Project Reality Forums

Posted: **2006-01-22 20:56**

The thingI really hate about the 1911 is the saftey. After using the M9, it feels backwards (and looks backwards) to me.

Posted: **2006-01-22 22:31**

well, i like it and this is an opurtunity to have it put in.
hehe, look at that dancing soldier go

Posted: **2006-01-23 00:38**

'[R-DEV wrote:Eddie Baker']Noetheinner is correct. Only the Maritime Special Purpose Force direct-action component (attached Force Recon direct-action platoon) of a MEU(SOC) get the M1911 MEU(SOC) Pistol, which is assembled from military stock, commercial off-the-shelf and in-house, custom-made components by USMC Precision Weapons Armorers. The Marine detachment to USSOCOM (MCSOCOM Det 1, soon to become MARSOC), recently (2003?) were issued a new M1911 near-match-grade pistol produced by Kimber, which they have designated the ICQB (Interim Close-Quarters Battle) Pistol, since the MEU(SOC) Pistols are almost 20 years old.

This having been said, a variant of the M1911A1 will be in the mod.

The M9 is the standard issue sidearm under most circumstances. The M11 [SIG-Sauer P228] is available to Military Police Criminal Investigations Division and counterintelligence personnel. Aviators used to be issued with .38 Special revolvers until enough M9s made it into the inventory.

Some USSOCOM units may have other options, such as the SIG-Sauer P226N, Mk-23 Offensive Handgun Weapons System aka "SOCOM Pistol" (which has been a big disappointment for SOCOM) or possibly the H&K USP .45 Tactical. SFOD-D supposedly uses an in-house or commercially customized (Kimber or Wilson) M1911 variant.

Glock semi-automatic pistols are not in US military service, but they are in service with many federal agencies, usually chambered for .40 S&W.

Absolutely 100% correct.

Posted: **2006-01-23 00:53**

I think the M9 is too big of a handgun for 9mm....If I have to carry a 5inch barreled gun its going to be .45 auto. There are just too many guns that are .40 s&w and 9mm in a smaller, more relaible and lightwieght design with aroound the same capacity. Personally in 9mm I prefer my browning Hi-power and my Glock 19 in 9mm, where as I like the my friends glock 23, and my soon to be Usp in .40 s&w. The 1911 is with out a doubt one of the best handguns for combat or carry in the world, and for me when I carry my colt goverment model series 70 capacity is not such an issue because I will hit what I aim at and in .45 I will only need to hit them once ( even though it will be two in the chest and one in the head), and I have plenty of extra mags....

Posted: **2006-01-23 01:02**

Tacamo wrote:From what I understand the original switch to 9mm had to so with helping NATO logistics. One of the highest scoring weapons was an entrant from Sig, but after cost per unit was factored in Beretta was deemed the winner. M-14 was kind of the same deal with some other issues. Mainly being the ability to fire in full auto and being able to somewhat effectively engage targets. They should have weapon with that 6.5mm Brittish design instead of 5.56mm. Especially when one looks at the better potential that either the current 6.5mm grendel or 6.8mm SPC cartridges have over 5.56mm.

I know exactly why they went away from them in the first place but lately both the M14 and M1911 have had a resurgence, and someone said there looking into a new design for a .45 pistol, if they need a .45 and the 1911 still does the job why spend 9million to develop a new handgun that probably wont be as good

Posted: **2006-01-23 01:25**

Posted: **2006-01-23 01:34**

I have actually read about .45s being used against psyched and drugged combatants (grass skirt: optional) for their stopping power.

Posted: **2006-01-23 04:30**

Beckwith wrote:I know exactly why they went away from them in the first place but lately both the M14 and M1911 have had a resurgence, and someone said there looking into a new design for a .45 pistol, if they need a .45 and the 1911 still does the job why spend 9million to develop a new handgun that probably wont be as good

Things are different for the M-14 and 1911 in regards to spares, factories, etc. SA hasn't been making any new military M-14 parts for decades and the cost for retooling the factory for manufacture could outweigh the costs of developing something new and/or choosing something new already on the market. They I highly doub the government would seek out all the smaller civvie manufacturers to issue contracts. No matter how good a weapon is it can't be maintained en masse forever if you need to take apart several to keep one in working condition.

Posted: **2006-01-23 04:46**

Tacamo wrote:Things are different for the M-14 and 1911 in regards to spares, factories, etc. SA hasn't been making any new military M-14 parts for decades and the cost for retooling the factory for manufacture could outweigh the costs of developing something new and/or choosing something new already on the market. They I highly doub the government would seek out all the smaller civvie manufacturers to issue contracts. No matter how good a weapon is it can't be maintained en masse forever if you need to take apart several to keep one in working condition.

