I see that the US Military is looking for a new pistol and pistol round.
The goals are penatration and scalable lethality....they are looking at 4.7 x 30mm and 5.8 x 28mm......the 5.8 round is currently being marketed in the US....the 4.7 is an experimental H&K round. Both are very flat shooting, high speed rounds, that penetrate impressive layers of kelvar...

i still think that they should go back to the .45 nothing beats an old 1911

What about 40 S&W? seems to be a good balance of bullet weight and velocity. Isn't 4.7 smaller than 17 caliber and 5.8 would be a little over 22 cal correct?

I got to second the 45. I about cried the day I had to turn in my 45 for the #$%^ 9mm. The 45 will still knock a person flat on their . What they need is another round that you have to shoot someone 5 or 6 times to stop them.

"Never take a handgun to a gunfight if it does not start with .4."

I see that the US Military is looking for a new pistol and pistol round.
The goals are penatration and scalable lethality....they are looking at 4.7 x 30mm and 5.8 x 28mm......the 5.8 round is currently being marketed in the US....the 4.7 is an experimental H&K round. Both are very flat shooting, high speed rounds, that penetrate impressive layers of kelvar...

Don't see those round as being good general issue rounds,,,more specialized for targets suspected of being wraped in body armor. Can't kill 'em if the bullet never gets through kelvar and touches meat.

Would be a pretty useless round for the current fighting situation...non armored non-uniformed targets. Would be much better off to go in the opposite extream and use a big heavy slug most like to drop the guy with the bomb on his back farther way from the good guys.

You guys just dont understand that picking new weapons and ammunition for our armed forces has nothing to do with our soldiers ability to win in combat. These decisions are purely political and have nothing to do with reality.

Tanker,
I understood that the day I turned in my 45 for a 9mm, and wondered what in the world things had come to. Seems that it might be going from bad to worse.

4.7 mm = .185 inches
5.8 mm = .228 inches

I can't imagine such a projectile being terribly effective against someone who wasn't wearing body armor. Therefore, I wouldn't feel comfortable carrying one of those around unless I thought there was a high probability of my opponent wearing body armor. That's a plausible scenario in some hypothetical military situations, and it makes sense to be prepared for it before it becomes a reality rather than to react to it after the fact. It just doesn't make sense, though, to make such a weapon the general issue sidearm the way the M1911 and M9 have been.

Those dont seem like very good choices. If they want something potent enough to penetrate body armor the soviets had it in 7.62x25 years ago.

I think that we should drop the Nato standard and go to the .40S&W. The US Coast Guard just adpoted the .40S&W as there standard issue sidearm cartridge. But that also has to do becasue DHS's standard caliber is the .40S&W. Maybe our military should follow suit. I find that the .223 is a fine cartridge, if it fires the right bullet. The SS109 FMJ isn't it. And the Hague Convention is part of that blame. Iraq didn't sign it, so our actions aren't restricted by this convention. We should go to Winchester's 64 gr. Super-X Power-Point. That would be a fine soft target round. And for a pistol cartridge. Speer's Gold Dot Lawman 180 Gr. JHP would be a fine pistol cartridge for our military. That's my $.02 folks.

4.7 mm = .185 inches
5.8 mm = .228 inches

I can't imagine such a projectile being terribly effective against someone who wasn't wearing body armor. Therefore, I wouldn't feel comfortable carrying one of those around unless I thought there was a high probability of my opponent wearing body armor. That's a plausible scenario in some hypothetical military situations, and it makes sense to be prepared for it before it becomes a reality rather than to react to it after the fact. It just doesn't make sense, though, to make such a weapon the general issue sidearm the way the M1911 and M9 have been.


The 5.6 x 28mm standard loading is a 31grain hp...an option is the V- max...but the real news is a round that civilians can't buy. There is a steel penetrator round designed so that the rod is off balance. Once it penetrates the armor it keyholes and leaves a large wound channel. In the absence of armor the windscreen jacket peels off and the rod oscillates causing a large wound channel. The big advantage is that the round dumps its energy and is unlikely to pass through a wall and hurt someone in the next apartment.

I talked to one of the techs at Sierra about this round and he tells me thta it mics .224 with an odd taper. I think this would be an awesome round for crows and the like out to 200 meters...would love to see a little Cz mini mauser chambered in it....

Refighting the supposed Soviet assault through the Fulda gap in body armor and heavy tank formations maybe?

Iraqi insurgents aren't wearing body armor I seem to recall. Nor were the Afganis. Beureaucratic screw-ups running things again they know nothing about. Want to solve some problems with the least muss and fuss and get something that works against the "impending terrorist threat"? I vote .45acp loaded with 230 grain hardball. Cheap, effective, accurate as necessary. You need more accuracy, you need a rifle. It is just more governmental morons spending money we don't need to spend to enrich their friends in the corporate world they will join after they are out of the public sector.

You forget - if they didn't test all these newfangled concepts, they'd be out of a testing job and might have to rotate to areas of conflict and put their tender fannies on the line.

