US Army back to 1911?

[Vern Humphrey]

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

A .22 short "works." It's even killed grizzley. But that doesn't make it a stopper.

 

[Tcruse]

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.

Here is one article that I found interesting on this subject:
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/9mm vs 45.htm

And yes I have talked to a doctor that has treated gun shot wounds. His statement was that unless you find the bullet, you really see no difference in the wound.
I think that you are probably correct on the hunting issue, but that is really a very different discussion.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

One should use autopsy data with caution. First of all, the doctor can only autopsy the corpse. He cannot autopsy the tactical situation.

The autopsy cannot tell you if the deceased stopped fighting the moment he was hit, for example, or if he continued to fire.

 

[Orkan]

I think that you are probably correct on the hunting issue, but that is really a very different discussion.

Not really. It's the same discussion. If it works on medium sized game, it will work on a human. It's as simple as that. If it will knock a deer on its butt, a person doesn't stand much of a chance. Killing is killing. Go hog shooting with a 9mm, then take a 45. Try telling me you see no difference afterward and I'll call you a liar!

Here is the article I was talking about. For a guy that see's death in all its forms, I definitely trust his opinion when it comes to what it takes to make someone dead.

http://www.gunthorp.com/Terminal Ballistics as viewed in a morgue.htm

If my statements of, "Occasionally, I've seen the 9mm fragment or fail to reach the vital organs, whereas I don't think I can remember seeing a .45 do so" aren't sufficient, I'm afraid you're on your own.

 

[NG VI]

, 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.

The 10mm delivers moar! than any ACP loads for sure, but as far as .40 goes, stop percentages are largely meaningless and impossible to predict with any real accuracy. What the .40 does that interests services though, is be chambered in the small format pistols with a good number of rounds, and penetrate. .40 does a better job penetrating hard barriers than .45 does, and would likely be able to pass through a steel helmet at greater distances than the .45, which is one of the historic metrics they've used to rate a caliber's performance.

It's also lighter and smaller, so more of it could be loaded into the same space on a transport vehicle. I've heard a line before, something like "amateurs talk tactics, experts talk logistics". A logistical benefit is a real benefit, a major benefit, and is part of the reason the 5.56 and probably 9mm will be our service calibers until either the LSAT is revived and finalized or we get some working caseless weapon.

 

[NG VI]

That gunthorp article has been heavily discredited, the guy claimed to be doing so many autopsies he must have been fifty individual coroners in fifty major crime-ridden cities. His claims were debunked because there is no way a single person could have performed anywhere near the number of autopsies he claimed to have been present for, and the numbers of shooting-related autopsies he claimed to sit in on were so high that they don't match any area in the developed world.

On top of that, some of his statements are ridiculous. Service caliber JHP bullets are designed to function the same way regardless of bullet weight and regardless of caliber, so claiming that 9mm JHP repeatedly was found to just fragment harmlessly against a man's ribs while no .45 bullet ever failed to work properly is absurd.

Any service caliber JHP is very likely to behave the same way in tissue, the bullet weights and velocities are just not that far apart to make one do anything special over another. The designs have had so much work put into them that they basically work exactly the same, minus a tenth of an inch expansion as you change calibers. They all penetrate equally well, using the same designs, they are all fairly accurate, they are all made in such a way that they will function properly in any working gun.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

A .22 short "works." It's even killed grizzley. But that doesn't make it a stopper.

Define stopper.

 

[Jenrick]

Several things strike against the 1911 as a issue weapon, the first is parts interchangeability. It is not possible to take a hammer out a box of hammers and drop it into a random pistol and have it work correctly the first time. Unit armorers need to be able to make guns run without having to hand fit parts.

The second is the time and cost it takes to produce 1911's. Low cost 1911's are frequently referred to as "jam-o-matics", most buyers are told to shy away from them due to their lack or reliability etc. If the US military is going to order 100,000 pistols, why would they go with a design that is expensive to produce correctly? A Sig is still expensive compared to a Glock, but it is usually $300-$400 cheaper then a "good" 1911. Also production levels would require the entire output of the major manufactures to go to the military for several years.

