1911 Antiquated...

[Hatterasguy]

Old design? I put 250 rounds through my 1911 today and shot just as well if not better than my friend with his brand new Sig 239 and 92FS. Now its filthy and covered in powder but keeping watch on my night stand, still 100% reliable.

The 1911 can still keep up with any modern pistol. I'll keep my 1911 thank you very much.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKBpbGoEN_U
Here is a 1911 in its natural habitat, light duty mud; not anywhere near WW1 trench mud, Battle of the Bulge mud, or Iwo Jima sand. But still a good light duty test. You can argue about civilian use, but no other pistol has proven itself in combat for the last 100 years like the 1911 has. It doesn't have to defend itself, its record speaks for it.

Glock needs another 60-80 years.

 

[tipoc]

From Easyg

Again, the 1911 is a great pistol.
The design is pure genius.
But as a service pistol its day has come and gone.
There are simply better choices available today.

The day when the 1911 was the weapon of choice for arming the U.S. military (aside from a number of special forces units) has passed. The U.S. military wanted a da/sa weapon with an alloy frame, a decocker and in 9mm with a higher round count. They have that. That is the direction most militaries and law enforcement agencies world wide went in following the second world war. There are reasons for that. But that the 1911 was antiquated or useless wasn't one of them.

It is simply a fact that, aside from some special forces units and a number of elite SWAT type units in the U.S. the 1911 will not see wide spread usage again as a military or police sidearm. It could be usefull to discuss the reasons for that. I think it has more to do with broader changes in military doctrine and in police practice than with what some see as weakness in the 1911's design.

On this point what easyg had to say was right. As a military sidearm the 1911 has been by passed. I disagree that it has been passed over for "better choices" as easy believes, but because doctrine and needs changed.

tipoc

 

[postalnut25]

I've been reading this thread and it is somewhat amusing. 1911s are love or hate firearms, just like Glocks. There is no middle ground. I only have issue with one thing said so far.

"The Beretta's that have been the issue gun simply aren't that accurate"

I am NOT a fan of the M9 that I carry on a daily basis. However, I'll pull the B******T flag on this statement. The issue M9s are very accurate. That is about the only thing I like about them.

 

[TonyT]

It's diffcult to call a pistol which has been around for almost a century and currently manufactured by more firms than the fingers on my hands antiquated.

In the normal pstol games I do enjoy shooting the 1911 platform as it provides me with the fastest second shot capabilioty.

For serious purposes whether carried or at home I opt for more modern designs without any external safeties.

 

[easyg]

Whether or not you're impressed with their choice is of no consequence. They are...
and that's strong evidence that it has something going for it besides doublestack capacity, double-action, and a decocker thingy.

I think that you are assuming that everyone in MEU-SOC wants the 1911.
Having been in the military I can assure you that if you take 50 Marines, or 50 soldiers, (even from elite "tip of the sword" units) and ask them what handgun they prefer for combat you will probably get about 30 different answers.
But the simple truth of the matter is that those who are kicking down doors seldom get to choose their weapons, even in elite units.
Do you really believe that every SEAL wants a Sig or a Beretta?
Or that every SAS member wants a BHP or a SIG?
Of course not!

A lot of people are overly impressed with magazine capacity, and like easyg here, seem to think that if a pistol isn't a hi cap, lightweight, DA it's an antiquated piece of junk.

Nowhere did I ever say that the 1911 is a "piece of junk".
It's just outdated as a service pistol.
40+ oz for only 7+1 shots???
No way. Not in this day and age.

And yes, a single-stack 1911 is very comfortable in the hand.
But a double-stack Glock 23 or a Glock 19 is certainly not uncomfortable in the hand.
Neither is a double-stack CZ 75B .40 or 9mm pistol.

Just because a pistol is high capacity that does not mean that it must be uncomfortable to hold and shoot.

 

[Billy Shears]

Nowhere did I ever say that the 1911 is a "piece of junk".
It's just outdated as a service pistol.
40+ oz for only 7+1 shots???
No way. Not in this day and age.

Yes, way. Absolutely in this day and age. You also essentially just declared revolvers obsolete as well (they're just as heavy, have even fewer rounds, and are even slower to reload). Sorry, not buying it.

