Marines Returning to M1911

[Guymullins]

Originally Posted by DR_BRETT

Bigger = Better. The M14 was my rifle -- accurate and powerful .

- DR_BRETT

I absolutely agree Dr Brett, mine was the NATO FN folding butt Para 7.62 and it could shoot out enemy hiding behind big truck steel wheels. Their AK47 of the same caliber couldnt do that because of the lower charge.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by DR_BRETT

Bigger = Better. The M14 was my rifle -- accurate and powerful .

- DR_BRETT

That would logically apply to pistols as well, wouldn't it? As long as they function...

[Buffalobob]

The M14 was heavy and the ammo was heavy and it had a slow cyclic rate.
All depends upon the war you fought and where and how you fought it.

[frostfire]

Not sure about issue 1911 vs issue M9. If there's complain of poor accuracy of M9, I'm willing to bet it's the shootability (rear-heavy among other factors) instead of its mechanical accuracy. Also the inherent accuracy/aerodynamics of 9mm vs. 45. IIRC, when the AMU went to accurized M9, they blew the Marine shooters with their accurized 1911 out of the water at Camp Perry. This year at the President's 100. a Marine shooter won the match with M9 as well.

I was shooting steel challenge match in TX against a Marine shooter who's issued Kimber operator, altho he was using his personal STI. He sure loves his 1911's and beat me by .24 seconds. Is that worth the extra $$$$ against my cheap ass tupperware 9mm pistol, you decide....oh, that $$$ STI did "burp" more than a few times. LIttle dent on magazine lip...burp. Not enough lubrication....burp. Poor reloads ammo....burp....and so on

[gus7]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

With many good double stack options available, why limit the capacity?

FNP-45 is a nice way to go !

[DR_BRETT]

Originally Posted by Buffalobob

The M14 was heavy and the ammo was heavy and it had a slow cyclic rate.
All depends upon the war you fought and where and how you fought it.

Thanks to all for responding.

I hear some men (Ladies are included) STILL utilize the M14, and there are plenty of fast-cycle rifles, too. Obviously, ALL sorts and types of weapons are required -- small arms and Napalm and bombs, etc., did not replace each other as tools for a task, that is KILL the enemy in order to SAVE lives .

[ZonieDiver]

Bigger = Better. The M14 was my rifle -- accurate and powerful .

- DR_BRETT

Originally Posted by Guymullins

I absolutely agree Dr Brett, mine was the NATO FN folding butt Para 7.62 and it could shoot out enemy hiding behind big truck steel wheels. Their AK47 of the same caliber couldnt do that because of the lower charge.

My weapon of choice was the Browning Automatice Rifle. Of course, I had a gun bearer and seven porters to carry the ammunition, and all those 20 round magazines. (I actually had TWO gun bearers. One would hand me a second, loaded BAR, while the other replaced magazines on the first.)

Besides, if it was good enough for Kirby, it was good enough for me!

[DR_BRETT]

Originally Posted by Guymullins

". . . some of the older designs are superior to all the modern slickness that is often sold to us as technological advances, . . ."

Amen -- and this includes ALL designs, physical and conceptual .

[DR_BRETT]

No. 37 ZonieDiver: --
You Trigger-Pullers have all the fun, so to speak -- I mostly was stuck with Radio Operation, and got to leave for the trenches when the enemy BANGS/Troops got too close. Wish I could have operated the B.A.R. -- one of the greatest machines ever devised, by all accounts .
("BANGS" = rocket/mortar explosion sounds -- for non-experienced viewers of this thread)

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by DR_BRETT

No. 37 ZonieDiver: --
You Trigger-Pullers have all the fun, so to speak -- I mostly was stuck with Radio Operation, and got to leave for the trenches when the enemy BANGS/Troops got too close. Wish I could have operated the B.A.R. -- one of the greatest machines ever devised, by all accounts .
("BANGS" = rocket/mortar explosion sounds -- for non-experienced viewers of this thread)

Dang, I knew I should have used pink.

(Notice how the quoting is done...and it reallllly isn't all that cumbersome. Trust me, its worked for those of us here on this forum for years, and years.)

[DR_BRETT]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

Dang, I knew I should have used pink.

(Notice how the quoting is done...and it reallllly isn't all that cumbersome. Trust me, its worked for those of us here on this forum for years, and years.)

!! -- I just now got here, after reading and responding to your comment on "The government knows best" thread
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...t=38995&page=3

I responded with "Okay, I will use your quotation system."

[Buffalobob]

Dr Brett
This is a special Forces forum. You should contain your remarks on weapons to the humor section.

[DR_BRETT]

Originally Posted by Buffalobob

Dr Brett
This is a special Forces forum. You should contain your remarks on weapons to the humor section.

Will do, and my remarks were sincere and serious .

[Sarski]

Okay, so I have a question (two questions). I am just wondering if some guns and or ammo are easier to shoot and hit the target (for a novice) with a minimum of instruction, while others might require a little more training, precision and skill? If so could this have been a factor in the decision? (Taking into account trigger pull, kick, weapon weight, and maybe a whole host of other factors that I probably have never heard of). Thanks in advance.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sarski

Okay, so I have a question (two questions). I am just wondering if some guns and or ammo are easier to shoot and hit the target (for a novice) with a minimum of instruction, while others might require a little more training, precision and skill? If so could this have been a factor in the decision? (Taking into account trigger pull, kick, weapon weight, and maybe a whole host of other factors that I probably have never heard of). Thanks in advance.

Expertise in the use of any weapon comes with training. Vogel could outshoot a novice with any weapon the novice selected, and any novice with similar physical characteristics as Vogel can become an expert with proper training.

The 1911's a very "shootable" pistol ergonomically, but contains parts that systematically and periodically must be adjusted, modified or replaced to make it function accurately and consistently (I don't think 100% consistency will ever be reached).

A .45 cal ball will do more damage than a 9 mm. To quote Maj. Plaster, "9mm sucks!" when your intent is to put the enemy down as instantly as possible.

Some highup mucketymuck decided the money spent on this particular group of warriors' choice for a sidearm was warranted; it has precedent with other doorkickers.

For the unit the Colt was selected, an HK45 or even a G21 could have been made to work-it's not ease of use that was a determining factor, IMO.