# 9mm Browning Replacement



## rceme_rat (18 May 2002)

With all the major projects that are sitting waiting, I suspect this is hardly anybody‘s priority project.  

Nonetheless, does anyone know if there is a pending replacement project for the pistol?  Potential replacements?  Same or different calibre?  Other specs?

Or, if there is no such project, does anyone think there should be -- and if so, what would you propose as specs on the new weapon?

Finally, does anyone think the pistol just isn‘t necessary anymore and that a C8 should be issued to all those who currently carry the pistol (whether they also carry a C7 or not)?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 May 2002)

Well, I suppose we could jump on board like everyone else and replace it. Personally though, I find there‘s nothing wrong with the Browning. It has a large mag capacity, is suited to our overpowered 9MM round, it‘s sturdy and simple. Properly tuned and accurized, it‘s a fine pistol. The only thing it lacks is the double action trigger pull for the first round. The 2x pull is normally a long, creepy affair that takes much getting used to to score a fast, first round hit. With the hammer cocked on the Browning, a first round hit can be accomplished just as quick. We have other things to spend our money on.


----------



## Spanky (18 May 2002)

I agree with recceguy. There is nothing wrong with the present pistol.  They should be more readily available however.  There are certain jobs that do not require a long arm on a regular basis.  It should be fired on a range more regularly as well.


----------



## portcullisguy (19 May 2002)

However, we already know that it is scheduled to be replaced at some point.

Has anyone given thought to what the replacement might be?  Is Ottawa testing or sourcing out replacements?

The Americans went with the Beretta, which upset all the U.S. gun mfg‘rs.

We only have one civilian pistol manufacurer here, Para-Ordanance, and they‘re not known for 9mm Para pistols.  I didn‘t see any pistols on Diemaco‘s website.

My personal preference would be for something simple and easy to maintain, such as the Glock.  As much as I hate the Glock, it is cheaper than the other "space guns" out there, such as the Smith & Wesson, the H&K USP (which I already own, in .40 cal), and others.  They have suitable magazine capacity, but are $800+ per gun, with expensive spare magazines ($90 for my H&K).  A lot of people in the gun industry don‘t trust the "plastic" guns such as Glock, H&K USP, etc., but then another camp swear by the modern guns, and have put the all-steel pistols out to pasture.


----------



## rceme_rat (19 May 2002)

I enjoyed firing the Glock when I had the opportunity on the Golan (was range officer when the Austrians were shooting).

My concerns are that the Brownings must be getting to the point where they are just worn out.  I expect they are also quite a bit heavier than modern equivalents.  There are also better safety features available on modern weapons.

As far as calibre goes, I was wondering whether it is necessary to stay 9mm since it is now a unique calibre, as would be any pistol calibre (the SMG long having been retired).  Any pistol ammo is going to be a logistical burden, so we can adopt whichever one has the best combination of range, penetration, stopping power, and magazine capacity.  Of course, if the NATO standard remains 9mm, that is a consideration - as is the fact that he US is using 9mm.

Anyone have any idea how much trade protection Para-Ordnance gets by virtue of being the sole Canadian handgun manufacturer?  Is there a duty on non-US manufacturers?


----------



## Marauder (19 May 2002)

We have pistols? No sh!t, guess you learn something new every day.

I would venture to say the SIGArms P226 would be worth looking at, seeing that the SEALs abuse the crap outta theirs and still love them. I also seem to recall someone saying that most other SOCOM & worldwide SO outfits use them. I also heard our own lads at Dwyer Hill use them too, so there must be a PAM for them buried somewhere in NDHQ. They‘re 9mm‘s and are all steel IIRC, so that should quell most major griping.

Although I would love to be able to shoot a HK USP Tactical or a 1911 (hotrodded like the Marines do with their MEU(SOC) 1911‘s) in an "official" capacity.

But we should be doing some range work with the damn things we have now. I know there is going to be a new indoor and outdoor range at this new armouries they are building in Windsor, but I hear they are for the 5-0 only, and we get a "Thanks for coming out" pat on the head. WTF, they trust us with auto assault rifles, but we‘re too f%cking stupid to shoot and maintain a pistol??? Maybe the People Upstairs can cut a deal with General Gun & Supply for us to use the range, like maybe one full Saturday every 3/4 months or something, where the troops that want to get some trigger time on the Brownings can put some ammo downrange and learn how to clean and maintain the things.
But that would make some f%cking sense, so God knows that‘s anthema.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 May 2002)

Most trades don‘t get pistol trg anymore as there are only certain units that use them in their roles. MP‘s and Armoured recce for a couple. The ammo draw is very small and expensive also. Hence, most people don‘t see them.


----------



## portcullisguy (21 May 2002)

> Originally posted by rceme_rat:
> [Of course, if the NATO standard remains 9mm, that is a consideration - as is the fact that he US is using 9mm.[/QB]


Much to the disappointment of the Americans, you are right.  NATO‘s standard is 9mm Parabellum.  It is not likely to change.  The U.S. preferred and asked NATO to use the .45 ACP cartridge, as it is subsonic (can be easily silenced), has very good stopping power, and good overall penetrative power.  The 9mm is overpowered, and as a result, zips through most things with hardly the same punch.  I have heard that the 9mm will deflect off common laminated windshield safety glass at oblique angles, without penetrating.

.45 ACP is a U.S. calibre. Although common in the U.S., it isn‘t common anywhere else.  It is also more expensive than 9mm.  The ‘niner‘ is by far the most common handgun cartridge in the western world, and in particular Europe.  Since NATO doctrine always (previously) envisioned a land war in Europe, this was thought to be the deciding factor -- availability of a cheap, common round that was easily produced in large quantities in existing ammunition factories in Europe.

Personally, my vote would be for the 10mm or the .40S&W, which blend the .45‘s stopping power, with the high capacity of the 9mm.  Of course it isn‘t common at all in Europe, and it is comparitively more expensive to produce because of that.  The 10mm in particular has not been subjected to enough ballistics tests, and has been hampered by lack of mfg‘r support.  Only the FBI use it.  Others that the European armies would probably support are .380 ACP and .32 cal, both of which are used in civvie police agencies in Europe, but are generally considered to be underpowered for military use.



> [qb]Anyone have any idea how much trade protection Para-Ordnance gets by virtue of being the sole Canadian handgun manufacturer?  Is there a duty on non-US manufacturers?[/qb]


Of course, U.S.-made anything is duty free, thanks to NAFTA.

The Most-Favoured Nation Tariff Treatment rate on pistols and revolvers is 3.5% duty.  The HS Code for handguns is 9302.00.00.10 (revolvers) and 9302.00.00.20 (pistols).

However, many countries qualify for duty free import of pistols and revolvers.  Besides NAFTA (which includes Mexico and the US), other zero-rated tariff treatments are: NZT (New Zealand Tariff), CIAT (Canada-Israel Agreement on Tariffs), LDCT (Least-Developed Country Tariff), GPT (General Preferential Tariff), and two which I am sure are the Caribbean-Canada Tariff and the Commonwealth Tariff.

MFN countries generally are limited to just Europe.  Even China, believe it or not, qualifies as a "General Preferential Tariff" country.

Of course, arms and ammunition for military purposes also require an Import (or Export) Permit from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, as they are subject to quotas and other controls, and this may increase the cost of importing certain goods.


----------



## Brock (22 May 2002)

I am not really sure why no one else on this boaord seems to no know that the Sig P-225 and Sig P-226 are in CF use.  The Military Police, JTF 2, and the Navy boarding parties all use the P-225.  The P-225 has an 8 round capacity and thus has a small pistol grip.  This better enables females and males with small hands to fire a pistol.  The P-226 is a high capacity variant of the P-225; the P-226 holds 15 rounds.  It is used by the JTF 2.  However, I do not know if it is in service anywhere else in the CF.

It is reasonable to assume that the CF will eventually phase out the Browning 9mm over time in favour of the P-225/P-226 given that they are already in limited service with the CF.  They also happen to be some of the best 9mm pistols in use anywhere, another plus.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 May 2002)

The Sigs have been in use for specialized units for a long time now with no talk about them being a replacement forces wide. I won‘t hold my breath.


----------



## rceme_rat (22 May 2002)

I‘m aware of both Sig-Sauer weapons being in use.  I‘m also aware that their cost is quite high and I doubt they would be adopted universally.

Para-Ordnance has an excellent reputation in the U.S. shooting community.  It commonly produces .45, .40, and 10mm.  It also produces 9mm but doesn‘t make a big deal about it, probably because of its focus on the sport shooting market.

Additionally, Para-Ordnance has developed a reputation for honesty, integrity, and safety -- it was one of the few handgun producers that was able to be dismissed from a class action lawsuit because its advertising was clearly not aimed at buyers seeking low-price, anonymous handguns.

Thanks for the above info on import duties.  From this, we can conclude that Para-Ordnance would only have a political advantage, not a governmentally imposed price advantage.


