1911 Antiquated...

[Hangingrock]

1911 Tuner: In Vietnam, US forces entered the conflict with 20-round selective-fire M14 rifles, though most of them were equipped with the semiauto lockout.

In the Marine Corps one M14 in every four had the selective fire switch. Thats how it was in my time 1964-1968

 

[1911Tuner]

In the Marine Corps one M14 in every four had the selective fire switch

Yep...and most often restricted to the man who had exercised control and fire discipline, and designated as the squad automatic rifleman...either officially or unofficially. Rank and file 0311s were locked out.


In a last attempt to get through to the firepower fanatics, I'll call attention to our own Revolutionary War.

The tactics of the day was massed volley fire from smoothbore muskets in a set-piece battle...followed by a bayonet attack. Essentially, it was the machinegun of the era, loosed in hopes of hitting someone in the opposing line, and thus thin the resistance in the bayonet and pike action that followed. It was the way things were, and it worked pretty well...until the British encountered Nathaniel Greene's riflemen, who refused to play their game.

The British were bulldogs, and unafraid to face anybody in an open field...and most of the time, they'd win. Enter The Green Mountain Boys, and the British lines were consistently wrecked by deliberate, aimed rifle fire.

Horrified, the British accused them of not fighting fair...of outright murder...because they were so terrifyingly effective. The British were suffering high casualties...and they were losing...despite their superior "firepower" and volley fire tactics.

Aimed fire works.

 

[Joe Demko]

What a nice historical anecdote! If only it had something to do with what we are discussing. Still, it was kind of you to note that aimed fire, from (relatively) precision arms, directed at individual targets inflicts more casualties at range than does mass fire from (relatively) imprecise weapons directed at an area.

 

[jmorris]

I don't feel anymore underguned with a 1911 than I would with any pistol.

 

[Greg528iT]

We are so removed from what we originally were discussing, it's funny.

 

[Dobe]

Yes, but for the most part, it has been interesting, and hopefully no feelings hurt. Threads like these rarely changes the minds of the active participants. If anything, we active participants become more ingrained with more post (not always). Yet many readers will have food for thought, and can make up their on minds with more information gleened from this thread.

 

[yeti]

I will say I prefer the 1911 over any other fighting handgun, but if you could stick 15 rounds of .45 acp into the handle of that thing, without changing anything else but it's cartridge capacity, I would claw my way to the front of the purchase line. Otherwise, I'm satisfied.

 

[akadave]

The "best" 1911s today, IMO, are not much better than a glock or sig, but they can easily be twice as expensive as a glock or a sig. The firepower is lacking, and the battery of arms is too complex and hard to learn. You can't carry it with the hammer down, and you have to always remember to actuate the safety. On glocks and sigs, there are no safeties to dick around with, the triggers are just as good, and last but certainly not least, you get way more firepower.

Yes, IMO the 1911 is outdated as a defensive pistol, but I still love them for their history and the workmanship that has go into almost any 1911.

Depends on the trigger and then only maybe. Comparing a 1911 trigger to the Glock marshmallow trigger is just silly. Other autos have a pretty decent single action trigger but DA is always more diffilcult to hit with all things being equal.

 

[Prosser]

With the Sig, favored as they are, I never figured out why one would want to reveal your position with your first round, with a trigger pull that is so different, and hard to hit with as the DA pull of the gun.

 

[Walkalong]

the battery of arms is too complex and hard to learn.

This one never fails to amaze me. Simple it is, not complex.

 

[dmazur]

... but if you could stick 15 rounds of .45 acp into the handle of that thing, without changing anything else but it's cartridge capacity, I would claw my way to the front of the purchase line...

Capacity issues used to cause anxiety, so I practiced magazine changes until I felt better.

 

[Boris bush]

WITHOUT starting a flame war and getting this thread closed, I would like to know what makes the 1911 antiquated? I just got my second 1911 (sold my first one) and was looking it over last night and comparing to my glock and a buddy's PX4. I like all three, but I few them as different and don't see how a 100 year old design is antiquated (ie outdated) if it still does it's job perfectly. It doesn't have a firing pin blocker, but it also doesn't have the striker mechanism of the Glock. The only thing I can see would be the decocker, which I don't mind, but could be dangerous I suppose. Is that all there is?

