USMC Raiders chooses the Glock 19 over the issued 1911

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

johnelmore

New member
I saw this article about the Raiders choosing the Glock 19. First, I had no knowledge of the USMC Raiders and it was interesting researching their history. Second, Ive read about the Glock 19 becoming the pistol of choice for security contractors and quite a few others. I have always wondered why. When the Glock 19 first came out, I rented one at a range and could not fire it accurately. I found it a bit wild with too much kick. Ive seen quite a few videos of people shooting their legs with it. We all have those moments where we do things we are not supposed to do and that is why they created the "safety" concept.

I guess its compact, lightweight, durable and you can carry a lot of ammo, but beyond that I have no idea.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/sto...stols-approved-for-marsoc-operators/23548847/
 
It might not be a 1911, but given the popularity and success that the 9mm service-size Glocks have had amongst different militaries and agencies around the world, it shouldn't be surprising that some US forces have also chosen it.

Militaries tend to look for the same qualities.

I guess its compact, lightweight, durable and you can carry a lot of ammo
Click to expand...

I think that is probably the crux of what they are looking for. And they are accurate. At least mine was and I'm not a brilliant shot!!

Add to that shrugging off water and dirt, I say good luck to them. I can't see them thinking "Ye gods! What a terrible side-arm!".
 
Actually, they didn't "choose" the Glock; they added it to the list of approved weapons, allowing force members to "choose" it if they wanted.

Jim
 
If you put the Glock 19 next to their current issue 1911 and asked which one I would take...I think you would be left with the Glock 19.


http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/usmc-re-ups-colt-1911/

The USMC current 1911 looks like everyones dream machine with custom grips, sites and even a cool paint job. I really have to update my knowledge base. I thought they were using Kimbers, but it looks like they went all out at the custom shop checking all the boxes on the form on the most current issue 1911. The type of 1911 that attracts attention at the range and maxes out the credit card. The Glock 19 will at least take a lesser hit on Uncle Sams wallet.
 
If you put the Glock 19 next to their current issue 1911 and asked which one I would take...I think you would be left with the Glock 19.
Click to expand...

Then we'd both be happy!

I'm sure the 1911 is a fine gun, but I would not feel ill-equipped with the Glock.
 
When the Glock 19 first came out, I rented one at a range and could not fire it accurately. I found it a bit wild with too much kick.
Click to expand...

I shoot it as well as anything, and find the recoil negligible.
 
@johnelmore

If you put the Glock 19 next to their current issue 1911 and asked which one I would take...I think you would be left with the Glock 19.

http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/usmc-re-ups-colt-1911/

The USMC current 1911 looks like everyones dream machine with custom grips, sites and even a cool paint job. I really have to update my knowledge base. I thought they were using Kimbers, but it looks like they went all out at the custom shop checking all the boxes on the form on the most current issue 1911. The type of 1911 that attracts attention at the range and maxes out the credit card. The Glock 19 will at least take a lesser hit on Uncle Sams wallet.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that the USMC would buy such a bling piece as you have posted.

One must think of the USMC armorers and the supply of regular military parts.

And your source is a CTD blog? Laughable...
 
The Colt 1911 is real, it was designed for Marine special forces. I wouldn't blame them for choosing the Glock
 
I highly doubt that the USMC would buy such a bling piece as you have posted.

One must think of the USMC armorers and the supply of regular military parts.

And your source is a CTD blog? Laughable...
Click to expand...

What's laughable is that a simple Google search shows him to be right and you wrong:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/09/the-marine-corps-colt-m45-close-quarters-battle-pistol/

http://www.gunsandammo.com/reviews/semper-fi-colt-m45a1-cqbp-marine-pistol-review/

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/08/09/why-the-marines-adopted-the-m45-colt-1911/

http://gearscout.militarytimes.com/2012/07/20/usmc-orders-4036-m45-cqbp-pistols/

http://americanhandgunner.com/colt-m45-marine-corps/
 
People make a lot of bad jokes about Glocks, I have many handguns one is my trusty Glock23 bought many years ago.
It's never failed and I trust it and carry it a lot.:)
 
It would not be my first choice for a combat gun using NATO ammo , but I don't find it hard to shoot or having snappy recoil .
 
Very interesting. But I am not that suprised about it in this day and age. I personally would take the G19 over a 1911.
 
Just to clarify a bit The Corp as a whole is still armed with the M9 as it's standard sidearm. It is MARSOC that received authorization to use the G19 on a limited basis. It will not ordered as a replacement for the 1911 and is not planned to do that.

