: Ref 3887. Ref 3886. - Are you suggesting that British, Canadian and
: Soviet Forces are somehow inferior just because they don't meet
: your standards? Don't you think that the other forces around the
: world are happy that 9mm pistols meet their spec's - that it can at
: least stop a man/woman? A STTU instructor concedes to this in one
: of his books (can't remember which - apologies -Lonsdale circa.
: 2002?) - that .45 and 9mm don't matter as long as there is
: sufficient stopping power?

NO I am NOT. I suggested QUITE the OPPOSITE! I wrote:

The 9mm pistol problem only occurs with US forces, since in most
other countries nothing much is expected of the pistol anyway. The
British military and police are still using the Browning HP, and NATO
and much of the rest of the world use either 9mm or the smaller
Soviet 9mm Makarov chambered weapons.

------------------------------------------------------------------

That is, it is ONLY the United States that has a problem (is
concerned with) the combat effectiveness of pistols. Other countries
do not see any problem and have no such concern. This is in spite of
the fact that their soldiers and police might operate in similar
conditions and against similar adversaries. Yet no other country has
made so many studies and devoted such design effort to pistols and
pistol ammunition as has the US.

Now, why is this? Partly this is the result of many competing arms
manufacturers in the US. A lot also comes out of American law-
enforcement experience. Compared to some other Western countries,
America is a fairly violent society. The USA certainly has no
monopoly on violent felons, homicidal ex-husbands and vicious
criminal gangs, but here we have more of them and they are better
armed. They are more likely to shoot police officers or innocent
civilians and need to be "put down" with precision and economy of
force. (i.e. don't shoot up the neighborhood.)

In most of the world's militaries, a pistol is simply a badge of
authority. For the police, it is a symbol that they are they are
authorized the use of deadly force to maintain order. There is a
secondary function, of course, of self-defense, but this is of little
consequence.

Two examples. In the 1990's the Swedish military discovered frame
damage to many of the Lathi pistols they had issued to officers since
WW II. The US faced the same problem in the 1980's with M1911's. The
US held a big competition and finally adopted the M9 Beretta. The
Swedish solution was to issue 7.65 Browning pistols from 1908, still
in Reserve inventory. It was JUST a symbol.

Then there is the example of Israel, a modern nation facing a serious
day-to-day terrorist threat. Almost all of its citizens, male and
female, are military veterans or Reservists, yet few have ever
handled a pistol. The reason? The pistol in pretty ineffective as a
weapon and is not much issued or taught. An actual terrorist incident
will be responded to with military force, up to and including tanks
and helicopter gunships. So who needs a pistol? Maybe a traffic cop?

In any case, the US has devoted a lot of time, money and competing
technical expertise to making its pistols and ammunition effective
combat weapons. Other countries don't, seeing no need. Their Special
Ops Teams can hit targets as well as ours can, with whatever pistols
they have. Aside from that, the philosophy is that their officers and
weapons' crews are better off fighting their units or keeping their
weapons going that trying to be Wild-West gunfighters.

The US has, however, adopted no less than FIVE different pistols at
the same time: M9, M11, P226. Mk23 and MEU (SOC).

From a military POV, this is like (IMHO) issuing five different
bayonets for the same rifle, each with its own advantage.

I HOPE this will make my opinion clear?

LER