09jisaac
Regular Member
Can't be proven, but I do think you're right.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Dumb Question...Beretta M9 9mm worth buying?
- Thread starter DWCook
- Start date
Can't be proven, but I do think you're right.
davidmcbeth
Banned
I don't like Taurus .. I have the pistol .. it puts the bullet where you aim .. what more you want ?
"As for the military switching back to the .45, gun shop owners and gun rags have been saying that for nearly two decades and it hasn't happened yet. It doesn't mean it won't happen, but it wasn't true the last 20 times they said it."
Actually it's true. That it hasnt happened yet, was due to budget reasons, the next U.S. issue sidarm program was put on hold, and the trials cancelled.
The specs for what that pistol is to be, if it ever comes about are :
The 'Combat Pistol System' is to consist of:
a Caliber .45 pistol (designed for A475 and AA18 rounds)
Magazines (standard and high-capacity);
Suppressor Attachment Kit
Holster
Magazine Holder (standard and high-capacity)
Cleaning Kit and Operator's Manual.
Estimates for max procurement quantities for the system are listed as
45,000 no external safety
600,000 JCP with the external safety configuration
649,000 Holsters
96,050 Standard Capacity Magazines
192,099 High Capacity Magazines
667,000 Magazine Holders
132,037 Suppressor attachment kits
A large variety of .45 ACP pistols were entered into the competition. These include the
Germany Heckler & Koch HK45C
Germany SIG P220 Combat
United States Ruger P345
United States Smith & Wesson M&P
Austria Glock 21SF
Italy Beretta Px4 Storm
Brazil Taurus PT 24/7 OSS
Belgium Fabrique Nationale FNP45-USG
Croatia HS-45
Canada Para-Ordnance LDA 1911
Actually it's true. That it hasnt happened yet, was due to budget reasons, the next U.S. issue sidarm program was put on hold, and the trials cancelled.
The specs for what that pistol is to be, if it ever comes about are :
The 'Combat Pistol System' is to consist of:
a Caliber .45 pistol (designed for A475 and AA18 rounds)
Magazines (standard and high-capacity);
Suppressor Attachment Kit
Holster
Magazine Holder (standard and high-capacity)
Cleaning Kit and Operator's Manual.
Estimates for max procurement quantities for the system are listed as
45,000 no external safety
600,000 JCP with the external safety configuration
649,000 Holsters
96,050 Standard Capacity Magazines
192,099 High Capacity Magazines
667,000 Magazine Holders
132,037 Suppressor attachment kits
A large variety of .45 ACP pistols were entered into the competition. These include the
Germany Heckler & Koch HK45C
Germany SIG P220 Combat
United States Ruger P345
United States Smith & Wesson M&P
Austria Glock 21SF
Italy Beretta Px4 Storm
Brazil Taurus PT 24/7 OSS
Belgium Fabrique Nationale FNP45-USG
Croatia HS-45
Canada Para-Ordnance LDA 1911
DocWalker
Regular Member
Certain units in the USA, Navy, and marines have switched to the H&K 45 ACP as their main sidearm already. I know of a couple AF Col and Generals that carried the H&K 45 ACP in Iraq as well.
The main reason the US Military switched to the 9mm was because of NATO and they wanted to be able to have a universal round in the event of a conflict. I do love the 1911 that the military had but the USAF was using the 38 special revolver when I joined the USAF in 1985. It was ok but again limited to rounds and loading time.
Before I retired from the USAF I actually got the official email on the switch to the 45 ACP and that once approvel the USAF would be last to get them on the priority list. I didn't carry the M-16, I was issued the 9mm as my primary weapon while in the sand box's.
I enjoyed shooting the Berretta but wouldn't carry it daily due to size, weight, and better options out there for the same price.
I can carry my Tauris Millenium 45 ACP with 11 rounds and it is smaller, lighter, and cheaper to buy new. For its size and power it really doesn't kick or have issues seen with small pistols of the same caliber.
I just have to keep my wife from taking it, sometimes I look for it if we are going out and she already is wearing it. I think I might have to get another one.
The main reason the US Military switched to the 9mm was because of NATO and they wanted to be able to have a universal round in the event of a conflict. I do love the 1911 that the military had but the USAF was using the 38 special revolver when I joined the USAF in 1985. It was ok but again limited to rounds and loading time.
