Military Pistol Caliber Poll - Page 2




View Poll Results :Which Caliber do you think is best?
9X19mm Parabellum 10 25.64%
9X18mm Makarov 1 2.56%
357 Sig 3 7.69%
.40 S&W 7 17.95%
.45 ACP 15 38.46%
.45 GAP 0 0%
10mm Auto 3 7.69%
.41 Action Express 1 2.56%
.38 Super 2 5.13%
5.7X28mm 3 7.69%
5.8 Chinese 0 0%
7.62X25mm 0 0%
7.63 mm Mauser 0 0%
9X21mm IMI 0 0%
9X23 Largo 0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 39. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
April 18th, 2006  
moving0target
 
 
PJ, do you think the military should use frangible ammo in more situations?
April 18th, 2006  
FutureDevilDog
 
 
5.7 for its accuracy and its ability to penetrate kevlar.
April 19th, 2006  
5.56X45mm
 
 
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.
--
April 19th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
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.
April 19th, 2006  
PJ24
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moving0target
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.
April 19th, 2006  
major liability
 
 
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.
April 19th, 2006  
PJ24
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by major liability
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 LeMas."

April 19th, 2006  
sven hassell
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJ24
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 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"
April 19th, 2006  
MightyMacbeth
 
 
nice 5 voted for the .45 ACP, and I was the first 8)
April 19th, 2006  
PJ24
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sven hassell
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?