9 m.m. quad?


Does anybody know what this is? I have never heard of 9 m.m. ammmunitaion referred to this way. I appreciate your feedback.

reply

I wonder about that every time I see it, I always thought it was referring to a weapon, not the ammunition though.

reply

Tom Berringer's character is referring to it as ammunition when he is buying the ammo for the Uzi submachine guns they are going to use. I have asked a lot of people who should know what it is and they don't.

FYI: It's called by the same name in the book by Frederick Forsyth. If you find out let me know. Have a great one!

reply

I tryed to research this and the only thing I can figure is that it means a lot of 4000 rounds (Quad = four). But that would not be enough for the force of mercs used in the end assault. There roughly twenty-six men in the assault force broken into four groups. figure 4000 divided by 26 roughly equals 156 rounds per man. Well an UZI submachinegun holds 32 rounds per magazine so 156 rounds would be a little over 4 magazines per man. I would want more than four magazines in the firefight at the end, at least eight or ten mags at the least.
When I was in the service basic load for the M16A2 was seven magazines and most, myself included, had extra pouches to carry more magazines.

Dave

reply

Thanks for the insight. That is still one of the better explanations I have heard. Let me know if you find out anything else. Thanks again and have a great one!

reply

a quick search comes up with this..

http://www.optactical.com/pa45calor9mm.html


it's basically an ammo pouch. maybe thats what Berenger meant?

reply

TO: dave starsky77

Thanks for looking, but I don't think it fits into the context of the discussion in the film. Keep looking and let me know what you find. Have a great one!

reply

according to the book Shannon orders 400,000 rounds of 9mm 'ball' ammunition.

As per other threads here, 400,000 rounds is probably a more realistic number than 400 - given the rate of fire for the Uzi. 'Ball' I guess, is the type of round/ bullet?

maybe 'quad' refers to the 400,000 thing? - certainly all internet searches show it as a 4 pocket ammo pouch allowing the storage of 8 magazines (2x4).

reply

"ball" refers to ammunition that is fully jacketet, meaning it has copper all the way around the lead as aposed to a soft point or hollow point.

reply

400,000 rounds is way too much. 1,000 rounds comes boxed commerically in a cardboard box roughly 4"x4"x14". 400,000 would need a lot of space and be enormously heavy. Maybe a lot of it was shipped to the African part of the operation to help their training? I suppose intensive firearms training might expend 500-1,000 round a day of pistol ammo. 9mm ammo is never hard to get nor very expensive in large quantities.

There are higher-velocity 9mm rounds manufactured for "sub guns" or submachine guns like the Uzi and MP5 (and this ammo is available here in the USA either as new manufacture or as military surplus).

I think other movies do a much better job with guns and ammo but I still really enjoy The Dogs of War.

Portie

reply

In the book the reason is given for the amount of ammo. In order to get permission for the sale from the Spanish Government, they were passing the sale off as a sale to an middle eastern army, hence the large order.

reply

i know it does'nt seem to fit within the film but that was the closest thing i found.

maybe they just thought it was a cool phrase - lines don't always mean something in a movie eh, facts can be blurred as its all fictitious.

and it was no problem

reply

Off topic Dave but I saw a documentary about the Afgan army not being happy with the M16 and much prefer the AK47 because it jams constantly. Coalition forces prefer them not to have it because if they flip sides they have a free rifle with easy access to the ammo so the M16 makes it harder for them to get ammo but the troops showed the M16 jamming a lot and it looked pretty ridicules that that was happening. Did you find this to be true with your experience with the A2's? I know there were problems during the Vietnam war with it but is this weapon still less reliable then the AK47 or AK74 for that matter? Cheers ~ Joe

reply

It is the magazine for the sub-machine gun. It holds 4 abreast rather than the typical two. Although that too would seem to be out of context with the movie so nevermind.

reply

This might be the answer but I am not sure.
I have just watched the film again and it seems they are talking about ammo rather than magazines.
If you google 9mm quad you get adverts for ammo pouches that hold 4 magazines.
A Quad 50 was a world war 2 (and later)anti aircraft weapom with 4 50 cal machine guns mounted in a group of 4.

I am amazed that nobody knows the correct answer to this one.

After watching the film I think it is not as good or deep as it thinks it is,a point one could also make about Forsyth's books I think.
Perhaps I am being unfair but I am a Len Deighton fan.

reply

400,000 divided by 30 men in the group is over 13,000 each, which seems like a hell of a lot even if they each shot 1,000 per day for a few days of training. Who knows, I have always wondered about that myself.

reply

In the novel they had to buy large amounts of ammunition because the arms dealers and customs officials would have got suspicious if they only bought a few thousand rounds. 400,000 is a viable export order, 5,000 is a mercenary unit loading up for one battle.

reply

Works for me. Diversion. Was that in the book? It's been years since I read it.

reply

Yeah, in the book I think they claimed it was for police training in Iraq or some equally bizarre cover story.

reply

I have always wondered what they meant by "quad" also. But, in reference to the 400,000 rounds, I seem to remember something from the book towards the end. In addititon to the rounds, they also bought a lot of uniforms. While on the ship they unpacked the gear and made bundles of uniforms with field gear. This was in preparation for after the battle. After they took out Kimba and his personal guard, Dr. Okoye would still need an army to maintain security. The book stated that after the battle, many in the regular army would return (what else would they do). So, based on that, they would need those 400,000 rounds of ammo. (Trivia: in the book they used German Schmeissers, not Uzis. Both use 9mm though).

