New pistol in works for Force Recon units


PDA






Ed Straker
January 6, 2004, 08:28 PM
This Week's Marine Corps Times
_Issue Date: January 12, 2004
New pistol in works for Force Recon units
Hand-built .45s to be replaced with a gun that is easier to repair
By Christian Lowe and Gidget Fuentes
Times staff writers
Force Reconnaissance Marines may have a new pistol in their holsters by the end of the year, one that will replace the last of the Corps' M1911A1 .45-caliber pistols still in action.
The Corps is asking gun makers for a new .45-caliber pistol to replace the modified M1911A1 pistol now used for close-quarters combat and direct-action missions.
Officials with Marine Corps Systems Command at Quantico, Va., will issue a new request for proposals sometime in the next few months, said Lt. Col. Brent A. Smith, SysCom's infantry weapons program manager. The Corps plans to purchase up to 1,100 of the new pistols under a $1.9 million contract, and fielding should begin in the fall.
"It's going to be vastly superior to anything we've had," Smith said.
Currently, Force Recon teams and members of Special Operations Training Groups use the MEU(SOC) .45, a specially modified pistol built from M1911A1 pistols left after the shift to the M9 9mm pistol in 1986.
Force Recon Marines, who often see close-quarters combat, said the M9 didn't have the one-shot stopping power they needed at close ranges. So they opted for the MEU(SOC) .45, hand-built by Precision Weapons Section armorers at Quantico.
But those pistols break down more frequently, and the time and expense of fixing them led the Corps to search for a replacement, said Maj. Mike Manning, director of infantry weapons programs at Systems Command.
Instead of buying a new pistol, the Corps in 2001 modified the MEU(SOC) .45 with a M1913 rail system, which allows the user to attach flashlights, laser pointers or other accessories.
That rail system couldn't take the beating of near-constant use, however. A Marine typically fires 15,000 rounds through a MEU(SOC) .45 during a deployment, but the pistols failed much sooner when rail systems were added.
"We put it through a limited evaluation, but the rail cracked after 7,000 rounds on average," Manning said. "So we said, 'Where do we go from here?'"
A growing need
The need for a new pistol grew in 2002 as the number of recon Marines increased and a detachment of Marines was added to the ranks of U.S. Special Operations Command.
Last year, Marine Corps Special Operations Detachment 1 got a new .45 to use in the interim, a modified Kimber 1911 that's unique to the new unit.
For the Force Recon community, SysCom sought proposals last April from gun makers for a replacement based on the current MEU(SOC) .45 design.
Three gun makers sent test weapons for a shoot-off at Quantico, but all three were found lacking, Manning said. They all "went to 10,000 rounds before failures," Manning said, but it wasn't enough for a proper evaluation by Marine testers. So it was back to the drawing board.
On Nov. 21, the Corps went to gun manufacturers with a broadened proposal that opened the playing field by eliminating the requirement that the replacement .45 be based on the MEU(SOC) design.
Among the requirements is a mandate that the new pistol be easier to fix than the hand-built MEU(SOC) .45, which must be sent to Quantico for repairs.
Easy maintenance
"This is the single biggest key performance parameter for a unit. It has got to have drop-in parts," Smith said. "This is a problem we have with the current MEU(SOC) pistol."
By easing design restrictions, SysCom officials hope to lure more manufacturers to submit their top designs.
"We will encourage the industry folks to send us their best and to be innovative," Smith said.
A Dec. 17 vendor session at Quantico, for instance, attracted 10 U.S. and foreign gun makers.
"All of them said they can make a .45-caliber pistol that meets or exceeds our requirements," Smith said.
It's a small part of the Corps' weapons inventory, Smith said, but the pistol "is something absolutely critical that the MEU(SOC)s have."
In the meantime, the MEU(SOC) .45 remains a popular weapon among Marines.
"It is reliable," said Patrick A. Rogers, a weapons expert and retired chief warrant officer and New York police sergeant. "While nothing that can be held in two hands can be guaranteed to take out an opponent every time, the .45 has a larger diameter projectile" than the 9mm round.
"Large holes mean more air in, and more air out," Rogers said, adding "the ergonomics and consistent trigger pull make the pistol easier and faster to shoot accurately."

http://www.marinetimes.com/story.php?f=0-MARINEPAPER-2520575.php

If you enjoyed reading about "New pistol in works for Force Recon units" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
7.62FullMetalJacket
January 6, 2004, 08:59 PM
The last stand for the 1911 in the military. It took 100 years.

Any ideas regarding what will replace it? 15,000 rounds per deployment? That is a lot of dead paper or BGs.

444
January 6, 2004, 09:08 PM
Pat Rogers, where are you ?

Waste of Money
January 6, 2004, 09:16 PM
Might be a good place for the SIG GSR to go through the wringer and see if it's colors will hold. I'm sure alot of folks would be more willing to purchase it if it could pass the USMC criteria. Even if not selected, any pistol which does pass should benefit.

VG
January 6, 2004, 09:22 PM
disregard

dsk
January 6, 2004, 09:30 PM
I'm just really amazed that the pistols would go 10,000 rounds before crapping out yet STILL weren't considered good enough. Now, I'm not an MEU operative (nor do I play one on the PC), but it seems to me if they're gonna run guns into the ground like that they should be receiving new ones on a regular basis. I personally think they're asking for the moon and sky to expect any handgun to take that sort of beating and not fail, especially if they run that much lead through them each year.

7.62FullMetalJacket
January 6, 2004, 09:33 PM
They expect 15,000 rounde per deployment. If it were a year, that would be 500 rounds per day for 300 days. Yowza. I am glad I do not load the magazines :what:

lotus
January 6, 2004, 09:49 PM
Written by 7.62FullMetalJacket:
They expect 15,000 rounde per deployment. If it were a year, that would be 500 rounds per day for 300 days. Yowza. I am glad I do not load the magazines

That's 150,000 rounds, not 15,000! That's more DevGru than Force Recon!

krept
January 6, 2004, 10:00 PM
Seeing how the military issues the SIG P226 and P228 to certain groups, I have to wonder if the GSR is going to be considered by the DET... I know there are a couple differences between the GSR and the original spec that was released, but the timing of SIG releasing a 1911 sure is interesting...

7.62FullMetalJacket
January 6, 2004, 10:01 PM
My thumb hurts :eek:

I wonder what GSR stand for? Government Service something?

Blueduck
January 6, 2004, 10:13 PM
Thats $1,727 per handgun. Guess another 1911 model is the only option, no other quality handgun cost near the amount they need to spend ;)

444
January 6, 2004, 10:17 PM
I am sure that the $1700+ is not simply for a handgun.

Blueduck
January 6, 2004, 10:25 PM
Just kidding 444, I'm sure that takes into account a lot of parts, mags, holsters etc.. even then I'd almost bet that cost includes evaluation/testing as well which I assume can get real expensive.

On only a slightly more serious note...In the article it describes the requirment to be "a .45 caliber pistol". Wonder if that really means 45 caliber and other than 45 ACP guns would be considered...???

Imagine the fallout on firearms forums if the Glock 37 would be adopted:what:

Andrew Wyatt
January 6, 2004, 10:46 PM
It's a kimber, IIRC. Internal extractor. series 1. (IIRC)

Zak Smith
January 6, 2004, 10:48 PM
Isn't this the bid for which the new Kimber and SIG 1911's were made?

-z

cslinger
January 6, 2004, 10:56 PM
I have said from the beginning that I wouldn't be surprised if we read about on of the Special Ops type units at least considering if not adopting the SIG1911. It is just too weird for SIG to suddenly say hey lets jump into one of the most saturated markets in the gun industry without some reason.

Greg Bell
January 6, 2004, 11:39 PM
I bet they dump the 1911 platform altogether. They should adopt the 220 or U.S.P. and be done with it.


Ha, I've got flame proof underwear on!:D

kbr80
January 6, 2004, 11:47 PM
They will adopt what ever is cheapest, and from which manufacturer will donate the most to whom it may concern.

Greg Bell
January 6, 2004, 11:49 PM
Then they will get Glocks. Gaston would give em' to them to get his foot in the door on a U.S. military contract.

BluesBear
January 6, 2004, 11:59 PM
7.62FullMetalJacket,

According to SIGArms GSR = Granite Series Rail

7.62FullMetalJacket
January 7, 2004, 12:04 AM
Thanx. :o

techmike
January 7, 2004, 12:29 AM
Might be a good spot for a USP Tactical.

artherd
January 7, 2004, 02:32 AM
Glock or USP, in that order.

RON in PA
January 7, 2004, 02:49 AM
Do not forget the Ruger P-90s and P-97s, they will hold their own against the others.

boing
January 7, 2004, 11:00 AM
"Large holes mean more air in, and more air out," Rogers said...

Air out? Misquote, or sanitized for public consumption?

Pat_Rogers
January 7, 2004, 11:04 AM
A definite misquote
It should read "more air in and more fluid out".

That is always a problem with being interviewed.
The writer, Gidget Fuentes, is extremely well versed in military affairs.
Once it leaves her hands and goes to the editor, anything is possible.

dsk
January 7, 2004, 11:08 AM
These Islamic nutcases are full of nothing but hot air anyway, so the original quote made perfect sense to me. ;)

Mute
January 7, 2004, 12:17 PM
Another case of making mountains out of molehills, though some people would have you believe that all 1911s are obsolete and going to a Sig 220 would have resolved it. :rolleyes:

See Pat Roger's response. (http://www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68387)

HankB
January 7, 2004, 01:27 PM
I am sure that the $1700+ is not simply for a handgun. Hey, it's military procurement, right? That means kickbacks, bribes, and targeted campaign contributions. :rolleyes:

Sean Smith
January 7, 2004, 01:35 PM
Here is a hint: the gun will almost certainly be a 1911, it will be expensive, and the Marines will choose the gun based on performance. We aren't talking about mass weapon procurement like the M9 program, we are talking about special operations.

Pat_Rogers
January 7, 2004, 01:46 PM
HankB- if you have information about something, i am sure that various federal law enforcement organizations would love to hear what you have to say.
Are you involved in this process of acquiring a new pistol, or are you just whistleing in the wind, so to speak?

fix
January 7, 2004, 01:57 PM
Pat is right. Although military purchasing in general is a questionable process at best, specialized needs like this one are a whole different animal. The FR Marines will get what they want, based on their absolute requirements...period. Other projects with a more broad focus may succumb to outside pressures, political and economic. But this one will not. Trust me, I know how much these guys shoot and the 15,000 round requirement is not excessive in my opinion.

peashooter
January 7, 2004, 03:03 PM
Hmmmmm. I vote for a Beretta 96 punched out to .45. :evil:

Sunray
January 7, 2004, 03:13 PM
"...the one-shot stopping power ..." Neither does a .45. No pistol can guarantee a 100% one shot stop. It's physics.

Pat_Rogers
January 7, 2004, 03:35 PM
Note the next to last paragraph.

ajacobs
January 7, 2004, 03:42 PM
Well while Pat isn't talking yet, which I understand, I wonder what the requirements are in the request. It sounds like they opened it up to non 1911's after trying once and failing to get a satisfactory one. (don't get me wrong 1911 are my favorite pattern of pistol I just don't have a 15000 round requirement). Also the article devotes some time to the nessesity of parts replacement in the feild. That is going to require a tru assembley line 1911 with very tight tollerances (maybe this is what sig was attempting) or other types of pistols that require no hand fitting but can still stand up to the requirement. I just hope it is 1911, I would like them to stay in service.

Pat_Rogers
January 7, 2004, 03:47 PM
Note that the requirements are not for 15K. That is a rough per deployment figure, but does not take into consideration Unit Weapons and Tactics training.
The req is for 30K. It is not at all unusual for some MEU(SOC) pistols to greatly exceed this. However, parts do wear and need to be replaced.

Don't read anything into the article. The 1911 is the desired platform- that is what the shooters want.
It is open to all of course, but grip circumference, LOP, and other issues are paramount.

ajacobs
January 7, 2004, 03:49 PM
Ahh good, Having worded RFP's myself I know you can get exactly what you want.

45auto
January 7, 2004, 04:09 PM
It seems the "3" entries did make it to the 10,000 round mark before "failure", which I assume means the gun stopped working and couldn't be quickly put back into action.

They are not talking about feed jams... correct?

ballistic gelatin
January 7, 2004, 04:28 PM
I met a guy a while back in the barber shop who claimed to be the Director of North American Law Enforcement Sales for SigArms. I bet he is very excited right now....I still daydream about working for him.

buzz_knox
January 7, 2004, 04:31 PM
Would that be ToddG from sigforum.com?

artherd
January 7, 2004, 09:31 PM
Kimber makes a nice LAPD SWAP 1911.

And then there's the Glock G30 :)

ballistic gelatin
January 7, 2004, 10:11 PM
buzz_knox I don't know but perhaps I should find out....thanks for the tip.

jnb01
January 8, 2004, 01:21 AM
Just speculation on my part. These two pistols may be possibilities?

Sig P220ST - It's all steel construction should prove more durable than the alloy version. Enhanced shootability do to it's increased weight. With the "k" trigger option it provides a consistent lighter trigger pull, while being hammer fired to provide for second strike capability. Improved corrosion resistance vs. alloy version. The P226 and P228 are already in Military use, including with elite units. It's equipped with a light rail. Should be easier to maintain and repair vs. their current hand-built 1911's.

HK USP F/S - Interestingly, HK is building a manufacturing facility in Columbus, Georgia. They are also building a new rifle for the Army said to be replacing the M16 and M4 carbine, called the XM8. The USP is a durable and lighter weight pistol for it's size. Offers a 12-rd. capacity. Comes equipped with a light rail. Corrosion resistent frame material with a pretty good finish on slide. The LEM trigger option provides a consistent lighter trigger pull, while still being hammer fired. The MK23 is already in use with an elite unit, the Navy Seals. Should prove easier to maintain and repair vs. their current hand-built 1911's.

Best, jnb01

Erik
January 8, 2004, 03:00 AM
Err, no.

They folks asking for the pistols know what they need and want, and fortunately, have brass willing to provide it.

The long and short of it is that they will be getting 1911s.

coverdog
January 8, 2004, 06:49 AM
Do not forget the Ruger P-90s and P-97s, they will hold their own against the others.
They are looking for a new handgun, not a brick.:D

Master Blaster
January 8, 2004, 08:31 AM
It wont be a Glock because the military does not think that striker fired pistols are reliable enough, Its got to have a hammer for the military.

USP would probably fit the bill, if it can go 30,000 rounds which I doubt.

Can a USP be fixed in the field when something breaks???????

Blueduck
January 8, 2004, 11:01 AM
Easy maintenance. This is the single biggest key performance parameter for a unit. "It has got to have drop-in parts " Smith said.

I would hope at least some of the 1911's should meet the accuracy, durability, and relibility requirments BUT I think even most 1911 fans will admit combining all that with the above has never been the 1911's strong suit compared to more modern designs. How many times have we heard about "Drop in" 1911 parts that rarely are.

If they have really opened up the testing for an honest evaluation of what can meet thier needs as compared to what they have already decided they want, it might get real interesting...

buzz_knox
January 8, 2004, 11:08 AM
If they have really opened up the testing for an honest evaluation of what can meet thier needs as compared to what they have already decided they want, it might get real interesting...

What they want is what will meet their needs. This isn't being done in a vacuum, it's being done based on years of real-world experience with putting steel on target (sometimes targets that bleed or shoot back). They have determined that the 1911 platform is the best for that job (killing bad people), and they are now looking for the best 1911 to meet the mission need.

Sean Smith
January 8, 2004, 11:09 AM
How many times have we heard about "Drop in" 1911 parts that rarely are.

Factory 1911s are assembled almost exclusively from great big piles of drop-in parts. Very little actual fitting goes on. How do you think the military maintained the 1911 and 1911A1 guns they had for 70+ years? Lots of drop-in replacement parts. The MEU(SOC) 1911s were only a maintenance problem because they were hand-made custom guns.

Pat_Rogers
January 8, 2004, 11:17 AM
If you look at the Dec03 SWAT magazine, "The Marine Corps New SOCCOM Pistol", you may find the answers to a lot of your questions, and save the bandwitdth waste that occurs when only conjecture is present.

Hope this clarifies things..

buzz_knox
January 8, 2004, 11:21 AM
Ah, Pat. Why ruin the fun by getting actual information, rather than speculating endlessly?

Anyone know if Hi-Point has entered the competition? With a tactical rail, it could be interesting. A weapon that serves as either a pistol, and a secondary boat anchor. ;)

Blueduck
January 8, 2004, 11:48 AM
WOW! :confused:

Lot of flame for posting:

1. That more accurate 1911's are not known for being "drop in" part friendly.

2. That millitary contracts results are sometimes known before the "testing" is ever done, and hoping that this was not one of those cases as I was interested in the outcome

Above seems like pretty common knowledge to most people, maybe not here.

