LebbenB
Member
And that's 100 pounds of lightweight gear.
1911- still a war worthy?
- Thread starter el Godfather
- Start date
- Status
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Sure it is. Bus ONLY as a "sidearm". Note the emphasis on "side".
In combat, the goal is to engage the enemy at the maximum effective range whenever possible. In this way, you rain down death and terror at, hopefully, ranges which your enemy cannot match. The sidearm is woefully inadequate for this purpose.
At closer ranges, the rifle still reigns suppreme in utilitarian terms. It's got better range, better accuracy, higher velocities, easier to control and put multiple rounds on target.
And, as still closer ranges, the rifle is much more effective as a bayonet platform or even simply as a club.
The handgun is most useful when space considerations demand it. Crawling in cramped underground tunnels, for example, or when flying as a pilot.
The sidearm, no matter how well built or effective, will simply never be the primary combat weapon for the vast majority of forces filling those boots on the ground. To that end, the 1911, and many other sidearms, are perfectly suitable for the role.
In combat, the goal is to engage the enemy at the maximum effective range whenever possible. In this way, you rain down death and terror at, hopefully, ranges which your enemy cannot match. The sidearm is woefully inadequate for this purpose.
At closer ranges, the rifle still reigns suppreme in utilitarian terms. It's got better range, better accuracy, higher velocities, easier to control and put multiple rounds on target.
And, as still closer ranges, the rifle is much more effective as a bayonet platform or even simply as a club.
The handgun is most useful when space considerations demand it. Crawling in cramped underground tunnels, for example, or when flying as a pilot.
The sidearm, no matter how well built or effective, will simply never be the primary combat weapon for the vast majority of forces filling those boots on the ground. To that end, the 1911, and many other sidearms, are perfectly suitable for the role.
WinThePennant
Member
Isn't a sidearm supposed to be used so that you simply have a weapon on you at all times. It must get old having to haul around a damn rifle every where you go. But, a sidearm can be carried with little to no discomfort.
The original intent of the M1 .30 carbine was for rear echelon soldiers to always have something at their disposal that didn't weigh too much. I don't see why we couldn't have a sidearm chambered in something like a 9x23 that would surely fit the bill. Basically, something for non-standard infantry to always have on them should the need ever arise.
The original intent of the M1 .30 carbine was for rear echelon soldiers to always have something at their disposal that didn't weigh too much. I don't see why we couldn't have a sidearm chambered in something like a 9x23 that would surely fit the bill. Basically, something for non-standard infantry to always have on them should the need ever arise.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
That's why they make shoulder straps for the rifles.
The boot on the ground's job is to project as much firepower on the enemy as he can. To that end, he trains and packs out to support this. The sidearm is a very poor choice for that.
WinThePennant
Member
We're talking about sidearms in this thread, right? You are right, pistols are a terrible choice when a rifle is available.
Deaf Smith
Member
A sidearm is useful for those who have to stick their noes in places where rifles can't be used well (and they did use them for that in Iraq and Afghanistan often.)
It is also used if your primary weapon runs out of ammo, or is disabled, or lost for any number of reasons.
It is not a primary weapon but then it never has been. Even the U.S. Calvary in the 1870s used a saber or rifle for their primary weapon.
But you will find those at the sharp end of the spear do desire to have a good handgun (and that includes the 'average' soldier.) The brass may point to the TOE but the desire is still there.
And as I have pointed out, the 1911 is used heavily in such as SOCOM,
Deaf
It is also used if your primary weapon runs out of ammo, or is disabled, or lost for any number of reasons.
It is not a primary weapon but then it never has been. Even the U.S. Calvary in the 1870s used a saber or rifle for their primary weapon.
But you will find those at the sharp end of the spear do desire to have a good handgun (and that includes the 'average' soldier.) The brass may point to the TOE but the desire is still there.
And as I have pointed out, the 1911 is used heavily in such as SOCOM,
Deaf
OP
OP
el Godfather
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,847
Restating with reference to post 148:
interesting issue raised by billy
IF US wanted to readopt .45, would they go back to single stack 8 shot 1911s?
Makes you think about the options available in .45 today, and by the way answering Billy's idea would further clarify the extent to which 1911 single stack remains viable in war/combat - not speaking of as SD or HD weapon.
interesting issue raised by billy
IF US wanted to readopt .45, would they go back to single stack 8 shot 1911s?
Makes you think about the options available in .45 today, and by the way answering Billy's idea would further clarify the extent to which 1911 single stack remains viable in war/combat - not speaking of as SD or HD weapon.
grubbylabs
Member
[QUOTEA list of people with combat experience who disagree with you, and recommend and/or carry poly pistols:][/QUOTE]
What exactly to they disagree with, The only one on your list that I even remotely Know ( I think) is Larry Vickers. And the only thing I have seen of him was a pointless piece about a rifle being over lubricated that he took way out of context in my opinion.
