Author Topic: Marines going back to Colt 1911 (Read 4153 times)

Mike in Virginia · « **on:** July 29, 2012, 02:45:22 AM »

So says Fox news. 22 million dollars worth. The article I read mentioned their special ops group, so it might be just for them.
Why do you think it is that they want the old gun back. Bcause a 9mm hardball is insufficient. It just seems to me the gov't could save some mony buy using +P hollowpoints in their Berettas. I know it's not in keeping with Geneva, but it just seems silly. The military can use tanks and .50 sniper rifles and machine guns and all kinds of missles and bombs, but not hollow point ammo in their handguns.

keith44 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 29, 2012, 04:10:13 AM »

I'd like to read that article, is there a link you could post??

yes it would save some money if the military could use premium ammo, instead of changing weapons, but I do not see that happening in my lifetime.

Mike in Virginia · « **Reply #2 on:** July 29, 2012, 10:59:49 AM »

I don't have a link, Keith. I just spotted it on Comcast's Internet news.

bilmac · « **Reply #3 on:** July 29, 2012, 11:54:06 AM »

I wonder if the reporter got it wrong and the Marines are looking at saving some dough. I talked to an officer the other day and he said they are facing some huge budget cuts. If they are needing more pistols and there are 45s laying ariund in arsenals, they could save some money by using those rather than buying Berettas.

keith44 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 29, 2012, 12:15:10 PM »

I found a link Mike,

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/28/marines-pay-22m-to-go-back-to-their-old-guns-colt-45-caliber-pistols/#ixzz21xGNKfwA

for those who want read it for themselves

rickt300 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 31, 2012, 04:34:39 AM »

The 1911 has been my pistol of choice since the 70's, I was immediately unimpressed with the Beretta which is a big clumsy pistol prone to cracking slides.

Mike in Virginia · « **Reply #6 on:** July 31, 2012, 12:58:13 PM »

I agree, Rick. I don't know why the gov't chose the Beretta. So many other 9mm's would have served them better. But I'd guess a lot of testing went into different brands before they made that choice. I can understand why they chose the caliber, as puny as it is--they wanted to comply with NATO. I hope the other military branches will take a look at the Marine's latest purchase.

1911crazy · « **Reply #7 on:** August 01, 2012, 10:05:49 AM »

The gov wanted to stay with what nato is using. We even caved in with the metric system too right. There finally admitting the 9mm luger doesn't have the killing power plus when these bad guys are hit they stay fighting. It takes too many shots to kill them. Plus the 45acp would knock them on there @sses and they stay down. They reissued the m14's too because of the farther accurate range of the 308. The 223's accuracy falls off too soon. The bad guys are staying just out of range of the 223 and there hitting us. We have groups with all m16's thats dumb. Soon the'll admit the 223 doesn't have the killing power too.
If i was going into battle today it would be my 1911 and an ak /akm in 308.

rickt300 · « **Reply #8 on:** August 04, 2012, 02:20:40 AM »

Well the "bad guys" aren't staying out of the 5.56's accurate range and hitting us with the AK 47 or the AKM. The M4 has a real edge on these guns. Going into battle with the weapon that ammunition and parts are available for is the way to go.

ole 5 hole group · « **Reply #9 on:** August 04, 2012, 05:52:12 AM »

The bad guys are pretty juiced up these days and for most they are dead but just don’t know it for another 30 seconds or so, and yes, 30 seconds or so can be an eternity when you’re taking fire from someone closing fast.

A larger diameter bullet is always a good thing when properly placed and the 45 ACP was usually the choice for those having to use a handgun at close quarters – nothing wrong with the 9MM, as it’s performed well for as long as the 45 ACP has, but the Colt 45 ACP was the USA military standard for several decades and hopefully it’ll return and stay put with our Armed Forces – it’s a symbol of “authority”.

JeffG · « **Reply #10 on:** September 06, 2012, 03:25:38 PM »

The debate is age-old. All things equal it's only common sense to go with 45. The 9mm was intended as a subgun round. Not a stellar manstopper.

Ranger99 · « **Reply #11 on:** September 06, 2012, 03:58:14 PM »

i think they should take those old ugly
nasty obsolete 1911's and force men
to take 2 each (4 if you have a beard)
(8 if you have no hair) and get those
rag-tag no shootin' 45's out the government's
way so as to clear military depot's storage
areas for more important material.

thumper113 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 06, 2012, 05:09:37 PM »

Ranger99,

I gotta wax it too 'fore I get in line? You KNOW being the patriot I am I would do my part to ensure not one person had to have one of them heavy nasty things that go boom and knock down what ya pointing at if they didn't want to have to carry it.

