.45 1911s Being Re-Issued In Iraq?

[Phil]

The following is from a very lengthy e-mail I received from a friend. The writer supposedly is someone currently in Iraq. I can't know if this is for real, but after reading the entire post I would bet my life that this is from somebody who definitely is there or was, recently.

Among a lot of gripes about the M-16 and the M-243SAW, is this about the 9mm and the .45:

3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert
environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns
for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the
9mm: Bad guys hit multiple times and still in the fight.

7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there.
Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands
on one. With few exceptions, can reliably be expected to put 'em down
with any torso hit. The Special Ops guys (who are doing most of the
pistol work) use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The
old government model 45's are being re-issued en masse.

I hadn't heard that the .45's were being re-isued, but I wouldn't be surprised given the following statement - also in the same e-mail:

Fun fact: random autopsies on dead insurgents show a high level of
opiate use.

Has anyone else heard that the 1911 .45's are being reissued?

BTW, if anybody wants to read the entire e-mail, PM me and I'll send it to you.

[garrettwc]

There should be a military version of Snopes.com.

That email has been going around a while. The email takes portions of an after action report done during the early part of the war by the military command, and edits (read embellishes) what is said to support particular views on the guns.

Like most good internet yarns, they leave just enough of the truth in the email to make it plausible. The original Army report is posted on the 'net somewhere. If I can find it I'll post a link.

Bottom line, the spec ops guys are getting a few .45s, mostly 1911s. The rest are of the Army is getting Berettas if they are getting a handgun at all (most don't).

[Phil]

Oops. Well, I got it from a guy who's been over there.

[garrettwc]

Oops. Well, I got it from a guy who's been over there.
Phil, no offense against your friend. I'm sure he passed it on as he received it.

I found the source of your friend's email. It's from a Nov 2005 Op-Ed piece in the Washington Times. Here's a link:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20051121-093501-9601r.htm

Please note that the account of the Marine in the Times, doesn't have the level of detail of the official AAR which I read previously. It states some of the "whats" that he saw, but doesn't contain the "whys" that were discovered from later research.

[MajorD]

While I was in Iraq I saw a few HK MK 23's in one of the other units in my brigade. Occaisionally I saw some of the long haired wear sunglasses even inside crowd with 1911's in varieties to include bone stock guns and some that looked like tricked out springfields or les baer's. As far as regular joes it is not outside the realm of possibility that some units especially guard and reserve emptied out arms rooms and a few 1911's made it to iraq- I would think ammo availability would be an issue. I have good evidence info that also some units pulled 45's out of storage and brought them with but those would be very limited in number.certainly not en masse issue! lastly an occaisional captured us marked 1911 would show up which could have possibly been circulated. The longer the war drags on the more the high echelons frown on non standard weapons being issued so I would guess less happening now in this regard than earlier in the war

[pa_guns]

Hi

Based on the military's own data their stock of 1911's was in pretty poor shape by the mid 1960's. I doubt that they have enough in good shape for any kind of re-issue.

If 1911's are going to the troops they are getting bought from people like Springfield or Kimber rather than coming out of a military warehouse ....

Bob

[tenore]

I know one of the gun shops in town has sold to several Army National Guard troops going to Iraq as backups.

[Poohgyrr]

Yup, "The old days are gone, the old ways are no more. But they still work.."

[M4Guru]

My unit was issued 1911s, from war stock. New 1911s are NOT being bought for SOF, but rather the existing ones from stock are used as is or modified by team weapons guys. Berettas are still assigned as well and are still the official sidearms.

[pa_guns]

My unit was issued 1911s, from war stock. .

Hi

Interesting !!!

What kind of shape are they in?

There can't be a whole lot of them in stock. Of course 10,000 would qualify as "not a whole lot" when it comes to the DOD.

Bob

[M4Guru]

They are not in the best of shape, but they are functional. They have been sitting collecting dust for a while, and are in need of a re-parkerizing. There seems to be no real shortage of them, I think they said 25K or so when we requested them.

The 12 we have, I took down to the frame and slide and re-built every gun using Nowlin or Cylinder & Slide ignition parts, Grieder triggers, Wilson beavertails, Novak sights and S&A mag well/MSH's. We are fortunate to have full-time gunsmith support who can handle machine work for the sights and beavertails. They are very good at what they do, and it generally happens on short notice, which is nice.

[pa_guns]

Hi

Thanks for the detalis.

Sounds like you wound up with full boat custom pistols with military frames and slides. Sounds like a fine job. They should do very well.

Take Care !!!

Bob

[Gunner777]

M4Guru is correct. I know some SpecOps guys who have gotten their own or gotten one of the old ones and had it rebuilt with quality parts. My best buddy is a retired Ranger instructor and his son is SpecOps that just completed his second tour in the sandbox. His son carries a 1911 he bought and wrangled around until he got it over there. My son is an Army LT. and wanted one which I gladly supplied( a Colt with fairly liberal tolerances for extreme conditions). He had a heck of a time because the regular Army says a model 92 only.

[M4Guru]

Taking your own gun is against the law, but you're not checked on your way over. I wouldn't take anything I couldn't afford to bring back, and it may not be worth risking your career over.

There's a lot of nice 1911s that have been blown up with all the foreign weapons when customs wouldn't let them back through.
Luckily, you can pickup new Glock 19s over there by the dozen, since the Iraqi Police carry them.

[Gunner777]

True againest the rules. You could get a Glock from the Iraqi police since we paid for them anyway:-)

[dforth]

An officer I work with was in Iraq in 2003-04 and told me that he bought a hard chrome Norinco tricked out for $500.00 from another NG soldier who was about to return to the U.S. He said that ammo is available for theose who have .45's. As has been posted previously, he said that NG and Reserve units were a good bit more lenient than the Regular Army units. He sold the Norinco to yet another newly arrived NG soldier for $500.00. He indeed stated that it was against the law to have a personal weapon, but that nobody seemed to care about the U.S. law in the sand box. He is in an MP unit.

[eteasley]

Among a lot of gripes about the M-16 and the M-243SAW, is this about the 9mm and the .45:

3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert
environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns
for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the
9mm: Bad guys hit multiple times and still in the fight.

7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there.
Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands
on one. With few exceptions, can reliably be expected to put 'em down
with any torso hit. The Special Ops guys (who are doing most of the
pistol work) use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The
old government model 45's are being re-issued en masse.

Fun fact: random autopsies on dead insurgents show a high level of
opiate use.



I've seen this as a post on another forum where the poster was thoroughly and rightly ripped to shreds. The bottom line is that in general 1911s much less any other form of .45 is not being issued outside of SOCOM/SOF forces. The ones being issued, particularly to the MEU(SOC) units are veteran 1911s that are rebuilt by Marine armorers, who are among the best, I'll post the link to the review of the pistol later in my 2 cents worth. The other 1911s configurations are carried by contractors, DOD civilians authorized to carry, and last but not least, other operators who's SOP allows them the freedom to outfit themselves with what they see fit to accomplish the mission.

