USMC select modern Pistol to replace the M-9

[dmancornell]

"Facts are sorely lacking with this idiotic purchasing decision. Historically it's no surprise." and that justifies you saying the people involved with this particular decision were corrupt? It is what you said right?

"Facts are sorely lacking....." Then why do you jump to a conclusion that there was malfeasance in office. Not a shred of proof! You are not thinking it trough just spouting!

In an environment devoid of papered facts (through no fault of our own, but through corrupt government secrecy), the best we can do is reason through their decisions, as opposed to assuming the right decision was made because of blind faith in the military.

This current purchase was not done by McNamara's boys, those guys did change military purchasing forever. I'm not saying the current system can't be manipulated, I'm sure it can be, but it is a lot harder to do. I feel confident that the USMC got what they wanted for this purchase, as contracts go it is not very high dollar.

If I were looking at why Colt may or may not have an advantage I would look to their management. They have tightened the quality control and they know how to present their product. They had what the USMC wanted.

The USMC wanted an overpriced handgun that is more time-consuming (and for most people, requires a tool) to field-strip, heavier, and with lower capacity? Oh wait, but it has a rail, that makes it worth the money.

 

[coop44]

"Irrelevant, since no soldier would ever totally disassemble his sidearm (that's what armorers are for). What is relevant is the simplicity of a field strip, and the 1911 loses to just about every modern handgun in that aspect."


Sure just bring it to your armorer, and he says "yessir bossman I be doing that right away". Why burden your little brain with knowledge, practice and drills.

Simple guns for simple people, you ought to get a T-shirt made.

 

[ArBrnSnpr]

"Irrelevant, since no soldier would ever totally disassemble his sidearm (that's what armorers are for). What is relevant is the simplicity of a field strip, and the 1911 loses to just about every modern handgun in that aspect."


Sure just bring it to your armorer, and he says "yessir bossman I be doing that right away". Why burden your little brain with knowledge, practice and drills.

Simple guns for simple people, you ought to get a T-shirt made.

Or a shirt that says, "joe private following orders since non-routine field level and above maintnance is not authorized by the end user"

Or a shirt that says, "yessir bossman I be doing that right away since I serve no other purpose in the military other than to repair your weapon systems that you aren't authorized to fully dissasemble yourself."

Or a shirt that says, "my brain is too busy learning how to operate all the other pieces of equipment relevant to my job and all the battle drills I need to know to stay alive to be bothered with learning how to do an armorers job."

 

[dmancornell]

"Irrelevant, since no soldier would ever totally disassemble his sidearm (that's what armorers are for). What is relevant is the simplicity of a field strip, and the 1911 loses to just about every modern handgun in that aspect."


Sure just bring it to your armorer, and he says "yessir bossman I be doing that right away". Why burden your little brain with knowledge, practice and drills.

Simple guns for simple people, you ought to get a T-shirt made.

Ever heard of KISS, keep it simple stupid?

Having been an engineer for some time, I've learned that smart people see beauty in simplicity, while the rubes are bedazzled by overly complex trinkets. Complexity is driven by necessity, not something to be sought after.

 

[coop44]

We had a saying in the technical publications industry, "I wished I were an en-gin-eer and now I are one!"

You are exceptionally literate for one, what with your use of punctuation and such.

If keeping it simple is the goal, why not polymer pointy sticks?

There is nothing complex about the 1911a1.

Those who have a problem with a simple mechanism should not be allowed to play with dangerous things.



What would happen if there was no armorer available? In fact if things are as I am being led to believe, why have a Glock armorer at all? They always function perfectly and never ever break according to any polymer fetishist.

Just because something is new (relatively) and made of materials percieved as superior, does not make it superior. It only tells me that a superior marketing effort is employed.

 

[dmancornell]

If keeping it simple is the goal, why not polymer pointy sticks?

Are you going to lead up to some claim about .45 ACP STOPPING POWAH? Because I already addressed that earlier.

There is nothing complex about the 1911a1.

Those who have a problem with a simple mechanism should not be allowed to play with dangerous things.

