“Perhaps the relatively wimpy 9mm cartridge also contributes to victim survival.
The purpose of a military firearm is to incapacitate, not necessarily kill. A victim with multiple 9mm holes in him is much more likely to survive to get to the ER than one who has multiple 45 caliber holes.
Also, the man with only six shots available to him is much more likely to place his shots where he wants them, the high-capacity shooter tends to “spray and pray”, hoping to hit something. ...”
Author Valentine knows even less about the topic than many forum members might suspect.
JSSAP was run by USAF, not US Army: a departure from prior DoD practice, as US Army was the formally designated “executive agent” for small arms development and acquisition, starting in 1903 or so. Reasons for this change in executive agency were never made clear, but many in the community have speculated that it had something to do with the decidedly odd behavior displayed by US Army Ordnance Corps personnel during test and evaluation of the M-14, and subsequent testing to compare the original AR-15 with the M-14.
JSSAP did bring together personnel from every service dept, but tests were conducted at Eglin AFB in Florida’s panhandle, using facilities and personnel of what is now USAF’s Armament Lab.
The 9x19 NATO cartridge actually develops more kinetic energy than the 45 ACP. 9mm penetration of soft body armor is superior to the 45, and the 9mm’s effective range is greater. The latter means little to US military users, as the max effective range for all handguns was officially set decades ago at 20m (about 65 ft).
No approved statement of need nor operational requirements document in US DoD documentation has ever contained any language requiring a small arms projectile to incapacitate in preference to killing. It’s conceded that any opposing unit loses total military effectiveness in a more serious fashion if a combatant is wounded and not killed (greater expense and logistic/organizational effort needed for recovering, treating, evacuating, rehabilitating combat-wounded troops, as opposed to simply shoveling the bodies under) but the difficulty lies in determining just what amount of energy the projectile must transfer to the target to cause serious injury, yet not cause death. Humans vary a lot, not merely in size/shape/organ location, but in their energy state and motivational level, especially on the battlefield. Thus, no short-of-death results can be assured.
In practice, this means that attributes of size, weight, usability, and the like constrain the size, mass, and velocity of any bullet fired from a small arm. If one wants a rifle that the average solider can carry, pack into the trenches, and fire effectively, one must give up the really speedy, really big bullet. Further constraints are laid on the situation by stuff like raw materials availability, ease of manufacture, anticipated service life, ease of repair. Someone has to make the gun that could handle that big fast bullet, and make it tough enough to fire more than a couple times. Yet more money.
“Spray and pray” - shots per minute - has been official US Army doctrine since the 1950s. Interested forum members might research Project Salvo, S.L.A. Marshall, and related items to gain a better picture of the situation.
No study of the psychology of combat (ref S.L.A. Marshall) supports the notion that a troop armed with a revolver will take any greater care in aiming than with any other (mostly higher capacity) small arm.
Revolvers (as implied by “only six shots”) began to go out of fashion for military issue circa 1905, partly because of their limited capacity, but also because they cost much more to make and are much more likely to malfunction when exposed to weather, mud, and rough handling. A unit needs highly skilled armorers to keep revolvers functioning and accurate in the field, compared to semi-auto pistols, most of which are now easily serviced by unskilled personnel.
Going back to the “tried and true” Colt’s Government Model autoloader (US M1911 pistol) might break the bank today, and would not improve things anyway. The design was very good for the year 1911, but is tied to manufacturing methods of that era, which would cost more now. And the arm retains features added expressly for the horse cavalry, which make no sense now (grip safety is one). And - questions of bullet diameter aside - the gun is inferior to more modern designs. New-made Government Models were tested by JSSAP, and found to be less reliable and less safe than the newer guns.
when I said "six shots" I was making the point that the man with limited firepower is more likely to know where each bullet is going to go before he squeezes the trigger. The guy with "unlimited firepower" does not have to know, he just hopes he hits something
I do agree that the first few seconds of a firefight are critical and lots of lead in the air can make the opposing force keep their heads down.