NationStates Jolt Archive

Hope this isn't old news, but the government has decided to dump that nasty metric Beretta.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20060127.aspx

January 27, 2006: After two decades of use, the U.S. Department of Defense is getting rid of its Beretta M9 9mm pistol, and going back to the 11.4mm (.45 caliber) weapon. There have been constant complaints about the lesser (compared to the .45) hitting power of the 9mm. And in the last few years, SOCOM (Special Operations Command) and the marines have officially adopted .45 caliber pistols as “official alternatives” to the M9 Beretta. But now SOCOM has been given the task of finding a design that will be suitable as the JCP (Joint Combat Pistol). Various designs are being evaluated, but all must be .45 caliber and have a eight round magazine (at least), and high capacity mags holding up to 15. The new .45 will also have a rail for attachments, and be able to take a silencer. Length must be no more than 9.65 inches, and width no more than 1.53 inches.

Hope this isn't old news, but the government has decided to dump that nasty metric Beretta.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20060127.aspx
All I can say is... duh... It only took them 20 years to recognize what every Armorer, Troop & range officer knew fom day 1. :rolleyes:

(They were just switching when I went in, so I had the "honor" of hosting ranges for both guns. Somehow the shot-out WWII era .45s always performed better than the Italian krunchentiker. Go figure.)

All I can say is... duh... It only took them 20 years to recognize what every Armorer, Troop & range officer knew fom day 1. :rolleyes:

Agreed completely. I've shot both a beretta and a .45, and I would take a .45 to me over the beretta any day. Although heavier, it has more stopping power and is easier as far as cleaning etc.

Hope this isn't old news, but the government has decided to dump that nasty metric Beretta.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20060127.aspx

No surprise here. We knew the .45's would be back the first day the 9mm's hit our arms rooms in 1986. The only justification I ever saw for them was NATO treaties dictating we had to use them because of standardized ammunition agreements that we were tardy on. But I think it probably had more to do with someones palms getting greased for a portion of the 535$ each, for a pistol no one wanted.

Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll bring back the Colt 1911, or at least something based off of it.
But yeah, I never liked 9mm weapons, it seems like somebody just decided one day that .22 was too small, .45 was too big and 7.62 was ugly. I do have to hand it to the Soviets though, those TT-33's are nice ^_^

Agreed completely. I've shot both a beretta and a .45, and I would take a .45 to me over the beretta any day. Although heavier, it has more stopping power and is easier as far as cleaning etc.
One of the limitations that the military has placed upon it is the requirement to use ball ammo. I suspect that a 9mm HP would be a pretty good round. But it expands and that's not allowed.

I hope they go with a model that is easier to clean than a 1911 was. I can still remember hunting for springs that shot across the armory when my finger slipped off the front bushing.

Agreed completely. I've shot both a beretta and a .45, and I would take a .45 to me over the beretta any day. Although heavier, it has more stopping power and is easier as far as cleaning etc.
Heavier? Than a 14+1 Baretta? Maybe when the Baretta is empty.

But, otherwise I agree.

What's the point in carrying 14 rounds when you have to double-tap and can only shoot 7 targets anyway?

I'm not knocking 9mm, but when you are stuck with FMJ, (hell, any "identical" bullet) the .45 is infinitely superior - and the 9mm ball is downright dangerously overpenatrative and non-shock inducing.

I hope they go with a model that is easier to clean than a 1911 was. I can still remember hunting for springs that shot across the armory when my finger slipped off the front bushing.
:confused: I never had that happen. I had one idiot put the mainspring in wrong (fingers under) so the sear wouldn't reengage (7-shot full auto w00-h00!) but capturing the recoil spring was never an issue for me... even with 20lb Wolff springs.

Heavier? Than a 14+1 Baretta? Maybe when the Baretta is empty.

But, otherwise I agree.

What's the point in carrying 14 rounds when you have to double-tap and can only shoot 7 targets anyway?

I'm not knocking 9mm, but when you are stuck with FMJ, (hell, any "identical" bullet) the .45 is infinitely superior - and the 9mm ball is downright dangerously overpenatrative and non-shock inducing.

The Baretta I shot was a police model; definately not 14 lbs. Not a Military version; 14 pounds is fucking retarded.

There's nothing about metric that makes the Beretta a worse weapon, it's the broken NATO standard.

Reminds me of the case where rollercoaster specs were changed, but the old system remained in use (built with the old specs), and the rollercoaster broke, and this was blamed on metric standards.

