Army likely to "Dump" 9MM for 40s&w or 45's?

This is a discussion on Army likely to "Dump" 9MM for 40s&w or 45's? within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Smitty901 At the time we switched to to the 9mm for NATO Things were different NATO is not so tight woven together ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 72
Like Tree63Likes

Thread: Army likely to "Dump" 9MM for 40s&w or 45's?

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array Jetfuelrm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cape Coral Florida
    Posts
    2,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty901 View Post
    At the time we switched to to the 9mm for NATO Things were different NATO is not so tight woven together anymore.
    They have slipped the 45 back in here and there many units have been authorized 45's in place of the 9mm just no a permanent change and no major press about it.
    There have been rumors of the 45 coming back for a long time. I am sure most would be happy to see it.
    I stand by Glocks be highly over rated if they were half as good as Glock followers claim they would have some sales to back it it they don't.
    Used them not impressed .
    They do move a ton of product. If they didn't have sales and were not making any profit, would they still be in business? I don't think so. You may not be impressed with the weapon however the fact remains they do sell very well. Call it over rated any word you care to use but the fact remains they do sell quite well.
    "As a strong supporter of our 2nd Amendment rights, I believe tougher enforcement of our nation's existing gun laws must be done before any more laws are enacted and put on the books."
    Jeff Miller

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Senior Member Array Chuck R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    625
    Frankly I’d be amazed if we replaced any small arms right now that wasn’t absolutely necessary, we’re about to go from an “Army of excellence” to an Army of “Good Enough”. We’re going to be broke, maybe even post-Cold War broke.

    About every meeting I attend has budget doom and gloom interlaced. There’s a chit-load of broken equipment and stuff that’s just plain worn out that will either be returning from theater or turned over. On top of that the brass has other modernization priorities.

    Chuck
    homo homini lupus est

  4. #48
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,196
    Or an "Army of all we can afford."
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  5. #49
    VIP Member Array Kilowatt3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    SW Louisiana
    Posts
    2,571
    Quote Originally Posted by Rattlehead View Post
    Food for thought: In a time when spending is decreasing, do you really think that they are going to invest in a contract to replace all sidearms across the board and rework the logistics to maintain and supply ammo for them?
    If the right people can finagle a kickback out of the deal, you can betchurrass they will!

    Regards,
    Jim

  6. #50
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck R. View Post
    Frankly I’d be amazed if we replaced any small arms right now that wasn’t absolutely necessary, we’re about to go from an “Army of excellence” to an Army of “Good Enough”. We’re going to be broke, maybe even post-Cold War broke.

    About every meeting I attend has budget doom and gloom interlaced. There’s a chit-load of broken equipment and stuff that’s just plain worn out that will either be returning from theater or turned over. On top of that the brass has other modernization priorities.

    Chuck
    That's just what they want too which is terribly pathetic. I have no doubt that being on the cutting edge in terms of capability has kept us safe for many, many years.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  7. #51
    Member Array WarMachine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    OH
    Posts
    364
    The should start using the Desert Eagle. How's that for close quarters combat. LOL.

  8. #52
    Member Array ohio06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    24
    If glock could get a contract he could figure a way to put another safety on the thing. My vote is " BYOG "

  9. #53
    VIP Member
    Array C hawk Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    W. Washington
    Posts
    3,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty901 View Post
    At the time we switched to to the 9mm for NATO Things were different NATO is not so tight woven together anymore.
    They have slipped the 45 back in here and there many units have been authorized 45's in place of the 9mm just no a permanent change and no major press about it.
    There have been rumors of the 45 coming back for a long time. I am sure most would be happy to see it.
    I stand by Glocks be highly over rated if they were half as good as Glock followers claim they would have some sales to back it it they don't.
    Used them not impressed .
    Smitty- Quit while you are behind, you come across as uneducated.
    suntzu and Echo_Four like this.
    Ccccccc what? Ccccccccccc Hawks!

