M9 vs 1911


PDA






BayouBocephus
November 25, 2008, 03:19 PM
Which is the best combat handgun? The M9 or the 1911?

If you enjoyed reading about "M9 vs 1911" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
devilc
November 25, 2008, 03:27 PM
The Glock.
Next question.

Diamondback6
November 25, 2008, 03:27 PM
Depends... which fits your hand and your personal doctrine better? Each have their advantages and disadvantages, like the fact that not everyone adapts well to cocked-and-locked single-action.

WoofersInc
November 25, 2008, 03:34 PM
For me it is the 1911. Points easier and fits the hand better than the M9.

7.62Reaper
November 25, 2008, 03:48 PM
0-11 I think this is obvious.

BayouBocephus
November 25, 2008, 03:50 PM
i wonder is this just the love for the 1911 or a real analysis of the effectivness in the field...

10/22plinker
November 25, 2008, 03:55 PM
Hehe im 14 and fired both 1911 by far because my first three shots on paper looked to be lethal. The Beretta was all over the place accuracy versus capacity silly question.

BHP FAN
November 25, 2008, 03:57 PM
BHP.

SHusky57
November 25, 2008, 03:58 PM
10/22 plinker. The m9 is plenty accurate. I am guessing it just didn't fit your 14 year old hands. Once the m9 goes to SA after the 1st shot, the trigger pull is about the same as the 1911. If you aren't used to the 1st shot DA, you can definitely pull your shot low. It's just a training issue.

It's not accuracy vs. capacity by any means. The m9 went through rigorous testing to win the contract, and it's a damn good pistol. Nothing is going to please everyone, but it's a good pistol.

GRIZ22
November 25, 2008, 04:23 PM
I would feel adequately armed with either.

OOOXOOO
November 25, 2008, 04:40 PM
The one in your hand.

Deer Hunter
November 25, 2008, 04:47 PM
What is a "combat handgun"?

I feel that handguns are, at most, an "OH <deleted>" tool.

RH822
November 25, 2008, 04:51 PM
i wonder is this just the love for the 1911 or a real analysis of the effectiveness in the field...

How about both. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam etc. etc...

Deanimator
November 25, 2008, 04:59 PM
The Beretta doesn't fit my hand. The trigger reach is too long.

I've got four M1911s (going on five) and no Berettas.

jhco
November 25, 2008, 05:04 PM
Im tired of this vs that threads its pointless

DevilDog0402
November 25, 2008, 05:07 PM
1911

Do own a Beretta (96) though.

mljdeckard
November 25, 2008, 05:21 PM
(Wow, what an interesting debate. No one has thought of this before.)

Correct, the sidearm is ALWAYS backup. WHICH MEANS, if I am ever in a position where I HAD to use it RIGHT NOW, it means everything else has failed. You are in more trouble than you can handle. THEREFORE, you need the sidearm and ammo most likely to do the most damage. If the military would quit pretending to follow the Hague Accords, and issue effective ammo for the M-9, I would still PREFER the 1911, but I would shut up and live with 46 rounds of hydra-shoks.

I'm not seriously picky about high capacity. If you are in a situation that can't be solved with 7, 8, or 10 +1, I don't see how 15 +1 is going to make a whole lot of difference. If it were absolutely critical, one could use a wide-frame 1911.

If I went to Afghanistan, and wound up attached to a unit with civilian clothes and vague identities, I would ask the CO if he cared what I carry. If he told me he could care less, I would immediately have my 1911 shipped in pieces and carry it, even if it might mean I would have to leave it there, since getting one is easier than taking it home. (I already know what the liklihood of this is, keep it to yourself.)

benderx4
November 25, 2008, 05:24 PM
Sig 556 SWAT

Ala Dan
November 25, 2008, 05:50 PM
a) 1911 = 28

b) Beretta M9 = 6

Is there any other questions~? :eek: ;)

FoMoGo
November 25, 2008, 06:35 PM
The M9 isnt comfortable in my hand like the 1911 is... I dont hit as well with it.
1911 for me.


