US Army back to 1911?

[el Godfather]

But consider the 45 effect and accuracy. Higher capacity doesn't mean anything unless in a combat which inharently calls for the use of pistols.

 

[NG VI]

But consider the 45 effect and accuracy. Higher capacity doesn't mean anything unless in a combat which inharently calls for the use of pistols.

I guess I don't understand what you're saying here. With FMJ ammunition, all service pistol calibers deliver nearly identical terminal performance. Literally, there is no difference between them in effect.

As far as accuracy, is one cartridge more inherently accurate in mass produced barrels with mass produced .gov issue service ammunition? I would say absolutely not. Differences in the platforms used and training delivered are so much more significant that even if one were more accurate, which I doubt, the pistols themselves and the training delivered wash the differences away to nothing.

Higher capacity is absolutely a benefit in a combat weapon, as long as you don't have to give up anything meaningful to get it. If the weight and bulk are basically the same, and you don't lose useable terminal effectiveness, there is absolutely no reason to go with the lower capacity weapon.

 

[rodinal220]

Make it the 1911A2,wide body frame and hold lots of 9mm,updated sights,safeties,melonite/tennifer type finish.Now if I could only convince Colt to do it

 

[Pietro Beretta]

Well the military is thinking about retiring the M9, the MHS trials may be getting under way -- but who knows with the state of the economy.

The Modular Handgun System trials do not designate a specific type of caliber to qualify.

The Army requires the new pistol to be more effective, accurate, and reliable than the M9 pistol.

There is no caliber specified, but it must incorporate different fire control devices, pistol grips, and alternate magazine options.The weapon must fit various hand sizes, have Picatinny rails, have a non-reflective neutral color and will be operable with sound and flash suppressor kit in place.

 

[Tcruse]

Well caliber choice would be an important decision. I could see several possible lines of decision. In any case we have to get the rest of NATO go also change, in my opinion.
Possible:
1) stay with 9mm, allow choice of hp and per-fragmented tmj
2) 5.7x28, problem with choices on suppliers, but lighter and more rounds, more speed and possible same ammo with rifle. (maybe someday a 5.7 Glock?)
3) 45 GAP. Problem with choice of suppliers but has obvious advantages over 45 acp in terms of size and performance in short barrels
4) 10mm, mainly because politically something with metric caliber could be sold to other countries easier than 40SW. Like this choice least of the ones listed. I would be at the top of the food chain as far as potential power goes.

As far as gun, pick the one with the most simple design and fewest parts that is reliable.
Is amanual safety required, not sure. I can see the argument going both ways. I prefer to not have a grip or manual safety on a SD/HD gun, but for a service gun maybe. Some day I expect to have smart guns that only work when presented by a DNA sample of the authorized user.

 

[NG VI]

Well the military is thinking about retiring the M9,

Not after that big buy of new M9s they just put in. New batch of contract pistols, expect to see no change at all in service pistol for at least fifteen years.

 

[el Godfather]

The cost involve for picking a new weapon is very high. Any change would have to be with convincing reason.

 

[Orkan]

Just talked to a guy from marine force recon yesterday. He just spent the last 9 months on pre-deployment training and touched off roughly 40,000rnds of 45 in 1911 platform.

Obviously the old war horse still has some fight in her if force recon feels the need to run 1911's.

I'm a recreational shooter, and I have to say the 1911 is just an awesome platform. I was all about the polymer guns for the last 8 years. However, I find myself migrating back to cold steel these days... and boy it feels good.

 

[el Godfather]

You are right. I have also been all about polymer, but I guess the more years you spend with guns, you realize that steel is the way to go. There are definately some advantages of polymer guns, but in my view they have little value in collection.

 

[NG VI]

Obviously the old war horse still has some fight in her if force recon feels the need to run 1911's.

What people aren't saying about all these groups that still use 1911s from time to time, is that they are the epitome of a macho group, they can pick whatever they want for a sidearm, and "amazing .45 is better than puny 9mm" is a very typical macho view.


These guys have a lot of training and have put a ton of work into getting to the level they're at, but it doesn't make them immune to the effects of a ton of testosterone and everyone's desire to have their unique and exclusive group get some visible badge, and also the triggers on 1911s are nicer than on Berettas. I mean, if you had the choice, wouldn't you decide to go with a nicer gun than the rest of the joes?

