US Military .45 Pistols

[Edsel]

I am posting this in the Dark Champions thread since this seems to be where most of my fellow gun bunnies hang out.

 

Anybody happy (like me) that the latest issue of the American Rifleman says the US military is going readopt the .45 caliber pistol as its standard side arm. Apparently the 9mm has been disappointing. While the 9mm has better penetration but it lacks stopping power. If you want to penetrate something you'll use a rifle anyway. The US Military has decided that stopping power is more important. The decision has been made to open bidding for a new .45 ACP Joint Combat Pistol. Apparently the US Military is looking to purchase up to 649,000 of which ever .45 wins the bid.

[Barton]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

I am posting this in the Dark Champions thread since this seems to be where most of my fellow gun bunnies hang out.

 

Anybody happy (like me) that the latest issue of the American Rifleman says the US military is going readopt the .45 caliber pistol as its standard side arm. Apparently the 9mm has been disappointing. While the 9mm has better penetration but it lacks stopping power. If you want to penetrate something you'll use a rifle anyway. The US Military has decided that stopping power is more important. The decision has been made to open bidding for a new .45 ACP Joint Combat Pistol. Apparently the US Military is looking to purchase up to 649,000 of which ever .45 wins the bid.

 

I have read that a .40cal or 10mm was still being considered.

I have also read in several sources (NRA, IL NRA, blogs, pdf of the request for bids from DOD) that indeed the contract will be eventually issued for a new sidearm. Barretta's 9mm in combat does NOT have the stopping power desired in combat (according to blogs and NRA). Experience in the Middle East has shown that a side arm is nice to have (easy to use in cramped areas like a Hummer and a light to carry "holdout" weapon). Expect VERY spirited competition for this contract.

 

My wife owns a Kimber .45 ACP and loves it. I am so-so with it (I own a whimpy S&W Model 41 22cal target pistol). The only down side of a 45ACP weapon is that is requires constant practice to remain proficient with it. The upside is that is makes a big hole in your target, human or paper.

 

PS:S&W has new line of police/military carbines and pistols. They are mostly plastic/composites but contain much more steel than a comparable Glock. My opinion is that S&W will win the contract with a composite/steel .45ACP weapon.

[Publius]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

Whatever they pick, I have to say I hope it will be made in the USA. No matter how parochial it sounds in saying that, we gotta get back to making things here and military spending ought to be leading the pack rather than trailing it.

[Edsel]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

The companies that are listed as interested in the contract are as follows:

 

Beretta USA: They are holding their cards close to the chest so there arn't many details about exactly what they are planning.

SigArms: Most likely they will present a version of their P220. A very accurate gun.

Glock: Probably a variant of their G21.

Taurus: Just coincidentially developed their 24/7 pistol in .45 ACP. Perhaps they caught wind of this potential contract a little early.

Springfield Armory: Most likely they will advance a version of their new XD. From what I have heard it is a pretty sweet gun.

Smith & Wesson: Their entry will be one of the new M&P designs.

FNH USA: They say that their entry will be a completely new gun.

Para Ordnance: They aren't saying much either but it's likely that their entry will be a version of the successful Light Double Action (LDA) pistol.

Heckler & Koch: They may have a leg up since they are already producing the SOCOM Mk 23. Their entry will likely be a version of their USP design.

 

Apparently one of the specs for the pistol is that it be capable of double action or single action fire. That would preclude any of the versions of M1911 that are out there. But there are rumors that that spec might be dropped which could mean a return to an M1911 variant. The requirements also call for a gun with a bare minimum magazine for 8 rounds but 10+ are prefered. The requirements call for a gun that can be produced either with or without an external manual safety.

 

All the above data was taken from the July 2006 issue of the American Rifleman.

[Barton]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

Whatever they pick' date=' I have to say I hope it will be made in the USA. No matter how parochial it sounds in saying that, we gotta get back to making things here and military spending ought to be leading the pack rather than trailing it.[/quote']

The currently used 9mm is made by Baretta in the USA. Likely will be made in the USA due to many factors. Current Baretta is a great weapon for what it is, I and the US military want something with more stopping power.

