[Ancesthntr]

Statistically the 9mm with a good hollowpoint can be an effective stopper. However, if one is limited to ball ammunition (round nose full metal jacket) one is much better armed with a .45acp than any other round. I fired a ten shot group from my .45 acp last night and I could fit both hands through the one ragged hole.

This is not to say I advocate ball for carry in a .45acp. I most strongly reccommend hollowpoints as they are less likely to overpenetrate. Overpentration is not so severe a concern in a military situation as it is for a self-defense situation.

Doesn't some military convention or other prohibit the use of hollowpoints in combat? If so, the effectiveness of 9mm HP is irrelevant to our troops (though not, of course, for us civilians defending ourselves & our families). Thus, the old standby - 230 gr. .45 hardball - seems to be called for once again.

Funny, ain't it - the morons who chose the 9mm for our guys 20 years ago seemed to think that the human body has changed since the early 1900's, when it was proven that .38-sized rounds were insufficient to reliably and quickly stop a determined attacker. That's why we had the .45 in the first place. I could have seen changing pistols to a more modern design (though there's not much wrong with the 1911), but not the caliber. I can see us going back to .45 someday - and hopefully not too long from now.

[harpseal]

There is a Geneva Convention that limits the use of fragmenting ammunition in rifles and pistols. I am unsure of the exact protocol. Thus our troops are restricted to using ball ammunition. I for one would be very happy to see the US military adopt a new .45acp design or re-adopt the model 1911A1 for its standard sidearm.

Stay well - Stay safe - stay armed - Yorktown