Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Beretta 92F vs. M1911A1 Message-ID: <13045@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 11 Jan 90 05:00:22 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 49 Approved: military@att.att.com From: att!utzoo!henry >From: Chip Mayse >... Obviously the 9mm round >used by the Beretta is flatter-shooting than the old .45; I've stood behind >shooters using .45's in pistol matches, and the bullets in flight were easy >to see, describing trajectories not much flatter than that of a well-thrown >rock or a good slingshot... Looking from behind, what you mostly see is the bullet drop from gravity. Gravity drop is exactly the same, per second, for rocks, slingshots, and bullets. The 9mm's advantage here is simply shorter time of flight, and numerically the advantage isn't enormous. As I recall, the 9mm round is about 50% faster. (In return for which it sacrifices bullet mass.) >However, ballistics probably aren't a major concern in a sidearm load, >given that the major problem with pistols is hitting the target at all... Well, the major problem with Army-trained pistol *shooters* is hitting the target at all. Well-made pistols are quite accurate weapons, as witness what most any IPSC competitor can do with a stock M1911A1 on request. The problem is that high-quality pistol training takes a fair bit of time, uses up a lot of ammunition, and has to be followed up with frequent practice to maintain proficiency... and the Army has never felt like paying for all this. >... hearing that the Army wanted to adopt a new pistol that would fire >a NATO-standard cartridge, as the M-14 and M-16 do, and that the 9mm >widely used in Europe is a good choice from this standpoint... 9mm *is* the NATO standard pistol cartridge, and that's indeed why the change was made. It was basically a political maneuver; there was nothing especially wrong with the M1911A1. The US has -- rightly -- been criticized for a "standardize NATO equipment -- buy American" attitude, and getting the US into step on pistol caliber seemed like a good PR move. It's a way to reduce the pressure to do something utterly unthinkable like buying the Tornado off the shelf instead of developing the inferior (but American) F-15E. Better pistols than aircraft; the US pistol manufacturers don't have that big a lobby. (Since we're supposed to be technological here, I suppose I should justify insulting the F-15E... :-) The F-15, designed as a bastard cross between an air-superiority fighter and a high-altitude interceptor, has much too much wing to make a good low-level bomber. Whereas the Tornado was designed for it and does it very well.) Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu