US Marines will be going back to Colt 1911's

[Hot_Sauce]

While I CC a Glock. I've always been a big fan of the 1911. Outside .22 rimfires 1911's are my favorite pistols to shoot at the range. Glad to see the US Marines will be ordering 12,000 of them from Colt. Hopefully other Military branches will follow suit.

Below is a link to what they will be getting

http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/colt...or Hub News&utm_content=July+23,+2012+Marines

 

[Rick]

Nice! I'm also a big fan of Glock...1911s are cool too. I have a Kimber that I like to take to the range every once in awhile.

 

[JayD]

1911 all day everyday. Although I usually only carry mine around in the winter. My Kahr is just too damn convenient

 

[mwlabel]

One of the worst decisions the military has made in a long time.

 

[Treinenwj]

Nah, that would be DADT, then the repealing of it.

 

[owensaz]

One of the worst decisions the military has made in a long time.

Nah, that would be DADT, then the repealing of it.

Both equally bad decisions The "general publics" "feelings" about homosexuality had NO business in my military.

And I foresee a huge problem with availability of parts, cost and even having to retrain folks who've been made accustomed to pick up and shoot weapons for over a decade. But its Uncle Sam I'm sure they paid billions of dollars in research and found the 1911 more practical even if it probably was based on one factor.. lol

 

[pnoguy]

From my perspective, it's about time. If you can't knock down your target with a 1911, you probably need a job that doesn't involve a sidearm. For my money, every sidearm in the US military should be a 1911. The M9 Beretta is a piece of crap. Period. Parts? Who needs parts for a gun that doesn't break? Look...a pretty seriously high percentage of the sidearms issued to real live military types only get fired at the range once a year. That's just how it is. The guys that actually need a sidearm with the kind of knockdown power of a 1911 can retrain themselves. Hell, a good many of them have got one at home already. The guys who are accustomed to "pick up and shoot weapons" don't really matter that much, because they are mostly officers who carry a weapon because it was issued to them, not because they need to kill somebody or die. Those guys mostly go to the range because they are told to, not because they want to be a good shooter. On more than one ocassion I've kicked officers off of my range because they posed a danger to themselves and those around them. As far as DADT goes, regardless of how I feel about it, I know Nancy boys that can shoot out your eyeball at 100 meters. Without a scope. There are plenty of gay members right here on BOTL. Get over it. I have.

 

[DStan]

I would personally take the 1911 over the M9 any day of the week. The M9 is issued to us, but for aircrew its already a bad day if we have to use them and in that situation I think I want the 1911. If I had to pick any other option I would take the Sig M11(P226) which is already in use with some units and has a proven service history!

 

[owensaz]

From my perspective, it's about time. If you can't knock down your target with a 1911, you probably need a job that doesn't involve a sidearm. For my money, every sidearm in the US military should be a 1911. The M9 Beretta is a piece of crap. Period. Parts? Who needs parts for a gun that doesn't break? Look...a pretty seriously high percentage of the sidearms issued to real live military types only get fired at the range once a year. That's just how it is. The guys that actually need a sidearm with the kind of knockdown power of a 1911 can retrain themselves. Hell, a good many of them have got one at home already. The guys who are accustomed to "pick up and shoot weapons" don't really matter that much, because they are mostly officers who carry a weapon because it was issued to them, not because they need to kill somebody or die. Those guys mostly go to the range because they are told to, not because they want to be a good shooter. On more than one ocassion I've kicked officers off of my range because they posed a danger to themselves and those around them. As far as DADT goes, regardless of how I feel about it, I know Nancy boys that can shoot out your eyeball at 100 meters. Without a scope. There are plenty of gay members right here on BOTL. Get over it. I have.

Can't say I disagree with anything you've said.. I just don't think DADT should of been a matter of public opinion its our family deal with it in-house. No different than us not being involved in anything domestic "unless" asked to do so. And passing new doctrine cost $$ "sensitivity training, briefings, handbooks etc." I don't disapprove of any American serving but the outsiders(general public) have no business having a direct influence on how the military treats its member. DADT repeal was a knee jerk response to a antiquated ideal that in my opinion was already slowing fixing itself..

