The Army Pistol

GunBlast.com ^ | April 22nd, 2005 | R.K. Campbell

[ansel12]

What pistol did you carry?

[wetphoenix]

To be honest I’m mostly familar with Makarov and TT. I also used Stechkin, PB and MP-443 but I like TT best though.

[CodeToad]

Best of both worlds: The Smith & Wesson 40, 155gr Gold Dot at 1250fps, or a 180gr FMJ at 1150fps. As powerful as any 45 round, as fast as any 9mm round, and the approximate size of the 9mm to hold 10+ rounds in a magazine.

I have it in the Beretta 96 (Same as the 9mm version), and it works great.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I have the first generation Glock Mod. 22 in .40 S&W. It’s a hammer !

[ansel12]

Was the Makarov standard issue in your unit?

[dangerdoc]

I’ve been looking at 40 S&W, the components are much more reasonable than 45 and sometimes cheaper than 9mm.

[dangerdoc]

I wish the military would go back to 45, it would make once fired brash much less expensive.

[Durus]

It's not really that debatable. AR15/M16 (in 5.56/.223) have been dominating national matches against M1As for years. These are folks that know accuracy and the clear choice is the AR platform. With all due respect no way can an FN-FAL (a near 70 year old design?) be near as accurate as either, although I do have a soft spot for them. There simply isn't a piston rifle capable of of the accuracy of a gas impingement system. It's physics, not some opinion I pulled out of thin air. It has weaknesses sure, but we are talking a rifle here. We are a country of riflemen where accuracy has to be one of the most important determining factors.

Let's not confuse the round with the rifle either. The government decided to use 5.56, but the AR/M16 platform can be built using a wide variety of rounds, from .17HMR to .50 Beowulf. Only government stupidity stops them from adopting a better caliber that would further enhance the superiority of the platform.

[skinkinthegrass]

!

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

How about one of these! the MARS.

[R. Scott]

But would 0bama’s private army give them to our army?

[RC one]

I never even suggested that the FN FAL is more accurate than the M16/AR15 platform. It is a better combat rifle however. Much better IMO. Shooting targets and shooting enemy soldiers is entirely different. And there is no way that a 5.56 mm service rifle beats a 7.62 mm service rifle at long ranges. If we're talking handloads and match grade rifles, things may be different but that's not what we're talking about. Furthermore, the 7.62 is way more lethal than the 5.56, especially at 300+ yards. There's really no debate about that. That's why the army is exploring various new chamberings. Accuracy matters but it isn't all that matters in a combat rifle, if it was, our soldiers would be issued bolt action rifles. If I'm going to war, I'm taking the FN FAL every time thank you very much.

[mad_as_he$$]

Really?
7.62x39
Muzzle Velocity: 2355 fps
Muzzle Energy: 1515 ft/lbs
100 Yard Velocity: 2026 fps
100 Yard Energy: 1121 ft/lbs
200 Yard Velocity: 1726 fps
200 Yard Energy: 814 ft/lbs
300 Yard Velocity: 1463 fps
300 Yard Energy: 584 ft/lbs

223 NOT 5.56mmx45
Muzzle velocity: 3240 fps.
Velocity at 100 yards: 2874 fps.
Velocity at 300 yards: 2222 fps.
Muzzle energy: 1282 ft/lbs.
Energy at 100 yards: 1008 ft/lbs.
Energy at 300 yards: 603 ft/lbs

So your blanket statements are false. Even 223 has more energy and velocity than 7.62x39 at 300 yards.

[RC one]

whose talking about 7.62 x 39? I have been talking about 7.62 NATO which has around 2,500 ft/lbs of muzzle energy and is used regularly to kill soldiers at 1000+ yards. Furthermore, a typical rifleman is limited to 300 yard targets with his M16A2. If he has an M4, the bullet has lost most of its lethality at this range-never mind beyond that. Not so with 7.62 NATO.

[wetphoenix]

Ah, ansell... You are at it again.

[ansel12]

At what, this is a chance for freepers to learn from a Russian military veteran, do you not think we are interested in that?

[wetphoenix]

Makarov is a standard issue for military, para-military and armed civilian agencies in Russia since 1950s when TT was officially phased but there is quite a freedom for servicemen to choose a handgun they like. If your armory has a TT and you want it you would get it. As far as 1980s you could see old cops carry a 1870 Nagant revolvers phased before WWII who wouldn’t trade in for TT or Mak (of course it is not the case for military). I guess millions of all the above are still in storage.
Makarov is due to be phased as such an idea is simmering for a last couple decades. Possible replacement are GSh-18, MP-443, “Strizh” (aka “Strike One” on German and Middle East markets), Glock-17, Beretta PX4.

[sargon]

To be honest I’m mostly familar with Makarov and TT. I also used Stechkin, PB and MP-443 but I like TT best though.

I've owned a couple of East German Makarovs, which use 9x18mm "Kurz" ammunition. They carry a good bit more "pop" than a .380, and I've found them to be very reliable with respect feeding a wide range of 9x18mm ammunition variants.

As a backup weapon, I highly recommend the Makarov, especially when manufacture in the "right" countries.

Obviously not as much stopping power as a 9mm para., but these standard blowback pistols strike an excellent balance between stopping power, reliability, concealability and size/weight. It's been a while, but last I checked, very nice specimens could be had for $250-$350 or so.

[wetphoenix]

~Obviously not as much stopping power as a 9mm para., but these standard blowback pistols strike an excellent balance between stopping power, reliability, concealability and size/weight. It’s been a while, but last I checked, very nice specimens could be had for $250-$350 or so.~

True, as far as we are talking about military pistols people has to bear in mind that it is not their primary weapon. They have a rifle for a big bang.

[Chainmail]

I agree wholeheartedly that the US ordnance system has made some bad calls in its history - you just named a couple. How about the refusal to adopt the Lewis Gun in favor of the idiot Benet-Mercier? More recently, I saw men die because some twits at home decided that the M-16 was ready for combat in 1967 and the M-60 was a rotten replacement for the M1919 machinegun.

The public excuse for the 9mm was "NATO commonality" but in the discussions I witnessed at JSSAP, they were primarily concerned that the 1911 was too much pistol for many soldiers, particularly the ladies. The army wasn't actually considering women for direct combat in 1978 but their enlistment targets were not being filled and women became more important for the services to make quota. Pistols - or "Personal Defense Weapons (PDW)" as the bureaucrats of the JSSAP liked to call them - are primarily weapons of last resort for leaders and rear-area troops. Sort of like a semiauto knife. They are inexpensive compact and light, compared to a rifle or a carbine. On those very few times when they are used, the enemy is right there in front of you and you have only a few seconds left to your life if your shot doesn't kill him first. I have seen five men shot with a .45 and all of them died. Four died immediately and one took 35 minutes (gut wound). Conversely, ask the FBI how effective 9mm softpoints were in that Florida shootout several years back.

As I said earlier, we need an ordnance department led by serious men, primarily combat veterans who know and understand the values of effectiveness, not just computer-simulated effectiveness and the importance of solid, reliable engineering. Disasters like the fielding of the M-16 have to be avoided for all time.