Marine Side Arm?

[dbltap]

Watched an episode of The Real NCIS last night on the Military Channel, Naval Criminal Investigations Service. A Marine Guard was killed and his side arm was stolen. It was a Colt 45.

Did the Marines not convert to the Beretta 9mm?

Thanks.

[RJay]

Did it ever occure to you that the crime may have taken place 50 years and they are just now making a show about it.

[Lotsdragon]

I am not positive but I thought I heard that some of the marines havent switched over to the 9mm's yet.

[gandog56]

Seals didn't switch.

[dbltap]

Originally Posted by RJay

Did it ever occure to you that the crime may have taken place 50 years and they are just now making a show about it.

It never occurred to me that I needed to be that specific. The bad guys were driving a Subaru Outback Wagon, a red one. I'm certain they didn't have those back then.

[RJay]

When they are making a low budget TV show they don't need to get the back ground perfect. However I didn't see the show, perhaps it was a low priority installation such as a reserve center or even a training center. Gandog, The Seals are still using 1911's , Are you sure about that??

[1 CAV]

The Marine Crops has never stopped using the 1911. It has been their standard issue side arm since WWII.

[SARG]

Originally Posted by 1 CAV

The Marine Crops has never stopped using the 1911. It has been their standard issue side arm since WWII.

Probably still use it ........ but I suspect they indeed did change their "standard issue" to the Italian wonder .....just like the other branches.

[USMC-03]

There may be some few units out there with M1911's but the M9 is in general use. I was in one of the last units to have them back in the early 90's and haven't seen one issued, other than on shooting teams, since then.

[delta13soultaker]

If you look across the service right now you'll find several types of 1911, Glock, Sig 228 and 226 and 228r and DAK, HK USP, and perhaps some others. And of course the M9, which is about 98% of the handguns in use right now.

There's not much uniformity among the uniformed service these days.

[1 CAV]

United States Marine Corps Weapons & Equipment

M1911A1 .45 Caliber Pistol



Primary function: Semiautomatic pistol
Length: 8.625 inches (21.91 centimeters)
Length of barrel: 5.03 inches (12.78 centimeters)
Weight:
Magazine empty: 2.5 pounds (1.14 kg)
Magazine loaded: 3.0 pounds (1.36 kg)
Bore diameter: .45 caliber
Maximum effective range: 82.02 feet (25 meters)
Muzzle velocity: 830 feet (253 meters) per second
Magazine capacity: 7 rounds
Unit Replacement Cost: $242

Features: The .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol M1911A1 is a recoil-operated hand weapon. It is a magazine-fed semiautomatic weapon, which fires one round each time the trigger is squeezed once the hammer is cocked by prior action of the slide or thumb. This design is referred to as "single action only." The thumb safety may only be activated once the pistol is cocked. The hammer remains in the fully cocked position once the safety is activated. (Note: More modern pistol designs of the "double action" type will allow the hammer to move forward to an uncocked position when the thumb safety is activated.)
The M1911A1 was widely respected for its reliability and lethality. However, its single action/cocked and locked design required the user to be very familiar and well-trained to allow carrying the pistol in the "ready-to-fire" mode. Consequently, M1911A1s were often prescribed to be carried without a round in the chamber. Even with this restriction on the user, numerous unintentional discharges were documented yearly.

Background: The M1911A1 had been the standard handgun issued to Marines for many decades. Selected weapons were modified in the 1980s to meet the requirements of the MEU(SOC) in lieu of arming them with the M9 9mm pistol.

"In lieu of", in other words they modified their 1911's rather than accept the M9. As far as I know the Marines still use the .45.

Here's the link for the info

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/...acts/blm19.htm

[Kane]

i was reading in combat arms magazine thAT the marines for the most part switched but want the 45 back hence the hk45 project

[delta13soultaker]

Originally Posted by 1 CAV

"In lieu of", in other words they modified their 1911's rather than accept the M9. As far as I know the Marines still use the .45.

Here's the link for the info

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/...acts/blm19.htm

http://www.marines.com/main/index/wi...ment/m9_pistol

[Kane]

id like to point out the exact same thing happened in the war with the phillipines in the 1900s. the army adopted a .38 revolver over the colt 45 but the soldiers soon dumped it in favor of the newly made 1911. the cycle repeats.