Springfield armory still makes not only the original m-14's on a small scale to meet the demands of law enforcement and international military orginizations, but they also produce new for ownership by civilians a variety of semi-automatic variants in very large scale including the M1A which is identical in every respect except having select fire. I am not sure where you get your info but is incorrect, I get my info from a sales rep that works at SA.

Posted: **2006-01-23 04:59**

Tacamo wrote:From what I understand the original switch to 9mm had to so with helping NATO logistics. One of the highest scoring weapons was an entrant from Sig, but after cost per unit was factored in Beretta was deemed the winner. M-14 was kind of the same deal with some other issues. Mainly being the ability to fire in full auto and being able to somewhat effectively engage targets. They should have weapon with that 6.5mm Brittish design instead of 5.56mm. Especially when one looks at the better potential that either the current 6.5mm grendel or 6.8mm SPC cartridges have over 5.56mm.

6.5mm grendel is a good round. It would only require a new upper reciever for any of the M16 family. The con is that most of the nato army's weapons would need to be completely reworked. You cant simply switch out an upper reciever on an AUG or FAMAS or L85. The other con to 6.5 grendel is it will not feed well in a belt config for light machine guns. The 6.8mm Spc is intended as a hunting round and is outpreformed by 6.5mm grendel, 5.56x45 nato, and 7.62x51 nato.

Posted: **2006-01-23 05:38**

Good to know they still make them, too bad it's limited numbers though. I'm curious though as to why the 6.5mm can't be worked well into a belted configuration.

Posted: **2006-01-23 06:02**

Tacamo wrote:Good to know they still make them, too bad it's limited numbers though. I'm curious though as to why the 6.5mm can't be worked well into a belted configuration.

It can be reworked. If there was just a reciever change there are going to be feed issues. If you make new Feed system for the 6.5mm Grendel then you will have no problems, however this will also require new machine gun links that are stronger and smaller, to fit the smaller necked cartridge.

Posted: **2006-01-23 06:41**

Noetheinner wrote:you know I think the nail gun was discussed on another board.... can't remember which one.

Oh, and i know for a fact the USMC does use the 9mm still. I was a coach on the pistol range for my last month in the Corps. But also, I think that the "special forces" of the USMC and the USN use the .45 for the stopping power. The reason we switched to the 9mm is so we could have more rounds to shoot vs stopping power.

you are 100% correct Nertheinner of course the marines use MP5s after all and i bet they still use 9mm hand guns. of course the navy still use the glocks my uncle was in the navy and he fired a glock in boot camp

Posted: **2006-01-30 13:47**

I've been told the biggest problem with the 9mm is that it DOESN'T go through body armor, not that the .45 can or does or doesn't but my understanding was that the 9mm just simply doesn't stop what you want it to stop nearly as fast as you want it to.

Posted: **2006-01-31 06:43**

Hell yeah, .45s are saviors. My father packed (blued M1911A1)one on his hip when he was in country, 'nam. I knew this was going to make a comeback, the 9mms are a joke. People get shot practically 5 times in the chest and some live, so it's like how the .45 made it back in the day against the .380s, just way too underpowered. By the way, to the guy who said they should have Glocks: Glocks aren't used by the Military because the safeties on them are not safe enough for US Military Standards. Well, it's what I read before. They should use hollow tips too, that would be crazy.

Posted: **2006-02-01 21:58**

Also forgot to mention, dispite a .45 ACP not penetrating body armor, it would still knock your *** down.

Posted: **2006-02-02 07:07**

considering some of the player models in BF2 wear body armor a hollow point round wouldnt be a good idea better to go with the FMJ

Posted: **2006-02-02 07:19**

Beckwith wrote:considering some of the player models in BF2 wear body armor a hollow point round wouldnt be a good idea better to go with the FMJ

Plus when using a .45, hollow points really start to become overkill.

Posted: **2006-02-02 09:35**

I was only saying that about real life, but I had been considering the unarmored insurgents these days that Marines are up against, so that's why I said that about the hollow tips. Btw, there's no such thing as overkill when you're taking out a damn terrorist.

Posted: **2006-02-02 11:22**

As long as Beretta 9mm is good agains infantry in BF2 i want .45 pistol !
It would be even better... 1911 or USP whatever...
Bring me TEH POWEH ;] HRHRHRR

Project Reality Forums

Colt .45