  10. #54
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,852
    Quote Originally Posted by C hawk Glock View Post
    Smitty- Quit while you are behind, you come across as uneducated.
    Well said
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  11. #55
    Senior Member Array Happypuppy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Small Town USA
    Posts
    859

    Army likely to "Dump" 9MM for 40s&w or 45's?

    The 9mm will not go away far to many NATO Countries use it. Will we see more .45 ACP? I suspect we will for some uses


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

  12. #56
    Member Array Foo909's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    432
    In the day of semi-automatic grenade launchers and predators drones I believe a better side arm is a very low priority on their "what we need to spend money on" list. The exception of course will be for special operations units.

    Since the military is confined to FMJ rounds I always wondered why they didn't go with something with a little more penetration like a long barreled .357 Sig. They are the ones most likely to engage someone wearing body armor after all.

  13. #57
    Member Array wsquared's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by Foo909 View Post
    Since the military is confined to FMJ rounds I always wondered why they didn't go with something with a little more penetration like a long barreled .357 Sig. They are the ones most likely to engage someone wearing body armor after all.
    Because even a long barreled Sig .357 is still a low velocity pistol round, and it won't penetrate soft body armor. If they wanted a pistol to penetrate body armor, FN is already making one and the ammo to go with it - specifically for the military market (although they will sell to LE).

    300px-FN5701.jpg

    If I had to choose a sidearm firing FMJ bullets, it'd be chambered in .45 ACP. Since the bullet isn't going to expand, I want it to start out as big as possible, right?

    Personally, I'd pick the HK45. It was designed to fit the US military's requirements from the get-go, has both an external safety and a decocker, has second-strike capacity, and manages to make the .45ACP cartridge as easy to fire as 9mm.

  14. #58
    Member Array Foo909's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by wsquared View Post
    Because even a long barreled Sig .357 is still a low velocity pistol round, and it won't penetrate soft body armor. If they wanted a pistol to penetrate body armor, FN is already making one and the ammo to go with it - specifically for the military market (although they will sell to LE).
    Penetrates up to Level IIIA, same as a .44 Magnum.

    The problem with a 5.7x28 is when you shoot someone without armor, it's a still a 5.7.

  15. #59
    Member Array wsquared's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    352
    You may want to double-check your facts.

    Most .357 Sig rounds will be defeated by Level II Body Armor.

    Most .44 Magnum rounds will be stopped by Level IIIA.

    The FN 5.7 round (the one that's marketed to the military buyers - not the one available to civilians) falls somewhere between Level III-A and Level III...and although the NIJ classification system is a little bit counter-intuitive, that means that the military 5.7 round is actually harder for body armor to stop than a .44 Magnum.

    Pinnacle Armor Ballistic Chart

  16. #60
    VIP Member
    Array Echo_Four's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Land of the mostly free
    Posts
    2,829
    I highly doubt there is any validity to the military changing to anything. And if they do, it won't do anything to settle any caliber wars. The .mil is running ball ammo which, in 9mm is far less than ideal. If they were using modern ammo we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    The notion that a Glock isn't reliable enough or doesn't have the sales is laughable... literally. I laughed when I read the comments. I see Glocks everywhere I turn. If any gun could be named the most popular, the Glock would be it... specifically because you can do anything to them and the run. That is true of many modern guns, but Glock is the one that managed to win the reliability banner. That said, the .mil isn't going to pick a gun that doesn't have an external safety and isn't likely to pick one that doesn't use a hammer. Tradition runs deep, even when it serves no purpose. Too many decision makers at the DOD would scream about those stupid plastic guns!!
    "The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
    - Lt. Col. Oliver North

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

.40 s&w vs 9mm

,
2013 9mm vs 45
,

40 s&w vs 9mm

,
9mm or .40s&w most popular in south florida
,
9mm or 40 s&w
,
9mm vs 40 s&w
,

9mm vs 45 2013

,
america army looking to dump nato 9mm
,
military changing 9mm to 45
,
possible backfire from 9mm to .40 cal
,
why did the military switch to 9mm
,
why did the us military switch to 9mm
Click on a term to search for related topics.