Closer Than Ever Before To CMP M1911s

Colt_1911A_.45_866716_L_DSC_33362

The Civilian Marksmanship Program has been providing arms to civilian match shooters and riflemen for over 110 years, but one weapon left off the list of civilian-legal surplus firearms the CMP is allowed to sell to civilian shooters is the venerable 1911 handgun. However, that may soon change. For the past couple of years, variations of the National Defense Authorization Act have been proposed that would change the law establishing the CMP to allow them to sell 1911 handguns to the American public, but so far none of these versions have passed and become law. The most recent version of the NDAA provides for the sale of 1911 handguns (albeit in a different manner than the rifles, i.e. through an FFL) through the organization, and is poised to be signed in the next week. Hognose of WeaponsMan reports:

According to Al Jazeera, which is bent out of shape because the language forbidding the closure of Guantanamo remains, the President will sign the changed National Defense Authorization Act.

The President’s reasons were many and various. The two he most often gave were the use of off-budget “Overseas Contingency Operations” funds to circumvent military spending caps, and the maintenance of spending caps on domestic programs.

The Republican Congressional leadership yielded to the Democrats across the board, discarding the budget sequester principle and going on a spending spree in domestic/welfare spending. Ironically, the OCO money remains, and is increased — but the increase is tapped off for domestic spending also.

The Guantanamo language remains, and more to our point, so does the CMP transfer language.  (We discussed it recently, and explained the many gotchas in the text. The law limits CMP sales to a max of 10,000 firearms a year).

The resultant sale of 1911 handguns to the American public, even at a relatively low rate of 10,000 per year, could open the door for historical handgun competitions, perhaps based on a variant of IPSC or USPSA rules, in the same way that National Rifle matches have been cultivated by the CMP. As Hognose writes in his post, the signing of this bill into law does not mean that 1911 handguns will immediately go up for sale on the CMP website immediately; the pistols will have to be transferred from Army inventory to the Program, first, and the new bill requires the CMP to have an FFL to do this, which was previously not necessary for transfers of rifles from the Army to the Program.



Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • BattleshipGrey

    I just happened to see “hallelujah” is a tag on this post, nice. According to a thread title on ARF the president has already vetoed. However by page 8, it looks as though he hasn’t vetoed it yet.

    I’ve lost hope in politicians. Even if they get this battle right, they’ve lost the war and our nation suffers for it.

    • M.M.D.C.

      That the CMP still even exists is something of a miracle, in my opinion.

      We’re all a little grossed out by the Virginia sausage making district, but all the news hasn’t been bad, particularly for shooters, so don’t lose hope.

      • Steve Skubinna

        Yeah, Clinton tried to kill it under the table already.

    • Giolli Joker

      Nathaniel usually drops a few pearls in the tags. 😉

    • Edeco

      I feel we’re owed those South Korean Garands, that’s like an ongoing sore spot for me.

      • lowell houser

        The reason they dole them out at a fixed price is because they don’t want a big buyer to come in an dole them out at much higher prices. Much the same way that public land sales at least used to be small parcels and strict limits on how many one individual could purchase. The government distorts every area of the economy just by existing, so the CMP is an attempt to transfer public property into private property without gouging individuals, especially considering that this stuff was already paid for by taxpayers. Bottom line when the government imposes a commons on us, it’s either this type of attempt at an “fair” deal, or outright cronyism where a politically connected type bribes their way into full ownership of the whole enchilada.

        • Bill

          And without gouging private sector businesses. Every firearm the CMP sells is one a LGS doesn’t.

          I’m just stunned that the gumming that is allegedly bound and determined to disarm us of everything more lethal than a soda straw wrapper is still selling us guns, military ones at that.

      • cawpin

        “doling them out like Nurse Ratched.”

        What are you talking about? You can buy one if you want. What’s the problem?

        • Edeco

          I’m not flattered by the implication that my interest is purely materialistic. I’m talking about the eligibility requirements and the CMPs quasi-government status.

          • cawpin

            I wasn’t implying anything. The requirements align with the purpose of the CMP, to promote civilian marksmanship.

          • Miguel Raton

            You are clearly clueless & need to stop your whining. True, the CMP is a govt.-chartered non-profit, but that was so the govt. could shut down the Director of Civilian Marksmanship [which was established by the greatest president of the 20th century, the smarter of the two Roosevelts] administered by the Army [which of course clashed with the Army’s lack of focus on this skill; the DCM should have been handled by the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps in the 1st place!]

            At any rate, under the DCM, you got to purchase 1 Garand _per lifetime_, & you’re complaining about the CMP limiting sales?!? Yes, they’re no longer sold as cheaply as the DCM did, but then the govt. isn’t footing the bill any longer: the CMP uses the funds to run itself and provide for its future mission in perpetuity: by that standard, they’re still letting’em go at fire-sale prices!

            Long live the CMP: their Western Games are some of the friendliest, most fun days spent shooting that I’ve ever enjoyed!

            And this all begs the question: Why isn’t Oct. 27th [TR’s birthday] a national holiday? 😀

      • Vanns40

        Those M1’s in South Korea will NEVER go to CMP. They can’t. They were sold. In order to go to CMP they have to be loaned to the country in question. South Korea can only sell them to a company here in the US, like Century Arms.

        • MichaelZWilliamson

          Why haven’t they done so? Any idea?

          • Vanns40

            Because of Obama’s EO.

        • DeathFromTheShadows

          not correct, the government can purchase them back, as prescribed under the lend lease act that they were transferred to Korea under.

          • Vanns40

            Or, another way of saying that is the S. Koreans would sell them back to us which is exactly what they wanted to do. However, you are correct that one buyer could be our Govt and then they could donate them to CMP. Don’t hold your breath on that one given the debt etc. If, I say again IF we get a reasonable POTUS in, in 2016, the Century Arms route via Obama’s EO being rescinded is the best choice we have. Further, we do have M1’s in Greece and, I believe, two other countries that we DID loan and could have brought directly back to CMP.

            Again, all that would take is a POTUS that is not an anti-gun anti-Constitution, despicable piece of work to rescind Obama’s EO. Sorry, I got carried away but he just infuriates me.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            Actually a buyback could be run under foreign aid/foreign trade policy. They could be used for short periods of time at colleges with ROTC programs for marksmanship programs before going to the CMP…

        • iksnilol

          Century M1 Garands, anyone?

          *cringe*

      • DeathFromTheShadows

        I for one am praying for 2017 to shake its ass and get here

      • Vanns40

        I don’t know where you are physically located but you do know that if you have your ducks lined up you could just drive (do I hear road trip?) to one of the two locations and pick up an M1 right then and there? I’ve thought of doing that and getting a second one.

        • Edeco

          Thanks for pointing that out. Yeah I do not have all of the ducks. Long story, I mean, I don’t entirely understand the ins and outs of the CMP, but I did look into it and I’m too lazy and recalcitrant about the procedure for it to be worth it to me :S

        • Steve Skubinna

          Yup, there are times that a road trip to Aniston seems like a not-bad idea…

          Got a CMP Garand and two M1 Carbines.

          • wzrd1

            What grade? For quite a while, rack grade has been the only thing available.
            I’d give a solid organ for a service grade Garand.

    • The Pres vetoed an earlier version of the bill. He’s expected to sign this version, which still includes the provision for CMP 1911s. At least that’s how I understood it as of Friday when I wrote this article.

  • MR

    What do you want to bet, they all rattle?

    • Spencerhut

      What do you want to bet I won’t care?

      • MR

        Well, yeah, honestly I wouldn’t mind getting a wore out pistol, it’d still have the service pedigree, and be saving the taxpayers storage fees. Kinda sucks we’ll have to pay for them again, since we already bought them once. Oh, well, I’ve paid for countless M16s, and my ability to obtain one for myself seems to be diminishing by the day.

        • Yimmy

          Yeah they should just give them to you for free. As a matter of fact I may have paid more taxes than you, so I should get two for free. Of course vis versa applies. Makes sense right?

          • Steve Skubinna

            Actually, I’d go for that. Any tax payer gets one if wanted. And the 50% that don’t pay taxes?

            Suck on it. Whine into your Obamaphones.

          • wzrd1

            Actually, Reagan started that phone program.
            Now, I have no idea what you have against children and the elderly not paying taxes, are you proposing infants, toddlers, through teens all pay taxes, along with grandma and grandpa?

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            hate to disappoint you but Reagan did not start the phone program, No cellphones then… Stop buying into the Liberal Lies

        • Tom Currie

          A “worn out” rack grade M1911A1 that “rattles” will still consistently hit a torso size target out to 25M if the shooter does his/her part — or at least every rack grade M1911A1 that I was ever issued would — including some seriously worn out ones that really DID rattle that we borrowed from a NG battalion while I served with a Readiness Group in 1983

          • wzrd1

            Heh, believe it or not, I hit center mass at 50 meters. Couldn’t get precise at that range, but I knocked the target down.
            The M1911, even new, in GI specs rattles a fair amount by design.

            Still, if the price is higher than a new Springfield GI model, I’ll go with the Springfield. I sold my old M1911 to my brother in law.

          • dltaylor51

            I bought a 1911 made in 1917 that some old guy took to a pistol smith and had it tightened up and the trigger redone up but left the outside of the gun looking like the day it was made.He was a competition shooter and took home the prize in a lot of events so making them shoot well is very doable.My gun still has the lanyard loop on the bottom of the grip and the lanyard loop on one of the many clips that came with it,even has the original issue sights other than the front one being filed down a bit.The pistol is stamped Remington UMC and united states property on one side and model of 1911 US army on the other,when ever i show this gun you should see the jaws drop and they drop even more when they shoot it.

      • nobody

        I’d honestly skip a used handgun that rattled, I already have a Romanian TT33 that does and shoot it very little due to the combination of it being significantly less accurate than every other pistol that I have (including my S&W Bodyguard .380, so it isn’t just my shooting) and ammo being more expensive and annoying to reload. It really isn’t that fun when I go from being able to go up and down a dueling tree with that .380 (or hell, even my Nagant revolver in double action if I spend a bit of time beforehand warming up my finger with snap caps and take a bit more time with my shots) to a full size pistol where I can’t consistently hit the plates on the dueling tree at the same range.

        • DeathFromTheShadows

          Please research the design of the 1911 before you make rash comments, As long as the barrel lockup is tight the barrel is set to the sights and accuracy is within reason, and it wont malfunction due to battlefield crud, which is within design specs. the tight 1911s you see today are not battle field arms. I am trying to not call your post extremely ignorant, however, it really is.

    • lowell houser

      I’m with you MR, thanks If I want a 1911 I’ll buy a new one. Or, more likely, download the appropo CNC files and make a couple as a hobby. I have an aversion to paying more than $500 for a handgun, and a $500 1911 usually isn’t worth bothering with.

      • JumpIf NotZero

        Lol. You think you’ll download some times and won’t be in more than $590 a pop. Good one.

        Also, lol if you don’t think the CMP 1911s won’t be $2,000

      • mosinman

        the historical value kinda nullifies on whether or not they rattle , if you want a tight non rattling 1911 the market is full

      • Brian Fulmer

        You’re mistaken; my $459 (ca 1994) SA Inc. Milspec is a super solid pistol with none of the minor factor primitiveness affecting “USGI” pistols. Forged and all that, who cares, the Armscor 1911’s I’ve seen have been really well executed. I guess when you spend $1200 on a 1911 you have to send back to the factory three times, you at least feel like you got your $$’s worth.

    • BearSlayer338

      Who cares if they rattle,I have 1911 that has been in my family since WWI,it has 15K rounds through it,the issued magazines still work,and it has some rattle.That rattle has had no effect on accuracy,I’d put it up against any Kimber or Dan Wesson in reliability and accuracy,the gun is accurate as you are(like most guns). Doesn’t matter if a gun rattles or anything else if it works as it was intended to.

      • desert

        that “rattle” just means it is not so “tighly” adjust, milled, assemble…that it will jam, misfire etc…..they are like the ak’s drop them in a mud puddle and it will fire….enjoy the rattle…it will “ratttle” when you pull the trigger too LOL

    • Thomas S

      And are 100% reliable when they do rattle.

    • DeathFromTheShadows

      if they are true historic military they SHOULD

      • Vanns40

        Exactly. If they were tight there would be real problems with them in the field.

    • E Wolfe

      Of course they’ll rattle, if they didn’t they wouldn’t operate when filthy. They’re engineered to safe your ass, not punch bull’s eyes. You’re free to put match parts in one once you purchase it.

  • iksnilol

    This is a bad thing. Sure, 1911s are nice. What isn’t nice is the CMP being limited to selling 10 000 firearms a year. What’s even worse is the Guantanom language.

    This is like getting sugar on a manure sandwich. Something to make the crap taste better.

    • So… Where do you propose we put captured terrorists instead?

      GBDC is just a facility. So far as I know there’s nothing in the law that says anything like “and the prisoners must be flogged every afternoon at sundown, and they also get no cake before bedtimes on Tuesdays”.

      • mosinman

        it seems like he’s saying Guantanamo closing would be a bad thing

        • Pretty sure the current NDAA draft forbids the closure of gitmo.

          • wzrd1

            It does, so many millions of tax dollars will continue to be wasted on the prison there.

      • iksnilol

        “just a facility”

        Just a facility where the geneva conventions and human rights don’t apply. If you don’t see the problem with that then you’ve hit your head harder than I have. And trust me, I’ve received enough blunt trauma to the head to be considered a medical anomaly.

        A place wher you “just” can be detained for years without even an accusation. The whole thing is Kafka brought to life. So yes, getting that crap closed would be very good, would be worth all the 1911s made.

        History and firearms you know well, human rights and basic moral you obviously don’t know well.

        • mosinman

          it’s my personal opinion that you forfeit any rights you have if you’re a terrorist, but i also think that you should be proven to be a terrorist before you’re sent there

          • iksnilol

            I can’t say I agree entirely, what moral high ground is there if you’re just as bad?

            But of course, we agree on the whole “be proven a terrorist before you’re sent there” part. I mean, that’s common sense. In the true sense of the term.

            I hope we aren’t straying too far into politics now.

          • mosinman

            what do you mean by “just as bad?”

          • iksnilol

            Terries kidnap and torture people, Amers kidnap and torture people.

            Terries bomb civilians, Amers do bomb civilians

            Only real difference is what you’re fighting for, but in the end even that is the same because our reasons are just excuses. Team Cancer wins in the end.

          • Rock or Something

            The key point is intent. Terrorists, and to a lesser degree insurgents, do not need to worry about the Geneva convention and engage in acts of indiscriminate bombings, kidnappings, beheadings, rapes and assaults on civilians as part and partial to their strategy. There is no legal or international framework that condones what Al Qaeda or now what ISIS does. The U.S. tries to limit collateral damage, but in any conflict, it is impossible to eliminate it. And with our current technology, we don’t need to resort to wholesale bombings of enemy targets and cities just to destroy a few legitimate targets, like we did to Japan and Germany during WWII.

            You can dislike how we engage our enemies and cast dispersion on our efforts, but don’t jettison common sense in a convoluted effort to equate us morally or strategically with ISIS or Al Qaeda.

            Final note, I have done a tour in Afghanistan working at the detention facility in Bagram as an interrogator. You have no idea what lengths we go through to try an limit any pretense or instances of institutionalize abuses. Also, not one detainee ever mentioned Gitmo to me as a reason they were either indirectly or directly involved with the insurgency. No one cared about Gitmo.

            Oh as for the M1911 CMP thing, meh. If the price is low enough, I might be interested in it for historical purposes, but I doubt I would take it out to the range much.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Americans did not deliberately target civilians as a formal tactic. It is understood in war that collateral casualties happen. In fact, we’d have been perfectly legit to

            A: use earlier technology and saturation bomb any areas with insurgents, and

            2) upon receiving repeated attacks from mosques and hospitals (as we did), refusing to recognize the Red Crescent and bombing the crap out of their religious, cultural and medical facilities. That is ABSOLUTELY within the accords.

            If you really don’t see any difference between us, I’m sure you’d be glad to live in Syria, right?

          • iksnilol

            Collateral damage = we don’t want to admit we had no idea who we bombed

            Collateral damage = in spite of the world’s most sophisticated systems we hit the wrong person

            Collateral damage = we killed someone for [redacted] and this was authorized by [redacted]

            Collateral damage = weak excuse

            2) The Red Cross is literally the same as the Red Crescent Moon, they just change the logo in different countries. Also, there is no documented instances of the Red Cross/Crescent aiding any “insurgents” the closest you’ll get is that some of their vans have been stolen and used illegally. Same thing happens with UN and NATO vehicles.

          • Theo Brinkman

            ‘We’ appear to have intentionally bombed a known hospital for a few hours fairly recently. That facility was *full* of civilians. Specifically doctors, nurses, and civilians injured as a result of bombings from *both* sides of the conflict.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            I’m not going to waste any more time here. Read the actual incident report, not what was reported on the MSM (who are as fair about the military as they are about guns).

            When you actually have an idea what you’re talking about, we can resume.

            Have nice day.

          • Bill

            No link to the actual incident report? You didn’t get your info from the media now, did you?

          • Bill

            Curtis LeMay stated that if we had lost WW2 he and everyone else would have been tried as war criminals for the firebombing of Dresden. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a lot of “collateral damage.”

            I fully expect collateral damage, civilian casualties and fratricide during ANY armed conflict, and we’ve become risk-adverse, not striking targets because of potential blowback. But we shouldn’t be covering it up or deceptive, and we better be able to show our evidence when deliberately hitting what appear to be non-military targets. If you want to own the victories, you also have to own the mistakes.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            they were not in military uniforms, and they attacked American troops there fore it was proven by the sole fact that the violation of the Hague treaty (all military must wear the uniform of their country, in order to be afforded any rights as military combatants) they are terrorists, not soldiers

        • You missed my point, which is that hypothetically you could reform gitmo without closing it. No idea if that’s practical politically, anymore than closing gitmo is practical, but I also don’t see the law as preventing anyone from doing that.

          • Bill

            And if we keep releasing low-level non-violent offenders we might find space for these dudes in real prisons, on the same continent as a Federal Court House.

        • Sulaco

          US Supreme court has ruled that Gitmo is legal and holding POW’s until the war is over is legal. But we can continue to trade terrorists (3 for 1) for deserters, and watch them return to the battle field and kill Americans ….ya that’s the ticket!

          • Sgt. Stedenko

            The longest war in American history.
            The MIC thanks you serfs for funding their latest role in redrawing political lines to serve a select few.
            You kids missing limbs are just a consequence.

          • Sulaco

            The first mission of the US Marines and the reason they were created was to fight Islamic jihadists. That was over 200 years ago. We have been fighting them for global dominance and survival for that long and it will not end anytime soon. I also have some friends in Paris that I can get on the phone, I am sure they would like to hear your words of wisdom on war. You continue to enjoy feeling safe in your bed while better men stand guard.

          • iksnilol

            I never understood the “stand guard” mentality? How is someone 20k km away from me guarding me?

            No, those people who guard me live next door to me. They killed and captured the invaders when they tried to kill my family. Your shellshocked neighbour with a Malyutka in his barn? Or your grandmother with an MP40 in her couch? Those are the people standing guard. Not soldiers on the other side of the world. I feel safe because I am armed, because I have armed comrades nearby. Not because of somebody on the other side of the world. If you think those marines keep you safe then you are living in a fantasy.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Obviously, international relations, strategic theory, economics and logistics are fields you have not studied.

          • iksnilol

            More than someone with my education has. What baffles me is how can somebody be so stupid to wonder why people defend themselves when invaded? I mean, we all watched Red Dawn, right? Insurgency is a normal reaction to being invaded.

            Also, please tell me how a goatshagger in a mud hut is a threat to the United States?

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Sorry, which goatshaggers did we declare war on? Can you point to any declaration, strategic document, OPPLAN or FRAGO against a goatshagger?

          • iksnilol

            Operation Active Endeavour? Operation Enduring Freedom? Operation New Dawn? Operation Iraqi Freedom? Operation Inherent Resolve?

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            None of those involved any combat operations aimed at “goatshaggers” or any other peasants.

            As you will find out, if you ever read the history of LOAC, it’s common for combatants to shelter amongst innocent peasants for cover, and, in such cases, the peasants may suffer.

            The alternative is not to engage in combat against the actual threat, which is akin to not performing surgery to remove a burst appendix because one has to cut healthy tissue to reach it. It doesn’t get better.

            You are attempting to persuade me of a position you don’t really understand, in a field where I do have some level of professional ability. This is identical to an anti-gunner citing Mother Jones against to a 2A expert.

            I’d suggest you focus your efforts elsewhere.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Every single one of us was a volunteer. Save the Nam-era hippy crap.

          • Sgt. Stedenko

            Brainwashed sheeple serving the banksters.
            Cue the soaring eagle and waving flag.
            Dont forget to ask for your 10% discount at Home Depot.
            ‘Merica!

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Well, since you went there:

            I’m an immigrant, and a 25 year veteran of the US Army and USAF. I’m a bestselling author. I consult on weapons and military matters to various clients including TV, movies, private clients and the DoD.

            There’s a 99.86% probability my IQ is higher than yours, and a 90% probability I’m stronger than you and have a larger penis.

            And what are you, exactly?

          • Sgt. Stedenko

            Couldn’t get a real job in society so Uncle Sugar took you in for three hots and a cot?
            Bravo sir.
            How’s that PTSD treating you?

        • Sulaco

          About 30% of those released, that we know of have returned to the battle field. As to the conventions they are scrupuly applied on POW’s. As is physical treatments, the majority of those held gain weight. You seem to think this is a crime issue not a war? That ISIS should be stopped with legal injunctions and court rulings? Enjoy the next few years.

