Deleted. Self-moderating.

so, are the troops that HAVE to use a 9mm are confident or would they rather have a .45

While I agree that a handgun should obviously be a secondary weapon in a gun fight, the hunting part is off base. I've taken a great many whitetail and countless hogs with home cast handloads out of my SBH's over the years.

Poking holes in game with a rifle becomes boring for some, a bow or handgun makes it more of a challenging endeavor.

Sapper hit it again that is the only reason i carried on in a shoulder holster it is a pain in the but it get in and out the back seat of a HuMMMVE with that thin strapped to your leg hell just getting out of th back seat with your gear ws a freaking chore and you were cramped with your dam SAPIE plate shoved up in to your neck with zero leg room then they added the side sapiens daps make it even funner to get in and out it bounce around can chafes the leg and is iratateing no to mention pointless and maths on every thing in all my toured the only thing it was good for was making the Irqes list or back off from a convoy you can put a 50cal to there head and AT4 and the dont care take a pistol and the dan near piss them selfs I got to the point i would not even take mine with me i it booked my cargo pocket were i kept an extra mag in it one time going back is enough and scary as hell only time i can remember being acetyl worried about something was when i was down to my last mag other then not having to walk around the fog with an m4 m16 m14 i would love them in my room and take my M9 not talking about nay thin but in combat I would take the moss burg over the m9 at least i can blow locks and hinges I watched a guy take 3 shots from a m9 and still make it to were his gun was we didn't make it anyfurere do to sever m4 rounds in the back after that day it staid on the fob and i just carried extra if i need one i would just take someone else's or fall back and let the guys go in front of me that just my experience with them some other have had to really relay on them i was not one of those guys but sapper has it down pat the freaking staffers and all the shops would bitch if they did not get one my second deployment the took them from the MP's who worked int the DHA (jail on base ) so they could just walk around base with out having to carry the M4 it was a weapon of convince I dont see why they would pay all that money or a sig unless the were seals there was nothing wrong with the beretta m9 other then the first shot was a double action unless you cocked it

before my first deployment my cousin who in a NY trooper made a few calles and my my teem the operatoonite to train with Waco swat for 4 weeks every day we never touched our pistoles unless you in a fire fire you jam and cant clear it right away you grab it but very few times would that happen in real life its not like what you see on the movies like above its a last opportunity weapon and you get 45 rounds and in a fire fight 45 rounds is not much at all

I'm perfectly fine with the 9mm that I carry everyday. But I'd much rather carry those rounds in a Glock than the Beretta spaghetti gun I was issued. It's bigger than the G17 with the capacity of the G19. What kind of garbage is that?

I'm certain mine needs a new barrel too as I could almost hear the bullets rattling down the barrel the last time I fired it. Accuracy is horrendous, to say the least.

That's cool. I've ocassionally been that close to a deer, and I carry a 1911. Not something I choose to try to kill a deer with. I have called in a coyote close enough that swinging the rifle would have got me busted. 45 ACP is what he got. Scores more I've killed with a rifle from 50 yards to 540. I'd say your experience is not the norm by a wide margin, so I don't think I am off base, and will continue to take my rifle with me everywhere I am hunting, which is at least half the days of the year. Of course I'm talking about being vigilant looking for hogs, coyotes, armadillos, and coons.

ya mine was noise too but it fired just right all mine did on paper at up ups the M9 is decent I dont really think we need to spend money for an other gun that is still service able its like throughing money way and we all know in the army we wast money left and right you guys should be worried about bitterer retirement benefits and hope they the dont go to the new system but were not talking baout that the sig 229 is a great gun i use to have one and loved it it was a tad heave for a careyy gun

for those who never served a side arms is not got get you back in the fight it to keep you fighting when your close quarters till you can fix your weapon or grab a gun that works when yours Jamps double feeds or what have you it keeps you shoot ing back till ou can get to cover or a safe spot it clear yours and pay it does not happen gain M9 si not top of the line and it has been abouse my 100 guys befor it was issued to you

It's a double boo-boo. The wrong cartridge, chambered in the wrong gun.

I smell a Glock fanboy in this, somewhere. Obviously the decision was not based upon any rational criteria.

Obama has been filtering out everybody in the military brass who displays any evidence of balls or intelligence for years, now.

