-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Sidearms & Scatterguns Military switching side arms again?
- Thread starter jack simpson
- Start date
Re: Military switching side arms again?
everytime i have ever entered a gunstore in my entire life i always hear someone say "yeah, i am looking at this "blank" handgun cause thats what the military is switching to"
so, take it with a grain of salt..doubt there is a switch anytime soon
everytime i have ever entered a gunstore in my entire life i always hear someone say "yeah, i am looking at this "blank" handgun cause thats what the military is switching to"
so, take it with a grain of salt..doubt there is a switch anytime soon
Re: Military switching side arms again?
The whole story is in the Army times. I was just on Bragg today and a SF class yesterday had 12 Beretta's break on them out of 30 students. They were all either broken locking blocks or broken slides.
It is about time for a new pistol.
Chuck
The whole story is in the Army times. I was just on Bragg today and a SF class yesterday had 12 Beretta's break on them out of 30 students. They were all either broken locking blocks or broken slides.
It is about time for a new pistol.
Chuck
Re: Military switching side arms again?
Wilson Defense Journal talked about it in great detail. With the actual government specification
Wilson Defense Journal talked about it in great detail. With the actual government specification
Re: Military switching side arms again?
Pretty sad when you consider the lifespan of the M1911
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: chucky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The whole story is in the Army times. I was just on Bragg today and a SF class yesterday had 12 Beretta's break on them out of 30 students. They were all either broken locking blocks or broken slides.
It is about time for a new pistol.
Chuck </div></div>
Pretty sad when you consider the lifespan of the M1911
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: chucky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The whole story is in the Army times. I was just on Bragg today and a SF class yesterday had 12 Beretta's break on them out of 30 students. They were all either broken locking blocks or broken slides.
It is about time for a new pistol.
Chuck </div></div>
Re: Military switching side arms again?
It is true. I am in the AF and I have had the privilege of talking to the weapons procurement during a supervisors course. Basically the AF wanted to get another pistol and tried to get one by themselves. Traditionally Air Force and Army get weapons together. So congress shot the AF down and the Army then joined in and that is what started the current project. As far as I know when I was at this meeting the application process was already started. No pistol has been chosen yet. And also last I knew no caliber or spec for external safety was given. Also the Glock has already been selected and is in use for some AF ASOS units.
It is true. I am in the AF and I have had the privilege of talking to the weapons procurement during a supervisors course. Basically the AF wanted to get another pistol and tried to get one by themselves. Traditionally Air Force and Army get weapons together. So congress shot the AF down and the Army then joined in and that is what started the current project. As far as I know when I was at this meeting the application process was already started. No pistol has been chosen yet. And also last I knew no caliber or spec for external safety was given. Also the Glock has already been selected and is in use for some AF ASOS units.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I only have 4 things to say...
1
9
1
1 </div></div>
leave the range princess at home...
they wont be using a 1911 again due to the fact that it isnt very field stripable
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I only have 4 things to say...
1
9
1
1 </div></div>
leave the range princess at home...
they wont be using a 1911 again due to the fact that it isnt very field stripable
Re: Military switching side arms again?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: benchmstr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
leave the range princess at home...
they wont be using a 1911 again due to the fact that it isnt very field stripable</div></div>
Yeah, it's not like it served the Military, very well I might add, for a number of years.......my bad :|
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: benchmstr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
leave the range princess at home...
they wont be using a 1911 again due to the fact that it isnt very field stripable</div></div>
Yeah, it's not like it served the Military, very well I might add, for a number of years.......my bad :|
Re: Military switching side arms again?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: former naval person</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not very field stripable? Where have you heard that? </div></div>
are you serious? the thing has a cult following, and is reliable....but moving parts are designed to break..the 1911 is nothing but a shit load of moving parts..good gun? of course! the best gun for every combat soldier? hell no!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: former naval person</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not very field stripable? Where have you heard that? </div></div>
are you serious? the thing has a cult following, and is reliable....but moving parts are designed to break..the 1911 is nothing but a shit load of moving parts..good gun? of course! the best gun for every combat soldier? hell no!
Re: Military switching side arms again?
