New Round For Military ?

[bored2bhere]

Ive read in Guns Magazine march edition that the military is getting an expanding bullet for terrorist for their 9mms. its called the LP-FMJ ( limited penetration full metal jacket ) and is made by Federal who basicly are modifying their EFMJ ( expanding full metal jacket ) catridge to army specs . the round is supposedly legal because terrorist are not an official army in a sense. and therefore they can use this expanding bullet on them. whats your opinion me personally equip a 45 and be done with it

[Bravo]

The whole FMJ thing is bull in my opinion. It's War, and while certain rules should be followed (chemical/bio weapon treaties), we're talking about conventional bullets from a rifle or handgun. These people don't care about us...I say we use what ever kills them the fastest.

[dogman2]

The idea behind FMJ is that it takes two people to carry a stretcher with a wounded soldier from the field there by causing a loss of personnel.

[mym1a]

hard to beat that old 45acp I suppose it would be a lot cheaper for the military to develop a new load for the 9mm if they can? as opposed to having to purchase new pistols.

[meatloaf]

Originally Posted by dogman2

The idea behind FMJ is that it takes two people to carry a stretcher with a wounded soldier from the field there by causing a loss of personnel.

Thats great for war, however these are terrorists and they believe in suicide attacks. So they dont have a use for a strecher. Lets hit them with the uglist, devistating, and urepairable damage that we can muster. Bring out the hydro shocks, black talons, maximum velocity (These are said to blow seven inch craters in their targets) rounds. While were at it lets bring back napalm, ahh smells like victory!

[ouch]

I would say that the Geneva convention has been written by the winners. The group with the hell fire missles and Fuel-Air bombs says that it is inhumane to use expanding bullets.

What a crock. The Police use expanding bullets to stop their US citizens of various law abiding status yet the military is hampered by FMJ in killing enemys of the state.

If you are going to fight a war lets give the grunt the power to destruct the enemy.

[Zephri]

We need to bring back lazy dog darts. Of course that would make a mess of everybody else...

[poorbrother]

I think the .40S&W or the .357Sig would be the logical choice.
The .45 is a terrific round without a doubt, but you don't get many bullets per magazine, unless you have a huge handle that the average person can't grip well.
And if you're only going to have seven rounds then why not a .357 magnum or a .44 magnum?

[meatloaf]

Originally Posted by Zephri

We need to bring back lazy dog darts. Of course that would make a mess of everybody else...

I dont under stand how they deployed there projectiles. Did the bomb explode in the air?

[TXplt]

If we gotta go with non-expanding projectiles for whatever political (can't possibly understand this because we have all kinds of other weapons which generate all kinds of frag and other 'JHP' effects) or operational reasons, it should be back to the .45. It's really that simple. Not knocking the 9mm, but without high performance ammo (or really really well placed shots) it will never be a stopper.

[damage855]

How bought a Plasma pistol!

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by dogman2

The idea behind FMJ is that it takes two people to carry a stretcher with a wounded soldier from the field there by causing a loss of personnel.

Dogman, you are 100% correct about this, the 5.56 was not necessarily meant to kill with one shot but to tie up others (3, 1 on the stretcher, 2 carrying the stretcher) ... 5.56 rounds are pretty nasty though, they bounce off bones, ricochet off ribs, etc. You could be shot in the chest and have the bullet come out the top of your head. They are brutal, but not necessarily fatal.

mym1a, "hard to beat that old 45acp I suppose it would be a lot cheaper for the military to develop a new load for the 9mm if they can? as opposed to having to purchase new pistols."

... actually, there is a press to get away from the 9mm in the military. A lot of front-line field units are going back to the .45 because the 9mm is not enough to get the job done quickly and efficiently. The military is looking to "take something proved right off the shelf" instead of spending the R&D monies to come up with something completely new. Honestly, it is refreshing to hear this in many different ways.

poorbrother, "I think the .40S&W or the .357Sig would be the logical choice.
The .45 is a terrific round without a doubt, but you don't get many bullets per magazine, unless you have a huge handle that the average person can't grip well.
And if you're only going to have seven rounds then why not a .357 magnum or a .44 magnum?"

... well, it will certainly be an "off the counter" choice... my understanding is that it is now between the .40/.357 Sig and the .45ACP. Personally, I like the .40/.357 Sig... just as good IMHO as the .45ACP with a higher capacity. The other factor favoring the .40/.357 Sig is that there is a higher magazine capacity as well as the better likelihood a smaller framed shooter can hold on and actually confidently shoot the handgun... as a large frame is not necessary.

