Military Pistol Caliber Poll

Which Caliber do you think is best?


  • Total voters
    39

5.56X45mm

Milforum Mac Daddy
Out of the common military, law enforcement, and civilian calibers. Which one do you think is the best one for military service.
 
I like the 10mm Auto for military use BECAUSE of the overpenetration, you can shoot through walls indoors and of course it will shred body armor and kill quickly.

I also like the 357 SIG and the Russian 9x21mm "Gyurza" cartridges for military use.

Of course, if you just want to throw a hefty chunk of metal at your enemies, there's no substitute for the venerable .45 ACP.
 
Last edited:
Over penetration is NOT what you want in a close in situation. You're too close to your targets, and the last thing you want are bullets coming through walls hitting YOUR guys. These are some of the problems we have with the 9mm.

I carry a .40 for most of my secondary weapon needs.
 
The Smith and Wesson Sigma .40 is a beautiful weapon. Simple yet deadly, the .40 caliber from everything I have read always seemed the way to go the energy the bullet carries is optimal.
 
Although it is not my personal favourite I have to admit that I think 9mm is the best.
WHAT?? I hear you all scream .
Yes I know it hasn't the stopping power of .45ACP, the weight reduction per round of 5.7mm,etc....
Yes there are calibers that seem to have more pros than cons (s+W .40 for example) but when you include COST and consider the logistics of introducing a new sidearm caliber to a countrys army it just seems best to stick with 9mm.
This opinion is based on a contry that uses 9mm for all its CQB firearms,and apart from the U.S. use of .45 and former eastern europeans using Makarov then those who rule most allied countrys also see that a new sidearm caliber is at the bottom of the shopping list.
If the question had been worded differently then I would say .40 S+W or 10mm.
 
PJ24 said:
Over penetration is NOT what you want in a close in situation. You're too close to your targets, and the last thing you want are bullets coming through walls hitting YOUR guys. These are some of the problems we have with the 9mm.

I carry a .40 for most of my secondary weapon needs.

Yeah, well, I don't think overpenetration will be a negative aspect of handgun cartridges once the Army gets all their computerized electronic satellite-based targeting IFF GPS abacus crap online.

For right now, though, I suppose you wouldn't want that sort of frienly fire. I thought soldiers would be coordinated enough to avoid emerging on opposite sides of the target. If a pistol round will go through him, what about your rifles?
 
Over penetration is a huge problem. I don't want my rounds going through walls and striking non-combatives. That is the main reaons why American Law Enforcement uses Jacketed Hallow Point ammunition. Because it will not over penetrate the subject. Now I also don't want over penetration on enemey targets. That negates the factor of the cartridge.

It's Hydrostatic damage that kills someone. Not a hole. If I shoot you and the round goes clean through. You could die from bleeding out in about five to ten minutes. Or if the round is stopped by you body, all of that energy has to go somewhere. The body absorbs it and it destroys tissue and blood vessels. That is what kills you in five seconds.

I believe that the .40 S&W is the best caliber on the market right now.

You can still have a good amount of ammunition carried in the service wepaon's magazine. It doesn't have the problems of the 9X19mm Parabellum. And pistols that chamber that caliber are built on a 9mm frame. So people with smaller hands can still handle the firearm without a problem.

And the .40 S&W is becoming one of the most popular calibers in America. About 70% of American Law Enforcement officer use it. Civilians are finding the caliber very good for self defense and competitive shooting. And lastly, there is one branch of the US Militray that issues it as it's standard caliber. The US Coast Guard. It is because of the fact that the USCG is now under the Department of Homeland Secuirty. And all DHS agencies are issued a .40 S&W caliber sidearm. They are either the Sig P226, Sig P229, GLOCK 22, GLOCK 23, Beretta 96FS, H&K USP, or H&K USP Compact.

The USCG uses the Sig P226. When they're state side. They use JHP (Jacketed Hallow Point) ammunition because they are federal law enforcement agents and when they are deployed overseas with the US Navy. They use the standard Full Metal Jacket Ball ammunition.

What many civilians and law enforcement departments consider training or plinking ammunition. Basicly the cheap stuff you buy a Walmart, like 100rds for $10.00 US.
 
Last edited:
major liability said:
Yeah, well, I don't think overpenetration will be a negative aspect of handgun cartridges once the Army gets all their computerized electronic satellite-based targeting IFF GPS abacus crap online.

For right now, though, I suppose you wouldn't want that sort of frienly fire. I thought soldiers would be coordinated enough to avoid emerging on opposite sides of the target. If a pistol round will go through him, what about your rifles?

