ipscshooter

My 1911 holds 18 rounds of 45 acp. And trust me, if you know how to shoot, you're not going to be any slower with a .45 than you are with a 9. My son, at 14 years old, was running off aimed double taps with a .45 faster than some LEO's were with their DA 9's...

ParaOrdnance - renders compromise obsolete.

USMC PMI

IPSC- I guess you have the double stack 1911? They are nice and their grip is not much larger than the single stack original version.

The 1911 is a true fighting pistol, it has a short crisp trigger pull and can be fired much faster than the M-9 with a little practice learning to control the weapon. The M-9 has a harsh DA trigger pull that hampers target acquisition with the first shot, and the SA pull there after is nothing to write home about; still a little harsh (usually around 10 + pounds) and full of creep and over travel. A modernized 1911 would blow an M-9 out of the water in testing. As someone who has used both I see no other reason for replacing the 1911 other than politics. I would have suggested a few minor updates to the issue 1911, better sights and upgraded 8 rounds mags.

ipscshooter

You are correct, sir. I've got two ParaOrdnance P14-45's that my stepson and I use for IPSC matches. My son is almost old enough to start. He'll be starting out with a Browning Hi-Power 9mm, and hopefully will graduate quickly to a 45.

CtHunter8

my problem with the 9mm is just the man-stopping ability..its a whimpy round. A .45 is a good round, powerful, will stopa man in his tracks, but doesnt knock you over when you fire it



-Travis-

USMC PMI

The .45 ACP was the only round specifically developed for the military to stop a man dead in his tracks. The weight, size, and speed were taken into account to do just that and in my opinion is still the best man stopper out there. They sought this stopping power during the Banana Wars, tribsman in the jungles would attack them high on some type of drug and the old .38's just would not stop them, hince the .45 was born. The 9mm is the same diameter as the .38 with just a little more umph behind it, that proves to me it's ability, of course that was with hardball ammo, the stuff out there does help the 9mm (9x19) out a little.

jtb1967

I don't think any difference in being able to shoot one a fraction of a second quicker than the other would make any real world difference, so I'm with you on that one. But I do believe in trained hands the 9mm can be fired just a fraction faster than a 45. One of the big benifits of the 9x23 and 38 super are their reduced recoil in comparison to the 45. Especially with compensators.

ranger140892

Yeah, people get emotional about the 1911. I own several, have built hundreds, and like them more than any other handgun. However,I rarely carry a 1911 anymore. I usually carry a 27 or 23 now because they're light,have larger mag capacity, and are far more reliable than a 1911.

When I was a machine gunner, I carried an M9. I didn't like it one bit and didn't trust it. But it never once malfunctioned.

It really doesn't matter what the military uses as the "standard" sidearm. They're rarely used anyway. Spec Op's units have always gone their own way and use what ever handgunfits their specific mission.

PAhunter86

That's true about Spec Op guys, but normal infantry units are the guys that do most the work and kick in the most doors. Obviously, a soldier or Marine with an M9 probably wouldn't be the first in a stack to kick down a door, but I still wouldn't want to clear a house with only an M9, especially since a lot of those insurgents get doped up before getting in a fight.

USMC PMI

Very true, handguns are defensive weapons. They always told us if it came down to using a sidearm we were in deep $***! Use the sidearm to fight your way back to an offensive weapon.

I also own several other types of pistols other than the 1911 but have a hard time getting past the generally nasty DA triggers, even tuned DA triggers are not great IMO as campaired to a nice SA trigger. The ammount of rounds really doesn't matter to me, if I can't hit them in 8 - 9 shots I'm more than likely screwed anyway and if there are more than 8 - 9 attackers I'm in the same boat. [:@]

Briman

The single action triggers are superior IF they are already nicely tuned. They are not easy to tune without handfitting and or stoning them using special jigs.

The beretta trigger is very easy to tune. Pay about $3 for a spring from a model 96D, stone off the 'bruniton' goo from all of the contact parts between the hammer and trigger and it will shoot like a dream instead of a stiff nightmare.

As far as the 9mm vs .45 argument goes, its pretty much moot unless the shooter is is very good with handguns, which I doubt the average grunt would be. They both have fairly similar energy levels which aren't much. Its easier for a novice handgunner to shoot a 9mm than a .45 and get consistant hits. My only beef with the beretta is that it has a huge grip and the pistol itself is the exact same size as a full size 1911- its too big for a 9mm. I shoot both a beretta 92 and a 1911A1 competitively- the 1911 rocks, especially in games designed around the 1911, and the first shot is always faster than a double action. Where the beretta really shines is in a 'target rich' environment where the higher capacity magazine becomes a huge advantage.

As far as knockdown power goes with a pistol, the good Col Cooper said that anything worth shooting with a handgun, is worth shooting twice. Two .45 slugs in the chest or 2 9mm slugs in the chest, you aren't going to know the difference.