-
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.
-
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.
The USAF to switch to .45 ACP
- Thread starter tarzan1888
- Start date
tarzan1888
Regular Member
imported post
.40 Cal wrote:
I am totally impressed.
Harsh environments, advantage Glock, That is truly funny
ADVANTAGE 1911 :exclaim:
Way to go John Moses Browning :exclaim::exclaim::exclaim:
.40 Cal wrote:
I am totally impressed.
Harsh environments, advantage Glock, That is truly funny
ADVANTAGE 1911 :exclaim:
Way to go John Moses Browning :exclaim::exclaim::exclaim:
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
.40 Cal wrote:
Finally read this. Amazing. Just reinforces my belief that JM Browning produced a near-perfect design. Almost a century of service, still preferred by many troops and LEOs and private citizens for many reasons, and it is as tough as nails. Like I said earlier, DOD should just stop all the handwringing and arguing and BS and BUY M1911A1's!!
.40 Cal wrote:
Finally read this. Amazing. Just reinforces my belief that JM Browning produced a near-perfect design. Almost a century of service, still preferred by many troops and LEOs and private citizens for many reasons, and it is as tough as nails. Like I said earlier, DOD should just stop all the handwringing and arguing and BS and BUY M1911A1's!!
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Then again that IS asking to much from them, and I am sure they would reinforce my comment if someone would ask them.
Tomahawk wrote:
Great article and yeah the congresscritters and military brass should concentrate on stuff that really does need fixing.
Then again that IS asking to much from them, and I am sure they would reinforce my comment if someone would ask them.
just_a_car
Regular Member
imported post
.40 Cal wrote:
But if you're going to gloat, read this and start balling:
Glock 21 Torture Test - Theprepared.com
.40 Cal wrote:
I'm not bashing the 1911, as I love the gun...
But if you're going to gloat, read this and start balling:
Glock 21 Torture Test - Theprepared.com
Lthrnck
Regular Member
imported post
Well I think all our service personnel should be issued the SW Model 500's. Think of all the ammo we would save. If you had to draw that weapon and point it at someone from 20 to 30 ft.. they would die of a heart attack just looking down the business end of that sidearm.
But I guess the tactical advantage would be lost try to draw a 10" barrel from a holster, unless of course you had tactical thigh holsters like Robo Cop had.
Well I think all our service personnel should be issued the SW Model 500's. Think of all the ammo we would save. If you had to draw that weapon and point it at someone from 20 to 30 ft.. they would die of a heart attack just looking down the business end of that sidearm.
But I guess the tactical advantage would be lost try to draw a 10" barrel from a holster, unless of course you had tactical thigh holsters like Robo Cop had.
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
Lthrnck wrote:
Lthrnck wrote:
Smith & Wesson has a nice 4" barrel model that would work. It even has a 2.75" snubby.
tarzan1888
Regular Member
imported post
just_a_car wrote:
Why would I weep just because a Glock owner Terribly abused his gun and it continued to function. Glock has long had a reputation for being a durable firearm.
I do haveseveral problems with Glocks, in general, and will never own one.
1. The grip on the Glock is all wrong, FOR ME. The double stack mag in a Glock, along with the extra hollow space behind the Mag makes the grip un-wieldy and un-comfortable in my hand. It is the proverbial BRICK.
2. The lack of any real safety on a Glock is troubling TO ME.
3. The grip angle on the Glock is all wrong FOR ME and every time I bring one up to shoot, it is pointing at the sky and not at the target. I know you can train your self to shoot with the awkward grip angle, but when I need to shoot NOW, I want to be able to point and shoot, and not have to think about it.
When the Glock design has been around 100 years and its design is copied by everyone who makes guns and you can take 4 different guns, by 4 different manufactures,in the high to low price range and badly abuse them and they all still continue to function, then we will talk about design reliability.
If and when the USAF or any US military adopts a .45 caliber sidearm, I, for one, hope that it is AMERICAN MADE.
But again that is just ME.
just_a_car wrote:
Why would I weep just because a Glock owner Terribly abused his gun and it continued to function. Glock has long had a reputation for being a durable firearm.
I do haveseveral problems with Glocks, in general, and will never own one.
1. The grip on the Glock is all wrong, FOR ME. The double stack mag in a Glock, along with the extra hollow space behind the Mag makes the grip un-wieldy and un-comfortable in my hand. It is the proverbial BRICK.
2. The lack of any real safety on a Glock is troubling TO ME.
3. The grip angle on the Glock is all wrong FOR ME and every time I bring one up to shoot, it is pointing at the sky and not at the target. I know you can train your self to shoot with the awkward grip angle, but when I need to shoot NOW, I want to be able to point and shoot, and not have to think about it.
When the Glock design has been around 100 years and its design is copied by everyone who makes guns and you can take 4 different guns, by 4 different manufactures,in the high to low price range and badly abuse them and they all still continue to function, then we will talk about design reliability.
If and when the USAF or any US military adopts a .45 caliber sidearm, I, for one, hope that it is AMERICAN MADE.
But again that is just ME.
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
tarzan1888 wrote:
tarzan1888 wrote:
tarzan1888 wrote:
tarzan1888 wrote:
Smith & Wesson...you'll see...
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Lthrnck wrote:
While I presume you are at least partially kidding here, the 4" S&W 500, would only satisfy 2 elements of the equation. Those would be penetration and crush injury. But for most troops who would rely on a handgun it is just too much to handle. With the shift to using women for motor-pools and field administration duties, they would be the primary users.
The recoil and muzzle blast is significant even in the 275 grain loading of the caliber. Now it is not as bad as a lot of people have made it out to be, but it is not insignificant. Shooting 400 grain .500 mags in the 4" configuration is about 20% more FELT recoil than a hot .44 mag. A case could be made that .500 specials could work, as the reduction in recoil and blast is significant, but it would still be too much gun for the average soldier. Even the .50 AE from IMI in desert Eagle format has a significant recoil and muzzle blast.
The muzzle blast form any of these weapons would be blinding at night. So they just would not work for this application.
Regards
Lthrnck wrote:
While I presume you are at least partially kidding here, the 4" S&W 500, would only satisfy 2 elements of the equation. Those would be penetration and crush injury. But for most troops who would rely on a handgun it is just too much to handle. With the shift to using women for motor-pools and field administration duties, they would be the primary users.
The recoil and muzzle blast is significant even in the 275 grain loading of the caliber. Now it is not as bad as a lot of people have made it out to be, but it is not insignificant. Shooting 400 grain .500 mags in the 4" configuration is about 20% more FELT recoil than a hot .44 mag. A case could be made that .500 specials could work, as the reduction in recoil and blast is significant, but it would still be too much gun for the average soldier. Even the .50 AE from IMI in desert Eagle format has a significant recoil and muzzle blast.
The muzzle blast form any of these weapons would be blinding at night. So they just would not work for this application.
Regards
imported post
Great thread!
Whyer(s): "But .45s are too big for smaller hand-sized personnel, to use effectively.
Me: XD45 GAP or Glock 37 solves that nicely!
.45, be it ACP or GAP; it's great choice for self defense! I'm an XD40 owner, but I hope someday to also own botha Glock 37 and a 1911.
Great thread!
Whyer(s): "But .45s are too big for smaller hand-sized personnel, to use effectively.
Me: XD45 GAP or Glock 37 solves that nicely!
.45, be it ACP or GAP; it's great choice for self defense! I'm an XD40 owner, but I hope someday to also own botha Glock 37 and a 1911.
massltca
Regular Member
imported post
I think they should go back to the 1911A1, its a proven design, works in any climate and if more capacity is needed go with one of the high capacity models from Para Ordnence. A 1911 is not that hard to fire either, the military just needs to train its personel to handle the recoil, its entirely doable.
