Should we go back to the 1911?

[delta13soultaker]

Wouldn't hurt my feelings to see the 1911a1 return...

I'd be upset about a hicap double-stack magazine model though. The original flat profile of the 1911 is one of the greatest things about it.

[PDF]

OK guys forget about it. Delta boys are fielding now glok 22s in.40 and are in love with them; the Cost Guard allso adopted a pistol in .40 and the Air Force has an oficial request for a .40 pistol; the NAVY is still in love with their sigs and dont want to change them, but they are experimenting with a new version of the USP compact in .45 but I'm sure that is not going nowhere. The army suspended the competition for a new pistol in .45 and changed the spects for a .40, the project is on hold now but is allmost sure that the new army pistol is going to be a .40, maybe HK P30 with LEM triger or who knows even a GLOK. By the way I also love the .45 and the 1911, but think that something more modular and in plastic would be better for the army. Best of luck to S&W with their MP line. They are great pistols.

[Pistolenschutze]

Well, at least the .40 S&W round would be a vast improvement over the 9mm ball round in use now! I tend to agree with you though, PDF; when the issue handgun does eventually change, it will be to a polymer pistol with a double stack magazine, and most likely in .40 S&W caliber.

[RMT]

I believe the 1911 is a superior weapon. Not necessarily because of caliber though.

[cohoskip]

OH YEAH !!

[Joe Smith]

It will never happen. It would be deemed to require too much intensive training for it to be handled safely.
The next pistol is more likely to be a Glock, Sig or HK type.

[Pat Hurley]

Originally Posted by 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!

If I'm not mistaken, all Para Ordinance pistols are made in Canada. Eh?

[Neverhome]

I don't really care what the rest of the world (read NATO) is using. I want our service members to have a weapon that is reliable and carries enough knock down punch that a second round is not needed. Bring back the .45 ACP!

[PDF]

Neverhome, since the formation of NATO the US has imposed the 7.62 to the other members of the alliance; England wanted a alliber very very sinilar to the 6.8 that is the big deal now, for example. Then 10 years later they change to the 5.56 without consulting anybody; so yes you could adopt whatever you want. But dont expect then that the other members comply with avery you whant. I never hear of any report from SAS and other special forces of Europe and SEALs complaining about the 9 mm stoping power, maybe because they dont expect to much of a pistol in the first place; like the russians say a pistol is a wonderfull wepon to execute prisioners and kill yourself. Any way as wonderful as a 1911 is, its a 100 years old desing that was designed to be build by intensive hand work; it require to much hand fiting to be economical to produce today, thats why a willson or an Ed Brown cost 2000 USD. Springfield build there pistols in Brazil where the labor is more cheaper and I dont know how the others like Kimber do.
Beside does not make sence to pay 1000 USD for a pistol when for that money you could by an m16. If I have to decide on this matter I would by S&W M 10 revolvers for all the Jessica Linch in the army and a good .45 like the USP or a 1911 to first line combat troops like airbone divisions, marines, and special forces.

[WILDCATT]

a Para ordnance type 45.has best and forget the double action.when did quick draw be an option for military.

[Dakota Red 1]

We were getting failures of about 2%/80 rounds fired with our M9s. Unlike other wpns, unit armorers aren't allowed to gauge recoil springs in M9s and replace them. Their manuals don't have data on minimum lenghth...kiss them goodby and send them to direct support. Guys would be dusting out the mag well and knock out the little "V" spring that pushes up on the trigger bar. They would still fire if you held them upside down.
I remember the kind of shape the 1911's were in before retirement. There were gorillas that would take them to the range once or twice a year, forget and leave the safety on, then squeeze so hard that the foot of the stirrup on the trigger would bend so, that when the safety was disengaged, you would have to push the trigger almost all the way into the frame to get them to let off.
1911's are dinosaurs that can be gunsmithed into superstars. Berettas should be used by europeans...on europeans. They will knock a Belgian slap dead, but you want something more when someone is coming at you with fire in their eye.
For military purposes, pistols should be the weapon of specialists. They are harder to train and not as lethal as what you are liable to be up against. The only reason we had them is we were escorting people into venues where long guns weren't allowed. Fortunately, most of my guys were pistoleers on their own hook. They would not have been proficient enough with the training the Army offered.
Look to the new 5.7 breed of sub gun and leave your pistol under your pillow.

