USMC Raiders chooses the Glock 19 over the issued 1911

[sarge83]

If I am restricted to FMJ give me the 1911 .45 all day long. If I can have hollow points I'll take the 19.

 

[TunnelRat]

I don't want to encourage thread drift, but I couldn't leave this alone:

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/m...m-at-wal-mart/

The tragedy here was that a toddler got access to a firearm. This is negligence, plain and simple. I don't care if the woman was familiar with firearms, she put a bag containing a loaded firearm next to a child. Children are smarter than you think and extremely curious. If she couldn't carry on the body or keep her purse on her shoulder, she shouldn't have been carrying.

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.

Defining the "Average Joe" when it comes to firearms is next to impossible. Every weekend I go to the range and I am far from the only guy there. How many people on this forum carry firearms without manual safeties? Are we shooting everyone out there? For that matter, how many millions of gun owners are there out there? To be frank the percentage of accidental/negligent discharges is surprisingly low. How many car accidents happen daily because of negligence?

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.

I would argue that you cannot say that a manual safety would have prevented that woman from dying. The child, as you yourself said, dug through a purse, unzipped the pocket, extracted the firearm, and then pulled the trigger. Somehow a manual safety would have stopped the child? You can't tell me with any certainty that the event would have been prevented.

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.

S&W did a test back in the days the infamous frame lock was introduced with their revolvers. They wanted to see if children could could pull the DA revolvers. With one hand no they couldn't. What did the kids do? They used both hands and both index fingers.

Situational awareness is the only way to prevent negligence. Never take it for granted and use the four rules to mitigate your danger as must as possible.

 

[MoGas1341]

Form experience, as I was just discharged last year, the USMC is NOT, adopting the Glock 19. The Marine units that fall under Special Operations Command or SOCOM (which includes; SEALS, DELTA, and Force Recon) will have access to these pistols should they decide to use them. Rank and file Marine units, to include battalion level reconnaissance will not have access to the Glock 19s. The SOCOM units always have had access to nifty toys that us lowly ground pounders do not, such as SEALs using SIGs etc. I also know that our State Department has issued Glocks for years as well. Essentially, the Raiders the OP was speaking of gets to use an entirely different armory that is completely separate from the Marine Corps standard issue.

As far as the 1911 that so many have mentioned, it is essentially a Colt "Rail Gun" with a lanyard loop and cool paint job added, and yes, that 1911 will be phasing out the M-9 Beretta within the Corps over a period of time. The Marine Corps' pistol qualification course has even been changed entirely, built around the use of this new 1911.

My final unit I was at before getting discharged was one of the first units to get these new 1911s and yes they are nice! My friend the armorer and I could only guess they sent our unit the new pistols because the MPs train here, so, being that they always carry a sidearm, I guess it seemed logical to expose the new Marine students to the new pistol at the schoolhouse before they got to the fleet.

 

[johnelmore]

I dont know anything about the "Raiders", but from what I read on the online "rags" they seem to be similar in scope and training to the Green Berets. I was in the Army as a humble enlisted making a meager salary. From time to time, I came across Marines who were stationed on Army posts and without exception all of them were very motivated and in better fitness shape than the typical Army person. A lot of people I remember joined the Army to get away from a situation like there was one man I remember being homeless who joined to get away from that situation whereas the Marines joined to be Marines.

So the Raiders are the Marines version of the Armys Special Forces but I bet a bit more motivated and held to a higher standard physically speaking. I know that many USMC Infantry are already very motivated and they train hard, but the typical "Raider" must be totally off the wall.

So when a "Raider" chooses the vanilla bone stock Glock 19 over the 1911 custom dream machine...thats a bold statement to make.

 

[Skans]

I find it curious that they would choose the Glock 19 over the Glock 17, unless they must conceal carry their sidearm.

Capacity alone would lead me to choose the Glock over a 1911; or at least a standard 1911.

 

[WVsig]

Again one has to ask the question why do civilians focus so heavily on what people in the military carry? It is a secondary weapon. Its use in combat is very limited and it really has almost no direct correlation to civilian use yet everyone here always seems so hyper focused about it.

The USMC Raiders can choose a Beretta M9, Colt Rail gun or a Glock 19 now if they want. If you are not a USMC Raider who cares?

 

[TunnelRat]

The USMC Raiders can choose a Beretta M9, Colt Rail gun or a Glock 19 now if they want. If you are not a USMC Raider who cares?

Because this is a forum for firearms enthusiasts, with this subforum specifically about semiautomatic handguns.

 

[WVsig]

Because this is a forum for firearms enthusiasts, with this subforum specifically about semiautomatic handguns.

I will continue to ask this question: In what way does their choice effect, change, alter or influence your opinion of a particular gun and why.

I do not plan on finding myself in a combat zone where my needs and requirements for a handgun would be the same as a USMC Raider or Spec ops type of operator. It makes absolutely ZERO to me what a specialized group in the military chooses to deploy. I also find it hilarious that people who have nothing to do with the Military love to argue about what is best for them.

If you an active service member in one of these groups that actually gets to choose their equipment that is a different story but 99% of the people who post in these "what is the next military side arm" have no skin the game currently and a high percentage never had any skin in the game at anytime in their life yet feel ultimately qualified to choose the next best military sidearm.

I simply do not get it.

 

[BarryLee]

In what way does their choice effect, change, alter or influence your opinion of a particular gun and why.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but as a firearms enthusiast I enjoy learning about various guns and their uses. I don’t hunt, but read the postings about hunting guns. I don’t participate in competitive shooting, but enjoy learning about what they use and why. I didn’t sever in WWII, but enjoying reading about the firearms used. I’m not a LEO, but like reading about their choices in firearms.

So, even though the firearms choices that the military makes may have no real impact on me I still enjoy reading and discussing the topic.

 

[TunnelRat]

^ Beat me to it. Well said.

 

[Skans]

Because this is a forum for firearms enthusiasts, with this subforum specifically about semiautomatic handguns.

Ditto.

The reason it matters is because there is a possibility that, through testing, combat, or whatever, they have a sound reason for picking one over the other (a reason we may not be aware of) that may be of interest to us when we decide which gun to pick for our purposes.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am not and have never been in the military. I still like guns and I still find it interesting which firearms our military choose to use over others. Do you think some folks in the military have interests in things and objects that are not military in nature, or must they confine their thoughts and inquiries only to those things, those tools, their job(s) require of them?

I do not plan on finding myself in a combat zone where my needs and requirements for a handgun would be the same as a USMC Raider or Spec ops type of operator. It makes absolutely ZERO to me what a specialized group in the military chooses to deploy. I also find it hilarious that people who have nothing to do with the Military love to argue about what is best for them.

I'll leave you with this parting thought on this matter: It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -Aristotle

 

[zombietactics]

A few thoughts from someone in the know:

One of SOCOM’s premiere units carried 1911’s from day 1 until the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan kicked off. They too found that the environment’s the 1911’s were exposed to during their more lengthy deployments were not conducive to a properly working pistol. If they were running short direct action missions the pistols would be fine, but if they had to deploy outside with wire for days or weeks on end the reliability of their secondary weapons slowly deteriorated. This unit had asked the Army’s Marksmanship Training Unit (AMU) for assistance in improving the reliability and capacity of their 1911’s. After many different configurations, many changes and hundreds of tests they scrapped the program and purchased modern polymer pistols in a non-standard caliber.

In 2007 immediately following the formation of MARSOC I had my 1st MARSOC class on deck at a company I had recently formed (T1G). The class showed up with 37 MEUSOC 1911 pistols, some new some old. Of the 37 all but 5 were issued out to the students. The remaining were spares. During the 5 day course the 2112 was in the back of the truck 50% of the time repairing 1911’s. By the end of the week he had worked on all 37 pistols. Not all of them had the same failures, but they all went down during the week. The Marines were not rolling around in the mud, nor were they tossing their pistols in the dirt. They were simply running flat range drills! Over the next 4 years I would see 1st hand or hear similar stories from my staff anytime a unit brought 1911’s to training.

Link to complete article

In short, there are very good reasons why some units might choose a well-tuned 1911 for short-duration missions. The 1911 platform excels in these roles, and there is no better handgun in such cases.

The 1911 does not do well for extended engagements (meaning more than a day or so) in harsh environments where regularly cleaning and maintenance are not possible.

It makes sense to give the fighters a choice, regarding which handgun is "better", given the nature of their missions.

