Sticking to their guns: Marines place $22.5M order for the Colt .45 M1911 [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Sticking to their guns: Marines place $22.5M order for the Colt .45 M1911


ERASER
07-28-2012, 12:47
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/28/marines-pay-22m-to-go-back-to-their-old-guns-colt-45-caliber-pistols/

mrsurfboard
07-28-2012, 12:48
You can't argue with a classic that still performs.

MajorD
07-28-2012, 12:59
gun is for special ops formations only- "regular" Marines will still carry M9

mrsurfboard
07-28-2012, 12:59
gun is for special ops formations only- "regular" Marines will still carry M9

For now.

R0CKETMAN
07-28-2012, 19:19
Great news for us 1911 fans.

I know gloves may often be worn, but I don't get the smooth FS

bac1023
07-28-2012, 19:30
Very cool indeed :thumbsup:

Brucev
07-28-2012, 19:57
Common sense for them to resume issuing the 1911. Nothing else is as effective. However, given the unit price, they are very grossly overpaying for what they are getting. For what they are paying, they could have bought very nice, fully functional Springfield Armory 1911 with the bells/whistles they thought necessary and have lots of money left over.

smitty704
07-28-2012, 20:33
Sweet!

ca survivor
07-29-2012, 09:10
Common sense for them to resume issuing the 1911. Nothing else is as effective. However, given the unit price, they are very grossly overpaying for what they are getting. For what they are paying, they could have bought very nice, fully functional Springfield Armory 1911 with the bells/whistles they thought necessary and have lots of money left over.
don't you know that the US army/government goes for the higher bid, more kick backs, etc.

Lethaltxn
07-29-2012, 10:03
Common sense for them to resume issuing the 1911. Nothing else is as effective. However, given the unit price, they are very grossly overpaying for what they are getting. For what they are paying, they could have bought very nice, fully functional Springfield Armory 1911 with the bells/whistles they thought necessary and have lots of money left over.

I'm sure that cost covers a lot more than just the pistol.

Brucev
07-29-2012, 10:37
I'm sure that cost covers a lot more than just the pistol.

I do not consider that the price only covers the purchase cost of the pistols. However, the unit cost is far beyond any rational for a combat pistol.

Lethaltxn
07-29-2012, 11:04
I do not consider that the price only covers the purchase cost of the pistols. However, the unit cost is far beyond any rational for a combat pistol.

Not if you're getting personal attention 24/7.
Anytime something goes wrong I'm sure they won't have any issues getting them fixed or modified in a timely fashion.

Brucev
07-29-2012, 11:42
Not if you're getting personal attention 24/7.
Anytime something goes wrong I'm sure they won't have any issues getting them fixed or modified in a timely fashion.

Why would the USMC need personal attention from Colt 24/7? Do not the Marines have armorers? Are they not capable of doing whatever needs to be done to any weapon in the inventory? The idea that any of the armed services would send something as common as a 1911 out to the manufacturer for service/modification is ludicrous. These things are not B-1 bombers.

gurana
07-29-2012, 12:01
There's a lot off considerations that go into contracting decisions. Not just the lowest bid. The marines would have an office of civilian employees that do nothing but look into the details for deals like this. If Springfield underbid Colt, perhaps there was some doubt as to their ability to deliver. I didn't rtfa, so I don't know if they even put in a bid. But if they did, another possibility is that Springfield couldn't meet some requirement the marines had in their contract... An example of this would be environmental protection measures in the manufacturing processes. Another is that they be built in the US. I don't know if either of these are actual requirements, it's just the type of thing you might expect to see. Legacy contract holders tend to have a leg up in these deals. Not only can they point to past performance, but they already have everything in place to meet all the requirements. Just because a springfield you could buy in the private market is cheaper than a similar colt, doesn't mean that's a price the could offer the marines if doing so means making changes to their manufacturing processes.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

Lethaltxn
07-29-2012, 12:03
Why would the USMC need personal attention from Colt 24/7? Do not the Marines have armorers? Are they not capable of doing whatever needs to be done to any weapon in the inventory? The idea that any of the armed services would send something as common as a 1911 out to the manufacturer for service/modification is ludicrous. These things are not B-1 bombers.

You've clearly never been in the service. It's not ludicrous at all and in no way derides the capability of our military armorers, but nice try.
Stuff is sent back to manufacturers quite often for repairs or other mods that either cannot be done in the field or must meet some sort of government standard to use.

dakrat
07-29-2012, 12:45
Why would the USMC need personal attention from Colt 24/7? Do not the Marines have armorers? Are they not capable of doing whatever needs to be done to any weapon in the inventory? The idea that any of the armed services would send something as common as a 1911 out to the manufacturer for service/modification is ludicrous. These things are not B-1 bombers.

as far as I know, Military does not have a gunsmith slot open. Armory only maintains firearms. if there is a worn-out/broken part, the manufacturer handles that. as far as planes go, same concept. Military maintains and fly the planes. something breaks, thats where contract (which is part of the price) comes to play whether Boeing or Lockhead Martin.

DaneA
07-29-2012, 15:50
$1875 per unit cost. That counts "spare parts and logistical support". Doesn't seem too extravagant of a cost to me.

Lethaltxn
07-29-2012, 17:08
$1875 per unit cost. That counts "spare parts and logistical support". Doesn't seem too extravagant of a cost to me.

Exactly. There's more to the cost than just the pistol.

Bruce continues to show his ignorance, time and again.

IndianaMatt
07-30-2012, 20:23
This is just awesome. One of the finest pistol designs ever, meets one of the most historic armsmakers ever, to supply to one of the greatest fighting forces ever. Its about time!

Now if we could just get rid of that disgusting green paint and that tacky grip, we're all set! :upeyes:

http://www.knesekguns.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Colt-M45-Handgun.jpg

fnfalman
07-31-2012, 06:49
Now if we could just get rid of that disgusting green paint and that tacky grip, we're all set! :upeyes:


It's not green, but more like tan/FDE/coyote (damn, and you thought that chicks are bad with their vocabulary description of colors), and I'm sure that there's some justification for the weird color combo on the grip (broken up pattern camouflage?).

Yeah, I'm with you. A service handgun or firearm should be black.

Batesmotel
07-31-2012, 20:30
Exactly. There's more to the cost than just the pistol.

Bruce continues to show his ignorance, time and again.

Some people have no clue how Gvt contracts work. We once had a NASA contract where we charged almost 2X the cost to civilians but it included 24/7 service which meant if we needed to get someone out of bed to make a new part and fly them out on a red eye with the part in hand we did it. At our expense.

fnfalman
08-01-2012, 11:46
Twenty-something years ago, the Remington M24 was costing Uncle Sam over $5K. Of course it comes with a pretty fitted foam case and doodads.

mustang6112
08-01-2012, 21:55
The lack of depth on this story (by the media) continues to give people the wrong impression. This purchase by the Corps is NOT intended to be a replacement for the Beretta M9, nor is it "a return" to the 1911 platform because they never left. What it IS, is a purchase of 1911's that will replace the current 1911s that Marine Recon and Special Operations units have been using for decades. Additionally, the purchase will field these weapons over 5 years. The new Colt platform, designated the M45, will replace the current aging supply of 1911s which are designated MEUSOC 45s. They are essentially a "frankengun" of various manufacturers including Springfield, Kimber, Wilson Combat and others which are assembled and maintained by the Precession Weapons Section in Quantico, which also does the armorer services for the Marine Corps Shooting Teams. The way acquisitions of this sort work is there is a set of specification that are put out, and then the companies submit their entry and compete. Some companie,s despite having the specs before, hand fail to meet the requirements, and some just plain out perform other. At times one platform may perform better than another but may be ruled out due to cost verses value. For the most part, the best entry will win. As to cost, if you honestly believe that $1875 per pistol is "high" I would suggest taking a closer look at what a quality 1911, and more specifically, quality railed combat 1911s are going for these days. The Kimber Gold Combat RL II is $2350, Wilson Combat Custom railed 1911s are over $3000, Ed Brown 1911s START at $2500 and go up over $7000, and even the Springfield Operator runs around $1400. Now throw in the spare parts and logistical support, and the money and man-hours that will be saved by reducing the workload on the PWS through implementing an "off the shelf" pistol vice the hand building that has been the norm and I don't think it's an unreasonable price at all. I just wish I got to carry one :embarassed:

fnfalman
08-02-2012, 13:03
Well...consider that the MSRP for the Colt Rail Gun (which is what this gun is) is in the low $1000, so...yes, $1800 is "high".

mustang6112
08-02-2012, 21:36
Well...consider that the MSRP for the Colt Rail Gun (which is what this gun is) is in the low $1000, so...yes, $1800 is "high".

yep, now replace most of the forged steel parts with stainless ones, cerekote it and add in the parts and labor to maintain for 5 years...

fnfalman
08-03-2012, 11:20
yep, now replace most of the forged steel parts with stainless ones, cerekote it and add in the parts and labor to maintain for 5 years...

There already is a cerakoted stainless steel Rail Gun model, Colt didn't have to make anything special. Colt simply changed the color from black to tan.

I don't know what is included in the price, but the material changes alone are negligible in the cost department.

s&wfan
08-07-2012, 08:19
So with all the talk of the frames cracking, my question is, what kind of round counts do you guys have through your 1911s? Surely they eat more than that without cracking/failing.

I saw the video of Jarrett shooting 10,000 rounds through a Para 1911 without stopping.

Travclem
08-07-2012, 10:09
So with all the talk of the frames cracking, my question is, what kind of round counts do you guys have through your 1911s? Surely they eat more than that without cracking/failing.

I saw the video of Jarrett shooting 10,000 rounds through a Para 1911 without stopping.

~15K through my old beat up SA Loaded and only changed springs.

~6k through my TRP

No Colt cracks here, I do have a Colt Combat Elite that I picked up real cheap but it's on the trading block.

captcurly
08-07-2012, 10:14
They're back. This is good news and proves that older is better. The 45ACP is a man stopper and that is that. Semper Fi to all.

s&wfan
08-07-2012, 10:19
~15K through my old beat up SA Loaded and only changed springs.

~6k through my TRP

No Colt cracks here, I do have a Colt Combat Elite that I picked up real cheap but it's on the trading block.


I'm not so convinced that they didn't fire overpressure rounds for a good bit of the shooting to see how long it would take for the guns to fail using the most punishing (on the gun) rounds they could think up. I haven't seen much backstory behind the pics.

fnfalman
08-07-2012, 10:19
~15K through my old beat up SA Loaded and only changed springs.

~6k through my TRP

No Colt cracks here, I do have a Colt Combat Elite that I picked up real cheap but it's on the trading block.

Yet somehow that "high quality" foreign job couldn't pass the Gyrine test.:rofl:

fnfalman
08-07-2012, 10:33
I'm not so convinced that they didn't fire overpressure rounds for a good bit of the shooting to see how long it would take for the guns to fail using the most punishing (on the gun) rounds they could think up. I haven't seen much backstory behind the pics.

Notice that there is zero mention on how the other competitor - the IMBEL, performed. Probably because its performance was so lacking that it wasn't worth mentioning.

Haterz gonna hate.

Travclem
08-07-2012, 11:11
Notice that there is zero mention on how the other competitor - the IMBEL, performed. Probably because its performance was so lacking that it wasn't worth mentioning.

Haterz gonna hate.
More likely that it outperformed the Colt, The brass just wanted the pony.

Travclem
08-07-2012, 11:13
Yet somehow that "high quality" foreign job couldn't pass the Gyrine test.:rofl:
Prove it, do you have the results?

scccdoc
08-07-2012, 11:16
Anyone know what the stock sights are?

fnfalman
08-07-2012, 11:36
Prove it, do you have the results?

Uhhh...isn't the contract awarded to Colt? If that isn't a result, then I don't know what is.:dunno:

fnfalman
08-07-2012, 11:37
More likely that it outperformed the Colt, The brass just wanted the pony.

Keep on wishing. The USMC knows irons and doesn't go for the cheap, crappy stuff for their fighting men and women.

fnfalman
08-07-2012, 11:38
Two guns were submitted for trial. One gun won and it's a Colt. Haha!!! No foreign jobber for Uncle Sam's Misguided Children.

fnfalman
08-07-2012, 11:39
Anyone know what the stock sights are?

Novak front & rear just like shown in the photo.

Matt VDW
08-07-2012, 12:11
Will these pistols have the Series 80 firing pin block?

Lt Scott 14
08-07-2012, 15:21
Are they carrying the 45s in the nylon UM84 holsters? How about a re issue to the 1917 leather w/ US on the flap? Probably using a kydex model with a tac lite attached kind.

MajorD
08-08-2012, 09:21
these will be for special ops only general issue will still be the m9.

JTSmith
08-08-2012, 13:44
Wish I was surprised about the USMC pissing away a ****load of money for a heavy, low capacity firearm.

fnfalman
08-08-2012, 21:22
Will these pistols have the Series 80 firing pin block?

