true story of new army 45 cal pistols.

**robin2chris** · Posted On: 3/25/2007 12:19pm

there have been countless stories floating around in magazines, on the internet and in general about the us military going back to pistols chambered in 45 acp. for anyone intrested, this is what my research has turned up. there are a few different firearm companies now selling the military 45 acp pistols. these include s&w, beretta, taurus and h&k. these pistols are for special ops. not for the military in general. the rest are still using 9mm pistils from beretta or sig sauer. although ruger and glock have also been used on a smaller basis. if anyone knows different, please tell me where you found that info.

**TEA** · Posted On: 3/25/2007 4:29pm

The .45 Joint Combat Pistol program has been put on hold due to budgetary constraints and logistic concerns regarding swapping pistols during a major ongoing engagement (Iraq), much like the XMA assault rifle and the possibility of switching to a 6.8mm round. None of the companies that you site were awarded the contract. However, US Specops continute to purchase off the shelf .45s as needed.

**teddy_bear** · Posted On: 3/25/2007 5:52pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Combat_Pistol

For more info on the JCP program.

**robin2chris** · Posted On: 3/26/2007 7:39am

thanks for the info. have read and heard so much about what us military is or was going to change. and every version is different. was told the xma rifle project got put on hold over lawsuits and 6.8 switch was something only the gun magazines and not the military had been thinking about. did see a coast guard memo about them going to sig sauer in 40 s&w.

**SFGOON** · Posted On: 3/27/2007 3:04pm

Originally Posted by TEA

The .45 Joint Combat Pistol program has been put on hold due to budgetary constraints and logistic concerns regarding swapping pistols during a major ongoing engagement (Iraq), much like the XMA assault rifle and the possibility of switching to a 6.8mm round. None of the companies that you site were awarded the contract. However, US Specops continute to purchase off the shelf .45s as needed.

SF units tend to get whatever the **** they want. CAG takes up 1% of the US defense budget, and they're just a company sized unit.

**robin2chris** · Posted On: 3/30/2007 8:19am

sfgoon-based on your miltary experience, does it really make any sense for the miltary to buy pistols from a number of different manufacturers?

back in ww2 several companies sold the military pistols. yet even though colt, singer, remington, etc. was doing as much all the pistols were 1911s. the design was the same.

now we have kimber offering a 1911, several others (hk, beretta, s&w, taurus) selling new 45 acp designs and 9mm pistols from beretta, sig sauer, ruger, etc.

does that not have the potential for causing a number of problems? like obtaining spare magazines and other parts. what about training and knowing how to use all those different pistols. they seem to vary alot in terms of action, safeties or lack therof.

**colonelpong2** · Posted On: 4/06/2007 6:34am

6.8mm ? Never heard of dem apples b4

**kohadril** · Posted On: 4/06/2007 11:07am

Wasn't the move to 9mm part of NATO standardization? How would this interact with that?

**TEA** · Posted On: 4/06/2007 11:58am

Originally Posted by colonelpong2

6.8mm ? Never heard of dem apples b4

6.8mm SPC (special purpose cartridge) - designed in conjunction with US Special Forces in order to provide a round with better terminal ballistics than the .223 but with less recoil and bulk than the .308. Can fit 22rds in a standard 30rd M16 magazine. Barret and Knights Armament both make AR15/M16 upper receivers chambered in 6.8mm.

**SFGOON** · Posted On: 4/06/2007 2:06pm

Originally Posted by robin2chris

sfgoon-based on your miltary experience, does it really make any sense for the miltary to buy pistols from a number of different manufacturers?

back in ww2 several companies sold the military pistols. yet even though colt, singer, remington, etc. was doing as much all the pistols were 1911s. the design was the same.

now we have kimber offering a 1911, several others (hk, beretta, s&w, taurus) selling new 45 acp designs and 9mm pistols from beretta, sig sauer, ruger, etc.

does that not have the potential for causing a number of problems? like obtaining spare magazines and other parts. what about training and knowing how to use all those different pistols. they seem to vary alot in terms of action, safeties or lack therof.

There's a big push right now in the military to decentralize logistics by taking advantage of ADP technology (that's automated data processing or "computers" in common parlance.) While standards are needed for rifles and other battle weapons, I personally would prefer soldiers to have access to a variety of sidearms, as they are rarely used, not critical for major combat operations, and a different pistol can drastically increase a soldier's speed and accuracy (which is the foundation of pistol craft.)

In my opinion, all units should stock limited amounts of .45 ACP and GAP, 9mm, .40 S&W, and .357. Soldiers who wish to purchase and deploy with pistols chambered in these rounds should be allowed to do so, and those who choose not to should default to the M-9. All pistol training should be conducted with the M-9, though soldiers who use alternate weapons should receive a small stipend to pay for their training ammunition.

But that's just me.