I have the same gun...bought it used from a friend over 20 years ago for $250.00:)

No brass gnawing in all that time.

DARISC, I think you are on the right track.

I've owned a Colt Combat Commander .45 (steel version, heavier than the Commander) for 28 years...never an issue, and it's the one I'd reach for if necessary.

Not an RFP or RFQ, but I found an article from Air Force Times:

By Bryant Jordan - bmjordan@militarytimes.com
Posted : May 21, 2007

For five hours, Staff Sgt. Travis Cosby had fought with insurgents for control of a bridge crossing the Euphrates River, but still they kept coming.

As Cosby tried to call in an airstrike, the enemy suddenly appeared so close to his M113 armored personnel carrier that he couldn’t point his .50-cal machine gun low enough to take them out.

He drew his 9mm and emptied a magazine — 15 rounds — into the enemy, killing at least two.

For his actions that day in Iraq in April 2003, Cosby received the Silver Star.

Machine guns, M4 carbines — whatever — sometimes a handgun is what you need. And it’s got to be reliable and effective.

Those are the arguments behind the Air Force’s recent request for nearly $90 million to buy thousands of new handguns for its airmen. But not just new M9s, though the Air Force has acquired replacement 9mms routinely. The Air Force wants a .45-caliber handgun to replace the Defense Department-standard M9 its airmen have used for 20 years.

But while the blue-suit leadership hoped to start buying and fielding the larger-caliber gun as soon as it got the money in the current 2007 wartime supplemental budget, congressional negotiators kicked the .45 away from the Air Force’s reaching hand and — bang! — appropriated $5 million for a joint study on handgun requirements. If the switch is justified, officials hope to have the study done in time to include money for new handguns in the fiscal 2008 budget in the fall.

The Air Force has not said why it is moving unilaterally to introduce a .45 into its arsenal, though it has previously waited for and even taken part in joint and Army programs aimed at drafting new pistol requirements, only to see them come to nothing. Its attempt to expedite the purchase of its next handgun might also be due to the age of many of its M9s.

“Numerous M9s have failed during training,” said Brig. Gen. Mary Kay Hertog, director of Air Force Security Forces, “which led to recent purchases [of new Berettas] and made us aware that these older pistols may break in operational use.”

Another Air Force official, who requested anonymity, pointed out that the service “started taking delivery of the M9 in 1987. Over the course of two decades, there have been changes in technology. We don’t believe the M9 provides optimum lethality, nor does it provide sufficient reliability in austere environments.”

From the field, some talk less about technology and reliability in voicing a preference for a .45, and instead echo the arguments U.S. troops gave for wanting them more than 100 years ago during the Philippine Insurrection, when soldiers found that Moro warriors — fired up by religious zealotry — could take multiple hits from a .38-caliber Long Colt and keep charging.

Nothing says “stop” like a slug from a .45.

“We are authorized [to use] deadly force, and if you shoot someone with the current Beretta 9mm, of course you can kill them,” Senior Master Sgt. Paul W. Riffle, a security forces manager assigned to the International Zone Police in Baghdad told Air Force Times in May. “However, the Beretta 9mm does not have as much stopping power as larger caliber weapons such as the .45.”

Indeed, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley remarked during a House subcommittee hearing in February that when he travels into the combat theater, he carries a .357.

“If I have to pull a sidearm,” he said, “I really don’t want to mess [around].”

Wanted: bigger, deeper wounds

The Air Force is saying little about its delayed plans, but it described what it is looking for in a pair of requests for information from gun makers.

In an October 2006 request, it said the proposed weapon must come in standard and compact versions but fire a round that makes a larger, deeper hole than that made by a 9mm and penetrate at least 12 inches into human flesh. Preferred rounds are .40-caliber Smith & Wesson and .45-caliber Automatic Colt Pistol because they are already available within the Defense Department or could be acquired quickly.

In an April 16 request, the Air Force called for a handgun with a baseline caliber of .45 that could be reconfigured to fire other caliber ammunition.

