Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The truth is .45 ball isn't any more effective than 9mm ball.  A study I seen noted that .45 ball had 2% more 1 shot stops than 9mm. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with whatever gun expert your talking about.  It was a study done by scientists and it was conclusive that .45 ball didn't really have a lethality advantage over 9mm ball. That is the truth regardless if you want to believe it or not Bad news rm. It has been proven that all those stats written by a certain "gun expert" showing 98% one shot stop this, 75%  one shot stop that, were made up. As in pulled out of his ass.

Quoted: Seriously, if you are surrounded by seven armed guys and all you have is a pistol, you are pretty much boned. I hear all the time, "put it in the black and it doesn't matter what caliber it is", great, as long as you are a fucking IPSC champ or something, who can shoot on the move at a moving target that is also returning fire and make pinpoint hits everytime, but most of the people who get pistols don't even come close to that kind of skill level. Maybe all you 9mm hardball patrons do, but i'd like to withhold my accolades until I see it for myself.

I agree ^. I wouldnt wanna face 7 bad guys armed with Assault Rifles even if I had an M4.

7 shots or 20 shots wont make a differance if your dead before you can emty the first clip (IMHO).

Speaking of 20 rounds why is noone for a FN 5.7, 20 rounds with barely any recoil, also very accurate and light.




Not trying to argue or start a war, just wondering about peoples opinions on 9mm highcap over .45 power.





Not trying to be smart but: "who's the hero wanting to take a 9mm round to the chest" I'd rather take a 9mm FMJ round to the chest more then a .45 FMJ (If I was to get shot).

I'd also rather face someone shooting a 9mm at me then someone shooting a .45 at me.

Just my thoughts on the subject, of course I dont have much experiance in these situations anyways.

Quoted: I thought one of the guns in an early link talked about an HK 1.5 stack, so I'm guessing they're trying to address the fat grip issue with that.

That was my link. The HK45 is a "1.5" stack, it has a 10rd semi staggered mag, and a correspondingly thinner grip than the USP45 with a 12rd mag.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: funny colt produced 1911s all thru the war and they ran fine.....and they did not cost 1500, Assuming you meant WWII; look up the time-value of money.  You could buy a really nice house for a few grand 60 years ago.  So in constant dollar terms, a well made 1911 costs the same today as it did then.  Skilled labor is expensive. G I would have to see some data on that to agree. Your saying that a 1911 mass produced in the 1940s cost the same as a Springfield 1911 produced today....... You are fucking daft.  No, that is not what I am saying. G I doubt it. Even if your refering to inflation being of constant value, I still would think that the older 1911s were cheaper than newer  models produced.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The truth is .45 ball isn't any more effective than 9mm ball.  A study I seen noted that .45 ball had 2% more 1 shot stops than 9mm. That is the truth regardless if you want to believe it or not

I've spent a lot of time down range w/ people having first hand experience regarding the effectiveness of 9mm ball and I've never heard favorable reviews. If we were talking about Cor-bon 115 grain JHP+P or some equivelant load I'd agree the 9mm can be just as effective as a .45 but that's not what's issued. That being said I'll take the significanlty larger surface area of a mushroomed .45 over a 9mm if given a choice. YMAWMV (Your Mileage And Wisdom May Very)

I think the money would be better spent on giving soldiers some actual combat pistol training. Military pistol training pales in comparison to what is available in the civilian world, and I think it would be better to remedy that instead of just getting a new pistol.  

Quoted: The M9's fat grip is a huge problem(no pun) with most shooters who try to use a proper military grip on the weapon. The new .45 should be single or 1.5(?) stack. The DA/SA is another stupid idea, transitioning from da to sa pull without stringing out the hits is hard and takes practice. More than it is worth for a secondary weapon. Why hasn't anyone brought up how IDIOTIC the shot counter requirement is?

because its not a requirement, its an Objective. the pistol DOES NOT have to have one, but they want one that does.

Quoted: 7 shots or 20 shots wont make a differance if your dead before you can emty the first clip (IMHO). Speaking of 20 rounds why is noone for a FN 5.7, 20 rounds with barely any recoil, also very accurate and light.

I think no one is bringing up the Five Seven because they want to neutralize targets rather than piss them off.

Proven rounds,  and a .224 pistol round isn't one.

How about a Highpoint.

Quoted: Quoted: The M9's fat grip is a huge problem(no pun) with most shooters who try to use a proper military grip on the weapon. The new .45 should be single or 1.5(?) stack. The DA/SA is another stupid idea, transitioning from da to sa pull without stringing out the hits is hard and takes practice. More than it is worth for a secondary weapon. Why hasn't anyone brought up how IDIOTIC the shot counter requirement is? because its not a requirement, its an Objective. the pistol DOES NOT have to have one, but they want one that does.

It's a pure blue-sky pipe dream. The fact that it even made it to the final draft speaks volumes about the amount of stupidity in the Pentagon.
The technology isn't ready for a GPMG or even a tank's top mounted MG.
How the hell are they going to fit it in a handgun and make it durable enough to last for years at the small unit level?

Quoted: It's a pure blue-sky pipe dream. The fact that it even made it to the final draft speaks volumes about the amount of stupidity in the Pentagon. The technology isn't ready for a GPMG or even a tank's top mounted MG. How the hell are they going to fit it in a handgun and make it durable enough to last for years at the small unit level?

I read the link to the Glock patent one once, and it had something to do with detecting some electromagnetic pulse that occurs naturally from the round going off,  if I remember correctly.

I think if it can be boiled down to something the size of a couple stacked dimes, adding minimal weight, and with a mechanism that does not interfere with the guns operation in any way, I wouldn't have a problem with it.   If it was any larger or heavier, I agree it's not mature enough to include in a gun yet.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The truth is .45 ball isn't any more effective than 9mm ball.  A study I seen noted that .45 ball had 2% more 1 shot stops than 9mm. That is the truth regardless if you want to believe it or not

Um...think about how that system works.  If I have one shooting on record that was a one-shot stop with a .22 short, that gives the .22 short a 100% OSS.  Do you see the flaw in the thinking here?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The truth is .45 ball isn't any more effective than 9mm ball.  A study I seen noted that .45 ball had 2% more 1 shot stops than 9mm. That is the truth regardless if you want to believe it or not I've spent a lot of time down range w/ people having first hand experience regarding the effectiveness of 9mm ball and I've never heard favorable reviews. If we were talking about Cor-bon 115 grain JHP+P or some equivelant load I'd agree the 9mm can be just as effective as a .45 but that's not what's issued. That being said I'll take the significanlty larger surface area of a mushroomed .45 over a 9mm if given a choice. YMAWMV (Your Mileage And Wisdom May Very)

Straight out of Marshall and Sanow's playbook.

