Caution in criticizing folks gun choice

[03Lightningrocks]

And no, the Army did not go to the 9mm because they couldn't handle .45's...it was about cost and higher capacity.

Actually, it was done to Narrow down the many choices of caliber and to conform with the accepted NATO round.

Good story on the whole fiasco...

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/true_story_m9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[74novaman]

And no, the Army did not go to the 9mm because they couldn't handle .45's...it was about cost and higher capacity.

Actually, it was done to Narrow down the many choices of caliber and to conform with the accepted NATO round.

Good story on the whole fiasco...

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/true_story_m9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Considering the story is on a 1911 site, they might be a bit biased....

[wgoforth]

And no, the Army did not go to the 9mm because they couldn't handle .45's...it was about cost and higher capacity.

Actually, it was done to Narrow down the many choices of caliber and to conform with the accepted NATO round.

Good story on the whole fiasco...

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/true_story_m9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Out of curiosity, just googled the question and came back with several responses, including this one. One even said it is because NATO doesn't allow intentional killing of enemy so 9mm was so you wouldn't kill them.

[03Lightningrocks]

And no, the Army did not go to the 9mm because they couldn't handle .45's...it was about cost and higher capacity.

Actually, it was done to Narrow down the many choices of caliber and to conform with the accepted NATO round.

Good story on the whole fiasco...

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/true_story_m9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Considering the story is on a 1911 site, they might be a bit biased....

Hahaha.. Ya recon??