PS, No I have not read that SWAT issue, or any gun rag that I recall since I was 14 or so (20 years ago). Figured out even as a teenager that 99% of what was written in such publications was done so by hacks, shills and boobs whose information was riddled with flaws, inaccuaracies,blatant lies, and ignorance. Maybe they have gotten better over the years, but I tend to doubt it.

fix
January 8, 2004, 11:49 AM
what was written in such publications was done so by hacks, shills and boobs whose information was riddled with flaws, inaccuaracies,blatant lies, and ignorance. Maybe they have gotten better over the years, but I tend to doubt it.

:confused:

SWAT?
Pat Rogers?

Respectfully, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

buzz_knox
January 8, 2004, 11:52 AM
what was written in such publications was done so by hacks, shills and boobs whose information was riddled with flaws, inaccuaracies,blatant lies, and ignorance. Maybe they have gotten better over the years, but I tend to doubt it.

Dead Man Posting! ;)

Forgive him Pat. He knows not what he says.

Pat_Rogers
January 8, 2004, 11:55 AM
Well blueduck, don't let facts compromise your theories.

Just FYI- The MEU(SOC) pistol is not built to any accuracy standard- just reliability. It is a pistol- a secondary weapon, used only if the carbime goes down. Pistol engagement distances are generally very intimate- at least the ones i've been involved in.
I'm tickled pink that you are interested in this. However, my priorities are for those who actually use the pistol, not those who read about it.

However, you probably need to be real cautious about your slander...

Gee Buzz, you are right. Sorta' makes me wonder why i stray from TF sometimes..

buzz_knox
January 8, 2004, 11:55 AM
1. That more accurate 1911's are not known for being "drop in" part friendly.

Don't know much about the MEU(SOC), do you? There is no accuracy requirement for the original pistol, nor is there, I believe, for this one. Reliability is what it's about, so if it shakes, and rattles, but still rolls, who cares? And that's perfect for drop in parts. And there again, drop in doesn't mean bargain basement crap. It just means parts made to a standard tolerance.

2. That millitary contracts results are sometimes known before the "testing" is ever done, and hoping that this was not one of those cases as I was interested in the outcome

I'd be interested in an example where the winner was declared before the testing was completed.

buzz_knox
January 8, 2004, 11:59 AM
Pat, you beat me to it. Didn't want you thinking I was horning in. But I would respectfully submit that you come here in the hopes of offering your wisdom. That wisdom, and that offered by your fellow subject matter experts who bear up under the crap that sometimes flows, serves to stem the tide of said crap. In fact, it stands as a beacon in the darkness of ignorance!

Too thick?

Pat_Rogers
January 8, 2004, 12:10 PM
Well, my dog thinks that i'm a cool guy!

But, thank you!

Blueduck
January 8, 2004, 12:10 PM
Getting off topic, but yeah 20 years ago gun mags were crap, don't know how anybody could argue otherwise. Don't even know if SWAT even existed back then so can't say for sure if I've ever read a copy or not. Certainly not recently as I clearly noted, so I'll stand happily by my slander, "...." implied threat or not ;)

Having a "winner" before testing is fairly easy, just draw up requirments that only one product fits. Not that it would officially be declared the winner before the actual testing was over. Sorry I was not clear on that.

Don't know much about the MEU(SOC), do you? Nope. Thats why I'm here reading about them and asking questions that come to my mind about them and the test.

BluesBear
January 8, 2004, 04:35 PM
Gun mags were crap 20 years ago?

Heaven forbid that any gunwriter inject his or her own personal opinion into an article.
Perish the thought that a person who has years of gun handling experience might have better luck with a certain model than you did.
Perhaps they were sent a pristine test sample that was hand fitted instead of the sloppy crap they sent out to your local gun shop. Not that any other company would ever do that. I mean it NEVER happens with cars or car magazines.

But I guess when you were 14 you were like most teenagers and you already knew it all. :rolleyes:
But we're lucky to have you here with us now so that we too can be enlightend by your vast wealth of 100% correct, undeniably fact based knowledge. :scrutiny:

Excuse me but i need to go barf now. :barf:


By the way those women in Playboy really DO look like that.

Blueduck
January 8, 2004, 05:28 PM
Oh lord BluesBear, I've always enjoyed your post no needs to be so melodramtic.

I think a lot of us (especially once the net came up) let the Combat Handguns and other mag subsriptions drop. Too much nonsense, paid avertising disguised as articles and the "Ultimate carry gun!" junk every month. Surely I'm not the only one.

