What if John M. Browning was not mandated to ...

Status
Not open for further replies.
RWK

NONE of those enlightning articles mentions ANY form of semi-automatic pistol much less the Colt 1911.

The first "Colt .45" was 1873. The next one was 1877, next was 1905, then 1909, and then 1911 (not counting prototypes). Of those five THREE were revolvers. (Even the .44 Walker and later Colt cap & ball revolvers used a .45 caliber ball/bullet)

It's reckless to assume that "Colt .45" refers to a semi-automatic pistol.



Perhaps more factual firearms articles could be found in the Washington Post or the New York Times? :neener:
 
Badger, BluesBear:

Keep in mind exactly who 'decided' to declare the Revolution over: the American Administration.

In any case the 'Revolution' against US invaders is clearly partitioned into resistance by Christian Filipnos to the north, who were already weary from defeating the Spaniards, and the robust, independent resistance offered by Moros in the South.

Krags and .38 revolvers proved far less effective than the murderous Vickers-Maxim or siege howitzers, and even those implements paled in efficacy compared to a political weapon: the symbolic head of Moro resistance was the Sultan of Sulu, and he was finally maneuvered into signing a written cognizance of US sovereignty dated March 22, 1915. Resistance lost a lot of steam after that.

In truth the military subjugation of hostile Moros that 'made' Jack Pershing's career stretched from the Lake Lanao campaign of 1902 all the way to the last major operations in 1916. Some hold that armed Moro resistance continues in an unbroken line to this day, and I guess it all matters who's writing history.

Incidents of smaller "bandit" groups resisting or running amok against US troops or individuals continued well into the 1930's.




Bottom line:

The experience with the Moros helped along the adoption of the M1911.
Again, I hold that if it hadn't been the Moros of Mindanao, it would have been some other determined foe to hasten the switch to a more effective cartridge and combat pistol.
 
I believe the question about my use of "moslem" has been answered far better than I could have ever done. In fact, I am appreciative of the history lesson, even though I knew the general outlines.

I don't know who said that the M1911 was used in the Philippines; it was not I. I said the army requirement for a .45 pistol (the "mandate" as it was called earlier) grew out of that conflict.

As to the Model 1905, the army had indicated its desire for a .45 caliber pistol well before the 1910-1911 trials. The Model 1905 was the response, and was the starting point for the various improvements that culminated in the Model 1911. However, there are no parts that are interchangeable between the Model 1905 and the Model 1911. They are entirely different pistols.

It is my belief (pure speculation) that the idea of a straight case supported on the case mouth came from Georg Luger, who brought 9mm pistols to the U.S. in 1903 for testing. Prior to the .45 (c.1904), all Browning's cartridges were semi-rimmed and supported on the rim; after 1904, the semi-rim was gone. The 9mm is not truly a straight case, of course, but it seems possible that JMB combined his own straight case with the Luger rimless design. There were earlier cases supported on the mouth, but I doubt JMB had seen them.

Jim
 
Hmmm, learn something new every day. It seems very logical to use a straight-walled case in a blowback pistol that headspaces on the rim, or the case mouth. Why did Luger use a tapered case when it was unnecessary from a function point of view? What's the advantage?
 
I don't know if there is a mechanical advantage, maybe it helps feeding a little. But mainly it is because the cartridge head size was fixed, they didn't want to have to change breechface and magazine widths from the original 7.65mm Luger, and they wanted a 9mm bullet. That does not work out to a straight case. There were prototype cartridges with a very slight bottleneck, but the tapered case was put into production.
 
The Cartridge

Mike Irwin said:

As originally conceived, I believe it had a 200-gr. bullet at about 950 fps, but that was later changed at gov't request to a 230-gr. bullet at 850 fps
---------------------------------------

Very close Mike. The original loading was a 200 grain bullet at 900 FPS.
The Army wanted a heavier bullet, and it became 234 at 830 plus/minus
25 FPS, so the accepted "Hardball-Spec" velocity of 850 is actually at
the high end of the spread.

It later became standardized at 230 at the same velocity...not sure when
or why...but likely during or shortly after the WW2 rush to arm our military for the fight that was sure to come. Of course, as with any ball ammo during wartime production...rifle or pistol, the bullet weights would vary a bit more than commercially-produced bullets, so the spread on the weight would probably fall somewhere between 228 and 235 grains. That would
partly account for the 50 FPS velocity spread, and the mean average would
be close to the mark at 234...Something to contemplate anyway.

This turned into a good thread, with history lessons and many lesser-known facts about the development of the 1911 pistol and the 45 ACP
cartridge.

Cheers all!

Tuner
 
1911 design OK, but.....

- the grip safety is unnecessary -- Tape it down? Then it's no longer a 1911
(the 1911 was originally expected to sometimes be shot by cavalry - there were cavalry in those days- hence the grip safety )

- The 1911's barrel link design has definitely been superceded by the linkless
Peters Stahl type

- some other improvements since the 1911 design : arguably, the DA-first-shot- then/SA trigger; or shooter's CHOICE (as in the CZ-75 design ) of either pure SA or DA/SA ; the decocker ; dual recoil springs ; full-length solid guide-rod; no bushing.
 
