Military Logic at work

Setesh · Post by **Setesh** » 2003-05-07 01:08am

I recently got to talk to a retired Army Col. who explained to me the reason the Army switched side arms from the Colt 1911A1 to the Berretta 9mm.

It was done because they were recruiting more women into the ranks at the time and it was belived that the Colt was 'to large, to heavy and has to much kick' for women to fire effectivly.

I found this amusing since a friend of mine who's still in the Army tells me that for the 5th year running the Army's top ranked pistol marksman is a woman and her weapon of choice is the Colt 1911A1

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-05-07 01:12am

The change was a bunch of reasons to include but not limited to; a steaming pile of political bull shit.

On a sidenote, women are a better 'natual' shot then men due to the high body fat content to cushion the recoil and to pad the joints when they are in various firing positions making the positions even more stable. Not saying women are always a better shot than men, but they have certain natual advantages.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-07 01:14am

Some women are bigger than others. This particular lass may be more robust than average.

Hiroko (I can't figure out if she's still my gf or ex-gf) had trouble with a .40 calibre handgun. She wouldn't even touch a .45, and her hands were in the medium size range compared to most women I've met.

EDIT: On further reflection, it could also be that the retired officer you spoke to had a problem with women in the armed forces, because another very good reason for a military to switch from .45 to 9mm ammunition in their sidearms is that those sidearms get fired way more often by military personnel than for civilians (range quals) and 9mm is cheaper to produce in large quantities than comparable quantities of .45ACP.

Setesh · Post by **Setesh** » 2003-05-07 01:17am

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:Some women are bigger than others. This particular lass may be more robust than average.

Hiroko (I can't figure out if she's still my gf or ex-gf) had trouble with a .40 calibre handgun. She wouldn't even touch a .45, and her hands were in the medium size range compared to most women I've met.

Size isn't everything, I taught my neice to shoot with an old army Colt, when she was 9

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-07 01:40am

Setesh wrote:
Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:Some women are bigger than others. This particular lass may be more robust than average.

Hiroko (I can't figure out if she's still my gf or ex-gf) had trouble with a .40 calibre handgun. She wouldn't even touch a .45, and her hands were in the medium size range compared to most women I've met.
Size isn't everything, I taught my neice to shoot with an old army Colt, when she was 9

Oh, I understand that. And that's why that second explanation actually makes more sense.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2003-05-07 02:33am

I think the fact that most (if not all) other NATO militaries also use 9mm for their sidearms and SMGs also played a part.

What, and which calibre, SMGs do the US armed forces use? MP-5s for special operations units is a given (or is it?), but what of other implications? Maybe standardization in that regard was also an issue.

EDITed to fix a really embarrasing typo

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-07 02:45am

Batman wrote:I think the fact that most (if not all) other NATO militaries also use 9mm for their sidearms and SMGs also plaid a part.

What, and which calibre, SMGs do the US armed forces use? MP-5s for special operations units is a given (or is it?), but what of other implications? Maybe standardization in that regard was also an issue.

I think some spec-ops units may be using the Colt 633HB, but I'm not 100% on that. USNAVSPECWAR/SEAL used HK products, AFAIK, but RED CELL used weaponry that could be had over-the-shelf or for-sale-by-owner. The two most commonly available small-arm platforms available in the U.S. are the Colt M16/AR15/Sporter family of weapons (NATO 5.56, or roughly equivalent to 30.06) and the Russian AK47 and its various clones (7.62 x 39mm M1943 round).

9mm, however, is one of the most prevalent ammunition types for sidearms. It has been said that if you carry a 9mm sidearm in any combat theatre on the planet, your sidearm need never run dry.

Setesh · Post by **Setesh** » 2003-05-07 03:36am

At the time the switch was decided on 9mm wasn't that common and in some special forces units they've started mixing the UPW with the MP5 for its greater stoping power against bodyarmor. (UWP fires .45 or .45ACP)

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-07 03:52am

The US Army went to 9mm for politics, the rest of NATO used 9mm, and because it did a better job defeating body armor then .45 at close range.

Raxmei · Post by **Raxmei** » 2003-05-07 03:53am

Memento moment: By an astounding coincidence I happened to find a 1911A1 in my end table this afternoon. Strangest thing. I think I know where it came from but damned if I know how it got there. It did seem pretty big, but not so big that a healthy young woman shouldn't be able to handle one. I find the cost explanation more believable.

Setesh · Post by **Setesh** » 2003-05-07 03:54am

Sea Skimmer wrote:The US Army went to 9mm for politics, the rest of NATO used 9mm, and because it did a better job defeating body armor then .45 at close range.