Jim

Loomis
November 25, 2008, 06:44 PM
I own a beretta and prefer to target shoot with a beretta. But I think as a backup weapon in a warzone I would prefer the 1911. Better safety lever, single action only, cocked and locked carry, easier to double tap.

That's hard to beat in a "oh <deleted>" situation where someone is tryng really hard to kill you. 1911 wins.

R12GS
November 25, 2008, 07:56 PM
I would feel adequately armed with either.

This is the correct answer. As for what I prefer? I own both. I like both for very different reasons. I love my 1911's because of the historical significance.

BayouBocephus
November 25, 2008, 08:22 PM
Personally I am in love with the 1911s..they are an American Classic and a workhorse. The M9 is a very nice gun. It fits me just as good as the 1911. There is just something I like about the M9. I don't believe there is a true winner between the two. They have both shown there effectivness in battle.

Gunfighter123
November 25, 2008, 08:41 PM
Easy --- A 1911 --- since 1911 it has a record of putting people down and out of the fight.

I own .45 1911s and 9MMs ---- I personally like the best of both ;
Para-Ordnance p-14 Limited .

crushbup
November 25, 2008, 08:44 PM
If we're only going by the size of the hole the bullet makes, then neither. Only the Deagle can satisfy that need for me:neener:

In all seriousness, the "perfect" combat handgun is one that the user is most comfortable holding and shooting and can hit what he/she aims at with.

Q-Gunner2
November 25, 2008, 11:04 PM
Sig 226.


OK, seriously. It does not matter. My Sig 226 is as reliable as a GLOCK. But you know what? It is more accurate than a GLOCK in my hands. It also fits my hand nicely. The GLOCK? I do not shoot as well with it, or the BHP, or the M-9. The Sig 226 is pretty much the best pistol out there, period. For me, that is.


For you... the XD may feel better. The M-9 may feel better. Maybe a 1911, maybe an EAA, maybe a FNP, maybe a GLOCK, maybe X, Y, or Z. Every gun has lemons, I have seen many weapons malfunction over time- GLOCK pistols included- and what it boils down to is if YOUR weapon is reliable... if YOUR weapon fits YOU and YOU do well with it.

Shoot your weapon. Then tell me if it is reliable- don't bet your life on what someone else tells you. And before you buy one? Try them all out! Talk to friends, go to a range and rent them, dry fire them at gun shops... see what fits you, what sights you like, what controls are easiest for you to manipulate. Then buy it, and shoot the heck out of it. If it is reliable- good. Because when it boils down to it, your life does not depend on how well I shoot with my pistol 1,000 miles away or what brand/size/caliber I like- or if my weapon has been reliable; but rather, what pistol YOU are best with and what brand/size/caliber you are confident with- and if your particular weapon is reliable.


As you can probably guess, I also didn't vote in the poll...

ccsniper
November 25, 2008, 11:11 PM
guess whether you like the extra ammo it takes to kill people with the 9 or the less ammo it takes to kill someone with the .45.

2RCO
November 25, 2008, 11:26 PM
I own many 1911's and a couple M9's and IMHO the 1911 is superior in most aspects (reliability, stopping power, parts availability, simplicity of design) except ammo capacity and that nifty Decocker on the M9- But hey th 1911 has that nifty grip safety so they counter each other out.

There is a reason special ops guys use the 1911 and it's 45ACP.

SHusky57
November 25, 2008, 11:40 PM
The difference between a 9mm and a .45's diameter is about one-tenth of an inch. On a pistol, knockdown power is largely a myth. You have to hit the vitals or CNS. A lot of people I know that used the M9 didn't have any complaints about stopping power, anymore than the complaints about the M-16 vs. M-14. You may have to shoot more than once, regardless of what weapon you use. Until you hit the CNS, you aren't going to get instant stoppage.

As far as military decisions go, when you have to get 1 million of the same thing (for logistical/training purposes) compromises have to be made. I wonder what the difference would be in cost-per-unit between the m9 and the 1911. I think uncle Sam pays less than $185 per M9.

