Marines prefer Glock 9mm over .45acp 1911

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:58 am

Apparently the MARSOC Marines whose only job is high intensity combat came to the same conclusion I did 10 years ago. Lots of rounds easy to place on target under duress are better than less rounds that supposedly, allegedly, kill better. And in a gun that weighs less when loaded than an empty 1911. I'm betting we'll see lots of 33 round Glock magazines on Marine kit soon. God bless the Marines for setting the example and ignoring chair polishers and REMF's, again. I can only hope the Army follows suit and chooses the Glock to replace that pile of stuff M9 that's on it's way out.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/19/ma ... arsoc-45s/

Streetstar · Post by **Streetstar** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:51 am

17+1 vs 8+1 , seems like a no brainer for a combat pistol

wecsoger · Post by **wecsoger** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:01 pm

Bunches of cops nationwide are carrying varous versions of the Glock and so far most of them rarely shoot themselves or others accidentally.

Other country's militarys have Glocks as sidearms.

I do like the Beretta 92 (I have one!) but I think the Glock (I have several!) is just as good, cheaper, easier to maintain, etc.

Ammo...that's another issue. I wonder if the marines are using off-the-books ammo? I got no problem with that. A mag full of Speer hollowpoints would certainly solve a lot of tango issues.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:41 pm

Do their ROE allow anything besides ball?

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:54 pm

Put any kind of spin on it you like, the .45 IS a better "stopper". The fact remains, there isn't any ONE system that will be effective for all personnel. Any agency that demands ALL its troops carry only one type of puts some of those troops at risk. The 'manual des armes' for a 19111 is different enough that I can see younger troops having trouble with it. My son, whose military training only covered the M9 shoots it much better than a 1911, but not better than his 2011... nor more accurately than a 1911.

Just as my good friend since before we joined the service, is a far better pistol shot than I with a S&W .38, he's worse than me with a 1911. And yet even my qualifying scores are higher w/the .38. He beats me on "X" count w/the .38; and while my score only dips by 4 pts w/a .45 1911, his drops by 8-9! We both agree it's a matter of trigger time. And where w/a departmental transition to a 92F he could still beat my scores, he couldn't beat my scores w/my 1911... until he had over a year of daily use with the 92F.

Luckily, my job allowed me the choice to carry my 1911, his required him to stick with the issue weapon. Even better, neither of us had to prove our choice (or lack thereof) on the street. And while I still carry a 1911 style pistol, he prefers his mdl13-3... and still haven't had to justify our choices.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:18 pm

Taking your time on paper for points is completely different than being able to direct a high volume of accurate fire in combat. And we're talking combat accuracy, not competition accuracy. That is what this is about, and why the guys in special operations prefer a high capacity low recoil round. This isn't just, or even partially, about green kids not shooting a 1911 well, that was anecdotal to the main premise. It's about what experienced gunslingers are choosing. And they are doing it for a very sound reason. I'm asked all the time by new shooters what I think they should buy, and the one thing I hate hearing more than anything else when I tell them a Glock 9mm is "well my uncle/brother/cousin/buddy/cop says .45 acp is better than 9mm".

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:24 pm

Ok, I'll admit, my "combat" experience ended 43 years ago. Unless you count "servin' n protectin'"... And... maybe more importantly, I'm agreeing that havin' a CHOICE is a GOOD thing, maybe, even more important than what that choice is. I firmly believe that one should have the choice in their personal defense weapon...

I didn't read anything in that article that indicated they were deep-sixin' the 1911 in favor of the Glock, just that they were allowing it as an alternative. Adding it to the list, which ISTR includes the M9 and a Sig. Just as it was hard for guys to transition from the 1911 to the M9, I have no doubt that the reverse is equally true.

Even as slanted as that article was, I have no trouble believing "some military pistol experts" have trouble with a 1911. The guys I view as "gunslingers" have no issue picking up ANY handgun and shooting it better than the average "guy".

I've seen far too many people pick up a 1911 and get stovepipes, FTFs and accuracy from "can't hit the barn door" to can't hit the barn. Guys that are well trained and excellent shooters with other guns. In a few of those cases, I've picked up the SAME gun & magazine, and proceeded to shoot without any malfunction and better than fair accuracy. And FWIW, I don't consider myself an expert, gunslinger or what-have-you... just a fair, open-minded fellar, that's middlin' average shooter. Heck I even liked my buddy's Springfield XD! My only complaint was, "...heck, doesn't this thing ever run outta ammo?"