----------



## meamer (22 May 2002)

My vote would be for the Sig-Sauer products. They are already in the system, and are good, reliable weapons. They come in any configuration you want (double-single action, double action only etc) and the different models fit different hand sizes (staggered mags versus straight mags). By the way, the Sigs are not all steel, the lower receiver is a composite alloy - much lighter than all steel, the slide is all steel though. I would also stick with 9mm, although I carry a .40 S&W P229, it wouldn‘t make sense to be the only guy on the battlefield using non standard ammo.  :cam:


----------



## MikeH (5 Jun 2002)

I was certain that the only pistol being
considered is the FN Five-Seven in 5.7mm,
depending on whether the P90 gets 
selected as our new Personal Defence
Weapon -- PDW being the trendy new 
name for SMG.

Remember reading something from the
puzzle palace that only the 5.7mm could
reliably defeat body armour in a pistol
calibre.

Although buying ten-inch barrelled uppers
for the C8‘s and scrapping pistols altogether
would probably make more sense.

MikeH


----------



## TOW2B (6 Jun 2002)

The Brownings were due to be replaced ,but considering the fact that we have so many refurbished Bronings in War tocks it was decided to continue to use it until the replacement parts were depleted.The P-225 is for use with special duty units(Navy Borading Parties for example) and MPs the P-226 is issued to JTF and some pilots.The PDW made by Diemaco is the likely replacement the FN P-90 is too expensive and is not seriously being conidered although JTF 2 may be using them already (they trialed them a couple of years back).The Diemaco PDW is essentially a C-8 with a 7 -10 inch barrel heavy barrel and will be issued to WOG units that have no need for a rifle and to AFV Crews in the rest of the Combat Arms.On an interesting note the Linemen are in line to be issued MP-5 A3s for use when out on repair calls while deployed...It is an excellent weapon but is not meant for field use with any luck they will go with a weapon better suited to their field work


----------



## rceme_rat (6 Jun 2002)

So what we have is a proliferation of different small arms, rather than a movement towards a single personal weapon, or at least, a family of personal weapons?  

Just what we need to drive up the costs of training, repair and supply of spare parts and ammo!


----------



## Marauder (6 Jun 2002)

You‘re forgetting the most important, critical issue that pertains to any piece of kit the CF hopes to own:

Can it be made in Shawinigan for an outrageously expensive amount that will let the Liberals skim a bit off the top for the party‘s "warchest"? 

(Ironic that the government can wage a "leadership war", but we settle for looking like innocent ****ing Boy Sprouts, huh?)


----------



## Zoomie (12 Jun 2002)

I believe that the Sig P225/6 is more widely in use than this forum believes.  CPC Trenton have their own allotment of these same weapons.  They use them for qualifying their staff (maybe Pathfinder courses too).


----------



## baboon6 (3 Jul 2002)

Have seen quite a few pics of 3 PPCLI in Afghanistan with pistols, who would be issued them, looks mainly like officers and machine gunners. Going off-topic a bit, what is the establishment of a Cdn rifle platoon, 3 PPCLI‘s all seem to be of different sizes, due to personnel shortage?


----------



## Gelan (3 Jul 2002)

I personally don‘t like the Browning, as it has outdated safety features, is unsafe to carry it around with a round chambered. Not fun to have your sidearm go off in your holster...

I would have to agree with the SiG/Sauer weapons. Nicely ergonomic, but expensive.


----------



## scm77 (13 Nov 2003)

Approx. How many years before the Browning 9mm is replaced?  Is it true that it‘s from WWII?  If that is indeed true then there is no reason why it shouldn‘t already be replaced.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Nov 2003)

Just this week i was firing a Glock 17 and Glock 34 on a make shift range. (Along with a sweet AK47 i might add).  I held a replica glock before and it felt really awkward in my hand so i assumed it would be horrible to shoot. Once i shot it however it changed my opinion completly. I think it‘s an incredible weapon. Mind you i dont know all the stats to it but from a basic point of view, it was beautiful. very very accurate too, i was shooting at 20 and 30 meters whch to me seemed a fair distance for a pistol, hit the target every round.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Nov 2003)

SCM why replace something that still works? What about the .50 cal? The US got rid of most of their 1911A1s in the ‘80s and adopted them back during World War 1? Versions of the High Power are still being made today by FN.


----------



## combat_medic (13 Nov 2003)

Ghost: The Glock is a good pistol, but it is not suited for use by the military. It has very few safeties, other than the trigger safety, which would make it more difficult to employ as a military service pistol. However, this same issue makes it a great police pistol.

My vote goes completely with the Sig Sauer which, in my opinion, is one of the best pistols out there. Ergonomic, smooth action, easy to handle, lightweight, durable, just generally good!


----------



## scm77 (13 Nov 2003)

It may still work, but alot of people here seem to have problems with it and I was just curious if the government had realized the problems and will be replacing it.  Versions of the High Power are still being made today by FN, but how old are the ones we have?


----------



## Garry (13 Nov 2003)

Any one heard of the problems the Sig has with +P rounds? The MP‘s (iirc) have gone to subsonic rounds- both to keep the weapons looking like weapons    and to avoid over-penetration problems.

The Browning works just fine for what it was designed for- basically a knife fight.

Imho- a handgun‘s primary use is to allow you to fight your way to your rifle.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## SFontaine (13 Nov 2003)

Would someone be able to bring their own sidearm from home when they go on deployment?


----------



## Marauder (13 Nov 2003)

Not just no, but ****  no.

Maybe if you‘re looking for novel ways to land in Club Ed, but otherwise nope, nadda, no chance.

The Brownings are tools to keep you in the firefight to allow you the chance to unf*ck your rifle or MG and get it back into the fight. Particularly handy in Fib if your C7 goes tits up in the middle of clearing a room.


----------



## SFontaine (13 Nov 2003)

Heh roger, thanks.


----------



## Slim (14 Nov 2003)

As for getting rid of the pistol...go ask an armoured guy like a driver or gunner  what they think of that. It‘s next to impossible to drag your C7 out of the F*****G hatch in a hurry.
The Browning HP is an excellent gun but we should have newer versions and they should be double action. :akimbo:


----------



## northamericanrebel (14 Nov 2003)

pipe dream perhaps...you decide   
TRP-Pro Modelâ„¢ 1911-A1


----------



## fusilier955 (14 Nov 2003)

nice pistol, but i dont think that canada will go for any .45 (although i wouldnt mind it one bit).  the 9mm is what they swear by due to the better results with it against body armour.


----------



## Armymedic (14 Nov 2003)

Go with what works....
the Browning. For general military purpose it works just fine. For the MP‘s and JTF, you need something a bit diffrent, and Sig 225/6 has seem to be the chosen one for that role. Also, if I might add to the list, the DART team medic all have P225‘s 
Personally, as a medic, I‘d love to have a C8, and not worry about size, ammo or firepower.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Nov 2003)

I see your point about safty but on operations, save for MPs, we never have a round in the chamber so to me that makes the issue of having a safty on the firearm a mute one.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (17 Nov 2003)

I‘m sure the boys in Afganistan had/have a round up the chamber when they leave the camp.


----------



## Enzo (18 Nov 2003)

AmericanRebel: I‘m a big fan of Springfield Armory and Colt 1911 descendents in general. But right off, at $2400US per pistol, there is no way. If preference were a factor, then I‘d suggest either the Sig‘s, H&K USP‘s or a Para Ordinance Tactical (I just prefer my SA .45) but regardless, it‘s the same old story. Train with what you‘re issued with.

Which raises the question, how much time on the range is average these days? Buddy of mine put over 3000 rds through his Smith before he left depot (RCMP). I‘m doubting the MP‘s are popping that many off.

The Brownings are excellent, the only questions are of wear and suitability. I‘m certain a commission will be convened in the Caymans any day now to get right on that.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Nov 2003)

I talked to an MP friend of fine over the summer and he said they‘d be lucky to shot 3 times a year.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Nov 2003)

Saw something in Janes Defence Weekly today that mentions we use the H&K MP7, news to me anyone else have any information?


----------



## Enzo (28 Nov 2003)

I‘m just guessing off the top of my head as I haven‘t bothered to look this up yet. But if we are using H&K P7‘s, maybe they‘re in the JTF‘s inventory? It‘s a quality pistol in any of it‘s variants, but costly. I doubt that we‘d be using them in a small number if we had them at all, aside from those guys.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Nov 2003)

Its not a pistol though its a PDW....the H&K P7 is a pistol the H&K MP7 is a PDW....


----------



## scm77 (28 Nov 2003)

I like the FN 5.7 I think thats what it‘s called.  Apparently it can cut through a kevlar helmet at 200 yds.  The only problem I can think of is ammuntion supply because that isn‘t a common calibre.


----------



## Enzo (28 Nov 2003)

Dragoon, sorry, I thought you were referring to the P7 pistol, I was skimming.

The PDW was mentioned earlier when Canada was discussing the PDW program, a project which has since been cancelled as I understand it. There was a thread awhile back about that.

SCM, There may be a future for FN‘s new designs, but logistics is a definite problem. Any NATO country will have a difficult time reorganizing around this cartridge. Maybe if the EU countries go ahead with their own organization, a new trial may be offered to compare modern designs.

These new calibre‘s are interesting and have potential. For now, I don‘t know if anyone has picked them up for military use as of yet, the Five SeVen and it‘s tactical sister the P 90 are being marketed in the US for Law Enforcement sales.


----------



## YEL_CBT (1 Dec 2003)

I have fired the P225 on a number of occasions, and it IS a fantastic sidearm. My ship was issued these about a year ago for NBP operations, along with the MP5... I must say that the Sig is miles ahead of the browning. In over 200 rounds fired through one weapon there were no problems! (Try to do that with the old Browning). One can only hope that these will become a CF wide replacement.


----------



## cronos (1 Dec 2003)

We keep beating around the ‘own personal firearm‘ bush repeatedly, but something I am not familiar with is your preference to a boot knife or the like. Are you issued a field knife in your kit or are you allowed personal preference to the knife you carry?


----------



## Enzo (1 Dec 2003)

You‘re issued a bayonette. As for knife, a Gerber mutli-tool is part of your kit and a small personal knife doesn‘t hurt. I carried a Spyderco around at all time, in a back pocket, no one knew, I never offered.

I suggest you start another thread about this and see what kind of a response you get.


----------



## pappy (25 Oct 2004)

handguns are like women everyone has different tastes...

owning more then one Browning Hi-power I find nothing lacking on them, the fact that it's single action has never been a problem.
but I also own a Walther P99 and like that very much too, the double action is not too bad, it has a 3rd mode that once it's cocked you can lower the hammer to safe mode and then a very short trigger pull restores the internal hammer to full cocked, mush less trigger pull lenght then double action alone.
But nothing wroug with Sigs

Just say no to Glocks.....

some say 9mm over penitrate...  Ammo selection is key.  I think the FMJ restrictions are rather "stupid" in warfare, too long a thread for this...

Hertinburger made some dandy 9mm a few years back, not sure they still make it, it was a conical softpoint that was designed for good penitration, 100gr, 1400 fps
designed to penitrate car doors, etc    a little harder lead alloy then stadard softpoint. 9mm FL was it markings.

But I use some "expanding FMJ"  by Federal: some history... (not mine but posted elsewhere on the net) (notice the almost equal expansion on the 9mm vs the heavier 40s&w)

 " In 1973 when I entered law enforcement, the newest, most controversial, bullet was Lee Jurras' SuperVel hollow and soft points for the .38SPL/357MAG, 9mm, .380 and .45 ACP. Lighter in weight than standard bullet weights, and at a much higher velocity, the theory behind the SuperVel said that increased expansion from the higher velocity translated into tissue destruction, which produced better incapacitation with less danger of excessive penetration. And for the next 27 years, virtually every bullet from every manufacturer was a variation on the same theme--hollowpoints were THE law enforcement bullet designs. The ammunition industry, at the urging of the law enforcement community, made bigger, smaller, soft/hollow, higher velocity, subsonic, plated, unplated, serrated jacket hollowpoints. Now familiar names such as Gold Dot, Hydra Shok, Silvertip, Black Talon, XTP, Tactical, Golden Sabre and so on, emerged from the marketing departments of the ammunition manufacturers, big and small. And each of these designs was heralded as an improvement over what had come before, and in many cases, were. 

           These efforts continued at an even more frantic pace after the infamous Miami shootout involving the FBI against two very determined and well-armed suspects. That tragedy gave rise to what has become an accepted standard for ammunition that was established by the FBI in their 8-protocol performance criteria test. The law enforcement readership is familiar with these events that include bare 10% ordnance gelatin, gelatin with heavy clothing, wallboard, plywood, car window glass, car door metal. These media demonstrated for the first time what many experienced forensic ballistics investigators had known for some time but had never quantified. That bullets shot into bare gelatin, do not display the same expansion and penetration when fired through the practical media used in the FBI protocol. 

           It was determined that while the hollowpoint was a clear improvement over what had existed before, and certainly improved officer survivability through increased wounding features, there still was a problem in consistent bullet performance of the traditional hollowpoint. And the causal factor for this inconsistency of performance was, as the FBI clearly demonstrated, the barrier that the bullet had to go through before it hit flesh. Some designs worked better than others. But the test barriers of clothing, wallboard and plywood contributed the most to the inconsistency of performance by the hollowpoint. And for a simple and quite apparent reason. The mechanism for expansion for any hollowpoint projectile is the hollow cavity. When it fills with tissue, expansion begins through a hydraulic effect against the wall of the hollow cavity. Expansion is usually facilitated through internal and external notching or jacket serrations. The result should be a uniformly expanded bullet with the core and jacket intact and arrayed in a symmetrical pattern of fins resembling a mushroom. 

           That's the way it's supposed to be! But the FBI tests showed, and pathologists empirically proved, that when a hollowpoint projectile has to penetrate a barrier such as clothing, which a majority of criminals do wear, the mechanical function of the hollowpoint is impeded. The hollow cavity fills with clothing and precludes fluid filled tissue from exerting its influence on the interior walls of the cavity, and so what's produced is essentially a plugged hollowpoint that performs very similarly to a full metal jacketed bullet. It goes through the target with very little wounding effect, i.e. tissue destruction, and penetrates excessively. And the infamous term "stopping power" is diminished and danger to bystanders is increased. But the hollowpoint was a compromise and since it was a mechanical device and nothing mechanical works 100% of the time, it was accepted and adopted in the LE community as the best game in town, which it was until the emergence of the new Federal Cartridge Company's Expanding Full Metal Jacket (EFMJ) projectile. 

EXPANDING FULL METAL JACKET (EFMJ)
           Over three years ago, the Research Group of Federal, under the leadership of Dave Longren, Bruce Warren and Larry Head, began a serious analysis of the performance of all hollowpoint bullets of every manufacturer, including Federal's Tactical and Hydra Shok. The validity of the FBI test protocol had long been established and with the assistance of the Law Enforcement and Military Sales division of Federal, which gathered actual shootings information from agencies, the need for a more consistent "through barrier" projectile became apparent. In a joint program with Tom Burczynski, of Experimental Research, Inc., Federal focused its efforts on the FBI events that included heavy clothing, plywood and wallboard. They knew that the hollowpoint had to be capped or covered, and yet achieve the expansion characteristics that the LE community demanded from current bullets. The solution became the new Expanding Full Metal Jacket (EFMJ) projectile that Federal introduced at the IALEFI and IACP conferences in the late fall of 1999. 

BULLET DETAILS
           The EFMJ is not a variation of the classic hollowpoint. While some initial consideration was given to simply filling a hollowpoint with a material that would prevent plugging and yet allow expansion, tests proved this to be unworkable and inconsistent in performance. The design started literally from the bottom up. The bullet begins with a conventional copper jacket of a truncated cone design with a small flat nose or meplat. The interior of the jacket is heavily scored in a radial fashion. Inserted into the jacket nose is a rubber core or plug, followed by a lead core. The jacket is then "heeled" over at the base to hold the plug and core in place. Upon impact, the scored jacket flattens, and with the rubber plug sandwiched between the jacket nose and the lead core in the rear, expansion begins. And expansion is consistent and symmetrical. 

           When I interviewed Bruce Warren, we spoke about its applicability to the wide range of weapons in today's LE arsenal. Federal tested the design through submachine guns, carbines and virtually every barrel length autopistol in use by the law enforcement community. The expansion characteristics remained consistent through gun type and barrier. With virtually every police agency of any size incorporating submachine guns into their tactical inventory, such as the MP-5 variants, and carbines, the performance of the typical pistol round was found in many cases to be somewhat lacking when driven at the longer barrel velocities of the shoulder weapons. Many of these bullets blew up and created surface wounds. The Expanding Full Metal Jacket overcomes these problems. 

           While it seems we take questions of functionality for granted these days, I continue to hear about failures to feed with some handgun models, a problem that's exacerbated through poor shooting techniques. The EFMJ design is outwardly a full metal jacket. Its nose configuration facilitates feeding. When tested through my military Browning Hi-Power, which will not feed anything but FMJs, six magazines (84 rounds) fed flawlessly. 
           The ammunition tested was production run 9mm +P 124-grain loads. We must remember that when 

Gorge Luger designed his pistol in 1904, the 9mm Parabellum cartridge contained a 124-grain bullet. Since then, pistol manufacturers have continued to remind ammunition manufacturers that the camming surfaces, springs, magazine design and other features of 9mm pistols are designed for a 124-grain bullet at a muzzle velocity of 1120 feet per second (fps). While we have been extraordinarily successful in using bullet weights from 95 to 147 grains and at varying velocities in the 9mm, remember the cartridge was designed with a 124-grain projectile, which caused Federal to produce for their first Expanding Full Metal Jacket ammunition, in the 124-grain weight. Of course, other weights in 9mm are on the drawing board. 

           Federal has also applied this design to the increasingly popular .40 S&W and the .45 ACP. Prototype designs are being finalized as this article is written. Bullet weights in the design phase for the .40 S&W included 155 and 165 grains, and in the .45 ACP 185 grains. Included in this article is a chart showing expansion, velocity and accuracy of the production/preproduction 9mm, .40 and AS ACP. All production and preproductions samples met the FBI minimum penetration criteria of 12 inches in the mediums tested. 

           Questions are often raised about a new design's accuracy, which is somewhat surprising when the close ranges of actual gunfights are considered. I won't say the EFMJ is the most accurate 9mm bullet I've shot, but it's close. Consider the EFMJ's weight, jacket shape/configuration, the center of gravity and center of pressure, all of which determines whether some projectiles fly true and others don't. Federal, quite obviously, has the formula correct. 