Also keep in mine, your average GI Joe isn't going to train that much with a sidearm so uncle Sam prefers something easy and idiot-proof. The M9 is about as idiot proof as it gets.... the 1911 on the other hand requires someone much better trained, both for maintenance and safe usage.

Special ops guys use the SIG 226 and 1911's b/c they can do whatever they want and they are uber-soldiers. On the other hand, I only get to shoot a weapon once every 3 years for my career field. The average soldier doesn't get much weapon training. Those who do use small arms, like infantry, spend their time on more important things like their rifles, grenade launchers, and support weapons.

But the question is what is the better combat handgun. Hell, as long as it's not a Nambu, they all work about the same. None of them penetrate body armor, none of them are that accurate past 7 yards (under combat stress with little training), and in the sandbox - anything not properly maintained can jam.

Also, 60 rounds of 9mm is a lot more than 28 rounds of .45 (4 magazines), especially when all you get is ball ammo.
I have heard of a burglar who once got shot by 6 rounds of .45 FMJ's and still ran for like 2 minutes before collapsing. His CNS/vitals were not hit for an instant stop. Even the troll-slaying .45 ACP round is still just a pistol round.

R12GS
November 26, 2008, 12:02 AM
There is a reason special ops guys use the 1911 and it's 45ACP.

In 6 years ( with 1 1/2 in the sandbox) I have never ever seen a 1911 .45acp carried by any of the spec ops guys. I have seen Sigs, Berettas, and yes even a few Glocks.

2RCO
November 26, 2008, 12:20 AM
R12GS--The spec ops guys carrying the m1911 are just that good that's why you haven't seen them! :neener:

I'm not taking the use of the 1911 from gunboards by the way. Anytime anyone tells me they are or were Spec Ops my BS meter usually goes off scale into Mall Ninja range. There is some serious documentation out there on Spec Ops and M1911 use. Kinda like the proliferation of M14's among some of the fellas.:D

bgeddes
November 26, 2008, 12:28 AM
How about both. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam etc. etc...

No, no, no, Combat experience, where guns are used......

SHusky57
November 26, 2008, 12:30 AM
I thought all the Delta Force guys get customized 1911s. I don't really know anything though about Army S.F.

I just know the gate guards and MP's all carry Beretta's :-) and supposedly the SEALs carry Sigs.

The closest I have been to special forces was seeing the PJ's hanger in Kadena, or talking to a Combat Control Trainee on a bus at Lackland.

evan price
November 26, 2008, 12:56 AM
NONE of the above, the M11 is the best (Sig).

ZeBool
November 26, 2008, 12:58 AM
It's hard to beat the look and feel of a 1911.

R12GS
November 26, 2008, 01:48 AM
I'm not taking the use of the 1911 from gunboards by the way. Anytime anyone tells me they are or were Spec Ops my BS meter usually goes off scale into Mall Ninja range. There is some serious documentation out there on Spec Ops and M1911 use. Kinda like the proliferation of M14's among some of the fellas.

I never claimed to be Spec Ops nor related in anyway. I can tell you from first hand personal experience of being fwd deployed and seeing Spec Ops members almost on a daily basis, that I had never not once seen any of them with a 1911. Take from that what you will, if you choose to remain ignorant of the matter, thats a choice you have to live with. And btw yes I seen a few M14's. We had ONE in our squad for a short time for the DM, but they were never en masse. Anymore I can do to alleviate your misconceptions?

M203Sniper
November 26, 2008, 01:52 AM
I carry an M9 at work everyday. The 1911 is where it's at.

Mike U.
November 26, 2008, 02:53 AM
Diamondback6 wrote:
Depends... which fits your hand and your personal doctrine better? Each have their advantages and disadvantages, like the fact that not everyone adapts well to cocked-and-locked single-action.

What a great answer.



Only you can decide which is better.

lechiffre
November 26, 2008, 08:10 AM
short answer:

m9

long answer:

1911

Deus Machina
November 26, 2008, 08:18 AM
For me or the gunnies here, a 1911 would probably work better.

