Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

US Army back to 1911?

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by el Godfather, Feb 25, 2012.

?

Is changing back to the 1911 platform a wise consideration for the US Army?

Poll closed Mar 26, 2012.
  1. Yes

    180 vote(s)
    40.5%
  2. No

    264 vote(s)
    59.5%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. el Godfather

    el Godfather Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    1,686
    Dear THR
    There is always much debate over the internet how 1911 is superior platform for handguns. However, there are also reason why world's one of the best Army decided to stop using it. Then how come one thing can be proclaimed to be so good yet it is discarded at the same time?

    Given the technical advances and improvements that have come into 1911 over the past decades, do you believe that US Army reverting back to 1911 will ever be a wise option? Consider the expertise of very highend 1911 makers, and possible 9mm double stacks.

    I personally think that side arm is just a side arm, and it no bearing on the outcome of battle whether it holds 7 or 15 rounds.

    Regards
     
  2. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    59,082
    Location:
    Eastern KS
    Not ever gonna happen, unless NATO decides to switch to the .45 ACP pistol cartridge.
    And that isn't ever gonna happen.

    And even if they did, the new gun would still be a modern DA auto of some sort, not a 1911.

    You are exactly right about a handguns role in battle.

    It plays a more importent role as a individual solders security blanket then any real role in fighting a modern war. (Other then some very specific needs of non-combatents, such as MP's, desk jockys, etc.)

    rc
     
  3. ChasMack

    ChasMack Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2011
    Messages:
    205
    1911

    I have read Chris Kyles book( US Navy SEAL with most sniper kills in US military history) and in it he says he prefers a 45acp and bought a Springfield Armory TRP Operator. He says he was quite fond of the gun until it was hit by fire and he had it repaired but he did replace it with a Sig 45acp. Anyway, his way of thinking and it would hold in everyday life is that when the adrenalin kicks in and your in a confrontation where pistols are what's left to use, it's best to make a big hole since you won't have time to take your time and aim well with a 9mm. If you have the time, making a big hole is still a good thing to do :)
     
  4. RX-178

    RX-178 Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,647
    Location:
    Anchorage, Alaska
    I voted yes. It would be a wise choice.

    Of course that's not to say that keeping the M9 wouldn't be a wise choice. Or that switching to a Glock wouldn't be a wise choice either.

    But focusing on the 1911, the 1911 as a 'platform' is not the same thing as the M1911A1s that they were issued for over 60 years (A1, not 1911 in general). And they can be made in 9mm for NATO compatibility without problems.

    All the improvements that have been developed for 1911s, if applied (selectively and purposefully of course) make it a weapon that's every bit as 'modern' as a Glock, or M9.

    Is that a REASON to switch back to the 1911? Absolutely not. But if for some reason they did decide to go to the 1911, it would not be an unwise choice.
     
  5. valnar

    valnar Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Messages:
    1,406
    Location:
    Ohio
    I can't say what they should do, but I would certainly like it if they did. We have some relatively cheap 9mm ammo because of NATO. If the USA threw their hat into the .45ACP camp, we might get some cheap .45ACP out of it too. Win win.
     
  6. 357 Terms

    357 Terms Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    861
    Location:
    Indiana
    I love the 1911, that said I think it would be a poor choice for a modern military (GI) sidearm.

    Many other designs that are easier to field strip.

    Many other designs that have a higher capacity.

    Many other designs that are cheaper to produce.

    That and the 9mm is not going away anywhere in the NATO community.
     
  7. el Godfather

    el Godfather Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    1,686
    *******remember I also mentioned 9mm AND double stack option as well in the consideration. The question is about the platform not the caliber.
     
  8. Devonai

    Devonai Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Messages:
    3,838
    Location:
    Connecticut
    A double stack 1911 in 9x19mm offers no significant advantage over the M9, and would give commanders nightmares about NDs/ADs. Also, it can't be carried in the Air Force preferred condition.
     
  9. guyfromohio

    guyfromohio Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,804
    Location:
    ohio
    Think of all that ammo and hours-worked just to get them all through their "break-in" periods!
     
  10. firesky101

    firesky101 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,433
    Location:
    California
    I have to vote no simply for the fact that I think the money could be best used elsewhere.
     
  11. NG VI

    NG VI Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    Messages:
    4,884
    Location:
    Maine
    It's not. It's a nostalgic platform, it's a very good pistol design, but for the total package of capabilities it is heavy, low-capacity, double stack models appear to be very wide (I haven't handled one in person), and there are any number of pistols available that are easier to manufacture and service than the 1911 platform. Much of it's popularity comes from it's long history. That doesn't make it the best pistol for an army to use, no matter how many wars it has been carried in.

    Lots of people think that bullets leave wound channels that are just as wide as the bullet itself. It's just not true though, tissue is extremely elastic, with a few very specific exceptions, and it allows lower velocity bullets, like those from service pistols, with streamlined profiles, like every FMJ bullet in existence, to slip through while causing the least possible damage. The wounds that FMJ service pistol bullets leave in a human body are basically all identical, regardless of the caliber or shape of the bullet.

    People think a flat nose FMJ will be more destructive than a round nose too, but it's also not true. Possibly if it hits bone very early, but as far as tissue goes, at service pistol weights and speeds, none of the FMJ or other solid bullets make a noticeably different wound than the others.
     
  12. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    59,082
    Location:
    Eastern KS
    It might be interesting to note that qualification scores went way up, and ND shootings went way down when the M9 was adopted.

    I helped train and/or qualify a lot of new Army troops on the 1911 during the Viet Nam era.
    I'm here to tell you very few of them were born natural combat pistol shots, and never will be.

    Anything that helps them learn to hit with a handgun and not shoot their buddy is a good thing.

    That makes the M9 & 9mm a good thing in my old eyes.

    rc
     
  13. 2wheels

    2wheels Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,094
    Location:
    Virginia
    The Army wasn't constantly replacing their 1911s with brand new ones, they'd been reusing the same guns since at least WW2. Some vets with actual experience will probably chime in on this subject, but I'm willing to bet that many 1911s needed replacing or overhaul (even if with more 1911s).

    I'm sure the desire to have a common NATO pistol round was a factor too, and when the Army started looking around for a new pistol the 1911 was no longer "modern". You know how our Military loves "modern" toys!

    It'd be cool if the Army went back a 1911 platform, they could even go with a double stack 9mm if they felt like it. But would that be the best option? Probably not.
     
  14. gunnutery

    gunnutery Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,682
    Location:
    Iowa
    Considering the 9mm is for a secondary weapon anyway and that Ron Paul isn't going to be elected to fix our debt/budget problems, we don't have any money to spend on frivilous things like that for the next 20+ years... Oh wait, we could just print more money :(
     
  15. mio

    mio Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    590
    Location:
    MI
    go back to .45 yes but there are better platforms for a combat pistol.
     
  16. 2zulu1

    2zulu1 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,089
    Location:
    Arizona
  17. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,554
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    I vote yes. Thousands and thousands of dead Moros, Mexicans, Germans, Russians, Nicaraguans, Salvadorians, Hatians, Japs, Chinese, Koreans and Viet Namese can't be wrong.
     
  18. L-Frame

    L-Frame Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    479
    When I read "About Face" by Colonel David Hackworth (one of the most decorated combat soldiers in US history) he says that he did a study in the late 60's about the 1911 and he was in favor of moving away from the platform because the average soldier simply doesn't have the proper training to use is safely. He said that the number of friendly fire incidents due to unsafe handling practices were surprisingly high. I believe his quote was "more US soldiers were hurt by 1911's than the enemy" but I think he was exagerating to make a point.
     
  19. Jbabbler

    Jbabbler Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    807
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Honestly, the best pistol for the Army may very well be the Glock 23 or 22.
     
  20. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,554
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    I knew Hackworth, but had the good fortune never to serve under him.

    Read his articles, and note the times he makes blunders like talking about the "M1918 machineguns" his machinegun squad supposedly had in Korea. Or his dismissal of the value of landmines because he never saw anyone blown up by one in Korea.
     
  21. HDCamel

    HDCamel Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Messages:
    796
    Location:
    Virginia
    GI 1911s don't have a break in period...
     
  22. nathan

    nathan Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    5,067
    THe armies of today are well into polymers and double actions. That goes with light weight materials in long firearms as well. 1911s is best left to the civilian market as well as police depts.
     
  23. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    59,082
    Location:
    Eastern KS
    Seriously?

    Knowing GI's as I do, and the minimal handgun training they get?
    Half the fighting force would be on disability due to self inflected gunshot wounds!

    rc
     
  24. Jbabbler

    Jbabbler Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    807
    Location:
    Atlanta
    I didn't say they had to get Serpa Holsters to go with them :)
     
  25. bikerdoc

    bikerdoc Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    16,777
    Location:
    Southern Virginia
    Vern said


    Well said.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page