I like the beretta.  I don't have big hands and I find it more comfortable in any way compared to a 1911.  I don't dislike .45.  But I don't dislike 9mm.  For every story of someone not liking it there's another of one that does.  A .45 caliber sidearm would be a good choice.  I think the sig would be a very good choice too.  And if they did adopt a .45, maybe it would eventually drive .45 prices down with some surplus.  That would be a good thing.  But I personally shoot my Beretta, from what I can tell, better than I do my 1911. I don't know if it's the recoil, comfort or if  it's just a personal preference thing.  And don't give me this crap that it wont kill you.  There are more 9mm's in the hands of professionals at this very instant than .45's.  And people in our country.  There may be times that it doesn't work.  Just as a .45 isn't a death ray either.  It's a pistol.  It's usually a back up to a more deadly weapon to begin with.  I don't think I'd want to go into Iraq or somewhere like that, into battle with JUST a pistol, either one of them.  But as my back up, I think I'd prefer a Beretta because I shoot it better.  And the higher capacity is a little comforting too.

Quoted: Straight out of Marshall and Sanow's playbook. I like the beretta.  I don't have big hands and I find it more comfortable in any way compared to a 1911.  I don't dislike .45.  But I don't dislike 9mm.  For every story of someone not liking it there's another of one that does.  A .45 caliber sidearm would be a good choice.  I think the sig would be a very good choice too.  And if they did adopt a .45, maybe it would eventually drive .45 prices down with some surplus.  That would be a good thing.  But I personally shoot my Beretta, from what I can tell, better than I do my 1911. I don't know if it's the recoil, comfort or if  it's just a personal preference thing.  And don't give me this crap that it wont kill you.  There are more 9mm's in the hands of professionals at this very instant than .45's.  And people in our country.  There may be times that it doesn't work.  Just as a .45 isn't a death ray either.  It's a pistol.  It's usually a back up to a more deadly weapon to begin with.  I don't think I'd want to go into Iraq or somewhere like that, into battle with JUST a pistol, either one of them.  But as my back up, I think I'd prefer a Beretta because I shoot it better.  And the higher capacity is a little comforting too.

And this means what?

Quoted: Quoted: Straight out of Marshall and Sanow's playbook. I like the beretta.  I don't have big hands and I find it more comfortable in any way compared to a 1911.  I don't dislike .45.  But I don't dislike 9mm.  For every story of someone not liking it there's another of one that does.  A .45 caliber sidearm would be a good choice.  I think the sig would be a very good choice too.  And if they did adopt a .45, maybe it would eventually drive .45 prices down with some surplus.  That would be a good thing.  But I personally shoot my Beretta, from what I can tell, better than I do my 1911. I don't know if it's the recoil, comfort or if  it's just a personal preference thing.  And don't give me this crap that it wont kill you.  There are more 9mm's in the hands of professionals at this very instant than .45's.  And people in our country.  There may be times that it doesn't work.  Just as a .45 isn't a death ray either.  It's a pistol.  It's usually a back up to a more deadly weapon to begin with.  I don't think I'd want to go into Iraq or somewhere like that, into battle with JUST a pistol, either one of them.  But as my back up, I think I'd prefer a Beretta because I shoot it better.  And the higher capacity is a little comforting too. And this means what?

It means that some people prefer 9mm and the Beretta, while other people prefer .45 and the 1911.  Pistols are pistols and rifles are rifles, I know it's been said before and i'm going to say it again, use what works best for you.  The military, however, has needs/requirements that are significantly different than those of law enforcement or civilians.  Military weapons have to go bang every time, be so reliable that they will keep going bang even if not properly maintained, and be so simple to use that any idiot can use it without shooting himself in the foot.  They also have to be cheap and they have to use ball, as well as having to be in a caliber that is in common military usage (9mm).  Put all of this together and you're going to have a pistol that doesn't offer much in terms of overall performance/accuracy over what's available on the civilian or police market.  There simply aren't any pistols that will offer anything over the capabilities of the M9 for the same price today, that being why the SIG lost.  I consider the SIG to be a better pistol overall, but the military is interested in equipment made by the lowest bidder, and that's not going to change.  What would be great for military/service use is a SIG P226 variant that is chambered in .45 and takes double-stack mags, but then the grip size would be too bulky for female shooters and small-handed men.  In short, until somebody comes up with something new or something that is really all that much superior to (or cheaper than) the M9, we're going to stick with the M9.  

Ok... some food for thought.

SOCOM is bascially deciding on which pistol to go with? What part of SOCOM? People say SOCOM and automatically think operators. Well, if that's the case, how can they be chosen to make that decision when there are no female operators?

The HK USP .45 and all it's variations are a massive handgun. Yes I've fired one. I sang its praises before firing it and stopped the second I actually did fire it. Didn't like anything about it.

Taurus? You have to be kidding. I only just discovered just how evil Taurus is because of their affiliation with the  Metal Storm program... read here.

Is there any reason a company can't just come up with a better 9mm ammo? One that kills better? Seems to me there is a better chance of making a 9mm bullet that rips guts apart than having to switch all of the sidearms in the military AND the ammo (which I suspect would be far more expensive than simply improving the 9mm round).

Just like the problem with lethality in 5.56mm. There are 5.56 mm round that have a higher lethality... but because some genius applied "rules" to how we can kill someone, our troops aren't allowed to use the rounds that kill the best.

Let's face it... the military doesn't exactly buy the best ammo for the job. I'm no ammo expert but I'd venture to say that there might actually be a 9mm round on the market already that is not only better than the 9mm round the .mil currently uses but also better than the .45 round the .mil would use in the .45JCP. So what would make more sense in terms of spending? Use better ammo with the pistols already in service or change everything and more than likely spend inifitely more money in the process.

Quoted: Quoted: And this means what? It means that some people prefer 9mm and the Beretta, while other people prefer .45 and the 1911.  Pistols are pistols and rifles are rifles, I know it's been said before and i'm going to say it again, use what works best for you.  The military, however, has needs/requirements that are significantly different than those of law enforcement or civilians.  Military weapons have to go bang every time, be so reliable that they will keep going bang even if not properly maintained, and be so simple to use that any idiot can use it without shooting himself in the foot.  They also have to be cheap and they have to use ball, as well as having to be in a caliber that is in common military usage (9mm).  Put all of this together and you're going to have a pistol that doesn't offer much in terms of overall performance/accuracy over what's available on the civilian or police market.  There simply aren't any pistols that will offer anything over the capabilities of the M9 for the same price today, that being why the SIG lost.  I consider the SIG to be a better pistol overall, but the military is interested in equipment made by the lowest bidder, and that's not going to change.  What would be great for military/service use is a SIG P226 variant that is chambered in .45 and takes double-stack mags, but then the grip size would be too bulky for female shooters and small-handed men.  In short, until somebody comes up with something new or something that is really all that much superior to (or cheaper than) the M9, we're going to stick with the M9.