For the crap these things go through in a battleground, climbing over stuff, and to throw into the hands of an inexperienced grunt in basic training, I think the M9 would function better. And I'm an American fanboy.

Getting into other points, I'd prefer to see a higher-capacity 1911 or, even better, a DA/SA Beretta in .40 or .45.

RNDMEVIL
November 26, 2008, 08:34 AM
I personally have never been in combat but I do have a lot of friends that have done or are doing some combat time in either Iraq, Afghanistan or (in most cases) both. I have noticed that when you mention the M9 they get this sour look and start in with various horror stories about having to use most of a magazine in a FUBAR moment just to get the bad guy to start thinking about ceasing hostilities. Everyone of them mention replacing the pointless 9mm sidearm with a more effective sidearm in .45acp.

Q-Gunner2
November 26, 2008, 09:16 AM
The .45 wouldn't stop those people either... people do not fly back when shot, many times, they don't even fall down unless they realize they have been shot or they lose their balance.


FYI, the M9 is also American made... any manufacturer that wants to win a contract with the military has to set up a plant in the US to supply the weapons... hence how we got FN USA, Beretta USA, Sig Arms (now, thankfully, changed back to Sig Sauer), etc. All made in America...

12Bravo20
November 26, 2008, 10:11 AM
I have carried both pistols into combat. I was a 60 gunner and was issued a sidearm with it. My personal preference is for the 1911 due to the fact that it won't jam up in sand/mud quickly like other pistols. Yes I carried one that was first issued in the early 40's and it was very loose but was still able to qualify expert with it. Nothing wrong with the M9, I just happen to shoot the 1911 better and it also seemed more reliable in the environments that I was in at the time.

RX-178
November 26, 2008, 10:57 AM
I'd go with the 1911 because of the frame mounted safety.

A CCW instructor I know is occasionally known to carry both a 1911 and M9 at the same time.

Corporal K
November 26, 2008, 04:07 PM
I'm not taking the use of the 1911 from gunboards by the way. Anytime anyone tells me they are or were Spec Ops my BS meter usually goes off scale into Mall Ninja range. There is some serious documentation out there on Spec Ops and M1911 use. Kinda like the proliferation of M14's among some of the fellas.

SOF (Green Berets) carry M9's
SEALs carry Sigs and occasionally Glocks and/or HK's
Delta carries 1911 and Glocks
MEUSOC carries 1911 Kimbers

Maybe you don't know what you're babbling about.

HorseSoldier
November 26, 2008, 04:32 PM
R12GS--The spec ops guys carrying the m1911 are just that good that's why you haven't seen them!

I'm not taking the use of the 1911 from gunboards by the way. Anytime anyone tells me they are or were Spec Ops my BS meter usually goes off scale into Mall Ninja range. There is some serious documentation out there on Spec Ops and M1911 use. Kinda like the proliferation of M14's among some of the fellas.

I did 4+ years in an SF unit as a support guy -- non-doorkicking secret squirrel ninja stuff, but worked directly with and for ODAs, my Group's SFAUC committee, SOTIC committee, and other cool guys extensively.

1911 use among SOF units is overstated on duh intraweb by a couple orders of magnitude. CAG/Delta guys used to be exclusive 1911 users a long time ago, and they've mostly switched to Glocks for all intents and purposes.

Like CorporalK said, SF units mostly just use the M9. There is some variation in this that does include some ODAs carrying 1911s they scrounged up within the inventory, but that also includes guys scrounging up Glocks, HK USPs, and various other stuff from the JOS warehouse or other official means. But mostly it's M9s. There are guys in SF who swear by the 1911, and guys who consider them overly delicate antiques that don't have any real utility in the field even if they're great for IPSC.

Can't speak for the SEALs or MARSOC with any personal experience, though like anyone else whose read about, my understanding is SEALs don't issue 1911s and MARSOC purchased a bunch of Kimbers (and Springfields?).

As for the proliferation of the M14 -- SEALs are supposed to like them, but again, I've never worked with the SEALs. Only M14s I ever saw being used by SOF units were some AFSOC units that had USGI M14s for OPFOR weapons during some training exercises we did with them. The actual CCTs and PJs carried M4s like most everyone else.