There was an article in the Marine Corps times about it. I think that its about time that they do change. Id love to go to the 1911. I hate the M9 along with 99% of the Marines that I know do too. Its a garbage pistol. The 1911 being unstripable is garbage too. You cant field the 1911 more than you could the M9.
There was an article in the Marine Corps times about it. I think that its about time that they do change. Id love to go to the 1911. I hate the M9 along with 99% of the Marines that I know do too. Its a garbage pistol. The 1911 being unstripable is garbage too. You cant field the 1911 more than you could the M9.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
I agree that i would rather have a 1911 than a m9 anyday. But old gun designs dont bring new business and as we know the gov is all about new business for their sponsors. I mean its hard living on that congress pay with benefits.
I agree that i would rather have a 1911 than a m9 anyday. But old gun designs dont bring new business and as we know the gov is all about new business for their sponsors. I mean its hard living on that congress pay with benefits.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">they wont be using a 1911 again due to the fact that it isnt very field stripable</div></div>
Yeah. Here's the extensive list of tools required:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
One each standard issue magazine.
So many experts, so little fact.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">they wont be using a 1911 again due to the fact that it isnt very field stripable</div></div>
Yeah. Here's the extensive list of tools required:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
One each standard issue magazine.
So many experts, so little fact.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
Don't forget the three leaf spring...it fits the screw on the magazine release. Dear John (Browning)...he thought of everything.
Don't forget the three leaf spring...it fits the screw on the magazine release. Dear John (Browning)...he thought of everything.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
Maybe this will help:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/08/army-pistols-with-a-shot-at-replacing-m9-82811w/
Maybe this will help:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/08/army-pistols-with-a-shot-at-replacing-m9-82811w/
Re: Military switching side arms again?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EddieNFL</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">they wont be using a 1911 again due to the fact that it isnt very field stripable</div></div>
Yeah. Here's the extensive list of tools required:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
One each standard issue magazine.
So many experts, so little fact. </div></div>
Yep! and the sear spring.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EddieNFL</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">they wont be using a 1911 again due to the fact that it isnt very field stripable</div></div>
Yeah. Here's the extensive list of tools required:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
One each standard issue magazine.
So many experts, so little fact. </div></div>
Yep! and the sear spring.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
Not going to happen any time soon.
Going to a 1911 would be the worst mistake the .mil could make.
Not going to happen any time soon.
Going to a 1911 would be the worst mistake the .mil could make.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim D</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Going to a 1911 would be the worst mistake the .mil could make. </div></div>
I dont think that it would be the worst mistake the .mil could make. No, the worse thing that they did do was going to the M9. But I would like to hear why you think that would be a mistake.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim D</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Going to a 1911 would be the worst mistake the .mil could make. </div></div>
I dont think that it would be the worst mistake the .mil could make. No, the worse thing that they did do was going to the M9. But I would like to hear why you think that would be a mistake.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim D</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not going to happen any time soon.
Going to a 1911 would be the worst mistake the .mil could make.</div></div>
Is that your professional opinion? I didn't bring up the 1911 with the implication that the Military WOULD switch to them. I was simply implying they wouldn't have these problems if they never phased them out, and that they were and probably still are a better sidearm than what they are currently using.
And while we're at it Jim D. what would make it the "worst" mistake they could make. It worked for a very, very long time....worked damned good actually. Yes, the 1911 can't carry 200+1 rounds, but I'm from the school that taught you don't miss what you are aiming at if you can help it. If your life depended on it, and the sidearm is a last resort, why would a 1911 not fit the bill? If a 1911 won't get the job done, you are probably using the wrong tool for the job. That is why they send troops out with 2 weapons I'd imagine.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim D</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not going to happen any time soon.
Going to a 1911 would be the worst mistake the .mil could make.</div></div>
Is that your professional opinion? I didn't bring up the 1911 with the implication that the Military WOULD switch to them. I was simply implying they wouldn't have these problems if they never phased them out, and that they were and probably still are a better sidearm than what they are currently using.
And while we're at it Jim D. what would make it the "worst" mistake they could make. It worked for a very, very long time....worked damned good actually. Yes, the 1911 can't carry 200+1 rounds, but I'm from the school that taught you don't miss what you are aiming at if you can help it. If your life depended on it, and the sidearm is a last resort, why would a 1911 not fit the bill? If a 1911 won't get the job done, you are probably using the wrong tool for the job. That is why they send troops out with 2 weapons I'd imagine.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
Let me add this to my original post and all of the following posts........a 1911 or SIMILAR design. No reason to discount the many different manufacturers that produce a quality "1911-esque" product.
Let me add this to my original post and all of the following posts........a 1911 or SIMILAR design. No reason to discount the many different manufacturers that produce a quality "1911-esque" product.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
That would be great, if the people you were fighting against were using a sling and stone, unfortunately I believe they have evolved past that slightly.
I bet on Monday morning some company will produce a 1911 style weapon that is just as good as the original model, brand new firearm.......100 year old design.
Get it yet?
That would be great, if the people you were fighting against were using a sling and stone, unfortunately I believe they have evolved past that slightly.
I bet on Monday morning some company will produce a 1911 style weapon that is just as good as the original model, brand new firearm.......100 year old design.
Get it yet?
Re: Military switching side arms again?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim D</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not going to happen any time soon.
Going to a 1911 would be the worst mistake the .mil could make.</div></div>
Is that your professional opinion? I didn't bring up the 1911 with the implication that the Military WOULD switch to them. I was simply implying they wouldn't have these problems if they never phased them out, and that they were and probably still are a better sidearm than what they are currently using.
And while we're at it Jim D. what would make it the "worst" mistake they could make. It worked for a very, very long time....worked damned good actually. Yes, the 1911 can't carry 200+1 rounds, but I'm from the school that taught you don't miss what you are aiming at if you can help it. If your life depended on it, and the sidearm is a last resort, why would a 1911 not fit the bill? If a 1911 won't get the job done, you are probably using the wrong tool for the job. That is why they send troops out with 2 weapons I'd imagine.
</div></div>
No one makes a 1911 that is half a reliable as a 9mm Glock, for twice the price.
The Marines tried to buy an "off the shelf" 1911 that ran, and look what they got...Kimbers best gun, which still didn't run.
The Unit (one of the last few units to carry 1911's) dumped them shortly after the GWOT picked up, as they were always down for maintenance and repair, and it didn't make sense to try to field them anymore.
What makes 1911's a great pistol (the trigger and accuracy potential when properly tuned) isn't a selling point for widespread military (re)adoption.
We're in an era where machining is cheap, and labor is expensive. When the M1911 was adopted, the inverse was true.
The cost, capacity, manual of arms, and reliability are all strikes against the 1911. If they want a .45acp, the S&W M&P.45 or the HK45 are infinitely more suitable.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim D</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not going to happen any time soon.
Going to a 1911 would be the worst mistake the .mil could make.</div></div>
Is that your professional opinion? I didn't bring up the 1911 with the implication that the Military WOULD switch to them. I was simply implying they wouldn't have these problems if they never phased them out, and that they were and probably still are a better sidearm than what they are currently using.
And while we're at it Jim D. what would make it the "worst" mistake they could make. It worked for a very, very long time....worked damned good actually. Yes, the 1911 can't carry 200+1 rounds, but I'm from the school that taught you don't miss what you are aiming at if you can help it. If your life depended on it, and the sidearm is a last resort, why would a 1911 not fit the bill? If a 1911 won't get the job done, you are probably using the wrong tool for the job. That is why they send troops out with 2 weapons I'd imagine.
</div></div>
No one makes a 1911 that is half a reliable as a 9mm Glock, for twice the price.
The Marines tried to buy an "off the shelf" 1911 that ran, and look what they got...Kimbers best gun, which still didn't run.
The Unit (one of the last few units to carry 1911's) dumped them shortly after the GWOT picked up, as they were always down for maintenance and repair, and it didn't make sense to try to field them anymore.
What makes 1911's a great pistol (the trigger and accuracy potential when properly tuned) isn't a selling point for widespread military (re)adoption.
We're in an era where machining is cheap, and labor is expensive. When the M1911 was adopted, the inverse was true.
The cost, capacity, manual of arms, and reliability are all strikes against the 1911. If they want a .45acp, the S&W M&P.45 or the HK45 are infinitely more suitable.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
"What makes 1911's a great pistol (the trigger and accuracy potential when properly tuned) isn't a selling point for widespread military (re)adoption."
