Semper Fi: Colt M45A1 CQBP Marine Pistol Review

opsspec1991

opsspec1991

Active member
Link Removed

The M45A1 Close Quarters Battle Pistol (CQBP) was announced on July 20, 2012, chosen from three submissions to a 2010 solicitation handed down by Marine Corps Systems Command (MARCORSYSCOM). Colt, Springfield Armory, and Karl Lippard Designs offered a replacement for the age-old rebuilt .45s, and thus, a variation of the Colt 1911 Rail Gun renewed its enlistment in the U.S. Marine Corps.

The initial delivery order following the announcement specified 4,036 pistols and spares. The contract, however, carries with it an indefinite-delivery and indefinite-quantity clause for up to 12,000 M45s, spare parts, and logistical support. The value of this contract is said to be worth $22.5 million to Colt.

Marine Corps Special Operations Command (MARSOC) and Marine Expeditionary Unit Special Operation Command [MEU(SOC)], members of Force Recon, Special Reaction Teams (SRT), and the Marine Corps pistol team are the expected end-users for the first new Colt 1911s added to an armory’s inventory since World War II.


Read more:

Semper Fi: Colt M45A1 CQBP Marine Pistol Review - Shooting Times
 
22.5 million bucks divided by 12,000 units= $1875 per gun (including spare parts...)

...the civilian version of this gun was first advertized to be $1295

Marine MARSOC M45 1911 Now Offered In Civilian Version | The Firearm Blog

but then in a thread from AR15.com, there was someone claiming a price of $1995 direct from Colt's custom shop.

Think it might be worth figuring up a custom job of your/my own on a used model...might be more cost effective; might not too.
 
I was so happy when I read the Marines were going back to a .45 pistol !! I prefer a S&W .45 which is double action first shot, and single action subsequent shots. We carried these when I worked as a deputy sheriff. I always left the safety off, and felt quite comfortable with the pistol. I cannot believe some of the deputies, who obviously did not know how the weapon was designed to work, carried with the safety on. When suddenly confronted with a life threatening situation, would they automatically turn the safety off? I did not take the chance. I suspect the Marines are trained to quickly jack a cartridge into the chamber with the safety off, but having never been a Marine what do I know. I am just happy they are returning to the .45acp which works great. I laugh when I see the new .45acp cartridge wanna be's, like .40s&w, and .45 g.a.p. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
 
KSDeputy said:
I was so happy when I read the Marines were going back to a .45 pistol !! I prefer a S&W .45 which is double action first shot, and single action subsequent shots. We carried these when I worked as a deputy sheriff. I always left the safety off, and felt quite comfortable with the pistol. I cannot believe some of the deputies, who obviously did not know how the weapon was designed to work, carried with the safety on. When suddenly confronted with a life threatening situation, would they automatically turn the safety off? I did not take the chance. I suspect the Marines are trained to quickly jack a cartridge into the chamber with the safety off, but having never been a Marine what do I know. I am just happy they are returning to the .45acp which works great. I laugh when I see the new .45acp cartridge wanna be's, like .40s&w, and .45 g.a.p. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
Click to expand...

I don't quite understand your reasoning but I would MUCH rather carry a SAO with a safety on that a DA/SA safety off. People say a safety is just one more thing to fumble with...if you train with it, it's not any slower than any other gun. I can have the safety off by the time the muzzle clears the holster.

And no, no military branch would ever train it's members to carry their weapon with the safety off...ever. If its got one, you're using it.
 
Once again a service goes out on its own to be special. I guess now since all services have their own GQ combat uniform, we are going to different weapons systems for all now...How quaint and super non-cost effective.

DISCLAIMER: I love a 1911 and carry one.
 
Chief1297 said:
Once again a service goes out on its own to be special. I guess now since all services have their own GQ combat uniform, we are going to different weapons systems for all now...How quaint and super non-cost effective.

DISCLAIMER: I love a 1911 and carry one.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with the services having different uniforms to set them apart. That actually makes sense in a combat environment. The stupid part is the Army spending $6 billion on a uniform system from R&D through implementation before realizing it doesn't work...anywhere. Gray camouflage? Really? Only used it for 5 years before starting to phase them out.

Weapons systems will always be different for different branches as they all play different roles and have different necessities.
 
Chief1297 said:
Once again a service goes out on its own to be special. I guess now since all services have their own GQ combat uniform, we are going to different weapons systems for all now...How quaint and super non-cost effective.

DISCLAIMER: I love a 1911 and carry one.
Click to expand...

jcreek said:
I don't have a problem with the services having different uniforms to set them apart. That actually makes sense in a combat environment. The stupid part is the Army spending $6 billion on a uniform system from R&D through implementation before realizing it doesn't work...anywhere. Gray camouflage? Really? Only used it for 5 years before starting to phase them out.

Weapons systems will always be different for different branches as they all play different roles and have different necessities.
Click to expand...

The four branches are scheduled to replace the different uniforms with a standard in 2018. Like the old BDU/DCU days again... one uniform for all, more cost effective. The Army and AF uniforms blend in well with... gravel. The Navy's "aqua-flage" blends in well with... well, you get it. We need common uniforms strictly from a financial standpoint. I like the Multi-cam pattern we get in Afghan now, pretty cool.

