Glock all the way.
Glock all the way.
Glock, M&P, XD, HK are all available in .45.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigun1962
7 is less than half of 15, the basis of my statement. Beretta also has extended mags, I'm not counting extended mags.
Just my opinion, and I may be out of line... If you have to pull your pistol in COMBAT I'd say you are screwed anyway. The pistol is a defensive weapon. 7 rounds, 15 rounds, hell it could be 30 rounds, You are still screwed if you have to use it in battle.
i think the whole argument about which pistol on a mass scale is stupid anyway. pistols, to me, are very much about the shooter. in this case they don't have a choice, fine, they have to order a large amount of something but everyone saying this is better or thats better really are just speaking from opinion. pistols aren't like rifles, they can be very tricky to shoot accurately and quickly depending on shooting style, hands, etc. the 1911 has ALWAYS felt perfect in my hands. i don't know why. ive tried lots of newer made pistols including ones from springfield, hk, glock and several others. i don't know why but i can't shoot worth a crap with them. i get a 1911 and its natural. i also prefer their triggers. simple, easy and crisp. i feel for people who don't shoot ALL the time, the 1911 trigger allows for more accurate shooting.
but again, in my opinion pistols have so much to do with each individual shooter. no one would ever agree on whats best.
Pistols serve a tremendous purpose on mounted patrols. Afghans like to try and open your doors to do God knows what once it's open. luckily, people usually keep them combat locked, but in the event that somebody forgot to lock the door, I'd want a quick handling .45 in my hand. Same goes for an open turret gunner. M4 is useless inside of a truck.
Interesting data about pistol calibers and their statistics. The .45 did not perform all that much better than the 9mm. Keep in mind that the 9mm statistics are based on 456 people shot while the 45 was at 209
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866
Quote:
.45 ACP # of people shot - 209
# of hits - 436
% of hits that were fatal - 29%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.08
% of people who were not incapacitated - 14%
One-shot-stop % - 39%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 85%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 51%
Quote:
9mm Luger # of people shot - 456
# of hits - 1121
% of hits that were fatal - 24%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.45
% of people who were not incapacitated - 13%
One-shot-stop % - 34%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 74%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 47%
Is that analyzing FMJ rounds only?Quote:
Originally Posted by bryjcom
It's about time someone listened to the troops the M9 was is and always will be a POS. ooooooorrraahhh for the Corps.
I would imagine a multitude of types of bullets where used
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/publi...e_to_Incap.png
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/publi...s_to_Incap.png
According to that lower graph I'd better start carrying a .22. Looks to be about as effective as a rifle.
Or maybe I'll just stick to carrying what I like and what I shoot well, and planning to shoot the threat enough to make it stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Thats what it always comes down too.
So here's the real question: 9mm VS. 45? [Pop]
Imagination is not data.
[Beer] Extreme reliability, durability, and accuracy for a lot less than a comparable 1911. Keep talkin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylinder Head
If you tear apart a USP, you will see how similar they are to the 1911 (well, till you get to the back). [Beer]Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleDave
The size difference between a 1911 and Hk's of the 45 version, are not that different:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flatline
1911 with a straight mainspring housing
http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/...r/DSCN2459.jpg
USP Compact
http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/...r/DSCN2460.jpg
USP full size
http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/...r/DSCN2461.jpg
Hk45 with small backstrap
http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/...r/DSCN2462.jpg
The 1911 is 5 3/8" around and the Hk45 is only 5/16" bigger. The main reason why people dislike the USP line is because the grip is kinda square. The 1911's grip is more oblong, oval in shape, big difference in comfort. THe Hk45 is a good change up for Hk here because the grip is a lot like that of the 1911 vs the USP grip shape wise. You can also change out the back strap of the Hk45 if you have bigger hands. Oh, and with the Hk45, you get a highly accurate, and highly reliable gun right out of the box for much less than a comparable 1911.