I would hate to see our boys hit what they're shooting at.
"What makes 1911's a great pistol (the trigger and accuracy potential when properly tuned) isn't a selling point for widespread military (re)adoption."
I would hate to see our boys hit what they're shooting at.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That would be great, if the people you were fighting against were using a sling and stone, unfortunately I believe they have evolved past that slightly.
I bet on Monday morning some company will produce a 1911 style weapon that is just as good as the original model, brand new firearm.......100 year old design.
Get it yet? </div></div>
I think your semi-automatic 1911 would take a smoke break before a Colt SAA.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The 1911 is fine if you have an armorer available all the time to make sure the 30 plus pieces of steel are all there and working, which there are not that many armorers who know much about the 1911 in service anymore.
Same thing happened when the M14(I'm including all variants here)was brought back in service.
So what do we do? Do we keep something because grassroots America demands nostalgia, or do we put demand on those who continuously make the same design over again, and tell them to stop, and make our armed forces a better pistol than the 1911?
Hell, Larry Vickers was making custom 1911s before he worked with H&K on the HK45.
Imagine what ALL of the 1911 makers could come up with if everyone in America told them that their interest was in a new American made combat pistol capable of beating all challengers.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That would be great, if the people you were fighting against were using a sling and stone, unfortunately I believe they have evolved past that slightly.
I bet on Monday morning some company will produce a 1911 style weapon that is just as good as the original model, brand new firearm.......100 year old design.
Get it yet? </div></div>
I think your semi-automatic 1911 would take a smoke break before a Colt SAA.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The 1911 is fine if you have an armorer available all the time to make sure the 30 plus pieces of steel are all there and working, which there are not that many armorers who know much about the 1911 in service anymore.
Same thing happened when the M14(I'm including all variants here)was brought back in service.
So what do we do? Do we keep something because grassroots America demands nostalgia, or do we put demand on those who continuously make the same design over again, and tell them to stop, and make our armed forces a better pistol than the 1911?
Hell, Larry Vickers was making custom 1911s before he worked with H&K on the HK45.
Imagine what ALL of the 1911 makers could come up with if everyone in America told them that their interest was in a new American made combat pistol capable of beating all challengers.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
Two combat tours w/ my 1911 and not 1 armorer service. They finally wrenched it outta my hand and gave me an M9. The only rub I had was stepping down to 9mm. When youre held to FMJ, bigger is better.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ArmaHeavy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That would be great, if the people you were fighting against were using a sling and stone, unfortunately I believe they have evolved past that slightly.
I bet on Monday morning some company will produce a 1911 style weapon that is just as good as the original model, brand new firearm.......100 year old design.
Get it yet? </div></div>
I think your semi-automatic 1911 would take a smoke break before a Colt SAA.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The 1911 is fine if you have an armorer available all the time to make sure the 30 plus pieces of steel are all there and working, which there are not that many armorers who know much about the 1911 in service anymore.
Same thing happened when the M14(I'm including all variants here)was brought back in service.
So what do we do? Do we keep something because grassroots America demands nostalgia, or do we put demand on those who continuously make the same design over again, and tell them to stop, and make our armed forces a better pistol than the 1911?
Hell, Larry Vickers was making custom 1911s before he worked with H&K on the HK45.
Imagine what ALL of the 1911 makers could come up with if everyone in America told them that their interest was in a new American made combat pistol capable of beating all challengers. </div></div>
Two combat tours w/ my 1911 and not 1 armorer service. They finally wrenched it outta my hand and gave me an M9. The only rub I had was stepping down to 9mm. When youre held to FMJ, bigger is better.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ArmaHeavy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kbrady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That would be great, if the people you were fighting against were using a sling and stone, unfortunately I believe they have evolved past that slightly.
I bet on Monday morning some company will produce a 1911 style weapon that is just as good as the original model, brand new firearm.......100 year old design.
Get it yet? </div></div>
I think your semi-automatic 1911 would take a smoke break before a Colt SAA.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The 1911 is fine if you have an armorer available all the time to make sure the 30 plus pieces of steel are all there and working, which there are not that many armorers who know much about the 1911 in service anymore.