I wondered about two things, if the test would really be open to all and how a 1911 set up for very good accuracy would fair with a priority on drop in parts. In return I got a rude "waist of bandwidth" comment and told to go look at a magazine. When I explained why I have not looked at magazines in years, I was called "Dead man posting" and told to be "cautious about my slander..." I'm guessing this is because Pat "assumed" I was calling him names when my post clearly stated I have not seen any of his work or even SWAT magazine for that matter. If it's better than the early eighties trash that would have been a good oppurtunity to point it out, rather than having a hissy fit.

I don't care if someones anon Bubba Jones or Jeff Cooper, if you make a smart ??? reply to an honest query expect the same in return. Teddy J. found out the same thing on his visits on several boards.

Actually Pat did get around to answering my query in that high levels of accuracy were not a requirment of the test, therefore tolerences could be held a bit looser making the parts thing more possible. Had that been a civil response to my post, I'd have thanked for the info and moved on a bit smarter about the pistols in question. Maybe even picked up a copy of SWAT to see if it was any different than the old mags I read as a kid.

Pat_Rogers
January 8, 2004, 06:35 PM
Blueduck- if you re read that post, i never addressed anyone directly. It was an open post. Apparently you took it personally.
Whatever.

I don't get paid to be here. There are some people who have a clear understanding of how and why things work, and who deserve answers.
I post here on rare ocassions for them.

As to slander. Louie Awerbuck has coached for me through a whole bunch of classes. Louie therefore is a hack, shill and liar. Jeff Gonzales was a student of mine. Ken Campbell works with me. Brent Wheat, Mick Williams, Steve Tarani, et al. You are making judgement calls about people without knowing what you are talking about.
But i'll be happy to pass your judgements on to them.

Enough. I don't have the time to waste (not waist) here.

Blueduck
January 8, 2004, 07:00 PM
Sorry it ended badly, I'm sure there was some mis-communication, as your still taking my comments on guys 20 years ago and putting them on your current comrades.

But my pat reponse to every prima donna who does the "I'm mad and going home" thing: Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

END:

JoeWang
January 8, 2004, 07:06 PM
Did I miss the catfight?

Denny Hansen
January 8, 2004, 07:13 PM
No fight, just a small battle of wits:D

Denny

JoeWang
January 8, 2004, 07:17 PM
Or a battle of small wits?

Seanmac45
January 8, 2004, 08:22 PM
Blueduck, Pat has already served his country for many years in harms way. Deep in harms way, not from behind a keyboard. He speaks as he has lived his life; curtly, with a brevity of words and the life experience of a leader of men in dangerous situations. He was referring you to an excellent source of information and in your youthful arrogance you took offense and started slinging nonsense which I am quite sure you would never have been able to completely utter in the man's physical presence.

Show some class. Show some respect.

"Politened up" by Art

444
January 8, 2004, 08:47 PM
Blueduck, let me clarify something for you. The article Pat refered you to was written by Pat. I don't think you realized that by taking that wild, scathing shot at the gun magazine industry, you were making an open attack on the man who posted the reference and also wrote the article. You probably also don't know that if there was someone in the know about a new pistol in the works for Force Recon, it would be Pat. You see Pat works with Force Recon. He is also the moderator of the Force Recon Forum at Tactical Forums.com. This man has been there and done that. He has been in combat as a Marine. He has been in combat as a police officer. He is a gun writer. He has been an outstanding competition rifle shooter. And, he is one of the most sought after firearms and tactics instructors in the country. If you have any doubt about Pat's credentials, you might notice that he was quoted in the article that started the whole thread; ""It is reliable," said Patrick A. Rogers, a weapons expert and retired chief warrant officer and New York police sergeant..................................."

Many people, including me, have paid thousands of dollars to get a weeks worth of Pat's wisdom. Here we had the chance to get some of it for free in the comfort of our own homes. But why would he want to come back when all he gets is grief ? I am sure that a man like Pat has better things to do than come on here and argue. Instead of learning something valuable and important from Pat, we will read another thread about everyones faviorite 9mm.

Blueduck
January 8, 2004, 09:27 PM
Yeah 444, in hindsight I should have dropped the "Maybe they have gotten better over the years, but I tend to doubt it." part of my feelings on gun mags, as that may insinuate Pat was "in" with that particular group, when that was not intended. Things flew off from there. Years of trying to make sense of the 80's gun writers with constant contradicitons and silly scenarios have left me with a bad taste from that era. Maybe they are better now and END would have worked better ;)

I did take his "you may find the answers to a lot of your questions, and save the bandwitdth waste that occurs when only conjecture is present." as a comment on my post which I thought was an honest inquiry.