Again, you're stuck on magazine capacity, and there is precious little evidence that magazine capacity is critical in the vast majority of gunfights involving handguns, and that includes use by law enforcement or the military. The overwhelming majority of shooting incidents involving handguns are concluded with less than those 7+1 rounds fired, and given that this is so, why are you going to elevate a theoretically nice, but in reality seldom used capability to the very front rank of your selection criteria? *

The 1911's short, light, quick resetting trigger -- which is really why these elite shooters want it -- is unsurpassed. It rewards high levels of skill with an increased ability to deliver accurate rapid fire, and that enhanced ability to get rounds on target more quickly under stress is a lot more valuable to these highly skilled shooters than an extra ten rounds that they are unlikely ever to need (and which, if they do, they can get with the expedient of a very fast speed reload anyway).

And yes, a single-stack 1911 is very comfortable in the hand.
But a double-stack Glock 23 or a Glock 19 is certainly not uncomfortable in the hand.
Neither is a double-stack CZ 75B .40 or 9mm pistol.

Just because a pistol is high capacity that does not mean that it must be uncomfortable to hold and shoot.

I never said it was. But a lot of people find the 1911 still more comfortable and shoot it better. Many also want that wonderful trigger because it allows them to shoot better, and a gun that you can shoot eight rounds more accurately from is an advantage over a gun that allows you to shoot more rounds less accurately -- again only hits count, and a gun that increases your ability to achieve hits is an advantage over one that merely gives you more rounds. This may not apply to you, but it does apply to some people, and just who exactly are you to say their choice is "stupid"? (Frankly it seems to me that that word might apply better to someone who presumes to tell a highly trained, highly skilled special ops soldier, with more experience than he has, that he's doing it wrong.) Finally, some people, especially in the military where hardball is mandated, want the .45 over the 9mm.

*I'm amazed at how commonly people do this -- base their decisions on criteria that they haven't really thought out, and which they haven't checked to see if their assumptions match observed reality. When I was going through the police academy, they divided us up in pairs and told us to argue opposite sides of an issue (this was supposed to prepare us to articulate our arguments better, and make us testify more effectively in court). My partner and I picked an argument involving sidearms. I argued for allowing officers to select from a range of approved sidearms (as some departments do), and he argued for having one standardized weapon that everyone had to use. We each argued our sides, and the class was allowed a couple of minutes to ask us each a few questions. One know-it-all declared with finality that standardized weapons were the way to go, because if we both responded to a scene, and he had shot up all his ammo, having the same weapon would allow him to stay in the fight by borrowing one of my magazines. Sounds nice too, doesn't it? I saw heads around the class nodding (even one of the instructors) as people found that argument persuasive. Fortunately I had done my homework. I have been unable to find even a single instance, ever, in the entire history of American law enforcement where patrol officers got into a gunfight like that, and one officer had to use another's magazines because he'd gone through all his ammo. Not one. So how likely is that capability ever to be needed? And more than that, we would be carrying, once sworn in and on the street, one fifteen round magazine in the pistol, and two twelve rounders as spares (the department issued the S&W 6906 at the time). Along with the round carried in the chamber, that makes a total of forty rounds. I asked this know-it-all why, if he has managed to fire off forty rounds at the suspect(s) without neutralizing the threat, I would ever give one of my magazines to him. Some of those same people who had been nodding (including the instructor) now laughed.

The point is that some capabilities sound very nice in theory, but when you actually look at the evidence, it turns out that other criteria prove to be much more important in the real world.

 

[harmon rabb]

Honestly, it's almost laughable to see some of the guys on here defending a smaller magazine capacity, as if it's a good thing... and having contempt for a larger magazine capacity, as if it's a bad thing. Ridiculous.

The 1911 has many great points, no doubt about it, but its magazine capacity is downright antiquated and outclassed. Sorry.

 

[Billy Shears]

Honestly, it's almost laughable to see some of the guys on here defending a smaller magazine capacity, as if it's a good thing... and having contempt for a larger magazine capacity, as if it's a bad thing. Ridiculous.

Straw man. I never said it was a bad thing, nor do I have contempt for a large magazine capacity. I merely assert that it is not nearly as high in importance as some people seem to think. And sorry, but the demonstrable fact that most gunfights don't require that much ammo, along with the continued selection and effective use of the 1911 by some of the top shooters who depend on a firearm for their lives tends to support my assertion thank you very much.