[mym1a]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

Dogman, you are 100% correct about this, the 5.56 was not necessarily meant to kill with one shot but to tie up others (3, 1 on the stretcher, 2 carrying the stretcher) ... 5.56 rounds are pretty nasty though, they bounce off bones, ricochet off ribs, etc. You could be shot in the chest and have the bullet come out the top of your head. They are brutal, but not necessarily fatal.

mym1a, "hard to beat that old 45acp I suppose it would be a lot cheaper for the military to develop a new load for the 9mm if they can? as opposed to having to purchase new pistols."

... actually, there is a press to get away from the 9mm in the military. A lot of front-line field units are going back to the .45 because the 9mm is not enough to get the job done quickly and efficiently. The military is looking to "take something proved right off the shelf" instead of spending the R&D monies to come up with something completely new. Honestly, it is refreshing to hear this in many different ways.

poorbrother, "I think the .40S&W or the .357Sig would be the logical choice.
The .45 is a terrific round without a doubt, but you don't get many bullets per magazine, unless you have a huge handle that the average person can't grip well.
And if you're only going to have seven rounds then why not a .357 magnum or a .44 magnum?"

... well, it will certainly be an "off the counter" choice... my understanding is that it is now between the .40/.357 Sig and the .45ACP. Personally, I like the .40/.357 Sig... just as good IMHO as the .45ACP with a higher capacity. The other factor favoring the .40/.357 Sig is that there is a higher magazine capacity as well as the better likelihood a smaller framed shooter can hold on and actually confidently shoot the handgun... as a large frame is not necessary.

I have been told by some knowledgable people that indeed the 45 acp is making a comeback with the military along with the nato 7.62x51, also heard the old m2 50 is more desirable then the bayonet barrel type m85???

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

Dogman, you are 100% correct about this, the 5.56 was not necessarily meant to kill with one shot but to tie up others (3, 1 on the stretcher, 2 carrying the stretcher) ... 5.56 rounds are pretty nasty though, they bounce off bones, ricochet off ribs, etc. You could be shot in the chest and have the bullet come out the top of your head. They are brutal, but not necessarily fatal.

mym1a, "hard to beat that old 45acp I suppose it would be a lot cheaper for the military to develop a new load for the 9mm if they can? as opposed to having to purchase new pistols."

... actually, there is a press to get away from the 9mm in the military. A lot of front-line field units are going back to the .45 because the 9mm is not enough to get the job done quickly and efficiently. The military is looking to "take something proved right off the shelf" instead of spending the R&D monies to come up with something completely new. Honestly, it is refreshing to hear this in many different ways.

poorbrother, "I think the .40S&W or the .357Sig would be the logical choice.
The .45 is a terrific round without a doubt, but you don't get many bullets per magazine, unless you have a huge handle that the average person can't grip well.
And if you're only going to have seven rounds then why not a .357 magnum or a .44 magnum?"

... well, it will certainly be an "off the counter" choice... my understanding is that it is now between the .40/.357 Sig and the .45ACP. Personally, I like the .40/.357 Sig... just as good IMHO as the .45ACP with a higher capacity. The other factor favoring the .40/.357 Sig is that there is a higher magazine capacity as well as the better likelihood a smaller framed shooter can hold on and actually confidently shoot the handgun... as a large frame is not necessary.

I have been told by some knowledgable people that indeed the 45 acp is making a comeback with the military along with the nato 7.62x51, also heard the old m2 50 is more desirable then the bayonet barrel type m85???

I'm sure high capacity any thing has its pros but at what point do you sacrifice knock down power for more rounds ?whats better taking down your enemy with one or 2 shots with a 45acp holding 8 shots or having to use 4 rounds with a 14 round magazine??

[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by Zephri

We need to bring back lazy dog darts. Of course that would make a mess of everybody else...

I remember buying lazy dogs for like a dime apiece at the surplus store when I was a kid. Took some up to the second story loading hatch in the garage attic and dropped them. The fall was perhaps 15 feet into soft soil, & I was pretending to be a bombardier in a B-17.

They'd penetrate so that about the only thing sticking out was about half an inch, including the fins.

