US Marines choose 1911...

[Grand58742]

Yikes Spock. Well, if nothing else, the 1911 will be improved on until it performs reliably, just like the M9 was. Remember the cracking lock lugs and magazine issues they had....

http://shootersjournal.net/m9-review-25-years-with-the-beretta-92/

Same with the M-16. A bit of service time will sort it out. I do like that they went with a .45 since were forced to use ball ammo by Nato.

Here's the problem there...the 1911 has been around for over 100 years. There shouldn't need to be any more "improved on" for a weapons platform that's been in service that long. And the Marines, or any service for that matter, needs an out of the box pistol that will work. Sure they could and should test it, but as for "teething" problems, that's a no go. Sometime in the past 100 years problems should have been identified and corrected.

I'm not anti-1911 by any means. But a pistol that starts breaking at 12K rounds is simply a no go. The operation of the 1911 is sound and there are good ones out there, but I'm not sure these Colts are going to be it.

[WILL]

well its been 101 years since the 1911 was adopted when do you think they will get the kinks worked out?

I think the design is just about perfect. Obviously, selection testing and metrology have changed radically since the 1911 was introduced into service 101 years ago. Here's from the article in case you didn't read it...


"For those who study military arms this should come as no surprise. Most weapons encounter some degree of difficulty when they enter military service. Usually it’s not a design problem, 9 times out of 10 it’s a materials and manufacturing issue. Some examples would include some of the greatest arms ever built:

•AK-47/AK-74
•M16
•M1 Garand
•M14
•FN-FAL
•Browning Hi Power
•Glock
•Galil
•Steyr AUG
I could go on and on and on. In fact, very rarely does an arm enter military service and not see major changes in materials and manufacturing processes to correct issues that are identified through military service. One of the few exceptions to this rules is the M1 Carbine, which miraculously seemed to work just fine since day one."


The good news is that the 1911 is going to get a new standard of reliability out of this. PS- The M9 was failing at the lock block at about the same round count when first introduced.

[Grand58742]

Will, you are ignoring the overall problem here. There shouldn't be any "difficulty entering military service." The 1911 has already "entered" military service in 1911. The latest iterations shouldn't have any difficulties. The USMC ordered an off the shelf system. It should have been ready out of the box, period, end of story. Frames shouldn't be cracking, slides shouldn't be breaking, etc. They have had 100 years to bring the 1911 to perfection. And if they have to go back to the drawing board, look at alternative metals and redesign parts before entry into service, they have failed. COTS procurement is very simple. Get an off the shelf system that needs no tweaking and put it right into service. Sounds like these pistols are going to need some redesign and "fixing" prior to entry. That costs money which frankly is money the .mil does not have.

As Spock stated, they have had a century to get it ready. And it should have worked flawlessly out of the box. Now we get to spend far more money fixing a pistol that should be, (nods to Matt) a nostalgic item or a finely tuned competition gun. I could sit here and name a half a dozen pistols that would have filled this role right out of the box without any major redesign or issues. But someone made this their pet project and held onto the old belief that John Moses Browning knew everything to know about a pistol and that the 1911 is still the end all be all standard all pistols are measured by. Sad to say, while it's a great pistol, it has been eclipsed in the combat realm.

ETA: And this is coming from a 1911 owner and an M9 hater

[WILL]

Will, you are ignoring the overall problem here. There shouldn't be any "difficulty entering military service." The 1911 has already "entered" military service in 1911. The latest iterations shouldn't have any difficulties. The USMC ordered an off the shelf system. It should have been ready out of the box, period, end of story. Frames shouldn't be cracking, slides shouldn't be breaking, etc. They have had 100 years to bring the 1911 to perfection. And if they have to go back to the drawing board, look at alternative metals and redesign parts before entry into service, they have failed. COTS procurement is very simple. Get an off the shelf system that needs no tweaking and put it right into service. Sounds like these pistols are going to need some redesign and "fixing" prior to entry. That costs money which frankly is money the .mil does not have.

As Spock stated, they have had a century to get it ready. And it should have worked flawlessly out of the box. Now we get to spend far more money fixing a pistol that should be, (nods to Matt) a nostalgic item or a finely tuned competition gun. I could sit here and name a half a dozen pistols that would have filled this role right out of the box without any major redesign or issues. But someone made this their pet project and held onto the old belief that John Moses Browning knew everything to know about a pistol and that the 1911 is still the end all be all standard all pistols are measured by. Sad to say, while it's a great pistol, it has been eclipsed in the combat realm.

