Gil223
Regular Member
Our government, in their infinite wisdom (and with help from the USMC), apparently thinks that - in quantities of "up to" 12,000 - $1,875 is a reasonable price to pay for a "new" 1911-style, semi-auto .45acp pistol to replace the Marine's aging M45s. It seems that certain "flag words" - like Tactical and CQB - trigger an emotional response in many people. A response similar to that felt by the anti-2A crowd, when they hear the phrase "assault rifle", only with the exact opposite end-action. It's one that makes them "must have it" and want to spend more money to acquire one... or, in this case, 12,000. (I just this minute had to remind myself that government purchasing agents think that toilet seats are worth $800, and screws are a good deal at $50 each.)
According to YahooFinance:
"Very similar" to the existing M45... that does make sense in at least two ways:
1. Our Marines are already extremely familiar - and quite comfortable - with the 1911-style pistol, thereby requiring virtually no "learning curve" for the CQBP version.
2. Colt's "investment castings" for many of the parts (frames, slides, barrels, triggers, etc) will make the weapon less expensive for them to produce, thereby increasing their already exorbitant profit margin.
(The whole idea of a "CQB pistol" seems like a restatement of the obvious to me. The handgun is not exactly the first choice of snipers or designated marksmen... or even infantry grunts. In military applications, the handgun is (and always has been), by design, a CQB weapon - it's the last choice before the knife!)
The reported criteria for the winning CQBP was: "5-shot groups not to exceed 4"x4" at 25 yards, from an unsupported position, reliability and magazine life." Not terribly demanding... most decent pistol shooters can do groups under 3" at 25 yards with the old 1911!
1911-style pistols from Springfield Armory and S&W were also in the competition, but (for unspecified reasons) they failed to prevail. My question is, am I the only person that thinks that Colt is "ripping off" the USMC? Pax...
In quantities of 12,000 (price includes X number of various replacement parts) the USMC should be getting a serious price break.
According to YahooFinance:
Initial reports, which leave much to the imagination regarding specific details about the CQBP, indicate that the contract is for 5 years, and shipments of "up to" 4,000 CQBPs, in three stages.
"Very similar" to the existing M45... that does make sense in at least two ways:
1. Our Marines are already extremely familiar - and quite comfortable - with the 1911-style pistol, thereby requiring virtually no "learning curve" for the CQBP version.
2. Colt's "investment castings" for many of the parts (frames, slides, barrels, triggers, etc) will make the weapon less expensive for them to produce, thereby increasing their already exorbitant profit margin.
(The whole idea of a "CQB pistol" seems like a restatement of the obvious to me. The handgun is not exactly the first choice of snipers or designated marksmen... or even infantry grunts. In military applications, the handgun is (and always has been), by design, a CQB weapon - it's the last choice before the knife!)
The reported criteria for the winning CQBP was: "5-shot groups not to exceed 4"x4" at 25 yards, from an unsupported position, reliability and magazine life." Not terribly demanding... most decent pistol shooters can do groups under 3" at 25 yards with the old 1911!
1911-style pistols from Springfield Armory and S&W were also in the competition, but (for unspecified reasons) they failed to prevail. My question is, am I the only person that thinks that Colt is "ripping off" the USMC? Pax...
Last edited:
