I don't understand the paygrade element here. Why would the Marines let sailors E-6 and above carry a pistol but restrict Marine use to O-6 and above? Is that a corpsman thing?
USMC (part of it, anyway) goes back to the 1911 in .45 ACP
- Thread starter Topgumby
- Start date
Wow, that 1903 is sweet ! Please tell me you like punching holes with it and that's it's not just collecting dust in a case somewhere.
Close to agree with your assessment. From a military perspective, the .45 ACP is where its at. The NATO 9mm just doesn't have the stopping power that the ACP does.
From a personal protection perspective, I've settled on the .45 for home protection and .40 for car and personal carry. The .40 seems a good compromise between the .45 and 9mm and doesn't have the kick of the .45. (I think a number of police departments have gone this route, or the 9mm)
From the perspective of shooting practice at the range, I'll use the 9mm (the Berreta is a fine weapon in my opinion) due to cheaper cost of ammunition and lesser kick - still practice with the .40 and .45 but put 70% of rounds put down range are 9 mm simply due to cost.
Let's face it - the RAD you hear about on this forum for shaving supplies also relates to shooting.
Last edited:
Lots of love here for the Hi-Power but, .... there's nothing like my 1911.
The idea is that corpsmen only need sidearms. Their job is to patch up Marines, not to add to the fire that a unit can provide. That's official policy anyway. However, I think that there has been a Marine Corps policy to issue M4s to corpsmen--I'm sure some Devil Dogs can chime in about it.
As far as officers about O-6, there was a policy in the 80s that was just the opposite. I remember an order that all company grade officers were to only carry sidearms. The idea was that they should be directing fire, not providing it. I guess that whoever wrote that order had never heard of tracers, using point of impact to register fire, etc. The same rocket scientist declared that officers should wear their shiny metal rank insignia on their field uniforms--including in the middle of their cover. I remember getting jacked up by my regimental commander (a lifelong pogue who was out in the FMF to get his ticket punched before returning to some dank basement in DC) in an exercise at Twentynine Palms for carrying an M-16 and not having my bars showing. Anyway, that changed when Al Gray became CMC.
Hey Nid. It is kind of funny how things go in the service. My dad was fourteen years in the guard and ironically what few handguns were issued to guardsmen after the switch were 1911s. They got the "old" guns that the regular service did not want to give up. He had mustered out years before that switch.
I for one never had that much issue with the retirement of the 1911/.45 ACP for general use. Heresy I know and even I would prefer the .45. But as mentioned we are supposed to be conforming to NATO and the 9mm is it. But like most things modern warfare is not that simple. And the one size fits all does not work. And thankfully a lot of the brass finally got it. I know in the early to mid eighties a lot of Navy/Marine boarding teams were being reissued M14s for that lovely work. They needed something that would stop a hostile NOW and the 7.62 does it with aplomb. But they will never issue them en masse to the to rank and file. Same with the pistols.
While the idea of retiring the 1911 was okay on paper, I just do not feel like it was that level of a playing field. For one thing the service demanded double action mechanism if I remember correctly. This` eliminated a 9mm model of 1911 like a Combat Commander. And it eliminated the Browning Hi Power. STUPID on both counts. Two the FINEST combat arms ever made were eliminated from trial before it ever got started. All in a search for a "wondernine". And the state of DA nines in those days was not all that great. Even the Beretta did not necessarily get a ringing endorsement and I feel if the trials were held again, maybe only fifteen years or so later the results would have been completely different. The awesome Sig Sauer 226( I think?) came in second or third to this club of a gun. And yes for Beretta fans I am not hammering the gun for it's build quality. They are well made. But I have handled a few of them and they all feel like clubs. I have big hands and the grip is a bit much for me. The 1911 and Hi Power fit so well and line up so naturally it is almost spooky. NO one will ever tell you that about a 92. Some of the Smith DAs at that time were okay but had some longevity issues.
And that brings us to why the 92 was chosen. It is well made, pretty reliable(later models anyway), and chambered for the standard NATO round out of the box. Plus production was ready to go and Beretta easily acquiesced to demands that it be made in the USA by American facilities. And it did not cost as much as the Sigs. It is a testament to how iffy some of that era's 9mm double action pistols were. And other than the Hi Power I have never liked the double stacked mag grips that well. They are thick, do not lead to good shooting form and with fifteen in the drawer you see a lot of "spray and pray" going on. Even in civilian law enforcement where urban shot placement is MOST critical. When you have a six shot wheel gun or a seven shot mag in a 1911 you tend to be a LOT more prudent about shot selection and use. I note if you head over to Wiki(I know) there is a good bit of info about it. I never realised the Marines rather wisely never adopted the M9 in any numbers. And many of the branches now use...wait for it. Sepc'd out 1911's in .45 ACP. Who'd a thunked it?
