Colt 1911, Marines side arm once again

[G-Lock91]

true, if you ever got trigger and slide bite too, you doing it wrong, again, know your weapon. The Military would not let me carry my National Match Gold Cup, even though I kept it in the Armory!.LOL and if you do get a miss feed, How fast can you clear it. Training an knowing your weapon, I can't say enough!:thumbup:

Cheers all!!

 

Are you still shooting competitively? How come they wouldn't let you carry your NMGC? :thumbup: I'd haul that thing around everywhere!

[celticcoho]

Are you still shooting competitively? How come they wouldn't let you carry your NMGC? :thumbup: I'd haul that thing around everywhere!

no I am not! I 55 now and eyesight is worse, lol, I still have my Gold Cup, Personal use only, Military knew of my competing, but had to be army issue. they still have at least 4-5 really good 1911's I ported and polished.. I still have the trophys from Military too, Shooting their 1911's standard issue! Yeah, If it means anything I was an Expert in all weapons the Army let me play with!

 

:thumbup: In my day, I was shooting about 1,000 rds every two weeks. expenpsive now to do that too! Well good memories at least. I still try to shoot at least 50 a month! But I am Retired now! also mush differernt shooting at a still target, verses the Combat shooting courses!,,, but the .45 is still my weapon of choice!! Be Safe!!

Edited July 30, 2012 by celticcoho

[leafer]

:megalol: especially ones coming from Hickok45!

 

I didn't even notice his name. lol

[celticcoho]

The thingy with the extractor indicating a chambered round was only introduced recently, the austrian army issue gen3 i used didn't have it back then, IIRC.

 

Edit: Scratch that, i think we were particularly not trained to use the extractor but it was there.

I always know when I have a chambered round, why do you need the gun itself to tell you that? I not have time to feel for it!!:)

[G-Lock91]

I didn't even notice his name. lol

 

Yeah, the guy is a YouTube guns review legend.. haha . He has a review on just about every gun imaginable.

[OutOnTheOP]

I guarantee the decision was a) political, and b) another attempt by the USMC to reinforce their "brand". I just hope the US Army sticks to their guns (in this case, the M9), and doesn't jump on the "me too!" bandwagon like with the digital camo debacle.

 

The US military went with the M9 for a number of reasons, all of them good.

1) as part of the agreement to standardize NATO ammunition, the US chose the rifle round (7.62x51mm, then 5.56x45mm), and the European nations got to choose the pistol cartridge (9x19mm). The US was obligated to use the 9mm round

2) VERY thourough studies conducted during and after WW2 by the US military found that the lethality of the 9mm and .45 ACP ball rounds was statistically identical. Your body doesn't know the difference between the two: either one in a critical organ will drop you. Neither one in an extremity will severely hamper you. In specially designed defense rounds (the kind that are illegal to use in military operations), you can get better performance out of the .45 ACP. In ball ammo, it makes little difference. Statements otherwise are generally based on opinion, not demonstrable field results. All the "I shot a guy with a 9mm and he got back up, but if I'd had a .45 he would've stayed down" stories are worth the paper they're written on. Unless they shot two identical people in the identical location with a .45 and a 9mm, their opinion is just an opinion.

3) 9mm penetrates body armor much better than .45 ACP

4) You can carry a hell of a lot more 9mm for the same weight, and have twice the magazine size. Even assuming that the .45 ACP were more lethal than the 9mm (it's not), you're better of getting one hit with a bullet that wounds than getting no hits with a bullet that would have vaporized your enemy if you HAD hit.

5) 9mm has significantly less recoil, allowing much faster follow-up shots in case your first round missed, which, chances are, it will. This is important in handguns, and even more so in submachine guns, which were quite prolific when the decision to move to the 9mm was made. Personally, I think it's time to bring back the submachinegun/ PDW.

 

The larger magazine and better recoil characteristics on the M9 are a big deal, and hard to overstate. I'm an excellent marksman, but even I don't expect first-round hits in a real firefight (and I've been in several), especially with a handgun. I should note here that I refer to firefights in the military context, not civilian self-defense. In the civil sector, I WOULD expect first-round hits; engagement ranges are much shorter, the target is much better defined, and the volume of fire (in both directions) is significantly less.

 

Now, in my personal experience, having used an M9 in combat and owning both an M9 and several M1911s: there's a number of advantages to the M9 that I've never seen in the M1911.