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:38 pm

Griff wrote: I didn't read anything in that article that indicated they were deep-sixin' the 1911 in favor of the Glock,

Neither did I, nor did I imply that. What the article did state, and I reiterated, is that actual real deal professional gunslinger operators (MARSOC) who see the highest intensity close quarters combat, CHOOSE the Glock 9mm over the 1911 .45, as would I.

All of the 1911 stove piping and younger guys having problems etc is completely anecdotal to that point.

jkbrea · Post by **jkbrea** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:47 pm

From my understanding, the military went to the .45 for the stopping power when the .38s weren't effective. The Moro warriors would be high on drugs and tie torniquetes on various parts of their bodies to slow bleeding when they attacked. The .38 wasn't putting them down after multiple shots. A big slower bullet did the trick.

I spent 30 years in LE. Guns used to be a personal choice and almost a matter of pride. Wood and Steel. It seemed when I started, cops took care of their guns. .38, .357's and .44's were common. When the semi-auto came out, everyone wanted more ammo and it wasn't a bad choice, just different. Emphasis in training was shifted from well placed accurate shots to continue to shoot till the threat is stopped. Not spraying rounds but aiming center mass and shoot. In a hostile environment, when time counts, this is a good thing. Semi-autos are great for this, reloading is easier and the maintanance is much easier. Just swap out parts. From a financial view, Glocks are cheap reliable and kind of a disposable gun. In my experience in LE and as a rangemaster, the guys that shoot a lot, such as SWAT, were carrying mostly .45 1911's. Sidearms were a backup weapon for very close range work. MP5's or M4's were the primary weapon so a .45 with a few extra mags were sufficiant if your primary weapon failed. We always had the bad guy outgunned and outmanned on known callouts. I am only guessing that in military combat, a Soldier/Marine is up against many more people and more firepower so a higher capacity pistol may be in order. I always thought the 1911 was great but a person needs to train with it often. Shooting is definately a perishable skill. I went from a S&W .357, to a Sig P220 and finally a Kimber 1911. A Glock is just, draw, aim and shoot. No safeties, no cocked hammer, no de-cocking levers, (Sigs), to worry about and pretty much very low maintanance. Also, much easier to train large groups that aren't necessarily gun people. All that said, I think the pride of maintaining and personalizing duty weapons is a thing of the past. If it breaks, issue another one. No matter what you shoot, shot placement is the key.
I remember what someone told me a long time ago about Military weapons, vehicles, etc....You were issued the lowest bid equipment.

Streetstar · Post by **Streetstar** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:05 pm

personal choice in a military environment only goes so far ---- i shudder to think of myself or one of my squad mates becoming a casualty, but in a low ammo situation, i want the next guy to be able to use my magazines if i am out of the fight ,-- both to protect him and me while i get mede-vacc'ed out

That wont happen if "personal choice" becomes acceptable ---- many will take the issue Glocks/BErettas/ whatever -- while some wannabe pistolero has a non standard (for the unit) Sig or 1911 or whatever. And in the days of field ammo trailer load outs, the guy shooting the 45 just might not have anything available when it is time to replenish the mags

If they play around with multiple different sidearm choices , they should make whatever is chosen standardized at the company level at minimum

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:11 pm

jkbrea wrote:...... A Glock is just, draw, aim and shoot. No manual safeties, no cocked hammer, no de-cocking levers, (Sigs), to worry about and pretty much very low maintanance. Since boat anchors don't need any maintenance

There. Fixed it for you.

It's no secret how I feel about Sig. Just as soon carry a tomahawk.

tman · Post by **tman** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:37 pm

Military evolved from the single shot trapdoor 45-70 and colt 1873 .45. From the Garand to the m14, to the M16\M4, From the 45 long colt to 45 auto, to the 9mm. More emphasis on lighter weight faster handling, high capacity weapons. Blue steel and wood became ballistic plastic. You don't see many armies issuing bolt action 30-06's and single action 45 long colts to their infantry.