I think they should go back to the 1911A1, its a proven design, works in any climate and if more capacity is needed go with one of the high capacity models from Para Ordnence. A 1911 is not that hard to fire either, the military just needs to train its personel to handle the recoil, its entirely doable.
Lthrnck
Regular Member
imported post
Yes you were correct Hawk, it was in fun.. there's only a few people who could actually shoot that BAG (Big A*# Gun)safely. But wouldn't just love to see the face on your enemy if you pulled that S&W with the 10" barrel out and pointed it at them..
Unless they were hyped up on something, their just gonna s*!t their pants, throw down all their weapons, beg for mercy and pray to whoever it is they pray to, hoping you don't pull the trigger.
It would definitely be a humbling effect on whoever is on the business end of that gun.
Oh, and Hank... they can't have a 2.75 in barrel... the dang shell is gotta be 6" long.... :celebrate... LOL... JK again.
Yes you were correct Hawk, it was in fun.. there's only a few people who could actually shoot that BAG (Big A*# Gun)safely. But wouldn't just love to see the face on your enemy if you pulled that S&W with the 10" barrel out and pointed it at them..
Unless they were hyped up on something, their just gonna s*!t their pants, throw down all their weapons, beg for mercy and pray to whoever it is they pray to, hoping you don't pull the trigger.
It would definitely be a humbling effect on whoever is on the business end of that gun.
Oh, and Hank... they can't have a 2.75 in barrel... the dang shell is gotta be 6" long.... :celebrate... LOL... JK again.
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
Lthrnck wrote:
It's a big handgun round, that's for sure. I had a chance to buy a 500 a few weeks ago but I passed. About three bucks a round convinced me it wasn't a good choice. The guy had a partial box of ammo (all but five rounds) to go withthe gun. It's a fine gun, I'm sure. Idon't think they get shot much. I'll stickwith my.44mags. Big fun wit dose.
Lthrnck wrote:
It's a big handgun round, that's for sure. I had a chance to buy a 500 a few weeks ago but I passed. About three bucks a round convinced me it wasn't a good choice. The guy had a partial box of ammo (all but five rounds) to go withthe gun. It's a fine gun, I'm sure. Idon't think they get shot much. I'll stickwith my.44mags. Big fun wit dose.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
tarzan1888
Regular Member
imported post
Mini14 wrote:
When the 1911 was first issued to the expeditionary forces for WW1, the Army talked to the returning troops to determine how they had felt that the hand gun had performed.
Those with small hands complained that it was hard for them to property use the 1911 with its long trigger pull and those with big hands complained about getting the web of their hand(between the thumb and fore finger), pinched by the hammer.
Based on these comments the three following modifications were made.
1. The trigger pull was shortened.
2. Both sides of the frame just behind the trigger were fluted in to make easier access to the trigger.
3. Theprotective tang on the grip safety was lengthened.
The M 1911, thus modified became the M 1911 A1.
These modifications made the 1911 easier to shoot by those with both small and large hands.
My wife, with her small hands, has no trouble shooting a 1911.
Mini14 wrote:
When the 1911 was first issued to the expeditionary forces for WW1, the Army talked to the returning troops to determine how they had felt that the hand gun had performed.
Those with small hands complained that it was hard for them to property use the 1911 with its long trigger pull and those with big hands complained about getting the web of their hand(between the thumb and fore finger), pinched by the hammer.
Based on these comments the three following modifications were made.
1. The trigger pull was shortened.
2. Both sides of the frame just behind the trigger were fluted in to make easier access to the trigger.
3. Theprotective tang on the grip safety was lengthened.
The M 1911, thus modified became the M 1911 A1.
These modifications made the 1911 easier to shoot by those with both small and large hands.
My wife, with her small hands, has no trouble shooting a 1911.
![dancinguy[1].gif](/data/attachments/0/199-27158cf578874a0f6581f4b81661ba84.jpg){kind=small}