The 1911 has many great points, no doubt about it, but its magazine capacity is downright antiquated and outclassed. Sorry.

Yeah, sorry the facts do show that the 1911 can and does continue to be used effectively in combat, and remains the first choice of some of the most elite shooters who can pick any gun they want.

 

[1911Tuner]

The 1911 has many great points, no doubt about it, but its magazine capacity is downright antiquated and outclassed.

Outclassed how, exactly? If you rapid-fire and set the air to howlin' with hot lead in the general direction of your foe...it may have some merit for suppressive fire...but that can't be counted on too heavily to keep you alive. What keeps you alive is hitting him first...hitting him hard...and ending the fight as quickly as possible. As in "The sooner it's over, the less shot you get."

Like Billy...I never said more ammunition is bad. I just think that too much emphasis is placed on it.

Remember...Spray and pray doesn't work well, and you're only outgunned if you miss. Depending on the equipment to save the day is bad policy. The man wins the fight. His weapon is incidental.

 

[Joe Demko]

The lower magazine capacity is not a flaw, it's a feature.

"Planning on missing a lot..." I'll say again that this is very glib and might be amusing if we were talking about a weapon to be used for hunting or other hobbyist pursuits. As I said upthread, I own a couple 1911's and I carried one as a duty pistol. I feel far from unarmed with one in my hand. I've put thousands of rounds through 1911's, so I know quite well about the nice trigger and everything else that the design's accolytes keep bringing up here. For an actual combat weapon, increased ammo capacity is a positive thing; provided the grip size doesn't become unwieldy. My S&W MP 45 fits my hand very well. It has a trigger that is more than good enough, though admittedly not the equal of my Springfield 1911 which had a trigger job done by a gunsmith. It has been flawlessly reliable, which I can't say for my Colt 1911. With a full magazine and one in the chamber, it has 11 rounds at my disposal. With two extra magazines on my belt, as we carried back in my deputy dawg days, that makes 31 rounds available to protect my precious, precious ***. When I carried the 1911, the total rounds available to protect my *** was eight in the gun plus 14 more on the belt for a total of 22. So, because I like having the extra rounds does that mean I am planning on missing a lot or that I am some kind of untrained dufus? No, it means that I have examined the pros and cons of two differing models of handguns and found that, all things considered, the Smith offers me some very desirable advantages over the 1911. To whit: the only advantage the 1911 offers is a somewhat improved trigger AFTER it has had the attention of a gunsmith. If my only goal here were punching holes closely together in paper on a sunny day at the range, the 1911 would have a clear advantage for that purpose and it would get the nod.

 

[harmon rabb]

Straw man. I never said it was a bad thing, nor do I have contempt for a large magazine capacity. I merely assert that it is not nearly as high in importance as some people seem to think.

For a carry gun, I agree, it's not all that important. Hell, I carry a revolver sometimes, a 7+1 single stack 9mm other times, a 6+1 single stack .380 still other times, etc. But, I doubt anybody gets into a self defense situation and, afterward, says "damn, i wish i didn't have all that ammo with me."

However, for a service weapon? Get the hell out of here. Large capacity is necessary.

 

[Billy Shears]

The lower magazine capacity is not a flaw, it's a feature.

Whether you mean to be or not, you are actually partly right. Some instructors, such as Stephen Wenger have commented, on the issue of high capacity: "This would seem to be an advantage, except that experience suggests having a lot of rounds in the gun seems to discourage good marksmanship."

There's some truth to this. Having a large number of rounds in the magazine does seem to encourage some shooters to "spray and pray" rather than practice good marksmanship.

 

[Gryffydd]

40+ oz for only 7+1 shots???

If you're going to be so oddly obsessed with magazine capacity you could at least be accurate and call it 8+1

 

[easyg]

You also essentially just declared revolvers obsolete as well (they're just as heavy, have even fewer rounds, and are even slower to reload). Sorry, not buying it.

Obsolete as a service handgun?
Absolutely!
Both revolvers and the 1911 are outdated as service handguns.
For civilian self-defense either will do just fine.
But I would never saddle our fighting men and women with a revolver and then send them to war.

