Marines order 22.5M in 1911 .45s

Doing away with the M9. I wonder what weaponlight they will pick. Here is the link: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/2...ost-popular+(Internal+-+Most+Popular+Content)

BIGLOU said:

Doing away with the M9. I wonder what weaponlight they will pick. Here is the link: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/2...ost-popular+(Internal+-+Most+Popular+Content)

Click to expand...

Not trying to create flamebait here, because I know the 1911 has a fervent fanbase, but I have to wonder why they're going back the the 1911...
It's a fine handgun, and who am I to question the great JMB, but it's not the final and complete pinnacle of handgun design. IMHO they should have adopted the Glock 17 back in the 80s but supposedly it was never under serious consideration.

Hopefully the Army follows them also. 45. acp for more knock down power.

It's good to see someone finally came to their senses... I hope we learned something... And I prefer my tax dollars go to Colt and not to well non-American arms companies....

I believe in free market and I'm not a big "buy American" crusader but, on the other hand, I think America's military technology should come from American industry where possible...

But that's just me...

CamoNinja said:

Hopefully the Army follows them also. 45. acp for more knock down power.

Click to expand...

Yes... but in terms of capacity of 7+1 as opposed to 15+1 I don't know if the benefit is worthwhile... could be something more complicated them that too. Military contracts is where the real money is for companies.

They are not doing away with the M9. The M9 is still the main issue pistol for most of the services this has not changed, one exception being the Coast Gaurd which uses a SIG, in fact I beleive there was just a large order for new M9's for the Army.

This order is for Marines Special Forces only, it is not even for the regular Marines use, that will still be the M9 as I understand for the forseeable future. The reason the 1911 was chosen from what I have been able to asertain is that it has always been used by this group. Pistols have been pieced together by armorers from already procured pistols and parts in the suply chain. And the new pistols can still use the reminaing parts available to them for repairs. They wanted to retain the .45 acp because they believe in its stopping power over the 9MM. From what I have read capacity is secondary to stopping power in their usage of the pistol, partly because they rely more heavily upon them for CQCB.

If you consider ball/FMJ ammunition which is the primary cartridge for the military, the .45 acp has a large advantage in stopping power becus of its its size over 9MM ball. Unlike with modern self defense ammo where the difference has shrunk almost completely. That is probably part of the reason the military units like this prefer the .45 when they have ot use ball ammunition.

Imon said:

Not trying to create flamebait here, because I know the 1911 has a fervent fanbase, but I have to wonder why they're going back the the 1911...
It's a fine handgun, and who am I to question the great JMB, but it's not the final and complete pinnacle of handgun design. IMHO they should have adopted the Glock 17 back in the 80s but supposedly it was never under serious consideration.

Click to expand...

Look at John Mosses Browning's later pistol designs. It's clear that he wouldn't have designed the 1911 the way he did back then, if he had waited longer. JMB often incorporated the latest technology. Back then, if the technology was around to make a better pistol, the design we all know as the 1911 would have looked quite a bit different. Yes, it's an iconic design. But it's over 100 years old, and not without issues.

Monocrom said:

Yes, it's an iconic design. But it's over 100 years old, and not without issues.

Click to expand...

IMHO (having owned 1911s since 1975), the biggest issue is lack of proficency with its operation and infrequent/nonexistant live fire practice. Although it can be used by novices, to be effective one must be committed to investing the time and effort for competence.

Imon said:

Not trying to create flamebait here, because I know the 1911 has a fervent fanbase, but I have to wonder why they're going back the the 1911...
It's a fine handgun, and who am I to question the great JMB, but it's not the final and complete pinnacle of handgun design. IMHO they should have adopted the Glock 17 back in the 80s but supposedly it was never under serious consideration.

Click to expand...

I couldnt disagree more. The Glock certainly isnt the pinnacle of polymer framed pistols, just like the M1911 might not be the pinnacle of modern semi-autos, but the M1911 is better than the Glock, and so is the Springfield XD or XDM series. The Glock, even though made in modern times is the antithesis of ergonomics. It should be easy and obvious in these modern times to design anything with comfort and ergonomics in mind, but Glock never got that memo! Holding a Glock in your hand is like holding a 2x4.

