US Army back to 1911?

[ATLDave]

It's hard for me to imagine a move that would be a bigger waste of money. Building a 1911 correctly takes a lot of work. They're inherently expensive to build properly. As others have pointed out, no wars have ever been won with handguns, so they're a dumb place to spend money. Buy better rifles, or better communications gear, or more/better satellite coverage, or more drones, or other things that might actually impact the outcome of some confrontation.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

The body of originally issued pistols (1985-1995) wore out a lot quicker than anticipated. Despite factory claims of exceptional longevity, in reality, the weapons were only designed to meet a military specification that called for a 15K round service life. Which made sense in a Cold War peacetime training environment where the average pistol was expected to fire only 200-300 rds per year. It was anticipated that they would last for at least 50 years.

I do agree that they aren't as durable but one guy on the Beretta forum wore out his Beretta after 100,000 rounds. I'm unsure if he changed out parts as he went but the frame cracked after that round count. I still think that currently, the M9 is fine for the job.

 

[Chindo18Z]

I still think that currently, the M9 is fine for the job.

Respectfully, as a long time user of and instructor for that pistol, used for that job...I'll disagree.

The 92/M9 was "cutting edge" in 1983 when it was evaluated for adoption (even though it was simply a re-worked 1951 Brigadier). But it has since been surpassed by better 9mm hi-cap pistols...in the same manner the 1911 was surpassed in terms of newer and more desirable features.

Fielding the Beretta was akin to buying Chinese mountain bikes at Wal-Mart. OK bikes for kids to ride around the neighborhood...but not anything found on serious trails ridden by competitive riders.

I do agree that they aren't as durable but one guy on the Beretta forum wore out his Beretta after 100,000 rounds.

And there are always those stories. There are always outliers along a Bell Curve. Hell, my last military issued 1911A1 was built in 1942...and I carried that one in Iraq in 2011. It fired more accurately and reliably than any Beretta I've ever handled, even after 68 years of use. But most military 1911's eventually wore out after providing that 50-80 years of service...although that was admittedly a pretty good return on investment for a handgun fleet purchase. I think the American taxpayer got value added out of the 1911 procurement program...but not so much when we paid for the M9.

My last issue M9 had its locking block let go after about 4K rounds. Fortunately that happened out on the range. But I've had guys on my Team staring ruefully at broken pistols while standing in Bosnia (where that M9 was the primary armament) and be mission incapable until we could get a replacement...which took days. I've had my guys standing in the middle of nowhere Afghanistan with dead-lined M9s...and the nearest replacement pistol 500+ miles away and not able to be brought in by MC-130 re-supply flight until the next dark of the moon. I had 3 issued Berettas crap out on my 15 person team in Baghdad during an 11 month period. For those that have been there, that was a pistol rich staff environment with lots of support available. It still took days or even weeks to get those weapons repaired or replaced...in a place where most daily meetings with Iraqis were conducted pistol-only. You didn't walk into an Iraqi Commanding General's office waving your M4A1 about.

Sure...lot's of Berettas have held up, but most haven't. My current personal 92FS has been chugging along just fine, but one I owned previously suffered from breakage when the locking block tied up the gun. More importantly, the ones assigned to my Teams broke frequently, including while deployed to locations where repair/replacement was not a simple matter, and we had need for something more than a non-functional paperweight.

I don't care if Team Beretta claims they have produced a 9mm Perpetual Motion Machine, made of Unobtanium, and powered by Cold Fusion...in the real military world, the Beretta M9 has simply not held up. Which is why it had to be replaced...unfortunately with more Berettas.

For most of the non-shooters in the military, the issue is invisible, as they don't care about the pistol they are issued, will never fire that pistol in anger...or even fire it that extensively in training. The new pistols will break with boring regularity, Beretta will get paid, maintenance shops will code out the pistols that can't be returned to duty, and TPTB have a million other pressing issues on their mind besides pistol replacement.

Too bad.

The discussion doesn't really matter, because the decision to re-equip with replacement Berettas has already been made. The US Military will use the M9 design for the next 25 years or so. At which point, our kids or grand kids will bitch about the old warhorse, argue on the internet about the procurement history of a pistol adopted before they were born, and push for a modern replacement. (Not one of those tired Old School Glocks grandpa used!)

Somebody in 2035 will inevitably suggest 1911s. A small minority of very vocal folks will think that's a great idea. We will buy Phasers instead, with the selector permanently welded to "Stun Only". They will be made by Hi-Point and use a NATO standard battery pack...whose nuances will be endlessly debated by THR members. You'll still be able to find brand new 1911s in the gun shops. I'll be a long-retired cranky old man clinging bitterly to my 1911s (perhaps even my Beretta...out of a sense of nostalgia). The World will continue to wobble along.

Sound familiar?

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Do you think the military M9s are inferior to the 92 or would you say they are the same?

 

[Chindo18Z]

Do you think the military M9s are inferior to the 92 or would you say they are the same?

The same...with caveats.