Again, you're stuck on magazine capacity, and there is precious little evidence that magazine capacity is critical in the vast majority of gunfights involving handguns, and that includes use by law enforcement or the military.

Evidence that magazine capacity is critical???


A soldier never knows how many of the enemy he might encounter in any given firefight.
And, unlike most civilian shootings, most combat force-on-force firefights are not over in 3-5 shots.

A soldier never knows when he might be separated from his unit and be forced to hold out until friendlies arrive, or fight his way back to friendlies.

A soldier never knows when he might be in a situation where resupply is impossible for days, and sometimes even weeks.

A soldier never knows when he will need to share ammo with his fellow soldiers:
You have 4 magazines of ammo...you meet three other soldiers who are out of ammo...now you each have 1 magazine of ammo.

A paratrooper never knows which jump will land him off course and far from friendlies.



The fact is that, in the military, sometimes what you have on your person is ALL that you will have for quite a while.
Often there's no backup on the way and often there's no going back to get more ammo or supplies.
And when you have exhausted all of your rifle ammo, your handgun will become your primary weapon.

And more bullets is better than less.



One of the reasons the 1911 was chosen to replace the revolver in the military was because it offered more capacity.

Even in 1911 the military understood that more bullets in the gun was better than less.

 

[Billy Shears]

For a carry gun, I agree, it's not all that important. Hell, I carry a revolver sometimes, a 7+1 single stack 9mm other times, a 6+1 single stack .380 still other times, etc. I doubt anybody gets into a self defense situation and, afterward, says "damn, i wish i didn't have all that ammo with me."

However, for a service weapon? Get the hell out of here. Large capacity is necessary.

Prove it.

You'll find that harder than you think, since most shootouts don't involve that many rounds fired.

Even for law enforcement (and I ought to know, since that's my career), where the handgun is the primary weapon most of the time, not all that many shots are fired. Back in the days when the Colt SAA was picked for the army, it was selected over the faster reloading S&W Schofield because the army didn't consider fast reloading important. Most cavalry soldiers only carried twelve rounds of pistol ammunition on their persons, and experience from both the Civil War and Indian fighting showed they seldom needed to fire more than the five shots carried in their revolvers in any given engagement. Today, even though more firepower in general is the rule, remember that the pistol is the weapon of last resort. The back up. These special ops soldiers do use their handguns, but they primarily rely on long guns, and the handgun is secondary.

If high capacity were really that critical in a pistol, don't you think the special ops soldiers who have to use their handguns in combat would know it? And knowing it, don't you think they would make it a priority? Remember, these are the guys with the most training and experience. If they found the 1911's capacity lacking, there wouldn't be as many of them choosing it. That suggests to me that in real world use, they seem to think it meets their needs quite well. It's hard to argue with experience.

 

[easyg]

If you're going to be so oddly obsessed with magazine capacity you could at least be accurate and call it 8+1.

Nope. The original 1911 had a 7 round magazine.

 

[easyg]

If high capacity were really that critical in a pistol, don't you think the special ops soldiers who have to use their handguns in combat would know it? And knowing it, don't you think they would make it a priority?

News flash for you:
The vast majority of special ops soldiers, from armies, all around the world, DO carry high capacity handguns.

Only a tiny percentage of special ops. units prefer low capacity weapons like the 1911.
And none that I know of routinely carry revolvers.

 

[Billy Shears]

Obsolete as a service handgun?
Absolutely!
Both revolvers and the 1911 are outdated as service handguns.
For civilian self-defense either will do just fine.
But I would never saddle our fighting men and women with a revolver and then send them to war.

Why not? For most the revolver would do just fine. Once again you are overlooking real world experience in light of your theoretical ideas. For years, the air force issued .38 revolvers, and found they served quite well. In World Wars One and Two, the army filled out its issue of handguns with Colt and Smith & Wesson M1917 revolvers, and those guns were used very effectively in combat. The revolver, being very simple and reliable in operation, has certain advantages, especially for troops who seldom actually have to use handguns, and get very little training with them.

Evidence that magazine capacity is critical???

Yeah, like documented proof that most gunfights involving handguns require more than seven or eight rounds. You will find such proof hard to come by, since most gunfights, it turns out, don't require that many.

