What should NATO's standard-issue pistol cartridge really be?

119 posts

Flag Post

THIS IS FOR WEAPONS EXPERTS ONLY. Those without a strong sense of knowledge on firearms will easily get lost in this agrument, especially when numbers start flying. Do not post if you have no clue about firearms to avoid politically appearing silly.

NATO has many issues in keeping up with supplying their troops standard-issue equipment, as do UN Peacekeepers. Though explicit decrees for arming troops have been made across the past few years, people in charge of arming soldiers still typically use what is on hadn to do so. An example of this is troops in Kenya, who were ordered to begin using the M16A2 or A4 model of assault and battle rifles as the standard-issue long guns, but finanically could not afford to do so, and ended up handing out numerous G3A2 rifles instead. This being said, should the UN Peacekeepers and all of NATO personnel adopt another new system for arming their troops, starting with pistols? The 4 main choices recently considered, from what I heard, were the .45 ACP, the currently-dedicated 9×19mm Parabellum, the .40 Smith and Wesson, and the 10mm Auto.
 
Flag Post

I’ll say give them flint locks and lots of powder so they can be killed easily and powder can be used for IEDs

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

I’ll say give them flint locks and lots of powder so they can be killed easily and powder can be used for IEDs

It seems that they are much for peace, but when means of force are necessary, they can’t even fight for what the world deserves.

This idea would be a tremendous help!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

I’ll say give them flint locks and lots of powder so they can be killed easily and powder can be used for IEDs

Seconded.

 
Flag Post

In all seriousness, I would like to hear from gun users what they believe to be the best cartridge…

 
Flag Post

I’m going to suggest that this isn’t the best forum to be asking that. I doubt any gun owners here know much of anything about NATO

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by 12_Hundred:

THIS IS FOR WEAPONS EXPERTS ONLY. Those without a strong sense of knowledge on firearms will easily get lost in this agrument, especially when numbers start flying. Do not post if you have no clue about firearms to avoid politically appearing silly.

Just saying.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by 12_Hundred:
Originally posted by 12_Hundred:

THIS IS FOR WEAPONS EXPERTS ONLY. Those without a strong sense of knowledge on firearms will easily get lost in this agrument, especially when numbers start flying. Do not post if you have no clue about firearms to avoid politically appearing silly.

Just saying.

Then this thread stopped before it even started.

 
Flag Post

Yeah. Got that already. What i’m saying is

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

this isn’t the best forum to be asking that. I doubt any gun owners here know much of anything about NATO

But hey, knock yourself out.

 
Flag Post

So both of you are wasting time here. Stop posting to bump this. Respectfully, it is annoying to do it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by 12_Hundred:

THIS IS FOR WEAPONS EXPERTS ONLY. Those without a strong sense of knowledge on firearms will easily get lost in this agrument, especially when numbers start flying. Do not post if you have no clue about firearms to avoid politically appearing silly.

NATO has many issues in keeping up with supplying their troops standard-issue equipment, as do UN Peacekeepers. Though explicit decrees for arming troops have been made across the past few years, people in charge of arming soldiers still typically use what is on hadn to do so.
An example of this is troops in Kenya, who were ordered to begin using the M16A2 or A4 model of assault and battle rifles as the standard-issue long guns, but finanically could not afford to do so, and ended up handing out numerous G3A2 rifles instead.
This being said, should the UN Peacekeepers and all of NATO personnel adopt another new system for arming their troops, starting with pistols? The 4 main choices recently considered, from what I heard, were the .45 ACP, the currently-dedicated 9×19mm Parabellum, the .40 Smith and Wesson, and the 10mm Auto.

I can’t tell you how reliable the newer M16’s are as I come from a different era. The era I came from showed the M16 to be unreliable and many of the vets would write home wanting their hunting rifles or shotguns sent to them. The original M16 would quit working with just a little dirt in the mechanism. I’m not wild about a .22 caliber cartridge as a caliber for war, although I understand the thinking behind it. It is accurate, just small.

