1911- still a war worthy?

[tarosean]

The military decided it had had enough of the safety issues inherent in a single action pistol. You cannot chamber a round and lower the hammer without the risk of an accidental discharge through hammer slippage. You cannot chamber a round and put on the safety without running the risk the that a M1911 may be dropped on its muzzle leading to an accidental discharge.

From the XM9 trial

The only deficiency noted for the 45 caliber pistol was safety It may, the JSOR states, accidentally discharge when the operator is attempting
to uncock the weapon or when the weapon 1sdropped. Army systems analysts, however, noted that they had not discovered any historical
data to support these safety deficiencies. In fact, theu- data base, assem- bled from 8 years of liaison visits to troop umts worldwide, contains no record of any problems of inadvertent discharge

 

[1911Tuner]

The military decided it had had enough of the safety issues inherent in a single action pistol.

The US military caved in to NATO demands for commonality of ammunition.

You cannot chamber a round and lower the hammer without the risk of an accidental discharge through hammer slippage.

US military protocol doesn't authorize placing the pistol in Condition 2 under any circumstances. Of course, you can bet that many of them were, but it was in violation of the rules. The pistol is to be carried in Condition 3...hammer down on an empty chamber...and allows for Condition 1 when action is imminent...with orders to return it to C-3 when the emergency has passed.

You cannot chamber a round and put on the safety without running the risk the that a M1911 may be dropped on its muzzle leading to an accidental discharge.

See tarosean's post above. Pay attention to the bold print in the lower box.

If the 1911 were that inherently dangerous, it never would've survived as an issue sidearm beyond the first world war, and Colt never would have offered it to the civilian market. Yet, here it is.

 

[1911Tuner]

We've referenced the Hi Power Browning as the direct antecedent that established that obvious shift. Browning saw the need on the battlefield and responded with a design that others were left to refine.

Though many of Browning's ideas were included in the P35...not only did John Browning not design the High Power...he never saw one. The High Power wasn't finalized until 1935. Browning died in 1926.

Browning designed the Grande Rendement, which was rejected by the French, and shelved. Dieudonne Saive is credited with the High Power, but he had to wait until the Colt-owned patents expired so he could incorporate some of Browning's ideas.

Both pistols were designed for military entities. To Browning, the 1911 was an assignment...a job...and nothing more. He gave what he was asked for...not necessarily what he wanted to do personally.

 

[Fremmer]

The 1911 is certainly viable. More expensive with less capacity, I agree. But many prefer the 1911 because it fits the hand so well and shoots so well, and it spits out a .45 round. But berettas and glocks or whatever are less expensive and higher cap. I get that.

But my experience has been that the stock 1911s are reliable and easy to shoot. A 1911 isn't a complicated pistol. They are made just like other pistols - CNC and assembly. They don't require an advanced amount of knowledge to shoot or maintain. I guess I don't get the statements about how 1911s require advanced knowledge, or how you have to have gunsmith knowledge to use and maintain them, etc... When yer modern beretta keeps jamming, you are still gonna have to take it to 1911Tuner to fix it, lol. Ah, The irony of that last statement....

Really, stock 1911s are usually reliable out of the box. And the SAO trigger is usually pretty good, too. No training for transition from a horribly long DA to a much different SA trigger. And the .45 ACP ain't no slouch, either.

 

[MCgunner]

I look at things simply sometimes. Energy, velocity, all that stuff aside - I simply think that, the bigger hole you make in something. the harder it's going to be to fix it.

Yeah, so I guess they should melt all those .22 caliber Mattel toys and reissue Springfield trap doors.

 

[Gun Master]

1911- still war worthy?

Sometimes a lot can be obvious from the sign in name. Other times it is the negativity, intolerance of others' info & opinions, their agenda, general unhappiness, etc. Hey guys! I'm sorry if you had a bad day, or whatever! Things will be better for you if you just lighten up, and enjoying the thread. Just offer what you have, and we'll all feel better, and be better informed. Yes, I think the 1911 is still war worthy, but don't shoot me just because you disagree.

 

[Old Dog]

Would internet gun forums even exist if it weren't for people who are compelled to argue either in favor of, or against, the 1911?

(Of course it's still viable. I carried one for the first ten years of my military career and never, ever worried whether it was "war worthy.")

 

[Slamfire]

Guys, if you really want the M1911 to become general issue, get yourself appointed Secretary of Defense and mandate the procurement.

Until then, you are howling at the moon.

 

[1911Tuner]

Howling

Guys, if you really want the M1911 to become general issue, get yourself appointed Secretary of Defense and mandate the procurement.

Until then, you are howling at the moon.

The question was: "Is the 1911 still war-worthy."

The simple answer is yes. Assuming that the pistol is in a good state of repair when it goes in theater, it's as good as any. The outcome of a war or even a battle isn't decided with pistols.

Other than in a near hand-to-hand personal fight, I can't imagine an infantryman abandoning his functional rifle to fight with a pistol...and anyone who does probably deserves exactly what he gets. Life is harder when you're stupid. Sometimes it's also shorter.

Let's try not to be snarky or insulting. Everybody has a right to state an opinion.

 

[WinThePennant]

Everyone always assumes a 1911 should be in .45ACP.

A 1911 would be a great combat gun... Chambered in 9x23...

Build it to M.O.M standards (Minute Of Man), and forget the desire to make something that will shoot a 1/2 grouping at 20 feet. Use modern machining methods, but still build the gun to loose tolerances. Yes, you'll lose accuracy but you'll gain a lot of reliability. Also, there isn't any reason why a 1911 couldn't be modernized to use fewer parts.

A 1911 holding 15 rounds of 9x23 would be a terrific combat sidearm. The recoil is surprisingly light, but still delivers a ton of power on target.

 

[1911Tuner]

A 1911 would be a great combat gun... Chambered in 9x23

No argument there, but as a general issue sidearm, we'd still run into the NATO demands for ammunition commonality.

There's also the factor of cost. The 1911 is expensive to manufacture compared to the others. Equipping an elite unit like MARSOC is one thing. Buying enough for the whole US military is another ball of wax.

 

[LebbenB]

I will go against the grain here somewhat. A modern 1911 isn't "war worthy," in my opinion.

Because of advances in machining, the clearances between parts in a modern 1911 are so very much tighter than an issue M1911A1 making an accurate gun that much more accurate through tighter barrel lock up, less play between the slide and frame, and less play between the barrel and barrel bushing to name but a few improvements.

But these gains in intrinsic accuracy are offset by a loss of reliability. The "slop" in an issue M1911A1 allowed small debris (dust, sand, mud, carbon, et al) to move through the pistol and still allow it to function.

That SF/Delta/SEAL/Ranger/SOF du jour use them is not a telling fact about the continued viability of the 1911. Units that choose the 1911 usually have the logistics/maintenance in place to properly maintain it. This sort of support isn't normally available to line units.

I agree that the 1911 is a fairly simple machine, but a modern (HK excepted) fighting pistol is even simpler.

All that said, I still love a 1911 and own several.

 

[1911Tuner]

But these gains in intrinsic accuracy are offset by a loss of reliability. The "slop" in an issue M1911A1 allowed small debris (dust, sand, mud, carbon, et al) to move through the pistol and still allow it to function.

While the old GI pistols were a bit looser than most modern offerings...when they were new, there really wasn't a lot of difference.

Loose doesn't guarantee reliability any more than tight guarantees accuracy...and there's a limit on how loose the pistol can be before a point of diminishing returns is reached. Wide clearances allow bigger pieces of debris into the gun, so a modern 1911 may be a bit better in that regard.

 

[LebbenB]

Loose doesn't guarantee reliability any more than tight guarantees accuracy...and there's a limit on how loose the pistol can be before a point of diminishing returns is reached.

I agree with this statement, but since the 70's the trend with commercial 1911s has been to make them tighter and tighter in the name of accuracy, you must admit.

And I'm not saying or implying that I think a combat-worthy 1911 is so loose that it sounds like a tambourine when shook. However a little movement between slide, barrel, and frame isn't a reason to turn the gun in for a depot rebuild, either.

 

[1911Tuner]

I agree with this statement, but since the 70's the trend with commercial 1911s has been to make them tighter and tighter in the name of accuracy, you must admit.