[delta13soultaker]

Originally Posted by Dakota Red 1

We were getting failures of about 2%/80 rounds fired with our M9s. Unlike other wpns, unit armorers aren't allowed to gauge recoil springs in M9s and replace them. Their manuals don't have data on minimum lenghth...kiss them goodby and send them to direct support. Guys would be dusting out the mag well and knock out the little "V" spring that pushes up on the trigger bar. They would still fire if you held them upside down.
I remember the kind of shape the 1911's were in before retirement. There were gorillas that would take them to the range once or twice a year, forget and leave the safety on, then squeeze so hard that the foot of the stirrup on the trigger would bend so, that when the safety was disengaged, you would have to push the trigger almost all the way into the frame to get them to let off.
1911's are dinosaurs that can be gunsmithed into superstars. Berettas should be used by europeans...on europeans. They will knock a Belgian slap dead, but you want something more when someone is coming at you with fire in their eye.
For military purposes, pistols should be the weapon of specialists. They are harder to train and not as lethal as what you are liable to be up against. The only reason we had them is we were escorting people into venues where long guns weren't allowed. Fortunately, most of my guys were pistoleers on their own hook. They would not have been proficient enough with the training the Army offered.
Look to the new 5.7 breed of sub gun and leave your pistol under your pillow.

Yep...lol

Debating sidearms for military use...in the long run you may as well argue over sunglasses styles and pocket knife brands...actually that's unfair to sunglasses and pocket knives because those actually get used lol

[swabjocky]

Considering the fact that there was and still is nothing wrong with the 1911a1 design, except that it is an old design, we should never have given it up. Many units, especially in the SOC arena have gone "back" to the 1911a1's. Many of the hi-cap versions, Paraordnance, for instance, failed miserably. The problem is the magazines.

[hankroberts]

I would definitely go back to the .45.
I would definitely go back to US made.
My hands are big enough to handle any of them, but a lot of guys had problems with the large capacity .45s. My son likes his XD, but doesn't like the Springfield staggered-mag 1911 I just got.

And it has been my experience that MOST of the time, the real need for hi-cap mags is based on the need to shoot them several times in order to stop them. Normally, even in combat, you don't need a twenty round mag if you HIT your target. On the other hand, I've used the 1911 in combat, and have fired one enough times to have a mag 'cook off' (note: a full-auto 1911 is a TRIP!).

For years I carried a 1911 with two spare mags for defense. My argument is that I can put 21 rounds in a target in under 20 seconds with it; and if I shoot you 21 times with that thing, and you're still coming, then you can have anything I've got ... you've earned it.

Only shot two things with a .45 that didn't go down immediately: a Bengal tiger and a wild hog that field dressed 340 lbs. (and HE didn't go far).

[bmac1911]

Just out of curiosity - is there anyone on here who is actually involved in the handgun program, from any branch?

That's actually a loaded (pun) question, because the shop I work in is, for the Air Force - i.e. the branch who originally started the "official" call for a new handgun (though everyone's been complaining about the 9mm for a while) and got the beat-down from daddy Army, LOL. Just incase no one knows, the Army is the primary agency for almost all weapons in the military, no matter the branch. As such, if anyone wants new stuff, it's generally "good form" to go through the Army, first (unless you're in the clique like SPEC OPS, LOL). Of course, this doesn't really count for "small scale" employment - like the little SPEC OPS crack I made. Those units are generally free to do what they want (i.e. a couple of AF units use/have used Kimbers recently in the past decade, for example). It's when a branch wants to say "this is for the whole shebang and not just a few guys" that everyone gets all nuts. Personally, I think that's fine because it keeps things centralized - but *sometimes* it puts a dent in a branch's ability to go after what they think they need; but there are reasons for it - training, maintenance, ammo etc. Nevertheless, the Army jumped up and turned it into a "joint" program, taking the lead. However, as time went on, they actually dropped out and now the AF is still running with it - fact. Last we heard (last month), the Army is getting back into it - but seeing as how the AF proposals are just sitting waiting for signatures, it's a good bet that we'll be "paused" so the Army can get back into the game and (most likely) take over again.

The only real issue that some of us see is that the prop calls for an "off the shelf" weapon as preferable. That was the initial case pre-Beretta, yet they 'won the contract' in a seemingly "you scratch my back I scratch yours" deal for base locations in Italy - at least, that was what all the raucous was about in the late 80's. The fear now is that will happen again. But we're just gun-plumbers, we'll let the big-wigs and lobbyists deal with that, LOL.

Tid Bits:

Grip-Frame-Size; Do you know we [my shop] spent like three days measuring the hands of hundreds of basic trainees for the research into the handgun program? One of the requirements was a more universal grip size. So, we got some scanners, our engineer (at the time) rigged up this little hand-scale-fixture thing and a few laptops. The troops would come up, fill out their info and place their hand on the fixture-laden scanner to have their hand scanned. From all of them and after the compiling of all that data, they came into a "size range" which would be worked into the specs that went out to prospective companies. So the "bulky" thing was dealt with, yay for the small folks! Boy I forgot how much basic trainees stink - I actually had to go steal an air freshener from the latrine and put it under my table, LOL.

