9mmXfactor

this would be determined by shot placement, not caliber wouldnt it? . a 9mm to the heart or brain would have the same effect as .45 and would be indistinguishable...



any common defense caliber may not stop an attacker, not shooting twice could get you killed, weather it be 9mm, or 45 or even 5.7 i'd be prepared for a double tap no matter what caliber you choose...


i chose 9mm, for greater capacity, just as much "stopping power" as .45, usually better "penetration" than .45acp (better sectional density), and its cheaper to shoot and become proficient with. more rounds shot = better shot placement.


shot placement being THE key.

advaitin

Anyone who gets issued a pistol should learn to shoot it. Someone said they knew too many officers who couldn't handle the nine. My petite wife, 20 years in the USAF, retired LTC, RN and ANP, had to qualify every now and then, first with the .38 special revolver and later with the Beretta nine. She shot expert every time.

Of course, what the AF considers expert and what us old grunts consider expert may be somewhat different. Point is she could hit the kill zone on a man-sized target at 25 meters.

We both have favorite weapons. They are all .45s, neither is a Colt design. Oh we have some 1911s, but what is at her side of the bed is a Glock with night sights--on my side is a HK Socom with a laser sight.

If I was arming the soldiers of today and my only choice of pistols was the Beretta or the Colt, I'd pick the colt for everyone. Besides, I just saw the Marine Corps choice in Rifleman mag and it is nicely updated. Still only holds 8 rounds.

Nick0410

Same as .22. Ive seen a deer who didnt know the difference, well atleast for a headshot

python357

I didn't vote because the manufactures were limited. Nine is good logistics wise. However, I would vote for the .45 over the nine, in possibly the Springfield XD. Or maybe the American made Ruger P345. What ever good quality firearm @ the best price. But definitely .45.

jlh820

Yes, a shot to the heart or brain would kill regardless of 9mm or 45. But you don't have to be as precise with the 45. While 9mm is faster, unless it hits bone and deflects, it's probably just going to make a nice clean hole. The 45 is a big, slow hunk of lead the can cause severe trauma to a much wider area, thus one shot will usually disable if not kill. If I was in a war zone, I wouldn't want to wait for the guy to bleed out.

Regarding placement, it became very important after forces switched to 9mm. The British SAS used to teach one shot, center mass. When they switched to 9mm, they began teaching double taps to the head. So there goes your extra ammo.

jlh820

I chose these two because they are the ones that the Marines and Army recently placed large orders for.

sam colt

I don't care what they carry as long as it comes in .45acp. Damn Germans lost 2 world wars carrying 9s.

doublebarrel2

Of the 2 choices I voted for 1911.The rifle is your main battle weapon and close in I would want the stopping power of a .45.Have to remember you will be stuck with fmj ammo.Besides Colt 1911 is American made.

jlh820

I voted as you, but the military Berettas are made in the US.

kttemplar

I voted for the 1911, but only because it was the closest to the choice I would actually make......I have used the beretta and 1911 in the military both have their pros and cons.....I dislike the beretta......I would not, however choose the 1911 for a new handgun.....

I would opt for the HK MK23 (without laser and suppressor) ......



-.45acp
-12 round magazine
-match grade pistol (2in groups @ 50yds)
-already tested for years in combat/close combat and passed with flying colors...
-already in use in the US military

Spike12

I choose the 1911 because I've talked to Middle East vets and the 9mm just doesn't hack it.
Most LEO's have dropped the 9mm because it just doesn't hack it.
See a trend yet?

Top that off, the military has to use ball ammo and can't benefit from modern bullets (Geneva Convention). So remember that before you think the 9mm the military uses is good enough.

Unless I'm mistaken, one of the reasons the M92 got the nod was because of magazine capacity and less recoil for "smaller" soldiers (read: women). Just stating fact of life here, so send your flames to dev/null.

I think the .45 is the way to go and it has been since the early 20th century. However, I DO think there are "better" .45 autos out there with greater mag capacity (Para double stack), DA/SA triggers (Para LDA, P345, etc) and lighter.

I have or have had three 1911's and they're great guns with their great history but I think my SIG P220 or my P345 were "better" .45 pistols and would argue they could make a better weapon.

BillStaf

I chose option 2. Everybody with the Beretta.

It isn't because I dislike the 1911. I think they are great guns, but just not all that well suited to US combat arms. (Too limited magazine capacity, non-NATO standard round).

I think most pistol shooters (including military shooters) just aren't all that great at gun handling and combat situations make that even worse. That means a lot of expended ammo with fewer hits. With 9mm pistols you get higher capacity magazines and lighter ammo so you can carry more and shoot more. It won't make you a better shot, but your chances of getting a hit are greater.

I don't know if Beretta is the right pistol for the 9mm selection or not. Apparently the Army thinks so, but anybody who has ever served in the Army can tell you just how screwed up their procurement system really is.

leftofcentre67

Switch them all to SR40's they should save $200 on each firearm. And a US company gets the profit.

jlh820

Not a bad idea, but I don't think Ruger submitted them for trials. Also, I doubt Ruger could keep up with demand between a gov't contract and civilian.

kttemplar

at first, I did not want to agree with you concerning the pistol handling, but traditionally, in the military the pistol is a secondary weapon.......the primary is your rifle.....for the most part emphasis is on the rifle and the pistol is only opted for specialized or drastic situations......so, I would have to agree that many are not as adept at pistol work as they are with rifles....