Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Marines Get Glocked
SYSOP    3/5/2015 4:47:12 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
HeavyD       3/5/2015 2:37:31 PM
Pity they can't just jump to the 10mm Glock 20.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       3/5/2015 7:54:12 PM
A 10mm pistol would have several disadvantages.  Would the small amount of extra velocity and energy be worth it?
 
Beyond characteristics of the weapon itself (with the ammunition being heavier and having more recoil etc while still being incapable of penetrating modern body armour), the weapons would not be NATO standard.  For most soldiers, a pistol is just a back-up which is limited in value; it wouldn't be worth switching all of NATO to 10mm.
 
The most common use for pistols in the Army is probably people posing with them for photo opportunities.  I once saw an idiot in "Military Intelligence" repeatedly cycling the action and trying to catch the ejected live round as with the movie "Man on Fire".  But, I grant most disciplined Marines wouldn't be so stupid.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       3/5/2015 9:27:11 PM
I'd like to know more about .40SW  round. It is not very common here where I live.
 
It looks like a perfect round on paper. Muzzle velocity similar to 9mm Parabellum  stopping power similar to .45 ACP. Acceptable recoil. Why everyone is not using it ? Is there a drawback ?
 
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       3/5/2015 10:58:28 PM
"For most soldiers, a pistol is just a back-up which is limited in value;"
 
Yeah, largely dead weight under most circumstances (in my opinion).  I know there is vocal segment in the Marines (more Marines than Army).. but Army as well that lament the switch from the .45 M1911 to the M9 9mm.. 
 
The 1911 was long gone from service when I was in.. so my only in service experience was with the M9, which I could more or less hit what I was aiming at.. I was by no means a great shot with it.. but I always felt that if it came down to having to use it.. several things had generally gone wrong.    I've fired a M1911 as a civilian and couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with it...
 
I guess the special forces guys practice / deal with more close quarter stuff than the average Joe.. I'm fine with them choosing whatever works best for them.  But I'm totally with Yimmy on it not making much sense to re-tool NATO..
 
As for foolishness with secondary weapons... I've witnessed (and heard variations repeated.. over the years).. of debates between troops regarding the efficacy of body armor..  If it can stop a bullet, it can obviously stop a knife...  one thing leads to another.. the 1SG is collecting bayonets from everyone in eyesight...  (or worse)
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    H'hhhhhmmmm   3/6/2015 1:25:21 PM
MarSOC must be more attached to the Marines, than other Special Operators...I wouldn't have thought they'd have much problem buying any pistol they wanted....
 
I'm sorry, but much of this debate about 11.4 v 9 mm is just academic....sure IF you are a gunfighter it matters, otherwise it's fairly pointless. 
 
Yes, .40 caliber is a fine round, better than the 10mm it replaced (less stress on weapons frames), more stopping power than 9mm X 19 mm, not as large & powerful as the 11.43 mm...useful for units with men AND women as operators.....
 
But it's like the 6.8mm SPC...is it THAT MUCH BETTER, to justify replacing all pistols & their ammunition?  Mind you 9mm X 19mm is a fairly universal round, available from many allies & suppliers....40 caliber is not.
 
So why go to the expense of adopting a non-standard round, for a very small percentage in effectiveness for the mean, median, modal user?  I'm betting the modal number of combat pistol rounds fired is 0........I'd imagine the mean number is less than 5.....
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       3/6/2015 2:03:42 PM
The British Army has replaced the Browning High Power with the Glock now, both in 9mm.
 
But, I believe British SF had already replaced the Browning with the Sig 226 (9mm).  But I expect they also have plenty of other weapons in their armouries.
 
When the UK deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and it became clear that the Browning's were all worn out, the Army purchased Sig 226 on an Urgent Operational Requirement (cutting the usual bureaucratic process of tenders and competitions etc).   The fact that the Sig was not chosen as the new peacetime standard weapon begs questions as to whether the Glock is the better gun, or whether it just worked out as cheaper to support as a weapons system in the long run.
 
But, all these weapons are 9mm.
 
I liked the Sig.  It was much easier to make ready than the Browning, and it was lighter.  But the solid steel of the Browning gave you confidence.  I wasn't a great shot with either.  More importantly, the Sig had a plastic pistol grip which was nice and warm in your pocket.  But, obviously it isn't very professional to keep the pistol in your pocket... and nobody would ever do that....
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       3/7/2015 1:41:32 AM
The caliber of a pistol doesn't matter much above a certain energy (and penetration), there is no significant hydrostatic shock.  Shot placement is all that really matters.  More rounds mean more chances of putting one where it matters.  Knockdown is pretty much a myth for pistols.
 
Quote    Reply

tobiathan    Not a myth for .45 ACP   3/10/2015 5:22:01 PM
The M1911 was built to stop a charging man cold. It has a 100% kill ratio on an un-treated solid hit. And the M1911 never jams.
 
The perfect combat sidearm.
 
Not so perfect for smaller persons, though; too large.
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    tobi   3/11/2015 6:30:23 PM
>The M1911 was built to stop a charging man cold
 
And that is what the sales guys and Hollywood would have you believe is reality.  Sir Issac Newton, may disagree. Short of hitting the brain, there is really no immediate lights out switch.. Pistols just don't deliver "that" much energy.. you actually have to be able to fire them..
 
>It has a 100% kill ratio on an un-treated solid hit.
 
Um.. yeah.. assuming you mean something relatively center mass.. that does organ damage.. pretty much is going to be a likely eventual outcome for an "un-treated" wound.. from pretty much any round.
 
>And the M1911 never jams.
 
And do you happen to have a bridge to sell along with that pistol?  (I'm really thinking.. you were just joking..right?)
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       3/12/2015 3:29:54 PM
I'm sure I read about an Argentinian who in the Falklands War was shot seven times by 7.62mm, and survived.  I thought it a good argument for the 7.62 vs 5.56 debate.
 
If you want a sidearm with 'knock down' power, then how about the Webley No.1 in .577 Boxer?  That was a double action 6 shot revolver from the 1870s - a 14.6mm round fired at 550 f/s from a 4 inch barrel.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics