- Thread starter
- #21
Because they can?No more new calibers! Why do they do this??

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Because they can?No more new calibers! Why do they do this??
As far as new long rifle goes I have no opinion
But there was nothing wrong with the 1911 .45
My favorite two "heavy hitters" are my home builds, one in 5.56 and the other in 7.62x39. Unfortunately SIGs are out of my price range.
The 5.56:
View attachment 633628
The AR 47
View attachment 633630
Like I said, out of my price range......... Currently the top of my range is $400 which is down from $600.My SIG was $1200 before I started adding optics which isnt to bad.
After adding all the goodies it's around $3500 possibly a bit more.
Like I said, out of my price range......... Currently the top of my range is $400 which is down from $600.
In my case it has little to do with inflation, I've simply used up my fun money so in reality my top price range is about $150 and that's for ammo which is the "little" having to do with inflation.
I’m mot saying the old Colt was idealNot enough capacity would be my only complaint.
My FNX .45 holds 16 rounds with one in the pipe.
I’m mot saying the old Colt was ideal
The single action and single stack magazine were not ideal
yet the .45 auto round was a close range stopper
And the weapon was made in America
My point is that the Army has been choosing 9mm and none of them hitThe FNX .45 is made in South Carolina.
And of course it's a .45 auto round as well.
Dont get me wrong,I like the 1911 for its history but there are far better .45's out there these days.
My point is that the Army has been choosing 9mm and none of them hit
as hard as the .45
And to be compatible with NATOI can agree with that.
I dont even have a 9mm. You here all kinds of reasons they went with the 9mm. from ammo capacity to females not being able to handle the recoil of the .45