[dbltap]

Originally Posted by RJay

When they are making a low budget TV show they don't need to get the back ground perfect. However I didn't see the show, perhaps it was a low priority installation such as a reserve center or even a training center. Gandog, The Seals are still using 1911's , Are you sure about that??

The base was Pearl Harbor. The T.V. show is a moot point now.

[RJay]

Originally Posted by Kane

id like to point out the exact same thing happened in the war with the phillipines in the 1900s. the army adopted a .38 revolver over the colt 45 but the soldiers soon dumped it in favor of the newly made 1911. the cycle repeats.

Was that before they named it the model of 1911?

[delta13soultaker]

Originally Posted by Kane

id like to point out the exact same thing happened in the war with the phillipines in the 1900s. the army adopted a .38 revolver over the colt 45 but the soldiers soon dumped it in favor of the newly made 1911. the cycle repeats.

If I could disagree.

The .38 Long Colt was the cartridge used by some US Army forces in the Philippines in the war you're referring to. It was replaced by SA .45 Colt revolvers....

But the US Army only had .45 Schofield ammunition because they had both .45 Colt and .45 Schofield revolvers (.45 S&W). The .45 Schofield cartridges will work in a Colt but not vice versa.

The .45 Schofield load they had was about a 230 grain lead round nose bullet going 700 fps if they were lucky. (The .38 Long Colt was 150 grain lead round nose going about 750 fps)

So...they got rid of a puny .38 bullet for a puny .45 bullet and still had Moros failing to be stopped.

The .38 Long Colt load was a 50% stopper and the .45 Schofield load was perhaps 55% or 60%. Maybe.

The gain was not noteworthy and the rest is a nice legend but almost all myth and lies.


As for the 1911 and 1911A1...that came a decade later. In some way it was indirectly linked to the Philippine-American War, but by no means can the event take credit. The 1911 was influenced heavily by the US Army Cavalry, which back then was an elite organization, and .44 was the smallest they'd ever tipped their hats to anyway.

As for the 9mm and .45 ACP. With FMJ/ball ammunition there really is no great difference in effect on target.

Gun writers and gun magazines have created many debates that say different, which is nice entertaining reading, but in truth, both 9mm ball and .45 ACP ball are very poor choices of ammunition.

A poorly placed .45 bullet is just as impotent as a poorly placed 9mm bullet.

For most of the US military, 9mm makes as much sense as all the other options.

[1 CAV]

Originally Posted by delta13soultaker

A poorly placed .45 bullet is just as impotent as a poorly placed 9mm bullet.

For most of the US military, 9mm makes as much sense as all the other options.

We had a local pawn shop owner who was robbed and during the course of the robbery the offender shot the shop owner in the face at a range of about 20 feet with a 9mm. The 9 mm flatend out on his cheek bone, didn't penetrate the skull and thank God the shop owner survived. He spent a couple days in the hospital. Now that's a story with a happy ending and I'm glad it turned out that way. But if he had been hit in the same place by a .45 round it wouldn't have turned out that way I gurantee you.

I have a 9 mm myself, I never carry it, it's just not a good self defense weapon.

[RJay]

But on the other side of the coin, I have seen a .25 ACP enter a forehead and exit the real of the skull. And on the farm we routinely put livestock down with a 22 short in the head, I can never remember having to use a second shot. So it's hard to say yea or nay on a certain cartridge with one example

[delta13soultaker]

Originally Posted by 1 CAV

We had a local pawn shop owner who was robbed and during the course of the robbery the offender shot the shop owner in the face at a range of about 20 feet with a 9mm. The 9 mm flatend out on his cheek bone, didn't penetrate the skull and thank God the shop owner survived. He spent a couple days in the hospital. Now that's a story with a happy ending and I'm glad it turned out that way. But if he had been hit in the same place by a .45 round it wouldn't have turned out that way I gurantee you.

I have a 9 mm myself, I never carry it, it's just not a good self defense weapon.

If we dismiss every cartridge that ever failed to stop a man, we'd have no handgun we could even use.


I think you have it backwards on the .45 ACP. Being it is a rather slow projectile, it is one of the most prone handgun cartridges for failing to penetrate skulls. It's big hollowpoint walls often flatten and allow the bullet to glance away or track to the around under the flesh. Men have been shot by a .45 ACP in the head and went home with stitches the next day.

