In 1985 the 45 ACP in model 1911 was 74 years old. It hadn't changed much in that time. True there had been some improvements in manufacturing tolerances, stronger springs etc but basically it was the same gun that saw action in WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam and other places. It was the 80s. We had to have something new and improved, like New Coke.
Now I've never shot a half starved 98 lb Japanese Imperial Army soldier who was charging me with his families katana. I hear its an exhilarating experience. It would seem, and I would agree in theory that its probably best if the first shot stops the attack. I also hear that this is why god himself invented the 45.
In fairness I also understand that having the same ammo as your allies makes it easier to resupply troops on the battle field. Given the option, I'd go along with the "more bullets is more better" line of thinking too.
That would put my opinion someplace between the two camps. I've owned two 9mm handguns. They have their place. I'm not sure that place is on the battle field. That said, I'm sure the US military can be counted on to make as much of mess out of finding a replacement for the Beretta as humanly possible.
I think this nails it on the head.
Fresh off a failed attempt to find a new primary service rifle, the Army is set to help the Air Force replace the sidearm the U.S. military has used for three decades.
Why in the name of all that's holy are we letting the Air Force pick out handguns? Sure I trust the Air Force to know something about fighter jets, Area 51 and the Stargate Program, but hand guns? Come on now. The reason the troops don't like the 9mm is knock down power, or more accurately a lack there of. What's going to happen when the Air Force tries to find people to test the new gun?
I'll tell you what's going to happen. Somebody, probably a general in charge of diversity and inclusiveness, is going to break a nail. That's going to lead to focus groups and a committee that will decide that guns are bad and that if we have to have some, they should be powder blue to match the uniforms. The Navy will retaliate and issue a directive requiring all of theirs to be soft pink.
This won't have as much impact on the Army as you might think. If you're driving around in an M1 tank, you tend not to be as focused on handguns. In that case your secondary weapon is a 50 BMG and well, that beats the crap out of a 45.
I've got a couple of ideas. One, let the troops carry whatever personally owned and supplied handgun they want. Two, under no circumstances allow Air Force, Army or Navy brass to pick out any new handguns, unless they do so under idea number one.
I suspect that no one will listen to any of these ideas. Which leads me to the conclusion that our boys will end up with either, brand new but slightly better designed 9mm or we'll see the 40 S&W on the battlefield.