Only cause they weren't allowed to use high velocity rounds after WWII

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2003-05-07 04:02am

Setesh wrote:At the time the switch was decided on 9mm wasn't that common and in some special forces units they've started mixing the UPW with the MP5 for its greater stoping power against bodyarmor. (UWP fires .45 or .45ACP)

UPW/UWP??

Are you perhaps talking about the H&K UMP?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-07 04:04am

Setesh wrote:
Only cause they weren't allowed to use high velocity rounds after WWII

Which defeat the whole point of using a .45, which is high stopping power.

Setesh · Post by **Setesh** » 2003-05-07 04:07am

the HV .45 did have high stopping power, small hole on entry, manhole cover on the other

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2003-05-07 04:14am

Setesh wrote:the HV .45 did have high stopping power, small hole on entry, manhole cover on the other

Which rather makes Sea Skimmer's point, methinks. If the bullet punches out again to go on its merry way, it's taking most of its power with it...

Setesh · Post by **Setesh** » 2003-05-07 04:19am

Batman wrote:
Setesh wrote:the HV .45 did have high stopping power, small hole on entry, manhole cover on the other
Which rather makes Sea Skimmer's point, methinks. If the bullet punches out again to go on its merry way, it's taking most of its power with it...

on exit its not 'A' bullet anymore, but the point is that you shoot A guy in full bodyarmor with a 9mm it may knock him over, shoot him with a .45 it'll break ribs, shoot him with HV ammo it goes through

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2003-05-07 04:23am

Setesh wrote:
on exit its not 'A' bullet anymore, but the point is that you shoot A guy in full bodyarmor with a 9mm it may knock him over, shoot him with a .45 it'll break ribs, shoot him with HV ammo it goes through

I seriously doubt that a pistol bullet can defeat body armour that will stop a 7.62mmx51 at reasonable ranges...

Setesh · Post by **Setesh** » 2003-05-07 04:27am

Batman wrote:
Setesh wrote:
on exit its not 'A' bullet anymore, but the point is that you shoot A guy in full bodyarmor with a 9mm it may knock him over, shoot him with a .45 it'll break ribs, shoot him with HV ammo it goes through
I seriously doubt that a pistol bullet can defeat body armour that will stop a 7.62mmx51 at reasonable ranges...

Thats because they were outlawed by the geneva convention, HV may only be used against 'hard' targets like cars and tanks

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2003-05-07 04:49am

Setesh wrote:
Batman wrote: I seriously doubt that a pistol bullet can defeat body armour that will stop a 7.62mmx51 at reasonable ranges...
Thats because they were outlawed by the geneva convention, HV may only be used against 'hard' targets like cars and tanks

And the legality or lack thereof of the bullet has any impact on its penetrative capabilities because of...?

Setesh · Post by **Setesh** » 2003-05-07 04:52am

becaose the rifles aren't HV either

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2003-05-07 04:58am

Setesh wrote:becaose the rifles aren't HV either

800m/sec muzzle velocity. Are you telling me a pistol bullet is going to beat that?

Setesh · Post by **Setesh** » 2003-05-07 05:01am

Batman wrote:
Setesh wrote:becaose the rifles aren't HV either
800m/sec muzzle velocity. Are you telling me a pistol bullet is going to beat that?

HV rounds regardless of what their fired from are defined as exceeding that, thats about the velocity you get off the pistol

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-05-07 05:06am

Batman there's a shit load of different types bullets the civilians, police and other Government agencies have access to but not the military, which can play merry hell on any armored soldier.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-05-07 05:08am

Batman wrote:
Setesh wrote:the HV .45 did have high stopping power, small hole on entry, manhole cover on the other
Which rather makes Sea Skimmer's point, methinks. If the bullet punches out again to go on its merry way, it's taking most of its power with it...

Jacketed-Hollow-Points are one solution to that problem, but the Geneva convention won't allow their use.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2003-05-07 05:19am

Rubberanvil wrote:Batman there's a shit load of different types bullets the civilians, police and other Government agencies have access to but not the military, which can play merry hell on any armored soldier.

To put it simply-yes and no (You know, the lack of an equivalent to 'Jein' is a serious drawback of the english language).
I am fully aware that there are munitions that are much more effective in certain circumstances than the FMJ rounds
the military is forced to use.
Nevertheless, barring the existence of .45 calibre hypervelocity bullets, the fact remains that while a high velocity/AP pistol
bullet can be more efficient than a FMJ/ball pistol bullet, it is NOT going to defeat armor designed to stop 7.62mm rifle rounds.

EDITed to clear up formatting