As for us boys and girls in the regular rank and file, a.k.a. conventional troops we have issue M9s (Berettas), M11s (Sig P228), or Ruger P95s bought in small numbers to fill shortages of the other mentioned 9mm pistols. As far as the 9mm being a combat shortcoming, it just isnt so. The only real shortcoming is the type of round being passed on to the insurgents, 124gr Jacketed Round Nose. Give it a flatter nose profile and you might have something there. I have "heard" that sometimes ammo would be "accidentally dropped" on its nose and flatten out a bit but worked fine. Ballistics were out the window, but at the ranges encountered in the dirt it doesnt matter much. By the way, everything is out the window when the first bullet flies and basic load only lasts 5 minutes after first contact.

The upbeat of this is that the military, after asking soldiers on the line, is seriously considering going back to the .45 and everything is leaning towards this becoming a reality. The last I heard before I retired was that a RFQ or a invitation to manufacturers was being sent to evaluate the next generation of .45s in Govt Service.

As for the 9mm being below combat standards, look back in history and you'll find its been on every battlefield the venerable .45 has been on and is still the round of choice for many countries. As for the insurgents (I hate that word, mine is a bit more.........never mind) being up on drugs, that sounds like something from the Mogadishu AARs.

The M16 series of rifles, they work just fine provided the shooter does his or her part, I will agree the M249s are junk as they have way to many small parts and the some operators dont appreciate their weapon until after their first fire fight and after they have to turn it in for repair.

Just 2 cents from member of the "been there, done that" crowd.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_170_28/ai_n6040330

[govtmodel]

The last I heard before I retired was that a RFQ or a invitation to manufacturers was being sent to evaluate the next generation of .45s in Govt Service.


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_170_28/ai_n6040330

The Request for Proposals was canceled.

[Gunner777]

They seem to be budget cutting all over the place these days :-( It always seems to be to the detriment of the troops. My son is an Army Lt. so you know I don't like it!!!!

[vikz]

I just don't get it??why do they think that 9mm is better than 1911's????I keep reading about this and they all have thesame complain about 9mm not enough stopping power...i guess politician doesn't care about history???WW1 ,WW2 ,korean war and vietnam they all used 1911...

[Gunner777]

It all goes back to a deal the USA cut with Italy. We wanted base rights I believe it was and the deal was you get base rights if you buy the M9 for the US military. Rather vulgar isn't it.
We get a cruddy 9MM for our troops and the government gets what they want. Sounds fair---huh!

[vikz]

why can't they bring their own back-up sidearms??? i am new so i do not know these things....

[Gunner777]

It's just againest military regs. It's always been that way as far as I know. Guys buy guns over there when they can find one then sell them to someone incoming as they leave Iraq.

[pa_guns]

Hi

For better or worse our armed forces have rules. They don't have to make sense, but they are the rules. We also have arrangements with NATO and the like. Standardization is a big buzz word with NATO. The 9mm is a NATO standard pistol round, 45 is not.

The US takes a *very* different attitude towards pistols than most of the rest of the world. As far as I know we are the only nation to send *all* our troops into a major war armed with pistols. Most other nations consider a pistol a badge of rank rather than a combat tool. Some of them didn't even issue pistols, instead they are bought by the individual.

As long as you are stuck with FMJ ammo a pistol is going to have it's limitations. That's true in 45 and even more true in 9mm. Even a 223 rifle bullet it going to do a better job than a FMJ pistol round.

You can spend an enormous amount of time debating who's right and who's wrong in all this. I have yet to see anybody's mind get changed on the topic though. There are numerous threads going into all the various permutations ...

Bob

[pa_guns]

It's always been that way as far as I know.

Hi

I believe it was legal to roll your own before 1900.

Certainly there were Civil War units that supplied their own weapons.

Bob

[vikz]

Pa Guns, i know this issue is been around for a while now but in my humble opinion the.45 cal has alot knock down power than a 9mm..a friend of mine was in the Philippine Army , and he was the one who told me that if a person is hit by a 45 cal anywere in his body that person is going down no question about it this is base on his experience fighting insurgents in mindanao...

[pa_guns]

Pa Guns, i know this issue is been around for a while now but in my humble opinion the.45 cal has alot knock down power than a 9mm..

Hi

There have been a *lot* of threads on this topic....

With a FMJ the 45 tends to make a hole right through the target. The 9mm does the same thing. The hole is often bigger with the 45, but in both cases the round is a lot less effective than it might be without the FMJ.

One hit anywhere on the body knock down is a bit of an over statement based on most of what is published. There are a lot of first hand accounts to the contrary. Shot placement counts - even with a 45.

Trust me - I'd much rather have a 45 than a 9. There is no doubt in my mind which one works better. The point is that it's a matter of degree. Neither one is going to be as effective as something larger still ....

Bob

[dforth]

I know that it's been 16 years since Gulf War 1, but there was an Air Force Unit who received permission to purchase and carry their own Glock 19's. That was well publicized by Glock at the time. I'll grant that they were still 9mm's, but they weren't issued by the U.S.A.F. either. I've talked to more than one who's returned from the sand boxes of Iraq and Afganistan and been told that the 1911 in .45 ACP is the single most sought after sidearm by the majority of the troops there. There is evidently enough being brought into the theater by U.S. troops agaisnt regulations and sold off to those troops who have arrived to replace those who are leaving, or available on some other market that there ARE 1911's turning up which aren't issued.

How many Vietnam Vets who spent much time in the bush wouldn't aquire an AK-47 shortly after the M-16 was being issued because the AK was more reliable? The M-16 has been around the world and back a few times now and has long had all of the bugs worked out of it except for the small caliber it's chambered for. It seems that the rank and file troops have to use the M9 and M-16 in 5.56 NATO whereas the Spec Ops operators get the .45's (and 6.8 SPC replacement uppers and magazines for their M4's if they want them). SOCOM has also refitted the old M-14's into a more modern fighting rifle complete with picanty rails. The 6.8 SPC was developed by Remington at the request of and with the assistance of the U.S. Army Special Forces personnel.

As to the old myth that a hit anywhere on the body with a .45 will stop anyone in their tracks or "knock them down", that's exactly what that is...a myth. There are way too many documented cases of bad guys on drugs who've taken multiple center mass hits with .45 JHP and Ball ammo and still kept fighting the officers who'd shot them. They are, however, the exception rather than the rule. Modern JHP ammunition has dramatically improved the terminal ballistics of all center fire pistol rounds, including the 9mm.

That being the case, why doesn't the military issue decent JHP ammunition with the M9 and M-16/M4? After all, we aren't fighting an organized army or nation, so why should the Geneva Convention even be a consideration? The last time I read anything about the Geneva Convention I didn't read where it was authorized to fly passenger airliners into buildings to bomb them. The terrorist certianly aren't going by the Geneva Convention, so why should our hands be tied down by it?

General George Patton once said, "No (man) ever won a war by dying for his country, you win a war by making the other (man) die for his country (edited)." He also said something about inflicting the most amount of casualties upon the enemy in the least amount of time. Confederate Calvary General Nathan Bedford Forrest said it somewhat more simply," You got to be the firstest with the mostest." Forrest armed his troopers with two Navy Colt revolvers and a carbine and did away with the saber in combat.

Maybe our military would be better off as some of the other nation's military's I've read here on this post, don't issue them a pistol, instead give them a P.O. for say....$1,000.00 and tell them to spend it wisely on a sidearm that they will use and carry to defend themselves against close quarter attack and in clearing buildings. Then give their quartermaster a specified amount of money with which they would purchase some quality ammunition. Carry a minimum supply of 9mm NATO spec Ball around with the company for use by any NATO troops who are running low, which since only officers and NCO's carry them, they never should anyway.

