Oh but wait wasn't the 1911 originally 45 cal only? So how about specifically 9mm semi-auto handguns?
Browning designed several automatics for Colt more than a decade before the M1911. The pistol that became the M1911 was originally chambered in a 9mm cartridge that we call the 38 ACP or 38 Super today. Back then it was known as the 9x23 SR (semi-rimmed) or the 38 ACP.
Most people were convinced 9mm's or 38's were good. Take note that these are the same caliber. The 9mm are 0.356 inches and the 38's are 0.357 inches -- a thousandth of an inch difference. This caliber goes all the way back to the 1851 Colt Navy. Maybe it goes back farther. I don't know all the trivia, but the reason I mention the 1851 Colt Navy is because it was an incredibly influential side-arm. Unlike the enormous saddle-mounted cavalry revolvers, it was truly a side-arm. There were pocket revolvers for CCW in the mid 19th century, but the 1851 was a serious combat-proven weapon and a man was well-armed with one or two whether he had a horse to carry them or not.
Later, in 1873, Colt chambered their cartridge revolver (the most iconic Colt Single Action Army) in 45 Colt basically because of Army-logic. The 45 Colt would be replaced by the 38 Colt in 1892, again because Army. Complaints about performance in the Phillipine-American War (1899-1902) resulted in the Army going back to 45. You'll notice a theme here that will be repeated several times. The Army adopts a "better" technology. It's tested by war. People complain. The Army goes back, but not always for the better. Eventually they move forward again, and along the way there are always people that aren't satisfied, and always people ready to make money selling the next thing.
The 45 Colt wouldn't fit in an automatic, so the Army and Browning developed the 45 ACP, more or less duplicating the ballistics in a shorter cartridge using smokeless propellant instead of gunpowder (what we call "black powder"). Then Browning was tasked with changing his handgun design to fit the 45 ACP and the result was the M1911. That went for a while before it was replaced with another 38 cartridge, the 9x19mm which had originated even earlier (most people say it was 1901, but the parent case goes back farther). The US Army did this primarily to adopt the NATO standard, but also no doubt because of magazine capacity.
You should see the parallels in rifle cartridges. I'll only go back as far as the .30-06. It worked fine and some thought the 7.62x51 was the ideal optimization for a box-magazine fed update to the M1 Garand, the M-14. But others saw a revolutionary leap in technology with an intermediate cartridge, for which the 5.56x45 was chosen. There is no doubt this was a profound technological change. But wars happened and some people complained. Were the criticisms valid? Did they warrant some tweaking or was the only solution to adopt a completely different chambering? Has the M855A1 resolved the problems? Would the 6.5 Grendel resolve the problems with 5.56x45? Will the 277 Fury? Were the problems with it real or imagined?
You seem to be pretty sure there must be something wrong with it and that 6.5 Grendel is the solution, even though you have never shot it. Maybe you should get a job for the Army.
EDIT: NVM I googled it. Mauser C92 circa 1896. Wow, did not realize 9mm semi autos were that old.
Thats just so odd, why were our police still using 38 special into the 80's? I can understand 357 Mag revolvers thats a powerful round close to the power of 10mm Auto, but why the 38 special? 9mm must have been expensive as hell back then to just completely dismiss a semi auto over a 38 special revolver.
Oh well, at least some opted for 44 Mag here and there.
We see a similar development with law-enforcement standards that have also long been influential to citizen carry practices in the US. Again, the 1851 Colt Navy (a 38 caliber revolver) was popular with law enforcement in the US. With the advent of cartridge revolvers, law enforcement adopted 38 caliber cartridges (among others, because certainly their practices weren't as uniform as the Federal army). Law enforcement never had the complaints the Army did around 1900 because they never fought Maori warriors. US law enforcement wouldn't encounter anything resembling bullet-resistance until the 1930's with the popularization of cars, bootlegging, and body armor. Cartridges like the 38 Long Colt, 38 S&W, and the 38 Special were popular (and so were some 32's) with the police. It was in the 30's that S&W introduced the 357 Magnum to address concerns about penetrating car bodies and make-shift body armor used by organized crime. Really, it was mostly a marketing thing because a perceived need was created by sensationalized media and Colt stood ready to fill the need with the 38 "Super" (really nothing other than the 38 ACP which Browning had designed in 1900.)
