It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US Military Dumps the 9mm

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:12 AM
I have no idea why SOME people here are calling the 45ACP ancient, yes its old, but if you guys had even had one long thought you'd realize the 7.62mm is an old round, on other threads here i havent seen anyone ELSE conplain about its age
Anyway, the 45 is a brilliant round, for the reasons people have stated and because if you hit someone with it you most DEFFINTELY are gonna put them down.

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:22 AM
I agree, it's defenetly about time... it couldn't even killa mouse...

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Lonestar24

From that link:

3.3.3. Accessory Rail. The JCP shall have an integral MIL-STD-1913 rail for the attachment of accessories (T). The rail shall be located forward of the trigger guard on the lower portion of the frame (T).

Both the Mk.23 mod.0 and the USP Tactical do not have integrated 1913 rails.

The P46 is a self-loading pistol with a delayed blowback system, is fully ambidextrous, to include magazine, and slide release and features a MIL-STD-1913 (Picatinny) interface on the frame for mounting all the usual accoutrements.

3.3.6. Length. The JCP length, with standard barrel, shall be less than 9.65 inches (T).

The Mk.23 mod.0 is exactly 9.65 inches long, so arguably it is too long.

The MK 23 is the reference bar for this specification as written by SOCOM for this RFP

3.4.4. Ergonomic Enhancements: The JCP shall be operable for a range of operators from the 5th to 95th percentile per section 3.6.3. To aid in this, the JCP should incorporate a modular grip adjustment system to provide enhanced ergonomics (O).

Both USP and the Mk.23 do not offer this feature. Newer HK models do.

The new HK P46, still likely not in final production form, bears significant resemblance to the P2000 series pistol. With removable grip size panels like the P2000 series, fully ambidextrous slide and magazine release, the similarity is remarkable. DA/SA Pistols. The JCP in the DA/SA configuration shall have an internal safety mechanism ... . If configured with external safety, the weapon shall meet the requirements of DA/SA Pistols with External Safety. ...

They want both, soem versions with and some without external safety. The Mk.23 is only available WITH external safety.

nterestingly, the P46 "is fitted with a modular trigger system which allows a change of trigger/hammer configurations and trigger weights." Use with Brügger and Thomet suppressor is planned, and a longer threaded barrel and higher profile sights will be extant. Fabricating the mechanisim to NOT include an external safety would be a simple modification to the design

So, after all, the "SOCOM" and USP do not fulfill the specifications

Really ? looks to me like HK already had a working model of the JCP back in 2002. Whether they call it the USP or UCP or MK23 Mod (1). The basic fact is that HK is the top applicant for the new .45ACP sidearm. And yes the UCP (P46) and USP are close enough that they share a good portion of the same technical design spec's.

By the way SOCOM is not a gun, just a specification division for the department of defence.

[edit on 2-12-2005 by robertfenix]

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:36 AM

Originally posted by northwolf
The new gub in order might be the new HK p3000, the first introdused version is 9x19, but other calibers are coming out soon... .45ACP could be fitted into that frame and it has the rail...

Why would H&K even try when they have just launched the new HK45 - the likely winner of the competition in my opinion.


[edit on 2-12-2005 by Winchester Ranger T]

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:51 AM

Looks like the USP modified to meet the requirements of the new Joint Combat Pistol for the Department of Defense. Full size USP with Picatinny rail, user-changeable grips, threaded barrel. Exactly what the Army has specified...

The .45 ACP HK USPc was a proposed COTS phased replacement for NSW Mk23 and P226 pistols; it has not been procured pending the outcome of the Joint Combat Pistol System.

above two comments referenced from the above link....

HK45 is a new USPc (for combat) replacing the UCP concept P46

[edit on 2-12-2005 by robertfenix]

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 12:10 PM

Originally posted by robertfenix


Really ? looks to me like HK already had a working model of the JCP back in 2002. Whether they call it the USP or UCP or MK23 Mod (1). The basic fact is that HK is the top applicant for the new .45ACP sidearm. And yes the UCP (P46) and USP are close enough that they share a good portion of the same technical design spec's.

