There are plenty of stories of soldiers using their sidearms in every war/ conflict we have had to justify giving the a sidearm. Complaints from soldiers also helps in getting firearms changed. Also the m9 was kind of a political handgun. 45 is Actualy better than a 9mm and it's has been proven in the current war/conflict. You hear of stories of soldiers shooting at a enemy to find out your ammunition is not strong enough to take them down. Or of stories of them having to switch to a sidearm because of tight spaces. Or of main weapon malfunctions. The m9 and the 9mm round it fires has had a lot of complaintS in its 30 plus years of service.
BINGO.
Try dumping an entire mag of 9mm into a crazed, half-starved Somali from 12 -15 feet=all hits/ all center-mass/neck/face and have the guy still coming at you. Not fun.
But .45? 2 hits, max. they go down and stay that way.
Not an opinion, not a theory, not a maybe or a what-if, just the plain truth of it., end of story. And that has been the case since at least 1873.
Last edited: