M1911 in military service
 

I dnno bout you guys, but I CANNOT see even one reason why we took the M1911 out of service and now we're usin some whimpy 9mm round, whats up with that? The .45 had served us great for 80 years! why take it away? It only takes one peice of led from a .45 to stop a guy in his tracks, you cant do that with a 9mm. Can someone please fill me in why we took it out of service?



-Travis-

RE: M1911 in military service
 

I knew once, but promptly forgot (so sorry!) back when I was with an active unit. I shook my head in disbelief. Since then we have figured out that the Beretta does not handle sand real well. Perhaps a change will be forthcoming. I understand that the USMC has done some re-issuing of the old 45's, but I don't know how widespread. Overall, I think the bigger mistake was the M16 but that rifle must have just the right amount of political suction as it just keeps getting modified.

Dumb logistics cost lives.

RE: M1911 in military service
 

I'm staying out of this one. I feel a debate coming on,haha.

RE: M1911 in military service
 

does size really mater when you catch two to the chest and one to the head? you can carry 15 rounds in a 9mm as oppose to 7rounds in a 45 of the same weight and 9mm is everywhere. not to mention less barrel raise for faster follow up shots.

RE: M1911 in military service
 

I'm active duty Army. I'd much rather carry a 1911 than an M9. However the reason the Army switched contracts in the 80's was for many reasons, good or bad: Conform to NATO ammunition, a more reliable handgun, a more simple handgun that any idiot can operate safely (close, but still not quite there on that one), magazine capacity, accuarcy, lighter weight of both handgun and ammunition, and a few other things I can't remember.

I remember 3 handguns in the contract competion: 1911, Browning Hi Power, and the M9. If Glock had been up to snuff at the time, they would probably have won the contract.

Most solders that carry an M9 never have use for it or any other weapon because of their specific MOS or job. The one's that do haveneed are usually Spec Op's types and they tend to use other, more specialized handguns

RE: M1911 in military service
 

And the M16 /M4? How can you argue that one? It's a fine weapon system that is still in it's own prime. Reliable, accurate, extremely versatile, lightweight, easy to maintain, easy to use, cost effective.
Yeah, the M14/M1A is great but the M4 is much more practical.

RE: M1911 in military service
 

The only reason the 1911 was dropped was because of NATO and powers that be wanted a easy answer for ammunition logistics with other nations involved.
That being said just look what the special forces went back to when they pretty much have thier choice of any handgun. A 1911 style in a 45acp. It speaks volumes for the design and the round. Remember large capacity mags have been around for a long time , Browning High Power.
When I started to think about my carry sidearm years back one of my mentors would always remind me ," do you plan on missing alot?" Truer words were never spoken.

RE: M1911 in military service
 

I have to agree that 9mm is world wide where the .45 is not nearly as common outside of the US. I was in during a time when the M-9 was new and everyone complained about it then. I own both and will say in my opinion the 1911 and .45 combo is a more accurate and more effective man stopper. That said the military in general has bought into the more rounds down range, the more hits theory and not that the 1911 is particularly difficult to take apart butthe M-9 is about as idiot proof as you can get. I would love to see the 1911 make a comback in the military world like it has in the civilian market. That single action trigger system is much crisper with almost no travel promoting accuracy.

RE: M1911 in military service
 

What what I understand about it (being retired military). It's origins go back to Jimmy Carter, who first put the bug in the ear of the pentagon and top military brass. But we still kept using the famed M1911-A1 duringthe time Carter & Reagan werePresidents.

There were talks/demands of complying with NATO regulations and going to the 9mm, while we were expanding bases and acquiring new bases in Italy (home to Beretta). So that's how we came to use the Beretta M9 (Beretta 92) 9mm. Thisfinally come about when George Bush (Sr.)was President.

RE: M1911 in military service
 

In the early 1980’s the Military began looking for a new sidearm to replace the inventory of over 25 different pistols and revolvers then in service with the military. Chief among the inventory of pistols to be replaced was the 1911 handgun that had been in service for 70 years. According to a Comptroller General’s report dated 3-8-82, the military had 417,448 .45 caliber pistols in inventory. The plan began to run into opposition when it was announced that the new sidearm would be chambered in the NATO standard 9mm cartridge. Many saw the move to a smaller caliber as a step in the wrong direction. Still others questioned the need for the adoption of a new pistol at all. The testing was considered questionable at best by most but we all know what happened, the M-9 was born.

RE: M1911 in military service
 

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.

RE: M1911 in military service
 

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.

RE: M1911 in military service
 

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.

RE: M1911 in military service
 

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-

RE: M1911 in military service
 

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.

RE: M1911 in military service
 

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.

RE: M1911 in military service
 

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.

RE: M1911 in military service
 

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.

RE: M1911 in military service
 

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. [:@]

RE: M1911 in military service
 

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.

RE: M1911 in military service
 

I've heard the 1911 is being used by some army units, and the Marines are digging them out of moth balls due to knock down power

RE: M1911 in military service
 

Always the ego thing. 8 or 9 rounds on 8 or 9 targetsis good for a good shooter. What if you have 12 or20 targets,a shattered arm, limited vision from blood in your eyes, severe dehydration and shock??? Would you want more mag capacity then?
As far as the trigger goes, any good Soldier or Marine knows his weapon systems well and has spent hours dry firing and live firing his weapons and has no problem with any of the triggers.

RE: M1911 in military service
 

" but I CANNOT see even one reason why we took the M1911 out of service and now we're usin some whimpy 9mm round, whats up with that? "

Politics, me boy, politics! WE (U.S.) forced NATO to adopt our new service rifle round, the 7.62X51 NATO. And just about the time all our "allies" had finished re-equipping their troops with 7.62X51mm NATO-caliber rifles and MG's, we turned around and insisted once again that they adopt our "even newer and better" 5.56X45mm Mousegun cartridge.

This was all in the name of "standardization", so we can use ammo from other NATO nations, and vice-versa. So, when a majority of the old M1911A1's needed replacement, the other NATO nations told us (all of which were using 9mm handguns) "we adopted your rifle cartridge TWICE! It's time for you to adopt the handgun round everyone is using EXCEPT YOU."

So, because the geniuses who run things in Washington all regarded the pistol as merely a badge of office anyway, they agreed. So, now the troops have to try to survive using an inadequate cartridge in their pistols.

Hopefully, we are beginning to realize that this was a mistake, and will go back to the .45 ACP soon, as a result of our recent experiences in Afghanistan & Iraq....

RE: M1911 in military service
 

On this i agree. but we are talking about combat situations not the target range. when you start poping off rounds at combat speeds more=better. Unless your the sniper type which if you look at the ratio of sniper-v- all the rest of the military there are very few. I combat where i would hav eto engage multiple target multiple times if would rather have more ammo and better nerves. Either way neigther gun is worth a damn if you cant hit the target in the first place.

RE: M1911 in military service
 

With the advent of the double stack 1911 variants (Caspian, ParaOrdnance, etc...) there really is not a compelling argument on the mag capacity thing.

You standard M9/ Beretta 92 holds 15+1, my ParaOrdnance P14-45 holds 15+1.

Heck, you can even get a 1911 with a hi-cap mag AND a DA trigger.

Seems to be a mute point.

RE: M1911 in military service
 

DA trigger - "Brilliant solution to a non-existent problem." Jeff Cooper

Amen!!