• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Marines place $22.5M order for the Colt .45 M1911

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
If they "must" keep the 9mm round for the normal Grunts,.. At least get SIGs.

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.
 

MasterBates

Well-Known Member
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.
 

scoolbubba

Brett327 gargles ballsacks
pilot
Contributor
any of the 20.. models from sig are comparable to the glock, at least in price point.
 

Renegade One

Well-Known Member
None
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?
 

OscarMyers

Well-Known Member
None
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.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
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?

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.
 

MasterBates

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Renegade One

Well-Known Member
None
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.
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)
  1. Impulsive and unpredictable; determined by chance, impulse, or whim
 

xmid

Registered User
pilot
Contributor
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?

The cost to maintain the 1911 was actually the reason that a certain unit converted over to Glock 22's (.40 cal?!)...
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
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...

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:

With M1911's now supplying Special Ops, growing interest may lead to a better solution.

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.
 
Top