I just dont understand why the army switched from .45acp to the puny 9x19parallebum - Page 5

BlueTrain · November 13, 2009, 06:13 AM

I've been led to believe the .30 carbine was widely used in Malaysia, though no .45s. As far as the 9mm Browning, I don't want to quibble over semantics, but I was saying only that although the Browning was widely issued later on during the war, the .380 revolver was the standard issue and was into the 1950s. I also understand that the scale of issue for handguns in an infantry battalion after the war was very limited, with very few authorized, for what it's worth. I've also read (I wasn't there) that the 9mm in submachine guns sometimes gave very poor performance in the jungle in Malaysia and other places in British use.

**Mike Irwin** · November 13, 2009, 09:35 AM

The .380 revolver was standard issue for PART of the army.

The High Power was standard issue for another PART of the army.

Both were considered to be standard issue handguns.

M1 Carbine use in Malaysia was confined primarily to Malaysians loyal to the British (and some in the hands of the insurgents), not to British troops, and by all accounts there were relatively few of them, at that.

I also think it's something of a stretch to say that the M1 Carbine bullet, which is even lighter than the standard 9mm submachine gun bullet then in service, would be much, if any, better at dealing with jungle canopy.

In fact, US experience with the M1 carbine in the Philippine jungles, reinforced by Army of the Republic of Vietnam experience with the Carbine during the Vietnam War, showed pretty conclusively that the M1 Carbine round was not particularly effective in heavy jungle vegetation.

stinkbug · November 13, 2009, 10:27 AM

I have been gone awhile, the last time I checked in on this debate is was in the opinion section of Soldier of Fortune magazine. I believe the magazine cover talking mentioned things heating up in Rhodesia.

I will be back in another 20 years to see how the ballistic engineers and merchants of death have resolved the issue...

BlueTrain · November 13, 2009, 01:03 PM

My understanding is the 9mm was a poor performer in Malaysia was due to the ammunition deteriorating because of the climate, though I don't see how any other form of ammunition was exempt from that. One souce, which I don't carry around with me (unlike the old army regulations), stated that most of the casualties in the Malaysian conflict were inflicted by Bren guns and M1 carbines. But you can't believe everything you read--or remember where you read it.

TRguy · November 13, 2009, 01:13 PM

HUMMMM I don't want to be shot with either.

OldMarksman · Yesterday, 03:47 PM

The article in the latest issue of The American Rifleman states that Congress desired the adoption of the 9MM to enable the sharing of supplies with allies.

It also says that the requirement was for a 13 shot magazine capacity--which tends to mitigate against the .45.

The implication in the article is that the Air Force was enthusiastic about the 9, and that the Army was not. Kinda like the Army not liking the .36 in the old days.

Gott Mit Uns · Today, 08:45 AM

the NATO 5.56 or .223 round was selected because it was much easier to keep on target in full auto and because it weighs much much less.

Strictly from a semi-auto viewpoint, the 7.62 x 39 penetrates better and is better over longer distances.

I like them both -- though the .223 mainly because shooting turf at close range causes explosions of dirt and grass in the air. There is something cool about that. You may not even have to shoot the bad guy if he sees that.

Remember to replace your divots.

sailskidrive · Today, 09:15 AM

>>Strictly from a semi-auto viewpoint, the 7.62 x 39 penetrates better and is better over longer distances.

I'm finding the web to be mis-information mania this morning.

~Sail

BADSBSNF81 · Today, 11:46 AM

This month's American Rifleman has an article on the 25th anniv of the M9 that will shed light.

trigger happy · Today, 11:53 AM

Quote:

I'm finding the web to be mis-information mania this morning.

the History Channel tested penetration of the 5.56 Nato against the 7.62x39 and the 5.56 Nato failed to penetrate a 4x4 at 100 yards whereas the 7.62x39 did. I prefer the American rifle but I won't lie to make it seem better than the enemies weapon. It may be more accurate but it isn't more powerful

RETG · Today, 12:21 PM

Quote:

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

Simple. Those who have decided on another round, have to confirm, to themselves, that their decision is correct, and all other decisions are incorrect.

When training people years ago, I often got involved with these ridiculous arguments which are the same as Chevy vs. Ford, and I always ask, 'would you prefer to be shot in the foot with a .45 or in the heat with a .22." You would be surprised at how many say the .22, before they even think of the correct answer.