Panzercat · Post by **Panzercat** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:42 pm

Streetstar wrote:17+1 vs 8+1 , seems like a no brainer for a combat pistol

I would think that's the biggest problem right there. It was for me. Not that I don't think the 1911 is an awesome piece of hardware, because it is, but double stack is the standard these days unless you're concealing. personally, my double stack XDm isn't too fat, but I can see where it might be an issue for some.

I don't buy the recoil gripe. Build a comp into the barrel and you're good.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:01 pm

mm

jkbrea wrote:...I remember what someone told me a long time ago about Military weapons, vehicles, etc....You were issued the lowest bid equipment.

Lowest bid meeting the required specifications. Having written specifications, I can say that they can vary greatly in what is required to meet them. We would often get push back from the procurement types to justify why we wanted/needed something other'n the minimum, off-the-shelf article.

And there'll always be differences of opinion re: the hi-cap 9mm vs the "man-stopper" 45. I remember comments from members of this same community calling for a more powerful round... so I kinda doubt all of MARSOC hold the same opinion.

Streerstar, since MARSOC was already using the old rebuilt M45, I don't think that'll be a problem.

Vance, and being plastic, not very good boat anchors.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:14 pm

Not an Operator, or LEO, or even all that good, I still like the damage a nice 230 JHP does. Those team members go for the head shots, and I don't think I could do that on a moving target.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:43 pm

Griff wrote: And there'll always be differences of opinion re: the hi-cap 9mm vs the "man-stopper" 45. I remember comments from members of this same community calling for a more powerful round... so I kinda doubt all of MARSOC hold the same opinion.
.

No one said all, they said "most". And it's enough for the Marines to issue a MARADMIN to address it. I think it's safe to assume the Marines would not alter policy based on a minority, or even a 50/50 difference in opinion. I think that qualifies as an overwhelming majority request and there seems to be a consensus among all US SOC. If I were going to choose a weapon based on what someone else is using, I doubt I could find a more competent group than SPECOPS to emulate.

The Marine Corps has authorized MARSOC operators to carry Glock pistols, since most of the elite outfit's members prefer the popular 9mm over the custom .45 pistols the service bought them in 2012.

The Corps issued a Feb. 2 Marine Administrative Message, or MARADMIN, that green-lighted Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, or MARSOC, units to use the Glock 19, a proven design used by many units in U.S. Special Operations Command.

Post by **Chuck 100 yd** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:05 pm

Let's see now.......real American steel,.45 proven stopper, and you'd rather have a tupperware shooter because you don't like the weight and the fact it holds fewer rounds. Maybe we need to work on those Marines muscles and maybe a little marksmanship training thrown in would not hurt either.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:09 pm

Chuck 100 yd wrote:Let's see now.......real American steel,.45 proven stopper, and you'd rather have a tupperware shooter because you don't like the weight and the fact it holds fewer rounds. Maybe we need to work on those Marines muscles and maybe a little marksmanship training thrown in would not hurt either.

There...now this thread has some potential

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:27 pm

Maybe we should all go back to wooden wheeled cars and horse drawn farm implements too.

Post by **Chuck 100 yd** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:30 pm

Let the sparks fly.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:31 pm

The reason for the American rifle's characteristic long barrel is a matter of adaptation to the new world by the German immigrant gunsmiths. The German gunsmiths working in America were very familiar with German rifles, which seldom had barrels longer than 30 in., and were large caliber rifles using large amounts of lead. The new world forests were vast and required hunters to carry more of their supplies with them. The smaller caliber rifles gave them more ammunition and reduced the amount of weight they needed to carry on a hunt.

I bet there was someone somewhere lamenting the fact that those shirt tail American immigrants just weren't tough enough to shoot a real gun.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:38 pm

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 6:13 pm

My G30S is my Heavy Carry....does that count? The 1911 has been relegated to the nightstand, and BBQs....That reminds me, I still need to put on the stag grips. Those make it mo betta hittin' harder.

Lastmohecken · Post by **Lastmohecken** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 6:26 pm

Well, I have owned all of that stuff, and I have not fired a shot in anger, but I have killed a lot of cows and dogs over the years, not mention game animals and I usually had to shoot them more often with the 9mm vs the 45 or 40 caliber. And the recoil from a good 1911 is not much, but I don't know, maybe the 9 is better, because I am not sure how much practice the GI's get with the handgun, so maybe more shots is better because only hits count and the more rounds fired, maybe the better chance of getting a hit.