           This projectile should receive immediate and serious consideration by both law enforcement agencies and the military. Some departments in the U.S. are still required to use a non-hollowpointed projectile. The European police community has labored under similar prohibitions for many years and the EFMJ should be a natural for their considerations. "
  In 1973 when I entered law enforcement, the newest, most controversial, bullet was Lee Jurras' SuperVel hollow and soft points for the .38SPL/357MAG, 9mm, .380 and .45 ACP. Lighter in weight than standard bullet weights, and at a much higher velocity, the theory behind the SuperVel said that increased expansion from the higher velocity translated into tissue destruction, which produced better incapacitation with less danger of excessive penetration. And for the next 27 years, virtually every bullet from every manufacturer was a variation on the same theme--hollowpoints were THE law enforcement bullet designs. The ammunition industry, at the urging of the law enforcement community, made bigger, smaller, soft/hollow, higher velocity, subsonic, plated, unplated, serrated jacket hollowpoints. Now familiar names such as Gold Dot, Hydra Shok, Silvertip, Black Talon, XTP, Tactical, Golden Sabre and so on, emerged from the marketing departments of the ammunition manufacturers, big and small. And each of these designs was heralded as an improvement over what had come before, and in many cases, were. 

           These efforts continued at an even more frantic pace after the infamous Miami shootout involving the FBI against two very determined and well-armed suspects. That tragedy gave rise to what has become an accepted standard for ammunition that was established by the FBI in their 8-protocol performance criteria test. The law enforcement readership is familiar with these events that include bare 10% ordnance gelatin, gelatin with heavy clothing, wallboard, plywood, car window glass, car door metal. These media demonstrated for the first time what many experienced forensic ballistics investigators had known for some time but had never quantified. That bullets shot into bare gelatin, do not display the same expansion and penetration when fired through the practical media used in the FBI protocol. 

           It was determined that while the hollowpoint was a clear improvement over what had existed before, and certainly improved officer survivability through increased wounding features, there still was a problem in consistent bullet performance of the traditional hollowpoint. And the causal factor for this inconsistency of performance was, as the FBI clearly demonstrated, the barrier that the bullet had to go through before it hit flesh. Some designs worked better than others. But the test barriers of clothing, wallboard and plywood contributed the most to the inconsistency of performance by the hollowpoint. And for a simple and quite apparent reason. The mechanism for expansion for any hollowpoint projectile is the hollow cavity. When it fills with tissue, expansion begins through a hydraulic effect against the wall of the hollow cavity. Expansion is usually facilitated through internal and external notching or jacket serrations. The result should be a uniformly expanded bullet with the core and jacket intact and arrayed in a symmetrical pattern of fins resembling a mushroom. 

           That's the way it's supposed to be! But the FBI tests showed, and pathologists empirically proved, that when a hollowpoint projectile has to penetrate a barrier such as clothing, which a majority of criminals do wear, the mechanical function of the hollowpoint is impeded. The hollow cavity fills with clothing and precludes fluid filled tissue from exerting its influence on the interior walls of the cavity, and so what's produced is essentially a plugged hollowpoint that performs very similarly to a full metal jacketed bullet. It goes through the target with very little wounding effect, i.e. tissue destruction, and penetrates excessively. And the infamous term "stopping power" is diminished and danger to bystanders is increased. But the hollowpoint was a compromise and since it was a mechanical device and nothing mechanical works 100% of the time, it was accepted and adopted in the LE community as the best game in town, which it was until the emergence of the new Federal Cartridge Company's Expanding Full Metal Jacket (EFMJ) projectile. 

EXPANDING FULL METAL JACKET (EFMJ)
           Over three years ago, the Research Group of Federal, under the leadership of Dave Longren, Bruce Warren and Larry Head, began a serious analysis of the performance of all hollowpoint bullets of every manufacturer, including Federal's Tactical and Hydra Shok. The validity of the FBI test protocol had long been established and with the assistance of the Law Enforcement and Military Sales division of Federal, which gathered actual shootings information from agencies, the need for a more consistent "through barrier" projectile became apparent. In a joint program with Tom Burczynski, of Experimental Research, Inc., Federal focused its efforts on the FBI events that included heavy clothing, plywood and wallboard. They knew that the hollowpoint had to be capped or covered, and yet achieve the expansion characteristics that the LE community demanded from current bullets. The solution became the new Expanding Full Metal Jacket (EFMJ) projectile that Federal introduced at the IALEFI and IACP conferences in the late fall of 1999. 

BULLET DETAILS
           The EFMJ is not a variation of the classic hollowpoint. While some initial consideration was given to simply filling a hollowpoint with a material that would prevent plugging and yet allow expansion, tests proved this to be unworkable and inconsistent in performance. The design started literally from the bottom up. The bullet begins with a conventional copper jacket of a truncated cone design with a small flat nose or meplat. The interior of the jacket is heavily scored in a radial fashion. Inserted into the jacket nose is a rubber core or plug, followed by a lead core. The jacket is then "heeled" over at the base to hold the plug and core in place. Upon impact, the scored jacket flattens, and with the rubber plug sandwiched between the jacket nose and the lead core in the rear, expansion begins. And expansion is consistent and symmetrical. 

           When I interviewed Bruce Warren, we spoke about its applicability to the wide range of weapons in today's LE arsenal. Federal tested the design through submachine guns, carbines and virtually every barrel length autopistol in use by the law enforcement community. The expansion characteristics remained consistent through gun type and barrier. With virtually every police agency of any size incorporating submachine guns into their tactical inventory, such as the MP-5 variants, and carbines, the performance of the typical pistol round was found in many cases to be somewhat lacking when driven at the longer barrel velocities of the shoulder weapons. Many of these bullets blew up and created surface wounds. The Expanding Full Metal Jacket overcomes these problems. 

           While it seems we take questions of functionality for granted these days, I continue to hear about failures to feed with some handgun models, a problem that's exacerbated through poor shooting techniques. The EFMJ design is outwardly a full metal jacket. Its nose configuration facilitates feeding. When tested through my military Browning Hi-Power, which will not feed anything but FMJs, six magazines (84 rounds) fed flawlessly. 
           The ammunition tested was production run 9mm +P 124-grain loads. We must remember that when 

Gorge Luger designed his pistol in 1904, the 9mm Parabellum cartridge contained a 124-grain bullet. Since then, pistol manufacturers have continued to remind ammunition manufacturers that the camming surfaces, springs, magazine design and other features of 9mm pistols are designed for a 124-grain bullet at a muzzle velocity of 1120 feet per second (fps). While we have been extraordinarily successful in using bullet weights from 95 to 147 grains and at varying velocities in the 9mm, remember the cartridge was designed with a 124-grain projectile, which caused Federal to produce for their first Expanding Full Metal Jacket ammunition, in the 124-grain weight. Of course, other weights in 9mm are on the drawing board. 

           Federal has also applied this design to the increasingly popular .40 S&W and the .45 ACP. Prototype designs are being finalized as this article is written. Bullet weights in the design phase for the .40 S&W included 155 and 165 grains, and in the .45 ACP 185 grains. Included in this article is a chart showing expansion, velocity and accuracy of the production/preproduction 9mm, .40 and AS ACP. All production and preproductions samples met the FBI minimum penetration criteria of 12 inches in the mediums tested. 

           Questions are often raised about a new design's accuracy, which is somewhat surprising when the close ranges of actual gunfights are considered. I won't say the EFMJ is the most accurate 9mm bullet I've shot, but it's close. Consider the EFMJ's weight, jacket shape/configuration, the center of gravity and center of pressure, all of which determines whether some projectiles fly true and others don't. Federal, quite obviously, has the formula correct. 

           This projectile should receive immediate and serious consideration by both law enforcement agencies and the military. Some departments in the U.S. are still required to use a non-hollowpointed projectile. The European police community has labored under similar prohibitions for many years and the EFMJ should be a natural for their considerations.


----------



## pappy (25 Oct 2004)

some pics of the Federal Expanding FMJ....  sorry for the long pervous post, but good infor I think


----------



## KevinB (25 Oct 2004)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> I see your point about safty but on operations, save for MPs, we never have a round in the chamber so to me that makes the issue of having a safty on the firearm a mute one.



 :

 And your basis for this is?


----------



## Morpheus32 (26 Oct 2004)

On two of the three operations I served on, we had a round in the chamber and weapon on safe in the holster while out and about.   Same with rifles.   On return to a secure area, the weapons were cleared.   On two of the operations, the weapon was cleared and a loaded mag was placed on the rifle/pistol while in camp.   Not sure where you get your information about how we do things on operations.  A safety is an important feature particularly as we don't want to be stuck with a triple retention police style holster.  My Eagle SAS IV Airborne and Safariland 6004 will do just fine thanks....

Jeff


----------



## KevinB (26 Oct 2004)

OMG a C&L'd pistol







 :


----------



## chrisf (26 Oct 2004)

Here's a little story about the 9mm Brownings we currently use... not 100% sure of the validity, may be an urban legend, but I've heard it a number of times...

