PDA

View Full Version : Will NATO ever go with .45 ?



Irfan
09-10-09, 14:20
What do you think, will NATO ever go with .45 caliber as their standard pistol round instead of 9mm?

PRGGodfather
09-10-09, 14:45
No, there isn't much likelihood given the number of entities, terminal ballistics realities, and inter-operability.

I guess they might call it the 11mm.

Outrider
09-10-09, 15:07
The logistics of switching any NATO caliber make it difficult. In order to switch, there would have to be a perceived need to switch. In general, the handgun does not decide modern combat. With the proliferation of body armor, I can't honestly say that the .45 ACP is a game changer compared to the 9mm round for modern military applications.

NCPatrolAR
09-10-09, 15:48
NATO switch to 45? Nope

BAC
09-10-09, 16:00
Why should they?


-B

TOrrock
09-10-09, 16:06
As others have stated, handguns are so low on the totem pole for a military, as well as the fact that for decades, Europeans were content to arm their militaries with .32 ACP handguns, and then stepped up to 9mm Para, that there is no reason for them to go to .45 ACP.

Army Chief
09-10-09, 16:16
Templar has it correct. We're really the only NATO member with any semi-compelling reason to call for change. The rest of these countries have been quite content to use the 9x19mm, and they generally do not see it as a flawed choice, given (1) their views about the role of handguns in general, and (2) the fact that they are not as actively involved on current fields of conflict.

From the European perspective, .45 ACP is something of a dated offshore solution to a non-existent problem. They like the cartridge just fine, but see no real reason to step backward to go forward -- if indeed there is any real reason to abandon the status quo to begin with.

AC

Patrolman175
09-10-09, 16:34
Nope, I think were going to have the 9mm for awhile longer. I believe only Special Forces will be using the 45acp, but Iread somewhere on the net that Special Forces were using the Glock in 40 caliber, but I can remember which forum I read it on, I'm getting old!

03humpalot
09-10-09, 16:37
You guys are actually wrong...the reason NATO will never adopt .45acp is due to the fact that the only time they have seen its sheer awesomeness was when American servicemen were killing their grandfathers with it.;)

TOrrock
09-10-09, 16:50
You guys are actually wrong...the reason NATO will never adopt .45acp is due to the fact that the only time they have seen its sheer awesomeness was when American servicemen were killing their grandfathers with it.;)



Dude......:D

JiMfraRED1911
09-10-09, 19:21
What do you think, will NATO ever go with .45 caliber as their standard pistol round instead of 9mm?

Hell no.

JiMfraRED1911
09-10-09, 19:32
Nope, I think were going to have the 9mm for awhile longer. I believe only Special Forces will be using the 45acp, but Iread somewhere on the net that Special Forces were using the Glock in 40 caliber, but I can remember which forum I read it on, I'm getting old!


If you're thinking of one particular unit that was once famous for using custom 1911, then yes, you are somewhat correct. The talent and know how to keep those dinosaurs running has been stretched VERY thin, hence the reason with going with the GLOCK platorm (albeit the WRONG format). You'd be surprised how many SF units within USSOCOM make due with the bog standard M9 eating M882. As far as I know, there is only one branch in the DoD keeping the 1911 in the lime light, e.i. USMC PWS MEUSOC.

ThirdWatcher
09-10-09, 22:18
I believe the 9mm service cartridge will outlive NATO.

Alpha Sierra
09-10-09, 22:48
Not gonna happen.

citizensoldier16
09-10-09, 23:06
I'm sure the war-hating libs in NATO would consider a .45 ACP "too large" for battle use and thus, it would cause considerably agonizing wound channels. Basically, I think NATO would say it's too lethal a round....like the .50BMG.

kmrtnsn
09-10-09, 23:18
The reason NATO is limited to 9mm pistol cartridges is that many member nations have pistol calibers limited by law to 9mm. There is no anti-American cartridge conspiracy here.

ThirdWatcher
09-11-09, 00:16
The reason NATO is limited to 9mm pistol cartridges is that many member nations have pistol calibers limited by law to 9mm. There is no anti-American cartridge conspiracy here.

Nope, just logistics... and logistics win wars.