But if we are just talking ball ammo, my bet is on the 1911 in 45ACP over any 9MM shooting ball.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 6:33 pm

Lastmohecken wrote:Well, I have owned all of that stuff, and I have not fired a shot in anger, but I have killed a lot of cows and dogs over the years, not mention game animals and I usually had to shoot them more often with the 9mm vs the 45 or 40 caliber. And the recoil from a good 1911 is not much, but I don't know, maybe the 9 is better, because I am not sure how much practice the GI's get with the handgun, so maybe more shots is better because only hits count and the more rounds fired, maybe the better chance of getting a hit.

But if we are just talking ball ammo, my bet is on the 1911 in 45ACP over any 9MM shooting ball.

I like the cheap 230fmj...the jacket comes off real easy, and you have a razor sharp knife going one direction, and a piece of soft lead turning into a .60" blob going the other direction.

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:55 pm

I have tried many (love excuses to buy firearms) but have had been unable to fined a full-size semiauto pistol that I like better than my double-stack Para Ordnance 1911 in 45 ACP. It has a lightweight aluminum frame and has been utterly reliable.

I really like the 'knockdown' of the 45 ACP, and really like the 'doublestack' capacity of the 9mm's, but the P-14 gives me both (14, 16, and 20-round magazines function perfectly). Many people say "the grip is too fat", but most people who I have let shoot mine say things like "Wow - the shape of that grip fits my hands better than a regular 1911..."

I really like the exposed hammer for a gun carried around all the time chambered. Even if carried 'cocked', you have several layers of protection including a proper holster's hammer blocking strap.

With the aluminum frame, it isn't all that heavy, either.

However - I'm NOT a soldier, and they have way different needs and priorities, so I can see why they'd opt for a tougher frame than aluminum, and maybe a (not that much more) slim grip, and faster repeat-shot time, and easier learning-curve.

It might be nice if they made versions for various size hands and so on but the controls were the same and all the breakable and losable parts were the same, whatever 'platform' they elected to use.

BAGTIC · Post by **BAGTIC** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:00 pm

Some people seem to think the measure of a gun is the size of the hole in the end of the barrel. Well it isn't the hole doesn't stop anything.

As the hoary 38 vs the Moros story the .38 troops were shooting then was the .38 Colt which was less powerful than the .38 Special or the 9mm. It was in fact about as powerful as a .22 rimfire magnum. The return of the .45 Colt did not change anything. When a suicidal fanatic attacks from very close range and whacks you with a machete before you can clear leather it doesn't matter much what you are carrying. The .30-40 Krag could not prevent it either. THe M1897 shotgun was a little better but most likely when it was being carried a a person not being attacked.

Old fairy tales sure die hard.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:29 pm

BAGTIC wrote:Some people seem to think the measure of a gun is the size of the hole in the end of the barrel. Well it isn't the hole doesn't stop anything.

As the hoary 38 vs the Moros story the .38 troops were shooting then was the .38 Colt which was less powerful than the .38 Special or the 9mm. It was in fact about as powerful as a .22 rimfire magnum. The return of the .45 Colt did not change anything. When a suicidal fanatic attacks from very close range and whacks you with a machete before you can clear leather it doesn't matter much what you are carrying. The .30-40 Krag could not prevent it either. THe M1897 shotgun was a little better but most likely when it was being carried a a person not being attacked.

Old fairy tales sure die hard.

Not according to the experts.....

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:36 pm

Lastmohecken wrote:Well, I have owned all of that stuff, and I have not fired a shot in anger, but I have killed a lot of cows and dogs over the years, not mention game animals and I usually had to shoot them more often with the 9mm vs the 45 or 40 caliber. And the recoil from a good 1911 is not much, but I don't know, maybe the 9 is better, because I am not sure how much practice the GI's get with the handgun, so maybe more shots is better because only hits count and the more rounds fired, maybe the better chance of getting a hit.

But if we are just talking ball ammo, my bet is on the 1911 in 45ACP over any 9MM shooting ball.

I had exactly the opposite experience with .45 acp on dogs and porcupines as I mentioned in another thread here, and several people had the same experience. I've had a dog take half a mag of 45 acp to the chest and a couple to the head before going down, and I thought I was going to have to reload and keep shooting, not something i ever want to have to go through again. I've had porcupines soak up a magazine of 45 acp and keep going. That's when I realized all this talk about .45 acp being a stopper was just that. If I was going to bet on something being a stopper, it would be a 10mm 135gr doing 1600 fps long before anything .45 acp.

