Beretta M9/92F: OSA's Opinion

[MoBoost]

Not doubt. Shot placement plays a big role for sure. If standing punching paper one should be able to accomplish that without a problem. Shot placement tends to go to crap when there is alot of lead flying.

With pistol rounds - pretty much the ONLY role.

So when you make contact with a not so well placed round what would be more efective?

Neither. You don't hit the "kill switch" - it's just mostly closed up hole that will take hours to bleed out if untreated.

Now for your average officer 9mm is more than enough in a police role, I guess. It was a step down from 38, 357, or 44 in power but increase in in pay load, its like McDonalds, quantity not quality. Old timers vrs youngens, theres a million oppinions but there is no replacement for displacement.

Yes there is! In automotive it's the RPM, in gun world it's the speed.

Im not sure who is going to be fighting cow sculls but if a 9mm went through so will a 38 or a 5.7. Smaller rounds just makes penitration easier on an already much faster round. Thats simple physics. Doesnt make up for terminal balistics. The millitary didnt go to 9mm because it is a better round but because of NATO standardizing ammo calibers with our needy Allies and polotitians playing games.

What you need to look for is "wounding ballistics" - and pistol rounds have not improved much since muzzleloaders.

Let's see if I can rattle some more cages:
M9 is a better service pistol than M1911, just like M16 is better than M14 service rifle.

Discuss ... ( or as it usually goes, lock)

 

[Werewolf]

What? C'mon man, you're an old-timer here. You know better than that. I'm not even going to get into the "9mm is a bit weak compared to other available calibers" comment because its an entire debate that derails this thread, but the above quoted statement is baseless as far as anything I can find (it sounds a lot like the recycled WW-II, Vietnam, etc. arguments that have always been used against 9mm throughout time).

Ahhhh...

The sweet sound of a caliber war. It don't get much better than that.

 

[Seadog]

With pistol rounds - pretty much the ONLY role.


Neither. You don't hit the "kill switch" - it's just mostly closed up hole that will take hours to bleed out if untreated.



Yes there is! In automotive it's the RPM, in gun world it's the speed.


What you need to look for is "wounding ballistics" - and pistol rounds have not improved much since muzzleloaders.

Let's see if I can rattle some more cages:
M9 is a better service pistol than M1911, just like M16 is better than M14 service rifle.

Discuss ... ( or as it usually goes, lock)

The only thing you are rattling is your keyboard keys and showing how little you know about small arms

 

[MoBoost]

The only thing you are rattling is your keyboard keys and showing how little you know about small arms

Now we are talking .... when you run out of arguments, just get personal!

I am not military, police or professional gunner; I don't claim to know-it-all and I will admit when wrong. Blank statements about my knowledge however, don't prove it one way or another. If I'm wrong with one or all of my statements - please correct me.

92FS is one of few pistols that did pass the military testing
1911 had a few flaws that were addressed - not necessarily properly, but addressed
I guess they just could've just updated and converted 1911 frames to 9mm NATO - but they didn't, I would like to know why.

 

[Seadog]

Now we are talking .... when you run out of arguments, just get personal!

I am not military, police or professional gunner; I don't claim to know-it-all and I will admit when wrong. Blank statements about my knowledge however, don't prove it one way or another. If I'm wrong with one or all of my statements - please correct me.
92FS is one of few pistols that did pass the military testing
1911 had a few flaws that were addressed - not necessarily properly, but addressed
I guess they just could've just updated and converted 1911 frames to 9mm NATO - but they didn't, I would like to know why.

Not getting personal, just observing from your posts.
As to your last question I can make an good guess.
There was nothing wrong with the 1911 as designed. We were almost if not the only NATO country that still used the 45 round. To conform with the NATO standardization we conformed, BLAH to the 9mm round. Does it work? Yes. as well? No but non the less it will kill. Did our military convert to the 9mm round because it was better, thats a big NO.

Convert a 1911 to 9mm? No point. It still wouldnt have the capacity of the plethora of other 9mm pistols out there that they were wanting to compete with. The reason it wasnt chosen is because it wasnt an option. Our poloticians told the military brass that it was going to happen. There was no choice in the matter. So contracts went out and trials began.

