Carolina Shooters Forum banner

Marsoc m45 cqbp 1911

16K views 78 replies 26 participants last post by  1911Tuner  
#1 ·


Some of you reading this will say "the 1911 is the finest battle proven combat pistol in the world", those who state this probably have not seen what the 1911's do on the range in the hands of our Marines, nor have they spoken with the Marine Corps 2112's who are tasked with keeping these pistols running.

Many of you saw the announcement last summer that Colt was awarded a $22,500,000 contract for the Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) Close Quarter Battle Pistol (CQBP). When the initial RFI (request for information) on the M45 CQBP was posted by Marine Corps Systems Command it shocked many. Not because MARSOC wanted a new pistol, but because they failed to learn from past lessons with other Special Operations Command units. What really shocked me was the fact that they didn't take the lessons learned from their predecessor Force Reconnaissance unit's.

One of SOCOM's premiere units carried 1911's from day 1 until the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan kicked off. They too found that the environment's the 1911's were exposed to during their more lengthy deployments were not conducive to a properly working pistol. If they were running short direct action missions the pistols would be fine, but if they had to deploy outside with wire for days or weeks on end the reliability of their secondary weapons slowly deteriorated. This unit had asked the Army's Marksmanship Training Unit (AMU) for assistance in improving the reliability and capacity of their 1911's. After many different configurations, many changes and hundreds of tests they scrapped the program and purchased modern polymer pistols in a non-standard caliber.

In 2007 immediately following the formation of MARSOC I had my 1st MARSOC class on deck at a company I had recently formed (T1G). The class showed up with 37 MEUSOC 1911 pistols, some new some old. Of the 37 all but 5 were issued out to the students. The remaining were spares. During the 5 day course the 2112 was in the back of the truck 50% of the time repairing 1911's. By the end of the week he had worked on all 37 pistols. Not all of them had the same failures, but they all went down during the week. The Marines were not rolling around in the mud, nor were they tossing their pistols in the dirt. They were simply running flat range drills! Over the next 4 years I would see 1st hand or hear similar stories from my staff anytime a unit brought 1911's to training.

If I were selecting a new pistol for a military unit (or anyone for that matter) here are some common attributes I would look for:

No hand fitting required | Hand fit parts work fine in the pistols they were fit to, try sticking them in another pistol and see what happens.
Parts interchangeability | Any part that is broke should be able to be swapped out with another pistols part.
No trained gunsmith required to repair it | Unfortunately even our top unit's don't keep a trained gunsmith in their dump pouch. The end user should be able completely disassemble the pistol to make repairs in the field.

Don't get me wrong, I love 1911's on the range and I have a number built by Marine Corps 2112's, and the gunsmiths who build the 1911's for some of the top shooters in the world. It just wouldn't be my choice for a pistol that could be forward deployed to any dump in the world.
 

Attachments

#3 ·
I have to completely disagree with this opinion.
As far as better options like the HK45 I cannot believe that is the case. Though I have not held one by the looks of it, it is similar to other DA autos as in a large grip, bad ergonomics, and a long double action trigger pull for the first shot.
I have shot many pistols over my life and nothing has the pointability or shootability as a 1911.
You also have to keep in mind the 1911s the military have been using are pretty old and have been rebuilt and rebuilt time after time. I have also heard the M9 fared pretty bad in the desert and that coupled with the fact it is chambered in the 9mm Luger gave it a bad reputation.
So while everyone is entitled to their opinion I am going to continue to believe what the USMC determined to be the best option, the Colt M45
Nothing shoots as sweet as a well built 1911 and nothing is more reliable. If there was a better option the 1911 would not dominate almost all handgun shooting sports.
 
#4 ·
I have to completely disagree with this opinion.
As far as better options like the HK45 I cannot believe that is the case. Though I have not held one by the looks of it, it is similar to other DA autos as in a large grip, bad ergonomics, and a long double action trigger pull for the first shot.
I have shot many pistols over my life and nothing has the pointability or shootability as a 1911.
You also have to keep in mind the 1911s the military have been using are pretty old and have been rebuilt and rebuilt time after time. I have also heard the M9 fared pretty bad in the desert and that coupled with the fact it is chambered in the 9mm Luger gave it a bad reputation.
So while everyone is entitled to their opinion I am going to continue to believe what the USMC determined to be the best option, the Colt M45
Nothing shoots as sweet as a well built 1911 and nothing is more reliable. If there was a better option the 1911 would not dominate almost all handgun shooting sports.
"Nothing more reliable"??? I love 1911's but that thing pretty much failed every test they gave it. Have you read the test?

I'm glad they still use G19's
 
#5 ·
In case anyone wants a read full of fail


TEST REPORT FOR THE CQBP BID SAMPLES, PHASE II
1. SUMMARY
This test report summarizes testing conducted from 24 May - 28 July, 2011 at Quantico, VA,
in support of the Close Quarters Battle Pistol (CQBP) program. The objective of this test was
to continue the verification of Colt CQBP bid samples that had been started during the previous
Phase I testing and Limited User Evaluation.
The following events were conducted as part of this test effort:
· System Reliability
· Dispersion
· Compatibility with current M45 magazines
· Functionality in various orientations
· Functionality in adverse environmental conditions
All testing was completed, and the results can be found in the body of this report.

2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 PURPOSE
The intent of the Close Quarters Battle Pistol (CQBP) Bid Samples, Phase II testing was to
evaluate bid samples submitted in response to solicitation number M67854-11-R-1006.
2.2 SCOPE
This report summarizes the information collected on Colt’s bid samples (Proposal B) by the
Ordnance Test Facility during the CQBP Phase II testing. This test event was conducted at
Quantico, VA, from 24 May - 28 July, 2011.
2.3 ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS
CQBP – Close Quarters Battle Pistol
DFD – Double Feed
DoD – Department of Defense
DODIC – Department Of Defense Identification Code
FEJ – Failure to Eject
FFD – Failure to Feed
FSR – Failure of Slide to Lock to the Rear
FTC – Failure to Chamber
FTL – Failure to Lock
FXT – Failure to Extract
IAW – In Accordance With
IW – Infantry Weapons
MCSC – Marine Corps Systems Command
OTF – Ordnance Test Facility
OTH – Other Failure
PM – Program Manager
SLR – Slide Locked to the Rear
TP – Test Plan
TR – Test Report
UUT – Unit Under Test

Failure Definition:
A failure is any of the following, when attributable to the weapon:
1. A stoppage in weapon function
2. A failure to stop firing when the trigger is released
3. A malfunction where the weapon does not operate in accordance with design intent
(including failure of the slide to lock to the rear on an empty magazine)
4. A visually observed crack in the slide or barrelwhile following prescribed immediate action procedures.

Class II. A failure that may be operator clearable requiring more than 10 seconds. Only the
equipment and tools issued with the weapon may be used to clear the weapon.

Class III A failure of a severe nature. The failure cannot be corrected by an operator because
it requires higher level of maintenance or the use of tools and parts that the operator is not
authorized to carry on his person.

3. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
The following documents are referenced in this report:
a. TP/11/PM-IW/001 – Test Procedure for the Close Quarters Battle Pistol (CQBP) Bid
Samples, Phase II, 1 Dec 2010
b. TR/11/OTF/002 – Test Report for the Close Quarters Battle Pistol (CQBP), Proposal “B”
Bid Samples, 12 Jan 2011
c. MIL-STD-1913 – Dimensioning of Accessory Mounting Rail for Small Arms Weapons,
3 Feb 1995
d. Army TOP 3-2-045 – Automatic Weapons, Machineguns, Hand and Shoulder Weapons,
17 Sep 2007
e. Colt’s Model O Armorer’s Manual

4. TEST LIMITATIONS AND DEVIATIONS

4.1 TEST LIMITATIONS
a. Due to cracks which developed in the pistol slides during Reliability Testing, that test
was not able to be completed as planned. Testing was planned for 15,000 rounds per
pistol, but stopped early at 12,000 rounds.
b. The available UID reader during Indoctrination could not read the UID labels.
c. Time and resource constraints required us to utilize E-Labs in Fredericksburg, VA, for
the sand/dust chamber needed for the Blowing Sand/Dust Test. Due to ammunition
regulations and safety concerns, ammunition was not placed in the sand/dust chamber as
originally planned.
d. Some of the chemical substances for the Chemical Compatibility testing were not
available to use.
4.2 DEVIATIONS
a. Trigger pulls at 3,000 rounds during Reliability Testing were not measured.
b. Instead of using spare magazines during Dispersion Testing, magazines labeled #1 for
each pistol were used.
c. Due to repetitive failures of the trigger to reset during firing, one pistol only fired 28
rounds instead of the planned 120 rounds for the Salt Fog Test.
d. Pistols were immersed in the salt water solution during the Salt Water Test in Condition 3
instead of Condition 2
e. The pistols placed in the sand/dust chamber for the Blowing Sand/Dust Test were not
loaded, and no ammunition was exposed to the sand/dust environment. After the pistols
and magazines were taken to the range, they were then loaded with ammunition.
f. Decontaminating agents DS2 and STB were not available, so they were not used in the
Chemical Compatibility test. Instead of submersing the non-metallic components in
RSDL and Insect Repellant, these chemicals were liberally applied to the exterior of the
non-metallic components.