Its not that I don't think that one of the polymer pistols available to day isn't a good choice as a replacement, its just that none have had the track record or the time in the field that the 1911 has, so unless some are put into service and used as the 1911's have been, all claims are nothing more than assumptions based on limited testing. A three thousand round test proves nothing compared to the experience of the 1911.
I would assume that if I were to face going to a battle field where my primary weapon was a rifle, I would still want a side arm, and one that carried more than 8 rounds. I would rather carry the same weight of a 45 in a smaller round, you simply get more bullets.
If I was doing a specialized job that required the use of a pistol I think I would rather have the 45 since it provides excellent and proven knock down power. But having never done either this is only assumption and I could easy be proven wrong with experience.
What exactly to they disagree with, The only one on your list that I even remotely Know ( I think) is Larry Vickers. And the only thing I have seen of him was a pointless piece about a rifle being over lubricated that he took way out of context in my opinion.
Its not that I don't think that one of the polymer pistols available to day isn't a good choice as a replacement, its just that none have had the track record or the time in the field that the 1911 has, so unless some are put into service and used as the 1911's have been, all claims are nothing more than assumptions based on limited testing. A three thousand round test proves nothing compared to the experience of the 1911.
I would assume that if I were to face going to a battle field where my primary weapon was a rifle, I would still want a side arm, and one that carried more than 8 rounds. I would rather carry the same weight of a 45 in a smaller round, you simply get more bullets.
If I was doing a specialized job that required the use of a pistol I think I would rather have the 45 since it provides excellent and proven knock down power. But having never done either this is only assumption and I could easy be proven wrong with experience.
The military determined the .45acp and the 1911 was old and outdated and therefore needed to be replaced by a more modern cartridge and weapon. The Beretta was the winner of the contest, and is therefore superior to the antiquated 1911 and its old cartridge. Just as the M-16 is far superior to any individual weapon before it. More modern = more better, period. Our military proved it.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Horse pucky.
The military was looking to replace a whole slew of sidearms, along with all the different ammunition that attended them, and part of that inventory was their aging 1911 platform. The decision was made to go with the standard 9mm NATO round.
The .45 acp itself wasn't "old and outdated"...but the nearly half million pistols in service WERE old.
Logistics was an important part of why they went with the 9mm, as well.
There is still quite a debate as to whether or not the M9 is "more better, period" than the .45 acp...and, given the various problems, and shady testing programs, I'd say that was never definitively proven.
http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/true_story_m9.htm
My Beretta 92FS is certainly as fine a pistol as I could hope for. But then, so is my Colt 1991A1.
If M9 is better than M1911, then why did units like Delta stick with 1911 until they switched to Glock when they always had plenty of M9 available?
There are pistols I'd choose over M1911, but M9 is not one of them. Any highly skilled units that actually shoots pistols seem to agree with me in that regard.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
To repeat myself:
The military had a lot of worn out pistols, and caved in to NATO demands for commonality of ammunition. Our NATO allies use the 9mm Parabellum...which predates the .45 Auto cartridge by several years. Google it.
And it was actually a quid pro quo. We adopted the 9mm. In exchange, they adopted our rifle cartridge.
And battles aren't fought with pistols.
Beretta won the contest because they promised to deliver the pistols at a lower price than the competitors.
Your equipment comes to you courtesy of the lowest bidder. Always.
What are you basing the statement that the US caved to NATO pressure on? I ask because in my experience US most does a lot more dictating than caving in Brussels. I can only imagine that was even more true when the big red bear, the USSR was still making the Europeans feel the need for protection. The US was pretty successful at pushing other rounds on NATO I'm not saying you aren't correct, I'd just like to know the basis of the statement.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
I'd assumed that it was pretty much common knowledge.
Guess I was wrong.
When the subject of replacing our services pistols was on the table, we were also putting pressure on NATO for ammunition commonality. Most of them had come on board with the rifle caliber by that time. Then it was our turn. Because a pistol is really neither here nor there in a military action, it was a non-issue and not worth arguing about.
At the time, I had a few friends...older career Army...who were privy to some of the conversations surrounding the adoption of the 9mm and the pistol that eventually replaced the M1911. The general consensus was that if they were gonna be stuck with a mid-bore pistol round, it may as well be a high capacity pistol.
The Beretta was a good choice, but its fat grip and long trigger reach didn't exactly make it an ideal choice, especially among the ladies who were coming into their own in the military.
Remember the modifications that made to the original 1911? A good bit of it was to make it easier for those with smaller hands to manage. Now, it seems that we've come full circle.
I had an older M92...one with the frame-mounted safety, and I liked it a lot...but my hands are big enough for those things not to bother me overmuch. A few of my friends who weren't blessed with Orangutan hands didn't care for it.
