Well, if you want one to match the USMCs you'll have to add one then. And I'm just not a big fan of drilling into the frames.

or if you are doing an original meusoc model, you can use an original surefire 610r or 310r model,no drilling or altering frame at all. both ebay and gunbroker has one right now.

THought those had the Dawson Rails?

Just googled around ,those things are EXPENSIVE!



 

They are expensive, I have an EZ rail on my house gun. I think it was like 75bucks(give or take 10bucks) and it holds any rail mounted light.

I've got one I bought new (310R) in 98 or 99 and used on duty.  This thread has given me and itch to use my old Colt MkIV series 70 as a base for a build.  Damn it.



 

Seriuously? It's been almost a month and nothing?

I lucked out and picked up a Berryhill rear sight. I'm going to break down and lay down the cash for the Bar-Sto. I'm there

for the really anal builders like me who insist on using 100% original parts, i found a pistolsmith with new old stock actual "Videki's Speed Triggers " for sale by googling   Burns Custom Pistols   i paid $30.00 plus $5.00 shipping    he was a great guy to deal with and fast shipping

ost

Just FYSA - R0N has sent me some very good information that I have not yet had a chance to fully digest yet, as well as some other information from a source that would prefer not to be named regarding the Colt Rail Gun purchase and testing.  

Once I've gotten a chance to sort through it all, I'll try to post my impressions.  

~Augee

Yet again, controlled information being distributed by one or two sources does not show an entire fielding process.  Several large names within the industry have already stated that the information leaked sheds a very biased viewpoint.  Information being pushed by someone familiar with the program just shows sour milk.  Not everyone is always happy when a choice is made and procurement goes forward.  I just wish the USMC and their new sidearm as long and as fruitful usage as the current 1911s still pushing around for the Corps.  I truly enjoy this website and hope that is doesn't go down the path of "Deep Throat" style reportings on a program from those that have an axe to grind.

An interesting read of the Colt Rail Gun can be had over at Hilton Yam's 10-8 performance webpage and blog.

Do you know the 9 criteria that make something FOUO or when Source Selection Sensitive items are no longer Source Selection Sensitive, and why the regs are written that way?  

The bottom line is many who don't want light shed on this selection process because it does not look good.

Take a read on the trials of the original automatic pistol (1911) or for that matter, the 'Light Rifle' (M1 Carbine). These trials have never been totally objective, and both weapons were so successful they became iconic. The 1911 is what was wanted for the CQBP, and they wanted Colt to make it. I have no doubt it will be a fine pistol, and I'm extremely glad that Colt got the nod.

Are the government words and abbreviations supposed to impress someone?  Good luck with the incoming Colts that you have an axe to grind with they will be heading downrange long after you and I are at the retirment home.

Nope just pointing out than when people want to say the information is controlled information at this point they are just wrong.  As the guy who runs security classification for the Marine Corps once said "You cannot classify something to keep the service from looking stupid."

Since you are active duty you should be able to look up the MCBUL 8011 and see how much ammo will be used with these weapons, MARSOC guns (minus school house) will probably last around 12-15 years and the Recon guns will last about 6 years.

Per Gun Nuts Media, Colt plans to bring a consumer version of the M45A1 to the civilian market in 2013.  There's is also picture of the recoil system.  Perhaps we'll see something at SHOT.

So how exactly would an mc operator fit in this group? What needs to be changed if it could be made into a clone?

needs to become an American made Colt instead of a Brazilian springfield? ;)

But seriously though, the MC Operators don't really work as the springers didn't have frames with built in rails.

Now why would I want a hunk of junk?

I swear I saw something posted about them in this thread. Hell I don't need another clone anyways.

Only problem is A) the MC Operators are made in America and B) the SA Operator's, by definition, have built in rails.  Any other wrong replies as to why a bad idea?

I think all the frames are made in brazil. someone here posted that the rep at springfield told them that was true.

All their forgings come from Brazil to best of knowledge, does not make them made in brazil though according to atf :)

100% made in the USA is not the same as 100% assembled in the USA no matter what the ATF says.

Personally,I don't want to go back  to the days when Colt was the only 1911 maker.  Their guns were made in the USA, but their quality declined, and their customer service was lacking.  Fortunately that has now changed.  While SA gets their forgings from Brazil, they also employ US workers to manufacture their NM marked models and support the custom shop.   They offer a lot of choices, and have raised the bar for the other manufacturers.

