US Army back to 1911?

[cor_man257]

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.)

Umm, unrelated to the thread but I am an MP. We are a combat arm. In country I didnt just carry my sidearm as a "security blanket". It had people on the other end a few times.

On topic:
I think the 1911 would no longer be a good platform for the military. Why? Because it is to complicated for the typical soldier. Plain and simple. When refined it can be the best platform ever, but to many soldiers wouldnt be able to maintain it.

The .45 APC round I think would be a godsend for troops. But honestly it takes so long for my Army to implement anything new that I would be my grandsons generation before they could replace it. And Im 20.

 

[rcmodel]

We are a combat arm. In country I didnt just carry my sidearm as a "security blanket". I used it.

And I understand that.
I was specifically saying the MP's DO have a legitimate need for a handgun.

But a lot of grunts that have them don't, if they can carry a rifle in addition to any other duties and combat loads.

They would be better served with more M4 ammo & extra water.
Not 4-5 extra pounds of handgun & holster & mags & pistol ammo they won't need or use.

rc

 

[HDCamel]

Because it is to complicated for the typical soldier. Plain and simple. When refined it can be the best platform ever, but to many soldiers wouldnt be able to maintain it.

In what universe are 1911s complicated?

 

[rcmodel]

Just a guess, but:
In the universe of the modern U.S. solder.

Where they don't train or allow them take Beretta M9's apart down to the last pin & spring blindfolded, in their spare time, before 0-dark-thirty PT or breakfast call?

rc

 

[HDCamel]

Well, the guts of a Beretta are far more complicated than those of a 1911, but detail stripping isn't really necessary all that often for either platform.

A Beretta is easier to field strip, of course, but field stripping a 1911 is hardly difficult. I SUPPOSE that guys losing the recoil spring plugs might be a concern, but not really any more than losing the guide rod on an M9...

I'm not advocating that the 1911 should return as the standard service pistol of the US Army (it shouldn't). But I don't think that it being "too complicated" is one of the reasons why it shouldn't.

 

[Chuck R.]

When I enlisted as an MP in 1978 we were issued 1911’s (females .38s), for the non-shooters the qualification scores were pretty low with quite a few bolo’s. We qualified annually and it was the same thing, the non- shooters had issues, most troops didn’t have privately owned handguns, never mind their own 1911 to train on. So they carried a pistol that they got to shoot once a year.

After that enlistment, I went to school and came back in in 1987 as a Field Artillery 2LT. My first assignment was with the 11th ACR in Germany and we had 1911s when most of the Army had moved to the M9. Same thing, troops had issues qualifying with the 1911 for many reasons.

Just prior to DS I was assigned to 1ID which had M9s, when going through qualifications the 1st time with the M9 “Gos” were significantly higher than any time I’d qualified with a 1911. Again these were mostly non-shooters that were issued a weapon they got to fire once a year, but more of them could hit what they were aiming at then I’d seen previously with 1911s.

You can chalk this up to worn out 1911s with dismal GI sights, but IMHO that’s not the only factor. The .45ACP cartridge is also somewhat to blame. It’s not an easy cartridge for new or non-shooters to shoot; the recoil does bother them to some extent. What folks need to understand is that the majority in the military are not “gun” people or “shooters”, they just don’t shoot that much (if at all) beyond their qualifications.

I retired in 2005, but now work as a DA Civilian in an organization that has quite a few active military flow through it. Since I own my own range I periodically invite some of the ”guys” out to my place to shoot. Most don’t even own their own pistol; occasionally one will bring a 1911. Most don’t shoot that well. A friend of mine and some of his friends run a shooting course for some of the Majors that are interested in training and facing another deployment after graduation. I’ve RO’d for him a couple times and he tells me the same thing, the majority just aren’t shooters.

So, if I were faced with coming up with an issue sidearm for the average soldier, knowing that most wouldn’t either take the time, or have the time to become proficient with it, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t choose the 1911.

Chuck

 

[jmorris]

A double stack 1911 in 9x19mm offers no significant advantage over the M9

As a competitive shooter I can tell you that is incorrect.