Before I retired from the USAF I actually got the official email on the switch to the 45 ACP and that once approvel the USAF would be last to get them on the priority list. I didn't carry the M-16, I was issued the 9mm as my primary weapon while in the sand box's.
I enjoyed shooting the Berretta but wouldn't carry it daily due to size, weight, and better options out there for the same price.
I can carry my Tauris Millenium 45 ACP with 11 rounds and it is smaller, lighter, and cheaper to buy new. For its size and power it really doesn't kick or have issues seen with small pistols of the same caliber.
I just have to keep my wife from taking it, sometimes I look for it if we are going out and she already is wearing it. I think I might have to get another one.
9mm Vs .45 briefly.
Tissue trauma is what stops, and after watching many sim tests I just dont think the trauma of the .45 is so much better than a 9mm to make it such a clear choice. Dont get me wrong, love the .45. However from a totality of capability I also love the 9mm.
http://www.youtube.com/user/tnoutdoors9/featured
This guy has many sim tests with modern rounds of many calibers and it is very educational to see the wound channels from various rounds and compare the end result of bullet expansion in a fairly realistic test.
I think if you carry the right 9mm round your can place a couple rounds on target quickly, have lots of backup firepower and do comparable tissue trauma to larger rounds. I am sure some have trained to the level with the .45 they carry to be able to mostly match the speed and shot placement of the 9mm, but that is not true for me.
Seems to me .45 comes out ahead in tissue trauma by ~ 20% on average, as far as greater diameter after expansion and overall tissue damage (wound channel and expansion cavities), with the outlier data being between 10%/40% the expansion of the medium 9mm tests. (opinions, not an analysis of the hard data)
So .45 is the clear winner if all you are looking at is the tissue damage, but when I factor in how many rounds I can put on target how quickly, and how many I have available it because a much hairier choice. If all I had available was FMJ it would be a clear choice, but with modern rounds equalizing the overall expansion effects somewhat it becomes a closer analysis.
25oz 9mm with 18 rounds (Glock 17) vs a 45 oz .45 with 13 (Para hi cap), makes me go hmmmmmm.
-------
My own opinion of the Barreta is not a good one. You sacrifice size and weight while you gain nothing in round count over a Glock ect. Collecting it would be great, but for carry it would not be a choice for me. Maybe it was just me but when I shot one I did not seem to gain much shot to shot control from that weight either. YMMV.
Tissue trauma is what stops, and after watching many sim tests I just dont think the trauma of the .45 is so much better than a 9mm to make it such a clear choice. Dont get me wrong, love the .45. However from a totality of capability I also love the 9mm.
http://www.youtube.com/user/tnoutdoors9/featured
This guy has many sim tests with modern rounds of many calibers and it is very educational to see the wound channels from various rounds and compare the end result of bullet expansion in a fairly realistic test.
I think if you carry the right 9mm round your can place a couple rounds on target quickly, have lots of backup firepower and do comparable tissue trauma to larger rounds. I am sure some have trained to the level with the .45 they carry to be able to mostly match the speed and shot placement of the 9mm, but that is not true for me.
Seems to me .45 comes out ahead in tissue trauma by ~ 20% on average, as far as greater diameter after expansion and overall tissue damage (wound channel and expansion cavities), with the outlier data being between 10%/40% the expansion of the medium 9mm tests. (opinions, not an analysis of the hard data)
So .45 is the clear winner if all you are looking at is the tissue damage, but when I factor in how many rounds I can put on target how quickly, and how many I have available it because a much hairier choice. If all I had available was FMJ it would be a clear choice, but with modern rounds equalizing the overall expansion effects somewhat it becomes a closer analysis.
25oz 9mm with 18 rounds (Glock 17) vs a 45 oz .45 with 13 (Para hi cap), makes me go hmmmmmm.
-------
My own opinion of the Barreta is not a good one. You sacrifice size and weight while you gain nothing in round count over a Glock ect. Collecting it would be great, but for carry it would not be a choice for me. Maybe it was just me but when I shot one I did not seem to gain much shot to shot control from that weight either. YMMV.
Well, yes and no.. Despite actual street and battlefield results that have been well-documented for decades, there's all these "tests".
Thing is, in the real world, with clothed persons of varying builds, densities, body fat content, BONES, and a multitude of angles and intermediary objects in it's path, it is much more common for 9mm to consistently fail to do it's expected job. Wherein the .45 has demonstrated a documented tendancy to complete it's task -consistently-under the same circumstances.
