1911- still a war worthy?

[1911Tuner]

Double stack does not really make it too big.

Depends on how big your hands are. I can manage a double stack pretty easily. My daughter can't. There are a good many women in the armed forces these days, and not all of'em are clerk-typists.

and its a decent compromise in my opinion when in offensive mode- not personal sd.

You're not paying attention. Battles aren't fought with pistols. I can't imagine any infantryman attacking an enemy position with a pistol unless his rifle has been disabled or he's off his nut

Personal self-defense the most likely scenario that a military sidearm will be used...when the situation has gone completely fugasi and the bad guys are literally crawling in through the duct work. Only the high-speed/low drag guys use pistols in an offensive role, and only when an impending action is too close to use a rifle. That's about as up close and personal as it gets.

The Marines chose the 1911. The SEALs chose the Sig. I'm sure they evaluated several entries and drew their conclusions based on what would best suit their needs.

 

[Gun Master]

1911 War Worthy ?

Depends on how big your hands are. I can manage a double stack pretty easily. My daughter can't. There are a good many women in the armed forces these days, and not all of'em are clerk-typists.



You're not paying attention. Battles aren't fought with pistols. I can't imagine any infantryman attacking an enemy position with a pistol unless his rifle has been disabled or he's off his nut

Personal self-defense the most likely scenario that a military sidearm will be used...when the situation has gone completely fugasi and the bad guys are literally crawling in through the duct work. Only the high-speed/low drag guys use pistols in an offensive role, and only when an impending action is too close to use a rifle. That's about as up close and personal as it gets.

The Marines chose the 1911. The SEALs chose the Sig. I'm sure they evaluated several entries and drew their conclusions based on what would best suit their needs.

WWI....Sgt. Alvin York......Killed 6 German soldiers charging him with fixed bayonets, with his 1911 Colt .45 Auto, after all his 1917 Enfield ammo was gone. Later wiped out 32 machine gun nests, killed a total of 28 soldiers, and captured 132 others. How many other times was a 1911 just as important to survival, that was not as notarized ? What if it was your life on the line ? 1911 War Worthy ?

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

WWI....Sgt. Alvin York......Killed 6 German soldiers charging him with fixed bayonets, with his 1911 Colt .45 Auto, after all his 1917 Enfield ammo was gone. Later wiped out 32 machine gun nests, killed a total of 28 soldiers, and captured 132 others. How many other times was a 1911 just as important to survival, that was not as notarized ? What if it was your life on the line ? 1911 War Worthy ?

And, more importantly, what significant percentage of all the combat activities that occured involved these specific types of circumstances?

Small. Very small.

There's a saying that the race isn't always to the swift nor the fight to the strong, but that's the way to bet. The same rule applies in combat...the rifle and heavier firepower doesn't ALWAYS win the day...but that's the way to bet.

 

[Mitlov]

WWI....Sgt. Alvin York......Killed 6 German soldiers charging him with fixed bayonets, with his 1911 Colt .45 Auto, after all his 1917 Enfield ammo was gone.

The thing is, in 21st-century warfare, organized bayonet charges don't really happen anymore. There's clearly a reason why some modern units (such as Marine Corps Force Recon) consider the 1911 to still be a war-worthy sidearm, but I don't think any WWI battle is going to be a good illustration of that modern thinking. The technology and tactics are just too different.

 

[Gun Master]

1911- War Worthy?

Maybe we have drifted off track here. Alvin York killed 6 enemy at one time with his 1911. Isn't that a pretty remarkable weapon ? I think most of us agree, besides the 1911 others are appropriate, in certain situations. But war worthy ?

 

[savanahsdad]

the 1911 has never been taken out of service, it just has not been the primary weapon since 1987, but a few branches have never given it up , and a few are going back to it , so yea it is war Worthy , and always has been , and always will be ,

 

[anothernewb]

At the risk of oversimplification. I think any weapon that allows you to reliably defend yourself, or saves your life is a war worthy weapon. In that regard, whatever you carry - if it works when you need it to - is war worthy.

If it's simplified down to that level, I guess the same basic rules apply to personal protection as to war. And very few would argue of the 1911 as an adequate weapon for PD.

 

[Deaf Smith]

The thing is, in 21st-century warfare, organized bayonet charges don't really happen anymore. There's clearly a reason why some modern units (such as Marine Corps Force Recon) consider the 1911 to still be a war-worthy sidearm, but I don't think any WWI battle is going to be a good illustration of that modern thinking. The technology and tactics are just too different.

Yes but the idea that six people can rush you at 30 yards and never make it cause you dropped them all IS relevant.