A soldier never knows how many of the enemy he might encounter in any given firefight.
And, unlike most civilian shootings, most combat force-on-force firefights are not over in 3-5 shots.

Again, prove it. This is just an assertion. You are forgetting two key facts. First, the handgun is not the primary weapon for a soldier, it is a backup. Second, the soldier is not alone on the field facing the barbarian hordes (and if he is, and all he has is a handgun, he's screwed anyway), he is usually accompanied by his squad, platoon, company, etc., and he most often only has to engage one or two targets himself, because his buddies are engaging all the others (and in the vast majority of exceptions to this, he's using his rifle or carbine to engage these multiple targets, not a handgun).

A soldier never knows when he might be separated from his unit and be forced to hold out until friendlies arrive, or fight his way back to friendlies.

A soldier never knows when he might be in a situation where resupply is impossible for days, and sometimes even weeks.

A soldier never knows when he will need to share ammo with his fellow soldiers:
You have 4 magazines of ammo...you meet three other soldiers who are out of ammo...now you each have 1 magazine of ammo.

A paratrooper never knows which jump will land him off course and far from friendlies.



The fact is that, in the military, sometimes what you have on your person is ALL that you will have for quite a while.
Often there's no backup on the way and often there's no going back to get more ammo or supplies.
And when you have exhausted all of your rifle ammo, your handgun will become your primary weapon.

And more bullets is better than less.

Yes, but everything is a trade off. The point you seem determined to miss is that the 1911 is often chosen by those who want it because it is seen by them as an acceptable trade off to give up a few extra rounds of a backup weapon that is not likely to be used much anyway, in exchange for increased hit probability and increased stopping power.

ne of the reasons the 1911 was chosen to replace the revolver in the military was because it offered more capacity.

Even in 1911 the military understood that more bullets in the gun was better than less.

All things being equal, yes. But all things are not equal. To get that extra capacity you make certain sacrifices, like stepping down to a less powerful round, and sacrificing the superb single action trigger that increases hit probability for those with the skill to use it to full advantage.

 

[Billy Shears]

News flash for you:
The vast majority of special ops soldiers, from armies, all around the world, DO carry high capacity handguns.

Bully for them. If that's what they prefer, then I'm sure they have good reason for it. And I would not arrogantly presume to call their choice "stupid" because I personally would pick a different gun.

Only a tiny percentage of special ops. units prefer low capacity weapons like the 1911.

Yet those that do (Delta Force, LAPD SWAT, FBI HRT, et al.) are among the most elite in the world, and they have the skill, training, and experience to evaluate their own needs best. Having done so, they prefer the 1911, and it works quite well for them.

 

[918v]

Taken from one of my previous postings:

The main reason I shoot the Glock is because of the 1911. I hate the 1911 because:

1. After thousands of dollars worth of quality gunsmithing work by American Handgunner Club 100 gunsmiths, with every part of the gun tuned or adjusted for maximum reliability, 1911s, in my experience, will still jam, FTF or FTE, never in practice and always during a match . You can take a Glock out of the box, check the bore for grease or obstructions, and take it out and shoot it, and it will run.

If you hog out a 1911 chamber to the same dimensions as a Glock, it too will run any POS handload.

2. Glocks have no grip screw bushings or grip screws to come loose. Most new 1911s, in my experience, will have at least one grip screw bushing come loose when you take the grips off the first time, and it is usually attached to the grip screw itself, and it screws out of the frame.

Heard of Locktite?

3. A stock Glock does not hurt your hand and draw blood when you shoot it, unlike a 1911A1 with the stock hammer and the stock grip safety (YMMV, but it does it to me).

It does too. Every KB I have read about involves at least a little blood drawn.

4. A stock Glock does not have to have aftermarket expensive magazines to function properly (ie Wilson's). IME the magazine that comes with most 1911s was made by the lowest bidder with soft metal bodies and feed lips. You do not have to "tune" the magazines or buy aftermarket magazines for a Glock.

If you buy a quality 1911, i.e. Colt or Springfield, you will not need aftermatket magazines.

5. The number one PITA with a 1911, the extractor. Most 1911s out of the box will have to have their extractor replaced with a better quality unit to maintain extractor tension. The Glock extractor is fine out of the box.

Extractors ar cheap and easy.