The 9mm Beretta is very popular in this country anymore, but the old warhorse Colt 1911 .45acp is still the champ. I would prefer the larger cartridge for my personal sidearm. It has proven itself in several wars. I don’t want to wound the enemy, I want him to expire. He can’t shoot back then.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by 12_Hundred:

THIS IS FOR WEAPONS EXPERTS ONLY. Those without a strong sense of knowledge on firearms will easily get lost in this agrument, especially when numbers start flying. Do not post if you have no clue about firearms to avoid politically appearing silly.

NATO has many issues in keeping up with supplying their troops standard-issue equipment, as do UN Peacekeepers. Though explicit decrees for arming troops have been made across the past few years, people in charge of arming soldiers still typically use what is on hadn to do so.
An example of this is troops in Kenya, who were ordered to begin using the M16A2 or A4 model of assault and battle rifles as the standard-issue long guns, but finanically could not afford to do so, and ended up handing out numerous G3A2 rifles instead.
This being said, should the UN Peacekeepers and all of NATO personnel adopt another new system for arming their troops, starting with pistols? The 4 main choices recently considered, from what I heard, were the .45 ACP, the currently-dedicated 9×19mm Parabellum, the .40 Smith and Wesson, and the 10mm Auto.

I can’t tell you how reliable the newer M16’s are as I come from a different era. The era I came from showed the M16 to be unreliable and many of the vets would write home wanting their hunting rifles or shotguns sent to them. The original M16 would quit working with just a little dirt in the mechanism. I’m not wild about a .22 caliber cartridge as a caliber for war, although I understand the thinking behind it. It is accurate, just small.

The 9mm Beretta is very popular in this country anymore, but the old warhorse Colt 1911 .45acp is still the champ. I would prefer the larger cartridge for my personal sidearm. It has proven itself in several wars. I don’t want to wound the enemy, I want him to expire. He can’t shoot back then.

Jhco, the new M16 / M4 are of the most reliable. Though they may operate with a DI gas system and require a cleaning usually after every firefight, you are unlikely to receive any jams. The original M16 was fielded with no forward assist, no cleaning kit, and no training on cleaning / clearing weapons with obstructions. You are unlikely to receive any jams, and though you may every once in a while performing immediate (SPORT) or remedial action (Taking apart the rifle) on the weapon in the field is very easily done and it was trained countless times. They are of the most dependable rifles out on the field today.

As for talking about the small round, it is really designed for fucking flesh up internally. There’s a reason why it yaws and pitches when it hits the flesh, you can’t field dress a wound like that. Same, kind of, for why it is FMJ. The FMJ can more easily go through and through than anything else, which is pretty fucking hard for some Taliban guy to try to dress, especially without medical training. If we switched to JHP or HP and started shooting the Taliban with that, it would probably be more fatal only in that case, because FMJ is designed, as I said, for penetration. Body armor is no match for 5.56×45 FMJ 62 grain bullets going at 3100fps from the muzzle.

I personally thing that the 9mm round is effective. It can be modified in many different ways (Though, NATO doesn’t like to kill its bad guys and uses FMJ only) and packs a punch at ~50m away. Though, if I had to choose what I wanted, I’d say we should go back to our Glocks and hit the fields with the Glock 40. Whenever in the woods someone in my group is carrying a Glock 40 loaded with ballpoint ammo, and trust me that is efficient enough to drop a bear in its tracks at a damn good range.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

I personally thing that the 9mm round is effective. It can be modified in many different ways (Though, NATO doesn’t like to kill its bad guys and uses FMJ only) and packs a punch at ~50m away. Though, if I had to choose what I wanted, I’d say we should go back to our Glocks and hit the fields with the Glock 40. Whenever in the woods someone in my group is carrying a Glock 40 loaded with ballpoint ammo, and trust me that is efficient enough to drop a bear in its tracks at a damn good range.

I agree with Jhco, however, in that the .45 ACP is one of the most powerful short pistol cartridge you could use. The U.S. Army may have done away with using this round and the M1911, but the Marines swear by its unparalleled stopping power and it’s capacity to shatter armor. The 9×19 is a little more accurate, and can stay in the same ballpark in terms of stopping power, but I personally would prefer a stack of 8 .45s on my hip over 10 9mms any day.

