1911- still a war worthy?

How many actual combat soldiers are going into actual combat with handguns anyway? How many ever have? Apart from the tunnel rats and aviators I can't think of many. For the purposes a sidearm actually has in the military, a 1911 would be fine. But to rely on any handgun in an actual fight against rifles or worse? That would be bold.

1911- still a war worthy?

Click to expand...

Oh yea.

Just ask SOCOM and all the Delta people. Ask the FBI HURT teams to.

Now I am a Glock man but I see no reason a good well maintained 1911 won't do for war as good as any... and better than most.

Deaf

The marines seem to think so.
View attachment 677760


I don't see why a properly built one would not still be as viable a weapon as it was in WWII. However, I think that other guns probably make more sense to outfit a large number of troops with. Say, the HK 45 for example. They probably make more sense for a number of reasons, maintenance, durability, etc.

I don't see why not. It worked well enough in two world wars and a dozen lesser conflicts. As noted, battles aren't fought with pistols, except sometimes on a personal level when things get...really personal. A 1911 should serve the purpose.

The only reason I can see for not using the 1911 is the ability to carry more ammo. 1911 is 8 almost everything else is double that or close to it.

Sure, why not? It's just at a disadvantage in terms of firepower when compared to more 'late model' designs, and it's less forgiving of dirt / grime etc. But if maintained reasonably well, within those limitations, it'll do.

I don't believe it would be viable candidate. In modern combat most soldiers won't be carrying a sidearm. Among those who do, a miniscule amount will actually pull the trigger on that sidearm. While it would may matter greatly to the individual's personal preference, handguns themselves don't win wars. So given how little it matters in the scheme of battle a 1911 would suffice in that it's a handgun. But as a veteran and now fiscally concerned civilian, I see no reason to go that route when a military could be served by hardware that was lighter, higher in capacity, less prone to rust, contained less parts, and offer all that at a lesser expense.

It's all about the trigger. The high capacity whatevers out there all have crappy triggers out of the box.

Soldiers still carry them despite their perceived lack of capacity...

in a combat situation as a sidearm id rather have a hk45 or fnx45. capacity and probably more reliable out the box. not to mention less weight


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

Maybe a 2011-style large frame in .38 super would work. Good combination of power and ammo with that. Something like an STI Edge.

Soldiers still carry them despite their perceived lack of capacity...

Click to expand...

A very few do indeed. Again, the vast majority don't get to allow personal preference determine that. And a minuscule percentage do.

The times I was issued a handgun in the military, it happened to be a Beretta. My personal preference had zero to do with that, and even if I'd had the chance to choose, would my choice constitute proof of combat effectiveness?

How many actual combat soldiers are going into actual combat with handguns anyway? How many ever have? Apart from the tunnel rats and aviators I can't think of many. For the purposes a sidearm actually has in the military, a 1911 would be fine. But to rely on any handgun in an actual fight against rifles or worse? That would be bold.

Click to expand...

1911 is viable, but I do not agree with your reasoning that it is okay only because it is rarely used.

A soldier having a pistol does not mean the soldier would always use a pistol to fight enemeis with rifles.

The military used to, and to a great extent still does, have the attitude that line soldiers ony be issed a primary long gun only.
That line of thinking has started to change after the current war in Middle East.

Having a pistol is a good thing. Special Forces carrying pistols is a reflection of that rather obvious finding.

Is 1911 viable? Yes.

Would it be generally the best choice? No.

The caliber, 45ACP, is a good choice, since the military is stuck with the ridiculous Hague Convention.

The caliber, 45ACP, is a good choice, since the military is stuck with the ridiculous Hague Convention.

Click to expand...

Then make mine a 1911 in 10mm

I can't think of any reason why a 1911 would suddenly not be a good choice for combat use. A lot of people went to a lot of trouble to come up with the gun. Never heard any complaints from anyone who carried one into battle.

Jimbo555 said:

t's all about the trigger. The high capacity whatevers out there all have crappy triggers out of the box.

Click to expand...

Oh really? Do they? In your mis-guided opinion, maybe. I have two 45s. a High Capacity Whatever, and a 1911. If I was going into battle, I would take the High Capacity Whatever, over my nice 1911.

psyopspec said:

I don't believe it would be viable candidate. In modern combat most soldiers won't be carrying a sidearm. Among those who do, a miniscule amount will actually pull the trigger on that sidearm. While it would may matter greatly to the individual's personal preference, handguns themselves don't win wars. So given how little it matters in the scheme of battle a 1911 would suffice in that it's a handgun. But as a veteran and now fiscally concerned civilian, I see no reason to go that route when a military could be served by hardware that was lighter, higher in capacity, less prone to rust, contained less parts, and offer all that at a lesser expense.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that the Marine Corps' zippity-do-da khaki finish (and real mall-ninja grips) more than make up for all of the 1911's shortcomings.

War worthy? Sure. Best choice for general issue, probably not.

-Jenrick

How many actual combat soldiers are going into actual combat with handguns anyway? How many ever have? Apart from the tunnel rats and aviators I can't think of many. For the purposes a sidearm actually has in the military, a 1911 would be fine. But to rely on any handgun in an actual fight against rifles or worse? That would be bold.

Click to expand...

Building on the knowledge and experience of the SOF community, the Big Army has somewhat recognized that -- at least for people who are expected to do CQC -- having a back up gun on your person can be indispensable. On the MTOE for the unit I deployed with last time, I think there were probably a half dozen or less pistols in the whole company. By the time we actually got boots on the ground, about 75% of us were issued M9s along with our assigned long guns.

That said, I would have been happier carrying the 1911 I carried as a cop than with a Beretta, for the simple reason that it has better ergonomics and that trigger (and I had the training such that the reduced mag capacity wouldn't be a significant issue).

jimbo555 said:

It's all about the trigger. The high capacity whatevers out there all have crappy triggers out of the box.

Click to expand...

My FNP has a nicer single action trigger than most of the 1911s I've shot.

Besides, I don't think the military selected the 1911 for its trigger...

1911

the 1911 has been kicking ass and taking name's for 100 plus year's , if it aint broke don't fix it ! it served my dad well for four tour's in vieitnam and he still prefer's in the same shoulder holster he used .

Combat soldiers would be required to leave the chamber empty. Except when an imminent threat was expected. Then they'd rack one in. And some would lower the hammer, and some would use the safety. And there would be ND's and AD's and clicks when there should be bangs. Just like there have always been. Par for the course. And it would cost too much. Again, par for the course. It is definitely still war worthy.