 

[Theohazard]

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.

Again, the lack of a manual safety is not the problem here. This story is a perfect example of why it's usually a bad idea to carry a gun off your body, and it's a terrible idea to do it around children. Also, this toddler was able to unzip the purse, find the gun, remove it from the pocket, and pull the trigger. You don't think it's possible that the kid could easily have managed to flip off a safety also? Do you honestly think the problem here is the lack of a safety?

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.

Again, a manual safety is not a replacement for unsafe gun handling. And I've seen a manual safety make a gun less safe: Under-trained people can sometimes find themselves reying on the gun's safety to make the gun safe instead of using safe gun handling skills. I can't count how many times I've seen someone get chastised for unsafe gun handling, and they reply, "It's OK, the safety's on!"

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.

Anyone who thinks a heavy DA trigger or a manual safety would prevent something like this obviously has never had an energetic toddler. My 15-month-old gets in to everything, and she constantly amazes me in what she can do. I have no doubt that she could flick off a safety and pull a heavy DA trigger; she would need more than one finger to do it, but she has little hands that are surprisingly strong.

Once again, the problem here is not the lack of a safety, the problem is negligence. Safeties fail or get switched off by accident, so adhering to safe gun handling practices is the only way to stay safe.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It's well established by now that toddlers can pull the trigger on all common guns and defeat safeties. Their manipulations may be unorthodox but they work.

As far as Glock leg - the one time I almost got shot in the foot, it was by a guy holstering a 1911. Missed me - thanks!

 

[WVsig]

I see what you did there Skans... It is not that I cannot entertain the concept it's that in the end I don't find it as relevant as many people here do.

Also I think it makes sense to look at what they are doing but there is a false assumption that what they are choosing is the best tool for the job. When in reality it is often the bet priced tool good enough to meet a spec or get the job done.

I too like to read a learn about things I am not directly involved in but the difference is I don't step into arenas and attempt to play the expert which is a common theme in these discussions.

Rarely it is a logically fruitful discussion IMHO. It took only a few posts for it to become a Glock bashing/ 1911 bashing thread. That is the part that always creeps in and dominates the discussion and most of the time it is lead by people who have no business commenting.

 

[zombietactics]

... 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?

It should noted from reports that the gun in question was an M&P Shield model, which has/had a manual safety. We do not know for a fact whether the gun was holstered/pursed (?) with the safety engaged or disengaged.

There is nothing about the nature of external thumb safeties which makes them impossible (or even difficult) for a child to manipulate.

As such, it seems reasonable to conclude that we don't know whether the presence of a manual thumb safety in this case made a difference one way or the other. Its simple presence as a feature certainly did not prevent a tragedy from occurring.

 

[tipoc]

The article by Steve Reichert is an interesting one and I don't doubt his memory or the tale he relates. He has his opinion. His choice is the 9mm caliber and he chooses and promotes other weapons and sidearms than what the Corps uses particularly MARSOC and the MEU.

It is without a doubt that the guns the Marines had were old and frequently rebuilt. This may be one reason that MARSOC ordered 12,000 new 1911s from Colt in 2012. The Corps decision to do so upset a number of people and Reichert is one.

But his opinion that the 1911 in general...

One of SOCOM’s premiere units carried 1911’s from day 1 until the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan kicked off. They too found that the environment’s the 1911’s were exposed to during their more lengthy deployments were not conducive to a properly working pistol. If they were running short direct action missions the pistols would be fine, but if they had to deploy outside with wire for days or weeks on end the reliability of their secondary weapons slowly deteriorated.

...is questionable.

If we take it straight up Reichert is saying that the old and often rebuilt 1911s from the MUE were trouble some. This may be quite accurate. To expand that limited statement to include all 1911s is questionable.

The U.S. military issued the 1911 until replaced in the 1980s. It last ordered new 1911s at the end of the Second World War. It kept rebuilding the old ones. Facts are the gun went where the soldiers went which was many places hot, cold, wet dry, sandy, dusty. It performed well there. They went to Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq and many places in between and the 1911 performed.

The 1911 was replaced throughout the Army and other branches. But it wasn't because it didn't work. The record says it worked well.

The MEU never stopped using and issuing them though they had the choice of the M9 and M11 and other sidearms.