Dont get me wrong, I own a trp and its a fine pistol. I dont like when things are sold as american made when they are not. Its a deceptive practice and has to make you wonder what else would you lie about.

Now, I agree with you there.  "The oldest name in American Firearms" is technically true, but many people associate the name with the original Springfield Armory.

No, they are not. they are finished being put together in  the USA, but they are Brazilian, all SA are and have been.  I have made many a proud new SA owner  almost cry after showing them the discreet "made in brazil" faintly printed on the frame.  And by letting them know its not the same company as Springfield arsenal the gov owned and operated from years past

SA loves to ride that old name and  make people believe they are getting something from the old historic Arsenal.  About the same as armalite AKA Eagle arms

A)Really wish people would stop saying things that aren't true like they're facts. All springfield 1911s are imported, if importing something and calling it American made is good enough for you, then by all means make youself look like a fool.

B) Yes the operators have rails, but if you weren't so piss poor at reading you'd know that wasn't the question. Wanted to make his Springfield MC operator fit into the clone group. What a production springfield is by definition as you put it, applies as much to this thread as talking about what Al Pacino carried in heat in this thread does. And since the Springfields for the USMC weren't railed frames it doesn't work. Again you're welcome.
Any other internet stories you believe that you would like the truth on? I'm happy to try and make you a better informed person. It's so bad that if you want a custom gun (you know from Springfield) with any variations say not professional on the side, they have to special order the slide from IMbel. They're no more an American gun than Taurus. You're welcome, you'll sound a little less stupid now when you spout off.


glad to see some people haven't fallen for their marketing. Much less try to spread their wishes as fact.



Maybe one day you'll be able to have a thought of your own. Because what a Govt agency that's known for being useless and not knowing their ass from a hole in the ground (Assault Weapon Ban, Fast and Furious) is pretty useless to the rest of the world who can actually think on their own.


you really don't need ANY clones, doesn't mean you don't want one though does it? ;)

And the MC Operator was the gun that springer submitted to USMC that lost to the Colt .

Alright, alright, guys.  

This thread is for Marine Corps Special Operations and/or Special Operations Capable issued 1911s, not about the manufacturing details and marketing methods of also rans.  

I've re-posted from this thread in the Colt Industry Forum:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_29/222048_Colt_Rail_Gun_Selected_for_MARSOC.html

...since it's relevant here as well.  

I'll flesh out more detail shortly, but here's the short version as I see it:





Notice the differences?  

I'm not going to get into the pricing thing - I somewhat understand it, but either way, IMHO, pricing isn't strictly the crux of the issue.  

The issue is whether the Marine Corps is paying a lot of money for junk pistols that don't last 12,000 rounds before cracking.  

I've read everything R0N provided me, and made some inquiries elsewhere and tried to get my hands on what information I could from a variety of sources.  

FOUO - For Official Use Only information is...well, for official use only.  Whether the information contained therein is really all that sensitive or not is not really a decision that anyone other than the original classification authority can make.  Neither R0N, nor I, even if we wanted to could change that, and are certainly not going to post the information on a public internet forum as much as we might like to.  Other sources, for their own reasons might prefer confidentiality, so what I will say here, well, you're just going to have to trust me.  

If you don't, I'm not going to be able to give you documentary information, even if I have it.  

Nevertheless, here are my conclusions:

The original O1980RG submitted for Phase I had, like all the submissions, some deficiencies.  Some of them are plain asinine, like the use of hazardous materials (tritium in the night sights) in manufacture that was not disclosed.  

One of the items, however, was that the dustcover rail did not conform 100% to MIL-STD-1913, i.e. it was not a perfectly dimensioned Picatinny Rail.  This is not unusual in the least bit, most pistols do not use "true" Picatinny rails.  Nevertheless, the Marine Corps requested that the Phase II test-pistols be supplied with MIL-STD-1913 compliant accessory rails.  

A survey of all the malfunctions, which are listed by pistol [of the five that were tested for reliability], by type all seem to stem from one issue - the recoil spring.  

As R0N has mentioned, one of the pistols was not even able to be tested due to a kinked recoil mainspring.  

Kinked, bent, and weak recoil mainsprings that had to be continually replaced were the primary cause as far as I can see, of 90% of the malfunctions recorded, and almost 100% of the non-operator error malfunctions.  

