Why not 1911 .45's

[easyg]

Well, I was a soldier when the Army was using the 1911, and I was still serving when we switched to the 9mm Berettas, and here's what I can tell you....

The 1911's were very heavy considering their low magazine capacity.
Soldiers already carry a lot of heavy gear, so adding a 40+ oz pistol that only shoots 7+1 rounds gives the soldier very little additional fire-power for quite an additional amount of weight.
Yeah, 40+ oz might not sound like much, but when one is ruck-marching for many many miles, every oz counts.

And then there's the extra ammo for it.
The 9mm round is smaller and lighter weight than the .45ACP.
This means that for the same additional weight, a soldier can carry more 9mm ammo on his person than .45ACP ammo.
And sometimes, what you are carrying is all that you will have for a very very long time.
Sometimes, re-supply from logistical support is simple not an option for a long time.

And as others have already noted, soldiers like high magazine capacity weapons.
Nobody likes to make frequent reloads during a firefight
One can argue that the 9mm is not as powerful as the .45, but a loaded 9mm is much more effective than an empty .45ACP.
And unlike civilian street encounters where one typically encounters only one or two enemies, soldiers are practically guaranteed to encounter groups of enemies numbering 10 or more.

IMHO, the only reason the 1911 lasted for as long as it did in the military was because relatively few military personnel actually carry a pistol.
The vast majority of military personnel never carry a pistol at all.
And many of those who do carry a pistol also carry a rifle or machine-gun, and the pistol is not their primary weapon (nor their preferred weapon).

For civilian use, the 1911 is great.
But for military and police use, there are better options available IMO.

 

[hinton03]

I believe the two reason the US Military no longer uses the 1911 are:

1. Transition to 9mm for the purposes of standardization within NATO. I don't believe that Colt entered the 1911 platform in the new pistol test trials.

2. The 1911 is much harder to maintain properly than the 92. I am not saying it can't be done but there is a more intesive training requirement for unit armorers. The 92 is pretty much a component replacement type platform.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I don't believe that Colt entered the 1911 platform in the new pistol test trials.

they did...it didn't pass

 

[BlindJustice]

Whoever posted the long list of LEO agencies/departments
that use a 1911 can add:

Whitman County Sheriffs Dept Wash. State - Kimbers

Randall

 

[BlindJustice]

For Playmaker,

you should get a 1911 - expand your handgun experience

R-

 

[mljdeckard]

There are a few factors that made the military drop them.

I think a lot of it was just the perception that they are old. It was the sidearm for so long they believed it couldn't possibly be the best choice anymore. They had been re-conditioning WWII frames for so long, they thought it was foolish to buy.....more 1911 frames. When I got to my unit in Germany in 1992, they still had 1911s, and I was handling them, feeling them rattle, and the armorer told me, "Not those. Those have old worn out parts. Try this." He handed me his personal pistol, which was noticeably tighter than the others. I asked him what the difference was, he told me (I understood none of this at the time) that he had put in a new barrel link, barrel, bushing, and trigger/hammer group, and it was like new. I asked him why we didn't fix ALL (87) of them that way, and he told me it wasn't worth it, since we were about to turn them in, and most of the soldiers in our unit couldn't shoot well enough to make a difference anyway. (We got our new-in-cosmoline M-9s, and went to the range, and it turned out he was right.)

The army wanted a few new changes. They wanted a positive safety, which I despise. (I have learned to use one anyway.) High capacity seemed to make more sense, since few modern autos were single-stack anymore. The NATO switch to 9mm was a factor, but I don't think a decisive one. (Remember, we clamored for NATO to standardize 7.62, and right a soon as they did, we dropped it for 5.56, and they took DECADES to do the same.) They wanted DA/SA, which we 1911 fans believe is a solution looking for a problem.

I have said many times, I prefer the 1911 and if they would let me carry it to war, I would do it immediately. But if I had to train rookie soldiers with no experience at all with sidearms. I would want the most cost-effective, durable, idiot-proof, simple to operate platform. GLOCK. If we continue to (pretend to) adhere the Hague Accords, which we never signed, I want to use the pistol round which is the most effective in FMJ, the .45 ACP. =Glock 21s. I think the ammo switch is unlikely, but I bet if the U.S. military announced a sweeping reissue of sidearms, switching to the Glock 17, Glock would make a deal with us, which would total less than $200 a unit. (I have wondered for years what it in a Glock that costs more than $100 to mass-produce.)

What the heck to I know? I'm a grunt in the dirt. Guys at the five-sided Puzzle Palace with PhDs and slide rules make these decisions.

 

[9mmepiphany]

(Remember, we clamored for NATO to standardize 7.62, and right a soon as they did, we dropped it for 5.56, and they took DECADES to do the same.)

it would be more accurate to say "forced them to accept"...they wanted something more like a 6.5-7mm in a 39-45mm lenght...because the US didn't really want to give up the 30-'06

 

[kwelz]

I like the 1911 Platform. that being said is is a Dated design that is falling out of favor. There are some inherent design flaws with the systems that make it less than ideal as a combat arm in the modern setting.

 

[Corporal K]

You should keep in mind that they are also the single most overrated handgun in history.

Words of wisdom. My Springfield Loaded model ran like doo-doo so I traded it for a Sig P-220, which ran like a champ. I may give a S&W 1911 a try, but I don't think any gun you're going to trust your life with should have to have a break-in period.

 

[Taptaps]

This is what I call a dead horse, gentlemen.
I, for one, am a die-hard fan of the 1911. Stripping them down and building them back up, while inspecting and perfecting all the components is very calming to me, almost like my meditation time. I love the feel of a truly perfect fit. Solid is the word.
For these reasons (most importantly that I know the inner workings of each of my pistols), I know that my 1911s are perfect for me. I own sigs as well. If I was unable to get any more spare parts or customer service, 50 years from now my 1911s, or atleast my favorite one, would still be working. This is because I am able to work on it and have the ability to fit parts for it. The all steel construction is a benefit as well.
That being said, if I was in a position where I had to decide what weapon to issue my soldiers (lets say i am king...) I would issue them a Sig, or a Glock (or, etc, etc,.). This is not because i don't think the 1911 is a fantastic pistol, or that it isnt fairly simple to shoot. I think it is fairly obvious to most people who know handguns, even if they won't admit it. Most of these soldiers just aren't good with a .45. Many don't get a whole lot of range time. Most do not know the first thing about servicing a 1911 and no one wants to take the time to teach them about it when far simpler sidearms exist.
Sure, the 1911 is a great pistol for special combat units, but that 20 year old female supply truck driver might not want to start off with a 1911. In fact, I think the beretta might be overly complicated for some, with its long DA plus a manual safety. Glocks and sigs. Most likely Sigs because the military likes the visible hammer, but I wish they would forget about that. DAO is the way to go for standard issue. For certain units with aggressive needs, a .45 might be best. Whether that is a 1911, it should be up to the individual team at that point.

And just for the record... I HAte GlocKs!

 

[mljdeckard]

It's the singlemost overrated platform that has.....saved more soldiers' lives than any other.

 

[Butter]

I happen to like 1911s, though got into the game late with my first (gone and sold a decade ago) being a Colt 1991. So now I have a few others. My dad was lifer in the Army and carried one in Vietnam. Good enough for me.

But just to throw it out there, there are only a few guns that really fit my hand and have triggers that are easy to manipulate. The 1911 is up on top of that heap where a small guy like me can handle it easier than a double stack P226. There's history there as well, and elegance. So, yes, aesthetics do count for something that is a personalized tool to me. But for the 1911s that I do own, they all run, haven't bobbled on me and are accurate, and dare I say, pretty and quintessentially American. I mean, what's not to like if you can run it well? And since I live in California and am relegated to 10 in the mag anyway, well then having eight, big slow 'uns on account is no disservice to me in comparison to having 10 rounds of 9mm in the bank instead.

 

[tipoc]

I'll have to repeat what a few have said.

Back in 1946, at the end of the second World War,the U.S. military decided to replace the 1911. They ended up not doing so due to the cost but that's another story. At any rate here is what they wanted and why:

A gun that was lighter than the 1911, preferably with an alloy frame. [The GM was heavy as were extra mags].

A da/sa pistol with an external safety and possibly a decocker. [They figured this would cut down on the number of NDs which under trained troops were prone to and would be easier to train soldiers on].

They wanted a gun in 9mm which had proven itself an effective combat round in two world wars, was used by U.S. allies (The U.S. formed NATO it agreed with the 9mm as the standard NATO round it was never forced to accept it) and cost less to make and transport than the 45acp.[ The U.S. was a nation of revolver shooters and many did not take to semis at all. Scores improved when untrained troops shot 9mm handguns].

They wanted a gun with at least a 9 round capacity with 10-12 being better. [this meant more ammo per soldier and lighter overall weight].

They wanted a gun that could pass the same torture tests the 1911 had with some additional tests thrown in.

They wanted a gun that was less expensive to produce than the 1911.

If the gun described sounds alot like the Walther P 38 it's because that gun changed the U.S. military's thinking. When decades later they went to the M9 they got a descendant of the P 38.

Only the Marine Corp held out for the 1911 and the .45 acp but they eventually caved.

U.S. manufacturers rushed to come up with such a gun. Colt developed the alloy framed Commander in 9mm, 45acp and 38 Super and lobbied hard for keeping the 1911. Smith and Wesson were late but saw the future and came up with the M39 in 9mm. Both guns were the first 9mm handguns made by any U.S. manufacturer.

Like I said the military did not switch over from the 1911 till the 80s. The only reason was budget.

When law enforcement eventually made the transition to semis S&W had the lock at first with it's First, Second and Third Gen semis all da/sa, manual decockers, etc. Then Barretta then Glock and that's changed some nowdays.

Jeff Cooper used to argue that the 1911 was the perfect law enforcement, military and general combat sidearm and was as safe as any gun made. He pointed out that a da/sa handgun was "A solution in search of a problem", that more training was required to prevent nds and that training in gun handling was the solution. He lost that argument.

tipoc

 

[Mags]

2nd. Accidental discharges (ND's?) in Condition 1, yes, by our military as well as local LEO's were becoming too frequent.

Guess how the Beretta 92 is carried by Air Force Police they are carried hammer back safety off with a round in the chamber. And that is Fact from experience not some website out there.

 

[Mad Magyar]

Guess how the Beretta 92 is carried by Air Force Police they are carried hammer back safety off with a round in the chamber. And that is Fact from experience not some website out there.

That's interesting....And the point is? .....that there are accidents waiting to happen? BTW, does the Beretta need to have the hammer back for readiness?

 

[Mags]

The point is the Beretta is being carried in a more unsafe manner tha a condition 1 1911. And no the Beretta does not require the hammer to be back but the Air Force requires the Beretta to be holstered in this manner. Basically the 92 is issued to you slide back chamber clear mag removed. You walk over to the clearing barrel,pop a mag in, rack the slide forward and then holster the gun without decocking the weapon or applying the manual safety. My point is if cocked and locked was a concern to the military for getting rid of the 1911 why does Air Force Instructions require us to carry the Beretta in the above stated manner.

 

[sanerkeki]

The reason 45 is not popular with military is because anywhere they go they can find 9x19 9x18 and 380, so 45 is hard to come buy.

 

[9mmepiphany]

It's the singlemost overrated platform that has.....saved more soldiers' lives than any other.

i think that title belongs to the FN P-35. started 20 years later, but adopted by more countries

 

[9mmepiphany]

My point is if cocked and locked was a concern to the military for getting rid of the 1911

i realise i'm dating myself, but folks i knew who were issed a 1911 carried them in condition 3...with an empty chamber...when did the military change?

 

[Mags]

i realise i'm dating myself, but folks i knew who were issed a 1911 carried them in condition 3...with an empty chamber...when did the military change?

I have never carried a 1911 for my military duties and was quoting an earlier post on page 1 where the argument was the 1911 was being carried in condition 1. I really have no idea how the 1911 is carried or has been carried by the US miltary.

 

[doubs43]

I have to wonder just how many of today's pistols will still be manufactured in their basic original configuration 50 or 60 years from now. The 1911 is 98 years old and not a single semi-auto pistol that was contemporary to it in 1911 is still being made. (Revolvers don't count)

When the US Cavalry tested the Luger, it was repeatedly called "too complex" for the ordinary trooper to understand or maintain. A few years later the Army adopted the 1911 and, if anything, it's more difficult to strip and service than any Luger ever made. Now some want to claim that the 1911 is just too complex and difficult to maintain. If you can't take care of a 1911, then you shouldn't be issued a sidearm of any kind.

Calling it old, antique, out of date, obsolete and any other disparaging remark one can think of does not make it one bit less effective or as valid as the day it was adopted by the US Military. It's as good today as it was 98 years ago.

Which of today's platforms will still be here in half a century? I'll bet that the 1911 will be.... and just as popular as ever. People will also continue to argue it's merits and faults while it still soldiers on, solid and reliable as ever.

 

[MCgunner]

I've been there, done that with 1911s, not really my preference. I prefer DA guns and ones that ain't so finicky about feeding anything, but ball. But, they are neat if you like modding and slickin' up and adding do dads. I mean, the aftermarket is amazing. They are fun to shoot and I'd like another just to have, but I wouldn't carry it.

Stated thing at the time was a switch to the 9x19 to be current with NATO standards. In reality, a handgun is NOT a primary weapon and is more for security on air bases and such. I mean, the difference in 9x19 and .45 isn't significant IMHO except for special forces who may be actually USING a sidearm for something other than guarding a B52. .45 ball beats 9x19 ball for stopping power, but not by all that much, not enough that I'd lay down my M16 for a .45 like Sam Elliot in that movie I can't recall the name of. I mean, and the old guns were gettin' ragged, I'm sure. The gubment did need a fresh sidearm, just don't care too much for the replacement. LOL

 

[TAB]

2nd. Accidental discharges (ND's?) in Condition 1, yes, by our military as well as local LEO's were becoming too frequent.

um, you have to do 3 things to make a 1911 go bang... most modern guns you only have to do one... Glock cuase more NDs then 1911s do.

 

[Walkalong]

All you 1911 haters/unbelievers are just leaving more for us.

Thanks, AC

 

[kwelz]

I am not a 1911 hater for sure. I love mine. However I also realize the practical limitations of the platform. All things have their time and then pass the torch onto the next generation.