Supposedly, when first evaluating the Brownings, the Canadian army stripped two pistols, buried the parts in a bucket of sand, retrievd the parts, reassembled the weapons (Without cleaning), and then proceeded to fire the weapons, without stoppages.

Not a lot of weapons that can brag that...


----------



## bossi (26 Oct 2004)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Here's a little story about the 9mm Brownings we currently use... not 100% sure of the validity, may be an urban legend, but I've heard it a number of times...
> 
> Supposedly, when first evaluating the Brownings, the Canadian army stripped two pistols, buried the parts in a bucket of sand, retrievd the parts, reassembled the weapons (Without cleaning), and then proceeded to fire the weapons, without stoppages.
> 
> Not a lot of weapons that can brag that...



The version I heard was that the Australian Army did a test like this, to simulate muddy conditions.
Pistol was dropped in a bucket of mud then removed - barrel cleaned out for safety and then fired.

I'm happiest when I've got both a pistol and a rifle (C7, C8 - I don't care) - just wish I had a shotgun to back them all up ... (it's just one of those idiosyncrasies of mine ... "when you need a 9mm flashlight, it's nice to have a 12 gauge floodlight, too ...")


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Oct 2004)

Just before boarding ops the teams will always chamber a round in their P225s.


----------



## garb811 (27 Oct 2004)

Morpheus32 said:
			
		

> A safety is an important feature particularly as we don't want to be stuck with a triple retention police style holster.



Errmmm...?  A Level 3 holster is designed to assist in weapon retention while it's in the holster, nothing about it replaces a physical safety mechanism on a weapon holstered in it.  I'm not sure what you mean by being "stuck" with a Level 3, but if you're concerned about draw time I can guarantee you it's not an issue unless you're wearing mittens.


----------



## Morpheus32 (27 Oct 2004)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Errmmm...?   A Level 3 holster is designed to assist in weapon retention while it's in the holster, nothing about it replaces a physical safety mechanism on a weapon holstered in it.   I'm not sure what you mean by being "stuck" with a Level 3, but if you're concerned about draw time I can guarantee you it's not an issue unless you're wearing mittens.



Errmmmm?  Combat troops are not police and don't need triple retention.  A tactical holster is more than sufficent.  Draw time is not vital ground for combat troops in general.  There are some people, in some units that it is an issue but the average joe needs a comfortable and useful holster.  As I said, I will stick with my Eagle SAS IV Airborne which I carried in Somalia, Bosnia and Afghanistan.  If you need extra retention, the airborne variant has a strap that goes over the heel to keep the pistol firmly in place.  I used this during a couple of air assaults.  

Some of the latest retention holsters might be suitable in the field but most are designed for police in mind and not combat operations.  As was my main point of my post (not the particular holster design), a safety is an important component of the service pistol.  The Browning is a good gun.  We have other things we should be spending out money on before we start replacing the Browning.  It would be nice to replace the Browning but we don't NEED to replace the Browning right now.  We have other priorities.

Jeff


----------



## bossi (27 Oct 2004)

Morpheus32 said:
			
		

> Combat troops are not police and don't need triple retention.   A tactical holster is more than sufficent.   Draw time is not vital ground for combat troops in general.   There are some people, in some units that it is an issue but the average joe needs a comfortable and useful holster.   As I said, I will stick with my Eagle SAS IV Airborne which I carried in Somalia, Bosnia and Afghanistan.   If you need extra retention, the airborne variant has a strap that goes over the heel to keep the pistol firmly in place.   I used this during a couple of air assaults.
> 
> Some of the latest retention holsters might be suitable in the field but most are designed for police in mind and not combat operations.   As was my main point of my post (not the particular holster design), a safety is an important component of the service pistol.
> Jeff



Well, as long as we're on the topic of holsters ... the one I'm using has three layers of retention - the outer one includes a flap, for when you don't want it to snag on brush/whatever - the middle one is a simple strap over the hammer - the inner strap goes over the butt (of the pistol, not mine ... you perverts!) and can be disengaged simply by pressing down with the thumb while gripping the pistol - a relatively low tech quickdraw release, for an amateur like me.  It's a thigh rig, and much better than the issue Bianchi with rigid extender that's a nuisance when you're trying to sit down while wearing body armour, etc.

As for the Browning - we had an amusing experience when some village elders asked if they could compare our pistols - they politely hefted the Glocks the Norwegians were using, but ... they offered me quite a bit in exchange for my Browning (chuckle - three for one, actually!)
It's funny - I'd never anticipated that a properly maintained/cleaned weapon would have so much more resale value ... haha!


----------



## Slim (28 Oct 2004)

I love the Glock and train with it about once a week right now...I don't know if its the best choice for a service weapon though. Its not nearly as robust as some of the other weapons out there and I'm not sure it could stand up to the same amount of harsh treatment that the Browning does.

Also the safeties are mechanical, rather than applied on the Glock.

Slim


----------



## garb811 (28 Oct 2004)

I agree that in most of the situations Cbt Arms are likely to face, a triple retention system is not required.   Having said that, given the amount of dismounted patrolling going on in urban areas on our latest missions, it wouldn't be a bad thing.   I was, and still am, confused as to how you were relating a Level 3 holster as a replacement to a physical safety on a weapon so I was trying, obviously poorly, to clarify where you were going with the issue.


----------



## Slim (28 Oct 2004)

Sorry...My mistake. I was not commenting on the holster. I am not at all knowledgable about them and so have no place to comment on one. The only holster I use, or know anything about,  is the strong-side draw high-ride one made for the Glock 17 by KYDEX.

Its flat, very concealable (on someone of my size anyway) and seems to hold the weapon pretty securely. Bear in mind though that my application is for close protection work, not LE or soldiering. Not sure if it makes a difference (Bet it does) but, believe it or not, a quick draw is sometimes required in this line of work.

Sorry for the confusion. I will reread the posts with an eye for more detail.

Cheers all.

Slim


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Oct 2004)

Its ok Slim we know you are just showing your advanced age.  >


----------



## garb811 (28 Oct 2004)

Slim:  Sorry, now I have you confused as well.  I was replying to Morpheus.  My apologies.


----------



## Morpheus32 (28 Oct 2004)

I am getting confused myself here.... ;D

Ok triple retention holsters.  My point was not against triple retention holsters but the implied need that we need to do things more police like.  Which includes percieved legal requirements in how we do business.  Triple retention holsters are requirement for police in Canada for legal and liability issues.  The army is a little different.  Triple retention holsters were not the point of the post.  So having a pistol "cocked and locked" in a single action mode, in a police environment is not on, but in an army context, it is how we do business.  I feel an external safety is a requirement so the operator can carry the pistol in whatever holster (or ammo pouch) is convenient.  If we have a glock for example, there would be a requirement to ensure the trigger area was covered for safety reasons which would necessitate a proper and approved holster.  Additionally troops are use to applying a safety.   We have it in just about every weapon system in service.  It is more in tune with our training. Also most units do not get enough training time on the firearms for troops to become proficent with them.......there is a difference between proficent and familar with a firearm.  

That being said, lets be serious here, if you are concerned about someone going for your back up pistol, make sure your primary rifle is the attackers main point of interest.  We are soldiers and if someone is going for your pistol, there are alot of other things you should be doing to distract their attention, probably from the butt of your rifle.  Have an extra retaining feature is not going to change anything.  

As I said, what is a real requirement for policing in Canada is not necessarily relevant to soldiering in a combat zone.  To quote a famous firearm instructor, "a pistol is used to fight your way to a rifle".  You fight with a rifle not a pistol.  Using a pistol to defend yourself should be a temporary state of mind while you get back to a rifle.  ;D

The needs of MPs, JTF and the like are different and that is why they have replaced the browning already.  For general field use, it is good to go.  As I said in my second post.  The army has other things it needs to spend money on rather than a replacement for the browning.....

Jeff


----------



## KevinB (28 Oct 2004)

I am going to disagree with Jeff on this issue.

I feel we do need a secure locking holster for the BHP on operations - due to the cocked and locked nature.  The pistol is too easily snatched or otherwise acquired from holsters like the Bianchi (which was made for a pistol about 20% larger than ours) or the mag pouch on the LBV.  Doing vehicle searches in Kabul we would strip down and the searchers woudl noyl be carrying the pistol - [this goes for some other stuff as well...]  However with crowd of civilians (and I MEAN CROWDS) that gather it is impossible to keep them back without resorting to gunfire (and that is not on with the Canadian public) - so whiel searchign a vehcile or person - the crowd physically bumps you etc.  - several times my holster was brushed from behind - these people just don't appreciate North American personal space boundaries nor do they understand our defensive posture/perimeters  - and Jeff I am sure you can relate this to Somalian crowds as well - 
 So I was extremely glad I had my pistol in my Safariland SLS 6004 - for it was securely locked in and the rotational cover was enough so I could drawn and fire if need be in seconds - yet complex enough that someone could not come along and draw it on me.  My C8 had been given off to a troop to cover me searching (his weapon was usless for that task).
 As well in house searches the confines of some third world dwelling/compounds are such that a North American statured individual would have to remove a large portion of hsi gear to squeeze into areas and while one can still keep their carbine they are in an awkward postion and while moving aorund one wants the pistol close - esp if something pops up behind you in a crawlspace - yet they need it safe and secure since that is a potential weapon for the enemy.


