Exactly HOW, pray tell, is it that the M1911 "lacks many characteristics that are now expected for modern usage"?
Too many to list and I am surprised you have to ask. Just look at the characteristics of many pistols that are currently selling. Most of them are not similar to M1911s in anything other than having Browning derived short-recoil locking systems.
Translation: "There aren't any, so I'm not going to bother even citing a few to support my claim."
This isn't that difficult. What people want in a firearm today is little, if any, different than what they wanted a century ago. And the 1911 seems to have what the "modern" world wants. Reliability, accuracy, power, and (yes) safeties out the yin-yang.
It's got EVERYTHING, and in spades. How many more passive and active safety mechanisms does the "modern" world need in a firearm, for example?
Your question misses the point. It is not more safeties, it is the desirability of how a modern pistol’s safety mechanisms operate.
No, it does NOT miss the point. You claim the M1911
"lacks many characteristics that are now expected for modern usage". WHAT ARE THOSE "MANY CHARACTERISTICS"?
Your statement that it's "the desirability of how a modern pistol's safety mechanisms operate" is about as bland as it can be. What is it about how the safety mechanisms operate that people care about?
John Q. Public, in general, doesn't give a hoot about HOW the safety mechanisms actually operate. Only a very small percentage of the people who own firearms seem to actually understand the mechanics behind HOW they work. What they care about is ease of operation and that it does, in fact, work as a safety.
Horse pucky. Show me where there is an ACTUAL DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF THIS PROBLEM with 1911's. There is over a century of usage of this most widely copied and manufactured pistol from which to collect the data for this. I'll wait patiently for this.
I am not going to do that since it is well known that a M1911 can fire after being dropped on a hard surface. The only debate is how frequently it has happened since the year 1911. Apparently it happens enough that respected firearm authorities mention it in their books and manufactures now have firing pin safeties in most new designs and modified 1911s.
Of course you're not going to do that, because there is no such history. It's only "well known" under a certain set of conditions which rarely happen. "Rarely", as in "hardly ever".
By comparison, "Glock Leg" is far more prevalent. And THAT is also "well known".
As for the comment that "Military safety standards, especially in times of war, are notoriously less stringent...": Duh. But that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the design of the M1911. The difference between military and civilian "safety standards" has far more to do with the fact that the military is SUPPOSED to actively engage an enemy in armed combat than it has to do with differences in equipment safety.
In other words, the safety of the people using the hardware is far more dependent on what they're using the hardware FOR than the simple fact that they're using the hardware. War is inherently "unsafe".
And since we're talking about small arms here, the safety considerations for small arms in the military is the same as for civilians...namely that the use of the firearm in question is as safe as can be made relative to the conditions in which the firearm is designed to be used.
What is considered to be what is required to make “the use of the firearm in question is as safe as can be made relative to the conditions in which the firearm is designed to be used” has greatly changed and become more demanding since the M1911 was adopted.
No. This has not changed significantly since the introduction of the M1911. And before the M1911, safety was STILL a concern, as witnessed by how people carried the firearms of those days as well.
Safety is a concern because blowing up and shooting your own troops with faulty hardware is NOT something any military organization encourages at all.
And again, WHAT, specifically, has
"greatly changed and become more demanding" about military safety requirements since the M1911 was adopted that makes the M1911 outmoded?
The answer to that is "absolutely nothing".
Wrong. The military seems to think that the PROBLEM lies not with the design of the pistol, but in the PEOPLE who are monkeying around with the pistol they're carrying. No more and no less. It's not a PISTOL problem...it's a PEOPLE problem.
This is the reason why there are differing conditions in which the military has their watchstanders carrying their firearms. What condition the firearms are carried in is based on the perceived THREATCON in the area/region in which the military unit is operating in and is balanced with the organizations inherent fear of stupidity on the part of a few individuals who will always be d*cking around with their guns.
This is why, for example, the Marine sentries in the 1983 Beirut Marine barracks bombing were armed with unloaded M-16's and .45's. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with the perceived inherent safety concerns with their weapons and EVERYTHING to do with the perceived problem of a Negligent Discharge caused by a Marine d*cking with his weapons.
Soldiers and Sailors that aren't monkeying around with the gun and who are following the established procedures for loading/unloading them DO NOT HAVE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGES.
You make my own argument for me. The M1911 has more things for “a Marine d*icking” and Soldiers and Sailors “monkeying around” to distract them from the most important safety procedure: keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to destroy something. The mere fact you can pull the trigger of a 1911 that has the thumbsafety engaged without having a discharge creates the probability that the trigger will be pulled when the thumbsafety is thought to be engaged but is not. That is when “1911 Leg” and “1911 Whatever” occurs.
Incorrect. My point here is that people monkeying around with their 1911 when they shouldn't have been has been the cause of ALL Negligent Discharges.
"Glock Leg" doesn't always happen because of people monkeying around. The design of the Glock safety mechanism allows the gun to be fired any time something depresses the trigger. This can be by a foreign object or a finger. There are several documented instances where foreign objects did just that during the holstering of a Glock and even with Glocks already holstered. That does NOT happen with a 1911, the way the 1911 safeties work. The closest you get is if the manual safety is not engaged prior to holstering a 1911 while the grip safety is being depressed by the gripping hand during the act of holstering.
Monkeying around with a Glock is, therefore, inherently MORE dangerous than the M1911.
“Glock Leg” does not occur anywhere near the frequency that it did. Amazing what having so many people getting experience with the Glock’s simple safety procedures has done to improve safe gun handling and reduce NDs.
But the fact of the matter is that it STILL DOES OCCUR, and far more frequently than anything equivalent with a 1911.
Glocks have been around since the early 1980s. In 30-plus years, they're STILL having a significant problem with "Glock Leg" at instances that are easily checked by a simple google search. And this includes people who are SUPPOSED to be "experts" with them, like police officers.