As far as more rounds downrange making a better hit probability, you have hit the nail on the head. Try taking slow aimed shots from behind something barely resembling cover while being shot at. You wont, you will be sending rounds downrange as fast as you can, and you will go through ammo fast. Or engaging multiple targets. You want as many rounds as possible without reloading.

Like streetstar said, 17+1 vs 8+1 makes a lot of sense. Apparently the guys taking the most fire agree.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:49 pm

Apparently the guys taking the most fire agree.

The ones that can make head shots all the time....

Streetstar · Post by **Streetstar** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:58 am

sore shoulder wrote:
Like streetstar said, 17+1 vs 8+1 makes a lot of sense. Apparently the guys taking the most fire agree.

Its simple --- ball ammo complicates matters somewhat --- but for most --- (MOST) - you hit them somewhere with ball ammo and it should make them very quickly re-evaluate -- unless they are on top of you at bayonet distance

I personally like a .40/.10mm or a .45 for my use , ---- but this is not about what i like. (Heck, i prefer a .357 Magnum to all of them for the most part)

Rounds on target is what its all about. A lot of the "new school experts" (whatever that is --- Costa and others of his generation) are espousing the benefits of capacity once again too ---- some of these guys' have recent experience in Injun' country -- Costa is from the Coast Guard, im not sure what his real world experience is, but Magpul sure seemed to like him

Me? I dont know --- i know my beloved 357's only hold 6 rounds and unless i shoot pretty regularly, i am not supremely accurate with full power 357's . I was recently rudely awakened to the fact that i now shoot my Glock 20 (10mm) like a novice too since i dont shoot as much as i did 3 years ago , --- but i picked up a Glock 22 (.40 cal) - and the range session was effective and i was pleasantly surprised at its accuracy.
The finger grooves on the 3rd and 4th gen Glocks dont always agree with me, -- so i procured a Sig P229 for my new bedside friend -- 12 rounds of .40 will hopefully work if it needs to

Note: -- I was a downrange power buff! - i loved full house 357's and 10 mils among others --- going to the .40 Short/Weak was something i thought a lot about -- but ultimately , if i am not putting 3-400 rounds a week downrange , the 40 is more effective for me than its big brothers --

The 9mm would be easier i'm told ------- a lot of these guys' in harms way may only shoot their pistols a handful of times a year in training -- I'll stick with my 12 round SIG -- as a civilian, when am i going to need more? (hopefully never) - but as a GI, when the time comes to reach for a pistol, a person will likely wish it had a 100 round magazine on board , because things just got beyond fouled up

Panzercat · Post by **Panzercat** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:09 am

sore shoulder wrote: Apparently the guys taking the most fire agree.

Let's add some context to this thread now-- "The guys taking the most fire" have been utilizing the .45acp for longer than any other branch in service, rebuilding and reconditioning it from parts of parts. This is simply a new turn on a very old frames that probably should have been decom'd decades ago. Glocks have existed for decades as well, and somehow they've been using 1911's for decades without issues beyond supply procurement and sheer age of the old stockpiles.

The "problems" the article says they're running into strike me as pure fluff, to be honest. Oh noez, how are these "young shooters" having so many problems with the 1911 dovetail? Aren't they receiving the same training? Why are these "young shooters" so impaired versus the marine's other shooters? I also like how ambiguous the next statement is, citing "the 1911" is prone to stoppages and stove pipes by "experts".

Really? What model? Can we be more specific? Because I'm pretty sure low cut ejection ports and modified feed ramps in the modern builds have all but eliminated this issue. Getting quality magazines all but eliminates any remaining issues unless your 1911 is no good.

Glocks are fine too. But this piece is pretty malleable in terms of presentation, with little in the way of meat, prose or credible citations. Frankly, it sounds like another "I hatez the 5.56! rawr!" argument with little in the way of substance. Yes, i'm sure there will be a core contingent of marines out there that like glocks over 1911s, but for God's sakes, the pistol doesn't take a bachelors to operate. It was my first CCW and somehow I never had a problem with the safeties.