Doug Wicklund, a curator at the National Firearms Museum in Fairfax, Va., said this is not an unusual specification. Previous versions of the .45, including the 1911 and 1911A models, had this capability, “so it could be reconfigured to .22 [caliber] for inexpensive exercises.”

“The gun would feel the same as the big gun, but you’re able to shoot less expensive ammunition,” Wicklund said.

The Air Force said its new handgun and magazines must operate in all climates and geographical areas. The pistol also must have a closed slide design to keep the barrel fully covered when not in use; this would require a redesign of the Beretta, whose slide has an opening that exposes part of the barrel all the time. Also, the handgun must be ergonomic with variable grip sizes, be configurable for night-aiming devices, be adaptable for a sound suppressor, and accommodate attachments such as a laser pointer or flashlight.

Magazines for the standard or full-size weapon should hold at least 10 rounds; the compact, at least eight. The weapon must weigh less than the current M9, empty or fully loaded. The M9 weighs 33.86 ounces with an empty magazine — about the same as a quart of milk — and 40.89 ounces fully loaded, according to Air Force documents.

Power versus quantity

So what’s the best handgun for airmen?

The Air Force’s official answer is the .45, evidenced by its go-it-alone bid to buy the weapon. From the field, some endorse the .45, others the 9mm because it’s easier for the widest range of airmen to learn to fire, and still others say it matters less which weapon the Air Force buys than it does buying what the other services use.

Riffle, in Baghdad, says the 9mm Beretta “is adequate; kind of like driving a Ford. ... However, since we are in the process of updating our war gear, I would like to see us driving a Cadillac.” And the .45 is the Caddy of handguns, he said.

The 9mm Beretta will kill, but for sheer stopping power a .45 is better, he said. “With our current fight in Iraq, it would be nice to know you will stop an insurgent the first time,” he wrote.

Although 1st Lt. Robert McGowan has his own .45, he believes “the majority of [airmen] would fare better with the current 9mm” because they’d find it more difficult to accurately fire a .45.

“Simple odds of accurately hitting a target are more important than the knock-down power/mass of the round,” said McGowan, who is deployed to Iraq with the 99th Security Forces Squadron.

While airmen can tick off the pros and cons of the .45 and the 9mm, the .45 had no real detractors, even among those who want to give the Beretta its due. A .45 means fewer rounds per magazine because the ammunition is larger than the 9mm — maybe 10 to 12 rounds versus 15. The larger caliber has more kinetic force, which is what gives the .45 its legendary wallop.

Today, troops are not encountering Moro tribesmen. Master Sgt. Darryl Miller, noncommissioned officer in charge for Combat Arms and Munitions, 820th Security Forces Group, Moody Air Force Base, Ga., said service members don’t usually go up against people too drugged up to know they’ve been hit — a criticism of a smaller round.

“There are reports of people in [theater] being shot with a 9mm, and it didn’t take them down,” said Miller, who personally favors the .45, “but what’s the reason it didn’t take them down? Did they shoot the person in the leg, shoot them in the abdomen? Or did they get good, solid hits in the chest and they kept on coming?”

Training is the key, he said. “We’re still teaching to shoot two or three times at a target ... and for shot placement. When you shoot a person, you shoot for the [chest] cavity.”

Increasingly, too, Miller said, the handgun has become a secondary weapon, with the rifle the primary weapon. “If [the sidearm] would be a primary weapon, I’d want as much ammo as possible,” he said, a nod to the 9mm. “If it’s a secondary weapon, do I really need to have that much [.45-caliber] stopping power?”

Tech. Sgt. Vernon Virtue, NCOIC for contingency operations with the 820th at Moody, said he does not have a preference, but believes the services would be wise to go with a joint handgun.

“In a combat situation ... if you’re deployed with the Army or the Marines, having to use someone else’s pistol, you’re already trained, using the same ammo they do,” he said. “Working off the same equipment makes life a lot easier.”

http://www.airforcetimes.com/issues/stories/0-AIRPAPER-2748823.php

Very interesting read. $5 million for a field study? Only the gubmint could waste money like that when they probably got all the guns and ammo donated by eager suppliers. Sheesh.