Personally, the pistol is #2 on the list behind one's primary weapon (unless your name is Vincent Curl you would be an idiot to pick a pistol for your primary in a war zone) then it's firepower/power is not anywhere near as important.

Thus the M1911 is fine and dandy, just as the M9 and M11. or Glock or such.

I would only question one's pick as 'war worthy' if it was a .32 or old SAA or such.

Deaf

 

[tarosean]

The thing is, in 21st-century warfare, organized bayonet charges don't really happen anymore. There's clearly a reason why some modern units (such as Marine Corps Force Recon) consider the 1911 to still be a war-worthy sidearm, but I don't think any WWI battle is going to be a good illustration of that modern thinking. The technology and tactics are just too different.

Interestingly enough, I have a friend who was Force Recon and was stabbed in the gut while clearing buildings in Iraq via a bayonet attached to an AK.. Wanna guess what he unloaded on the guy, fully I might add.?

It wasn't his side arm...

 

[Robbins290]

Is that a serious question el godfather? Of course it is!

 

[Rexster]

The handgun is not so much a weapon for military combat, as it is a means of solving a close-range emergency, and yes, I did borrow some of those words from the late Col. Jeff Cooper. This close-range-emergency context is largely the same, whether the location is Beirut, Baghdad, Kabul, Houston, or Chicago.

I have never been in the military, but I do work for a very major PD, so have had some exposure to urban counter-terror training. (Not enough, of course!) If a Mumbai/Nairobi-style incident came to visit my corner of the earth, and I had to solve the problem without long guns, I would want both my Les Baer TRS and my G17. No auto-pistol gives me as much accuracy potential as my Baer, in my right hand, and my G17 is my ideal lefty pistol, with a double-column mag in-gun, and the ability to sustain a high volume of fire. (FWIW, I am largely ambidextrous, but my hands are a built a bit differently.)

On the original question, whether the 1911 is war-worthy, well, yes, the pistol, itself is worthy. On a large scale, however, a design that can be kept going over the long term, with less fitting fitting required of replacement parts, is probably better for large military units.

 

[leadcounsel]

I like 1911s, and they are a fine platform, but when it comes down to it, they are too heavy for such an item.

Any Soldier will tell you that ounces equal pounds. Reliable lightweight gear in the field when YOU are carrying it is critical and can mean the difference in YOU succeeding or failing.

Nearly every piece of modern gear is replaced with light weight metals and plastics where possible. The empty 1911 weights like a pound more than a polymer handgun. Those pounds add up fast. That pound could be replaced with extra ammo, water, food, medical supplies, body armor...

Agreed, that a handgun is an emergency tool for a Soldier in combat. It's a last line of defense. Therefore, I also have issues with the .45 ACP for that role. Capacity is more important, and I'm okay with the 9mm, especially if we could use hollowpoints.

With regard to the rare situations where the 1911 was successful at a last line defense, like SGT York, consider he was fighting against Soldier with full size slow bolt action rifles. Killing 6 men at close range who are using bolt actions weapons, when you have a 8 shot .45, is fantastic, but would not be impossible - as demonstrated. Now, consider if those Germans had semi-auto SKS rifles, or AK47s... and sadly SGT York and his 1911 would have died in place and never recorded in the analogues.

Similarly, I be there's lots of examples we just never heard of where the 1911 shined and defended against 8 attackers, but attacker number 9+ managed to kill the Soldier and we'll never know about it.

Modern tactics change because modern fighting has changed. Holding onto the 1911, a weapon of yesteryear, is simply foolish. Again, I love the 1911, but accept it for what it is. Just like I love the M1 Garand, but nobody would seriously consider implementing that again, today, as a front line weapon.

Given all this, the 1911 still shines in the role for home and self defense, where you aren't being overrun by enemies after/during a gun battle.

But all of that said, I would not pick a 1911 as a first line pistol for modern combat roles; I would pick a lighter, more reliable, 9mm such as the Glock 19 and 17. It offers the most important features of reliability, light weight (gun and ammo), high capacity, accuracy, and the minimum acceptable caliber.

 

[HorseSoldier]

WWI....Sgt. Alvin York......Killed 6 German soldiers charging him with fixed bayonets, with his 1911 Colt .45 Auto, after all his 1917 Enfield ammo was gone. Later wiped out 32 machine gun nests, killed a total of 28 soldiers, and captured 132 others. How many other times was a 1911 just as important to survival, that was not as notarized ? What if it was your life on the line ? 1911 War Worthy ?

How many other times? About never.

Military pistols are generally a stop gap until your rifle is running again. I'm going to guess that if you dig hard enough on the numbers there were probably just as many German soldiers killed in deliberate collisions with US military trucks from WW1 (which is to say, close to none) as there were taken out by York's exploits after his rifle ran dry.

