Marines Going Back to Colt 1911 for Sidearm

Register to hide this ad
1875 each? Why so much more than a civilian model? Oh, Wait. It's a military contract. :rolleyes:

Contract is for $22,500,000 for 12,000 weapons with spare parts and logistical support. Cost per gun, spare parts and the support totals $1875 per gun. Don't know how much the gun would be minus the spare parts and support, but with everything included (parts and logistical support) the price doesn't seem to be out of line IMO. Besides, the gun itself doesn't look like a typical 1911....has a rail for attachments and looks like Novak style sights & probably has night-sights.

Don
 
Last edited:
The 1911A1's we had when I was in the Corps were tired and worn out old warhorses that were several generations old. Unreliable, inaccurate except at extreme close range, and regulations for carrying it that were so stupid and complicated as to be laughable (empty pistol in holster with hammer safety wired down and two mags in a pouch with five rounds in each...USMC 1984-87).
When the Beretta came in, few of us were impressed...especially since it had certain significant problems that made it a danger to the shooter.
IMHO, the Beretta pistol is designed to be carried much and used little and is far bigger than it needs to be for the cartridge it fires.
The REAL issue involving the military and handguns is the lack of training in it. Pistols in the military have always been issued only to certain personnel. IMHO the rank and file from private to colonel should be carrying rifles such as the M4 and if issued a handgun, should only be for what it is...last ditch self defense until you can GET to a rifle.
 
... or to fight your way to another rifle after youve run yours dry.
effectiveness of the sidearm should never be an after thought. the ranges at which it most likely will find use is stuff of nightmares and it must work.
 
$1875 sounds like a pretty fair price considering what high-end 1911s are going for these days. You can't buy a Wilson CQB or a Springfield Professional or Operator for that.
 
Have the Kimber guns been giving problems?

Kimbers are nice looking junk from my experience.

Glad to see the military wasting money one something they dont need again.

It's a sidearm, and the Beretta 92 fits the need "good enough" for a sidearm.

Kind of surprising they would even consider a single action weapon.
 
Kimbers are nice looking junk from my experience.

Glad to see the military wasting money one something they dont need again.

It's a sidearm, and the Beretta 92 fits the need "good enough" for a sidearm.

Don't want to make you mad or cause an argument.....but if my life or the life others is on the line I don't want "good enough" :rolleyes:...I want what's going to work and stop the threat ASAP!! A 1911 in .45ACP is a proven one shot stopper of bad guys !!! JMO!! :)

Don
 
Colt Mod 1911 US Marines

Just saw on Fox News Web site, the USMC is spending $22.5 million for new Colt Mod 1911 45's.
 
Agree!~"Good Enough" doesn't cut it for combat arms, body armor, or anything else our troops depend on. An earlier poster mentioned training, and he was right; that also needs to be the best available.
 
Amazing. Pistols don't win wars, but when you need one you need it damn bad. Training is always the weak link but I think we've figured out how to do a better job with the 1911 since WWII. Unlike the M9, the pistol itself isn't part of the problem.

Somewhere Jeff Cooper is smiling.
 
I have heard reports that the Marines have been clammoring for the 1911's and M14's for a couple of years because the 9mm's and .22's would not stop a man quick enough when he was close, 6-15 feet, and trying to kill you.
 
Finally a bit of sense in the Pentagon, the hell with foreign made arms yes I know Beretta has a factory here, but where do the profits end up?
Besides the .45acp is far superior to the 9mm as far as a fire fight is concerned. My stepson was a Jar Head, his experience with the 9mm in combat was less than stellar.
 
Thumbs up to the Marine Corps for having the umph to get what the boys need!

I fully understand ditching the 9mm for something more effective, especially when hamstrung with FMJ ammo. However, with all of the modern designs out there, I wonder why they went with the 1911 design?

I love my Colt 1911 and understand the design served us well for decades. I think the USMC would be better served with some of the newer gun designs out there.

If it were me, I would opt for the full sized GLOCK G21 in 45 ACP, The full sized Springfield XDM in 45, or whatever the S&W M&P full sized 45 gun is called.

Maybe the GLOCK and Springfield designs were passed over because they aren't made in the USA and the white front sight dot fell out of the M&P design during testing, eliminated it from the pick. That left Colt. ;)

Just sayin'...

Edmo
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top