But to the topic; American military weapons have been missing the point (namely, killing people) for some time. Perhaps this is a 180 degree turn.

:confused: I never had that happen. I had one idiot put the mainspring in wrong (fingers under) so the sear wouldn't reengage (7-shot full auto w00-h00!) but capturing the recoil spring was never an issue for me... even with 20lb Wolff springs.
I was a bombardier, dammit, not a grunt. :)
I only touched a pistol once a year and then, it was a revolver. I think something like ten years went by from the first time I shot a .45 to the second time, so I wasn't exactly an expert at cleaning it.

One of the limitations that the military has placed upon it is the requirement to use ball ammo. I suspect that a 9mm HP would be a pretty good round. But it expands and that's not allowed.

I hope they go with a model that is easier to clean than a 1911 was. I can still remember hunting for springs that shot across the armory when my finger slipped off the front bushing.

haha I had my own experience with that once. Unfortunately for me it was at Armorer School when Texas Christian was running the military schools at Ft Bragg. My finger slipped and the spring shot up following the contour of the ceiling and straight down between 2 wall studs of the building.
That instructor had me running around begging everyone in 5th group he could find and telling them before I got there to send me to someone else. It took an entire afternoon before someone felt sorry for me and told me not to sweat it, it was a class 9 item. Ah those were the days.

The Baretta I shot was a police model; definately not 14 lbs. Not a Military version; 14 pounds is fucking retarded.
Reread please. 14 ROUNDS (as in cartridges in the magazine) not 14 lbs (as in weight). ed - should have been 16 anyway...

world.guns.ru

Beretta 92/96/98
Weight Unloaded: 950-975 g, depending on model
(M882 112gr cartridges=11.6g*16=185.6g) total wet = 1161g

Colt 1911
Weight: 1080 g (M1911 234gr cartridges=21.45*8=171.6g) total wet = 1251g

So, a fully loaded 1911 carrying 234gr bullets weighs only 91g more than a Beretta carrying 16 cartridges (15+1). However, most people put 124-147gr bullets in a 9mm, and 200gr bullets in the .45, so the weight is essentially the same.

I'd hope that they'd go to the Mark 23, but that's probably too expensive compared to the more cost effective .45 USP.

As for the change, SOCOM has been doing this for awhile now, and the Army actually is issuing the SIG P226 as the M11. The change isn't limited to pistols, I'm hoping that they finally sign off on the Barrett M468 6.8mm rifles!

i hope they choose the kimber .45. that's a quality weapon.

i hope they choose the kimber .45. that's a quality weapon.
Too tight/custom. Plus, Kimber could never produce the numbers and keep the quality up.

Try This:

Use modern light-weight metals and good old-fashioned GI fixable gun design with a modern twist like rails...

http://springfield-armory.com/images/pistols/a1/PX9105ML.jpg

http://springfield-armory.com/prod-pstl-1911-op.shtml

I like the ability to exchange parts with any of the 5 million 1911s out there. Kimbers are too tight to do that, but if they weren't tight, they wouldn't be kimbers.

I'm thinking that this new weapon will be an adaptation of the H&K USP45 Tactical. Maybe with a slightly longer slide and barrel.

EDIT: Oh, speaking of old guns coming back, anyone seen SOCOM's "EBR"? Can you say "Revenge of the M14"? :D

EDIT: Oh, speaking of old guns coming back, anyone seen SOCOM's "EBR"? Can you say "Revenge of the M14"? :D
http://springfield-armory.com/images/SOCOMIIb.jpg

Springfield Rocks in the M14 clone arena... :D

http://springfield-armory.com/images/SOCOMIIb.jpg

Springfield Rocks in the M14 clone arena... :D

Too bad they cost an arm and a leg. :eek:

Try This:

Use modern light-weight metals and good old-fashioned GI fixable gun design with a modern twist like rails...

http://springfield-armory.com/images/pistols/a1/PX9105ML.jpg

http://springfield-armory.com/prod-pstl-1911-op.shtml

I like the ability to exchange parts with any of the 5 million 1911s out there. Kimbers are too tight to do that, but if they weren't tight, they wouldn't be kimbers.

