• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Marines place 22.5 Million Dollar Order for the M1911 Government Model

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Way to miss out on the last half century of military science.

Please explain? Are you saying the .308 is not a more effective accurate powerful round than the 5.56? Seems that the .308 is very much active in use in this century of military service. I would take a M14 any day over the M4.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Please explain? Are you saying the .308 is not a more effective accurate powerful round than the 5.56? Seems that the .308 is very much active in use in this century of military service. I would take a M14 any day over the M4.

The .308 is used extensively as a designated marksman round. It is well-suited to this role. A skilled shooter can accurately place the round into a target at very decent ranges, and do so with enough power to do considerable damage.

However, it was long ago determined that such power was wasted on the average soldier, who is not trained to such a degree of advanced marksmanship as is required to fully utilize the benefits of a "serious" round like the .308. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure most of us here can use it, and it seems easy. But remember that a great many fresh recruits know nothing about guns, or marksmanship, or even basic shooting.

The most important criteria is getting the most soldiers into the field, as effectively as possible, as quickly as possible, for the least amount of money possible. The heavy battle-rifle rounds never succeeded in this role. On the other hand, the .223 is almost trivial to put into the hands of an inexperienced shooter and have him using it effectively in a matter of days (if not hours!). The .223 is nothing to sneeze at, and it has enabled our armed forces to function as only a forced composed entirely of elite soldiers could have functioned in the days of the battle rifle (today, our foes must hide their heads constantly, knowing that essentially every single soldier they are fighting is capable of taking a head shot at surprising ranges – a fact that are not capable of replicating within their own forces).

The .223 round is easily controllable in burst fire, a combination which, it was found through empirical studies, leads to the highest hit ratio per round fired – higher than any rate of fire for heavier rounds like the .308. Not only that, but its flat-shooting nature and mild report make it easy for beginners to make shots at good ranges, without being distracted by all the fuss the gun itself is making.

There are very good reasons why the .223 has replaced the .308 for the majority of our troops, and why the overwhelming majority of armed forces around the world have made similar changes (see the AK-74 for instance). I suggest you buy a book on the subject; I'm not the best source of such info.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
The .308 is used extensively as a designated marksman round. It is well-suited to this role. A skilled shooter can accurately place the round into a target at very decent ranges, and do so with enough power to do considerable damage.

However, it was long ago determined that such power was wasted on the average soldier, who is not trained to such a degree of advanced marksmanship as is required to fully utilize the benefits of a "serious" round like the .308. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure most of us here can use it, and it seems easy. But remember that a great many fresh recruits know nothing about guns, or marksmanship, or even basic shooting.

The most important criteria is getting the most soldiers into the field, as effectively as possible, as quickly as possible, for the least amount of money possible. The heavy battle-rifle rounds never succeeded in this role. On the other hand, the .223 is almost trivial to put into the hands of an inexperienced shooter and have him using it effectively in a matter of days (if not hours!). The .223 is nothing to sneeze at, and it has enabled our armed forces to function as only a forced composed entirely of elite soldiers could have functioned in the days of the battle rifle (today, our foes must hide their heads constantly, knowing that essentially every single soldier they are fighting is capable of taking a head shot at surprising ranges – a fact that are not capable of replicating within their own forces).

The .223 round is easily controllable in burst fire, a combination which, it was found through empirical studies, leads to the highest hit ratio per round fired – higher than any rate of fire for heavier rounds like the .308. Not only that, but its flat-shooting nature and mild report make it easy for beginners to make shots at good ranges, without being distracted by all the fuss the gun itself is making.

There are very good reasons why the .223 has replaced the .308 for the majority of our troops, and why the overwhelming majority of armed forces around the world have made similar changes (see the AK-74 for instance). I suggest you buy a book on the subject; I'm not the best source of such info.

Hogwash, our soldiers are the highest trained they ever have been. Any and all of them should be able to handle the .308, soldiers did during wars with much less training then our soldiers get. The .308 is far more than a sniper round, it is a highly effective man stopper, the .223 has a bad reputation, much like the 9mm. The .223 is cheaper, let me repeat, the .223 is cheaper. Less soldiers except pilots and special units would need to be issued sidearms with a reliable .308. If the soldiers are having to consistently go to their sidearm something is wrong, clearly wrong. The AR15 platform has been tooled for .308, but IMO the military needs to look for contracts with more reliable platform. There just are too many stories of the failures of the M4 in dirty conditions.
 

11B2O

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
94
Location
High Point, NC
I guess its time for me to chime in with my take on this post with my military experience considering I've been in the infantry the past 7 years and have been both to Iraq and Afghanistan. As along with alot of infantry units, we did operations with ODA, CAG, and other various special operations units. We even cross trained with 10th group in germany one time. So some of these things are what I've noticed from them as well.

Now on to the first matter at hand. I hate to break to everyone, but only Recon will be getting the 1911. Everyone else will stick with the M9. Much like how SF carries Glock 19's, but everyone else in the army gets the M9.

The reason the military uses the 5.56 and 9mm is because they are your standard NATO rounds. Doesnt mean I agree with it, but it is what it is. Even the army has talked about replacing the M107 sniper rifle in favor of a .338 lupua rifle for NATO reasons. They all get the job done, but when it comes to using FMJ, I would rather have the .45 over the 9mm.

And the last issue, there isnt anything wrong with the current M4 other than the fact that it is not piston driven. A piston driven upper receiver would take care of most of the reliability issues. That and Magpul or H&K mags instead of the horrible government issued GI magazines.

