Colt won!

Skylerbone:
to answer the question bluntly, the "average" soldier is not good enough to carry that "golden gun"
What makes you think that the average soldier is not good enough to carry the 1911, they did during the first part of the 20th century, very effectively, I'm sure that Alvin York was not part of a special elite group, but a lowly Corporal in the Army, and look at how that turned out.

cuba said:

What makes you think that the average soldier is not good enough to carry the 1911, they did during the first part of the 20th century, very effectively, I'm sure that Alvin York was not part of a special elite group, but a lowly Corporal in the Army, and look at how that turned out.

Click to expand...

Actually the antiquated 1911 isn't good enough for the average soldier.

I call BS on that

The-Reaver said:

" You think the government really spends $150.00 dollars on a toilet seat? or $100.00 on a hammer? "

Click to expand...

I can't speak to 150 dollar toilet seats or 100 hammers, but back in the day I watched Marine Mustang 1st Lt with about 16 years in the corps, chew the hell out of a newer 2nd Lt that signed for the delivery of tank tread rivets at $21.00 each when they had been bid at $0.21 each.

Worked in a Supply unit at Pendleton whose job was to catch these kinds of mistakes.

Cuba, not talking about the 1911 specifically but specifically the contract pistol in question.

I have more than one 1911 and more than one says Colt. It is not an expert's pistol. It is not difficult or impossible to use or service. Anyone who believes as much knows far too little about the platform to reply to this thread.

I think you've lost prospective, is the contact pistol as you put it, not a 1911 ?

Antiquated...

And yet there STILL is nothing that establishes that. Toss a word about and it must actually apply.

The fact that we are having this debate, the fact that there are threads like "Glock vs 1911" 101 years later prove that the design is not antiquated. If it were there would be nothing to discuss. No one argues that we should go back to the M1903 or the M1 Garand, yet the M1911 soldiers on.

And what makes those 1911 so very special ? or better than any other Army spec 1911.

shoot safe, shoot straight, and have fun

The Marines.

What does the Corps have to do with the attributes of the 1911, unless this thread has side tracked and lost perspective, I believe that the whole issue is that an elite fighting group has again validated the 1911 as being the best fighting pistol ever invented, JMB sure was light years ahead of his time.

shoot safe, shoot straight, and have fun

Kleanbore said:

For FY2010, the military procurement budget, which included the cost of all small arms, missiles, aircraft, armored and other vehicles, radars, radios, drones, missiles, ships, other naval craft, uniforms, smart bombs, and other munitions combined, comprised 4% of Federal expenditures.

Well, for one thing, the Glock does not have a finish that eliminates glare and makes the weapon less identifiable at a distance.

Second, the Glock does not have a safety that blocks the trigger. That's why Glock has never submitted proposals for US military contracts and reportedly never will.

Third, we have no way to compare the prices, since your "cheap" Glock does not come with a support contract.

Click to expand...

Total Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion for 2012. I would say that pretty much can bankrupt a country!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Toss a word about and it must actually apply

Click to expand...

We should be used to that by now... Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox have been doing that for years... and Fox

Cuba, you're talking in circles and twisting words as you go. This thread is not another "The 1911 is older than my grandma" thread. The question was asked as to why such a presumably expensive pistol is being fielded by a select number of individuals and, if it's the best, why every soldier is not issued one. My answer was and is: this unit is an elite one. If you are issued this specific Colt 1911 contract pistol then you are good enough. If you don't find one in your holster then you're not good enough to be an elite Marine. I am not judging the worth of one soldiers life vs. another, I am differentiating the roles of various service members.

I'm not qualified to claim any specific pistol is "the best fighting pistol ever invented", I've yet to try them all. I do know the specs. removed any other known style pistol from contention, that SA Inc. likely doesn't have the resources to fulfill the contract (remember to be US "manufactured" they must drill/mill the frame) and Mr. Lippard while actually rather knowledgable seems nuttier than a Mars Bar and has no manufacturing capabilities. All this contract affirmed was that the old batch was worn out.

I really don't get why we are debating the cost of these pistols while the National Guard is spending 26 million sponsoring Dale Ernhart Jr.

There's just not enough info in the contract disclosure about who exactly will receive them, for what purpose will they be used, and what is the scale of the surrounding services and support that accompany the weapon. And the size of the deal is mouse nuts so to me, no use getting in a lather over it.
I will say that, due to the specs I suppose, Colt's competitors seemed a bit, um, odd which leads me to think that this is some trophy item.
Nonetheless I too support providing our fighting men and women the best we can dish up. I'm not certain that this offering fills that bill, and may just be a continuation offering to bolster the weapons and parts that are wearing out.
I'd happily grant this deal to them for help on the morale side, but I'd hope that they'd also seek out a more modern, reliable and higher capacity sidearm for their real work. Regardless of who and where it was invented.
B

Bingo, if the Marines wanted a 1911, do you suppose they had an understanding of what they want? Or are you supposing they had no idea and are having some piece of junk foisted upon them?

More modern and reliable, when applied to the 1911, is akin to the left's endless use of the words "common sense gun control."

Or, let's consider this. A 1911 is perfectly reliable - 1911tuner has pointed this out and he is more an expert on the pistols than I am. But it is an odd argument that occurs here and is seldom refuted. We compare a generalized design - 1911, with a specific product from a specific company, Glock for instance. Consider that an Auto Ordnance, Para Ordnance, Wilson Combat, Dan Wesson, Ed Brown, Rock Island, and Llama (just to name a few) 1911 falls in the former category, but a Glock alone falls in the previous one. The Auto Ordnance and Llama jam-o-matics imply that 1911's are faulty junk. Throw AMT into the mix (and I do mean pre Kahr AO's). But Wilson, Wesson, and Brown are not known for performance problems. At the price point, the Marines did not get AMT, AO, or Llama performance, yet some in the back of their minds think on those pistols (or on owner-tuned examples that, like a teen-ager's customized street-racing Kia, have become unreliable junk).

The Colt that the Marines are purchasing is not a Llama nor Numrich-era Auto Ordnance. It makes little sense to then compare the lumped, no-longer-patented design of the 1911 family with its PhD's in phsyics on one side and its high-school drop-outs on the other, with what somebody considers "modern."

Double action only pistols like a Glock are the definition of modern? How would one provide an advantage over the 1911 when every other arm with which the soldier has trained is single action? You notice any rifles which operate like a Glock? Any small arms at all? The fact is that the carbine, SAW, heavy machine gun, or any other other small arm carried by troops (which includes submachine guns) in any branch operate more like a 1911 than anything else. They have to mess with a safety and pull a single-action trigger with every other arm they have, insisting they use a "modern" double action only pistol with its utterly different manual of arms and way of thinking, really makes little sense.

What a waste of taxpayer $$$. Pure politics. Apparently they needed to create some jobs around election time.

Rest assured that some high ranking Marine Corp officer will be working for Colt shortly after retirement. Top level brass vying for post retirement defense contracting jobs are responsible for the majority of wasteful spending on pet programs and weapons. A $600 Ruger or Glock would do just as good a job and if a part ever did break you could throw the whole gun away and buy a new one for less money than this contract.

Oh and I did serve in the Marine Corp and I own a Colt 1911 but I recognize fiscal irresponsibility as good as anyone.

Third, we have no way to compare the prices, since your "cheap" Glock does not come with a support contract.

Click to expand...

All Glocks automatically come with a support contract. I can, and have taken my gun back to Glock. They will take it apart replace any worn parts, clean reassemble,and test fire it for free. Break anything, any time, they fix it. They will do this with any gun they have ever sold.

realy??? name one thats not baised on the 1911 , and that is American made