6. Glocks do not have plunger tubes that will come off of the frame. I once had a Series One Kimber, and during shooting the plunger tube came off. A gunsmith charged me 50 DOLLARS to replace that plunger tube (at that time about a six dollar part that took two minutes to install). That is the main incident that attracted me to the Glock. No plunger tube.

You talk about rare occurances as if they are common. Glocks KB alot more frequently than 1911 punger tubes failing.

YMMV, but these are the main things that make me hate the 1911. Too much money for not enough gun.

And paying $500 for a $250 gun isn't too much money?

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

In addition to the above, a Glock peens near the ejection port and at the barrel shoulder. Glocks tear frame rails as well.

The main problem with these types of debates is the utility of a pistol depends on ergonomics. Some people prefer the 1911 grip to the Glock and vice versa. Some people prefer the crispness of the 1911 trigger to the long and sloppy striker of the Glock. Some people prefer wood to plastic, etc.

 

[1911Tuner]

Well now, if we're gonna apply this to military service where the ammunition is restricted to ball ammunition...

It's been reported many times that the 9mm isn't cutting it in the Middle East, often requiring 3 or 4 center hits to bring their man down. The SOC Marine units report that it rarely takes more than one solid hit with the .45 auto to do it. So, if we start with 16 rounds in the M9...and assuming even 2 rounds per insurgent/terrorist/freedom fighter, or whatevery you want to call him...the capacity advantage reaches the point of diminishing returns. If it steps up ro 3 rounds per target...it goes in the negative direction.

Neither is the wide open M9 faring all that well in the talcum powder-like sand.
According to the guys carrying the 1911, it's much more reliable under those conditions.
It still requires reasonable care, of course, but it seems that caliber isn't the only reason that it got the nod.

The rifle remains the primary smallarm in these units, with the pistol used only when the expected action will be so close that even the short M4 is hindered.

This can go on and on, and nobody is going to change anybody's mind with any argument. All we can do is decide for ourselves which pistol we'd rather carry in a similar situation. I'll cast my vote for the .45 caliber 1911...not because I think it's perfect or because I feel like it's the Hammer of Thor. I'd choose it because it's relaible under adverse conditions, and because the caliber is proven...but mostly because it's what I shoot best with. The 1911's ergonomics are conducive to fast hits...and only hits count. If I wanted more capacity, I'd pick the High Power over any of the modern offerings for that same reason...that being it's easier for me to shoot well. Of course, your mileage may vary.

We're into the 7th page of beating this horse. I'm pretty bored with it. Ya'll have fun, though.

Be nice!

 

[easyg]

Once again you are overlooking real world experience in light of your theoretical ideas.

Well, there's no way that you could know this, so I don't take offense....
But I have been in Iraq, and I have been in a firefight.
My opinions are not based upon "theoretical ideas".

More bullets in your weapon, be it rifle or handgun, are better than less....especially in combat.

Yeah, like documented proof that most gunfights involving handguns require more than seven or eight rounds. You will find such proof hard to come by, since most gunfights, it turns out, don't require that many.

You can't compare civilian gunfights with combat engagements between opposing military units.
In most civilian shootings it is easy to document exactly how many rounds had been fired and from exactly which gun.
This is not true of military engagements.
How many handgun rounds were fired on D-Day?
How many rounds did Marines shoot from their 1911's on Iwo Jima?

Second, the soldier is not alone on the field facing the barbarian hordes (and if he is, and all he has is a handgun, he's screwed anyway), he is usually accompanied by his squad, platoon, company, etc., and he most often only has to engage one or two targets himself, because his buddies are engaging all the others.

I wish this were true, sadly it's not.
Too often, especially when making a trip to a nearby support unit, it's often just you and your driver and no one else.
I know because I've been there.


Remember these sailors....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38424239/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/


And what about these soldiers....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062000242.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8127636&page=1

Call it mistakes, call it the "fog of war", call it lack of leadership, call it whatever you like....but sometimes soldiers find themselves far from home and far from help.
It's very seldom like that for police or civilian shooters.



Again...
More bullets in the weapon, handgun or rifle, is better than less.

 

[myasis]

The 1911 design is a proven design and just because it is 99 years old does not mean it is antiquated. Improvements have been made along the way and it is an extremely reliable and accurate handgun.