Capacity? I'm down with that. Everything else? Put your big boy shorts on, already.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:30 am

The current 1911 issued to MARSOC is a brand new custom Colt 1911 CQB, not the worn out M45. The grip safety issues were while wearing gloves, which is required equipment now.

I too have carried and shot a 1911 a lot, around seven years. I am issued an M9. I would much prefer a pistol with higher round count and no external safety/decocker stuff. Why use something more complex when you don't have too? I still think it's significant that the guys who are the elite gunslingers prefer a Glock 9mm over a custom 1911.

And 1911's are definitely finicky. I'll never forget being away from home training for Uncle Sam and getting a call from my wife who was shooting on our property with our daughter and asking me how to clear a stovepipe from the 1911. They really did not have a lot of confidence in that gun. Since I switched to Glocks their groups and confidence skyrocketed, they have never had one failure and now we all have them and no one is worried about being able to use a gun with a bunch of hammers and safeties.

Also, I think as far as credibility and sources, the Marine Corp and MARSOC are about as credible as it gets when referring to Marine Corp policy. Creating a major policychange with a MARADMIN is a little above significant.

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:05 am

If part or all of this thread carries the inference that a 9mm anything is superior to a 1911 or similar .45 semi-auto for self-defense, here's my 46 cents (inflation, you know):

In my state, being limited to 10 rounds or less in the hand, double stack mags is a moot point. So a .45 is a lot more comforting, if 10 is all one has until he reloads (Para .45's hold 10). But then, it pays to learn to use it well.

A "9" definitely holds more shots. So does a squirt gun. I'll stick with the "4's" - .40 SW, .44 Special or Mag, .45 Colt, .45 ACP (230gr HP) still my favorite for daily carry, given almost any foreseeable scenario.

Let's talk about "those who have been there," since some posters here don't realize the background of some of those to whom they are posting.

I recall, through the years, the many special tactical police and SOG units whose members in fact demanded the .45 over the 9: Various SWAT units, LAPD SIS, The FBI Hostage Team, Military SOG operators, and other highly trained operators. Just as learning to place accurate shots is the most important thing, so is spending enough time to master the negligible difference in recoil between the .45's and the millimeter set. Assassins can use .22 LR's or even .22 shorts when they have an unobstructed, planned and surprise shot against an unsuspecting victim, but large holes reportedly work nicely, even if not perfectly placed, when introduced into an adrenalin charged, moving, dodging, and advancing adversary.

These Marine handguns are, after all, backup weapons for their harder hitting carbines and long guns, anyway, correct?

So - I'm on Griff's side - and Doc's! (Edited for clarity, not content)

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:17 am

JohndeFresno wrote:
Let's talk about "those who have been there," since some posters here don't realize the background of some of those to whom they are posting.

That is a two way street. My sig tells the story, if you know what you are looking at. If it doesn't well, you probably haven't been there.

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:53 am

sore shoulder wrote:My sig tells the story, if you know what you are looking at. If it doesn't well, you probably haven't been there.

Yes, of course, most of us get it, brother. I've been there, too; but many on this forum have seen far more than me.
Thank you for your service.

guido4198 · Post by **guido4198** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:00 am

45acp vs. 9mm....!!!!

Geeezzz.....some things never go away.

How many pages of various gun rags have been saved from being left blank by igniting this discussion over the last few DECADES..????
Here's what I can tell you I did...when it counted, and when I had complete freedom to equip myself as I saw fit.
It was 1977. I found myself for the first time being able to specify every detail about what weapons and ammo I wanted to carry into a combat situation rather than having to take what was issued. I had a pretty good collection of handguns to choose from for an upcoming trip. I was heading to Rhodesia and expected to have a use for a sidearm. My choice was a mildly customized Browning Hi-Power loading with Winchester Power point JSP ammo.
Despite the confidence I had in my Colt Series 70's .45 acp...I really liked the idea of having more ammo in the weapon and on my person at all times. I was not limited to ball ammo, and law enforcement experience with the Winchester ammo had proven it to be a reliable way to stop a fight.
Bottom line for me is that if I can choose the most effective ammo available..the 9mm is just fine. I don't own a Glock and can't offer a comment on them as a choice vs. anything else for a 9mm platform.

firefuzz · Post by **firefuzz** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:46 am

Chuck 100 yd wrote:Let's see now.......real American steel,.45 proven stopper, and you'd rather have a tupperware shooter because you don't like the weight and the fact it holds fewer rounds. Maybe we need to work on those Marines muscles and maybe a little marksmanship training thrown in would not hurt either.

Well, I guess you'd have to throw me and about 50 other LEO instructors that I know in the same boat. And I do carry a Glock 17 by choice, not because it's the gun someone else decided I needed to carry. I shoot it well, I shoot it fast, and I don't worry about it going off when I pull the trigger.

I may have missed this in the reading, if I did...sorry, but in the Philippine expedition we're talking about the .38 Long Colt, not the .38 S&W Special cartridge being replaced by the .45 Colt. There is a marked difference.

As far as the Beretta 92 goes, it never should have been adopted. Open top slide that invites dirt, cracking slides that have to be replaced early, and mainly...a grip too large for the average shooters hand when the pistol is in DA mode. It beat out a far better pistol, the Sig 226, strictly on price per unit...less than $5.00 per gun ( there were rumors of bid rigging, but there always are when you're dealing with the American government), and a pretty much documented desire by the US to place nuclear IBM's in Italy....kind of a trade off ya know.

As far as price goes, I have no idea what the new tricked out 1911's are going to cost us, but I'll bet you can buy 3 Glock 17's for same price. .45ACP ammo cost more per round to produce, and, from my experience, it takes more of them to get a beginning shooter to the same level of competence as the same shooter with a 9mm.

As far as only ball ammo being used in combat zones today....did you ever wonder why Sierra changed the name of the Sierra Match King Hollow Point to the Sierra OTM (Open Tip Match)? Look at the bullets being used by our military snipers for a hint. You can argue the 9mm/.45ACP stopping power debate all you want. If you want to settle it issue either the .357 Sig or 10mm and be done with it. If I didn't have quite a few loaded round/loading components for the 9mm and was starting fresh I'd go with the .357 Sig and never look back. Hell, no more than I get to shoot any more I may get one anyway.

BTW/JFI...the last time I had to qualify for the SO, about 8 mos ago, I shot my son's Taurus 1911 along with my other carry guns just for kicks. Fired a 96/100 out of a gun I'd shot maybe 50rds thru ever, so it's not that I can't shoot a 1911 or a .45ACP. I did notice that my times were considerably slower and I know I was getting tired of continually reloading the dinosaur.

Rob

OldWin · Post by **OldWin** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 8:32 am

I like Glocks, I have a 21SF on my nightstand.
I REALLY like 1911's, Got a full size steel Springfield and a Colt LW Commander that I carry (preferred carry).

I don't have a problem with 9mm (with the right ammo) and carry one for a sub-compact.
I hold the .45acp in high regard. It's still effective with ball, unlike many others.

Even though I prefer the 1911 for myself, I can see where the Glock would be an excellent combat pistol and would have no problem using one myself. Light weight, excellent reliability, low and easy maintenance, low felt recoil, simplicity of use, it goes on and on.
However, if I had to use one with 9mm ball, I don't care if it holds 50rnds, I'd take a 1911 in .45. I just think 9mm ball is a poor choice no matter what the delivery system.

I may be mistaken, but I recall some U.S. special operations personnel using Glock 21's in A-Stan with excellent results. This I would consider a good option. The Glock 21 is the softest shooting .45acp I've fired in a pistol of it's weight.

Anyway, this is one idiots opinion.

jdad · Post by **jdad** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 10:30 am

Hey! This is just like an ARFCOM thread, but without the foul language!

I've had ZERO formal (mil or leo) training, but I've thrown a lot of stuff down range at paper.

All of us have our preferences based on what we use our stuff for. ME, I swore by Sig until I bought a CZ PO-7, then I swore after shooting my son's HK VP9 that there was no more perfect, SEMI-AUTO, platform.......to accurately hit paper with.

I'm still much more accurate with a revolver than a 1911.

Just MY .02

rjohns94 · Post by **rjohns94** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 10:56 am

Vance why you trashing my Sig.

I carried a 1911 in service, LOVE THEM!
Currently I carry a sig 227, 14+1 of flying ash trays. I carry it every day, all day. I shoot it weekly, going through each mag I have for it which includes 3 10 round and 2 14 round mags. I haven't had to shoot anyone or even fire a sidearm in a stress situation since GW1. I'm happy about that. Hope the marines have chosen well. The glock platform has proven itself around the world. In fact, so has the 1911 (and Sigs). As well as others. Hope they get the right training. I think more than anything it's the shooter placing lethal fire in a lethal manner in CNS or other vital areas.