I KNOW that it'll never happen, but it never hurts to put forth new ideas does it?

PS: I'll be glad when someone designs a blaster like Han Solo's in Star Wars. LOL

[vikz]

well said thank you

[robertbank]

Pa Guns siad it best.

Pistols including our beloved 1911 in .45acp are pretty anemic when compared to a rifle or shotgun. Our troops are issued the Inglis HP when in theatre and it is not a badge of rank. From Afghanistan we see them with Armoured Troops and Infantry. There certainly isn't anything wrong with the 9MM as a combat pistol, been around longer than the .45acp. Neither 9MM nor .454acp can knock a man down unless someone out there knows something about basic physics that Newton didn't discover. Both are effective at close range.

Truth be known the pistol is hardly a primary offensive weapon, not since WW1 anyway, and for those on foot patrol just another 40 oz. to hump.

Take Care

Bob

[vikz]

anybody here who has first hand experience..meaning physically did it yourself please enlighten us on this topic....just the end result not the whole detail ..some detail is ok..

[eteasley]

Yep, I have, I spent 2004 in Iraq and left on a Medevac flight from LSA Anaconda a.k.a. Balad. The majority of pistols were carried by officers and senior NCOs, the main reason being they were easier to carry around in the FOBs and bases, but once they got word they were going outside the wire, they went looking for rifles. I had one CPT draw a SAW (M249) because the armorer had no more rifles. They also carried them to look cool with their leather shoulder holsters they bought from the locals at the on base bazaar. So long story short, it is a matter of rank having privilege as to what one carries when he or she isnt with the boys and their toys. I carried a M16A2 with a M4 buttstock because I have short arms and the body armor changed my sight picture. I was also a machine gunner on a gun truck manning a 249, so yea, I might know a thing or two about being there and yes, the 9mm is killing on both sides of the fight, so the question on whether the 9mm is an effective combat round has been answered.

[Gunner777]

eteasley,

Yep, I'd say your'e qualified on the subject:-)

[littledoc]

The one thing that allows the US and her allies to project power is..... logistics. We are able to not only equip our troops but keep them equipped anywhere in the world.

It would be nice to be able to keep in the logistics train both 9mm and .45, but Mr. Murphy says that the wrong stuff would go to the wrong unit. And the 9mm is an adequate pistol round an a better sub gun round. You can fit more in a shipping container, it weighs less and is less expensive. And the troops can carry more for the weight. The Army was looking at changing to the 9mm as early as the 1940's for these very reasons. The evolution of the 5.56 followed the same path for the same reasons, it just started a little later.

Of course these decisions came about after WWII, where we fought predominately in Europe, at least to the Army brass who formulated policy. Japan was mostly a naval (including Marines) engagement. The Navy and Marines weren't included in land warfare policy making until much later. Remember, at this time in US history, the Army had convinced Truman that there was no reason to have a Marine Corps so there was no reason to include them in the decision making.

This results were that the mindset was that we would be fighting in Europe. Even through Vietnam we were really focused on the Soviet threat in Europe and we geared up to fight that war, where logistics was as an imortant weapon as how many tanks we had.

Unfortunately, for most of the 20th century we were really fighting folks that didn't have the decency to fall down when hit, like most "civilized" soldiers. Luckily, our military leaders saw the writing on the wall after Desert Storm and realised the days of massed armies are waning and planned accordingly. But the last thing to change will be the personal weapons.

In my opinion, SOCOM will probably have a greater influence over what our folks will be issued in the future.

[vikz]

You can fit more in a shipping container, it weighs less and is less expensive. And the troops can carry more for the weight. The Army was looking at changing to the 9mm as early as the 1940's for these very reasons. ....that is a heck of reason to change calibers isn't it???good thing they did not change it before 1940..who knows how many soldier would have paid the ultimate price bec.they can fit more in a shipping container....

[littledoc]

Nah, it wasn't really politics.

Realistically, we needed to resupply and do it quickly. I know a lot of young-uns don't really remember the Evil Empire, but it did exhist. IMHO, -and in the opinion of many others much smarter than me- the Cold War was WWIII. We are still fighting it. The folks we are fighting now are direct decendants of the "freedom fighters" that overthrew the Shah. Now they've had a generation to make their own decisions without any influence from their former paymaster, the Soviet Union.

WWII was the catalyst for what we are doing now. Saddam's mentor -his uncle- worked for Hitler during WWII. He commanded an SS unit made up of Arabs. And Saddam had learned well and behaved accordingly.

We had brush wars -real shootin' wars- all over the world where US/Allied troops were deployed since the end of WWII. Africa, Europe, South America, South East Asia... It wasn't just Vietnam. I bet El Commandante can relate some of Greece's toils after WWII to keep the Soviets out. That's where US Special Forces got cut it's teeth.

Anyway, the Generals were anticipating a Soviet thrust into western Europe. NATO was formed to counter that thrust. We prepared to have to resuply a ground war. The US forced the standardization of the 5.56 for commonality. We went with the 9mm for the simple reason is that's what we wanted to do all along anyway. We did all this to simplify logistics. And trust me, one of the main reasons we can sustain world wide operations the way we do is logistics.

I don't really like the 9mm over the 45 either. Nor that the standard 5.56 round doesn't have the best terminal ballistics out of the M4. But I also remember Desert Shield where we had both M16A1s ( National Guard)and 'A2s in country. Neither one likes the ammo the other one shoots and invariably each unit got the wrong stuff. We had 1911A1s but got 9mm ammo, where the Marines down the road had M9s but 45 ammo. We switched, but it was a pain and we had 4 months to figure it out. Not conducive to hitting the beach fighting.

It seems that NATO is fading into the background as the EU becomes a true world economy and probably will be for quite a while, or at least until France and Germany start taking pot shots at each other again. :D

As the requirement for commonality cedes into the background we will be able to explore new/old calibers and platforms. Unless, of course, the funding is cut. :mad:

[dforth]

The U.S. Military is still shipping .45 ACP ammo to most, if not all of the Spec Ops folks as they are using a pistol in that caliber regardless of manufacturer or politics. I totally agree with littledoc/Tom that SOCOM will have a greater impact on what the rank and file troops are issued in the future. Sure, the 9mm will kill a man eventually, so will a good hit from a .22. Eventual lethality is NOT what I personally consider makes a particular cartridge "effective" in combat.

Many of the victims of the gang related shootings in Birmingham, Alabama and a host of other places are killed by 9mm's, .380's and even .25's. Many more are not killed, but wounded. I'll grant that medical care received in the first 30 minutes after being wouned is critical to surviving that wound. However, one is much less likely to survive the first 30 minutes if too much blood has been lost or too many internal organs have been irreperably damaged. As someone opinied in a previous post, bigger is better at doing that type of damage.