Let me rephrase, what does that post have anything to do w/ what I was talking about, lol. I commented on 9mm ball vs. .45 ball effectiveness. And for the record M9's don't go bang every time, lol. Take a trip to the desert sometime and you learn that first hand.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And this means what? It means that some people prefer 9mm and the Beretta, while other people prefer .45 and the 1911.  Pistols are pistols and rifles are rifles, I know it's been said before and i'm going to say it again, use what works best for you.  The military, however, has needs/requirements that are significantly different than those of law enforcement or civilians.  Military weapons have to go bang every time, be so reliable that they will keep going bang even if not properly maintained, and be so simple to use that any idiot can use it without shooting himself in the foot.  They also have to be cheap and they have to use ball, as well as having to be in a caliber that is in common military usage (9mm).  Put all of this together and you're going to have a pistol that doesn't offer much in terms of overall performance/accuracy over what's available on the civilian or police market.  There simply aren't any pistols that will offer anything over the capabilities of the M9 for the same price today, that being why the SIG lost.  I consider the SIG to be a better pistol overall, but the military is interested in equipment made by the lowest bidder, and that's not going to change.  What would be great for military/service use is a SIG P226 variant that is chambered in .45 and takes double-stack mags, but then the grip size would be too bulky for female shooters and small-handed men.  In short, until somebody comes up with something new or something that is really all that much superior to (or cheaper than) the M9, we're going to stick with the M9.   Let me rephrase, what does that post have anything to do w/ what I was talking about, lol. I commented on 9mm ball vs. .45 ball effectiveness. And for the record M9's don't go bang every time, lol. Take a trip to the desert sometime and you learn that first hand.

Alright, so you've been to the desert I take it.  At least, that's how I read your response.  In all your travels, the only malfunction you seen with any weapon was with an M9?  Is this correct?  And was it related to the crappy mags the military gave everyone or did the slide break in half?

I did comment somewhat on the effectiveness of the caliber in question (9mm).  Maybe Seals are forced to take a sig but from what I understand it is common knowledge that they DO take sigs.  Army Special Forces by and large take M9's.  The HK Mk23 or whatever it is and the 1911 are used on a very limited basis from what I understand.  Again, for every acnedoctal evidence that the 9mm sucks rocks there are guys shooting people with them and winning fights.  As there have been for years and years and years.  Does a .45 have an edge.  Maybe.  But there is give and take.  If someone chooses a 1911, they are limited to 7,8, or 10 rounds.  I can fit 17 in my M9. (for some reason all 3 of my Beretta factory mags will hold 16 rounds.  Some people may actually like the ergonomics, soldiers included, of an M9 or a M11(sig) over the 1911 or socom for that matter.  But to suggest that a .45 will just kill everyone DRT and you'll have to shoot someone with a 9mm twice as much or more is in my opinion just ignorant.  I'm not saying that they are exactly equal.  I'm saying they all can be deadly, including the 9mm handguns.   And people who are jumping up and down over the fact that a .45 might be general issue may be putting their hopes and trusts too much in the caliber and not in training and practicing, like someone else wisely mentioned.

Quoted: Alright, so you've been to the desert I take it. Yeah, about 2 1/2 years total time down range since 2000 At least, that's how I read your response.  In all your travels, the only malfunction you seen with any weapon was with an M9?  Is this correct? No I never said that nor did I imply it And was it related to the crappy mags the military gave everyone or did the slide break in half? Crappy mags I did comment somewhat on the effectiveness of the caliber in question (9mm).  Maybe Seals are forced to take a sig but from what I understand it is common knowledge that they DO take sigs.  Army Special Forces by and large take M9's.  The HK Mk23 or whatever it is and the 1911 are used on a very limited basis from what I understand.  Again, for every acnedoctal evidence that the 9mm sucks rocks there are guys shooting people with them and winning fights.  As there have been for years and years and years.  Does a .45 have an edge.  Maybe.  But there is give and take.  If someone chooses a 1911, they are limited to 7,8, or 10 rounds.  I can fit 17 in my M9. (for some reason all 3 of my Beretta factory mags will hold 16 rounds.  Some people may actually like the ergonomics, soldiers included, of an M9 or a M11(sig) over the 1911 or socom for that matter.  But to suggest that a .45 will just kill everyone DRT and you'll have to shoot someone with a 9mm twice as much or more is in my opinion just ignorant. At what point did I ever say or imply this? Do yourself a favor and start reading and stop assuming. You're looking for an arguemant where there is none. I'm not saying that they are exactly equal.  I'm saying they all can be deadly, including the 9mm handguns.   I agree, reread my original post and note that I said w/ different ammo the 9mm is just as effective as the .45. I do think ammo selection is much more critical if you're using a 9mm and unfortunately we aren't given a choice in the military And people who are jumping up and down over the fact that a .45 might be general issue may be putting their hopes and trusts too much in the caliber and not in training and practicing, like someone else wisely mentioned. agreed, putting shots on target is much more important then caliber size, all things being equal though .45 ball has a greater chance of causing more tissue damage and has a higher one shot stop percentage then 9mm ball. Higher capacity is definitely a plus on the side of the 9mm. Lastly, while I am a fan of the 1911 I would not want to carry one down range but I would prefer something in .45 (if ammo was more widely available, .45 was very hard to come by when I was in Iraq). I hope we are clear now.

Quoted: Quoted: Alright, so you've been to the desert I take it. Yeah, about 2 1/2 years total time down range since 2000 At least, that's how I read your response.  In all your travels, the only malfunction you seen with any weapon was with an M9?  Is this correct? No I never said that nor did I imply it And was it related to the crappy mags the military gave everyone or did the slide break in half? Crappy mags I did comment somewhat on the effectiveness of the caliber in question (9mm).  Maybe Seals are forced to take a sig but from what I understand it is common knowledge that they DO take sigs.  Army Special Forces by and large take M9's.  The HK Mk23 or whatever it is and the 1911 are used on a very limited basis from what I understand.  Again, for every acnedoctal evidence that the 9mm sucks rocks there are guys shooting people with them and winning fights.  As there have been for years and years and years.  Does a .45 have an edge.  Maybe.  But there is give and take.  If someone chooses a 1911, they are limited to 7,8, or 10 rounds.  I can fit 17 in my M9. (for some reason all 3 of my Beretta factory mags will hold 16 rounds.  Some people may actually like the ergonomics, soldiers included, of an M9 or a M11(sig) over the 1911 or socom for that matter.  But to suggest that a .45 will just kill everyone DRT and you'll have to shoot someone with a 9mm twice as much or more is in my opinion just ignorant. At what point did I ever say or imply this? Do yourself a favor and start reading and stop assuming. You're looking for an arguemant where there is none. I'm not saying that they are exactly equal.  I'm saying they all can be deadly, including the 9mm handguns.   I agree, reread my original post and note that I said w/ different ammo the 9mm is just as effective as the .45. I do think ammo selection is much more critical if you're using a 9mm and unfortunately we aren't given a choice in the military And people who are jumping up and down over the fact that a .45 might be general issue may be putting their hopes and trusts too much in the caliber and not in training and practicing, like someone else wisely mentioned. agreed, putting shots on target is much more important then caliber size, all things being equal though .45 ball has a greater chance of causing more tissue damage and has a higher one shot stop percentage then 9mm ball. Higher capacity is definitely a plus on the side of the 9mm. Lastly, while I am a fan of the 1911 I would not want to carry one down range but I would prefer something in .45 (if ammo was more widely available, .45 was very hard to come by when I was in Iraq). I hope we are clear now.

