We all have our opinions on the caliber debate. We all have our opinions on "plastic" guns. We all have our opinions on Glock. But, one by one, the experts continue to make their choices based on facts and not on emotions or personal preference. Glock 19......there are prettier, there are bigger, there are smaller, there are more expensive, there are more collectible. But there simply is no better! https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/ar...over-45-caliber-pistols-for-special-operators
Unfortunately, in this day and age, many decisions by our key military decision makers are driven more by budget (really the lack of) than by quality. This is yet another such decision IMHO. "Since last year, MARSOC has purchased and fielded 1,654 Glock 19s because Raiders needed a reliable secondary weapon “that could be used for both a concealed carry profile and a low-visibility profile,” and having one approved pistol for all special operators saves money," "The .45-caliber round is also more expensive than its 9mm counterpart,"
And that's legitimate, to factor in cost. .45 ACP ammo is twice the price of 9mm ammo. Is it twice as effective? I think it's a little bit more effective when both rounds are of the FMJ variety, but there isn't enough difference to worry about when modern hollowpoints are used. Another factor is ease of use. Even though special ops soldiers will be "the best of the best" they don't have an unlimited time to train. Will they be more accurate with the 9 compared to the .45? Yeah, they probably will. Accuracy counts more than bullet mass or velocity when it comes to dropping bad guys.
Are our special operators using anything but FMJ these days? If not, the difference between 9 and 45 is much more pronounced than if they can use HP ammo. As for accuracy - among the Rangers and LRRP folks I have known they were no more accurate on multiple targets once they got accustomed to a weapon regardless of standard caliber. No it was not - it was the only specific reason given and it was given several times. The bottom line is that our military is in about as bad shape as it was in '79 under Carter. Scavenging for spare parts from static display decommissioned aircraft is about as bad as it gets when you are trying to get ready for a ORE and we've seen multiple reports of such in the past 6 months. We are RIFing thousands of top-notch service personnel. Cost is a huge issue right now for every branch and the USMC has always gotten the Sh**y end of the budget from the Navy.
I whole-heartedly agree and can attest to such. That being said, the G19 is a pretty fantastic unit, especially for the price. Simple unit. Slick outside footprint, no hammer or safety or decocker or whatever. I like a lot of other 9mm pistols in that general size, and of course if I had to choose a pistol-mistress she would be a 1911. I say good on MARSOC, making the best of it right now I guess...
While I agree wholeheartedly agree that budget came into play in this decision, and so it should, there's no doubt that substantial testing and analysis brought it down to the Glock 19. No matter how you cut it, that's the bottom line and one helluva good decision, in my humble opinion.
Bogus analysis from start to finish. If its reasonable how and why did they attempt to rely on: discussing/arguing .45 v 9mm and including .40 to help make their point. Basic bad argument. That one attempted point of contention/support invalidates the accuracy of the rest. Plastic guns are for children. I went to metal ones long ago. Nemo
I don't think so. The Army has been thinking about going to hollow point ammo for the entire service, for over a year. But there are selected special ops units that do carry with hollow point ammo. http://www.military.com/daily-news/...ring-hollow-point-bullets-to-go-with-new.html
The military should use HP's for anything other than a declared war against a uniformed enemy. Terrorists and guerrilla fighters don't come under the protections of the Rules of War per the Hague and Geneva conventions.
That's true. International law has long been to hold a summary hearing to determine if such persons were in uniform at the time of capture, and, if not, firing squad. I do not think the US is up for that anymore, though.
The uniformed .mil is not currently using any HPs to my knowledge. Anywhere. Yeah while I want to agree, that means that any US contractors would likely face the same fate. And... the whole "did we actually declare war" thing is still a bit murky. And anyways, ISIS would not hesitate to do far worse things to anyone dubbed an enemy, the use of HPs is like but a grain of sand on a beach vs. what they'd do to any US service member.
Not true. They are used to stop hijacking of mil airplanes...but the rules are very specific. If you aren't trying to stop a hijacking of your airplane, and you use that ammunition against an enemy, you are violation of the LOAC (law of armed conflict).
roger. very specific case there. Does that include private airline airplanes that are chartered to transpo mil ?
I don't have knowledge of that...but the only folks that 'should' be armed would be the crew (civilians) and since not combatants most likely not subject to the LOAC. I can't think of a time the a mil member would be armed (more specifically...loaded weapons) while as a passenger on a civilian jet. The only mil folks that we allowed to fully arm were some special operators *or* secret service folks. We didn't care what kind of ammo they carried.
For shooting at the range? 1911. For shooting in real world high stress situation? Glock. Not even a question. Also, I'll take 9mm any day of the week over .45