If reliability is king, I hope they would go with STI or something that is actually reliable in a 1911... Out of the box, the RIA's are reliable, shoot them enough though without cleaning, and you run into problems. Same with most 1911's. Their dependability goes down hill fast unless they're maintained. At least mine all did (RIA, Kimber Raptor II, SA), my Nighthawk was like a champ, but the cost of the damn thing...... You could buy two Hk45's and you are getting the same reliability and accuracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
You think it is easier to take apart your M9 than a 1911? I just had to ask.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodburbon
I'm an Hk lover all the way of course. I figure though when you are shopping for a carry gun that you carry because your life might have to depend on it, why settle? I think that is one thing you wouldn't settle on, your life. I've owned a ton of guns (kinda a gun whore), and the Hk's (for me) have shown the best reliability. Any gun should run clean, it's when you get into the rounds when you start to see the flaws that gum guns up. If you are in the military, or anywhere that your gun might get grime in it.... well, you had better not have a finicky gun on your hip. I want one that has proven to go bang every time and so far, that has only been a few. There has been a 1911 in that mix also, but like I said, it was pricy as hell. Oh, and my FNP did nice also. [Beer]
That's interesting, seeing as the army appears to be leaning towards the glock 17. I wonder if the difference between services will cause problems.
This quickly turned into "your gun is poop par deux".
[Pop]
I'm talking field level strip to clean up and oil. Something you'd trust a grunt to do, not 100% takedown. Yes,with the beretta I can do it blindfolded with one hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder
I was never particularly fond of the M9, although I always qualified expert. I like the M11 I qualify with now better than the M9, but I'd rather have something more than a 9mm. If things get ugly enough that I really need to be using a pistol, I'd rather have the .45...unless I could have a 10mm.
1911 takedowns are incredibly easy. It's one pin and requires no tools.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodburbon
I'm just curious on what people think it take to Field strip an M9? The M9 has no pin to lose, M9 can be taken down in a few seconds.
Like the old boy said, "when you get down to your pistol you could be in a world of hurt". I will take my chances with the Colt 45 any day over the 9mm. Been there done that. Got the t-shirt and very thankful for the Marines that rolled up and especially the one with the big 50.
All I'm saying, is that compared to the M9 field strip it's rocket surgery, Not that it's hard in itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by tmckay2
I do have to say that back in the day I had many a Doc bring their 1911 to me in a box in pieces. They just could not figure out how to put it together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodburbon
This was 81-84. [Beer]
They wanna live in the past, reissue nothing but 03A3s, BARs and 1911s
Not arguing with their caliber choice (which was a NATO thing), but their platform choice.
I think the Marines made an excellent decision and got a decent price given the extras that contract includes but yes, it's a lot easier to take the M9 apart for field cleaning than the 1911.Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder
FWIW, I like the feel and natural POA of the 1911 much better than the Beretta M9 or a Glock. I like the S&W M&P series much better than either Beretta or Glock as well but it DOES feel different. Having twice the capacity doesn't mean squat when it takes three times as many rounds to do the same job.
Some of you all might want to talk to the intended customers and find their reasons for buying new 1911s before criticizing the purchase. You just might be surprised at how much sense this contract makes.
I agree for the 45 round (well overdue), and I thing that the 1911 is probably the best design ever made and I enjoy shooting mine..... But it had it's primetime. Why using a 100 year old design with only minor change, when you can get 21st technology (striker, polymer, high cap mag, ...)?
I agree with Alex: Lets bring back the 1903!
1800$ a piece? Probably 700$ for the gun itself, and 1100$ for the daily dose of lubricant.
All I've got to say is if I was in a situation where my life was at stake and I needed a gun I would want the most reliable gun. With that being said I haven't EVER had a malfunction from my XD45 Tactical and have thousands of rounds through it.
I have mixed feeling about this. Have been in the military I never had a problem with the M-9 or M-11. I also love my 1911 and got rid of my Glock 19 for it. I think my only issue is capacity. An eight round mag isn't much on the battlefield. Then again the 1911 has been carried by servicemen through how many wars? I'm torn...
I'm pretty much in agreement with the majority here. I really like the way the 1911 fits in my hand, I like the way it shoots, but for combat, I'd want something with a bit more capacity.
USMC - 237 years of tradition unhampered by progress.