Ranger99 · « **Reply #13 on:** September 06, 2012, 05:13:17 PM »

i intend to do my part for my country
and take my 8 1911's.

it's the right thing to do.
(what about ammo?)

Ranger99 · « **Reply #14 on:** September 06, 2012, 05:17:51 PM »

they might need the storage space
for memo copies, or the treasure
that nicolas cage and john voight found.
i'm sure harrison ford's ark doesn't take
much space, but one can't have too much storage.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #15 on:** September 17, 2012, 09:10:27 AM »

I find the claim that the USA went to the 9mmP to comply with NATO to be lacking believability. The first NATO standard cartridge was 7.62X51. A cartridge forced on NATO by the USA. When the USA decided to switch to the 5.56 M193 round it too was forced on NATO.

Meanwhile, since 1911, the USA has been issuing the 1911/1911A1 in .45ACP as its' standard military pistol. No other country was complaining that we had the 1911A1 .45ACP. The pistol is of very minor consequence in warfare. I would guess that of all the wounds received in combat, less than 0.5% are from pistol rounds. Probably closer to 0.05%.

The 5.56 M193 round was noted for delivering horrendous wounds that put a belligerent down right now. Why? Because, from a 20" barrel the 55gr. bullet yawed and broke in two larger pieced and hundreds of tiny pieces. Blood flowed from so many wounds that blood pressure dropped and so did the bad guy.

Then soldiers complained that the 20" barrel was too long to maneuver in tight quarters, a valid complaint. The M4 was the solution to this problem. However, the M4 should never have been the general issue weapon. The bullets are just too slow to yaw and fragment. So, let's get a heavier bullet right? It goes even slower, is heavier constructed and fragments even less. HMM. So now we are issuing a 77gr bullet. The slowest yet. But it is doing a great job. Why? It is of very light construction so at its' reduced velocity it will still yaw and fragment.

We just needed to stick to the 20" barrel and the M193 cartridge for general issue and the M4 for those doing house clearing.

As for accuracy, the 20" M16 kicks the M14s ass at EVERY distance at Camp Perry. Sure, it is not combat but it is ACCURACY.

Just cut the M14s barrel back to 14.5" and watch its' power and accuracy decline.

For myself, after owning an M1 Garand, M14, L1A1, extensively using an HK91 and owning a Mini14, I will stick with my 20" AR15 and M193 ammo.

After 150,000 rds (approximately) through my beloved 1911A1, for use when the balloon goes up I will not be carrying it. I will be carrying its' wide body cousin, the Para P14-45. Same lovely cartridge, ergonomics, internals, just 14/15 in the mag instead of 7/8.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #16 on:** September 17, 2012, 09:14:31 AM »

BTW, I put a collapsible stock on my 20" AR15. Every little bit helps.

GatCat · « **Reply #17 on:** September 17, 2012, 10:53:29 PM »

SharonAnne;
I've got compliment you on your post....accurate, and well written.
Often forgotten by many is that the Soviets were impressed enough by our 5.56 to switch to thier new sub-caliber round in the AK-74, which was very feared by the Afghans when the Soviets invaded. Now the Chinese have their small caliber, as do other countries. Gotta be something to it...
Mark

Mikey · « **Reply #18 on:** September 18, 2012, 01:41:07 AM »

I would have opted for a collapsible stock on my 16 rather than a M4. It would have given me the added maneuverability needed in cqc but with the ballistics of the longer barrel.
One of my favorite 'all-times' was a folding stock M2 carbine. As long as I kept it oiled right it did its job but failing that, any AK would do nicely although when we couldn't get a folding M2 we would often just cut the barrel down on one and it worked just as well.

jlwilliams · « **Reply #19 on:** September 18, 2012, 02:00:28 AM »

OK, I'll be the only one to say it. I'm having trouble seeing the decision to go back to an 8 round handgun. I like my 1911 as much as the next guy and as a civillian self defense gun and as a recreatinal shooter it is as fine as can be. When the rest of the world was toting single stack side arms like Makarovs and p38/p1 it all made sense. Now 12 to 20 rounds is about typical for a military duty sidearm.

