US Army back to 1911?

Not ever gonna happen, unless NATO decides to switch to the .45 ACP pistol cartridge.
And that isn't ever gonna happen.

And even if they did, the new gun would still be a modern DA auto of some sort, not a 1911.

You are exactly right about a handguns role in battle.

It plays a more importent role as a individual solders security blanket then any real role in fighting a modern war. (Other then some very specific needs of non-combatents, such as MP's, desk jockys, etc.)

rc

1911

I have read Chris Kyles book( US Navy SEAL with most sniper kills in US military history) and in it he says he prefers a 45acp and bought a Springfield Armory TRP Operator. He says he was quite fond of the gun until it was hit by fire and he had it repaired but he did replace it with a Sig 45acp. Anyway, his way of thinking and it would hold in everyday life is that when the adrenalin kicks in and your in a confrontation where pistols are what's left to use, it's best to make a big hole since you won't have time to take your time and aim well with a 9mm. If you have the time, making a big hole is still a good thing to do

I voted yes. It would be a wise choice.

Of course that's not to say that keeping the M9 wouldn't be a wise choice. Or that switching to a Glock wouldn't be a wise choice either.

But focusing on the 1911, the 1911 as a 'platform' is not the same thing as the M1911A1s that they were issued for over 60 years (A1, not 1911 in general). And they can be made in 9mm for NATO compatibility without problems.

All the improvements that have been developed for 1911s, if applied (selectively and purposefully of course) make it a weapon that's every bit as 'modern' as a Glock, or M9.

Is that a REASON to switch back to the 1911? Absolutely not. But if for some reason they did decide to go to the 1911, it would not be an unwise choice.

I can't say what they should do, but I would certainly like it if they did. We have some relatively cheap 9mm ammo because of NATO. If the USA threw their hat into the .45ACP camp, we might get some cheap .45ACP out of it too. Win win.

I love the 1911, that said I think it would be a poor choice for a modern military (GI) sidearm.

Many other designs that are easier to field strip.

Many other designs that have a higher capacity.

Many other designs that are cheaper to produce.

That and the 9mm is not going away anywhere in the NATO community.

A double stack 1911 in 9x19mm offers no significant advantage over the M9, and would give commanders nightmares about NDs/ADs. Also, it can't be carried in the Air Force preferred condition.

Think of all that ammo and hours-worked just to get them all through their "break-in" periods!

I have to vote no simply for the fact that I think the money could be best used elsewhere.

There is always much debate over the internet how 1911 is superior platform for handguns.

Click to expand...

It's not. It's a nostalgic platform, it's a very good pistol design, but for the total package of capabilities it is heavy, low-capacity, double stack models appear to be very wide (I haven't handled one in person), and there are any number of pistols available that are easier to manufacture and service than the 1911 platform. Much of it's popularity comes from it's long history. That doesn't make it the best pistol for an army to use, no matter how many wars it has been carried in.

confrontation where pistols are what's left to use, it's best to make a big hole since you won't have time to take your time and aim well with a 9mm. If you have the time, making a big hole is still a good thing to do

Click to expand...

Lots of people think that bullets leave wound channels that are just as wide as the bullet itself. It's just not true though, tissue is extremely elastic, with a few very specific exceptions, and it allows lower velocity bullets, like those from service pistols, with streamlined profiles, like every FMJ bullet in existence, to slip through while causing the least possible damage. The wounds that FMJ service pistol bullets leave in a human body are basically all identical, regardless of the caliber or shape of the bullet.

People think a flat nose FMJ will be more destructive than a round nose too, but it's also not true. Possibly if it hits bone very early, but as far as tissue goes, at service pistol weights and speeds, none of the FMJ or other solid bullets make a noticeably different wound than the others.

it's best to make a big hole since you won't have time to take your time and aim well with a 9mm.

Click to expand...

It might be interesting to note that qualification scores went way up, and ND shootings went way down when the M9 was adopted.