 
Flag Post

How about this?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by 12_Hundred:
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

I personally thing that the 9mm round is effective. It can be modified in many different ways (Though, NATO doesn’t like to kill its bad guys and uses FMJ only) and packs a punch at ~50m away. Though, if I had to choose what I wanted, I’d say we should go back to our Glocks and hit the fields with the Glock 40. Whenever in the woods someone in my group is carrying a Glock 40 loaded with ballpoint ammo, and trust me that is efficient enough to drop a bear in its tracks at a damn good range.

I agree with Jhco, however, in that the .45 ACP is one of the most powerful short pistol cartridge you could use. The U.S. Army may have done away with using this round and the M1911, but the Marines swear by its unparalleled stopping power and it’s capacity to shatter armor. The 9×19 is a little more accurate, and can stay in the same ballpark in terms of stopping power, but I personally would prefer a stack of 8 .45s on my hip over 10 9mms any day.

Glock has many .40 cals

The .45acp does not have very big mag capacity and so you need to carry more magazines, need to reload more often, and therefore cannot carry other more important items. M9 has a 15 round mag capacity.

 
Flag Post

Glock Models

No such animal as the Glock 40.
The G20 (standard) and G29 (subcompact) are chambered for 10mm.
The G22 (standard), G23 (compact), G27 (subcompact), and G35 (competition) are the current offerings in .40 cal.

Had a G23 for a couple years a while back before selling to a buddy.
Great pistol, still kind of miss it sometimes, but the Kimber I replaced it with was soooo very nice. :D

 
Flag Post

I think NATO should use several different types. I’m glad this post is here being the gun expert I am. Anyways first of all they should use 50 cal bullets for every gun. And if not mabe invent the 60 cal. And also for a side arm they should use miniature launchers like grenade launchers

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Wraymond:

I think NATO should use several different types. I’m glad this post is here being the gun expert I am. Anyways first of all they should use 50 cal bullets for every gun. And if not mabe invent the 60 cal. And also for a side arm they should use miniature launchers like grenade launchers

In your blatant attempt at a poorly aimed joke…

The invention of a “60” caliber round was considered at one point by NATO personnel for the .62 Mastadon. This would have been the single-largest shoulder-fired anti-materiel round ever to be mass-produced.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:

Glock Models

No such animal as the Glock 40.
The G20 (standard) and G29 (subcompact) are chambered for 10mm.
The G22 (standard), G23 (compact), G27 (subcompact), and G35 (competition) are the current offerings in .40 cal.

Had a G23 for a couple years a while back before selling to a buddy.
Great pistol, still kind of miss it sometimes, but the Kimber I replaced it with was soooo very nice. :D

God, what the fuck was I thinking? I was so caught up with it being a .40 that I started calling it a Glock 40, rather than Glock 23. I hope I didn’t seriously mess anyone’s head up…

 
Flag Post

That’s okay. I know the difference; most, if not all, of the 30s and the two 40s models are dubbed “Slimline” and have a thin profile with a frame build for conceal-carry. Anything else is an original-type frame.

On that note, I do hail to the Glock pistol design for its modularity and ease of use and repair, though I still swear by weapons such as the Springfield Armory’s line of semi-autos, as well as a number of Walther pieces. If the companies under Glock coincided with one of the former groups, maybe a new line of cost- and distribution-effective sidearm could be developed?

 
Flag Post

Wrong.
Currently, the only model considered a slimline is the G36.
Chambered in .45 Auto.

Sorry, I just figured anyone posting in this thread would be an “expert”.
Yet so far at least two contributors, including the OP, have proven otherwise.

Odd.

Glock Models
G36

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

Jhco, the new M16 / M4 are of the most reliable. Though they may operate with a DI gas system and require a cleaning usually after every firefight, you are unlikely to receive any jams. The original M16 was fielded with no forward assist, no cleaning kit, and no training on cleaning / clearing weapons with obstructions. You are unlikely to receive any jams, and though you may every once in a while performing immediate (SPORT) or remedial action (Taking apart the rifle) on the weapon in the field is very easily done and it was trained countless times. They are of the most dependable rifles out on the field today.

As for talking about the small round, it is really designed for fucking flesh up internally. There’s a reason why it yaws and pitches when it hits the flesh, you can’t field dress a wound like that. Same, kind of, for why it is FMJ. The FMJ can more easily go through and through than anything else, which is pretty fucking hard for some Taliban guy to try to dress, especially without medical training. If we switched to JHP or HP and started shooting the Taliban with that, it would probably be more fatal only in that case, because FMJ is designed, as I said, for penetration. Body armor is no match for 5.56×45 FMJ 62 grain bullets going at 3100fps from the muzzle.