I got you.  I think where we are probably disagreeing is about the cor-bon 115 +p HP being a great  stopper and that 9mm HAS to have an HP to be deadly.  I am not sold on the HP hype even in 9mm.  And especially in the lighter weights.  The Marshall and Sanow studies claim that the load you stated is one of the best and from what I can tell, there are many ballistic experts that would not agree with them.    When I'm referring to the usefulness of 9mm and performing well, I am including Nato ball in my discussion. I personally would rather have a round that had a better reputation for penetration, than not enough.  And even more so in a war zone, due to the fact that heavy clothing, mags and etc may be somewhat of a barrier in itself on a person.       But there are obviously things we agree on, especially the part about shots on target.  

Thank you for serving.

Quoted: Ok... some food for thought. SOCOM is bascially deciding on which pistol to go with? What part of SOCOM? People say SOCOM and automatically think operators. Well, if that's the case, how can they be chosen to make that decision when there are no female operators? The HK USP .45 and all it's variations are a massive handgun. Yes I've fired one. I sang its praises before firing it and stopped the second I actually did fire it. Didn't like anything about it. Taurus? You have to be kidding. I only just discovered just how evil Taurus is because of their affiliation with the  Metal Storm program... read here. Is there any reason a company can't just come up with a better 9mm ammo? One that kills better? Seems to me there is a better chance of making a 9mm bullet that rips guts apart than having to switch all of the sidearms in the military AND the ammo (which I suspect would be far more expensive than simply improving the 9mm round). Just like the problem with lethality in 5.56mm. There are 5.56 mm round that have a higher lethality... but because some genius applied "rules" to how we can kill someone, our troops aren't allowed to use the rounds that kill the best. Let's face it... the military doesn't exactly buy the best ammo for the job. I'm no ammo expert but I'd venture to say that there might actually be a 9mm round on the market already that is not only better than the 9mm round the .mil currently uses but also better than the .45 round the .mil would use in the .45JCP. So what would make more sense in terms of spending? Use better ammo with the pistols already in service or change everything and more than likely spend inifitely more money in the process.

You're entirely correct.  Operators have different requirements for sidearms than most of the military.  We really should be using better ammo, especially since we're not legally bound by the Hague accords, but we seem to follow them anyway.  One potential loophole is that the Hague accords are applied to warfare between two recognized national armed forces, and terrorists/insurgents are NOT a recognized armed force.  Hence why treating them like POW's when captured is inappropriate.  Also, I think our money overall would be better spent on proper training for everybody who is to be issued a sidearm so that they actually know how to use and are proficient with their issued weapon.  Either that, or we could always further limit the issue of pistols in general and simply start issuing more M4's instead.  I personally would rather have the M4 for self-defense, esp if I was a combat medic or anything like that.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Alright, so you've been to the desert I take it. Yeah, about 2 1/2 years total time down range since 2000 At least, that's how I read your response.  In all your travels, the only malfunction you seen with any weapon was with an M9?  Is this correct? No I never said that nor did I imply it And was it related to the crappy mags the military gave everyone or did the slide break in half? Crappy mags I did comment somewhat on the effectiveness of the caliber in question (9mm).  Maybe Seals are forced to take a sig but from what I understand it is common knowledge that they DO take sigs.  Army Special Forces by and large take M9's.  The HK Mk23 or whatever it is and the 1911 are used on a very limited basis from what I understand.  Again, for every acnedoctal evidence that the 9mm sucks rocks there are guys shooting people with them and winning fights.  As there have been for years and years and years.  Does a .45 have an edge.  Maybe.  But there is give and take.  If someone chooses a 1911, they are limited to 7,8, or 10 rounds.  I can fit 17 in my M9. (for some reason all 3 of my Beretta factory mags will hold 16 rounds.  Some people may actually like the ergonomics, soldiers included, of an M9 or a M11(sig) over the 1911 or socom for that matter.  But to suggest that a .45 will just kill everyone DRT and you'll have to shoot someone with a 9mm twice as much or more is in my opinion just ignorant. At what point did I ever say or imply this? Do yourself a favor and start reading and stop assuming. You're looking for an arguemant where there is none. I'm not saying that they are exactly equal.  I'm saying they all can be deadly, including the 9mm handguns.   I agree, reread my original post and note that I said w/ different ammo the 9mm is just as effective as the .45. I do think ammo selection is much more critical if you're using a 9mm and unfortunately we aren't given a choice in the military And people who are jumping up and down over the fact that a .45 might be general issue may be putting their hopes and trusts too much in the caliber and not in training and practicing, like someone else wisely mentioned. agreed, putting shots on target is much more important then caliber size, all things being equal though .45 ball has a greater chance of causing more tissue damage and has a higher one shot stop percentage then 9mm ball. Higher capacity is definitely a plus on the side of the 9mm. Lastly, while I am a fan of the 1911 I would not want to carry one down range but I would prefer something in .45 (if ammo was more widely available, .45 was very hard to come by when I was in Iraq). I hope we are clear now. I got you.  I think where we are probably disagreeing is about the cor-bon 115 +p HP being a great  stopper and that 9mm HAS to have an HP to be deadly.  I am not sold on the HP hype even in 9mm.  And especially in the lighter weights.  The Marshall and Sanow studies claim that the load you stated is one of the best and from what I can tell, there are many ballistic experts that would not agree with them.    When I'm referring to the usefulness of 9mm and performing well, I am including Nato ball in my discussion. I personally would rather have a round that had a better reputation for penetration, than not enough.  And even more so in a war zone, due to the fact that heavy clothing, mags and etc may be somewhat of a barrier in itself on a person.       But there are obviously things we agree on, especially the part about shots on target.   Thank you for serving.

My thoughts are that .45 Ball and 9mm Ball are very similar in their terminal effectiveness.  If you compare Fackler's wound profiles for those two calibers, you'll note that neither bullet really does anything dramatic in the first 10-12 inches of penetration (where it really counts) and that they basically just icepick their way through.  I would be concerned about heavy clothing as well, perhaps even light body armor (like surplus flak vests) because those are likely to impair a HP.  One question I have always had, though, would a JSP round in 9mm or .45 perform better than a JHP ?  I know with rifle caliber JSP's, they make a much nastier wound than JHP or FMJ, I've seen deer who have been shot with all three and the wounds caused by JSP had slightly bigger entrance holes and generally looked much worse than what the other bullet types would do.  I've always wondered if this would relate at all to pistols.  

