Which one would you choose ?

Quite enlightening, though AussieNick I still believe that a 9mm will do unarmored targets just fine with the right ammunition.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't. Thats the thing. ADI (Australian Defence Industries) and DSTO (Defence Science & Technology) has been testing this with TAG-East (4th Battalion Commandos). 9mm is crap in comparison, and targets these days ARE ARMOURED, thats the problem. Look at Iraq, look at Palestine, look at bank robbers in your own country - all sporting body armour.
 
9mm is not obsolete, it's just that different calibers for different jobs. The 9mm is a fine caliber when using a 127Gr JHP against unarmored targets. The military is screwed to using FMJ which the 9mm is crap in.

The .45 ACP is a far better caliber in FMJ, which the military has to use anyway.
 
Well, yes most of modern armed forces these day wear armor but that's government forces. Most terrorist wear a shirt and a pair of pants. Lastly, pistol ammunition is just that. Pistol ammunition. most modern day battle field armor is designed to stop rifle ammunition. Which by the way is the soldier primary weapon. A Rifle. The SMG is more of a rear support troop weapon or law enforcement weapon.

My department issues it's officers a choice of the 9mm, .40S&W, and .45 ACP. All of our ammo is JHP. US Law Enforcement is not held to any international treaty. We carry 5.56X45mm rifles in the runks of our patrol cars just for the reason if we have to engage targets that are armored.

As to what AussieNick he's right, 9mm is crap because of the fact that the Aussie Military can't use JHP ammunition just as the American Military can't use JHP ammunition.

Pistol ammunition will not defeat most kevlar period.
 
major liability said:
It depends on the type of ammunition available. If I had those blended metal bullets for the MP5, well, they'd go through armor AND shred the unlucky target. But, if I was stuck with standard JHP or FMJ, or I needed to mount a suppressor I'd take the UMP simply because I'd be able to use full-power loads with a suppressor attached and it's simply a better manstopper.
Click to expand...

MP-5s can use an integral suppressor. And if you're using frangible rounds like Hydra-shok or some equally exotic ammunition, then the hydrostatic shock will be enough to put a target down as fast as a .45 round. It all depends on personal preference.
 
Several posters have already mentioned the limited capabilities of pistol ammunition. If I had to pick one of the two offered, I'd go with the one that ate the same ammo as my carry pistol, a .45. I think I'd be better off with a shotgun such as the Remington 870 or a rifle like the Mini 14 than either of the two but that wasn't an option. The 9mm subgun does offer better armor penetration than the .45 or buckshot, but it's still small potatoes compared to a 5.56x45 or 7.62x39 round.

Maybe this brings up the question: Why do we need subguns?
 
for when you absolutely, positively, have to blow away any and all living targets at ranges under 10 meters.
 
Well, yes most of modern armed forces these day wear armor but that's government forces. Most terrorist wear a shirt and a pair of pants. Lastly, pistol ammunition is just that. Pistol ammunition. most modern day battle field armor is designed to stop rifle ammunition. Which by the way is the soldier primary weapon. A Rifle. The SMG is more of a rear support troop weapon or law enforcement weapon.

My department issues it's officers a choice of the 9mm, .40S&W, and .45 ACP. All of our ammo is JHP. US Law Enforcement is not held to any international treaty. We carry 5.56X45mm rifles in the runks of our patrol cars just for the reason if we have to engage targets that are armored.

As to what AussieNick he's right, 9mm is crap because of the fact that the Aussie Military can't use JHP ammunition just as the American Military can't use JHP ammunition.

Pistol ammunition will not defeat most kevlar period.
Click to expand...

Too true about the terrorist uniform of pants and a shirt.... but the Australian army has been encountering a few insurgents (in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Solomon Islands) all wearing personal armour - although some of it has been rather old and crude. We've taken this to be a sign of things to come, and are adjusting accordingly (To begin with TAG-E who are primarily counter-terrorist).
 
well I guess subguns are used mostly in small quick counter terror missions in building and urban surroundings?
You know, as the MP5 has the ability to use a silencer, then that would help if the anti terrorist unit wants surprise. Thats just what I think :) Hope the more experienced members would clue us in.
 
deerslayer said:
for when you absolutely, positively, have to blow away any and all living targets at ranges under 10 meters.
Click to expand...

A shotgun does a pretty good job of that. Might not be as sexy.
 
My cliental never wear armor. But if we do have to engage suspects that have armor we have AR-15 carbines for the job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top