Special Forces and Handgun Selections

[Mercenary]

I was reading an excerpt about how special forces select the weapons they use and former Navy SEAL Richard Machowicz (the host of FutureWeapons) put it this way: "The mission dictates the target, the target dictates the weapons and the weapons dictate how they're used."

So my question is what mission/targets would call for a 9mm (e.g. Sig P226 Mk 25) over a 45ACP (1911) or vice versa?

 

[BarryLee]

Well, obviously no expert, but I’ll venture a guess. I would suspect the P226 would be carried as a sidearm in addition to a long gun and the .45 such as the H&K MK 23 would be used when only a handgun is applicable.

 

[TunnelRat]

My impression always was that at that level a lot of it became personal preference.

BTW, I know Mach could kick my butt any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but that guy drives me bonkers. I get irritated that he whispers like constantly. You're not on a mission Mach, you're in front of a camera, talk normally.

 

[Shadi Khalil]

Capacity is one reason that comes to mind. Also, guns like MP5's commonly use .9mm so it doesn't hurt to have ammo compatibility between weapons. But what do I know? All my special force knowledge comes from the movies, books and the 10 hours of Modern Warfare I have logged

 

[ScotchMan]

.45 is always subsonic so its easier to use suppressors. 9mm in NATO form is 124gr and supersonic. That is one reason .45 is popular.

 

[Half Pint]

From a military stand point 9mm is cheaper to manufacture and easier to come by. 9mm is manufactured by every major ammunition company, .45 is not. That is the reason behind the military backing the 9mm cartridge. BUT on the civilian side when I get to carry what I want, I carry a 9 for concealed carry because it's easy to conceal and my magazine holds 17 rounds. When I go out hunting, my 1911 .45 which holds 8 rounds is my sidearm because it has the stopping power to put down a bear if I can't use my rifle. Mission, being military or otherwise, dictates the level of force necessary to take down a target. A 9 will take down just about any human target (minus the ones that are high and/or having out of body experiences). But it will definitely NOT take down a charging momma bear with cubs.

 

[TunnelRat]

But it will definitely NOT take down a charging momma bear with cubs.

If you think a 45 ACP will do the above when a 9mm won't, I'd be willing to bet all the money in my pockets that you're sadly mistaken. The performance difference between these two rounds is not enough to make me call one a bear killer and the other a pea shooter.

 

[IMightBeWrong]

The Hague Accords don't restrict counter-terror units like the SEALs, who if I remember correctly carry a specially contracted 147gr +P Jacketed Hollow Point round. That helps close the gap between the 9mm and .45 by quite a bit. The .45 is still more powerful, but only marginally when comparing top tier loadings of each. The SIG Mk. 25 carries 15 rounds in stock SIG mags, but can also be outfitted with flush fitting 18 round magazines from Mec-Gar. That's my kind of pistol, right there.

 

[PSP]

The Mk25 when you just need a sidearm.
The Mk24 when you need a quiet sidearm.

 

[Tactical Jackalope]

Depends on the mission..Always.

 

[BGutzman]

So my question is what mission/targets would call for a 9mm (e.g. Sig P226 Mk 25) over a 45ACP (1911) or vice versa?

I have never been a military operator, I have however worked with and for the SF and CAC for months at times.

My take on it is the MK26 was chosen because of its superior reliability, ability to be silenced, its round count and the fact that even a unsilenced round out of it doesnt sound any different than most any other 9mm. The key being if you fired it unsilenced it doesn’t scream "US military over here".

I would also contend that 45 ACP is well liked and used at times by individual operators for reasons that fit the mission. It is often highly desirable to look like everyone else in a particular area so style of dress and weapons fit the need of the mission.

Also while I’m thinking about it... Despite what at least a few people seem to want to believe. I have never seen a operator, any military operator carry two pistols into combat, that’s all movie type crap, not reality.

As a overall statement pistols in the Army at least are not generally seen as offensive weapons but rather defensive weapons. Officers like them because they are less to tote around and at the same time they are a liability in a real fire fight because quite often you simply arent going to hit the BG at 100 yards from a moving vehicle with a pistol. Also keep in mind some commanders at various times and places give orders that prevent vehicle occupants from engaging the BG, you simply drive through and catch bullets, while a couple of vehicle mounted weapons are your convoys only defense.

Also for those who say I don’t understand why they didn't choose brand "X"... there must be a reason or reasons they keep choosing SIGs and have for a couple of decades... Other armed forces may carry something different that fits there needs and budget. Certainly some other choices would be cheaper but apparently not better... Any given weapon of any brand might be carried to fit a particular mission or operators taste depending on what their portion of the special operations community allows.