Same thing happened when the M14(I'm including all variants here)was brought back in service.
So what do we do? Do we keep something because grassroots America demands nostalgia, or do we put demand on those who continuously make the same design over again, and tell them to stop, and make our armed forces a better pistol than the 1911?
Hell, Larry Vickers was making custom 1911s before he worked with H&K on the HK45.
Imagine what ALL of the 1911 makers could come up with if everyone in America told them that their interest was in a new American made combat pistol capable of beating all challengers. </div></div>
Re: Military switching side arms again?
1911's are made for hanging on the wall with gold letters engraved on them after retirement. They are proven battle weapon 60+ years ago. Would anyone fighting today, like to go back to using the rifles used 60+ years ago for their primary rifle? How about going on the battlefield with the WW2 era optics and tanks too?
Come to the present. 1911 is a beautiful pistol and proven design from 100 years ago. It's much like the beautiful girl you want to show off to all your buddies. just like the beautiful girl, the 1911 is nice to look at and play with. One the other hand, the Glock is ugly like the girl you don't want around your friends. She will cook, clean, wash clothes, she always working and reliable. If I was in a situation where I had to depend on my firearm for my life, I'd take the ugly one that works over the pretty one who is just eye candy.
1911's are made for hanging on the wall with gold letters engraved on them after retirement. They are proven battle weapon 60+ years ago. Would anyone fighting today, like to go back to using the rifles used 60+ years ago for their primary rifle? How about going on the battlefield with the WW2 era optics and tanks too?
Come to the present. 1911 is a beautiful pistol and proven design from 100 years ago. It's much like the beautiful girl you want to show off to all your buddies. just like the beautiful girl, the 1911 is nice to look at and play with. One the other hand, the Glock is ugly like the girl you don't want around your friends. She will cook, clean, wash clothes, she always working and reliable. If I was in a situation where I had to depend on my firearm for my life, I'd take the ugly one that works over the pretty one who is just eye candy.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TBannister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two combat tours w/ my 1911 and not 1 armorer service. They finally wrenched it outta my hand and gave me an M9. The only rub I had was stepping down to 9mm. When youre held to FMJ, bigger is better.
</div></div>
Hopefully the caliber remains the same, but then again...
What if it's chambered in .46?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TBannister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two combat tours w/ my 1911 and not 1 armorer service. They finally wrenched it outta my hand and gave me an M9. The only rub I had was stepping down to 9mm. When youre held to FMJ, bigger is better.
</div></div>
Hopefully the caliber remains the same, but then again...
What if it's chambered in .46?
Re: Military switching side arms again?
Can we get off this m9 vs 1911 with glock fan-boi's coming in. Nowhere in that article does it say 1911 is even in the competition. I dont think we will ever go to it because it is old. There are better designs. Glock lovers the glock isnt getting a contract unless they change a few things like the safety which unless glock really wants another contract i doubt they will do. We can all agree that the m9 sucks.
I woul like to see the hk45 as the m9 replacement personally. Though i have only fired a hk 9mm it was a nice gun. Now does anyone else have a suggestion?
Can we get off this m9 vs 1911 with glock fan-boi's coming in. Nowhere in that article does it say 1911 is even in the competition. I dont think we will ever go to it because it is old. There are better designs. Glock lovers the glock isnt getting a contract unless they change a few things like the safety which unless glock really wants another contract i doubt they will do. We can all agree that the m9 sucks.
I woul like to see the hk45 as the m9 replacement personally. Though i have only fired a hk 9mm it was a nice gun. Now does anyone else have a suggestion?
Re: Military switching side arms again?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bigwheeler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"What makes 1911's a great pistol (the trigger and accuracy potential when properly tuned) isn't a selling point for widespread military (re)adoption."
I would hate to see our boys hit what they're shooting at.</div></div>
If you think even 1% of our men and women in uniform are capable of shooting well enough to shoot beyond the mechanical potential of even a beat up Glock, you are mistaken.
The issue of hitting the target is a training issue, not a hardware one.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bigwheeler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"What makes 1911's a great pistol (the trigger and accuracy potential when properly tuned) isn't a selling point for widespread military (re)adoption."
I would hate to see our boys hit what they're shooting at.</div></div>
If you think even 1% of our men and women in uniform are capable of shooting well enough to shoot beyond the mechanical potential of even a beat up Glock, you are mistaken.
The issue of hitting the target is a training issue, not a hardware one.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: seta8967</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can we get off this m9 vs 1911 with glock fan-boi's coming in. Nowhere in that article does it say 1911 is even in the competition. I dont think we will ever go to it because it is old. There are better designs. Glock lovers the glock isnt getting a contract unless they change a few things like the safety which unless glock really wants another contract i doubt they will do. We can all agree that the m9 sucks.
I woul like to see the hk45 as the m9 replacement personally. Though i have only fired a hk 9mm it was a nice gun. Now does anyone else have a suggestion?</div></div>
Glock has produced a pistol with a manual safety before. They would certainly do it for a large military contract. It might suck, and be super lame compared to how well it has been executed on the HK45 or M&P.45...but they'd do it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: seta8967</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can we get off this m9 vs 1911 with glock fan-boi's coming in. Nowhere in that article does it say 1911 is even in the competition. I dont think we will ever go to it because it is old. There are better designs. Glock lovers the glock isnt getting a contract unless they change a few things like the safety which unless glock really wants another contract i doubt they will do. We can all agree that the m9 sucks.
I woul like to see the hk45 as the m9 replacement personally. Though i have only fired a hk 9mm it was a nice gun. Now does anyone else have a suggestion?</div></div>
Glock has produced a pistol with a manual safety before. They would certainly do it for a large military contract. It might suck, and be super lame compared to how well it has been executed on the HK45 or M&P.45...but they'd do it.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
The M9 blows as do Beretta's products in my opinion. The M&P as well as the Glock are excellent guns and are combat handguns. 1911's are nice but most if not all mass produced require tuning and TLC before they can be considered combat effective. The Springfield Operator or TRP are the only one's that come close in my opinion.
The M9 blows as do Beretta's products in my opinion. The M&P as well as the Glock are excellent guns and are combat handguns. 1911's are nice but most if not all mass produced require tuning and TLC before they can be considered combat effective. The Springfield Operator or TRP are the only one's that come close in my opinion.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
Again, I wasn't suggesting anyone go back to the "dreaded" 1911 design. If they are as bad as some people claim they are, nobody would freakin own one lol. What I meant by my original post was: There is a reason some in the military still pine for the days of carrying a 1911. It was a great platform, it IS a great platform. Better than what took its place. I think most people would agree marksmanship way back when was overall better than it is today. So the need for a higher capacity sidearm is there. I am not a believer in sticking with something just because "that's what we had back in the good ole days". Just so happens what they had back in the day is better than what they are trying to get rid of now.
I personally don't give a crap what they decide on as long as it shoots straight and works all the time. I also know there are pistols made today that will trump a 1911 in almost every category, and most on that list of weapons being considered will do that. I just know I don't recall talking to anybody who was in the military and them bitching about having to carry a 1911 around with them. And that is worth a lot!
Again, I wasn't suggesting anyone go back to the "dreaded" 1911 design. If they are as bad as some people claim they are, nobody would freakin own one lol. What I meant by my original post was: There is a reason some in the military still pine for the days of carrying a 1911. It was a great platform, it IS a great platform. Better than what took its place. I think most people would agree marksmanship way back when was overall better than it is today. So the need for a higher capacity sidearm is there. I am not a believer in sticking with something just because "that's what we had back in the good ole days". Just so happens what they had back in the day is better than what they are trying to get rid of now.
I personally don't give a crap what they decide on as long as it shoots straight and works all the time. I also know there are pistols made today that will trump a 1911 in almost every category, and most on that list of weapons being considered will do that. I just know I don't recall talking to anybody who was in the military and them bitching about having to carry a 1911 around with them. And that is worth a lot!
Re: Military switching side arms again?
It's not dreaded, but if I'm training a kid fresh out of AIT, to properly field strip one and he loses a part...well, I've seen them forget to put stuff into a M-16.
Not to say that a 1911 design wouldn't be entirely out. Colt did do a submisson for the OHWS trials so long ago. It didn't win, but who knows? Some tweaking and it could be a contender.