[Toadmaster]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

Well as a fan of the .45 I'd say this is a move in the right direction. My personal preference (since its unlikely the M1911A1 will be considered) would be for the H&K USP or the SIG P220, both are very nice and feel right in my hand. I've shot Glocks and while I can't say anything bad about them they just didn't "do it" for me. I really like S&Ws and have a 6906 I like alot even though its a 9mm but I've never liked their .45s, like the Glock they don't feel right. I haven't used many of the other weapons listed.

 

The Para-Ordnance probably would have some advantage as it is somewhat based on the M1911A1 and retains the familiar shape.

 

I'm kind of surprised they didn't list Ruger, the P90 is a very nice rugged double action .45, it is a US company with a long history of making very dependable, durable, and best of all fairly inexpensive weapons. The P90 retails for about 1/2 the H&K or SIG pistols, not sure where the prices go in government contracts but SIG lost to Beretta based on unit cost the first time around.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

I was under the impression that SpecOps preferes the H&K .40 - I agree that the .45 is a good step. I'm also under the opinion, though, that since most gun fights are fought more close-quarters than long range, it'll be pretty amusing to see soldiers with their NATO 5.56 strapped to their backs because the rounds don't phase the target, but engaging in 100' gun battles with their .45s because that's where the stopping power is.

 

But I exaggerate, I'm sure. Point being, I think this is a very good idea. I've heard many officers in Philadelphia complain about the 9mm just utterly lacking in any kind of stopping power, to the point where many have either lobbied for a change, or purchased personal side arms to carry into the field (although the second may be hyperbole, that's what the man in the Kevlar Vest & Gold Shield with the gun said - since he wore a bunch of stuff that said "Police" on it, I was inclined to believe him). However, I personally have not served, so I don't know what the rules & restrictions are.

[Edsel]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

I'm kind of surprised they didn't list Ruger' date=' the P90 is a very nice rugged double action .45, it is a US company with a long history of making very dependable, durable, and best of all fairly inexpensive weapons. The P90 retails for about 1/2 the H&K or SIG pistols, not sure where the prices go in government contracts but SIG lost to Beretta based on unit cost the first time around.[/quote']

Ruger may also be in the running. The only source I have quoted is this month's American Rifleman. It might simply be that they didn't get a comment from Ruger for the article (though I can't imagine why that would be the case).

 

The gist of the article also seemed to indicate that the US Military was expecting the bids to consist of either already avaiable pistols or modifications of already existing pistols. They didn't expect the bidders to launch a wholly new pistol just for the JCP bid since many of the currently available ones will meet the specs or can with only minor modifications. I guess FNH USA is unique in that they say they will introduce a completely new model for their presentation.

[Matt Frisbee]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

The army picking a weapon based on stopping power? Isn't that how the M1911 got developed in the first place? I seem to remember seeing a documentary that Teddy Roosevelt's Roughriders were disappointed by the lack of stopping power in their revolvers during that particular war (Cuban-American?), which directly lead to development of the M1911 .45 ACP...

 

Matt "Those-who-forget-history-are doomed-to-repeat-it" Frisbee

[Toadmaster]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

The army picking a weapon based on stopping power? Isn't that how the M1911 got developed in the first place? I seem to remember seeing a documentary that Teddy Roosevelt's Roughriders were disappointed by the lack of stopping power in their revolvers during that particular war (Cuban-American?), which directly lead to development of the M1911 .45 ACP...

 

Matt "Those-who-forget-history-are doomed-to-repeat-it" Frisbee

 

Actually it was the military experience in the Philipines 1899-1902, there was a problem stopping fanatic tribesmen with the .38 revolver then in use. Of course less well known was that the .30 caliber rifle then in use was also having some problems stopping them as well. As a result the Army wanted a new pistol in the old caliber (.45). Worked great for 70+ years until some rocket scientist decided it was time to invent a new wheel, surprisingly it has only taken 20 years for that to wear off, and actually the .45 was back almost before it left, it was into the 90's before the Beretta was really around in large numbers and many "Special" units had permission to retain weapons in .45 right up to the present so the 9mm never fully replaced the .45 anyway.

