| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| U.S. Brings Back the .45! |
| 2006-01-27 |
| January 27, 2006: After two decades of use, the U.S. Department of Defense is getting rid of its Beretta M9 9mm pistol, and going back to the 11.4mm (.45 caliber) weapon. There have been constant complaints about the lesser (compared to the .45) hitting power of the 9mm. And in the last few years, SOCOM (Special Operations Command) and the marines have officially adopted .45 caliber pistols as “official alternatives” to the M9 Beretta. But now SOCOM has been given the task of finding a design that will be suitable as the JCP (Joint Combat Pistol). Various designs are being evaluated, but all must be .45 caliber and have a eight round magazine (at least), and high capacity mags holding up to 15. The new .45 will also have a rail up top for attachments, and be able to take a silencer. Length must be no more than 9.65 inches, and width no more than 1.53 inches. The M1911 .45 caliber pistol that the 9mm Beretta replaced in 1985, was, as its nomenclature implied, an old design. There are several modern designs out there for .45 caliber pistols that are lighter, carry more ammo and are easier to maintain than the pre-World War I M1911 (which is actually about a century old, as a design). The Department of Defense plans to buy 645,000 JCPs. SOCOM will, with input from other branches, handle the evaluation and final selection. This will take place this year, and if the military moves with unaccustomed alacrity, troops could start getting their JCPs next year. But don’t hold your breath. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #38 SOG475, I have never had to shoot a person with my .45 but I did shoot a groundhog at about 20 feet. I hit him between the shoulders in the back and there was nothing left from the shoulders foreward. I would not like to be hit by a .45. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2006-01-27 20:18 |
| #37 The 9mm only succeeds in making who ever you shoot very angry. The .45 will send even a large person to the ground even with a flesh wound and it will kick the snot out of someone in body armor and put them down. I shot two guys with a .45 in a saper raid in I-Corps and one of them went about 5 feet through the air. I think the 30/06 is a fine round and now that we are through with our fixation over jungle warfare and have to reach out to 200 and 300 meters to engage the bad guys, it warrants a large caliber weapon. I liked the .45 because it made a lot of noise in a closed space and it was really a neat weapon with lots of stopping power. |
| Posted by: SOG475 2006-01-27 20:08 |
| #36 Bretta has a 45ACP BTW. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2006-01-27 20:00 |
| #35 For the new battle rifle, I hope that we go with the SOCOM-developed 6.8 SPC. It has the major advantages of the 5.56 -- more ammo per grunt than 7.62 NATO, lower recoil, fully auto if needed; and the range and knockdown improvements. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-01-27 19:57 |
| #34 Doing great, Deacon. Thanks for asking. I would ask you how things are up there in God's Country, but we all know it's never a bad day in East TN. Had an opportunity to shoot a Spingfield .45 last week. Not bad. Quite accurate, in fact. |
| Posted by: psychohillbilly 2006-01-27 19:03 |
| #33 The previous comment was me. and, by the way, I carry a .45 Springfield for concealed carry. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2006-01-27 18:35 |
| #32 Howdy, psyco, how you doin'? Edward Yee, I have used both the M-14 and M-16. I prefer the M-14. The M-16 is a good weapon but when I hit someone with an M-14 he goes down. First hit. with the M-16 it might take more than one round, also, in heavy undervrush a small twig can deflect an M-16 round but not an M-14. If you have an Army of draftees where marksmanship is not a priority for the draftee then the light weight and rapid fire of the M-16 is preferable. In a volunteer Army where you have dedicated people the 7.62 round is preferable. Note this is only my opinion. |
| Posted by: Grolugum Flitch4501 2006-01-27 18:34 |
| #31 49 Pan, I live in TN, so sorry about helping you with the deck. It would have been a glorious deck...not a square angle to be found on it, mind you, but glorious all the same. :) As I understand it, H&K actually broke ground on a new manufacturing plant some where in GA, but halted building when the XM-8 deal starting falling apart. They are also making a limited number of receivers for the M4 series. No civie sales of that though. |
| Posted by: psychohillbilly 2006-01-27 18:12 |