Carry on.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I guess its time for me to chime in with my take on this post with my military experience considering I've been in the infantry the past 7 years and have been both to Iraq and Afghanistan. As along with alot of infantry units, we did operations with ODA, CAG, and other various special operations units. We even cross trained with 10th group in germany one time. So some of these things are what I've noticed from them as well.

Now on to the first matter at hand. I hate to break to everyone, but only Recon will be getting the 1911. Everyone else will stick with the M9. Much like how SF carries Glock 19's, but everyone else in the army gets the M9.

The reason the military uses the 5.56 and 9mm is because they are your standard NATO rounds. Doesnt mean I agree with it, but it is what it is. Even the army has talked about replacing the M107 sniper rifle in favor of a .338 lupua rifle for NATO reasons. They all get the job done, but when it comes to using FMJ, I would rather have the .45 over the 9mm.

And the last issue, there isnt anything wrong with the current M4 other than the fact that it is not piston driven. A piston driven upper receiver would take care of most of the reliability issues. That and Magpul or H&K mags instead of the horrible government issued GI magazines.

Carry on.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Those other issues could cost lives, IMO that would be something wrong with it. :banghead:
 

MackTheKnife

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
198
Location
Jacksonville, Florida
Kimber

For the money and effort that goes into buying and making a good 1911, then keeping it running, I'd have thought it much better to go with another model. But I guess if anyone knows what they want in a gun it'd be the Marines.
I would have thought they would have gone with Kimber vice Colt. The Marine Special OPS (SOTG?) went with the Kimber Warrior. There was a big article in a previous issue of Surefire's Combat Tactics.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I would have thought they would have gone with Kimber vice Colt. The Marine Special OPS (SOTG?) went with the Kimber Warrior. There was a big article in a previous issue of Surefire's Combat Tactics.

They have so many options with manufactures, as they did during WW2, If a larger change is made maybe they will. I seem to remember my M16 many moons ago was not a colt. I do think they should have gone with a double stack magazine, and there are a great many caliber selections. I have never owned or fired a M9, but I do know there was a lot of testing. Maybe keeping the M9 platform, and changing the caliber, I do like the 9 for military because of it's extra penetration, the same reason I do not like it for law enforcement. I think the 357 sig might be good or the 9X23. The 1911 9X23 in a double stack would be much better than the .45 IMO.
 
Last edited:

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
Those other issues could cost lives, IMO that would be something wrong with it. :banghead:

Im sure what he meant was that the basic rifle itself- the ergonomics, layout, etc, is fine. The method of operation it uses to function, is what most of us who've actually had to use one, have an issue with. This has become all the more evident, since various makers have recently begun making Piston driven systems- it really highlights the differences in reliability between the 2 systems.

And, in conjunction with better magazines, our lads could have one decent rifle, finally. (all the more so, with a better, longer-ranging, harder-hitting caliber, but..) But, for now, most are stuck with the current systems, until someone, somewhere finally gets around to sayin "f-k politics, let's get a working rifle in their hands".

And yes, those issues above HAVE , in fact, resulted in the deaths of U.S. troops, and will continue to, for now.
 

Wolfstanus

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
126
Location
Colorado springs
I own an ar. I dislike the thing. It jamed by falling off a table and landing in some dirt... I had to spend extra time at the range cleaning it so I can fire it and to then have it jam again after 120ish rounds. It's a good weapon if you can keep its guts clean. (btw the gas tube is annoying to clean)


If you want to know why soldiers rely on their sidearm more. Maybe it has something to do with their main weapon failing them in some way.


On another note I wish I spent my money on a m1a/mini14/m1 carbine. At least I know those work if I drop them.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I own an ar. I dislike the thing. It jamed by falling off a table and landing in some dirt... I had to spend extra time at the range cleaning it so I can fire it and to then have it jam again after 120ish rounds. It's a good weapon if you can keep its guts clean. (btw the gas tube is annoying to clean)


If you want to know why soldiers rely on their sidearm more. Maybe it has something to do with their main weapon failing them in some way.


On another note I wish I spent my money on a m1a/mini14/m1 carbine. At least I know those work if I drop them.

I have used both the M14, and the M16. Now mind you I had no problems with my M16 I kept it meticulously clean, and most or our problems were with humidity. I would still take the M14 over the M16 though, because of the more effective round. Even though both guns had full auto capability I NEVER used full auto. Sand is problem for any firearm, the Gerand action has always performed well, maybe it is time to return to what works. Just reduce the weight with a lighter stock.

As for the M45 if it needs to be secondary to problems with the primary, increase the capacity, and get rid of the primary if it is that bad. The 9X23 would allow for keeping the M9 or transitioning to a Glock type firearm. The round would supply the harder hitting needed as well as even more penetration, plus the ability with the right bullet to penetrate ballistic matter. The grip-frame would be more adaptable to smaller hands and still keep higher mag count. There are several manufacturers who make double stack 1911s. If colt is not willing to do it they should be sidestepped. The only drawback I can see with the 9X23 is it being mistaken for the 9X19. But then the bullets could be color teflon coated, thus increasing penetration.
 

Wolfstanus

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
126
Location
Colorado springs
There are some great ways to lighten the m14/m1a the socom IIis pretty darn light and put a stock on it like the Troy then it's adaptable just like a m16/m4.

Now as for a .45 any would do does not have to be a 1911 but we do know the 1911 is very effective sidearm. The round is effective too. Also means less time and money spent on testing it.
 

MainelyGlock

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
615
Location
Portland, ME
Glad to read this! Never was a fan of the M9, or Beretta's in general. Out of the five magazines I've shot from one, it had 6 or 7 failures. How it became a combat pistol is beyond me.
 
Top