"Stuff": The AF proposals initially put a few odd requirements on the handgun. The 'full size' model and an 'officers model' must be from the same company. Okay, not a big deal right (i.e. Colt)? Unfortunately, with all of the little "stuff" the prop wanted, it severely cut down who can presently supply such a thing. Parts had to be interchangeable for both left and right shooters. Like the Beretta mag-release, but everything - like the safety. No ambi safety either, just one that could be swapped for left and right, wired huh? Two mags. Not an odd request, right? Unfortunately, such a request actually tacked a couple-million dollars on the cost of the endeavor because the prop called for every weapon to come with two each. Last I heard, a lot of this stuff was dealt with by modification or removal.

.45: The AF wants a .45 and, until I read the above post, I was still under the impression that the Army wanted the same thing based on our briefing last month. Which is why I asked if anyone was actually involved in the program or if they're catching "online" stuff that might not be accurate; or if our Program Manager is slow, LOL.

Dead: The handgun program isn't "dead". As I mentioned above, (from the AF perspective) it's just sitting on a desk waiting to get signed (though I've been on leave this week, so it could be done, he he). However, to clarify: you saw that I mentioned that the Army is the primary for weapons - well, that could cause our end to be dead. You see, the AF is trying to be the primary for the program, and that's probably part of the problem - I hate to say it, as all branches should be working together, but it's sounds more like an "ego" issue - from both sides 9though, I'm not in the Army, so that's pure speculation).


By the way - I hope this post comes off as "this is what I know", and not necessarily "this is how it is". This program has been up and down for so long and so much has changed that it's hard to know what is current and what isn't. I try to compare what I've been briefed (weekly, monthly) with what is on the net, and its never really the same - even from sites that are "supposedly" .mil. If anyone is ACTUALLY involved in the program, please feel free to give me the info from their side. Being in a branch, my info is most likely biased - perhaps not incorrect from the AF point of view, but certainly not the whole story.


Holy cow this is a long post... sorry... one more thing...

I saw a post about "hollow points" and the military - and the assumption was incorrect. Hollow points are actually used stateside by a lot of units. The issue comes with anything overseas where NATO is concerned, since hollow points are not allowed by NATO. Just thought I'd clear that up


oh...and I'd go for the 1911, LOL!

[armabill]

yes

[bmac1911]

wait - was that "yes" to me?

or was it a "yes" the answer the question of the topic?

[armabill]

The answer to the question of the topic.

[Jay]

I don't know what the military is gonna do, but I've carried a 1911 style pistol for over 30 years. I don't have to go back to a 1911, 'cause I never left.

[delta13soultaker]

Originally Posted by bmac1911

Just out of curiosity - is there anyone on here who is actually involved in the handgun program, from any branch?

That's actually a loaded (pun) question, because the shop I work in is, for the Air Force - i.e. the branch who originally started the "official" call for a new handgun (though everyone's been complaining about the 9mm for a while) and got the beat-down from daddy Army, LOL. Just incase no one knows, the Army is the primary agency for almost all weapons in the military, no matter the branch. As such, if anyone wants new stuff, it's generally "good form" to go through the Army, first (unless you're in the clique like SPEC OPS, LOL). Of course, this doesn't really count for "small scale" employment - like the little SPEC OPS crack I made. Those units are generally free to do what they want (i.e. a couple of AF units use/have used Kimbers recently in the past decade, for example). It's when a branch wants to say "this is for the whole shebang and not just a few guys" that everyone gets all nuts. Personally, I think that's fine because it keeps things centralized - but *sometimes* it puts a dent in a branch's ability to go after what they think they need; but there are reasons for it - training, maintenance, ammo etc. Nevertheless, the Army jumped up and turned it into a "joint" program, taking the lead. However, as time went on, they actually dropped out and now the AF is still running with it - fact. Last we heard (last month), the Army is getting back into it - but seeing as how the AF proposals are just sitting waiting for signatures, it's a good bet that we'll be "paused" so the Army can get back into the game and (most likely) take over again.

The only real issue that some of us see is that the prop calls for an "off the shelf" weapon as preferable. That was the initial case pre-Beretta, yet they 'won the contract' in a seemingly "you scratch my back I scratch yours" deal for base locations in Italy - at least, that was what all the raucous was about in the late 80's. The fear now is that will happen again. But we're just gun-plumbers, we'll let the big-wigs and lobbyists deal with that, LOL.

