9mm ineffective?

**IV_Warrior** · December 18th, 2007, 05:15 PM

In the January 08 Shooting Times they ran an article called "Guns of Iraq" where they were talking both about the weapons our troops use, and the ones the insurgents have. They had a reporter embedded with the 3/7th US Cavalry. In it they state that ALL the soldiers they spoke with wished they had .45 ACP instead of 9mm. Terminal ballistics on the 9mm was simply not confidence inspiring in actual combat situations.

One soldier commented "I don't want to have to hit a guy 3 times just to get his attention." Another commented "Let the rear echelon carry (9mm Beretta) M9's but give combat arms a .45".

----------
Perhaps it time to move up for a carry gun?

**Azzy** · December 18th, 2007, 05:18 PM

How often are you going to run into someone you are going to needc to shoot, covered in lots of layers of clothing, possibly with light body armor, and probably carrying some sort of vest with magazines in it?

I think its a case of the right tool for the job at hand there.

**XD45** · December 18th, 2007, 05:19 PM

They are under a false impression of the terminal ballistics of service caliber handguns if they think a .45 is going to be much different

**Rule10b5** · December 18th, 2007, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by IV_Warrior

In the January 08 Shooting Times they ran an article called "Guns of Iraq" where they were talking both about the weapons our troops use, and the ones the insurgents have. They had a reporter embedded with the 3/7th US Cavalry. In it they state that ALL the soldiers they spoke with wished they had .45 ACP instead of 9mm. Terminal ballistics on the 9mm was simply not confidence inspiring in actual combat situations.

One soldier commented "I don't want to have to hit a guy 3 times just to get his attention." Another commented "Let the rear echelon carry (9mm Beretta) M9's but give combat arms a .45".

----------
Perhaps it time to move up for a carry gun?

Subjective perception of line soldiers is just that -- subjective and unverifiable. How many of those guys have actually shot someone with 9mm? Or .45ACP? I'm willing to bet damn near any amount of money that these guys want .45ACP simply because of the myth, and not for any rational or quantifiable reason. Finally, why are they shooting people with their pistol? They all have M4s, at a minimum. I'd, personally, rather carry more ammo for my rifle than a pistol.

This is just a "coolth" factor, I think. "Real" men carry .45ACP. I'm a "real" man. Therefore I should carry a .45ACP.

Anyway, there are quite a few real reasons to stick with 9mm.

First, damn near every member of NATO (along with pretty much every other uniform army in the world), ammo compatibility is no small thing.

Second, we have a substantial female (read: smaller) population in the army. I know the M9 isn't the smallest pistol out there, but it's a hell of a lot easier to control than a .45ACP.

Third, how many shootings are there with pistols, really? Is this enough of an issue to spend billions of dollars scrapping current inventory and buying new pistols, and then ditching the billions of rounds of 9mm in storage?

Fourth, .45ACP doesn't penetrate as well as 9mm against body armor -- which is only going to be more of a concern as time moves on. I'd rather see a switch to that crap 5.7FN round out of a pistol, because that'll at least blow through body armor.

**XD45** · December 18th, 2007, 05:27 PM

they should look at the 5.7

**GeorgeF** · December 18th, 2007, 05:30 PM

Agreed. They really have to investigate how the baddies are being hit.

First off a pistol is a last resort weapon. You shouldnt be trying to engage bad guys past 10 meters with anything but a pistol. Your main weapon is the rifle and has much more capability.

Second, are the baddies suffering from over penetration (9mm bullets just passing through body) or are they just bouncing off? If a matter of just passing through, then a .45 might be the ticket. If its a situation where they are just bouncing off because (as a previous poster pointed out) they have so much crap on their person, then you would be in same boat.

I think we need more shotguns myself. Double-ought buck or slugs will put a baddie down fast.

**XD45** · December 18th, 2007, 05:32 PM

also just to toss this in this convo for those that don't know.. Thanks to NATO we have to use FMJ's

**Whiterook** · December 18th, 2007, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by XD45

also just to toss this in this convo for those that don't know.. Thanks to NATO we have to use FMJ's

I think that rule is from the Geneva Conventions. I really doubt there is enough gain to spend all the time any money to go back to .45ACP as standard. 9mm can't be that ineffective.

**God's Country** · December 18th, 2007, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by IV_Warrior

Perhaps it time to move up for a carry gun?

Don't forget that they use ball ammo.

**Rule10b5** · December 18th, 2007, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by XD45

also just to toss this in this convo for those that don't know.. Thanks to NATO we have to use FMJ's

Hague 1899 and 1907, not NATO.

And I think we're pretty much using it out of habit for the line troops, these days. Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s the JAG published a few memorandum opinions adopting the position that hollowpoints were just fine. That led to the adoption of an HP Matchking in .308, as well as the SXT in .45 for SOCOM folks. If it's legal for snipers and SOCOM, there is no reason we can't use HP for line troops -- we just haven't yet.

Personally, though, given my squeamishness about body armor, if I had to carry a pistol I'd rather have FMJ.