An Open Letter To Members of Congress from Col. David Hackworth

As Ken, the director of The Bad Leiutenant w/Harvey Keitel, but otherwise not a Film Industry Rodet, but a military man of some experience, and editor for SOF Magazine, from time to time...has often grumbled within my hearing...they did it because "the 9mm is a European policewoman's cartridge." Facts is facts, and not any offense meant, by me, anyway.

I may act up later, however.

Home-protection-wise I'll opt for my .357 Mag Ruger Security Six loaded with hydra-shocks!
No remembering to slam the clip home or cock - pick it up, point it, and squeeze and the bad guy is OUT.

On the battlefield I'd want the best quality, most reliable piece that's made, and I'd want it in .45 caliber - when I say "best quality" I mean the most dependable and trouble-free.
No-one needs a weapon that's made so "tight" that a speck of dust renders it useless!

bump

Back when the Army was putting the .45 through its paces, one of the pistols it was up against was the 9mm Luger. The Army chose the M1911 because of the .45 rounds stopping power.

One of the big arguments in favor of the Baretta when it was adopted was increased magazine capacity 18 vs. 6 rounds. Supposedly, comparative hydrostatic-shock tests showed that the higer velocity 9mm round was as effective as the .45. But as our soldiers attest, that is not so. During the original trials at the turn of the last century, those test were done on live animals, not computerized lab models.

I'll take the old 1911 any day. During WWII, soldiers liked to capture Lugers as highly sought souveniers, but they never would have traded their .45 for one.

I seem to recall the stainless K-frame S&W .357 being the hot number in S.E.Asia some years back. People used to mail 'em to their Draftees, along with fresh (unrotted) underwear. High-quality fighting knives were popular too, as stocking-stuffers. .357s work very well. One could do worse than carrying a 7-shot N-Frame .357 into harm's way, I should think. A friend carried a 9mm in Korea, since it penetrated layers of clothing and "vests" better than the .45...which was always nearby, anyway. He also spoke well of Thompsons. He carried a Colt .38 spec. when I knew him, and sometimes a Luger when he needed it. He had a night job...as in day and night, sometimes both, and never looked for trouble. He still bore the expertly applied line parting his hair perfectly, which a thoughtful N. Korean or Chinese gentleman did for him through his helmet, with a bullet. He was and will always be "a Ranger."

Properly applied, even a ".38" caliber weapon well-applied, is better than simpler hand tools. Mr. Hickock did rather well with his. They say he was just somehow less-afraid than most people, faced incoming fire, aimed (sort of) and placed his bundle just where he wanted it. Determined individual. The day he wasn't........

I am the proud owner of a Glock 45 ACP, also a Barreta 9mm, as well as a S&W .357 magnum. But like the cowboys used to say; " a pistol is only so you can fight your way to your rifle"...

How true.

True about the rifle thing. This is a dangerous place.

I shot one a couple of weeks ago and my first impression was that it solved a problem that didn't exist. And for the life of me, I can't remember what the trigger felt like. Sorry.

That's why I'm partial to the 10mm auto.

If one is an energy junky, and a surprising number .45 ACP afficianados are, then take a good hard look at a 10mm auto. Even those of you who love the high velocity, high energy and lightweight .45 rounds need to look at the numbers the 10mm puts up. Certainly the .45 ACP 165gr JHP from Cor Bon is a screaming hot round, with lots of penned up energy to dump into the bad guy. 577 foot pounds of energy is impressive indeed, however, the 10mm wins the energy battle. The .45 ACP has but one loading, the 165gr, that reaches these energy levels, and about three different makers of this loading. With the 10mm, fully 6 loads (and there are more out there!) in four different bullet weights can be chronographed to BEAT the energy levels of the 165gr .45 ACP loads by at least 20 foot pounds (some by substantially more). And these loads give a wide range of bullet weights, from the screaming hot 150gr loads, to the hard pounding 180gr Cor Bon. If you’re into light loads that create big stretch cavities you should be looking at the 10mm, not the .45 ACP or the .40 S&W or even the .357 magnum!