Horse's Mouth: Yes, it will be.

9mm has a tendency to go through walls, not just targets. And yes, I've seen it happen more than once. Hence my preference for the .40.
 
Hah, I guess you guys are right about the penetration being a bad thing. Please forgive my tendency to look at things from the criminal/insurgent perspective.
 
There is an issue with the 5.7X28mm round. the SS190 (5.7X28mm) round will penetrate kevlar but that is it's main factor. When it penetrates kevlar, it will deform and cause a larger wound cavaity in the subject. But if the subject in a soft target.Meaning no kevlar. The round will be nothing more than a .22LR. But infact a .22LR is more deadly because it bounces around the subject's body. The SS190 will just make a nice clean whole in the subject much like a SS109 5.56X45mm round makes in a soft target. BLACK HAWK DOWN is a good example of what I'm talking about.

The 5.56X45mm took three to four rounds to take down a subject while the 7.62X51mm took them down in one shot. The main issue with military ammunition is that they need to use FMJ Ball. Nothing that can expand like a JHP. And even if the SS190 is a JHp, it becomes nothing more than a .22 Magnum.

Many police departments first jumped on the FN P90 band wagon because it took take down a hard target. But after they used them, they realized that the standard M4 carbine chambered in 5.56X45mm would do the same. Most civilian targets wear a Level IIIA vest. Which can stop most pistol calibers. And yes, the SS190 round is chambered in a pistol too. But it's an expensive little pistol.

Many officers are now trained to fire at the groin in the target is wearing a vest.

Why?

Because if you hit the subject in the hip, you either cut the femoral artery and they bleed to death. Or you shatter the plevis and take them out of the fight.

Now for the military, a rifle is still the main weapon of the soldier. The pistol is the sidearm. And most soldiers due wear kevlar of some type. But I still believe that the military needs a pistol to do jobs that a rifle can't.

Right now, the military is doing a law enforcement task in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a pistol in Iraq controls people by the fear of God. Not the rifle. Also the military needs a sidearm that is cheap, well built, and also not in a caliber that is chambered in one pistol only.
 
I would ask if the reason for the military NOT using a frangible round is the ease at which body armour would defeat the round? Hence the ball ammunition.
 
moving0target said:
PJ, do you think the military should use frangible ammo in more situations?

Only in kill houses or when you're shooting at steel targets. That's all we use it for.
 
What about those new blended metal bullets that penetrate walls and armor but explode when they hit flesh? Nasty. But quite effective, I'd imagine.
 
major liability said:
What about those new blended metal bullets that penetrate walls and armor but explode when they hit flesh? Nasty. But quite effective, I'd imagine.

I've seen more cases than not where it does not penetrate the wall (that's a good thing), but I have seen it burn through steel plates. As for the effects on live tissue, the hype for it lends true. Once it hits live tissue, it frags like a mofo, makes for ugly and big wounds.

I can't say I have any complaints with them, and I don't know of any other guy that's carried them down range that does either.

"I
heart_emoticon.gif
LeMas."


 
PJ24 said:
I've seen more cases than not where it does not penetrate the wall (that's a good thing), but I have seen it burn through steel plates. As for the effects on live tissue, the hype for it lends true. Once it hits live tissue, it frags like a mofo, makes for ugly and big wounds.,


I can't say I have any complaints with them, and I don't know of any other guy that's carried them down range that does either.

"I
heart_emoticon.gif
LeMas."


Its not the guy who carries it who decides.Le Mas is VERY expensive as would be switching from 9mm.
Cost is everything.
If it was my way all allied personell would have millions spent on personal equipment and weapons.Unfortunately I dont rule the world yet.
"In a world of comprimise,all men have to"
 
sven hassell said:
Its not the guy who carries it who decides.Le Mas is VERY expensive as would be switching from 9mm.
Cost is everything.
If it was my way all allied personell would have millions spent on personal equipment and weapons.Unfortunately I dont rule the world yet.
"In a world of comprimise,all men have to"

I have no idea where your reply came from in reference to my post. :???:

I was talking about my own personal experiences, as well as other units experiences with this particular round down range (Afghanistan and Iraq), both in 9mm and .45, since someone asked about the BMT rounds. And yes, we do get some leeway and personal choice in what we carry.

My post didn't even hit at me advocating the entire US military change to the BMT or even from the 9mm. I simply said it was a good round that lives up to its hype. Maybe you meant to quote someone else?
 
Back
Top