Posted on 07/14/2014 2:20:50 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
In 1985 the United States Army replaced the Colt 1911 service pistol with the Italian designed M9 Beretta. The first question that came to mind is why? Why not simply order up a few hundred thousand of the then new Series 80 Colts?
(Excerpt) Read more at gunblast.com ...
Our ordnance dept. has a long history of bad calls when it comes to infantry weapons. During the Civil War, they refused to adopt weapons like the 7 shot Spencer rifle,
over the single shot muzzle loading Springfield pattern.
They rejected the Maxim machine gun. They did not allow the Browning Automatic rifle (BAR) to be used in Europe during WWI. IMO the real impetus for adoption of the 9mm was its commonality with all of the other NATO armed services. In the mid 80, ladies were not to be found in combat units.
The biggest problem with the 9mm round is that it uses a full metal jacket bullet. A 9mm round with a some of the modern hollow point bullets available today is very effective in damaging the human body.
I own a couple of both, and I love each for different reasons.
The heft and feel of a .45, and what it does downrange speaks for itself, if you hit it, it goes down. I love them to death and is what I keep in my vehicle as a knock-around gun.
Back in ‘85 just after the switch I bought my first Beretta and have put literally thousands upon thousands (and I’m not exaggerating here) of every type of round cheap and expensive I could get my hands on through it. I can count the number of times it failed to feed on one hand, and that was after a full days use of cheap ammo without cleaning. I cannot say anything similar with my 1911 frames at all.
That being said I then think about being downrange on the other end of either of these and the choice between the two becomes much easier. If someone was armed and coming to kill me would I rather face a 9mm or a .45? Neither if course, but in all honesty I would hands down pick the 9mm every time, and I imagine so would our enemies as well.
(Putting on my flame proof undies here and also admitting that if you do go back to the big-bore I think they just say screw it and adopt a 10mm instead, the Delta Elites I have would scare me more than either of the choices above)
I had much the same experience in about 1980. Two of us were on the Combat Handgun Pistol Team. We were good and maintained groups in the 10X ring. We would have moved on to Nationals but our team captain “shot a snake”.
Because of our expertise we had the pleasure of taking our officers to the range to qualify on the 45. We heard the old trite comments about how useless the 45 was. We taught them how to strip and inspect the weapon. We taught them the Weaver grip, sight picture and alignment. They only had to hit 50% of the popup targets to qualify. They all managed to qualify but with low scores. We each took two 45s and used two lanes each. We mowed down all the targets but being popups and not bull’s eyes it was no great feet. After our demonstration their opinion of the 45 changed. It seemed their prior opinion was formed by all the old rumors they heard about the 45. It affected their performance.
With a new pistol (in .40 cal no less), they have something to shoot those millions of “spare” rounds they have stock piled.
It would be easier to convert the M-16 to a better caliber. There isn’t a battle rifle fielded that is more accurate than the M-16.
40 years ago we had a sidearm that had a lotof knockdown power. It was called a Colt 45.
When I was on active duty in the early to mid 1980s, the 1911A1 was the only game in town. Before my final stint on the Division staff I served as a platoon leader and for a short while as the XO of the Division Pistol Team (Composite Bullseye). I never found our supply of 1911's to be wildly loose or inaccurate and I fired a fair representation of brother officer's assigned pistols in my Brigade when I was at the unit level. On the team we got match grade pistols (including S&W M41's) and ammo as well as Olympic grade coaches. That was a pretty fun time. I never found the 45 to be an exceptionally hard kicker and actually the recoil impulse is more of a push. But it can be pretty heavy and that tends to task the arms and wrists of some female soldiers or folks whose background in life doesn't include a familiarity with firearms.
The big push to change the status quo was blamed on several things:
1. 1911A1's were running on the ragged edge of the life span.
2. There was the issue of training the females and others of limited shooting backgrounds to handle the pistol.
3. But the overriding excuse was logistics to bring our military into line with our NATO allies, the 9mm being the sole caliber of choice for Europe. Of course at that time we were all training to be in combat with the Russians, so that made sense.
However as in everything that ultimately makes a significant change in the TO&E, it came down to the greed factor. Just as when the M16 was pushed over the M14 and before that the Garand and so on, the ever present military industrial complex got geared up to offer up a "needed replacement." It is interesting to note the factors in common with the progression of our military battle rifles: Decreasing caliber size and increasing numbers in terms of capacity. Why wouldn't the same hold true for a sidearm?