I personally have never been in combat but I do have a lot of friends that have done or are doing some combat time in either Iraq, Afghanistan or (in most cases) both. I have noticed that when you mention the M9 they get this sour look and start in with various horror stories about having to use most of a magazine in a FUBAR moment just to get the bad guy to start thinking about ceasing hostilities. Everyone of them mention replacing the pointless 9mm sidearm with a more effective sidearm in .45acp.

???

Kind of reminds me of the guys who got surveyed on weapons effectiveness after the invasion of Iraq who "knew" 9mm ammo lacked stopping power and the ability to end a fight . . . but who admitted on the survey that they had never fired their sidearm in combat or known anyone who had. They had, presumably, read plenty of issues of Bullets and Blammo or whatever where "experts" went on about how 45 ACP will throw a bull elephant to the ground dead from the toenail hit and all that, so "knew" the "facts."

Either pistol caliber sucks for ending a fight. Shot placement and repetition are the only safe bets if you're using a handgun. Guys who chose to carry 1911s in the SOF community mostly are doing so because they really like the 1911 ergonomics and can put rounds on target faster -- or they've had enough Beretta locking blocks break that they'd take a Hi-Point as an alternative if it came down to it.

gasnmyveins
November 27, 2008, 10:26 PM
"experts" went on about how 45 ACP will throw a bull elephant to the ground dead from the toenail hit

That's great, man. I've gotta remember that for the next .45 vs ?? debate.

1911crazy
November 24, 2011, 04:15 PM
for me it's the 1911 because in a oh <deleted> situation that extra power could save your life

wlewisiii
November 24, 2011, 04:23 PM
After having carried a M1911A1 in the Army, I was estatic to hear they were being replaced. I only wish that the Glock 17 would have been ready in time as it would have been better than either.

1911crazy
November 24, 2011, 04:34 PM
maybe it's just me but it seems like some of you are more debating whether .45 is better than 9mm rather than talking about the better pistol

1911crazy
November 24, 2011, 04:39 PM
i like glocks as well :)

JaxNovice
November 24, 2011, 09:04 PM
The question should be which one is the "better" combat handgun. An argument could be made that neither one is the "best".

guyfromohio
November 24, 2011, 09:27 PM
I prefer my M9.

jfrey
November 24, 2011, 10:59 PM
I have 4 1911's and have shot tghe M9 several times. Wouldn't have an M9 for any reason. I think the poll says it all. I have several friends in the military today who carry 1911's - for a reason.

jackpinesavages
November 24, 2011, 11:00 PM
I prefer the trigger on any of the 3 1911s I have, but for combat it would be one of our Glocks.

PRM
November 25, 2011, 11:13 AM
Deleted

springfield30-06
November 25, 2011, 11:31 AM
I have one of each and I can't really say that I'd pick one over the other at any given time. I have been shooting the Beretta better than the 1911 lately, so today I'd pick the Beretta... I used to shoot the 1911 better, and if that were the case I'd choose the 1911. Hitting the target is more important than the caliber to me, so whichever I can place more rounds on target with gets my vote.

Lunie
November 25, 2011, 12:01 PM
I like both. But I voted 1911. Of the two, chose to buy a 1911 (clone) before an M9 (clone).

Either are entirely adequate as sidearms. It's not like they are the primary fighting weapons of the infantry.

Hacker15E
November 25, 2011, 02:08 PM
I own both, they're both great service sidearms, but prefer the 1911.

TG13
November 26, 2011, 04:44 PM
if it were exclusively based on preference, it's the 1911.. i just don't like the M9..

ccsniper
November 27, 2011, 12:42 AM
Zombie thread!!!

Hangingrock
November 27, 2011, 07:47 AM
As a secondary weapon either one but Id rather have a rifle as the primary weapon.

fatcat4620
November 27, 2011, 08:06 AM
The fan boys will shut this one down quick. Then they will go back to their ball vs jhp debate.

Zerodefect
November 27, 2011, 08:53 PM
I despise DA/SA pistols. But they come in handy for making a newbs eyes glaze over as you tell them how they work.