Seriously, guess I really don't mind them doing all the R&D - need to keep current, ya know. Only thing is, the folks making the big decisions need to have solid input from those who will be wielding the firepower to assure any new concept is worthy of changing the old.

Always thought the .45 ACP and the 7.62x51 were darn near perfect as military cartridges. Each was more than capable of answering the needs of the grunt on the ground in combat, i.e., put your opponent down quickly and effectively at personal combat ranges.

Due to the nature of balistics it the round were out of balance it wouldnt be controllable in flight and would hince be very innaccurate, so I doubt that is the case. A more plausable choice would be a charged round very simular to a current artillery round that way rage could be limited by flight time. Simply put at the flight time for 100 yards the round goes poof and never impacts down the line, or gets stuck in the kevlar or tissue some place and assists the ''compliance'' of the target

Due to the nature of balistics it the round were out of balance it wouldnt be controllable in flight and would hince be very innaccurate, so I doubt that is the case. A more plausable choice would be a charged round very simular to a current artillery round that way rage could be limited by flight time. Simply put at the flight time for 100 yards the round goes poof and never impacts down the line, or gets stuck in the kevlar or tissue some place and assists the ''compliance'' of the target
The round is stable until the windshield is stripped away and the sabot comes off..

The 1911 .45 is tried and true. I don't believe the 9mm is an effective combat round.

History is doomed to repeat it's self, by those who dont remember it. The reason we had the 45 ACP is because the 38 would not stop the crazed moro warriors. There were accounts where the 38's had been emptied into a moro and they just kept comming until done in by a rifle. Thus the reason for the larger more powerful 45.

A pistol is a last ditch effort in combat. I dont want no mouse gun!!

The 38 S&W round is and never was a defence round. (They even made a military rifle in the round, I think). I have shot mine at a can on a hard packed dirt road at ten paces and found the bullet laying on the ground just beyond the can. The 38+P round is a different animal completely and the .357 mag is a definite self defence round. The .45 is in a league of it's own.

They haven't bettered the 45 ACP / 308 yet and seem always to be going down hill from there!

anyone know what they mean by "high velocity". i saw 34 grains mentioned for bullet weight , are there other weights?
Kim

Regardless of whether or not the bad guy is wearing body armour, the 45 is going to stop him, and you can always put one in the head as he is getting back up. Come to think of it, one in the arm or leg will also not make him happy.Neither will a round below the body armour. 9mm may be an effective round with the proper bullet, but that bullet is not going to be hardball.

Saying that, an inprovement would be a double action auto. The pistol will be issued to lots of folks, not just experts.

As for complying with NATO standards, I believe the U.S. is quite capable of supplying ammunition to its military. :D

Lets see they use less metal and powder so cost is less ! And are great for shooting Chipmonks ! And they said we may be in Iraq for 12 more years ! Yes this is the New ARMY ! JAGG

The 9mm is an effective killer. Just look at Arlington cementry/Allied cementries in France or Russia. That being said I've carried both in combat and haven't used either one yet (always seem to use the rifle at the time) yet I have more confidenece in the .45. This weeks Army Times has a article where the Army is testing new handguns and different cartridges. Seems that the old 1905 cartridge M1911 ball is ahead. Just got 9 rounds of .455 Webley this afternoon and tomorrow I'll draw the MKVI Webley to see how it fares (used to have a MKIV in .38 S&W). Been here in the sandbox since Friday for my third tour now and issued again a M9 Beretta and waiting for a chance to get one of our M1911A1 again.

CD

I will never forget the conversation a had with one of the refer repair guys at a plant I worked at two nights before I left for boot camp in 1981. I told this guy he wouldnt be seeing me around anymore because I had joined the Navy to be a Corpsman. I told me he had been a Corpsman in Vietnam with the grunts. There were in a firefight I believe at Khe Sanh. He was taking care of a wounded Marine and heard something in the grass. he fired he 45 and then didnt hear anything, drug the Marine back and later guys from his squad went and checked it out. He had hit an NVA in the leg just below the hip, and blew the guys leg off and he bled to death in a few seconds. When I got issued my 45 with the grunts, I thought of him, and felt like I had something in my hands.

Line up the insurgents in rows of ten.
Then shoot them each with a different round.
Then check the wounds, and choose the best bullet.
Rifle first @ zero, 100yds thru 400yds.
Pistol next.
think that would work to choose most effective caliber.

i still think that they should go back to the .45 nothing beats an old 1911

The .45 gap is a great option. JP

Line up the insurgents in rows of ten.
Then shoot them each with a different round.
Then check the wounds, and choose the best bullet.
Rifle first @ zero, 100yds thru 400yds.
Pistol next.
think that would work to choose most effective caliber.
10mm wins! This was a pistol topic?
US military is also looking at 6.25..6.85 as a new rifle cal.( Rifle cal., are we the only ones that see the advantage) JP

Open field of view, ,.7.62*51 or 5.56mm say hello to your ancestors at. 600+ meters JP

yea the military should go back to the .45 i think the should never had left the colt 1911