The decision to go to 9mm was in part to keep our inventory common to the rest of NATO. Most other countries used it for their handguns at least in part because it's a pretty good SMG round. Load up half a dozen grease gun mags and half a dozen Uzi mags, and think about which you'd rather have strapped to you as you crawl through a swamp. Shoot a Grease Gun at a steel plate at 50 yards, 100 then 150; then try it with a MP5 or an Uzi. 9mm is a pretty good subgun round and an OK pistol round. 45 is an excellet pistol round, and an OK subgun round. It was and still is also an economic and logistical point. You can make more 9mm per million dollars spent than you can 45. Shipping a ton of it puts more ammo into magazines, and so on. I can understand that the days of the subgun are over (as an infantry weapon) but that's all part of what lead to the 9mm being the world's most prevalent pistol round.

It is my understanding that contrary to popular belief, hollow point pistol ammo is not illegal or contrary to treaty. Hollow point rifle ammo is, but pistol ammo isn't. The jhp pistol ammo ban is self imposed for whatever reason. Maybe cost, maybe reliability, maybe image; probably a combination of those and other considerations.

Back to pistols. If the Marines want 45 instead of 9mm, that's fine. They no longer use SMGs for much and when they do it's a fairly speciffic role so there isn't really a problem feeding both an MP5 and a 1911, just bring ammo for both. What I don't get is why they are going for a low capacity gun. There are plenty of double stack options out there. Glocks, Springfields and on and on.

The rifle is the primary weapon. That's a given. ANy weapon has to be looked at in the hypothetical light of 'what if you were on the ground down range and this was all you had. Handgun with 8 rounds and two more mags on your belt. 24 rounds total. Handgun with 12 rounds (based on a hypothetical 45 double stack) and two more mags, 36 rounds total. Put in comparison to 9mm, where you have 15 or 17 rounds with 45 or 51 total. That's what the rest of the world packs for a pistol. I'd say 36 rounds of 45 verses 51 of 9mm is one discussion, but 24 rounds of 45 verses 50 of 9mm? I'm not seeing the sense.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #20 on:** September 18, 2012, 06:59:55 AM »

JL, I agree, there are many fine double stack .45acp pistols. If you like the 1911a1 then you have my pic the Para P14-45. Fourteen rounds in the mag, so 2 reloads, 42 rounds.

Logistically you are stocking almost all of the same parts as the 1911a1. The changes are, frame, trigger, mag catch and magazine. Everything else is the same.

Hollow point ammunition is not mentioned in the Geneva Accords, which we did not sign. It is stated that ammunition must not cause undue suffering or words to that effect. With fragmentation grenades and artillery, incendiary rounds and napalm I just do not see how having hollow point ammunition factors in at all.

With hollow points you get a much faster stop. With FMJ you poke a hole, and keep poking holes until the bad guy stops. Which is the more humane or causes less suffering or whatever goofy wording exists. Rifle and pistol ammunition is a none issue when you can hit some poor slob with white phosphorus.

jcn59 · « **Reply #21 on:** September 18, 2012, 08:01:11 PM »

I've never shot anyone with my ar -16 or 15....whatever. It's a gopher rifle. Anything larger deserves a round from my lr-308.

Lets not forget little bullets (9mm & 5,56mm) aren't just "lighter", they are also cheaper.

jlwilliams · « **Reply #22 on:** September 19, 2012, 01:10:45 AM »

Quote from: jcn59 on September 18, 2012, 08:01:11 PM

Lets not forget little bullets (9mm & 5,56mm) aren't just "lighter", they are also cheaper.

BINGO. That's probably the single biggest reason our leadership chooses light rounds. Would this nations politicians put the dollar over the flesh when deciding how to equip fighters? I'm going with yes. Yes they would. That's probably the reason they are going with 1911s instead of HK or SIG too. Just plain cheaper. Holding half the ammo means buying half the ammo.

My but I'm feling a touch pessimistic this AM.

Keith L · « **Reply #23 on:** September 19, 2012, 02:48:26 AM »

Some of us were first hand witnesses to what happens when that little bullet hit flesh, and I know I didn't want to be hit by one. The 20" barreled M-16s could be used by nearly everyone, were accurate, and extremely deadly. They had troubles with the humidity and dirt, so they were not perfect. But they did a job on what they hit.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #24 on:** September 19, 2012, 10:35:56 AM »

let us remember that after type accepting the M16 with Remington ammunition, loaded with extruded powder that had very low residue, the government ( in what ever guise) awarded the ammunition contract to Winchester. Winchester ammunition was and is loaded with ball powder. It is coated with a material that leaves behind a hard residue that is difficult to remove from the gas tube and carrier key. It also jammed up the bolt in the carrier.