          • iksnilol

            Where do you have your numbers from? I have mine from humanrightsfirst.org

          • wzrd1

            Actually, according to a few who were captured, they did say that they were doing so because of being held for years without charge at GITMO.
            But hey, why should we confuse the *issues* with silly little things like facts?

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            HumanrightsfirstLib.tard you mean…

          • iksnilol

            You seem like a reasonable fellow.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            they DONT respect the Constitution as they sidestep Congress, and they are not espousing “American Values” only their own desires. nor are the parts about the trials fair since the charges are false and it should not come to the NEED of a trial.

          • iksnilol

            So you say it is okay to imprison and torture people without a charge or a fair trial?

            That’s a slippery slope right there.

            Wartime prisoners are covered under the Geneva convention. Hague convention took that part from the Geneva convention and added other stuff such as not poisoning enemies and whatnot. So yes, at the very least I know more than you.

        • AR-PRO

          I agree that holding them without charges isn’t the best strategy, I believe they should have been turned over to the military, stood before a military tribunal and if found guilty, executed – if not, release them. These are enemies of the US who are accused of committing acts of war against the US. So rather than making them stand trial, this mock president turns them loose to return to figuring out ways to take down the US. As far as the 1911’s at the CMP, it will be awesome if they are returned to the people who should own them, it will be disgraceful if they are priced out of the average citizens budget. I missed the projected price, but I’m sure it’ll be overpriced.

          • wzrd1

            It’s a shame that the no trial thing never happened. They stood before a tribunal and those found innocent or low risk were sent to Qatar, where they’re on house arrest.
            Two started trying to organize from there and the Qatari halted that immediately.

            Oh, when did we begin executing prisoners of war?

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            we didn’t, but under the Hague treaty which covers this, (NOT the Geneva Convention which has absolutely no connection) we CAN execute Enemy Combatants, but NOT Military Combatants. Since the terrorists are NOT in the Military and ARE NOT in Military Uniform, they do NOT qualify as Military Combatants. This is why our troops ALWAYS wear issued clothing and dogtags, even if the clothing doesn’t look like a uniform it still has issue tags in it, qualifying it as issued uniform, supplying protection under treaty

        • DeathFromTheShadows

          you are right the Geneva Convention Doesn’t apply, The Hague Treaty covers it, and we are in full compliance. In fact we can eve execute them under the Hague, since they were NOT in military uniforms. in plain English this means they were NOT soldiers and have NO rights at all, they are criminals before and after the fact. and not subject to any international protection. The ONLY reason they have been extended any rights is liberals simply do not follow ANY laws they don’t agree with.

          • iksnilol

            Geneva conventions do apply. Is the “War on Terror” not a war? Geneva conventions apply to POWs, wounded and civilians.

            Hague convention does also apply, I will admit that. Though that is more about what constitutes a war crime and how to fight humanely (oxymoronic, I will admit).

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            The Geneva Convention is ONLY about weapons and munitions that are acceptable, and if you had a clue you would know the US is not subject to it as the US never signed into it.

          • iksnilol

            Geneva convention has nothing to do with weapons and munitions, you’re thinking of the Hague convention.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            WRONG. The Geneva bans what is classified as “inhumane” weapons and munitions. But since you don’t care about the truth, why are you crying about it?

          • iksnilol
          • DeathFromTheShadows

            I suggest you do exactly that as it will force you to actually READ what you are posting Particularly the part which you have been arguing against, that the Hauge is specifically about WARFARE PROPER. YOU HAVE UNDERLINED exactly what I have stated the Hague is NOT about, Non combatants and POW rights. now that you found it read the damn thing and see EXACTLY what it DOES cover MOUTH. And further Vietnam did NOT lead to ANY revisions, check the dates of the last revisions of it. Again YOU put your foot in your mouth

          • iksnilol

            Not really, if it the Hague isn’t about those things then why ARE THEY SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED BEING PART OF THE HAGUE!?

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            referencing other treaties is common you idiot. I notice your limited mentality is showing

          • iksnilol

            You know somebody is of limited mental capability when you literally show them the evidence black on white yet they still try to refute it. Next thing is you’re gonna claim OJ Simpson was innocent?

          • wzrd1

            It’s been my experience that the first one in a dispute to call another an idiot most frequently is him or herself an idiot.
            This is especially true when primary references are provided to prove a point, but they are rejected as they don’t say what the idiot says that they say.

            Oh well, at least you know about M1911 tolerances that prevent jamming in battlefield conditions.

          • wzrd1

            Bullshit.

            From the Hague Convention headers:

            (IV,2): Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Use of Projectiles with the Sole Object to Spread Asphyxiating Poisonous Gases

            This declaration states that, in any war between signatory powers, the parties will abstain from using projectiles “the sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases.” Ratified by all major powers, except the United States.

            (IV,3): Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Use of Bullets which can Easily Expand or Change their Form inside the Human Body such as Bullets with a Hard Covering which does not Completely Cover the Core, or containing Indentations

            This declaration states that, in any war between signatory powers, the parties will abstain from using “bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body.” This directly banned “soft-nosed” bullets (which had a partial metal jacket and an exposed tip) and “cross-tipped” bullets (which had a cross-shaped incision in their tip to aid in expansion, nicknamed “Dum Dums” from the Dum Dum Arsenal in India). It was ratified by all major powers, except the United States.

            The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of war.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            you and iksnilol are related aren’t you? Undoubtedly two different parts of the same person with dissociative personality disorder, Let me guess, One of your other names is Barack Obama, and another is Barry Sotero, amongst others…

          • wzrd1

            Erm, that was the Hague, Geneva has to do with treatment of prisoners, spies and non-combatants.
            Still, it’s irrelevant, as we’ve not declared war and these are not uniformed armed forces, they’re civilians and thus, unlawful combatants.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            Wrong again Jackass, the Hague Treaty is about combatants and war. The Geneva Convention is about humane use of weaponry and torture of recognized POWS, as defined by the Hague. AND We are under a DECLARED WAR against global terror. and have been since 2001. HOWEVER per the Hague treaty ANYONE enacting actions of war against another nation, without wearing a military uniform DO NOT qualify for ANY FORM of international protection, are not qualified as POWS and have ZERO rights, and can be summarily executed as they have undertaken an unsanctioned act of war. And if their government DID sanction it, it is still treated as unsanctioned and the actions of the government are classified as war crimes. Read it some time. It is what was used in the Nuremburg trials against the Nazis, and in specific the SS hierarchy that went about uniformless.

          • wzrd1

            You’re the jackass.
            Hague:
            (IV,1): Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons or by Other New Analogous Methods
            This declaration provides that, for a period of five years, in any war between signatory powers, no projectiles or explosives would be launched from balloons, “or by other new methods of a similar nature.” The declaration was ratified by all the major powers mentioned above, except Great Britain and the United States.
            (IV,2): Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Use of Projectiles with the Sole Object to Spread Asphyxiating Poisonous Gases
            This declaration states that, in any war between signatory powers, the parties will abstain from using projectiles “the sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases.” Ratified by all major powers, except the United States.
            (IV,3): Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Use of Bullets which can Easily Expand or Change their Form inside the Human Body such as Bullets with a Hard Covering which does not Completely Cover the Core, or containing Indentations
            This declaration states that, in any war between signatory powers, the parties will abstain from using “bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body.” This directly banned “soft-nosed” bullets (which had a partial metal jacket and an exposed tip) and “cross-tipped” bullets (which had a cross-shaped incision in their tip to aid in expansion, nicknamed “Dum Dums” from the Dum Dum Arsenal in India). It was ratified by all major powers, except the United States.

