venomballistics
Member
there I fixed it for ya
Marines Going Back to Colt 1911 for Sidearm
- Thread starter woodsltc
- Start date
Fat Old Guy
Member
In the pockets of the stockholders who could be anywhere in the world.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,277
- Reaction score
- 2,584
I suspect they went with the 1911 instead of tupperware guns is because it has a visible safety on it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
That there. Apparently the Marines felt the same way. From what I've read, the change was for the most part due to the need for something with more knockdown than a 9 mil, so they're going to the 1911 for the .45 calibre rounds.
Remember, a wise man once said "...45 ACP, because shooting twice is just silly!"
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,005
- Reaction score
- 7,075
Does Beretta have any stock holders outside the Beretta family? I did not think Beretta was a publicly traded company. I could be wrong, however.
venomballistics
Member
probably that and the rest of the specifications set forth when it was adopted in the first place.
make no mistake, they knew what they were doing back then.
M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, the 1911, 1903, 30-06 Springfield cartridge, 45 ACP cartridge and God bless the classic Chicago typewriter. each of the above are STILL sought after prize possessions to this day. The brilliance that went into all the US arms of this era make this so. This era may well represent the pinnacle of arms design.
looking at my search for a CCW piece. It started with a very long list of guns, Khar, Glock, HK, S&W's Sig's and countless more.
The slim profile, caliber, mechanics and endless sea of after market parts for upgrade and repair it put the 1911 in my EDC holster.
baccusboy
Member
Some people will get angry at me for this, but I just don't get why they don't go with something like an M&P in .45 instead. I own a 1911, and although it's cool, nostalgic, and its own kind of fun, I don't consider the 1911 to be the most reliable design out there.
The contract is for 12,000 pistols. I don't know the current head count of the USMC but I'm sure it is way more than 12,000. The M9 isn't being replaced, this is clearly some type of spec ops contract. As someone else already posted, Recon has always used the 1911. Keep dreaming that the Italian 9mm is going away.
Personally i would'nt want to be a downed Marine pilot with only
an 9mm between me and troops wanting to kill me.
9mm is fine for plinking and fun but is hardly a reliable manstopper.
Good choice by the Corp.
As for those who question the costs associated with giving our
guys a fighting chance. Really ??????
As stated, the cost per weapon is for the Pistols, parts, and support.
Not too steep a price for those that go in harms way.
Chuck
an 9mm between me and troops wanting to kill me.
9mm is fine for plinking and fun but is hardly a reliable manstopper.
Good choice by the Corp.
As for those who question the costs associated with giving our
guys a fighting chance. Really ??????
As stated, the cost per weapon is for the Pistols, parts, and support.
Not too steep a price for those that go in harms way.
Chuck
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 27,660
- Reaction score
- 21,325
I would guess familiarity with the design, trained armorers, and parts like magazines already in the supply chain, among other factors.
quneur
Member
But they forgot to order the ammo?
$1,875 each ain't cheap, but it's a Colt.
Contract also includes parts and support. I also am fond of the 1911 like I am of the Garand, but neither is the best choice for today's military. The extractor for the 1911 must be hand tuned, no modern military firearm should require this type of gunsmithing.
scooter123
Member
Keep in mind the military will be shooting Ball ammo, specifically FMJ ball nosed ammo. The 1911 had a sterling reputation for reliable operation until after WWII when in private hands they were "acurized" and fed semi wad cutters and hollowpoints. I expect that Colt will do some ammo specific design tweeks to the feed ramps on the Marine re-issue and also build them on the "loose" side. End result of doing that is they will function without flaw for many many thousands of rounds.
Another plus for the 1911 is the simplicity of the design, especially if the new guns are a series 70. This makes them VERY easy to service and the parts availability is better than any other handgun on the market.
Bottomline, IMO it's an excellent choice. Frankly I've never understood the move to 9mm, it's just dumb. The 9mm really need the "advantage" of a good modern hollowpoint before it becomes effective. With our military carrying only FMJ it's just good sense to carry something with the biggest heaviest bullet you can shoot. Of course I've always questioned the move to the 223, it's a freaking 22 CALIBER for crying out loud and I don't think it's wise to have our troops equipped with squirrel guns. Glad to see the Marines are also dusting off a few M-14's, our troops are sorely in need of a caliber that can "reach out and touch someone".