Coming from a law enforcement perspective, I want my pistol to be as effective as a pistol can be in stopping a threat in the least possible amount of time. I'm fairly confident in the Glock .40 loaded with the Speer Gold Dot JHP load that we now carry at my agency. I have asked my chief to consider authorizing officers to purchase their own pistols, if they so choose, in .45 ACP. He said that he liked a .45 too, but before he said "yes" he wanted to confer with the other supervisors. I've flat out refused to go to work at agencies who forced their officers to carry a 9mm. I realize that that may be considered extreme to many, but I like me even if no one else does.
I've carried a 9mm in the past, and like to shoot them, but I will not trust my life to one anymore. I had the need to shoot two rabid dogs while I was carrying a 9mm loaded with Winchester 115 gr.+P+ JHP's only to have to chase them down and finish them off with another 3 and 4 rounds respectively. I took that 9mm the very next day and traded for a 1911 in .45. I'm grateful that the dogs didn't charge me and bite me. I didn't have a patrol rifle back then, even if I had it would've been like the shotgun.....in the trunk as I had to get out and shoot them ASAP to keep them from running away.

The Police Marksman Magazine ran a poll of all reporting agencies which had officer involved shootings back in around 1991 or 92, the .40 was not included as it had not been adopted by very many agencies. The .45 ACP loaded with just about any JHP was within a percentage point of tying with the .357 Magnum as a one shot fight stopper in actual reported shootings. Both were in the 98.5-98.7% range. The 38 Special and 9mm both came in way behind scoring in the 40% of all suspects shot being stopped with one shot. In all calibers Ball ammunition was the poorest performer, but more so with the .38 and 9mm than the .45. I trully wish I still had that copy of the magazine, but I'm sure it's still in their archives if someone cares to look it up.

One need to look no further than the infamous shootout in Miami between the F.B.I. and two determined bad guys named Platt and Maddox to see three things glaring at them, 1. .223 Rifles loaded with soft points are far better fight stoppers than are pistols, 2. Shotguns loaded with Buckshot don't do very well against targets inside of vehicles and lastly 3. The 9mm is a poor fight stopper. Platt and Maddox were both hit in the chest with the 115 gr. Winchester Silver Tip hollow points fired by several F.B.I. agents early on only to kill or critically injure virtually every agent involved.

The now famous North Hollywood bank robbery shootout was a wakeup call for the real need of patrol rifles for patrol officers. That need has been rather intensified by Al Quaida's traing manuals and plans which have been found in Iraq and verified by terrorist being questioned at Guantanamo Bay that middle schools are a primary target in the U.S.

I don't care about weight or expense, I want something to work.

[pa_guns]

Hi

A couple of random thoughts:

If you want to see logistics in action messing up an operation grab a book on the Bay of Pigs. Having the right ammo is not as easy as it seems.

The 9mm has gone around the block a few times. Back in the era we did the switch the "velocity is everything" guys had a lot more sway in the terminal ballistics area.

I can run down to the corner and grab enough ammo to last me through just about any "situation" I'm likely to come across. A fairly modest number of guys with automatic weapons can burn an *enormous* amount of ammo in no time at all.

Since they made the switch to standard ammo (1900?) it's claimed that the supply of small arms ammunition has *never* been a factor in any major US engagement. That covers a lot of ground.

Bob

[dforth]

Hey Bob, you're right about automatic weapons burning up a bunch of ammo in a hurry. I don't have the figures in front of me, but there was far more ammunition expended in Vietnam than there was in Korea and more in Korea than in WWII for the number of confirmed enemies KIA. I fully believe that is a direct result of the issuance of select fire "Assault Rifles" to the individual soldier in place of the semi-automatic. I remember reading in a 1995 American Rifleman Magazine several quotes from captured German soldiers after WWII ended in Europe that had originally been quoted in 1945. To a man they were astounded by the American G.I.'s calmly taking aim at them (while the Germans fired swarms of bullets at them with sub machine guns and automatic rifles) and shot their intended target with each round fired.

When I was on the SWAT team, we had some Steyer MPI-81 sub guns and select fire AUG's. The sub guns were next to useless, IMHO. Had they been Colt's or H & K MP-5's I might have a better opinion of them. The AUG was a decent enough weapon except for the trigger being the selector switch. Under stress it was far too easy to rattle off a burst instead of a single shot.

I agree that logistics and supply are important, but we didn't seem to have any problems getting the millions of larger .45 ACP rounds to our troops in WWI, WWII, Korea or the miraid of other hot spots that U.S. forces have been engaged before the switch to the 9mm. For that matter, the 30-06, and to a lesser extent the 7.62 NATO is even a larger cartridge compared to the 5.56 NATO than the .45 is to the 9mm and we supplied tons of it to our troops in two parts of the world in WWII. I agree that standardization is important, but political or budgetary expediency is not, IMHO any reason to continue issuing weapons or ammunition to our troops based on NATO's preferences.

I'm not going to give up any of my ammo to someone else in a firefight, much less to someone from another nation's military. I've heard that same "reasoning" used by police chiefs and city councils for wanting all of their officers to carry the same caliber, and often the same brand of pistol; "In an emergency an officer can throw his partner a box of ammo or another magazine." Uh huh, and pigs fly too. If I'm taken out of the fight, then they can have my ammo, magazines, pistol and everything else on my belt because I won't be needing it anymore during that engagement. Unless and until that time they had better find cover and stay there, or get out of the immediate area and get some more ammo, more magazines or even another weapon because I'm not going to give them mine. Stupid is as stupid does. "Hmmm, we both started out with the same amount of ammo and now they're out and I'm not and they want to waste some of mine that we can't afford to be wasted, I think I'll give him some of mine to waste now." Nope, that isn't going to happen.

It is what it is and the regular troops are stuck with the M9 and the 5.56 NATO while the Spec Ops guys get .45's and have their M4's refitted for the 6.8 SPC (the U.S. Army Special Forces at any rate, I'm not sure about the others, but I'm sure that they could get them if they wanted them. My first point is that if Uncle Sam can find a way to supply our Spec Ops guys with .45 ammo, then he can supply it to the regulars too. My second point is that while no pistol is as effective as a long gun, it beats nothing when your long gun is not with you, or malfunctions while engaged with hostiles.

[eteasley]

SOCOM troopers, particularly the operators are afforded more liberty as to what they can order and their supply lines do not follow the same bureaucratic red tape nightmare the regular troops have to live with. As I understand it, Air Force troops, PJs and Combat Controllers have the same liberty. Going to the 9mm wasnt on the whole, an issue of supply lines rather living up to the STANAG agreements we forced on our allies at the onset of NATO.

We had to bend somewhere, after all we pretty much forced NATO to go to the 7.62x51mm as a standard for rifles and crew served machine guns only to go to the 5.56mm a few years later and got the rest of NATO to agree to it. This isnt limited to small arms either. The Main Battle Tanks are now on the 120mm standard, all mortar systems are in three categories, 60mm, 81mm, and 120mm as are the main guns in aircraft. The same for artillery. A side note, the main gun in the M1 series of tanks is a German 120mm that is common to Britain and Germany, the 81mm Mortar a British system and the 120mm Mortar an Israeli design. To sum it up, we had to live up to the agreement we implemented and signed, hence, going to the Beretta. As to why the contract was awarded to Beretta, there are plenty of stories behind that too, the plain and simple truth is that they undercut Glock by a few bucks per unit after it looked like Glock was going to walk away with the contract.

But yes, the venerable .45 is in use by the military, in small numbers and by units that are allowed to be liberal in their supply systems. Regular unit commanders can request more weapons should they feel the need but generally wont because they dont want to rock the boat and ruin their OERs (Officer Eval Report) and their chances at advancement. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

As for ammo interchangeability in the M16 series, the A2 can fire the A1 series ammo, but the A1 cannot fire the A2's ammo, it keyholes at 50 meters.

