New Military 45
- Thread starter hsim
- Start date
HorseSoldier
New member
USASOC wanted a 45 from the start, if I am not mistaken. The conventional side of the army did some troop trials at Ft Benning a couple years ago where various commercially available pistols were tried in 9x19, 40S&W, and 45 ACP, and apparently the consensus among the testers was that 45ACP was the preferred round, which was signed off on by the powers that be as the preferred caliber for a new handgun.
Jeepmark2005
New member
I have personnaly seen the result of several shooting in .40 caliber. And have been close to 2 shootings involving .45's - Personnaly known the officers who did the shooting. The officers who carried the .40's lost confidence in there guns and the 2 who were carrying .45's swore that they would never carry anything else. But that is just what I have seen. I carry a .45 into harms way.
The USP 45 is hard to beat. It is go to hell and back tough and combat accurate. Politics are always a factor but I think if they are not going to carry a 1911 then go with the USP
The USP 45 is hard to beat. It is go to hell and back tough and combat accurate. Politics are always a factor but I think if they are not going to carry a 1911 then go with the USP
Ok, I have to ask this. I think it's a pretty safe bet that most everybody on this site is into firearms. In general, we know how to shoot and how to safetly handle firearms. Now that's "our kind" of people but the military isn't necessarily made up of "our kind" of people. Let's take my favorite goup of Catagory C shooter, med group. A lot of these people came into the military with absolutely no prior firearms experience and are concentrating on their medical training and really don't "get into" going to the range. Now you are on firing point 7 and the shooter is on point 1. They can have that muzzle pointed uprange with their finger on the trigger in a heartbeat before you can get over there to get the muzzle under control. Now it's bad enough with a long heavy trigger on the M9 but the idea of that happening with a single action 1911 or a Glock trigger with it's shorter trigger pull would be a nightmare scenario and an accident just waiting to happen! No, being a CATM troop these days, the LAST thing I'd want to see come to my firing line would be a 1911 or Glock in the hands of some of these people!!!
its funny that the 9mm is weaker than both .40 and .45 but has been the mainstay of the US military and police for 20+ years...and dont even get me started on europeans. i like 45 ACP but 9mm and 40 s&w have both proved their worth. Any of these 3 calibers would be sufficient, remember shot placement, shot placement, shot placement. I guess europeans with their little 9mms are better shots than all us americans.....
In my state of NJ, many local police departments are going back to .45ACP from 9mm. They state that the 9mm has turned out to be a failed experiment, and that the stopping power of the 45 is needed. Too many suspects get away with 9mm wounds in them, even if they prove to be fatal wounds shortly later.
I'm not a cop, but I was listening to Jersey City PD officers and the owner of the little gun shop in Jersey City where officers buy their weapons discussing it.
paratrooper
New member
Shaun , the reason that there were other weapons is that they were shoved down their throats by those that would in their entire lives NEVER DEPEND on it to stay alive . I carried and used the .45 in 'Nam and would do it again . The .45 has a "forgiveness" factor built in . If I hit someone virtually anywhere they are out of the fight . That weapon will tear your face off . As for the safety factor the .45 I carried had several built right in . As for the troops that do not use guns but must have them there are other options . When I was in Army the Air Force AP's carried .38 Specials . So it is not to say that ALL troops should carry the same weapon , just to give the best (not the cheapest) weapon whose lives just might hang in the balance when the chips are down . If the Gov't. is worried about cost then perhaps the way to go is hire Merc's and furlough all our service personnel . I don't want to start a war over this BUT anyone that has "been there , done that" can better attest to the needs of the line soldier .
Chaingunner
New member
The controls look the same to me, buddy. That's the main sticking point. I know for a FACT from experience that the hardest part about teaching people to shoot two different weapons of the same type is that they often have to relearn the controls. Don't believe me? Teach a non-shooter to use an M14, then when he's good and comfortable with it, take it away and teach him how to use an M16. He'll be lost in the woods for awhile.