Concerning momentum, many 10mm loads beat the .45 here too. Momentum basically aids in penetration, so rounds with high momentum numbers should get good penetration, provided that they don’t expand too quickly, like the 165gr .45 ACP loadings would. A 230gr .45 ACP from Cor Bon has the highest momentum of that caliber (keep in mind this is a +p load). The run-of-the-mill 230gr has a momentum factor almost 8.3% less! Yet, the 10mm has half a dozen loads which meet or exceed those figures. If you like good penetration potential, why not shoot a 10?

Another area where the 10mm beats the .45 ACP, the 9mm, .40 S&W, .357 magnum or any other cartridge is in the department of bullet weight variety. The 10mm has bullets for defensive use alone in weights of 135, 150, 155, 165, 170, 175, 180 and 200 grains. That’s eight weights! Plus the 190gr, and 220gr weights which are NON-JHP and for other shooting applications. The .45 ACP has 165, 185, 200 & 230 grains – four different weights. 9mm has 90, 115, 124, 125, 127,130, 135 & 147 – that’s eight different weights, but I’m being nice by separating out the 124, 125 and 127gr loads. .40 S&W has weights of 135, 150, 155, 165 & 180, that’s five different weights. .357 magnum has 110, 125, 140, 145, 158 & 180.

Furthermore, only the lighter weight .45 ACP loads are going to open up in the enemy with any reliability. This problem is compounded in the short barrel .45s. If someobody has meat, and big phone books to soak, and old clothes to put over this stuff, you'll discover that .45s work well in all bullet weights out of a five inch barrel. But shorten it to Glock 30/36 length, and the heavier bullets don’t want to expand. Some of the biggest loser bullets you'll find coming out of a Glock 30 are some of the most respected in the .45 crowd. WIth respect to the 230gr crowd: Federal Hydra-Shok barely expands, Federal JHP Hi-Shok doesn’t expand; 200 gr. +P Pro Load (a Gold Dot HP bullet) shows minimal expansion, and could prove to be a big disappointment. 185gr Remington Golden Sabre opens a bit, but shoots the unexpanded core forward, leaving the jacket behind. But the full power 10mm loads are all generating upwards of 1200 fps, well above the expansion threshold for most any decent hollow point. Perhaps only the .357 magnum achieves such results, and the new .357 SIG, but then one goes back to dealing with lighter bullets, and lower momentums.

Chuck Taylor said in his excellent 1997 Combat Handgunnery book, on page 79, that the 10mm "is uncontrollable, exhibits excessive muzzle flash/blast and demonstrates massive over penetration". Granted certain loads do penetrate excessively, but there are so many good 10mm loads, in so many different loadings and bullet weights, that plenty of good loads are available. Admittedly some 10 loads flash and blast a lot, although Cor Bon’s stuff doesn't flash much at all. Concerning the "uncontrollability" factor, people can shoot IDPA, IPSC matches using reloads having similar velocities to self-defense ammunition - this load is a 180gr FMJ-TC, over a charge of around 9.3gr of 800x - usually is sufficient to obtain 1150 fps. That’ll yeild momentum figures 4.6% below the 230gr .45ACP CorBon (.45 ACP 200 gr+p loadi). It would appear that this round can be controlled. This round is quite controllable with practice, something military types should be doing anyway.

Now, the only thing I can't decide is S&W 1076, GLock 29, or Tanfranglio? ONE thing for certain, is that with a ten a double tap most likely won't be necessary (a double tap being like emphasis in italics). Whereas, a 9mm, such as the likes of a SIG-Sauer P-299 (shooting .357 SIG rounds), most often will and require italicised bolding and an exclamation point (head shot) for punctuation.

The ultra CDP2 is a fantastic piece. I have had one for a while now. The problem with it as a primary carry piece is my Salt water environment. I noticed the start of some rust on the frame and a little bit of salt water reaction on the stainless slide. At about $1000.00 for a replacement and given the relatively low cost of the EAA witness I decided that the witness which is a one ragged hole shooter on the the shillohette targets I shoot I decided to give it a try as a carry piece. The witness tactical has proven to be an ideal piece for the salt water envirornment where I spend my summer.