Times change. Simple as that. Do I like the M9? Yes. Not my first pick but it is a good weapon for sure

 

[WTJ]

The US forced the 7.62x51 round on NATO. NATO forced the 9x19 round on the US.

The weapon was built by the lowest bidder. Many potential service pistols were excluded from the RFP by design. The M9 is simply larger than needed for the chambering. Fits some, does not fit others, fanboi gushing about any of the aforementioned weapons notwithstanding. This drove the adoption of the M11, and is partially why some SOF units choose other platforms. NATO standardization evidently wasn't the goal after all.

Failing other options, it is serviceable.

 

[MoBoost]

There was nothing wrong with the 1911 as designed.

Hahahaha ... as I said, you can't logic with religion.

Did our military convert to the 9mm round because it was better, thats a big NO.

I disagree. 9mm IS a better pistol cartridge: it is cheaper to make, it is lighter, lighter recoiling and just as inadequate human stopper. Now, if you want to split hair which one is better or worse at doing very crappy job of killing human sized targets - we might have an argument; everything else 9mm stomps 45acp.

45ACP was doomed from the get-go design - they wanted a copy of 45LC in modern (for early 1900) semi-aromatic pistol. Take it how you want it, but with accelerated metallurgy and gunpowder development of the 1890s, developing a 1870s type cartridge in 1900s was step back. So yes, I believe an earlier designed 9mm Luger was and is a better pistol round, and probably perfect till they figure out a different projectile propulsion.

 

[WTJ]

Hahahaha ... as I said, you can't logic with religion.


I disagree. 9mm IS a better pistol cartridge: it is cheaper to make, it is lighter, lighter recoiling and just as inadequate human stopper. Now, if you want to split hair which one is better or worse at doing very crappy job of killing human sized targets - we might have an argument; everything else 9mm stomps 45acp.

45ACP was doomed from the get-go design - they wanted a copy of 45LC in modern (for early 1900) semi-aromatic pistol. Take it how you want it, but with accelerated metallurgy and gunpowder development of the 1890s, developing a 1870s type cartridge in 1900s was step back. So yes, I believe an earlier designed 9mm Luger was and is a better pistol round, and probably perfect till they figure out a different projectile propulsion.

Well, that is somewhat accurate. The .45ACP round was developed from the .45 Colt round after poor performance of the .38 Colt round in combat in the PI against the Moros. The .38 Colt was partially replaced in the field with weapons chambered for the .45 Colt. The US Army retained the lesson and had the .45 ACP round developed. The .38 Colt and the 9x19 use similar bullet weights, but the 9x19 has a superior advantage over the .38 Colt in energy and velocity. The 9x19 has less perceived recoil and is able to fit more rounds in a smaller platform than the .45ACP with similar energy depending on load. The .45ACP is a proven combat round with a long history of effectiveness using ball, or FMJ, ammo. The primary issues with the 9x19 NATO round is the use of ball ammo. Other 9x19 bullet loadings are more effective.

One of the competitors against the 1911 design was a P-08 Luger chambered in .45ACP, IIRC. And, yes, I am talking about 'Long' Colts in both instances.

in reality, you don't want to become shot with any of the selections, but the .45ACP soldiers on in many current military platforms.

 

[F16mickey]

I like the 92fs/m9 If it wasn't for the size and frame mounted safety/ decocker it would be my go too 9mm.

 

[LightningCrash]

The .45ACP round was developed from the .45 Colt round after poor performance of the .38 Colt round in combat in the PI against the Moros. The .38 Colt was partially replaced in the field with weapons chambered for the .45 Colt. The US Army retained the lesson and had the .45 ACP round developed.

Do you have any information on what they asked for? My memory says the 1904 request was simply for "45 caliber", but didn't specify energy or effectiveness. From what I understand the 45ACP was basically just a scaled up and reconfigured 38ACP to meet Army/Cavalry caliber requirements.

From what I read in the past it seemed pretty obvious that their understanding of terminal ballistics was still in its infancy.