Lastly most 1911's don't run well when given minimal maintenance (even "good" 1911's). They are pistols for people who are into guns, not someone who has to be reminded to empty their canteens out after an day in the field so they won't get moldy (yep worked with a few of those yahoo's in my time). Most soldiers are NOT fanatical about weapon maintenance, most if given the option would let someone else do it for them. A 1911 will not tolerate this well. A pistol with generous enough tolerances to allow for this will not have the gilt edge of accuracy and crispness of trigger that so many people love about the 1911.

For a general service pistol it needs to have either:
a) A moderately heavy (6-8 lbs) clean DAO trigger (think good tuned revolver trigger)
b) A SA trigger of a moderate weight (5-6lbs) with a manual safety

Just teaching people to keep their finger off the trigger means nothing when you start to look at combat. Being blow out of your vehicle by an IED, having your weapon knocked out of your holster as you dive for cover when ambushed, etc all create the possibility the trigger will catch on something and discharge. A trigger of decent weight will help alleviate this problem.

Caliber is immaterial, the lighter the better. If we can shoot someone with a 7.62 NATO round COM and still have them coming at us, .45 ACP or 9mm in FMJ is a really a silly discussion. Also 9mm is about the easiest thing to teach someone to shoot next to .38 spl target loads. All other things being equal people are able to learn to shoot acceptably much more quickly with something that has less recoil.

If I was selecting a new pistol for the US military as a whole it would be a polymer frame, double stack 9mm, with the same sight radius as a full size 1911 or the current M9. Trigger pull would be either DAO (similar to either the SIG DAK, or Beretta's DAO pistols) or SA/SF pistol (similar to the S&W M&P, Glock, H&K LEM, or Para LDA) with a frame mounted ambi manual safety that does NOT lock the frame in place. Trigger weight would not be less then 5lbs regardless of the action selected.

So could a "1911 style" pistol fulfill this criteria, sure. However I think that it would be cost prohibitive to do so when other already existing designs on the market already could fulfill the criteria.

-Jenrick

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Several things strike against the 1911 as a issue weapon, the first is parts interchangeability. It is not possible to take a hammer out a box of hammers and drop it into a random pistol and have it work correctly the first time. Unit armorers need to be able to make guns run without having to hand fit parts.

Mil Spec 1911s had part interchangeability. In fact the test the Army did was that they took 10 issue 1911s from different makers, took them all apart in a box, shook the box up and then put them back together and fired them.

The second is the time and cost it takes to produce 1911's. Low cost 1911's are frequently referred to as "jam-o-matics", most buyers are told to shy away from them due to their lack or reliability etc. If the US military is going to order 100,000 pistols, why would they go with a design that is expensive to produce correctly? A Sig is still expensive compared to a Glock, but it is usually $300-$400 cheaper then a "good" 1911. Also production levels would require the entire output of the major manufactures to go to the military for several years.

Low cost 1911s like Rock Island Armory have a great reputation.

Lastly most 1911's don't run well when given minimal maintenance (even "good" 1911's). They are pistols for people who are into guns, not someone who has to be reminded to empty their canteens out after an day in the field so they won't get moldy (yep worked with a few of those yahoo's in my time). Most soldiers are NOT fanatical about weapon maintenance, most if given the option would let someone else do it for them. A 1911 will not tolerate this well. A pistol with generous enough tolerances to allow for this will not have the gilt edge of accuracy and crispness of trigger that so many people love about the 1911.

The issue 1911s still had a nice trigger though nothing to write about and were still accurate enough. The small sights did make it harder to shoot well though.

 

[SigMic]

Sounds to me like we'd be better off spending the money it would cost to train up our soldiers.

I'm quite surprised to hear of all this talk of having to make the guns easy since our soldiers don't train on them? What the hell kind of training are we doing with them? It would seem to me that our soldiers should be excellent with rifles and at least pretty darn competent with any carry gun they were issued.

 

[Nushif]

What the hell kind of training are we doing with them? It would seem to me that our soldiers should be excellent with rifles and at least pretty darn competent with any carry gun they were issued.

Well, My soldiers are excellent at configuring Blue Force Trackers, Secure Satellite Communications, Phone Lines, Wired Internet and Intranets, Radio Usage and Repair, can collectively set up communication networks over a country with no infrastructure in place, and oftentimes not even electricity, and are passable marksmen with a rifle. They're in shape, can fix minor things on their vehicles, have mild survival skills, mild cultural awareness skills specific to the middle east, mild PR skills, some Fist Aid skills, know basic tactics at a squad and platoon level, can drive their vehicles, can account for well over several millions of dollars of my equipment at all times, have the discipline to operate on a FOB, know basic military history and tradition, as well as drill, know to prevent suicide, sexual harassment and drug usage and on top of all this most of them hold down a fulltime job.

Care to tell me when I should send them all to Appleseed as well, closely followed by Thunder Ranch? Oh yeah, and who's paying for it? Also, how will that help my mission?

Do we really want to measure the worth of a soldier by his 100 yard groups? Or can we finally admit that war has evolved past simple weapons usage?

 

[X-Rap]

What the hell kind of training are we doing with them? It would seem to me that our soldiers should be excellent with rifles and at least pretty darn competent with any carry gun they were issued.

From the relatively small sample of young men in my small town that have gone to war in the decade I'd say my son was the most familiar with firearms and he said he could care less about having a handgun.
From what I gather it is a common sentiment in Combat Arms and most would prefer to carry more ammo for their M4. There are exceptions I'm sure but the idea that a side arm of any caliber or configuration is a game changer is a waste of time and money that could be far better spent.
I think it is an exception to find soldiers who have a great familiarity with a great deal of firearms beyond their formal military training, I suspect it is similar to the percentage of gun guys you find in LE. Pretty low.

 

[Jenrick]

Mil Spec 1911s had part interchangeability. In fact the test the Army did was that they took 10 issue 1911s from different makers, took them all apart in a box, shook the box up and then put them back together and fired them.

Interesting I was not aware of this. The question is did they assemble the same 10 guns, or did they assemble them into 10 franken-guns?

Low cost 1911s like Rock Island Armory have a great reputation.

I own one, and for what I paid it's a good gun. It however is not nearly as reliable as any other pistol a own (glocks, sigs, H&K's, a Beretta 92FS for that matter). Imagine the howling on the boards if RIA/Armscorp was the new pistol supplier for the military.

The issue 1911s still had a nice trigger though nothing to write about and were still accurate enough.

I think you hit the nail on the head, the trigger wasn't anything great and it was "accurate enough." Shoot I think any service pistol fits that description...

Nushif: Thank you for that break down of what your soldiers ACTUALLY do. We are a long way away from the Colonial minute man, or his civil war sharpshooter counter part.

-Jenrick

 

[Chindo18Z]

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

Threads like this are great...folks put a lot of thought and emotion into them.

BLUF: My answer is YES...but with caveats.

Could the 1911 platform work again? Absolutely. It's one of the most combat proven semi-auto handguns in military history. In terms of successful use in war, numbers fielded, and service longevity, it rates near the top of all pistol designs. For a weapon that was "discarded" by the military, it seems to have enjoyed a renaissance of commercial popularity unmatched by any combat pistol other than the Glock.

A century of service to US forces (still in limited use today ) should be a clue. The weapon has functioned successfully in every theater of conflict since its adoption. The fleet was employed until wear and budgetary opportunity provided an excuse to ask the question: "Is there something else?" The proven function and utility of the .45 ACP design was never in question, but when the inevitable replacement time came (due to wear and tear), desire for new features and capabilities dictated we go with a DA/SA high capacity 9mm. We didn't actually get a better gun...just a different one.

We got a theoretically more user friendly and safety featured weapon by adopting the M9. We got ammunition compatibility with allied forces. And we got a caliber whose lighter recoil was easier to control when issued to a body of troops possessing marginal pistol skills.

But in point of fact, the 1911 was successfully employed by millions of marginally trained users during many decades of both peace and war. It developed a deserved reputation for terminal effect and combat reliability never quite matched by its Beretta successor. The weapon was not "discarded" because of performance shortfalls...it was replaced due to economic considerations and political gerrymandering. The ability to refit the existing fleet or buy all new replacements equaled or exceeded the cost of just going with a new design. The committee that specified performance features picked attributes that seemed important at the time...ones which the 1911 could not possibly meet (DA/SA, high capacity, and 9mm NATO compatibility).

In retrospect, only the high capacity parameter proved truly useful.

The DA/SA feature, brilliant from a safety and readiness-to-fire standpoint, has proven to be a wasted feature because the services have (in the main) required troops to carry chamber empty, negating the supposed design advantage.

NATO 9mm compatibility seemed important during the Cold War, but is of little relevance today. In fact, it never was relevant, but it briefed well. Battles and campaigns simply don't hinge on UK, German, and US troops being able to reload pistols from the same ammo can. And the shipping of 9mm ammo pallets is an inconsequential footnote to theater logistical planning. But, it briefed well when selection criteria were being bandied about in front of the House Armed Services Committee. And in front of congress critters looking to establish a job-producing M9 factory in their home states.

Predictably, 9mm FMJ terminal effect proved to be problematic in comparison to .45 FMJ, but not in a big enough way to matter...or generate any investigative hearings. There just isn't that much difference in performance...and with the higher capacity 9mm...you can just use more bullets to make the target go away. A simple reinterpretation of the Hague Accords would eliminate the caliber controversy. If we issued premium 9mm JHP instead of FMJ, all further caliber controversy would evaporate.

So...to return to the OP's question, IF you needed to replace about 900,000+ Berettas, the 1911 would be a viable choice.

It's a proven design that gets the job done better than most other pistols.

Countless service members were successfully trained to use it in the past.

Countless service members could be trained to use it in the future.

Accidents rates in the hands of ill-trained idiots would remain about the same as with any other pistol. Perhaps a bit less so than with issued Glocks. Chambers would be empty anyway...but some idiots would manage to fumble manipulation anyway...regardless of type of controls or operating system.

We would get 2-3 times the service life out of them as compared to our current primary issue pistol. The Berettas purchased in the mid-'80s and early '90s have irreparably worn out after about 20-25 years of use (or less). Most of our 1911s lasted 50-70 years. Some far longer. Some are still in service today.

With modern design enhancements, a modified 1911A2 could offer improved performance in every area except double stack capacity (although reliable 8-10 round mags could be issued). It could be lighter (with an alloy lower), have better sights, and fire more effective JHP ammo, while fitting smaller hands better than the M9. It could be made Commander sized and provide a better concealed carry choice than most other pistols.

Could we go back to 1911s with good results? Sure. They'd work just fine.

Should we? Probably not. DAO Tupperware in .40 S&W would make more sense for general issue to a large force possessing only rudimentary pistol skills. Before anyone goes on a rant about training...our kids today receive as much (and arguably better) pistol training as any of our troops got in the past. Advanced pistol training is simply not (nor has it ever been) a high priority. Good enough is what suffices. Units that truly use pistols a lot get truly expert training. Everyone else is expected to be able to hit a target at point blank range and not shoot themselves or their buddies while walking around. That simply ain't gonna change.

Will we? Figure the odds...DoD just bought a half million new M9s.

 

[DannySeesUSMC]

I do not think you will see a large military contract for 1911 pistols, now or in the future. Any 1911's or other .45 ACP pistols will remain a speciality item for a small number of units.

 

[Chindo18Z]

Quote:
Mil Spec 1911s had part interchangeability. In fact the test the Army did was that they took 10 issue 1911s from different makers, took them all apart in a box, shook the box up and then put them back together and fired them.

Interesting I was not aware of this. The question is did they assemble the same 10 guns, or did they assemble them into 10 franken-guns?

Any parts...mixed into any gun. Bang. Eject. Bang. Rinse and repeat.

Folks today are so used to seeing a plethora of tightly fitted beauty queens in the gun shop 1911 case, that they no longer understand that NONE of these weapons are actual 1911A1s. Not the low-end cast frame imports. Not the higher dollar, mirror polish factory semi-customs. Not the very high end boutique models. They are all modified for one purpose or another (cost cutting, CCW comfort, bling features, enhanced accuracy, etc.). They are not built to the originally specified military tolerances nor with originally specified materials.

The GI guns were designed to go bang under all conditions and be mostly user serviceable (to include functioning with replacement drop-in parts from the arms room parts chest).

They did.

 

[Jenrick]

Chindo18z: Interesting good to know. I'll file that way.

But in point of fact, the 1911 was successfully employed by millions of marginally trained users during many decades of both peace and war. It developed a deserved reputation for terminal effect and combat reliability never quite matched by its Beretta successor.

I'm curious as now that I think of it I know of very little literature when someone was shot with a 1911 during it's service years. By this I mean actual first hand accounts. To be honest I don't know of too may accounts of the M9 being used in combat either, good or bad. I know a lot of people like to bad mouth the M9's reliability on the range, but I can't recall anyone talking about one failing operationally.

Predictably, 9mm FMJ terminal effect proved to be problematic in comparison to .45 FMJ, but not in a big enough way to matter...or generate any investigative hearings. There just isn't that much difference in performance...and with the 9mm...you can just use more bullets to make the target go away.

Ironically I think if we do go to a hotter cartridge (.40 S&W, or 10mm) there will be a lot of people asking saying "the 9mm worked just fine why did we go to this beast of a round no one can qualify with?"

In the end I agree with you that there are better options out there for the military at large.

-Jenrick

 

[Vern Humphrey]

One thing the .45 ACP has going for it is versatality. For example, several people have said the .40 S&W is "more powerful." But not if you compare apples to apples. The .45 ACP at +P (which is actually quite mild) will drive a 185 grain bullet about 100 fps faster than the .40 S&W. What this implies is that light-weight, soft armor defeating bullets are quite possible in the .45 ACP format.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Shoot I think any service pistol fits that description...

They do, that's why I feel as re-issuing the 1911 would be just nostalgia as there are better choices out there to issue to soldiers.

 

[Chindo18Z]

They do, that's why I feel as re-issuing the 1911 would be just nostalgia as there are better choices out there to issue to soldiers.

Which gets to the actual root of this discussion...exactly WHICH pistols would be significantly better...and precisely WHY?

I'm not arguing for a return to the 1911, mind you. I just don't see many other handguns that offer a lot of improvement in comparison (for the average troop). Incremental advantages? Sure. Also incremental disadvantages. Just like when we adopted the M9. We gained a little...we lost a little.


1911s? For what valid reasons would an improved 1911 actually NOT fit the bill? I can think of two disadvantages:

1. Average pistol training qualification scores would go down slightly because of greater recoil with .45 ACP...which could translate into possibly fewer hits in combat (for the least trained) beyond about 7-10 meters range and in comparison to 9mm.

2. A loss of high magazine capacity

However, it is instructive to consider that, even today, 1911s sell like hotcakes primarily because a 100 year-old design continues to work as well or better than other more modern combat pistols.

Nostalgia would be bringing back Lugers or Webleys. Nostalgia would be buying Single Action Army revolvers. Actually re-issuing America's currently most popular modern defensive handgun type might be considered a reasonable course of action by some.

Glocks? As much as I love Glocks, I can think of one overwhelming reason to not issue them to 1.2 million service members...the increase in ADs would have a horrific effect in terms of lives lost, service-members medically retired, and death benefits paid out. I've seen even well-trained troops accidentally shoot themselves or others with Berettas (one of the safest pistols ever designed). Glocks issued out to every 2nd Lieutenant or Staff Officer/NCO with a cheap PX holster would magnify that occurrence significantly. I've studied enough Glock equipped police departments over the years to understand the liabilities involved with its widespread issuance.

I say this from a perspective of actually having trained thousands of troops on ranges for 35 years. I know exactly how DoD budgetary limitations would result in grossly inadequate training and produce a lot of ill-trained cone-heads carelessly handling an unforgiving weapon that requires a specific holster discipline when hot.

We would eventually wind up with a 60 Minutes prime time expose and congressional hearings decrying the military's choice of a weapon that encouraged a host of Tex Grebners. Heads would roll.

For SOF troops and MPs? Sure. For general issue to all branches of the military? No thanks.



What if we just issued updated 1911s adapted to fire 5.7 x 28? It just might work and please everyone. A great and reliable platform, firing a lot of bullets, that deliver enough lethality, and can be tailored to counter armored opponents. There's only 6mm of case length difference. Who knows? It might work.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Which gets to the actual root of this discussion...exactly WHICH pistols would be significantly better...and precisely WHY?

I'm just thinking any modern handgun that involves using less parts and possibly polymer. SIGs come to mind as the US Military does use a few of them successfully such as the M11 (P228), SP2022, and the P226. The FNP series handguns are also quite nice from what I've read.

I feel as though it would be a step back to go to the 1911 again. Less capacity and more parts. Sure it worked for a long time but that doesn't mean it's always going to be the best overall choice. The 1911 just doesn't offer any advantages over most modern pistols if the intent was for combat use.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Which gets to the actual root of this discussion...exactly WHICH pistols would be significantly better...and precisely WHY?

A double-stack, polymer frame, DA/SA pistol with an ambidextrous safety, integrated rail, and removable front and rear sights in 9mm NATO. That would be significantly better.

Double stack = more rounds and more chances to hit the CNS of the target (or hit the target at all, which in combat is somewhat difficult)

Polymer frame = lighter, less rust prone.

DA/SA = Not my cup of tea, but for Big Army it adds another layer of safety.

Ambi safety = easier for more shooters to use, and again Big Army will never, ever issue a safety-less pistol.

Integrated rail = the use of weapon mounted lights is extremely desirable. Especially given how much stuff we have to carry, the possibility of a disabled arm, etc

Removable sights = Unit armorers can add night sights.

9mm = More rounds. More hits. Less recoil. Faster followup shots. Easier for Big Army to issue logistically with NATO(The only aspect that really matters to those who make the decisions)

 

[brnmuenchow]

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.

Agreed:
Getting NATO to change from a .9x19mm to a .45 ACP would take an act of God IMO.
Also switching back to a simple 1911 platform would not be likely. Technology and firearm research has advanced enough where they would begin building/ developing a newer more accurate, just as reliable DA duty gun. H&K and and many others already have a great line up of .45 ACP pistols that would make excellent new military issue sidearms.

 

[Chindo18Z]

The US military does not rely on NATO logistical channels for pistol ammo. We haven't, we won't, and the idea is a planning artifact dating from preparations for a hypothetical WWIII struggle against the Soviet Union. It's just not an important factor in the real military logistical world. We could choose to go with .41 Long Colt and none of our allies would really care.

Today, we are facing inevitable and drastic military budget cuts. This means that there isn't a hope in hell of fielding a new pistol to the entire force beyond the 490,000 new M9s already contracted for.

But...if I were King...and had the funding...my handgun replacement choice for general issue to the US military would be a modified HK USP/C with the following features:

1. Compact frame/slide
2. .40 S&W if restricted to FMJ; 9mm if allowed to use expanding ammo
3. Railed w/ Issue Combat Light Module
4. Ambidextrous controls (mag release, slide release)
5. DAO without Decocking/Safety Lever
6. Fixed Hi Visibility Combat Night Sights (drift adjustable rear)
7. Modular Grip Inserts
8. Complement of DA .22 LR HK Uppers for marksmanship training in all units
9. Complement of Suppressor/Aiming Modules per Combat Arms Platoon

These would be for issue to everyone, in any Service, required to carry a pistol but not assigned to SOF, Counter Intelligence, Law Enforcement, or Tactical Reconnaissance units.

Those folks would use DA/SA decocker (without Safety) variants of the same weapon along with issued modules for mounting visible & IR lasers, suppressors, and red dot sights. Full sized and/or Sub-Compact configurations would be organic items in accordance with a unit's mission and manning (MTOE).

 

[Nordeste]

I think NG VI and Rcmodel have nailed it.

The 1911 is not the best option not just for its caliber, longer training periods, troops qualification scores, and the like. It's also that equally efficient (and easier to operate, including field stripping) platforms are also... cheaper to manufacture and to maintain.

The M9, however, seems to me like the almost perfect choice.