-Cheers
Kevin


----------



## chrisf (28 Oct 2004)

Slim said:
			
		

> Sorry...My mistake. I was not commenting on the holster. I am not at all knowledgable about them and so have no place to comment on one. The only holster I use, or know anything about,   is the strong-side draw high-ride one made for the Glock 17 by KYDEX.
> 
> Its flat, very concealable (on someone of my size anyway) and seems to hold the weapon pretty securely. Bear in mind though that my application is for close protection work, not LE or soldiering. Not sure if it makes a difference (Bet it does) but, believe it or not, a quick draw is sometimes required in this line of work.



Kydex? The israelis use these if I recall correctly. Supposed to be top notch kit.


----------



## Morpheus32 (28 Oct 2004)

Kevin,

I understand your point but there is a difference between a safe and secure holster and the legaleze of a triple rentention holster.   We can design something simple and comfortable to carry or HPs without using the terminology of "triple retention".   This gets clearly defined for police in terms of liablity and legal requirements.   All I am saying is the holster must be safe and secure but does not have to meet the police requirement.   We can retain the holster using a number of systems but I don't believe it has to meet the same requires as police.

At the paramount point here is we need to focus on other things that soldiers require.   This is not an urgent requirement in comparison to the other glaring shortages of kit we have.   We can barely train people to operate basic weapon systems let alone shooting pistols properly.   Kevin, you and I are the same in the our beliefs about training.   Right now we a tiny minority.   There are other ways to make a holster less accessible to being grabbed.   I still believe it is too niche for us right now.   Given a significant increase in training and an open of eyes to the importance I would agree but until then, the money would be better spent on rifle training, and accessories.   If we look at it from the big picture context.   We also have no doctrine less JTF to transition to handgun when a rifle failure takes place.   You and I think in those terms based on our training from outside the CF, but you won't find one single word mentioned in any CF manual concerning transition.   Until it comes online in the CF, our 6004s are our toys which draws the attention and ire of the CSM...not viewed as essential equipment.  We have a way to go.

I guess that is my point.   The holster is not vital ground now based on our doctrine.   It could be in the future but there is an investment that is unlikely to take place in the short term....

Jeff


----------



## KevinB (28 Oct 2004)

Jeff - agreed - however the folk who did some of our pre-trg did specify the transition...  
 But you are correct that UNTIL the rest of the army gets online it will be seen as a frill - I think that given more SOF contact with our trg and the advent of the LI-SOC it will happen - just not today.

 I'd sell of a few LAV's and buy C8SFW's and a SH*T load of ammo and teach troops to fight again...


----------



## Morpheus32 (28 Oct 2004)

Kevin,

I would love to see our army equipped with a good balance of C7/8 with all the neccessary accessories such as lights, lasers, accessory rails, improved stocks etc.  I also would love us to develop doctrine to support transition drills but we are a long way from that.  Hopefully the contact with SOF will increase the awareness and desire to focus in this area.  But then again is this needed in the new LAVIII army?  I think yes but I believe some would say no.....

Jeff


----------



## KevinB (28 Oct 2004)

I would suggest the LAVIII is not needed in the Army  ;D


----------



## bossi (29 Oct 2004)

KevinB said:
			
		

> ... However with crowd of civilians (and I MEAN CROWDS) that gather it is impossible to keep them back without resorting to gunfire (and that is not on with the Canadian public) - so whiel searchign a vehcile or person - the crowd physically bumps you etc.   - several times my holster was brushed from behind - these people just don't appreciate North American personal space boundaries nor do they understand our defensive posture/perimeters   ...



One of the interpreters taught us an INVALUABLE lesson:  *Carry a stick.  * 
The locals know you won't shoot them, but ... beginning in kindergarten they learn about the stick - usually there are older men whose job is to herd the children (I only ever heard them referred to as "bhourra-bhourra men", I think because they say something that sounds like that ... sorry for not knowing exact name/word).

Anyway - not sure if you've ever seen pictures on TV or otherwise of riot police in countries like Pakistan - they use those extremely long canes ... (i.e. you don't need an axe handle or baseball bat).
And, yes - I realise the guy with a stick in his hand(s) needs to be covered/protected by somebody else who's pointing a 5.56 or 7.62 flashlight ... (it's a non-Olympic event "mixed pairs" event ...)

So, to make a long story short - the next time our guys had a problem with people getting too close, all they had to do was dismount with a stick in their hand ... and presto!  The kids ran away.

(and, I found it ironic - it's a long-standing tradition for Highland officers to carry ashplant canes - thus, they've already got a near-perfect piece of wood in their hands, which when used as a walking stick or cane is perfectly non-threatening ... until such time as it's needed as a baton.  Funny how some young guys and iconoclasts mock traditions ...  yet there's actually some wisdom of the ages involved, eh?)

Sorry that this tidbit wasn't handed down/passed on to you - I don't know where it got lost.


----------



## KevinB (29 Oct 2004)

The handover was not the best...

 We took over from the 3R22eR Recce Pl and the QRF Coy at the same time - doing a few trips out side the wire to learn the city for QRF duties - we never did anything dismounted together.


----------



## bossi (29 Oct 2004)

Ack.  It happens.  I also posted that info in the other thread to help Roto 3, and beyond ...


----------



## Laps (14 Dec 2004)

I really don't mind the BHP.  I've carried it on 2 tours and it worked well for me.  When (if) we will replace them, I hope they will put some type of "combat" sights on them.  Maybe Trijicon or something you can see at night.  So far, I have been putting "liquid-paper" dots on the sight, but this is a bit "Red-Green" guntape type of fix.

As for replacement, I am all over the Five-Seven pistol.  20 rounds capable of going through Kevlar...  Or for non-warrior trades, a "mini- C-8" like the C-8CQB or the G-36C as a PDW.  If we go for PDW, I will miss having strapped to me at all times...  Something about having to get out of a burning chopper and you don't have time to find your handy little gun in the wreckage.


----------



## KevinB (14 Dec 2004)

The 5.7 is a woefully inadequte cartirdge - 9mm AP is a better choice - kevlar and limited (but better than 5.7) terminal effect.

 G36 - Piece of SHIT - I spoke to a Norwegian SF guy while I was in Afghan (as he looked longingly at my C8SFW) he had an old G3K - and when asked why he told me they were withdrawing the G36 from servie as they were having a unacceptable failure rate with them - bodies cracking etc.  Some German guys mentioend the same issues...

IMHO (having used the BHP in addition to my carbine) the PDW is a solution looking for a problem - we would be much better served by buying nightsights and modifying the warstock pistols and a rotation of the stock - usign the remaing money to fund ammo for training...


----------



## Laps (15 Dec 2004)

Kevin,

Thanks for the info.  My choices were based on the following:

- FiveSeven: 20 rounds in the mag.  5.7 bullets capable of AP.  (the military will never get into anything else than "ball" ammo, so 9mm ball is not quite good against much Kevlar)
- G36: compact and uses .223.  All that being said, I didn't know about all the technical problems they had with them.

It seems like we can agree on a the fact that we need better sights on the new (or present???) guns.  I little interesting trivia: when I got to my unit, they handed me a box with my BHP in it.  A label said: "This weapon has been inspected/overhauled"  and the date "1973".  I wasn't even born in 1973!!!  It is in great shape.

As for the PDW.  I am not too sure about it either.  Your rationale seems to be based on your previous experience (if I guess right, infantry??).  As a non-warrior guy (flying choppers), I would definetly like a little more firepower than just a handgun.  The problem is the only other thing they are willing to give us (sometimes) is the full lenght C-7 which is a problem since we have nowhere to put them but in the "trunk".  When have asked for C-8s and a "gun rack" to put them handy, but this is just not hapening.

When I was in Bosnia, the recce guys had a full complement of weapons in their Coyotes (starting with a 25mm gun, a couple C-6s, M203s... all the way to their BHPs).  We were flying with a pistol and 2 mags...  Pathetic   So maybe some type of semi-gun, semi-pistol weapon would be good for cases like us.

My 2 cents


----------



## a_majoor (15 Dec 2004)

From another thread: TACTICAL TERRORIZER: Springfield XD Pistols  http://army.ca/forums/threads/23306.0.html



> Thinking about this thread has raised a different question; do we need pistols at all? While employed in the D&S platoon in Banja Luka, I wore a pistol on duty as a symbol of my rank and authority, but I was convinced by my troops that the pistol would be better employed on the actual gate, since it could be brought into action at close quarters (when next to a car) far more quickly than a rifle. This being said, a pistol has only limited effectiveness in this situation, since most of the bullet's energy would be expended in penetrating the car. (The "powers that be" did not agree with the reasoning).
> 
> So, what is the pistol for? Is it to indicate rank and authority? This could be done with a brassard or a different hat, and has the disadvantage of marking an individual as different, which would lead an enemy to target that person. Is the pistol for CQB and personal protection? In that case, it is of only marginal effectiveness (please, no .45 ACP vs 9mm replies) mostly due to the ergonomic issues (i.e. holding, aiming and firing).
> 
> ...


