Article: Army wants a harder-hitting pistol

[grumpyMSG]

This just recently popped up in an E-mail:
http://kitup.military.com/2014/07/sof-p ... =army-a.nl
It gives a pretty good break down of who uses what. As for being able to use personally owned firearm or piece of equipment in a combat zone that is a unit's command structure decision. I have seen people carry their own non-issue items (knives/ pliers/ multitools/ flashlights) with command's blessing,. Other items such as weapon's parts/ sights/ magazines had to meet military standards, so that many of the MagPul products (grips/stocks /sights) would not be approved by the command. It really does boil down to what risks and liabilities the command structure is willing to allow. If a Soldier is killed on the battlefield and he/she dies with a modified weapon that failed in their hands or a personally owned weapon that failed them, it will come down on the leadership.

[Mindflayer]

I can't see the US Military moving away from FMJ - the rest of NATO uses it. With FMJ, a bigger hole makes more sense, so that .45 ACP (esp that swanky P227) may be the way they go. However, keep in mind there are more women in the military then there were back when the Beretta M9 was selected. So, a thinner grip for smaller hands...

[Quigley]

I know a couple SF guys who said they carried what ever side arm they wanted in the sand box on missions. The one I know the best carried a Glock 19. One of my absolute favorite hands guns.

I agree! I love the 19 and would take it over any pistol in combat


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Reverenddel]

Yeeeessss... I also have fallen in love with the 227. Once I have found the one I like that comes with a threaded bbl, and night sights. I will probably put it on lay-away... considering the expense of the gun, magazines, and such.

[Wolvee]

It will have to have better penatration than 9 mm while not increasing felt recoil. My guess is it's going to be a bullet something like the fn 5.7 or Hk's 4.6x30.



....that is if the Government actually finishes and accepts a new pistol.

We've all been here before.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[grumpyMSG]

It will have to have better penatration than 9 mm while not increasing felt recoil. My guess is it's going to be a bullet something like the fn 5.7 or Hk's 4.6x30.



....that is if the Government actually finishes and accepts a new pistol.

We've all been here before.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

The FN 5.7 is an overrated joke with great marketing. If the M4 is considered borderline on stopping power with a 62 grain M855 bullet with a 2970 FPS muzzle velocity, how can a similar diameter bullet in 30-40 grains at 2100-1700 FPS (Heavier bullets have the lower velocities) be considered an optimal pistol round? With the 5.56 military rounds it has been determined that for optimal performance with yaw being induced the round has to be moving at least 2500 FPS which translates to about 140-150 yards for a 14.5 inch barreled M4, which is why the Marines want to keep the 20 inch barrel on the M16A4, pushing it out beyond 200 yards before dropping below the magic number.

Now just for giggles compare the 5.7s numbers to an M1 carbine's 110-115 grain bullets at 1900-2000 FPS and a not so impressive reputation for stopping power. There is just no way the FN 5.7's performance will ever match the hype.

[Wolvee]

I agree with you; mostly. I would never compare FN's 5.7 round to the .30, it just doesn't make sense especially since we're talking about handguns.

They don't need something harder hitting for a secondary weapon system as they need penetration. Reading the articles and the quotes you can tell the Rep has no idea what he's talking about.

It might be better for combat to have a larger round hitting harder but the Army is not going to pay for the proper training of all it's Soldiers to shoot a big thumpy round. Hell, they barely give any real training for M9. "..Here's a Gun with a convoluted course of fire, Go qualify or you're carrying the ammo." If MSG in your name means what I think it does, you know what I'm talking about.

My theory is (providing the budget & market is there) they will want bottle necked round with a small bullet and good penetration for walls and sheet metal.

[scrubber3]

I'd bet my life savings on the current M9 continuing it's rein as the official sidearm... There may be a change in ammo design, but I doubt it. Every now and then Big Army likes to get everyone's hopes up only to drop it like its hot. This isn't the first time they've done this, it surely won't be the last. Having said that, pistol rounds suck for stopping anyone(9mm-.45). Period. With the amount of women serving, I seriously doubt they're gonna increase recoil or size due to small hands and recoil characteristics. The 9 is here to stay and so is the big B.

Clunk, Clunk.. My 2 pennies

[wittmeba]

I think scrubber3 sums it up very well.

All the variables of those handguns and calibers seem to be maxed out. Each one is a trade-off for another benefit. They have all been around for several years. It all comes back to shot placement.

