PS- I love my Browning Hi-Powers but I carry my HK mk23 .45

the main reason why they went to the M9 was because it was female friendly when it came to recoil.

I’ve never noticed any difference between an M9 and a 1911 when it comes to recoil. Both are pretty mild.

In fact, the M9 was panned because its reach to the trigger was harder for those with small hands than the 1911.

Why the 9 mmm over the 45?

Let’s not open up that can of worms. The 9mm vs 45 debate makes conservatives and liberals seem like bosom buddies.

Have to agree with KCSteve’s opinion. Dragon Skin is a great idea with a lousy implementation.

liquidflorian on January 4, 2008 at 3:47 PM

LOL…. yep..

and Pirates ARE Way cooler than Ninjas!

I get why they went with the M9. 15 rounds.

Mazztek on January 4, 2008 at 1:50 PM

Not entirely true, the main reason why they went to the M9 was because it was female friendly when it came to recoil.

If they’d make a version where the disks don’t fall off at typical desert heat levels, that could actually be fitted to the soliders, and that was light enough to wear for more than 10 minutes then I’d be all for it.

But the current heavy, loose, rapidly deteriorating version — not so much.

Here…

Bryan, how about Hot Air buys Michael Yon’s old armor and conduct your own independent tests? I would if I had the scratch.

Romeo13 on January 4, 2008 at 2:25 PM

I didn’t say the reason why was appropriate or applied in any conflict…I merely said that was the reason why.

And with my personal 45 (Sig P220, compensated with Tritium Sights, and a reworked trigger pull), I am more accurate than with a stock 9mm.

Hit someone in the ARM with a 45 and they’ll usually go down from hydrostatic shock…. can’t do that with a 9….

Romeo13 on January 4, 2008 at 2:03 PM

I couldn’t agree more. I love my Sig P220, she’s always at my side!

James on January 4, 2008 at 2:07 PM

Only if you are fighting a Western Civilized enemy, who puts a great weight on human suffering.

Japan, with their suicide charges.
N. Korea with mass waves.
Iran vs Iraq with their mass charges…
Even Russia in WWII with many of their attacks… (they didn’t stop for casulties).

Not to mention, Islamic ideas which lead to “martydom”…

Make that a totaly false arguement (although one often heard).

I was present for the second round of testing on this gear at Camp Lejeune, NC. I didn’t see the ballistics tests, but a group of Marines ran an infiltration course wearing the armor, and the feedback was universally negative.
The armor has two side flaps which are designed to be “quick-realease”, meaning it can be ripped off quickly in the event that a Marine needs medical treatment. These flaps make it virtually impossible to tighten the flak jacket to your body. As the Marines low-crawled through a good portion of the course, the jackets hung down in front of them and filled with dirt. They also frequenty caught on the barbed wire.

In the end, the Marines chose not to sacrifice mobility.

As for the 1911, they did an improvement on it, the 1991. Excelent updating.

As for the 9mm and the M16, it’s the ammo. Underpowered NATO rounds that didn’t even penetrate the old style FLAK jackets. Here’s one good look at our ammo. I remeber some other talks about this, we aren’t allowed to use more powerful ammo due to some UN and NATO accord. (WTF??!??)

You’re kidding, right?

The 1991 is the 1911, with no major modifications. It carries all the pluses of the original, but all the age (and faults) of a design almost 100 years old. It is single action only, has a low magazine capacity, and weighs a ton… and I speak as a 1911 shooter that happens to like my pistol very much.

I like the .45 ACP cartridge, but there are many fine handguns that are chambered in that caliber (or perhaps better calibers) that are far superior in most respects, with better ergonomics, higher capacity magazines, and at a lighter weight and less manufacturing cost.

As for the 5.56 NATO rounds stopping power issues, it is a combination of both weapon and cartridge that are the problem. The cartridge was developed for optimal use in the 20″ tube, and suffers from lack of velocity regardless of bullet weight or design because of the popularity of the short 14.5″ barrel of the M4. Even with a full 20″ tube and the “better” 77-grain bullets, you’re still lacking stopping power compared to more recent cartridge designs (and some older designs).

If I had a hand at pushing for next-generation features, I’d suggest the Army abandon the 5.56 (yes that will make NATO upset, so what?) in favor of something in the line of the the .250-.280 class with 90-140-grain bullets–probably not too different that the 6.5 Grendal. I’d push for a bullpup weapons design with a 18″-20″ barrel, and a far more reliable gas piston operating system.

The Brits weren’t too far off the mark conceptually 60 years ago with the EM-2 even if the design was far from perfect.

I guess my point is that it isn’t just the bullet or cartridge that needs updating.

The FN 5.7 is a light, armor-piercing platform. If the Army went with a .45 or 10mm platform (either 10mm or 40 cal), they could use something like the .224 Bozz (on the 10mm platform) that has performance not too far away from the .223 rifle round. It’s not common, but it is in use.

I think a lot of troops would like to have the Mk. 14 or something similar become standard issue, but that.308 ammo is genuinely heavy (and so’s the Mk. 14). It’s a whole different mindset to conserve ammunition or fight primarily on single-fire.

The AR- / M-16 platform was designed for a different kind of battle than we’re fighting today. It’s adequate, but adequate ain’t great. I love the platform, it’s just not what I’d want to counter the enemy we’re facing now.

As to the armor, troops generally value lightness and mobility, and are mostly ignored. We can only hope that sci-fi powered armor arrives soon.

TexasDan on January 4, 2008 at 1:46 PM

Personal preference… but since I can actualy shoot…

I’d rather have 8 bullets than can stop a target cold, than 16 bullets that won’t.

And with my personal 45 (Sig P220, compensated with Tritium Sights, and a reworked trigger pull), I am more accurate than with a stock 9mm.

Hit someone in the ARM with a 45 and they’ll usually go down from hydrostatic shock…. can’t do that with a 9….

This thing is the undead of controversies: No matter how many times you kill it (with facts), it just keeps coming back.

It was dead at Hotair until 12:55 pm January 4, 2008. Michael Yon’s article references an article about delaying tests due to industry requests. That article links to an article from July 27, 2007. Which Yon quotes. Pinnacle has not released any new accusations. Where is the controversy?

I get why they went with the M9. 15 rounds.

Personally, I think they should get rid of both and go with something in .40 cal. Better performing.

As for the 1911, they did an improvement on it, the 1991. Excelent updating.

7+1 rounds and still heavy as a brick is updating?

As for the 1911, they did an improvement on it, the 1991. Excelent updating.

As for the 9mm and the M16, it’s the ammo. Underpowered NATO rounds that didn’t even penetrate the old style FLAK jackets. Here’s one good look at our ammo. I remeber some other talks about this, we aren’t allowed to use more powerful ammo due to some UN and NATO accord. (WTF??!??)

It seems that we are just being set up to fail.

Romeo13 on January 4, 2008 at 1:19 PM

Former Air Force myself, so I’d be the last person to argue that the military is always right. They get a lot of things wrong and in fact they still owe me a paycheck that I’ll never ever see, due to a paperwork snafu. But they’re right on this.