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 ...
What pistol did you carry?
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.
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.
I have the first generation Glock Mod. 22 in .40 S&W. It’s a hammer !
Was the Makarov standard issue in your unit?
I’ve been looking at 40 S&W, the components are much more reasonable than 45 and sometimes cheaper than 9mm.
I wish the military would go back to 45, it would make once fired brash much less expensive.
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.
!
But would 0bamas private army give them to our army?
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.
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.
Ah, ansell... You are at it again.
At what, this is a chance for freepers to learn from a Russian military veteran, do you not think we are interested in that?
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.
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.
~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.
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.
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.