Magazine capacity didn't seem to limit Sgt. York.Quote:
During the assault, six German soldiers in a trench near York charged him with fixed bayonets. York had fired all the rounds in his M1917 Enfield rifle, but drew his .45 Colt automatic pistol and shot all six soldiers before they could reach him
Not every fighting man is Alvin York.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSS
My argument would be to raise the abilities of the fighting man then. If a man is not good with a pistol with 8 rounds then 7 rds more would make that big of a difference?
Here you are touching the age old discussion / Argument between accuracy and fire rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSS
What is better: A one shot kill, or saturate your target with enough lead that you don't have to be accurate?
now please remember that in 1918 few soldiers were carrying body armor, and the average German soldier height was only 5ft 4 1/2 in, with a weight of 140 lbs. Yes, one round would do.
We are in a different era, and I am totally for an increase to 45, but the lack of mag capacity is a serious concern for me.
On top of all the facts is the fact I'm an armchair quarterback. My opinion is worth what you paid for it. I'm a fan of the 1911 and don't feel it's an inferior weapon when I'm punching holes in the target in preparation of the day it may be used in the defense of life. I find it accurate and hard hitting. Those steel plates drop and don't move when I hammer em with a 230 grain bullet.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthabagah
Maybe some of the ones that have played in the sandbox can comment. But 5'4" 140 pounds seems to represent the last few combatants the US has been up against in the last 20 years. Somali, Iraqi, Afghans. Most third world countries seem to have smaller people than developed countries.
Another point. When I first starting shooting pistols just pointing the weapon at the target and blasting away at 25 yards was a good way to completely miss the target. A pistol is wildly inaccurate in undisciplined hands compared to a rifle in the same situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthabagah
I would assume tho that the situation being a trained military force that the 1911 vs a pistol with more capacity argument would give the advantage to the pistol with a lot of rounds and good reliability/accuracy. It's still awesome that a classic design is found worthy of duty.
Yeah, but making room for range time and actual good training would limit the amount of time we have to do other equally if not more important training, like repeal of DADT training, bystander intervention training (what to do if you see somebody getting raped), human trafficking training, why you shouldn't leave your ID card lying around or why you shouldn't surf porn on government computers, anti-terroism training (not nearly as cool as it sounds), why black people and white people and other minorities are the same, celebrating Asian-Pacific Islander-American heritage month in March (or is it May? (yes, that is a real thing)), filling out paperwork to request to go do some normal job based training, filling out paperwork to explain what type of normal job based training your going to do, making sure you're not using a "limited use area" on a military range so that you don't disturb the habitat of an "endangered" (read: unable to adapt and useless) species, filling out paperwork after normal job based training stating what kind of normal job based training was accomplished, reading all the threads on AR-15.co, typing ridiculous replys on AR-15.co, filling out forms on a website when you need an annual physical, filling out the same exact form while getting a physical, trying to understand why the military thinks you're overweight when you're 5'8" and weigh 170lbs., wondering if you really are an alcoholic like the military says you are or live in denial because during a normal week you might have 1 or 2 alcoholic drinks 3 times during said week, filling out post-deployment health assessments online, filling out the same exact post deployment health assessment when you get a post deployment health assessment, telling doctors that you don't have emotional trauma, telling family and life consultants contracted by the military that you don't have emotional trauma, going to staff meetings, scheduling meetings, training meetings, etc. only to try to explain that if you didn't have to go to so many gd meetings maybe you could actually get some work done... the list goes on and on.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSS
But, I would much rather have a 1911 than an M9. But if I had a choice, I would carry my M&P 45.
I'll shoot what ever is issued.
Im for the .45 over the 9mm, but capacity wise there are better options. Im for something like glock 21 sf, 13+1 capacity, also wieght should be a factor. The g21sf is around 26oz vs 38oz unloaded(not sure if the marine versions will be lighter). I know my ass would stay up at night thinking of ways to shed some wieght when I was deployed, all the the cool accesories add up when doing dismounted patrols in 120+ degree weather.
This quote is from another forum but is one of the more accurate assessments I've read on this topic:
Quote:
It seems that suddenly everyone on the internet knows more about what the Marine special forces should be using for sidearms then the actual special forces guys themselves.