It has a lot more to do with mass, and penetration -with plenty of energy behind it, than actual tissue damage or bleeding out through larger holes bored through folks. The larger bore AND heavier mass of the .45 rounds are less likely to be re-directed or deflected off-course (such as when it strikes bone, cartilage, dense fat tissues, or objects in the pockets of the target's clothing) than the 9mm.
The shot-placement folks always chime in, but there are many cases of folks making excellent groupings of multiple rounds to vital areas with 9mm, with no effective result. The plain reason being that ya, they hit the guy in the heart/lung area, but the rounds themselves either dont penetrate all the way in to those organs, or glance a rib on the way in, and end up zipping off to wind up in the guy's asss instead.
Or -you more often hear this with .22's etc. - head shots- where the rounds go straight to the head, but never breach the skull. Just end up riding around in circles beneath the skin- with 9mm and lesser rounds alike.
Im doubting anyone can find many cases of a 230 grain hardball failing to turn someone's noggin into pink and grey paste.. But 16 smaller rounds that never reach the vitals, despite being sent directly in the direction of the vitals is quiet different from actually going all the way in and doing the damage needed.
These arent opinions, and they arent said just to slam the 9mm or those who choose to use them. Cases like these can be seen almost nightly in almost every major, urban Trauma Center. That such cases arent always released to the public at large has more to do with privacy act issues, than a lack of their being seen and documented.
PrayingForWar
Founder's Club Member
A single properly placed shot with a .22lr will render any attacker neutral. The higher the caliber, the wider the target's vulnerability.
My concern with getting an M9 is it's short life expectancy. 15K rounds is what the minimum standards are supposed to be, but a decent pistol should be able to withstand more than that.
I really want to buy one for the matches I shoot, but since it sounds like the army is dumping the M9 anyway I reckon I'll wait to find out what they're going too adopt. An "inside source" suggests it will be something in a .45ACP though.
My concern with getting an M9 is it's short life expectancy. 15K rounds is what the minimum standards are supposed to be, but a decent pistol should be able to withstand more than that.
I really want to buy one for the matches I shoot, but since it sounds like the army is dumping the M9 anyway I reckon I'll wait to find out what they're going too adopt. An "inside source" suggests it will be something in a .45ACP though.
DocWalker
Regular Member
The email that was sent out to the USAF security forces about a year ago said the DOD was leaning toward the Kimber 45 ACP. I can't remember what model or other details and I didn't forward it to my personnal email and contract I was working ended Septemeber 2011 so I can't get back to the emial. I will ask some of my friends at the base if they still have it and see if I can get a copy to post, but it was over a year ago.
I dont doubt the pistol would survive whatever amount of rounds you are even remotely likely to put through it.It's not a poorly made, or el-cheapo product, by any means. It just has some design bugs that I feel never got worked out properly, and the ergonomics of it just are not for me. The bugs though, would be deal-breakers for me, because you know that they will appear just when Mr. Murphy drops in to spoil all the fun.
As for the round, it is what it is, it just has some severe limits that I wouldnt ,willingly, choose over better rounds for defensive uses. There are a lot of die-hard folks who swear up and down by the 9mm. You'll notice that few of those have ever actually had to rely upon it though..provided they survive doing so, the next day they are seeking out a .45 :monkey
Excellent points in your post. I did have a minor grip with this statement. Is that documented data indicative of the modern +p defensive rounds such as the PDX1 bonded 9MM ammo? I know the answer is no, please forgive the rhetorical question, so I dont think this fact is as poignant as it seems.
My point was that as the technology of these rounds increase the gap in performance decreases.
The best performing .45 rounds compared to the least performing 9mm rounds has a difference of expansion of a huge margin, ~40%. Conversely the worst performing .45 compared to the best performing 9mm was a difference of less than 10%.
So I think these data points offer a perspective on how various ammo designs can have a large impact on overall performance, and in the totality of factors that effect carry if you are going to carry nothing becuase you cant deal with the ~30-50 Oz .45 then a small compact ~20-25oz 9mm with high performance ammo is an excellent alternative, especially if you end up with more rounds. (these weights also do not consider the significant weight of the rounds themselves, but represent unloaded with an empty mag weight)
That was really the meat of my point, which of course does not invalidate your points at all. Don't get me wrong my .44 and .45 are my back up truck guns! However with a bad back (broke 2 vertebrea, couple damaged discs), I have a real hard time carrying heavy guns on my person.
I just wish good real world data existed for all types of the modern exceptional ammunition on the market.
If one is going with just standard ball ammo, or hard cast lead nothing seems to indicate capability quite like the sectional density of the round, and mass has everything to do with that. So in that regard I could not agree more.
Fortunately outside of the military (who uses FMJ and thus the comparison is inappropriate) this is true of every person carrying. Too bad assassins dont fill out surveys, huh? << that was a joke btw.
Last edited:
DWCook
Activist Member
I made a DRASTIC change on the pistol I was buying! lol sorry but I went and bought a Sig Sauer P220 45ACP for a new conceal carry. Its a new design generation meaning Sig made rounder and got rid of ALL the edges. I love the safety switch on the frame to put the hammer all the way foward for double action use, and then you can pull it back for a single action fire. I am also getting it dyno for better protection for the alloy frame. Never heard of the process before, but its apparently **** in a tube that you work into the frame and everything. You have to tear apart the trigger system, aka gutting the pistol. I paid $837 for the bastard, but I LOVE IT! Got me Zombie rounds and Federal Premium Hydrahshock rounds.
P.S. Don't mind the spelling errors as I am typing this on a REALLY small device!
P.S. Don't mind the spelling errors as I am typing this on a REALLY small device!
Totally understand the typing bit- texting is completely out for me, personally lol. These big, thug fingers + tiny little mobile electronic device keys just dont mix lol.
Nice choice, Im sure it will serve you well. Was looking one of those over the other day, actually. Not that I intend to get one-just was curious. If you are intent on hollowpoints, be sure to try out some Gold Dots. 230-grainers, in my own tests, have consistently penetrated deep AND expanded fully, time and again.
But, it will ultimately come down to what your particular pistol "likes" so..
DangerClose
Regular Member
I was going to mention that. I've read life expectancy isn't so hot with them. For the Taurus version, at least it would have a lifetime warranty. The Beretta has a one-year warranty, and I've read many stories of lousy Beretta customer service.
davidmcbeth
Banned
A lifetime warranty? I'm sure your decedents will like that .. after you're gun is removed from your dead body.
I don't care about warranties too much ... I've just had issues with Taurus' pistols in the past ... send them in & they get repaired OK ... not sure if someone wanting to kill me will wait around though ...
"Given all of that, I still think its more about personal choice, becuase the actual fundamentals are just not that different."
As many of you seem to think, yes..But again, paper/formulas/gelatin are one thing- clothed people with bones inside them are something else, altogether. And when the two types are used on actual folks who are shooting back at you, one prevails far and above over the other.
But, lots of folks carry the 9mm, few of them ever have to use 9mm in action- and those who do, we usually end up refering to as "victims" :monkey
As many of you seem to think, yes..But again, paper/formulas/gelatin are one thing- clothed people with bones inside them are something else, altogether. And when the two types are used on actual folks who are shooting back at you, one prevails far and above over the other.
But, lots of folks carry the 9mm, few of them ever have to use 9mm in action- and those who do, we usually end up refering to as "victims" :monkey
11B2O
Regular Member
Sorry j4l, but I have had guys with me in Iraq and Afghanistan that have had to use the 9mm and were not victims. I don't have preferable round so I am neutral in this debate. I will say though that in my combat experience, shot placement matters more than the size of the round. Unless of course your using .50 cal or larger. I've seen guys go down with well placed shots from a small 5.56mm round which hardly expands at all and I've seen guys take several 7.62mm's from horribly placed shots and still stay in the fight. Not all of these were long range either. Alot of shots taken in Iraq were mostly close quarters.
DocWalker
Regular Member
I agree with you shot placement is critical.
As for the 5.56 round it was designed to make a mess of someone without killing them (shot placement will dictate that also) as if someone is critical it will take others to evacuate the wounded off the battle field.
The only reason the US military went to the 9mm was due to NATO and no other reason. Taking into account the shot placement I have seen (in Iraq and Afghanistan) more people able to "take" the 9mm round than take a larger round. I had multiple patients with multiple 9mm rounds in them that survived but not many hit by a 50 cal.....insert sarcastic joke here.
Even the USAF security forces are taught to shoot 3 round bursts with the 9mm..."two in the body and one in the head". This is partially due to one round not always being sufficiant and or your opponent wearing body armor.
It all comes down to shot placement and personal preference, for me I will always go with the bigger round as a 45 ACP will do more damage to someones nose than a 9mm even though they both might work I err on the side of bigger is better.