| #30 Psycohillbilly- If your a hillbilly from KY I've got a deck that needs building and some trees to facilitate it! H&K makes great weapons and I'm glad we have FINALLY gotten back to a .45 and your two sizes fits the mark. I certainly hope they enter and I could care less where it is built, we will stand up a facility to manage it just like we do for every other foreign gun we buy and out troops won't go without repair parts. Last thought- I heard that when they go to field testing they will bring in operators, not engineers to do the testing. This will be interesting as the best engineered weapon is not always the best one for combat. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-01-27 17:59 |
| #29 It doesn't seem to have feeding problems with Linux. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2006-01-27 17:50 |
| #28 The question is: Will the new gun work wirth Linux? |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-01-27 17:19 |
| #27 LOL Tu! I predict 50 posts, Macintosh is invoked and the Browning Automatic Rabbit is remembered fondly. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-01-27 17:09 |
| #26 Look. As long as you use that white phosphorous depleted uranium hollow point high explosive armor piercing napalm cluster bomb ammunition, you can use any gun you want. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2006-01-27 16:53 |
| #25 This is good news! The "smack" of the .45 c is impressive. Long overdue, much welcomed. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-01-27 16:47 |
| #24 I am wondering if S&W will have a 45ACP design in this fight? In any case I want the gun built here even if by license. I don't think we should support the welfare states of people to timid to fight this war and who are anti-US. I am not biased heheheh. I have a reloading bench set up just for the 45ACP andf a Corbin swedge for squirting out my own soft lead. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2006-01-27 16:31 |
| #23 .com--I have that shirt. My only complaint is there's no .357 on it! OP--I like that! Kind of a new fangled M-16 AA/AP platform, although I think they should use a Bradley or Stryker chassis. |
| Posted by: Dar 2006-01-27 15:57 |
| #22 Food for thought: Better to have gone with the M9 than to have kept reusing the in-stock M1911s, but the move to make a NEW .45 is best. As the original post (OP) specifically states, there are better .45-caliber pistols than the M1911. My reason for that "blasphemous" sentence is physics -- at least the M9s were new, unlike old-ass M1911 frames, such as the originals mixed with A1's. The design may work, but the old frames themselves... at least we're both getting new frames/guns in 'fo-faive'. **Let the Gun Bigot Wars Begin!** Yep, that's what I think of some of you. :P The 7.62 fetishism... bleh. N guard and Old Patriot, I'd take the 5.56mm -- yes, in the M16 platform -- over any of the above. |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2006-01-27 15:55 |
| #21 Old Patriot ultimate military weapon would be a pair of the gattling guns from an A-10 mounted on an M-1 chassis. All I can say imagining that is DAYYYUM!!! |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2006-01-27 15:35 |
| #20 "Will we be totally abandoning the 9mm NATO round and usage?" Dear God I hope so. As a lower recoil Law Enforcement round, a hollow point 9mm is useful. But as a NATO (FMJ) round it's only good for making small clean (accurate) holes in paper. This make you look good on the firing range, but dead in a combat situation when your target fails to stop even after having been hit many times. |
| Posted by: Uluger Omenter7645 2006-01-27 15:06 |
| #19 49 Pan, H&K does have a standard size .45 and a compact .45. I'm pretty sure the H&K SOCOM (or Mrk 23) was built to SOCOM specs and not intended for general issue. If you'll indulge me...I think the H&K SOCOM specs read like this: Must be .45. Must have positive manual safety. Must be able to chop down trees, split trees into planks, nails planks together to make bridge, kill 12 bad guys silently without reloading and then use butt of gun to destory the aforementioned bridge. Must have a service life or 60,000 rounds. The USP is it's country boy-strong cousin minus the steroids. It comes in standard double-stack and compact double-stack size. You could probably nail the planks together, but chopping down the trees with it voids the warranty. The bad guy stopping would be noisy as there is no silencer. Service life is approx 20,000 rounds before you have to replace the recoil spring so buy a couple of spare springs. The USP Tactical comes in standard and compact size as well (don't know if the compact is commercially available). It's difference from the USP is a threaded barrel with O-ring for a silencer, match trigger and adjustable sights. So, no nailing or chopping if you don't want to be zeroing the sights constantly. Problem with the USP? No standard rail. H&K has developed a new sidearm blending the USP and P2000 lines to create the H&K .45 w/ standard rails (so I've heard and seen one picture). Yes, I am a H&K bigot and a H&Kaholic. Why do you ask? |
