US Armed Services looking for a new pistol, in .45!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maser

If I was a soldier I would much rather have a sidearm that holds 15 in the mag rather than the 1911 which is only 7.

---

I'm a soldier, and I'd MUCH rather have a 1911 .45 than an M9, especially since I am limited to ball ammo. I also have no interest in a double-stack .45, since the grip is huge and hard to handle, especially with the nomex gloves commonly worn. Smaller guys and female soldiers have enough trouble with the M9, never mind a double-stack .45.

I don't much like any of the current "candidates" for this ephemeral JCP. It doesn't really matter; pistols are pretty much inconsequential in war. I'll shoot whatever they hand me.

I'm also not really sure why people get all worked up about new military weapons. Most of them are one-size-fits-none designs orginated by committees who don't know jack about using weapons outside the Proving Grounds, and seldom are the design parameters directly applicable to a civilian gun carrier.

DOD put the RFP for a new JCP [Joint Combat Pistol] in .45 on official hold last September 6th, 2006.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imported_js

The 1911 did pretty damn well in 2 world wars. My grandfather carried a Colt 1911 in WWII. Everyone that I personally know who are in the military prefer the .45acp. Especially special ops...

---

Not to mention, The Philippines, Central America, Santo Domingo, Korea, Vietnam... and who knows where else.
Yeah... with all the 1911s available nowadays you'd think the Gov.'d go back to something tried, tested and proven.

I carried one for quite a while in service, and carry one now.

In my opinion, a 1911 would be the logical way to go.

What's the need of getting so "exotic"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marcodelat

Not to mention, The Philippines, Central America, Santo Domingo, Korea, Vietnam... and who knows where else.
Yeah... with all the 1911s available nowadays you'd think the Gov.'d go back to something tried, tested and proven.

I carried one for quite a while in service, and carry one now.

In my opinion, a 1911 would be the logical way to go.

What's the need of getting so "exotic"?

---

The 1911 is a great pistol for a shooting enthusiast. It is a poor choice for an army of marginally trained shooters.

* It is more maintenance intensive than modern designs.
* Has lots of small parts.
* Requires gunsmithing skill to repair (rather than simple company-level parts changing).
* Gives lousy shooters (e.g., most soldiers) only 7-8 chances to hit hajji.
* Is perceived to kick hard in marginally trained hands.
* Must be carried in Condition One to be fast and safe. Safe Condition One use requires training that soldiers simply do not receive as part of conventional military training.

Don't get me wrong, I personally love the 1911 and carried one for years. But I think it's inappropriate for general issue in today's world.

So in other words, training is more important than equipment? That doesn't make any sense.:rolleyes:

You won't be seeing that in this Army. So much for "train as you fight". We're more afraid of our own weapons than the enemy's. Maybe if enough money changes hands(and pocketed) there may be a new flashy pistol in the future. Not that it'll solve any problems unless these pistols are of the self-aiming and self-firing variety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revolver

So in other words, training is more important than equipment? That doesn't make any sense.:rolleyes:

You won't be seeing that in this Army. So much for "train as you fight". We're more afraid of our own weapons than the enemy's. Maybe if enough money changes hands(and pocketed) there may be a new flashy pistol in the future. Not that it'll solve any problems unless these pistols are of the self-aiming and self-firing variety.

---

The American Army, despite being tired and ground down after five years of war, is still by far the best trained and equipped military the world has ever seen. An American infantry squad - never mind, say, a Stryker - is a fearsome instrument of war and bringer of death to the enemies of our country.

Training with the M4 and crew-served weapons actually isn't bad, and we do pretty extensive training in urban combat, room clearing, etc. Safety Nazis do make us clear weapons all the time, which I think contributes to poor weapons handling and negligent discharges. Pistol training is lacking, but that's just because pistols, being weak and difficult to shoot well under stress, are almost totally inconsequential on the battlefield. That's why I can't ever get worked up about some new pistol being tested at the Proving Grounds.

