marksman13
Member
Well said, Q.
Then WHY did they change guns instead of just changing calibers?Let's remember that the Army decided on the cartridge, 9X19, before chosing the gun. They did that for political reasons, a sop to NATO, which accused us of always riding roughshod over them. They did not do it because the M1911A1 was considered inadequate, too hard for recruits to learn, or somehow "obsolete."
Then WHY did they change guns instead of just changing calibers?
Picking the 9x19mm caliber (regardless of the reasons for doing so) didn't force them to change firearms, the M1911A1 can be chambered in 9mm.
Believe it or not, I heard one of the key decision-makers say that the 9mm was a "more modern cartridge" and needed "a more modern gun."
one of them saying, "No one can hit anything with a .45."
It sounds to me like they were misinformed, but it also sounds like that's EXACTLY why they did it.They did not do it because the M1911A1 was considered inadequate, too hard for recruits to learn, or somehow "obsolete."
What do you do?
You clear the malfunction asap, while being covered by the 30 to 40 guys around you.
The most likely stoppage for any military weapon is running out of ammo. The chance of having a malfunction that puts a weapon down for the count is miniscule.
Further, soldiers fight as a team, having a weapon go down is not catastrophic when the guy behind you is waiting for you to drop down to one knee to take the lead. People complain about the ineffectiveness of 5.56, and now you are going to insist that already overladen soldiers waste precious weight and room on a handgun? A tool that the vast majority of soldiers have had little or no training on? I suppose the DOD could dig into the already minimal amount of rifle marksmanship they get...
A handgun is for self-defense, not fighting.
In addition, LT, Captains, Major and Colonels are all officers, and are likely to be involved in shooting bad guys.
It sounds to me like they were misinformed, but it also sounds like that's EXACTLY why they did it.
This reminds me of a little known fact..Prior to switch, there were 25 different makes and models of handguns in the duty inventories and more than a 100 different types of ammo. Some congressional critics thought this was military waste & duplication..In response of why not alter the 1911 to a 9mm format; it was thought that the majority of the Colt's were in extreme stages of wearout....i personally think that the army should keep the 9mm but in a frame size that is capabale of fitting more people, because there are many different sized people in the military
You're all right to this point and then things break down.it started with adopting the 9mm as a sop to NATO
You're all right to this point and then things break down.
1. As pointed out, changing the ammunition doesn't require changing the gun.
2. You, yourself stated that the at least two of the reasons they changed the gun TOO were because they said "No one can hit anything with a .45." and they needed a "needed a more modern gun."
"They" is whoever made the decision and if you look back, you're the one who initially referred to "them" collectively as "they".You speak as if "they" was a single person.
Clearly your two rationale quotes were from different people and nothing I said was meant to imply that the "they" in my posts was any more collective or singular than you originally intended it.Vern Humphrey said:They did not do it because the M1911A1 was considered ...
I believe my contention was that the two decisions were SEPARATE. It has been your stance that the two decisions were so inseparable that the caliber decision drove them to change the gun as well. If anything my point has been that the two decisions are not nearly as related as you originally implied.And as if all the decisions were made at the same time.
Ok, but even if they decided against CONVERTING the existing M1911s, they could still begin purchasing new M1911s in 9mm. After all they purchased OTHER new pistols in 9mm.And has been pointed out, at one time there was serious intention to convert the existing M1911s to 9mm -- a viable alternative. That was scrapped, since the stock of M1911s on hand were worn out.
I also vote for the Single Action Army. The .45 Colt was good enough for Custer; but I would use the shorter barrel.
Nice to hear some on-the-ground info on the topic... armor's just for the special folks over there. Makes sense: milling out AK parts can probably be done at a good machine shop... but vests take some special materials/weaving/some such.Personally, I only saw two insurgents with armor in my year long tour. I think it is a regional concern and I think only the most elite jihadists are using armor.