Last edited:
GatorFarmer
Member
Line grunts, tankers, mps, etc are not getting 1911s. The order is for pistols going to Marines who are with MARSOC. This is the special operations end of things.
I met a guy who was with MARSOC in Afghanistan. They were issued Kimber 1911s. He liked his and bought a Kimber for himself. There was some sort of group order and it was supposed to have their unit markings on it. They were using Wilson mags with the Kimbers.
The M&P .45 saw some kind of limited experimental use.
The M9 is alive and well. I see the guards with badly worn ones daily. The Army also ordered a bunch more. Something like the FN 5.7 might repalce it one dqy.
I met a guy who was with MARSOC in Afghanistan. They were issued Kimber 1911s. He liked his and bought a Kimber for himself. There was some sort of group order and it was supposed to have their unit markings on it. They were using Wilson mags with the Kimbers.
The M&P .45 saw some kind of limited experimental use.
The M9 is alive and well. I see the guards with badly worn ones daily. The Army also ordered a bunch more. Something like the FN 5.7 might repalce it one dqy.
If you are a "downed pilot", your chances of survival would be no more with a .45 than a 9mm.
In combat when you are down to relying on your sidearm solely for survival, I would venture to guess you are about to be dead, if you have a 9mm, a 45, a 44 magnum or desert eagle.
Also, you have to consider that you have to carry 2 1911 magazines for every 1 on a beretta 92. How many magazines are you issued? Maybe 3 or 4 for infantry and maybe 2 for a pilot?
Again, a sidearm is meant to be a last line of defense. For you real soldiers out there who saw action, have you ever actually had to use your sidearm? Did your 9mm go bang and do it's job?
I'll take a Colt 1911 over a Beretta any day of the week.
jaykellogg
Absent Comrade
I wonder how loose these will be built? The original WWII era Colt could be dropped in the mud, wiped on a pants leg and fired. The Marines have an advantage most of us do not have, they only shoot one load. Most of us shoot ball for range use and HP for carry/defense.
I am guessing these will be fairly tightly built compared to the original 1911A1. Still, the Marines do not need a target pistol.
The Marines have a history of selecting their own sidearms.
My son is retired Navy. His last hitch he was assigned to security. He could get lots of ammo, but getting his hands on an M9 was a problem. He managed to shoot one enough to qualify. I advised him to stick with the 12 gage. (He is 6'5") He now owns a Beretta 92, he bought after he retired. Had he owned one while in the Navy, the government would have paid for his ammo. The Beretta 92/M9 is not a low cost gun.
9mm was selected for political reasons. I was never in favor of it, the USA has too much history with the .45 round.
I am guessing these will be fairly tightly built compared to the original 1911A1. Still, the Marines do not need a target pistol.
The Marines have a history of selecting their own sidearms.
My son is retired Navy. His last hitch he was assigned to security. He could get lots of ammo, but getting his hands on an M9 was a problem. He managed to shoot one enough to qualify. I advised him to stick with the 12 gage. (He is 6'5") He now owns a Beretta 92, he bought after he retired. Had he owned one while in the Navy, the government would have paid for his ammo. The Beretta 92/M9 is not a low cost gun.
9mm was selected for political reasons. I was never in favor of it, the USA has too much history with the .45 round.
The Marine Corps Got it Right!!!
Morning
I was looking through the morning news and found this!
It does my heart good to see the Corps getting rid of the pretend caliber pistols and going back to a real gun!!!
Gotta Get me one of those!!!
p.s. We wondered what was going to keep Colt afloat after they lost their M4 contract....hmmmmmm
Morning
I was looking through the morning news and found this!
It does my heart good to see the Corps getting rid of the pretend caliber pistols and going back to a real gun!!!
Gotta Get me one of those!!!
p.s. We wondered what was going to keep Colt afloat after they lost their M4 contract....hmmmmmm
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- Locked
