2007-09-09 19:04:56 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
someones provision was the main reason...
money...
2007-09-13 11:36:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Coast Guard just switched to a .40cal Sig Sauer handgun. The Beretta isn't that great, but a .45 isn't very accurate over a specific distance. When the representatives from the Military were talking about their firepower not being affective enough, they were referring to the fact that the M16 round will sometimes shoot straight through their target causing little damage because it has such a high velocity. Think of it as shooting a pin through a haystack. The best weapon for close quarters combat, which was what they were referring to as well, is a shotgun with slug rounds. The Coast Guard also uses one of these, the Remington Police Magnum 870 with a pistol grip and short barrel.
2016-04-03 23:50:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Marine Corps is reconsidering that decision also. They are not allowing senior NCOs and line officers to carry the M16 now. A lot of them were doing it anyway. Some are even using the AK47s they pick up.
When I was in the Corps on special assignment, I was armed with a .38 revolver. What a piece of junk that was. Give me the 1911 .45 any day, or a Beretta 44. I want something with some stopping power. Not something that can be deflected by a belt buckle.
2007-09-09 21:10:39 · answer #3 · answered by SgtMoto 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Thank the Air Force for that. They were put in charge of the Joint Service Small Arms Program and selected the Beretta 92S-1 from the tests. USSOCOM is in charge of the new program, and they are looking to switch back to the .45ACP. Although it will not be a 1911, they will get it right this time.
2007-09-10 07:03:21 · answer #4 · answered by erehwon 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Long, Long, story...... So here the clifts note version:
By 1980 the Supply of "perfect" 1911's was 40+years old and Has many issues. Heavy recoil, Heavy in weight, only 7 rounds of poor stopping FMJ rounds, Hard for small handed people to handle, Single action, & the rest of NATO used 9mm's. The Sub Machine guns like the Uzi & Mp-5 also were in 9mm. Trials were held and in 1985 the M9 was chosen. Was it the right move? The debate still goes on. Plans for a new gun are on hold.
2007-09-09 20:29:03 · answer #5 · answered by lana_sands 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
There were many reasons, the M1911 is a single action and the Beretta a double, the 9mm does allow for compatibility with Nato but also with several submachine guns and of course its easier to carry 9mm rounds (smaller). Larger capacity by magazines was a big part of it; and with modern developments similar stopping power (almost of course).
2007-09-09 19:10:08 · answer #6 · answered by netjr 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Women can better handle the 9mm. Also when we sign onto the UN Global Security & Tax, our soldiers can be complete world police and share rounds with NATOs amateurs.
2007-09-10 07:58:34 · answer #7 · answered by vote_usa_first 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
They wanted to be compatible with the NATO 9mm round
2007-09-09 19:08:09 · answer #8 · answered by HFC 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Does it matter? The only thing a pistol is good for is starting a foot race.
2007-09-09 21:15:55 · answer #9 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
ALL OTHER BRANCHES OF NATO USE THIS ROUND.
IT IS A MATTER OF LOGISTICS TO GET EVERY ONE
THE RIGHT AMMO.ALSO THE BERETTA HAS A LARGER ROUND CAPACITY , TROOP CAN CARRY MORE OF IT.
2007-09-10 09:08:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Higher ammo capacity, and to be inline with the more common NATO calibers.
2007-09-09 19:15:52 · answer #11 · answered by Marco R 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