Marines goofed.big time buying 1911's. lol. retarded generals going with nostalgia over performance. The 1911's performed horribly during trials. For 5k per unit, FN, HK, or even a SIG would have been optimal.
-
If you are having trouble changng your password please click here for help.
Time to trade in your 1911s?
- Thread starter Jester7
- Start date
BTW....the $5000 price per 1911 (or whatever it is) is not just for the gun itself. That price includes a crap load of mags, parts, etc. The military doesn't usually switch weapon systems often so it has to buy parts for decades of service. It's a bit unfair to compare the price per firearm to a civilians cost. I bet most folks would be surprised at the price per M16 or M4 since the cost of the whole procurement would be spread across each rifle. Also, the new Marine 1911s are match grade...just something to consider. Expensive? Absolutely. But probably not as bad as you think when you put in perspective.
Seal team 6 member says.
"The last point I’ll make is on the tools of the trade. Civilian shooters love their tricked out 1911 race guns, which work so smoothly on the range when perfectly clean and lubed, with just the right ammo. I’ve owned and shot some nice ones. Impressive, to say the least. So smooth, they shoot “like buttuh!”
In combat, however, such a “princess” gun is a liability that cannot be tolerated. In my experiences with the Spec-Ops world and as an advanced tactical instructor, I’ve seen more malfunctions from other units’ fancy 1911′s than any other weapon, period. I’ve seen them fail in JSOC demonstrations to Congress. I’ve seen them fail on the ranges, with sights falling off, failures to feed, eject, etc.
Heck, I’ve even come back off SEAL missions with rounds spun backwards in my SIG magazine. Why? A little sand and salt bound up the magazine follower, preventing upward pressure on the rounds. Once the first couple rounds are fired, there’s no more pressure and the rounds can tumble front to back. NOT what you want when you reach for your backup in combat.
With a weapon that’s finely-tuned with very tight tolerances and geared for downloaded ammo, there just seems to be a far greater incidence of malfunction, especially with the introduction of any foreign material like a bit of sand, carbon, lack of lube, etc. This is unacceptable in a weapon that must be counted on for survival. In combat, the weapon MUST fire, period"
"The last point I’ll make is on the tools of the trade. Civilian shooters love their tricked out 1911 race guns, which work so smoothly on the range when perfectly clean and lubed, with just the right ammo. I’ve owned and shot some nice ones. Impressive, to say the least. So smooth, they shoot “like buttuh!”
In combat, however, such a “princess” gun is a liability that cannot be tolerated. In my experiences with the Spec-Ops world and as an advanced tactical instructor, I’ve seen more malfunctions from other units’ fancy 1911′s than any other weapon, period. I’ve seen them fail in JSOC demonstrations to Congress. I’ve seen them fail on the ranges, with sights falling off, failures to feed, eject, etc.
Heck, I’ve even come back off SEAL missions with rounds spun backwards in my SIG magazine. Why? A little sand and salt bound up the magazine follower, preventing upward pressure on the rounds. Once the first couple rounds are fired, there’s no more pressure and the rounds can tumble front to back. NOT what you want when you reach for your backup in combat.
With a weapon that’s finely-tuned with very tight tolerances and geared for downloaded ammo, there just seems to be a far greater incidence of malfunction, especially with the introduction of any foreign material like a bit of sand, carbon, lack of lube, etc. This is unacceptable in a weapon that must be counted on for survival. In combat, the weapon MUST fire, period"
NGIB, you nailed it. You answered the question with fact and he comes back with, "that doesn't count because (insert conspiracy theory/ramblings here)".
Lol, now he is just trolling.
I wonder how many of the folks that bash the military and the weapons they use have ever served. I did 20 years myself and currently work for the US Army at Ft Stewart. I pay taxes and I really don't care if they equip a soldier/sailor/airman/marine with a $5K pistol if it does what's necessary when that SSAM needs it to...
If it has to be FMJ I agree with the .45 acp comment. However, I still disagree with 1911 as opposed to even a Glock 21....or the aforementioned sig 227. Once again to each his own I am just baffled by some decisions that are made..like why I chose an RTF 19 and didnt think about wearing an undershirt one day...
Thank you for "biting". Im not going to bite back at you since you proved my point.
Go to James Yeager's Fighting Pistol course at Tactical Response in Camden, Tennessee. You will sell every 1911 you own. They were king of the fight 100 years ago, much like the Model T was once the most dependable automobile you could own. Most people who own these and claim they are reliable have never done any actual training with them. Going to the range doesn't count. Blowing a few hundred rounds through them doesn't count. That isn't training - it's going to the range. Seriously, take it to Yeager's course. He'll have a few extra Glocks for you to rent so that you can finish the course once your 1911 quits working. No, I'm not just trying to hate on 1911's. Sure, they are sweet to shoot, but they are not up to the modern standards of reliablity unless you want to spend 5K on a Wilson Combat, and like I said, most people have never put them to the test, so they don't know how quickly the gun fails when you put it to hard use.
The 1911 doesn't compare to a Glock, and the Model T doesn't compare to a Toyota.
The 1911 doesn't compare to a Glock, and the Model T doesn't compare to a Toyota.
Meh...same old argument again. I like my 1911s, neither of my DWs has failed me or had a stoppage at all. Granted I only have around 2k rounds through them but I am a poor man. Hell, even my RIA, once I had a faulty mag release replaced ( it's a $400 1911, SOMETHING will be wrong) ran with zero problems in about 1200 rounds of use. Are they right for the military? I don't know, I was the farthest thing from being an Operator while I was in. I know they work for me.
Just give the folks who fight the very best. The best guns - the best support - the best food.........they have earned the best our country can offer.
I have an opinion and so does everyone else - that is for my personal preference based on MY experience. The sum total of which will fit in your eye and not hurt you.
I carry a Glock but my favorites are 1911s. Wierd huh?
I have an opinion and so does everyone else - that is for my personal preference based on MY experience. The sum total of which will fit in your eye and not hurt you.
I carry a Glock but my favorites are 1911s. Wierd huh?
Because one must first server in order to come to a rational conclusion. Got it.
Everyone denying that the 1911 is known for its reliability issues is simply doing themselves a disservice. I get it you're sentimental you don't want to admit you are wrong and thats fine. I can leave this thread whenever knowing that I am not so stubborn that I risk my life because of it. That is your own choice. I have done nothing but point out facts the entire time.
You have yet to answer whether or not you would outfit troops in wwI and wwII with a Glock 21 or a 1911. We all know what your answer is going to be and if you try to rail against that everyone knows that you just look silly. That simple question breaks down your entire argument that 1911 reliability> glock reliability.