            The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of war.

            Get your facts straight, service members could go to prison or worse getting them wrong.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            you are quoting a reference to the Geneva Convention idiot… get your foot out of your mouth

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            so planes missiles and RPGs are banned too? first that is a reference to another treaty, and second you don’t even know how to read the reference

          • wzrd1

            I copied the documents from the UN site, you are the one who is incapable of reading or learning.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            again reference to the Geneva… pathetic fool

          • wzrd1

            Ah, so the UN has it wrong, does it?
            Get over it, you are wrong.

            Wrong and foolish.

          • wzrd1

            Actually, the Geneva convention doesn’t apply for more than one reason.
            The convention describes treatment of prisoners of uniformed armed forces service members, those not in uniform are unlawful combatants and not covered or spies, who could be executed. The other category are non-combatants.
            Finally, we’re not, legally speaking, at war. Congress never declared war and you can’t declare war against a concept, such as terrorism, one declares war against a nation. Our law declared war was WWII.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            there are no Civilian POWs…they are “enemy combatants” and are unlawful combatants and under the Hague an be summarily executed, further as long as they do not raise arms, they are protected by the Hague. I Love how you insist on proving your stupidity

          • iksnilol

            I never said civilian POWs.

            There’s a reason I used the comma.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            don’t you mean COMA? its much more befitting your mental state.

          • wzrd1

            They are not to be summarily executed, but *can* be summarily executed under the *Geneva* conventions.

            For Christ’s sake, the damned things are online! We had to learn it in the military.

            Oh, they’re not enemy combatants, they’re *unlawful combatants*, as they’re not uniformed or government forces. Under both conventions, we can essentially do whatever we want with them when captured and they’re not protected by any convention, due to their unlawful status and the lack of a declared war.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            No you did NOT have to learn it for the military, unless you were an officer, and YES they are ENEMY COMBATANTS as defined as anyone using deadly force against any military force while NOT under the colors (in uniform of) a nation in conflict. other than that your summation is correct

      • Swarf

        What terrorists? Put em on trial and prove they’re terrorists. If they are, space them and let’s move on. if they aren’t… well, they are now. I’d be pretty rankled at the country that held me without a trial or evidence for 15 years, I don’t know about you guys.

        Guantanimo is against everythin the US claims to stand for.

        • Bill

          Darn straight – due process isn’t just for people we like. Let’s name other countries that hold people without charges and then try them in secret military tribunals, when they get around to it.

          If you attempted to blow up the WTC from the garage up you went to trial and then a federal supermax. If you were involved in blowing it up from the top down you got a sandbag over your head and maybe a once a year visit from a military lawyer, IF you weren’t transferred to CIA facility in scenic Estonia.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            Due Process is not extended to war criminals who acted in a war zone outside the US, they are covered under the Hague Treaty, Not the US Constitution, and the Hauge says we can do anything we want short of torture then to death, in fact it even says we CAN execute them

          • Bill

            I’m still waiting to hear how I can take one of your classes, so I can be an expert like you, then you can lecture me on due process and criminal procedure.

            Nothing in either Hague Convention, or in the Geneva Convention, addressed non-state actors, which is what a terrorist is by definition. We CAN execute them, after they have had the due process the Constitution says they are entitled to.

            Is there no limit to your expertise or knowledge?

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            you are so stupid you cant even get the terms right…

          • Bill

            What terms did I use incorrectly, and how did I error? Please, with your superior knowledge and intellectual horsepower you have an ethical and professional duty to educate those of us who are so obviously inferior to you.

            And, if you’ll excuse me starting a sentence with “and,” why did it take you 18 days to decide I was stupid?

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            the fact that you lack intellect was obvious from the onset. However letting you make an ass out of yourself is pure, unadulterated entertainment, and adding you to my collection is a plus for me.

          • Bill

            Couldn’t find any, I see.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            your grammar says it all the comma delineates the sentence to read as :
            “(I) couldn’t find any. I see. ” In short your admitting to your own ignorance. and in multiple areas as well.

          • Bill

            You’re hysterical. Parse that, you pathetic bytch.

        • That’s above my pay grade (O-0, civilian), and doesn’t have anything to do with gitmo as a location. Again, for those concerned about gitmo abuses, I see nothing about it remaining open that necessitates what you’re worried about. It’s not for me to say what is and is not politically feasible, but the facility itself remaining open is to me besides the point.

        • DeathFromTheShadows

          your ignorance is amazing. They were captured in combat, Normally they would be called enemy combatives. HOWEVER, under the Hague Treaty, as they were not wearing uniforms, they are NOT military, and as such are by treaty, terrorists. Guantanamo is a US Military Operated Detainment facility, and as the terrorists attacked US Military IN A WAR ZONE, it is the correct place for the prisoners in it and they do NOT qualify for Civilian trials. Had you any KNOWLEDGE of international MILITARY Law you would know this, and you would also realize that this is why no recognized international tribunal has an issue with them being held indefinitely, IN FACT, under that same international Law we COULD just summarily execute them and be done with it. but again as an under informed individual you believe Obama.

          • Theo Brinkman

            Neither the Hague Convention of 1899, nor the Hague Convention of 1907 even *mention* the word ‘terrorist’ (or any other word starting with ‘terro’, for that matter) anywhere in their respective texts.

            Care to provide a citation for your claim that any part of any Hague treaty allows non-military persons to be treated as *neither* military, nor civilians for purposes of law?

            If you can manage that, please follow it up with a citation of the part of the U.S. Constitution which allows such.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            there never was a Hague “convention” . it Was a TREATY. And if you read it, you will find your answer. You are mixing the Geneva Convention with the Hague,,, As it specifically cites combatants not in uniform. Further, The US Constitution is NOT a document relevant to war, it is the document that LIMITS the actions of the US Government Relative to US Citizens. And as such this alone tells everyone how ignorant you are and how far YOU have your head up your ass acting like a 5 year old with a prove it rant going on.

          • Theo Brinkman

            You will find that the “Hague Convention of 1899″ and the ‘Hague Convention of 1907” are the *NAMES* of the treaties in question. Seriously. Look it up. This isn’t top-secret information, the treaties (including their full texts) are readily available for a number of sources, including online.

            A simple text search of the treaties will demonstrate that I was correct. Neither one contains the word ‘terrorism’, or any other word starting with ‘terro’ for that matter.
            (Note: I responded to this several days ago, but apparently the links to the actual text of both treaties prevented it from posting.)

      • Bal256

        I used to work in a detention facility in Afghanistan as a Marine. Becuase everyone gets their panties in a twist about the US abusing their prisoners, we handed them off to the ANA for “management”. I can’t repeat what they did but I never heard them complain much when we got them back. I can tell you that one Aussie spec ops guy I met was downright horrified when he witnessed what two ANA officers did after they dragged this one guy into a tent.

        I think its cute when people say that American troops are “just as bad as their enemy”. If they shut down gitmo, I wonder if we can outsource this to the Russians.

        • Bill

          The Russians have way fewer people n prison than we do, as do the Chinese. We could put these guys in a for-real prison if we didn’t already have the highest incarceration rate in the world. Of course, doing that after a trial would be sorta what that Constitution thing is all about.

