Army wants a harder hitting pistol


The army needs to move to hollow point ammo

The best solution, I think, is to stay with 9mm, but go to a hollow point round. Did the U.S. sign a document long ago, promising not to use hollow point in war? Then unsign it. U. S. police now use that round, and most civilians, too. The .45 ammo won't help as much as one might think, as long as it is also full metal jacket. And .45 provides fewer rounds. I do strongly support moving away from the Beretta M9, however. I would recommend the Glock 17.
 
Just another article reminding me why I don't own a .40.
I think they will go back to a .45. I'm not sure they will go with a 1911.
There are some great choices in .45 ACP with an acceptable number of rounds.
FNP-45 Tactical gets my vote.
GO ARMY!
 
I had the 93FS, Cougar 8040, now I have the Glock 22, Kimbers. I still remember all the discussions of 9 v 45, never ending and here we go again.
 
Kramer1113 said:
Just another article reminding me why I don't own a .40.
I think they will go back to a .45. I'm not sure they will go with a 1911.
There are some great choices in .45 ACP with an acceptable number of rounds.
FNP-45 Tactical gets my vote.
GO ARMY!
Click to expand...
The FN 45 is by far my favorite weapon
 
Kramer1113 said:
Just another article reminding me why I don't own a .40.
I think they will go back to a .45. I'm not sure they will go with a 1911.
There are some great choices in .45 ACP with an acceptable number of rounds.
FNP-45 Tactical gets my vote.
GO ARMY!
Click to expand...
And why not go back to all services having the 1911 in the railgun versions? The 1911 has never gone out of military service and the armorers still know them. 9mm to .40S&W will require more training as the only gun in .40S&W I have found that is comfortable to shoot is the S&W 4006. And it was designed just for that round and the round just for it. And as noted, the police have seen extra fast wear on their guns due to the round.
 
Going to .45 ACP while the rest of the NATO forces stay with 9mm does not make much sense.

Also, changing the service pistol by slowly phasing the old one out is significantly easier than transitioning to a new caliber, which requires both, a new pistol and a different round to be phased in at the same time.

Lastly, the Hague Convention of 1899 prohibited the use in international warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body. The US has ratified that part of the treaty. The US military and NATO can not use JHP bullets without violating/exiting this treaty. The Avalon Project : Laws of War - Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of Principles of Geneva Convention of 1864 (Hague, III); July 29,1899
 
S&W645 said:
And why not go back to all services having the 1911 in the railgun versions? The 1911 has never gone out of military service and the armorers still know them. 9mm to .40S&W will require more training as the only gun in .40S&W I have found that is comfortable to shoot is the S&W 4006. And it was designed just for that round and the round just for it. And as noted, the police have seen extra fast wear on their guns due to the round.
Click to expand...

:smile: I carried a Colt 1911 from 1980 to 1984. Man that thing was loose but what a sweet shooter.
I currently carry a Ruger SR1911 and love it. I am not opposed to the Army going back to, or using the same 1911 the Marines just contracted for, But, I think the 15+1 is a great advantage.
BUT, I know the abuse our weapons took before we ever got them issued as service weapons and God Bless the Armors who kept them running like a fine tuned machines.
I do not know that the FNP could take the same abuse.
For me its like having a 15 round mag in my M4 rather than my 30 round mags.
 
I never quite understood the FMJ only part of the treaty. I can't shoot an enemy with 1 JHP 45 ACP,
but I could empty a 50 cal in his behind. Makes no sense to me.
 
missoak said:
I never quite understood the FMJ only part of the treaty. I can't shoot an enemy with 1 JHP 45 ACP,
but I could empty a 50 cal in his behind. Makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...
Because when the treaty was written, they thought it more humane to kill the guy slowly than fast. Surgery being what it was back then, they could deal with holes but they couldn't deal with massive damage caused by hollow points.
 
Would a JHP get through body armour? I would think the military wouldn't want a round that can be so easily defeated by armor.

My vote FNX 45 T.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
Firefighterchen said:
Would a JHP get through body armour? I would think the military wouldn't want a round that can be so easily defeated by armor.

My vote FNX 45 T.
Click to expand...

A JHP handgun round is easily defeated by body armor. The FN Link Removed SS190 FMJ is an armor-piercing handgun round that is treaty-compliant and has good terminal ballistics. Having said that, the handgun is not the primary weapon in the military anyway, so why bother changing calibers.

 
The UN treaty has to do with anything to undermine the power of the US. Oh and seeing FMJ use more lead then JHP we'll have to by more from some anti-we hate the US foreign company. Juz saying. Nothing good has ever been pro US coming out of the COM-UN org.
 
mappow said:
The UN treaty has to do with anything to undermine the power of the US. Oh and seeing FMJ use more lead then JHP we'll have to by more from some anti-we hate the US foreign company. Juz saying. Nothing good has ever been pro US coming out of the COM-UN org.
Click to expand...

FYI: The Hague Convention of 1899 is, well, from 1899. The US ratified it in 1900. United Nations (UN) was established in 1945. The use of FMJ ammo in the military has zero to do with the UN. Instead, it is based on this 115 year-old treaty. Go to the link, I posted (The Avalon Project : Laws of War - Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of Principles of Geneva Convention of 1864 (Hague, III); July 29,1899), and you can see who signed it. Among those are:

  • His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, King of Prussia (Germany before the ousting of the Kaiser, the Weimarer Republic, Nazi Germany, and Communist East Germany)
  • His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia etc., and Apostolic King of Hungary (multiple different countries today after the demise of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire)
  • His Majesty the Emperor of China (China before the revolution and before the communists took over)
  • Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India (at a time when this was an actual Empire with the Crown's rule over Ireland and India)
  • His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia (That is Iran today. I wonder if they feel obligated by this treaty.)
 
bofh said:
A JHP handgun round is easily defeated by body armor. The FN Link Removed SS190 FMJ is an armor-piercing handgun round that is treaty-compliant and has good terminal ballistics. Having said that, the handgun is not the primary weapon in the military anyway, so why bother changing calibers.

Click to expand...
And illegal for citizens to own in many states.
 
CharlesMorrison said:
Since when? I only ask because they sell that pistol at my local GS, not that I can afford one!


Sent from behind enemy lines..
Click to expand...

He's talking about the SS190 FMJ armour piercing rounds, not the gun. I don't believe "legal" civilian rounds for the 5.7 are armour piercing.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
bofh said:
A JHP handgun round is easily defeated by body armor. The FN Link Removed SS190 FMJ is an armor-piercing handgun round that is treaty-compliant and has good terminal ballistics. Having said that, the handgun is not the primary weapon in the military anyway, so why bother changing calibers.

Click to expand...

I suppose it's hard to get a rhetorical question to come across right...but yes I agree hollow points would not be the best option when body armour will likely be involved.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 192 (members: 0, guests: 192)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,544
Messages
611,260
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon

Share this page

Back
Top