Yeah well there's nothing really complex about the Ruger MK2 either, but like the 1911, both guns are relatively complex to field strip compared with other choices. I have an objective comparison, you have a subjective personal opinion. You tell me which one is more worthwhile when picking between two choices.

What would happen if there was no armorer available? In fact if things are as I am being led to believe, why have a Glock armorer at all? They always function perfectly and never ever break according to any polymer fetishist.

Are grunts even allowed to completely disassemble their guns in the field? Isn't there some regulation against that practice?

Just because something is new (relatively) and made of materials percieved as superior, does not make it superior. It only tells me that a superior marketing effort is employed.

So the Glock marketers are responsible for the 100k round G17 they have at the factory. What you consider perception can be empirically evaluated. Technical writers should be familiar with the concept of testing.

 

[ArBrnSnpr]

We had a saying in the technical publications industry, "I wished I were an en-gin-eer and now I are one!"

You are exceptionally literate for one, what with your use of punctuation and such.

If keeping it simple is the goal, why not polymer pointy sticks?

Because they aren't capable of killing at long distances and are difficult to yield in tight confines - that seems obvious though.

There is nothing complex about the 1911a1.

More so than modern hadnguns

Those who have a problem with a simple mechanism should not be allowed to play with dangerous things.

Do you know how to repair a jet engine? Do you ever fly in planes?


What would happen if there was no armorer available? In fact if things are as I am being led to believe, why have a Glock armorer at all? They always function perfectly and never ever break according to any polymer fetishist.

To replace routine wear items just like any other item you want to continue to operate as it's designed to do. My guess is Glock armorers replace a lot more worn out recoil springs then they replace broken extractors. When the military can invent a maitanance free weapon I'll be very excited, until then I will continue to PMCS my equipment and bring it to an armorer when it needs servicing.

Just because something is new (relatively) and made of materials percieved as superior, does not make it superior. It only tells me that a superior marketing effort is employed.

Why is my RACK system made of Codura fabric and worn on my chest now and not a pistol belt made of leather worn on my hips?

Why do I not have to cycle a bolt everytime I fire my weapon, or for that matter pour powder down my barrel?

Why can I fast-rope into a battlefield out the back of a CH-47 rather than simply walk?

Why do supplys come to me in the air rather than by an ocean liner?

Why do I have an IFAK with quick-clot, hemo-con, IV kit, tournaquite ect rather than a bandage and cravat?

Progression is the answer to all these questions, not a superior marketing effort, real honest to goodness progression.

Should the Marine Corp adopt the Springfield 1903 next?

 

[ch139]

While the 45ACP cartridge is a GREAT close combat (pistol, SMG) round, the 1911 is a far cry from the best combat pistol. The 1911s from 70-years ago were one thing. The old, rebuilt 1911s the MEU (SOC) has been using had a lot of new parts in them and were held to much tighter tolerances/expectations. This turned into a logistical nightmare where guns had to be taken out of the hands of the shooters and sent all the way back to Virginia for service (much of it couldn't be done in the fleet and required 2112 armorers). Now they're going to be using brand spanking new Colts that are just as tight as the rebuilt MEU (SOC) guns only this time when the gun goes down they send it to Hartford for "service" rather then Quantico; that's much better. Not. 70-years ago the guns were built quite a bit differently and the thinking was a lot different. GIs didn't put near as many rounds down range in practice as they do these days. 70-years ago if a 1911 went down there were crates of new guns to be had. Times have changed. The 1911 is not the best choice, but it sounds like someone far enough up the food-chain in the Marine Corps (probably with stars on his collar) has a hard-on for the 1911. Curious what the Marine Corps asked for (was it specifically written for the 1911) and what other pistols were tested. I absolutely love my Colts, but it would be about the last pistol I'd pick up for "combat." Wonder if Smith & Wesson, Sig, Glock, HK, Springfield et. al. were ever considered?

