The I LOVE THIS GUN Thread

Talking about "feel" and whatall, I've always liked the M1935A and of course, the SIG P210.

Do you know why the Government had the 1911 as a service sidearm for sooooo long? it was because it was the easiest platform to train on and the majority of Solders could shoot it better then any other platform for the most part. Plus, it was a tank and super reliable. I was still in when they weere doing trials to try to change to the M9 and EVERYONE who shot it hated it compaerd tot he 1911 who was on the test program. No one could figure out why we switched when we did to the M9.

First response from THR:
The original Vaqueros were built on the large frame and are as strong as the large frame Blackhawks and Super Blackhawks.

The post-2005 New Vaquero is built on a smaller, Colt SAA-sized frame and is not strong enough for Ruger only loads. Although the .45's can be safely loaded up to 20-21,000psi. The New Vaquero is not as strong but they are a more precisely built sixgun. Having their chambers cut one at a time with the same reamer. Rather than all six at once. They are also built on new CNC machinery and are typically better guns. They also feature the "reverse indexing pawl", which is no more than a freespin pawl coupled with a spring loaded plunger that engages the ratchet teeth so that the chambers line up with the loading port at the audible "click".

Did they ever figure out why?

Yup, this. The "old" Vaqueros are good guns, very rugged. They can also be fine tuned and I doubt that they are any less accurate then the New ones, despite the manner in which the chambers are bored. They are bigger and have a heavier feel, but whether they are "as good as" the New ones is pretty subjective. Some guys might prefer the bigger gun, others might not. I don't know whether there's any major difference in values between one or the other in used condition, but I suspect not.

It's always about the Benjamins.

Probably the same reason they use diesel for the most part. It's/was a matter of logistics.

I always thought we used the 1911 platform because nobody ever complained about being shot by one. I know that modern 9mm hollow point rounds perform very will, but it was my understanding that the Army is required to use standard ball ammo and that all too often people are shot multiple times with the 9mm ball and are still standing afterwards. Of course, if you're in the Army and defending yourself with a pistol things have definitely gone sideways.

I would be willing to bet that the reason the 1911 was a service sidearm for soooooo long was purely monetary. Handguns are about as far down the list of Pentagon priorities as they could possibly be. When I was in the Army in 1971 I qualified with the 1911, and the one I used was a total POS, so loose that it rattled in the holster when I walked. Not real easy to shoot accurately either. It was a Singer! I'm sure that's WW2 production, maybe earlier. All of the 45s they handed out to us were ancient, worn, inaccurate. None of us liked them.

I think the main reason they went to the Beretta in the 80s was to come into conformance with NATO respecting caliber, and also to replace the very aged handgun inventory. I've also heard that there was some Congressional wheeling and dealing involving Beretta building a plant in the US, licensing, jobs, etc., although I don't know the accuracy or particulars of that.

Well I'm thinking it's not uncommon nowadays for a lot of enemy combatants to have some sort of body armor which the ball will have a tough time penetrating, let alone HPs.

I think they got tired of having to use half the slide as a front sight when trying to hit a barn at one hundred yards. Special times.

Is that true? I don't remember seeing much body armor worn by the enemy in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I'm not saying they all do, but when you consider the fact that we deploy many other places then just there. I bet you're more likely to run into it nowadays than say 20-30 years ago.

Also historically ball ammo loads easier than hollow points. Though nowadays you can get HPs with those little plastic deals in the front.

Nintendo limpwristed the utes. If they saw a Hustler, they'd fucking cry or wind up going to the hospital with a sprained wrist.

This is why. The .45 ACP was/is not a NATO round.

Thank y'all for the help. I might try a trade, and just didn't want anyone shanghai'ing me on the value.

And, Sniper, thanks for goin' to the other forum for me.


.

That's funy, because I an hit a paper plate at 100M with mine.......but then again, it isn't a govt issue gun either, and no one in wartime shoots at a guy from 100m with a pistol anyway. 10ft at most I would think.

I was never a soldier (I was a coastie with a little LEO training) but IMO, in combat, a handgun is something you either use when you don't have a rifle handy (or working, or have run out of ammo) and you have to defend yourself, or it is something you might use in very close quarters where a rifle is too large - say *maybe* in clearing a building (even there, a carbine or SMG might be preferable).

So yeah, most of the time, close quarters or last resort.

I am sure that almost noe one who cared is still in the service or worries about it. I can say that almost all special forces or other ops groups still prefer and carry a 1911.

Yes, which is why I was questioning the problem with shooting a 1911 at 100 yards.......

Anyone own/shot one?
Looks like they're running about $600...somewhere in the range of the lower end springfields/kimbers.