While I'm not a gun expert, I think most would agree this is a good move by the Corps. Http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/2...aliber-pistols/?intcmp=trending#ixzz21y6J6fBm
I would mostly agree that it's a good move. A better move would be to vanquish my beloved Corps of that piece of crap called the M9. Why is it MARSOC are the only ones that get these? It should be the new standard issue sidearm. Period.
My buddy sent me a link about this the other day. I was surprised they were going back to the 1911 because it seems like there's at least one or two "better" options that can shoot the same round and costs less. I'm still not convinced the Glock is the best gun for me, but I certainly respect its reliability coupled with it's minimal parts. I'd be curious to know if it was in the running. I've been very happy to have been issued a Sig, but I can understand them not wanting to lay down the cash for it. Which leads me back to the Glock.
That being said, I did not pay that much more for my P226 than a Glock.. Yes, in the numbers we buy them $100 or so makes a difference, but then again, a 228 should cost less than a 226 or 229 due to slide differences.
I expect that there are myriad "tests" that any/all candidate replacement pistols had to go through...sand/mud/snow immersion, functionality through xK rounds before jam...yadda yadda yadda. Number of parts...ease of maintainability...the whole "Life Cycle Cost" thing. Any 1911 variant (however "improved") has been through and prevailed through this testing for...what? Over 100 years?
This is a somewhat relevant question. I never understood the Nato designation on certain calibers. Are they really that standardized and do we share our ammo with our allies that often to where fielding a non Nato caliber would be an issue? On a side note, does anyone know of any good A2 style rear sights for a flattop? Looking to get proficient with the old irons and my troy Buis doesn't have elevation.
I have a detachable carry handle from Model 1 Sales, but I don't know if you have a normal height front sight.
But is it the "best?" I know, that's not always the criteria, but in this case, many of those things you mentioned are "better" on other pistols. The 1911 has 8 parts (I think I got them all) when stripped. The Sig or Glock have 5. The 1911 likes to be run wetter than other options for continued reliability (I don't mean how you and I would use it recreationally, I mean in an environment that's not as sterile). There's a well-respected guy online (sorry, I don't know the link) that ran something like 20K rounds through his G19 with minimal maintenance. The 1911 may be able to do that, I'm not saying it can't because I don't know, but just a data point. The argument "it's been working for x years, so why change" can be made for many pieces of gear with stars and bars on the side. Hell, the M1 system is still in limited use today, but that doesn't necessarily make it the best choice (heavy, lots of parts, etc). I'd be curious to know what the bid would be for all three, broken down per gun. I know DoD does fuzzy math with acquisitions, but the number would be interesting...assuming the other two even competed. Disclaimer...just so you don't think I'm a 1911 hater: -My first gun was a Colt 1911 (M1991). I still have it and don't ever plan to sell it. -I don't find the Glock to be the best gun for me because of fit and comfort. But I do respect it's durability. -I've carried the Sig (228) operationally a few times and have been very happy. I'd feel pretty confident if I went down with it. -I've got a crap-ton of rounds through my personal Sig (229) and have been happy for the most part, but have had an occasional extractor issue. Something that can happen even with the Glock, as Bunk has attested to.
I have 3 1911s. I have close to the same S&W model that used to be issued to aircrew. I've shot lots of Glocks, Scoober78 had the only one I shot well though. I'm not sure what he had done to his. I own/ed a few SIGs over the years. Out of all of them, the 1911 is the one I shoot best, in a caliber I'd trust with ball ammo. I normally carry my SIG due to higher capacity/penetration (important in winter here) but I'm not limited to ball ammo. I put all of them, to include the S&W as superior to the shit that is the M9. And it's not just because I've shot clapped out Navy ones. New 92s I don't like. The design is shit IMHO.