ETA: And this is coming from a 1911 owner and an M9 hater

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it that way. First of all, I have no idea what testing caused the failures. For all I know, it was gross abuse. Secondly, I see America going to an accurate, American made, .45 caliber pistol that has a battle proven record as a good thing. I'm having a real hard time seeing this as bad news. Like I posted earlier, the 1911 will be thoroughly vetted to 2012 standards and only good things can result from this process. It's a win for the American economy, a win for the soldiers who will end up with a more accurate, reliable, hard hitting pistol, and a win for civilian shooters who will reap the same benefits. You're right, there is some nostalgia and American pride involved. I absolutely hate seeing American soldiers carrying Beretta, Glock or Sig pistols. We need to be making our own weapons of war for obvious reasons, and the 1911 is a great platform to fill that roll.

[Grand58742]

For me, I want the best and most reliable weapons in the hands of my troops and those we are sending into harms way. However, the way the RFP was worded from the USMC meant they were going to select a 1911 and who cares whatever else was out there. To me? Not the way to conduct business. You word an RFP with "must use 1911 magazines, have a grip safety, manual safety, etc" and you eliminate anyone else from the competition because no manufacturer is going to spend millions of dollars designing a pistol that looks like and quacks like a 1911. But by limiting the competition, you eliminate a lot of good choices.

I don't care if a pistol is designed in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, USA, Russia or Kazblikistan, I want the very best weaponry in the hands of me and mine when or if I get onto the two way shooting range. We (Americans) do not have the cornerstone on weapons development or the absolute best out there. Some countries do produce better items in the weapons world. But the principle here...most foreign designed weapons used by the .mil are made right here in the States. Is the money going back to Belgium or Germany? Maybe, but it still keeps a whole lot of Americans in a job. Sig-Sauer P226s used by SEALs...made in New Hampshire. FN M16A2s, M240s and M249s...made in South Carolina. H&K45s...made in New Hampshire. Glocks used by various federal agencies...made in Georgia. The list can go on. But even "American" made products like the S&W M&P line that should have/could have been competitive were not included in the competition. And why is that? Because the 1911 is "proven?" Or because someone decided it was their pet favorite and there would be no other competition? Much like the Army's decision some years ago to single source the H&K XM8 without any competition, I can see how the USMC has limited the competition by making a narrow set of parameters that excludes other designs and ensures the design they want to win will win. Sorry, I ain't buying it. And to use your own quote "battle proven record" means any number of systems that are "battle proven" should be put back into production like the 1903 Springfield, the P-51 Mustang, the M4 Sherman tank and the Essex Class aircraft carriers. Those are all "combat proven" but have been overtaken by modern technology and more reliable systems. However using this logic, we should be outfitting the next Marine Regiment going to A-Stan with these items since they are "battle proven"

Now had the RFP been more generalized and other designs could have been included and the 1911 came out on top, by all means, I wouldn't be having this conversation. But it wasn't and was biased from the beginning. And this is where my problem lies. There was no fair competition, no additional designs and I feel this will end up with nothing more than an expensive boondoggle that costs the USMC a lot more than they bargained for.

It's a moot point for me though since I'm USAF and we tend to follow the Army. I just hate seeing someone's pet favorite get picked because "I like it." Which is exactly what happened.

[Grand58742]

First of all, I have no idea what testing caused the failures. For all I know, it was gross abuse.

Trust me, if there was ever "gross abuse" it's called combat and bored soldiers. Sure the testing tends to be harsher than most realistic situations, but I'd rather have a pistol that's been beat up, smashed, blown up, filled with sand and mud and will still fire off a full mag and repeat process when reloaded. If a weapon can survive "gross abuse" in testing and still function correctly, that's the one I want in my hands.

[WILL]

OK, I did a little more research on it and the new 1911 is replacing a

...wait for it.......

1911.
It seems the "special operations forces" of the Marine Corps have a bit more leeway with the selection of their weapons. Basically, this relativly samll group of elite warriors gets to carry what they want, and they like the 1911s they were already using. This highly trained and experienced group of warriors could have picked from any pistol in the world for combat, and they went with the 1911. Think about that. Personally, I think that’s about the finest complement you could give a gun. They simply wanted to upgrade to a 1911 with night sights and a rail. Seems a few companies were in on the competition, but Colt won the contract.

[rice paddy daddy]

Trust me, if there was ever "gross abuse" it's called combat and bored soldiers. Sure the testing tends to be harsher than most realistic situations, but I'd rather have a pistol that's been beat up, smashed, blown up, filled with sand and mud and will still fire off a full mag and repeat process when reloaded. If a weapon can survive "gross abuse" in testing and still function correctly, that's the one I want in my hands.

