- Joined
- Aug 21, 2013
- Messages
- 23,086
- Reaction score
- 2,375
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Here's a Springfield TRP Operator with the 3/4 rail and Surefire tactical light.
View attachment 67204954
A heavy not overly reliable gun that carries what 7 rounds. Sure if I am shooting some competition as 1911 triggers are hard to beat. If I am deploying again to war. No thank you. I would much rather take either my issued Glock 19 or 22 all day long.
"Not reliable"? That hasn't been my experience, and I doubt American Sniper Chris Kyle would have carried one in Iraq if it were an unreliable paperweight. Springfield even created the Chris Kyle Legend TRP 1911 model. And I carried a 1911 in Vietnam along with my M-16 and it wasn't the least bit of a problem.
As for "7 rounds," both Wilson Combat and Chip McCormick make excellent 10+1 magazines for 1911's. And with the .45 having excellent "knock down" power, you won't need to double tap a bad guy like you might with a 9mm. Most sidearm duels are done within about 4-5 rounds anyway, so go with a big load if you can.
And if I ever have to go back to war, I'm taking my 1911.
A heavy not overly reliable gun that carries what 7 rounds. Sure if I am shooting some competition as 1911 triggers are hard to beat. If I am deploying again to war. No thank you. I would much rather take either my issued Glock 19 or 22 all day long.
Maybe not overly reliable in days gone by........we used to have a gunsmith tune these for maximum reliability, but these days the 1911s are just as reliable as any Glock.
For a weapon that is never going to get that dirty and most likely will never be fired in anger you are most likely right. Now if you had to shoot thousands of rounds in training and then patrol in extreme dust conditions for a couple days and still need that weapon to function like it did when brand new then I doubt that you would feel the same.
Even Browning thought better of the design as the HiPower followed right after the 1911 and was the weapon Browning was working on at the time of his death.
I was light infantry- perhaps a better judge of practical, reliable weaponry than range queens or carried it in a nice clean environment- and many as far back as WWII grunts looked to lighter weapons over 'manstopping power' which could explain the popularity of the M1 carbine in jungle warfare.
You're young, aren't you? You've probably read a lot of bad information.
My experience with the 1911 dates from 1955. I'm retired military. My first formal training with the weapon was in 1965. The 1911 passed exhaustive tests to become the sidearm of the U.S. Military and served for about 70 years before being replaced by a 9mm to allow compatibility with NATO ammunition.
Most military men would choose the 1911 over the Glock even though the Glock has a lot of merit.
We know what works best.
For those who prefer the 9mm......it IS an OK round and it does have the advantage of offering more rounds per magazine, but most of us prefer something that will do more damage.......just in case we're in a situation where ONE ROUND has to suffice.
Here's a link that will give you a rough idea of what we're talking about.
https://maropost.s3.amazonaws.com/u...1/Handgun_gel_comparison_service_calibers.jpg
36 years old. 13 years in the Military just over 10 of those in Special operations I have shot more pistol ammo in one year then most people willin their entire career.
You don't think the Glock has passed extensive tests. Hell there are a couple units within the military with virtually unlimited budgets that hung on to 1911s when the rest of the military switched to the M9. Guess what, they no longer use them anymore either. Why do you think that is. And no it's not a caliber issue as I issued both a Glock 19 and a 22.
First of all the vast majority of those in the military have virtually zero training or skill I'm using a pistol but among most military folks, at least this who know due to actually shooting lots of pistol ammo, would not choose a 1911.
Sorry but you are simply wrong.
No, you're wrong, but not completely.....and with good reason, I think. Cost consideration is not part of your assessment.
I know Glocks pass many tests and I own and shoot Glocks. They are excellent.
You think Glocks are chosen by the military because they are better.
No, Glocks are chosen because the military can get a Glock 19 for $320 and a high quality 1911 .45 would cost three times that much.
There is also a need for ammo compatibility with NATO forces.
There is also the fact that not everybody can handle the recoil of the 1911 .45 and, for them, the Glock in 9mm is a better choice (more women getting into this all the time so smaller weapons make sense).
And, we must face it, the Glocks work!! And better yet, their low price makes them almost disposable, so fewer highly trained techs are needed for upkeep. (That's another budget consideration.)
However, if you give an experienced military man a choice he'll probably choose that expensive 1911......but the military won't buy it for him--why should they?
That said, the MARSOC and the SEALS still have thousands of very high grade 1911s and they aren't mothballed......they are ready for use and I don't doubt they're still used by some.
By the way, what branch of the military are you in? Who is issuing Glock 22s now?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?