However, the 9mm semi-automatic Glock 19 pistol is officially approved for use only by personnel assigned to Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, according to a force-wide message issued in mid-February. In fact, the pistol will carry a non-Marine inventory number because it is a U.S. Special Operations Command asset, according to the message.
Click to expand...

At present MARSOC uses as it's standard handgun the 1911. It has done this since it's 2006 founding. In 2012 the Corp placed an order for 12,000 of the 1911 built by Colt to the Corps spec. The CQBP...

http://www.colt.com/ColtintheMedia/...lose-Quarter-Battle-Pistol-CQBP-Contract.aspx

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/2...ck-to-their-old-guns-colt-45-caliber-pistols/

http://www.businessinsider.com/marines-reissue-1911-colt-45-because-the-9-mm-has-no-balls-2012-8

Marine special forces units have used the 1911 for many years. The Force Recon units of the Marine Expeditionary Units used and rebuilt their 1911s for decades. In many cases they used the original Colt frames from WWII. New parts from Colt were added and in the last decade guns from Kimber and Springfield were ordered. These were not ordered in large numbers though and it is Colt that got the 12,000 gun order with the option for more.

A Marine operator may shoot as many as 80,000 rounds from this pistol during a training-cycle and subsequent deployment.[9] However, it is more common for a Marine to return the pistol to the PWS at Quantico for a rebuild after 10,000 rounds have been fired.[10] A rebuild entails discarding almost all of the gun's parts except for the frame, which prior to 2003 was a U.S. Government frame last manufactured in 1945.[9] The frame is inspected and reused if it is still within military specifications.[9][10] There are frames in the USMC inventory that have had as many as 500,000 rounds fired through them.[9]

The Officer In Command of the Precision Weapons Shop in 2001, Chief Warrant Officer 5 Ken Davis, stated that the M1911 is "the only pistol that can stand up to this use".[9]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEU(SOC)_pistol

You can do a bit more reading on this here...

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/meu_1911.htm

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/meusoc.htm

It's a good thing that the G19 has found a place with MARSOC. Especially as over 100,000 Glocks were purchase for Iraqi Army and law enforcement. Many of which are now in the hands of ISIS.

tipoc
 
Last edited:
johnelmore said:
I found it a bit wild with too much kick.
Click to expand...
Of all the criticisms of the Glock 19 that I've heard over the years, I've never once heard anyone complain that it had too much recoil.

johnelmore said:
Ive seen quite a few videos of people shooting their legs with it.
Click to expand...
Not this "Glock leg" nonsense again. When someone points a loaded handgun at their leg and pulls the trigger, how can anyone in their right mind blame the gun?

johnelmore said:
We all have those moments where we do things we are not supposed to do and that is why they created the "safety" concept.
Click to expand...
That's why they created the four safety rules. Safety is between your ears. If you need a manual safety to keep you from shooting yourself in the leg, then you have no business ever handling a firearm in the first place.
 
Oh no, not another 103 year old design vs 30+ year old design! :D

That's why they created the four safety rules. Safety is between your ears. If you need a manual safety to keep you from shooting yourself in the leg, then you have no business ever handling a firearm in the first place.
Click to expand...
Is that what we tell the family of the recent tragedy at a department store when the toddle grabbed an M&P without an engaged safety from the purse and accidentally fired the weapon? Should we have trained the kid or the adult more? The purse was designed for carry with a pocket for the firearm. The pocket was zipped up too. No doubt the woman was distracted. No doubt she saw it as secure.They were familiar with guns (her and her husband). They shot the gun extensively and carried daily according to her father-in-law. Both raised around firearms. She took a safety class before getting the permit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ow-an-idaho-toddler-shot-his-mom-at-wal-mart/


For military and professional use I don't see the need for a safety on a service pistol. For the every day average Joe and Jane who Buy a gun, stick it on the hip or in the closet, with much less experience than she had, Not so much. What bothers me most is that a revamped sales pitch (as more gun makers introduce guns without them) is actually.You cannot take a life back. You cannot keep accidental shootings from happening with all the training in the world. You cannot provide evidence that a safety is not needed in some cases or around certain environments and therefore the statement that a firearm does not need a safety cannot be proven. On the contrary there is more than a little evidence that had a safety been on a gun that more people would be spared tragedy.

Then there is the heavy DA trigger option. We can go that route in lieu of a safety. Something with a heavy enough pull to prevent a child from setting it off. Not really the first choice to a "no safety design" for most people however. Not a best choice for all firearms either IMHO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top