I agree the grip safety is not needed, particulary with a series 80 style firing pin safety.

No opinion on the linkless design other than, for whatever reasons, it's not prevelant. If it was better, more durable, accurate, whatever, I would assume the IPSC type industry would use them. They shoot the most amount of rounds in a dynamic situation, in all types of confiquration with very expensive guns with no thought or care of convention, history of the 1911. They don't seem to use the linkless design and money is no issue with the limited and open guns??

I doubt many people would view the DA/SA type trigger as an improvement.
The multiple variations on one gun, IMHO, is even worse for a shooter. How many different styles of manipulations do you want on one gun?

The trend(sales) is towards one type of trigger pull, i.e. Glock type, XD, Sig's new trigger and H&K has their version. Things seem to come full cycle sometimes for a good reason.

Most 1911's do come with long recoil rods now and no bushings on 4" and under bbls. Not saying that's better or worse, just fairly common in non-mil spec 1911's.

Just opinions as always.
 
do a search for the Mars pistol and its cartridges ... they were 'magnums' long before the concept exsisted including an 11mm and a 11.5mm or 11.68 mm ... they predate the 1911 and the luger...
 
A lot of good information here but I still would like to know how do YOU think cartridge evolution may have changed, if at all, without the 1911 being mandated to be chambered for what became the .45 ACP? How would "modern" cartridges line the .40 S&W, 10mm, .357 etc. have come to pass?

cheers
 
It really wouldn't have changed.

Someone somewhere would have tried to duplicate the .45 Colt in a semi-automatic pistol.

Just as the .357 Sig was an attempt to duplicate the .357 Magnum from a semi-auto.

The .357 would still have been developed from the .38-44.

Elmer Keith would have still overloaded the .44 Special until the .44 Magnum emerged.

The other cartridges would still have been developed for all of the same reasons.
 
Hi, Badger Arms and Jim Watson,

Luger had some problems before going to a case which is supported (headspaced) on the case mouth. He first thought there was enough difference between the base size of the 7.65 and a 9mm bullet that he could get a shoulder in the case to use for support. There are a few experimental rounds extant from that effort. But it didn't work; a shoulder supported round has to have more shoulder than was allowed by the parameters involved. So, with maybe some inspiration from Mannlicher and others, Luger hit on the idea of using the case mouth for support and a straight taper for the case. This allowed his pistol to be made in the larger caliber wanted by the German army with only a barrel change, obviously a cost-effective solution.

Browning, whether his "light went on" from seeing Luger's round or from some other source, retained the straight case he had always worked with, but dropped the semi-rim which he had used up to that time. This made magazine design and feeding much simpler than with either a semi-rimmed or a tapered case.

Jim
 
Antediluvianist,

Hello kabayan :)

If the grip safety was there for cavalry considerations, and if a little added interest in our countries' joint history has any value, then I'm grateful the grip safety was retained even into the second World War, and beyond:


On January 16, 1942, the 26th Cavalry of the US-Philippine Scouts launched a mounted (with, like, horses, right?) charge against a light force of Japanese troops in the town of Morong, province of Bataan, Philippines. The town was successfully rid of the Japanese presence.

My retired father presently lives in Morong, having grown up in nearby Hermosa and as a young boy witnessed that terrible war AND the charge. According to him the cavalary unit was very foolish/brave and disorganized, and would have been slaughtered had not the local inhabitants preceded their charge with a mini-insurrection against the enemy. "Kalibre .45" pistols were definitely used, and according to my father, were a serious factor in the operation's success.

Americans really went out on a limb to try to protect us from the Japanese. It all made up for the atrocities committed in their successful effort to invade and subjugate the Filipino people half a century earlier. The 1911-type pistol also served many a Filipino guerrilla determined to resist the Japanese.




Wasn't there an anachronistic cavalry charge of sorts in Afghanistan not so long ago?
:)
 
wisdom from the old soldiers

Horge,

Ah, kabayan (this word means "fellow countryman" in Tagalog) -

Yes, the "old people" (I am 57 now but I missed WW2) have many war stories that include the 1911. One of my friends was a guerilla against the Japanese. This is the guy who introduced me to the 1911. I told him I thought the 1911's recoil was unnecessarily sharp. He said " well, when we were in a battle against the Japanese, recoil was the last of our problems." This guy fought as a guerilla for 3 years. He loves the 1911.
 
Link/Linkless

Just a point to add to the interesting side trip this thread has taken.
(My brother-in-law married a Filipino girl who comes up from Charleston,
S.C. during the holidays and treats us to some FINE native quisine, and
she only cusses in Tagalog:D )

Both designs have certain advantages and disadvantages. The linkless
design accomplishes the same function of a linked design without the
potential problems associated with a moving part.

The link allows the smith to fine-tune the timing of the unlocking and
barrel linkdown, and by playing with the front of the locking lug, allows
manipulation of the linkUP as well. Many people don't consider that,
during the initial feeding stroke, the round contacts the barrel throat
at some point as it starts to enter the chamber. When it does, it pushes
the barrel forward. When the barrel moves forward, it also moves upward,
which increases the angle of the round as it tries to break over to horizontal.