          • Sulaco

            You seem to think this is a crime issue not a war? That ISIS should be stopped with legal injunctions and court rulings? Enjoy the next few years.

          • Bill

            Did I say anything about court orders and legal injunctions? Last I checked, murder, mass or otherwise, and conspiracy to commit same were all crimes. So far, the longest war in American history hasn’t yielded much of a solution, so let’s try a different tack. Do what you’ve always done, you get what you’ve alway gotten, the definition of insanity, doing the same thing and expecting different results, alway fighting the last war, etc, etc.

            You can’t launch airstrikes against ideas, particularly when your adversary doesn’t mind dying and there’s plenty more to take his place. It’s an ugly world, look at what the Israelis have put up with.

            H.L. Mencken: “there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.”

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            Bill has Got to be one of the Obamazites…. he has a zombie brain

          • Bill

            But I’m going to take one of your classes and you’ll straighten me out but good, right?

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            no I wouldn’t let you in, you are unstable

          • Bill

            Please? I’ve passed every psych screening at every police department I’ve worked at, a mini exam when I went through hostage/crisis negotiator school, and I had to undergo a full assessment again when I got my graduate degree in forensic psychology, so I’m pretty sure that I’m stable.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            all none of them… your bullshit doesn’t pass muster, you see, you cant talk the talk Adam Henry.

          • Bill

            Actually, it’s because you are a lying container of feces who doesn’t do any training, can’t pass any, can barely read or write and has zero experience actually working in the field. You’re a tough guy on the internet who has never set foot out of mom’s basement into the real world and wouldn’t survive 2 seconds if you did. To use your cliche, you can’t walk the walk.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            Little Billy your own words have condemned you. Don’t let the toilet seat hit you in the head when you get a drink, your mother will get howling mad at you, again.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            :::YAWN::: Well Bill. I survived it. And you didn’t go through it. You are the one who is here getting all bent out of shape and threatened when someone else isn’t intimidated by your bullshit and lies. so you cam just GFYS. and return to your BLM protests your crap isn’t valid ad everyone recognizes it

          • Bill

            You REALLY need to have somebody proof-read your posts if your going to make a career out of being a troll. What didn’t I go through? I’m BEGGING to be a paying customer at one of your imaginary “classes,” so you can demonstrate your superiority where it counts, and not just from behind a keyboard. But we both know you don’t have the stones, or the training, or the knowledge, or the ability to spell, to do anything than scrawl sniveling little screeds. Back under the bridge, troll.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Yes, but how are they treated?

          • Theo Brinkman

            Does poor treatment by others justify poor treatment by us?

          • Bill

            For a shining city on a hill we are sure quick to shut off the electricity to people who don’t think like us.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            that’s because they KILL felons, not incarcerate them, fool
            in fact most don’t even get trials

          • Bill

            Wrong. If anything the Russian system of jurisprudence is more screwed up than ours. They essentially quit the death penalty in 1999 and haven’t executed anyone since the mid 90s.

            Research: Give it a try.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            really? let see tey send larger numbers to the gulags than we incarcerate and YET the numbers of prisoners are lower. CAN you COUNT??? I didn’t think so,

          • Bill

            I’m not sure that I can interpret what you are trying to ask, but please post the numbers of people the Russians send to gulag. I’d like a number so I can practice my counting.

  • HenryV

    You lucky dogs. 🙂

  • Krakass

    This was vetoed 3 weeks ago. Please do some research before posting articles.

    • Harrison Jones

      It’s going back through the process again. It’s all a negotiation of sorts.

    • An earlier version was. This one has not been and is expected to be signed.

      I do research before posting articles. 🙂

    • DeathFromTheShadows

      and every vetoed bill is sent down for revision please do some research before sucking your toes

  • Geoffry K

    As much as I would like to have one or a Garand, I have 2 issues with the whole CMP thing.
    1. Could not afford either one, and if I could…
    2. I do not have a CMP Membership, although I qualify otherwise.
    There are no CMP Affiliated gun clubs near me that actually state that they are CMP Affiliated on their website, even though CMP says they are. Not to mention that almost all are private clubs and charge hundreds for membership per year. And I think I’m a little too old to join the High School ROTC in the city near me that is CMP Affiliated.
    I have a better chance of getting one through a C&R Dealer. I have the FFL03.

    • mosinman

      yeah there isn’t any CMP related stuff anywhere near me, i think the closest is a state away

      • KansasGunner

        Join the GCA for $25.00 or your state rifle association, these also meet the CMP requirement. Way too many people complain about how hard it is to get a gun from the CMP when they have never even tried. I doubt you will find a better deal on an M1 than spending $630 on a Service Grade M1 from the CMP.

        • mosinman

          interesting, i wasn’t really complaining it just didn’t seem like there was anything close to me

          • You can just join the Garand Collectors Association or the RWVA.

    • If you call the CMP, they will help you achieve eligibility. I just completed my CMP eligibility, and it was very easy. For membership, I found a club in my state and registered online for $10.

  • Don Ward

    Holy cow, the hand-wringing, whining, crying, moaning and groaning in the comments. The CMP could be giving these things away for free and some of you would whine about paying for the gas to go down to pick it up. If you want a microcosm of what is wrong with the firearms community, some of these comments are a good place to start.

    • MR

      They should be mailed out alongside our tax returns. On the tax form, right beside your account information, it should ask how many 1911s you would like delivered to your home. Just combine the 1040/1099/whatever with the 4473.

      • Steve Skubinna

        Damn straight. Any ‘Murican citizen ought to have a 1911 set aside for him at birth, to be awarded on his 18th birthday. By the President. In person.

        ’cause ‘Murica, damn it!

    • Cal S.

      “Microcosm of what’s wrong with the firearms community”. M’kay.

      This is a special case. The US military has decades of service in on these things and the supply is short while the demand is long. So yeah, they’re gonna be expensive. I was hoping they’d be cheap since they’re surplus, but I’ve already gotten over that. I won’t be buying one now, either. I’m also not blaming the manufacturer’s for the fact that we still have $2,500 AR-15s that actually sell, since we’re comparing this special case across the board. I AM, however, blaming those that pay the $2,500 and actually think they’re getting their money’s worth out of the product.

      That is my beef with the firearms community; they’re all too willing to overpay for things while simultaneously belittling those that don’t have as much disposable income. They’re the types that would call out someone for being ‘too cheap’ and buying an AR with a polymer lower and a pencil barrel while simultaneously and hypocritically idolizing the FN SCAR which has–guess what–a polymer lower and a pencil barrel. Have you seen honest reviews of the KAC AR-15s? Basically, KAC is selling the quality and performance equivalent of a sub-$1k AR for over $2,000 because people are willing to swallow the brand name = quality line without asking questions. Stop feeding the beast, stop buying stuff simply because it’s expensive.

      • E Wolfe

        Nearly any MFG’s stripped lowers & uppers are as good as the ones Uncle Sam buys off the shelf. DPMS, Anderson, they’re all just fine and result in a fine AR build. Use a good trigger and a good barrel and you’ve built yourself a fine AR. And prices on the off brands seem to be collapsing. DPMS carbine’s for just under $400. My only beef is most of those are 1:9 twist. But my son recently purchased an assembled 1:7 16″ complete upper, with a full lower parts kit included, along with an Anderson $49 stripped lower for about $450 total. My point is, even if you don’t want a poly lower, there are some reasonably priced ARs available now.