Keep this going, its bring back some things.

[pa_guns]

Hi

The argument in supply isn't so much the pistol ammo, but the supply for sub machine guns. The idea is that the pistol uses what ever the sub does and that makes stuff simpler, since the sub is the big user.

Bob

[garrettwc]

Some good comments here so far. One more thing to consider about logistics. In addition to your logistics (i.e. getting more to the battlefield with less) consider the inverse logistic for the enemy.

Historically, wars fought with small arms have been waged across vast open areas. This has been true up to the Korean War. The heavier calibers were chosen because of their effectiveness at long ranges. Also, the goal was not necessarily to "kill" the enemy (although that was often the result), but to "wound" them. From a logistics standpoint, a dead soldier equalled a casualty of one. A wounded soldier equalled a casualty of two or more because men tied up retrieving the wounded, wouldn't be shooting back at you. This also tied up equipment as the casualties mounted because that equipment was busy evacuating the wounded rather than bringing more supplies to the fight.

The type of war we fight began to evolve as early as Vietnam, although the slow moving military command structure hadn't caught up to it yet. They were still thinking one war behind and decided that a lighter weight wounding device would be best. It would allow them to carry more ammo (creating more wounded potentially) but still engage the enemy at distances. The problem was, the enemy was no longer engaging us across open country. The enemy had brought the fight up close and personal.

That trend continued throughout the various small skirmishes and into Desert Storm and now Iraqi Freedom. The fight is now street to street, house to house, room to room. It is no longer enough to wound the enemy. He must be put down quick and hard. Whether or not the military leadership structure can overcome its own lethargy and adapt remains to be seen. But as was stated by littledoc, we are now in a SOCOM war, and the logistics will need to be adjusted accordingly.

[robertbank]

Your post is the first to suggest Glock was in the running at the end. The SIG 226, I understand, outperformed the Beretta significantly in several areas in the US tests as it did in ours up here. The Canadian Navy now carries SIG 226 for their boarding parties and their are rumours now the RCMP (ERT Teams) will be re-armed with the SIG 226. Canadian ARmy continues to use the Ingls HP where it is deployed in Afghanistan. I suppose in time the Inglis will be retired by the SIG but there is no major demand for a pistol in combat other than for back-up. THe M 4 and it's variants seem to work quite well in close quarters.

I understand there remain several thousand Inglis that have yet to see daylight so I suspect it will be awhile yet before you see them replaced.

Take Care

Bob

[eteasley]

Your post is the first to suggest Glock was in the running at the end. The SIG 226, I understand, outperformed the Beretta significantly in several areas in the US tests as it did in ours up here. The Canadian Navy now carries SIG 226 for their boarding parties and their are rumours now the RCMP (ERT Teams) will be re-armed with the SIG 226. Canadian ARmy continues to use the Ingls HP where it is deployed in Afghanistan. I suppose in time the Inglis will be retired by the SIG but there is no major demand for a pistol in combat other than for back-up. THe M 4 and it's variants seem to work quite well in close quarters.

I understand there remain several thousand Inglis that have yet to see daylight so I suspect it will be awhile yet before you see them replaced.

Take Care

Bob

Bob I stand corrected, it was the SIG. Somewhere in the mid 90s the US Military did adopt a SIG, the 228 and gave it the nomenclature of M11. This particular pistol is issued to pilots and plain clothes MPs and CID agents. I do agree, the pistol is a last resort and close quarters weapon, nothing more and for most military shooters, trying to engage targets over 25 meters is asking alot, this I know first hand. My last assignment was as a Range Inspector where I got to observe training of various units and believe me, their position and job in the military shows. Another interesting note is that the military purchased a small number of Ruger P95s to fill shortages of Berettas and SIGs and to deploy them to Iraq. That is a story from the Army Times, a pretty reliable source of ongoings in the US Army.

The Inglis/Hi Power is a great weapon, I own a few and shot a few more. There is nothing wrong with the Beretta either, its just other peoples war stories are listened to with a grain of salt rather than good training techniques. I didnt have choices as to what weapon I could carry in Iraq, but if I did, I think I would of stuck with what was in the supply lines, being that ammo and parts were readily available, just common sense.

[robertbank]

Notwithstanding the tests I suspect the move to the D/A SIG 226 for our boarding parties was more of a perceived safety issue. The SIG has a longer trigger pull than the long HP pull and it would make sense to issue the SIG for those individuals wandering around the lower decks with gun in hand. One thing to want to shoot a armed terrorist, quite another to shoot somebody by accident on one of those searches, particularily if the ship was flagged by a friendly nation.

I know our Navy was very active in this role during Gulf 1 and after 9-11 along the gulf and over towards Pakistan.

Just an interesting side bar I guess. Methinks the 9MM will be the choice of the U.S. and Canada for sometime to come. Not a lot of reasons to change. Now the .223 is a whole different kettle of fish. Great round for the last war (Vietnam), but has it short falls when ranges get longer as in Afghanistan. Can't speak to Iraq as we are not there. (Thankfully).

As an aside have had several opportunities to blast away with a MP 5 - now for close quarters that is one mean machine.

Take Care

Bob

[vikz]

I am new at this so if sounds kinda whacky just bear with me...i know for a fact that small arms are mostly used in close quarter combat..1911 was design for the trenches during ww1...my question is distance wise how far can a 9mm be accurate and effective compared to 1911???25yds,50yds??? just assume that your rifle is out of ammo and you only have your sidearms..which one you think would me more effective..and accurate???

[pa_guns]

1911 was design for the trenches during ww1...

Hi

Umm, WWI started up in August 1914. The M1911 was adopted after trials completed in 1911. To the extent it was *designed* for anything the driving force was jungle combat against native insurgents the Philippines. Due to production limitations most US pistols in WWI were something other than a 1911.

Most (70 to 90%) of pistol engagements take place at under 15 *feet*. Very few take place over 25 yards. That's true both for law enforcement and the military.

Bob

[dforth]

vikz, I'll have to differ with your statement that the 1911 was designed for the trenches of WWI, it was designed for the Philippines. WWI hadn't even started yet and we didn't get involoved in it until 1918. It's predecessor lacked the safety features that the Army wanted, thus the M1911 was born, in 1909 I believe. You are quite correct that it was designed to be used in close quarters combat, which it performed with distinction and still does. Accuracy with either one is sufficient, as for stopping an attacker....

[vikz]

dforth , there is a n article in guns and ammo written by patrick sweeney..the cover of the mag is the complete book of the model 1911...his articles title is Myths,lies and fallies...he mentioned something in what you are refering ..the army wanted the .45 to knock down Moro's in the philippines...not true he said..find the article...theres more info..

[robertbank]

The 1911 was designed as a result of the Philippine War experience not for it I think. I also believe the reputation the 1911 has was a direct result of WW1. You have to remember the gun had greater firepower in close quarters than the rifles of the day. For trench warfare it was an excellent tool. You folks entered the war in 1917 though I think your troops first saw action in the summer of 1918 prior to the War ending in November.

Take Care

Bob

[Gunner777]

They re-chambered the S&W revolver to work with the 45ACP(it became the model 1917) and also got any 45 they could find for use againest the Moros.

[pa_guns]

..the army wanted the .45 to knock down Moro's in the philippines...not true he said..find the article...theres more info..

Hi

If the same source claimed they were designed for WWI I don't think I'd put much faith in it. :nono:

What certainly is true is that previous US pistols lacked the stoping power the Army was looking for. That experience took place over a number of years and in a lot of places.

Bob

[robertbank]

The insurgency ended in 1902 although from reading history a guerilla war continued on until 1913.

Some of the SAA .45Colts made it over to the War but neither the .45ACP or 1911 had seen the light of day by 1902 I don't think.

Take Care

Bob

[Tom]

Yeah, I've read that article, too. And while I have no doubt that the cavalry division of the U.S. Army wanted to keep their beloved .45, I still think the driving force behind the Army's overall change from the .38 to the .45 was due to the former's poor performance in the Philippines.

Also, the M1911 wasn't designed for the Philippines. By the time the M1911 hit the rank and file of the Army, the problems in the Philippines were mostly over. And while I doubt JMB knew a war was coming and designed a gun specifically for it, by the time the year 1911 arrived, several events in Europe had already occurred heralding the continent-wide conflict to come three years later.

U.S. involvement, for those who care, was (reluctantly) in 1917, and only for 10 months. We were the Johnny-come-latelys that tipped the stalemate in favor of the Allies. Had we not shown up when we did, there's no telling how long the war would have dragged on.

[eteasley]

The best persons to ask would be the Army History guys or the guys at TACOM at Rock Island Arsenal (not Armory), home of all Army ordnance development and great guys to have around in Iraq. If they cant give you the straight answer, then no one can. The reasons for me posting to this thread are now lost to me, but I think it started with a war story someone received in an email, and you know the difference between a war story and a fairy tale: A fairy tale starts with "Once upon a time" and a war story starts with "No (insert 4 letter word that starts with "S" and ends with "T" because I wont because I already have a warning"), there I was". That my friends is a way to find out and end this thread.

[pa_guns]

Hi

The whole question of how the 1911 came into being has had a *lot* of study. The more you look the more odd tidbits you come across.

Bob

[MajorD]

regarding pistols issued besides m9's and m11's, the rugers smith sigmas and other things listed as procured by the army were purchased to arm friendly military/police forces in our current operations environment,NOT for use/ issue to US forces due to some shortage of m9.s. before any such issuance would take place all non deployed units would be stripped of pistols to make up shortages and this is not happening system wide

[CTDinMT]

Agree with Major D. I saw nothing but M9's on my tour in Iraq, and I was running convoys, and took missions into just about every FOB in Iraq. As much as I wish it were true, 1911's in country are extremely few and far between...

[dforth]

Tom, Although the M1911 might not have been specifically designed for the Philipines, the .38's failure to stop the Moro's was never-the-less the reason for wanting to go to a .45, the revolvers slow reload time was the main reason that the Army wanted a semi-automatic. If I remember correctly from a history of the .45 ACP I read several years ago, the cartridge was indeed designed by 1902 and Colt had a semi-automatic pistol chambered for it which, according to the author, did see limited action in the Philipines. The book had a photograph of one, it lacked a grip safety and had a very small thumb safety. At that time, the only load available was a 200 gr. FMJ-Ball. I stand corrected as to when the U.S. became involved in WWI, I was remembering the year it ended.

An earlier poster was quite right in saying that distance that a handgun is used in self-defense is 15 feet or closer 85+% of the time. 25 yards is not very likely, but certainly not beyond the realm of possibility either as the F.B.I.'s Miami shootout and the North Hollywood bank robbery incident prove. In the case of the F.B.I. in Miami, agents had MP-5 sub-machine guns in Pelican cases in the back seats of their cars; thus, when the fur hit the fan, they couldn't get to them.

In the case of North Hollywood, some officers employed shotguns, but had only 00 Buckshot. 00 Buckshot is devestating inside of 25 yards, but they were firing from 50+ yards as the two bank robbers were firing AK-47's at them. Most of the officers engaged were shooting their handguns, mainly the Beretta 92-F in 9mm and S & W .38's and a handfull of .357 magnums. SWAT never deployed as one gunman was taken out by a borrowed Ruger Mini-14 and the other took himself out after runnig out of ammo for his AK-47 and officers were rapidly closing in on him.

Both bad guys were wearing soft body armor, so .45's certainly wouldn't have helped in that case. In Miami however, the F.B.I. evidently thought that the .45 was a better fight stopper afterwards as they re-authorized agents to carry .45 ACP's again. The 10mm was chosen but proved to be too much for the S & W chosen to shoot it. Thus S&W produced the .40 caliber round. Suprisingly, the .40 S&W has performed better on the streets loaded with 155 gr. JHP's rather than the heavier 180 gr.

The model 1917 produced both by Colt and S&W was a .45 LC re-chambered for .45 ACP for WWI to fill the gap as there weren't enough M1911's to go around. The Mexican revolutionaries with Pancho Villa gained a healthy respect for the M1911 in the hands of the U.S. Calvary under General "Black Jack" Pershing. Although Villa was never killed or captured during that expedition, the M1911 .45 ACP proved to be a highly effective combat pistol during every engagement as evidenced in AAR's.

Bob, how right you are about that, the more you look the more you find.

[pa_guns]

Hi

Simply put - much past 30 to 40 yards, get a rifle.

The 45 retains enough energy to do major damage out to > 50 yards. Depending on who you believe the 9mm has enough energy to significant harm at 100 to 150 yards. The advantage of hollow points over FMJ's goes away at range since they need velocity to expand.

Those who can shoot accurately enough under combat conditions to be effective with a pistol at those ranges are few and far between. The only real data comes from sub machine guns rather than pistols.

Bob

[vikz]

i've been following this thread and it seems like most of us would rather have them reissue .45 cal than 9mm ...if possible???? and also it seems like everybody would choose .45 cal pistol whenever possible in a tight situation...

[Gunner777]

I know I would! Several soldiers in the unit my son commands have said they wish they could get the 45's back.

[pa_guns]

i've been following this thread and it seems like most of us would rather have them reissue .45 cal than 9mm ...if possible???? and also it seems like everybody would choose .45 cal pistol whenever possible in a tight situation...

Hi

I don't think *anybody* here would sign up for the maintainance load the 1911 would place on the modern military. Keeping them fixed and running is why they dropped them in the first place.

Bob

[chimkayu]

Halito Pa. ehhhh, gotta give all those GMG's and 03 armorors something to do don't they? If I were still in I would want the .45 back...preferably in 1911 config. Love the 1911, Pennsylvania (bet it's cold there!), and this forum.

C.......

[pa_guns]

Halito Pa. ehhhh, gotta give all those GMG's and 03 armorors something to do don't they?

C.......

Hi

And just how long is training these days? Do you *really* want one of them messing with something as hand labor intensive as a 1911?

There certainly are some *very* good ones in the service these days, but there *never* are enough of them ....

Bob

[Tom]

Keeping them fixed and running is why they dropped them in the first place.
NATO standardization/placating had nothing to do with it? We're talking the military here. I was on a ship that was 50 years old; the military just doesn't throw things away without a reason - and even then they might not. I'm guessing that the military's stock of M1911s were simply old; had the military really wanted to keep the M1911 and not give in to external pressures, they simply could have contracted and had new M1911s built to replace the old pieces.