Please tell me, what are you trying to prove here? All I did was responding to your obviously erroneous first post stating that you believe the M9s were being replaced by Mk.23 USSOCOM pistols, that this is intended to be the "JCP" and that this pistol is the full size USP (which it is not, the USP is the full size pistol, else it would have a "USP" somewhere in the name to designate its familiarity)

Then in your answer to my post you suddenly slipped in the USP Tactical to prove your point. But USP Tactical =/= Mk.23, no matter how much commonality they really share. To both you cite links that either say nothing, or that work in favor of my points - I cited direct parts of the solicitation that worked against accepting the USP Tactical and the Mk.23. Remember, this was still about your claim that M9s were due to being replaced by Mk.23.

And now you are fabricating a connection with the UCP, although your own link clearly states the intended use of the UCP: to be a companion to the MP7 with its AP cartridge. Even the name reflects that: USP (Universal self-loading pistol) designates the intended allround capability of this family of weapons (sporting, defense, LE, Military...), while UCP (Ultimate Combat Pistol) clearly designates a solely intended use in military combat. Above that it doesnt sport a .45 caliber as is required, and the grip with a width of 30mm is thinner than the .45 USP (32mm) and the Mk.23 (38.8mm) - so creating a true highcap magazine might be a problem (also a requirement).

And please share your intimate wisdom on the commonality of the USP and P46! I would be happy to hear about it given the fact that NEITHER official HK resources even list the pistol, nor do 2 of the most popular and correct web resources on HKs (HKPRO and Maxim Popenkers site) claim any definitive knowledge of the specific weapons design.

So either you bring up new facts supporting your initial claim, or simply accept that you were misled in that statement. I do not doubt that HK has the best chances of being chosen as the JCP supplier, but almost certainly NOT with an already existing model.

By the way SOCOM is not a gun, just a specification division for the department of defence.

I know what SOCOM stands for, thats why I wrote it in brackets. However it is also the unofficial nickname of the Mk.23, for two obvious reasons: There is a BIG "USSOCOM" stamped on the slide, and the weapon was specifically made according to and for SOCOM specs. (And while we are at hairsplitting, the correct abbreviated designation for that Dod division is "USSOCOM". And it isnt the "specification division", it is the overseeing institution of all the lesser branch-specific SOCs)

Originally posted by robertfenix
HK45 is a new USPc (for combat) replacing the UCP concept P46

Read above, or maybe even read your own sources. P46 is designed to give AP capability in a sidearm package. If anything the HK45 is going to replace the older .45 USP models. HK has not released any statement on this - as well as they havent said anything regarding the HK45 project in public as of now.

[edit on 2/12/2005 by Lonestar24]

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 05:08 PM
blah blah blah you seem to miss the point, the MK23, the Mark 23 the USP line are all the same even the new HK45 is within the USP family.

the MK23 mod (0) is fielded specifically for SF and special operators.

by me stating that the M9 being replaced by the MK23 is correct in so much that SOCOM used the MK23 to write the specification for the JCP and that some details of that specification alter the MK23 and require a another variant to fullfill all of their requests. The MK23 is a mission specific offensive hand gun. The JCP specification is for a multi-role, multi-purpose replacement for not only the MK23 but for the M9 service pistol as well.

Since there is no code currently for the new JCP pistol as it has not been even field tested or conducted ballistic battery tests no winner has been choosen. But since the MK23 is the reference with mods required to comply with JCP specification the new weapon will be a different article number.... And this is all because of the failure of the XM8 program (HK) and static being applied because it was not an open bid procurement,.... more then likely it will simply be M45a1 M45a2 etc depending on safety/ no safety, threaded barrel, no threaded barrell etc.

So to recap since there is no official designation of the new weapon I simply said M9 being replaced by MK23 (lacking what the final specification code will be) but rest assured the new weapon will be the modified HK45 to mil-spec.

They just supplied 60,900 units of the USP line to Homeland Security and LE departments... you really think this was not the opening door to the Armed Services contract then you are really not in the loop.