 

[Austin HiPowers]

Depends on the mission, I would not be surprised they would carry HiPowers or even Makarov's sometimes to avoid identification by their weapons (as they carry AK47's sometimes). All depends on the mission.

 

[RBid]

In an urban environment, where you expect varying numbers of opposition, or potential surprises, round could be a HUGE factor. If you are carrying a sniper system, and are clearing rooms in a building from which you'll be working, it may actually make sense that your handgun will be your go-to, while you support your security during the clearing.

Urban environment + anything that is less than ideal in cqc or tight space may push you to value capacity. I could see an MK14, anything bolt action (I would expect these to be less common in urban areas, of course), some heavy guns, etc being dropped for a handgun in certain scenarios.

 

[BlueTrain]

They carry Hi-powers or Makarov so they won't be identified? Even in Great Britain an American almost sticks out. Brits don't wear button-downs and boat shoes, at least I didn't see any. Can an American blend in when he's in Afganistan or Pakistan?

 

[TunnelRat]

Brits don't wear button-downs and boat shoes, at least I didn't see any. Can an American blend in when he's in Afganistan or Pakistan?

There's a big difference between being identified up close and being identified at somewhat of a distance. Carrying weapons of that country would potentially at least pass an inspection at somewhat of a distance, which I think is the end goal. I don't think anyone expects them to pass inspection face-to-face.

That said I think US special forces aren't exactly wearing button-downs and boat shoes. There's a big difference between someone being on holiday as opposed to someone who's trained to avoid detection to save his/her life.

 

[RC20]

From a military stand point 9mm is cheaper to manufacture and easier to come by. 9mm is manufactured by every major ammunition company, .45 is not. That is the reason behind the military backing the 9mm cartridge. BUT on the civilian side when I get to carry what I want, I carry a 9 for concealed carry because it's easy to conceal and my magazine holds 17 rounds. When I go out hunting, my 1911 .45 which holds 8 rounds is my sidearm because it has the stopping power to put down a bear if I can't use my rifle. Mission, being military or otherwise, dictates the level of force necessary to take down a target. A 9 will take down just about any human target (minus the ones that are high and/or having out of body experiences). But it will definitely NOT take down a charging momma bear with cubs.

Some bad news. A 45 does not have stopping power to deal with a bear.

A 375 H&H does not have that kind of "stopping" power (if you are lucky you may break down a shoulder and stop it, but not kill it.

You would be better off with a 357 Sig in a high capaicty gun than a 45 (penetration will eventualy get to something).

And the more rounds the better.

With a 17 round 357 Sig, you get in 2108 grs. vs a 45 with 230 gr slug (which is not optimal for penetration) and gets you only 1840 gr and far less penetration.

And I know of two cases where a 9mm took down an agressive bear.

 

[tahunua001]

9mm is quieter than 45ACP and holds more ammo...those are the biggest mission parameters that jumped into the back of my head anyway.

 

[tahunua001]

Some bad news. A 45 does not have stopping power to deal with a bear.

and yet the internet has claimed another victim.
here's some bad news for you, documented proof that a 45 caliber semi automatic handgun(be it GAP or ACP) has dropped a full grown grizzly in full charge.

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.co...-hikers-denali-national-park-and-preserve5943

your statement is too broad to be true in the first place. bears in the U.S. range in size from 200 pound Black bears to 1000 pound Kodiaks. tell me one case of a decently placed shot from a 45ACP or 357 H&H that was incapable of dropping a 300 pound blackbear?

 

[TunnelRat]

here's some bad news for you, documented proof that a 45 caliber semi automatic handgun(be it GAP or ACP) has dropped a full grown grizzly in full charge.

Did you read that story? It didn't drop it "in full charge". The bear was hit and after 9 rounds were discharged, they never say how many hit, it ran into the woods. It was later found dead 100 feet from where it was originally hit.

I think we need to distinguish between kill and incapacitate. There's nothing in that story to make me think a number of other calibers couldn't have done the same thing. If your point was that it could eventually kill it, I agree. But a lot of things could eventually kill.

 

[ROCK6]

They carry Hi-powers or Makarov so they won't be identified? Even in Great Britain an American almost sticks out. Brits don't wear button-downs and boat shoes, at least I didn't see any. Can an American blend in when he's in Afganistan or Pakistan?

Actually, there is the ability to blend in with all the coalition members and contractors. We have numerous countries represented on our base and many are in plain clothes to include the number of contractors or even State-Department types and then you have plain clothed police and investigation organizations. So, yes, if you don't carry yourself like a typical American, you can blend into the coalition masses.

Hell, I even saw a dude with a kilt this morning along with his short M16 and IOTV...

ROCK6