SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the next-time-it-will-be-a-light-sabre dept.
The U.S. Army will likely replace its standard-issue sidearm with a Sig Sauer P320 pistol (with undisclosed modifications):
After a long and much-criticized search, the US Army has chosen Sig Sauer to produce its next generation of handgun, eventually replacing the current standard issue sidearm, the Beretta M9 pistol. "Following a thorough operational test, fielding of the modular handgun is expected to begin in 2017," the Army said in a statement announcing the decision Thursday.
The M9's three decades of service since 1985 has occasionally made it the subject of derision among members of the armed forces. "The joke that we had in the military was that sometimes the most effective use of an M9 is to simply throw it at your adversary," Sen. Joni Ernst, a former officer in the Iowa Army National Guard, said last week during the confirmation hearings for Ret. Marine Gen. James Mattis to be secretary of defense. [...] "The Army's effort to buy a new handgun has already taken 10 years and produced nothing but a more than 350-page requirements document micromanaging extremely small unimportant details," Senate Armed Services committee chairman John McCain wrote in a 2015 report on the program's problems.
The Army awarded Sig Sauer Inc. with a $580,217,000 contract. Also at Washington Post, Popular Mechanics, and RT.
More about the Modular Handgun System.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Tuesday January 24 2017, @10:43PM
9mm should be superior if you're worried about opponents having body armor. 9mm rounds are supersonic; .45 is subsonic. It may have more mass, but velocity I would think is more important for penetrating armor. You can also get 9mm rounds in higher-pressure loadings these days.
Yep, muzzle energy for both is about the same due to higher velocity on the 9mm. The higher velocity and smaller diameter make the 9mm better at penetration.
It bears mentioning that, in the military mindset, overpenetrating and also hitting a second target beyond the immediate one is considered a bonus, unlike in civilian use. Similarly, an incapacitating wound is better than a killing wound in combat - medical evacuation takes on average two extra combatants off the field for every injured combatant. That 3-for-1 multiplier is a big reason why Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) is the standard bullet configuration: I guarantee that hollowpoint rounds never would have been conceded for the Geneva Conventions otherwise.
I doubt anyone in the top brass is going to argue that .45 isn't more effective at stopping an enemy soldier. The problem is that the math goes better for the overall engagement if our pistols have more rounds of higher-velocity smaller-caliber rounds. The individual soldier is less safe, but the Army is better served as a whole. In the immortal words of Lord Farquad:
That is a sacrifice that I am willing to make
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @11:49PM
It's more complex than that. For penetration you want high velocity, but a narrow round by itself isn't the issue. You need a high sectional density, and then you need a projectile hard enough that it doesn't expend all its energy in deforming against the armour.
Most 9mm rounds aren't all that hard. Armour piercing rounds are available, but mostly in rifle calibres. They have hardened penetrators as part of their construction, and tend to drill extremely narrow holes.
At the time of the Geneva Convention, this sort of analysis had not yet been done, but they did know perfectly well that spitzer bullets tended to yaw and tear large holes on impact, which makes them highly lethal on humans, but less than ideal for hunters. They were quite happy to keep using proven, effective bullets.
Elsewhere there have been discussions about handgun projectile survival rates. They're quite high, given modern medicine.