----------



## Laps (15 Dec 2004)

a_majoor,

Interesting you talk about velocity of 9mm going through vehicles and Banja Luka in the same text...  Have you heard about the negligent discharge in Banja Luka???  Seems like the 9mm round can easily go through a vehicle (from the inside anyway...) and through CORIMEC walls... ;D


----------



## a_majoor (15 Dec 2004)

I was in Banja Luka during both 9mm incidents, yes the round carried through several Cor-i-mecs, (which are mostly particle board or something similar, mine was in the process of "delaminating") but the internal structure of a car is both complex and made out of steel, so it is more of a fluke the bullet penetrated the van door "clean" rather than hitting the saftey cage, window mechanism, stereo speaker etc. IF something "went down" at the gate, there would be a fairly good chance for a pistol bullet to be deflected by something like that rather than striking the driver.

A weapon which is more compact than a rifle but more capable than a pistol fits the bill for security, CQB, SOF missions, personal protection for truckers, black hats, siggies and so on. While a pistol bullet "may" go cleanly through a car body and disable the driver, there is less question a 9mm moving at a higher velocity from a submachinegun will do the job, FN PW 90, C-8 or 12 gauge loaded with "deer slugs" will unquestionably penetrate a vehicle, and have the magazine capacity to carry out a longer engagement, and the ergonomics to allow the shooter to usr the weapon with a fair degree of accuracy (especially if the range is changing i.e. the driver is attempting to flee or ram the gate), and if selected from the same family of service weapons as the rest of the force uses, provides minimal logistics burden.

As always, there are certain situations where a pistol may be superior to a different choice of weapon, but much of weapons design is compromise anyway, so the choice is to try to get something which will be useful in the most likely scenarios, and is reliable and easy to use. Exotic solutions like Metalstorm are worth investigating, but from a look at the website, this technology seems better suited for area denial weapons rather than personal defense weapons and submachine guns.


----------



## Slim (16 Dec 2004)

Has anyone either tried or seen what shotgun ammo (specifically magnum slug) will do to an engine block? Would this stop a soft-skinned vehicle, or would something bigger be required?

Slim


----------



## KevinB (17 Dec 2004)

Slim - yup. More to follow afterwards

 Having played with the 4" M2Corp 5.56mm PDW variants.






and the 10.3" and 11.5" C8CQB's (top is a personal lower with USNCWC C LMT Enhanced 10.3, bottom is a US M16A1 lower with 11.5 Enhanced upper w/ flip front sight and suppressor)











and POS G36C





My C8SFW (lower) and a C8A1 (top)






However I still want a backup sidearm in addition to a carbine.
"my" 7T I had in Afghan






Now that I bored you all with photo's - the small PDW's are next to worthless in terms of bullet terminal effect - so 10.3" is the smaller one can still get bullet fragmentation (I hope I dont need to start to do terminal effect workshops again?) and then only to 10M...
  So yes its is fine for gunsfights inside a car or small house (other units use more effective bullets in the 75 to 77gr area...) 
So you accept then that the 14.5 (C8) is the shortest you want to go (and ditch those PDW ideas) - you get a system that is good out to 45M or so then you go to the SFW and its 16" bbl and get 95M of frag -verus 130 with the C7 20" bbl...
 So we decide to effectively only issue the 16 SFW - period 
Well having done stuff that the 16" is too long and for some duties you need a sidearm - you now have two guns anyway...

For me the solution is simple.



Shotguns - Use it for breaching - get the Reminton 870 Modular Combat Shotgun System in the 9" bbl with a pistol grip - it goes to a team member (your #4, MOE guy) as an 'extra'
  Shotguns slugs - not as accurate as a rifle - have less terminal effects as most ranges (hard to beleive but true) less penetration on hard targets due to the lead  of the slug deforming and absorbing some of the energy.  Shotgun mag limits are problematic and slow to reload - Did I say use it for breaching? ...
Use it for breaching.


 Need to stop a car -simple C6 7.62mm NATO a few bursts will do it.  works quite well -
Pistol and Shotgun rounds will not stop a vehicle w/o direct hits to the driver in a short period of time (i.e. he is crashing the gate...)

IMHO 40mm HV from a Mk19 is MUCH more preferable - but 7.62mm should be your min option avail.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Dec 2004)

Not meaning to be confrontational, but the point I am trying to get at is for non SF types who have a need for compact, man portable firepower, and who are generally not issued a secondary weapon, then some of the other choices I mentioned in the earlier posts might be more suitable. 

The gate guard scenarios would involve having to fire at or into a vehicle at reasonably short range i.e. the gate guard sees the vehicle exiting the "serpentine" and accelerating towards the gate rather than slowing down, or one of the passengers suddenly pulls a gun while the vehicle is along side the gate waiting for clearance to enter. If those situations had happened in Banja Luka, the gate guards would be unslinging rifles (one right beside the car in scenario 2), while I would have had to either try a long shot with my 9mm from the guard house, or go running into the firefight to close the range to the point a 9mm would make the difference. (Before you ask, my rifle was in the rack in the back of the guard house.) At these close ranges, the rifle bullets would have had a terrific terminal effect even through the structure of a vehicle, and the guards would have been able to engage from a fairly wide range band if the situation required. C-8s would be a better choice given the fairly close in nature of our work, and the very limited number of pistols (2) in our platoon inventory.

So I think my summation would be "Pistols if necessary, but not necessarily pistols".


----------



## Laps (17 Dec 2004)

a_majoor,

The question there is why the guy at the gate had his gun slinged?  I know in VK the gate guards always had their weapons at the "ready".


----------



## a_majoor (17 Dec 2004)

Banja Luka was a different place, and the "powers that be" were *very* keen on things like dress and deportment, proper rifle salutes, what headdress was beig worn etc. The guy with the sign out sheets needed his hands free as well...

We moved to VK for about a month and it a much different environment there.


----------



## Slim (18 Dec 2004)

Hey all

I don't mean to hijack the thread (well, maybe a little bit)

I have been doing lots of shooting with semi's lately and have recently started using BT (Black Talon) ammo. I find that the amount of miss and double feeds has gone way up. Normal duty ammo being the Jacketed Hollow-Point round in 9mm. The weapons used are the Glock 17, a Norinco Sig (9mm) and a Smith and Wesson Model 59.

Can anyone else add to, or explain that, at all?

Slim


----------



## Kal (18 Dec 2004)

One thing that I am very pleased with this thread was the few, if any, posts from untrained and uneducated individuals making irrelevant comments.  Not that my opinion makes any difference, because it is just that.  
I would say when we go with a new pistol, it chamber a round larger than that of 9mm.  By no means am I a proponent for this caliber and in my opinion the only positives it has is a large magazine capacity and is easy to shoot.  I and I know many others would prefer to see a pistol chambered for the .40S&W or even better the .45ACP.  A soldier using a pistol will very rarely, if ever, engage a target past 20 metres.  Therefore, when talking about the range of a weapon system using the 5.7mm round is irrelevant, and the mass of the round is simply too small.  I'm not going to get into terminal ballistics, because it was brifly discussed in the springfield xd thread. 
I like what A_Majoor said "pistols if neccessary, but not neccessarily pistol."  I believe it goes hand-in-hand with what KevinB said about the transition between primimary and seconday weapons.  I believe the latter is especially true when operating in urban/CQB environments.  There is a reason why SF and tactical police units are trained the transition.  It works and it will save ones life.  It is much faster to employ the transition that conduct your IA drills with your primary weapon in a high threat, high stress environment.  Once a room has been cleared or a hostile situation been taken control of, one can revert back to their primary weapon conducts thier IA's and continue with the their operation.  
This bring up another issue, the holster.  I was glad to see it was too addressed.  I am inclined to agree with Morpheus32 and believe that the modern infantry soldier does not require a triple retention holster.  I do believe they require some type of retention holster just not one with all the bells and whistles.  When is time of need, there are just more safety measures to keep you from retrieving your weapon.  A friend of mine who went down to the States recently told me that these types of holsters can do more harm than good.  He attended a combatives seminar while there and witnessed that in a high stress environments some cops had difficulty unholstering their weapons.  He went on to say some couldn't draw their pistol because of the position they were in, kneeling laying on their backs.  I say, what good is a holster if you can't draw the weapon out of it.  This wasn't the case with all the holsters, but a few.  A lot of us have watched the 'worlds most dangerous police encounters' shows.  Have you guys ever seen how long it takes some of those officers to draw their weapons.....  If you watch carefully, they sometimes take 3 or 4 attempts at drawing until successful.  Trying to keep moving, keep an eye on the threat, while unsnapping, twisting and pushing or pulling on the pistol seems like to many variables to contend with.  With training, this can be overcome, but from my own experience and the experience of others if that there enough training with these weapons and holsters.  I would much rather see/be issued a Blackhawk CQB holster, almost the best of both worlds, even it would accompany a pistol with a light attached, it would be perfect in my view.  
Thanks to those who are still with me at the end of this post, your time, patience and interest is appreciated.  Enough for now......


----------



## Kal (18 Dec 2004)

That C8CQB sure is sexy, wouldn't mind employing that at a VCP or at the gate.  Wait, is this a irrelevant comment.....  DAMMIT.