But just my thoughts on a sustainability aspect with regards to any new piece of equipment.. What does the Marine Corps do when the contract expires and they are now responsible for the upkeep and repair of a additional 10k pieces of hardware? And the Marines has the smallest piece of the DOD budget.

 

[Mickeymorris626]

I personally see no issue in some of them going back to the 1911, I personally love the platform and have yet to be let down. Keep in mind, I have only put 3,500~ rounds through mine. Not nearly what some range guns go through! That being said, I also am a fan of the M9 or it's civilian equivalents. I like the 1911 for the accuracy I archive with it and it's ergonomics, but I prefer a smaller round with less recoil (for the follow ups, not wrist preservation) and twice the magazine capacity. Just my $0.02

 

[AmmoEd]

I hope the other branches don't replace the M9. Have you ever had to move around boxes of .45 all day long?

 

[njstone]

I think most guys who USE their sidearms regularly in the Marines have probably used the Colts already anyway. Besides ... they can always carry something else as well if they prefer, the 1911 is just the "free" one they'll issue. My cousin is Army (different, I know), but said that his right-hand man when he was out in the field always carried a sawed-off along with this other issues. He just felt more comfortable with a scatter-gun for close encounters.

 

[NickThePyro]

I am actually really happy to see this. Me and my dad both carry 1911s for our concealed because it just feels most natural when in danger. I can aim and point without using sights and be most accurate with my 1911 compared to any of the other many guns in our arsenal. The design is tried and true, everybody knows the design for a reason. VERY reliable, accurate, functional, and easy to clean and reassemble. My dad's favorite handgun is his Colt Ultimate Commander 1911 with a bunch of custom work on it. He has never once had it jam, misfire, or anything. Every single other handgun we own has had one failure at one point(FTF jams commonly) but the Colt keeps on going thousands of rounds later.

 

[Gravity]

Sounds like a smart choice to me, never cared for the M9.

 

[smokinghole]

I CC a glock too, and I think the reason for 1911 over a .45 Glock is that the military has a requirement for a dual safety system. In the case of the M9 it is the safety lever and a 5,000lb 10" long trigger pull. Obviously with the 1911 it's the grip safety (which I'm sure most will tape down anyhow) and the thumb safety. Then the glock utilizes the ultimate safety, your finger. However it seems the military doesn't trust one's finger to not accidentally discharge weapons, and for good reason.

 

[njstone]

I do have to say, I think it's funny that in 100 years we haven't come up with something better yet ... I mean I know there are arguably better sidearms, but the differences are minor relative the differences between the 1911 and the previous guns. Obviously, Browning was a genius, and part of the genius is the simplicity of the design.

All I'm saying is, considering all that has advanced in the last century, you'd think we'd have frickin' Phasers by now!

 

[Schmec]

I'm not a fan of carrying any gun with hard lock safety's and external hammers. The 1911 is a great platform, it's fun to shoot, feels good in your hand and looks really cool. It also has a low round capacity and is a 100 year old design.
Saying that a .45 is going to magically stop an attacker is wrong also. The differences between a 9mm through .45 are very small when you look at the actual effects on a human body. Until you get into the .500 range grab the gun that holds the most rounds. Pistols are pea shooters compared to rifles.

 

[mwlabel]

In addition to the many other reasons I think this is a foolish choice, take a look at this.

After seeing the results of the phase II, 12000 round per gun firing tests, with 197 instances of failure, 4 out of 10 guns completed destroyed and MORE SIGNIFICANTLY an original letter of non-acceptability. *I would almost be willing to call shenanigans on the whole thing. *

All Colt

Guns 11, 12, 14 and 15 (1-10 were not fire tested) fired 12,000 rounds before being deadlined due to visible safety-critical cracks found in the slides. Each slide had cracks in the same location, but they varied in size.

One gun had its recoil spring bend enough to bind the slide to the point it no longer could be tested, it was withdrawn from testing.

 

[Gravity]

Those are scary pictures no matter what side of the fence you stand on. I realize that's after thousands of rounds, but still scary.

 

[mwlabel]

and 12,000 rounds is -realistically- next to nothing.
I - a 100% AMATEUR shooter - shot over 12k every year when I lived at home. Now think about people who are shooting every day... trainers, professional shooters, military servicemen. A gun breaking at 12k rounds is a disgrace.