Concur. We should have stayed with the 1911.
Hence, why earlier I advocated for the Colt M45A1.
It's the 'peak' of evolution for the 1911-breed - as opposed to cheapo knock-off clones - and is further 'tacticalized' with night sights, an improved recoil assembly, and by the engineering of a rail on the frame for mounting your weapon-light of choice.
Cool beans.
Of course, those 1911s procured up until WW2 have or will all eventually wear out if they were kept in service.
Considering that there are equally effective options today that cost far less, offer more firepower, and are much lighter (Colt definitely took MARSOC for a ride with the M45A1), it is simply foolish for the taxpayer to keep buying overpriced and out-dated combat pistols. This is not to say the M17 should have replaced the M9, unless its procurement offers a real cost-savings overall.
Sorry if this steps on some toes, but it's a rational evaluation, and economics and rationality should trump nostalgia when providing warfighters with the best and most economically responsible option.
If 29 quasi-socialist (Euro) countries agree that border security using drones is better and more effective than hardened barriers (walls), is that a 'good hint' we should follow?
Colt M45A1, all day.
8-rds of .45acp high-n-hard. Repeat as needed.
'Nuff said.
Again, without delving into the silly politics of it all, you have to detach personal feelings from rational decisions (something the left often has difficulty with). The "'Nuff said" comment indicates a close-mindedness that benefits neither the warfighter or taxpayer.
To use an example you brought up, if drones are more cost-effective than a wall why shouldn't that option be studied? Just because a politician threw out the wall idea to get elected and it sounded appealing to those who didn't really think about it much?
You may not agree with the Euros' politics (I typically don't), but good on them for looking at other options for border security. We know walls provide almost zero effectiveness in this situation, since the majority of illegal aliens cross borders via aircraft/airports anyway, and walls without constant surveillance are easily defeated (climbed, tunneled under, or simply walked or boated around). If you have to provide surveillance anyway for a wall to be effective, why not just spend the money on better surveillance and interdiction?
Never mind the physical impossibility of running a non-stop wall along an arbitrary (i.e. non-natural) border. Google "watershed" if you don't understand.
Anyway - not to get so far off topic, but you provided a good lens though which to look at the issue of government procurement, and why it is failing so hard currently.
.