close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

The next .45 for the military.

Discussion in '1911 Forums' started by DaveG, Mar 28, 2011.

  1. DaveG

    DaveG

    241
    1
    May 3, 2009
    I know that the 1911 was the standard U.S. military sidearm for quite some time, until President Clinton forced them to trade it for the M9 so that we'd have "less lethal" weapons for our military members to use against the enemy. Don't ask me how that makes sense... Anyway, I also know that during the early part of the 2nd Bush administration, folks were talking about bringing a .45 back. A lot of people were talking about an .45 made by HK.
    So... Does anyone in the military, or retired from the military know which weapon might be chosen? Would it be a 1911? If one is chosen, do you think that the U.S. would implement it???? I doubt the "enemy friendly" 9mm is going anywhere as long as Obama is in office. :steamed:
     
  2. Petrie

    Petrie

    752
    1
    Nov 26, 2008
    Being as they rarely use a handgun in the military I don't see why they don't just keep using the beretta.
     


  3. Hokie1911

    Hokie1911 >

    9,712
    1
    Dec 26, 2003
    NE Ohio
    Won't be a 1911. They are not reliable and will not withstand "hard use". :whistling:
     
  4. tglahn17

    tglahn17

    122
    0
    Mar 25, 2007
    Clinton? The M-9 entered Army service in 1990 http://www.army.mil/factfiles/equipment/individual/m9.html George H. W. Bush was the President of the United States in 1990.
     
  5. GJ1981

    GJ1981 Pitying Fools

    2,366
    0
    Feb 10, 2008
    When I was in in 2005 the talk was a Glock 21. The 45 isn't coming back anytime soon.



    I see you know about my Springfield's

    :couch:
     
  6. Hokie1911

    Hokie1911 >

    9,712
    1
    Dec 26, 2003
    NE Ohio
    :rofl::rofl::rofl:
     
  7. carguy2244

    carguy2244

    848
    7
    Jan 13, 2009
    Calling a 9MM projectile to be "less lethal" and "enemy friendly" is a very ignorant statement.
    Congratulations on accumulating all your knowledge from magazines and the Internet.
     
  8. GJ1981

    GJ1981 Pitying Fools

    2,366
    0
    Feb 10, 2008
    Oddly, I don't know whether I should be :rofl: or :crying:.
     
  9. Hokie1911

    Hokie1911 >

    9,712
    1
    Dec 26, 2003
    NE Ohio
    I'd be like :wow: then :faint: then :crying: then :steamed:
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2011
  10. GJ1981

    GJ1981 Pitying Fools

    2,366
    0
    Feb 10, 2008
    I'm passed :steamed: and on to :drink::tequila:
     
  11. AHHH, I think you need to go back and study some history. The decision to go with the M9 was made around 1984-1986 time frame. Clinton was not in the picture at that time. In fact neither was Bush Sr. although he was the vice Pres.

    Reagan was the president at the time. I entered the Army in 1988 and my first duty station was in Italy. We still carried the .45. I PCS'd and went to Ft. Bragg in 1993 and that was the first time I got to see an M9.
     
  12. Sgt_Gold

    Sgt_Gold

    400
    2
    Jul 21, 2006
    NY
    WOW:wow:, no I really mean it.:wow:

    Ok, the Beretta 92 was adpoted based on the pistol trials held during the second Regan administration, around 1988.

    To answer the second part of that rant, don't hold your breath. The military is NEVER going back to a single action handgun, and the Beretta is going no where any time soon.
     
  13. GAFinch

    GAFinch

    5,912
    28
    Feb 23, 2009
    Georgia
    I think the current debate is more along the lines of Tomahawk vs UAV, not 9mm vs .45
     
  14. HotRoderX

    HotRoderX Gen4 BETATester

    5,297
    0
    Jan 15, 2011
    I thought they switched to 9mm as part of the NATO ammo switch. So that countries could have a more standardized ammo pool to pull from.
     
  15. DaveG

    DaveG

    241
    1
    May 3, 2009
    Well friend, we may disagree, but I'd rather shoot to kill than just piss 'em off or wound them. True, one soldier wounded by a 9mm takes two more out of the fight but I'd say our boys, individually, deserve the best, Browning's .45 ACP...:patriot:
     
  16. craig19

    craig19

    1,865
    0
    Aug 13, 2010
    NE Ohio
    The Army ran a bunch of trials in '05-'06 testing different rounds and pistols. After millions of dollars spent they decided to stay with M9, for now.
     
  17. craig19

    craig19

    1,865
    0
    Aug 13, 2010
    NE Ohio
    I really don't think it matters. Everyone that goes outside the wire is supposed to have an M-16/M-4, so if you have burned through your 210 rounds of 5.56 and are relying on your side arm, you are in a world of crap.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2011
  18. Brianharless13

    Brianharless13

    362
    0
    Aug 26, 2009
    Indiana
    While stationed in Italy myself, we switched to the M9's in 1989. Hey expatman, did you get to tour the Beretta Factory while there? I was a armorer and got the opportunity. Freaking awesome place.
     
  19. Mr. Gekko

    Mr. Gekko

    1,697
    0
    Aug 27, 2010
    Wow, I thought I was in another forum here on GT for a minute. Anyways, a good pissing match about 9 vs 45 is always fun to read. :wavey: