Army wants a harder-hitting pistol

[Clod Stomper]

I have a buddy that owns two Tokarev's and he also shoots a couple Colt 45 ACPs he has and you can definitely tell when he switches to the Tokarev in the range even wearing good muffs. He is very accurate with both of to Tokarev's and said is by far the most enjoyable gun he owns to shoot. You can also tell when he goes from shooting the new 7.62x25 ammo verses the ammo he bought several years back in old Russian military loads.................jmho 

 

Yep.  It's a round whose "bark" is almost as bad as its bite.  

 

My Dad tried to take his HCP course with a CZ-52.  They stopped him in the middle of his shooting portion because he was making holes in the backstop.  He was using surplus ammo.  He finished the class with a rented Ruger .22.

[A.J. Holst]

Like Dolomite, I am enamored by the x25 round, ballistically it is pretty amazing considering it's a handgun round. Have been debating for years to add a cz52 to my CZ family...

There's something to be said for .357sig too...

[mikegideon]

While they are at it they need to get rid of that lame azz .223 also. The .308 is a far superior round to the 223 in making the opponent unable or unwilling to fire his weapon at you.

.223 is for punching paper or hunting varmints.

I truly think its sad that many of us have better battle rifles than our military that is facing the enemy in battle.

 

In both cases, the ammo weighs twice as much. And the 308 has too much recoil for full auto as well. I watched a fellow TGO member shoot an M14 full auto one day, and it was pushing him around the yard. Big ole boy, too. Based on studies I've seen, the 308 will may a better whoosh when it sails by its target :)

[gun sane]

How much firefighting does the Army do with their side arm?

 

My guess........not much

 

If you have to use your sidearm in combat, something has gone terribly wrong. 

[DaveTN]

In both cases, the ammo weighs twice as much. And the 308 has too much recoil for full auto as well. I watched a fellow TGO member shoot an M14 full auto one day, and it was pushing him around the yard. Big ole boy, too. Based on studies I've seen, the 308 will may a better whoosh when it sails by its target :)

I have not been in combat in the military. Does the difference in accuracy between a .223 and a .308 on full auto outweigh the range and the devastation of a .308 in a situation like Afghanistan, where it appears to me most of the fighting is long range shooting?

I don’t know I guess like everything else its application dependent. I just think that if I was heading out for combat in a SHTF scenario I’m taking my AR10 not my AR15. (I don’t think that scenario will happen, just sayin’).

Do the troops on the ground want something different? If so what do they want? (Other than a gunship)

[Guest Brutnus]

my vote is the 5.7 or x25 round. 

[mikegideon]

I have not been in combat in the military. Does the difference in accuracy between a .223 and a .308 on full auto outweigh the range and the devastation of a .308 in a situation like Afghanistan, where it appears to me most of the fighting is long range shooting?

I don’t know I guess like everything else its application dependent. I just think that if I was heading out for combat in a SHTF scenario I’m taking my AR10 not my AR15. (I don’t think that scenario will happen, just sayin’).

Do the troops on the ground want something different? If so what do they want? (Other than a gunship)

 

I haven't been in combat either. The military's conclusion... doesn't matter how hard it hits the dirt. They found that most rounds weren't hitting their targets, so round count is king. An M16 isn't real controllable in full auto. The M14 is something to see. I doubt that I could dump a whole mag through a doorway at 10 yards. I know the military has some 308's scattered around for true marksmen.  

[bersaguy]

My Buddy that has a coupe Tokarev's went out to a friend of mines small salvage yard about a year ago to  give the bullets a real test. He was shoot Spam can Army Surplus from the Czech Republic. His first test was a car shooting into drivers door at 25 feet. It went through drivers side out passengers door through car door next to the first car  and out the 4th door striking the car next to it in the door and falling on the ground. Second test was 6 cylinder Ford inline 6 cylinder stood up on end that had been gutted of all working parts. Backed up about 30 feet and got behind a car with the windows down and he shot through 2 open windows striking the engine block dead center almost knocking it over and the only reason it did not go over was because it knocked a hole in the back side about 5 inches across when the bullet exited the block. Now that is an awesome load for a hand gun and to think many of the Russian troops are still packing them on their sides. I laugh every time I was that movie with Arnold and Jim Belushi when Jim pulls out a 44 mag and says, this is the most power hand gun made and Arnold pulls out a Tokarev  and says no, this is the most powerful hand gun made...................... :rofl: :rofl:  My buddy has his looking slim and trim and very nice looking guns. They looking more like a 1911 just a little longer barrels.