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:20 am

rjohns94 wrote:Vance why you trashing my Sig?

It's what I do!

My personal experiences with a P220ST were less than stellar, as the inability of Sig to correct it....well, they were head shakingly inefficient. Everyone makes a lemon from time to time, but how they deal with it makes a difference.
I'd rather carry a front-stuffer for self defense or combat than a Sig.

And they cost twice as much as a Glock or S&W M&P.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:19 pm

vancelw wrote:
And they cost twice as much as a Glock...

Thats always been my position. It's said the Sig is more accurate. Well, if I can, and have a couple times now, take a brand new un-fired Glock 17 straight out of the box, no oil or nothing, and put 5 standard mags and a 33 round mag through it in to a paper plate at 15 feet as fast as I can fire and reload, just how much more accurate is a Sig than that, and how much is that alleged accuracy worth?

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:07 pm

sore shoulder wrote:
vancelw wrote:
And they cost twice as much as a Glock...
Thats always been my position. It's said the Sig is more accurate. Well, if I can, and have a couple times now, take a brand new un-fired Glock 17 straight out of the box, no oil or nothing, and put 5 standard mags and a 33 round mag through it in to a paper plate at 15 feet as fast as I can fire and reload, just how much more accurate is a Sig than that, and how much is that alleged accuracy worth?

I like my Glock...One thing I do notice is that it's a bear to reload those double stack mags. If you don't have hand strength like Atlas, you need that dang tool to load them..1911 mags are much, much easier to reload.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:27 pm

Blaine, my wife has very small hands and not a lot of hand strength. I showed her how to do the left thumb pushes last round in mag down while also pushing down with the other thumb on top of the next round, thereby using the strength of both thumbs together. The magazine is gripped in the left hand while doing this. I'm sure you know this method, but thought I would share it just in case.

Bill in Oregon · Post by **Bill in Oregon** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:51 pm

Would various international conventions ever allow a more effective WFN-type nose profile on FMJ 9mm? Seems this might go a ways toward solving this very old, unwinnable argument.

BigSky56 · Post by **BigSky56** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:59 pm

With the regular military looking for a new pistol and ammo to replace the Beretta it will probably be the 5.7x28 with 20-30 rds mags. if you want to improve the 9 or 45 just use a fmc truncated cone style bullet for combat, as recommended by Jeff Cooper. the 45 fmc ball I field tested in RVN wouldnt penetrate a army flak jacket a ball 9 did. ball ammo in 9 or 45 has poor performance unless a CNS shot is made. After field tests in combat, I started with 19ll & M3 GG , I settled on a P35 & walther mpl with subgun ammo. the 9mm never let me down. danny

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:40 pm

sore shoulder wrote:Blaine, my wife has very small hands and not a lot of hand strength. I showed her how to do the left thumb pushes last round in mag down while also pushing down with the other thumb on top of the next round, thereby using the strength of both thumbs together. The magazine is gripped in the left hand while doing this. I'm sure you know this method, but thought I would share it just in case.

No...actually, I've never been shown that...I've always tried to brute force it with the one thumb....The Big Light Bulb

just went on over my head...thanks.....I own you one free tuba lesson

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:21 pm

sore shoulder wrote:
vancelw wrote:And they cost twice as much as a Glock...
Thats always been my position. It's said the Sig is more accurate. Well, if I can, and have a couple times now, take a brand new un-fired Glock 17 straight out of the box, no oil or nothing, and put 5 standard mags and a 33 round mag through it in to a paper plate at 15 feet as fast as I can fire and reload, just how much more accurate is a Sig than that, and how much is that alleged accuracy worth?

After a 50 yard sprint? Personally, I'm not sure I'd survive the sprint, let alone a gunfight at the end of it!

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:08 pm

Bill in Oregon wrote:Would various international conventions ever allow a more effective WFN-type nose profile on FMJ 9mm? Seems this might go a ways toward solving this very old, unwinnable argument.

Interestingly the original 9mm round was a jacketed truncated cone, which I happen to think is a very very good design and try to buy them for various pistol rounds I load for whenever I find it. I think RN is a feeding reliability thing.