entropy
Member
I don't care how the 1911 got it's start (OK, yes I do, but not as much as...) I care about it's unwarranted demise. I was in the Army as an Armorer when the switch to the M9 was made; Those who were issued 1911's were NOT happy about it, and those who were issued S&W M10's, Victory Models, and Colt .38's WERE happy about it. (We had a MEDEVAC unit, so the aircrews had revolvers) I was issued an M16A1, but since I was the Armorer,and I shot one of those 1911A1's on the Bn, Pistol team, I was sad to see them go-especially the M1911 (not A1) that was the XO's issue. He was the captain of the pistol team, and his was made in 1917, never altered. Still had the walnut double diamond grips, the A1's had brown plastic ones.
The only positive thing I can say about the M9 is my score went up, a whopping two, from 38/40, to 40/40. I have rather taken any of those loose, hard recoiling, "junky" M1911A1's to combat with me than a brand new M9.
The whole controversy started because of the inadequacy of the New Service .38 LC's stopping power.
The only positive thing I can say about the M9 is my score went up, a whopping two, from 38/40, to 40/40. I have rather taken any of those loose, hard recoiling, "junky" M1911A1's to combat with me than a brand new M9.
The M1902 was a commercial semiauto. Perhaps you mean the Colt New Service revolver in .45 Colt?According to this, they used Colt 1902 and 1909 .45 revolvers. I knew about the 1909 but the 1902 is new information to me. Assuming the story is accurate.
https://www.manilatimes.net/2014/06...ent-of-the-colt-45-caliber-model-1911/107609/
The whole controversy started because of the inadequacy of the New Service .38 LC's stopping power.
Last edited: