It is still MILITARY JUNK regardless of what you want to call it. It was junked because of numerous design flaws. Do you want to talk about them like grown ups?
When are
you going to start talking like a grown up? Seriously? Because you are sounding, for all the world, exactly like a ten year old who just had her balloon popped. I am not even slightly exaggerating; that is how you are acting. For example: your habit of ignoring points, rather than responding to them, and repeating falsehoods, even after they've been pointed out and corrected. You asked what a 1911 can do better. I and others have given you specific examples. Your response is to ignore them, and then repeat the question.
Another falsehood you keep repeating is that the 1911 was "junked" because of "numerous design flaws." This is
nonsense. It was replaced, as I already explained to you, because the weapons in military arsenals were all very old, very worn weapons that had been in service for a
minimum of over four decades, and were just plain worn out and in need of replacement. A new gun was settled upon because the military wanted to standardize on 9mm with the rest of NATO. That is NOT being "junked" because of "numerous design flaws." The weapon stayed in service for
74 years! The only small arm that ever had a longer stay in the US military's inventory is the M2 .50 caliber machine gun. A weapon simply does not become the second longest serving small arm in US military history because it is "junk" that is plagued with design flaws. You want to discuss things like an adult, then act like an adult. Deliberately mischaracterizing something, and then petulantly continuing to do it after being corrected, is not adult behavior.