Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Argument: Switch from 9mm to .45

Assertion/Claim:
The military should switch the standard-issued 9mm back to the M1911 .45 ACP.

Evidence/Concrete Detail:
The 1911 is a larger caliber, therefore more stopping power than the smaller 9mm.

Commentary 1:
Men can get hit several times with a 9mm in the middle of combat and get up and continue to fight.

Commentary 2:
A shot with a .45 will completely knock someone down, and almost always is a one hit incapacitation.

Evidence/Concrete Detail:
The 1911 is a heavier weapon, so it is sturdy and reliable. The 9mm's slide can easily be taken off by an enemy in close quaters, making the weapon useless.

Commentary 1:
Heavier means steadier while aiming the weapon, and less recoil when fired. Also the weapon is more sturdy.

Commentary 2:
In a close quater situation, an enemy can easily charge the 9mm and take the slide off, making the weapon useless.

Opposing Claims/They Say:
All NATO members use 9mm for pistols, 5.56 for rifles, and 7.62 for light machineguns so they are not allowed to switch to .45. The .45 bullets are more expensive, less rounds in a magazine than the 9mm, and does not have the "superior stopping power" that it is rumored to have.

My Rebuttal/I say
Although I agree with some of what they say, the higher expense should not have a big impact on manufacturing the weapons and ammunition. The higher caliber pistol would save more lives, and an increase in cost should be a small price to pay for the lives that are saved.

My Paragraph:
The military should switch back from the standard 9mm pistol to the M1911 .45. The 1911 has more stopping power than the smaller 9mm pistol. In a combat situation, a man can get hit several times with a 9mm and get up and continue fighting although he is wounded. On the other hand, if a man is hit with a .45 they will completely get knocked over and it is almost always a one hit incapacitation due to the larger caliber, weight, and higher grain. The 1911 is heavier, so it is able to be held steadier than a lighter 9mm, and is more sturdy due to the weight. In a close quarter situation where the pistol is needed, if an enemy is able to charge the soldier carrying the 9mm, he can easily take the slide off due to how the weapon is manufactured for easy cleaning, and such would render the weapon useless. Not everyone agrees, as they say all NATO members use 9mm for pistols, 5.56 for rifles, and 7.62 for light machine guns and therefore cannot switch the pistol back to the .45. Also, they say the .45 is more expensive, has less rounds in a magazine than the 9mm, and does not have the "superior stopping power" that the .45 is rumored to have. Although this is true up to a point, the higher expense should be a smaller price to pay since the .45 will give our soldiers a boost in the battlefield and save lives.

My Thinking:
Inductive. Due to my argument and reasoning, it is likely that this is true but not certain. This cannot be proven without prior combat experience with both weapons.

Sources:
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/smallarms/m1911a1.htm .45 weapon statistics