 

[Orkan]

I mean, if you had the choice, wouldn't you decide to go with a nicer gun than the rest of the joes?

I think it has more to do with that than it does all the other stuff you mentioned. Sure there is a lot of ego being thrown around. It's that way among all alpha male groups of elite status.

If I'm going to have to clear a house with my handgun, I'd definitely want something accurate and reliable. No doubt that a 45 is a one-shot per customer round. 9mm... not so much.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

No doubt that a 45 is a one-shot per customer round. 9mm... not so much.

If anyone is anticipating firing only one round at any attacker, their training is seriously deficient.

 

[texgunner]

This is an fantasy that won't die. It's not ever going to happen. I the US military ever goes back to the .45 I'd expect it to be a plastic wunder pistol like Glock or HK. I love the 1911, have several, but it's time as an official service pistol is long past.

 

[Orkan]

If anyone is anticipating firing only one round at any attacker, their training is seriously deficient.

Did I say anything about training and what you should do in a self preservation scenario? It will usually only take one, yet obviously all training rules still apply.

This is an fantasy that won't die. It's not ever going to happen. I love the 1911, have several, but it's time as an official service pistol is long past.

You should do a little research on this. As I say, the 1911 is still the official sidearm of a few units in the military.

 

[Tcruse]

"No doubt that a 45 is a one-shot per customer round. 9mm... not so much."

This is not really a true statement. The performance of the various service rounds can be debated all day and no real winner. They are different and each shooting is different. The attempts at coming up with lab tests to compare the rounds are a start, but it seems that each user group still goes back to their preference. There is more difference in the performance of the ammo than in the caliber. Even studies that try to track actual police usage seem to show little difference between the common calibers, namely 9X19 mm, 357 Sig, .40 SW, 45 GAP, 45 ACP and 10mm. Usually the 45 ACP comes in somewhere between 9mm and 357 Sig. 10 mm would probably be more effective if it was used more, but there are reasons that 10mm is not the universal carry solution. Then you get into the argument about HP and TMJ designs.

Having a standard between NATO members of 9mm is much more important than the idea that the .45 ACP may be better. I also not so sure that the NATO 9mm FMJ is so bad for the environments that they are used in. HP is better for SD or HD but that is a different environment entirely.

I would prefer to have our military using a Glock 17 (or M&P 9mm or Ruger SR9). The simple and easy to keep going trumps every thing that the 1911s may do better. Is it worth changing from current Baretta? Probably not.

 

[Orkan]

You are right in that it can be argued with no clear winner. That is only because people base their arguments on emotion instead of fact.

Fact is if you talk to some people in the emergency room/EMP profession you'll find that they save a LOT of people with 9mm wounds. They don't save too many with 45ACP holes in them. I read an article on it a while back. I want to say the ratio was something like 9:1.

I've shot a lot of medium sized animals with 45 and 9mm Tcruse. (coyotes, pigs, etc) I can tell you with 100% certainty that the 45 puts the brakes on em where as 9mm requires several follow-up shots.

Obviously this hinges on using the correct ammo. Yet when the most capable ammo in both cartridges is used, the edge goes to the 45 when it comes to stopping power. To someone interested in the facts of personal experience and facts of physics like me... there is no need to get emotional. The facts speak for themselves.

If you really want to see truth from fiction... talk to some guys that have shot people with both. You'll find them reaching for the 45 over the 9mm.

This doesn't change the fact that my daily carry is a 9mm. I choose ammo capacity over stopping power for my own safety. It's a conscious choice made with the knowledge that 45 absolutely hits harder than 9mm.

 

[OldCavSoldier]

.45ACP is probably the best caliber for a new military arm, but, I am still undecided about the M1911/M1911A1 platform being the best, even though I am an old soldier well trained in the M1911A1 and the owner of several 1911A1's and Government Model variants.

Actually, if I was definitely going into harm's way, and the only thing I could carry was a handgun (baaaaad....very baaaaaad) I would choose a Sig P220, but, that is just me and evidence of my pistol prejudices............