I love this movie!

reply

The "quad" thing always bothered me. I've read the book 3 times and seen the film...I've lost count. Its a favourite among my circle of military friends. I've been in the infantry for 25 years, own firearms, shoot and take shooting courses and hang with a lot of "gun people." Never, have I ever heard or seen anything about "9 mm quad." The consensus in our group is that it just sounded cool and technical so it stayed in the dialogue. Similar to Steve Miller singing about the "pompotus of love" - an invented word.

Overall, a great film except for:

- standing in doorways making whooping noises and emptying mags on full auto into the air...looks nice but...

- the nuclear grenade launchers

- the supposed SAS vet with the "effed up" beret (capbadge centred on the forehead and both sides pulled down...).

- the "one CQ, two CQ, etc" radio exchange as they get into position...what's up with that? Should have come up with a better codeword or just said, "in position.."

reply

"-the supposed SAS vet with the "effed up" beret (capbadge centred on the forehead and both sides pulled down...)."

I know it's sad to say but he could have been ex-RTR.

reply

The consensus in our group is that it just sounded cool and technical so it stayed in the dialogue.

That seems very likely. I would just mention that in fiction sometimes a particular lingo is created simply to communicate inside knowledge among characters. "Quad" is nicely vague and this could be an example of Forsythe imagining a shorthand among the characters that sounded convincing rather than him trying to be militarily correct.

Though it's still odd that what precisely was being referred to with "quad" isn't clear even among those who have read the book.

reply

Ok. I read the book prior to watching the movie. I recall being very disappointed with the movie compared to the book. I'm watching the movie for the first time in almost 30 years. And I wish I had not checked this board before watching it. Because I might not have noticed the 9mm Quad thing. Now it is bugging the crap out of me. Now, I do not have your quarter century as a PBI but I do come from an incredible military family. And raised around guns, carried guns since I could hold both ends off the ground. And not once in my life have I heard of ammo referred to as Quad. I always assumed Quads were AA guns. Not exactly fitting for a 9mm. Maybe it was some slang gun dealers of that era used as a type of slang-code. Beats me. But now it will bug me to the end of my days....lol

Oh, and one thing bugged me. In addition to all those mentioned. He said he wanted 9mm hardball ammo. Then after that, the guys ask what kind of weapons should they use. Uzi, M-16, or Ak's?










Don't trust reality. After all, it's only a collective hunch.

reply

I noted that too... they need 9mm and then Drew asks about the gun types!

reply

It could be a reference to a quad magazine pouch. I've only ever seen the end of the films so I don't know what the context of the reference is.

reply

In addition to what has been discussed, no one has mentioned the price. During the meeting with the munitions dealer, after 9mm quad is brought up, the dealer states that it will be $1500 for 1000 rounds, then starts adding on his markups. What? 9mm ammo is only 20 cents even today, in 50 round, retail boxes. In 1980 it was maybe 5 cents in quantity. So whatever they are talking about is costing $1.50 a round plus at least 20% markup.

reply

That guy made it no secret he was trying to rape them on price though.

They needed it fast and pretty much illegally, he claimed it was in short supply etc etc

reply

All the guesses about ammo pouches and magazine capacities are incorrect. The standard NATO symbol for ball ammo (i.e., not tracer and not incendiary and not armor-piercing) is a circle divided into quadrangles. The symbol is important and prominently stenciled on small arms containers so ammo can be interchanged among allies without the need to mark it in several languages.

reply

Regarding, "One CQ, Two CQ",...

FWIW- "C-Q" is the standard, "anyone reply if you hear this" that has
been the standard shout-out in Ham Radio for decades. Before that it was
used way back in the 19th cent even on the old Morse Telegraphy System.
For instance, a Ham or Telegrapher wants to see if anybody's out there
so he calls/taps "C-Q, C-Q" (followed by his call-sign if he's a Ham).

Ham Radio is not a very popular hobby these days but was VERY big in the
50's and 60's and most Hams were probably Vets. "C-Q" was taught in Radio
School at least up into the Vietnam era when you still had to pass a Morse
Exam, IIRC.

This does not really explain why the Mercs would use it and it is out of
place even if all the Mercs were Hams (!?) but I offer it as a probable
explanation for why the writer chose it in the first place. I still hold
an Extra-Class Ham ticket even though I'm no longer active and I laughed
when I heard it.

Hope this Helps,

Andrew

reply

Late to this, but you are correct. The reason he would want to make sure that it was NATO spec ammo is that all 9mm Nato at that time was standardized as a hotter more powerful round. It was rated for machine pistol and full auto small arms, it was dangerous to shoot "9mm Quad" in older firearms such as lugars because of the higher chamber pressures. You will find common 9mm rounds sold as "Lugar" rounds, meaning they are safe for "normal" 9mm firearms.

He wanted to make sure jamming would not be a problem.

"if it was any good they'd have made an American version by now." Hank Hill

reply

All the guesses about ammo pouches and magazine capacities are incorrect. The standard NATO symbol for ball ammo . . . is a circle divided into quadrangles.


Thanks, I've wondered about this since I saw the movie in the theater when it was released. I've asked my friends that have military experience or lots of experience with firearms, and since I found this thread (and I would have started it if it weren't here), I've checked it occasionally, but this was the first clear and evidently correct explanation (and the only one stated with complete confidence).

It's kind of surprising that this apparently accurate piece of dialogue went over almost everyone's head, and I have to assume the only people who would be questioning it would be those of us with better-than-average interest in or knowledge of weaponry. No one else would have noticed or cared.

reply