I have a stock 1945 production Remington Rand that's in as near-new condition as I've ever seen. When the rails are dry, I can detect a little movement between the slide and frame in either axis if I pull hard. With a little oil, the play virtually disappears. The caliper insists that the clearance is .003 inch. In battery, the barrel shows zero drop when I press hard on the hood.

A 1919 "Black Army Colt" that was probably liberated early on in its career, and has been fired very little shows similar fit.

These reflect what I've noticed in a good many GI pistols that were still in good shape, a few of which are in my collection.

A lot of the belief that USGI pistols were rattle loose comes from so many people never handling one that wasn't nearly worn out. When they were new, they were actually pretty tight.

Some of the semi-customs from people like Ed Brown and Les Baer are closely fitted...and Baers are a bit too tight in the barrel vertical fit for my tastes...but those are different animals. The customer expects a precise fit in a 2500-dollar gun.

 

[grubbylabs]

Are their any polymer pistols that have a comparable time in service as the 1911? I mean actual time in war, not just carried by troops of some country.

Is their currently a large military force now that issues a polymer pistol to its troops and or officers?

 

[jimbo555]

The British armed forces recently issued the Glock 17 to their troops. but it will never be tested like the 1911 has been in 2 world wars,korea,and Vietnam!!

 

[Deaf Smith]

To me NATO has ran out of use.

So I think the US military ought to look for what works best and get that.

Yes that opens the field to .40 S&W, .357 Sig, 9x23, .38 Super, 9x25 Dillion, etc....

And personally a 10 shot pistol is plenty but if they want 15 shooters, fine with me. Glocks, Sigs, S&Ws, Colts, H&Ks, etc... all will do fine.

And I am sure SOCOM and the others will still get their 1911s in any round they like.

Deaf

 

[LebbenB]

Are their any polymer pistols that have a comparable time in service as the 1911? I mean actual time in war, not just carried by troops of some country.

Is their currently a large military force now that issues a polymer pistol to its troops and or officers?

The first poly framed pistol that I know of is the HK VP70Z from the 1970, though the first poly stocked rifle dates to 1958 or so, the Reminington Nylon 66. While never issued to the Bundeswehr, the VP70 was offered for commercial sale and preceded the Glock by 12 years or so.

The 1911 was adopted in 1911 and served 70+ years until replaced by the M9 in the mid-80s.

 

[mljdeckard]

I really hope Tuner is in good health. We need him around for a long time.

 

[grubbylabs]

So if no other polymer side arm has served in actual battles how can any one truly say for a certainty it is better than the 1911. Its just speculation.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Old Dog]

Ya know, it's funny; went to the range yesterday, and this was the pistol I shot the most:

War worthy? Assuming I could take enough good Wilson mags with me, this is the pistol I'd probably take into battle with me, given a choice. Tack-driver, dead-nuts reliable and just plain cool (even without night sights).

 

[Rock185]

1911Tuner, I think your comments in post #113 distill much of the 1911 must be loose for reliability, tight for accuracy arguments down to their simplest elements. There are just no guarantees on the attributes of either the tight or loose guns. I was interested in your comments on how 1911s and 1911A1s were originally fit. I agree that many of us, me included, have never handled a 1911 or 1911A1 that had not been in use for decades. I too assumed they were all originally assembled VERY loosely until reading your comments. +1 on our canine friends too.

 

[Kosh75287]

I've never been in the military, but I've been in my share of fights. If I go into another one, I want a 1911A1 with me.

 

[RBid]

Still war worthy, and handguns get use by people with certain jobs. Two of my friends used pistols regularly. One during assault work with his SF teams. The other had to use them effectively as a primary while clearing structures with a bolt gun on his back. One carried a 1911 briefly before going back to his M9 for capacity. The sniper carried a Sig P220.

Both of those guys are 1911 guys. The SF buddy got a Para P14 worked up for use as a contractor so he could carry a 1911 without giving up rounds. The other says he would have preferred a 1911 over the 220.

Personal opinion: if I were doing extreme CQB with FMJ, I would love a 1911 with 10rd mags.