The Marines ordered 12,000 new ones in 2012 from Colt (built to Marine specs) and are still taking delivery of. This is to replace the old ones that they kept rebuilding and a small number of Kimbers and Springfields that they bought new earlier this century but they found wanting in one way or another. Some of the original Colt frames had as many as 400,000 - 500,000 rounds through them.

The facts are that the 1911 has worked for the Corp. Marines have had a choice all along. The M9 and M11 have been available to them and are used by the Corp as a whole. MARSOC and the MEU have had access to other sidearms as well.

We have a choice...take the opinion as valid-that 1911s do not work in battlefield conditions-or accept as valid a century of battlefield experience that they actually do.

There may be better choices for an army today than the 1911 and the 45 acp but it isn't because the 1911 can't take the battlefield, is unreliable and can't work.

MARSOC is not replacing the 1911 with the G19, or the M9 or M11...at least not right now.

tipoc

 

[zombietactics]

Actually Reichert's views are echoed by many who are in a position to know from first hand experience. Paul Howe (Delta Force) comes to mind:

... We did not want 1911’s because of the exposed firing pin issue and the fact that you had to strip the gun all the way down after getting dusted with one helicopter infil. ...

Or Larry Vickers (Delta Force), Kyle Lamb (Army SF) and Kyle DeFoor (SEAL Team 6). The list of experienced professionals who don't have much love for the 1911 is actually quite large.

... It is without a doubt that the guns the Marines had were old and frequently rebuilt. ...

The fact that the article says that they were a mix of old and new guns runs counter to your assertion. Note that all 37 guns (both old and new) required servicing in order to continue operating during simple stand up range training.

Reichert has trained Marines with the brand new MARSOC 1911s as well. I asked him personally about how they were holding up. His response was something along the lines of "What do you think? They're 1911s ... they don't hold up"

We have a choice...take the opinion as valid-that 1911s do not work in battlefield conditions-or accept as valid a century of battlefield experience that they actually do.

Well, let's be fair and note that it is a widely held opinion - in comparison to more modern designs - among people with considerable experience.

It's that comparison which makes the difference. It should be noted that the 1911 was introduced at a time when semi-auto pistols were notoriously unreliable. Much of the 1911s reputation owes itself to the fact that it was in some ways the first semi-auto that could be counted on at all. It was revolutionary in a sense, owing to that fact.

There have been several well-known 1911-vs-Glock reliability challenges issued by various parties. The 1911 fans have yet to submit a winner.

My own anecdotal experience, based upon dozens of handgun classes is as follows: If there are at least 2 1911s in a class, one of them will fail in the first day. I cannot think of the same pattern holding true for any other handgun design, brand or model. The pattern has held regardless of whether we're talking about $700 bargain-basement models or $2k Nighthawks. I'd also readily admit that in each of these cases its' not the guns fault, too many people buy 1911s without any idea what is takes to keep them running.

Given that the military is unusually slow to adopt new small-arms, it's not unusual that they would continue with the 1911 until there was pressure to do something better/different. It's also been something of an inside joke that the military would keep issuing products from Colt about as long as a Senior Senator from Connecticut was a ranking member of the appropriations committee.

An appeal to nostalgia would have us still using prop planes as fighters. Suffice it to say that a well-maintained 1911 is still a top choice for the kind of limited-span missions in which it excels ... mostly owing to better accuracy. It is truly a specialist's gun.

It simply does not work as well as a general-purpose sidearm under continuous use in harsh condition, absent regular maintenance.

I think where people get twisted up is in thinking that this somehow means that a 1911 is a "bad" or "inferior" handgun. It's not, it simply operates under a different set of assumptions regarding how much work is involved in keeping it running.

There is nothing finer than a well-tuned 1911. The military simply can't have an armorer in every platoon.

 

[Strafer Gott]

Think this through a bit. Infantry carries everything. If you must carry a damn near useless weapon in the field, make it as light as possible, so you can carry more ammo for your primary. e.g.,If you already pack the section gun, pounds matter.

 

[johnelmore]

Why do civilians focus on what the military carry? You might want to ask those AR15 guys. I personally didnt like all the gear the Army carried. Not everything the military carries is ideal, but what makes sense to the powers that be and conforms with their logic. In fact, it may not be for everyone.