I just dont understand why the army switched from .45acp to the puny 9x19parallebum

smleno1mkIII · November 6, 2009, 08:21 PM

why didn't they at least come up with something like the 40s&w instead

Brian48 · November 6, 2009, 08:29 PM

charleym3 · November 6, 2009, 08:29 PM

Two things, weight/round and compatibility with with other friendly forces.

Jim Watson · November 6, 2009, 08:35 PM

It's like this, our friends and allies in Europe (some of whom used to be our enemies) got used to the USA being the "Arsenal of Democracy" through two world wars and wanted to be able to depend on us for supplies in case of another one. So when NATO got organized to defend against the USSR, we were nice and agreed that our next service pistol would be the same as what most of them were used to, the 9mm. This as early as 1950. But we had so many .45s left over from the wars, and so many .38s bought as secondary standards, it took until the 1980s for us to have to make good on the deal.

We got the better end of the deal, because we got to specify the standard calbers for not one but two generations of infantry rifle.

fyimo · November 6, 2009, 08:51 PM

Having served in Vietnam I will tell you that weight is the enemy of the combat soldier and the more firepower you can carry that will still do the job is key. So a soldier can carry many more 9mm rounds and mags then he can with 45 ACP ammo. He can also carry more magazines of 223 ammo then he can with 308 ammo and why they also carry a rifle chambered in that round.

LordofWar · November 6, 2009, 08:59 PM

I had this huge smile on my face the instant I saw this thread and will share those popcorns with Brian 48 :P

Alternately I would refer you to the following:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=379117

**44 AMP** · November 6, 2009, 09:00 PM

In the '50s, we were pushing for a standards for Nato ammo. We wanted our then new 7.62x51mm (.308 Winchester) for the standard Nato rifle round. They wanted the 9mm as standard pistol round. They deal was struck, they would take our rifle round, and when we replaced our 1911A1 .45s, we would adopt their 9mm as our standard pistol round. And so it went.

In the 60s, a new administration (the MacNamara defense dept) decided we were going to replace the 7.62mm NATO round with the 5.56mm (.223 Rem) as our standard rifle round. We kept the 7.62mm for our machineguns. Needless to say, this move really upset a number of our European allies. Eventually, they all developed their own 5.56mm guns, in one form or another, but several kept the 7.62 NATO as their rifle round for some time.

When we did finally, officially retire our 1911A1s, decades later, we kept our part of the old bargain, and went to the 9mm. It had NOTHING to do with how effective the round is, or isn't. It had NOTHING to do with magazine capacity. It was strictly a political decision, made by people who's primary concern was not to have the most effective caliber available, but to have an international standard.
Thats why.

hoytinak · November 6, 2009, 09:02 PM

Yeah cause everyone knows that if the caliber starts with a .4, it's a magical caliber that'll stop anyone with one shot no matter where that bullet strikes them.

Teuthis · November 6, 2009, 09:15 PM

The 9mm is not puny. It is deadly. One must be skilled in order to be effective in combat with a handgun. At true, handgun fighting range, and proper placement, the 9mm is not at all puny.

Vociferous demogogues have, for their own purposes, shouted and raved that anything less than 45 caliber is useless in combat. Don't believe it.

J.Netto · November 6, 2009, 09:26 PM

I wouldn't want to be shot with a 9mm.

Seriously though, I like the 9mm as a defensive/carry caliber. Some of my favorite carry guns are 9's.

LightningJoe · November 6, 2009, 09:38 PM

It has taken you 25 years to notice? We've won the Cold War, fought and won the Gulf War, started and will probably lose two more wars, and now you ask about 9mm? I guess it just doesn't matter, that's why.

Now ask about 5.56mm.

Tom Servo · November 6, 2009, 10:30 PM

Quote:

One must be skilled in order to be effective in combat with a handgun. At true, handgun fighting range, and proper placement, the 9mm is not at all puny

Amen. Bear in mind, there's a huge difference between 1970's standard loadings and today's NATO load.

SAAMI lists 9mm +P at 36,000 PSI. The NATO load runs at 36,550 PSI. It's a 124gr bullet running at ~1300 ft/s. That's a low-end .357 Magnum.

l8apex · November 6, 2009, 11:38 PM

Ease of obtaining ammo, round capacity, etc. Never had a problem with my 92FS, especially since we consider it a secondary. If your primary is down, the secondary is the last resort it which case it's a bad day. Most units are loaded to the teeth, never had to transition to the secondary with the exception of clearing small rooms.

