Wes- and therin lies the problem. There were Never enough MEU(SOC)'s to go around. PWS was too busy with other matters (read the "marksmanship" teams)to get sufficient guns into the hands of the Shooters.
BBl lug breaking was very common with the "drop in" Bar Sto bbl.
PWS claimed is was because of the SureFire light, but we saw may break within 500 rds- another reason to stay away from "match" parts for fighting guns.
The guns had a lot of rounds go through them, and often all we had was the garbage mid eastern garbage that we had to buy from them.
We are all convinced that it accelerated wear.

The Kimbers are looking good- we'll see how they are down the line.
As to  the commercial replacement for the MEU(SOC)?
We'll see....

It was my understanding I thought it was a fitted barrel. I guess the Armorers only change ambi safetys and a few other small parts?


Drop in barrels make sense for guns like Glocks where there is a dimensional spec that is closely adhered to and all or most units are made at the same factory.

They don't and never probably will with 1911's (esspecially GI) that are made by many different companies in many different specs.  If you want accuracy and reliability out of a 1911 you have to do 4 things:

1 Fit a match barrel
2 Fit the slide (or you will have problems)
3 throat for hollowpoints
4 tune the extractor

[b]But I stand by the statement properly fitted 1911's are the most accurate and reliable handguns to be had and are reliable enough for combat[/b]

I've had factory stock:

1 SA TRP OPERATOR w/Aftec extractor (slide wouldn't go into battery on first round of 8 round mag [too much extractor tension in that "lets fix a non-problem extractor]) The operator rattled like a GI gun so evidently that space didn't help anything

1 SA SS Loaded that jammed 39times out of 50 (I fired 500 pain in the ass jamming rounds before I sold it. [slide 1/8in out of battery]

1 Kimber Royal that basically was reliable though I saw that out of battery crap once every 100-150 rounds (solved by simply pushing it closed with my thumb).



Custom.

1 Kimber (the same Kimber mentioned above after $1200 in work) and it shot 2.5inch groups offhand standing 25yds -Weaver stance- the gun did not jam in 750 rds of 230grain ball. I like guns that I have confidence I could take a head shot on a hostage taker 100% of the time at 25yds [b]That is my standard for handgun accuracy[/b]

1 Les Baer that would shoot .75-1.25in from sandbags at 25yds  2500rds through it with no jams (the only reason I don't compare offhand is it had a 5lb trigger and groups weren't as good as the Kimber with its 2.5lb trigger.

I met a guy with a match fitted 1911 with 50,000rds and no problems. Other than that he wanted a accuracy tune up.

In my experience the match fitted guns are far more reliable than factory guns. (Sa's 350-400jams out of 500 to my Les Baers none in 2500rds.)

If you think that is a little harsh even the Kimber would jam 10-20times more often than the Les Baer (and who knows maybe I would have gotten through a lot more rounds before a jam with the Les Baer?)




When does your car operate more smoothly? When the timing belt is gone or when the timing belt is on and properly timed?

Green)- Even though it was "drop in" it is still semi fitted.
The other major problem was the trigger. At 3.5lbs it was too tempermental over the long haul (remember, the platoon does not deploy with a 2112 to fix things).

I'm not sure what you mean when you state that they "only change ambi safeties and a few other small parts".
Their is a stripped frame that they get out of Albany. Everything else is new. They are not changing anything- they are building it from the frame up.

You use the term "jam". The common use means something you need tools to fix, or are you referring to a stoppage?

When we spec'd out the ICQB we delibertly stayed away from "match" barrels and tight guns (no need for feeding hollow points in these)and required a 5lb trigger (all are 4.5- 4.75) and 4" at 25 yds- which is more then sufficient for our needs.
I agree about the extractor.

In the time i have been at Gunsite, i have seen 2 LB guns actually finish a course (we even gave a certificate to the first guy). There may have been more of course, but we don't normally keep records.
The Kimbers work with disgusting regularity.

Most guns work fine. many good guns don't after they get dirty. I will agree that shooting 500 rds/ day is not a valid test for a defensive weapon, but our guns do that daily.
I am not a gunsmith. I am a shooter.My observations are based on rrunning many people through many courses using many weapons in many venues, here and OCONUS.
Your mileage may vary...

