Time to say goodbye to the M9 9mm pistol

[TheCrazyOrange]

I'm a big proponent of the 10mm Auto round. Good stopping power; where I've seen 9mm rounds just bounce off a Grizzly's skull, 10mm just seems to punch through quick and easy.

1mm bigger, so you still have the higher capacity magazines.

Recoil is nice and controllable.


I just love it.

[Gman]

Orange, have you personally shot any bears and seen that result?  If you look at the test data done by the military and the FBI, 10mm isn't really putting THAT much more energy into the target than any of the other usual suspects caliber wise.

I shoot 10mm as well, I have a Delta Colt 10mm and a couple Smith 1006's, and I like it as well, prior to the 357 sig coming around, it was THE high velocity auto cartridge to shoot IMO.  That said, again, it isn't leaps and bounds better than anything else, not a single caliber from 9 to 40, 45 357  etc has an edge larger than 10-20 percent over anything else.  If that with premium ammo.  10mm with good loads moving at 1250 will usually be over 600 ft/lbs, compared to around 400 with really good 9mm ammo.  This still isn't anything to write home over IMO.  Many people consider 556 to be a poodle shooter, yet a typical NATO round has 1700 ft/lbs of energy. See what I mean?

Velocity is the most important factor, followed by bullet weight, then caliber/size/etc.  Having a 130 gr low velocity, ie subsonic 45 round would be a terribly poor performer.  850 ish feet per second with 130gr bullet, it doesn't matter if it's 9, 45, or 75 caliber, it won't put enough energy into the target.  A 115 9mm going typical defense load velocity will hit harder, far harder than that will.  I get your idea smoe, but it's physics, unless you use some sort of expanding or exploding round, velocity is the critical component to lethality.  The 5.7 which is essentially a .22 bullet going warp speed is one way to go, the opposite way to what you're suggesting, high high velocity with light weight projectile, and it tends to be more lethal than very low speed mid weight rounds.  There is tons of data out there for certain to look at.

[TheCrazyOrange]

I personally haven't shot a grizzly with a pistol, but I have seen the results. My dad and I were up on a fishing trip in Alaska with our uncle Tom from the kenai Peninsula, abs my friend Ifeanyi. We got dumb and left the cooler out on day 3, and a grizzly wandered into our camp.

The damn things are huge. 15 year old me almost pissed himself.

[GScholz]

If you want a pistol that is significantly different than the M9 or Glock or whatever, then the ammunition is key. Something like the FN Five-Seven or a similar modern pistol round with body-armor defeating performance. Once you accept the fact that no pistol calibre is going to kill anyone quickly without careful shot placement, the real issue becomes penetration.




The 5.7x28mm FN round even has 30% less recoil than a typical 9mm.

[Oldman731]

Anybody wanna say "I told you so?"

I may be wrong, but I don't remember anyone ever saying that the .45 ACP lacked stopping power.  Ball, soft point, hollow point, whatever.

Downsizing to the Euro cartridge was a mistake.  Most US shooters knew it at the time (except for the 9 mm big-magazine fans).  Glad they're taking steps to rectify the error.

- oldman

[JunkyII]

Not really a big deal since it really only matters to operators and MPs

Infantry doesn't use them except for gunners for close quarter when their 240 is down.

How many times has the Army tried to replace the M-16 and failed?  This is just going to be a huge waste of money.  Lets just all make out checks to the Department of Defense for about $1000 and tell them to spend it however they want.

I haven't used an M16 since I was at Sand Hill.....most non combat units don't even use M16s anymore.....

In fact they just told us we are getting the full auto M4s sometime in the next FY....Don't worry man we try to maintain our weapons even to the point where they are almost combat in effective so you don't have to waste your tax money.(Hell had to spray paint my M4 so it didn't shine in the light anymore...)

[Brooke]

Here's a nice, practical choice with stopping power:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7yK7pW6VuE

[-ammo-]

If you want a pistol that is significantly different than the M9 or Glock or whatever, then the ammunition is key. Something like the FN Five-Seven or a similar modern pistol round with body-armor defeating performance. Once you accept the fact that no pistol calibre is going to kill anyone quickly without careful shot placement, the real issue becomes penetration.

(Image removed from quote.)


The 5.7x28mm FN round even has 30% less recoil than a typical 9mm.

The issue with the U.S. forces is the budget.  Given the amount of ammunition the Services expend for training, the price tag for that 5.7x28mm would send the policy makers into cardiac arrest.