It's not dreaded, but if I'm training a kid fresh out of AIT, to properly field strip one and he loses a part...well, I've seen them forget to put stuff into a M-16.
Not to say that a 1911 design wouldn't be entirely out. Colt did do a submisson for the OHWS trials so long ago. It didn't win, but who knows? Some tweaking and it could be a contender.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: turbo54</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'll bite...
The military should switch to the M&P. Best automatic made in this country. </div></div>
Hell yah. S&W M&P 9/40 Pro with the thumb safety added = new M2012
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: turbo54</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'll bite...
The military should switch to the M&P. Best automatic made in this country. </div></div>
Hell yah. S&W M&P 9/40 Pro with the thumb safety added = new M2012
Re: Military switching side arms again?
I do not think they will go back to the 1911, the design in my opion would be hard to beat.
I think the military has had enough of the 9mm. That said, they will probabaly go with one of the new polymers,with an external saftey, in a .40 cal with a double stack mag., something that will give a better wound channel with FMJ and still has the ability to carry rounds in the "Teens"
I do not think they will go back to the 1911, the design in my opion would be hard to beat.
I think the military has had enough of the 9mm. That said, they will probabaly go with one of the new polymers,with an external saftey, in a .40 cal with a double stack mag., something that will give a better wound channel with FMJ and still has the ability to carry rounds in the "Teens"
Re: Military switching side arms again?
Glock is gearing up to make frames in the US and working on a new finish that the EPA will allow hmmm wonder why?
Glock is gearing up to make frames in the US and working on a new finish that the EPA will allow hmmm wonder why?
Re: Military switching side arms again?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Captain Moroni</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glock is gearing up to make frames in the US and working on a new finish that the EPA will allow hmmm wonder why?</div></div>
Um, they've been doing it for years.
US made Glocks are made for export, as Austria can not export to every country they want to sell to (dates back to WWII era treaties).
They may also be for small military orders (not that the units buying Glocks are restricted to US built only, though).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Captain Moroni</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glock is gearing up to make frames in the US and working on a new finish that the EPA will allow hmmm wonder why?</div></div>
Um, they've been doing it for years.
US made Glocks are made for export, as Austria can not export to every country they want to sell to (dates back to WWII era treaties).
They may also be for small military orders (not that the units buying Glocks are restricted to US built only, though).
Re: Military switching side arms again?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim D</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Captain Moroni</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glock is gearing up to make frames in the US and working on a new finish that the EPA will allow hmmm wonder why?</div></div>
Um, they've been doing it for years.
US made Glocks are made for export, as Austria can not export to every country they want to sell to (dates back to WWII era treaties).
They may also be for small military orders (not that the units buying Glocks are restricted to US built only, though). </div></div>
True, but the Glock LE rep I was talking to about a year ago said he couldn't comment about it and winked. He could have been one of those guys who like to start rumors or he could know about something in the works. I wasn't able to talk to him long enough to get a good feel for him. He was only in the shop for about 45 minutes and most of that was spent on the range with the Glock 18.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim D</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Captain Moroni</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glock is gearing up to make frames in the US and working on a new finish that the EPA will allow hmmm wonder why?</div></div>
Um, they've been doing it for years.
US made Glocks are made for export, as Austria can not export to every country they want to sell to (dates back to WWII era treaties).
They may also be for small military orders (not that the units buying Glocks are restricted to US built only, though). </div></div>
True, but the Glock LE rep I was talking to about a year ago said he couldn't comment about it and winked. He could have been one of those guys who like to start rumors or he could know about something in the works. I wasn't able to talk to him long enough to get a good feel for him. He was only in the shop for about 45 minutes and most of that was spent on the range with the Glock 18.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
I love a 1911 design, I have had one in one form or another for ever.
That being said, I would be first in line for a Glock of any kind with and external safety. I think they would garner a larger following if they were available in that flavor
I love a 1911 design, I have had one in one form or another for ever.
