Should we go back to the 1911?

[Pistolenschutze]

OK, let's settle the question once and for all. How many of you think that the U.S. military should simply go back to the tried and true, 1911 pattern .45 ACP caliber pistol as its general issue sidearm? The 9mm Beretta 92 that is now issued, I think most of us would agree, really doesn't cut the mustard very well for a variety of reasons, and many different replacements have been suggested. Obviously, if the military were ever to do such a thing, the new pistols would be updated in terms of metalurgy with the more capable steels available today, but what I am really asking is whether we should forget about "new" designs and go back to the rugged, all-steel Browning design. My own opinion is that yes we should.

I could have posted this question in the 1911 Forum, I suppose, but that would be like selling carrots at a rabbit convention.

[Marlin]

Short and sweet - -

Hell, YES !!!!!!

[Bulldog]

Yes

[millwright]

If by "go back" you mean a true 1911.....the answer isn't merely no, its Hell NO !!!

If, however you mean "go back" to the .45 ACP cartridge in a new iteration of the J.M. Browning design, I say "Hell Yes !! " Keep the grip safety, plus the newer ambidextrous mag releases and safties, and great new machining and a light double action trigger, a strong extractor and beveled port..........and whaddya know ? Someone already builds one just like that.

>MW

[berto64]

Yes, with modifications.

The US Military should be issued a domestically produced sidearm in 45 ACP. No more imports for our military!

As suggested by some, probably a double stack magazine for more ammo capacity. A 1911 doublewide.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by millwright

If, however you mean "go back" to the .45 ACP cartridge in a new iteration of the J.M. Browning design, I say "Hell Yes !! " Keep the grip safety, plus the newer ambidextrous mag releases and safties, and great new machining and a light double action trigger, a strong extractor and beveled port..........and whaddya know ? Someone already builds one just like that.

Yup, that's what I meant, mill. There would certainly be nothing wrong with adding improvements that years of experience have shown make the 1911 an even better weapon than Browning's original, basic design. I think if it were made a light double action that would solve what is, in my opinion, the only real weakness of the 1911 design, its single-action nature . . . the necessity of carrying it either cocked and locked, or without one up the spout thus necessitating two hands to ready it for action. And Berto, I agree with you as well, any new pistol we issue should be AMERICAN MADE!

[BillP]

Not the old 1911. The suggested Para Ordinance would be a decent choice but don't rule out the Springfield XD and some others. And yes, build it in the USA! I am sure cost would be a major factor and isn't the Para Ordinance a bit spendy?

[Bruce FLinch]

Sorry BillP, I don't think the XD falls into the 1911 category, tho it is a good pistol.

Springfield does make a widebody 1911 in .45. 13 or 14 round magazine, as does the Para, which is also a good pistol. I have 2 Paras in .40 & .45..but they are from CANADA The Para runs $8-900. Springfield is made in USA! Not sure on their price.

[travihanson]

I am torn on the issue...I love the berettas so much.....but I love the 1911's even more...My issue with the 1911's and the military is the capacity. I can't remember what it is but there is a 1911 that has like 14 round clips??? (If you could tell me make and model that would be nice ) I like the setup of the beretta. It is a fine weapon, my only issue is the 9x19. I think that if they went with the beretta 96 then that would be good. Or if they would come out with a beretta .45 in that style that would be cool. Double stack mag of course .

I might get razed but oh well
Travis

[Pistolenschutze]

The main thing I don't like about the Beretta 92--aside from its excessive bulkiness for the round it throws--is that the safety is on the slide. I find that awkward. Granted, the mag capacity of the 1911 is traditionally only 7, but that still gives a total of 8 with one up the spout. I think it should be remember as well, that in the military, a pistol is a SECONDARY weapon. Others may have a different view, but I never found that number inadequate when I carried one in the military, and reloads are PDQ.

[358 winchester]

Made in America, shooting 45ACP, in the US Military is the only way to go. The Para is a fine weapon I have one I carry 90% of the time but I will be dead & buried, when they get my 1911 Springfield from me.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by 358 winchester

Made in America, shooting 45ACP, in the US Military is the only way to go.