5. TEST EVENTS
5.1 INDOCTRINATION AND TECHNICAL INSPECTION AND BASELINE
Ten new pistols were received by Colt for the Phase II test effort. These new pistols were
assigned Unit Under Test (UUT) designations of 11B11 through 11B20. The new pistols were
used for the majority of Phase II testing, however some of the original pistols (11B01 through
11B10) were used in specific test events (identified in individual test sections).
5.1.1 Indoctrination and Initial Inspection
The Indoctrination and Initial Inspections for the original 10 UUTs was conducted during Phase
I CQBP testing. The results are recorded in TR/11/OTF/002, Test Report for the Close Quarters
Battle Pistol (CQBP), Proposal “B” Bid Samples. Indoctrination and Initial Inspections for the
updated 10 UUTs is recorded here.
5.1.1.1 Procedure
The new UUTs were inspected for any physical changes from the original UUTs.
5.1.1.2 Results
The new UUTs that Colt provided were mostly the same as the original UUTs, but they
incorporated the following changes:
· Plunger tube. This was modified in order to ensure the plunger tubes would remain
securely attached for a longer duration.
· Accessory rail profile. This was changed in order to meet the dimensions from
MIL-STD-1913.

The new accessory rail profile met MIL-STD-1913 specifications for the dimensions that we
were able to measure with calipers, except for the .617-.010 dimension (see Figure 2). All
the UUTs measured between .618 and .620 for that dimension. This may have been due to
the coating Colt used on their pistols. The AN/PEQ-6As that we mounted were initially tight
and difficult to slide on the rail. After multiple times on and off, the coating appeared to wear
enough that the AN/PEQ-6As would then slide easier.

5.1.2 System Characteristics
This inspection was conducted to verify system characteristics of the new UUTs.
5.1.2.1 Procedure
The UUTs were function checked in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. The
UUTs were also inspected for the presence and/or functioning of the following components:
· Magazine
· Thumb and grip safeties
· Magazine release
· Slide catch
· Iron sights
· Lanyard loop
· Magazine well beveling
· Ridged surface on hammer
· Texturing on slide
5.1.2.2 Results
All UUTs passed the function checks. All inspected components were included and operated the
same as the original UUTs. See TR/11/OTF/002 for more detailed information.

5.1.3 Weight
This inspection was conducted to verify the weight of the new UUTs.
5.1.3.1 Procedure
All of the new UUTs were weighed with an empty magazine.
5.1.3.2 Results
The UUTs weighed 2.5 pounds.
5.1.4 Weapon Identification / Marking
This inspection was conducted to verify UUT markings.
5.1.4.1 Procedure
The UUTs were inspected for the presence and location of UID markings, manufacturer
identification, nomenclature, serial numbers, “U.S.” marking, and proof markings. We
attempted to read the UID markings and verify it matched the serial number on the UUT.
5.1.4.2 Results
The UUTs contained all of the required markings. The UID markings, serial numbers,
and “U.S.” marking were located on the receiver. The manufacturer’s name and UUT
nomenclature were located on the side of the slide. We were not able to read the UID marking
with our UID reader. This could be a problem with the reader as it is an older version.
5.2 PERFORMANCE TESTS
5.2.1 Magazine Compatibility
This test was conducted to determine the compatibility of the UUTs with the current M45
magazine (NSN: 1005-01-373-2774). This test was conducted on UUTs 11B16, 11B17, and
11B18. A total of 1,500 rounds (500 per UUT) were fired for this test.
5.2.1.1 Test Procedure
One shooter was assigned to each UUT and fired 500 rounds at a rate of 2-3 magazines per
minute. Six M45 magazines were used with each UUT. All UUTs were cleaned after firing 300
rounds.
5.2.1.2 Results
The UUTs functioned with the current M45 magazine. All rounds were fired from each UUT
with the following malfunctions:
· 11B16 – Five Failures to Feed (Class I)
· 11B17 – Three Failures to Feed (Class I) and one Double Feed (Class I)
· 11B18 – One Slide Locked to the Rear (Class I)
Overall, the Mean Rounds Between Class I Failures was 150 with the current M45 magazines

5.2.2 Orientation
This test was conducted to determine the reliable functioning of the UUTs when fired from the
following orientations: top-down, right-side up, and left-side up. This test was conducted on
UUTs 11B16, 11B17, and 11B18. A total of 315 rounds (105 per UUT) were fired for this test.
5.2.2.1 Test Procedure
One shooter fired 35 rounds through each UUT in each of the following orientations: top-down,
right-side up, and left-side up.
5.2.2.2 Results
All rounds were fired in each orientation with no issues or malfunctions experienced.
5.2.3 IUID Inspection
This test was performed after all environmental tests were completed to determine the continued
readability of the 2D Data Matrix. This test was conducted on UUTs 11B16, 11B17, 11B18,
11B19, and 11B20.
5.2.3.1 Test Procedure
After all of the environmental tests had been completed, we attempted to read the UID markings
on the UUTs with a UID reader.
5.2.3.2 Results
Except for some labels that were damaged when removing ice during the icing/freezing rain test
(see 5.4.3.2), the UID labels still appeared in good condition.