As to the weapons thing... all the branches have more or less the same weapons, with some slight variance of course. We all use, at some level, the M4, A2, A4, 240, 249, M2, Mk19, etc. The M9 is a good combat pistol, as is the 1911... if the USMC wants to budget for 1911s over the M9s, so be it. After all, it's a secondary weapon... it won't see a lot of shooting in combat. It's impact is negligible on the battlefield. If you're down to your handgun in a firefight... you are having a very bad day.
 
gunnerbob said:
The four branches are scheduled to replace the different uniforms with a standard in 2018. Like the old BDU/DCU days again... one uniform for all, more cost effective. The Army and AF uniforms blend in well with... gravel. The Navy's "aqua-flage" blends in well with... well, you get it. We need common uniforms strictly from a financial standpoint. I like the Multi-cam pattern we get in Afghan now, pretty cool.

As to the weapons thing... all the branches have more or less the same weapons, with some slight variance of course. We all use, at some level, the M4, A2, A4, 240, 249, M2, Mk19, etc. The M9 is a good combat pistol, as is the 1911... if the USMC wants to budget for 1911s over the M9s, so be it. After all, it's a secondary weapon... it won't see a lot of shooting in combat. It's impact is negligible on the battlefield. If you're down to your handgun in a firefight... you are having a very bad day.
Click to expand...
As a dog handler put it to me; A rifle is for use against people. The sidearm is for dogs that mess with my MWD.
 
The four branches are scheduled to replace the different uniforms with a standard in 2018. Like the old BDU/DCU days again... one uniform for all, more cost effective. The Army and AF uniforms blend in well with... gravel. The Navy's "aqua-flage" blends in well with... well, you get it. We need common uniforms strictly from a financial standpoint. I like the Multi-cam pattern we get in Afghan now, pretty cool.

As to the weapons thing... all the branches have more or less the same weapons, with some slight variance of course. We all use, at some level, the M4, A2, A4, 240, 249, M2, Mk19, etc. The M9 is a good combat pistol, as is the 1911... if the USMC wants to budget for 1911s over the M9s, so be it. After all, it's a secondary weapon... it won't see a lot of shooting in combat. It's impact is negligible on the battlefield. If you're down to your handgun in a firefight... you are having a very bad day.[/QUOTE]

I hadn't heard about the uniform standardization, I'll have to look into it. It might look good to a politician sitting in an office look at numbers but there's a certain pride among service branches along with their traditions and my feeling is that there will be almost unilateral opposition to it from the services. I'd be surprised if it actually happens but who knows.

As far as the pistol in combat thing goes, I agree with half of what you said. If you need it, you definitely are having a bad day, but that's exactly what makes it the farthest thing from negligible on the urban battlefield. The picture of 1st Sgt. Kasal (now Sgt. Maj.) pretty much sums it up: http://media.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2005/mar/marines/kasal_large.jpg

Hit by seven 7.62x39mm rounds and 43 pieces of shrapnel while savings the lives of his Marines in that house. It was a privilege to meet him at SOI.
 
jcreek said:
I don't have a problem with the services having different uniforms to set them apart. That actually makes sense in a combat environment. The stupid part is the Army spending $6 billion on a uniform system from R&D through implementation before realizing it doesn't work...anywhere. Gray camouflage? Really? Only used it for 5 years before starting to phase them out.

Weapons systems will always be different for different branches as they all play different roles and have different necessities.
Click to expand...

I don’t have an issue with each service having a different dress uniform. It is the combat ones I have issues with. Combat is definitely not the time to have different uniforms. When you have to make life and death decisions in seconds, adding 2 or 3 seconds to that decision making process by having to figure out if your target is friend or foe is not smart.

If you add the army's $6 billion dollar bungle to each service's multimillion dollar R&D to bring their GUCI uniforms online, you are starting to talk about real money with a logistics tail that is large and cumbersome. As far as camouflage, the pattern should be the same for everyone as it is the terrain that will determine the best pattern to use, not service connectability.

As far as weapons systems go, I don’t think that a service has anything to do with weapons selection. An army troop doing convoys or USAF troops doing convoys are doing the same jobs with the same weapons. War and the weapons to persecute the war should be standardized for all the services. Not just for consistency but for logistics, training, and financial reasons. If the 1911 is the best handgun for combat is the .45 1911, then all ground forces should have them. If the M-4 is the best, then I would apply the same criteria. Ground combat is ground combat irrespective of service. I could go on and on but I think my point is made. This is my opinion of course.
 
[/QUOTE]I hadn't heard about the uniform standardization, I'll have to look into it. It might look good to a politician sitting in an office look at numbers but there's a certain pride among service branches along with their traditions and my feeling is that there will be almost unilateral opposition to it from the services. I'd be surprised if it actually happens but who knows.

As far as the pistol in combat thing goes, I agree with half of what you said. If you need it, you definitely are having a bad day, but that's exactly what makes it the farthest thing from negligible on the urban battlefield. The picture of 1st Sgt. Kasal (now Sgt. Maj.) pretty much sums it up: http://media.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2005/mar/marines/kasal_large.jpgHit by seven 7.62x39mm rounds and 43 pieces of shrapnel while savings the lives of his Marines in that house. It was a privilege to meet him at SOU.[/QUOTE]



He was obviously having one of those very bad days I mentioned. He's a great Marine and a true hero in every sense of the word. The point I'm making about a pistol being negligible isn't that they're useless, it's that they have a very small impact on the vast majority of conflicts... large or small, urban or rural. A pistol should be dependable and trusted, for sure... but it is always secondary.
 
Chief1297 said:
Once again a service goes out on its own to be special. I guess now since all services have their own GQ combat uniform, we are going to different weapons systems for all now...How quaint and super non-cost effective.

DISCLAIMER: I love a 1911 and carry one.
Click to expand...

Uh chief,marines are special
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 126 (members: 0, guests: 126)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,661
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining

Share this page

Back
Top