Even though the internal working bits are different between the Px and the 92, this shouldn't matter much as long as Px remains easy to disassemble and reassemble and is similar in these particulars to the 92.
The 9mm M882 round was a matter of politics and not really having proven its worth that got us saddled with that POS round! Round placement is the typical defense I hear from the 9mm crowd but I remember being there (yes, this is first hand accounts) when an M9 put 6 rounds center mass (so much for proper shot placement) on a towlie and didn't slow him down until a burst from the M-60 dropped him in his tracks. This is nothing more than a repeat of the Phillipine Insurection of the last centruy when we found that the .38 Long Colt also had these problems with the Moros. Failures here brought about the .45 ACP and now we've come full circle once again of planning on going back to .45 ACP once again now that the 9mm is proving to be a dismal stopper as well. Those that fail to learn from history....
Now as far as giving one group weapon A and another group of shooters weapon B and those that have special requirements weapon C then a modified version tailored for certain missions weapon D is a logistical nightmare. The Germans found out this problem during WWII which is why we try to standardize everything as much as possible. My wife is a logistics officer and I'm sure she could go on in depth about the problem of logistics in a combat environment and being CATM, I can tell you that you are going to have more problems with parts supply, ammunition accounts, scheduling training classes and maintence issues the more your weapons inventory becomes more diversafied. For instance, I'm in an AFSOC unit. Are we supposed to have one group of weapons, parts, ammunition and classes for the PJs and TAC-P guys, one group of weapons, parts, ammunition and classes for the cops, another group of weapons, parts, ammunition and classes for the pilots and yet another group of weapons, parts, ammunition and classes base populace and then divide that base populace into what, Catagorey A, B, and C shooters or maybe just let them pick what they want? It's just not workable from either a logistical or training standpoint. Sorry but the best thing to do is to find what is going to work well for the widest variety of shooters.
Now as far as giving one group weapon A and another group of shooters weapon B and those that have special requirements weapon C then a modified version tailored for certain missions weapon D is a logistical nightmare. The Germans found out this problem during WWII which is why we try to standardize everything as much as possible. My wife is a logistics officer and I'm sure she could go on in depth about the problem of logistics in a combat environment and being CATM, I can tell you that you are going to have more problems with parts supply, ammunition accounts, scheduling training classes and maintence issues the more your weapons inventory becomes more diversafied. For instance, I'm in an AFSOC unit. Are we supposed to have one group of weapons, parts, ammunition and classes for the PJs and TAC-P guys, one group of weapons, parts, ammunition and classes for the cops, another group of weapons, parts, ammunition and classes for the pilots and yet another group of weapons, parts, ammunition and classes base populace and then divide that base populace into what, Catagorey A, B, and C shooters or maybe just let them pick what they want? It's just not workable from either a logistical or training standpoint. Sorry but the best thing to do is to find what is going to work well for the widest variety of shooters.
Chaingunner
New member
No, I haven't, but then again, I never said they were the same internally...I even said as much in my last post. All I said is that the internal differences shouldn't matter AS LONG AS THE PX, LIKE THE 92, IS EASY TO DIS/REASSEMBLE. That's one of those "if" statements.
Furthermore, looking at the pictures, AGAIN, it looks like the Px and 92 share the following similarities:
location of manual safety/decocker
location of mag release
location of slide lock
the takedown lever on the Px looks markedly different, but I imagine (ie, I don't know from experience with the Px but assume that it is so) it isn't any more difficult to use than the 92's.
Are we done trying (and failing) to lambast me?
There's no way I will vote for a foreign supplier to build an American
military firearm. I don't give a rat's "what?" if they do build a plant to
produce the guns in the US.
I was against the Beretta deal, and I am a against all these offers.
Let Colt step up, or Smith and Wesson, or Ruger.
In my opinion, if it ain't American-built, it has no business in our
armed forces. That goes double for the Para-Ordnance.
