Hello to All Fine Readers,

I spoke with two fine seasoned vets that are NCO's of the USMC one re-enlisted and I believe the other is opting for a discarge soon. I spoke with both of these men on this issue of small arms, not only the Colt .45 but the issue of the M-4 and M-8.

This is a summory of what they said as I had informed them I was reviewing copies of the legislative reports on the issue before it became a legislative issue, (I tried very hard to voice their concern among other sirvice men I spoke with ((My only issue is I want what the troops need)): Case in point, the 2 NCO's of the USMC said the Colt .45 would be more effective in a close or tight range. The knock down power of the Colt .45 is much more effective and could save the lives of some of our troops. Well worth it if it proves effective over the 9mm and we all know the facts of this issue so lets do it!!! Speaking of the 9mm I have had many friends join the military but one in particular, one I my self got to sign up among many others, an Army Reserve MP. He was doing target shooting with the 9mm and the slide came off the hammer and hit him in the fore-head. He had a very bad boil and tisue damage from the whole ordeal. I'm sure this same thing or similar has happend to others also. Now I don't want to be missunderstood the 9mm is a fine weapon and has and should continue to serve this country, but grain for grain of gun powder the .45 has more killing power and bottom line that is the effect desired when you are fighting for your life or fellow service man or woman. One other thing I will say about the 9mm, I think they should be stored and an article of protectoin placed on them or fair portion of the 9mm's, because we may need them again like the M-14 that we sold off and are now in need of again. If anyoine takes note of this that has any say or can do any thing, if we do go with the Colt .45 we need to take away and learn from that mistake with the M-14 and not repeat it and sell them all off to foreign countries. We may have the need again for what ever reason.

As far as the rifles and the argument between the M4 and M8 most of the soldiers tell me they both prove their point if I may be blunt. They tell me any good soldier keeps his weapon clean as bast as can be done dispite weather. They tell me they are both effetive against an enemy. Case in point: The M4 will lets say rattle around and cause more colateral damage but that foe may die a bit slower thus returing fire or worse getting away to case havic another day. The M8 like the Colt .45 has a more efecive knock down power and I have also read a few reports and heard some testimony that the M8 is more reliable less jams and easier to keep clean. But now to sight the two USMC NCO's they say that a good M16 is just as effective, and the least amount of accessories the wepon has to serve its function the better on all of the above.

One last note: Some of these things could be fixed with more potent ammo but there is inter- national law that forbids a lot of what could make all of these wepons better but on the same note an IED in my opinion, well, kind of breaks the rules too. In my opinion war is war and short of Chem. Bio. or Nuke all should be fare game to a point, and yes I'm standing behind some of the stuff that I have heard in the news, but not all of it.

Thank You Again,
Thom

I don't know who told you that the M8 has more knockdown power. It fires the same exact round as the M4. Plus, the M8 is a very, very, very long shot at becoming the next standard issue rifle. From the looks of it, the M4 will be around for awhile as it's doing a good job. And when it gets replaced, the best bet would be on a piston AR, like the HK416 or something like that.

I'll give you one thing...

....you can sure ramble on about nothing.

Hey #335 (Thread Starter): Might I suggest a couple of things to you since you are new here...?

Keep your thread topic/title about one thing for clarity. Too much clutter on this website as it is!

Don't start ANOTHER thread about the 9mm Luger/Para versus the .45 ACP. There is one already here-( Look ), and one over in the Hot Topics section.

{ On that subject of comparing cartridges, please scroll down to the 9mm-.45 thread and look on page 1, the 7th post down by RW60. He makes a great point and he has a link.}

If you have questions about ballistics then Google some ammo/firearms companies and look at the ballistics tables/graphs that they have on their websites. Try: Remington-Peters-UMC, Winchester-Western-Olin, Hornady, Federal Cartridge.

Guns and Ammo magazine has archived on their website articles by the late Col. Jeff Cooper-(USMC and FBI). Go to the local library and get a copy of Gun Digest and/or Shooter's Bible and look at the ballistics tables and shooting tests. Check out info from the National Rifle Association and their magazine "The American Rifleman".

Finally---Get a name and a bio! Also buy a dictionary or turn on spellcheck- . out.

I think there is ample evidence that the .45 or similar cartridge is the choice weapon for close combat. I also agree that the gas piston version of the AR with the 6.8 mm cartridge is also the better option.

Iam also impressed by wat i have seen of the 6.8mm...but i only saw it on t.v. It went through the car door and into the target. As far as the M-8, its the same round as the M-4. It also had the LEAST amount of stoppages of the rifles tested a ways back. The Army is getting ready to purchase over 200k M-4's...so change is not coming anytime soon. The M-4's are going for almost $1,800 a pop. That sounds a bit much....

There are articles in Def.Tech and Mil.com about the lethality of the rounds being used. If they are to stay with the 5.56, how do you increase lethality? There is no change in the small arms area coming, but why does Colt have a monopoly in the M-4? Why not the 416? Or better yet, why not the 6.8 Barrett?