I personally thing that the 9mm round is effective. It can be modified in many different ways (Though, NATO doesn’t like to kill its bad guys and uses FMJ only) and packs a punch at ~50m away. Though, if I had to choose what I wanted, I’d say we should go back to our Glocks and hit the fields with the Glock 40. Whenever in the woods someone in my group is carrying a Glock 40 loaded with ballpoint ammo, and trust me that is efficient enough to drop a bear in its tracks at a damn good range.

RW, it seems logical that they would improve the weapon. I have heard the M4 is really hard on barrels. One firefight I heard about they fired the M4’s until the barrels glowed and the weapon quit working. Do you know anything about that?

In the old days it was rumored the .223 was supposed to wound the enemy combatant with the idea it would take other soldiers to carry him off the field of battle, but I always thought that was BS. I have heard of the bullet yawing and I imagine it would be devasting with a hit. The problem I would have with that is accuracy. A bullet that yaws in flight would not really be stable and the slightest breeze could through it off target. I had not heard of the bullet in the yaw position bouncing around, except maybe the .22 LR, reason being it is only 30 to 40 grains of weight.

The 9mm has come a long way in the civilian world with larger bullets and +P loadings. I don’t think the military would be +P, but it possible they have made an increase in velocity. We didn’t have the 9mm when I was in the service, it came along later. The military seems to be enamored with the full jacket projectiles, I think mostly because of the reliability of them in the weapons. They are very forgiving. I chose the .45 Because of it’s proven track record for killing and familiarity with it. I do like to fire the 9mm because it doesn’t have a lot of recoil in the standard rounds and it is much cheaper to shoot right now. It seems along with the increase in firearms sales ammo is going up as well.

In the woods (I’m not out there much anymore) I like to carry a .357 mag with 158 gr JSP or a .45 LC with 250 gr JSP. I feel comfortable with them and I carry mostly a SA revolver in a Buscadero in the woods.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:

Glock Models

No such animal as the Glock 40.
The G20 (standard) and G29 (subcompact) are chambered for 10mm.
The G22 (standard), G23 (compact), G27 (subcompact), and G35 (competition) are the current offerings in .40 cal.

Had a G23 for a couple years a while back before selling to a buddy.
Great pistol, still kind of miss it sometimes, but the Kimber I replaced it with was soooo very nice. :D

Oh you got the better deal with the Kimber, that is a fine sidearm there. I’m kind of jealous. :) I personally am not a semi-auto fan and prefer revolvers. I guess I am a throwback, although it seems many on the gun forums are rediscovering the revolver lately.

I have shot Lever Actions rifles and Single Action revolvers for so many years it is automatic when I pick them up. They call it muscle memory. Have any of you come to that point yet?

 
Flag Post

Yeah, was a spectacular weapon.
Unfortunately I had to let it go a few years later.
It was that or miss a car payment during a couple lean weeks while I was in school.

Been looking around for a good carry piece again lately, haven’t found anyone with a Glock 36 I can handle but I like the idea of .45ACP in a slim Glock package. ;)

As for the original discussion, I’m also biased towards the .45 (can you tell?).
It’s unlikely that NATO is going to adopt it, though, after such a long run with the 9mm.
Which isn’t to say the 9 is an inferior round. Any round, properly placed, will do the job.
I think the biggest problem that NATO, US, and other military forces have is that they are beholden to The Hague conventions dictating FMJ ammo be used.
You wouldn’t hear about issues with failure to stop if NATO troops were all packing JHP ammo.

 
Flag Post

I know that feeling Softest. I had to sell my gun collection to make a house payment and put food on the table when I was in Texas once. You might look at the Rock Island Armory 1911. It is almost a clone and the shooting I did with one it never had a hiccup of any kind. It doesn’t cost an arm and a leg either.

I have heard of the Hague conventions but never new much about it. I was always told the FMJ was just more reliable, which it is in stock military weapons. I guess that would have been a side effect, but a good one. I did know about JHPs being illegal but though that was the Geneva convention that did that. Are the two conventions related?