Now that is nice. Very nice. It will be hard to beat if it can handle 12 or 13,000 rounds without cracking up.

http://springfield-armory.com/images/SOCOMIIb.jpg

Springfield Rocks in the M14 clone arena... :D

That's a mean looking gun O.O

That's a mean looking gun O.O

You only say that 'cuz you ain't seen this! http://www.crazyhorserifles.com/mm/stationery/A_SlideShow/_MG_2126.JPG

Good call, but they should just take back the masterpiece 1911, not fork out a billion dollars to the military industrial complex to clone one.

Good call, but they should just take back the masterpiece 1911, not fork out a billion dollars to the military industrial complex to clone one.

I'm willing to bet that it'll have to come from Europe, though.

Bring back the 1911 :) best pistol ever made

But then again, I've always liked the ugly-but-really-really-badass SMG that is the P90.


http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Bremse/FN-P90.jpg

Now that is nice. Very nice. It will be hard to beat if it can handle 12 or 13,000 rounds without cracking up.
Oh, given Springfield's rep, I don't think that would be a problem...

http://springfield-armory.com/images/Products.jpg

:D

But then again, I've always liked the ugly-but-really-really-badass SMG that is the P90.


http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Bremse/FN-P90.jpg

You mean the over-glorified .22-caliber subgun? :p

You mean the over-glorified .22-caliber subgun? :p
Bleah. Not exactly a holsterable sidearm is it? Sure it's Fun at parties, but not too practical even for duty carry.

Oh, given Springfield's rep, I don't think that would be a problem...

http://springfield-armory.com/images/Products.jpg

:D

Without a doubt springfield provides the highest quality steel weapons I have ever maintained, but when they start talking about the "new and improved lightweight materials" I am a doubter until I see the results.
Of all the things we hated from day one about the M9's one thing no one would have ever guessed was that the slides would start failing the way they did.

Bleah. Not exactly a holsterable sidearm is it? Sure it's Fun at parties, but not too practical even for duty carry.

Only two things the MP7A1 has over the P90:

The MP7A1 can fit in a (specially designed, really large) holster
The MP7A1 is faster to reload than the P90

The only other advantage (greater reliability in the MP7A1) is balanced out by a disadvantage (MP7A1 uses an even smaller bullet than the P90).

PDW? Gimme one-a them M1A Scout rifles, and I'll show you PDW! :D

Well, after watching another video of "old school" weapons making a comeback, here's what's coming back:

1) M1911A1...whatever form the .45 takes.
2) M14...in the shape of the SOPMOD or M1A.
3) M60E4...oh yeah, 850 rounds...not one jam, misfire, or overheat. That's a One Minute, 45 seconds of Firing...continuously!
4) The Masterkey....eventually the Army is going to realize the benefit of slinging a 12-gauge 870 underneath an M4A1 or the M16A4.
5) Shooting people with .50cals...because even a uniform is considered gear. And those Ma Deuces are "anti-material" weapons!

Well, after watching another video of "old school" weapons making a comeback, here's what's coming back:

1) M1911A1...whatever form the .45 takes.
2) M14...in the shape of the SOPMOD or M1A.
3) M60E4...oh yeah, 850 rounds...not one jam, misfire, or overheat. That's a One Minute, 45 seconds of Firing...continuously!
4) The Masterkey....eventually the Army is going to realize the benefit of slinging a 12-gauge 870 underneath an M4A1 or the M16A4.
5) Shooting people with .50cals...because even a uniform is considered gear. And those Ma Deuces are "anti-material" weapons!


Hate to break it to you, but the M-60 is not making a comeback because it's a piece of crap compared to the M240, (the FN MAG).

I know which one holds up better, jams less, and is far, far more rugged, especially in the bolt - it's the M240.

By comparison, the M-60 sucks.

Without a doubt springfield provides the highest quality steel weapons I have ever maintained, but when they start talking about the "new and improved lightweight materials" I am a doubter until I see the results.
Of all the things we hated from day one about the M9's one thing no one would have ever guessed was that the slides would start failing the way they did.
Anybody who has ever looked at magnaflux patterns could have told the Fed that the M9 slides were going to fail. The open-top slide design has too many stress-points. I hated it from the getgo.

The hardened alloy lower recievers of the 1911 "light weight" variants have all been well tested and don't batter apart any more than the steel frames. But anyway, that's the advantage of the 1911 over a polymer toy. You can pick and choose parts and maintain a continuous upgrade path.