First off 1911s are great guns. Some copies are much better than others for sure.

However if you were to have someone on a forum tell you a model T is all anyone needs the outcome might be different.

The model T will take you to work, get groceries, a trip to the stop and rob. It just lacks some of the advancements we enjoy in cars we all drive today.

Its a great gun and design (when made proper). When is all said and done it will do the job just as good as anyother. Just like the model T will get you to work and back home again. The end means is all that matters.....

 

[Joe Demko]

I have to carry a Glock 17 instead. I like the Glock, and it's a huge step up from those crappy S&W 5946s we used to have,

...but you do carry the Glock with only 8 rounds in it, right? Otherwise, you might suddenly become a poor shot.

 

[Billy Shears]

..but you do carry the Glock with only 8 rounds in it, right? Otherwise, you might suddenly become a poor shot.

I've explained this matter twice. Now you're just being hard headed. This is not an admirable quality. Grow up.

 

[1911Tuner]

*sigh* tsk tsk.

No, Joe. Carrying more ammunition won't make you a bad shot any more than carrying less will make you a better one. It's not a matter of skill, or lack thereof. It's a matter of mentality. Having less ammo will make you more careful as to how you expend it, regardless of your skill level...and that makes it more likely that you'll hit the target.

Like the guy who's flush with cash. He's not too concerned with dropping 5 bucks on something on a whim, while the poor stiff who only has 20 dollars to last until next payday becomes more discerning on his expenditures.


Back on topic.

The 1911 is no more antiquated than the Model 94 Winchester or the '98 Mauser. All are capable of gettin' the job done. It lies wholly in the hands of the shooter, and in his capabilities. It's not the weapon that wins the fight. It's the man.

 

[Joe Demko]

No, Billy Shears and 1911Tuner, I am not being hard headed and you are not explaining yourselves as clearly as you believe you are. If it helps you to assume that I am completely ignorant of guns and shooting, try that. From where I am sitting, you seem to be saying that it is advantageous to have less ammo in the gun because it will make you shoot better/more carefully since you have less ammo. Full stop. If that is the case, then downloading a Glock has the same effect. If having less ammo forces you to shoot better simply because you have less ammo, then it doesn't matter why you have less ammo. It makes no difference if it is because the pistol you chose will hold only eight or you elected to load only eight into one of higher capacity. Based on what you have said in this thread, the sheer fact of having only the eight rounds forces you to shoot better. Eight rounds is eight rounds is eight rounds is eight rounds no matter how you get there. That being the case, why wouldn't you download your magazines?

It's a matter of mentality.

Whose mentality? Parsimony or profligacy in ammo expenditure is a direct result of how the shooter trains and practices. For example, the fellow who first taught me to shoot a handgun taught me to shoot one shot at a time, concentrating on that shot. Many years later, I heard the concept phrased wrt handgun practice as something like "Don't fire 20 shots; fire one shot 20 times."
I will refer again to every training program of which I am aware placing great importance on being able to reload quickly and smoothly under pressure. I will note that many, many instructors (and their pupils) are firm believers in carrying a back-up gun. Just for old timey shiggles, I'll even note that Duck Bill Hickock, a luminary among pistoleros, carried two Navy revolvers...a cap n' ball version of the New York reload.
So, do you practice reloading? Do you carry extra magazines? A BUG? Or does extra ammo have its deleterious influence on "mentality" only when it is actually in a "high capacity" magazine seated in the gun?
As I've said, if you like the 1911, more joy to you. I own a couple, I carried one on duty, and I still shoot mine a lot. You don't have to convince me that it is a fine gun, it has already done that on its own. If you are going to convince me of anything, it'd have to be this hazy idea you have that magazine size somehow deteriorates the "mentality" of the shooter.

