1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

If the 1911 and Glock 21 were both made in the year 1911

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by coolluke01, Aug 16, 2012.

  1. coolluke01

    coolluke01 Well-Known Member

    I don't mean this to be a 1911 or Glock bashing thread. There are enough of those out there.

    I was just thinking about a hypothetical situation were the 1911 and the Glock 21 were both in the race to be the US army's sidearm in and around the year 1911.

    Some will say that this is foolishness and that the Glock materials were not available in 1911. Those would miss the main point behind the exercise. The reason for this way of thinking would be to remove all preconceived notions and past experience. Also to remove personal bias and emotion.

    When compared side by side in the year 1911 which one would you think the US Army would choose and why?

    Grip angle is not a valid reason to chose the 1911 over the Glock. Grip angle problems are Always only due to learned behavior. This bias wouldn't be as likely in the year 1911.
    Please try and make this civil. I think it's an neat point of view and an interesting way to look at the two designs.
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2012
  2. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    The U.S. Army would have chosen the 1911.

    Because horse solders needed guns with manual safety's so they don't kill their horse while holding the reins, the pistol, and holding on a bucking horse, all at the same time.

    The Glock would not have met any of the requirements for a positive manual safety and would never have even been considered.

    That is also the reason it wasn't considered, or included in the last service pistol tests when the Beretta M9 was chosen to replace the 1911.

  3. savanahsdad

    savanahsdad Well-Known Member

    glocks have there place , there is one in my safe (it's my wifes, I hate the dam thing !) but Glock don't meet mil spec. so the 1911 would still win .even if you made a glock out of steel , I can take the fireing pin out of my 1911 with the slide still on it! then use that pin to tare down the rest of the gun, just can't be done with a glock, , or if your in a hand to hand , and your out of ammo ,witch do you think would drop a guy faster , hitting him in the head with a glock or cracking his skull with a 1911 !!!
  4. Skribs

    Skribs Well-Known Member

    RC, are you saying that the passive safety system is bad for military duty, or that the Army determined that it was bad for military duty?
  5. coolluke01

    coolluke01 Well-Known Member

    Am I correct in remembering that the 1911 didn't have a safety either but was added because of that requirement? Or was that the grip safety?

    This could have been added by Glock as well.

    What was the mil spec? I'm pretty sure most specs are set in place once the weapon has been chosen. The specs are so that the manufacture sticks with the design that was approved.
  6. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    I am saying that the U.S. military trials for a service pistol have always included a requirement for a manual safety, or more recently a decocker, or both.

    And yes, I think a Glock without a manual safety would have been a bad choice for use by mounted calvary for the reason mentioned.

    They had that option in preparation for the Joint Service Small Arms Program in which the Beretta M9 was chosen.
    But they declined to do so.

  7. HorseSoldier

    HorseSoldier Well-Known Member

    But it was considered for the last US pistol procurement program, the Joint Combat Pistol program that surfaced in SOCOM six or seven years ago and fizzled when Big Army jumped on board and the money involved got too big. (This is where the Glock SF-framed pistols got developed.) For the conventional army side of the program, Glock was prepared to install an external safety on the pistols, though the SOF side did not require this.
  8. GLOOB

    GLOOB Well-Known Member

    I think if the Glock had been invented by JMB and it was made 100% domestically, AND if it cost 70% less to manufacture than a 1911, it would have been chosen with or without the manual safety. They would have invented a better cavalry holster, better manual of arms, and/or installed a heavier trigger. The cavalry is probably the only place where a sidearm would be considered a primary weapon. Double the magazine capacity would have been very desirable.

    Uhh, except for one thing. People were smaller in 1911. So the Glock 21 grip might have been too big for most soldiers. :)
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2012
  9. Skribs

    Skribs Well-Known Member

    I'm not much of an outdoorsman, rc, but with my XDm I've not had a single discharge caused from jostling while bike riding, using the trampoline, jumping off ledges (about 4 feet high) or jogging. I don't see it as a risk for the animal. Unless the soldier doesn't keep his finger outside the trigger guard (training issue) I don't see the big deal. Or was that safety rule not around in 1911? I was born in '88, so I can't remember that far back.

    I mention the training issue, because it applies to the 1911 as well. The manual safety doesn't prevent stupid.
  10. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    You have to remember the 1911 was coming into service just as the Colt SAA was going out.

    The old time officers had a hard row to hoe accepting the idea of a self-loader, let alone one you didn't have to thumb-cock for each shot.

    And yes, the idea of finger off the trigger is a fairly recent thing.

    Back then many holsters had a slot in them so you could get your finger in the trigger guard with the gun still in the holster.


  11. hentown

    hentown Well-Known Member

    The fallacy of this hypothetical fantasy is that, had JMB had access to polymer frames, Tenifer, etc., his first semi-auto pistols might have looked a lot more like modern Glocks than the 1911s that we love. I don't think the hypothetical comparison should be between the G21 and 1911, though...probably the G17 would wow those early doughboys. Doubling their mag capacity with a round that shoots flatter and has a longer effective kill range would have been most attractive to those guys.
  12. tarosean

    tarosean Well-Known Member

    Yet your xdm has a grip safety like the 1911, in addition to the trigger bar.

    It's a fantasy thread so I'll leave it at that.
  13. Skribs

    Skribs Well-Known Member

    Hentown, 9x19mm predates .45 ACP.
  14. Greg528iT

    Greg528iT Well-Known Member

    Are you holstering and unholstering your XDM while riding, jumping jogging?

    But to answer your question, IF Gaston bowed to the requests of the generals and put a manual safety on it, then, yes it would have been considered.
  15. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    Not to the review board that selected the new caliber it wouldn't.
    The 9mm had already failed miserably in the Thompson-LaGarde Tests in 1904.

    The 9mm was never in the running for the new U.S. military caliber semi-automatic pistol.

    It was pre-determined it would be a .45 caliber, regardless of what gun it was to be adopted in.

    Shooting horses out from under riders was still a necessary military requirement at the time.

  16. Bio-Chem

    Bio-Chem Well-Known Member

  17. coolluke01

    coolluke01 Well-Known Member

    The "only" IMO, reason the 1911 is used at all today is simply because it's been used for so long.

    This is the same conclusion I came to. If we truly believe that JBM would have incorporated the newer technology then why won't we? The 1911 is outdated and has been surpassed by newer technology.
    The only reason that has been shown for the US military not choosing the Glock over the 1911, in the year 1911, would be the lack of a safety. If it had a safety they would have chosen the G21!
  18. powder

    powder member

    Well, I believe the Browning produced striker-fired pistosl of the day were used by militaries. Just not by the U.S..
  19. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    One could also suppose that if A10 Warthogs, B-52 bombers, and Abrams tanks had been available then, WWI would not have lasted nearly 5 years either.

    But they weren't.

  20. savanahsdad

    savanahsdad Well-Known Member

    now you do know you need a small tool box to take apart a g21 .. right ???? so why would they pic that ?? just adding a safty would not do it

Share This Page