Was the reason they wanted a change because the 1911 was a bad design as RPCVYemen suggests?
If you think that I was commenting that the 1911 was a bad design, then either I didn't explain myself, or you didnt' read what I wrote.
My point was that the various available pistols have designs that reflect the needs and or requirements of the people that buy them. As I do more and more design work on my job (not firearms), the more I understand the critical link between requirements and design.
There have been many times where I look at a piece of code and said, "That's stupid! What bozo wrote this crap?" Then I look a little deeper and consider the requirements at the time the code as designed, and more often than not, the code seems like a more or less reasonable response to requirements.
Speaking of a "good design" or a "bad design" seems silly to me without trying to understand the requirements (needs or perceived needs) of the users.
It must
not be by accident that the 1911 is not the standard issue sidearm by any major armies in the world today. The 1911
was once the standard issue sidearm for at least one major army. The tells me that either the buyers' requirements changed - or solutions that more closely matched requirements have been developed.
It must also
not be by accident that 1911 designs dominate some of the shooting sports. That must fit the requirements of that sport better than other weapons.
I suspect that the design requirements for a modern service pistol are reliability and low cost of manufacture. That leads to non-1911 designs.
I suspect that the design requirements for a sporting pistol are a light and predictable trigger, and ease of modification. That leads to non-1911 designs.
Different requirements = different designs.
What are the advantages other than magazine capacity?
I thought that your question was a real question - maybe you just wanted to spout.
My general impression is that a few folks get a reliable out of the box 1911, but that most folks don't.
A mistaken impression.
My experience is not a reasonable statistical sample, but a lot of my friends who have 1911s seem to have had at least one or two that have had to go to a gunsmith or back to the factory before they were reliable.
I do not like to shoot Glocks, but none of my friends that have them have had to take them to a smith. The friend that has the most weapons loves to shoot his 1911 the most of all his weapons, but a Glock is on his night table. I don't think that's at all unusual.
Of course they all look unreliable compared to my favorite - a Ruger Blackhawk. Though I love to shoot it, I would
not argue that it would make a great service handgun today.
Mike