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 06:25 PM
Well, perhaps the new S&W M&P (Military and Police) will fit the bill? (no not the ancient revolver, the new M&P Semi-auto pistol).

Sure it's only available in 9mm, .40cal and 357SIG, it's still a pistol with LOTS of features and with some changes to caliber it would be a very well service pistol and a 100% American

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 11:50 PM
Never understood the obsession with shortguns since, particularly in a squad environment, "If you're all down to pistols, someone has made a BIG mistake...".

1. All pistols weigh in the range 2-2.5 lbs. From the Net, the 92FS is 2.1. The 1911 is 2.41.

2. An empty M16A2 is something like 8.2, with the sling it may be a bit more. Say 10lbs loaded. The M4 Carbine trades rails and adaptors and often the heavy tube-stock for barrel length so it's only about a pound better. SMGs trade weight for stability and capacity so they too tend to be a bit heavy. As I recall, the MP5 is 7.4lbs empty.

3. BUT. Where the excrement hits the rotational mechanism is shoulder locked firing accuracy and total rounds available vs. onboard. And here a Pistol plus three clips and a rig compatible with your web gear is going to run you about 6-8lbs. Which is the equivalent of FOUR, combat loaded, M16 clips. Each with 25 vs. 13-15 rounds typical of the pistol. Or a pair of in-house grenades. Or a triplet of MP5 mags with an honest 30rounds.

4. People say a pistol is faster to engage because of the way it is held but this is also not true since, _for the same accuracy_ you have to 'spot weld it' to your side and particularly from a cross draw under the opposed arm, this takes time. As does the rigid torso twist rather than shoulder flex needed for 'sudden' engagements. You may get one. But his friend is still going to nail your a$$ to a wall.

5. And if the target field is mixed or stood off, (something increasingly common now that /everyone/ is autofired) all the speed in the world does you no good because your shoot stance is exposed and you tend to spend more rounds (hence time) on a target which could just as readily be engaged with a single 3-round off the rifle and be done. Not because of lethality issues. But because _you are flat out missing_. Since each pistol recoil impulse is effectively it's own aimpoint interruption and all force is isolated through the relatively unsteady thumb-index U (articulated with each trigger pull), wrists (total muzzle lift and recoil aligned with the weakest-when-turned vertical hold axis) and flailing-in-both-axes elbows which ALWAYS 'turn out' when compared to the stance-locked shoulder muscle pad anchored to the collar bone.

6. Accuracy, particularly in today's underdeveloped labor-soft hands is further degraded by stagger stacking rounds into a fat and or tall grip. While ever larger slides and double action triggers furter mess with the shooters innate, rapid, ability to get good results from a _repetitive motion_ muscle memory.

7. This only leaves concealability which is one of the /worst/ 'covert' elements of military acknowledged combat status since it effects the mindset going into battle (preparation, supporting fires, multiaxis attacks and coordinated C2) which is 90% more _useful_ to even a command action than any 'secondary' weapon carriage is liable to be. Not least because our uniformed SOF (non-black) are never commited to that kind of action outside of war anyway. And no smart SOFie is going to go walkabout in poor district carrying a slick government issued toy anyway. Since being discovered with such a weapon under _casual_ search violates discretion anyway.

The reality is that a pistol is an officers strutting weapon from back in the days when a crop was lighter than a sword and beating your men to encourage them into a battle you DID NOT 'lead' was standard procedure and the men were resentful enough (and you far enough out in the boonies) that you couldn't always trust to conventional discipline. It is not a weapon for the modern battlefield dominated by autofire weapons and as such, buying half a million of them is less than worthless because the security/policing mission is one which could actually be better off contracted out anyway.

Shoot More in the first ten seconds. Carry more for the next 5 minutes. Back this up with explosive or obscurrent and DD devices to make the entry happen. And RUN when the fight is over or you need to force the engagement by pursuit. None of which is conducive to carrying dead weight of a pistol you don't need or (have time to) use.