This development may be surprising to some, but to me it's about the only kind of thing you can reasonably expect.

For the progressives, it's "mission accomplished"!

What round and pistol would you recommend?

At the risk of being labeled a Glock fanboy:

1. Less expensive or comparable to most of their competition
2. Proven to be very reliable
3. High capacity
4. Superior rust/corrosion protection
5. Ultra-simple design with a minimal number of parts
6. Cheap replacement parts (if needed)

That’s just off the top of my head, but I would say these points qualify as rational criteria.

As far as the cartridge, that point can be and has been argued to death and that will continue.

^^What Grizz said^^

I had one, but do not any longer. But I don't dislike them, and they are maybe the most reliable pistol in the world. Watch the torture test videos, the dang pistol just kept on shooting, and in battle that should be priority one.

I'm not a Glock fanboy by any means, but I can field strip one blind folded in less than 45 seconds. Drop what ever oil you have at the time on some tiny areas, crank it back up and shoot the piss out of it until you "feel like" stripping it back down. I do not own a single 9mm, but enough smart men around here have said how much they trust it. Yeah, I'd go to war carrying one.

Why do you continue to post stupid chit in this forum?

Something more powerful than the 9mm, which is very similar in power to the 38 special. Read up on the history of the 45 auto, and you'll find that the US government adopted it after the 38 special was such a miserable failure as a stopper during the Boxer rebellion.

Those who do not read and understand history will tend to make the same stupid mistakes, over and over. - Most of us care enough to agree that when one of our servicemen shoot somebody with their backup gun, it would be nice if one round would do the job.

40 S&W would work well. Considerably better than 9mm as a stopper, but not prohibitively large or heavy.

The Glock is overly heavy for what it does, and has no safety in combination with a short-stroke trigger. It is one of the least intelligent pistol designs of the twentieth century. Not a good weapon for people who may be injured or under stress.

For the Navy's intended use, a secondary weapon that gets hauled around a lot but seldom used, any of the alloy or composite framed compact SA/DA autos that are well-made would be a much better choice.

I carried a Glock model 29 for a while, and soon wished that I had something lighter and better designed. The first time anybody showed an interest in it, they got a bargain on a Glock - and the next day I bought something without the cheap "staple gun" trigger system.

When are you going to read something that you do not agree with, without reacting like a knuckle-dragging throwback who was raised in a barn?

I’m not sure what gun you’re talking about, but looking at the Glock 19, S&W M&P, Springfield XD, Sig P229, and Beretta M9, the Glock is the lightest of all of them. As far as safeties, Glocks have do have a trigger safety in addition to the two internal safeties. For someone in the heat of battle, I don’t see that as a problem. I can guarantee you if they are carrying a pistol with a manual safety in that situation, the safety will not be on anyway.
The Glock 19 may or may not be the best choice, but it’s absolutely a good choice. I would argue there is no “best” choice when you’re dealing with so many people with different size hands, different tastes, and different opinions.

There's a lot more that goes into selecting a caliber than just that ever illusive "stopping power" we keep looking for, but never find.

You may find it educational to look into the use of the .38 Special by our troops during the Boxer rebellion, and the experiments which the government conducted afterward which led to the adoption of the 45 ACP for our service pistol round.

In short, yes there is such a thing as stopping power. - This is something which has been common knowledge among firearms aficionados and munitions experts for a little more than a century, now.

So, with your rudeness, all that you have proved is your own ignorance - and the fact that you are rude on top of that.

Lots of people get killed with 1 shot from a 9mm just tune into the show First 48

used to carry a 40 in a g22 now carry g19 daily never have felt under gunned
this is the same garb people talk about the 5.56 used it for 8 years of army service never felt under gunned with it either
I have seen people drop and stop with the 9mm and 5.56 and seen people continue after being hit by 7.62 and 45 a good hit causing cns shutdown whether from a 9mm of 50 cal have the same result
while I enjoy all kinds of calibers I look for what works and I'm good with what I use
if I was doing sniper duty I would want a bigger cal for ability to reach out

I know there have been plenty of ballistics tests, and there will be more. However, one test done and reported in American Rifleman a little over a year ago on some particular handgun compared energy between many of the top defensive rounds in both the 40 and 45. The 40 had more energy that the 45 in each of the brands.

And that safety argument doesn't hold water. Have you ever seen a safety on a double action revolver?