5.3 ENDURANCE TEST
5.3.1 System Reliability
This test was conducted to determine the reliability of the UUTs at standard ambient temperature
(77 ± 18°F), as well as cold (-25°F) and hot (120°F). New bid samples were used for this
test. This test was conducted on UUTs 11B11, 11B12, 11B14, and 11B15. Originally, 11B13
started this test, but it experienced an unusual failure early on which led to the pistol being
unserviceable (see below for more details). It was removed from this test, and 11B15 took its
place. A total of 48,000 rounds (12,000 per UUT) were fired for this test for record. This test
was scheduled for 60,000 rounds total, but cracked slides led to an early finish to the test. See
results in 5.3.1.2 for more information.
5.3.1.1 Test Procedure
Three shooters rotated through the UUTs firing the following:
· 5,000 rounds at standard ambient (77 ± 18°F)
· 1,000 rounds at -25°F
· 3,000 rounds at 120°F, and
· 3,000 additional rounds at standard ambient (77 ± 18°F)
Shooting was conducted at a rate of 2-3 magazines per minute, and cleaning of the UUTs was
performed every 300 rounds. Each UUT was assigned 22 magazines for this test, and the 22
magazines were loaded twice during each 300 round firing cycle. UUTs were conditioned at
the hot and cold temperatures for a minimum of 3 hours prior to firing, and then reconditioned
if removed from the environment (e.g. for cleaning during cold firing). AN/PEQ-6A Integrated
Laser Light Pointers were mounted to the UUTs 50% of the time. They were mounted/removed
at every cleaning cycle. Trigger pull and dispersion were measured every 3,000 rounds (see
5.3.2 and 5.3.3), and Non-Destructive Testing was performed prior to firing and after 6,000
rounds fired (see 5.3.4).
5.3.1.2 Results
UUT 11B13 only fired 600 rounds before it became unserviceable due to its recoil spring
binding with something internally and not allowing the slide to cycle. The spring binding during
operation of the UUT caused the recoil spring to receive a significant permanent bend in it (see
Figure 3). This also caused the recoil spring guide to become damaged to the point of being
unusable (see Figure 4). No spare recoil spring guides were provided by Colt, so a decision was
made to remove 11B13 from this test and to replace it with 11B15. The rounds fired from UUT
11B13 are not included in the results of this test.

UUTs 11B11, 11B12, 11B14, and 11B15 each fired 12,000 rounds before being deadlined due to
visible safety-critical cracks found in the slides (see Figure 5 through Figure 9). Each slide had
cracks in the same location, but they varied in size.

The reliability results presented here are preliminary and subject to failure scoring conducted
by the source selection evaluation board. Detailed information on all reliability failures and
preliminary scoring by the test activity is provided in Appendix A: Reliability Test Data. The
numbers presented in the tables below are based on this preliminary scoring.
Table 1. Total Failures
Class I Class II Class III
84 2 18
Table 2. Class I Failures by Type
SLR FEJ FFD FTC
15 1 60 8
SLR = Slide Locked to the Rear
FEJ = Failure to Eject
FFD = Failure to Feed
FTC = Failure to Chamber
Table 3. Class I Failures by UUT
11B11 11B12 11B14 11B15
3 15 26 40
Below is a summary of broken or cracked components produced as a result of this reliability test:
· 6 broken slide stops
· 5 broken ejectors (legs sheared)
· 4 cracked slides
· 3 broken thumb safeties
· 2 broken front sights
· 1 cracked frame at the accessory rail
· 1 broken extractor
· 1 broken plunger tube (legs sheared)

5.3.1.3 Test Observations
The following are some test observations made during the reliability test effort.
1) Roughly 10 times more Class I failures were experienced when no accessory was
mounted to the UUTs vs. when the AN/PEQ-6As were mounted.
2) Operators noted that the recoil from the UUTs was noticeably sharper and/or heavier than
the recoil from the current MEU(SOC) .45 pistol. Most attributed this to a weak recoil
spring.
3) There were a few instances of UUTs with high Class I failure rates that were corrected by
replacing the recoil spring with a new one (UUTs 11B14 and 11B15).
4) After firing 150 rounds, the recoil springs reduced in length from 7.32 inches to 6.46
inches. After 450 rounds, the recoil springs measured approximately 6.38 inches in
length. After 4,500 rounds, the recoil springs measured approximately 5.94 inches in
length.
5) On multiple occasions when replacing the recoil spring with a new one, the new recoil
spring would kink and bind the slide so that it would not cycle (similar to what occurred
with UUT 11B13). Pulling out the new spring would reveal that it had received a
permanent bend as a result of this binding (see Figure 10). Depending on the severity
of the set in the spring, some of the “new” recoil springs had to be replaced again
without ever firing a round so that the slide could move without binding. The assembly
procedure used by the personnel replacing the recoil springs was verified to be as
specified in Colt’s provided Armorer’s manual, so this was not attributed to operator
error.
6) After a few thousand rounds through each UUT, grip screws began to loosen regularly
and required retightening. In addition, three grip screw bushings had stripped out
completely from the receiver frame by the time the UUTs had completed their 12,000
rounds fired.
7) Eighteen AN/PEQ-6As broke during this test. The UUTs with the highest Class I failure
rates also tended to have the highest rates for breaking AN/PEQ-6As.
8) The UUTs with the highest Class I failure rates had the most severe slide cracks.
9) UUT 11B12 had a crack which developed in the receiver at the accessory rail (see Figure
11). This crack was discovered after firing 9,000 rounds. The crack was determined not
to be safety critical at its current length, so firing continued with this UUT.
10) Recoil spring plugs on three of the UUTs were cracked by 12,000 rounds (see Figure 12
through Figure 14). The cracks had no apparent effect on the performance of the UUTs
to this point.
11) Magazines were filled 80 times each during this test, and none were replaced due to
unserviceability.

