In pursuit of stopping power - Why the Air Force wants to pack the wallop of a .45


By Bryant Jordan - bmjordan@militarytimes.com
Posted : May 21, 2007

For five hours, Staff Sgt. Travis Cosby had fought with insurgents for control of a bridge crossing the Euphrates River, but still they kept coming.

As Cosby tried to call in an airstrike, the enemy suddenly appeared so close to his M113 armored personnel carrier that he couldn’t point his .50-cal machine gun low enough to take them out.

He drew his 9mm and emptied a magazine — 15 rounds — into the enemy, killing at least two.

For his actions that day in Iraq in April 2003, Cosby received the Silver Star.

Machine guns, M4 carbines — whatever — sometimes a handgun is what you need. And it’s got to be reliable and effective.

Those are the arguments behind the Air Force’s recent request for nearly $90 million to buy thousands of new handguns for its airmen. But not just new M9s, though the Air Force has acquired replacement 9mms routinely. The Air Force wants a .45-caliber handgun to replace the Defense Department-standard M9 its airmen have used for 20 years.

But while the blue-suit leadership hoped to start buying and fielding the larger-caliber gun as soon as it got the money in the current 2007 wartime supplemental budget, congressional negotiators kicked the .45 away from the Air Force’s reaching hand and — bang! — appropriated $5 million for a joint study on handgun requirements. If the switch is justified, officials hope to have the study done in time to include money for new handguns in the fiscal 2008 budget in the fall.

The Air Force has not said why it is moving unilaterally to introduce a .45 into its arsenal, though it has previously waited for and even taken part in joint and Army programs aimed at drafting new pistol requirements, only to see them come to nothing. Its attempt to expedite the purchase of its next handgun might also be due to the age of many of its M9s.

“Numerous M9s have failed during training,” said Brig. Gen. Mary Kay Hertog, director of Air Force Security Forces, “which led to recent purchases [of new Berettas] and made us aware that these older pistols may break in operational use.”

Another Air Force official, who requested anonymity, pointed out that the service “started taking delivery of the M9 in 1987. Over the course of two decades, there have been changes in technology. We don’t believe the M9 provides optimum lethality, nor does it provide sufficient reliability in austere environments.”

From the field, some talk less about technology and reliability in voicing a preference for a .45, and instead echo the arguments U.S. troops gave for wanting them more than 100 years ago during the Philippine Insurrection, when soldiers found that Moro warriors — fired up by religious zealotry — could take multiple hits from a .38-caliber Long Colt and keep charging.

Nothing says “stop” like a slug from a .45.

“We are authorized [to use] deadly force, and if you shoot someone with the current Beretta 9mm, of course you can kill them,” Senior Master Sgt. Paul W. Riffle, a security forces manager assigned to the International Zone Police in Baghdad told Air Force Times in May. “However, the Beretta 9mm does not have as much stopping power as larger caliber weapons such as the .45.”

Indeed, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley remarked during a House subcommittee hearing in February that when he travels into the combat theater, he carries a .357.

“If I have to pull a sidearm,” he said, “I really don’t want to mess [around].”

Wanted: bigger, deeper wounds

The Air Force is saying little about its delayed plans, but it described what it is looking for in a pair of requests for information from gun makers.

In an October 2006 request, it said the proposed weapon must come in standard and compact versions but fire a round that makes a larger, deeper hole than that made by a 9mm and penetrate at least 12 inches into human flesh. Preferred rounds are .40-caliber Smith & Wesson and .45-caliber Automatic Colt Pistol because they are already available within the Defense Department or could be acquired quickly.

In an April 16 request, the Air Force called for a handgun with a baseline caliber of .45 that could be reconfigured to fire other caliber ammunition.

Doug Wicklund, a curator at the National Firearms Museum in Fairfax, Va., said this is not an unusual specification. Previous versions of the .45, including the 1911 and 1911A models, had this capability, “so it could be reconfigured to .22 [caliber] for inexpensive exercises.”

“The gun would feel the same as the big gun, but you’re able to shoot less expensive ammunition,” Wicklund said.

The Air Force said its new handgun and magazines must operate in all climates and geographical areas. The pistol also must have a closed slide design to keep the barrel fully covered when not in use; this would require a redesign of the Beretta, whose slide has an opening that exposes part of the barrel all the time. Also, the handgun must be ergonomic with variable grip sizes, be configurable for night-aiming devices, be adaptable for a sound suppressor, and accommodate attachments such as a laser pointer or flashlight.

Magazines for the standard or full-size weapon should hold at least 10 rounds; the compact, at least eight. The weapon must weigh less than the current M9, empty or fully loaded. The M9 weighs 33.86 ounces with an empty magazine — about the same as a quart of milk — and 40.89 ounces fully loaded, according to Air Force documents.

Power versus quantity

So what’s the best handgun for airmen?

The Air Force’s official answer is the .45, evidenced by its go-it-alone bid to buy the weapon. From the field, some endorse the .45, others the 9mm because it’s easier for the widest range of airmen to learn to fire, and still others say it matters less which weapon the Air Force buys than it does buying what the other services use.

Riffle, in Baghdad, says the 9mm Beretta “is adequate; kind of like driving a Ford. ... However, since we are in the process of updating our war gear, I would like to see us driving a Cadillac.” And the .45 is the Caddy of handguns, he said.

The 9mm Beretta will kill, but for sheer stopping power a .45 is better, he said. “With our current fight in Iraq, it would be nice to know you will stop an insurgent the first time,” he wrote.

Although 1st Lt. Robert McGowan has his own .45, he believes “the majority of [airmen] would fare better with the current 9mm” because they’d find it more difficult to accurately fire a .45.

“Simple odds of accurately hitting a target are more important than the knock-down power/mass of the round,” said McGowan, who is deployed to Iraq with the 99th Security Forces Squadron.

While airmen can tick off the pros and cons of the .45 and the 9mm, the .45 had no real detractors, even among those who want to give the Beretta its due. A .45 means fewer rounds per magazine because the ammunition is larger than the 9mm — maybe 10 to 12 rounds versus 15. The larger caliber has more kinetic force, which is what gives the .45 its legendary wallop.

Today, troops are not encountering Moro tribesmen. Master Sgt. Darryl Miller, noncommissioned officer in charge for Combat Arms and Munitions, 820th Security Forces Group, Moody Air Force Base, Ga., said service members don’t usually go up against people too drugged up to know they’ve been hit — a criticism of a smaller round.

“There are reports of people in [theater] being shot with a 9mm, and it didn’t take them down,” said Miller, who personally favors the .45, “but what’s the reason it didn’t take them down? Did they shoot the person in the leg, shoot them in the abdomen? Or did they get good, solid hits in the chest and they kept on coming?”

Training is the key, he said. “We’re still teaching to shoot two or three times at a target ... and for shot placement. When you shoot a person, you shoot for the [chest] cavity.”

Increasingly, too, Miller said, the handgun has become a secondary weapon, with the rifle the primary weapon. “If [the sidearm] would be a primary weapon, I’d want as much ammo as possible,” he said, a nod to the 9mm. “If it’s a secondary weapon, do I really need to have that much [.45-caliber] stopping power?”

Tech. Sgt. Vernon Virtue, NCOIC for contingency operations with the 820th at Moody, said he does not have a preference, but believes the services would be wise to go with a joint handgun.

“In a combat situation ... if you’re deployed with the Army or the Marines, having to use someone else’s pistol, you’re already trained, using the same ammo they do,” he said. “Working off the same equipment makes life a lot easier.”