In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

New military calibers.

jastrjastr Member Posts: 463 ✭✭✭
edited April 2002 in General Discussion
I think its about time too change the standard military calibers, and I want too see who agrees! I believe that the military should stop using the .45 in there standard issue hand guns and go too the 10mm.... I say this only because I think that the 10mm is by far the most superior hand gun round available on the market today. As far as rifles go I am open too your ideas on the change! I think they should go back too the .308

lets all be responsible! shoot a criminal!
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • niklasalniklasal Member Posts: 776 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I say the 40 S&W.

    You get quicker follow up shots.

    NIKLASAL@hotmail.com
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • idsman75idsman75 Member Posts: 13,398 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The .45 ACP is NOT the caliber in which standard-issue sidearms are chambered. Delta Force carries custom Wilson Combat .45's and some of the other Spec Ops groups carry H&K's in .45 ACP but, by and large, 9mm is the standard caliber for the military's sidearms. .308 would be great but how much further do you want to burden the already over-burdened solder/marine? They already hump far too much gear. The term "Light" Infantry is an oxymoron in my opinion. Take the basic combat load in 5.56 and translate the difference in weight as soon as you make that .308 (7.62 NATO).

    It all boils down to the fact that we will not carry what is not standard-issue for NATO for the purposes of cross-loading ammo. If we are fighting in Iraq and are being assisted by the British and are fighting side-by-side with the British then I want a gun chambered in the same caliber as the guy fighting next to me. If he dies, I'm taking his ammo when I run out. As far as handgun caliber is concerned, it is of little consequence in my humble opinion. If you are transitioning from your rifle to your sidearm, you are already screwed because the enemy has gotten within handgun range and you are out of 5.56 rounds for your M-16. You are probably toast regardless. Due to the influx of females in the military, you will never have a large-caliber rifle or sidearm in my opinion. There are too many "delicate" women in ALL of the services that just won't qualify at the range because they will be afraid of the recoil. I've seen them flinch from recoil anticipation with both the M9 and the M16.

    The debate rages on and I'm sure this will turn into another immature argument as previous threads have done.

    SSG idsman75, U.S. ARMY
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jastrjastr Member Posts: 463 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Idsman75
    My whole reason for this post is only because I feel that these are 2 very superior calibers. It doesnt mean they are the best, only in my opinion. This is the reason for my writing this post. I am not experienced in combat, military procedures, warfare, or meeting the needs of everyone. I suppose you are correct on this subject. I feel that i gained knowlege because of this. If you could change the caliber too your specific desires, What would it be?

    lets all be responsible! shoot a criminal!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • buddybbuddyb Member Posts: 5,369 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Seem a year or so ago,that USMC boarding parties were ordered to use 45s M-14s(308)and 12gauge shotguns.Makes sense to me.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • leeblackmanleeblackman Member Posts: 5,303 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I think they should Daisy Red Rider BB Guns, with mounted tactical flashlights, lasers, and have sling shots as sidearms. They could mount ACOG optics on the slingshots and use armor piercing incendiary marbles.




    Visit me http://www.geocities.com/gunsmithlee
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • airborneairborne Member Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    308 and 40 S&W

    B - BreatheR - RelaxA - AimS - SightS - Squeeze
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • idsman75idsman75 Member Posts: 13,398 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    jastr--I was not trying to "rib" you on this post. I am sorry if I came across in that manner. If I could change the caliber (assuming that ALL of NATO would go along with me) I would switch to .308 and employ the DSA STG-58 carbine. Soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are having fun "shooting fish in a barrel" but are having to clean the dust and sand out of their M-4/M-16's 2 - 3 times per day so that they will function properly. Give me an STG Carbine and plenty of ammo and I will be happy.

    As far as my sidearm is concerned, I would like to see the .357 SIG adopted as a standard NATO caliber. It will give better penetration than 9mm ammo through things like flak vests and I just love the ballistics of this "9mm on steroids". The design of the cartrige lends itself to a high degree of reliability and it is proving itself over and over again with law enforcement agencies all of the nation.

    As far as calibers for military applications are concerned, we must strike the balance between a high degree of power and accuracy and that which is sufficient to get the job done. Lending ourselves to overkill will just increase expenses to sustain the current "war" effort.

    SSG idsman75, U.S. ARMY
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jastrjastr Member Posts: 463 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I have a p226 in .357sig, and I agree it is an awsome caliber... I just really like the pumped up 10mm round thats all

    lets all be responsible! shoot a criminal!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • JustCJustC Member Posts: 16,056 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'd like to see the M16 chambered for .243!!!! Now that's a man killer at 500+ with a far milder recoil and wear on the internals.

    I will agree with either the 40 S&W and/or the 357 sig. both great rounds.

    When in doubt...empty the magazine!!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Wild TurkeyWild Turkey Member Posts: 2,425 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Just like any shooting situation you need to match the weapon with the job.

    The '06 in my M-1 was a wonderful round for fighting when you could see far enough to have time to aim and weren't expected to carry a mule-load of other stuff and the line grunt was a trained rifleman..

    But "they" fingured out we couldn't see far enough to use the capability and that rate of fire became more important than accuracy and we needed lighter weapons.

    The move back to heavier bullets in the M-16A2 may be a move in the right direction. I don't think the 9mm was. Remember we went to the .45 when the .38 couldn't stop a guy with a knife fast enough.

    What would I want to carry? Where are you sending me? (remember, I retire in 3 months) I want a rifle that will reach out and do unto others before they can do unto me and a pistol that won't care what they're wearing. I would count on adrenaline taking care of any recoil proablems.

    As usual, the weapons are chosen as much for their "support ability" as for their "fight ability"

    Wild Turkey"if your only tool is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail"
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Jungle JimJungle Jim Member Posts: 264 ✭
    edited November -1
    In Vietnam, the 1911A .45's were so inaccurate, we carried Browning Hi-Power 9mm's. Now, the regular Army carries 9mm's and we carry H&K Mk-23 .45's.

    Looks to me like a "Full Circle" !

    Jim

    "De Oppresso Liber"
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.