 

[usmc]

what exactly makes this pistol your last choice? And what makes it not good for combat? i think people forget sidearms are SECONDARY WEAPONS! If you run out of ammo with your RIFLE (primary weapon),your in deep crap any ways. it doesn't matter what pistol you have.you train yourself to be proficient in what ever weapon system your comfortable with.the purpose of shooting is hitting and if you cant do that with 15 rounds or 9 it doesn't matter.the final point. most of these weapons are going to MARSOC and other specialized groups.they are not out there playing pattycake,to suggest they have no influence on pistols that they want to run is foolish.the marine corp has fought in more conflicts than any other service and is the smallest branch.they've been kicking *** for over 225 years with a 175,000 active at one time.i believe they have the knowledge and experience to decide what they need.

semper fi

 

[ArBrnSnpr]

what exactly makes this pistol your last choice? And what makes it not good for combat? i think people forget sidearms are SECONDARY WEAPONS! If you run out of ammo with your RIFLE (primary weapon),your in deep crap any ways. it doesn't matter what pistol you have.you train yourself to be proficient in what ever weapon system your comfortable with.the purpose of shooting is hitting and if you cant do that with 15 rounds or 9 it doesn't matter.the final point. most of these weapons are going to MARSOC and other specialized groups.they are not out there playing pattycake,to suggest they have no influence on pistols that they want to run is foolish.the marine corp has fought in more conflicts than any other service and is the smallest branch.they've been kicking *** for over 225 years with a 175,000 active at one time.i believe they have the knowledge and experience to decide what they need.

semper fi

I'll take your screen name as an indication that you have been in the service, so I'll assume you know that it is a far cry from accurate that "you train yourself to be proficient in what ever weapon system your comfortable with." Yes, you do train yourself to be proficient, however you do it with whatever weapon your armorer, or weapons custodian hands you, as assigned to you by your duty position, not whatever is "comfortable." Some Operators have some leeway in that department, but not as much as most civilians would like to think.

Further, I don't think the focus of the discussion is the purpose, of shooting - obviously it's to hit your target, no one is debating that, the question is - what is the most effective piece of gear to let Soldiers/Marines do that task.

I have a hard time following your logic that if you can't hit your target with 15 rounds then the correct sollution is to cut your capacity nearly in half. I have spent many a long day on ranges trying to instruct privates how to shoot M-16s, and M-4s and I can say without a doubt that the last thing that would make them any more lethal would be a 15 round magazine rather than a 30. However, hopefully by the time you're serving in any Operator's capacity, marksmanship fundementals isn't an issue for you. So the question becomes a matter of do you have the best tool for the job?

If it's assumed that you are a rockstar behind the trigger and you'll hit 100% of the shots you take and you're engaging targets using failure to stop engagment techniques, your 1911 will provide you with a maximum of 2 casualties per magazine, where as an FNP Tactical 45 will yeild 5. You can refute that and say, "why would you do failure to stop drills with your secondary weapon system." Ok, fair enough, so you, the same rockstar who gets 100% hits, now has to hope for 100% first round imobilizing, or kill shots and you can expect 8 casualties per mag, while your counterpart wielding the FNP - he gets 15. So, assuming both are equal quality shooters - who is more combat effective?

The point of this discussion is that better technology exists which would take service member "A" and make him more combat effective than if given an outdated design with lesser capacity.

Airborne!

 

[thurston24]

Well, I have read through this entire thread and I think that there are a few things that need to be cleared up for everyone's sake regarding the Marine Corps' acquisition. I have not served in MARSOC, but I did serve as a combat photographer (who didn't see combat) at Quantico, where Marine Corps Systems Command is located (the group who makes all of the purchases for the Corps).

1st, 45 ACP is much superior than 9mm for the military. I don't want to start a pissing contest or anything else but the fact of the matter is that we have to shoot ball ammo, and cannot use hollowpoints per the Geneva convention. That means you have no expansion what so ever. This means that you do not have any decent wound channel with a 9mm and that 45 ACP is necessary. The 9mm was the primary weapon for me because some smart person figured that since we had cameras, we didn't need rifles (when I was about to deploy, they were only going to give me a 9mm). Knowing what 9mm ball ammo did, we figured we would be pistol whipping those guys before the bullets stopped them.