I find that some are more worried about ammo choices rather than just being proficient with what is given you. It's not the arrow, it's the Indian.

smleno1mkIII · November 6, 2009, 11:41 PM

Well I geuss we can be happy they didn't choose 380 or 32acp like so many did in WWII I do admit the 9 beets them hands down I also wasn't aware the nato 9 was loaded that hot so thanks for that tidbit of info the and no it didn't take me this long to figure out why I allready knew why cause thats what everyone else used and such and logistics I just wanted to get outher peoples opinions on the matter Im no moron and I learned that military loads were loaded hotter a fact I didn't know you learn something knew every day that why we ask questions to learn

jontz · November 7, 2009, 12:00 AM

Why does the "9mm sucks!" thread have to come up once a week? Find a new hobby guys, seriously...

RC1986 · November 7, 2009, 12:03 AM

charley pretty much answered the question, so we can easily adapt better to our allies pistols if we need to use em, and i dont think a 9mm is weak, the glock 19 has been my concealed carry for 3 years now and its accuracy and my tons of practice gives me the confidence that it can get the job done if needed be.

DAVE RICHHARDS · November 7, 2009, 12:39 AM

More rounds in a gun of similar size than the one it replaced. DA/SA considered more safe than a SA weapon. Lower recoil thus easier to shoot, easier to train people with little or no handgun experience, and standard pistol round for NATO and actually pretty much the rst of the world. Flatter shooting round, and on and on. And contrary to alot of b.s. on the interent about as effective as any other fmj round out there.
So you are in combat. Your issued a pistol. With it you get two back up mags. With the Beretta you have roughly 45 rounds. The .45 you get 21. With either cartridge you still must hit vitals. And it may require multiple shots. America is the only country in the world that the 9mm gets so little respect. Rest of the world is fine with it. A guy at my range was a Tanker in Iraq. Got out of the tank one time with just his M9. Ran into three bad guys with AK's. They were shocked for a moment, he wasn't. Dropped all three with his Beretta. Tell him the 9mm is ineffective.

Tom Servo · November 7, 2009, 01:29 AM

Quote:

A guy at my range was a Tanker in Iraq. Got out of the tank one time with just his M9. Ran into three bad guys with AK's. They were shocked for a moment, he wasn't. Dropped all three with his Beretta. Tell him the 9mm is ineffective.

That wouldn't be a guy named Grant, would it?

I worked with a tanker who'd served under Sam Houston's (IIRC) great-grandson. He'd logged at least two one-shot kills with the 9mm NATO round, and from his own experience and that of his comrades, was more than pleased with its performance.

darkgael · November 7, 2009, 06:48 AM

Why the question now? The switch happened when some of the posters were still in kindergarden.

Quote:

....... something like the 40s&w instead

No 40 S&W because it didn't exist when the decisions were being made in the 1980s. S&W introduced it in 1990, the same year that the M9 was officially adopted.

Piper Cub · November 7, 2009, 06:53 AM

kids and our video game. They are reality!!!

MTT TL · November 7, 2009, 07:09 AM

The easy answer is that the .40 S&W was not yet invented when the Army went looking for a side arm.

Military acquisitions are based on need statements. The politics involved in that would fill the server on this board and not teach anyone a thing.

Nev C · November 7, 2009, 07:23 AM

Quote:

I just dont understand why the army switched from .45acp to the puny 9x19parallebum

I thought they switched to the 9x19 Parabellum.

PSP · November 7, 2009, 07:27 AM

Puny?

Puny is in the eye of the beholder... incoming or outgoing. The direction of flight influences the perceived size exponentially.

varoadking · November 7, 2009, 07:42 AM

Quote:

parabellum

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
I just dont understand why the army switched from .45acp to the puny 9x19parallebum

I thought they switched to the 9x19 Parabellum.

Good catch. A parallebum is a goemetric figure, isn't it...

rduckwor · November 7, 2009, 08:37 AM

POLITICS.

Political gains supersedes any reality-based thought processes today.