Quoted: I got you.  I think where we are probably disagreeing is about the cor-bon 115 +p HP being a great  stopper and that 9mm HAS to have an HP to be deadly.  I am not sold on the HP hype even in 9mm.  And especially in the lighter weights.  The Marshall and Sanow studies claim that the load you stated is one of the best and from what I can tell, there are many ballistic experts that would not agree with them.    When I'm referring to the usefulness of 9mm and performing well, I am including Nato ball in my discussion. I personally would rather have a round that had a better reputation for penetration, than not enough.  And even more so in a war zone, due to the fact that heavy clothing, mags and etc may be somewhat of a barrier in itself on a person.       But there are obviously things we agree on, especially the part about shots on target.   Thank you for serving.

I just threw that load out there as an example. I don't even own a 9mm and have no favortism towards any loading in the caliber.  I will say this, over penetration can be a big problem w/ the little bastards in the desert (as it was from what I've read in Somalia)
do to the fact that most of the people over there are on the thin side and thick clothing is not the norm do to climate. A lighter, quickly expanding round would likely be beneficial.  I've always thought the .40 was a nice compromise between the 9mm and .45
Glad we're both on the same page now.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Alright, so you've been to the desert I take it. Yeah, about 2 1/2 years total time down range since 2000 At least, that's how I read your response.  In all your travels, the only malfunction you seen with any weapon was with an M9?  Is this correct? No I never said that nor did I imply it And was it related to the crappy mags the military gave everyone or did the slide break in half? Crappy mags I did comment somewhat on the effectiveness of the caliber in question (9mm).  Maybe Seals are forced to take a sig but from what I understand it is common knowledge that they DO take sigs.  Army Special Forces by and large take M9's.  The HK Mk23 or whatever it is and the 1911 are used on a very limited basis from what I understand.  Again, for every acnedoctal evidence that the 9mm sucks rocks there are guys shooting people with them and winning fights.  As there have been for years and years and years.  Does a .45 have an edge.  Maybe.  But there is give and take.  If someone chooses a 1911, they are limited to 7,8, or 10 rounds.  I can fit 17 in my M9. (for some reason all 3 of my Beretta factory mags will hold 16 rounds.  Some people may actually like the ergonomics, soldiers included, of an M9 or a M11(sig) over the 1911 or socom for that matter.  But to suggest that a .45 will just kill everyone DRT and you'll have to shoot someone with a 9mm twice as much or more is in my opinion just ignorant. At what point did I ever say or imply this? Do yourself a favor and start reading and stop assuming. You're looking for an arguemant where there is none. I'm not saying that they are exactly equal.  I'm saying they all can be deadly, including the 9mm handguns.   I agree, reread my original post and note that I said w/ different ammo the 9mm is just as effective as the .45. I do think ammo selection is much more critical if you're using a 9mm and unfortunately we aren't given a choice in the military And people who are jumping up and down over the fact that a .45 might be general issue may be putting their hopes and trusts too much in the caliber and not in training and practicing, like someone else wisely mentioned. agreed, putting shots on target is much more important then caliber size, all things being equal though .45 ball has a greater chance of causing more tissue damage and has a higher one shot stop percentage then 9mm ball. Higher capacity is definitely a plus on the side of the 9mm. Lastly, while I am a fan of the 1911 I would not want to carry one down range but I would prefer something in .45 (if ammo was more widely available, .45 was very hard to come by when I was in Iraq). I hope we are clear now. I got you.  I think where we are probably disagreeing is about the cor-bon 115 +p HP being a great  stopper and that 9mm HAS to have an HP to be deadly.  I am not sold on the HP hype even in 9mm.  And especially in the lighter weights.  The Marshall and Sanow studies claim that the load you stated is one of the best and from what I can tell, there are many ballistic experts that would not agree with them.    When I'm referring to the usefulness of 9mm and performing well, I am including Nato ball in my discussion. I personally would rather have a round that had a better reputation for penetration, than not enough.  And even more so in a war zone, due to the fact that heavy clothing, mags and etc may be somewhat of a barrier in itself on a person.       But there are obviously things we agree on, especially the part about shots on target.   Thank you for serving. My thoughts are that .45 Ball and 9mm Ball are very similar in their terminal effectiveness.  If you compare Fackler's wound profiles for those two calibers, you'll note that neither bullet really does anything dramatic in the first 10-12 inches of penetration (where it really counts) and that they basically just icepick their way through.  I would be concerned about heavy clothing as well, perhaps even light body armor (like surplus flak vests) because those are likely to impair a HP.  One question I have always had, though, would a JSP round in 9mm or .45 perform better than a JHP ?  I know with rifle caliber JSP's, they make a much nastier wound than JHP or FMJ, I've seen deer who have been shot with all three and the wounds caused by JSP had slightly bigger entrance holes and generally looked much worse than what the other bullet types would do.  I've always wondered if this would relate at all to pistols.

Hey Bob, I agree with you completely about the wound profiles.  FWIW, there was a link in one of the Beretta thread and the soldier / operator, whoever he was said he personally had HP's in Iraq.  It was in a different forum and I couldn't ask him what he was using.  So, I don't think we're following the hague accords all the time, which I know we don't have to.  I'm not sure to what extent that means, I'm sure alot of soldiers still use ball.  You may be right about the JSP's.  I don't know.    Thanks for backing me up.

Quoted: Quoted: I got you.  I think where we are probably disagreeing is about the cor-bon 115 +p HP being a great  stopper and that 9mm HAS to have an HP to be deadly.  I am not sold on the HP hype even in 9mm.  And especially in the lighter weights.  The Marshall and Sanow studies claim that the load you stated is one of the best and from what I can tell, there are many ballistic experts that would not agree with them.    When I'm referring to the usefulness of 9mm and performing well, I am including Nato ball in my discussion. I personally would rather have a round that had a better reputation for penetration, than not enough.  And even more so in a war zone, due to the fact that heavy clothing, mags and etc may be somewhat of a barrier in itself on a person.       But there are obviously things we agree on, especially the part about shots on target.   Thank you for serving. I just threw that load out there as an example. I don't even own a 9mm and have no favortism towards any loading in the caliber.  I will say this, over penetration can be a big problem w/ the little bastards in the desert (as it was from what I've read in Somalia) do to the fact that most of the people over there are on the thin side and thick clothing is not the norm do to climate. A lighter, quickly expanding round would likely be beneficial.  I've always thought the .40 was a nice compromise between the 9mm and .45 Glad we're both on the same page now.

Cool, I understand what you're saying.  Maybe loading FMJ and hollow points wouldn't be that bad of an idea?  Because you never know what you're  going to be shooting at.