P.S. SOF also have a habit of using illegal rounds, especially on their semi-covert missions so the notion that a .45 is going to do more first round knockdown damage than a 9mm Hollowpoint or Poison bullet is absurd. While a 5.56mm round that hits the leg or the pelvic girdle (which is common when firing from a low stance or prone) is going to shatter the bone like glass and result in an /instantly/ debilitating wound.

Ironicially, especially for FIBUA conditioned combat, the place to look for more efficiency in a pistol caliber is on rifles. Where the shorter case is subject to further telescopiing that in turn leads to lower spring loads and narrower clip chord. Which makes for more rounds loaded on top of the gun rather than through a stupid well. And this then leads to WEIGHT of fire improvements (if not the first then the tenth), coupled to longgun sighting radius and other _accuracy_ (sleaving the receiver to slide on one recoil-absorption recoil cylinder) based increases in utility within the same or slightly greater (1,250 to 1,600fps) muzzle velocities.

Which doesn't change the fact that, where a .22LR round is lethal at a miles distance and thus /any/ projectile weapon is too dangerous to willingly talk about 'taking hits' of any kind. Pistols are still just toys in any real combat environment.

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:18 AM
ch brings up an interesting point. Well, maybe I'm reaching a little...

Why, if numbers of rounds carried by your men are a consideration, is no-one developing assault rifles using pistol calibres to replace both assault rifles and smgs?

It seems to this layman that the FN PDW and its little brother are the only attempt at this (and that's pretty much a rifle round anyway).

From everything I understand the De Lisle silenced carbine proved (with a James Lee bolt) that with a decent barrel length (and still way shorter than any contemporary rifle) the .45 acp was deadly at battle ranges, the same ranges the StG43/MP44 was designed for.

Given that, surely an M4 Commando-sized rifle in .45ACP would give as good (if not better in certain circumstances) stopping power at similar ranges and with comparable accuracy and allow your operator to carry many more rounds.

The other point seems to be top-loading mags (from my understanding.) I always (well, for the last few years) thought there would be a real market for a newly-manufactured Owen Gun available in 9mm, 10mm or .45. I'm not a ballistics engineer or gunsmith so I don't know what difficulties there would be in upsizing from 9mm to .45, I just thought it seemed logical given the reverence with which WW2 diggers regarded the Owen. It's basically the only smg the allies had that they didn't want to replace with the Thompson.

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:30 AM

Originally posted by Lonestar24

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
I've never quite understood the use of an open bolt system, given its apparrent safety problems.

Open bolt is mainly for better cooling of the chamber and to prevent cook-offs. Depending on the used method the bolt mass momentum acting against the recoil can also promote controllability during automatic fire.

Oh, yeah. Now I remember, the Enfield LSW can fire of open or closed, open for auto, closed for single-shot. To prevent cook-offs from overheating.

I guess it's six of one and half a dozen of the other, you get charged for negligent discharge if you drop your open-bolt weapon and it goes off and you get charged for negligent discharge if your closed-bolt weapon cooks-off. Nice

Is that why the FAMAS is meant to be so stable under full-auto fire?

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 06:56 AM
The drawbacks of the 5.7x28mm rounds are that they have decreased range, they are shorter than a 5.56er, but not smaller in diameter so you woulnd't necesarilly be able to carry more ammo, so the main issue is how magazines are made, perhaps neckless cardridges would be the sollution? this would mean less powder to burn but significantly more ammo could be stacked in a magazine, esspecially with increased power in powder, you perhaps would not have much loss of power and range.

IMHO is that the US should not decrease firepower in rifles, they should be increased to 6.5/6.8mm, PDW's should be more readilly issued to troops, PDW's with large magazines but still in the size range of a pistol, this would mean the Primary weapon would be a PDW and Rifle would be secondary, sure this has issues in it self, perhaps a rifle that can fire from 2 magazines? 1 would be in 6.5mm or 6.8mm and the other in 5.7mm or better yet, a neckless rifle cardridge, with the weight of a rifle round but used for shorter range engagements, they would have bigger magazines, but ofcourse this would increase rifle weight considderably...

DAMN, this is a tough one guys

posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 05:41 AM
the 5.7 is a smg/pistol round

posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 05:16 PM
Correction, PDW round, it's a new breed altogether, it's between a rifle and a sub-machinegun.

