Re: Corps seeking alt 2 MEU (SOC) 1911 anyone know
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.300 WM is pointless when there are plenty of short action cartridges that offer the same or better performance. They should be shooting 7 WSM, not .300 WM.</div></div>
Bare in mind that the M24 was chambered for 7.62 NATO in a long action 700. The new XM2010 uses that action. I could understand if they had a short action platform to start with, then some SAM round would make sense.
I know these topics are fun, and most suggestions are what would be considered wishful thinking, the "I would rather have a _________, because _____________, and thats why I would choose it. Most cases its like the "this is why I should be elected Miss America", and all those in that group applaude, and the opposed sit and boo. The choice of military arms and their chamberings has NEVER been because it was the best. It is a much diffrent market than LE or civillian. Keep in mind, whoever gets a contract with the military, is getting a contract with the biggest, and most wide spread military in the world. Special Units get a bit more breathing room when it comes to what they get.
You have pros and cons to using a 1911 .45ACP. The pro, good power, reliable pistol. The con, .45ACP is not a NATO round. If your unit is out of ammo, no resupply, or it cant get through, you are totally SOL. You could say the same if you had a NATO cartridge, and were in a very remote location with no support from fellow NATO groups, but your chances of finding 9mm, 5.56, 7.62, and 12.7 are way better than .45ACP, 7WSM, or what ever round trumps what is used.
Another argument I have heard (in regard to Glocks), is that other military forces from other nations are employing them as a standard sidearm, so why cant we? Well, look at the size of the countries that use them. Between all 5 branches of the US Military we have about 1.4million active service members, and another 1.4million on reserve. Do any of these countries that Glock supplies to have anywhere near that amount? Some of those countries dont even have a population that high. Every firearm maker has to do what is in their means. If you are already supplying pistols to a dozen military units in Europe, in addition to the thousands of LE agencies around the world, and satisfy the civillian market, thats already a lot on your plate. You think that they could just add us to the plate? Scrap contracts with countries you have had going the whole time we dealt with Beretta? Constrict availibility to the public? From Glock's perspective you look at what you ALREADY have, and compare it to what you MIGHT get, and it is hardly worth it. They aren't hurting, a contract with us would not bail them out, they don't need it. They are more than capable of living within their means by not bothering with getting another contract that could replace ALL their existing contracts.
That being said, as for special units, I think a Glock 17 is a very wise choice. Its cost and reliability is outstanding. It takes little to maintain them and they run. The 9mm would be abundant to obtain, and the 17+1 capacity is a more combat effective route than 7 or 8+1. There is nothing a soldier can do with a Glock in combat that hasnt been done with a 1911 or M9.
I am not a Glock fan. I dont own one, and my use of them is required by my job. I carry back and forth between a USP40 and USP45, I love 1911s, and freely admit there are much better options out there. Once more people reach this conclusion, and understand the "how" and not the "why", these conversations become less argumentative.