5.3.2 Trigger Pull
Trigger pull testing was conducted periodically during system reliability testing in order to
ensure proper trigger operation.
5.3.2.1 Test Procedure
Three trigger pull measurements were taken for each UUT at initial inspection, at 6,000 rounds,
and at 9,000 rounds into the System Reliability test. Trigger pull measurements were planned to
be taken at 3,000 rounds as well, but those measurements were missed.
5.3.2.2 Results
Each trigger pull measured was within the specification of 5 ± 1 lbs. Trigger pull measurements
are recorded in Appendix B: Trigger Pull Measurements.
5.3.3 Dispersion
Dispersion was tested every 3,000 rounds during system reliability testing in order to gage the
life of the barrels in relation to accuracy.
5.3.3.1 Test Procedure
Five 5-shot groups were fired at targets located 25 yards out. The vertical and horizontal
extreme spreads of the shot groups were measured and recorded.
5.3.3.2 Results
The average vertical and horizontal extreme spreads during this test are shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Average Vertical and Horizontal Spreads
Rounds
Fired
Average
Vertical
Spread
(in.)
Average
Horizontal
Spread
(in.)
Initial 3.2 2.5
3,000 3.0 2.9
6,000 3.0 3.4
9,000 2.7 4.0
Complete vertical and horizontal extreme spread measurements are shown in Appendix C:
Dispersion Measurements.
5.3.4 Non-Destructive Testing/Inspection
Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) was performed prior to conducting endurance firing and after all
UUTs had fired 6,000 rounds. This test was performed in order to monitor for cracks in critical
pistol components.
5.3.4.1 Test Procedure
All UUTs were cleaned, and the barrels, slides and receivers were inspected with a Magnaflux
machine. All components were visually inspected for cracks and other visible problems.
5.3.4.2 Results
At 0 and 6,000 rounds, no cracks were discovered when performing NDT on the endurance
UUTs. However, cracks were visibly discovered after more rounds had been fired (see 5.3.1.2
and 5.3.1.3).
5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL TESTS
5.4.1 Rain
This test was conducted to determine the effects of heavy rainfall on UUT performance. This
test was conducted on UUTs 11B16, 11B17, and 11B18.
5.4.1.1 Test Procedure
Three UUTs were fired in a rain (water spray) environment, with the water spray falling at a
rate of approximately 4.0 in/hr. Fourteen magazines were filled with A475 ammunition and
subjected to the water spray during firing of each UUT. The sequence of water spray exposure
and firing is shown in Table 5. The UUTs were wiped down between firing cycles, and they
were cleaned after the second firing cycle (196 rounds fired per UUT).

Table 5. Water Spray Test Sequence
Test Condition Exposure
Time,
min
UUT Horizontal (top facing up) in
Condition 3
12
Fire 14 fully filled magazines 6
UUT Horizontal in Condition 3 12
Fire 14 fully filled magazines 6
UUT Muzzle-Down in Condition 3 12
Turn UUT Horizontal (top facing up),
and fire 14 fully filled magazines
6
UUT Muzzle-Down in Condition 3 12
Turn UUT Horizontal, and fire 14
fully filled magazines
6
5.4.1.2 Results
All rounds were fired from each UUT with the following malfunctions:
· 11B16 – One Failure to Feed (Class I)
· 11B17 – No failures
· 11B18 – One Failure to Chamber (Class I)
5.4.2 Salt Water
This test was conducted to determine the effects of immersion of the UUTs in salt water on
subsequent firing. This test was conducted on UUTs 11B16, 11B17, and 11B18.
5.4.2.1 Test Procedure
Three UUTs were loaded with a full magazine and immersed in a salt water solution (5% salt by
weight) for one minute. They were then drained for 5 seconds, the slide was racked in order to
chamber a round, and all rounds from the magazine were fired.
5.4.2.2 Results
All rounds were fired from each UUT with no issues or malfunctions.
5.4.3 Icing/Freezing Rain
This test was conducted to determine the operability of the UUTs after exposure to icing
produced by freezing rain. This test was conducted on UUTs 11B03, 11B06, and 11B07.
5.4.3.1 Test Procedure
Three UUTs had their muzzles and ejection ports taped to prevent ice accumulation inside
the barrel. They were loaded with one completely filled magazine and then placed in a 0°F
environment for 4 hours. Then the air temperature was raised to 20°F, and the UUTs were
sprayed with a light water spray until approximately 3mm of ice had accumulated on the top