I suspect that the sentiments are much the same among the troops.
LebbenB
Member
The PPC for the Model 92 was slightly lower than the Sig 226. One of the stips to winning the contract was that the pistol had to be manufactured here in the States. Beretta was willing to build a plant in the US, Sig (at the time) was not.
Over the course of three tours, I worked with and around a lot of folks from that side of the house. Their support folks carried an M9 like everybody else. Most of the Army SF guys used G17s. NSW tended to carry a Sig 226, though I did see a couple lugging Mk23s. Outside of Marine, Force Recon, the only other 1911 I saw in theater was on an SF LTC who was an LNO at the MNCI JOC and he candidly admitted that he carried it out of novelty and nostalgia.
Don't get me wrong, I like the 1911 and think it makes a good HD/SD/LEO choice. Joe Snuffy on the line needs a good hand gun and the 1911 isn't it.
grubbylabs
Member
I don't think most people got this or get this.
When the sidearm competition came up, it was the Air Force demanding the change, and as the proprietary agent in charge of acquistion, they got to set the ground rules. It is telling that the Army didn't make an effort in the hallways of the Pentagon to be the choice.
The entrants to that competition did not include any polymer pistols. This was over 25 years ago. Beretta won the contract in as much as the Italian government reminded the US they needed to do that to keep our refueling stations and parachute unit there. The contract requirements were flexible enough in that light.
Nonetheless, the move to double stack double action pistols had been coming since their introduction in the 1930's, same as the move to a small caliber automatic weapon. Plenty had been around since the 1930's too, the battlefield statistics examined, etc. Once the real results of how casualties were created, the result was carrying a weapon that could create more than the enemy's weapon.
Ironically, the Air Force was in charge of that program, too. Why? Because the Army command structure is heavily laden with extremely conservative thinkers who are prone to stick to what they know works, and to stress training as the way to make up the difference.
In reality, the Army has got caught with their pants down in the beginning stages of most wars, and had to fight to a position of superiority. We do that - the politicians fritter it away.
With the mindset like that - don't forget, the chief armorer in Lincoln's day refused to even watch a firepower demonstration of the new fangled lever action that could "shoot all week," it becomes expedient to work around Army Command to get things done. No animosity, just the situation. They don't like experimenting, they do enjoy the benefits when directed.
Don't be misled about how much polymers are making inroads in the design of mass production weapons. It's precisely the same thinking that led to the design elements of the M16 - a drop forged receiver that needs little machining to finish, plus composite parts that provide higher strength to weight ratios than wood with less maintenance. There's a reason the M16 was said to need no cleaning - compared to a M14, it needs a lot less of it, and is much easier to do. It breaks down in seconds with no special tools, and it usually only needs a wipedown to do it. The M1 was notorious for locking up the gas piston if neglected, and it was an armorer task to get it apart when it happened. The M16, not so. User maintenance for the most part.
Looking at the current crop of 1911's, things aren't that good, most of the overly tight civilian models are also handicapped by having to operate with whatever ammo the shooter likes. That creates another difficulty in not having a consistent load to help design the works to operate with. The military issue weapons, not so much. You get one or two loads, it's based in interoperability, the recipe set in stone in comparison. You don't need to experiment with what load might work best in the military, they are tuned to work together and the wrong ammo simply isn't issued.
What is issued is large quantities of it, the methodology of warfare right now is to shoot more ammo, and the other side will have more casualties resulting in the victor having more shooters on their feet to dominate the battlefield. It's very indicative that some small elite units might still issue a few 1911 style weapons - they are likely to need them more because their taskings require it more often. That doesn't make it the primary weapon of choice until the specific situation arises, tho, and they are trained to forecast that, and transition when necessary. It still takes some pretty restrictive circumstances to deliberately choose to use a pistol with half the ammunition capacity, tho. How it operates is really very little to do with it, and the caliber even less so at the ranges it will be used. The 9mm has come a long way in ammo development in 25 years, in either case, tho, military is largely limited to jacketed ball - for penetration purposes. It's the best combat compromise, opposing forces with ammo carriers behind barriers aren't thin skinned targets.
So, for all the conservative dislike of polymer guns in the armies, they are there, they are becoming predominant simply due to economics, and they ARE proven, as the use in LEO and other communities has shown. Why we don't see them in the US is as much a political and Command decision as not dumping the 1911 in the 1940's - complacency and tradition, rather than an open mind to make effective changes.
The entrants to that competition did not include any polymer pistols. This was over 25 years ago. Beretta won the contract in as much as the Italian government reminded the US they needed to do that to keep our refueling stations and parachute unit there. The contract requirements were flexible enough in that light.
