New military pistol, again......

.338 mag.

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
3,096
Reaction score
109
It looks like our government is looking at retiring the old 9mm Beretta and some Sig's. Article in Fox News said their are complaints about the 9mm requiring several shots to stop some one and the open slide on the Beretta allowing to much dirt to enter the gun and causing functioning problems. Geeze, big surprise? So sad, i wonder how many American lives were lost because of this. Open slides and 9mm ball ammo are a poor choice. I don't understand war, I thought the idea was to kill more of the enemy so they would surrender. If they are going to continue using ball ammo then they should ask Glock to build them a single stack .45 with a 5" barrel and be done with it. Fortunately most warriors use a rifle. If our government can crap out over 3 billion in a hurry to spend on illegals, we should be able to pick out a pistol in a reasonable amount of time. They should let our nations Special Operators pick the pistol and caliber, Navy Seals, Delta Force, etc. I should be in charge of this and not the politicians.
 

brav01

New member
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
2,593
Reaction score
139
Some of the men have been getting NEW 1911's does that count?

NOPE...! The 1911 is over a 100 years old and used by the military for the same length of time; and has been manufactured by everybody for years. NOW...the new Glock 45 auto long-slide would be a "NEW" gun for the military; they haven't had them before.OR the 10mm in a long-slide version would be very impressive as a military sidearm.
 

Yukon Cornelius

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
1,531
Reaction score
40
Location
Alaska
It looks like our government is looking at retiring the old 9mm Beretta and some Sig's. Article in Fox News said their are complaints about the 9mm requiring several shots to stop some one and the open slide on the Beretta allowing to much dirt to enter the gun and causing functioning problems. Geeze, big surprise? So sad, i wonder how many American lives were lost because of this. Open slides and 9mm ball ammo are a poor choice. I don't understand war, I thought the idea was to kill more of the enemy so they would surrender. If they are going to continue using ball ammo then they should ask Glock to build them a single stack .45 with a 5" barrel and be done with it. Fortunately most warriors use a rifle. If our government can crap out over 3 billion in a hurry to spend on illegals, we should be able to pick out a pistol in a reasonable amount of time. They should let our nations Special Operators pick the pistol and caliber, Navy Seals, Delta Force, etc. I should be in charge of this and not the politicians.
A sidearm is an Oh [email protected]@ gun in the military. I believe one reason for going with 9mm was uniformity with NATO countries? .45 is a beast and I love the 1911 platform. However our politicians are involved and there is no telling when a new sidearm is adopted. I first read this report quite a few years ago and if memory serves correctly the Marines did start reissuing the 1911. With drawbacks and withdrawal on horizon I doubt the politicians will move on this.
 

Steve8261948

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
773
Reaction score
12
Location
Central Illinois
. I believe one reason for going with 9mm was uniformity with NATO countries? [/QUOTE said:
This is the very reason America should worry more about OUR troops instead of NATO troops! If we are the gold standard they should get in line with us. Not Nato, the UN or any other group of peoples. I hate to hear of American troops under a Soviet(or any other nations) general. Just who do you think they would set out, if the feces hits the fan? But Obama and Hill have different thoughts about this, just look at Bengazi.
Steve
 

Yukon Cornelius

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
1,531
Reaction score
40
Location
Alaska
This is the very reason America should worry more about OUR troops instead of NATO troops! If we are the gold standard they should get in line with us. Not Nato, the UN or any other group of peoples. I hate to hear of American troops under a Soviet(or any other nations) general. Just who do you think they would set out, if the feces hits the fan? But Obama and Hill have different thoughts about this, just look at Bengazi.
Steve
At the time of NATO's forming the USSR was the main threat.
regardless...our our ammo size of choice isn't the greatest. Hasn't been since the 60s.
 

Lowrider

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
54
Location
Hackney Air Park Athol, ID
Hopefully, whatever gets chosen, they ditch the FMJ and go with an effective bullet. I go back to the Model 10 with a FMJ 150 gr and the 1911 and an FMJ there too. A decent bullet is the answer regardless of the caliber.

Like they say...I carry a 45 'cuz they don't make a 46...althought, I've come to like a real 10mm, not the 40 S&W.
 

Yukon Cornelius

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
1,531
Reaction score
40
Location
Alaska
Hopefully, whatever gets chosen, they ditch the FMJ and go with an effective bullet. I go back to the Model 10 with a FMJ 150 gr and the 1911 and an FMJ there too. A decent bullet is the answer regardless of the caliber.

Like they say...I carry a 45 'cuz they don't make a 46...althought, I've come to like a real 10mm, not the 40 S&W.

yep. A good bullet goes a long way.
 

FL2AK-Old Town

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
2,587
Reaction score
105
Location
Anchorage
Hopefully, whatever gets chosen, they ditch the FMJ

Open slides and 9mm ball ammo are a poor choice. I don't understand war, I thought the idea was to kill more of the enemy so they would surrender. If they are going to continue using ball ammo then they should ask Glock to build them a single stack .45 with a 5" barrel and be done with it. Fortunately most warriors use a rifle.

