Sticking to their guns: Marines place $22.5M order for the Colt .45 M1911

[lead_magnet]

People always think that having higher capacity equates to a requirement to spray and pray. You can still be accurate and delibrate with a pistol that has a higher capacity. If the arguement is of the "nothing will do but .45 acp" nature, then use a pistol that shoots .45 but has higher capacity.

Think of it this way(I'll stay away from 9mm for the sake of arguement)

Glock 22 (.40 cal) - One mag in the gun, two spare = 46 rounds of .40 cal

Glock 21 (.45 acp) - One mag in the gun, three spares = 53 rounds of .45

You would have to carry 5 spare magazines for the 1911 to have a similar round count (of 49, if you are using 8 round mags), it just doesn't justify itself.

Not to mention...if I may, that they could issue Glock 22's, and the 9mm conversion barrels to them, giving them more options should they have to scrounge for ammo. Might not be a big deal now, but if we were ever at war with another country that uses/issues 9mm nato ammo it might come in handy. Just sayin...

[Byte Stryke]

"but jordan, its a 100 year old design that works" So was standing in a line and shooting at each other.

Ummm... you suck at history

[Scanker19]

Ummm... you suck at history

Huh? I know for a fact Ronald Reagan led the Air force division that liberated the Polish from the British at the Battle of the Bulge.

[mcsurveyer1361]

my buddy carries this gun as a masoc guy. he loves it.

[Chief_of_Scouts]

Well, these 1911s are not your dad's, granddad's or even great-grandad's 1911. They are certainly going to be better made than the M1911 I was issued back in the 1980s.

I remember the excitement and controversy caused by swapping out our old pistols for the M9 Beretta. It seemed that many of the troops were pleasantly surprised by the accuracy and fewer magazine changes. We were also less than happy with the excessively high rate of failures due to the cheap magazines we were issued in the early days.

I have carried and own both .45 ACP and 9mm. I am currently carrying a Glock 19 (9mm) in a combat zone. Based on my experience, I think that the Glock 9mm is my favorite weapon for capacity, reliability and accuracy. I also agree with the statements others have made; my pistol is a backup to my rifle.

As one wise man said; Show your .45 to your friends, but show your 9mm to your enemies.

[Flatline]

This quote is from another forum but is one of the more accurate assessments I've read on this topic:

One of the wisest statements here.

When it comes down to it I'm sure the marines didn't just decide on the 1911 because it looked pretty.

[Byte Stryke]

$-$

Could have got the job done with less than $1,900 a pop. Government doesn't need to waste money unnecessarily, including mil.

And ya, if I had a choice I'd want a $2,000 gun instead of a $400 one, but that doesn't make it the right choice!

I think you missed the part where the cost included support, parts, training etc and we were unsure of the actual per unit costs.

given the logistics of civilian support these days, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it broke out to be a $500 weapon and $1400 in training, parts and support. For example, did you know that Contracting companies have to pay hundreds for each CAC card their employees hold...even as part of their job requirement.

So in addition to finding trainers and armorers, paying for their BCI/Investigations for clearances, there is a running cost with the government.


just an FYI

[Chad4000]

People always think that having higher capacity equates to a requirement to spray and pray. You can still be accurate and delibrate with a pistol that has a higher capacity. If the arguement is of the "nothing will do but .45 acp" nature, then use a pistol that shoots .45 but has higher capacity.

Think of it this way(I'll stay away from 9mm for the sake of arguement)

Glock 22 (.40 cal) - One mag in the gun, two spare = 46 rounds of .40 cal

Glock 21 (.45 acp) - One mag in the gun, three spares = 53 rounds of .45

You would have to carry 5 spare magazines for the 1911 to have a similar round count (of 49, if you are using 8 round mags), it just doesn't justify itself.

Not to mention...if I may, that they could issue Glock 22's, and the 9mm conversion barrels to them, giving them more options should they have to scrounge for ammo. Might not be a big deal now, but if we were ever at war with another country that uses/issues 9mm nato ammo it might come in handy. Just sayin...

totally agree here...

[Chad4000]

This quote is from another forum but is one of the more accurate assessments I've read on this topic:

do we know that it was the actual Special forces guys that made the call? Im sure that one or two high level guys were consulted, but normally doesnt thing this go to polictians who decide what's best for the guys on the ground?

shit,, if they talked to chris kyle, and he said 1911... then hell yeah....

I just get the impression that they dont actually talk to the guys on the ground much about this sort of thing.

[Chad4000]

another question on the topic. does anybody have stats on what the special forces guys actually carry. I dont know what Im talking about here, but shouldnt they be allowed to choose whatever they want (within reason)? or are even seals, and recon guys required to carry standard issued sidearms?

i can see requiring normal enlisted guys (up to a certain rank or something??) to carry all the same stuff.