MNGunTalk.com

1911s are bad ass and I love mine, but the reality is if I were going to carry one in the field, I'd rather have a polymer double stack with 15+1 that weighs less.

I don't carry mine...no matter how much I love 1911s I will not carry. A gun with an active safety for defensive puposes

That contract could be terminated for cause. Failure to meet cdrls

Pinnacle wrote:That contract could be terminated for cause. Failure to meet cdrls

Failed spectacularly. http://soldiersystems.net/2012/07/20/ma ... colt-guns/



Should have just gone with the G21. Tried, true and more capable.

Guys, hate to tell you this - there are VERY few 1911's that can meet the Mil-Spec testing regimen. The problem is that the test has changed - whereas the fundamental weapon has not at all been changed and in some cases the newer guns are NOT as good as the old WWII ones..

The new guns are TOO tight, not heat treated properly, coated with gunk and generally messed with.

I would like to see the details on the testing. I'm not an engineer but the heat treat on the forged frame/slide seems suspect. A good forging should go 100,000 rounds. I'm a "1911 guy" and even I think that this was a stupid choice. There are good, lower maintenance, higher capacity 45s out there.

I'm getting pretty sick of guys trying to run poorly maintained 1911s, often with ******* handloads. They jam and puke. Take your pistol and ammo seriously or get off my side.

Looks to me like at least 3 different issues ...


1. if them pictures/accounts are accurate, Colt definitely **** the bed ... and deserves to lose all their 1911 business! ... but with regards to the 1911 design, them issues are easily avoidable! (I'm guessing one or more of ... a. bad steel ... b. improper heat-treating ... c. poor quality springs ... d. springs weren't replaced at any point)

2. I ain't totally hung up on "high capacity" for defensive use ... IMO, (any) semi-auto's #1 weak-point is the magazine ... at which, at least +1 on yer person, is mandatory ... if I thought I needed to carry 35rd, sure, I'd prefer only two mags! ... but if they made a 35rd mag, I'd still carry 2x 17rd +1 ... no clue what the Marines need to carry ... that said, standing reloads suck ... so if they need to carry 27rd, I'd prefer a double-wide 1911!

3. if I needed a pistol to make a good 50yd shot with nearly 200pf, it'd either hafta be a Blackhawk, or a 1911! ... I'm guessing that's sorta the deal with these particular Marines ... SWAT ... HRT ... ? ... certainly, a steel-framed single-stack would otherwise be a poor choice for your average grunt! ... however, not because of the 1911 design, itself! ... it would take SV almost no effort at all, to come up with a 4.25in "lightweight" double-wide Infinity that'd make any Glock, XD, M&P, et. al. look like a squirt-gun! ... but, ya get what ya pay for!

Is a sweet looking, is to bad...

I love 1911s, but I gave mine to my brother, to failure prone. I would love to get another but just to expensive to get one worth buying.

Grayskies wrote:to failure prone.

Ironically 'nuff, that's where Colt ... and S&W ... and Ruger ... are really good 1911's to get ... if there's ANY problem, just send 'em back ... they'll make it right!

Buyer beware ... not all 1911 manufacturers (regardless of their name or popularity) can come anywhere to that level of service!

Amazing how the Browning High Power can eat anything - and functions almost forever with little if any service required... A 1911 of this price and quality, should be able to survive 12,000 rounds..

This is another example of messing with something that works...

I happen to know COLT has the Original Prints for the 1911 - they should have offered the SAME pistol - just updated with some sights, extended ambi safety, flared mag well, and the SAME tolerances as the original.

Screw the fancy paint job - that is not the way to go makes the gun too sticky and is going to wear off anyhow to bare metal

Pinnacle wrote:I happen to know COLT has the Original Prints for the 1911 - they should have offered the SAME pistol - just updated with some sights, extended ambi safety, flared mag well, and the SAME tolerances as the original.

yeah, that's what was done. they updated the grips so they were more grippey, they updated the sights so they could be seen, they updated the magwell for ease of reloading, they updated the safety so they could be easily manipulated, they updated the frame by adding an accessory rail (arguably because an assualt handgun should have a light on it) and they updated the finish. well, the finish was probably just to catch the attention of the world with the tacticoolness of FDE and our current operations in various deserts (because that way the jihadists won't see the gun in your hand, only your hand )

if i could make a suggestion for a new USMC firearm (knowing full well that the only people that will hear my idea are MNGTers and not a single MARSOC staff member), i'd vote for the FNP-45. it really is a great gun. it's lighter than a 1911, MUCH higher capacity (15+1), easy to shoot, has the tacticool things already (ie: threaded bbl, tall nighties, a mount for a red-dot and it has a light rail) and FNH already has multiple military contracts, so it wouldn't be TOO difficult to get the attention of someone.
having said that, i'm SURE they've tried. no doubt in my mind.

regarding a G21, i think the biggest NO in any offering from Glock is also the reason for SIG's P226 not winning a contract: it's got no safety! sure the SEALS can carry it, and Delta can carry whatever they effing want. the elite are just that, ELITE. saying that Glocks should be the next military sidearm is just assinine. the US Military doesn't trust it's servicemembers to know the basics of firearms. therefore, EVERY GUN has a safety of some sort built into it. and by that, i mean a mechanical ON-OFF type safety. the M2 Browning has that stupid butterfly thingie that has to be depressed to get the gun to fire. the M16/M4 we all know. the M1 Garand had that lever on the outside of the triggerguard. the M9 has a slide mounted safety. they all have some sort of switch that has to be disengaged APART from the trigger.

if the Marines do, however, decide to carry a Glock (even if it IS just a recon unit like this Colt pile o' ****) i'll actually go out an buy one. until then, my house does not speak Austrian

and regarding the Colt's failures, that's quite simple. IMHO Colt has been coasting on it's reputation that it is no longer earning. sure, there's nice Colts out there, but you've really got to spend to get 'em. they put so much focus on their LEM firearms, that the civilian sector gets looked over. If you wanted to see a NICE, DEPENDABLE 1911 instead of this Colt, they should have looked around at maybe Springfield or SIG.
i'm also curious of the manufacturing standards that these guns were held to. that frame should NOT have cracked, nor the slide. the paint on finish is laughable, and the 12000 rounds to failure is UNSAT

rukwikenuf wrote:regarding a G21, i think the biggest NO in any offering from Glock is also the reason for SIG's P226 not winning a contract: it's got no safety! sure the SEALS can carry it, and Delta can carry whatever they effing want. the elite are just that, ELITE. saying that Glocks should be the next military sidearm is just assinine. the US Military doesn't trust it's servicemembers to know the basics of firearms. therefore, EVERY GUN has a safety of some sort built into it. and by that, i mean a mechanical ON-OFF type safety. the M2 Browning has that stupid butterfly thingie that has to be depressed to get the gun to fire. the M16/M4 we all know. the M1 Garand had that lever on the outside of the triggerguard. the M9 has a slide mounted safety. they all have some sort of switch that has to be disengaged APART from the trigger.

For a military contract I'm sure Glock or most any other manufacturer would add a safety. If they did it for the Tasmanian Police force they'll surely do it for the US Marine Corps.

+