 

[Temp430]

I'd rather have a P226 in 357 Sig given the larger capacity, superior ballistics, and mechanics of the pistol but that's a personal opinion and choice. Many vets swear by the 1911 which was good enough for WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. I had one Korea vet tell me that a 1911 lubed with his ear wax saved his life one night.

 

[CountGlockulla]

Only so long as you have a platoon of armorers and secure supply lines for spare parts.

 

[MagnunJoe]

I love 1911s but IF I had to go to war I would chose a 15 to 20 round 9mm semi with 2 spare mags.

 

[Onmilo]

If the 1911 is not still war worthy the the United States Marine Corps made a complete folly by readopting it...

 

[Old Dog]

It's a miracle! Thread resurrection!

Only so long as you have a platoon of armorers and secure supply lines for spare parts.

Ah, no. Some of us actually know how to maintain 1911s and keep 'em running. Mr. CountG., sometimes one's screenname gives away one's preferences ... Those of us who came of age with the 1911 learned how the platform works; it's actually priceless seeing the face of one who came of age with the plastic pistol when his gun breaks.

 

[45_auto]

Wonder how long it took him looking through buried threads before he could find this one?

Anyway, to play along before the close:

Only so long as you have a platoon of armorers and secure supply lines for spare parts.

Is there some particular brand of pistol that you believe COULD be effectively issued to the military without a platoon of armorers and secure supply lines for spare parts?

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Is there some particular brand of pistol that you believe COULD be effectively issued to the military without a platoon of armorers and secure supply lines for spare parts?

*snicker!*

 

[gulogulo1970]

Yes it is very good for the battlefield. Maybe not so much for police actions. If you have to carry ball ammo might as well be 45ACP and not 9mm.

 

[1911Tuner]

Wow. Dead threads live.

Ok.

I said:

Battles aren't fought with pistols. I can't imagine any infantryman attacking an enemy position with a pistol unless his rifle has been disabled or he's off his nut.

And he replied:

WWI....Sgt. Alvin York......Killed 6 German soldiers charging him with fixed bayonets, with his 1911 Colt .45 Auto, after all his 1917 Enfield ammo was gone.

That action didn't qualify as a battle. It was a close range emergency after his rifle ran dry...an action that an infantryman would need a pistol for.

T'was mentioned:

Alvin York killed 6 enemy at one time with his 1911. Isn't that a pretty remarkable weapon ?

More a matter of a remarkable man, I'd say.

Finally:

Only so long as you have a platoon of armorers and secure supply lines for spare parts.

A lot of this belief stems from the recent practice of running fifty or sixty thousand rounds a year in practice for the action games...and the assumption that a pistol carried into a war zone would see equal use. The truth is...assuming that a pistol was actually issued to a basic infantry rifleman...it might see a hundred rounds in a 6-month tour. If said infantry rifleman isn't authorized to carry a pistol, and only keeps one for emergencies such as Alvin York's...chances are that it wouldn't be fired at all.

Oh, wait. There's more:

Let's not forget Browning moved on in his quest for the better combat handgun, and in doing so he recognized two important features we have now embraced world wide - double action, double stack. It's why the Hi Power became the defacto world standard and influenced all other combat pistol designs.

Sorry if it's been addressed...but the High Power isn't double action.

 

[PabloJ]

The marines seem to think so.



I don't see why a properly built one would not still be as viable a weapon as it was in WWII. However, I think that other guns probably make more sense to outfit a large number of troops with. Say, the HK 45 for example. They probably make more sense for a number of reasons, maintenance, durability, etc.

Being secondary weapon to a solder this can be used, but two that passed to LGS cost $1675 each which means the government gets them for about $1000. For that price they could squeeze in three G21s. I'm sick and tired of government agencies throwing taxpayer money away.

 

[Shifty]

I love the 1911, but honestly, for a back up gun in as issued form, I'd rather carry a modern, reliable high capacity Glock 9mm if my long gun ever went down in a fight. Course I've never been in that type of situation, not even remotely, but the simple pull = bang and more rounds would be comforting.

Can't speak for the pro's though.

 

[45_auto]

Being secondary weapon to a solder this can be used, but two that passed to LGS cost $1675 each which means the government gets them for about $1000. For that price they could squeeze in three G21s. I'm sick and tired of government agencies throwing taxpayer money away.

There's a reason that all the shooters who require maximum speed and accuracy use 1911 type actions instead of Glocks. If all you're concerned about is the money, do you really think it's more cost effective to save a couple of hundred bucks per pistol rather than some Marine's life that the government spent 10's of thousands of dollars training?