 

[MrDig]

I want them to go back so we can see those great deals on MilSurp parts Mags and Weapons.
If you think the Venerated 1911A1 got its status because it is too complicated or unreliable, remember that the 1911 part of the equation is for the Year 1911, Back then even literacy was an issue for the average Enlisted Man, and they learned to figure it out, also keep in mid that it still is the longest standing commission of any firearm in US Military history. If it were unreliable and complicated it would have gone the way of the Krag-Jorgensen which has the dubious honor of being the shortest commission of any military firearm in US History.
Please remember that if a weapon showed problems in combat it was gone quick as far as the Military is concerned.

 

[12Bravo20]

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).

That is correct. The 1911 that I carried during Desert Storm was built during WW2 (along with all others). They went back to arsenals to get rebuilt at times. I wasn't issued a M9 until late 92 when my unit had to turn all of our 1911s and M3s in.

 

[swinokur]

The Marine SEU is about to select a manufacturer for their 1911 purchase. Marine Times had an articler on it. Apparently some guys still think it's a good platform. There is no one tool for every mission

 

[Jim K]

I like the 1911 pistol, but sometimes wonder if those who believe pistol development stopped in 1911 would want to drive a 1911 car. (Yes, I can drive a Model T Ford, but I don't want to drive one on a daily basis - no heater, no a/c.)

Jim

 

[Nushif]

*rant*

I would love all these folks advocating going back to the 1911 and .308 put on the 100 pounds of gear (not counting weapons) and then maintain their opinion.

We *need* lighter rifles and pistols. We *need* lighter ammo.

Why? Because these days we don't fight in just our uniform, a helmet, grenades and some ammo anymore. We fight in kevlar plates, suspended from a pistol proof vest, with a bigger helmet, an assault pack, a radio, grenades and an assortment of other tools.

Probably more people get discharged because of bad backs and knees than from any other cause. Why? because a light training load at 60 to 80 pounds weighs more than the entire kit of the average WWII and some Vietnam soldiers.
That is reality. Armchair Generals who seem to think they have the monopoly in having fought tough wars or even worse having watched a tough war on TV be damned.

We carry a lot of stuff with us. If it went after me, we O types wouldn't even carry a rifle, unless you're in the infantry. Because if the leader is shooting. He's not leading right.

*end rant*

 

[theicemanmpls]

No to the 1911 because of the women, and now those who may be limp wristed.
The Berreta Compact 92 may be a good choice.

 

[wlewisiii]

*rant*

I would love all these folks advocating going back to the 1911 and .308 put on the 100 pounds of gear (not counting weapons) and then maintain their opinion.

*end rant*

This.

If we get any new pistols, buy Glock.

 

[jfrey]

It's all about politics. There is and was nothing wrong with the 1911. Just a bunch of stupid politicians and military brass with flimsy excuses who wanted to spend a bunch of taxpayer money on something less effective.

I know several small women who can shoot the heck out of a 1911 so that argument is out. City kids enlisting who couldn't shoot a peashooter is a more probable issue. Why not insist that NATO change to the .45? Oh no, we have to give in to the rest of the world and follow their nonsense. Heck, we didn't even pick an American made gun at the time the M9 was tested. The circle never ends.

 

[theicemanmpls]

I know women who can shoot just fine with a 9mm, but have lots of issues with a 1911A, or even a glock .45 recoil.

City boys will always be city boys. Let em qualify with something that they are comfy with.

The switch from the 1911 to the 9mm is way beyond my understanding. It was done many years ago and now is history. As much as I would like to change history, that technology won't exist for some time.

 

[L-Frame]

I don't think that anyone would argue that a cocked & locked single action pistol like the 1911 requires more training to develop that muscle memory necessary to carry one safely than a double action or a dao gun. They are much less forgiving if you keep fingers on triggers at the wrong times. I don't think the average soldier (or the average cop for that matter) puts in that kind of time. I was a cop for a time and still know many, and most are not "gun people" and rarely shoot outside their mandatory qualifiying.

In response to the above poster who said "since when did the 1911 become so complicated to shoot" my response is that they're not, they're very easy and that's part of the problem.

 

[sgtstryker]

The pros and cons are apparent for the 1911. As stated, many SOC units use .45's in different platforms, that's great. But, as the wars draw down and the money dries up, as it always does, the status quo will reign. Improvise, Adapt and Overcome will be fashionable again..