[TheCrazyOrange]

Ammo, speaking of new calibers, have you heard anything about the 6.5mm Grendel round?

Apparently armed forces were to trial it with the SCAR-equipped units in 2013, but I haven't heard anything further.

[danny76]

If you learned to shoot with the HP and used it for a long time, then transitioning to a Glock will naturally result in worse performance for quite some time. Especially since the Glock is a natural pointer (like the Luger) while the HP and Sig are not. Your whole arm posture changes.

I didn't find that. I always got strange looks for my unorthodox shooting stance, I have hands like spades  and always managed to shoot the Hi-power  more intuitively than either the Sig or Glock.

Still managed tight groups from 25m kneeling and sitting, and standing snap shooting from 10m

[HPriller]

The issue with the U.S. forces is the budget.  Given the amount of ammunition the Services expend for training, the price tag for that 5.7x28mm would send the policy makers into cardiac arrest.

This is where things are screwed up.  The individual 5.7 rounds should cost less to manufacture, they're less brass/powder/etc than a 9mm round.   If it's a licensing issue the military should just come up with their own new/similar round and make it 5.67mm and call it the 5-6-7 

I agree with the direction of this thread.  For a pistol change to be meaningful, I think it needs to be a modern high velocity, high penetration round like the five-seven.  We've already explored too many ways to do 9mm and 45ACP IMO.

[-ammo-]

It's not the brass, primers, and propellant that is expensive.  It's that high terminal performance projectile that sends the price way up.

However, the military services could use ball ammo for training only and use the premium stuff for combat service

[mbailey]

Thanks for the write up Gman. Being a Sigarms instructor I always wondered what your take was on the 357sig round. I have one in the 239 and really like it a lot  

When it first came out years ago I was working at a gunshop/indoor range and always had access to the latest and greatest firearms/calibers and was usually left very unimpressed.  It was the exact opposite with the 357sig. I will say that I am a bit biased as I love every Sig I own, my favorite (and primary ccw) being my 225.  

I've always found the 40 cal unpleasant  to shoot myself. A bit to snappy for my liking and can't seem to re-squire a decent sight picture (I'll admit I do do a lot of close quarters front sight shooting) and even doing that find it unpleasant. I've shot it in most all the brands out there and the only one I found to be decent was the Kimber 1911 in 40cal.  I equate that to the weight, stiff spring and long slide travel 

[GScholz]

It's not the brass, primers, and propellant that is expensive.  It's that high terminal performance projectile that sends the price way up.

However, the military services could use ball ammo for training only and use the premium stuff for combat service

And perhaps a lighter load to increase service life. Might need a lighter recoil spring for that though in a gun like the Five Seven. When I was in the army we used a very weak Israeli made 9mm training round; it was barely powerful enough to cycle the Glock. It also increased malfunctions of course, but that's a good thing to train on anyway.

In our army we still use the Glock in 9mm, but we have replaced the venerable MP-5 with the MP-7 in 4.7x30mm as the defensive weapon of vehicle crews and other personnel who needs a compact defense weapon.

[Gman]

As I was saying, for now with the tech we have, velocity is the primary factor.  If there is ever a move towards some sort of higher performing projectile, for example exploding rounds or a new spin on the blended metal ideas, we're stuck with the current method really.

A combination of both would be perfect for smaller weapons - something that is moving fast enough to penetrate light body armor and other barriers, but also delivers some sort of explosive force once inside the target.  A larger diameter and sized round might be helpful in that regard, in order to have more of a charge inside of it, possibly.  IMO a 357 sig type round, that sort of size, a 115 to 147 gr bullet moving at say 13 or 1400 fps with a technology that has bullets exploding once they penetrate a ways - that IMO would be the most effective type of round out there for a pistol sized weapon.    There would never again be worries, charts, and talk of the "lethality" or terminal ballistics, since the temporary and permanent wound channel would be the same thing - a huge hole formed almost instantly - after a kaboom inside the target, and a hit anywhere on the T line or the torso, within 6 inches of the cone of vulnerability in the human body would pretty much always be almost instantly fatal. 

I realize there are treaties about such rounds, but there is always ways around that, and the world we live in now nobody seems to follow or care about promises made on paper anyway.  IMO this is the direction that should be taken in the next decade or two for all types of projectile small arms weapons, and I know there are people working on these ideas already.