The Original CZ Forum
GENERAL => General Firearms Discussion => Topic started by: JimThornTX on July 03, 2014, 03:37:40 PM
-
If only CZ had a manufacturing plant in the USA. I think our soldiers would look great carrying a P-06 or an SP-01 in 40S&W or a 97 in 45ACP. 8)
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/07/03/army-wants-harder-hitting-pistol/
-
Again? Seems I see these stories every year - along with the latest camo design they're trialing. Must be a slow news day.
-
Hmmm? Wonder who's getting $$$ under the table for this one? The Defense Department bought another shipment of Beretta M9's last year.
-
I wouldn't look for the DOD to spend a BUNCH of money on handgun and ammunition testing/buying in this time of Mil cut-backs and National bebt.
DOD will be spending a LOT time trying to make cut-backs with minimum troop losses.
-
We have nothing to fear. Dear Leader will take care of us. ::)
-
I wouldn't look for the DOD to spend a BUNCH of money on handgun and ammunition testing/buying in this time of Mil cut-backs and National bebt.
DOD will be spending a LOT time trying to make cut-backs with minimum troop losses.
You are assuming that there is ANY logic to DoD spending. There is not.
The folks that make these decisions don't really care about troop losses or readiness or cost vs. benefit,,,,,, it is like any other bureaucracy,,,,, they do want they need to do to in order to keep them and their position relevant and to pad their EPR/OPR.
DoD is no less broken than any other of our bureaucracies.
-
+1
-
It is infuriating how our lack of confidence in our government is so obvious to us, but doesn't seem to faze our government until they want a vote.
-
Let's go back to talking about the guns. I understand why they don't like 9mm, while I think it's great for defense. Everyone needs to remember that the military has to stick with ball ammo. I believe it's the Geneva Convention that prohibits hollow points for military use. Nothing in pistol caliber really does that job. Without modern bullets, it's worse.
Something bigger and badder than 9X19 is needed to stop a highly motivated attacker.
-
You beat me to it Smitty.
It was the Hague Convention of 1899 that banned expanding bullets. I just did some reading on it.....very interesting history.
JHP would do better than switching to .45 IMO. However, the military also makes use of the better penetrating FMJ ammo in some cases, I would imagine.
-
Due to NATO conformity I wouldn't expect DoD to switch to a service pistol chambered outside of 9mm. Cool guys units (MarSoc, SF, SEALs, etc) will still get their pick of the lot due to their mission parameters, but standard units and personnel will more than likely be stuck with some awful DA/SA pistol.
-
If it were up to me, I would probably go with a double stack 45. Max fire power with ball ammo. Having a gun with a choice of polymer or steel for the frame would be nice. That way, the guys that don't have to hump their gear in the boonies get the stronger frame. But when the mission is is walk a long way in the mountains, you can save a few ounces.
-
Simple logistics would prevent widespread adoption of a 45 service pistol. On top of that DoD would have to retrain all the armorers, depending on the platform extensive retraining would have to take place to get everyone accommodated to the new pistol's operation, and then there's the commonality we share with other NATO forces. If a US unit is sharing a patrol base/outpost it screws over our allies if ammo stocks run short and they can't feed their sidearms.
-
I really don't see the military getting away from 9mm as it has been mentioned. I personally like the Beretta, but never had to use it when I was in the military. And you have to remember that all of our troops that carry the 92 aren't elite and proficient with the gun like most of the units that probably have had to use it in a life or death situation. Granted it was over 20 years ago, but I was infantry, and in the 82nd, and we still only fired the 92 once a year to qualify. Proficiency only comes with practice, and Im pretty sure your regular ground pounders still don't get enough good handgun training. My apologies for going political earlier.
-
I don't foresee any change due to simple logistics and the fact that you can carry much more 9mm than .45. I know from competition shooting that my bag feels considerably heavier when loaded down with .45 am than 9mm. Personally I like the .40 when considering the fact that the military uses FMJ. Think about handgun hunting with hard cast flat points. They give far more tissue disruption than round nose bullets. The .40 already has a flat point and would therefore cause more tissue damage. Now, I wonder if we could improve 9mm performance by going to a truncated cone FMJ. Or come up with a round nose that has an air cavity under the nose that would allow the nose to crush under impact to become more of a flat point. This may even be enough to cause the bullet to lose stability and begin to tumble there by creating more tissue damage. Kind of like how 77 grain Sierra match kings are used in combat because they weren't designed to expand, however they yaw, tumble, and fragment really well! We just have to become more creative!
-
We have nothing to fear. Dear Leader will take care of us. ::)
Yeah, imagine if we saved the more than one trillion dollars wasted on that Iraq misadventure. Things would be a lot different for all of us today.
Back OT... indeed a slow news day. Rest assured, that under-the-table deals have already been made.
-
9mm military ball ammo is less than ideal for sure... but I would think that the real emphasis should be placed on realistic training and more practice. As many here no doubt realize, pistol skills are very perishable. This would be exacerbated IMO if they moved to a higher-pressure chambering.
-
Now, I wonder if we could improve 9mm performance by going to a truncated cone FMJ.