With the Canadian government's stance on firearms, especially handguns,
anybody who buys a gun built in Canada, is, in my opinion, a traitor to
this country. I'll go one step further. I think we should just annex
Canada, and do away with their stupid socialist, anti-gun government.
But that is, after all, just my opinion.
Walter
military firearm. I don't give a rat's "what?" if they do build a plant to
produce the guns in the US.
I was against the Beretta deal, and I am a against all these offers.
Let Colt step up, or Smith and Wesson, or Ruger.
In my opinion, if it ain't American-built, it has no business in our
armed forces. That goes double for the Para-Ordnance.
With the Canadian government's stance on firearms, especially handguns,
anybody who buys a gun built in Canada, is, in my opinion, a traitor to
this country. I'll go one step further. I think we should just annex
Canada, and do away with their stupid socialist, anti-gun government.
But that is, after all, just my opinion.
Walter
Jeepmark2005
New member
.
Quote:
I have personnaly seen the result of several shooting in .40 caliber. And have been close to 2 shootings involving .45's - Personnaly known the officers who did the shooting. The officers who carried the .40's lost confidence in there guns and the 2 who were carrying .45's swore that they would never carry anything else. But that is just what I have seen. I carry a .45 into harms way
more opinion put forth as gospel like the .40 S&W gives up alot of performance to the .45ACP
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is not my opinion. That is my personal observation.
I was on a call were a guy with a glock was shooting at me and my fellow officers. Several deputies made forced entry into the residence. Subject was hit with multible 40 rounds but did not go down! Another officer with a .45 came in from a side door and hit the subject with a .45 that put the subject down.
An officer in Conroe, TX shot a subject 14 times with his 40 before the subject went down.
In waller, TX a Deputy shot an assailant with his .45 once putting him down
I personnaly know and have spoken with the officers involved. I work with them.
My opinion is based on my experiance. Carry what you like. I'll stick with .45
Quote:
I have personnaly seen the result of several shooting in .40 caliber. And have been close to 2 shootings involving .45's - Personnaly known the officers who did the shooting. The officers who carried the .40's lost confidence in there guns and the 2 who were carrying .45's swore that they would never carry anything else. But that is just what I have seen. I carry a .45 into harms way
more opinion put forth as gospel like the .40 S&W gives up alot of performance to the .45ACP
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is not my opinion. That is my personal observation.
I was on a call were a guy with a glock was shooting at me and my fellow officers. Several deputies made forced entry into the residence. Subject was hit with multible 40 rounds but did not go down! Another officer with a .45 came in from a side door and hit the subject with a .45 that put the subject down.
An officer in Conroe, TX shot a subject 14 times with his 40 before the subject went down.
In waller, TX a Deputy shot an assailant with his .45 once putting him down
I personnaly know and have spoken with the officers involved. I work with them.
My opinion is based on my experiance. Carry what you like. I'll stick with .45
Federal's Hydra Shok in .40S&W caliber is 180 grains at 1000 feet per second for 400 foot/pounds of muzzle energy versus their .45ACP load 230 grains at 890 feet per second for a grand total of 404 foot/pounds of muzzle energy I don't have a .40 (yet), but I do have a .45 and at the very least I don't pretend it's any better than a .40S&W caliber that holds typically at least 5 more rounds in the magazine
proof here http://www.federalcartridge.com/ballistics/Ammo_Search.aspx
I don't have a .40 (yet), but I do have a .45 and at the very least I don't pretend it's any better than a .40S&W caliber that holds typically at least 5 more rounds in the magazine proof here http://www.federalcartridge.com/ballistics/Ammo_Search.aspx
Jeepmark2005
New member
Well those are some swell numbers you got there. From what I have personnally seen however they don't add up. All of the stats and energy stuff will not change what I have seen. How many shootings have you been involved in? What have you seen? I am just sharing my experiance. And my choice to carry a 45 rather than a weakened 10mm. Carry what you like. My choice is a .45