BTW, my father (who was a Navy Recruiter in the 1960's) used to have a photo on his office wall that had the quote "Logistics... as vital to military success as daily bread is to daily work" (attributed to Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, 1912). Truer words were never spoken.

JiMfraRED1911
09-11-09, 00:53
Nope, just logistics... and logistics win wars.

BTW, my father (who was a Navy Recruiter in the 1960's) used to have a photo on his office wall that had the quote "Logistics... as vital to military success as daily bread is to daily work" (attributed to Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, 1912). Truer words were never spoken.

What's the saying?

"Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics."

RAM Engineer
09-11-09, 07:59
The talent and know how to keep those dinosaurs running has been stretched VERY thin, hence the reason with going with the GLOCK platorm (albeit the WRONG format).

By wrong format, do you mean "wrong cartridge" or "wrong size pistol"? ie, G19 vs G21 OR G19 vs G17?

RogerinTPA
09-11-09, 09:06
I believe the thread is about the round or caliber, and not the platform.


If you're thinking of one particular unit that was once famous for using custom 1911, then yes, you are somewhat correct. The talent and know how to keep those dinosaurs running has been stretched VERY thin, hence the reason with going with the GLOCK platorm (albeit the WRONG format). You'd be surprised how many SF units within USSOCOM make due with the bog standard M9 eating M882. As far as I know, there is only one branch in the DoD keeping the 1911 in the lime light, e.i. USMC PWS MEUSOC.

Business_Casual
09-11-09, 09:27
Deliberate attemps to start "caliber war" threads should be deleted or locked immediately.

In fact, just about everything the OP writes should be locked:

http://www.m4carbine.net/search.php?searchid=1349544

M_P

MK108
09-11-09, 11:16
You guys are actually wrong...the reason NATO will never adopt .45acp is due to the fact that the only time they have seen its sheer awesomeness was when American servicemen were killing their grandfathers with it.;)

...even if...someone of our grandfathers was not very impressed by such bullet...

...an example...

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/546/p3290026.jpg

...this is the front cover of an italian book...the title is "17 colpi"....it means "seventeen bullets" in english...

...it was written just after the end of the WWIIby a man who was un undercover italian agent in North Africa....in 1941 he was captured by the english forces and because a spy shot by an australian firing squad armed with Thompson SMGs...

...the firing squad hit him from three to four yards with seventeen .45Auto FMJRN bullets...he went down to play dead until the firing squad leaved...he never lost consciouness...after that he got up to hide himself waiting for the return of the italian troops...the italian troops reconquered Derna about three days later....

...he returned in North Africa some months later to drive italian military trucks....fought against partisan and allied troops until 1945....

...he died because a home accident on the Christmas day of 1967...

All the best
Andrea

P.S.: please, excuse me for my poor english.

ThirdWatcher
09-11-09, 13:57
What's the saying? "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics."

"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics." - Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (1980)

Outlander Systems
09-11-09, 14:08
I don't know what NATO's thinking.

Seriously. I saw a guy getting mugged once, and when he pulled a .45 out of his holster, the attacker's head just exploded instantly. He didn't even shoot him.

I shot a bear in North Georgia one time with a .45. One round, that's it. All that was left was gristle, a head, and the spinal column.

9mm is .45, set to "stun".

:rolleyes:

Seriously, why in the world would NATO go with the cowboy cartridge? I'm usually not quick to say "never", but dude, that's NEVER going to happen.

TY44934
09-11-09, 14:09
No chance that NATO will switch to .45. A sizeable percentage of what is now "NATO" just recently abandoned their 9mm Makarovs in favor of NATO Standard 9mm & 5.56mm NATO carbines & rifles.

Besides, body armor is now common. There is a Danish 9mm NATO loading (the M41) with a steel jacket designed & capable of defeating several types of soft body armor. Ever hear of an EFFECTIVE .45 ACP loading against armor?

JiMfraRED1911
09-11-09, 20:12
By wrong format, do you mean "wrong cartridge" or "wrong size pistol"? ie, G19 vs G21 OR G19 vs G17?

Wrong cartridge (for a GLOCK at least), e.i .40 S&W G22.

JiMfraRED1911
09-11-09, 20:12
My mistake, carry on.

JiMfraRED1911
09-11-09, 20:14
"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics." - Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (1980)

That's the one. Thank you.

ra2bach
09-12-09, 15:55
... With the proliferation of body armor, I can't honestly say that the .45 ACP is a game changer compared to the 9mm round for modern military applications.

what do you mean?

Business_Casual
09-12-09, 17:30
what do you mean?

I assume he means that if a new caliber is adopted, it will have to have the ability to defeat soft body armor to even be considered.

Witness 5,7 as an example.

M_P

BillBond
09-12-09, 18:47
What do you think, will NATO ever go with .45 caliber as their standard pistol round instead of 9mm?


Never will happen as it appears to me that the .45 is only popular in US.
The time for the US to cram it down our allies throat would have been in the 50's or maybe even the 60's.

:cool:

ThirdWatcher
09-12-09, 21:11
The time for the US to cram it down our allies throat would have been in the 50's...

I'm NOT trolling, but didn't we do this with the 7.62mm (and then shift to the 5.56mm)?

BillBond
09-12-09, 21:27
That is what I understand happened.

:cool:

LockenLoad
09-12-09, 22:13
no and who cares, NATO 50 YEARS OF DOING NOTHING RIGHT, lets see if they won't shoot people chopping up babies what does it matter what weapons they have, 500 mercs, did more in Serra leone than NATO, so by kicking them out because of politics they actually killed more people, a better question is when will Nato be gone

Combat_Diver
09-13-09, 07:26
no and who cares, NATO 50 YEARS OF DOING NOTHING RIGHT, lets see if they won't shoot people chopping up babies what does it matter what weapons they have, 500 mercs, did more in Serra leone than NATO, so by kicking them out because of politics they actually killed more people, a better question is when will Nato be gone

That was the UN not NATO. NATO troops are currently in use in Afghanistan and are a lot more capble than UN troops (Same troops at times just different Rules of Engagement).

Norway was the only European country to adopt the .45 ACP and that was the M1914 in 11.23mm. Although during WWII the Brits used some M1911s and Germans used captured M1911s.

The .45 ACP cartridge came out in 1905 were the 9x19mm Parabellum is actually older by coming out in 1902! No to the orginal OP question.

LockenLoad
09-13-09, 08:38
That was the UN not NATO. NATO troops are currently in use in Afghanistan and are a lot more capble than UN troops (Same troops at times just different Rules of Engagement).

Norway was the only European country to adopt the .45 ACP and that was the M1914 in 11.23mm. Although during WWII the Brits used some M1911s and Germans used captured M1911s.

The .45 ACP cartridge came out in 1905 were the 9x19mm Parabellum is actually older by coming out in 1902! No to the orginal OP question.

Your right thank you for correcting me, still even some countries NATO troops are less than adequate

Business_Casual
09-13-09, 10:19
Your right thank you for correcting me, still even some countries NATO troops are less than adequate

I'm sure I don't follow you, how are some country's NATO troops different from the rest of their troops? NATO is a treaty, not a designation.

M_P

LockenLoad
09-13-09, 10:31
[QUOTE=modern_pirate;452517]I'm sure I don't follow you, how are some country's NATO troops different from the rest of their troops? NATO is a treaty, not a designation.

M_P[/QUOTE
not saying that, some countries troops are just not that great, I would rather have American NATO soldiers, than say Luxembourg ones, we will usally be the largest contigent with better equipment, and better training

nogoodnamesleft
09-13-09, 11:32
Besides, body armor is now common. There is a Danish 9mm NATO loading (the M41) with a steel jacket designed & capable of defeating several types of soft body armor. Ever hear of an EFFECTIVE .45 ACP loading against armor?

Don't know how effective it is, but VBR-Belgium makes one:

VBR-Belgium (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3K1VgJpiNE)

Interesting vid.

matthewdanger
09-13-09, 17:03
It seems that since both (.45 ACP and 9mm) will be FMJ projectiles it wouldn't make much difference which one they issue. It is not as if one is more effective than the other. In fact, it seems that the 9mm may have more upsides for modern warfare (more capacity in the same size platform, easier to control, etc).

armakraut
09-14-09, 00:08
Templar is correct, service pistols aren't exactly a big ticket item. Overseas "9mm Luger" is thought of as a big time powerful "man-stopper" cartridge anyway. That's not to chime in on any 9mm vs .45 debate in any way, it's just been my experience overseas that I never met a single person who was of a negative mindset towards 9mm.

The best thing the US, NATO or anyone else could do logistics wise would be to allow officers and other qualified people to purchase their own sidearms, ammo, accessories, etc that conformed to some fairly broad standards. I know that seems like an odd statement in the era of universal service pistols, but the most actual use pistols see is during qualifications, so it doesn't matter too much in the long run. Given a choice in 9mm or .45, most people would opt for a glock 17/19, or 1911 anyway.

1911's are immensely popular here, far and away the most popular delivery system for the caliber, but for .45 to be viable, someone would have to do for the single stack 1911 what glock did for the hipower.

Outlander Systems
09-14-09, 02:06
...someone would have to do for the single stack 1911 what glock did for the hipower.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3337/3339265987_a96709c585.jpg

;)

armakraut
09-14-09, 03:05
Single column man, single column... so it's usable by midgets, women, carnies, girlymen and other people that don't have teutonic wookie mitts. :D

variablebinary
09-14-09, 05:44
Why would they? What purpose would it serve?

Kaasselslay
09-14-09, 05:59
You guys are actually wrong...the reason NATO will never adopt .45acp is due to the fact that the only time they have seen its sheer awesomeness was when American servicemen were killing their grandfathers with it.;)
Silly boy.

03humpalot
09-14-09, 06:27
Silly boy.

;),
all in good fun my man.

tpd223
09-14-09, 09:27
Way back when I was at a school at Ft. McClellan doing Army SRT training.

Had cause to talk guns and bullets with the guys there. They were using MP5s and Colt SMGs at the time. They told me if they were going to do a job where the bad guy was a troop and may be wearing stuff like LBE, they would choose ball ammo on purpose.

They tested their 9mm JHPs and issued ball, and also .45 ball as they had access to 1911s still back then.

The .45 ball and 9mm JHPs (147gr Winchester sub-sonic) were often stopped by thing s like loaded mag pouches and canteens. The 9mm ball went right through those barriers.
Same-same for the old Vietnam era flak vests. The issued 9mm ball round would get through the PASGT vests better than 50% of the time.

I've shot the old Army steel pot helmets before (with the helmet liner in place) and found that .45 ball bounces off, any decent 9mm FMJ round blows right through.

Although we can debate the merits of .45 vs 9mm all day, no one can argue that any bullet hole in your enemy is better than no bullet hole in your enemy.

TY44934
09-14-09, 15:55
If anyone doubts that our troops currently do (or will in the future) face opponents with body armor, then read this account from Afganistan:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/75301.html


"Only Army Capt. William Swenson, of Seattle, and Marine Lt. Ademola Fabayo, of New York, were unscathed and able to defend themselves and their wounded comrades from the insurgents who were moving down a hillside toward them.

At one point, Swenson said later, two insurgents wearing helmets and flak vests called on the five Americans to surrender. He responded by hurling a hand grenade at them."

If flak-vests stop the .45ACP, then by glad our troops are using M4s, M9s & M11s.

Besides, how well-equiped do you think the Taliban is compared to a more-organized force like the military of China, Russia, N Korea, Iran or Venezuela?

Outlander Systems
09-14-09, 23:29
Single column man, single column... so it's usable by midgets, women, carnies, girlymen and other people that don't have teutonic wookie mitts. :D

I've always considered the USP to be the M1993; successor to JMB's glorious hand-cannon.

I wouldn't mind seeing a modern-day, single-stack-fed, 1911-type weapon.

armakraut
09-15-09, 00:00
I hear you on the USP, they are fine handguns. The HK45C I owned ate .45 wolf like the nutty professor ate M&M's out of a bowl. USP's in that caliber are the .45 ACP equivalent of a terminator.

First guy who makes a metal framed glock externally shaped like a 1911 is going to make a mint. Especially if you or smiths could still bedazzle it with most of the same accessories as any 1911.

kmrtnsn
09-15-09, 00:51
Come on guys, its been a 100 years, a lot has changed and improved; move on already.

nogoodnamesleft
09-15-09, 19:05
100 years and none have improved on the 1911's trigger.