November 6, 2009, 08:21 PM	#1
smleno1mkIII Member Join Date: November 5, 2009 Location: washington state Posts: 45	I just dont understand why the army switched from .45acp to the puny 9x19parallebum why didn't they at least come up with something like the 40s&w instead

November 6, 2009, 08:29 PM	#3
charleym3 Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2001 Location: Central NC Posts: 436	Two things, weight/round and compatibility with with other friendly forces. __________________ -When the need is great enough, limitations are meaningless. -Small helpings of experience become wisdom, while large servings become bitterness and despair. -I was once described as self-righteous and patronizing! I informed my critic that the proper description is arrogant & condescending and that he should learn the difference!

November 6, 2009, 09:00 PM	#7
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 5,153	Basically, Jim is right In the '50s, we were pushing for a standards for Nato ammo. We wanted our then new 7.62x51mm (.308 Winchester) for the standard Nato rifle round. They wanted the 9mm as standard pistol round. They deal was struck, they would take our rifle round, and when we replaced our 1911A1 .45s, we would adopt their 9mm as our standard pistol round. And so it went. In the 60s, a new administration (the MacNamara defense dept) decided we were going to replace the 7.62mm NATO round with the 5.56mm (.223 Rem) as our standard rifle round. We kept the 7.62mm for our machineguns. Needless to say, this move really upset a number of our European allies. Eventually, they all developed their own 5.56mm guns, in one form or another, but several kept the 7.62 NATO as their rifle round for some time. When we did finally, officially retire our 1911A1s, decades later, we kept our part of the old bargain, and went to the 9mm. It had NOTHING to do with how effective the round is, or isn't. It had NOTHING to do with magazine capacity. It was strictly a political decision, made by people who's primary concern was not to have the most effective caliber available, but to have an international standard. Thats why. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

November 6, 2009, 09:02 PM	#8
hoytinak Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 4,420	Yeah cause everyone knows that if the caliber starts with a .4, it's a magical caliber that'll stop anyone with one shot no matter where that bullet strikes them. __________________ "HK shouldn't make a 1911 style gun. They may accidentally make a reliable 1911 that can get dirty and still function just fine."

November 6, 2009, 09:15 PM	#9
Teuthis Senior Member Join Date: April 9, 2008 Location: Southern Arizona Posts: 264	The 9mm is not puny. It is deadly. One must be skilled in order to be effective in combat with a handgun. At true, handgun fighting range, and proper placement, the 9mm is not at all puny. Vociferous demogogues have, for their own purposes, shouted and raved that anything less than 45 caliber is useless in combat. Don't believe it. __________________ Oderint dum Metuant

November 6, 2009, 08:29 PM	#2
Brian48 Senior Member Join Date: December 21, 2001 Location: Boston, People's Republic of MA Posts: 511

November 6, 2009, 08:35 PM	#4
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 6,220	It's like this, our friends and allies in Europe (some of whom used to be our enemies) got used to the USA being the "Arsenal of Democracy" through two world wars and wanted to be able to depend on us for supplies in case of another one. So when NATO got organized to defend against the USSR, we were nice and agreed that our next service pistol would be the same as what most of them were used to, the 9mm. This as early as 1950. But we had so many .45s left over from the wars, and so many .38s bought as secondary standards, it took until the 1980s for us to have to make good on the deal. We got the better end of the deal, because we got to specify the standard calbers for not one but two generations of infantry rifle.

November 6, 2009, 08:51 PM	#5
fyimo Senior Member Join Date: November 6, 2009 Posts: 130	Having served in Vietnam I will tell you that weight is the enemy of the combat soldier and the more firepower you can carry that will still do the job is key. So a soldier can carry many more 9mm rounds and mags then he can with 45 ACP ammo. He can also carry more magazines of 223 ammo then he can with 308 ammo and why they also carry a rifle chambered in that round.

November 6, 2009, 08:59 PM	#6
LordofWar Senior Member Join Date: April 28, 2009 Location: Pakistan Posts: 435	I had this huge smile on my face the instant I saw this thread and will share those popcorns with Brian 48 :P Alternately I would refer you to the following: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=379117

November 6, 2009, 09:26 PM	#10
J.Netto Senior Member Join Date: April 26, 2009 Location: Ky Posts: 499	I wouldn't want to be shot with a 9mm. Seriously though, I like the 9mm as a defensive/carry caliber. Some of my favorite carry guns are 9's.