I couldn't agree more, Ron. I have no problem with improvements to the basic design as a result of modern engineering, but "ol' slabsides" is the best way to go.

[AngelDeville]

I will be buried with my Colt 1911, BUT it's not for everyone...

I think a nice modern design, American Made .40 or .45, would be nice, hell I might even buy one....

-OR- We could go to a SA45colt wheelgun.... We are afterall Americans, and we all are cowboys at heart... or Indians...

[wallgunner]

I just read a great book bu Marcus Luttrell, a former Navy Seal, called the Lone Survivor. It's his story about a fight in Afghanistan, and the friends he lost. He explains that all his teammates carried Sig Sauer 9mm as side arms. My question is do you guys just like the 1911 or is it the caliber you have a problem with. I've never shot a 9mm, I perfer the .45, but he and his teammates counted on the Sig if it came down to it. Maybe a Sig in .45 would be a good choice?
Wallgunner

[17thfabn]

The Beretta M9 9mm issued to our troops are made in America.

I wonder how often hand guns are actualy used in combat? Given a choice between a M4 carbine, M-16, submachine gun, or shot gun, or pistol the pistol is always going to be your last choice.

[strayshot]

Originally Posted by AngelDeville

I think a nice modern design, American Made .40 or .45, would be nice, hell I might even buy one....

How's this one?

[swabjocky]

What Marlin said.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by 17thfabn

I wonder how often hand guns are actualy used in combat? Given a choice between a M4 carbine, M-16, submachine gun, or shot gun, or pistol the pistol is always going to be your last choice.

Of course it is, 17th. In the military, a pistol has always been a secondary weapon, and rightfully so. They do come in handy though upon occasion. I carried a .45 Colt 1911 for nearly a year, but had occasion to draw it only twice. Both times though, I was sure glad I had it!

[JLA]

ABSOFRICKINLUTELY

[Pat Hurley]

You've got my vote. Bring back the 1911!!

Thank God this isn't a poll!

[Wolery]

If they start letting troops use hollow points in urban areas, which I believe would reduce civie casulaties, then no. The Beretta is by all accounts a fine weapon, no need to replace it and one can carry more ammo both in the mag and on person.

However, hollow points are not likely to come into service so I'd say go back to the 45. It's just an awesome gun by all accounts.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by Wolery

If they start letting troops use hollow points in urban areas, which I believe would reduce civie casulaties, then no. The Beretta is by all accounts a fine weapon, no need to replace it and one can carry more ammo both in the mag and on person.

The Beretta 92 is a fine shooter, Wolery, but awkwardly big and heavy for the 9mm round it utilizes. I agree, the 9mm with good hollow-point ammo is a decent weapon, but with military ball, it is woefully inadequate I think. I would not be surprised if we end up with a new .45 handgun, whatever the manufacturer, when the military finally gets rid of the Beretta.

[17thfabn]

Pistolenshutze, I would be surprised if we went back to the .45 except for special ops troops. The 9mm is the world standard auto pistole. In the over all scheme of things except for special ops troops the hand gun is just not that important.

[Pistolenschutze]

Could be you are right, 17th, though I still think we would be better off with the .45.

[17thfabn]

I believe my Coast Guard Cutter (USCGC Dauntless) was the last regular (not s.f. ranger etc) unit to switch to the 9mm. In the Coast Guard we used to say we were on the trailing edge of technology. The other services had already converted over to the 9mm. The last district in the Coast Guard to convert over was D-7 (Florida and the Antilies). All the other units had converted over when we were on patrol. When we came back we were trained on the new weapon.

Our firing course was the same as before, and out scores went down. On each sequence of firing with the .45 we had to draw our weapon and "sling shot" a round in before firing. With the 9mm our first shot was double action. The first shot with the .45 was much more accurate than the 9mm. I liked not carrying a round under the chamber. I didn't feel like we lost that much time when we chambered our first round. It was a smooth motion, as soon as you cleared your holster you started to "sling shot" your slide. By the time you had your weapon up it was ready to fire.

I was told at one time the only service that wanted a double action weapon was the Coast Guard. Since they wanted to have one weapon for all the services that spec was included.

With the Coast Guard becoming part of the Department of Homeland Security they switched to a SIG .40 cal.