I have a Springfield LW Loaded that has been my primary carry weapon for about 18 months now.  I have about 1800 rounds through it with NO stoppages of any kind, including everything from 195gr cast LSWC target loads to Ranger 230gr+P.  I'm thinking the alloy frame probably wouldn't hold up to the kind of use that the MEU pistols get, but other than that I'm very pleased with it.  

I run only Wilson mags, which probably helps.

Pat, do you have any observations on the alloy 1911s, or Springfields in particular?

TIA
QS

QuietShootr- I have only one alloy frame gun, a Commander. It gets carreid some and shot 2x a year.
I have zero experience with any alloy guns beyond this.

Sorry.

Pat,

Will the MEU(SOC) going to use a suppressor for their pistol? or is it just going to outfit the suppressor to the rifles?

Thanks.

"You use the term "jam". The common use means something you need tools to fix, or are you referring to a stoppage?"


I guess so I've always used the term JAM any time my weapon fails to fire when I pull the trigger (requiring some sort of remedial action to place it into a condition where it will fire.)

I don't know why a 2.5 lb trigger would be any harder to pass the course with (it still requires a pull of the trigger to fire the gun) I would assume people who attend your course understand things like "keeping safetys on and fingers out of trigger housings etc".

Personally I've always felt that even 2.5lbs 1911 triggers feel heavy when I am trying to shoot for accuracy. Maybe it's because I'm more of a rifle guy and learned to fire only when sights were ligned up perfectly. (I don't often shoot at point blank range as seems to be in vougue with the handgun school crowd) As far as I'm concerned at 7yds and less you could draw, fire from the hip or looking over the sights and not through them and still easilly hit a man in the upper body and do it quite rapidly.

I would expect trouble from drop in match barrels (the BAR STO products are almost always built to minimum drop in tolerance and in a 1911 this could mean that you might actually be putting a barrel in that is overly tight and thus stressed when fired.)  1911 barrels should be fit match or not. If you understand the concept of bearing surfaces and that 1911 barrels do not flex you will understand why not fitting a barrel is not smart. I have heard of barrel breakages and nearly all have been in Meusoc 1911's.

What kind of reliability (MRBS) are Marines experiencing with their current 1911's?

The match fitted SA TRP PRO hit smething like 13,300 (MRBS) in FBI tests.

Just for the record, I did not intentionally divert this thread from the original topic. :-) (Something told me to pick a different analogy!)

Mr. Rogers, I hate to do this but....

Let's talk extractor tension if you don't mind.

I use to have reliability problems with a Wilson 1996A2.  They finally rebuilt it (possibly a barrel fit issue?  I don't know as they never told me) and when it came back to me the extractor was tighter than when I sent it in to them.  The pistol was finally reliable, but it still seemed tight in the extractor.  Kind of like the gun was running on the brink of stoppage every time this slide went into battery.  This was using Wilson #47 and #47D mags.

I finally measured it and it was around 30-32 ounces.  I was using Jack Weigand's extractor tension tools.  Mr. Weigand recommends 25-28 ounces of tension.  I adjusted mine to right around in the 26-28 ounce range.  As much as I wanted to put it in the 20-25 ounce range, I just didn't want to chance it.

I have however heard of some recommending extractor tensions much lower than 25 ounces.  As I understand that extractor tension is a main contributor to 1911 reliability, this is an issue that I'm very interested in.

I have fired a friends Kimber Custom Classic Series I and it has been incredibly reliable right out of the box.  Based on my handling and firing of the gun, my initial impression is that the extractor is less than 25-28 ounces.  I have yet to lay a guage on it, but that's my guess at this point.  Perhaps that's responsible for the Kimber's great reliability??

So, based upon your experience with the MEU/SOC and other 1911's, are you an advocate of a looser extractor?  Do you have any opinions one way or the other on the subject?  If so, how many ounces for maximum reliability?  At what point is tension too low for reliable extraction?

Again, sorry for the thread hijack.  I just couldn't resist the opportunity to ask this question of someone with your extensive experience.

Thank you for contributing to this board!

Corey

I have seen 1 type of jam

1 you simply push the slide into battery and fire (often seen in shit factory guns)
2 You have a real jam I guess it could be a stovepipe? anyway this only requires racking the slide while angleing the port downward to the right and letting it fly.

I can't really imagine the gun giving you any more crap than this apart from broken parts and then you can see your screwed.

I don't see enough jams to typify them into 3 categories.

I thought you were suggesting that light triggers are Not going to pass a course (I like 2.5lb triggers) I didn't know Meusoc was 3.5lbs that's not bad I'm impressed I would expect the military to go with 4.5-5.5lbs.


I don't know what the reality of gunfighting is but I think its really a laugh riot when I open a magazine and see SWAT types standing 5inches from a target and firing at it.  If they need training to have confidence to hit a target 5 inches from their torso they are in the wrong line of work.

I would expect military (hand) gunfighting to take place at ranges from 3feet to 75yds (after that the soldier would need a lot of confidence and a little extra ammo to attempt a shot.) Longer distance than police duty would be the rule (I would think)

"***7 yds may be the outside of the pistol engagement envelope. "

Gosh I hope not.  I really think personally the handgun is a deffinite 2nd place weapon and should only see use when:
A primary is out of ammo (ALL OUT)
B small confined spaces like hallways on a ship
C When Primary is jammed beyond a quick fix
D When a special mission is being undertaken (like silencing dogs or sentries [not applicable to Meusoc but it should be] Handguns offer true near silence with their subsonic rounds when used with wet suppressors and M-16's do not.

"As far as I'm concerned at 7yds and less you could draw, fire from the hip or looking over the sights and not through them and still easilly hit a man in the upper body and do it quite rapidly." What I really preffer is simply extending the pistol to arms length and pointing and firing at distances less than 7yds.






What kind of reliability (MRBS) are Marines experiencing with their current 1911's?

**That may not be viable due to the conditions that the Shooters operate in- which exceed parameters that others may conduct their shooting in. That is, apples and oranges***

[b]to Clarify firing on whatever range they are firing on would be good comparison I don't expect the gun after a tumble in the sand to hit 13,300 MRBS but I do expect guns to do well on the range in semi-controlled conditions[/b]


**We looked at the Pro guns. See the December issue of SWAT for what we thought of them***

Probably overpriced and not availible in large enough numbers to satisfy the requirement.  That's a guess but I would think it is a good one. What do I think... Les Baer is better for less money and probably availible in higher numbers in less time.

The reason Kimber gets somewhere close to excellent reliability is that the barrel is at least semi-fitted by machine and that takes a lot of stress issues out of the picture.

Had armorers simply fit slides to frames and barrels to weapons I doubt barrel failures would have been anywhere near as common.

Corey- Mr Rogers was my Dad- my name is Pat.
I am not a 'smith, nor have i ever slept at a Holiday Inn. My experience is in shooting, and i leave the parts changing to others.
The Kimbers- as i stated before- are the most reliable guns that we have seen passing through Gunsite.
The new Colt's are als looking very good, but i can't comment on extractors or anything else. I have no real experience with that, and i won't resort to conjecture.

Green-
Type 1- Failure to feed
Type 2- Failure to eject
Type-3 Double Feed.
This has been the standard for as long as i can remember.
Type 1 and 2 are reduced by the same immediate action drill- TRB (or the more PC TRA). A Type 3 is a remedial action.

My feeling, after reading your posts, is that you are not actually reading mine.
The 2.5lb trigger is an example- I never said that, but you put it forth.
Your views are based on your frame of reference- and they are apparently much different then mine.

Enjoy those thoughts, but you really need to seek professional training. It may open your eyes to some things.

I don't know for sure, but I doubt it.
But since you have a USP Tactical that does, what else do you need?
I consider the USP-T only second best 'suppressed' to the larger Mk23 pistol.
And although the Mk23 is 'bigger' than most handguns, it hammers, and it will hammer suppressed or unsupressed for a long, long time.
Somebody put it to me this way just the other day, if you could pick any of these supressed .45 pistols, but with just one round of ammo, and your life depended on hitting a target at 50 yards, what pistol would you pick?
My answer...a Mk23.
Personal note here: after attending two State of Virginia semi-auto pistol transition training courses back in 1990-91, both with Glocks, I sold all of my M1911 type pistols (.45's, 9mm, .38 Supers).  Note: these courses required about 2,000 presentations from a holster, and then firing one or multiible rounds at one or multible targets.  And that was after carrying M1911's for almost 25 years.
Now the only handguns I own are Glocks.  So after years of carrying a 1911 "cocked & locked", I relocated the Thumb Safety to my brain housing.  Now I am both faster and safer because I have simplified the equation.

CAUTION: I also think the Glock operates in a very unique way, especially if you have lots (and/or little) experience with other design operation systems, by that once you get the muscle memory of 4,000+ presentations with the Glock system (at least in my case), I didn't trust myself with outher auto's with thumb safety's I was used to activating/de-activating--especially in the dark under stress.  That's why I became a "one gun shooter".  So I only recommend the Glock if you are willing to give up everything else, and practice, practice, practice.

Oh, I was just wondering.  

Re the Glock vs 1911 issue - my first pistol as an adult was a Colt LW Commander.  I put a lot of rounds through it, and within a year or so Glock came out with the G23.  I shot one of those and immediately bought one, and carried it for a LONG time.  I switched to a USPc for a primary carry gun a couple of years ago, and in the last year I've been able to do a hell of a lot more shooting that I had been in previous years.

I found that once I hit a certain point of practice, the 1911 (my current carry piece is a Springfield LW 5") allows me to shoot with more speed and accuracy than I've been able to do with a Glock.  Maybe this is a misperception on my part, but I think the 1911 is easier to shoot accurately at high speed than just about anything else out there now.

YMMV.

QS

Green,

I would listen to Pat, he has been there and done that and a very straight shooter.


Coldblue,

I absolutely agree with you on the Glock advantage. interesting view on the MK23.  

I think if we don't get back on topic, this thread will be locked.

Yes, the Mk 23 with the mass and balance of a  suppressor out front could not shoot any better for me at 50 yards if it was a .45 ACP rifle.

Everyone is going to find and keep the gun that works best for them.  There is no one size fits all.  new pistols are sort of like hot-looking little blonde chicks, you all like to play around with them for awhile, but marry one?

Dave,

Let's say you have a M4 with a KAC QD can and you had your choice of a suppressed pistol for sentry removal, would the MK23 with your can be your choice then??  or would a USP tactical 45 using the KAC can do the same work in a small and cheaper package?

As far as the KAC being the MEU(SOC) choice of suppressor for the M4 rifle, is it a firm commitment or is it a temporary substitute until the Crane-NSWC down-select of the KAC replacement is released??

Thanks.

Joe Gardini of SWR used to work for Knights and developed the QD system that they use today.  I own 3 SWR cans(and have 3 more on order) and they are "hollywood quiet."  
I also know for a fact( I talked with my former roommate who is in a active SF group) that SWR 308 cans are being used in the field on their 308 sniper rifles.  He stated that many of the end users like SWR stuff better than what they are currently using.
And before any of you say that SWR is not on the TO&E for any SF group, don't.  This guy was my roommate at West Point and has no reason to lie to me.

I figure with you and Doug's experties you guys probably have several new cans on the table.  defintely looking forward to all your new stuff especially the URX2.

Thanks Dave for the great answers.  

Imagine that…

This is a great thread for us folks who don’t have the contact and expertise a few of you have, thanks.

Does anybody have any experience with the Gemtech M4-96E?

SWR Alpha SD vs the Gemtech Talon SD?

Suppressor for the Accuracy International AWSM in 338 Lapua?

Thanks again guys.

Best regards, J

I was able to check out the Surefire suppressor a short time ago. No rounds were fired, so I can not state anything about its sound reduction. It looked to be well made and it had an interesting secondary retaining system. It would be interesting to see if the field trials showed any problems with this new retaining system.

No one that has a M4-Echo for the M249 (a.k.a. the "HALO" can) is going to answer that question.  Anyone that would answer that question is probably not speaking from experience.  :)





The SWR is the better set up, due to the flexibility. The Talon is totally a dedicated upper that can't be interchanged in the way the SWR one can be.  The suppressor itself is excellent, quality of worksmanship is identical, (many of the parts are made by Gemtech) as evidenced by the patent numbers on the side of the mount.




That one is up for grabs. AI's old supply has unfortunately dried up so the point is somewhat moot.  Not many manufacturers are willing to make a dedicated suppressed barrel for the gun when they will only sell a very few. Mark White at SoundTech was messing around with these, perhaps he sells them still.

-