Here is a little concept I made, this rifle is a cross between a Assault Rifle and a P90, it has horizontally inserted magazines like the P90 for it's 5.7mm componment which has a capacity of 50 rounds, the lower part is a 6.8mm platform for longer engagements, I just noticed a flaw in my design since the heavy/longer barrel should be on the bottom rather than on the top since the 6.8 round has the longer range and heavier recoil, also the heatshield shot be on the 6.8mm componment, but the concept is still there.

[edit on 7/12/2005 by GrOuNd_ZeRo]

posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 06:59 PM

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo

Sorry, but why the PDW part then? The first rule of the PDW is the small package. However this concept is obviously larger than even a normal assault rifle. The second rule of the PDW is to give some minor rifle characteristics with a SMG sized weapon. But why te PDW part when it actually has a full assault rifle component? Above that the P90 sights are only a compromise because of the missing weapon length, so why put them on a regular rifle?

The only "advantage" of this concept would be the increased ammunition capacity. But this could more easily, reliably and lighter be accomplished by simply using a high cap magazine with a single assault rifle, for example a drum magazine.

[edit on 7/12/2005 by Lonestar24]

[edit on 7/12/2005 by Lonestar24]

posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 07:44 PM
LOL I know, it's just a simple concept for fun.

the idea behind it was that soldiers could switch to 5.7mm in CQB while the 6.8mm is used in long range engagements, my main goal was also increased ammunition capacity.

But you made good points, but like I said this was a for fun "what if" concept

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 01:30 AM
Or, as an alternative

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Luger P.08 Artillery.

A pistol carbine, with a specially lengthened barrel (8" or thereabouts from memory), a snaildrum mag and a removable stock which doubles as a holster.

Automatic, so a high rate of fire acheivable.

Long barrel and the ability to shoulder the weapon guarantee accuracy.

Removable stock means short carrying length.

Snail drum mag gives you fifty rounds to throw your enemy's way.

And all using the 9mm Parabellum round that has been proven in over a century's service, on both sides of every major conflict of the last 100 years. This round is the choice of the world's two most successful anti-terrorist operations, the SAS at Prince's Gate and GSG9 at Mogadishu.

This complete, combat ready package can be yours if only you hunt it down in a museum somehwere, circumvent security and get it back home to where idle hands are the Devil's instrument!

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 08:56 AM
Why go to Artillery luger when you can take a

OTs-33 "Pernach" automatic pistol

Pretty similar in peformance, with exeption of firing 9x18 round... easy conversion to 9x19 is most likely possible

Can't see the advantages in combining 5.7 and 6.8 guns, i'd just pick the 6.8 since it's far superior as a main cartrigde... 5.7 side arm would be good only if bad guys have body armor...

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 02:52 PM
That Pernach pistol is not bad but the older Stechkin takes about a few more rounds in the magazine. The Pernach is well a better gun but i would rather have the amount of rounds like the Stechkin. It also fires slightly faster than the old one so why does it have a shorter magazine?

How about bringing back the tommy gun with a green/beige/black shock impact nylon grips/stocks etc and optional picatinny rails for sights n stuff?

They were solid and reliable wernt they?. Also they were used up to the Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo conflict in the 1990s.

I know we are in the new millenium so we should look at the stuff now. But look at the AK rifle series, they have been going for more than half a century so why not with this revamped tommy gun if the US are going back to .45s? Just a thought anyway.

I admire old 'Heavy metal' weapons like the Browning M1919A4 MG, The M2 HMG, 1911 type Autos and tommy guns.

Anyone heard the sayin 'If they are not broke, dont fix them'.


'If they are crap, why are they still here?'.

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 06:07 PM

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Correction, PDW round, it's a new breed altogether, it's between a rifle and a sub-machinegun.

Well, though the idea is somehow not feasible, I was in the mood to create my own shot at that concept

That way the loading is from below, you can use the full-size optic for both and the 2nd pistol grip serves as a frontgrip, too.


[edit on 8/12/2005 by Lonestar24]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in