[Edsel]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

The 9mm was developed in order to equip officers with a ceremonial weapon to replace the sabers/swords that officers had carried up until that time. It was realized that in the era of firearms that the sword no longer really served much of a purpose. With rifles and machineguns around there was going to be very little use for a large edged weapon and besides most officers were not really trained to use the sword anyway it was just ceremonial. Since officers were not expected to become involved in close combat, and if they were they'd grab a rifle, they needed a cerimonial firearm. The 9mm was adopted since a light weapon that lacked stopping power was not a concern. After all the gun was not really meant to be used but to simply be a badge of office of sorts.

 

EDIT: Disclaimer, at least that's the basic story I have been told, independently, by several people who know quite a bit about guns and history.

[Litvyak]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

As far as I'm aware the information in American Rifleman is out of date. The regular Army supposedly backed out of this in March, and it's now purely a SOCOM project, again, scaled back to just 50,000 units. This was coincidently around the same time the M9 passed the latest rounds of military tests and delivered 34,000 new pistols to the military. The M9 and M9A1 will likely be around for some time to come.

[Remjin]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

Something else to consider is that a lot of the special operations people are using 1911s again... as well as FBI and others.

 

Last I'd heard, the H&K USP in .45 was being employed as well, and an order had been made, but that was a few months ago. Would be good to see the US using their traditional round again... nothing wrong with a .45. The only problem with all the various double-stack versions of the .45 is grip size, which may be a concern for dispersing to a wide variety of troops in a wide variety of sizes.

[Matt Frisbee]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

Stupid question (no point or sarcasm intended here) -- how effective is a .45 ACP round from an M1911 against body armor? Does it have any knockdown power again Kevlar, given that it's a big, slow-moving slug?

 

Matt "Just-asking" Frisbee

[Starwolf]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

It depends on the range, as to it's penetration against body armor, a .45 inside 25 meters will penetrate most body armor, but beyond the weight of slug makes it lose penetration quickly, of course you could always go with custom rounds, like teflon tips...

 

I am a retired Navy storekeeper, one of the reasons the 9mm was adopted was it's mag capacity advantage over the .45. The Navy's small arms training post Vietnam (the late 70's) had us load an 8 round mag and then Immediately chamber a round to remove tension from the mag spring. We were told that if we had a need to carry a side arm with no round chambered (a practice discouraged) then only load 7 rounds into the mag to begin with. The Navy was all hyped about having a 13 round capacity in a side arm for the 9mm, but having said all of this, the Navy was the last service to actually adopt the 9mm as standard issue, likewise it was the last service to adopt the M16 and variants. The standard issue rilfe was the M14 into the early 80s.

 

My personal preference... my .44 mag, makes big holes in anything I want to shoot at, even armor, and so long as my aim is true, who cares about capacity. I would rather face a rookie with a machine gun any day than an expert marksman with a single shot weapon.

[Edsel]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

A 9mm has better penetration but a .45 has better stopping power. I think that the military thinking on this is that if you want penetration you are much better off using a rifle or carbine. The 5.56mm NATO round will penetrate armor far better than any normal pistol. The pistol is meant to be a backup weapon, so they've decided that stopping power is more important than penetration. Besides if you are using a pistol you are likely to be at very short range.

[Remjin]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

Remember, also, that body armor comes in several levels, and even then it depends on where you hit. The highest level of body armor is supposed to be able to stop some rifle rounds (note, SOME) but only at distance and if it hits one of the ballistic plates.

 

I agree on .44 magnum, its a nice round, but not exaclty the easiest for fast follow-up shots without a lot of practice. Most mid to high body armor will stop a .45 slug, but then, no body armor covers the head, legs, or arms... and even though body armor may stop the bullet from entering your body, it does not make it "bounce off" harmlessly. It still hurts, you're still going to get the energy of the round, it just won't penetrate through your body.

 

Best analagy I've heard about getting hit by a round that doesn't go through is to imagine being hit by a baseball bat swung by a pro baseball homerun hitter.