I helped train and/or qualify a lot of new Army troops on the 1911 during the Viet Nam era.
I'm here to tell you very few of them were born natural combat pistol shots, and never will be.

Anything that helps them learn to hit with a handgun and not shoot their buddy is a good thing.

That makes the M9 & 9mm a good thing in my old eyes.

rc

el Godfather said:

Dear THR
However, there are also reason why world's one of the best Army decided to stop using it. Then how come one thing can be proclaimed to be so good yet it is discarded at the same time?

Click to expand...

The Army wasn't constantly replacing their 1911s with brand new ones, they'd been reusing the same guns since at least WW2. Some vets with actual experience will probably chime in on this subject, but I'm willing to bet that many 1911s needed replacing or overhaul (even if with more 1911s).

I'm sure the desire to have a common NATO pistol round was a factor too, and when the Army started looking around for a new pistol the 1911 was no longer "modern". You know how our Military loves "modern" toys!

It'd be cool if the Army went back a 1911 platform, they could even go with a double stack 9mm if they felt like it. But would that be the best option? Probably not.

Considering the 9mm is for a secondary weapon anyway and that Ron Paul isn't going to be elected to fix our debt/budget problems, we don't have any money to spend on frivilous things like that for the next 20+ years... Oh wait, we could just print more money

go back to .45 yes but there are better platforms for a combat pistol.

There were no new 1911 USGI parts manufactured after WWII. Given this, it's a tribute to its design that they lasted for over another four decades of service.

Let's remember that the Marine Expeditionary Unit dropped the M9 and went back to the 1911.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_170_28/ai_n6040330/

I vote yes. Thousands and thousands of dead Moros, Mexicans, Germans, Russians, Nicaraguans, Salvadorians, Hatians, Japs, Chinese, Koreans and Viet Namese can't be wrong.

When I read "About Face" by Colonel David Hackworth (one of the most decorated combat soldiers in US history) he says that he did a study in the late 60's about the 1911 and he was in favor of moving away from the platform because the average soldier simply doesn't have the proper training to use is safely. He said that the number of friendly fire incidents due to unsafe handling practices were surprisingly high. I believe his quote was "more US soldiers were hurt by 1911's than the enemy" but I think he was exagerating to make a point.

Honestly, the best pistol for the Army may very well be the Glock 23 or 22.

When I read "About Face" by Colonel David Hackworth (one of the most decorated combat soldiers in US history) he says that he did a study in the late 60's about the 1911 and he was in favor of moving away from the platform because the average soldier simply doesn't have the proper training to use is safely. He said that the number of friendly fire incidents due to unsafe handling practices were surprisingly high. I believe his quote was "more US soldiers were hurt by 1911's than the enemy" but I think he was exagerating to make a point.

Click to expand...

I knew Hackworth, but had the good fortune never to serve under him.

Read his articles, and note the times he makes blunders like talking about the "M1918 machineguns" his machinegun squad supposedly had in Korea. Or his dismissal of the value of landmines because he never saw anyone blown up by one in Korea.

guyfromohio said:

Think of all that ammo and hours-worked just to get them all through their "break-in" periods!

Click to expand...

GI 1911s don't have a break in period...

THe armies of today are well into polymers and double actions. That goes with light weight materials in long firearms as well. 1911s is best left to the civilian market as well as police depts.

Honestly, the best pistol for the Army may very well be the Glock 23 or 22.

Click to expand...

Seriously?

Knowing GI's as I do, and the minimal handgun training they get?
Half the fighting force would be on disability due to self inflected gunshot wounds!

rc

rcmodel said:

Seriously?

Knowing GI's as I do, and the minimal handgun training they get?
Half the fighting force would be on disability due to self inflected gunshot wounds!

rc

Click to expand...

I didn't say they had to get Serpa Holsters to go with them

Vern said

I knew Hackworth, but had the good fortune never to serve under him.

Click to expand...

Well said.