A very in depth home defense handgun ammo ballistics test.
http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/

9mm works fine. I feel like the limitations come from the ball ammo. .45 ball on the other hand still makes a big hole.
The thing I like about the Glocks is the trigger safety. The sad truth, is that on most camps you are required to carry a weapon with an empty chamber, that is on safe. You charge it to go outside the wire, you clear it and reinsert mag when you come back. Why? Because negligent discharges.
In certain roles, such as QRF, you don't have to clear. And in different camps, smaller ones especially, dudes are more apt to do what they want
And there are a lot of operators on every camp that carry with one in the pipe, on fire, with the hammer pulled back. There is a saying in the Army- "you do what your grade and position can afford." Few are gonna tell a Green Beret he's wrong for that, and most of those dudes will probably tell you where you can go anyway. If you have a lot of Afghans on your camp, that makes more sense anyway, in case of inside threats.

The smart thing about the glock, again, is the trigger safety. It does make sense.

If you are thinking ND's are a non issue with Special Ops guys- a Green Beret in Afghanistan once told me there are two kinds of dudes- dudes that have had an ND, and dudes that will.

Energy does not translate directly into stopping power. There is a relationship there, but I would not confuse one for the other.

The 22TCM for example is recognized as a body armor penetrator - but nobody puts this high-energy pistol round forward as a great stopper.

It should be no mystery why the larger diameter, heavier bullet, though going a bit slower, is going to be more efficient at transferring energy into flesh and bone than the smaller diameter, slightly faster bullet. - Most especially with military arms that by law cannot utilize a hollow-point design to create a larger than bullet diameter wound channel.

This should readily explain why the 9mm (or the 38 special) is going to be a poor choice when the 40S&W is available, instead. The 45 ACP is a better stopper than the 40S&W, but the ammunition is bigger and heavier, and so requires a bigger, heavier pistol to shoot it. the 40S&W cartridge can be used in most firearms originally designed for the 9mm, with no really extensive modification. A compact 45 ACP will not carry very many rounds, compared to a 40S&W.



Have you ever seen a double action revolver with a short trigger pull like the Glock?

It is the long, heavier than usual trigger pull on a revolver, or on the first shot of a double-action auto that provides the safety factor. With the Glock, that safety factor is simply not there.

What is happening is that statistics on accidental and unintended discharges experienced in police departments show that after adopting the Glock design, the number of them always goes up - and after switching to just about anything else, the number of accidental or unwanted discharges goes back down. That's a recorded fact, the data coming from a number of police departments, not an opinion. The generally accepted explanation as to why this is so is that the short trigger pull, in conjunction with the lack of a safety is behind the increase in unwanted discharges.

The natural human tendency is to put your finger on the trigger, even if you've been trained not to. Training videos show that even highly trained personnel tend to do this unconsciously, much more often than they realize. With the short trigger pull on the Glock, this is a particularly dangerous thing to do.

When the Glock design was new, it was touted as the ideal police weapon, mostly because any idiot, even poorly trained ones who rarely fire their sidearm can figure out how to operate it. Now that it has been around for a while though, the numbers show that it is not so foolproof as was originally supposed.

Military personnel in battle, especially those resorting to a backup weapon are more than likely to be doing so while suffering the effects of injury or stress. The injury or stress can and does reduce even highly trained soldiers ability to deal with unnecessarily dangerous equipment - like the Glock for example.

So - the decision to adopt a 9mm Glock was a double boo-boo. - The wrong cartridge in the wrong firearm.

Any well-made SA/DA compact auto chambered for 40S&W would have been a much better choice for our Navy personnel.

Lord have mercy. You have got a way with words, Charles. I have a problem with that final statement- categorizing the glock as unnecessarily dangerous. It really isn't- it is the operator of the weapon that makes the mistake.

Comparing a glock with one in the pipe, to an m9, p226, or 1911 with one in the pipe, on fire, with the hammer back- the glock is probably the safer bet.

You are not necessarily dealing with combat stress. ND's don't typically even occur in combat. Accidents like that happen when dudes are getting in and out of vehicles, haphazardly dropping their kit after a long day, etc. They happen when guys are tired and complacent in a "safe" environment. After a convoy or a patrol, when performing maintenance and stuff like that. I doubt if statistics on ND's during a firefight even exist...