Never said I knew more about anything than anybody else, but have always felt free to ask something or throw in my 2 cents without it being called a waste which I consider an attack. I also don't take well to veiled threats such as "need to be real cautious about your slander...". If I think Phil Engledrum was a boob for touting the virtues of concealed carrying 2 Ruger Redhawks I'll say it, too bad deal with it. Now that "Seanmac45" has PM'ed me for a time and place to "Get it on" :scrutiny: I think I have pretty good assesment of a cetain crew....

444
January 8, 2004, 09:45 PM
I don't think that Pat's intention was to put you down. He was simply saying that instead of gussing, or making wild speculations, just read the article he wrote - which will answer the questions being asked in this thread.
I think that Pat is a man of action. He doesn't see the point in endlessly discussing things on the internet when no one really knows what they are talking about. Instead, he probably thinks we should all just read about it from a source that will answer the questions and move on.
Me on the other hand, I am a man of inaction and spend far to much time on the internet discussing stuff that I should be doing instead. However I have to agree with Pat that instead of guessing, or having meaningless discussions about something, why not research it and find out the real story ?

SunBear
January 8, 2004, 10:00 PM
Let's see. 20 years ago.....Elmer Keith, Col. Charles Askins, Skeeter Skelton, Bill Jordan, Jack O'Connor, etc. Yeah, what a bunch of hacks.:neener:

fix
January 9, 2004, 10:43 AM
Pat,

Just curious about your feelings on the S&A mag well, with lanyard loop to meet Force's requirements. Has/Would that type of thing be considered?

krept
January 9, 2004, 01:36 PM
Also...

The MEU(SOC) pistol, as mentioned, is clearly intended to be a secondary for a longarm. In this respect, I wonder why there is so much emphasis on an integral light rail? It seems like the weight of the light is causing problems - stresses on the internals or the frame, not to mention the complexities associated with logistics (bulk added by a light on a weapon that probably will not be used, the need for new holsters, training associated with weapons mounted lights, etc.).

It would seem that if the primary goes down in a firefight, the threats position will already be identified, so is illumination from a pistol mounted light technically necessary? If the primary goes down at the beginning of the mission, is it SOP to continue on with just a pistol?

I do not question the need for pistol mounted lights in general, but they do seem to be specific for CQB entry scenarios (e.g. point man w/ shield)... where the primary still should reign supreme. I'm just wondering... with the MEU pistol being relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things, why not just stick with an additional unmounted light and standard 1911, a system that has been effective so far?

cheers

MarauderLS1
January 9, 2004, 06:22 PM
Overall I am pleased to hear that there will be a slight migration back to the .45acp in the military. It was also mentioned that some people feel the 1911 is outdated. I wouldn't say it's outdate, but I would add that we seem to lack consistant quality of manufacture in most production models out there. On a different note, I do agree with blueduck in regards to almost ALL gun magazines and their writers being full of it. I have rarely read a review of something and had it turn out the same way that the writer reported it to be.
444-I'm sure Pat doesn't discuss things because he feels it adds to his "authority" or something. Or maybe he likes it to fuel ego or something of the sort. I always thought open discussions and such were what these forums were all about? Flames and arguements and listing how "qualified" people are seems somewhat pointless, since there is always someone "better" on the wonderful internet.

fix
January 9, 2004, 06:32 PM
Flames and arguements and listing how "qualified" people are seems somewhat pointless, since there is always someone "better" on the wonderful internet.

The internet and the real world are two different places.

MarauderLS1
January 9, 2004, 06:38 PM
Fix-That's basically my point. I get somewhat tired of proclaimed "experts" on the internet, touting how great they are, etc, etc.

Denny Hansen
January 9, 2004, 08:19 PM
For what it's worth guys, I can tell ya'll that Pat is the real-deal and he has no ego involved, especially on errornet discussions. If he wanted to fuel his ego he would have said something like he was the person who was tasked with writing the specs for the MEU(SOC) in the first place due to his experience.





And oh yeah, just so we're clear here, he was!

Denny

George Hill
January 9, 2004, 08:21 PM
I've had about all I can stand of this thread.

I'm deeply disappointed in some members.


Closed.

If you enjoyed reading about "New pistol in works for Force Recon units" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!