M9 versus 1911A1

Discussion in 'The Powder Keg' started by Logansdad, May 25, 2002.

  1. Logansdad

    Logansdad Guest

    :fuss: Military specification full metal jacket ammunition only...:eek: 7 rounds of 230 grain ball at 850 fps/370 muzzle energy against 15 rounds of 115 grain ball at 1250 fps/ 400 muzzle energy or even 124 grain ball at 1150 fps/370 muzzle energy. Which ?
    Why ?:fuss: :rolleyes: :nod:
  2. Klaus

    Klaus Guest

    The .45acp . 9mm is pretty lame without expansion. Government ammo would be way more effective if they used something like a truncated cone, rather than the primitive round nosed full metal jacket ammo. I do not think the Hague convention specified round noses, it only outlawed fragmenting or expanding ammo use by the military.

  3. JohnD

    JohnD Guest

    I think they moved to the 9mm because of more penatration, more rounds with less weight, more accurate at longer ranges, lighter weight guns. Or so it said in a US military book I read. But Say you shot a guy and it hit them in the ak-47 mag they had straped on to them, you would have a better chance of punching through that with the 9. But if you had a clean shot and nothing in the way shure the .45 would work better. But I think it is more of a weight issue.
  4. Logansdad

    Logansdad Guest

    I believe it was because of ammunition logistics with our allies in NATO. We told them that if they wanted to be resupplied with rifle ammo they would have to settle for .308 Winchester (7.62 NATO) and .223 Remington (5.56 NATO) I believe they wanted us to reciprocate by adopting the 9mm round. I may be wrong...
  5. ananab

    ananab G&G Newbie

    i think someone else said something similar in one of the other forums but here's my two cents: in a batlefield/combat scenario, you are probably going to be using a rifle, unless someone makes it close enough to be in your trench / bunker / nest etc. in that case you have an enemy right up ontop of you and you need to put him down... now. there is probably few people that would doubt that a .45 will do the job. it seems as though the debate is really about wether the 9mm can keep up with the .45 in stopping power. as far as the m9 vs. the 1911, i think they are both great guns, and both extremely fun to shoot. i still have a soft spot for my sig 220 though.
  6. Logansdad

    Logansdad Guest

    Yeah I know, don't bring a sidearm to a rifle fight...Choppers going down behind enemy lines...your rifles has stopped a large chunk of schrapnel from hitting you...but now it doesn't work....what then ?
  7. FEG

    FEG Guest

    M-9 vs. 1911A1

    IMHO, this is not a fair comparison, because I do not think the Beretta 92/96 series 9mms are the easiest 9s for most people to shoot comfortably. They are a little too wide in the grip for even average-sized hands. For example, the P-35 and CZ 75/85 series are more comfortable, especially in rapid-fire. 1911A1's are single-stack, and they are extremely comfortable, "point" naturally, have a shorter trigger reach than most full-sized pistols, etc.

    Both pistols have more than enough combat accuracy, so I will not even address which is more accurate. I have shot both extensively, but I don't own either pistol. I shoot these pistols almost as well as the CZs I shoot nearly every weekend. 'Nuff said!

    Personally, I think the whole 9mm vs. .45 debate is an apples/oranges problem. Both cartridges do at least one thing that the other can't. 230 gr FMJ (.45) will not reliably penetrate the mostly plastic modern car doors. 124 gr FMJ (9mm) has gone clean through every car door we have tried, including a 74 Cutlass! Using FMJ, you may have to kill the target to achieve a stop with a 9mm. 230 gr FMJ is a documented man-stopper (although it has also killed its fair share).

    When all's said and done, 9mm makes more sense in an military context than a law-enforcement or civilian context. I hate to be so blunt, but 9mm really excels at killing at the combat distances for pistol. A trained shooter can place 2-5 shots very quickly and accurately. I am not saying that 9mm is BETTER than .45 in combat; I am saying 9mm makes more sense in combat than for say, concealed carry. With 9mm, you may NEED its suitability for rapid-fire and high capacity.

    As several people mentioned, the real "advantage" of 9mm is logistics. Essentially, NATO finally went with 9mm for some of the same reasons that it adopted 5.56x45. The individual soldier can carry more rounds. The other "logistical" reasons are also somewhat political, IMHO. Twice, the US essentially "got is way" with .308 (7.62x51) and .223 (5.56x45), making the other NATO countries revamp their small arms at great expense, twice in less than two decades! 9x19 was and is the Western European standard for military and law enforcement (largely thanks to the subguns more than the pistols themselves). I have has always heard that the other NATO members dug in their heels on this one...
  8. Logansdad

    Logansdad Guest

    It isn't a fair comparison...it wasn't intended to be fair. like most everything else in nature it favors the decisive & unhesitating response. Command does not want excuses like the grip on my M9 is too large...no offense. the only other sidearm available as substitute standard is the M11 (Sig Sauer 228)
  9. FEG

    FEG Guest

    M-9 vs. 1911A1

    My point was that command had **** WELL better think about something like ergonomics when it changes its primary sidearm. Quick decisions are necessary in combat. However, I don't want my tax dollars spent on knee-jerk reactions and snap judgments!

    The Beretta 92 FS is a good service pistol. It may have even been the best design available at the time (early 80's), but not in my opinion. It certainly isn't the best 9mm model on the market today (both new models and the political situation have changed the quality of the competition).

    The new Beretta 96 Vertec with slimmer grip and other minor changes looks promising for us civilians...
  10. Logansdad

    Logansdad Guest

    I wish they had held out for the Glock
  11. FEG

    FEG Guest

    It was hard enough for the WWII bunch to accept the Italian Beretta; I would think that an Austrian or German gun would have been out of the question! Seriously though, it did suprise me when the SIG M11 slipped in through the back door, so to speak. I wonder how many Sigs the entire US Armed Forces has on hand? The initial M9 order was something like 300,000, right?
  12. Logansdad

    Logansdad Guest

    I think the initial M11/Sig 228 order was for 30,000. The current M16 orders are fulfilled by Fabrique Nationale, Herstal, Belgique...course then we've always been allied with Belgium.
  13. Logansdad

    Logansdad Guest

    By the way Special Forces units have access to Heckler & Koch rifles, submachineguns & sidearms (that SOCOM .45ACP)
  14. Logansdad

    Logansdad Guest

    That's a pretty slick idea there Klaus !, I like it
  15. I was visiting my local indoor range for a little R & R. Wanted to burn a few reloads through my P-89 to see how well they shot. I had some one come up to me and accused me of having a sissy gun--exact words. Well the conversation didn't last long when I invited him to stand in front of the target downrange.--What a idiot. I know the 45 acp has more knock down power, but I have confidence in Corbon 9mm. Come to think of it I wouldn't want to be shot with any caliber. Of course this is only my opinion.
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2002
  16. Logansdad

    Logansdad Guest

    I was shooting a Ruger Mark 2 (Competition Target) at an indoor range years ago. In the next lane a guy was shooting a concealed carry size .45ACP. He was all over the target at 7 yards. I was doing all right at 21 yards. He asked me what I was shooting I showed it to him...He asked what caliber it was. .22lr He told me that a .22 wasn't a good defense caliber. Without missing a beat, because I said it all the time behind the counter of a gun store, I replied that a hit with a .22 beats a miss with a .45ACP. He probably thought I was a smart aleck.
  17. Mike southers

    Mike southers Guest

    There is little doubt that the project manager got a good position with Beretta USA after the M9 was adopted. I have fired a fully functioning dirty .45 and a lot less dirty non-functioning M9 piece of feces. Give me the .45, and to heck with the less recoil better penetration crowd. IPSC still rates the 9mm as a "minor" caliber, and rightfully so. If you can't handle a .45, you take your chances on not stopping the bad guy.
  18. Stewart

    Stewart Guest

    Actually a lot of people (Military) were surprised at the selection of Beretta. Sig was heavily favored but let's say there was some political decisions involved with Beretta being selected. Seals are one group who have still favored and used Sig despite Beretta being the standard sidearm, but Spec Ops uses what works best not what is standard. All the reasons for switching involving weight, Nato standard, and accuracy are the reasons for the switch.
  19. Logansdad

    Logansdad Guest

    IPSC is an unrealistic arms race...IDPA is more practical & realistic...besides nobody is going to shrug off a 9mm...9mm FMJ hangs right in there with the .45 ACP FMJ as far as stopping power according to Marshall & Sanow
  20. guffster

    guffster Guest

    I don't believe anyone mentioned it, but I believe some of the reason for going to the 9mm was the number of females now in the service & they could not handle the recoil of the 45acp.