November 6, 2009, 09:38 PM	#11
LightningJoe Senior Member Join Date: May 27, 2007 Location: DFW Metroplex (well, McKinney) Posts: 795	It has taken you 25 years to notice? We've won the Cold War, fought and won the Gulf War, started and will probably lose two more wars, and now you ask about 9mm? I guess it just doesn't matter, that's why. Now ask about 5.56mm. __________________ I believe in a world which consists of America, her friends, and her dead enemies.

November 6, 2009, 11:38 PM	#13
l8apex Member Join Date: March 11, 2009 Posts: 79	Ease of obtaining ammo, round capacity, etc. Never had a problem with my 92FS, especially since we consider it a secondary. If your primary is down, the secondary is the last resort it which case it's a bad day. Most units are loaded to the teeth, never had to transition to the secondary with the exception of clearing small rooms. I find that some are more worried about ammo choices rather than just being proficient with what is given you. It's not the arrow, it's the Indian. __________________ It's never the arrow, it's always the indian.

November 6, 2009, 11:41 PM	#14
smleno1mkIII Member Join Date: November 5, 2009 Location: washington state Posts: 45	Well I geuss we can be happy they didn't choose 380 or 32acp like so many did in WWII I do admit the 9 beets them hands down I also wasn't aware the nato 9 was loaded that hot so thanks for that tidbit of info the and no it didn't take me this long to figure out why I allready knew why cause thats what everyone else used and such and logistics I just wanted to get outher peoples opinions on the matter Im no moron and I learned that military loads were loaded hotter a fact I didn't know you learn something knew every day that why we ask questions to learn

November 7, 2009, 12:00 AM	#15
jontz Member Join Date: October 14, 2009 Location: Northern Indiana Posts: 45	Why does the "9mm sucks!" thread have to come up once a week? Find a new hobby guys, seriously... __________________ Sig Mosquito Sig P228 Bersa Thunder 380

November 7, 2009, 12:03 AM	#16
RC1986 Member Join Date: November 6, 2009 Location: New England Posts: 44	charley pretty much answered the question, so we can easily adapt better to our allies pistols if we need to use em, and i dont think a 9mm is weak, the glock 19 has been my concealed carry for 3 years now and its accuracy and my tons of practice gives me the confidence that it can get the job done if needed be. __________________ Sniping your enemy is like hunting any other animal.

November 7, 2009, 12:39 AM	#17
DAVE RICHHARDS Member Join Date: March 3, 2008 Posts: 66	More rounds in a gun of similar size than the one it replaced. DA/SA considered more safe than a SA weapon. Lower recoil thus easier to shoot, easier to train people with little or no handgun experience, and standard pistol round for NATO and actually pretty much the rst of the world. Flatter shooting round, and on and on. And contrary to alot of b.s. on the interent about as effective as any other fmj round out there. So you are in combat. Your issued a pistol. With it you get two back up mags. With the Beretta you have roughly 45 rounds. The .45 you get 21. With either cartridge you still must hit vitals. And it may require multiple shots. America is the only country in the world that the 9mm gets so little respect. Rest of the world is fine with it. A guy at my range was a Tanker in Iraq. Got out of the tank one time with just his M9. Ran into three bad guys with AK's. They were shocked for a moment, he wasn't. Dropped all three with his Beretta. Tell him the 9mm is ineffective.

November 7, 2009, 06:53 AM	#20
Piper Cub Senior Member Join Date: February 5, 2009 Location: TEXAS Posts: 465	kids and our video game. They are reality!!! __________________ "Pray for Obama Psalms 109:8"

November 7, 2009, 07:09 AM	#21
MTT TL Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 2009 Location: The City of Thi Posts: 275	The easy answer is that the .40 S&W was not yet invented when the Army went looking for a side arm. Military acquisitions are based on need statements. The politics involved in that would fill the server on this board and not teach anyone a thing. __________________ Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam

November 7, 2009, 07:27 AM	#23
PSP Senior Member Join Date: June 2, 2006 Location: N. Virginia Posts: 2,052	Puny? Puny is in the eye of the beholder... incoming or outgoing. The direction of flight influences the perceived size exponentially.

November 7, 2009, 08:37 AM	#25
rduckwor Senior Member Join Date: June 26, 2008 Location: L.A. - Lower Alabama Posts: 142	POLITICS. Political gains supersedes any reality-based thought processes today. __________________ RMD SIG 5" SS 1911, DW CBOB, DW VALOR, Para P.14, CZ 75B Phantom