I have never heard anyone, who used it, complain about the 9x19 round used in a H&K MP5. Then again, these are people who have used the weapon, not discussed it on the internet.

November 13, 2009, 06:13 AM	#101
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 1,705	I've been led to believe the .30 carbine was widely used in Malaysia, though no .45s. As far as the 9mm Browning, I don't want to quibble over semantics, but I was saying only that although the Browning was widely issued later on during the war, the .380 revolver was the standard issue and was into the 1950s. I also understand that the scale of issue for handguns in an infantry battalion after the war was very limited, with very few authorized, for what it's worth. I've also read (I wasn't there) that the 9mm in submachine guns sometimes gave very poor performance in the jungle in Malaysia and other places in British use. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

November 13, 2009, 09:35 AM	#102
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 21,169	The .380 revolver was standard issue for PART of the army. The High Power was standard issue for another PART of the army. Both were considered to be standard issue handguns. M1 Carbine use in Malaysia was confined primarily to Malaysians loyal to the British (and some in the hands of the insurgents), not to British troops, and by all accounts there were relatively few of them, at that. I also think it's something of a stretch to say that the M1 Carbine bullet, which is even lighter than the standard 9mm submachine gun bullet then in service, would be much, if any, better at dealing with jungle canopy. In fact, US experience with the M1 carbine in the Philippine jungles, reinforced by Army of the Republic of Vietnam experience with the Carbine during the Vietnam War, showed pretty conclusively that the M1 Carbine round was not particularly effective in heavy jungle vegetation. __________________ Coworkers. A convenient source of food in a post apocalyptic world.

November 13, 2009, 01:03 PM	#104
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 1,705	My understanding is the 9mm was a poor performer in Malaysia was due to the ammunition deteriorating because of the climate, though I don't see how any other form of ammunition was exempt from that. One souce, which I don't carry around with me (unlike the old army regulations), stated that most of the casualties in the Malaysian conflict were inflicted by Bren guns and M1 carbines. But you can't believe everything you read--or remember where you read it. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

November 13, 2009, 01:13 PM	#105
TRguy Senior Member Join Date: July 15, 2008 Location: Concord, NC Posts: 210	HUMMMM I don't want to be shot with either. __________________ For the Fellow Carolina Folks: www.carolinaguntalk.com

Today, 08:45 AM	#107
Gott Mit Uns Junior Member Join Date: November 6, 2009 Location: Illinois Posts: 12	lee ermey says... the NATO 5.56 or .223 round was selected because it was much easier to keep on target in full auto and because it weighs much much less. Strictly from a semi-auto viewpoint, the 7.62 x 39 penetrates better and is better over longer distances. I like them both -- though the .223 mainly because shooting turf at close range causes explosions of dirt and grass in the air. There is something cool about that. You may not even have to shoot the bad guy if he sees that. Remember to replace your divots. __________________ New Taurus PT709 slim blue, 2 Taurus 9mm PT92's (1 blue and 1 ss), A lovely Ruger MKII long barrel 22, hopelessly broken lump of bryco / Jennings .380 LOL (my first gun...)

November 13, 2009, 10:27 AM	#103
stinkbug Junior Member Join Date: October 7, 2006 Posts: 10	I have been gone awhile, the last time I checked in on this debate is was in the opinion section of Soldier of Fortune magazine. I believe the magazine cover talking mentioned things heating up in Rhodesia. I will be back in another 20 years to see how the ballistic engineers and merchants of death have resolved the issue...

Yesterday, 03:47 PM	#106
OldMarksman Senior Member Join Date: June 8, 2008 Posts: 882	The article in the latest issue of The American Rifleman states that Congress desired the adoption of the 9MM to enable the sharing of supplies with allies. It also says that the requirement was for a 13 shot magazine capacity--which tends to mitigate against the .45. The implication in the article is that the Air Force was enthusiastic about the 9, and that the Army was not. Kinda like the Army not liking the .36 in the old days.

Today, 09:15 AM	#108
sailskidrive Member Join Date: October 26, 2008 Posts: 95	huh? >>Strictly from a semi-auto viewpoint, the 7.62 x 39 penetrates better and is better over longer distances. I'm finding the web to be mis-information mania this morning. ~Sail

Today, 11:46 AM	#109
BADSBSNF81 Senior Member Join Date: May 18, 2001 Location: Out where the buses don't run. Posts: 374	This month's American Rifleman has an article on the 25th anniv of the M9 that will shed light. __________________ All stations stand by for flash traffic...