[trip286]

Amsdorf, it seems you kicked the living hell out of the hornet's nest. Then smacked it with a bat, pissed on it, played a little soccer with it, then let it bounce around in the back of the pickup truck...

[Amsdorf]

You should also ask yourselves why are we, the taxpayers, shelling out $5,600 for each one of these pistols.

When every special ops around the world is equipped with modern, high capacity fighting pistols, why would we send men into harms way with an antiquated, low capacity firearm?

Funny how when people don't have the brains or ability to engage in debate they just have to resort to third grade insults. Cracks me up.

[polyman69]

Originally Posted by rjd3282

I wanna know why he's lying about the reliability of the 1911. Mine is every bit as reiliable as any silly ugly ass glock.

Mine too, I'm also s firm believer in the fact that 1 45 is worth 4 9mm just my opinion. I however am not an expert on small arms combat, I do however carry a 1911.

[Amsdorf]

Originally Posted by trip286

Amsdorf, it seems you kicked the living hell out of the hornet's nest. Then smacked it with a bat, pissed on it, played a little soccer with it, then let it bounce around in the back of the pickup truck...

Sure did, because I think adopting an antiquated, low capacity weapon to give to men risking their lives for our country was a typical military FUBAR decision.

[polyman69]

Originally Posted by Amsdorf

You should also ask yourselves why are we, the taxpayers, shelling out $5,600 for each one of these pistols.

When every special ops around the world is equipped with modern, high capacity fighting pistols, why would we send men into harms way with an antiquated, low capacity firearm?

Funny how when people don't have the brains or ability to engage in debate they just have to resort to third grade insults. Cracks me up.

Just as funny how people with no real world experience sit in their chairs in the comfort of their home and preach their piss poor opinions as fact to the world when the closest thing to experience they have ever had was a viet nam movie or someone ealses post on the internet.

[Sniper03]

There is a couple of points to be made. The military does not depend upon their pistol as a primary weapon. It is mostly used as a backup or for special purpose as was referred to by some here on this thread. Secondly, it has been the policy if the military and I agree that the weapon being used by our military should be manufactured here in the USA. We due to the stupidity of our government, are presently very dependant on foreign nations for our oil when we should not be at all. And the last thing I would think would be dependent on another nation to produce our military weapons which could result with a certain level of outside control! When the military went to the M-9 Beretta Pistol (Beretta 92-F Commercial Model) one of the conditions when being awarded the contract was they had to be produced in the USA. So they built a plant and produced them here in the United States in Accokeek Maryland. That FN also looks like a great pistol but bottom line it is not made in the USA. More rounds are good but nothing wrong with the 1911. In addition is the FN much thicker and heavier with the added capacity. Would it anatomically fit the average soldier. There are a lot of issues to consider when selecting a weapon other than round capacity.

03

[manta]

If I'm not mistaken don't ALL soldiers have basic training?

So you think soldiers that's have had basic training on firearms little of it on handguns are well qualified to choice what handgun should be issued.

you know the ones that make you a fighting sidearm expert. Since you know better than a combat marine

They are going against the expertise and experience of most armies world wide what do they know that the rest don't.

I agree that the weapon being used by our military should be manufactured here in the USA.

So you think that the countries that spend billions on American arms should make them or buy them elsewhere. I would of thought you would have wanted the American army to buy the best. And not only if they are made in America.

Just as funny how people with no real world experience sit in their chairs in the comfort of their home and preach their piss poor opinions as fact to the world when the closest thing to experience they have ever had was a viet nam movie or someone ealses post on the internet

Do you have psychic powers and know what firearms experience people posting on the forum have.

[trip286]

Originally Posted by Amsdorf

You should also ask yourselves why are we, the taxpayers, shelling out $5,600 for each one of these pistols.

That cost includes: initial cost of the pistol, replacement cost (basically buying a spare), service kits for both, and specialized maintenance and materials training ("this us what you've asked for, now have a seat and let us tell you how we did it, and how you can make it last longer). The per unit cost is really closer to $1000 per actual pistol, when the entire package is taken into account.

Originally Posted by Amsdorf

When every special ops around the world is equipped with modern, high capacity fighting pistols, why would we send men into harms way with an antiquated, low capacity firearm?

Once again, this is what those special warriors of the Marine Corps asked for. They were instrumental in designing it exactly to their specifications. "Why would we send men into harm's way with an antiquated, low capacity firearm?" The real question is, "why would we decide to intentionally ignore their choice?"

Face it, naysayers. This is historical. One of the few times that the modern warrior has been allowed to choose their own weapon.

The "well this would be a better gun!" Is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what is needed.

Don't try to force something on them, when they've very clearly chosen for themselves what they feel will make them the most effective warriors.

That's the kind of mentality that stuck us with the M16, which many still hate, and in my opinion, stagnated the living hell out of weapons development.

[texaswoodworker]

Originally Posted by Amsdorf

You should also ask yourselves why are we, the taxpayers, shelling out $5,600 for each one of these pistols.

When every special ops around the world is equipped with modern, high capacity fighting pistols, why would we send men into harms way with an antiquated, low capacity firearm?

Funny how when people don't have the brains or ability to engage in debate they just have to resort to third grade insults. Cracks me up.

Several holes in your argument.

1. Taxpayes are paying way more than that so that lazy people can sit at home on their asses all day instead of working. Those guns are going to Special Operations, and will be used for many years. Would you rather us send them into combat with Jennings and Ravens instead? That would bring the price down.

2. What other Spec Ops use doesn't mean ****. We don't try to be what other countries are, we try to be better than other countries.

3. You obviosly know nothing about the 1911. The 1911 may be an old design, but it is not an antiquated gun by any means. It is still the semi auto that all semi autos try to be. It is still one of the most popular guns made, and it is still effective, extremely reliable, and powerful.
The 1911 is still used in combat, it is still used as a carry gun, and it is used extensively in competitions.
BTW, they make high capacity 1911s, and 45 ACP has a lot more stopping power than a 9mm, especially if your stuck using FMJ.

[trip286]

Originally Posted by manta

So you think soldiers that's have had basic training on firearms little of it on handguns are well qualified to choice what handgun should be issued.

They are going against the expertise and experience of most armies world wide what do they know that the rest don't.

Once again (starting to feel like a broken record here), this pistol isn't for the regular Joe fresh out of boot camp.

It was specifically chosen by, and with huge amounts of input in the design by, Marine special forces, as THEIR sidearm of choice.