.  
    third, to suggest that your opinion is gospel above all others; and neglecting everyone else's experiences is outright foolish.  do not forget that most of the information and design of weapons is done by civilians, with VERY little input from the sad sap using them.  
   forth, i know you have never experienced combat like my grandpa has.  do i need to bring him here so he can check you?  believe me, he could.  but that doesnt make belittling your contribution to the nation right.  same as your belittling others (as stated above) who have made their contribution.  try to show others the same respect they have shown you.  
    fifth, i have found that those who bawk and squawk about  their service have typically done the least.   case in point, r.e.m.f.'s bragging up how hardcore they are while out on the town.  usually turns out they are cooks and paper shufflers who know just enough to talk smart.   guys that have been unfortunate enough to have had been through the worst of it dont like talking about it or even mentioning it for that matter.  
  sixth, who do you think you are to ask that of anyone?  none of your business.   i have my own very accomplished record (which very few have duplicated) but i will be damned if someone with an overinflated ego and total lack of respect demands anything of me; and i will not cheapen it by using it as a platform to denounce others who may or maynot disagee with me.  one of the fundamental principles of a true infantryman is respect for others who came before them, after them, and mostly with them.  a level of honor few can understand.  your ego, willingness to look down your nose at others, and  lack of respect make me doubt your claims.

[Old Griz]

:cb2: Ah come on myronman3—don't be shy. Tell us what you really think!  

(I'm just glad that someone other than myself gets worked up sometimes! I'll have company in the asylum.)

[myronman3]

  well i aint too good to take you up on that!  :-D