That being said, I would be first in line for a Glock of any kind with and external safety. I think they would garner a larger following if they were available in that flavor
Re: Military switching side arms again?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: seta8967</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can we get off this m9 vs 1911 with glock fan-boi's coming in. Nowhere in that article does it say 1911 is even in the competition. I dont think we will ever go to it because it is old. There are better designs. Glock lovers the glock isnt getting a contract unless they change a few things like the safety which unless glock really wants another contract i doubt they will do. We can all agree that the m9 sucks.
I woul like to see the hk45 as the m9 replacement personally. Though i have only fired a hk 9mm it was a nice gun. Now does anyone else have a suggestion? </div></div>
it was the 1911 fanboys that brought it up jr...hope this helps
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: seta8967</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can we get off this m9 vs 1911 with glock fan-boi's coming in. Nowhere in that article does it say 1911 is even in the competition. I dont think we will ever go to it because it is old. There are better designs. Glock lovers the glock isnt getting a contract unless they change a few things like the safety which unless glock really wants another contract i doubt they will do. We can all agree that the m9 sucks.
I woul like to see the hk45 as the m9 replacement personally. Though i have only fired a hk 9mm it was a nice gun. Now does anyone else have a suggestion? </div></div>
it was the 1911 fanboys that brought it up jr...hope this helps
Re: Military switching side arms again?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you think even 1% of our men and women in uniform are capable of shooting well enough to shoot beyond the mechanical potential of even a beat up Glock, you are mistaken.</div></div>
Then we should give them clubs...or at least all steel handgun.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you think even 1% of our men and women in uniform are capable of shooting well enough to shoot beyond the mechanical potential of even a beat up Glock, you are mistaken.</div></div>
Then we should give them clubs...or at least all steel handgun.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: benchmstr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: seta8967</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can we get off this m9 vs 1911 with glock fan-boi's coming in. Nowhere in that article does it say 1911 is even in the competition. I dont think we will ever go to it because it is old. There are better designs. Glock lovers the glock isnt getting a contract unless they change a few things like the safety which unless glock really wants another contract i doubt they will do. We can all agree that the m9 sucks.
I woul like to see the hk45 as the m9 replacement personally. Though i have only fired a hk 9mm it was a nice gun. Now does anyone else have a suggestion? </div></div>
it was the 1911 fanboys that brought it up jr...hope this helps</div></div>
from what i read was the first person to mention glock was triggernut who mentions some af units use them he never mentions 1911 anywhere nor did it start the argument imo. The next time was jim d who said something like noone make a falf reliable 1911 like the glock. Which makes it obvious that he was anti-1911 shortly after that the 1911 vs glock started. So i would like to see your post that has a 1911 fanboy bring up glock first.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: benchmstr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: seta8967</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can we get off this m9 vs 1911 with glock fan-boi's coming in. Nowhere in that article does it say 1911 is even in the competition. I dont think we will ever go to it because it is old. There are better designs. Glock lovers the glock isnt getting a contract unless they change a few things like the safety which unless glock really wants another contract i doubt they will do. We can all agree that the m9 sucks.
I woul like to see the hk45 as the m9 replacement personally. Though i have only fired a hk 9mm it was a nice gun. Now does anyone else have a suggestion? </div></div>
it was the 1911 fanboys that brought it up jr...hope this helps</div></div>
from what i read was the first person to mention glock was triggernut who mentions some af units use them he never mentions 1911 anywhere nor did it start the argument imo. The next time was jim d who said something like noone make a falf reliable 1911 like the glock. Which makes it obvious that he was anti-1911 shortly after that the 1911 vs glock started. So i would like to see your post that has a 1911 fanboy bring up glock first.
Re: Military switching side arms again?
The M9 had problems from the beginning of it's life as a GI.
It didn't stop the full speed ahead procurement and issuance. I am not saying they never should have let the 1911 go but just saying they could have done better than the M9. I had always heard the 9MM was chosen because of NATO's wishes. Of so, we should tell NATO to go pound sand and give our fighting heros the 45 ACP again.
The M9 had problems from the beginning of it's life as a GI.
It didn't stop the full speed ahead procurement and issuance. I am not saying they never should have let the 1911 go but just saying they could have done better than the M9. I had always heard the 9MM was chosen because of NATO's wishes. Of so, we should tell NATO to go pound sand and give our fighting heros the 45 ACP again.
Similar threads