I'm kind of aware of Army training. Let's just say I've done some(though I'm aware that you would not be able to know). There's no need to tell me about the world's greatest fighting force.
From what I've experienced, most Reserve and NG Soldiers do not get enough marksmanship training, in my opinion. I don't think that once a year is enough. I think that they should do it at least twice a year like they do with APFT. I'm obviously not including pre-deployment training.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revolver

I'm kind of aware of Army training. Let's just say I've done some(though I'm aware that you would not be able to know). There's no need to tell me about the world's greatest fighting force.
From what I've experienced, most Reserve and NG Soldiers do not get enough marksmanship training, in my opinion. I don't think that once a year is enough. I think that they should do it at least twice a year like they do with APFT. I'm obviously not including pre-deployment training.

---

Thanks for your service.

I agree with you, but I am sure you know that there are lots of competing training requirements, and that marksmanship isn't necessarily the total measure of a soldier. I would, however, like to see a move away from the static "get 'em qualified" mentality to a more dynamic shooting program that is based in current reality, not a theoretical Cold War defensive posture.

There's also the matter of budgeting and finances. The military coffers are low, and sometimes Guard units (I can't speak for Reserve) simply don't have the money for a weekend on the range. Sometimes we have to make due with BeamHit simulators!

I agree that marksmanship is just one important requirement among many a Soldier needs, but not as much importance is placed on it as I feel it deserves. Many times by lack of funding as you said. It's an issue with Reserve units too, I'm afraid. I also think the marksmanship training is is a bit dated. I'm currently in the Reserves by the way though I'm guessing I haven't been in as long as you.

And good luck with the training and deployment. May the only thing your unit shed be sweat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maser

If I was a soldier I would much rather have a sidearm that holds 15 in the mag rather than the 1911 which is only 7.

---

With 7/8rds you will make your shots count,15 spray and pray!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.R.

With 7/8rds you will make your shots count,15 spray and pray!

---

Yeah, that's sort of easy to say, but battlefields are extremely chaotic unlike the square range.

It's not like hajji stands there like a cardboard target waiting for you to shoot him. He's moving from cover to cover, shooting at you with bursts from his AK, while his buddy is trying to target your cover with an RPG. There's smoke hanging in the air from the IED that just blew up one of your convoy's vehicles, and you're trying hard just to see hajji, while also protecting the medic who is applying tourniquets to the mangled limbs of your friends who were in the blown-up vehicle and who are now bleeding out on the street. Hajji just shot your battle buddy, who is screaming for help while he bleeds to death, but you're pinned down behind your own vehicle by a sniper you can't even see. You want to call in air or artillery, but you're not quite sure where the fire is coming from, and you can't hit civilian targets. So you and your guys are going to have to suck it up and finish the fight with whatever small arms and ammo you brought on the convoy.

I've never met a combat veteran who told me that he wished for less ammo in a firefight. You can have the 8-shot 1911 pistol and the old M1 Garand. I'll take weapons that hold as many rounds as possible, because I want lots of chances to put a bullet in hajji and send him on to meet his false god.

Well said Mike, I am completely with you on that. To take it another step, I carry high cap guns due to living in the big city, I am more likely to come across multiple attackers and I would rather not have to slam in a new mag after only 7 or 8 rounds. Just because I carry 16 + 1 doesn't mean I am not accurate or do not practice for accuracy, quite the opposite. I train very hard very often to be as quick and as accurate as I can be to give myself every advantage I can. If you ever read the Armed Citizen in the American Rifleman you will read time and time again that a person defended themselves against an attack by firing 5 or more shots against only one attacker and hitting them one time. In an intense stressful situation where attackers are on the move, you can probably cut your accuracy in half. I know a dozen or more guys that carry high cap 9mm’s and not one of them has ever said or given the impression they carry that much ammo so they can miss a couple of times.
My favorite gun is a good 5 inch 1911 in 45, but in the big and sometimes dangerous concrete jungle I want every advantage and for me that is, training, high cap gun with tac-rail, and night sights all set up in a good holster that I can draw easily from.