Nonetheless, the move to double stack double action pistols had been coming since their introduction in the 1930's, same as the move to a small caliber automatic weapon. Plenty had been around since the 1930's too, the battlefield statistics examined, etc. Once the real results of how casualties were created, the result was carrying a weapon that could create more than the enemy's weapon.
Ironically, the Air Force was in charge of that program, too. Why? Because the Army command structure is heavily laden with extremely conservative thinkers who are prone to stick to what they know works, and to stress training as the way to make up the difference.
In reality, the Army has got caught with their pants down in the beginning stages of most wars, and had to fight to a position of superiority. We do that - the politicians fritter it away.
With the mindset like that - don't forget, the chief armorer in Lincoln's day refused to even watch a firepower demonstration of the new fangled lever action that could "shoot all week," it becomes expedient to work around Army Command to get things done. No animosity, just the situation. They don't like experimenting, they do enjoy the benefits when directed.
Don't be misled about how much polymers are making inroads in the design of mass production weapons. It's precisely the same thinking that led to the design elements of the M16 - a drop forged receiver that needs little machining to finish, plus composite parts that provide higher strength to weight ratios than wood with less maintenance. There's a reason the M16 was said to need no cleaning - compared to a M14, it needs a lot less of it, and is much easier to do. It breaks down in seconds with no special tools, and it usually only needs a wipedown to do it. The M1 was notorious for locking up the gas piston if neglected, and it was an armorer task to get it apart when it happened. The M16, not so. User maintenance for the most part.
Looking at the current crop of 1911's, things aren't that good, most of the overly tight civilian models are also handicapped by having to operate with whatever ammo the shooter likes. That creates another difficulty in not having a consistent load to help design the works to operate with. The military issue weapons, not so much. You get one or two loads, it's based in interoperability, the recipe set in stone in comparison. You don't need to experiment with what load might work best in the military, they are tuned to work together and the wrong ammo simply isn't issued.
What is issued is large quantities of it, the methodology of warfare right now is to shoot more ammo, and the other side will have more casualties resulting in the victor having more shooters on their feet to dominate the battlefield. It's very indicative that some small elite units might still issue a few 1911 style weapons - they are likely to need them more because their taskings require it more often. That doesn't make it the primary weapon of choice until the specific situation arises, tho, and they are trained to forecast that, and transition when necessary. It still takes some pretty restrictive circumstances to deliberately choose to use a pistol with half the ammunition capacity, tho. How it operates is really very little to do with it, and the caliber even less so at the ranges it will be used. The 9mm has come a long way in ammo development in 25 years, in either case, tho, military is largely limited to jacketed ball - for penetration purposes. It's the best combat compromise, opposing forces with ammo carriers behind barriers aren't thin skinned targets.
So, for all the conservative dislike of polymer guns in the armies, they are there, they are becoming predominant simply due to economics, and they ARE proven, as the use in LEO and other communities has shown. Why we don't see them in the US is as much a political and Command decision as not dumping the 1911 in the 1940's - complacency and tradition, rather than an open mind to make effective changes.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
The Air Force pushed for a double stack DA/SA design. NATO pushed for the cartridge.
And it ain't the first time that the Air Force dictated to the infantry. They stuck us with the M16, too...but that's meat for another flame war.
And if Beretta had out Sig, the pistol would have still been the Beretta.
Your equipment comes to you courtesy of the lowest bidder.
And back to the original question...
Yes. The 1911 would do as well as anything, and better than some.
Because...
Wars aren't fought with pistols.
There were also some bases in Italy we wanted to keep there.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
There ya go. Politics as usual. Money and politics...not what is "best" in a theater of operations.
SFsc616171
Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2010
- Messages
- 213
As it has been built since the inception In John Moses Browning's mind, YES!
Eight rounds of 230 grain, more or less, when placed at it's intended POA/POI, has done, and will do the job.
Here's the YouTube WW2 training video, and you tell me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro7N7dAmjLY
I own "the other" JMB masterpiece, a Browning Hi Power.
Eight rounds of 230 grain, more or less, when placed at it's intended POA/POI, has done, and will do the job.
Here's the YouTube WW2 training video, and you tell me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro7N7dAmjLY
I own "the other" JMB masterpiece, a Browning Hi Power.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Ummm...because the Army doesn't fly jet fighters and the Air Force does?
Ummmm... eight rounds of 115 gr, more or less, when placed at its intended POA/POI, has done, and will do the job as well.
OP
OP
el Godfather
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,847
I need some one to comment on post 148 and then the question i raised in post 157.
Thanks
Thanks
The french never adopted the High Power instead went with a single stack 7.62mm Longue from Société Alsacienne de Constructions Mécaniques
Our military just ordered some 4000+ Railed 1911's last year. There is really no questioning this fact.
- Status
Similar threads