Here's why the 357 Magnum worked: Revolver cartridges like the 38 Special originated when gunpowder was used. These cases provided a large volume for gunpowder and operated at low pressures. Double-base (nitrocellulose and nitrglycerine) smokless propellants did not need such large case volumes because they operated at much higher pressures. Hence the 9mm Luger has a much smaller case. This was essential to fit it into the grip of pistols like the Luger P08. Revolver cartridges like the 38 Special also adopted double-based smokeless propellants, but they did not need to shrink their case volume because the cartridges were held in the cylinder, not the grip. So they just operated at lower pressure. The 38 Special was and is at least as effective as the 9x19mm when it is used well. 38 Special should have a 6" barrel, from which its ballistics can be superior to 9x19mm from the 4" barrel typical for pistols chambered therein. 38 Special should also have a superior bullet design owing to the fact it does not require to function on a feed ramp. While the 158-grain lead round-nose can hardly be expected to perform better than a 9mm round-nose FMJ, there were few other options for the 9mm until more recent decades where the 9mm hollowpoints have struggled at times. The 38 had very effective cast lead bullets going back 100 years and today enjoys the same bullet tech of any modern cartridge.
Toward the end of the 1920's, as performance demands increased, the revolver cases were begun to be loaded with larger charges of double-based smokeless propellants, first by handloaders, and then by the factories. The 38/44 was nothing but a 38 Special loaded to higher pressures (a little bit lower than that of 38 Super or 9mm Luger). With its much larger case volume, it produced higher velocities than either and with heavier bullets. S&W could take the pressures even higher but before they did that, they lengthened the case slightly to achieve two things: first, to prevent the high-pressure cartridges being loaded in weak, old 38 caliber handguns from the gunpowder era, and second to gain even more performance. The result was the 357 Magnum. It operated at the same pressure as the 38 Super or 9mm Luger, but with a much larger case volume inherited from its gunpowder (black powder) heritage. The 357 Magnum staved off the possibility of US law enforcement adopting the Colt automatic pistol (1911) to acquire the 38 Super's performance. It allowed law enforcement to maintain the revolver as the standard side arm.
Why US police adhered to revolvers through most of the 20th century is interesting, and also unique to America. I can only summarize it briefly enough by explaining that they weren't willing to give up two critical criteria. The first is that the gun could be operated without manipulating a safety that with only minimal training would be liable to operator errors resulting in the gun being on safe when it was needed to fire, or the gun being off safe when firing was least desired. The gun could be carried with a loaded chamber and no manual of arms would be required other than pulling the trigger. There would be no need manipulate a safety or to chamber a round if the gun were to be carried with an empty chamber in lieu of a safety. The second is that the gun would have a long and heavy double-action trigger that would work toward ensuring that only the most deliberate shots were taken, minimizing accidental discharges.
I mentioned that these things were unique to the US. Elsewhere in the world it was not like this, but consider how it must have been. In some places, law enforcement officers were compelled to carry their automatics with empty chambers (referred to as "Condition 3," "Israeli Carry," and popularized by William Fairbairn in the 1940's after he had served as the chief of the Shanghai Municipal Police in the 1930's and implemented this practice there in China. This practice sucked for the people that were compelled to go around wearing a uniform in lawless places with an empty gun. Was their safety marginalized because they were only China men and Sikhs? Consider the alternative: law enforcement officers in other places went around with single-action triggers and minimal training. If a Russian or German citizen in the 1930's was unintentionally killed by a careless, negligent, poorly-trained officer of those states mishandling a single-action trigger, so what? Who cared? Were they going to sue the Gestapo? I think the US adherence to revolvers was a result of it uniquely caring about both its officers and citizens. Unfortunately, there was also dogma in the practice and a dogmatic adherence to point-shooting and a reluctance to adopt moon-clips or even speed-loaders wore on officer safety. By the 1980's, it had become apparent that carrying revolvers was no longer tenable for law enforcement. For the individual citizen, the revolver remains uniquely well-suited.
Consider what it is that US law enforcement has adopted. The Glock-style action was introduced around 1986. What was unique about it? It offered the same manual of arms as a revolver -- no manual safety, just pull the trigger. It should be clear that Glock didn't invent this action or the polymer frame and law enforcement agencies were slow to adopt Glock because they were an unfamiliar vendor. Instead, S&W and Sig DA/SA pistols (evolved from the Walther P-38's action) were adopted first. These offered the double-action pull on the first shot, negating the need for a manual safety, but subsequent shots offered a single-action trigger (a benefit for some, detriment for others, while others just lamented it wasn't consistent one way or the other). The consistent, long, striker-fired action of Glock-style pistols was eventually adopted because it was supposed to offer the benefits of the revolver's double-action, but be easier to shoot, have a higher capacity, and reload faster. There's no doubt it has a higher capacity. It doesn't really reload faster than moon-clips, but it's still fair to say it needs reloading less often. The real questions are whether it can offer the same benefits as the revolver and be easier to shoot. Some people have a hard time with a double-action revolver trigger. They find it too long and hard. But that's what makes it safe. When the pistol's trigger and reset is made lighter and shorter and ever lighter and shorter to make it easier and faster to shoot in gun games and tactical LARPing, it loses its safety. The polymer guns have just kept getting lighter, which also doesn't make them easier to shoot, just more comfortable to carry.