[bersaguy]

I haven't been in combat either. The military's conclusion... doesn't matter how hard it hits the dirt. They found that most rounds weren't hitting their targets, so round count is king. An M16 isn't real controllable in full auto. The M14 is something to see. I doubt that I could dump a whole mag through a doorway at 10 yards. I know the military has some 308's scattered around for true marksmen.  

16's worked great in the jungles of Southeast Asia on full auto because you wanted to spray the jungle and put as many rounds out  down range into the jungle as possible. I don't know how effective they are in open desert on full auto but I would guess not as effective as in the jungle..................jmho   I think several years ago they began sending and issuing M14's to anyone going to fight in the sand countries. 14's were found to be more dependable in the sand.............jmho

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

FWIW the 5.56 M855 ball does the job that it was designed for...causing massive tissue damage. I think we can debate the 7.62/.308 vs 5.56/.223 until the cows come home but it boils down to range, shot placement, penetration, and energy delivery into the target. IMHO ...and again, just my opinion, I personally think the way to go is to combine the AK easy of operation/reliability/simplicity, with the accuracy of an AR type platform either with the .223/5.56 or the 6.8/.270

 

Course the follow-on question is, what is the engagement range? The 7.62x39/AK system combination inside of 200 meters is pretty hard to beat.

 

Lastly, with regard to combat handgun calibers, I'm kinda meh. One poster mentioned that if you are using a handgun in a combat situation, you are likely already in deep doo-doo. That, combined with modern day armor, makes the issue of shot placement even more critical. With that in mind, IF a handgun HAS to be used, it would seem that THE default/automatic go to sight picture is squarely centered on the person's face. Failing that, the pelvic basin is a good target...it's large, not as mobile as the head, and contains supporting bony structures which, if hit, can drop your opponent.

[dcloudy777]

As long as we're still clinging to the antiquated and ridiculous Hague Convention and sticking with FMJ pistol ammo, military sidearms are decorative items, and it doesn't matter.  The M9 works just fine.  9mm FMJ sucks.  .40S&W FMJ sucks.  .45ACP FMJ sucks. 

 

Have JAG write a brief outlining how JHP pistol ammo is perfectly in keeping (in fact, IMHO less "cruel" than FMJ) with the intent of the Hague and Geneva conventions.  Issue a modern 124gr JHP that shoots to the same POI as Q4318.  Replace M9s as they reach the end of their service life.  Problem solved. 

[DaveTN]

As long as we're still clinging to the antiquated and ridiculous Hague Convention and sticking with FMJ pistol ammo, military sidearms are decorative items, and it doesn't matter.  The M9 works just fine.  9mm FMJ sucks.  .40S&W FMJ sucks.  .45ACP FMJ sucks. 
 
Have JAG write a brief outlining how JHP pistol ammo is perfectly in keeping (in fact, IMHO less "cruel" than FMJ) with the intent of the Hague and Geneva conventions.  Issue a modern 124gr JHP that shoots to the same POI as Q4318.  Replace M9s as they reach the end of their service life.  Problem solved.

I’ve never understood the whole inhumane thing. War should be brutal. It; should be devastating. Leaders of counties should know that innocent citizens will die, cities will be destroyed, and the leaders will be the first targets.

I find it laughable that there are people who think shooting holes though a person with .223 or .308 ball is more humane than killing them instantly with HP’s. We use .50 caliber rifles as sniper rifles. They may be more humane in that you will probably die instantly with one hit; but if you don’t it won’t be very humane.

You want peace? Make war be something countries don’t want to participate in and let the leaders know they and everyone around them will die in the first hours of a war.

[mikegideon]

16's worked great in the jungles of Southeast Asia on full auto because you wanted to spray the jungle and put as many rounds out  down range into the jungle as possible. I don't know how effective they are in open desert on full auto but I would guess not as effective as in the jungle..................jmho   I think several years ago they began sending and issuing M14's to anyone going to fight in the sand countries. 14's were found to be more dependable in the sand.............jmho

 

I think you are getting the M14 and the M4 mixed up. AFIK, the M14 hasn't been issued in any significant quantity since the early Vietnam years. Did I miss something?

[DaveTN]

I think you are getting the M14 and the M4 mixed up. AFIK, the M14 hasn't been issued in any significant quantity since the early Vietnam years. Did I miss something?

I think he is talking about this...
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20100322/NEWS/3220306/Marksmen-issued-better-rifles-Afghanistan

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="mikegideon" post="1165568" timestamp="1404575854"]I think you are getting the M14 and the M4 mixed up. AFIK, the M14 hasn't been issued in any significant quantity since the early Vietnam years. Did I miss something?[/quote] Yeah. M14s were dusted off, upgraded and reissued to troops in 2010 for use as a DMR. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[mikegideon]

Yeah. M14s were dusted off, upgraded and reissued to troops in 2010 for use as a DMR. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

I knew about that. Didn't have anything to do with sand. Had to do with longer engagement ranges. 

[dcloudy777]

There's huge difference between a general-issue infantry rifle and a DMR.

 

The M-14 was a disaster as the former, and is quite good at the latter.  The AR-10 pattern .308 rifles that are replacing the M-14s are much better at the DMR job, however.  The M14s were mainly being fielded because guns like the M-110 couldn't get in troops' hands quickly enough. 

Edited July 5, 2014 by dcloudy777

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="mikegideon" post="1165580" timestamp="1404576751"]I knew about that. Didn't have anything to do with sand. Had to do with longer engagement ranges. [/quote] I didn't say it did. I was just answering the question of M14 reissue. To be honest, I don't think we should have ever issued the M14. The FAL is/was a superior rifle that was available at the time and in wide use amongst ally nations. The M14 was a poor offering and it was well replaced by its successor. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[mikegideon]

I didn't say it did. I was just answering the question of M14 reissue. To be honest, I don't think we should have ever issued the M14. The FAL is/was a superior rifle that was available at the time and in wide use amongst ally nations. The M14 was a poor offering and it was well replaced by its successor. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

Just clarifying. I said they weren't issued in quantity. Should have said to everybody. There were more M4's issued than anything else, and they ARE an M16 with short barrel and gas system.

[DaveTN]

I didn't say it did. I was just answering the question of M14 reissue. To be honest, I don't think we should have ever issued the M14. The FAL is/was a superior rifle that was available at the time and in wide use amongst ally nations. The M14 was a poor offering and it was well replaced by its successor. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Most of our machine tool manufactures are already overseas which would cause us major problems in a large scale war. Do we really want our guns manufactured in a foreign country? American gun manufactures are still the best in the world.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="DaveTN" post="1165588" timestamp="1404577758"]Most of our machine tool manufactures are already overseas which would cause us major problems in a large scale war. Do we really want our guns manufactured in a foreign country? American gun manufactures are still the best in the world.[/quote] I think you are talking about now, I was talking about the initial issue of the M14 and its replacement by the M16. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[tnhawk]

In both cases, the ammo weighs twice as much. And the 308 has too much recoil for full auto as well. I watched a fellow TGO member shoot an M14 full auto one day, and it was pushing him around the yard. Big ole boy, too. Based on studies I've seen, the 308 will may a better whoosh when it sails by its target :)

Before the use of the M16, every soldier trained and qualified with the M14. If someone can't handle the weight and recoil of a 7.62, they need more training or a .22 Edited July 5, 2014 by tnhawk

[three5seven]

Rumor has it that the 9mm was developed and adopted to wound, not to kill, by Germans who theorized that more fatalities could be had when troops went to assist and remove the wounded. However, modern 9mm ammunition is no joke. If the military went to 9mm +p rounds, I'd see little advantage to transitioning to .40 S&W, .45ACP, or .357 Sig. 

 

I've always heard for years that the only reason the Army issued the contract to Beretta in the first place was for cost and for a strategic advantage in the Mediterranean. Specifically, to keep silos in Italy. Whatever caliber, make, or model the new sidearm ends up being, I'd like to see an American owned and manufactured handgun in our soldiers holsters.     

[nightrunner]

NATO-spec 9mm ammo is hotter than anything commercially available already. I do agree we should be using JHP ammo, war should be efficient not humane. IEDs arent humane in the least.

Alot of the enemy is wearing body armor now. They need to retrain to aim for the head or issue ammo that will pierce the armor commonly encountered. If 9mm wont do it, switch to something that will. I vote for 5.7, its a smaller version of the 5.56 they are using, so it makes sense.

[DaveTN]

NATO-spec 9mm ammo is hotter than anything commercially available already.

NATO 9mm is commercially available. It also is just 10% more pressure than a standard round, which makes it less than a +P.
 

Alot of the enemy is wearing body armor now. They need to retrain to aim for the head or issue ammo that will pierce the armor commonly encountered. If 9mm wont do it, switch to something that will. I vote for 5.7, its a smaller version of the 5.56 they are using, so it makes sense

As I understand the problem it’s not shooting through body armor, and I don’t think a 5.7 could do that out of a handgun anyway. 5.7 would be less effective than a 9mm at making an enemy unable or unwilling to fire his weapon at you.

Any round including a .22LR could take someone out with a head shot. Does anyone here think that requiring headshots in combat (or even in an SD situation) sounds reasonable?