Posted on 12/05/2014 7:48:00 AM PST by shove_it
****The Brits just replaced the Hi Power with the Glock for their service pistol.****
NO NO! SAY IT AIN’T SO!
No way!
The metrosexual pussies can't wrap their girlie hands around it, so...pfftt!
Plus, who the hell would pay for all the 9mm NATO Ball for all the other NATO "partners", if we went back to a .45 ACP Ball?
Obviously, they don't use anything but that weak piece of crap 9mm, and since we converted, they sure as hell ain't gonna pay for the manufacture of it.
The 1911 platform is the best system ever invented and the best one we will ever have for individual handgun issue weapons.
We don't need no plastic Glocks, we don't need no "blow up in your hand" piece of crap Beretta, Mr. Sig and Mr. Sauer can keep their .40 caliber tin can punchers.
What we need is a man's gun...the almighty 1911A1!
It is what Mr. Browning would have wanted.
(And it's what I carried for 20 years and qualified expert with every time I had to qualify.)
So there!
An Oct. 23, 1943, Marine Corps document titled “Report on Infantry Weapons in Combat” gave a brief synopsis of the various arms used by a Marine Raider Battalion on New Georgia Island. The section pertaining to the .45 simply stated: “U.S. Pistol, Cal. .45, M1911-M1911A1. Held up very well, but used very little.”
I would consider it if they can figure out how to build an M1911A1 out of lighter materials. I’ve actually picked up a real M1911A1 and that thing is not in the light department.
That makes a lot of sense. Or sell them to me at a good discount.
No many specific Occupational Fields have a Table of Organization that requires a pistol. Example; Radio Operator. Yes, Most Officers will have as their T/O weapon a pistol. Mostly that pistol will be carried around camp but when they go outside the wire they are absolutely carrying a M4 Carbine or M16A4 Service Rifle.
The M9 was never a good selection as a military sidearm but the relevant fact is: There is no case of the M9 failing in Combat! Reason why; nobody is out side the wire with only a pistol and I know of no case where anyone was reliant upon the Pistol in this war. So, my point is; the M9 serves fine and we don’t need to be wasting a lot of money for a system that is Not utilized.
Not true. Sidearms are used, it is just not the preferred tool for anything other than unique circumstances.
“Desert Eagle 50AE. Heavy, cumbersome, and difficult to shoot, but it’ll look great in the war movies.”
Or an AR pistol in .450 SOCOM. Think of the parts commonality. Think of the knockdown power. Think how soldiers would look with that thing strapped to their leg
“I don’t see much wrong with a 1911”
Round count. Seems people want pistols with 16+ rounds.
I love the 1911 and carry one myself.
Guys, I promise that I’m trying to rain on anybodies parade nor am I venturing into a discussion that I don’t know something about. I retired as the Division Gunner, 2D Marine Division in 2008, after 34 years of Active Service. I then spent the next four years as the Training Advisor for the CG Regional Command South West Afghanistan, training the Afghan Security Forces. As the Division Gunner, Infantry Weapons Officers, I would rountily have units and Commanding Officers float the idea replacing the M9. It always came back to the same thing, no matter how many studies we did. No one could show where the M9 had ever failed in Combat. Why, because nobody was foolish enough to carry only a pistol in the fight. Yes, I love the M1911A1! But, I do not advocate spending money on a system that meets the current needs. There are only a very few Sepecial Operations units that use a “Back-Up” gun for very technical use. They already have their new gun.
The M9 weighs ~33 oz empty, the M1911A1 weighs ~39 oz empty. If 6 oz is a show stopper, we need to send our boys and girls some supplements....
Loaded, they weigh in almost the same...
with ball ammo, size matters ( diameter) A .451 will not get any smaller, and a .356 will likely never get any bigger....
16 shots available that require multiple hits compared to 9 rounds available that require fewer hits is not a bad trade off necessarily.
Finally, if a 45 auto is deemed to much cartridge compared to a 9mm NATO load, then we truly have a problem, Houston.
Sidearms are quite useless against armored targets, but if unarmored, they can be quite useful, espc. in certain CQB situations.
“The Brits just replaced the Hi Power with the Glock for their service pistol. I would be pretty surprised if we did not go with some type of polymer pistol.”
It would be really easy for someone to just call out a Glock model 21SF, 22, 31, 17 or whatever and that would be a completely acceptable solution. But, that’s just not how the Army does things.
The good thing about the way the Army does things is that companies have to step up their game, jump through a bunch of hoops, and pass a bunch of tests for this particular, astoundingly large, brass ring. The process creates innovations and product improvements, that we all get to enjoy later on. Remember that 40S&W came about because the FBI wanted it to.
With the Bamster’s new bean counter SECDEF, the new sidearm will be wind or solar powered or both.
Those Hi-powers were great guns.
Common sense would say a pistol that’s not double action first shot, single action second shot. DAO or Glock type action would be sensible as a military piece. I can’t think why a Glock wouldn’t work for them, or a S&W M&P. I love the 1911’s, and shot one competitively for years, but I also think there are better options now, for military use. It is nearly impossible to train new recruits (or for that matter great shooters) to make two quick hits, one DA and one SA on target. The DA/SA was and still is a bad idea. The HK USP is available with several triggers/action, the most common can be either DA/SA or carried cocked and locked like a gov’t 1911. I’m not so sure that the politically correct crowd likes seeing a hammer back when holstered though! Somehow a striker fired, hammerless design is less fearsome, at least with liberal ‘logic’. Obviously an oxymoron
That problem is partly solved with marksmanship and partly with knock down power. 1911 helps with the latter. I understand the need for more rounds, but it really is a need for more effective rounds. But like what another poster said earlier, you take an M4 when you go one the other side of the wire. Actually, you should take an AK or M10, but that's a different discussion.
May as well give them pink sling shots, or better yet a stack of pink “time out” cards..
Back to the M1 Carbine
I agree. Even as an officer, I had a rifle with me when I left the FOB in Afghanistan. I don’t think I ran into anyone in Afghanistan who had used their M-9s at all. Any use it saw was trivial compared to the rifle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.