I do think a middle-of-the-road caliber between 9MM and .45 would be the best choice. Pursuing new hardware gives them the opportunity to change calibers and may make sense.

From what I've read there isn't too much difference in penetration between a 9MM and .357. I'm sure most have seen these penetration gel tests (and they are hollow point which I probably should not have mentioned).

[scrubber3]

To be honest, I think the 5.7 pistol would be a great choice as a replacement and here's why: 1-the round is effective(look at the first Ft Hood shooting). 2-There is very little recoil. 3-It is very accurate. 4-It weighs less than other rounds. 5-It holds 20 rounds. 6-It can penetrate body armor easily. 7-It's a proven design.

Do I have one? No. Do I want one? Eventually...

Fact of the matter here is that handgun round (minus the large revolver rounds) have VERY LITTLE stopping power. The handgun caliber war is moot. What gives the overall best advantage over what we are using now? See above.

[WRW]

I don't think the Ft. Hood shooting is a fair representation of effectiveness. The 5.7 worked great, as would any caliber in that setting, until met with armed resistance.

And, yes, pistol rounds suck, comparatively speaking.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[scrubber3]

I don't think the Ft. Hood shooting is a fair representation of effectiveness. The 5.7 worked great, as would any caliber in that setting, until met with armed resistance.

And, yes, pistol rounds suck, comparatively speaking.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Why isn't it a fair example? Why would it compared to any other handgun round not work as well against armed resistance?

[WRW]

"Cause any caliber would have worked as well in that setting" is the point.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[scrubber3]

"Cause any caliber would have worked as well in that setting" is the point.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

5.7= high round capacity, very low recoil, and more effective/accurate at distance. Therefore making it easier to shoot quickly and accurately. I've shot several more times than I can remember back to back with other pistol calibers. It that setting, it likely gave him the ability to be more effective than he may have possibly been otherwise. But saying it either way is a moot point due to the fact that a real world comparison is impossible. I was simply stating that it was effective and the FT hood shooting proved that.

[WRW]

At distance, I'd prefer a rifle round. If the purpose of the handgun were as a backup for running out of rifle ammunition, I would rather have equivalent weight of additional rifle ammunition.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

If you run out of ammo in a rifle fight, a pistol isn't going to help. I think you will find most agree a pistol is a 50m or less weapon with ideal ranges being under 20m.

I personally always thought the military had pistols for extremely tight area's (tunnels, crawl spaces, etc.), in the event you are in CQC and you run dry with a hostile right in front of you, or if the enemy was inside the minimum range of your rifle, i.e, closer than the tip of the rifle barrel. What else? Maybe when you are not in "Ready", something goes down and you need to fight to a rifle?

[BertMacklin]

Y'all remember that document someone put up about gunshots from a Doc's perspective. In which users of 5.7's, and similarly the MP7, said when armor was taken out of the equation they remained ineffective, even compared to other handgun rounds, much like a 22. Magnum wound. Good perhaps for giving rear rifle-less personnel the ability to fight an individual target, with or without body armor. However, in any other sense it was less effective then other machine pistols or rifles. Versatile, like a crescent wrench but not the most effective when you have a whole toolbox.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/0 ... f-defense/

I like this because its real statistics of use other than straight ballistic tests. Few notable findings is the 380. acp nearly keeps up with other full sized rounds. 357. performs better than most other rounds, based on number required, % fatality and % not incapacitated. Smaller guns are almost as deadly, even 22. and 25. ACP, however when rounds were not fatal smaller rounds failed more often in incapacitating.

Shotguns, and rifles too though not shown here, will still outperform everything under the sun.

[battledrill4]

By that, the Army means, "We need to put new trigger springs in all our magazines and actually teach people how to shoot." Just once, I beg you, find your way onto an Army officers' 9mm qualy. A total goat-rope.

[skeeterss0]

looks like S&W is out of the Army equation

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/26/investi ... _expansion

guess they will stick with the Barretta.

[wittmeba]

Funny how they jump back and forth. One year it is most important to have knock-down power, then reduced recoil, then round capacity, etc.

They need to assess ammo then find the best gun to deliver.

Here is a pretty thorough assessment of ammo.
http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-de ... tic-tests/

It seems laughable that they specifically want harder hitting ammo then want to follow the rules of the Geneva Convention. I guess napalm is more gentle when used on villages/complexes so it is acceptable.