Then you sure wouldn't have liked the original M16. What a steaming pile. It got many good troops killed. By the time I made it over there we had the M16A1, which was an improvement, but for troops used to the M14, it too just didn't measure up when used in the conditions present at the time.
Neither one would meet the conditions you have just spelled out.

[Spock]

I think the design is just about perfect. Obviously, selection testing and metrology have changed radically since the 1911 was introduced into service 101 years ago. Here's from the article in case you didn't read it...


"For those who study military arms this should come as no surprise. Most weapons encounter some degree of difficulty when they enter military service. Usually it’s not a design problem, 9 times out of 10 it’s a materials and manufacturing issue. Some examples would include some of the greatest arms ever built:

•AK-47/AK-74
•M16
•M1 Garand
•M14
•FN-FAL
•Browning Hi Power
•Glock
•Galil
•Steyr AUG
I could go on and on and on. In fact, very rarely does an arm enter military service and not see major changes in materials and manufacturing processes to correct issues that are identified through military service. One of the few exceptions to this rules is the M1 Carbine, which miraculously seemed to work just fine since day one."


The good news is that the 1911 is going to get a new standard of reliability out of this. PS- The M9 was failing at the lock block at about the same round count when first introduced.

all of those guns listed are of newer design and unless assembled by illiterate Pakistanis do not self destruct at 12k rounds.

[Grand58742]

Then you sure wouldn't have liked the original M16. What a steaming pile. It got many good troops killed. By the time I made it over there we had the M16A1, which was an improvement, but for troops used to the M14, it too just didn't measure up when used in the conditions present at the time.
Neither one would meet the conditions you have just spelled out.

Actually carried an original plain Jane M16 when I first came in the USAF. And a 4 digit serial numbered one a few years later. Never abused them, but they worked fine. I am aware of the problems in the original mod and some of that came from bad training and improper or lack of maintenance. Overall, I tend to think the AR platform has come a long way. But different debate different thread lol

[rice paddy daddy]

all of those guns listed are of newer design and unless assembled by illiterate Pakistanis do not self destruct at 12k rounds.

I repeat - there is insufficient data included in the original link that was posted to draw any conclusions.
Was the ammo that was fired standard issue, or was it loaded above pressure limits to see how much abuse the weapon could absorb?
This is basic scientific proceedure. One cannot allow himself to be blinded by pre-concieved notions.

[Grand58742]

I repeat - there is insufficient data included in the original link that was posted to draw any conclusions.
Was the ammo that was fired standard issue, or was it loaded above pressure limits to see how much abuse the weapon could absorb?
This is basic scientific proceedure. One cannot allow himself to be blinded by pre-concieved notions.

Even +P ammo shouldn't cause frame/slide cracking at 12K rounds with modern metallurgy. At least not like in the pictures that were posted up.

The biggest problem is the majority of the pistols did not finish the competition due to these failures, yet the order went through anyway. And I draw my own conclusions that someone was playing favorites with a 1911 style pistol and they were going to win no matter what.

[rice paddy daddy]

kinda the same way we got stuck with the M16, huh?;)

[swede4198]

GI's complain about the load they have to carry so they added a heavy pistol to it. They should have opened the compitition to include .40s and polymer pistols. With the .40 you are about equal to the .45 and you can carry more rounds in the same size weapon. Pisols like the M&P would have allowed them to fit people better with the interchangable back straps. The 1911 is a good weapon but technology has past it by. Our GIs need to have the weapon that works best for the situation, not one that some LTC liked when he was a LT.

[Grand58742]

The problem with the .40, from what I understand, is the JAG has never approved the round. Each and every round the .mil uses has to go through "legal approval" for use (at least by conventional forces) prior to going into production. While it would be little more than a formality, the legal beagles check for Hague Convention compliance to determine whether or not is meets the criteria for weapons under that convention...even if we aren't a signatory. Plus you are looking at hundreds of millions of dollars to get sufficient stockpiles of .40 for the entire USMC into production to include training and wartime needs. And while production of .40 might be out there already, the USMC would be competing with just about every Federal, State and Local Agency that uses that round. And whether or not there would be sufficient amounts for everyone?

The .45 ACP production is already in play even in low numbers so logistically, there is nothing new to do so to speak. And besides, I'm fairly certain the USMC wouldn't entertain the notion of any other round besides the .45 ACP...I mean they did just ignore 100 years of weapons development by limiting the competition to only 1911 designs.