They can't "ditch the FMJ" and they are going to continue to use the FMJ. The Geneva Convention and the Laws Of Armed Conflict (LOAC) require the use of FMJ bullets. FMJ ammo does less damage to a person and is, somehow, more "humane." The old philosophy was if you wounded an enemy combatant, you removed three combatants from the field-the one you wounded plus two to carry him back to an aid station. Obviously, the times have changed, but the US is still a signatory to the Geneva Convention.

By the way, all of the military's rifle ammo is "ball" ammo, too.
 

FL2AK-Old Town

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
2,587
Reaction score
105
Location
Anchorage
The loss of life due to the new AR's were up there for sure.

Beat me to it!! Rep points sent!

How many guys died face down in the mud in Vietnam with a cleaning rod stuffed down the barrel of their POS M-16. And, somehow, that is THE longest serving military service arm in US history. Go figure.
 

.338 mag.

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
3,096
Reaction score
109
My Springfield 1911 is my favorite pistol and the 9mm with a +p+ 127 grain hollow point is a decent hand gun combo at reasonable pistol ranges. A Glock is easier for shooters to learn, should be as reliable as a 1911 and should be lighter and cheaper. It is also warmer to the bare hand in cold weather and the big trigger area and trigger is more user friendly to a gloved shooter then a 1911. A .45 will never leave less then a .45 caliber hole, as we all know. "Special Forces/Team Guys" should always be allowed to carry what they want.
 

Steve8261948

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
773
Reaction score
12
Location
Central Illinois
.338, ever heard of the Versailles(sp?) treaty. in war, no hollow points allowed. Why the .45ACP, and still is, the best choice, in many opinions. Talk to combat experienced veterans not the behind the lines guys. It's been doing it for over a century. Don't listen to todays gun scribes either.
Steve
 

Akheloce

New member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
1,208
Reaction score
97
Location
Homer
Neither the Versailles treaty nor the Geneva conventions say anything about ammo. That's an old rumor.

The Hague conventions prohibit the use of expanding ammo, but the US did not agree to that stipulation. There are several instances where US military uses expanding ammo. I carried hollowpoints in my M9, and several units use 77 gr OTM bullets in 223
 

FL2AK-Old Town

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
2,587
Reaction score
105
Location
Anchorage
Neither the Versailles treaty nor the Geneva conventions say anything about ammo. That's an old rumor.

The Hague conventions prohibit the use of expanding ammo, but the US did not agree to that stipulation. There are several instances where US military uses expanding ammo. I carried hollowpoints in my M9, and several units use 77 gr OTM bullets in 223

It would not have been the Versailles Treaty, which ended WWI.

However, if this is an "Old Rumor" it is an "Old Rumor" that has been taught by representatives of the Judge Advocate General (military attorneys) at every single LOAC course I ever took at every single base I ever took one, which totals six classes in 6 six years at three bases. (Basic Training plus annual ancillary training. Twice in the Army and four times in the Air Force).

So, if it's an old rumor, it's a rumor the US military is confirming by teaching it.
 

iofthetaiga

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
9,202
Reaction score
780
Location
Tanana Valley AK
AKheloce is correct. The Geneva Conventions dealt with how both combatants and non-combatants are to be treated/dealt with within a war zone and surrounding areas. The Geneva Conventions did not address use of weapons/munitions.

Rules of war requiring use of ball ammo were set out here:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp

and were ratified by every relevant country except the U.S.
 

Akheloce

New member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
1,208
Reaction score
97
Location
Homer
It would not have been the Versailles Treaty, which ended WWI.

However, if this is an "Old Rumor" it is an "Old Rumor" that has been taught by representatives of the Judge Advocate General (military attorneys) at every single LOAC course I ever took at every single base I ever took one, which totals six classes in 6 six years at three bases. (Basic Training plus annual ancillary training. Twice in the Army and four times in the Air Force).

So, if it's an old rumor, it's a rumor the US military is confirming by teaching it.

It doesn't surprise me that some people in the military teach that. Old rumors die hard in the military, but the SJA should have known better, obviously.

Like I said, the US did not sign the expanding ammo ban, and is not legally prohibited in any way from using expanding ammo. However, as an unwritten rule, the majority of US forces use ball ammo since it is a generally accepted practice of "civilized nations." Many forces, myself included, used expanding ammo for specialized circumstances.

Another example of an oft repeated rumor is the prohibition of .50 cal against people in the open. There is no such prohibition, and .50, 20mm, and 30mm are used regularly against troops. Legend has it that a fire base commander in Vietnam was having supply problems getting 50 BMG, so he told his men not to waste it on troops in the open. That somehow morphed into a false belief that it was illegal.
 
Top