Yes they do.

samuse
08-12-2012, 21:36
Two guns were submitted for trial. One gun won and it's a Colt. Haha!!! No foreign jobber for Uncle Sam's Misguided Children.


Uh. What about all the Imbel 1911s they've been using for the past 20 odd years??

Travclem
08-12-2012, 22:02
Uh. What about all the Imbel 1911s they've been using for the past 20 odd years??




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Travclem
08-12-2012, 22:03
delete

(it wasnt very nice)

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

fnfalman
08-12-2012, 22:35
Uh. What about all the Imbel 1911s they've been using for the past 20 odd years??

That's probably why they realized that they need a real American iron to take care of da biznatch.

CA_DUDE
08-13-2012, 00:22
I'm just glad that as dyed in the wool Americans we would never even entertain the thought that politics and corporate kickbacks would never be a possibility. Cause we all know beretta was awarded contract on performance alone.

samuse
08-13-2012, 07:50
Voice of reason...
Wish I was surprised about the USMC pissing away a ****load of money for a heavy, low capacity firearm.

Ramblings of an idiot
That's probably why they realized that they need a real American iron to take care of da biznatch.

fnfalman
08-13-2012, 08:46
Ramblings of an idiot

Haterz gonna hate.

Two guns went into the trial, the Colt won. End of story. Whining about how IMBEL guns are this or that ain't gonna amount to squat. Obviously it wasn't good enough, live with it.

fnfalman
08-13-2012, 08:47
I'm just glad that as dyed in the wool Americans we would never even entertain the thought that politics and corporate kickbacks would never be a possibility. Cause we all know beretta was awarded contract on performance alone.

Oh yeah, please name the guns in the XM9 trials that outperformed the Beretta.

MD357
08-13-2012, 11:29
Wish I was surprised about the USMC pissing away a ****load of money for a heavy, low capacity firearm.

Yeah it's a shame they want to use a better plaform for actual fighting.

fnfalman
08-13-2012, 12:00
Yeah it's a shame they want to use a better plaform for actual fighting.

They want a real handgun that doesn't melt in a dishwaster or explode in the hands.

s&wfan
08-15-2012, 15:37
Oh yeah, please name the guns in the XM9 trials that outperformed the Beretta.

Still waiting on someone to answer you on that one.

MajorD
08-16-2012, 08:03
people have short memories, and a lot of posters here were in diapers when the xm9 trials were conducted. the requirements at the time were as best as I recall:
had to have a manual safety
da/sa
minimum 12 round capacity
9mm caliber.
at the time only about 6 pistols met the criteria (sig beretta walther s&w a colt prototype and a variant of the H&K p7)
and at the end the best performing guns were the sig 226 and beretta. there was lots of accusations of back door deals etc. as there always are with big defense contracts but the beretta was the lowest bid cost and met all criteria. Many guns that some today say should have been considered were not even inveted yet and the glock besides not meeting criteria was only in production for a couple years.
just like the m4 series of carbines any new pistol given a contract to replace the beretta full scale would have to show itself in trials to be much better than the beretta to be considered. Having carried one in combat I can tell you it is a perfectly acceptable handgun.

fnfalman
08-16-2012, 08:51
people have short memories, and a lot of posters here were in diapers when the xm9 trials were conducted. the requirements at the time were as best as I recall:
had to have a manual safety
da/sa
minimum 12 round capacity
9mm caliber.
at the time only about 6 pistols met the criteria (sig beretta walther s&w a colt prototype and a variant of the H&K p7)
and at the end the best performing guns were the sig 226 and beretta. there was lots of accusations of back door deals etc. as there always are with big defense contracts but the beretta was the lowest bid cost and met all criteria. Many guns that some today say should have been considered were not even inveted yet and the glock besides not meeting criteria was only in production for a couple years.
just like the m4 series of carbines any new pistol given a contract to replace the beretta full scale would have to show itself in trials to be much better than the beretta to be considered. Having carried one in combat I can tell you it is a perfectly acceptable handgun.

Let's not forget about the second XM9 trial and the Beretta still came out on top even though SW revamped their pistol significantly and even Ruger got into the fray.

Roering
08-16-2012, 10:47
Glad to see that the USMC is coming to terms that a 9mm FMJ doesn't always do the job it is supposed to but I have to wonder.

If you are putting Marines into harms way and an inevitable firefight, wouldn't you want them to have something lighter that holds more rounds?

