Has anyone heard anything about the new US Army pistol trial?

[Cyrano]

If I have the story correctly, the US Army relearned the lesson the Moros taught us in the Phillipines a century ago, to wit: if a pistol caliber does not start with a .4, it isn't worth having because it won't give you a one shot stop. The Berettas NATO forced on the Army can't get the job done no matter what the ballistic tables claim when shooting ball ammo. So the Army is going back to .45 ACP as the pistol cartridge; but they want something more modern than the M1911A1 to shoot it.

Browning submitted a pistol. So did Colt. So did Kimber. So did Armalite. So did Smith & Wesson. So did Glock. The shoot-off began back about 2 years ago.

The last word I had on this (if the story is correct), the Smith & Wesson M&P in .45 ACP was the front-runner, but no decision has been made yet, no contracts have been announced, etc. Is there anything to this, or is this just another gun shop rumor?

[nick112207]

I actually have a copy of Guns&Ammo from February that talked about a FN pistol. Called the FNP-45. said the army is testing it and that they really like it. Holds 14 rounds.

[Don357]

G & A reported in Either Mar or Apr that Beretta won again. From what I've read our soldiers should hope that they make some improvments and go to a larger caliber.

[gandog56]

I think it was the Army decision to stay with the Beretta 9mm's, but other branches are still looking into 45's.

[Marine1]

Years ago, while serving in the USMC MP's, we packed the M-1911 and M-1911-A1. I loved that weapon. I later served in the reserves, (Army and Air Force) ( MP's & AP's). We packed M-1911 & M-1911 A1's (Army Reserve) & S&W Model 15's ( Air Force-Air Police). Afterwards in civilian life, when I was working the Reserve PD, (now retired), I packed a S&W Model 28 4" Highway Patrolman, as .45's at this time were thought to be too over-kill...circa 1970's - 1980's. Most departments were then switching from .38's to 9mm-automatics. Some of the first autos, departments adopted were Model S&W 39's and 59's. In later years, I bought and packed a P-14 Para-Ordnance (14) shot .45, using strictly Winchester-Olin (USA Brand) ammo. Never had a mis-fire or jam, in several thousand rounds at the range. A Hi-Cap Magazine, with a .45 punch... I think this might be something the military may consider? Just an opinion. What is your opinion on a .45 or other type weapon, the military should consider?

[K75RT]

From what I've read the military is looking for an alternative in .45; I love the 9mm when it is loaded with a hollow-point, as well as the .357 and the .40. As the military is compelled to the FMJ it is a better choice. A large caliber moving at slow speeds leaves a large wound channel, whereas a small caliber wound channel tends to punch through and act more as a bayonet wound.

[gandog56]

Then why was the .45 developed in the first place? Because the flimsy pistols the Army had in the Phillipines wouldn't knock the Moros down. They decided big and slow was better than small and fast.

[meatloaf]

remember your firearm was built by the cheapest bidder.

[ezearln]

A point of History here folks, the United States NAVY was the LAST branch of the Military to "Accept" the M9 9mm pistol as "standard" issue. For a variety of valid reasons the Navy DID NOT want the 9mm finding it inferior in all respects to what the Navy needed. Congress was the culprit not the Armys ordnance dept in making the Navy adopt the M9. FY1995's budget for the Navy included $0 for M1911A1 parts, support, repair, depot refurb or ammunition expenditures. I know this because I was an instructor at the time and we were directed by CNO (Chief of Naval Operations-Basically the HMFIC) to "Torture Test" the M9 to be honest the sidearm is LESS than desirable as a combat piece. I will always have an M1911A1 as my personal sidearm and defensive weapon. Congress can shove their "NATO" compatabilty arguments where the sun don't shine! Since when have we or our allies ever been over worried about "Compatability" anyhow?

[AnaxImperator]

Many of the standard-issue M9s are nearing the end of their service-life. In my old unit's DS small-arms shop, a lot of Berettas came in that were completely shot out and worn to the point of no return.

On top of that, unless you're an SF soldier, guys aren't allowed to bring personal firearms into theater. 9mm's aren't any more effective against mideastern insurgents than the old .38s and such were against the Moros. It's been well documented that many insurgents are coming across from Syria & Iran with supplies of meth. A hardball 9mm isn't going to persuade a tweaked-out insurgent to quit fighting, and that's been proven many times during this war.

The Army's insistance on not allowing guys to bring their own sidearms is downright dangerous, not to mention the restrictions on HP ammunition. And I'm sure Beretta's winning of gov. contracts stinks of favoritisim and kickbacks on many levels.

[ezearln]

Anax may I point out a small consideration known as the Geneva Convention that doesn't allow HP ammo between belligerants? But I do agree the shift to the 9mm was a very poorly thought out proposition from start to finish, in the days of the M1911A1 at 6000 rds you were supposed to rebarrel, at 24,000 rds they went to the depot for inspection and peening (if required) of the rails and replacement of any wore parts. Then they went right back out to the field again.

[genwinters]

well the geneva convention only applies to militaries, this is a guerrilla fighting force not owned by anyone, like pirates or mercenaries. so really the geneva convention means nothing when fighting the terrorists because they never signed it.


they are looking at the HK45, SWMP .45/.40, taurus 24/7, kimber warriors and i think a couple others

[AnaxImperator]

Originally Posted by ezearln

Anax may I point out a small consideration known as the Geneva Convention that doesn't allow HP ammo between belligerants?

And while I agree with almost all of the GC's guidelines for the conduct of legal warfare, the ban on HP, frangible, and other types of ammo is among the most questionable... especially when considering that our enemy of today doesn't follow the GC's rules. If they have HPs, they'll use them. In the meantime we're saddled with firearms that are borderline ineffective when using strictly ball ammunition.
Some of our small-arms do quite well with ball ammo. The M855 5.56x45mm cartridge is an FMJ round that acts quite unlike most FMJs upon penetration. Other large caliber FMJ rounds (7.62 NATO) are effective by dint of their mass and velocity, so specialized rounds aren't needed.
I understand the argument for following the GC, in that if we don't, we're no better than the enemy. But I think that maintaining the moral high-ground isn't a stand to take when saddled with an ineffective sidearm, instead of a firearm that fires a more effective pistol-caliber FMJ round. Refraining from the use of chemical weapons, flamethrowers, etc, is a logical route considering their inhumanity. But limiting combatants to FMJ's? Bullets are still going to maim/kill; it's just a matter of how many are needed to take down a target, and how many soldiers are going to be wounded/killed until that happens.
Hollow-points; unfair advantage? Maybe.
Inhumane? Not at all.