----------



## KevinB (18 Dec 2004)

Im not SF (as much as I'd like to be  ;D) however Canadian troops especially Light Infantry types are called on to do many of the so called SF operations simply due to the limited size of JTF and the fact that using a TierI asset for tier II duties is a waste of highend manpower.

 Pistols - I think every combat arm solider NEEDS one - Frankly I would like .45 cause if you just have to shoot someone you want a BIG hole at the ranges we are talking about.  

More to follow - I have a few hours to go out an visit family


----------



## bossi (18 Dec 2004)

KevinB said:
			
		

> ... Pistols - I think every combat arm solider NEEDS one - Frankly I would like .45 cause if you just have to shoot someone you want a BIG hole at the ranges we are talking about ...



A few years ago we heard a story from the Sigs O during the Second World War - apparently they were picking up some equipment in England and there "just happened" to be a crate of pistols lying there ... so, of course, they figured they were supposed to pick them up, too ... he said they were worth their weight in gold to the signallers - something that always sticks in my mind ...

Yup - it never hurts to have a backup weapon, and a pistol is lighter than another long barrel (although personally I'd love to have a shotgun, too - since, after all, both the pistol and shotgun have at some point in time been referred to as "The Equalizer" ...)


----------



## Laps (18 Dec 2004)

I'll go back to my statement as an aircrew...  The pistol is a must in that if we need to get out in a hurry (ie burning chopper in a smoking hole), at least that gun is strapped to you.  However, if we have to hump it back home, or go hide somewhere awaiting CSAR, I'd rather have something with a little more firepower and range (ie, not shotguns or 9mm MP-5) than just a pistol.  Another important consideration is that the DND will never buy anything else than "ball" ammo, so maybe pistol in .40 or .45 would be nicer.  Otherwise, a 9mm in JHP+P or Hydra-Shock would be awesome.


----------



## KevinB (18 Dec 2004)

I think the 10.3" C8CQB has a place from roles like Laps mentioned - and in limited use for VCP duties (I always like a gun barrel I can point at a driver withou having to draw back very far...)

 That and a dedicated "bug out bag" for certain roles - if you go down and have to bail you can get out with a few esentials.

By far the biggest problem is that as a_majoor pointed out a fundemental mindset issue that has to be addressed.
 The kinder gentler army is all well and good in the theoretically - unfortunately when the warm and fuzzy's interfer with the bayonet that is the problem.  Saluting in theatre is ridiculous - as the formal crap can take away from the GUARD doing his or her duties - secondly it can identify officers who in some theatres really dont want to be identified, thirdly it does not instill any advantage - my respect for an officer is not chnaged if I do or do not salute him (or her) - similarily officers I have complete contempt for I can be incredibly formal to.

What I think we should do - is adopt the C8 for all non combat arms personnel (it is a light simply and yet effective weapon system) issue some pistols to these troops where nec. - and for all combat arms and certain combat support pers issue the C8SFW and pistol to (still issuing the C9 and C6 etc...) 



Slim - Winchester dropped the BT line a while ago now the Ranger SXT is their premium LE ammunition (a better version of the BH as you were) they have SXT (non Ranger line) and other JHP loads - or do you have the older BT rounds?
 The 147gr Ranger SXT is one of the 5 top 9mm performers.


----------



## Slim (19 Dec 2004)

Hey Kev

Ammotech was kind enough to steer me via PM. It seems that the boss got some (a box of boxes) full of actual BT ammo. What closet this has come out of is still a mystery but I'm guessing that they're pretty old and, as ammotech said, there is no longer any lubrication on the round, hence the slide-stoppages and miss-feeds.

We currently use jacketed HP as our round of choice and it works very well for us. The BT was just getting burnt off for practice. I will tell the boss about the Ranger SXT and see if we can get our hands on some.

Thanks though.

Slim


----------



## Kal (19 Dec 2004)

Sorry, Kev, for the misunderstanding, but I was aware you and the PPCLI aren't SF.  I didn't mean to puff your ego, if I did, I would have said "Kevin you're the coolest soldier alive, I want to be just like you," and would have made googily eyes at you.  I was eluding to your statement that some higher-ups think that the transition is a frill and how it isn't widely trained.  It really is too bad that such a mentality prevails and that kind of attitude does nothing to further the growth of soldiers.....

I would like to see something along the lines of the new Marine MEU pistol.  Basically a specialized 1911 with a light attached.  Theirs is a Kimber, either that or a Para-Ordnance would be nice.  I would settle for a USP too, though.


----------



## KevinB (19 Dec 2004)

Kal,
Unfortunately even "elesewhere" there seem to be a difference of opinion on the issue of transition...
Those who recommend "taking a knee" upon a stoppage on entry miss the point you have now put you least armoured (head) area in the typical line of fire of the enemy while removing your most armoured area (chest) from it.

MAR SOC Kimber - a very nice gun (for the USMC's fledgling Det1 [well I guess a year and a bit now] addition to USSOC)  The MEU-SOC gun is handbuilt by the smiths at Quantico Precision Weaponshop (by Marines for Marines) however PWS could not keep up, and the Kimber was an 'interim' solution.  (note: MAR SOC is for MARINE Special Operations while MEU-SOC is MARINE Expeditionary Unit-Special Opaeratiosn Capable)


----------



## Kal (22 Dec 2004)

Thanks for the clarification, Kevin.  Just wondering, though, what weapon would you choose for a new pistol, realistically speaking, of course.  No Wilson Combat CQB's with streamlights attached, although would love to see them, doubt the government would pay for a new 2500$ pistol.  Maybe if the Conservatives were in leadership, but still unlikely.........


----------



## KevinB (22 Dec 2004)

Kal - I dont think non SOF units should have a Single Action pistol - as I dont think the training is their to use it safely enough in large numbers.  That said I would simply open the warstock guns and issue them all out - buying Sig P226 as replacements when the Inglis's give up the ghost.

 In bulk the MARSOC Kimber would be less than 1K, but as I said before I think only the SOF units get enough range time to safely employ the cocked and locked - and in the general service issue the DoubletoSingle transition from firts to secondshot will not affect our shooting - however in a surgical Direct Action mission the single action can be very welcome.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Dec 2004)

Speaking of transition drills I have to wonder if NLBPs and the army are taught the same method.


----------



## Satelliteslayer (28 Apr 2005)

Pistols - An American shooting guru by the name of ?????? Cooper once stated, " if you want to shoot a handgun well you need two things, a good 45 ACP and a boxcar full of ammo". Although the first point is and will always be a subject of endless debate the later are sage words. The ONLY way to shot a handgun well is to shoot it lots.

It is far better to hit a target... ;D ... w/ a 9mm than miss it w/ a 45 ACP or any other wpn.

BHP - my god man, Johnaton Moses Browning designed this wpn in 1935, it's original name was the GP-35. I would be far more respectfull of an oldtimer who was good w/ a BHP than a wipper-snapper who was so-so w/ any new space gun/pistol you care to name.

I have and love my Sig P226, it's a great pistol and I'm glad the CF has adopted the P225. 

The BHP in the CF are way past worn out, it is very rare to find a tight BHP in the inventory. Since the P225 is already in the inventory, in limited No's w/ the Navy and MP's, it would make sense to adopt the P226. If we keep it as long as we have the BHP it would be money well spent.... with money out aside for shooter training.





Edited to keep the forum investigation free.


----------



## Enzo (2 May 2005)

Gotta jump in here, I've used BHPs and I like them, but they are past their shelf life in the CF.

Sig P225s are in use, so it makes sense to replace the BHP w/ other Sigs.

Then again, I'm biased, I like my P228 clone. After having put <2000rds through it; my preference is with a Sig currently.

As a sidebar:
I spent the most time training on a .45 Springfield Armoury 1911 over the years. After I left the Infantry and began to consider the Navy, that's when I decided to purchase a Sig (clone). Without a prohibited licence, a Sig P225 is unavailable, the Norinco 9mm NP-34 (P228 clone) is the closest pistol to train with legally on the range for a civilian.

9mm/.40S&W CZ-75/85s deserve consideration for individual range time also, not neccessarily for BHP replacement, but a good option overall for DA/SA training.

Thoughts?


----------



## Colin2 (13 May 2005)

I had until recently the NP-22 ,Sig P226 clone and now have the NZ_85b, clone of the CZ-85b. Despite not firing a pistol for 15 years I found the Sig P226 design incredible easy to use. The slide is easily grasped (unlike my NZ). The decocker is simple and safe, no chance of accidentally dropping the hammer. The gun is ready to shoot as soon as your finger is on the trigger, no safety to forget or fumble with, shoots very nicely and easy to clean (No tools required, unlike the 1911 and CZ)

I plan to get a Sig P226, prefer the balance over the P228. Also the Sig P220 is in .45 and can easily be converted to fire .40, 357 S&W and I believe 9mm

US Coast Guard and Homeland Security just announced Sig as the winner of their competition using the Sig P226,228DAK and the P239DAO

The DAK give a constant trigger pull of 6.5 lbs if I remember correctly and is only in DA It  has gotten good reviews

The P239 is designed for smaller hands, so everyone can train on similar pistols. 

I love the BHP and want one, but like everything, time has come to start replacing it


----------