For example, the Glock 21 or an XD that holds 13 rounds compared to the 1911's holding 7?

Don't get me wrong here, I'm a fan of the 1911, and see it as a great choice for civilian/police carry as well as home defense but combat in this certain circumstance (specifically, covering a healthy distance on foot while heavily laden with gear) seems to merit a weapon with the qualities I have mentioned above.

fnfalman
08-16-2012, 12:10
Glad to see that the USMC is coming to terms that a 9mm FMJ doesn't always do the job it is supposed to but I have to wonder.

If you are putting Marines into harms way and an inevitable firefight, wouldn't you want them to have something lighter that holds more rounds?

For example, the Glock 21 or an XD that holds 13 rounds compared to the 1911's holding 7?

Don't get me wrong here, I'm a fan of the 1911, and see it as a great choice for civilian/police carry as well as home defense but combat in this certain circumstance seems to merit a weapon with the qualities I have mentioned above.

Just because they're Recon Marines or MEU/SOC, it doesn't mean that they automatically have hands big enough to handle 2x4 grips like the Glock 21.

I have yet to see anybody short of a midget having an issue with the grip size of an M1911 or a single-stack 9mm pistol.

BuzznRose
08-16-2012, 12:14
Just because they're Recon Marines or MEU/SOC, it doesn't mean that they automatically have hands big enough to handle 2x4 grips like the Glock 21.

I have yet to see anybody short of a midget having an issue with the grip size of an M1911 or a single-stack 9mm pistol.

The grip on the gen 4 G21 is barely larger than the current pistol (M9).


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Dennisr1977
08-16-2012, 12:16
Glad to see that the USMC is coming to terms that a 9mm FMJ doesn't always do the job it is supposed to but I have to wonder.

If you are putting Marines into harms way and an inevitable firefight, wouldn't you want them to have something lighter that holds more rounds?
.


So a .45 FMJ always does the job? Do tell.

Roering
08-16-2012, 13:34
So a .45 FMJ always does the job? Do tell.

Would you accept that it is more likely to?

Roering
08-16-2012, 13:38
Just because they're Recon Marines or MEU/SOC, it doesn't mean that they automatically have hands big enough to handle 2x4 grips like the Glock 21.

I have yet to see anybody short of a midget having an issue with the grip size of an M1911 or a single-stack 9mm pistol.

Oh come now, the grips are bigger but they aren't THAT big.

Snaps
08-16-2012, 14:54
Good to see the Corps is actually sticking with what the Marines themselves like/want instead of letting the paper pushers make the decisions for a change.

Oh come now, the grips are bigger but they aren't THAT big.
Compared to a 1911? yes they are THAT big.



If you are putting Marines into harms way and an inevitable firefight, wouldn't you want them to have something lighter that holds more rounds?


My $.02, capacity isn't that big an issue in a handgun. THey're not a primary weapon at all. They're a backup or something used a lot in room clearing, usually in that kinda thing shot placement/ handling and such is a lot more important than capacity

Roering
08-16-2012, 15:10
Good to see the Corps is actually sticking with what the Marines themselves like/want instead of letting the paper pushers make the decisions for a change.


Compared to a 1911? yes they are THAT big.


Bigger than a 1911 yes. Liken to a 2x4..no.

s&wfan
08-16-2012, 15:32
Would you accept that it is more likely to?


Not in and of itself, no. Best caliber depends on the person holding the gun, not the size of the bullet. 9mm in the hands of someone who isn't good with a .45 is better than any load you can put in a .45.

2-tap
08-16-2012, 15:53
Im not bashing 1911's i love them but....I think its ridiculous to pay that much for something that will hardly be used. They could have went with FNH or hell they could have purchased 3 m&p's for the price of one of those 1911's.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Roering
08-16-2012, 16:02
Not in and of itself, no. Best caliber depends on the person holding the gun, not the size of the bullet. 9mm in the hands of someone who isn't good with a .45 is better than any load you can put in a .45.


Maybe the Marines wanted something that can do this!

http://i48.tinypic.com/1zxttvo.gif

Can't be done in a 9mm :tongueout:

fnfalman
08-16-2012, 18:40
Oh come now, the grips are bigger but they aren't THAT big.

Maybe not for you but for me it's a serious problem for fast, repeating shots.

fnfalman
08-16-2012, 18:42
The grip on the gen 4 G21 is barely larger than the current pistol (M9).