But it is not just the .45 ACP. Anywhere worth a flip teaches handgun shooters to avoid head shots and otherwise only trains handgun shooters to engage the 2.5" tall ocular cavity for that very reason; the human skull often defeats self-defense hollowpoints. Not always, but more often than the thorax.

Nothing about shooting men can be guaranteed.

Caliber is irrelevant. 9mm NATO is no worse than any other pistol round. If it is, oh well. If it's all you have, then right then it's the best bullet on Earth. If you can do better, knock yourself out.

Calibers don't win fights. All things being equal, we're only armed with what we know. Every sky soldier knows that.

[Lotsdragon]

True enough Delta, as we all know its all about placement. You can have a 50 bmg if you cant hit with it it just doenst matter.

[1 CAV]

Originally Posted by delta13soultaker

Nothing about shooting men can be guaranteed.

Caliber is irrelevant. 9mm NATO is no worse than any other pistol round.

I guarantee I won't be using a 9 MM and the 9 MM NATO ball ammo most definitely is not good ammo. I wouldn't want to have to shoot an assailant 6 or 7 times and empty half a magazine. You guys go ahead and use it if you want to.

[delta13soultaker]

Originally Posted by 1 CAV

I guarantee I won't be using a 9 MM and the 9 MM NATO ball ammo most definitely is not good ammo. I wouldn't want to have to shoot an assailant 6 or 7 times and empty half a magazine. You guys go ahead and use it if you want to.

Well see that is the point. Yes, 9mm ball is not good.

.45 ACP ball sucks too.

A .45 ACP shooter has been required to use 6 or 7 rounds to stop someone on occasion. A couple years ago some places in the schools were illustrating this point with a gang shooting: a jealous young man shot his 16 yr old girlfriend 5 times in the chest with his .45 ACP, using hollowpoints, and she called 911 and waited at a bus stop for EMS, who arrived while she was conscious and alert. Luckily, most of the human chest can absorb a pistol bullet without great blood loss occurring, and so long as pneumothorax of both lungs doesn't happen, and the heart and great vessels are unharmed, a few .45 ACP bullets can be survived, so the young lady lived, hopefully smarter for it.

I like my .45 ACP. I enjoy appreciating a 1911. Often, in the back of my head I hear the voices of my predecessors who never missed the chance to remind us that there is only one pistol: the 1911A1.

But a .45 ACP is still just a pistol. It is not a rifle. While the .45 ACP is a perfect balance of recoil, weight, power, blast, and frontal cross-section in a hand held weapon, it is still just a pistol.

Never forget any pistol is a wimpy weapon. None are any more lethal than just about anything else you could wield in one hand, including a hammer. A pistol is just slightly more convenient.

Originally Posted by Lotsdragon

True enough Delta, as we all know its all about placement. You can have a 50 bmg if you cant hit with it it just doenst matter.

Yep, steel on target.

[1 CAV]

Originally Posted by delta13soultaker

Well see that is the point. Yes, 9mm ball is not good.

.45 ACP ball sucks too.

A .45 ACP shooter has been required to use 6 or 7 rounds to stop someone on occasion. A couple years ago some places in the schools were illustrating this point with a gang shooting: a jealous young man shot his 16 yr old girlfriend 5 times in the chest with his .45 ACP, using hollowpoints, and she called 911 and waited at a bus stop for EMS, who arrived while she was conscious and alert. Luckily, most of the human chest can absorb a pistol bullet without great blood loss occurring, and so long as pneumothorax of both lungs doesn't happen, and the heart and great vessels are unharmed, a few .45 ACP bullets can be survived, so the young lady lived, hopefully smarter for it.

I like my .45 ACP. I enjoy appreciating a 1911. Often, in the back of my head I hear the voices of my predecessors who never missed the chance to remind us that there is only one pistol: the 1911A1.

But a .45 ACP is still just a pistol. It is not a rifle. While the .45 ACP is a perfect balance of recoil, weight, power, blast, and frontal cross-section in a hand held weapon, it is still just a pistol.

Never forget any pistol is a wimpy weapon. None are any more lethal than just about anything else you could wield in one hand, including a hammer. A pistol is just slightly more convenient.

