TexasCHLforum.com

[googlevideo][/googlevideo]

Abraham wrote:myntalfloss,

Calvary?

Hhhhhmmm, methinks you meant CAVALRY.

Oyy! I did. Thanks for catching that. Spelling is only one of my problems.

Excaliber wrote:

LTUME1978 wrote:I saw and handled one of those new 1911's at PSC a few months ago (it belonged to someone who had some connections and was able to get one). It has a surprisingly loose fit for the cost of the pistol. I did not get to shoot it so I can't comment on the accuracy/function. I would personnally have a hard time spending that much money on that pistol after having owned a Springfield TRP and Trophy Match.

The fit is most likely deliberate.

A Ranger captain I know strongly preferred the Glock for work in Afghanistan. He said the grit over there played havoc with tightly fitted 1911's.

I agree, look at the AK's, they seem to be made of potmetal and chicken wire but you can't make them stop running.

Deltaboy wrote:It war good enough for The Corp from WW1 till the Mid 1980's. I am glad to see the 1911 return.

Let's bring back the calvary.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Corps having the the 1911, it's a good gun,( the one's I used in the Corps probably were 20 years old and had thousands or rounds through them but still worked like a clock), but I suspect it has more to do with the previously mentioned vendor (w/ ex-Marine CEO) than the superior ballistics. Most pistols shots aren't single shot kills, and the pistol is mostly used as a last resort weapon or for suppressing fire while you reload your long gun.

This is based on my experiences that the enemy refused to stand still and let me shoot him. Believe or don't, combat consists mostly of misses. If given my druthers, I'd always have a long gun but, if we gotta go pistols, I'd rather have 15 rounds of 9mm than 8 rds of .45. If they had selected the Glock 21 or someother hi-cap .45, then the difference would be moot.