 

Personally, I'm allergic to lead, especially at high velocity, and tend to avoid it at all costs.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

Best analagy I've heard about getting hit by a round that doesn't go through is to imagine being hit by a baseball bat swung by a pro baseball homerun hitter.

I've actually heard just the opposite, that even with a heavy pistol round the vest spreads the impact out enough that the force of the blow is fairly minimal, ie - you'll feel it, but not enough to leave a serious bruise let alone break ribs. Of course, I can't claim to have tried it myself and I don't have any "credible sources" at hand. But given the whole conservation-of-momentum thing, I have to think that analogy is exaggerated at best. Anyone else have better data?

 

Either way, I’m not a big fan of the 9mm. And an awful lot of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in the US (I don't know the numbers, so I can't say if it's a majority or not) have ditched their nines and gone to .40, .45, or .357. The consensus I seem to hear is that not only does the 9mm have little stopping power, but even it's penetration is less than expected compared with other modern rounds.

 

OTOH, I remember hearing once (again, no sources handy) that over the course of its service, the M1911 .45 had accounted for more friendly casualties than enemy casualties. The idea being that it's mostly issued to rear-echelon types who are more likely to shoot their buddy on his way back from taking a **** than to get within pistol range of an actual enemy soldier. Probably apocryphal, but… amusing.

[concord]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

Personally' date=' I'm allergic to lead, especially at high velocity, and tend to avoid it at all costs. [/quote']

 

From the movie Big Easy... two detectives discussing a murder...

Detective 1: What was the cause of death?

Detective 2: Acute lead poisoning...

[bigdamnhero]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

I don't necessarily consider Wikipedia an "expert source" on ballistics, but I don't have time to do any deeper research:

 

While a vest can prevent bullet wounds, the wearer still absorbs the bullet's energy, which can cause blunt force trauma. The majority of users experience only bruising, but impacts can cause severe internal injuries. This is considered to be unimportant by many, as it seems guaranteed any bullets or shrapnel with sufficient force to cause notable injuries would do more damage without the vest

So I guess it depends on how well you roll on the STUN lotto.

[Remjin]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

I've actually heard just the opposite' date=' that even with a heavy pistol round the vest spreads the impact out enough that the force of the blow is fairly minimal, ie - you'll feel it, but not enough to leave a serious bruise let alone break ribs. Of course, I can't claim to have tried it myself and I don't have any "credible sources" at hand. But given the whole conservation-of-momentum thing, I have to think that analogy is exaggerated at best. Anyone else have better data?[/quote']

 

*shrug* Could be, I don't know. Like I said, it was an analogy told to me with no details, and could be the legendary bull feces. I claim no personal knowledge or facts. Closest I've been to a gunfight was sitting too close to the television.

 

Either way' date=' I’m not a big fan of the 9mm. And an awful lot of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in the US (I don't know the numbers, so I can't say if it's a majority or not) have ditched their nines and gone to .40, .45, or .357. The consensus I seem to hear is that not only does the 9mm have little stopping power, but even it's penetration is less than expected compared with other modern rounds. [/quote']

 

I've heard that and even that the 9mm's supposed penetration was too much, and caused issues that way as well. A lot of cops I've seen carry the .40, and the city of Chicago allows their officers to carry 9mm, .40, or .45 in approved handguns.

 

From the movie Big Easy... two detectives discussing a murder...

Detective 1: What was the cause of death?

Detective 2: Acute lead poisoning...

Again, exactly what I'd like to avoid.

[Remjin]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

So I guess it depends on how well you roll on the STUN lotto.

 

Argh, that stinks... I assume I have a low stun total.

[Yansuf]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

The 9mm was developed in order to equip officers with a ceremonial weapon to replace the sabers/swords that officers had carried up until that time. It was realized that in the era of firearms that the sword no longer really served much of a purpose. With rifles and machineguns around there was going to be very little use for a large edged weapon and besides most officers were not really trained to use the sword anyway it was just ceremonial. Since officers were not expected to become involved in close combat, and if they were they'd grab a rifle, they needed a cerimonial firearm. The 9mm was adopted since a light weapon that lacked stopping power was not a concern. After all the gun was not really meant to be used but to simply be a badge of office of sorts.