| Posted by: psychohillbilly 2006-01-27 15:01 |
| #18 The sooner the US military gets rid of that 5.56mm M-16 popgun, the better. I've got a .22 single-shot rifle that has more stopping power. Combat shotguns are good for close-in work, but to reach out and touch someone, you need at LEAST 7.62. The Ma-deuce will still be around for another hundred years, simply because it's a classic design that's easy to maintain and can take a beating and still work. Of course, I think the ultimate military weapon would be a pair of the gattling guns from an A-10 mounted on an M-1 chassis. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-01-27 14:34 |
| #17 Celebrate Diversity |
| Posted by: .com 2006-01-27 13:25 |
| #16 TA The issue seems to be that SOCOM built that tank and the boys will not carry it, too large, heavy,slow to draw, etc... It was to be used for a one size fits all requirements, a failed idea. I would expect to see a standard sized .45 version that with minor modifications fit the CQB and other tactical requirements. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-01-27 12:58 |
| #15 49 Pan, The length, width, rail and silencer are pulled straight off the USP SOCOM spec page. I would think that would be rejected out of hand as they say "not to exceed". However, if I see the artic expedition glove requirement..... |
| Posted by: TomAnon 2006-01-27 12:33 |
| #14 ooops...try this http://www.camo-store.com/auto_assault_12_combat_shotgun.htm |
| Posted by: Inspector Clueso 2006-01-27 11:48 |
| #12 TA, lucky to say nope, it is not even in the running. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-01-27 11:37 |
| #11 **Let the Gun Bigot Wars Begin!** H&K USP .45 Tactical H&K USP Compact .45 Tactical "In a World of Compromise, Some Don't" |
| Posted by: psychohillbilly 2006-01-27 11:37 |
| #10 The Specs sound suspiciously like the HK USP-SOCOM. Now that is "Big and Ugly". Emphasis on Big! |
| Posted by: TomAnon 2006-01-27 11:27 |
| #9 US State Dept. lads used to carry Sigs in 9mm. Not sure wat they have now. I've been lusting after a P-229 for several years now. A man can never have too many knives or guns. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-01-27 11:15 |
| #8 I carried the sig for three years, loved that weapon! |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-01-27 11:10 |
| #7 That's kinda odd. Will we be totally abandoning the 9mm NATO round and usage? I hope the M11 winner is the Sig model. *heart* P220. |
| Posted by: Anon4021 2006-01-27 11:08 |
| #6 Long live John Browning's masterpiece, "Old Ugly!" |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-01-27 10:10 |
| #5 HooRay! Among all the old Serously, all they need now is to get rid of the 5.56 mouse gun. I wonder if they are going to manufacture new M-14s, or come up with a new 7.62 design. |
| Posted by: N guard 2006-01-27 10:03 |
| #4 The M1911 .45 caliber pistol that the 9mm Beretta replaced in 1985, was, as its nomenclature implied, an old design. There are several modern designs out there for .45 caliber pistols that are lighter, carry more ammo and are easier to maintain than the pre-World War I M1911 (which is actually about a century old, as a design). Well most of the 45s were M1911A1s, mod occurring in 1921. Though in our arms room in 1975 still had some straight M1911s mixed in with the A1s. Too many smoothbores cause of maintenance and repair parts budget cuts back in those post-Vietnam years. Personally, I procured a Colt Combat Commander, lighter, balanced in the hand better, shorter barrel. Nothing necessarily wrong with an old design. Browning's M2 50 cal is still a workhorse. |
| Posted by: Sharong Ebbosing6626 2006-01-27 09:56 |
| #3 DOD made a good call on this. I would expect it to move faster than it is eluded to here. The trend is troops, on the Army side, want what the SF guys are carrying and the SF guys want what the classified guy wear. You see this in discussions on body armor, long guns, aircraft, etc... If I were to bet I would bet on a clear winner by this summer. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-01-27 09:25 |
| #2 I'm back, baby! |
| Posted by: Billy Dee Williams 2006-01-27 09:06 |
| #1 "Official Alternatives"...un-****ing believable. I thought I would never see this day. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-01-27 09:01 |