 

-The M1911 is very finicky about feeding and chambering rounds; among other things, it dislikes any ammunition that is not round-nosed (ball ammo) bullet profile. The M9 feeds ANYTHING I've ever run in it, flawlessly.

 

-Both are exceedingly accurate, though I'd say the M9 edges out the M1911 slightly.

 

-I can put rounds into a target with the M9 easily three times faster than with the M1911, due to the severe muzzle flip of the M1911- though the M1911 stays on target better than the USP45, S&W M&P45, and all other polymer frame automatics I've fired (polymer frames are a bad idea in high-caliber handguns; they put all the weight into the reciprocating parts, which means a lot of muzzle flip).

 

-The M9 carries over twice the ammunition of the M1911 per volume, per weight, or per magazine

 

-The M9 can be safely carried with a round chambered, safety off, ready-to-fire. While the M1911 can ALSO be safely carried with a round chambered, it can only do so by either a) chambering the round then lowering the hammer, or b) activating the safety. Either way, there's an extra step when putting the firearm into action. With the M9, you just draw, point, and squeeze the trigger. As to the Glocks, I don't trust any firearm that is carried at perpetual half-cock. It has all the disadvantages of a double action (heavy trigger pull) and none of the advantages (since you have to cycle the action to reset the trigger).

 

Now, I'll admit that I have had my share of trouble with Army-issued M9s. It's no fault of the design- they're just old and worn out. Any old and worn gun will have issues. They need more regular refurbishment; you can't treat them so rough, shoot the barrel out, and then expect them to run perfect.

 

 

....that said, we should do away with semiauto handguns entirely, and instead pick up a good PDW. I would recommend the Steyr TMP/ Brugger-Thomet MP9. It's only slightly larger than a standard handgun, can be carried in a pistol-style holster (preferably drop-leg), weighs only 7 ounces more than an M1911, is full-auto capable, takes 30 round magazines, is STUPID accurate (I own the semi-auto TP9 version, and it blows away both the M1911 AND M9 in accuracy), and is outfitted with a folding stock, essentially doubling it's useful effective range. It'd make a hell of a room clearing gun. Why give your troops a handgun when you can provide a full-up submachinegun?

Edited July 30, 2012 by OutOnTheOP

[Cali]

We all know the stopping power of the .45 is way better then a 9mm. I have 17+1 shots of 9mm coming at someone. My baby eagle had a lot more kick then my 9mm, but I would love to buy another .45 to conceal carry, because of the knock down power. Although I not too worried about using my 9.

 

@OutOnTheOp, I agree that stories about 9mm vs .45 and people getting back up are worthless I think. A .22 can put someone down if they get hit in the right spot.

[OutOnTheOP]

Yes, the .45 ACP is a bigger round. Yes, it kicks harder. Therefore, people assume it's naturally a better man-stopper. Does the extra diameter mean a higher chance of hitting a vital organ, sure. But statistically insignificant. So in ball ammunition, that extra size doesn't mean a whole lot. However, a follow-up shot IS significantly statistically more likely to hit something vital. Again, more ammunition= more better. Besides that, most of the extra muzzle energy (energy, not velocity) the .45 ACP is carrying is wasted downrange of the target due to overpenetration of ball rounds anyhow.

 

 

There's really not a very good understanding of wound ballistics- the mechanics by which a bullet actually injures and kills- by most of the online gun wags. For that matter, there's not a very good understanding of it even by the scientists that study it extensively. Either way, statistics and ballistic testing has found that 9x19mm does just as well as .45 ACP when using ball ammunition, and that the probability difference in a single round stopping your target are pretty negligible.

 

 

Either way, bigger bullets, stronger recoils, and/ or higher velocities do not in themselves ensure better terminal performance from a cartridge, and different bullet designs in the same cartridge class perform very differently.