1911 for the win. Better trigger, thinner, accurate, and .45

guyfromohio
November 27, 2011, 08:56 PM
"Break-in period" is a term used by people regretting spending far too much on something that isn't reliable as manufactured. Just say'en.

Lucky Derby
November 27, 2011, 10:29 PM
I prefer the M1911, and that would be my choice. however, If I were in a hotzone and was issued a M9, or it was all I could get for whatever reason, I would be fine with it.

LawScholar
November 27, 2011, 10:34 PM
M9. I might prefer .40 and .45 to 9x19, but current Beretta magazines give the pistol 17+1 capacity. More than twice the bullets. Say I'm stressed and panicked and only land half my shots. 9-10 of 9x19 sounds better to me than 4-5 .45

I also think that most Berettas are far more reliable than most 1911s out of the box.

cacoltguy
November 27, 2011, 10:44 PM
I wonder if the M9 was issued in .45 would that change people's opinion. Other than the early reliability issues with the M9, a lot of the negative perception seems to revolve around the 9mm caliber.

chieftain
November 27, 2011, 11:19 PM
Right now I own 21 1911's and 7 Beretta's, amongst my 75 and guns I own.

If I am going to a fight my secondary weapon, a handgun, will be a 1911. Would I have a problem with a Beretta, nope, but as with the 1911 I want to acquire and bring my own magazines.

As to 45 vs 9mm. I have been in several firefights where I had to go to my 1911. There were a couple where I went to my 38spl too.

AS with the 9mm, in Vietnam the high speed low drag guys like to carry Hipowers of course in 9mm. Caliber is only important if you miss a lot. Most of us that can shoot, caliber isn't important at all. It is good hits that win the day.

In a military fight if you are in a situation that the amount of rounds in your secondary weapon is the make or break, you are already screwed. A different or bigger caliber ain't going to save your ass. Any more than more rounds in the caliber that you have already been missing with will.

Use the pistol or revolver that you have the most experience and confidence with. Go on and anguish over another piece of gear.

If you don't know already, learn how to fight the weapons you have, practice and be ready. Oh, clean and maintain your weapons too. That includes Glocks.

Good luck.

Fred

holdencm9
November 27, 2011, 11:29 PM
M9. I might prefer .40 and .45 to 9x19, but current Beretta magazines give the pistol 17+1 capacity. More than twice the bullets. Say I'm stressed and panicked and only land half my shots. 9-10 of 9x19 sounds better to me than 4-5 .45

I also think that most Berettas are far more reliable than most 1911s out of the box.

Agreed, agreed, agreed. People knock the 9mm round but in a firefight I'd take more ammo any day. When only a tiny percentage of shots fired in battle actually hit their target, capacity is key. Not to mention the carrying of ammo everywhere you go.

But, the 1911 is a mighty fine handgun.

amd6547
November 27, 2011, 11:38 PM
I have been a fan of the 1911 for a long time, but I have also liked the 9mm HiPower as well.
I bought a beretta 92FS just to see if any of the complaints were valid.
To no surprise, I found the Beretta to be a fine pistol. Accurate, utterly reliable, fit my medium sized hands well.
As much as I liked the Beretta, I traded it for what for me is a better combat 9...the Glock 17.
However...for the purposes of the poll...I chose the Beretta.

Fishbed77
November 28, 2011, 12:33 AM
There is a reason special ops guys use the 1911 and it's 45ACP.

This is largely myth.

The only 1911s still issued in any numbers are the MEU(SOC) pistols used by the Marines, and from what I understand, they are are pretty rare.

allaroundhunter
November 28, 2011, 11:29 AM
After spending some trigger time with both, I will take a 1911 every time that I am given the choice. To me it is not so much about the "lack of stopping power" of the 9mm, but the fact that the ergonomics of the 1911 fit me so much better. I also am not particularly fond of the M9's sights.

Yes, I get less ammo with a 1911, but if you can place those fewer rounds where you want them faster then there is no reason to take something else. You want any gunfight that you are in to be ended as quickly as possible, the only way to end it is to make hits.