surface. The muzzle tape was removed, and ice was removed from the UUTs enough to allow a
round to be chambered and the remaining rounds fired from each UUT.
5.4.3.2 Results
All pistols required the use of a combat knife to remove sufficient ice to free the slide from
the receiver and allow the hammer to move. After sufficient ice was removed, the UUTs were
functioned with the following issues:
· 11B03 – Three Class I failures were experienced during firing (Failures to Chamber).
· 11B06 – The UUT would not fire because it had been incorrectly assembled without
the Trigger Bar Lever (a series 80 part) during a previous cleaning. The Test Director
believed the UUT would have fired had it been assembled properly.
· 11B07 – All rounds fired. No issues.
During ice removal with the combat knife, the UID labels on the UUTs were damaged (see
Figure 15). This UID damage was not directly attributable to the icing environment.

5.4.4 Blowing Sand/Dust
This test was conducted to determine the effects of blowing sand and dust on weapon
performance. This test was conducted on UUTs 11B16, 11B17, and 11B18.
5.4.4.1 Test Procedure
Three UUTs along with 4 magazines each were subjected to a blowing sand/dust environment
as described in Army TOP 3-2-045, paragraph 4.5.4.b(4). The UUTs and magazines were not
loaded during sand/dust exposure. After exposure, the UUTs and magazines were transported to
the firing range, the magazines were filled, and the UUTs fired all of the rounds (28 rounds per
UUT).
5.4.4.2 Results
All rounds were fired from each UUT with the following issues:
· 11B16 – One Failure to Feed (Class I) and eleven Failures to Chamber (Class I)
· 11B17 – One Failure to Chamber (Class I)

5.4.5 Mud
This test was conducted to determine the effects of mud on UUT performance. This test was
conducted on UUTs 11B03, 11B06, and 11B07.
5.4.5.1 Test Procedure
A mud mixture was created in accordance with Army TOP 3-2-045, paragraph 4.5.5.b(1). Three
UUTs were loaded with one full magazine, and their muzzles were taped. The UUTs were
then immersed in the mud mixture for 60 seconds, removed from the mixture, and wiped with
bare hands to remove excess mud. The UUTs then fired all of the rounds from the magazine (7
rounds). After thoroughly cleaning the UUTs, this process was repeated, except that the UUTs
were allowed to dry for 4 hours after being immersed in the mud mixture. They then fired a full
magazine of rounds (7 rounds).
5.4.5.2 Results
All rounds were fired from each UUT with no issues or failures.
5.4.6 Salt Fog
This test was conducted to determine the effects of salt fog on UUT performance. This test was
conducted on UUTs 11B10, 11B19, and 11B20.
5.4.6.1 Test Procedure
Three UUTs were conditioned to a temperature of 95°F for 2 hours. They were loaded with an
empty magazine, and the slide was placed in the forward position. The UUTs were placed in
the salt fog chamber with one UUT on its right side, one on its left side, and one in the upright
position. The salt fog chamber was operated in accordance with MIL-STD-810G, Method 509.4,
and the UUTs exposed to the salt fog for 24 hours. The UUTs were then removed from the salt
fog environment for 24 hours and stored at ambient temperature. The UUTs then were subjected
to another 24 hour salt fog environment followed by 24 hours outside of the salt fog chamber.
The UUTs were taken to the firing range, and they fired 120 rounds each.
5.4.6.2 Results
After completing the salt fog exposures, the UUTs only showed significant amounts of corrosion
on the iron sights and on the exposed portion of the magazines. The rest of the UUTs showed
little to no corrosion.
All rounds were fired from each UUT with no issues or malfunctions, except for UUT 11B10.
This UUT experienced a failure of the trigger to reset with every round fired. The shooter had to
hit the bottom of the magazine in order to get the trigger to reset for the next round. Because of
this consistent failure, firing of UUT 11B10 was stopped after 28 rounds had been fired.
5.4.7 Unpackaged Drop
This test was conducted to determine the safe functioning of the UUTs after being dropped in
multiple orientations from a 1.7 meter height onto a smooth concrete surface at temperatures
ranging from -25Âş Fahrenheit (F) to 120Âş F. This test was conducted on UUTs 11B10, 11B19

and 11B20.
5.4.7.1 Test Procedure
Three UUTs were loaded with a primed .45 cartridge (that was otherwise empty), and then
conditioned at standard ambient temperature (77 ± 18°F) for 4 hours. They were then dropped
from the following orientations:
· Standard firing orientation
· Muzzle up
· Muzzle down
· Muzzle up – 45° angle
· Muzzle down – 45° angle
The UUTs then fired the chambered primed round.
This drop procedure was repeated after conditioning the UUTs to 125°F and -25°F. After all
drops were complete, the UUTs each fired one magazine full of ammunition (7 rounds) to ensure
continued functionality
5.4.7.2 Results
The primed rounds did not fire during any drops of this test. After all drops had been completed,
the primed rounds were fired and 7 live rounds were fired from each UUT with no issues. There
was a common jam that occurred in many of the drop orientations. The left side thumb safety
would pull out just enough for the slide to come out of battery and jam on the thumb safety (see
Figure 16). This jam was operator correctable, and the UUTs remained functional.