2nd, there is no corruption in the choice of Colt for the acquisition. The Marine Corps Systems Command made the decision, which is ran by a two-star General and staffed by Marines and Civilians. The acquisition regulations state that in order for the Marine Corps to purchase a product, it has to be manufactured in America. This means that lots of pistols would not qualify like Springfield XDs and XDMs, Taurus Pistols, etc.

3rd, When we go into combat, we use rifles. If we are clearing buildings, we may use shotguns. No smart person goes, "Okay Marines, put down your rifles and use your pistols." We use high powered weapons as primary weapons for close quarters combat and pistols are for MPs or backup. Even when it's close quarters combat, we would prefer a rifle or shotgun because one butt-stroke will usually drop a guy and possibly kill him.

4th, We don't need high capacity magazines because we aren't going to shoot the pistol that much. As I stated, we use our rifles first. If we are clearing buildings, you stop in between buildings and have time to reload. We actually try to not carry that much ammo because we have to carry it and it gets heavy pretty fast.

Also, for those who are complaining about brand X not being chosen, you may want to investigate as to whether or not that company decided to respond to the solicitation. It may be that the company you preferred made the decision to not enter a pistol. They also may not have been able to meet the requirements for the solicitation or did not have the correct experience to participate effectively in the bidding process. There are a lot of great pistols out there but there are a lot of possibilities as to why a certain brand was not chosen.

 

[ArBrnSnpr]

Well, I was not a combat photographer, but I was an Infantryman (who served in combat) and I would like to disagree with you about magazine capacity. If less rounds were more desireable we would still be carrying Vietnam era 20rd magazines in our primaries. In the business of combat - if I'm ever going to pack light for fast movement, or long sustained hauls, I want to make that choice myself, not be forced into it by utilizing an old design. Wanting a side arm with a low capacity makes as much sense to me as calling in CAS and wanting a bird with half a payload, or requesting a truck with a smaller fuel tank to convoy with - it just makes no sense to me when better options exist.

I agree with many points you make about manufacturer solicitation and requirements, but sometimes multiple brands pass the standard, i.e. the over the beach test, and still aren't selected simply because they cant meet production requirments, or because they are simply not the lowest bidder. I don't know who else entered pistols for consideration, but I would suspect Hk who already produces weapons for JSOC units already offers something more effective than a 1911.

At the end of the day, I'm happy to see the military's reliance on the Beretta dwindle, but I would be happier to see something like an FNP 45, or some other quality US made .45 have replaced it.

 

[22many]

Wow! I haven't been on this site in awhile and I just read all 6 pages. What I see are a bunch of polymer cry babies in this thread! "wha wha wha, the usmc didn't choose my polymer piece of crap, wha wha wha". Big deal, get over it.....

As with any of the hundreds of thousands of glock vs 1911 threads, it's always the glock owners bashing the 1911s because they don't want to admit that there is another gun out there better than their plastic molded pile. However, I would bet that the majority of glock owners have never owned a 1911!

There we go, stirred it up a little more. See you all in another 6 months!

 

[usmc]

first off ch139,im no rockstar. i didn't say to fix the problem reduce ammo capacity. if you cant hit your target with 15 rounds or 9 rounds it doesn't matter how many rounds you carry.with MARSOC those men CHOOSE THE WEAPONS SYSTEMS THEY WANT.they are special forces not general infantry.i will rephrase the COMFORTABLE comment, it was refuring to MARSOC or Recon .yadayada.another thing, you dont shoot to immobilize, you shoot to neutralize the threat.im not looking for casualties,i want dead bad guys piled up like a cord of wood.besides if you've gone to your secondary weapon,you are looking for an exit and get back to more ammo and reinforcements. just like clint smith says "you use you pistol to fight to a bigger gun". besides the FNP is big and bulky (ugly).double stack 45 pretty heavy ? not for me.

 

[Glocktopus]

Test Article Photos of MARSOC Winning Colt Rail Guns - Soldier Systems

...now how did these still get chosen?

