As a Vietnam era veteran, I can attest to the fact that allowing each service to field its own weapons is highly risky and wastes dollars on ammo. Utilizing a "joint" service weapon is the way to go. We should also require that the ultimate weapon be designed and manufactured exclusively in the US. The use of foreign produced weapons have proven entirely wrong since that good old relaible M1911 45 cal. was replaced by the Buretta back after Vietnam. Let's get it right this time around!
You guys must have all read my mind. The next side arm should be American made. And it should not be some airsoft gun that may satisfy the pasifists.Here is a thought, Just bring back 1911 and train the troops that are authorised to carry one to actually use it properly.
Originally posted by AFRet91: A .44 magnum would be nice.
Not really. The best round for a pistol is the venerable .45 ACP. It's big enough and SLOW ENOUGH to impart all of it's energy into the target. A .44 magnum is too fast and makes a through and through hole through a human sized target and only loses about 400 fps going through. It's too fast to transfer all of the foot pounds to the target. The old .45 stopped inside the target and delivered all of its foot pounds to the target which was the equivalent of getting hit by a Mack Truck. Somebody hit center of mass with a .45 went down and did not get up again.....ever.
A .22 would be cheaper... and they could get those Beretta space looking guns
Then there is always the .25acp... hey, another lightweight that I would not want to trust my life with... or the .32.
I am an avid 1911-style pistol fan and love the .45acp... I like many of you beleive this weapon and round should be brought back into the service as THE sidearm of the military.
The Beretta was a deal made with the devel. It is a good shooting gun, but has no knock down power. As with most weapons, I do not see a one gun fit all weapon. The 45 acp is in my opinion the priemer fighting cartridge. It has all the power needed to bring down a target, and with one shot. That being said, I don't think that all service personal need to carry a 45. Most people who actually use a sidearm would be happy to use one, but people who use it for decoration would not. Also, pilots would be better off with the old 38, for size and ease of use. I agree that the 1911 is a proven weapon, but in todays mind weapons have to be high capacity, instead of spending the time to learn to shoot. So in my opinion, your going to see some high capacity weapon in the future.
Originally posted by badmac933: Watch our Brass approve a .22cal handgun to replace the 9mm.
Hehehe, wait, youre joking, right?
Humor aside, I think the best route would be a .40 caliber JSP, In my opinion its the middle ground between the stopping power of the .45 and the size of the 9mm, that i think everyone can agree upon.
I personally like the 1911 style. How about something in the 10mm? Or you could use the .40S&W I did like the old M&P .38s. There's just something about those old S&W revolvers. Of course the 38 FMJ wasn't what you would call a manstopper either. The .45 230gr FMJ at 900fps gives 413 foot pounds of energy with a Taylor KO of 13. The 10mm auto 180gr fmj at 1250fps gives 624 foot pounds of energy with a Taylor KO of 12. The Taylor factor is about the same. For comparison a .44 mag has a Taylor KO of 20 and a 12ga slug has a Taylor KO of 53.
I was a USAF Combat Arms Instructor (aka. "Red Hat")in the 80's when the Beretta was issued. Yeah, it was a definate improvement to the K-Frame 38's that the (new) 9MM replaced. Back then we all lamented how the 1911(.45) would be MUCH better but the DoD wanted to keep all of NATO using the same caliber ammo (apparently the Colt couldn't be controlled by the Europeans ;-) . I reenlisted after a break in the Army Guard as a MP & served in OIF III/IV (2005-2006)& again was armed daily w/ the (POS) Beretta. Believe me, I'd MUCH rather have carried a 1911 than the 9 mil.
As a 26 year and going Army type, I cast my vote like most of the rest of you for the .45 acp. I know first hand how effective it is. The 1911A1 may not be the model, there are several hi-capacity designs available. As far as be "kinder and gentler"...bag that!! We're in the business of security and protection. The sissy lala types out there need to get over it. If a person's hands are too small, issue them an M4 carbine or riot baton and call it good. I served periodically with an A Team in Iraq and all the operatives in the detachment were armed with Sig Sauer 45's, while I was relegated to carry my M9 Beretta. I believe all services should agree on a common caliber and stick to it...and it needs to be an American made pistol!! The .40 cal made be a good choice as well. Glock makes an excellent, lightweight, hi-capacity model.
Going to the 9mm was a mistake in the first place.
The M1911A1 was all you needed for a sidearm. It was tough, reliable and could be suppressed as a subsonic round, and hit like a locomotive. Bring back the .45 ACP.
If a sentry-suppression weapon was needed, you used a Hi-Standard silenced .22.
The continuing saga of the Air Force not being able to make up their mind about anything. Perhaps they should never had abandoned the Colt Model 1911 for the S&W .38 that they abandoned for the Beretta 9mm. I think AF aquisition is out of control.
We have have gone so long, doing so much, with so little, now we can do anything with nothing.
Like the old adage says, "Never go to a gunfight with a weapon whose caliber doesn't start with at least a 4." .45 ammo is cheap and readily available. The 1911 frame is well-proven and will probably never be improved on. A fighter shouldn't ever need more than 7+1 rounds with proper training. If more rounds are stipulated, the Springfield XD45 or the Smith & Wesson SW40 would be great choices (and totally American-made if I'm not mistaken). Ditch the piece of crap Beretta with its underpowered NATO-friendly round!
THE MILITARY SHOULD HAVE KEPT THE OLD 45CAL. HAND GUN BECAUSE IT WAS A DAM GOOD WEAPON THAT WOULD STOP IN IT'S TRACKS ANYONE IT HIT. BUT SOME MORN WANTED BB GUN FOR OUR TROOPS TO USE BECAUSE HE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT GUNS.
The military were fools to get rid of the M1911-a1 pistol. It was a proven man stopper thru at least 6 conflicts we had to fight. When you pulled that piece your enemy knew his *** was about to go to hell. The Browning design is rugged, simple to assembele and disassemble in the field and took a lot of abuse, but seldom let the shooter down.
The Baetta M9 was a piece of garbage, adopted to please N.A.T.O. so they would accept the 5.56mm round as a standard rifle cartridge. So every one could use the same ammunition in the field. Nice concept, but in reality a flop.
So to the military, bring back the .45 cal as a military side arm. Bring back to service the M-1911a1 and have something the enemy fears to be shot with!
This seems to be the popular conclusion, and i have to agree. Go back to the M1911. Colt's .45 is the sweetest little handgun your ever gonna find. Beretta's M9 is a good gun, (ive still got my service M9) its accurate, shoots well, its balanced, but itsnt the most reliable, and you cant knock down a big adrenaline enfused enemy soldier in one hit without getting a Head, heart, or neck shot. anywhere else, and they may live just long enough to shoot back. You really dont have that problem with the M1911, especially the A1. you dont need a high velocity bullet, you cant shoot more than sixty some odd yards unless you train daily anyway. go back to the .45. The special forces wont give them up. Theres a reason for that. listen to the experience. There also relativey cheap. colt made some 3 mil since 1911, and so there are plenty of parts to go around.