If you can catch an unarmored enemy out in the open, they make an excellent, inexpensive antipersonnel weapon. To heck with the "humane" aspects of the weapon! Hasn't anyone ever told the bleeding hearts that war by definition is an inhumane business, and that the idea is to kill as many of the enemy as fast as you can while losing as few of your own troops as possible?

[mym1a]

If we were fighting a conventional war with a standing army I would agree that,for every person wounded you would need at least 3 to tend to their needs but, I doubt that these terrorist have neither the resources or desire to tend to their wouned??? being that these religious terrorist are in a big hurry to meet their maker??? I think we should do what we can to expedite their trip to the here after. thats my humble opinion!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

... actually, there is a press to get away from the 9mm in the military. A lot of front-line field units are going back to the .45 because the 9mm is not enough to get the job done quickly and efficiently. The military is looking to "take something proved right off the shelf" instead of spending the R&D monies to come up with something completely new.

As I've said elsewhere in the forums, our troops are relearning the lessons the Moros taught their great-grandfathers in the Phillipines a century ago. If the fit hits the shan to the point you have to use a pistol, that pistol must deliver man-stopping power with one shot.

The reason the Army adopted the .45 ACP to start with is not that complicated. There were too many instances of Moro warriors hopped up on the local version of hashish, with their pressure points bound up and protected by green bamboo and soaked rawhide to retard bleeding, charging into Army overnight positions and being shot half a dozen times with the then-standard .38 Special revolver, yet living long enough to kill the pistol shooter. The Army responded by shipping the troops in the Phillipines Single Action Armys in.45 Long Colt and the .44-40 revolvers that had preceded the .38s, both of which weapons had enough power for one-shot stops.

When they held a new pistol trial in 1908, a .45 caliber bullet was specified. John M. Browning's classic semi-automatic won the competition and was adopted.

The .45 ACP round has a well-earned reputation for making one-shot stops. When a hollowpoint round is used, the expansion is 1 2/3rds the original diameter of the bullet, making a wound channel more than 3/4s of an inch wide. That will stop most unarmored humans with a center-of-mass hit, no matter what drug they are on. Thus, it should come as no surprise that when the Army ordered new pistol trials to replace the Beretta 9mm NATO politics had forced upon the Army, they specified that the pistol be chambered in .45 ACP. I believe the current front-runner in the competition is the Smith & Wesson M&P pistol, but I'm not sure of this.

Personally, I feel they ought to simply re-issue the Colt M1911A1, on the "why reinvent the wheel?" theory. If the Army absolutely, positively has to have something with as many rounds as the inadequate Beretta it is replacing, go to a double-stack M1911, perhaps with an alloy or polymer frame, and call it the M1911B. But at least they've relearned the lesson that if you want a man-stopper, you've got to use a round with enough kinetic energy to do the job.

The adherents of the 9mm can scream all they like about how the modern, hotter powders and better projectiles make the 9mm the equal of the legendary .45 ACP cartridge; but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The 9mm has been thoroughly tested in the crucible of combat. It failed the test. We already know the .45 ACP passed that test in World War I, the 'Banana Wars' of the 1920s, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada and in countless special operations that never made the news. So to hell with political correctness! Let's by God give our fighting forces a pistol chambered in a round that has shown it can do the job! It may not be the most powerful handgun cartridge in the world, but it's still capable of blowing a bad guy's head clean off; and he won't have the time to ask if he feels lucky when one of our troopers draws down on him with a .45 ACP pistol. In the end, that's what really matters.

[Zephri]

Originally Posted by Cyrano

I remember buying lazy dogs for like a dime apiece at the surplus store when I was a kid. Took some up to the second story loading hatch in the garage attic and dropped them. The fall was perhaps 15 feet into soft soil, & I was pretending to be a bombardier in a B-17.
They'd penetrate so that about the only thing sticking out was about half an inch, including the fins.
If you can catch an unarmored enemy out in the open, they make an excellent, inexpensive antipersonnel weapon. To heck with the "humane" aspects of the weapon! Hasn't anyone ever told the bleeding hearts that war by definition is an inhumane business, and that the idea is to kill as many of the enemy as fast as you can while losing as few of your own troops as possible?

Yeah could you imagine dropping thousands of them out of an airplane going 700 miles per hour or faster.

[mym1a]

extremist religion and drugs no wonder the 45acp was adopted, to bad they didn't make the 45 long colt into a semi auto loader?