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

And the M9's grip is pretty damn big. Why do you think that Uncle Sam and to bring in the M11 as substitute standard for those whose hands can't handle the M9?

fnfalman
08-16-2012, 18:43
Would you accept that it is more likely to?

No. The .45 is a weak ass round.

Roering
08-16-2012, 19:56
No. The .45 is a weak ass round.

Still dangerous though. A bullet could get under the skin and cause a nasty infection.

fnfalman
08-17-2012, 00:07
Still dangerous though. A bullet could get under the skin and cause a nasty infection.

So's a .22LR round or a .25Auto round.

MD357
08-17-2012, 08:24
Not in and of itself, no. Best caliber depends on the person holding the gun, not the size of the bullet. 9mm in the hands of someone who isn't good with a .45 is better than any load you can put in a .45.

In which this point is moot, considering WHOM it's for.

MD357
08-17-2012, 08:28
Im not bashing 1911's i love them but....I think its ridiculous to pay that much for something that will hardly be used.

These guns were ordered primarily for Force Recon and MARSOC units. You're saying they won't see use?

2-tap
08-21-2012, 09:09
These guns were ordered primarily for Force Recon and MARSOC units. You're saying they won't see use?

Im saying a handgun is a SIDEARM not a primary weapon

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

fnfalman
08-21-2012, 17:18
Im saying a handgun is a SIDEARM not a primary weapon

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Unless they're using the pistols as primary weapons (i.e. doing snoop & poop while wearing mufti).

2-tap
08-21-2012, 17:41
Unless they're using the pistols as primary weapons (i.e. doing snoop & poop while wearing mufti).

I dont know what that means but its funny lol

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

CA_DUDE
08-21-2012, 18:44
Oh yeah, please name the guns in the XM9 trials that outperformed the Beretta.

Where did I say any of the others outperformed the Beretta?

BrazosCoTX
08-21-2012, 21:38
A little surprised that this thread still has legs. Full disclosure: retired Marine who bought a Colt Rail Gun just before the Corps made their announcement. Mine has a heavy trigger, and doesn't have the night sights (the new USMC pistol will), but I am pleased with mine; however, if I had to hump this thing over hill and dale, I'd be wanting a Glock 21SF or an FNP-45. That Colt Rail Gun is a load!

MD357
08-21-2012, 22:33
Im saying a handgun is a SIDEARM not a primary weapon

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Neither am I, my question still stands.

2-tap
08-22-2012, 05:45
Neither am I, my question still stands.

I dont care about your question just like you dont like my opinion. I will agree to disagree.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

ancient_serpent
08-22-2012, 06:33
Im saying a handgun is a SIDEARM not a primary weapon

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


We used pistols as a primary during certain operations.

2-tap
08-22-2012, 06:49
We used pistols as a primary during certain operations.

But not normally correct? All im saying is my uneducated, non military background opinion is....i think there were better choices for the money.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

ancient_serpent
08-22-2012, 06:51
As I used to tell my guys, it's your secondary until it becomes your primary. Some may think there are better pistols out there, this may be true. All I will say is that the units issued this fine pistol should be well served by it.

2-tap
08-22-2012, 07:41
Thats a good way of putting it

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

fnfalman
08-22-2012, 08:04
Where did I say any of the others outperformed the Beretta?

So...you insinuated that the Beretta didn't win on its own merits but you can't name a handgun that outperformed the Beretta in the XM9 trial?:dunno:

fasteddie565
08-22-2012, 08:09
I remain curious as to why people, over whom these decisions have no impact , in specific you 2-tap, insist they somehow have a better idea....

As a former Special Forces Soldier and US Army contracting officer, I can tell you the 1911 is a good platform. I also think there are other pistols that would have done just as good a job. Ar decisions made for political or other reasons? Yes. Does the field have some input? Sometimes. Is the system perfect? Hell No

My first SF assignment, I carried a Remington Rand 1911A1 in 45 ACP. It performed its designated duties, never failing to function or accomplish its mission.

A trip to the school house and back to a Team, I now carry an M9, which was just as functionally reliable, however it often failed to accomplish its mission. I would have kissed a fat babies ass for my rattle trap RR 1911A1. I carried a bayonet for 13 years. I never used it, that does not make it a bad bayonet or that my team did not deserve good bayonets.