Quoted: You're entirely correct.  Operators have different requirements for sidearms than most of the military.  We really should be using better ammo, especially since we're not legally bound by the Hague accords, but we seem to follow them anyway.   One potential loophole is that the Hague accords are applied to warfare between two recognized national armed forces, and terrorists/insurgents are NOT a recognized armed force.   Now how come a "Joe" on the internet can figure that out but not the people who are making the "big decisions"? Also, I think our money overall would be better spent on proper training for everybody who is to be issued a sidearm so that they actually know how to use and are proficient with their issued weapon.   I've said the same thing about any firearms used by .mil. Qualifying on pop-up targets twice a year for the M16/M4 is barely preparing soldiers for combat. After a few times to the range people pretty much have the pop-up targets order memorized. If they don't their "coach" sitting next to them can tell them what target is coming next and where it's coming up. When there are civilians spending their own money to go to special weapons training courses I can't believe that our troops can't get the same kind of training. Qualification for the M9 is a total joke, at least for the Army. Of course it's not like this across the board. You can give troops the biggest baddest pistol with the best ammo in town. If they can't shoot worth a shit there's really no point in spending millions on getting the best weapons for them, is there?

Quoted: Either way...it ain't gonna be a USP Tactical. What do you guys think the HK .45 is being developed for?  It ain't just for shits and grins.

Exactly.

Coming from someone in the Army who is actually issued a pistol.....one step forward, two steps back.

FMJ pistol rounds suck, period.

I'd rather have 16 rounds of 9mm ball than 8 rounds of .45 ball.  

I don't know how many times I've heard some PFC blabbing that .45 caliber will "knock someone on their ass", etc.  

How come the Glock 9mm is okay for Iraqis, but not for us?

Quoted: Coming from someone in the Army who is actually issued a pistol.....one step forward, two steps back. FMJ pistol rounds suck, period. I'd rather have 16 rounds of 9mm ball than 8 rounds of .45 ball.   I don't know how many times I've heard some PFC blabbing that .45 caliber will "knock someone on their ass", etc.   How come the Glock 9mm is okay for Iraqis, but not for us?

Because it's a Glock?

I vote we arm the military with 9MM hollowpoints in 1911's and just be done with the arguement.

Anyone else?

Quoted: Coming from someone in the Army who is actually issued a pistol.....one step forward, two steps back. FMJ pistol rounds suck, period. I'd rather have 16 rounds of 9mm ball than 8 rounds of .45 ball.   I don't know how many times I've heard some PFC blabbing that .45 caliber will "knock someone on their ass", etc.   How come the Glock 9mm is okay for Iraqis, but not for us?

Because US soldiers already get hand-grenades.

Quoted: Quoted: Coming from someone in the Army who is actually issued a pistol.....one step forward, two steps back. FMJ pistol rounds suck, period. I'd rather have 16 rounds of 9mm ball than 8 rounds of .45 ball.   I don't know how many times I've heard some PFC blabbing that .45 caliber will "knock someone on their ass", etc.   How come the Glock 9mm is okay for Iraqis, but not for us? Because US soldiers already get hand-grenades.

That was so funny I forgot to laugh.

G

The new XD would be a good choice.



The grip is perfect in my opinion and is no bigger than my G19.
I am going to buy one.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Coming from someone in the Army who is actually issued a pistol.....one step forward, two steps back. FMJ pistol rounds suck, period. I'd rather have 16 rounds of 9mm ball than 8 rounds of .45 ball.   I don't know how many times I've heard some PFC blabbing that .45 caliber will "knock someone on their ass", etc.   How come the Glock 9mm is okay for Iraqis, but not for us? Because US soldiers already get hand-grenades. That was so funny I forgot to laugh. G

Must suck not having a sense of humor or reality.

Quoted: The new XD would be a good choice. www.springfield-armory.com/images/xd-pistol/XD9301bi.jpg www.springfield-armory.com/images/xd-pistol/XDacp.jpg www.springfield-armory.com/images/xd-pistol/XD9405.jpg The grip is perfect in my opinion and is no bigger than my G19. I am going to buy one.

It'd have to have a manual safety and grips with interchangeable backplates so the grip size can be modified in order to meet the requirements that the military is currently looking for.  Otherwise, I think it would be perfectly acceptable.  

i cant believe people are sticking up for the M9.  one of the biggest pos in the inventory.  even the standard hk usp without a smaller grip would be so much better.  i hope the hk45 works out.  
as far as using 9mm hollow points, i could be wrong, but i thought nato or geneva conv or something does not allow hollow points.

Quoted: That was so funny I forgot to laugh. G

Must suck not having a sense of humor or reality.

Yes, but I'm sure you compensate somehow.

G

The JCP is a combination of the Army's FHS (Future Handgun System) program and SOCOM's SOF CP (SpecialOperations Forces Combat Pistol) program. The SOF CP would have allowed 1911s to compete, but SAO  (single action only) pistols were eliminated from the JCP. Darn.

645,000 over 10 yrs is a lot of pistols. The original M9 contract awarded in 1985 was for about 320,000 pistols over 5 yrs. We have purchased about 450,000 total since then.

Youse guys are confusing (T) thresholds (required) with (O) objectives (desired).

An adjustable grip is (O) desired, not (T) required. So far.

It won't be a 1911 unless it's a DA/SA or DAO or SFA 1911 that can be configured w and w/o a safety and configured either way at the unit level.

Has to be a commercially available non developmental item.

Low bidder does not necessarily win the contract; govt can choose the "best value".

They define DA/SA, DAO, and SFA different than most do.

The govt response to industry questions of the draft RFP had some intersting answers:

39.  In RFP Technical Evaluation, (Factor 3 Management) Section 4.1.3.2, the
draft request for proposals requests a plan for domestic transition of
production "if applicable", but the request for proposals does not actually
require domestic production or a transition to domestic production if
production is currently overseas.  For this reason, I had assumed that the
domestic transition of production was only applicable if the bidder chose to
do so, but that there is no requirement to transition to domestic production
and, accordingly, no negative evaluation will be given to a proposal that
retains production outside the U.S.  Is this understanding correct?

Answer:  Your proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the Buy American
Act and Balance of Payments Program provisions which will be included in the
solicitation.  This clause implements the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C.
Section 10a-d).


45.  Under Section 3.2.3 (Service Life) of the draft Performance
Specification, is a receiver still considered "usable" if it can still be
used but has visible cracks or other signs of wear, or is some other
definition of "usable" contemplated and, if so, what is that definition?

Answer:  If the receiver shows signs of wear or visible cracks which have no
impact on the safe operation of the pistol, it is considered usable.


51.  Item 3.4.1 Action. Will all Striker Fired Actions be considered Double
Action Only regardless of what the striker does during the action of pulling
the trigger? Is there any Double Action definition as to what makes it a DA
or DA pull? How will Double Action be defined?