I have never understood why the military went with the Beretta; there were SO MANY better 9mm's out there, why pick that piece of Italian crap? I didn't carry it; my Sig-Sauer carried four more bullets, put them on the target more consistently, and was a breeze to clean and service. My lieutenant must have known, but he never said anything (then again, his handgun looked suspiciously like an H&K...).

I'm in two minds about the .45 ACP though. I'm not a big man, just barely scraped over the height requirements, and the recoil on the M1911s I've fired made holding on target impossible, while I could pump 9mm into one target until I emptied the clip. Plus it was simply less accurate; I'd have to go with body shots with a .45, while I can headshot a target at 30 feet with a 9mm.

I have never understood why the military went with the Beretta; there were SO MANY better 9mm's out there, why pick that piece of Italian crap? I didn't carry it; my Sig-Sauer carried four more bullets, put them on the target more consistently, and was a breeze to clean and service. My lieutenant must have known, but he never said anything (then again, his handgun looked suspiciously like an H&K...).

I'm in two minds about the .45 ACP though. I'm not a big man, just barely scraped over the height requirements, and the recoil on the M1911s I've fired made holding on target impossible, while I could pump 9mm into one target until I emptied the clip. Plus it was simply less accurate; I'd have to go with body shots with a .45, while I can headshot a target at 30 feet with a 9mm.
I honestly think that a center of mass shot with .45 ball ammo is a very good shot to take. I wouldn't take a shot at someone's head under any circumstances that I can imagine happening.

I honestly think that a center of mass shot with .45 ball ammo is a very good shot to take. I wouldn't take a shot at someone's head under any circumstances that I can imagine happening.

Neither a 9mm nor a .45 ACP wil penetrate a good modern flak jacket. Plus, I was on Embassy detail during most of my service - shooting the diplomats, even if they were in the way, was a no-no...

I needed a very accurate sidearm, and the Sig-Sauer gave that to me.

I'm in two minds about the .45 ACP though. I'm not a big man, just barely scraped over the height requirements, and the recoil on the M1911s I've fired made holding on target impossible, ...
:confused: you needed a better teacher. Your hold was obviously wrong. I've seen very small women handle a .45 like it was nothing because they could actually get their hands around the single-stack grip where the krunchentikers were just too big - making the gun try to jump out of their hands.

I'll take your word for it. I've been told my grip is a little odd before, but it worked just fine on the Sig.

Has anybody on this thread ever actually killed anyone at close quarters? They are entitled to discuss any calibre of weapon that they consider close(ish) quarters, i.e. not artillery.

Regs

Tim (:-(

Not killed; he survived. I nailed someone attacking one of our staff with a hatchet (not a political thing; turned out the staffer was sleeping with his attacker's wife).

3 9mm bullets, chest, shoulder and right arm.

Too tight/custom. Plus, Kimber could never produce the numbers and keep the quality up.

Try This:

Use modern light-weight metals and good old-fashioned GI fixable gun design with a modern twist like rails...

http://springfield-armory.com/images/pistols/a1/PX9105ML.jpg

http://springfield-armory.com/prod-pstl-1911-op.shtml

I like the ability to exchange parts with any of the 5 million 1911s out there. Kimbers are too tight to do that, but if they weren't tight, they wouldn't be kimbers.

that is a sweet-looking .45

I'm looking at the Mil-Spec as my first .45 -- just a basic .45ACP

here's a question:

does anyone in the US armed forces use the H&K MP5 in any of its forms? I've heard that's a great semi-auto or automatic rifle.

that is a sweet-looking .45

I'm looking at the Mil-Spec as my first .45 -- just a basic .45ACP
I really like having the Picitinny Rail forged into the frame. Gives you so many options.

Has anybody on this thread ever actually killed anyone at close quarters? They are entitled to discuss any calibre of weapon that they consider close(ish) quarters, i.e. not artillery.

Regs

Tim (:-(

Yes. And I still prefer a rifle. Pistols just don't have the power that a rifle round has. A rifle is also easier to point shoot than a pistol (it takes far less time to learn how at CQB range).

The M4 is just fine for up close and personal. Pistols are generally not good entry weapons.

Submachineguns fire pistol rounds - so not as good.

Shotguns are good, as long as you're inside of 15 feet or so, but further than that, and as you extend the range, the number of pellets that hit drop, and the damage per pellet is fairly low. They also take forever to reload, and most people are not good with a hard recoiling weapon.