        • Cal S.

          Absolutely correct! There comes a point in time where you’ve got to separate function from form. I myself bought an ‘entry-level’ AR that functions better than some that cost 3x as much.

          Start-up companies put a LOT of lipstick on that pig back when it was cool in 2012 and all their MSRP’s reflected about their product was the cost of starting up their own businesses.

          I’m just waiting until the bullpups peak. It could be a few years, but I can dream, can’t I?

      • Doug73

        Actually Cal, what other people do with THEIR OWN money is of absolutely no concern to you. It really and truly is none of your business.

        I mean, think about what you just wrote. You are “blaming” (your word) people for spending their own money however they see fit. Your entire argument is the very definition of “class warfare” and “victim mentality”. It also displays a disturbing lack of insight into the concept of voluntary exchange within a free marketplace, where prices are set by what voluntary sellers and voluntary buyers mutually agree is a fair price.

        Equally disturbing is that your post has 12 likes. I.e., at least 12 other people wallowing in the same self-pity and anger that someone else would DARE spend their own money however they darn well want.

        Good grief.

        • Cal S.

          Wow. Sensitive much? I bet yours cost you $3,500, didn’t it? Just because it’s none of my business doesn’t mean I can’t laugh at foolishness when I see it. That’s none of your business if I do, or if other people ‘like’ it. 😉 Interestingly, my original comment was in response to another person’s ‘class-warfare’, as you put it. Where’s your criticism of them or those that ‘liked’ his comment?

          You mistake what I mean when I say ‘blame’. I’m not ‘blaming’ high prices on them because they’re driving up the prices to where they’re unattainable for the likes of me, I’m ‘blaming’ them for paying those high prices because they’re high or are attached to a brand name. That $2,500 AR is not out of my reach financially, if I really, really wanted it. I just know that the 1/2 MOA they advertise with their “Custom, precision, hand-lathe barrels that have been imbued with the spirit of Chris Kyle, +$1,000” is attainable with a much more budget-oriented AR.

          However, on the other side of things, I’ve been the brunt of so much ‘class-warfare’ as you put it, it’s not even funny. “Oh, you wasted your money on a Smith & Wesson M&P-15? What, didn’t you value your life enough to buy a Knight’s Armament?!?!” This. Right here. What I deal with. So, yeah. Forgive me for striking back a little bit. Didn’t feel so good to you, obviously, now did it?

          Encourage innovation and stop buying overpriced, dressed-up pigs just because they’re overpriced and dressed-up. We’ll all have more interesting products to buy if we did.

          • Doug73

            Yes Cal, I am sensitive to the increasing amount of victim mentality and woe-is-me handwringing I see on gun forums.

            Tell me, do you go on car forums and complain when people pay $160,000 for a new Porsche? Do you “laugh at their foolishness” while explaining how silly those people are, knowing they could buy a Ford Mustang, trick it out and still have $100,000 in their pocket? And when someone goes to a store and pays $200 for some kind of whiz-bang frying pan, do you go on cooking forums and school people on how they could get a good frying pan at Wal-mart for $40, and suggest that expensive frying pan isn’t worth the price because, well, Cal knows better!

            I’m guessing you don’t do the above. Mostly because (i) you realize that some people simply have money, (ii) that it would be fruitless (and none of your business in any regard) to complain about what the world spends its money on, and (iii) especially because you have no desire to own a $160,000 car or a $200 frying pan. But we get to firearms and ohs noes…someone is spending more money than you would on a firearm, and according to you – the great arbiter of all that is fair and right when it comes to buying firearms – people should just stop spending their own money however they please just to placate you and your sense of righteousness and faux-justice!

            Yes, your comment still reeks of class warfare and envy. It also reeks of victim mentality, since you really shouldn’t give a hoot what some anonymous person on the Internet thinks of YOUR firearms purchases. Just like you shouldn’t give a hoot as to what others buy.

            Ultimately, if you’re happy with what you buy, that’s really all that matters. It’s too bad you’re not willing to extend that same commonsense mentality to other peoples’ purchases, owing to your desire to be a victim of people who – gasp! – might not buy exactly the same thing you would buy!

            As Don correctly pointed out, your comment is symbolic of some of what’s wrong with the firearms community today. If you don’t like being called out on your silliness, then stop being silly. Easy enough, huh?

          • Cal S.

            So, again, you’re saying that ‘your side’ is perfectly justified in condemning ‘my side’ for the same ‘class warfare’ that ‘your side’ is perfectly justified in perpetrating? Ok, cool.

            No, really, that’s exactly what it is. Either that or you completely ignored about 75% of my last comment in your eagerness to rush into your ensuing tirade. Therefore, I shall repeat my premise using your car example with you and me representing our prospective sides. I buy a $35k truck that will get me from point A to point B with enough HP to haul around what I may need hauled around from time to time. You buy a $85k truck that has the same features, HP, and cargo capacity. We’re both happy with our purchases. But oh no, that’s not good enough. You come along and belittle me because I didn’t buy the same truck you did. Don’t I value my life? Am I really that cheap? You tell me if I were really serious about driving, I’d have gone without a vehicle and continued to save my pennies until I could afford your $85k truck. Didn’t I know that your brand was used by X famous person that one time and therefore my argument about how my vehicle actually has a better track record/fewer problems/manufactured by a more reputable company while being more fuel efficient and economical is invalid?

            That’s exactly what goes on. Maybe there wouldn’t be so much ‘victim mentality’ and ‘woe-is-me’s’ going on if your side wouldn’t lead out of the corner with insults like the original poster did. In essence, we’re tired of being called every imaginable ‘polite’ insulting name (because anything stronger would get modded) in the book because we didn’t spend as much as others. On my part, it’s mainly reactionary.

            Wake up and look around you. The class warfare goes both ways, pal. Ironically, as is being illustrated with this discussion.

          • Doug73

            Wow, Cal. You’ve become so completely confused here, that you’re now referring to “my side” and “your side”, and ascribing arguments to me that I didn’t make. At all. Completely lost in your victimhood mentality is the fact that I’m not on any “side”.

            If your example above, I bought an expensive car and you bought a less expensive car. Good enough. But then you go off the reservation suggesting “my side” (whatever that means) is belittling your car, despite the fact that nothing I wrote suggested I WOULD belittle your car. Quite the opposite in fact.

            With regard to guns, the only thing you’ll find above that has me mentioning your purchases is my paragraph where I said, “If you’re happy with what you buy, that’s all the matters. You should extend that same philosophy to what others buy.”

            Not happy with that commonsense observation, you’ve now put me on some “side” that backs an argument I never actually made.

            You have such a profound sense of victim mentality, that you’re now a victim of me due to an argument I never even made.

            Holy cow!

            I suggest you go re-read my last post, this time with more of an eye towards reading what is actually there, rather than what you imagine to be there.

          • Cal S.

            Yeah…No. I guess we both can’t understand each other, then, since my original comment was based entirely on the hypocrisy of those who automatically equate brand name with quality regardless of all other factors. Especially when they apply reasoning across the board based on one very special case. I also touched on the condescending attitude the same have toward those who truly buy the best they can afford, but never claiming to be one of the…unprivileged. I still don’t understand where you got that (as you’ll recall I wondered from the very start), since I have never pretended that I could afford the best out there if I really wanted it. So, if I continued to pretend to be a victim, wouldn’t that make me rather a hypocrite?