Tid Bits:

Grip-Frame-Size; Do you know we [my shop] spent like three days measuring the hands of hundreds of basic trainees for the research into the handgun program? One of the requirements was a more universal grip size. So, we got some scanners, our engineer (at the time) rigged up this little hand-scale-fixture thing and a few laptops. The troops would come up, fill out their info and place their hand on the fixture-laden scanner to have their hand scanned. From all of them and after the compiling of all that data, they came into a "size range" which would be worked into the specs that went out to prospective companies. So the "bulky" thing was dealt with, yay for the small folks! Boy I forgot how much basic trainees stink - I actually had to go steal an air freshener from the latrine and put it under my table, LOL.

"Stuff": The AF proposals initially put a few odd requirements on the handgun. The 'full size' model and an 'officers model' must be from the same company. Okay, not a big deal right (i.e. Colt)? Unfortunately, with all of the little "stuff" the prop wanted, it severely cut down who can presently supply such a thing. Parts had to be interchangeable for both left and right shooters. Like the Beretta mag-release, but everything - like the safety. No ambi safety either, just one that could be swapped for left and right, wired huh? Two mags. Not an odd request, right? Unfortunately, such a request actually tacked a couple-million dollars on the cost of the endeavor because the prop called for every weapon to come with two each. Last I heard, a lot of this stuff was dealt with by modification or removal.

.45: The AF wants a .45 and, until I read the above post, I was still under the impression that the Army wanted the same thing based on our briefing last month. Which is why I asked if anyone was actually involved in the program or if they're catching "online" stuff that might not be accurate; or if our Program Manager is slow, LOL.

Dead: The handgun program isn't "dead". As I mentioned above, (from the AF perspective) it's just sitting on a desk waiting to get signed (though I've been on leave this week, so it could be done, he he). However, to clarify: you saw that I mentioned that the Army is the primary for weapons - well, that could cause our end to be dead. You see, the AF is trying to be the primary for the program, and that's probably part of the problem - I hate to say it, as all branches should be working together, but it's sounds more like an "ego" issue - from both sides 9though, I'm not in the Army, so that's pure speculation).


By the way - I hope this post comes off as "this is what I know", and not necessarily "this is how it is". This program has been up and down for so long and so much has changed that it's hard to know what is current and what isn't. I try to compare what I've been briefed (weekly, monthly) with what is on the net, and its never really the same - even from sites that are "supposedly" .mil. If anyone is ACTUALLY involved in the program, please feel free to give me the info from their side. Being in a branch, my info is most likely biased - perhaps not incorrect from the AF point of view, but certainly not the whole story.


Holy cow this is a long post... sorry... one more thing...

I saw a post about "hollow points" and the military - and the assumption was incorrect. Hollow points are actually used stateside by a lot of units. The issue comes with anything overseas where NATO is concerned, since hollow points are not allowed by NATO. Just thought I'd clear that up


oh...and I'd go for the 1911, LOL!

Not in a program. Good info. Glad to hear the AF is attempting to use a scientific method on the selection (unless it's the method used for yalls new uniform!! lol no offense ours sucks too..."a little good at everything but not really good at any one thing") I have peers still at building 4 and I dunno that the pistol program is serious now. It's kinda unsettling how much they have on the plate.

I've noticed a trend with equipment lately...lots of things are "transitional". The emerging philosophy is that a decent tool now is better than a great tool next week...if that sounds like a spin off Gen Patton you're right. So things that change will probably just change again again again sooner than later anyway. As far as the Army is concerned pistols aren't exactly on many peoples priority...so there's not tons of attention there (which explains why the Army is so wishywashy about it...now let it be a new rifle and they will hijack the whole program)

Also...believe it or not the 92 has loyal fans. Not me...but I know a few when their mags ain't failing lol

Anyway, I do think eventually there will be a change in service sidearms and congrats on being part of it. My last tour I had a USP .45...it was bulky and to get training ammo we had to trade/lateral transfer 5.56 to alphabet agencies in BIAP. I'd vote, by instinct, for a single stack .45...I like .45 more out of being loyal and hardheaded and it's an American caliber...I've seen 9mm work just fine and it's cheaper/lighter etc...but it ain't .45...my .02 cents.