I have never understood why the military went with the Beretta; there were SO MANY better 9mm's out there, why pick that piece of Italian crap? I didn't carry it; my Sig-Sauer carried four more bullets, put them on the target more consistently, and was a breeze to clean and service. My lieutenant must have known, but he never said anything (then again, his handgun looked suspiciously like an H&K...).

I'm in two minds about the .45 ACP though. I'm not a big man, just barely scraped over the height requirements, and the recoil on the M1911s I've fired made holding on target impossible, while I could pump 9mm into one target until I emptied the clip. Plus it was simply less accurate; I'd have to go with body shots with a .45, while I can headshot a target at 30 feet with a 9mm.

The SiG P226 actually won the weapons trials. But the Beretta won on a technicality: Beretta was willing to build a factory in the US. SiGARMS wasn't.

here's a question:

does anyone in the US armed forces use the H&K MP5 in any of its forms? I've heard that's a great semi-auto or automatic rifle.
The MP5 is a submachine gun, I think some special operations teams use it and tank/helicopter/other vehicle operators like the PDW version because its short enough to handle inside confined spaces.
But yeah, its not ISSUED to anybody, as far as I know. The army is out of the SMG thing.

Hate to break it to you, but the M-60 is not making a comeback because it's a piece of crap compared to the M240, (the FN MAG).

I know which one holds up better, jams less, and is far, far more rugged, especially in the bolt - it's the M240.

By comparison, the M-60 sucks.

Did you serve? Or are you going off of what people have told you?

Go HERE...850 rounds (http://www.thebuzz.com/cc-common/mlib/1020/01/1020_1138377296.wmv) and no jams. I didn't believe it at first either, not even when I watched it first thing. They've done great things with that piece of gear, and the US Navy still carries it aboard all ships and submarines for anti-terrorist/frogman and close-in defense.

Don't get me wrong, the FN MAG/M240B/G is a great piece. Its little brother is a piece. Chronic jamming, stoppages, etc. and most require stripping the weapon (putting the gunner in a precarious position in the middle of a firefight). That's why everyone who can is getting their hands on the M240 or M60E4. A) that 7.62mm round is a beast...B) it rips through the structures over in Iraq, C) You're guaranteed a hit-equals-kill as opposed to the 5.56mm round.

Same thing goes for the M16A2/4. Its a piece of crap because of the bolt. Jams constantly in Iraq because of the dust and dirt. That's why I'm hoping that they adopt the M468 or readopt the M14.

The MP5 is a submachine gun, I think some special operations teams use it and tank/helicopter/other vehicle operators like the PDW version because its short enough to handle inside confined spaces.
But yeah, its not ISSUED to anybody, as far as I know. The army is out of the SMG thing.


Its issued to the 160th SOAR (Special Operations Aviation Regiment) pilots as their PDWs, and the MP5N (MP5 "Navy" with a US Navy trigger group) is used as a CQB weapon by the US Navy SEALs, 1st SFOD-D, Coast Guard, USMC Fleet Anti-terrorism Response Teams (FAST) Company, Marine Security Guards, etc. No one in a line company or anything higher will ever get to use one...

As for the SIG, the M11 is a SIG-Sauer P228. The US Army issues it out as an alternative to the M9, as I said before.

The MP5 is a submachine gun, I think some special operations teams use it and tank/helicopter/other vehicle operators like the PDW version because its short enough to handle inside confined spaces.
But yeah, its not ISSUED to anybody, as far as I know. The army is out of the SMG thing.
I always liked the M3. Our M88 Recovery Vehicle was assigned a pair and I got to run the range (along with the 1911 .45) Hugely fun guns - even if the bores were entirely shot smooth by the time I got them. :D

Yes. And I still prefer a rifle. Pistols just don't have the power that a rifle round has. A rifle is also easier to point shoot than a pistol (it takes far less time to learn how at CQB range).

The M4 is just fine for up close and personal. Pistols are generally not good entry weapons.

Submachineguns fire pistol rounds - so not as good.

Shotguns are good, as long as you're inside of 15 feet or so, but further than that, and as you extend the range, the number of pellets that hit drop, and the damage per pellet is fairly low. They also take forever to reload, and most people are not good with a hard recoiling weapon.

I'm trying to remember which security company said it... but they said that shotguns were better than subguns for ranges from 25-75 meters, with subguns being better for everything under that and carbines for things over that. (Strange though it may seem, I must admit.)

The problem with reloading a shotgun with speed is solved by the Saiga and the USAS-12, among others.