I have a Wilson Combat and it is a piece of art and reliable as ever and accurate.

 

[Billy Shears]

Well, there's no way that you could know this, so I don't take offense....
But I have been in Iraq, and I have been in a firefight.

And did you even have a handgun at all? Most soldiers don't. I wasn't in Iraq, but I was in the infantry, and most of us didn't have one, even the officers. When you're on long foot march, carrying a heavy ruck every ounce matters, and few people wanted to be bothered with the extra weight for a weapon they'd almost certainly never use. But if more bullets were better and that was it, period, how could you justify that decision? The fact you won't admit is that there are also other considerations besides magazine capacity, and those other considerations might just be more important, in the balance. Is having eighteen rounds in a weapon better than having eight in a weapon that you shoot better with, and which has more stopping power?

My opinions are not based upon "theoretical ideas".

More bullets in your weapon, be it rifle or handgun, are better than less....especially in combat.

See above. Is it worth the trade offs you have to make to get it. Strictly by that logic, it would be best to have a .22LR as your weapon, because that's what you could carry the most rounds for. If you want a hi cap 9mm as your sidearm, and that's what you shoot best with, then that does indeed make it the best choice for you. Other people -- very experienced and highly skilled people with more experience than either of us -- however, shoot better with the 1911, and like the .45's stopping power, and to dismiss their choice as "stupid" is, frankly, absurd. They know what works best for them.

You can't compare civilian gunfights with combat engagements between opposing military units.
In most civilian shootings it is easy to document exactly how many rounds had been fired and from exactly which gun.
This is not true of military engagements.
How many handgun rounds were fired on D-Day?
How many rounds did Marines shoot from their 1911's on Iwo Jima?

It wouldn't surprise me to discover none at all. Remember the pistol is a backup. That just reinforces the fact that eight rounds, and a quick reload will probably be more than adequate for a soldier or marine who makes little use of that weapon, and much use of his others.

Remember these sailors....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38424239..._central_asia/


And what about these soldiers....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062000242.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8127636&page=1

Call it mistakes, call it the "fog of war", call it lack of leadership, call it whatever you like....but sometimes soldiers find themselves far from home and far from help.
It's very seldom like that for police or civilian shooters.

I can't see anything in those stories that even hints those unfortunate solders and sailors would have been saved by a high capacity pistol and let down by a 1911 with only eight rounds on tap. If you are completely cut off and surrounded, and you are about to be overwhelmed by superior numbers, I really don't think an extra ten rounds are going to save you. ANY handgun is going to prove inadequate in those circumstances. And just because you have more rounds, doesn't automatically mean you can use them more effectively. A pistol with slightly less capacity, but which you personally can shoot better, and which has more stopping power, thus requiring fewer bullets per target, may actually serve you better.

Again...
More bullets in the weapon, handgun or rifle, is better than less.

Again...
All things being equal, yes, but since all things are not equal, and more ammo cannot be had without making certain trade offs to get it, other advantages may actually be of greater import in the real world of practical application.

 

[Blakenzy]

WITHOUT starting a flame war and getting this thread closed, I would like to know what makes the 1911 antiquated?

What makes something antiquated is the simple fact that it is not in line with today's trend. Trend is what is preferred by most at the time. Antiquated is not the same as obsolete.

Modern trend for full size service handguns has been for some time now a metal/plastic marriage, >10 round capacity(mostly 15+), light weight, double action or some hybrid action, medium bore, low maintenance, user friendly. Are these qualities necessary? Many do make life easier... but 1911s still put multiple bullets on target with the same ease of operation as modern designs. Yet few new designs (if any) pull in the direction of all steel, <10 capacity, large bore, hefty, single action only, scary C&L.

Bottom line the 1911 was designed to cater to the preferences, perceived needs and wants of users 100 years ago, and can't help but be antiquated because preferences have changed since then. But it is not obsolete. There is no great divide in what a shooter can accomplish in practical terms with a modern design handgun instead of a 1911. All modern guns are still based on the slide operated, magazine-fed design for crying out loud.

The 1911 will become obsolete only when there is a major, widespread technological revolution that renders magazine fed, metallic cartridge shooting guns impractical in comparison. Until then it will be a valid choice for those who like it for what ever reason.