Another problem with the Winchester ammunition is its burn rate, which is faster than the type accepted Remington ammunition. This resulted in the M16 rate of fire being increased by 200-300 rounds per minute. This stressed the parts causing premature failure.

The Winchester ammunition is still loaded with this powder today.

Sorry, did not mean to hijack the thread. However it goes to the theme of the penny pinchers making changes that adversely affect our soldiers.

The M16 was and is a very reliable firearm that does a fine job of protecting American Soldiers. It should not have been messed with to save a few pennies. When you consider the cost of one aircraft missile the cost of rifle ammunition is a pittance.

The same penny pinching thinking went into abandoning the 1911A1. It adversely affected the safety of our soldiers. The 9mmP may be NATO standard but so what. It has never bothered us before. Decisions made in/by the American military has never had NATO compliance in mind. What the US military does leads NATO, it does not follow NATO. Just look at how many countries use a version of the M16, fly the F15 and F16 and ride in the Bradley and Abrams armor.

Today we have two America companies that manufacture 1911 based double stack pistols. Para USA and by special order Springfield Armory. I am sure if the contract specified double stack magazines that other companies that currently manufacture the modified 1911A1 could be induced to compete, specifically Remington, another American company with strong military ties. Our soldiers deserve the best and that is the 1911 whether single or double stack.

Mikey · « **Reply #25 on:** September 20, 2012, 01:11:21 AM »

Keith: Sometimes it appeared there was no effect on impact whatsoever - they were dead on their feet but would stand there looking at you until they fell over or you shot them again so they would fall over; little bullet or not, it worked. I feel the Soviet round is better though, a longer heavier bullet (around 77 gn) that may not have travelled as fast but was, most assuredly extremely effective.

Well, I have this to say about that: While it is true that the USMC has finally gotten its act back together with the 45, we have SharonAnne and there should not be any questionin anyone's mind why WilliamLayton (and lots of us) hold her in such high esteem. We also have Broomie.

I would say that when it comes to our ladies here having their stuff together we are waaaay ahead of anyone else.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #26 on:** September 20, 2012, 01:24:27 AM »

My son is in the national guard. He said some of the guys who went over to Iraq and Afganistan said the way the Beretta was made with the open top exposed barrel had a tendency to jamb when sand or dirt got on them. The 1911 with the closed top worked better. I don't think it was the cartridge as much as weapon design.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #27 on:** September 20, 2012, 02:43:43 AM »

Quote from: bilmac on July 29, 2012, 11:54:06 AM

I wonder if the reporter got it wrong and the Marines are looking at saving some dough. I talked to an officer the other day and he said they are facing some huge budget cuts. If they are needing more pistols and there are 45s laying ariund in arsenals, they could save some money by using those rather than buying Berettas.

What I have read is the old 1911's in govt stock have been rebuilt as many as 5 times or more. The frames are worn out at this point. The stock of spare parts is used up. The new contract includes new guns and spare parts. It is propbly the cost effective way to go. If you dig into articles where soilders from the war on terror are interviewed many leave the 9mm at base and just tote more rifle ammo as the 9 mm is not very effective. Not that the M-4 is much better.

keith44 · « **Reply #28 on:** September 20, 2012, 06:46:31 AM »

according to my little broke thinker, based on the writings and work of Elmer Keith, and personal hunting experience both with rifle and handgun, the .45 caliber running 750 fps or faster (to a point) will cause more trauma, and a quicker drop in blood pressure, than the 9mm. This rapid drop in bp causes fainting, and the shutting down of the central nervous system (even if it is just a re-boot

) While the 9mm will cause the same effects, it is just not capable of getting it done as quickly.

Mike in Virginia · « **Reply #29 on:** September 22, 2012, 07:37:22 AM »

We can agree that the .45 is bigger and better, but what is it about the 1911 model that keeps them popular? Now their are plastic guns that way less and hold a lot more rounds and are more accurate. I'm thinking of the XDM. Why would the military choose the 1911 over something like that?
I know I would choose the 1911, but I can't really say why. If a 1911 shooter went up against an antagonist with the Springfield, he would be very much at a disadvantage. What is the advantage of the 1911? I don't think there is an advantage. I just plain like 'em.