 

EDIT: Disclaimer, at least that's the basic story I have been told, independently, by several people who know quite a bit about guns and history.

 

The 9mm parabellum (called the 9mm lugar in the US) was developed in Germany, either at the start of the 20th century or just before. Since the German army still carried swords for a while after that, I don't believe your account above is accurate. It is a great story though.

 

(On the other hand, in the late 1970's or early 1980's an article in Armor Magazine (US) did (tongue in cheek?) suggest removing the HMG from the commander's hatch on platoon leader's tanks, and issueing them sabers so that they would concentrate on leading their platoons rather than using the MG.)

 

The US adopted the 9mm because of NATO ammo standardization; just about all the other nations in NATO (at the time) used it. The US agreed to this in the 1950's or 60's, but said it would continue to use the .45s until they needed to be replaced (the US army didn't buy any standard .45s after WWII there were so many aquired then); so it wasn't until the mid to late 80's that the new 9mm started being issued in the US Army. The other services followed later.

The .45 will NOT penetrate any decent body armor, unless it has special purpose AP ammo. But then, neither will the 9mm, the 10mm, the .357 magnum, etc. The more powerfull rounds can cause injury through soft body armor, certainly heavy bruises, sometimes even broken ribs. But as a general rule, if you are using a pistol, and your enemy has armor, shoot for the unarmored area.

[Yansuf]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

Remember, also, that body armor comes in several levels, and even then it depends on where you hit. The highest level of body armor is supposed to be able to stop some rifle rounds (note, SOME) but only at distance and if it hits one of the ballistic plates.

 

I agree on .44 magnum, its a nice round, but not exaclty the easiest for fast follow-up shots without a lot of practice. Most mid to high body armor will stop a .45 slug, but then, no body armor covers the head, legs, or arms... and even though body armor may stop the bullet from entering your body, it does not make it "bounce off" harmlessly. It still hurts, you're still going to get the energy of the round, it just won't penetrate through your body.

 

Best analagy I've heard about getting hit by a round that doesn't go through is to imagine being hit by a baseball bat swung by a pro baseball homerun hitter.

 

Personally, I'm allergic to lead, especially at high velocity, and tend to avoid it at all costs.

 

 

Interestingly, a study that I saw (but cannot link to, it was years ago) found that the .44 magnum was not a very good man-stopper, the bullet usually went right through. The .357 magnum came out best in that study, with the .41 magnum and the .45 auto next.

The 9mm luger didn't do well.

[Remjin]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

Interestingly, a study that I saw (but cannot link to, it was years ago) found that the .44 magnum was not a very good man-stopper, the bullet usually went right through. The .357 magnum came out best in that study, with the .41 magnum and the .45 auto next.

The 9mm luger didn't do well.

 

Heck, there's been lots of studies that proved lots of things... I don't pretend to know which is right or anything of the sort. I just know shooting my .44 (in my S&W 629 V-comp) is fun, and shooting at my father-in-law's scrapyard at abandoned cars makes it interesting. With just the cheap stuff, in a 240 grain jacketed soft point (I think it was 240 grain.. been a while since I've shot that gun) I had lots of penetration... which would support your "went right through" which just made it interesting. Note: I did avoid any "hard" parts of the vehicles like rotors, engine block, etc.

 

No idea if that makes much of a man-stopper, but since a lot of handgun hunters use it to kill animals, I guess it makes it a something-stopper. =)

 

The most common wisdom I've read on handgun rounds for self-defense, which I guess applies to combat as well, that made any sense to me was: shot placement counts for more than caliber. Sounds smart to me. *shrug* In the meantime, I like my .45, because it hits what I aim at and its at that nice place in felt power that falls just below being hard to shoot and well above feeling like a cork-gun. Any handgun is a poor substitute for a full-sized weapon, its biggest benefit seems to be convenience and being at hand. I'd much rather have a shotgun or rifle at hand if the poo-poo hits the fan, so to speak; but the best would be to be hidden away somewhere nice and safe with a blanket, some food, a pillow, a light, and something nice to read.