5.4.8 Chemical Resistance
This test was conducted to determine the effects of common battlefield chemicals on nonmetallic
components of the UUTs. This test was conducted on UUTs 11B11-11B20.
5.4.8.1 Test Procedure
The pistol grips were identified as the only non-metallic components of the UUTs. The
dimensions and weights of the grips were recorded, and then one set of grips (left and right side)
from each UUT were submersed in the following chemical solutions for 8 hours:
1) Reactive Skin Decontamination Lotion (RSDL)
2) Cleaning compound, solvent; MIL-L-372B Bore cleaner
3) Dry cleaning solvent; P-D-680, type I or equivalent (naphtha solvent)
4) Lubricant, semi-fluid, automatic weapons; MIL-L-46000B (LSA)
5) Lubricant, cleaner, and preservative; MIL-L-63460A (CLP)
6) Lubricating oil, weapons; MIL-L-14107 (LAW)
7) Turbine fuel (JP-8); MIL-T-83133
8) Insect repellent; 0-I-503E
9) Decontaminating agent
 
#6 ·
Yes, I have read the test. Were you aware they were using proof rounds for the test in order to accelerate wear? That was the word.
I have a few Colts that have passed the 20,000 round mark each with zero pistol related failures and these pistols have not been babied. As far as pistols go I do like the G19 but it cannot hold a candle to a Colt M45, not even in the same league.
How would you expect a Glock to fair in this same test?
 
#8 · (Edited)
Put a Glock in that same test and it would have embarrassed the colt.

I'm glad you own colts that work, sad to say that these don't run for $hit
and you can back this up with a reference I am sure?

As for the M45 I am closing in on a 1000 rounds with zero failures. I have abused this pistol in water and mud as well as have shot a variety of rounds through it
So, what I am gathering by your post is you are speculating.
My gunsmith has a few Colts with the factory receiver and slide passing 100,000 rounds and you might also reference some of 1911Tuners posts on the reliability of a 1911.

I have had more issues with my Glock 17 GEN 4 than my Colt M45.
 
#11 ·
and you can back this up with a reference I am sure?

As for the M45 I am closing in on a 1000 rounds with zero failures. I have abused this pistol in water and mud as well as have shot a variety of rounds through it
So, what I am gathering by your post is you are speculating.
My gunsmith has a few Colts with the factory receiver and slide passing 100,000 rounds and you might also reference some of 1911Tuners posts on the reliability of a 1911.

I have had more issues with my Glock 17 GEN 4 than my Colt M45.
This thread was making me not want a 1911 that im so close to getting I can taste it. Thanks for your post it brought me back to reality. Does your G17 shoot spent cases up at 12 o'clock into your face?
 
#12 ·
This thread was making me not want a 1911 that im so close to getting I can taste it. Thanks for your post it brought me back to reality. Does your G17 shoot spent cases up at 12 o'clock into your face?
My G17 kicks brass EVERYWHERE and has been prone to limp wristing with weaker shooters. I have not had any serious stoppages but it is no where near as accurate as any of my Colt 1911s and it does not shoot as nice.
 
#13 ·
Keep in mind that the 1911's that the public are getting are not the same as the ones the Marines are getting. Also keep in mind that Glocks are an armour's dream. For a firearm that holds half the ammo it needs to run like a top, which it doesn't. So it sounds like best case these run as good as a Glock or other modern polymer double stack firearm. Except they hold half the ammo. Worst case these things just don't perform. And still hold half the ammo. Which is what the test shows. Oh and those things cost 3 or 4 times as much as a Glock or M&P
 
#14 ·
Keep in mind that the 1911's that the public are getting are not the same as the ones the Marines are getting. Also keep in mind that Glocks are an armour's dream. For a firearm that holds half the ammo it needs to run like a top, which it doesn't. So it sounds like best case these run as good as a Glock or other modern polymer double stack firearm. Except they hold half the ammo. Worst case these things just don't perform. And still hold half the ammo. Which is what the test shows. Oh and those things cost 3 or 4 times as much as a Glock or M&P
The biggest difference between the issued M45 and to the public is serial number.
They are just as reliable as any Glock and I can attest that that as I have been shooting Glocks and 1911s for a long time but reliability is not the only deciding factor.
Colt 1911s are more accurate, much better ergonomics, much better triggers, and have a better pointability. Those are all factors. Capacity on the M45 is limited to 7 rounds but you have to also keep in mind this is a backup weapon to a Marine carrying an M7 and at least 7 round 30 round magazines.

As far as budget, I don't see a problem spending a little more on a better pistol.

If you were to run 1000 proof rounds through a Glock it would shake it to pieces, from Glock itself the receiver is expected to last 60,000 rounds from standard pressure rounds.
 