There is also blurb about the M9 being scheduled for replacement starting around 2006 or so. It was to be some sort of off the shelf pistol. Unfortunately it also says Beretta announced a $220 million dollar contract for more of the same. I was hoping to see a revamped 1935, 1911, Sig Sauer, or possibly even a Ruger be considered but I find it highly unlikely now. Strange. The war department bitched and moaned about the 1911 staying too long and are seemingly going to make a counter mistake with the M9. It has never seen widespread confidence in any of the services like the 1911 did. The 1911 have been around a bit past its prime(HIGHLY debatable) but it was at the very least a favoured uncle or grandfather. The M9 is the uncle you hoped did not show up at Christmastide.
Cheers ,Todd
I for one never had that much issue with the retirement of the 1911/.45 ACP for general use. Heresy I know and even I would prefer the .45. But as mentioned we are supposed to be conforming to NATO and the 9mm is it. But like most things modern warfare is not that simple. And the one size fits all does not work. And thankfully a lot of the brass finally got it. I know in the early to mid eighties a lot of Navy/Marine boarding teams were being reissued M14s for that lovely work. They needed something that would stop a hostile NOW and the 7.62 does it with aplomb. But they will never issue them en masse to the to rank and file. Same with the pistols.
While the idea of retiring the 1911 was okay on paper, I just do not feel like it was that level of a playing field. For one thing the service demanded double action mechanism if I remember correctly. This` eliminated a 9mm model of 1911 like a Combat Commander. And it eliminated the Browning Hi Power. STUPID on both counts. Two the FINEST combat arms ever made were eliminated from trial before it ever got started. All in a search for a "wondernine". And the state of DA nines in those days was not all that great. Even the Beretta did not necessarily get a ringing endorsement and I feel if the trials were held again, maybe only fifteen years or so later the results would have been completely different. The awesome Sig Sauer 226( I think?) came in second or third to this club of a gun. And yes for Beretta fans I am not hammering the gun for it's build quality. They are well made. But I have handled a few of them and they all feel like clubs. I have big hands and the grip is a bit much for me. The 1911 and Hi Power fit so well and line up so naturally it is almost spooky. NO one will ever tell you that about a 92. Some of the Smith DAs at that time were okay but had some longevity issues.
And that brings us to why the 92 was chosen. It is well made, pretty reliable(later models anyway), and chambered for the standard NATO round out of the box. Plus production was ready to go and Beretta easily acquiesced to demands that it be made in the USA by American facilities. And it did not cost as much as the Sigs. It is a testament to how iffy some of that era's 9mm double action pistols were. And other than the Hi Power I have never liked the double stacked mag grips that well. They are thick, do not lead to good shooting form and with fifteen in the drawer you see a lot of "spray and pray" going on. Even in civilian law enforcement where urban shot placement is MOST critical. When you have a six shot wheel gun or a seven shot mag in a 1911 you tend to be a LOT more prudent about shot selection and use. I note if you head over to Wiki(I know) there is a good bit of info about it. I never realised the Marines rather wisely never adopted the M9 in any numbers. And many of the branches now use...wait for it. Sepc'd out 1911's in .45 ACP. Who'd a thunked it?
There is also blurb about the M9 being scheduled for replacement starting around 2006 or so. It was to be some sort of off the shelf pistol. Unfortunately it also says Beretta announced a $220 million dollar contract for more of the same. I was hoping to see a revamped 1935, 1911, Sig Sauer, or possibly even a Ruger be considered but I find it highly unlikely now. Strange. The war department bitched and moaned about the 1911 staying too long and are seemingly going to make a counter mistake with the M9. It has never seen widespread confidence in any of the services like the 1911 did. The 1911 have been around a bit past its prime(HIGHLY debatable) but it was at the very least a favoured uncle or grandfather. The M9 is the uncle you hoped did not show up at Christmastide.
Cheers ,Todd
I've always heard that the reason the Baretta was chosen was because the US agreed to buy it in exchange for new access to bases in Italy.
Slash McCoy
I freehand dog rockets
We still use the m14 on ships. All MSC ships normally have at least 4 each of M14s, 9mm, and 12ga pump shotgun. That normally includes commercial ships chartered by MSC. The M14 is IMHO the best possible pirate/terrorist medicine for shipboard use. Carrying it and 300 rounds of ammo all day through jungle, desert, or mountain would suck, I suppose, compared to something like the M4, but for shipboard use, portability isn't much of an issue and the 7.62 will definitely reach out and touch someone, to borrow the old ATT jingle. Maybe it's just me, but I find it a very easy weapon to learn to shoot with devastating effectiveness, and likewise easy to maintain and teach to others. It is a true rifleman's rifle. Now if they would just invent a bolt that slips right in first try every time...
