Well in my opinion the military should move back to .45acp. Considering the goverment probably still has tons of 1911 in storage some where issue them back out to the Air Force and Navy personal who rarely if ever have to use them and the govermentt would not need to buy as many of the new pistol.

Well in my opinion the military should move back to .45acp. Considering the goverment probably still has tons of 1911 in storage some where issue them back out to the Air Force and Navy personal who rarely if ever have to use them and the govermentt would not need to buy as many of the new pistol.

 

I love my 1911's, but I dont think they really should go back to a 1911, especially with all the wonder-guns avail in much higher capacities, excellent reliability, lower cost, and easier to maintain.

Ray... it is the GIENORMOUS magazine.... gigantic magazine is in the the 17rd 9mm Taurus 92s.

 

The FN45 mags are sensible at 14rd and flush fitting. The 15rds have the rounded bottom piece. One more round, another .5 inch of handle.

 

The 14rd mags were great. I would cap that gun at 14 for reliability. But once again, if you want overall firepower... G20 with 15rds of 10mm goodness!

Well in my opinion the military should move back to .45acp. Considering the goverment probably still has tons of 1911 in storage some where issue them back out to the Air Force and Navy personal who rarely if ever have to use them and the govermentt would not need to buy as many of the new pistol.

The whole point of moving back to the .45 was to give stopping power back to those who need it. Giving it to those who rarely use their pistol would defeat the purpose. Honestly.....going back to the 1911 would be a horrible idea. In a combat situation where you could potentially have multiple targets, I would rather have 15 rounds of 9mm than 7 rounds of .45. The 1911 is a great gun, but it would NOT by any means be my first choice for a combat pistol with everything else on the market. Being a steel gun, it's going to be heavier than any polymer .45's out there, and it also has half the capacity. The polymer guns sometimes even have comparable felt recoil to the 1911 since they are double stack, and the frames are wider.

I know that the point is to give those that need it more stopping power and that the 1911 is too limited in magazine size. My point at least the way I figure it, if the military were to move to a more powerful cartridge then all branches are going to adopt it because each has service has members in positions that could use it and in order to make logistics easier by having one type cartridge to worry about. Since I believe the government probably has a large stash of 1911’s stored away it makes sense to adopt a new sidearm that uses .45acp. So then instead of having to buy brand new replacement pistol for every one you can re issue 1911’s to those in positions that probably won’t ever have to fire the weapon (unless there’s like a Red Dawn situation) saving the government money since they don’t have to buy as many new firearms.

I know that the point is to give those that need it more stopping power and that the 1911 is too limited in magazine size. My point at least the way I figure it, if the military were to move to a more powerful cartridge then all branches are going to adopt it because each has service has members in positions that could use it and in order to make logistics easier by having one type cartridge to worry about. Since I believe the government probably has a large stash of 1911’s stored away it makes sense to adopt a new sidearm that uses .45acp. So then instead of having to buy brand new replacement pistol for every one you can re issue 1911’s to those in positions that probably won’t ever have to fire the weapon (unless there’s like a Red Dawn situation) saving the government money since they don’t have to buy as many new firearms.

 

Then once again, multiple systems for cleaning, etc. Besides, as far as I know... those who really need it, the units can pick their own weapons, no?

Then once again, multiple systems for cleaning, etc. Besides, as far as I know... those who really need it, the units can pick their own weapons, no?

That depends on what "those who really need it" means. If you are referring to anyone who will likely use the pistol in combat? No. I believe that Special Forces get to pick their own weapons, unless they are trying to impersonate the enemy.....which in that case they are REQUIRED to use whatever the enemies standard issue is.

 

Issuing out old 1911's just doesn't make sense. I understand that it would save money but.....it would only make sense if EVERYONE were going to move to 1911's. They keep everyone on the same platform not only for cost reasons, but also so that EVERYONE is familiar with EVERYONES weapon. So to hand out some old historic 1911's to some, and then XD45s to others would just confuse people.

 

Besides, I'm hoping that those old 1911's get sold off to us civilians someday

NO matter what your opinion on either round is, the govt. is not making any kind of change like that for several years.

NO matter what your opinion on either round is, the govt. is not making any kind of change like that for several years.

 

 

Listen to the conference call that I posted. This is going to be end of this year early into next.

Considering the goverment probably still has tons of 1911 in storage some where

 

One of the issues involved in replacing the 1911 is that the military hadn't bought any new ones since 1945. I saw 1911s made in 1918 in the inventory in the 1980s. These had been rebuilt during WWII but they were still over 60 years old.

 

As far as giving them to those ethat don't need them as much let me tell you something about pistol training in the military. The Army concentrates most of the training for the average troop into not sweeping someone with the muzzle. I worked with a lot of guys that only shot the 30 rds a year for qualification and that's all they shot a year. No rifles or anything else. Hard to develop proficienct shooting 30 rds a year. The 1911 is harder to shoot well than the M9. Better most have a pistol easier to hit with than better stopping power. The fact is there are very few accounts of anyone using a pistol in battle. It doesn't seem it made much difference in those that exist. More on this below.

 

those who really need it, the units can pick their own weapons, no?

 

Special OPs people have all the H&Ks, 1911s, Glocks, SIGs and anything else they need in whatever caliber they desire.

 

Hold all the trials you wnat but the M9 is going to be around for some time. It gets the job done and lets not try to fix what ain't broken.

M9 is a fine pistol, no need to change it.

Griz, training has come a long way. The new philosophy is that training (physical and skills) should be based on the current engagements, and not the other way around (those who have been in the military know what I'm talking about-- as backwards as it sounds).

So, instead of learning how to bivouac in the middle of the woods, Soldiers learn about convoy security/blow-through methods and identifying/reporting UXO/IED/VBED, etc. And, for the most part, Soldiers qualify at least quarterly on weapon systems relevant to their billet. I did know a guy who was stationed in an obscure assignment for a few years, and he didn't qualify on any weapon system at that time-- but it was a special-type assignment (even my posting, which was a bit obscure, made the time to qualify quarterly).

Which leads me to the point that I do think the military could do better then the M9, coming from a military posting where it was more common to be carrying a pistol then a rifle. And, really, its not the M9 at fault, but I do think the military should consider looking beyond 9MM at this juncture.

Griz, training has come a long way.

 

bbk, thanx for your post but I'm not that far removed (less tha 2 years) from training. Trust me, there are still guys that shoot the qual course once a year and that's it.

 

The agency I worked for as a LEO gave you about 120 hrs (shooting approx 2000 rds) in initial training and required 8 hours of training per quarter minimum, (32 hrs a year (shooting at least 1000 rds a year). My formal training in the Army was about 4 hours block of instruction on the 1911 which included field stripping and dry firng but no live firing. I was issued 1911s, Model 10 38s, and I conducted the units training on the M9. At no time from SP4 to LTC was I ever asked if I knew how the pistol worked.

+10!!

 

 

.....I still think they should go 10mm!

That is clearly Springfield Propaganda!

 

Originally when the US military had its Joint Combat Pistol Trials roughly 5 years ago , it was USSOCOM specific so only the "men with no name tapes & beards" would reap the rewards , loadouts are pretty much mission specific for those guys with some HSLD Marines even fielding Custom Kimbers.

 

The specs put out by USSOCOM were pretty simple ,

 

a .45 pistol (some with external safety)

with standard and hi-cap mags &

a suppresor attatchment kit , can be made in FDE.

 

This caused many gunmakers to bring to market weapons that were originally only designed per the JCP req's but found homes elsewhere since the JCP is now defunct.

 

Anyone notice a theme?

 

 

 

 

 

 

They also had to accomplish this

 

JCP SPECS and REQ's

 

This is who came to play

 

Heckler & Koch HK45C

SIG P220 Combat

Ruger P345

Smith & Wesson M&P

Glock 21SF

Beretta Px4 Storm

Taurus PT 24/7 OSS

Fabrique Nationale FNP45-USG

HS-45

Para-Ordnance LDA 1911

 

 

This is the only pistol to pass all req's

 

The Beretta PX4 .45 SD

 

 

BERETTA FTW!!!

 

While most of these pistols are pretty damn pricey , their less uber-tacticool versions can be had for HUNDREDS less.

 

Example: The Beretta PX4 Storm SD will set you back roughly $1000 , my PX4 Storm in 45. can easily be found in the $500-$550 range. If you really want your Pistol in FDE Duracoat it...lol

M9 is a fine pistol, no need to change it.

Except for the wimp european cartridge it fires.

 

"When you care, send the best.

Make mine a .45, please"

Except for the wimp european cartridge it fires.

 

"When you care, send the best.

Make mine a .45, please"

 

Please post proof of your statement.

Please post proof of your statement.

 

One independen opinion

 

And what do you think the answer would be if you asked Rep. Giffords (D-AZ) or her .mil hubby if she would rather have been hit by a .45acp round instead of the 9mm Luger that caught her in the forehead?

 

It's all a matter of opinion, and I firmly believe that as a Service round, 9mm Luger is MUCH less effective than .45acp

Ask the Germans, who lost two world wars using the 9 as their Service handgun load.

Although I see your point.........I disagree with blaming the losing of two World Wars on the handgun caliber that was used. Given a choice between the two calibers, with accuracy, capacity, and reliability all being equal, I would choose .45 over 9mm anyday. The problem is the cost of changing EVERY sidearm, cost of learning a new platform, cost of stocking up on more ammo, and the friendliness of the .45. People with more time behind the gun could probably do great things with a .45......but qualifying with ~30 rounds a year, that's not nearly enough to become acquainted with a .45. We already have sidearms that are reliable and accurate.....and I think that in these economic times we shouldn't try to fix something that isn't broken.

 

Flame suit on.

"Ask the Germans, who lost two world wars using the 9 as their Service handgun load"

 

That is one of the worst justifications against the 9mm I have ever seen. So the Germans lost WWI and WWII not because of the military and manufacturing might allied against them, they lost because they used the 9mm Luger. Holy Christ, I am really glad Hitler never went to the 11mm German Service Revolver. We might have lost BOTH WARS!!!

 

I would hate to be shot with either.

 

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/9mm%20vs%2045.htm

We can argue this all day, but neither is really an effective man stopper. Gillibrand was lucky, the other 9 or so that died weren't.

 

If 9mm is so bad, then go big AND fast! 10mm

 

More powerful and larger capacity. Glock 10mm hands down!

Gillibrand was lucky, the other 9 or so that died weren't.

 

If only it had been Gillibrand instead of Giffords.

Our NY brethren would be so much happier!

Ask the Germans, who lost two world wars using the 9 as their Service handgun load.

 

This statement shows you have little to bring to the argument. A war has never been won or lost based on what pistol cartridge an army used. There are very few recorded instances of pistols being used on the battlefield.

 

One independen opinion

 

Did you read the entire link? the guy ends up by saying he keeps a 9, 40, and 45 available and carries based on what he foresees that day. He doesn't take a stand for the 45.

 

Forget the 10mm as a military round, its way too much to get people trained up on. I believe the 45 is better than the 9mm but the 9 is better for general issue as I've already said.

Ask the Germans, who lost two world wars using the 9 as their Service handgun load.

 

This statement shows you have little to bring to the argument. A war has never been won or lost based on what pistol cartridge an army used. There are very few recorded instances of pistols being used on the battlefield.

 

One independen opinion

 

Did you read the entire link? the guy ends up by saying he keeps a 9, 40, and 45 available and carries based on what he foresees that day. He doesn't take a stand for the 45.

 

Forget the 10mm as a military round, its way too much to get people trained up on. I believe the 45 is better than the 9mm but the 9 is better for general issue as I've already said.

 

I agree with everything you said Griz, except for the training for 10mm. It has recoil but it wasn't that bad. I shot Megaman's full size Glock 10mm and it felt like a 45.

 

 

 

Ask the Germans, who lost two world wars using the 9 as their Service handgun load.

 

I hope this comments was a joke.... If the germans had anything on there side at the time it was there fire power. There defeat can primarily be based off poor military strategy and delusion. If hitler had half a brain he could have made that war last much longer then it did, thank god he was an idiot at heart.

 

Back to the OP -

It's one thing to want a better more powerful round for our troops, but how much more will it cost to train some one using a 45? Maybe it will be a specialty weapon? I cant see them justifying putting a 45 on the hip of every soldier, I do however see them offering them to troops who rely on there side arm more then most and Special OPs.

 

Also im sure some guys would prefer more lesser powerful rounds then less more powerful rounds. I mean 1 out of how many bullets actually hits, and in some cases you just need cover fire.

I agree with everything you said Griz, except for the training for 10mm. It has recoil but it wasn't that bad. I shot Megaman's full size Glock 10mm and it felt like a 45.

 

Then you were shooting regular factory 10mm. Try Swamp Fox, DoubleTap, or buffalo bore anf you'll know you were shooting the mighty Ten.

Ray, I have some Buffalo Bore Heavy 10mm 220gr Flat Nose Cast rounds that travel about 1200 fps out of a Glock 20 that will light your hair on fire. That is what 10mm are for! The other stuff is 40s&w basically for practice.

The 10mm is an interesting round. I believe alot of safari hunters use it in Africa for defense. If it can take down African game, then it can take out the Jihadists!

"If it can take down African game, then it can take out the Jihadists" - Same thing sometimes.