Answer:  The specification will be changed to state: DA/SA is defined as an
action that sets and releases the sear with the first pull of the trigger,
with subsequent shots being single action, only releasing the sear from a
preset position, to fire the weapon. DAO/ Striker Fire is defined as an
action that sets and released the sear with every pull of the trigger. Note:
Any Striker Fire action that fully sets the sear will be considered DA/SA.


63.  What do you mean by "Modular Action" and what will be required to for
it to be considered changed. Item 4.4.1 states that the JCP must be able to
be able to be changed from DAO to DA/SA, and back. If this is the case, how
does the striker fired guns fall into this category? If the gun must be
reconfigured from "Striker-Fired Action" which is considered DAO to a DA/SA
gun which requires both a cocking action trigger pull and a pre-cocked
action trigger pull as well as a de-cocking lever and external safety lever.
I would appreciate some clarification on this matter.

Answer:  Modular means that the action on the pistol can be changed at the
unit level without modification to the weapon's major assemblies from DAO to
DA/SA, or DA/SA to DAO and back.


They are a little behind schedule:

Final RFP Release:  Projected in January 2006
Proposal Response Deadline:  Projected in March 2006
Expected Contract Award Date:  Projected in 4Q FY06 (Jul - Sep)

Nice post MikeO.
Where did you find this info? Link?

 Since this is a Joint Service project, look and the end numbers and see that for the forseeable future the existing Berettas and SIGs in the system will be with us, mostly in the hands of Aviation, Mechanized,  Reserve Component and Rear eschelon personnel.

 The weapon will probably be something entirely new, (based on existing models perhaps) and will have virtually nothing in common with a 1911/1911A1 other than caliber.  S&W and SIG in cooperation with each other, H&K, SA, and the rest of the usual suspects will have entries, as will Beretta no doubt.  All offshore operations will be required to manufacture onshore, and for the numbers required I don't see H&K or Glock making a real run at this.

 Ground Forces across the board want to have as lethal a handgun (as is feasible) as possible.  The "Operators" say what they need is the .45 so the Infantry Platoon leader  says why don't we get them?  No argument from me.

 Of my 26 years in the military which started out in 1967 and ended in July 05 I have carried a S&W Revolver in .38, a 1911A1 and the Beretta.  I have always been in Aviation.  They all filled a holster, and I knew from day one in the event I was caught on the ground in a real firefight, I was going to be looking for a rifle of any sort as mission #1.  I had cause to use my handgun exactly twice seriously in 26 years, both occasions left me shaken and confirmed my previous statement.

 Military procurement being what it is nobody will be happy with the final decision.  Nobody who thinks the 9mm FMJ is the worlds top round will feel differently as a result of this change nor will anybody in the 45 camp (myself included).  My concern is wiith the guy that carries it.  I have listened to two friends who have returned from Bagdad (one Marine one Army) who were both involved in Urban warfare.  These guys are legs with 24+ years service both laid out why they think it should be a .45 (both agreed a .40 would be better than the 9mm) with rail capability.
That is good enough for me and apparently the DOD.

 Lets just hope that this time they get some real imput from the field and not just Generals from the Pentagon.

 As for me I would like to see the S&W/SIG cabal come up with the winning ticket by producing the "right" pistol.

Quoted:  Since this is a Joint Service project, look and the end numbers and see that for the forseeable future the existing Berettas and SIGs in the system will be with us, mostly in the hands of Aviation, Mechanized,  Reserve Component and Rear eschelon personnel.  The weapon will probably be something entirely new, (based on existing models perhaps) and will have virtually nothing in common with a 1911/1911A1 other than caliber.  S&W and SIG in cooperation with each other, H&K, SA, and the rest of the usual suspects will have entries, as will Beretta no doubt.  All offshore operations will be required to manufacture onshore, and for the numbers required I don't see H&K or Glock making a real run at this.  Ground Forces across the board want to have as lethal a handgun (as is feasible) as possible.  The "Operators" say what they need is the .45 so the Infantry Platoon leader  says why don't we get them?  No argument from me.  Of my 26 years in the military which started out in 1967 and ended in July 05 I have carried a S&W Revolver in .38, a 1911A1 and the Beretta.  I have always been in Aviation.  They all filled a holster, and I knew from day one in the event I was caught on the ground in a real firefight, I was going to be looking for a rifle of any sort as mission #1.  I had cause to use my handgun exactly twice seriously in 26 years, both occasions left me shaken and confirmed my previous statement.  Military procurement being what it is nobody will be happy with the final decision.  Nobody who thinks the 9mm FMJ is the worlds top round will feel differently as a result of this change nor will anybody in the 45 camp (myself included).  My concern is wiith the guy that carries it.  I have listened to two friends who have returned from Bagdad (one Marine one Army) who were both involved in Urban warfare.  These guys are legs with 24+ years service both laid out why they think it should be a .45 (both agreed a .40 would be better than the 9mm) with rail capability. That is good enough for me and apparently the DOD.  Lets just hope that this time they get some real imput from the field and not just Generals from the Pentagon.  As for me I would like to see the S&W/SIG cabal come up with the winning ticket by producing the "right" pistol.

Well, even though I was somewhat making the case for the Beretta and the 9mm, I agree with your post completely.  They guys doing the work should have some say in it and that's really what's important.  It will be interesting to see what the new pistol will be.  It seems as though they are sold on the traditional DA/SA action.  I also wonder, it doesn't really say .45 acp, so I'm wondering if the GAP could be chambered in a pistol.  To me it's a horse a piece between the two, except that you could probably get the GAP in a smaller frame than some other pistols.  

Excellent post and thank you for your service.

Quoted: Even if the Military doesnt accept one of them as a side arm that means that we get new toys form the manufactures. You know that they will develope new weapons just to see if it will fit the bill, thats what happen with the 228 I believe Military didnt accept but Sig gave it to the public. But in reality it will go to the cheapest manufacture like last time............

Both the SIG and the Beretta passed the testing. How after appyling a standardnized test can you determine which is better if both pass? If two kids pass a tests at school, lets say you can either pass or fail, how do you know which is better? I'm sorry but your full of shit on that point. After both were determined to be sufficent, the lowest costing model was chosen. I do not see how you can say the SIG is better than the Beretta when both passed. They are both equal guns based on the test that they passed. Sometimes you people never cease to amaze me.  

Quoted: Quoted: Even if the Military doesnt accept one of them as a side arm that means that we get new toys form the manufactures. You know that they will develope new weapons just to see if it will fit the bill, thats what happen with the 228 I believe Military didnt accept but Sig gave it to the public. But in reality it will go to the cheapest manufacture like last time............ Both the SIG and the Beretta passed the testing. How after appyling a standardnized test can you determine which is better if both pass? If two kids pass a tests at school, lets say you can either pass or fail, how do you know which is better? I'm sorry but your full of shit on that point. After both were determined to be sufficent, the lowest costing model was chosen. I do not see how you can say the SIG is better than the Beretta when both passed. They are both equal guns based on the test that they passed. Sometimes you people never cease to amaze me.