I actually have not had a chance to get it to the range.
Mom gave it to me last February when I went to visit them in Austin. I have an 03FFL, so I was legal to bring it home with me.
I was on call for work the following 2 weeks, and when on call, I have to remain within an hour of work, and able to hear the pager.
TWO DAYS before I got off call duty, I slammed my trigger finger in the door of my truck. Lost the nail and broke the bone, it's been only a month that I would be able to shoot.
As luck would have it... our other tech got fired, leaving me on call 24/7 until the replacements start coming in, which won't be for another month.
But I did order a full set of replacement springs from Wolff and have installed them. Last time it was field stripped the guide rod was inserted reversed... very common mistake from what I've read, so the spring was pretty bent up.
My dad had cleaned it but never removed the slide so it has been AT LEAST 50 years since it has been field stripped.
That's pretty much the case. We had quite a few M14s in our Marine Detachment armory in the 1980s, but they were already in there--I suspect that they had never been surveyed when the M-16s were issued. Also had M1911s, M16s (w/M203 too), M249s, Remington 870s, some Mossberg 500s, and a number of M60s. There were also supposed to be H&K MP5s inbound when I rotated.
- Thread starter
- #31
In related John Browning military news, the US Army has decided to ditch the scheduled replacement for the .50 M2 and go with an improved version of JMB's venerable heavy machine gun.
As long as weapons go "bang", will Browning's designs ever become obsolete?
As long as weapons go "bang", will Browning's designs ever become obsolete?
Probably not! The .50BMG is likely the finest piece of fully automatic hardware to ever see the battlefield. I have no idea how many nations use/used it as even the Ruskies had it in lend lease in WW2. It has been mounted on tanks, jeeps, trucks, half tracks, amoured personnel carriers, armoured fighting vehicles, prop fighters, boats, ships, and its original intent, ground based anti aircraft. A more versatile heavy machine gun you will likely never see. Like the A10 Warthog the Air Farce keeps trying to rid themselves of there is really nothing that directly replaces it. I am glad they did not just up and ditch it. Was it a new weapon system or were they going to change the round itself as well?
Cheers, Todd
Cheers, Todd
Slash McCoy
I freehand dog rockets
The .50 Browning Machine Gun is a dependable, accurate, and easy to learn heavy machine gun with good range and a lot of destructive power. You would not want to be downrange of this gun with someone who doesn't like you behind it. Replacing it would be an expensive, needless, and very unpopular (with the troops) boondoggle whose only raison d'etre would be to line someone's pockets at the taxpayer's expense. Just because it is old doesn't make it irrelevant. The recent action in Afghanistan and Iraq have proven that, and made lovers of this fine old gun out of a new generation of troops.
If the idiots and scamming contractors have their way and they do replace the .50 (with.... what?) the cartridge will still live on. Barretts and other gun makers are producing rifles chambered for this monster cartridge, and a lot of custom and homebuilt .50BMG rifles are keeping this cartridge alive. Want to shoot at something the better part of a mile away? This is the round you want.
If the idiots and scamming contractors have their way and they do replace the .50 (with.... what?) the cartridge will still live on. Barretts and other gun makers are producing rifles chambered for this monster cartridge, and a lot of custom and homebuilt .50BMG rifles are keeping this cartridge alive. Want to shoot at something the better part of a mile away? This is the round you want.
Yeah Slash. I agree. My dad went into the Gaurd in 1952. His was a heavy weapons company. A direct holdover from WW2 and cold war strategy. Such companies had 81mm mortars, BAR(s), and. 50bmg in one incarnation or another. Some were jeep mounted(rare) but most were tripod/ground mount of some sort. Either for low level antiaircraft or mostly long range anti vehicle and troop suppression fire. Dad's opinion of that was much like yours. You don't want to be underneath that hell when it rains down. Another friend served in Desert Storm and said much the same. His opinion was up to 2-3 miles was still too close to have those 750gr pills dropping on you. He told me they used the 50 to completely blow the facade away from brick faced buildings to undermine them and cause collapses that rendered them useless as enemy hideouts. The old girl still speaks with authority.
Cheers, Todd
Cheers, Todd
Not to mention that it is the official machine gun of NATO. The M2 is not going anywhere for a long time.
Similar threads