#16 ·
I'm sure this argument can go on for years. I have owned and shot the following over the last five years. Springfield TRP, Kimber Desert Warrior, Taurus PT911, SIG Tac Ops..... all in 1911 platform. I have yet to find one that could cycle 100 rnds straight without some failure. On the other hand I have ran several hundreds of rounds through H&K, Glock and SIG P220's without as much as a hickup, put them away dirty and run them again next weekend just as hard. 1911's are beautiful and works of art, but if my butt is in a pucker..... I want something else. It's all about confidence in the tool you have chosen. If my experience with the 1911 had been different I'm sure I would have another opinion.
 
#17 ·
Man if you can't get through 100 rounds without a problem out of all of those 1911s I can understand why you would be discouraged.
Rarely can I get through a match of practice session under 300 rounds. I clean my Colts ever now and then. You also have to keep in mind so many manufactures have sought to "improve" on the 1911 and have made it worse.
Kimbers are a prime example of that. I have even reviewed a few Kimbers for m1911.org that began to choke before 100 rounds.
 
#18 ·
It's a shame really, cause they truly are the most beautiful handgun. The fit, feel and finish is hard to beat.
 
#19 · (Edited)
There are a lot of interesting assumptions being made here, mostly related to torture test failures. A torture test is about as useful in "proving" a weapon as running a pickup truck around a racetrack at redline to see how long it takes the engine to blow. Interesting, but essentially irrelevant. Torture tests are designed to break the gun in worst-case scenarios.

It also assumes that Marines neglect their equipment...equipment that they depend on for their lives and for completing their mission...ans would allow them to fall into such a sorry state.

No Marine worth his Class A's would do that...not even with a secondary weapon. Not even with a K-Bar knife. I suggest that the OP do a hitch with the Marines and let Gunny find so much as a speck of dust on the outside of a barrel...and let us know how that works out for ya. What say you, Hunter?

And, yes...I have a little first-hand experience with lugging a 1911 pistol around in a filthy, dangerous environment. Even though as an 0311, I wasn't "authorized" to even have one...like so many others, one magically appeared in my list of "must haves" not long after I hit the ground in the land of rice paddies and sampans and Uncle Ho's Ghosts. I never had a problem keeping the early issue M14 running...or the later M16...and on the three occasions that I needed to use the pistol, it worked just fine. The proof is sitting here typing this up.

And a final point...I noticed that a good many of the failures noted were magazine related. For the record...without naming names...I question the Marines' choice in duty magazines. Those are fine for playing "Let's go pretend we're in a gunfight" on nice Sunday afternoons at the range...but not for men who are going in harm's way. 'Nuff said.

Semper Fi, Dogs...and oorah.
 
#23 ·
MARSOC carries the glock 19s. As I said in the other thread about this pistol, I've seen quite a few MARSOC guys in te chow hall with the new colt, but what I've noticed is its usually the officers and higher ups with the 1911s. The CSOs for the most part carry the Glock 19. I absolutely agree with te OP. personally, given the choice I would take the 19 and day over the colt. Smaller, lighter, higher capacity and more reliable (IMO).
 
#24 ·
MARSOC has them. Don't know how often they are carried, but its a good backup to have in the arms room.
OK, thanks. When I was affiliated with Recon (back in the way-before-MARSOC days) we used the 1911. It would make sense as MARSOC budget is partially separate from the rest of the MC. I agree with you, and Derek8404, had I the choice I would carry the Glock (17, though).
 
#26 ·
There are a lot of interesting assumptions being made here, mostly related to torture test failures. A torture test is about as useful in "proving" a weapon as running a pickup truck around a racetrack at redline to see how long it takes the engine to blow. Interesting, but essentially irrelevant. Torture tests are designed to break the gun in worst-case scenarios.

It also assumes that Marines neglect their equipment...equipment that they depend on for their lives and for completing their mission...ans would allow them to fall into such a sorry state.

No Marine worth his Class A's would do that...not even with a secondary weapon. Not even with a K-Bar knife. I suggest that the OP do a hitch with the Marines and let Gunny find so much as a speck of dust on the outside of a barrel...and let us know how that works out for ya. What say you, Hunter?

And, yes...I have a little first-hand experience with lugging a 1911 pistol around in a filthy, dangerous environment. Even though as an 0311, I wasn't "authorized" to even have one...like so many others, one magically appeared in my list of "must haves" not long after I hit the ground in the land of rice paddies and sampans and Uncle Ho's Ghosts. I never had a problem keeping the early issue M14 running...or the later M16...and on the three occasions that I needed to use the pistol, it worked just fine. The proof is sitting here typing this up.

And a final point...I noticed that a good many of the failures noted were magazine related. For the record...without naming names...I question the Marines' choice in duty magazines. Those are fine for playing "Let's go pretend we're in a gunfight" on nice Sunday afternoons at the range...but not for men who are going in harm's way. 'Nuff said.

Semper Fi, Dogs...and oorah.
LMAO, Do a little research and see who the OP is and you will find that he was an active duty Marine. Actually one you might even heard of. :)