TexasCHLforum.com

This throws a wrench in the debate that a 9 has enough stopping power. IMO for concealed carry yes, I even carry a pocket 9, but I wouldn't hit the field with one. It's an individual preference, but here is another example of a larger round being desired. If a 9 has enough stopping power, why does the Marine Corp want a 45 for close quarters combat? The USMC has answered the call and has a new version of the 45 rolling out. This gun looks pretty sweet, minus the price.

THE COLT MARINE PISTOL
Although the M1911A1 in .45 ACP was superseded in 1985 by the M9 as the official sidearm of the U.S. military, the U.S. Marine Corps has adopted an updated version of the gun—the M45 CQB, or, in its civilian version, the Marine—for some special operations troops.

http://www.americanrifleman.org/article ... sub=21&q=1

I don't know that it throws a wrench in 9mm argument. Civilian defense use versus military combat use is of a considerable difference. I would think that the military characteristics would have to take into account a lot more variables when considering the effectiveness of a round.

That is sweet!

Pretty...nice.....

Considering the Military doesn't use hollow points, that also makes a big different.

I am surprised they can't find a 10+ round 45 ACP pistol that would fit the bill. The M9 has a rather fat grip.

This is also for a very small number of Service Members. There are only about 2,500 or so Marines in MARSOC and the article mentions that some of those will be using the new 45. That leaves close to 200,000 Marines still using the M9. It is hardly a big shift in policy.

3dfxMM wrote:This is also for a very small number of Service Members. There are only about 2,500 or so Marines in MARSOC and the article mentions that some of those will be using the new 45. That leaves close to 200,000 Marines still using the M9. It is hardly a big shift in policy.

and it could be interesting..the other Marines may feel they are being given inferior weapons.

Way back when they migrated to the M9s, the units retained half dozen of the Remington 1911s. Nobody wanted to carry the .45. I didn't have to fight anyone over them. But they gave me fits going to the qualification range because they just assumed everyone was gonna be shooting M9s and there I was...

My son in law is MarSoc. He prefers the Beretta. Of course he also prefers grenade launchers.

I do find it interesting that the company that the Marines are buying their 45 pistols from is run by a retired high ranking Marine

Certainly .45 ball is preferable to 9mm ball.

But with modern hollow points? Much less difference. .45 is still "better" with JHPs, but is it twice as good? Because a Glock 17 carries TWICE as many BBs as a 1911.

That's a nice pistol!

A former Marine colleague of mine had been salivating over a Kimber CDP for quite some time until he saw this gun and proclaimed it would be his next purchase.

That held firm for about an hour until he saw the sticker price.

He now things he might be able to make do with something else.

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.

Oh my, $2100 for per Marine pistol???? I did not catch it in the article, but how many are they ordering?

Joe