Spoonman
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2010
- 18,163
- 7,661
- 330
put a 9mm slug next to a 45 and there is no comparisonI was on the 9mm test committee for the Army when they decided to replace the M1911. We tested just about every model 9mm in all types of combat conditions. I can tell you with out a doubt that the decision to change and the company selected were due to politics and cronyism. A 3 star general visited our test site and asked me how the testing was going. I told him this was one of the stupidest decisions the Army ever made. He said we both know it but the decision was made way above our pay grades. A little history. At the turn of the last century we were fighting the Moro's in the Philippines. Our soldiers were issued a .38 at the time. The Moro's would be all drugged up when they attacked and the .38 was not stopping them. They begged for a better side arm. We sent the M1911. Not only did it stop them, it knocked them on their asses because it fired a big, slow, soft lead round that expanded on contact and you didn't need to hit a vital organ. The 9mm fires a hi speed round that will go through and through, not knock you down and will not kill unless it hits a vital organ. The only advantage I saw was that it has a 14 round magazine. One of the major factors Beretta was chosen was even though it is an Italian company, the Army's 9mm would be manufactured in Baltimore. I am still of the opinion it was a terrible decision. As a side note, I was also on the test committee when the Army replaced the LAAW with the AT-4. I did agree with that decision.