 

 

the 9mm vs .45 ACP debate is much like the 7.62x39mm vs 5.56x45mm debate. Lots of people assume bigger is always better. In the case of the pistol cartridges that's probably closer to true. Still, despite statistical and ballistics testing clearly indicating the 5.56x45mm M193 and M855 rounds are MORE lethal (in their effective envelope, out to 200 meters from a full-size rifle) than the 7.62x51mm M80 or Soviet-pattern M43 round many, MANY shooters, including a lot of servicemembers, are so convinced by their cognitive bias that the 7.62x51mm should be used because it's a "better man-stopper". Never mind the drawbacks of using the 7.62x51 (heavier rifles, half the ammo load, not nearly as flat-shooting, and less lethal against dismounts at normal combat distances. Afghanistan is an exception; engagement ranges there dictate a larger cartridge)

 

 

You will NEVER get an instant, drop-on-the-spot kill unless you hit them clean in the brain stem. Period. Full stop. I don't care WHAT round you use. I've seen people get back up after getting hit in the abdomen with a .50 BMG, and in the temple with a 7.62x51mm M118 LR. In military operations, getting hits is much more important than having big bullets (in fact, even near misses count, because supressive fire matters a LOT).

 

The most certain means of ensuring more hits is shooting more bullets (which also means you can maintain suppressive fire for longer).

 

Now, in the civilian self-defense field, the applicability of the "one shot stop" is a bit more important: there's legal aspects to consider, and if you re-engage the target after hitting him the first time, you open yourself up for lawsuits, so I can see wanting a bigger bullet (besides, you're probably going to be engaging a single opponent, and most likely at bad-breath distances).

 

 

*edit* some reading for better understanding of wound ballistics:

http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html (good overview)

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/effects_of_small_arms.pdf (excellent comparison of military projectiles' wound tracks. Of note, we're most interested in the performance of the projectile between 10 and 25 cm penetration; this is the depth at which vital organs are found)

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf (see page 9 for an explanation of why the very idea of "knock down power" is ridiculous)

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/45ACP%20230gr%20FMJ.jpg (.45 ACP ball ammunition wound track. Note the projectile, large diameter and low length, does not rotate or tumble at all)

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/9mm%20US%20M882.jpg (9mm ACP ball ammunition wound track. Projectile with higher length-to-diameter ratio tumbles on impact. Velocity insufficient to fragment or deform)

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M193.jpg (5.56x45mm, 55 grain M193 ball ammunition wound track. Severe fragmentation and permanent wound cavity in the vital 10-25 cm depth)

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg (5.56x45mm, 62 grain M855 ball ammunition wound track. As M193)

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-47%20762x39mm.jpg (7.62x39mm M43 ball ammunition wound track. This is the one that a lot of folk insist we should go to instead of the 5.56x45, because it's bullet is more bigger and therefore more better. Note the decidedly unspectacular performance. Projectile does not even begin a tumble until beyond 25cm penetration, at which point it would have already exited an average human target)

Edited July 30, 2012 by OutOnTheOP

[WildBillKelsoe]

my favourite gun! America is getting her style back!

 

Last I heard, the 1911 was phased out at the end of cold war, being replaced by the Italian manufactured M9. It's great to see some pics of Joint Chiefs welding 1911's. Makes great inter-departmental gifts too.

[Cali]

Nice post OutOnTheOP, can't rep you, but like I said before I agree on what your saying. I do have a friend that is a driver and carries a Glock .45, so in case he has to shoot through his car/truck door because someone is trying to jack him.

[G-Lock91]

You will NEVER get an instant, drop-on-the-spot kill unless you hit them clean in the brain stem. Period. Full stop. I don't care WHAT round you use. I've seen people get back up after getting hit in the abdomen with a .50 BMG, and in the temple with a 7.62x51mm M118 LR.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you at all... But I have a very hard time believing this..:(

[Jinja]

I'm not disagreeing with you at all... But I have a very hard time believing this..:(

 

I believe this, although I think OOTOP forgot to add ".... but very shortly thereafter, fell back down again. Permanently."

[sobek]

I always know when I have a chambered round, why do you need the gun itself to tell you that? I not have time to feel for it!!:)

 

Plz read my post again.

[celticcoho]

Plz read my post again.

 

I did, no worries, As you said, one must train for it..cheers:thumbup:

[celticcoho]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, in the civilian self-defense field, the applicability of the "one shot stop" is a bit more important: there's legal aspects to consider, and if you re-engage the target after hitting him the first time, you open yourself up for lawsuits, so I can see wanting a bigger bullet (besides, you're probably going to be engaging a single opponent, and most likely at bad-breath distances).