Pick the gun that fits you best, and that you shoot best, and then go practice like crazy.


Now, on a side-note. I recently had a conversation with a soldier who served in the first Gulf War and served a tour in Iraq. His sidearm was an M9. When I asked him his opinion on it the first thing that he said is that he wanted a .45 ACP. He said that he did not have any problems with the accuracy of the M9 and that reliability was typically good, but that there was no good reason (from a soldier's perspective) to switch from .45 ACP to 9mm.

He also is not a fan of the DA/SA. He much prefers the SA, cocked and locked carry of a 1911, and this was the feeling among most of the other men that he served with as well.

WvHiker
November 28, 2011, 01:22 PM
I'd go with the Beretta, mainly because I like the way it feels better. A lot of people like the thinness of the 1911 and the way it points, but it isn't ideal for me. I think "better" shouldn't be a blanket term. Buy, carry, and use whatever gun you personally like and shoot well. I'd take the Beretta before the 1911, but I don't like either as well as a Glock (which I also like in 9mm.) Take that for what it's worth; I'm not a soldier of any sort, just a dude who likes shooting pistols and carries one in case things go drastically wrong.

springer99
November 28, 2011, 04:15 PM
I'd pick up my M9 before my 1911. They both are great pistols but the M9 is 100% reliable with lots of different ammo and holds more rounds. IMHO, those are the most important features for the task mentioned.

cacoltguy
November 28, 2011, 06:03 PM
Also, magazine capacity isn't the be all and end all in a fire-fight or else our troops would all be equipped with a 500 round capacity, drum fed 22 lr. The main reason the U.S. military has switched to smaller calibers for everything over the years, is that 50-75% of soldiers and Marines can't hit what they aim at to save their life. (This is my observation from 6 years of service in the infantry) Secondly, the average troop in the field is an even worse shot with a pistol considering he is lucky if he shoots two magazines out of it in a year. (That's assuming he is one of the small number who are even issued a sidearm.) Thus, the priority goes in favor of being able to carry/shoot more rounds over lethality. Man stopping bullets don't mean a thing if they never make contact with a man.

barnetmill
November 28, 2011, 06:19 PM
I voted 1911 because I own one and I am most familiar with it. If I had no experience with either it would be the M9 due its magazine capacity and lighter recoil. The cost and weight of the ammo is another consideration and so favors the 9mm round.

jbm0207
November 28, 2011, 08:44 PM
M9.

- Lighter
- Almost 2 X the capacity
- Reliability. This will understandably be subjective. However I never saw an M9 jam in the military and I have never seen a 100% 1911.
- Manual of arms. Subjective as well. I beleive the M9 with DA/SA, decocker, and safety, is easier for the masses than the 1911.

Onmilo
November 29, 2011, 09:06 AM
http://www.fototime.com/D6D012EB7A4C596/standard.jpg
Between the two, the 1911A1 is the better combat handgun but the Sig P226 is better than either of these and the Glock 19 is an even better combat handgun than the Sig,,,

LawScholar
November 30, 2011, 12:01 AM
Based oin a lot of experience you obviously lack there Seany boy.
And a LOT of hands on experience with all the weapons I listed.
http://www.fototime.com/98E74C8FDABD4F6/standard.jpg

I'd still say it is opinion. The 19, 226, and 92 are equally reliable, equally tough guns. None is objectively better than the others.

miles1
November 30, 2011, 04:11 PM
Is this a poll based on reliability or nostalga?

Reliability= beretta

Nostalga=1911

Caliber isnt really part of the debate as both guns could be chambered for 9,40 or 45.

allaroundhunter
November 30, 2011, 04:31 PM
Is this a poll based on reliability or nostalga?

Reliability= beretta

Nostalga=1911

Caliber isnt really part of the debate as both guns could be chambered for 9,40 or 45.

I have never seen or heard of an M9 chambered for .40 S&W or .45 ACP...please, enlighten us.