We KNOW that an early run of military weapons had problems with non-spec metal content...resulting in the infamous slide separation issue. That documented problem led to the adoption of an over-sized flange added (at military request) to the hammer pin on all M9 models ("FS" designation in the civilian world). It also resulted in Beretta's offering a beefed-up "Brigadier" slide...which the military failed to purchase in any large quantities. I've never heard of a slide separation with the Brigadier slides we did buy.

That admittedly rare occurrence (slides cracking in half) has occasionally still reared its head over the ensuing years with standard military M9s. Trigger return springs and trigger springs still fail often enough to be noteworthy. And locking blocks continue to be dramatically problematic, regardless of version, although the radiused latest generation tend to break with lesser frequency.

I think that today, they are pretty much the same gun. But, I suspect that the military production line has just suffered from occasional "bad" runs over the years. However, I think it would require exacting examination of serial number ranges by forensic metallurgists to prove. Pre-War military 1911s had a similar issue with regards to heat treatment of their slides...with nearly the same result. That production issue was later fixed.

I'm happy with my current personal 92FS and don't plan on ditching it. On the other hand, I don't rely on it as my primary CCW or Home Defense weapon either. Nor my 1911s for that matter.

For military use, pistols need to be reliable and durable more than they need to be especially accurate or of a particular service caliber (my assumption being that almost any modern pistol can deliver adequate combat accuracy and most any medium to large caliber will do the job). It doesn't make a hill of beans to me whether my issue weapon is 9mm, .357 SIG, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP. I just want it to work reliably.

My personal preference would be for an HK USP/C .40 DAO for general military issue...or something like a reliability improved SIG 250 with the same features. But in recent memory, I've carried semi-custom 1911A1s downrange and felt perfectly well-armed.

I'd vote to equip the military with Glocks (which are outstanding pistols), but my experience of human nature, troops, and military training convinces me that we'd be buying the wrong pistol for a huge crowd of largely neophyte shooters...with predictably bad result in terms of accidents. Which would demand "Israeli" carry. Which would negate the very best argument for carrying Glocks in the first place...a rapid and uncomplicated first shot.

Many thousands of Glocks have been carried successfully by various US personnel in both Iraq and Afghanistan. My former unit uses a lot of them, and I've carried them on duty myself. I bought one of the first 17s to hit the shelves back in 1985 and have owned a succession of models and calibers over the years.

But the longer I've been around Glocks (civilian, PD, or military), the more NDs I've seen or been made aware of. I can distinctly remember two 9mm NDs inside my camp's billeting area during my last tour to Baghdad. Both of them involved State Department Contractors with rudimentary handgun experience, armed with G19s, and failing to properly understand the function of a Glock trigger. Those were just the ones I personally heard/saw. There were others.

Hence my recommendation for a manual safety lever or even DAO function for most proposed government agency/military weapons.

 

[X-Rap]

My personal preference would be for an HK USP/C .40 DAO for general military issue...or something like a reliability improved SIG 250 with the same features. But in recent memory, I've carried semi-custom 1911A1s downrange and felt perfectly well-armed.

I'd vote to equip the military with Glocks (which are outstanding pistols), but my experience of human nature, troops, and military training convinces me that we'd be buying the wrong pistol for a huge crowd of largely neophyte shooters...with predictably bad result in terms of accidents.

Many thousands of Glocks have been carried successfully by various US personnel in both Iraq and Afghanistan. My former unit uses a lot of them, and I've carried them on duty myself. I bought one of the first 17s to hit the shelves back in 1985 and have owned a succession of models and calibers over the years.

But the longer I've been around Glocks (civilian, PD, or military), the more NDs I've seen or been made aware of. I can distinctly remember two 9mm NDs inside my camp's billeting area during my last tour to Baghdad. Both of them involved State Department Contractors with rudimentary handgun experience, armed with G19s, and failing to properly understand the function of a Glock trigger. Those were just the ones I personally heard/saw. There were others.

Hence my recommendation for a manual safety lever or even DAO function for most proposed government agency/military weapons.

I would agree with you 100% my prior suggestion of the USPc in 9mm was based on my doubts that caliber change was very likely.
I am a big fan of Glocks but they aren't for everyone and just like the 1911 they take a commitment by the shooter to invest a little more than just sticking it in a holster.
If I had the money I would probably have as many USPc's as I have Glocks and possibly they would replace my Glock fleet but at a nearly 2to1 ratio to purchase I don't see that happening.

 

[KodeFore]

I voted for 1911 only I think they should adopt a newer version made from modern materials with itioal additioal safety features in a simplified fornat. In other words I think should go to the glock. Adding a Manuel thumb safety to a glock is not a big deal. When I took the GAC last year one of the instructors said glock will make their guns any way want as long as you
Order enough of them. Seem to me they mentioned one country ( Australia? ) uses the G 17 with a manual safety added. Been a while so i might be wrong on that part. I have not had a chance to actually shoot one yet but the modern sidearm that impresses me the most is the FN FNX series modern polymer hi cap with completely ambidextrous controls

 

[el Godfather]

Like I said before why not add USP type saftey to 1911, safe/decocker. Simple.

 

[jahwarrior]

I would like to see our boys carrying 1911s again, but I doubt it would ever happen. That said, Im surprised that we haven't adopted the Glock for the military.