I will take this opportunity to say:  

Had the testing report and information R0N sent me been all I had seen, I too would be concerned.  The O1970RG did not just do poorly in the combat reliability test - it did poorly compared to what you would reasonably expect out of any steel-framed 1911 of any manufacture.  

The reliability test was strenuous, but it was by no means extreme - and the pistols tested for adverse and extreme conditions were not the same pistols that were used in the reliability (shooting) test.  The testing done to them was by no means unrealistically rough, and they made a very poor showing.  Nevertheless, not only was a contract issued for their purchase, but their failure in the reliability test was waived at some pretty high levels to push through the purchase.  

As an outsider looking in, without some additional information, it does in fact look pretty bad.  

Look again at the two photos of the inside of the dustcover I posted.  

The inside of the O1970RG (the Marine Corps test pistol - top) has a scallop inside of the dustcover where the rail is that is absent on current production O1980RG Rail Guns (bottom - shawnmt6601's pistol).  





With a new addition, probably thrown in at last moment when the dustcover was redesigned for the MIL-STD rail, right where the recoil spring rides, my guess is that something about the contour and profile of that cut inside the dustcover simply did not agree with the recoil spring - add to that the fact that the O1970RGs have a new nested recoil spring system, so it might behave ever so slightly differently than a standard recoil spring.  

The result is kinked and binding recoil spring that cause malfunctions.  

Moreover - it doesn't take a genius to figure out that firing relatively hot .45ACP rounds through a 1911 with a broken recoil spring will promptly beat the pistol apart.  The result is the photos that have been posted, all of which seem to show pistols that are battering themselves to death and cracking because they are improperly sprung.  

Because of the damage, the test was called early for safety reasons, and the dustcover of the CQBP (O1970RG) went back to the drawing board.  It was redesigned to address the recoil spring issue, and re-submitted.  

However, and this is the issue that R0N has a problem with, if I understand correctly, is that after the re-design, the tests were not re-done with new pistols, but the previous test simply waived.  

I agree with R0N that this is a little shady, but I certainly understand how and why it happened being familiar with the history of the "M45" and CQBP procurement.  Destructive testing costs money, and the entire program has been going on for years, and to a certain extent been in development hell for what should be a relatively simply solicitation - buy off the shelf 1911s to replace the PWS handbuilt ones.  

Instead of re-testing the pistols after the re-design, they simply accepted it as "problem solved" and waived the test to save both money and time.  Again, do I blame them... perhaps not, I can understand their reasoning, the pistol was tested, a problem was found, then it got fixed.  Would it be better and more "transparent" if they had simply re-run the test after the re-design?  Sure, but it's time consuming and expensive, and at the end of the day, they didn't.    

I will say this:

After the Phase II tests, I'm sure that more than one or two people at Colt were shitting their pants at their pistols beating themselves to pieces in a relatively low round count for a steel framed pistol, and I'd bet, when they went for re-design, they tested it pretty welll internally before submitting it back to the Marine Corps.  

Everyone has hiccups once in a while, espeically when coming out with new designs, but the issue of whether or not another 1911 was appropriate notwithstanding, I believe Colt may just know a thing or two about troubleshooting and building 1911-variants.  

Anyways, it's up to the individual to form their own opinion, but this is the information as I currently understand it.  We'll see where it goes from here.  

~Augee

Not that it will matter to some, but the pistol in the photos ( mine ) has WELL over 14,000 rounds through it at the time of that picture was taken , 4000 in one day. And no problems have developed.

Augee, I own a 1980RG, and mine uses a standard recoil spring. It also does not have the relief in the slide. I have seen this double recoil spring as mentioned in a previous post, and interested to see this in person. My guess is the old cracked frame was some sort of prototype O1070RG, as the currently O1070RG's are like the O1980RG's, just Cerakoted black. With all this said, I've been looking at one of these, and I'm curious what these grips are.

I believe most of the photos out there are of the Phase I pistols with the non-MIL-STD-1913 rail dimensions.  

The IUID tags on the Phase II test pistols show the Part Number as O1970RG.  

The cracked frames were "prototype" frames with corrected rail dimensions - the most obvious differences being the part of the frame just above the rail, where you can see from the photo you posted compared to the cracked frame I posted where the "groove" is straight and taller in the Phase II test pistol.  

Also, as shown in the photos, a lightening cut was added inside the rail that is not present on the current commercially available Rail Guns.  