SK2344
November 30, 2011, 04:33 PM
OK, when you say which is the best Combat Handgun and only give me these two choices then I will give you a restricted answer which is the .45 1911 based on a combat scenario. In Combat, at least when I was in Combat, we carried a riffle as our main firearm and the Pistol as a backup, so as a backup I would have to pick the .45. Having said this, my choice would be the Glock 21 with at least 6 Hi Cap Magazines. No doubt in my mind!

Shipwreck
November 30, 2011, 04:40 PM
I have never seen or heard of an M9 chambered for .40 S&W or .45 ACP...please, enlighten us.

Not an "M" series per se (military) - but there is a Beretta 92... A 40 cal version.

No 45 version of the M9/92/96 series, however

allaroundhunter
November 30, 2011, 04:42 PM
Not an "M" series per se (military) - but there is a Beretta 92... A 40 cal version.

No 45 version of the M9/92/96 series, however

I understand that the 96 is he .40S&W version, but it has never been a combat weapon. (And therefore is not an M9)

chieftain
November 30, 2011, 05:30 PM
my choice would be the Glock 21 with at least 6 Hi Cap Magazines

If you are in my outfit, carrying that many pistol magazines, my first question is why bother with a rifle? If the Glock 21, which is outside the scope of this discussion, or off track, I would only allow my troops to carry one magazine. For that much weight you could carry two additional rifle magazines. Some folks pass on the handgun entirely in combat. My experince is that stuff happens, and a second weapon can come in mighty handy.

When we were issued the Mattey Mattels XM16E1's, when the firefight would begin, anywhere from 25 to 40 percent of the rifles would not fire after the first shot. (and no the powder was not the only issue) I would often toss my handgun to some poor SOB trying to get his rifle back into action. My M14 would continue to chug, or bang away.

But going into combat with the latest and lightest fullly automatic single shot rifle is I think today the kids call an extreme sport.

When I carried a 1911, I carried two additional magazines in a standard mag pouch. When I carried a 38spl I carried 24 additional rounds, loose.

ALL handguns are secondary in the military while in the bush.

Today with the choices the OP has given us I would choose the 1911, but then I have extensive combat experience with it. I would not be upset if I had to take a Beretta though.

Go figure.

Fred

ORHunter79
November 30, 2011, 11:13 PM
Both might, well probably will jam. I was a marksmanship instructor in the Marines. I've seen plenty of M9 jam (usually broken locking block.)

I like the 1911, but cheap ones will probably jam more.

A hassle free gun is a Glock. Just my 2 cents for what it's worth.

miles1
November 30, 2011, 11:35 PM
I understand that the 96 is he .40S&W version, but it has never been a combat weapon. (And therefore is not an M9)
I see you double checked your response.Yes,there isnt a M9 designated in 40 cal;but it wouldnt taker much effort to give it a military designation on the slide and call it M(whatever).I was also in error for saying it was in chambered in 45acp,my mistake.

Onmilo
December 1, 2011, 09:13 AM
M96 has never been a combat weapon?!?
I think DEA and Border Patrol will differ on that.
Beretta is more reliable than a 1911A1?!?
Not according to soldiers issued Checkmate magazines.

Iraq Police and Military also use the G19 Glock with good results and have quite a bit of "combat experience" with this gun also.

Oh and Sean,
Killing people with a handgun doesn't make me feel better.
It is what it is.

allaroundhunter
December 1, 2011, 01:29 PM
The "M96" does not exist. It has never been a military weapon as the M9 and 1911 are. Combat and a quick exchange of a few rounds at drug runners are two completely different things.

jahwarrior
December 1, 2011, 01:41 PM
a katana.



















:D

Walking Dead
December 1, 2011, 02:25 PM
I think uncle Sam already answered this question.

allaroundhunter
December 1, 2011, 02:33 PM
I think uncle Sam already answered this question

And he's rolling over in his grave at the fact that his choice was replaced by the M9 ;)

Sam1911
December 1, 2011, 02:40 PM
This thread was started three years ago. Since then, neither has been proven superior and nothing has changed. Let it REST.

If you enjoyed reading about "M9 vs 1911" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!