Now, how do we get these?!?!?

[John]

Dear membership,

Here is an email I received a couple of days ago:


Greetings from San Antonio,

For three or more years I have been attempting to learn about stories I have read/heard about the storage of surplus M1911A1 pistols in military warehouses.

Some several months ago, I phoned the Crane Naval Weapons Depot, and was put through to the foreman in charge of the storage facility where the pistols are maintained.

He explained that there are/were "thousands" of the pistols, stored in crates with multiple pistols in each crate.

When he asked me what my interest in the guns was, he offerred little additional information when he realized I was "just an ordinary civilian".

After a long time I became frustrated in my search, and gave it up for a while. Then I contacted SEN John Cornyn's office, filled out a Freedom of Information application for the information, and you can see the letters I got in today's mail.

The existence of a large number of genuine military surplus M1911A1 pistols is hereby certified.

Now--how do we get them?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/sv1cec/posts_pictures/img036.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/sv1cec/posts_pictures/img037.jpg

Since the discussion about this issue will most probably turn political, I decided it is better to discuss this issue here, in GPORG, than in the Forums Site.

[Rekladan]

And just think, the US Navy M1911s and M1911A1s were never refinished...

[Patriotic]

i would think the other branches of the military would have similar stores of M1911s. It is a shame to think these fine weapons, paid for with our tax dollar, would be just sitting there. It costs the government money to store, maintain and account for these pistols. Why not offer them up for sale and bring in some revenue and cut expenses. I am sure they would have no trouble selling them.

[John]

With the current US Government being gun-shy, I would seriously doubt that these handguns will be ever released in the civilian market.

[Rekladan]

Beyond anything else, presumably these guns (well, some of them at least) would be worth quite a lot of money. I think Patriotic has mentioned in the other forum, how the military sells other things - like cameras and lenses. Why not these?

[Patriotic]

Yeah, wouldn’t it be nice to pay a dollar a pound for these 1911s. I wouldn’t even be greedy and only buy 20 pounds.

[Worthme]

Well, I have heard from reliable sources that the military still has crates on new M-1's, M-14's,
etc. You would think that since tax dollars paid for them , our government would let us buy them.

But then the US ditched entire helicopters during 'Nam.

Funny thing is, you might be able to go to Russia and buy an M-1 from WW II. I wouldn't doubt it.

[Skytower]

The tide of military small arms was shifting away from the .45 when I was leaving the Navy in '96. They went to a 9mm Baretta. I don't remember their reasoning at the time, but it was illogical, to me. Logic and the Navy are not usually on speaking terms.
Tides ebb and flow, and logic may come back in favor. Which means that our Navy may once again be able to put larger holes in their opponents. Thus returning the idle weapons to service.
They make a good ready-reserve in times of crisis as well.

Just a thought :)

[Worthme]

Yes, the funny thing is the military replaced .38's with the .45 because of the lack of stopping power. And yet adopt the .38 again as if something changed since then.

Of course there are better rounds now for the .38 and 9mm BUT nothing beats out a larger caliber round.

I think part of it was based on the old notion that the .45 was hard to control, and could not be mastered by many service members.

But in times of war and close combat, aim and control are not big factors, in close combat a pistol is not aimed anyway, it is pointed and the number one cause and effect should be "can one round, put him down?" And that answer is obvious, the .45 fits that cause and effect and the 9mm is a maybe.

[Rich-D]

One of the reasons given was to standardize with Nato. Also, in considering conventional warfare, the magazine capacity was far superior. However, with today's urban tactics in play, the value of the .45 is becoming apparent.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

The tide of military small arms was shifting away from the .45 when I was leaving the Navy in '96. They went to a 9mm Baretta. I don't remember their reasoning at the time, but it was illogical, to me.

For commonality with other NATO countries and because of increasing number of women in the service.

[Rekladan]

Most of the women shooters I know would grip a M1911A1 easier than an M9.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

You're saying the government took an action whose results were the opposite of the goals that led to the action? Shocking.

[Patriotic]

I believe weight of the ammunition was also a factor but when you consider a 9mm requiring 2 to 3 hits to put your enemy down it doesn’t make much sense. NATO compatibility doesn’t make much sense either in the case of the battle rifle. NATO used the 7.62 round and the US opted for the 5.56 round. The only thing I can think of is that someone had a relative in the arms business. The .38 Super was also considered for a time, superior to the 9 mm but not quite as good as the .45; I think it would have made a better choice and still using the 1911 platform.

[Rich-D]

I like the idea of the .38 Super over the 9MM, but still prefer the.45!

[Dial 1911 for Help]

Yeah, they develop the .45 because the .38 wasn't efficiently putting down drug addled religious nuts, then they wait 70 years and abandon it. What good is a mistake if you can't repeat it?

[Rich-D]

I agree, while the 9mm is an improvement over the power of a .38 it does not compare with the 45 Auto. Especially so when hard ball is being utilized.

[Rekladan]

The NATO rifle round was a more complicated story... The US did have the M14 at one point, just when the 7.62mm round was standardized, but by the time most other NATO countries started following suit, there was another development...

Frankly, in our times, the whole issue of standardization has become a pointless joke. The original intent, presumably, was to make sure that the Treaty's forces could use each other's supplies. Nice theory, but since it is only about small-arms' ammunition, and doesn't extend to other weapons and equipment, I don't see the point, especially in the post cold-war era...

Having said that, I think I've heard of cases where British troops in Iraq 'borrowed' equipment from US troops. Don't know if it included ammo, but both use 5.56mm rifles these days, so it's possible. But has there been a case of NATO allies swapping pistol ammo, say in the past 20 years?

[Dial 1911 for Help]

Not that I've heard of (not that I'd be expected to), but there you go again, holding government policy up against a standard of rationality!