I would guess my experience ended when Ancient Serpents started, perhaps some overlap. He makes some very cogent points. SOF of any type often deploy for very long durations, in areas difficult to access. Calling back to the SWAT van because I need my pistol is not an option (No disrespect to our brethren in blue). That pistol, to me was like life insurance. I may only need it once, but it damn well better work when I do.

2-tap
08-22-2012, 08:40
I think you misinterpreted what i said. I have nothing bad to say about the weapon other than its price. You said the m9 failed to accomplish its mission if you mean 9mm is not as effective as 45acp with the ammo used by our military i agree 100%.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

CA_DUDE
08-22-2012, 09:27
So...you insinuated that the Beretta didn't win on its own merits but you can't name a handgun that outperformed the Beretta in the XM9 trial?:dunno:

What I was insinuating was that around the time of the xm9 trials Italy graciously agreed to allow US missile sites on their soil. I wasn't at the trials and I'm guessing neither were you. My point is that it is extremely naive to believe that multi million dollar contracts Such as this are awarded solely based on performance, reliability, and end user needs. Big money is no game. Bidding parties will do anything they can to sweeten the deal in their favor. Doesnt matter who the maker is. You can relax your sphincter now.

Roering
08-22-2012, 09:48
A little surprised that this thread still has legs. Full disclosure: retired Marine who bought a Colt Rail Gun just before the Corps made their announcement. Mine has a heavy trigger, and doesn't have the night sights (the new USMC pistol will), but I am pleased with mine; however, if I had to hump this thing over hill and dale, I'd be wanting a Glock 21SF or an FNP-45. That Colt Rail Gun is a load!

Exactly! When you have to carry all your gear for a distance, every ounce counts.

MD357
08-22-2012, 12:06
I dont care about your question just like you dont like my opinion. I will agree to disagree.


Well I just wanted to highlight that you admitted you basically have NO clue what you are talking about.

Big Hint: you might want to research how much these units use their sidearms before stating that they'll never get used. Then get back to me...

fnfalman
08-22-2012, 12:17
What I was insinuating was that around the time of the xm9 trials Italy graciously agreed to allow US missile sites on their soil. I wasn't at the trials and I'm guessing neither were you. My point is that it is extremely naive to believe that multi million dollar contracts Such as this are awarded solely based on performance, reliability, and end user needs. Big money is no game. Bidding parties will do anything they can to sweeten the deal in their favor. Doesnt matter who the maker is. You can relax your sphincter now.

Since that Beretta had to build a plant in the US to manufacture the pistol, how much money really went back to Beretta Italy?

Also, you think that Italy would base their geopolitics on a measly multi-million dollars sales of ONE gun company?

Talk about tin foil.:upeyes:

2-tap
08-22-2012, 12:26
Well I just wanted to highlight that you admitted you basically have NO clue what you are talking about.

Big Hint: you might want to research how much these units use their sidearms before stating that they'll never get used. Then get back to me...

Ok you win sport.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

MD357
08-22-2012, 12:37
Ok you win sport.


Thanks Sparky, wasn't looking to "win" anything. Just don't care for people spreading misinformation. :wavey:

2-tap
08-22-2012, 12:48
My bad. Wont happen again lol

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

CA_DUDE
08-22-2012, 12:59
Since that Beretta had to build a plant in the US to manufacture the pistol, how much money really went back to Beretta Italy?

Also, you think that Italy would base their geopolitics on a measly multi-million dollars sales of ONE gun company?

Talk about tin foil.:upeyes:

You know, your right. Everything I always just as it seems.

fasteddie565
08-22-2012, 22:00
I think you misinterpreted what i said. I have nothing bad to say about the weapon other than its price. You said the m9 failed to accomplish its mission if you mean 9mm is not as effective as 45acp with the ammo used by our military i agree 100%.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Perhaps I misread your intent.

Ref the cost, you cannot just take the total number of pistols and divide by the cost given to you by the press.

Any piece of new equipment, regardless of how simple it seems or easy it may be to use requires a new equipment fielding program. It includes training by the manufacturer for depot and organizational level armorers as well as user train the trainer type of classes as well.

The next expense is repair parts. We may pay $2.00 for a spring, but Uncle has to have a special spring that cost $19.50. we also buy enough parts to cover a certain percentage of weapons for X amount of years.

There is also the issue of magazines and holsters, cleaning kits that were probably covered in the contract.

Tiro Fijo
08-26-2012, 19:42
http://www.guns.com/marines-colt-rail-gun-failures-damage-cracked-frames-slides-spring-plugs-10420.html