| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Army looking to replace the M9/M11 9mm with harder hitting sidearm |
| 2014-07-03 |
| Posted by:DarthVader |
| #22 As P2k says, it depends on when and where the 1911 was. The rack (issue) 45's we used while I was shooting for the Idaho National Guard Pistol Team were so old and worn that we had frames crack and were lucky that the barrel links didn't fall off during use or cleaning. Those were NOT target guns. The National Match 45's on the other hand were a great piece of equipment. Same comparison of rack vs National Match rifles...An M16A1 is NOT a target weapon. |
| Posted by: tipover 2014-07-03 23:57 |
| #21 Got it! Thanks Jim. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-07-03 22:00 |
| #20 No,it was an expert ,and it was online, he was practicing, had a dumfuk (Pulled the trigger too soon),and was pissed. went through his leg (From a draw, at a diagonal from top to mid-thigh, went between the bones. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2014-07-03 21:57 |
| #19 #15 I saw a man who accidently shot himself through the leg with a .45, he didn't fall down,(He did Cuss a lot), the bull that he'd fall down Is strictly BS. Posted by Redneck Jim That wouldn't have been on a range on Vint Hill Farm Station would it Jim ? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-07-03 21:26 |
| #18 ..could be. The first arms room I administered (circa early 70s) was in a HHC. There were about 60 .45s in there. At least 8 of them were M1911s, not M1911As, the mod occurred in 1924. Too many were by then 'smooth' bores. You could say we were on the bottom of the Class IX priority authorization. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-07-03 21:15 |
| #17 I don't know about some of you but I was very good with the 1911, shot expert the first time I picked it up. I think I shot better than that the time sappers breached our wire and tried to kill me in my hooch, I shot three of them getting out of bed and shot about six more running around in my underwear. The .45 is a good weapon and it is accurate, it takes practice. AND a man sized target at 25 yards is a pretty good sized target...just hit them anywhere. In my battalion we used to have contests during annual qualification and we never had an officer shoot less than sharpshooter with the .45...never had an officer or senior NCO fail to qualify. I don't know where this nonsense about a .45 being inaccurate came from...probably from some clown that picked one up one day shot it three times and quit. |
| Posted by: Bill Clinton 2014-07-03 20:03 |
| #16 |
| Posted by: good backlinks 2014-07-03 19:34 |
| #15 I saw a man who accidently shot himself through the leg with a .45, he didn't fall down,(He did Cuss a lot), the bull that he'd fall down Is strictly BS. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2014-07-03 18:09 |
| #14 My Dad fired a .45 in 1944 in the Army Air Corps and told me he could be most effective with it by throwing it. Not very accurate, he thought. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2014-07-03 18:09 |
| #13 #7, the amok Moros identified the shortcoming of the existing sidearm. While the army selection process began in '06, the weapon selection board wasn't convened till 1911, beyond most of the Moro activity. Took time to 'perfect' a model to met the specifications. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-07-03 17:54 |
| #12 They used to say if the M1911 couldn't stop an enemy, throwing it at the enemy would. |
| Posted by: badanov 2014-07-03 16:04 |
| #11 Yeah, you can bring your R1, hell bring a G3 for all I care just leave that useless piece of crap M16 at home. Now that we are fighting in more open country, a rifle that can reach out and touch someone at 300 or 400 meters is needed. The M16 was a one size fits all solution which did not work based on the idea of caring more ammo and quantity over quality of rounds down range in the battle area. What we need is a weapon that can put a man down with one shot, cut brush in the jungle AND knock a bad guy off his moped at 400 yards. When I shot with the Bundeswehr, we shot G3s at targets at 300 meters to qualify. Alvin York would roll in his grave at how deteriorated our ability to shoot a rifle has become. |
| Posted by: Bill Clinton 2014-07-03 15:45 |
| #10 There's probably a European Union study about how a .22LR is big enough to knock down the Death Star or some such, and how it would work well with the F-35. (That's the ticket.) |
| Posted by: ed in texas 2014-07-03 14:59 |
| #9 One other thing about the .45 you didn't mention. The sound causes those downrange to lose bladder control in a way a 9mm can't match. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2014-07-03 14:56 |
| #8 Reminds me of a Bill Mauldin cartoon: "Aim between th' eyes, Joe. Sometimes they charge when they're wounded." |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2014-07-03 14:36 |
| #7 I thought it was picked because it could drop a Moro running amok, P2K? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2014-07-03 14:29 |
| #6 .45 was picked up because it could drop a horse, literally. The US Cavalry wanted something that could take out an opponent's horse with one shot. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-07-03 14:06 |
| #5 "It's a total system replacement -- new gun, new ammo, new holster, everything," Easlick said. Translation: There is money to be made, gentlemen! |
| Posted by: SteveS 2014-07-03 13:43 |
| #4 If you get to bring back your .45, can I bring along my R1 ? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-07-03 13:39 |
| #3 I don't believe a word that Langdon clown says. I do not believe for one minute a guy can be hit eight frigging times with a .45 ACP/235 grain bullet and keep coming. I've shot guys with a .45 and no matter where I hit them, big toe, shoulder, wrist, ankle, wherever, they went DOWN. The biggest advantage to the .45 is you do not have to be a good shot. you don't have to center punch a guy, hit anywhere on the torso and they are done. Shit man, hit a guy in the gut wearing body armor and they go down with the .45...who the hell are they trying to kid with those stupid assed comments about the .45? The 9mm is just a glorified .38 special and we know how useless that round was. Recoil? You only need one shot with the .45 so why is it a problem to put a second round on target when you've blown a hole the size of a grapefruit in his leg? AND in close combat in jungle the .45 is a great brush cutter. I personally think the US military should bring back the Thompson also...used one of those in Angola and no one fucked with me very long. |
| Posted by: Bill Clinton 2014-07-03 13:35 |
| #2 I seem to remember that they used to have a harder hitting side arm. Something from a Mr. Browning that worked well in the Phillipines a few years ago. .45ACP or something like that? I've heard a couple of stories about the intro of the 9mm about it being a sop to our NATO allies or a sop to females that couldn't handle the .45. Don't know if either are true but changing the side arm probably left lots of room for graft. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2014-07-03 13:34 |
| #1 The 9mm is a piece of crap. When I used the M9 it wasn't accurate, jammed and didn't have stopping power. I like the .357SIG and .40 personally for my use. Very manageable recoil with a nice round size. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2014-07-03 12:51 |