+1, there is nothing wrong with the Beretta.  Any standard issue handgun will have issues at one point.  And I'd be comfortable saying that none of them are due to the fault of the gun itself.  Can you really tell me Sig would have been a better choice?  The thing would have pissed off anyone used to shooting high thumb on a 1911, because the fucking slide would never lock back, that is of course if you were lucky enough to get one that would lock back without a thumb getting in the way.  

My Sig works fine as long as its lubed to the point of spatter showing up on the slide and frame after I fire a round.  Can't see gobs of oil being a good thing when mixed with sand.

Is it possible that your Sig in particular is just finicky?  I've been around a few Sigs with a lot of rounds through them that have ran good.  Slides always lock back, eat any ammo, and dont need a ton of oil on the slide rails to function.

I'm pretty sure though if the P226 had got the contract we'd be hearing about all of its problems too.  People would be saying "they should've went with the Beretta"

There are SIGs in the Navy and they do well.  HSM-7 "the Dusty Dogs" came to stay with us in Kuwait and it was the first time I knew that there were SIGs in the system.  I talked to their Chief one evening at length and he said his crew chiefs and pilots (notice I mentioned enlisted guys first) were about evenly split.

 I carried a Beretta for about 10 years and it was fine, no problems, I bought my own magazines
and kept them for deployments.  I never failed to qualify Expert, and believe this or not never had a failure to feed.  I clean(minimally) and -10 my firearms daily in the field.  I had no complaint with the Beretta, however as a First Sergeant I always knew I would have an M-16 if I needed it.  I would have an M-16 handy if I carried a 45 Auto or any other pistol in any caliber.

 You will never quite appreciate the limitations of a hangun until someone with a rifle does their best to kill you.  

my problem with the M9 is the slide mounted safety.  when on target, with a good grip, i cannot reach the safety with my weapons side thumb.  this makes me uncomfortable and less than safe.  im used to operating a m16 safety with my weapon hand, and the same for my hk.  im sure im not the only one who feels uncomfortable with the M9 for this same reason.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Even if the Military doesnt accept one of them as a side arm that means that we get new toys form the manufactures. You know that they will develope new weapons just to see if it will fit the bill, thats what happen with the 228 I believe Military didnt accept but Sig gave it to the public. But in reality it will go to the cheapest manufacture like last time............ Both the SIG and the Beretta passed the testing. How after appyling a standardnized test can you determine which is better if both pass? If two kids pass a tests at school, lets say you can either pass or fail, how do you know which is better? I'm sorry but your full of shit on that point. After both were determined to be sufficent, the lowest costing model was chosen. I do not see how you can say the SIG is better than the Beretta when both passed. They are both equal guns based on the test that they passed. Sometimes you people never cease to amaze me.   +1, there is nothing wrong with the Beretta.  Any standard issue handgun will have issues at one point.  And I'd be comfortable saying that none of them are due to the fault of the gun itself.  Can you really tell me Sig would have been a better choice?  The thing would have pissed off anyone used to shooting high thumb on a 1911, because the fucking slide would never lock back, that is of course if you were lucky enough to get one that would lock back without a thumb getting in the way.   My Sig works fine as long as its lubed to the point of spatter showing up on the slide and frame after I fire a round.  Can't see gobs of oil being a good thing when mixed with sand.

The SIG for military use would likely have been modified after military trials, just like the Beretta was modified.  Many other militaries use the SIG, though, so I would say that it works as well as the M9.  

Quoted: my problem with the M9 is the slide mounted safety.  when on target, with a good grip, i cannot reach the safety with my weapons side thumb.  this makes me uncomfortable and less than safe.  im used to operating a m16 safety with my weapon hand, and the same for my hk.  im sure im not the only one who feels uncomfortable with the M9 for this same reason.

You're definitely not alone.  I have long fingers, so I can reach the safety, but it does disturb my aim.  I would prefer a grip safety/thumb safety combination (decocker if it's a DA) like on the 1911, and I'm sure the majority of shooters would as well.  I think the ideal solution to the pistol question would be a pistol based on the SIG P226 in .45 (Hicap .45) with 1911-style controls.  

Quoted: Quoted: my problem with the M9 is the slide mounted safety.  when on target, with a good grip, i cannot reach the safety with my weapons side thumb.  this makes me uncomfortable and less than safe.  im used to operating a m16 safety with my weapon hand, and the same for my hk.  im sure im not the only one who feels uncomfortable with the M9 for this same reason. You're definitely not alone.  I have long fingers, so I can reach the safety, but it does disturb my aim.  I would prefer a grip safety/thumb safety combination (decocker if it's a DA) like on the 1911, and I'm sure the majority of shooters would as well.  I think the ideal solution to the pistol question would be a pistol based on the SIG P226 in .45 (Hicap .45) with 1911-style controls.

You don't need the safety to be on once decocked.    I don't know if they MAKE you do it that way in the military though.  When I holster it loaded the safety is off and I have no worries.  FWIW.  I suppose it's a nice extra safety though to have it on.  But if glock guys can holster their weapons, I think the beretta would be quite safe.  In fact, aren't some of the beretta models made to decock only?

Quoted: There are SIGs in the Navy and they do well.  HSM-7 "the Dusty Dogs" came to stay with us in Kuwait and it was the first time I knew that there were SIGs in the system.  I talked to their Chief one evening at length and he said his crew chiefs and pilots (notice I mentioned enlisted guys first) were about evenly split.  I carried a Beretta for about 10 years and it was fine, no problems, I bought my own magazines and kept them for deployments.  I never failed to qualify Expert, and believe this or not never had a failure to feed.  I clean(minimally) and -10 my firearms daily in the field.  I had no complaint with the Beretta, however as a First Sergeant I always knew I would have an M-16 if I needed it.  I would have an M-16 handy if I carried a 45 Auto or any other pistol in any caliber.  You will never quite appreciate the limitations of a hangun until someone with a rifle does their best to kill you.

CID and others that need a compact pistol have the M11 which is a sig.

Infact most all the major companies have some kind of design thats in use by the military.  HK and SOCOM, Beretta, Sig and the Mil has had plenty of experience with the 1911.  The only major player that hasn't is Glock.

OK, now HOW MANY of YOU have used ANY of the mentioned pistols in real world shitty events? I have carried both the 1911 and the M9 in war and peace. The 9mm in FMJ is sorry as the day is long concerning stopping power. Maybe its "ok" on a Air Force base, but NOT in the field. Ask anyone who has used one in actual situations...they suck (9mm).
If your interested in the way these weapons operated in the field, march your LPC's (leather personel carries) down to the recruiting station, spend 14 months in the field and then let us know how YOU feel about the 9mm. All they are good for is leaving stains on your boots when having to take follow up shots.