[pa_guns]

We're talking the military here. I was on a ship that was 50 years old; the military just doesn't throw things away without a reason - and even then they might not.

Hi

If you take a look at the original RFP for the replacement they did an inventory of the 1911's in stock. They simply did not have enough of them in serviceable condition to keep the troops supplied. They had a *lot* of them listed as needing a full overhaul. The cost of the overhaul was estimated to be more than the price of a new pistol. That's what got them shopping ....

Once they started the shopping process all the other gunk came into the deal.

Bob

[robertbank]

One hears more about the need to get back to the 1911 on 1911 Forums then anywhere else.

The pistol in any iteration is a pretty low level piece of equipment for the military. There will be debates after Iraq & Afghanistan as to the capabilities of the ,223 round and the M 4 rifle so I doubt we will hear much talk of replacing the 9MM pistol though the Beretta may be on it's last legs.

Several members of this board have first hand experience in the military in Iraq. Might be a simple question to ask but how many times did they actually draw their pistol in combat or indeed fire their Berettas other than at the range. From our reports from TV broadcasts out of Afghanistan I have yet to witness one of our troops drawing and firing their Inglis pistols though their M4's get regular workouts in firefights.

Take Care

Bob

[CTDinMT]

Bob- In my experience, the Iraqi's are some weird folks. When we would force civilian traffic off the roadways (to keep potential Vehicle-Born Improvised Explosive Devices, or VBIED for short from intermingling with our convoys), often times my machinegunners would get more respect with their M9's than their M2s or M249s. It amazed me that they feared pistols more than MG's, but the logic behind the Iraqi's incredible fear of handguns supposedly was based on the fact that Saddams folks used pistols for executions so often. I never served in Afganistan, so I can't speak for the troops in that AOR's experience, but in Iraq, a troop with a pistol often got some respect. I drew my M9 several times. Normally when I was doing close range crowd control while my convoys were on halts in populated areas.

[Rob1035]

Steve- My best friend spent a year in Iraq with a NG transportation unit, and told me the exact same thing re: fear of the M9 versus the long guns. He was not issued one, and said on a few occassions really wished he had been; since he has been home, he's procured a personal copy for practice in case of his redeployment.

[eteasley]

I have to go with Steve, the Iraqis feared our pistols more than the long guns because Hussein's goon squads used them for execution. As for the issue of going to the 9mm, it was a standardization issue with NATO, namely the STANAG agreements. No the military doesnt just throw things away, thats what they have depots for and no the military 1911s werent labor intensive, meaning they had to meet military specs, which arent anything near match standards. An interesting note, I do have a copy of the Army's depot manual for National Match 45s, which is no where near as loose as the standard manual for the 1911.

[pa_guns]

Hi

If you root around here you can find a link to the original RFP for the 1911's replacement. That's where they cited the maintainance issue on the 1911's as justification for the replacement. If it wasn't an issue then they lied in the RFP.....

Bob

[robsroost]

amazing the old war horse 1911's are still serving after all these years

[littledoc]

Also, to procure more 1911s would have been expensive as to the M9.

Remember, your equipment is made by the lowest bidder. :D

[Tom]

Remember, your equipment is made by the lowest bidder.
Makes me wonder who were the higher bidders on the $500 hammer! :eek:

[pa_guns]

Makes me wonder who were the higher bidders on the $500 hammer! :eek:

Hi

$500 hammer = $5 hammer plus $495 in mandatory government paperwork.

They sure don't pay $500 when they buy them in volume. They definitely go for the low price. Supplying stuff to the government is not a good way to get rich. Price definitely had a *major* part in the M9 procurement.

Bob

[cagekicker]

I got lucky in iraq and got issued a sig m11(p228) because i did psd work. it worked well a couple of times i used it in firefights(mostly jammed m4 with a double feed) I felt the 9mm to be decent after carrying one for 6 years but had the option I would have taken one of those old 1911a1's but the only guys I saw during my year there with 45's did not wear uniforms, spec ops and that type.

[carsten1911]

Hi

$500 hammer = $5 hammer plus $495 in mandatory government paperwork.

They sure don't pay $500 when they buy them in volume. They definitely go for the low price. Supplying stuff to the government is not a good way to get rich. Price definitely had a *major* part in the M9 procurement.

Bob

From the rumors I heard it was that the Berettas were 3 $ cheaper a piece than the SIGs, with both pistols being seen as equally up to the task.

And no, I did NOT read it on the Internet...and printed media are ALWAYS right ;)

[pa_guns]

From the rumors I heard it was that the Berettas were 3 $ cheaper a piece than the SIGs, with both pistols being seen as equally up to the task.


Hi

There is usually a "point" process that also figures into the bid review. Some of it is obvious and some of it is not. There's also a bit of (dare I say it) politics that goes on ...

On the ones I have been involved in the points might make a 10 or 15% impact on how things are evaluated.

Bob

[auto45]

Even if they wanted 1911s for "everyone", there isn't a manufacturer I know of that could produce reliable 1911s in large numbers at "any price" IMHO.

I think it could be done, if there was an "incentive", but the SA trigger precludes it from the largest volume contracts at home and abroad, so it stays primarily in the civilian "sector". I don't think that bothers the 1911 manufacturer, less "pressure" to produce 100% reliable guns and they can charge a lot more!


Small numbers they can do it seems!

[robertbank]

Probably Norinco out of China could but that would be a pill not a lot of American voters would want to swallow.

Take Care

Bob

[auto45]

robertbank,

You are probably correct, but I'd choke on that one too! :)

If manufacturers thought they could sells tens of thousands of 1911 "at a time", I think they would put on their "thinking caps" and make some changes that fit modern methods. Not big changes, but ones that insured little handwork and lower prices...that actually worked over tens of thousands of rounds. And they don't need to last 100,000+ rounds like the well fitted, forged 1911's. The Contract, I believe, calls for a 30,000 round "life" which probably means you need to build a 50,000 "life" 1911. Then, buy new ones.
Forget the expensive and time consuming rebuilds.

[robertbank]

Precisely. That is why the tupperware guns are so popular now. Even the 1911's made during WW11 were thrown together with not a lot of thought for longevity. When a 2nd louie wasn't expected to live much longer than a month or so on the line.

If the US ever moves off the Beretta or even the 9MM I would expect them to either go SIG 226 in the case of Canada replacing the High Powers or one of the Glocks or Glock Look Alikes in .45acp/.45GAP in the case of the US. Rebuilding a gun that costs peanuts to build makes little sense hence it's attraction, that and initial price. One reason why we haven't replaced the Inglis is we still have a ton of them left over from WW11 and they remain capable.

As much as I love my 1911's as regular issue pistol for a large military the sun has long set I am afraid.

Take Care

Bob

[govtmodel]

Even if they wanted 1911s for "everyone", there isn't a manufacturer I know of that could produce reliable 1911s in large numbers at "any price" IMHO.

Small numbers they can do it seems!

Before it was canceled, the solicitation called for the successful offerer to deliver up to 500 pistols per month. That's a lot of guns for most makers.

[pa_guns]

Hi

Just as a guess, say that a pistol takes 4 labor hours to produce with reasonable automation. 500 a month is about 25 a day. That's 100 hours in a day that probably has five production hours in it. Twenty people in the labor force.

You are shipping to the government so you will have a person doing paperwork for every one doing production. That gets you to forty.