 

[Glocktopus]

Wow! I haven't been on this site in awhile and I just read all 6 pages. What I see are a bunch of polymer cry babies in this thread! "wha wha wha, the usmc didn't choose my polymer piece of crap, wha wha wha". Big deal, get over it.....

As with any of the hundreds of thousands of glock vs 1911 threads, it's always the glock owners bashing the 1911s because they don't want to admit that there is another gun out there better than their plastic molded pile. However, I would bet that the majority of glock owners have never owned a 1911!

There we go, stirred it up a little more. See you all in another 6 months!

I've owned 4 1911's and 7 glocks. Yes 1911s are fun to shoot, and look pretty but for a combat or self defense pistol I will take a glock or an m&p. Modern striker fired are much more reliable especially when dirty, and understress the 1911 has 2 safeties that need to be defeated, the grip and thumb safety.

 

[mortre]

Well, I was not a combat photographer, but I was an Infantryman (who served in combat) and I would like to disagree with you about magazine capacity.

I don't think extra capacity is bad by itself, but you can carry it to far.

I couldn't manipulate the safety/decocker on the M9 while maintaining a firing grip, and none of our other medics could either. But I can manipulate 1911's and Sig's single stack pistols with ease.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[dmancornell]

2nd, there is no corruption in the choice of Colt for the acquisition. The Marine Corps Systems Command made the decision, which is ran by a two-star General and staffed by Marines and Civilians. The acquisition regulations state that in order for the Marine Corps to purchase a product, it has to be manufactured in America. This means that lots of pistols would not qualify like Springfield XDs and XDMs, Taurus Pistols, etc.

Translation: the government cannot be corrupt.

Test Article Photos of MARSOC Winning Colt Rail Guns - Soldier Systems

...now how did these still get chosen?

Nice find, thanks.

 

[Kentucky Windage]

Translation: the government cannot be corrupt.



Nice find, thanks.

Some of the prototype CRG's did develop cracks. That is true. It is also true that they are on trial slides/recievers so there is no sense so it really does not mean much other than it has provided data points. Some say that the cracks developed due to the stress risers in the FCS and 1913.

The knee-jerk reaction is, "OH ME OH MY OH WHY OH WHY WERE THESE CHOSEN?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!"

The sensible reaction is, what did the competition look like and why did the cracks develop?

Myself and many others have 1911's/M45's/builds that have seen well over 12k and 20k rounds. The Army, Navy, and USMC (maybe even the Air Force) has M45's that have rounds counts that are far far beyond 20k rounds, so, what happened to the 4 examples that led to the development of cracks?

What is interesting is the gun that had the failed recoil spring cap. That could of been from the spring, the cap, or both. If Colt is cutting corners on this particular pistol the USMC will probably just build them as they do the M45, in which case they will get a solid sidearm. Or maybe, Colt is seeing where they can save in production cost for the contract? The pictures do not tell, therefore there is not much point in speculation. Unless of course you are board.

 

[AMProducts]

While being a huge 1911 fan, owning several and shooting them lots, I'm more than a bit concerned about a few things as far as this contract goes:

1) $1800/pistol?! srsly? I thought the days of $600 toilet seats were over and COTS was in...
2) Frame cracks after 12K rounds? I've got 50k+ through my kimber and the only problem is has is all the finish came off from carrying it too much
3) The 1911 is nowhere near as easy to fieldstrip as pretty much any pistol made in the last 20-30 years. my FNX, I pull the slide back, flip a lever, and then a locked spring pulls off and the barrel falls out... no wrenches, no complex manouvers. Oh yea, and lining that pin hole back up to put it back together and get the linkage in the right place...
4) the 1911 is heavier than every polymer framed pistol...

I'm glad the marines are happy with the 1911, but it seems with the failure modes, and the price, I'm not sure anyone is getting a good deal out of this except maybe colt, the same colt that tried to f*** gun owners with their support for gun control, and still charges an arm and a leg for their AR's on the civilian market and are of lower quality than DPMS.