If the barrel is riding the link...which many of them do in production pistols,
the longer the link, the higher it rises in relation to the distance that it moves forward. Whenever we have a barrel that IS riding the link into
battery, it can usually stand to have a slightly shorter link in vertical lock
as well. Note that the radius in the link's hole should be dead flush with
the bottom of the lower lug when in full vertical lock...or slightly below
flush...but not ABOVE flush.

When this condition is present, I've also noticed that the linkdown timing
is usually a bit slow as well. A slightly shorter link...on the order of about
.003 shorter...Gets the barrel unlocked and out of the way of the slide
earlier without stress on the link (stretching) and allows a little smoother
feeding. Not always, but often enough. (Note that if the link is too short,
it can result in the link being stretched over the long haul, so caution is
advised when trying a shorter link.)

To demonstrate this, load a magazine and lock the slide. Push the barrel against the edge of a table to keep it from moving forward, and let a round
chamber by guiding the slide to battery with your hand. You'll feel a very
smooth feed because the round has a straighter shot at the chamber due
to the the barrel not moving upward until the slide hits the back of the hood.

This isn't to imply that you can just grab a short link and stick it in. There
are a few checks to make to determine if it will work out okay, but I've
solved a few stem-binding issues by replacing a .278 link with a .275 inch
center-to-center length.

Just another interesting facet to the design.

Cheers all!

Tuner
 
Who knows what would have evolved if we didn't have the 1911-.45ACP combo. There are many fine cartridges listed in my Sierra reloading manual that never gained popularity. I'm sure we would have wound up with something resembling the 1911- .45ACP package. It worked then and it still works. A hundred years ago the U.S. Army had a very reliable service revolver in the Colt Single Action Army and an effictive cartridge in the .45 Long Colt. For some political reason or another, they replaced it with a smaller,lighter round. When put to the test in combat, the lighter round was found to be lacking so the Army switched to a bigger, slower round in a self loading pistol that proved effective and reliable. In the 1980's, the U.S. Army went to a smaller, lighter round for political reasons. I'm not trying to start another endless,pointless flame war between 9mm-45 ACP,but doesn't this seem like history repeating itself?
 
Hoo Boy!

Larry! Did you ever touch one off there.:D

You said:


I'm not trying to start another endless,pointless flame war between 9mm-45 ACP,but doesn't this seem like history repeating itself?

Yep. It does. While going strictly on my own experience with the
M-16, I think that it's a good weapon for what it was *intended*
to be. That is, a light, handy shoulder arm for sentry, long-range
scout/reconnaissance personnel, aircraft pilot/crew emergency survival
kits, and such...but as a general issue infantry arm, it fell short of
expectations AND in effectiveness, not even taking into account the early
malfunction issues that were addressed and remedied with the A-1.

Although most infantry engagements don't require the range and power
of a .30 caliber rifle very often in modern conflicts, it's still nice to have it.
The answer to the ammunition is training and fire discipline...not more
rounds to squirt downrange. We fought our two worst conflicts with
a 5-shot bolt-action rifle and an 8-shot semi-auto, and we prevailed.
We fought the Korean War with the Garand, and had it not been for
politics, we would have won that one too. We were hobbled in Vietnam
by more politics and the M-16. The weapon did a reasonably good job of
aquitting itself there, but things could have been better with a heavier
rifle. The ammunition change helped some, but it still doesn't quite make the grade. IMO, the M-14 should still be in service. It addressed the shortcomings of the Garand without sacrificing what the combat rifleman
needed.

Donning the flame-proof suit...
Tuner
 
M16 for the jungle; M14 for the sea

The .223 rifle (M16) is good for short-stature troops, like the soldiers in the Philippine army. It's also good for jungle-range targets : you can't see 600 yards through a jungle anyway, so a .30 rifle wouldn't help.

When a "long-range" rifle is required - as in the case of soldiers/civil guards defending off-shore fishing areas from being ruined by Taiwanese pirates who just come in and throw dynamite into the water to kill fish - well, then, the .30-06 M14 is issued.
The M16 doesn't cut it at sea, where engagements take place at relatively long range.
 
.308 , schmee-08...
Hi again, tcd :)


...and thanks for all the inside detail, Tuner.
If you ever need translation on those Tagalog cusswords...
well, maybe not. It's better to preserve your innocence.
:D
 
Not to nitpick but.....

7.62 NATO = .308 Winchester

.30-06 = .30-06

two different cartridges .30-06 is a quite a bit longer cartridge than .308 Winchester


We now return you to our regularly scheduled program --
"What would the .45 look like without J.M. Browning?"

followed by the Barbara Walters Special --
"If our knees bent backwards like a chickens, what would a chair look like?"



:D
 
let me rephrase

What I meant is that the American rifle cartridge used to be .30-06. Changed to .308 after America joined NATO. Both of these are American (non-metric) nomenclature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top