This was studied back in the early 1970's by the USAF, who wanted to increase effectiveness of the .38 Special and 9mm handguns used by sentries guarding Landing Strips. The research contract was given to Hornady and it did prove somewhat successful, but was never widely adopted as plain FMJ-RN's were cheaper. Note that the current Hornady 9mm 124 grain Flat Point was developed from this study. The design proved more successful with Target Shooters than the US DOD, as they cut cleaner holes in targets and provided better feed reliability than SWC's.
Or come up with a round nose that has an air cavity under the nose that would allow the nose to crush under impact to become more of a flat point. This may even be enough to cause the bullet to lose stability and begin to tumble there by creating more tissue damage.
Sounds like the Federal EFMJ-RN design, sold in areas that prohibit JHP's.
-
Now, I wonder if we could improve 9mm performance by going to a truncated cone FMJ. Or come up with a round nose that has an air cavity under the nose that would allow the nose to crush under impact to become more of a flat point.
Not a bad idea, just issue it and call it "match grade" ammo. DM's and snipers get away with using HPBT because the HP was designed to increase accuracy and not solely for damage capabilities, so they're able to skirt around that little addendum that the US didn't sign but follows for some retard reason.
-
It's been widely known by revolver shooters that a wide flat nose or wide long nose bullet gives the best penetration and tissue damage. A RNFP with a 65-70% meplat would greatly improve the terminality (is that even a word?!?) of the 9mm versus a round nose FMJ.
-
A RNFP with a 65-70% meplat would greatly improve the terminality (is that even a word?!?) of the 9mm versus a round nose FMJ.
I think the word you're looking for is "lethality", but your intended meaning is clear. I would like to try such a Bullet as you describe in the 124 to 135 grain range.
-
I really don't see the military getting away from 9mm as it has been mentioned. I personally like the Beretta, but never had to use it when I was in the military. And you have to remember that all of our troops that carry the 92 aren't elite and proficient with the gun like most of the units that probably have had to use it in a life or death situation. Granted it was over 20 years ago, but I was infantry, and in the 82nd, and we still only fired the 92 once a year to qualify. Proficiency only comes with practice, and Im pretty sure your regular ground pounders still don't get enough good handgun training. My apologies for going political earlier.
The pistol is considered just a one MOA notch above having a knife on your belt. It's considered a weapon of last resort for the troops. Having a more effective pistol is not considered a direct benefit to mission effectiveness.
Special Ops/Seals/guys-in-black, etc., do train heavily with all manner of firearms appropriate for their missions.
-
A RNFP with a 65-70% meplat would greatly improve the terminality (is that even a word?!?) of the 9mm versus a round nose FMJ.
I think the word you're looking for is "lethality", but your intended meaning is clear. I would like to try such a Bullet as you describe in the 124 to 135 grain range.
Lethality! That's the word I was looking for! 8)
Here's such a bullet at 140 grains.
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/jameslovesjammie/gun%20stuff/Casting%20Stuff/IMG_20130218_204040.jpg) (http://s26.photobucket.com/user/jameslovesjammie/media/gun%20stuff/Casting%20Stuff/IMG_20130218_204040.jpg.html)
-
Very nice Bullet Design! 8) Something like that would serve nicely! :)
-
I wouldn't look for the DOD to spend a BUNCH of money on handgun and ammunition testing/buying in this time of Mil cut-backs and National bebt. DOD will be spending a LOT time trying to make cut-backs with minimum troop losses.
According to the article, switching to a totally different handgun would be cheaper than continuing to use the Beretta.
As part of the joint requirement process for MHS, Army weapons officials did a "very thorough cost-benefit analysis" that showed supported the effort, Easlick said.
"We have got an old fleet of M9s right now; it's costing us more to replace and repair M9s than it would cost to go get a new handgun," he said.
-
Since they are looking for a "new" pistol and that the armed forces is giving a thumbs down to the 9 mm, then why not think a little out of the box? I think they should be examining a caliber that has been used in a very cool CZ, 7.62 x 25.
It's a .30 caliber and super fast. Recoil is manageable and with load development it could be extremely lethal. What we need is an updated CZ-52!!
Otto
-
Because the military is slow to change, and like I said earlier US forces generally share log-trains and outpost locations with friendly forces, so it's a lot easier on everyone if there's caliber commonality between everyone. Honestly the only two pistols I could see making headway in the trials, that are an actual improvement over the M9, would be the FNX9 or CZ 75B or BD although the military would probably opt for the 75BD because of the decocker. But because of US Mil brass seeing CZ as "well they used to be commies, they couldn't possibly be good guys now" I doubt the CZ would even make it into the trial rotation.
-
The P-09/P-07 series might be more suited to mil senses, logistics and budgets.
I might just give the US Mil brass some more credit to know who their 21st century allies are. Across the Czech Republic today, bells tolled and flags are at half-staff in memory of the four Czech soldiers whose remains arrived home today. They were killed by a suicide bomber near Bagram and another soldier was seriously wounded. RIP to our fallen Czech allies.