R Moran
09-15-09, 20:19
100 years and none have improved on the 1911's trigger.

Yea, ya gonna have to do better then that.

Bob

buzby
09-15-09, 21:25
the USMC may be. the Sgt Major of the Marine Corp talked to my unit last month and started talking about some of the new gear in the works, and made mention of a new .45 pistol

Matt Edwards
09-15-09, 22:05
You guys are actually wrong...the reason NATO will never adopt .45acp is due to the fact that the only time they have seen its sheer awesomeness was when American servicemen were killing their grandfathers with it.;)

I was going to also ask "why whould they?" Then I saw Buck's post. All bets are off. Humpalot for President!!!

Matt Edwards
09-15-09, 22:07
the USMC may be. the Sgt Major of the Marine Corp talked to my unit last month and started talking about some of the new gear in the works, and made mention of a new .45 pistol

Heck yeah. The services have been talking about this for what, 9 years now? I guess we'll see.

JonInWA
09-16-09, 09:34
I think that tpd223 nailed it. There are two purposes served by a military cartridge: To incapacitate/kill an aggressor, and to subsequently tie down the aggressors logistical/medical support chain if he isn't killed outright. In terms of outright incapication, standard issue ball ammunition in 9mm and .45 ACP has been found to be roughly intrinsically equal; when you go to penetrativeness, as tpd223 laid out, the 9mm is superior, causing potentially greater woundability.

So-from a military standpoint, with military ball ammunition, the 9mm NATO round is the more effective from an overall perspective. Plus it's smaller and lighter, easing both the strain on the logistical system and the weight of the individual soldier's load.

As a former Army officer, I had absolutely no problems with the organizational conversion from .45 ACP to 9mm. I do not see NATO having much of an impetus to consider, much less make, a switch from 9mm to anything else in a PDW/SMG cartridge-especially since many of the newer eastern European countries with lesser resources have already converted from 9 X 18 to 9mm Parabellum in both platform and ammunition to be in commonality with NATO.

Best, Jon

MiggyE
09-24-09, 04:59
I think that tpd223 nailed it. There are two purposes served by a military cartridge: To incapacitate/kill an aggressor, and to subsequently tie down the aggressors logistical/medical support chain if he isn't killed outright. In terms of outright incapication, standard issue ball ammunition in 9mm and .45 ACP has been found to be roughly intrinsically equal; when you go to penetrativeness, as tpd223 laid out, the 9mm is superior, causing potentially greater woundability.

So-from a military standpoint, with military ball ammunition, the 9mm NATO round is the more effective from an overall perspective. Plus it's smaller and lighter, easing both the strain on the logistical system and the weight of the individual soldier's load.

As a former Army officer, I had absolutely no problems with the organizational conversion from .45 ACP to 9mm. I do not see NATO having much of an impetus to consider, much less make, a switch from 9mm to anything else in a PDW/SMG cartridge-especially since many of the newer eastern European countries with lesser resources have already converted from 9 X 18 to 9mm Parabellum in both platform and ammunition to be in commonality with NATO.

Best, Jon

very much agree. i personally have seen 9mm ball penetrate old steel helmets that had shrugged off 45 caliber slugs my uncle threw at it with a thompson. besides, as a physician, my experience points out that wounds and trauma caused by 9mm and 45 are basically THE SAME.

as my uncle, a general and a guy whose picture hangs on Ft. Benning's OCC wall, its all logistics, logistics, logistics. even without former Warsaw Pact members to worry about, most of NATO prefers 9mm, and they have decades of practice, and the history in using this cartridge to back them up. then, as you pointed out, lighter, more compact bullets mean more carrying capacity over all. lesser headaches if you dont have to worry about fielding multi-nation forces and worrying about bullets in multi calibers

sigmundsauer
09-25-09, 11:30
9 is fine.

For those of us pontificating on these pages, we could probably master a .45 ACP to make it worth it. For the legions of service members far less handgun savvy, a 9mm makes FAR more sense. They are easier to shoot by those uncomfortable with recoil.

It all boils down to marksmanship; in this sense I'd much rather have more ammo and focus on where the rounds are placed.

Tim