New pistol in works for Force Recon units

[Pat_Rogers]

Read....

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]

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]

WOW!

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]

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.

SWAT?
Pat Rogers?

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

 

[buzz_knox]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Too thick?

Well, my dog thinks that i'm a cool guy!

But, thank you!

 

[Blueduck]

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]

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.
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.

Excuse me but i need to go barf now.


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

 

[Blueduck]

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]

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]

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]

Did I miss the catfight?

 

[Denny Hansen]

No fight, just a small battle of wits

Denny

 

[JoeWang]

Or a battle of small wits?

 

[Seanmac45]

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]

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]

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" I think I have pretty good assesment of a cetain crew....

 

[444]

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]

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.

 

[fix]

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]

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]

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.