USMC new handgun orders for 1911

**Buggyout** · 07-29-2012, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Mortblanc

This comes up every two or three years, every time they make a purchase for some spec-op unit. $22.5M is not enough to provide general issue.

A complete reissue of the 1911 is not going to happen. The 1911 platform no longer meets NATO specs for general issue and no branch can override that requirement and purchase independently.

They canceled the last joint service test after developing some of the best .45acp handguns that have been seen on this planet. If they were going to issue a .45acp it would my necessity be one of the units that passed that test. The 1911 was not one of them.

With the present admin they are lucky to have ammo to feed what they got!

The troops are not making a stink and screaming for a 1911 pistol. You have to remember that none of them have ever used anything but the M9. The Marines have been using the M9 since 1985, before most of the present soldiers were born!

Good point!

Attachment 5819

**Globalwarmer** · 07-29-2012, 05:28 PM

These are only being issued to MARSOC. Also, to comment on something someone said earlier, there is no mass cry from Marines for the .45 because the vast majority of Marines are not issued a pistol of any caliber. Some people did bring their own pistols to Iraq. It was very easy to get things to Iraq, and very difficult to get things home. FWIW, during my four years in an infantry battalion, we often wished for a .45 caliber pistol, and most of us wanted it to be a 1911.

**RICHFL** · 07-29-2012, 09:36 PM

According to my son-in-law, a Major serving in the Marine Corps, they already have signed for over 50,000 units plus spares, that is plenty for the USMC with a total troop level of 208,000 FY-2014.

**RICHFL** · 07-29-2012, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by Globalwarmer

Also, to comment on something someone said earlier, there is no mass cry from Marines for the .45 .

I hate to say so but when they brought the 9mm I was serving as a 6 year GySgt and filled out paperwork because USMC wanted my opinion about the 9mm I was an expert shooter 5x plus served on the Marine pistol/rifle team (West Coast). I made the statement and many agreed that the 9mmm will be a fine pistol to keep the enemy's head down while I get to my rifle to engage the enemy. Most SNCO's carried a rifle in combat. I did 4 times in combat in 2 wars and 2 police actions. So you can consider me an expert. It is not like you see in the movies. Too many senior people have been found dead with empty pistols because they could not engage the enemy at the range they were hit from.

The only reason we replaced the 1911's was because the newest ones in stock were built in 1955, and we could not afford to replace them, so DOD directed the Army to replace our 1911's at no cost.

**JLBIII** · 07-29-2012, 10:28 PM

I was still in the service when they made the switch to the 9mm, which meant we all had to re-qualify on the new sidearm. I've always liked the .45 but the issues we got were all made in the 50's and were in rough shape, like others have said the old ones rattled something fierce. Though I did quality with it at the sharpshooter level when I went to re-qualify with the 9mm I actually shot much better and attained the expert level with it. I think the difference came because I was shooting a brand new 9mm instead of a 30 year old .45.

I think that with today's better made .45's they should switch back. When it comes to knock down power it can't be beat, it may only hold half the rounds than the 9mm but at least with the .45 you only have to hit them once with a well placed shot, the 9mm has to have the added rounds because it took two rounds to do what a .45 did in one. IMHO. I'm planning on buying a .45 in the near future, probably trade in my 9mm to get it.

Joe

**jezcruzen** · 07-30-2012, 08:02 AM

Everyone likes the idea of the 45 acp for its legendary "knock down" power, but I keep reminding myself that this will be on a 100 year old platform.

Don't get me wrong... I love the 1911. Have one myself. But 1911s are subject to have issues, and its not uncommon for some after-market work to be needed to get a problem 1911 running smooth. And its only seven shots! I would think that alone would be of some concern in a combat scenario.

Reports are that a number of these 1911s experienced frame cracks during the 12K durability trial. I can't help but wonder how this Colt would have performed against a Glock 22 or an HK. At $1,900 to $2,200 per copy, it better be one hell of a sidearm!

**Mortblanc** · 07-30-2012, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by jezcruzen

Everyone likes the idea of the 45 acp for its legendary "knock down" power, but I keep reminding myself that this will be on a 100 year old platform.

Don't get me wrong... I love the 1911. Have one myself. But 1911s are subject to have issues, and its not uncommon for some after-market work to be needed to get a problem 1911 running smooth. And its only seven shots! I would think that alone would be of some concern in a combat scenario.

Reports are that a number of these 1911s experienced frame cracks during the 12K durability trial. I can't help but wonder how this Colt would have performed against a Glock 22 or an HK. At $1,900 to $2,200 per copy, it better be one hell of a sidearm!

They only stress tested 4 of the 12 pistols submitted and all four had catastrophic failure before the end of the test. Some of the pictures are scary with both frame and slide cracks and decomposition of internal parts.

$1800 per unit!!!

Contract price for the Baretta and Ruger P95 has been held at less than 1/4 that price. Origional contract price for the Baretta in 1985 was less than $100 per unit. Even then the commercial price was $300-$400.

I object to this waste of finances.

I own a 1911, have shot them for 40 years, and I own one of the pistiols in .45acp that passed the joint service qualification test. The new model is superior to the 1911 in every way! I also paid full retail at less then 1/4 the contract price for the defective Colt contract product.

Nothing about this Marine Corps move makes any sense!

**jezcruzen** · 07-30-2012, 03:27 PM

Well, with all the kudos aside, the more I think about it the less I understand it. Why didn't they do a honest test and give a contract to simply the best 45?

Here. This HK USP 'Tactical' with threaded muzzle retails for $1238. With a $22M contract, what would the cost to us (not the Corp) be? $700?

**Morgan101** · 07-30-2012, 04:12 PM

Montblanc: Cost was the first thing that caught my eye as well: $22.5 mil divided by 12,000 units is $1875.00 per gun. For a Colt?! You could get an Ed Brown or a Bill Wilson for that price!! At RETAIL!!! They should have gotten twice as many units.

I love the 45, and I love the fact that they are bringing it back with a U.S company, but don't give away the farm. Let's get some value.

**JLBIII** · 07-31-2012, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Morgan101

Montblanc: Cost was the first thing that caught my eye as well: $22.5 mil divided by 12,000 units is $1875.00 per gun. For a Colt?! You could get an Ed Brown or a Bill Wilson for that price!! At RETAIL!!! They should have gotten twice as many units.

I love the 45, and I love the fact that they are bringing it back with a U.S company, but don't give away the farm. Let's get some value.

I couldn't agree with you more Morgan, $1875 per unit is outrageous no matter who manufactures it. These GSA test officials really need to get their heads out of their collective asses. Time to open up the testing and inspection phases of replacement sidearms, and all military weapons and equipment to all manufacturers, though I would limit it to American manufacturers only.

Sorry I'm a stickler for buying "made in the USA" products even if I have to pay a little more for them, I would rather have my tax dollars going to hard working American men and women, not others. I know for a fact that other countries make good and sometimes better equipment and as long as that equipment is made in the USA I don't really have a problem with that. Just my opinion for what it's worth.

Joe