The grips look like VZ Diamond Backs with the magazine release cut out to me, though I'm not sure if they're VZ OEM, or just a similar design utilized by Colt, as they also resemble the MILTAC grips on the Springfield TRPs.  

~Augee

You might be onto something with the grips, they look an awful lot like MILTAC.

Augee-Very well written report and update on the 1911's service with the USMC.

So basically you are saying I was not lying as many have accused me of, and my claims there were some potential shenanigans in the procurement process was correct.

that made me chuckle I have to admit RON

That bares very little relation to  some of the claims you have made all over the internet.   I like how now you are backing down to "some potential shenanigans" as opposed to your earlier vehement pronouncements of tax payers being ripped off and the gun is a total POS that should have never even been submitted. Very humble of you.

But it is time to move on, it is the new pistol no matter what.
this thread should have never turned into  this in the first place since its a history of the earlier pieces

No, you were not lying, as I said, the test report is disconcerting to say the least, and without knowledge of the problem provided from elsewhere, I too would have been very concerned about it.  The potential for shenanigans was certainly there.    

Again, the reliability testing was appropriately strenuous, but it wasn't enough to make a 100% functioning 1911 fail so critically after so few rounds.  The railed frame is still a relatively new thing, though, and Colt is certainly not alone in not machining perfectly MIL-STD-1913 rails on their railed frame pistols, however, for a military contract, they must.  

There would have been a lot of question marks raised for me if I had not ben told by a couple different people with some involvement of one form or another on the pistol independently the same prognosis on the issue.  

Once you look at the problem area and think about the way the 1911's recoil spring functions, it's almost a "duh" moment, though.  Something as simple as a one-piece FLGR probably would have infinitesimally improved the results, though I doubt for a couple of reasons that the Marine Corps would be particularly happy with a FLGR.  

Sometimes problems have simple solutions, and I believe this is one of them.  

If I were to put myself in the shoes of the testing board, I believe I too might have concluded that the fix was so simple and so obvious that the cost of repeating Phase II might not be worth the rewards, compared to the costs of withholding pistols from operational units any longer than they already have been through the protracted solicitation process, at a not insignificant cost.  

In the end, I don't personally think there was anything underhanded about the process.  

Whether one believes that a different, more modern pistol design should have been selected or not, some of the ones that signed off on it were the same overseers of PWS that built the MEU(SOC) .45s, and I would trust their judgement, since, for better or worse, and without discussing the relative wisdom or lack thereof, the Marine Corps was not looking for a new MARSOC pistol.  

They were looking for an off-the-shelf version of the MEU(SOC) .45, 1911-style pistol that didn't have to be hand built from a 1945-vintage frame, and I believe they met that intent with the O1970RG.  

What I find interesting is that some of the other documents seem to imply that the Phase III pistols were tested with Pachmayr grips, and the test results refer to their distortion and swelling when subjected to environmental tests, noting that the exposures that affected the rubber grips were unrealistic, and most likely negligible in significance, but also noting that the grips on the Phase II pistols were far more resistant to solvents.  

~Augee

Shenanigans in procurement does mean the tax payers were screwed.

Since they were already using Rubber Pachmayr grips, I wonder why there's a need to retest these so to speak. With that said, I do love mine, but I have noticed they can sometimes discolor.

yeah, real shenanigans.

not perceived shenanigans or a witch hunt/fishing expedition mentality.

I guess my lack of fanboi-ism does have me looking at it through rose colored glasses.  Many will say the few million is budget dust in the grand scheme of things, but guess what when you sweep up all that budget dust you eventually have dust pan full of real money.  

When you throw in the fact that quite a few programs, to include embassy security and bomb detecting dogs were cut by 10 percent the same FY you may understand why ever active duty Marine who has seen what happen thinks that it was a stupid move.

Im sorry Augees post was less then the revelation backing up your claims you thought it would be, But no need to start  with accusing others of having the same problem with bias you have.  Since you dont have any new info, or real important info to show  on the matter, I guess I am done talking about that. With you anyway.



To anyone else who cares to read my musing...
The 1911 may or may not be a good choice for current issue. No doubt that it is very likely not. I do love it, but I can sure see SOF need more then 8 rounds in a standard mag.

But its what  they wanted and that is what they got no matter how much griping on the net, its not going to change it. I have my own sources and contacst on the subject and I think the best pistol won.  any new change to anything will need a little working out. But I am pretty sure a company that has been making something for 100 years can figure out how to work them out without the cost of testing it all over again when everyone knows it will work out.

It will probably be tweeked even more once they get them for all I know.



Im told the M45 ( or something really colse) is going to be offered to the public next year. I forgot to ask if it will have the USMC marking on it though   Maybe not though since it seems the Gov doesn't like that kinda thing.



Apologies for getting off topic Augee.

Its designation is M45A1

While pictures from Soldier Systems could be dated, I noticed something glaring about these two different photos of the M45A1
Soldier Systems
Ammoland
I noticed that the rails on both of these are different, with the Ammoland photo being the same as currently produced commercial O1070RG/O1980RG/O1970RG series models. I am wondering how much different is the actual M45A1 vs these commercial models, and not just internal parts like springs and some stainless pieces. Also, I noticed the grips aren't the same, grip screws seem way larger, and the trigger is longer too.

If they come with a serial ending with "EGA", I really do want one...even more




 

I dont see that happening but it would be sweet.

not ,mine but over at www.armslist.com someone has a listing for an original ithaca m1911a1 forsale for only $600.00   the frame is actually a  remington rand frame. the pistol is missing some parts,but this might make a nice meusoc build

Augee.  

Just a question though.  In what you have read, the reliability test, this was with no spring changes right.  Pass or run to fail.  Even though recoil spring is a regular maintenance item, if the RFP says no change, then that's what you get.  If so, I am not shocked that none made it.  I know a Sig will eat itself like that.   I've seen that in civi life

As a civilian dealing with Fed contracts, you would not believe the crap that goes on, but the shenanigans fall on the gov side not the civilian side.  For any company bidding on gov contracts is at a huge disadvantage.  The company I worked for was on the small side, about the same size as Colt's Mfg (Colt Defense may be bigger) but we could never qualify as a direct bidder, we had to sub through BAE, Northrup, or one of the national labs.  First thing that happens is the prime gives your contract a 20% haircut!  For NOTHING!    Colt may have had to do the same.  

Again the other part of the pic is RFP.  To answer the bid all the the mfgr's may have had to make design changes.  Hell I've seen them demand changes in mid bid process.  Think about it, your company has spend a ton of capital to answer the RFP and then the rules change, you either make the changes or get out and eat the money you invested.  

I will state right up front, my experience was not with any kind of weapon systems.  So I can't say light weapons bids are the same as what I've dealt with. If you really want to get steamed, take at look at the government bidding and contract practice.  That is where the waste is.  

You can call me a fan boy if you wish, but this stuff is typical.  Colt does not have enough money to make it worth brass to cheat for such small beans.  Airborne refuel tankers maybe.  

As to the product itself I have a Rail and own a number of Colts...  and S&W's, and Sig and on.  The Rail Gun is a fine weapon.  Of all the companies, the Colt is the most true to the 1911 and 1911A1 that served our country very well.  

Relax guys!

The second picture with the "Ammoland" watermark is a photograph of one of the original Phase I test pistols, while the photograph from Soldier Systems appears to show the finalized contract model or Phase III test pistol.  

Rather than re-post Soldier Systems' photographs, here is the link to them:

http://soldiersystems.net/2012/10/24/ausa-colt/

Between the Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III Test Pistols, the most obvious change is the MIL-STD-1913 compliant dustcover rail, however, there appear to be many small detail changes as well.  

As you pointed out, the grip screws/grips appear to be different, as well as the fairly obvious return to the long trigger, as well as the well known dual nestled recoil mainsprings.  

Furthermore, both the Phase I and Phase II pistols appear to have used the same spacing for the serrations as the original Colt Rail Gun and XSE, but the Phase III/Production pistol appears to have wider spaced serrations, similar in appearance to those on the Springfield Armory slides used from Variant 4 on (though the Springfield Custom used the "classic" Milspec style front and rear serrations, similar to the ones used on the Variant 3).  

Another minor, but quite interesting change is that while the Phase II test pistols had "sticker" type IUID tags that displayed the model number as "O1970RG,"  the production/Phase III appears to have an engraved IUID, and listing the part number as "M1070CQBP."  

~Augee

Recoil mainspring changes were conducted in the Phase II test.  

Recoil springs were consistently kinked and bent, and often unserviceable after a relatively low number of rounds.  

The RFP was not significantly changed from the initial bidding process to the final design, though all companies would have had to make changes to their designs had they proceeded past Phase I.  Some changes were obviously requested and made, however, as posted above.  

~Augee