At under $500 including two extra ten round magazines I am very pleased.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

Great Post, raygun.

About the .45 not expanding in an enemy..it obviouly doesn't have to, if heavy enough...like 230 grains, to be quite serviceably effective in actual use. Decent body-hits don't get ignored too often, I am told. Mess with any part of a long-winning formula, and you'd better get busy on re-inventing just about everything else to compensate, and throw in hitting the sweet-spot of performance again, just like definitely once some time before 1911, by John M. Browning. Tall order. When it's your life, or that of others, for a long, poorly-supplied time...like a real, lasting war....or a true survival situation, but one where you have to hit and settle larger targets than rabbits, maybe a lot of times...that well-placing big fat slugs at reasonable pressures and fireworks becomes necessary, and survivors choose what their successful predecessors chose before them. Big stuff. Before the M-1911 and its predecessor, the 1873 Peacemaker, and models like the Walker cap and ball, the Government used a .50 single shot, before that percussion and flintlock big-bores...not squirrel rifles, not squirrel pistols. The Navy used the .36 caliber, and long barrels.....supposedly for "reach," but pistols were not a very useful Naval warfare weapon even then. Duh. Wild Bill had nerves of steel, expected trouble at all times, and practiced every day, first thing. He also wore TWO (cavalry-style) twist-draw Navies, and faced down lead to surgically settle the exchange pronto, period. If he lived longer than you could hit and stop him, you're dead. Period. He was dangerous. He lived until the day he didn't face the door, and died with his boots on, playing cards in a saloon. I believe he was shot with a .45 Army, or a Schofield. His .30's would have done the job though, had he faced the danger. Time's up.

I'm not going to argue the issue about the superiority of the 10mm auto and the .45 ACP. Both will do the job. Both rounds are lethal, as is the 9mm.

The issue with regards to the original post has to do with flawed equipment (similiar to the initial release of the M-16), and is something that nobody really discussed. The Glock G20 was designed from scratch in short order (Glock not knowing the difference between a revolver and a semiautomatic at the time) for the Austrian military. Glock came up with something unique, a polymer (plastic) weapon. Since nobody had ever seen anything like that, the Austrians demanded that Glock's prototype shoot 8000 rounds with no more than 5 misfires. Well, it shot 10000 with only 1 misfire (failure to eject, as opposed failure to feed). Furthermore, it can be dropped into the dirt and still keep firing, and dropped for all angles of contact and not misfire. That's not bad in my book. Oh, by the way, the requirememt of 8000 rounds with 5 misfires was waived for any of the other contenders because it was assumed they could match that. Moreover, the very material a Glock is made out of can stand some very hot loads, and the manner how it flexes accomodates recoil rather well. In fact it has been demonstrated to do so better than all steel build weapons.

Anyway, the U.S. military looked into the Glock, but Glock wouldn't release the manufacturing rights, patents, etc. He wanted to reap what he sowed. Can you blame him? So the Beretta that actually is at fault is not the Beretta, but the U.S. production for military use model made by U.S corporations. Heck, we had that same problem back when the M-16 was first release. Colt said, you got to use these rounds (manufactured to these specs). Congress in their infinite wisdom said, we think these cheaper rounds are just as good. Sure they were, except at the cost of so many U.S. service members lives. That's why the M-16 obtained such a miserable reputation, and most likely why the Beretta in question is being maligned also.

While the .45 ACP might be tried and proven, is it the best technology? Well, lets just say the DC-3 is still flying.

A long time ago I read a factory rep's written statement that the Beretta is a 10,000 round gun. I don't necessarily know the BEST mechanism, but it's plain to see how complicated the morass of 9mm pistols are, and what is better or worse about each of them....accompanied by a wide range of loads. A lot of experienced military personel never thought the .38 or 9mm were good choices for combat in the first place...and if our enemies are in fact drugged, I think we should see to it that our personnel use enough gun. That's what I think it's about, and that the gun should work right, the first time, at least.

