posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:26 AM
I've owned a Cold Mark IV Series 70 (the last of the single-action Colts), and thought it was a bad gun. I got it with exactly seven rounds through
the barrel, and found out that about every fifth shell ejected would fly back and hit me in the nose (which is not conducive to keeping a sight
picture!); and I'd keyhole at least one round in a box of 50 cartridges. So I ended up getting the breech throated, and get the ejector port
enlarged, get a new barrel bushing so the gun woul shoot in the general direction I was aiming it, and finally get a set of tritium sights. My
"bargain" $300 Colt ended up costing me almost $600!
If the Army procures a .45 ACP gun equivalent to the "stock" MK IV Colt, I think they'll be getting as piece of junk.
I've never owned a Beretta #92, but I have owned the Glock 17 and the Ruger P-85, both of which I thing would be more cost-effective then the
For the regular grunt as opposed to the elite guys, I think a 9mm would be every bit as good and would have tremendous logistical advantages over the
.45 ACP gun.
For the elite weenies who don't mind lugging around that extra mass and need the suppressed round (obviously, a .45 ACP round can be suppressed way
easier than most 9 mm rounds because the .45 is subsonic), then go for the old slab-sides.
FWIW, I got rid of my autoloaders ten years ago and the only handguns my family have now are .357 revolvers, but that's a personal choice.