 

[NG VI]

You guys understand that FMJ service pistol bullets are all nearly identical in terminal performance right? The weight difference and number of rounds that can fit in a reasonably sized grip and magazine are a very real and serious consideration, and so is overall weight a servicemember has to carry.

That and a truly service-grade 1911 is more costly to manufacture and service than any number of other designs.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

IF they do, they need to be made to the GI standard for parts fitment, which is not the case these days with so many different companies making them.

 

[mljdeckard]

No. I prefer the 1911. I would very much prefer to take my Para SF-45. Let me take it with 500 rds of my own ammo and leave me alone.

However, I often have to train soldiers who have never shot a pistol before, won't have a chance to shoot it again, and don't have the background to keep them running in the field if anything goes wrong. I would prefer to issue them Glocks.

 

[mgmorden]

Not gonna happen, and for good reason.

The 1911 is heavy, holds very few rounds, is single action (which is shunned on military carry weapons these days, and I'd say for justifiably so), is expensive to produce, and part swapping without fitting is much more likely to cause problems.

Realistically, about all the only thing the 1911 has going for it is a trigger that can be tuned very nice. Makes it a great competition gun, but its an outdated design for modern military applications.

Any military pistol adopted in the US WILL be a double-stack 9mm with a manual safety. I'd like to see a polymer frame for weight savings, but I could see them going either way. I personally wouldn't mind seeing a striker-fired platform with a heavy-ish trigger (7 lbs or so), but my guess is that they'd be looking at DA/SA again.

Nostalgia should play no part in government purchasing decisions.

All this is moot however. For one, handguns serve a very minimal role in modern combat. For two, we have no money. Third, even if we did, I wouldn't pick the Beretta M9 from scratch if *I* were picking today, but if I look at a list of what I'd want out of a service pistol the Beretta is close enough that its certainly not worth replacing.

 

[1911Tuner]

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?

Simply? Money and logistics...and probably a bit of politics.

When the M92/M9 was adopted, the 1911s in service were for the most part badly worn out, and the cost of rebuilding or replacing them was higher than contracting for new pistols from Beretta.

Ammunition commonality with our NATO allies was also cited, with one of the reasons stated was so that a soldier from one nation could hand spare ammo to one from a different nation.

Of course, that assumes a couple things.

A. You're fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with a soldier from another country.

B. The situation has degraded to the point of having to use pistols to fight with.

C. That...in such a dire situation...your European ally is willing to give you some of his ammo.

 

[mgmorden]

Of course, that assumes a couple things.

A. You're fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with a soldier from another country.

B. The situation has degraded to the point of having to use pistols to fight with.

C. That...in such a dire situation...your European ally is willing to give you some of his ammo.

I don't think it necessarily need be THAT individual of a thing (solider to soldier). It could be an entire group/unit who needs to be resupplied with ammo and for whatever reason one country is better able to get an ammo shipment to them than their home country.

Also remember that ammo-commonality wasn't just done for handguns, but for the infantry rifles as well with 5.56 NATO.

Remember too that it doesn't necessarily have to be ammo that's being shipped - it could be guns itself if we're in a major conflict and one of our allies' production capacity isn't adequate. We shipped a lot of guns and other equipment to allies during WW2 for example. Having our stuff match what ammo they would have on hand is a logical choice.

 

[HDCamel]

The 1911 is heavy, holds very few rounds, is single action (which is shunned on military carry weapons these days, and I'd say for justifiably so), is expensive to produce, and part swapping without fitting is much more likely to cause problems.

A fully loaded M9 is actually a smidge heavier than a fully loaded 1911A1, GI 1911s (even if updated with new sights, hammers, safeties, etc.) aren't any more expensive to produce than any other all-steel pistol (a Cz 75 for example), and GI 1911s (and their parts) have to be manufactured to exact specifications that allow for parts swapping at the "cost" of a looser fit.

There are two reasons why the Beretta is a better pistol for the military. 1: More ammo and 2: easier to handle. Modern warfare is based on a studies which determined that the more lead you sling in a general direction (regardless of caliber, weapon used, or even how accurate it is) the more likely you are to win (defined as the enemy ceases to be a threat by death, retreat, or surrender). The M9 fills that role better than the 1911.

Where lethality is more important than sustainibility of fire (i.e. special purpose units), the military still uses the .45 ACP, often through 1911 pattern pistols.