You are evidently a person who knows about his equipment and why and how to use it, and I do not challenge that. I just say that whatever really works most of the time is what we should have, and that it is unfortunate in extreme to knowingly use deficient technology to accomodate the least physically equipped recruit. Pistols aren't for everyone, perhaps. As annoying as it is, I prefer a 1911 or revolver that's working than a great autopistol that has "issues." Handguns are pretty much last ditch weapons, when your rifle is not there, but having had times when the handgun is all there is, and what you have in it all you'll get...you hope it works REAL good, each time...and then some...like using it as a club. I tell you, if I could put a sword on a handgun, I would. I had an ancestor who used a flintlock pistol with a pick-axe on the grip pommel. It continued to work after it was empty. Not bad.

Recalling that procurement mess that you described, unfortunate the Glock wasn't adopted. It would have been wrung-out by now, and a lot of information gained about a new, promising technology, and design. A steel one would make a good comparison. Military use (torture) is a great proving ground.

Personally, I suppose a 10mm would be my suggestion. Would love to hold my own "ball" experiments some day with the load...but without military and commercial popularity, I have not yet owned a 10...or even a .40...knowing I'd really like it, too. I get the most I can from my FN High Powers, which I happen to own, and like, and am tuning my expectations and training to...sticking with the cartridge because it is there, and not much else is, and working between Nyclad LHPs at standard or +P velocity, Federal JHP+P and NATO Ball...or Federal FMJs, pointy, wildly flat-shooting and penetrating well across the spectrum. .30, .355-357 is the downward limit for legit service sidearm for a long time now...and the larger bores stop more determined, deadly human threats with less shots than their smaller cousins, period. If you can hit with it, we know a 10 or .45 is the fighting pistol to have in your hand when the shooting starts.

I'll tell you what, regardless of what one is shooting, if the clip is empty and they're still coming, ones death is deserved.

DON'T tell me that it don't hurt to have holes poked into oneself. Not only that but those bullets are hot So when they come to rest they, well, they hurt. Moreover, I know what its like to get hit with a hardball, and a bullet is 100 times more than that and it goes through ones body and sprays out a whole bunch of tissue on the other side. Any bullet does that. The .38 Special is known for its ability of inducing hydrostatic shock. That means if one is hit in the shoulder or arm by such a round, the individual hit could very well die. NOT from any major trauma, but from the affect that the jello ripple has on cellular structure and cumulative affect on physiology.

I'm certainly not going to argue that punching a 1/2" hole into the corpus of an enemy will not cause them grief. You can't argue with me that a 10mm hole in the front side and a 1/4' hole on the back side won't also cause grief to the opponent.

All I know in both cases, they ain't getting up anymore. While in the former it might be because of hydrostatic shock, definately in the latter its because the means whereby that might've been accomplished was a spray of red out their backside.

Anyway, it comes down to preference.

ONE thing that can be said about the 10 is its effect against kevlar. Many in the know are on record saying that they'd prefer getting hit (if they were going to - heaven forbid) with a 12 gauge slug instead something else. A properly tuned 10mm auto slug will, at close range, go through pretty every body armour there is.

Personally, I think the military rifle of choice should be the M1. However, what do I know? I'm thinking that if the 30-30 isn't cutting it, then the Mossberg isn't going to save the day unless the General has a pretty damn good tactician. And if the General needs to rely on such a good tactician, then either the troops are incompetent due to lack of training, or the general is for the same reason (and the troops can be excused for his mistake with their death).

I don't know, that's just how I feel.

Yep, for home security a six-gun will do. Especially if you're proficient with speed-loaders and the old lady is packing her Sig.

"A European policewoman's cartrige....."

That I will remember. Thanks for that apt description.

It is an honest statement, not at all an offense to me though the Europoliezi might take it as a slight.