 

[yeti]

I never thought I would actually live to see a magazine capacity discussion drop down to the level of "mine is bigger than yours" vs. "it's not the capacity of your magazine, it's how you use it."

I guess that leaves me as secure in my weaponalinity; I'm happy with what JMB gave me, but I would not be upset if he had kept his perfect creation the same just packed a little more into it.

 

[1911Tuner]

Yeti, my father was a vereran of the Ardennes and Market garden during WW2. He noted the tendency of soldiers with rapid fire and high(er) capacity to waste ammunition. He flat said that if the war had been fought solely with rifles, the Germans would have won in a matter of weeks...because they aimed, while the GIs tended to throw the Garands up to shoulder level when things got hairy...look over the sights...and start yanking the trigger. The Wehrmacht troopers knew that they had to work the bolt for another shot, while the Americans knew that another round was just a trigger pull away.

It's an interesting but understandable phenomenon.

It was also noted in Vietnam with the M16s. The boys were generally instructed to engage on semi-auto, and reserve burst and full auto for extreme close range engagements, or...as a ticket across the street to keep an enemy's head down until a better position could be reached. While supressive, area fire works well when you've got a squad or a fire team backing you...as an individual operating alone mano e mano...it doesn't work so well.

Or...as the man said:

"Gunnery! Gunnery! Gunnery! All else is twaddle. Hit the target!"

 

[Billy Shears]

No, Billy Shears and 1911Tuner, I am not being hard headed and you are not explaining yourselves as clearly as you believe you are. If it helps you to assume that I am completely ignorant of guns and shooting, try that. From where I am sitting, you seem to be saying that it is advantageous to have less ammo in the gun because it will make you shoot better/more carefully since you have less ammo. Full stop. If that is the case, then downloading a Glock has the same effect. If having less ammo forces you to shoot better simply because you have less ammo, then it doesn't matter why you have less ammo. It makes no difference if it is because the pistol you chose will hold only eight or you elected to load only eight into one of higher capacity. Based on what you have said in this thread, the sheer fact of having only the eight rounds forces you to shoot better. Eight rounds is eight rounds is eight rounds is eight rounds no matter how you get there. That being the case, why wouldn't you download your magazines?

AS I SAID: for the same reason you don't carry a high capacity .22. And spare me the "they don't make one" rejoinder. If magazine capacity were all that mattered, they would. The reason they don't is that other considerations are important. I don't know how many different ways I can say it. It is one thing to select a gun that doesn't have a high capacity magazine (because it has other features that are deemed more advantageous), and then make the most of the rounds you've got. It is something else to needlessly give up a feature that the gun does give you.

I carry the Glock fully loaded because A) my department requires it, and because B) it generally doesn't hurt to have all those rounds, even though I'll almost certainly never need that many. But I also carry the Glock because it's what I have to carry on duty. If I had my own choice, I'd carry a 1911 because I shoot it better, and that gives me a real advantage that would apply in any gunfight, whereas the extra rounds in the Glock's magazines are, statistically speaking, actually unlikely to be used.

Whose mentality? Parsimony or profligacy in ammo expenditure is a direct result of how the shooter trains and practices. For example, the fellow who first taught me to shoot a handgun taught me to shoot one shot at a time, concentrating on that shot. Many years later, I heard the concept phrased wrt handgun practice as something like "Don't fire 20 shots; fire one shot 20 times."

And that's all well and good in practice. Under stress, however, it's easy for instinct and fear to overtake training.

I will refer again to every training program of which I am aware placing great importance on being able to reload quickly and smoothly under pressure. I will note that many, many instructors (and their pupils) are firm believers in carrying a back-up gun. Just for old timey shiggles, I'll even note that Duck Bill Hickock, a luminary among pistoleros, carried two Navy revolvers...a cap n' ball version of the New York reload.
So, do you practice reloading? Do you carry extra magazines? A BUG? Or does extra ammo have its deleterious influence on "mentality" only when it is actually in a "high capacity" magazine seated in the gun?
As I've said, if you like the 1911, more joy to you. I own a couple, I carried one on duty, and I still shoot mine a lot. You don't have to convince me that it is a fine gun, it has already done that on its own. If you are going to convince me of anything, it'd have to be this hazy idea you have that magazine size somehow deteriorates the "mentality" of the shooter.

You mean you really can't understand the observed human tendency to be wasteful with abundant resources and frugal with limited ones? This is actually something you have a hard time comprehending?

 

[1911Tuner]

From where I am sitting, you seem to be saying that it is advantageous to have less ammo in the gun because it will make you shoot better/more carefully since you have less ammo.

You mean you really can't understand the observed human tendency to be wasteful with abundant resources and frugal with limited ones?

Let's take it to two extremes and see if that works.

Situation A. You've got a stone, cold killer gunning for you. He has a pistol. You know he's out there, and you catch a glimpse of him once in a while as he makes his way to you. You're armed with an M16 and you have 20 loaded magazines stacked up beside you.

Situation B. You've got a 1903 Springfield with 5 rounds in the well...and that's all you've got.

In situation A, you're likely to rip off a burst at him, even when he only exposes himself briefly...maybe for a second or two. After all, you've got 600 rounds of ammunition.

In situation B...you're far less likely to fire at a shadow because every round wasted reduces your supply by 20%...and that much closer to being down to only one round when he gets close enough to kill you. You're going to be more careful. You're going to hold your fire until you've got a clear shot that gives you a good chance of hitting him. You're going to aim and squeeze.

Now do you see it?

 

[Joe Demko]

Now do you see it?

I see what you are claiming. I do not agree that a trained shooter will do as you say.

 

[Joe Demko]

Let us consider some one-way shooting: whitetail deer hunting. In these here parts, repeating rifles are the rule during the primary season; single shots are seldom seen. It has been a truism since I was a kid that, when shots are fired, one shot means he almost certainly got the deer. Two shots mean he might have got it. Three, or more, means he almost definitely didn't get it. Now, repeating arms are the rule, remember. Basically, all the hunters could fire many shots. Yet some do, and some don't. The ones who are disciplined wait til they have a clear shot and fire. The undisciplined throw the gun up and start cranking the bolt/working the lever/shucking the pump as fast as they can. Typically, they shoot at the whole deer rather than aim at the vitals.
So...the difference here lies in the shooters, not in the weapons.

I will agree with you insofar as to say that if you give an untrained and/or undisciplined shooter a higher capacity weapon, he will expend all his ammo and he will miss with most or all of it. Of course, he will likely do the exact same thing with a lower capacity weapon, but he will log fewer misses because he had less ammo to start.

 

[Old Ranger]

Comparing the .45 auto to a Model 'T' is silly The .45 has been combat proven in two major World Wars, Korea, Viet Nam and now in the hands of special ops troops.:banghead: Give it up! This weapon has held it's own for over a hundred years, and isn't about to go away any time soon. Doesn't that tell you something?

 

[Billy Shears]

I see what you are claiming. I do not agree that a trained shooter will do as you say.

Why? It is a documented fact that among both law enforcement officers and soldiers, the number of rounds fired in any given engagement went up after the adoption of weapons with greater magazine capacities. What more proof do you need that trained shooters do, in fact, follow this tendency? It doesn't get much more conclusive.

 

[Boris bush]

Comparing the .45 auto to a Model 'T' is silly The .45 has been combat proven in two major World Wars, Korea, Viet Nam and now in the hands of special ops troops. Give it up! This weapon has held it's own for over a hundred years, and isn't about to go away any time soon. Doesn't that tell you something?

It is silly, but a model T will get you to work and back. Will it not? Therefore it serves the same purpose as the car in your driveway right now. You just made a choice to have a more modern car.

I just got back from my 3rd tour. SpecOps might still have a 1911 here and there and some might use them. I am not some ninja super highspeed spec ops super soldier. I do leave the wire though and I even worked with some. They all, every one I ever seen and worked with, even the ones only on the FOB..... ALL of them had G19s. Just sayin, and as always this is just an observation, nothing more. FWIW I even seen a couple HS2000s (not XDs), never a 1911 though......