Thread: How Come?

NATO to match our "allies" side arm cal.. History will repeat itself again because they didn't learn from history's lessons.

Originally Posted by gmaske

I see a lot of military folk here so my question is how come our military dropped the 45ACP and adopted the 9mm?

The 1911s were wearing out, since the last major purchase of 1911s was in the mid-1940s. We needed to standardize ammo with our NATO allies. The military also wanted to change to a DA pistol because of concerns about NDs with 1911s. Lastly, they wanted a pistol that held more ammo than the 1911.

I think all these are valid reasons for changing weapons. Some people scoff at NATO ammo compatibility, and I did too...until my unit found itself with no 5.56mm ammo and I was issuing scrounged British ammo to our guys.

From the little history I'm aware of the reason they adopted the 45 in the first place was because the 38 just wasn't doing the job in the field.

That happened during the Philippine Insurrection, shooting fanatical Moro tribesmen. What .45 aficionados don't tell you is that the Moros also withstood rifle fire from the issue .30-40 Krag rifle, a weapon far more powerful than any pistol, and continued to do so until the conflict finally ended.

I understand that ammo has changed but it still don't make sense to me. The boys in WWII thought the 45 was the greatest thing since sliced bread from all I can gather especially in the Pacific theater.

Military ammo hasn't changed. We still issue and use ball ammo. Is .45 ball better than 9mm? Sure. But most soldiers, who have very little pistol training, find 9mm easier to shoot "acceptably" than .45. Only hits count, and most soldiers can make more and better hits with 9mm than .45.

Soldiers in the Pacific Theater probably used pistols more than they are currently used on the battlefield. Consider that the main infantry weapon in WWII was the long, heavy, somewhat ungainly 8-round M1 Garand. Contrast that with the standard Army infantry weapon of today, the M4 carbine, a short and light 30-round weapon. You can see the lesser need for pistol right there.

Anyway, I wonder what the basis for comparison was with American troops fighting the Japanese. Our guys had .45s. The enemy had the 8mm Nambu peashooter. Did our troops have a lot of exposure to 9mms, or any other pistol? It wouldn't seem likely.

I forgot for a moment that you guys are still using ball ammo. The story about scronging for ammo for your guys is a very good point. I've always admired the 1911 but was a little intimidated by them when I was younger. As a defence weapon the only way they were worth having around was in a cocked and locked state. For me that was just to close to the bone to have around the house. The newer DA/SA autos are nice in that regard. I'm from the Veit Nam erra but never served. I was classed 4A. In this new military you guys are in I would think there would be more personal insentive to be very good with the weapons you would be expected to use. The guys back in my day got a really bum deal. First they weren't given much of a choice and then when they got home they got spat on. This country can never repair that wrong. This current military is sooo much better in every way. You guys are the greatest! Thanks for your service to me!
Ok I'm getting mushy but I do mean it! Thanks

Originally Posted by gmaske

You guys are the greatest! Thanks for your service to me! Ok I'm getting mushy but I do mean it! Thanks

No problem. Thanks for paying my bills.

Originally Posted by Mike Barham

That happened during the Philippine Insurrection, shooting fanatical Moro tribesman. What .45 aficionados don't tell you is that the Moros also withstood rifle fire from the issue .30-40 Krag rifle, a weapon far more powerful than any pistol, and continued to do so until the conflict finally ended.

As a Filipino, I can attest that we cannot be killed by conventional means. You have to sneak up on us and shoot us from behind like the Japanese did.