 

If you shoot to stop, they will go down with the .45, if they die as a result of stopping them, that is their fault in the first place. Stop the threat, follow up if needed! Seconds become your friend!!:thumbup: and just might keep you alive too!

[G-Lock91]

I believe this, although I think OOTOP forgot to add ".... but very shortly thereafter, fell back down again. Permanently."

 

I would venture a guess that it's more the body's natural reaction to sudden massive trauma than a person consciously getting back up on their own.. A .50 BMG can go through a bloody engine block.. A human abdomen doesn't stand a chance a surviving a hit from one of those IMO.

Edited July 30, 2012 by G-Lock91

[G-Lock91]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, in the civilian self-defense field, the applicability of the "one shot stop" is a bit more important: there's legal aspects to consider, and if you re-engage the target after hitting him the first time, you open yourself up for lawsuits, so I can see wanting a bigger bullet (besides, you're probably going to be engaging a single opponent, and most likely at bad-breath distances).

 

If you shoot to stop, they will go down with the .45, if they die as a result of stopping them, that is their fault in the first place. Stop the threat, follow up if needed! Seconds become your friend!!:thumbup: and just might keep you alive too!

 

Pardon the arrogance, but when would you ever want to "shoot to stop" and if you did stop the attacker, what would be an acceptable scenario to follow up if needed? I am always trained to shoot to kill.

[AlphaOneSix]

You shoot to end the threat. Almost all pistol training is to that standard. If you are specifically shooting to kill, why the hell are you using a pistol?!

[celticcoho]

 

Pardon the arrogance, but when would you ever want to "shoot to stop" and if you did stop the attacker, what would be an acceptable scenario to follow up if needed? I am always trained to shoot to kill.

 

It is kinda a play on words, but not really, if the threat is stopped move on, if not reengauge! It just gives you time, which you will need in close combat! also if you look at the Military side of things, It take many more soldiers and resorces to handle the wounded than it does the dead!

 

Do what keeps you alive! Bottom line..In a court of law??? I shoot to stop, their fault they died!, I did not shoot to kill them, only stop them!:doh: and they do question your training!! 9 out of 10, I gonna drill them to Heaven and back! But only shot to stop them! Understand?

Edited July 30, 2012 by celticcoho

[G-Lock91]

Guess we are saying the same thing.. in a different way. Stop the threat if they die then they die but I'm not.going to shoot an attacker in the leg to try and stop him..

[celticcoho]

Guess we are saying the same thing.. in a different way. Stop the threat if they die then they die but I'm not.going to shoot an attacker in the leg to try and stop him..

 

I never said shoot to wound, I said shoot to stop!!!! Center Mass is best!

when they look at your training, they Will ask why you didnt wound him, Well I did, just not in the leg. Their death is their own fault.:music_whistling: I was never trained to shoot in the leg either, But as a expert you should be able too, not so...You shoot as you are trained, not to kill them, but to stop them!

Edited July 30, 2012 by celticcoho

[G-Lock91]

Moving on... The 1911 huh!? :thumbup:

[celticcoho]

Moving on... The 1911 huh!? :thumbup:

 

yes, me too!!!:thumbup:

[OutOnTheOP]

I would venture a guess that it's more the body's natural reaction to sudden massive trauma than a person consciously getting back up on their own.. A .50 BMG can go through a bloody engine block.. A human abdomen doesn't stand a chance a surviving a hit from one of those IMO.

 

 

Yes, obviously both were fatal wounds shortly after; the point is that even after sustaining such massive injuries, they were able to get back up. One returned fire, the other attempted to flee and made it a good 30 meters. Obviously, had he opted to go for his weapon, he too could have returned fire.

 

The point is that unless you hit the central nervous system, neither a 9mm, .45, or even a heavy machine gun round will put a person out of action immediately- and the speed with which a not immediately lethal hit puts someone out of action isn't going to matter that much. You won't bleed out from a .45 inch hole all that much faster than from a .36 inch hole.

 

Personally, I blame Hollywood for convincing people that when hit by a firearm, the target is supposed to be vaulted through the air like they were slung from a trebuchet, and expire before hitting the ground. Bullets just don't work like that.

[G-Lock91]

Personally, I blame Hollywood for convincing people that when hit by a firearm, the target is supposed to be vaulted through the air like they were slung from a trebuchet, and expire before hitting the ground. Bullets just don't work like that.

 

Couldn't agree with you more.