I think you and I are talking about the same school of thought on pistols just from different points of view. A pistol is not a deadly weapon although just about any pistol can cause a fatal injury. What I look for in a pistol is kinetic energy capability. The 9MM just doesn't have it regardless of the ammo you use, be it ball or hollow point. The man who was shot in the face in my example above was hit with hollow point ammo. 9 mm doesn't have nearly the kinetic energy of a .40 or a .45 even though it moves slower. In some cases, faster ammo is not necessarily better ammo, hence the reason the spec ops guys came up with the 6.5 grendel round for the M16 / M4. For my purposes a pistol is not necessarily to outright kill a person in a gunfight but more importantly to simply knock them down, injure them, take them out of the fight. Few handgun calibers will knock a man size opponent down like a .45, unless you want to walk around with a big old .454 casull or a .44 magnum everywhere.

[delta13soultaker]

Originally Posted by 1 CAV

I think you and I are talking about the same school of thought on pistols just from different points of view. A pistol is not a deadly weapon although just about any pistol can cause a fatal injury. What I look for in a pistol is kinetic energy capability. The 9MM just doesn't have it regardless of the ammo you use, be it ball or hollow point. The man who was shot in the face in my example above was hit with hollow point ammo. 9 mm doesn't have nearly the kinetic energy of a .40 or a .45 even though it moves slower. In some cases, faster ammo is not necessarily better ammo, hence the reason the spec ops guys came up with the 6.5 grendel round for the M16 / M4. For my purposes a pistol is not necessarily to outright kill a person in a gunfight but more importantly to simply knock them down, injure them, take them out of the fight. Few handgun calibers will knock a man size opponent down like a .45, unless you want to walk around with a big old .454 casull or a .44 magnum everywhere.

I say this with great respect, but yes for certain we are looking from a different point of view.

From where I'm looking...

Kinetic energy from any self-defense handgun is irrelevant.

The .45 ACP, at best makes 350 to 500 ft-lbs of energy. That is not enough energy to wound a man, and no where near enough to knock a man down.

The 9mm, at best makes 350 to 500 ft-lbs of energy.

A teenager in karate class can hit with 450 ft-lbs of force in a match. A boxer will deliver and absorb hundreds of 1,000 ft-lb punches in a fight.

When a bullet really starts wounding with energy is closer to 2,000 ft-lbs, and no self-defense handgun is even close.

This business of "foot-pounds" of energy is non-sense to market one ammunition over another and to give gun writers stuff to sell gun magazines who sell to Joe Shooter. It's just like car manufacturers sell "horse-power", which actually has little to do with how quick or how fast a car will move.

Handgun kinetic energy...the concept is like pissing up a tree...it goes no where. Handgun power is pretty moot if all else is not considered.


Blaming calibers is the easy way out instead of blaming poor tactics, low proficiency, and a lack of training and reinforcement.

Where .45 ACP shines is the bullet has the mass to expand and still penetrate deep enough to rupture the greater blood vessels in the thorax. Since most shootings occur at poor angles in relation to muzzle vs line-to-center-mass, this can be 18" deep sometimes. For a 9mm expanding bullet, it must be a 125 grain going real fast, or better yet a 147 grain at standard pressure. Every caliber has a huckleberry load that will do the job. The load is not always the one we'd first think. But knowing this, why blame any cartridge, when they all have a purpose.

Some years ago I was the guy saying, "No damn way will I carry a 9mm CCW when I have my .45 ACP."

At that point, I'd seen .45 ACP work and was happy with that. I'd grew up listening to people say what you say, that 9mm was worthless, and I never questioned the logic.

But I have since then seen both .45 ACP and 9mm fail. Detaining a man with holes in his chest who is not just alert but hyper will make you think. I saw no reason that if a different caliber were used the result would differ. A bad shot is a bad shot. I have seen 9mm work and .45 ACP too. Once again, I don't think the difference is as large as people wish it is.

The .45 ACP is the better cartridge. But that does not make 9mm Luger worthless.

Many men attack the .25 ACP. It has the exact ballistics in a pistol as .22 LR. But the .25 ACP feeds better and has a more reliable ignition. All in all, the often ridiculed .25 ACP in a pocket pistol is a better cartridge that a .22 LR. Is either cartridge worthless? No.


Calibers do not win fights.