Supervision will add another 50% to take it to around 60. Maybe I'm off by a factor of two, but I'd bet not by that much.

That's still less than the staff at your local MacDonalds.

I'm by no means arguing that it's a simple thing to make that many pistols. My only point is that it's a small business.

Bob

[auto45]

Most could produce 6,000 per year. As I understand it, Kimber and Springfield alone produce @40,000 per year each. Smith could do it no doubt.

I was thinking, perhaps incorrectly, of the previous "bid" where the numbers were much, much higher.

Personally, I wouldn't count on any of them except Springfield where they have to be "gone over" in the custom shop. In which case I doubt that type of volume could be done and, no doubt, the cost would skyrocket. Back to the same problem of mass produced 1911s...no "issue" with "handworked" 1911s except "time and money".

Thoughts...not facts. ;)

[pa_guns]

Hi

If you really wanted to make a dent in the DOD's pistol needs you probably would be up in the 50,000+ a year range. That would get you to a reasonable number in the field in a bit under five years ...

Bob

[HK88]

This is one of those debates that is never going to end really. I was in Iraq myself, doing a 2 year stint with a PMC outfit that was often integrated with regular military units acting as interpreters, escort duty for VIP's and guard duty as well as a lot of door to door CQC break-in's. Sometimes things went south and we found ourselves in skirmishes. While there are 1911's in Iraq - the majority 99% of the guys there are issued the M9 Beretta. The 1911's you see are stuff brought over from the US that end up in SOCOM hands or PMC's. Occassionally you'd see a regular grunt with one, but they were the exception. Most units frown on the practice of bringing in unstandardized equipment, especially weaponry.

I had a 1911 myself, as did a few other members of our unit. Like some of the other members here have stated, the Iraqi's do fear the pistol more than the rifle. Either way, I have come away with the belief that a pistol is a fundamental necessity in such high-risk areas like a combat theater. I've been 'reduced' (read reduced as being akin to being castrated when your rifle breaks) to having to use my pistol before in combat.
It's no fun, and honestly there's never enough bullets in the thing to begin with. When your pistol racks back on an empty 8 round clip and you've still got people shooting at you, it's kind of a messy deal. All of us in our unit made weapon transitions based upon our initial experiences in combat. We're standardized on the M16 / M4 carbine M9 Beretta platforms simply because parts, ammo, and support is readily available for these weapons. You can bring your own stuff but it has to be cleared first.

That being said, standardization makes sense on paper. Individual preferences and what works always dictate something else. I dumped the .223 M16 for an .308 HK91. I dumped the .45 1911 I had specially brought over for a 9mm Sig Sauer P226, with I might add, 20 round clips. My fellow members also made switches. Very few actually stayed with their original kit. AK's and Shotguns were the most plentiful. Why? Because the AK works. And the shotgun really knows how to stop a man.

Very few Iraqi's we came across actually had pistols. You always found the AK or the RPG, but pistols were kind of far between. We did come across a gold plated 1911 once that was promptly seized by the local army guys and destroyed along with a lot of other weapons that were found.

As for 9mm versus .45 in combat. They both kill. I took a 7.62x25mm Tokarev bullet in my left thigh. I can atest to the fact that it put me on the ground fast.

[vikz]

hk88, first let me thank you for your service and hope your ok now. and you are probably right that this debate wont end..i guess when somebody is in that situation you will pretty much use whatever weapon that will help you the most..

[vikz]

there is an article in american handgunner about the 1911..(march/april issue)title is the 1911 in combat ,it seems like most of the encounters are upclose and personal which pretty much is what it is designed for..

[Gunner777]

So, some of our guys are carrying AK's? I heard that but wasn't sure if it was true.

[HK88]

A few army guys appeared to have been cleared on them, from what I saw. I never asked them straight out, but yeah. A handful. PMC's are granted a lot more leeway, and the AK is relatively common in their hands. Several guys in my outfit had AK's, and they were prefered in the sandbox over the M4 for reliability reasons.

[Gunner777]

I can certainly understand the reliabilty issues in that environment. An AK at the very least would be a very good backup to the M4 should it stop working (provided you can stand carrying the extra weight).

[Moose63845]

So HK88 what kind of AK's were PMC's carrying that you saw? And all in 7.62x39 or are there some of the other odd ball rounds in their hands too? Also the PMC's have no problem not have interchangability? I would have thought they'd want standardized equipment to make providing easier.

[HK88]

Mostly your average AK is what I saw and an occasional Galil. Underfolders or side-folders were more sought after simply because it was easier to maneuver in and out of vehicles, helicopters, etc. Guys like to dress them up with aftermarket accessories like surefire lights, railed foreends, G3 style grips, etc. The Russian Kobra red dot sights were used a lot too provided the AK had the rail mount on the side of the reciever. 7.62x39mm was the most common, but you can find lots of 5.45x45mm AK's floating around there too. The 5.45x39mm was actually a pretty good stopper as far as it went. It seemed to do a better job than the .223 even, despite the rounds being of almost similar size. From what I was told, it generated a rather sever yaw in travel, causing a good deal of damage when it went through a target. I never did see any .223 AK's or the .308 versions like we have here stateside.

The basic fully loaded AK weighs about the same as a basic M16 or M4 fully loaded. You carry the same amount of ammo in the clips. The M16 is more accurate, but at the ranges we frequented (25 meters to 100 meters) accuracy wasn't really that big a deal. Before I left the Sandbox we had started seeing insurgents using more steel core 7.62x39mm ammo also the HK G3A3's were being used more for the 7.62x51mm round against our guys and the body armor being utilized.

As for standardization: it is a BIG issue with most PMC's. Probably as big as the mainstream military. However, they can't really keep the individuals from choosing their own gear if that individual feels they would be better suited with another system. They will provide you weapons and gear based upon their standardization routines, say M16, blackhawk vest, Beretta 92FS, etc. But if you choose to utilize your own you have to clear it with them first, plus demonstrate ability to use it effectively. There are exceptions too. Our outfit wouldn't let us bring in certain weapons, especially of the pistol variety, like Hi-Point, Grendel, Jennings, Kel-Tec, Browning Hi-Powers were also oddly enough not allowed. Pistols and rifles were restricted to common available calibers: 7.62x51mm NATO, 5.56x45mm NATO, 7.62x39mm, 5.45x39mm, .50 BMG. and 9mm. Calibers such as the .40 S&W and .45 ACP weren't supported really, and if you chose to use one you had to ship in your ammo or aquire it from a local source, usually the Army guys had some stashed away somewhere. Though finding .40 in the Sandbox is next to impossible. Also the 12 Gauge slug was used with either the Remington 1100, 870, or Mosseburg 590M, occassionally a SPAS-12. I can't say for sure whether buckshot was used or not. Geneva convention applies to PMC's as well, but in wartime as the saying is "Anything goes". You also had to have ability to maintain the weapon, have the minimum magazine loadout, and so forth. Ammo was provided to us for basically free.

Most guys used the M16/M4 platform. About half used the AK. HK MP5's were popular too. M14's and HK91's and AR10's were prefered by the guys who liked stopping power. I never saw a guy with a .50 BMG except for a Barret being used by a Marine detachment. Sig Sauer, Glock (notable emphasis on the Glock), and HK, were the most popular pistols. 1911's were as I stated before somewhat rare.