Marines Returning to M1911

[Inflexible Six]

I think that 1911 CQBP is a beaut, but I'm prehistoric.

[walt45]

Forgive my ignorance but it says that Marines were complaining about the accuracy of the M9. I thought it was supposed to be a relatively precise handgun? I've also read that it's pretty hard for anyone to out-shoot their pistol(whether it be a Glock, Sig, Beretta, etc.), not true?

[Team Sergeant]

The M9 is deadly accurate, I know first hand. I'm guessing the Marines don't like the lack of knock down power. I'm sure most handguns were not in the running just because the Marines wanted an American made sidearm.

[dfirsty]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

With many good double stack options available, why limit the capacity?

Maybe they have inside info that a new magazine ban will affect military too.

Derek

[Guymullins]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Actually the .45 is a newer caliber than the 9mm. We went to a 9mm because the rest of NATO was 9mm

Yeah Brush, there were about two years in it.Of course, by older, I meant older in use, not necessarily when they were designed. I suppose it made more sense for the US to go to the 9mm as I presume your sub-machine guns were already 9mm after the de-commissioning of the Thompson ? Didnt make much sense to have three types of ammo being used. We had commonality with the 9mm Star pistol and the UZZI 9mm HMC, so we only changed to 5,56 rifles when NATO did .

[Inflexible Six]

Most Marines I know are biased from the get-go toward the 1911. They lack faith in the 9. For whatever reason. But I'd wager that the majority of Marines who've been in contact--the majority, not all--have not had to go to their sidearm in a lethal situation. So lack of faith in the 9 may have little to do with operational experience.

I think if you have to go to your secondary weapon and it does the job, it's going to make you a believer, no matter what caliber it is.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

after seeing several people shot with 22, 9mm 45, 223 etc etc I have a 45 for my self defense. 9mm if fmj is not that great unless you are good enough to make head shots in combat. I know I am not that good so I carry a 45 with HP ammo

Shooting them in the head is a no-brainer (npi) after you've put two in the sternum.

[Guymullins]

The 9mm is very popular here as a carry gun. The main reasons are: It used to be easy to get army ammo for your civvy gun for free, but perhaps more to the point. A lot of our everyday crime involves vehicle hi-jacking. The 9mm penetrates car doors and windows better than many other rounds, so it is quite useful in the everyday world. Personally, I carry a Star PD .45 which is the Spanish version of the small Colt 1911, I think you call it the Commander. I use ball ammo, so the penetration through car doors is not bad. It is not very accurate, having a very short barrel, but shooting distances tend to be very personal here, so handiness and knock-down power are important.

[kgoerz]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

The M9 is deadly accurate, I know first hand. I'm guessing the Marines don't like the lack of knock down power. I'm sure most handguns were not in the running just because the Marines wanted an American made sidearm.

The article is wrong. This 1911 is replacing older 1911 pistols, not the M9. 22.5 million dollars. If my math is correct. Thats over $1800 per gun.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by kgoerz

The article is wrong. This 1911 is replacing older 1911 pistols, not the M9. 22.5 million dollars. If my math is correct. Thats over $1800 per gun.

I think I read it was $200 for the gun and $1600 in future parts and labor.......

[DR_BRETT]

Originally Posted by Guymullins

I wonder whether this Marine order for the .45 has anything to do with a general feeling that the older bigger calibers are perhaps better after all?
I know that many of our military regretted going 5.56 from 7.62 Nato.

Bigger = Better. The M14 was my rifle -- accurate and powerful .

- DR_BRETT

[Guymullins]

Originally Posted by DR_BRETT

Bigger = Better. The M14 was my rifle -- accurate and powerful .

- DR_BRETT

I absolutely agree Dr Brett, mine was the NATO FN folding butt Para 7.62 and it could shoot out enemy hiding behind big truck steel wheels. Their AK47 of the same caliber couldnt do that because of the lower charge.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by DR_BRETT

Bigger = Better. The M14 was my rifle -- accurate and powerful .

- DR_BRETT

That would logically apply to pistols as well, wouldn't it? As long as they function...

[Buffalobob]

The M14 was heavy and the ammo was heavy and it had a slow cyclic rate.
All depends upon the war you fought and where and how you fought it.

[frostfire]

Not sure about issue 1911 vs issue M9. If there's complain of poor accuracy of M9, I'm willing to bet it's the shootability (rear-heavy among other factors) instead of its mechanical accuracy. Also the inherent accuracy/aerodynamics of 9mm vs. 45. IIRC, when the AMU went to accurized M9, they blew the Marine shooters with their accurized 1911 out of the water at Camp Perry. This year at the President's 100. a Marine shooter won the match with M9 as well.

I was shooting steel challenge match in TX against a Marine shooter who's issued Kimber operator, altho he was using his personal STI. He sure loves his 1911's and beat me by .24 seconds. Is that worth the extra $$$$ against my cheap ass tupperware 9mm pistol, you decide....oh, that $$$ STI did "burp" more than a few times. LIttle dent on magazine lip...burp. Not enough lubrication....burp. Poor reloads ammo....burp....and so on