From the specs they list, my guess is they're gonna have to go with Glock or H&K in a rail version with Lasemax guide rods. Not cheap at all.

My heart sank when I read that...it just confirms what everyone suspects about DoD:(

I have been using Urgent and Compelling Needs Statements from the guys in the field to lean out the acquisition system and get stuff to the troops ASAP. It works.

If I could figure that out for UAV's, you'd think the AF would noodle it through for a f'ing pistol.

I'm still able to get the Army to sole source their contract with my company. But it ain't anything like $5 million.

Hey DARISC, you may want to consider this when choosing a caliber.

<img src="http://www.fototime.com/1B555CA5C3046C1/standard.jpg" border=0 alt="Hosting provided by FotoTime">

I am no expert. But.....

1. Why spend millions today (and again )when decades ago, they probably had spent the $ and study to switch from .38 to .45 ? I am referring to the time when the .38 was not enough to stop the Philippine Moros.

Doing the study today is "dual-expense."

2. On the other hand, go ahead and spend (waste) it. Just do the switch!!!! $5 million is peanuts relative to one life saved.

I am not sure about you guys, but my life is worth a lot lot lot lot more than $5 million.

I dunno.... I think we have to pro-rate it due to your age.

I think the idea here is responding appropriately to what the other guy thinks it's worth.

Pulling this from the cellar...

I am in agreement. After spending $400+ in range rental (gun + required range ammo) I have concluded that my first hand gun is going to be the M&P...but in .45. It just feels great in my hands and for whatever reason I shoot it well. I have shot all manner of Sig, HK, XD, and Glock...but the M&P has me sold.

Additionally I don't know why but I have been consistently more accurate with .45 caliber...much more than 9MM, slightly better than .40. Once I actually own the weapon I will start loading a snap cap or two at the range to see where I am with flinch. Yes the .45 is more expensive compared to 9mm...but not as much as I expected. I originally thought I would go with the .40 and spring for a 9mm barrel conversion but then thought better. Just go with .45. It's what I want in a handgun. LOL.

I've found with the M&P, that you either love it, or you hate it... I am in the hate camp, I just can't get a decent grip on the thing. My uncle has one that he would have left on long term loan with me, but neither of us can shoot the damned thing comfortably. We both love the XD though....

Depending on who I talk to any handgun can potentially fall into the hate camp. It's a personal thing for sure. I wanted to love the Sig...so many here own them...but damn it they just felt awkward to me and after 3-4 attempts I gave up. The XD was ok...in both the .40 and .45...but I was never consistent with it and not sure I like the palm safety...but again that is personal. Glock...not a fan of the grip (though I am sure it can be changed).

Next step will be a handgun class...after Zack and I complete the shotgun tactical class...LOL.

It's all really "personal preference" isn't it? I love the 1911 and my Sigs, hate the Glock but my BIL is just the opposite. Every person has preferences as to the feelof the gun and how it "fits" them, not to mention hand size, etc... Pick one you like, practice regularly until you are proficient and enjoy!

It really is a personal thing. Wife and I loved the way the XDm fit, the balance, the feel, the safeties. Neither of us could hit the target as well with the XDm as we could with the clunky Glock. Keeping the 19s.

Of course, we will always go to revolvers first, me followed by the 1911 her by the 19.

Just buy the Colt 1911. Great gun, all the checks in the right boxes, will appreciate in time.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1327409246.jpg

I have a compact M&P .40. Works great, but I'd rather have a 9mm since they're cheaper to feed.

The recoil of .45 is big, but its slow. A 9mm and a .40 both 'pop'. Its a quick recoil that I find more disruptive to my flow. I can shoot well with anything if I focus, but I find it easier with a .45.

I'm going to add a 1911 to my collection soon.

How about this one ? It's for sale
1942 Norwegian (built in German occupied Norway)

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1327428321.jpg

Pistols are cool I guess...







But, if you water an Kalashnikov... ...they multiply!

Muhahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa...


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1327447859.jpg