When I started this blog, 7.62x51 guns were much more popular, and would have placed much higher in a poll than they did here.
Why? Hmmm. Maybe it's 6 more years of War on Terror vets sticking with what they know?
THe .45 is less popular too. People are more accepting of 9mm than they were 5 years ago, including, famously, Tam.
Maybe only blogs have changed and their is just youngish people voting in blog polls.
It's like the death of Jeff Cooper made it OK to go back to poodle shooters and wonder nines again.
Just an observation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Oh this one's EASY! Pour a Cold One and sit back.
First, 7.62 Nato. If the U.S. Military hadn't realized that they needed something that could reach out and touch someone back in '04 in Iraq, the only 7.62 Nato Ammo in the inventory would be Belt Fed for the Machine Guns. If the Navy hadn't held on to their M-14s while Clinton was Chopping up the Army's and the Marines back in the 90's, that's all there would be available on the Mil-Surp Market.
Nest,.45ACP. Since the Military went to 9MM back in the 80's, and the Clintons were Chopping up all the Thompsons and Grease Guns and the 1911s, there was no need for .45ACP in the Inventory. Even when the Marines went back to the .45ACP a few years ago, it was a drop in the Bucket.
Now, if the supply of Mil-Surp Ammo has dried up, if one has a Firearm in the Calibers that are no longer in Inventory, then one HAS to buy Commercial or roll their own. Which means 30-06, .30 Carbine, 7.62 Nato and .45 ACP will NOT be showing up at the Gun Shows on Pallets for $70 a can any more. Those days are gone.
So, it's now 2013. If one lives in Free State, why spend $700 and up for a GOOD 1911 that hold 7/8+1 rounds and is pushing 3lbs when loaded and rigged when one can carry a Glock with twice the Ammo for 70% of the weight and $200 less?
Also, with few exceptions such as Designated Marksmen, Sniper, Spec. Ops, no one in the U.S. Military has used a M-14 or any other 7.62 Nato Rifle since 'Nam in Combat. So most Military Vets know ONLY the M-16/M4 system.
So just like the WW1 Vets ran with Springfields and Enfields after the Great War, and the WW2/Korean War Vets ran with Garands and Carbines, our current Vets are running with M4/M-16s Clones.
And the Ammo Suppliers realize that. In fact, if it wasn't for all the Anti-Freedom Gun Laws passed in several states in the past year, I think the 1911 would be relegated to the same guys who keep up the Classic Cars like '57 Chevys or '65 Mustangs, while their "Daily Driver" would be some Tupperware Wonder.
That's MY Expert Opinion, anyway.
Les pretty much nails it... And cost has been the other driver...
Well, I do run the .45ACP and the 9mm plastic bullet hose. We will not talk about the 22.5 million dollar contract the Marines placed with Colt for the new shiny CQB 1911.
Oh Tan is the new tactical black it seems!
My opinion on 9mm hasn't changed at all, as anybody who read my blog back then should know. :)
I can't make up my mind so I have a 9MM, two 1911s .45 ACP, a M-1 Garand, and four .380s.
I wonder how the pump-action shotgun continues to hold up (heresy!) after reading a critique of its manual-of-arms, relative to a semi-auto in SWAT magazine - kinda like Colt SAA vs. 1911.
Did you own a 9mm carry piece in 2007, Tam? I remember seeing pictures of a plethora of 1911s, an extensive Smiff assortment...
Now we only hear about the 3 M&P and early .32s.
Of course in 2007 M&P didn't have Apex trigger upgrades.
Some rambling thoughts:
My M&P triggers are stock, not all Apexed out. (One has a RAM, but that doesn't affect the pull at all.) It didn't stop me from shooting 300/300 at MAG-40 last month. People spend too much time dicking with trigger parts and not enough time shooting the gun. ;)
I did not own a 9mm carry piece in 2007, but it had nothing to do with what I thought about 9mm as a defense round.
I'm pretty sure I made statements on the blog or gun fora as far back as '06 or even earlier that, if I had it all to do over again, I'd be carrying a G19, but I was sticking with the 1911 platform mostly due to "sunk costs" (all the time I'd put into learning to run the 1911, plus the physical plant of spares and magazines and holsters...)
I carried 1911s in .45, not because I believed .45 was an uber manstopper vis-a-vis 9mm or .40, but because the 1911 works best when it's in its original configuration: A 5" steel gun in .45ACP.
By late 2007, I only owned 2.5 1911s (the '66 Colt, the Pro, and the project Sistema.) I actually have more 1911s now than I did then, although not as many as I did at the high-water mark in, say, '05 or '06.
{Activate Media Filter]
Basically Tam is all wishy washy and can't make up her mind about caliber OR platform.
;)
Post a Comment