 

[el Godfather]

Aparently the YES vote is catching up. For the first time its over 40% I have a hunch thay hardcore 1911 believers have stil not voted yet.

45 in 1911 is like a hand with perfect glove and formidable punch.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

1) stay with 9mm, allow choice of hp and per-fragmented tmj

HP and pre-fragmented ammunition is prohibited for use in war by the Hague Convention.

2) 5.7x28, problem with choices on suppliers, but lighter and more rounds, more speed and possible same ammo with rifle. (maybe someday a 5.7 Glock?)

The 5.7X28 is less powerful than the .22 Hornet and is not known to be an effective stopper.

3) 45 GAP. Problem with choice of suppliers but has obvious advantages over 45 acp in terms of size and performance in short barrels

Actually, it doesn't -- loaded to equivallent pressures, the .45 ACP outperforms the .45 GAP.

4) 10mm, mainly because politically something with metric caliber could be sold to other countries easier than 40SW. Like this choice least of the ones listed. I would be at the top of the food chain as far as potential power goes.

The FBI tried the 10mm, and quickly reduced the power -- which is what led Smith and Wesson to develop the .40 S&W.

 

[el Godfather]

5.7 is just silly. It has no where near the sufficient stopping power. Its bulky and the magz crack easily.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

For a combat pistol I feel as though the 1911 is out dated. There are better options out there that hold more rounds, less weight, easier to maintain, more simple, less parts, etc. I feel as though the 1911 as a duty/combat piece is just nostalgia.

The 5.7X28 is less powerful than the .22 Hornet and is not known to be an effective stopper.

Not known but it has shown to be an effective stopper. A certain event showed that it works.

 

[mgmorden]

4) 10mm, mainly because politically something with metric caliber could be sold to other countries easier than 40SW. Like this choice least of the ones listed. I would be at the top of the food chain as far as potential power goes.

Think about that a little harder. .40S&W is a shortened version of the 10mm. They both use the same bullet width. It would be much more feasible to simply adopt .40S&W if they wanted to but designate the cartridge as 10mm NATO for military use.

The same was basically done with .223 Remington/5.56 NATO or .308 Winchester/7.62 NATO in rifles. Yes, the pressure specifications are a little different between the military and civilian versions (as they might be for .40S&W too), but for all intents and purposes the rounds are dimensionally identical.

 

[el Godfather]

5.7 was actually made for P90 for optimal performance. The pistol just came along the way. 5.7 has awesome peneteration power when fired from P90, not when fired from FiveseveN pistol. It has specific role and it does that well.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

5.7 was actually made for P90 for optimal performance. The pistol just came along the way. 5.7 has awesome peneteration power when fired from P90, not when fired from FiveseveN pistol. It has specific role and it does that well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BDpPlL6roI&feature=related
From a FiveseveN. It met penetration standards of 12 inches and actually over penetrated.

 

[Tcruse]

HP and pre-fragmented ammunition is prohibited for use in war by the Hague Convention.

The 5.7X28 is less powerful than the .22 Hornet and is not known to be an effective stopper.


Actually, it doesn't -- loaded to equivallent pressures, the .45 ACP outperforms the .45 GAP.

The FBI tried the 10mm, and quickly reduced the power -- which is what led Smith and Wesson to develop the .40 S&W.

1) This is only partially true, the actual wording has been interrupted different ways. The treaty could it apply can be amended or worked around should the desire be great enough. In fact have seen several articles where the letter of the agreement is being honored, with ammo that is effectively HP ammo.
2) I have read several studies that concluded the FN 5.7 was equivalent or better than .45 ACP (from 5" 1911). Granted the studies had some critics, many people saying that "just can not be, nothing is better than my 1911 45". Not having a horse in that race it is not a prime interest to me.
3) Here is one supporting article
http://www.firearmsforum.com/firearms/article/1117
4) Agreed that 10 mm would not be my first choice. However, I still contend that based on performance the 10mm CAN out perform .45 ACP. In fact, the .40 SW probably is superior in many cases based on energy and stats of one shot stops.
I would suggest the ammo performance charts on Winchester site (Ranger series).
The 9mm sizes seem to hold there own in just about every case.

My point is basically, unless we define "better" in measurable terms there is not an answer, just opinions.