I get your point Byron, really do. I love the 1911 but 15 shots of 40/180, in a near-indestructible weatherproof handgun, just trumps it as a service pistol. There was a time when the only road to substantial capacity in a service pistol was the 9mm. Now we can have that capacity with a bigger, heavier bullet. Personally, I thinks that's a good thing and I'd like to see out military folks have that advantage. That's really all I'm saying here.

Beautiful pistols you posted there, BTW.

Still, I have my opinion based on that very limited experience.

Given the choice between the top .45 and the bottom 9mm in a shoot out I would take the 17 round 9mm over the 8 round .45 without hesitation.

Byron

Everyone knows.

Still, visiting with Black Watch or German Mountain Infantry Majors here at CGSC they all say that men that they shoot with their 9mms do the predictable thing and die.

Pistols don't win wars.

Byron

If you're using FMJ, the best you can do is make it 40 caliber or larger, with a big flat point. Remington's stock 40/180 grain UMC flat point does about 1000 fps and will actually rivet to a degree on meeting substantial resistance like hadji heads and ribs. "Shoot the MF'er to the ground" applies regardless of what's in your magazine- or hands.

This 40 cal Glock "frame wear" stuff is utter bullshit... a Talking Point for 9mm advocates and nothing more. I used to like Ernest Langdon. Guess I am over that now.

Bob

The HQ armorers at a certain unnamable unit using G22s said that .40 "chews the hell out of the Glock".

Of course, when spare part's budget is unlimited and cyclic coding out guns for replacement is also a standard practice, that fact doesn't really matter to them.

I'm out of the loop now I'm retired, so I haven't a clue what Uncle is looking for in a new pistola, but, even with the wear issue noted above, .40 is one of the calibers definitely being looked at.

just sayin'.

I would think that they could upgrade from 9mm to .40S&W and have a good improvement, but I'm not so sure how well it would work with FMJ ammo.

I thought we got to 9mm due to NATO use, so how would they now move away from 8mm? Plus I thought it worked better with inexperienced and smaller stature troops. (Although I know plenty of females that do well with a standard 1911.) They could buy M9 versions in .40S&W and be set, but maybe an M9 in .40 would be a long term maintenance problem.

If the 9mm, and maybe the .40, is not sufficient then they could go back to .45ACP, but that would be harder on some troops. Or they could go to 10mm or .45Super with a gun that is designed appropriately, but how many troops could not handle that. Maybe there is an advantage to troops being able to hit something with 9mm that they would miss with a larger caliber.