            Really, pretty sure this whole misunderstanding could have been avoided if you hadn’t been so eager to launch into your tirade. I was confronting hypocrisy, plain and simple. Go back to my original comment and read it in that light, I’m sure you’ll see things differently. But, since its too late, and for just the sake of public face you won’t let yourself be dissuaded, I’ll spare you the trouble by assuring you that my contribution to this conversion is over. I said what I came to say, and my comments stand.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            YOU need to reread your arguments because you ARE making what you claim you are not

          • Doug73

            Can I please get a quote from you of what I said, that has you believing I have criticized someone for the type of gun they purchased?

            Thanks. And good luck. 😉

          • Vanns40

            I don’t care what anyone does or doesn’t do with their money. It’s their money. When everyone was paying top dollar for ammo I stopped buying for two years and sat back with what I had and waited. It came down and I bought again.

            Again, I’ve been around a long time, these things come and go, wait a while and it’ll all level out again.

          • Doug73

            Get out of here with your commonsense! You should be rebuking people for how they spend their own money! It’s the latest fad amongst “conservatives”, dontchaknow. 😉

        • DeathFromTheShadows

          Actually Doug, BULLSHIT. people throwing money around affects us all, and they make it our business. Look at the housing glut idiots willing to pay more than market value on houses kept inflating the market until it crashed and resulted in a banking crisis. So your idea that its nobody elses business is pure unadulterated bullshit. when it affects other its everybody’s business. And YOU are talking out your ass like a typical liberal. with the “I can do what I want” attitude with no real concern for the ramifications.

          • Doug73

            Congratulations, DeathFromTheShadows! You just employed one of the exact same arguments gun-grabbers use to justify banning guns. Although I’m guessing that probably flew right over your head.

            I mean, if someone thinks you shouldn’t own a gun because a person they know was killed by a gun, I’m certain you also believe that you owning a gun then becomes their business, right? Right??? I’d really hate to have to accuse you of logical inconsistency.

            Yes, as long as I use my money for legal purposes, I really CAN do whatever I want with it. Your approval isn’t needed.

            Funny that you call me a liberal, when your own statements are the epitome of the statist refrain, “I’m going to tell other people how they should spend their own money!”

            How about you just mind your own f*cking business, and not worry about how I spend my money? Or is that too much to ask of a statist like yourself?

      • DeathFromTheShadows

        I want a CMP 1911. Not to shoot or customize but to restore, and put in a glass faced presentation box on the wall. It has historic significance, And my father lived through retirement thanks to the one he had in WWII that he built out of “condemned” parts, as an armorer. Yeah I’d over pay for one, but not because of ignorance, but because it has significant personal value.

        • Cal S.

          And that, sir, is definitely a good reason. Good luck, hope you find a good one.

          • DeathFromTheShadows

            Thanks Cal. People need to remember History forgotten is history to be repeated. Every one of the military arms our troops carried teaches us about history.

    • Anonymous

      The taxpayers paid for them you idiot.

      • DeathFromTheShadows

        WHICH tax payers, where you alive at the time? Your argument lacks merit

  • Levi Wright

    Hopefully it passes and can save us the cost of storing them. Of course the liberals are going to cry.

  • Maxpwr

    They should have included a provision for surplus M9s since those will be going the way of the dodo eventually. Anything which encourages government sales of surplus firearms to the public is a good thing.

  • Word

    I can’t wait to get one polished chrome with gold accents and pearl grips!

  • Brian Fulmer

    Meh, I have a 1915 Springfield frame/Colts Commercial slide 1911 my Dad gave me. He bought it with paperoute money in the mid-50’s for $25. One of at least a dozen he bought and traded away. I grew up thinking 1911’s were hand biting heavy triggered anachronisms.

    When I got out of school in the early 90’s I looked around for a more modern interpretation of a 45 ACP pistol. My Glock 21 ruined me for 1911’s, though my next purchase was of a very nice SA Inc 1911 Milspec. 1911A1 as a start, with good sights and the ability to function with hollowpoints!!

    Having a very cool example of an important historical firearm in my collection is neat; pretending it is any kind of daily driver is delusional. That can be said about me shooting my DLW Garands in High Power, but in that case the limitation is the shooter, not the firearm!

  • nova3930

    Them needing an FFL is fine by me. The pistols are C&R so it’s still direct shipment for me 🙂

    • DeathFromTheShadows

      Same here

  • Gregory

    I get a kick out of having to pay for guns that the American tax payer already paid for. They should be given to those that pay taxes. A lottery would be the way to go.

  • Thomas S

    Amazing all the people who are “not interested ” and don’t want one because they can buy a new one cheaper. Or one that doesn’t “rattle” cheaper. That’s not why anyone would buy one of these. It’s because it’s CMP, it’s because it’s government issued, from World War 2 most likely, and because its a piece of history. You can certainly tell this is not the CMP forums

  • James Rea

    I am hoping that when these 1911A1s, and possibly older 1911s, come up for sale, that they will not be exorbitantly expensive. I would love to add another to my collection.

  • Jack Vermeulen

    In 1982 I qualified as Expert with Old Slabsides. Most have been refurbished over the years and all the BT and School Guns were so worn out the Military may not have retained them when the orders came down to destroy a significant quantity them.

  • dltaylor51

    I would just love to have a ww2 vintage original 1911 to go with my ww1 1911,where do i sign up?

  • Steve

    I don’t like how the law says “Not more than 10,000”; the Secretary of the Army could just drag his feet and do 1 a year if he desires.

    • DeathFromTheShadows

      the limit isn’t an army thing its based on keeping the cmp from becoming a mass firearms suppliers, as well as extending the timeframe the handguns are available, making them available to people who need time to come up with funds, rather than just putting them in the hands of the wealthy shooters. there is more to this than ost are considering.

  • tenmillimeter

    Immediately

  • Jacob

    I cant wait to get my hands on one of these. My best memory as a kid is shooting a railroad spike at 35 yards with my kimber 1911. Dad doesnt talk about it cuz it took him two tries!

  • I wouldn’t be too noisy about these surplus weapons. Obama will have them melted down out of spite if he realizes they are available.

    • wzrd1

      Let’s see now, the DoD is under the executive branch of the government, aka President Obama. The DoD has surplus M1911 pistols and Congress had previously prohibited transferring them to the CMP.
      Note the checks and balances there.
      Now, Congress is considering distributing the excess to civilians via the CMP.

      Now, go take a civics lesson and learn what each branch of the government can and cannot do.

      • Civics textbooks. All our problems are solved! Why didn’t we ask your advice sooner?

        • wzrd1

          At least if people actually learned their civics lessons in school, they’d not come up with bullshit statements beyond the powers of a specific branch of government.

          • Wzrd1 – Your instructions to “read the directions” ring hollow. What “people” are you talking about? The people on this thread? Aren’t your comments better directed at the “people” who make up our dysfunctional Federal Gov’t?

            Further why are you referring to Civics textbooks and original intent of how our government works? Our system is way beyond even paying lip service to separation of powers and original intent.

            The Executive Branch *routinely* oversteps its bounds, aka Executive Orders. The Legislative Branch *routinely* surrenders its prerogatives so that it will not have to make politically unpopular decisions. Case in point: continuing resolutions versus actual budgets. It’s hard to even know where to start with the Judicial Branch. Totally out of control.

            And yet you lecture me about reading a civics text. I do read it. And weep.