Page 3 of 3
Re: Saying Good Bye to the M9?
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 7:06 am
by OldCannon
AdioSS wrote:Sadly, I think the result may be determined by which gun manufacturer has the deepest pockets...
I'm sure Glock would love to see 45GAP, Sig Sauer would love to see 357Sig, and Smith&Wesson would love to see .40S&W adopted.
And somebody tell me the logical reasoning behind the requirement of using ball ammo?
Hague Convention, Declaration III:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
45GAP has no chance of adoption. 357SIG is nice, but ball size is exactly that of 9mm. 40S&W is the only one in the list that _might_ be adopted. No doubt it would be officially renamed
10mm Kurtz so that NATO people
might consider adopting it
Re: Saying Good Bye to the M9?
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:54 am
by AdioSS
I asked for the logical reason ;) That was written & signed 112 years ago. War has changed...
Re: Saying Good Bye to the M9?
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 11:13 am
by MoJo
AdioSS wrote:I asked for the logical reason ;) That was written & signed 112 years ago. War has changed...
Nothing pertaining to war is logical. Logically everyone would solve problems peacefully.
The stopping power of the .40 S&W with a flat meplat as loaded in FMJ ammo should be at least as good if not better than round nose .45 ACP.
Re: Saying Good Bye to the M9?
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:34 pm
by AdioSS
I can't disagree with that. The bigger diameter doesn't hurt either. That's why I converted my M9 to .40S&W. But I can also carry hollow points.