The Beretta and the Sig Sauer P226 were the leading contenders. I personally own both (plus 3 1911 styles) and I prefer the Sig. But in terms of the competition the Beretta was cheaper in the bidding process. I don't have the stats from those tests on the numbers of malfunctions for any of the pistols tested, but the "cut-out slide" on the Beretta has to be a factor in reducing the number of stove-pipe style jams resulting from perhaps underpowered ammo or springs too strong on the pistol.
The money for private business is often made in the accessories arena: Sights, ammo, magazines, grips, small parts, etc. Plus I'm sure the manufacturers involved were amping up the lobbyists to push their product lines to the procurement divisions.
There are extremely good arguments to be made in favor of accuracy over volume of fire. Stopping power is quite a nebulous term. Which shot offers more power: A 45acp hit in the palm of the hand or a 9mm on the upper lip at the base of the nose, traveling straight line at over 1,000fps? Accuracy = finality. Some folks might argue that given similar ball ammo, just based on the cross sectional density of the 45 being greater than the 9mm most all hits on the center of mass the 45 will be the better stopper. Well, maybe or maybe not.
A very close friend of mine, just retired as the senior officer in charge of all army special forces education and he swears BY (not "at") his M9. He says the ODA's are equally happy. The USMC seems hell bent on replacing the M9 with the Kimber 45. But how much of that might be a tried and true sense of traditionalism? The marines are very big on their traditions. The idea that Chesty Puller carried a 45 probably carries a lot more weight than some of the other factors. That's just my impression though. I might be totally off base, there.
I own a mkii and a mkiii browning hi power.
The mkii has the older sights, just like the older
1911’s had, and yes, in other than bright sunshine,
they are hard to see. The mkiii has a three dot,
one forward, two rear, setup. Much easier, much
quicker in any sort of light.
Yes, they are 9mm, and not .45acp. Stilll, I would
not stand, to catch either one.
I do concur that the newer 1911s, would work
very well.
Ah, a wise man on a stopping power thread. Rare as hen's teeth. Better get your flame suit on.
You lost me...a Springfield what? They make 1911s, double stack 9mms and .40's. (maybe even .45s but after shooting the polymer 9mm it was off my list)
True, but the projectile tumbled in the air and was so slow, you could see it going through the air... and inaccurate. (or, at least the shooter is)
As their eyes met, the ski mask guy turned to point a small pistol at Charley, who left go with three rounds, which all missed.
The ski mask guy dropped his pistol and ran toward a idling Chevy. Charley let loose with four more rounds which neatly drilled the trunk and rear window but missed the perp.
As this was happening, an Urbandale police cruiser happened by; the cop had heard the shots. The officer found Mr. ski mask, soiled and whimpering on the front floor of the car. Handcuffs were applied.
The next afternoon, the Urbandale police chief dropped by and invited Charley to the police shooting range for a little target practice with the Hi Power...
This is one thing that has me scratching my head, why the military doesn't do more "continuing" contracts, where pistols which are getting worn out get sold on the "used" market, and new ones are bought, on a yearly basis.
As far as the 9mm/.45 debate, really, how often do military people (outside of certain special ops units who do their own procurement) actually use their handguns to fire at an enemy?
Not sure why he says the Sig P220 doesn’t have a manual safety...
Mine does, and with a standard 4.5 lb. trigger I’ll take that glass smooth action over my Series 70 Gold Cup any day.
I've seen a lot of people shoot .45 but I've never seen their bullets. A .45 doesn't tumble generally, and it's not an inherently inaccurate round.
There is nothing inherently inaccurate about the 45. The trajectory turns into a rainbow at distance but that is a different discussion.
You are correct. The early M-16s were finicky...
Its potential for good accuracy is primarily within 100-300 yards. Accuracy degrades beyond that due to the light bullet and the low ballistic coefficient. It's ability to cause devastating wounds beyond 300 yards also degrades especially from shorter barreled rifles.
Furthermore, oh8eleven, the routing of hot gasses into the chamber remains a design flaw. Even after about 50 years, it remains a poor design.
Bottom line, it has been fifty years now and the shortcomings of the M16 have been well documented after every conflict it has seen. I think we could do better and I think the 5.56 mm NATO round has proved repeatedly that it kind of sucks in general.
If I had to rush out to meet an enemy, I would absolutely grab my FN FAL in 7.62 mm before I would grab any of the direct gas impingement 5.56 mm rifles in my collection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.