Well, I guess the MARSOC testers/SAMIs/Armorers/evaluators/requirements folks/budgeteers/purchasing agents disagree. For some reasons that all of us will probably never understand...they found it "best"...for their needs. I doubt it was a capricious decision. Go figure... Also...MARSOC probably gets to do kinda sorta what it wants, under SOCOM's purchase and funding umbrella of MPF-11, as opposed to "Big Navy" funding. Note: According to Wikitionary: Adjective capricious (comparative more capricious, superlative most capricious) Impulsive and unpredictable; determined by chance, impulse, or whim
The cost to maintain the 1911 was actually the reason that a certain unit converted over to Glock 22's (.40 cal?!)...
That's kind of my point. Did they actually choose it because it was the better weapon? Or did they choose it for sentimental reasons and/or because it was "cheaper" (whatever that may mean)? I understand what you're saying about MARSOC and it's budget, but I'm not sure it ever let the 1911 go. FWIW, the first article I saw on this made no mention of MARSOC, but just "the Marine Corps." The Fox News article above never mentions MARSOC, and only has this one sentence: Which could mean anything (again, I think MARSOC has had the 1911 for a while...just like the SEALs have their own various independently procured systems). To the press, everyone is Special Ops. At the end of the day, if MARSOC said it was the best weapon for them, awesome. They certainly know more than I. I'm just a cynic when it comes to (conventional) military procurement programs.
Sentimental reasons ALWAYS wins out over all else, especially in the Marine Corps. You know, I'm actually okay with that...I like them "raggedy-assed Marines".
I was issued a 1911 when I was in so I'm certainly not a 1911 hater but to be honest I'm just glad they chose something with a single action trigger. A glock would have been fine with me too because it, like the 1911, has a "consistant" trigger pull. In fact I think a double action only pistol would have been better than anything in double action. I know the SEALs can shoot the hell out of a Sig but they shoot a bazillion rounds a year thru it. IMHO the average Marine grunt doesn't shoot a pistol nearly enough to get really good with a double action trigger. That first round is almost a throw away and the second goes thru the roof, especially under stress.
I guess we're back to trying to figure out who is actually getting issued the weapon. "Standard" Mark 1 Marines or "special" Marines (no, not the short bus kind). Somewhat off-topic... A few months ago I decided I'd shoot my almost completely stock 1911 in the monthly, friendly local match. This is after primarily shooting my 229. The first time I drew and squeezed nothing happened. Apparently the 1911 has some sort of "safety" the operator needs to push down on. Talk about muscle memory and needing to put more rounds down range. I plan to bring the 1911 to the match this Saturday, hopefully without the same results.
I'm a firm believer in keeping things simple. That's why my night stand pistol is a G21 and not a 1911. No more than I've been shooting lately it probably should be a Smith 625 or 686. Looks like it's just the "special" Marines ? http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2012/07/19/m45-marsoc-pistol-contract-is-done-deal/
Seems like more units are going "back" to the 1911. I know of several SWAT units that have recently been swapping out their Glocks for some variant of 1911. I love the 1911 and will never get rid of mine. However makes you wonder what other guns were in the competitions, M&P .45, Glock, Sig?
"The original solicitation outlines some of the features the Corps stipulated, such as a single-stack, 7+ round magazine, drop in parts replacement and accuracy guidelines." It goes on to say that "Springfield Armory sent the Corps six copies of its PX9105ML pistol for evaluation" and that the Springfield pistol had "been sold to the Corps in small quantities before. The Corps also has bought Springfield Armory 1911 slides in the past to use on (MARSOC) pistols assembled at Quantico." I don't know who the other players were if any. If Glock didn't play I don't know why. If the winning pistol looked like this http://soldiersystems.net/2012/07/20/marsoc-winning-colt-guns/ after a 12,000 round torture test I wonder what the losers looked like. Not to good.......
Far as I'm concerned it's MARSOC that's out there, so their opinion is the only one worth a damn. They chose the 1911 and that speaks for itself. Everyone else can pound sand.
I agree with that. Now...let's talk about the important stuff: When and where can I/we buy one of these bad boys?
my night stand 'pistol' for the past 40 years has been an m1 carbine w/ a light and a 20 round mag. i might like a paratrooper folding type or collapsable stock but i don't think they're legal in new york works for me. just sayin'