 

[kyletx1911]

My question also

 

[Nordeste]

I totally agree on the recommendation of the Glock as a military sidearm, since it was originally built for that purpose. However, I disagree on the election of a .40 or .45 caliber for military use. The difference -if any- in terminal ballistics, using the mandatory FMJ ammo, would be neglected by the lose of capacity, which is crucial in a military environment.

As for the ND issue, these in a 99% of chances attributable to the operator/lack of training. True that a manual safety is a good idea, but then again, poorly trained personnel is likely to forget to switch the safety off under stress, and carrying the pistol on an empty chamber is even worse, since you'll have a poorly trained guy racking a slide and waving a condition 0 pistol around. These things make me wonder what it was like in those old days when semiautos were the exception and not the norm, and handgun guys carried revolvers. It all comes down to the "get your finger off the trigger" and "watch your muzzle" thing.

Portugal, OTOH, has recently purchased Glocks for its Armed Forces and Police, and the units ordered were equipped with a flip-down, frame mounted manual safety. An ugly one, indeed, but functional. Although... that same can be said about the Glocks. Ugly, but functional.

I do carry a 92FS myself on duty. It's a pistol I trust and feel quite comfortable with. I shoot it competently and like the feel of it. I've put no more than 2000 rds through mine and never had a single hiccup, but with all honesty, I wonder how it will perform in the long run. A good friend of mine put 8000 rds through his in a couple of years and his unit looks much more worn out than mine, with some worrying rattling sounds. Ask my Regional HQ gunsmiths and they'll tell you that they're "soft" pistols, particularly if you compare them with the STAR 30M they replaced (and I happen to own one for a good reason). If SHTF and I were to choose one, I'd go with the 30M, hands down.

My agency employs over 80.000 men and women. The requirements were similar to those in your military (external hammer, manual safety) and Beretta came up with the best offer, over HK and their USP. The USPc got chosen for the plain clothes people and the Glock 17 for the tactical units. In the "torture tests", the Berettas had overheating issues that the HKs hadn't, but still they got chosen, which proves the "your equipment comes courtesy of the lowest bidder" statement as universal.

A fine pistol, but not the toughest one out there.

 

[Zerodefect]

I've seen plenty of Marines with 1911's.

Do they buy thier own?

 

[Chindo18Z]

Nordeste: However, I disagree on the election of a .40 or .45 caliber for military use. The difference -if any- in terminal ballistics, using the mandatory FMJ ammo, would be neglected by the lose of capacity, which is crucial in a military environment.

I would be perfectly fine with 9mm (in fact I am), but I like the auto glass & cover penetration offered by .40 loads. Slightly higher capacity allowed by 9mm has turned out to be less important than originally envisioned...at least over the years of my unit's experience.

BTW: Excellent entire last post. I'm a fan of Star pistols. Are your guys restricted to use of Full Metal Jacket bullets or do you use expanding 9mm ammunition?

Zerodefect: I've seen plenty of Marines with 1911's. Do they buy thier own?

No...at least not as individual purchasers. The USMC employs competent gunsmiths to both re-build government issue 1911A1s and maintain small numbers of Marine Corps commercially purchased semi-custom models for certain units. Same goes for the Army. The 1911s you see belong to the government.

Privately owned firearms are simply verboten in modern military circles. You can't legally bring your own weapon from home.

 

[Nordeste]

Chindo18Z:

Thanks for your compliments . Glad you like our STARs. They were fine pistols. My 30M is my very cherished range toy and HD gun. I seldom carry her since I live in a quite safe area and she's a heavy piece, but I'm planning on a G19 for those days I have to go somewhere else, and I think it's wise to pack some protecting heat.

I personally prefer the .45 over the .40. In those few occasions I shot these calibers I always found the .40 snappier and the .45 more pleasant to shoot. I shot the .40 on a 1911 STI and the .45 on a Kimber Desert Warrior, and I really loved the .45. Went home that day with a broad smile on my face .

Expanding ammo is verboten, as you say, for us, except for the tactical units. Some agencies are restricted to FMJ only (mine, for example, which is the largest one in the country) and some others use flat-nosed semi-jacketed.
It's absolutely pointless, even plain stupid. We've had our unions complaining about it since there have been cases (even with seriously injured bystanders) that have evidenced how inappropriate they are for law enforcement use, but it looks like no one here has the guts to make the decision to issue an ammunition which is known to cause more damage to the one hit (the bad guy, that is), negligently forgetting about innocent bystanders. They just won't listen. As far as I know it's not just over here, but in several other countries across Europe, that the use of expanding ammo is forbidden, and that of course includes the very few civilians with carry permits or ourselves, in the case of our privately owned off-duty weapons. It's quite funny, though, that expanding ammo is legal for hunting.

BTW, the Spanish Army is finally replacing their Llama M82 (which is a Beretta 92 derivative) for HK USP, to go along with the G36 rifles, the MG4E light machine guns and the Leopard tanks. Hope our guys still get proper Spanish meals, since it looks like most of our gear is Deutsch already.