The company that introduced the Glock wasnt even a firearms company when they started making Glocks. The designer previously made curtain rods! Most other manufacturers have consistently improved their products, but Glocks are pretty much the same. I know they are often reliable, etc., but most guns are reliable. The Springfield XD series, and the Walther P99 are both better handling pistols, and the Springfield is a safer gun too. Its more comfortable, shoots better, etc.

I know that many police depts use them and all, but most police depts still use Surefire lights too, and they are now usually inferior in many ways to the top Chinese lights.

I think the 1911 is a great choice, but they should choose a high capacity model that holds 14 cartridges instead of the old single stack design that hold only 7-8 with one in the chamber. Like maybe the Para Ordinance Light double action 1911(LDA) However, unlike the 9mm, it usually only takes one round from a .45acp to do the job, whereas the US military routinely train US soldiers to shoot double taps(2 quick shots) at each target, because of the 9mm's notorious lack of stopping power, which is why most police depts have switched over from 9mm to .40 S&W auto.

1911:twothumbs

There is nothing new under the sun. If one looks back in history one finds that the 38ish round was replaced by the 45 after a Philippine insurection where the standard ammo lacked stopping power.

Then 70 or 80 years later they switch from 45 back to a 38ish pill.

Its about time for some of them to want to switch back...

SCEMan said:

IMHO (having owned 1911s since 1975), the biggest issue is lack of proficency with its operation and infrequent/nonexistant live fire practice. Although it can be used by novices, to be effective one must be committed to investing the time and effort for competence.

Click to expand...

Along with the money. I've yet to meet a single 1911 owner with a completely stock set-up.

HighlanderNorth said:

I couldnt disagree more. The Glock certainly isnt the pinnacle of polymer framed pistols, just like the M1911 might not be the pinnacle of modern semi-autos, but the M1911 is better than the Glock, and so is the Springfield XD or XDM series. The Glock, even though made in modern times is the antithesis of ergonomics. It should be easy and obvious in these modern times to design anything with comfort and ergonomics in mind, but Glock never got that memo! Holding a Glock in your hand is like holding a 2x4.

The company that introduced the Glock wasnt even a firearms company when they started making Glocks. The designer previously made curtain rods! Most other manufacturers have consistently improved their products, but Glocks are pretty much the same. I know they are often reliable, etc., but most guns are reliable. The Springfield XD series, and the Walther P99 are both better handling pistols, and the Springfield is a safer gun too. Its more comfortable, shoots better, etc.

I know that many police depts use them and all, but most police depts still use Surefire lights too, and they are now usually inferior in many ways to the top Chinese lights.

I think the 1911 is a great choice, but they should choose a high capacity model that holds 14 cartridges instead of the old single stack design that hold only 7-8 with one in the chamber. Like maybe the Para Ordinance Light double action 1911(LDA) However, unlike the 9mm, it usually only takes one round from a .45acp to do the job, whereas the US military routinely train US soldiers to shoot double taps(2 quick shots) at each target, because of the 9mm's notorious lack of stopping power, which is why most police depts have switched over from 9mm to .40 S&W auto.

Click to expand...

I've held and fired a Glock 19. Despite the looks, it doesn't handle like a brick or feel like a 2x4 in the hand. I found the grip very comfortable and ergonomic. Main issue was a bit of excessive muzzle-flip for follow-up shots.

Glock got it right, with the exception of their .40 caliber offerings, the first time around. Why change around and mess with a winning formula. No secret that Glock wasn't a firearms company when it first went into business. Makes their design that much more impressive. Why didn't any of the well-established companies with a long and rich history of firearms designs think up something similar? Some of the greatest firearms innovations were thought up by guys who had very different careers. One such innovator was a reverend who got sick & tired of pulling the trigger on his musket, then having to wait until the ball exited out the barrel. The ducks would hear the flint strike, then fly off before the gun actually went off. He fixed that problem. He wasn't a genius gun-designer. He was a holy man who got sick of not having enough meat on his plate. Who cares where the idea came from? Second Chance body armor? . . . Invented by a Pizza Delivery guy! He tested the protype vest on himself. (On his leg, after dialing 911 to tell the operator he might need an ambulance after he starts the test.) That's right. Countless officers owe their lives to a Pizza Delivery guy.

I've yet to find a well-made light from China that could outperform one of my SureFires in durability, and reliability. (And I own some of those Top Chinese lights.) Yes, they're better than SureFire in certain ways. But not in the two that matter most. (Hell, most of the Made in China brands, even the top ones, can't even make a proper forward-clicky switch. Often we get something mushy and way too sensitive.)

The ballistic difference between the .45 ACP and .9mm is minimal. Shot-placement from a reliable weapon counts far more than the age-old debate involving .9mm vs. .45 ACP. Switching over from .9mm to .40 S&W is much easier than instituting new regulations that require officers to spend some real time down at the gun range. If a .9mm isn't cutting it, a barely wider bullet of the same design isn't going to either.

Monocrom said:

Along with the money. I've yet to meet a single 1911 owner with a completely stock set-up.

Click to expand...

And your point is what? The only people I know with unmodded Glocks are novices. Everyone else (LE and otherwise) has textured the slippery grip, swapped sights or attempted to improve the trigger pull...

Monocrom said:

I've held and fired a Glock 19. Despite the looks, it doesn't handle like a brick or feel like a 2x4 in the hand. I found the grip very comfortable and ergonomic. Main issue was a bit of excessive muzzle-flip for follow-up shots.

The ballistic difference between the .45 ACP and .9mm is minimal. Shot-placement from a reliable weapon counts far more than the age-old debate involving .9mm vs. .45 ACP. Switching over from .9mm to .40 S&W is much easier than instituting new regulations that require officers to spend some real time down at the gun range. If a .9mm isn't cutting it, a barely wider bullet of the same design isn't going to either.

Click to expand...

I've shot numerous Glock models in 9mm, .40 & 45. If you're a 1911 shooter, the grip does feel awkward, along with the long, heavy trigger pull. If you started with a Glock, you'll never notice. When my brother's LE friends shoot my 1911's it's the first thing they comment on.
I do like the Glock's lack of muzzle flip in 9mm due to the high grip position and heavy slide - nice.

The 9mm vs. 45 ACP debate has been raging for decades, and I agree accuracy trumps caliber but all things being equal, the combination of bullet weight (retained) and expansion is the key and the 9mm cannot match the .40 or .45...

Monocrom said:

Along with the money. I've yet to meet a single 1911 owner with a completely stock set-up.

Click to expand...

Nice to meet you. My name's Dan. My 1911 is 100% stock. But then again, it's never been fired. According to my late father in law, the hammer has never fallen.

One of these days I'll either take it to the range or see what it's worth on the market.

Daniel

gadget_lover said:

Nice to meet you. My name's Dan. My 1911 is 100% stock. But then again, it's never been fired. According to my late father in law, the hammer has never fallen.

One of these days I'll either take it to the range or see what it's worth on the market.

Daniel

Click to expand...

All guns have been fired one or more times.
It's called proofing.

SCEMan said:

I've shot numerous Glock models in 9mm, .40 & 45. If you're a 1911 shooter, the grip does feel awkward, along with the long, heavy trigger pull. If you started with a Glock, you'll never notice. When my brother's LE friends shoot my 1911's it's the first thing they comment on.
I do like the Glock's lack of muzzle flip in 9mm due to the high grip position and heavy slide - nice.

The 9mm vs. 45 ACP debate has been raging for decades, and I agree accuracy trumps caliber but all things being equal, the combination of bullet weight (retained) and expansion is the key and the 9mm cannot match the .40 or .45...

Click to expand...

I agree with Monocrom, the difference you get from .40 S&W and 9mm, if any, is marginal and highly debatable. Particularly with todays modern hollowpoint loading 9mm and .40 S&W have essentially the same performance.
If there are three generalizations you can make about .40 S&W over 9mm it's that
1. .40 S&W has about 25-30% more recoil "impluse" (rearward velocity, or snap) than 9mm when fired through a gun with similar weight (example: Glock 17 vs Glock 22).
2. .40 S&W tends to penetrate tissue about 2-4" more than 9mm
3. The trajectory of .40 S&W tends to deflect less than 9mm due to it usually being a heavier bullet (.40 S&W common bullet weight: 165gr and 180gr vs 9mm common bullet weights: 115, 124, 147gr)

BTW: I want to add that most popular handgun cartridges are "underpowered" this includes .45 ACP.
I know that even a .22LR can be dangerous but no handgun cartridge that can be reasonably handled is a reliable man-stopper.

Guys, one thing to remember here is we are talking a military handgun, and the military does not use modern expanding bullets, except under certain special circumstanses with some special forces, but that is not officially allowed from what I understand. The military uses ball ammunition which is full metal jacket, and does not expand. Under these circumstances the 9MM is no where near the highly evolved and specialized round that we know in the civilian world. In this instance .45 acp ball is larger and heavier, creates a larger wound, and has more shock value than the 9MM ball. And conversely the .40 S&W utilized in ball version should (never seen any testing on this) by virtue of its larger size and weight be more effective than the 9MM ball. But that is just guesswork since the .40 S&W was created as a modern police and civilian cartridge and not military so it was never really utilized or tested in ball format.

The .45 acp has a long proven, and impressive track record in ball format which is a good manstopper, that is why the marines special forces, and other special units have never really given up the .45 all together. And is why they placed a new order for new pistols to replace the aged and piecemealed relics they were utilizing instead of the M9 Beretta. At least that is how an aquaintance who has some ties in the community, having spent several tours in Afghanastan explained it to me.

He did say however that with the Beretta M9 he liked the weight to power ratio which allowed for VERY fast and accurate double taps because of its size/weight and using the relatively small 9MM cartridge and not having much recoil impulse compared to other pistols. This I understood very well because one of my favorite pistols is an EAst German Makarov which is a relatively heavy pistol for the 9x18 caliber and shoots extremely accurately and fast.

Imon said:

All guns have been fired one or more times.
It's called proofing.



I agree with Monocrom, the difference you get from .40 S&W and 9mm, if any, is marginal and highly debatable. Particularly with todays modern hollowpoint loading 9mm and .40 S&W have essentially the same performance.
If there are three generalizations you can make about .40 S&W over 9mm it's that
1. .40 S&W has about 25-30% more recoil "impluse" (rearward velocity, or snap) than 9mm when fired through a gun with similar weight (example: Glock 17 vs Glock 22).
2. .40 S&W tends to penetrate tissue about 2-4" more than 9mm
3. The trajectory of .40 S&W tends to deflect less than 9mm due to it usually being a heavier bullet (.40 S&W common bullet weight: 165gr and 180gr vs 9mm common bullet weights: 115, 124, 147gr)

BTW: I want to add that most popular handgun cartridges are "underpowered" this includes .45 ACP.
I know that even a .22LR can be dangerous but no handgun cartridge that can be reasonably handled is a reliable man-stopper.

Click to expand...

Well I guess the FBI (after the Miami shootout) and all the PDs moves from 9mm to 40 S&W were just for what? Increased recoil with no tangible benefit? The impetus away from the 9mm began after the FBI report showing accurate shooting but insufficient penetration to stop the perps.

RE: No handgun cartridge/45 ACP being a reliable manstopper, neither is the .223/5.56...

SCEMan said:

Well I guess the FBI (after the Miami shootout) and all the PDs moves from 9mm to 40 S&W were just for what? Increased recoil with no tangible benefit? The impetus away from the 9mm began after the FBI report showing accurate shooting but insufficient penetration to stop the perps.

RE: No handgun cartridge/45 ACP being a reliable manstopper, neither is the .223/5.56...

Click to expand...

I have read about that incident and I would have taken away the same conclusion you have at the time but that was 25 years ago. It is my understanding that some of the agents were using .38 spl and some were using 9mm. I think they were also using winchester silvertip hollowpoints which are terrible by todays standards.
The main problem of that confrontation was more strategy-related than anything else but if you have to talk firepower one of the bank robbers had a Mini-14. Talk about being out-gunned. :green:

It is also my understanding that the FBI adopted the 10mm Auto but found it too.... harsh for most people so they reduced the loading. The reduced power 10mm Auto became the shorter .40 S&W which was useful because 9mm handgun designs can just be retrofitted to accommodated the .40 S&W.

I have also read the handgun wounding factors and effectiveness report which recommends a minimum penetration of 12" which most modern 9mm hollowpoints are capable of doing plus more.

If you go to Winchester's website you'll find that they've tested some of their hollowpoints and posted the results on their website. As you can see the performance of 9mm and .40 S&W have a very large overlap.
http://winchesterle.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/Handgun Bullet Barrier Testing Protocol.pdf
Whether or not you think that slight increase of performance is worth 30% more recoil impulse I suppose comes down to personal preference.