P.S. yeah trainees stink...but try teaching a class of 240 of em in July lol

[Dakota Red 1]

My last tour I had a USP .45...it was bulky [/QUOTE]

But the USP serves its purpose...it gets you into the Sports Oasis or the Liberty PX.(gotta be healed to behold over there) But yah, they're a big chunk. There was sometimes better-than-ball ammo for trade. The steroid stooges down in the IZ were a source. [I really did see a motorcycle with an MG42 (or Yugo. equivalent) mounted on the front of the sidecar when we were down burning run-flat rubber off the suburbans at Crossed Sabres one time. There was also this east-euro dude, hung around the Green Bean on Victory with his skank. Had a tokarev in a holster, looks like he made it out of his old boots. Thank GOD I'm American! BackHawk-Leg Drop-Serpa] Our training ball for the M9s (loose pack) had about ten different head stamps per handfull...if you could read it under the green, fuzzy coating (thats called verdigris dear and very desirable on Tiffany lamps) Don't dare limp-wrist that stuff. Be shucking and jiving all day. Could get boxes of clean Israeli stuff sometimes from ****. Africaaners love Israeli stuff. But our 9mm carry ammo, the good stuff, Soultaker, didn't we get that from you guys? And the flash-bangs?
Let's talk holsters/carry. Thats a pretty big issue for pistoleers. Besides, I don't want to talk about the time the Fillipino escort about greased me while showing off his Tariq. Would rather be shot with something more high-class.

[delta13soultaker]

Originally Posted by Dakota Red 1

My last tour I had a USP .45...it was bulky

But the USP serves its purpose...it gets you into the Sports Oasis or the Liberty PX.(gotta be healed to behold over there) But yah, they're a big chunk. There was sometimes better-than-ball ammo for trade. The steroid stooges down in the IZ were a source. [I really did see a motorcycle with an MG42 (or Yugo. equivalent) mounted on the front of the sidecar when we were down burning run-flat rubber off the suburbans at Crossed Sabres one time. There was also this east-euro dude, hung around the Green Bean on Victory with his skank. Had a tokarev in a holster, looks like he made it out of his old boots. Thank GOD I'm American! BackHawk-Leg Drop-Serpa] Our training ball for the M9s (loose pack) had about ten different head stamps per handfull...if you could read it under the green, fuzzy coating (thats called verdigris dear and very desirable on Tiffany lamps) Don't dare limp-wrist that stuff. Be shucking and jiving all day. Could get boxes of clean Israeli stuff sometimes from ****. Africaaners love Israeli stuff. But our 9mm carry ammo, the good stuff, Soultaker, didn't we get that from you guys? And the flash-bangs?
Let's talk holsters/carry. Thats a pretty big issue for pistoleers. Besides, I don't want to talk about the time the Fillipino escort about greased me while showing off his Tariq. Would rather be shot with something more high-class

9mm from us? I dunno. Supply sergeants are the same everywhere so I'd believe it's possible but I dunno why for 9mm...most any ASP/AHA should have that on hand. One time I seen an anchor...like a big iron thing ya know, get ordered because an incorrect NSN or DODIC number got sent or something. Anything those supply guys do now don't shock me.

I couldn't guess where you got flashbangs if not from a normal channel or lateral transfer or somebody left it sitting lol Was yours M84s, "1-bang", M7290s, or? Did you need them? Ya know you can totally give your buddies PTSD if ya drop one a few meters behind the porta-potties lol

Holsters...in uniform I prefer on strong side thigh just above my cargo pocket(on my belt is in my way in vehicles and I noticed anything on your hip makes you prone to scraping walls...I hate putting a sidearm on my vest because if I'm gonna hall-a**/E&E then I pretty much know I'm gonna toss the vest, minus my aid kit/radio so I can sprint/swim etc...and my carbine ammo is on my lower left torso and my lower right/shooting side stays clean, so I don't like breaking a cardinal rule to be lazy either)

For a 92 prolly Safariland fitted holsters is best I used in my opinion(bought at a PX). For 1911, H&K or Sig, I can vouch for Blackhawk...I've always been in units that bought their stuff and I still have my Omega stuff and it's not much worse for wear. That's my brand preferences, but really most kit is as good as the next, ya just gotta see which ya like the fit/retention styles...I've been long accustomed to Blackhawk, it's easy to replace too, so I don't see changing.

[Dakota Red 1]

Our scrounger got the flashbangs(M84s), hand to hand, from somebody who lived south of Red Socks road. We tried to think of some scenarios whith them (get the boss out of a long meeting) but they probably all hit the amnesty box on the way out. I checked and our commercial 9mm was pass back, with about 3 different attributions, the one I heard...Uncle Ned via APO, Santa Claus...but good ball was tight for us. When the pass back stuff got shop worn, I filled up on the Israeli stuff.
I liked the minimalist CQC holster from Blackhawk for our mission. It never gave any problems but wouldn't be the choice for IMT in dirty conditions. Their leg drop platform was compfy. Any of the new stuff is better than being stuck as a lefty with RH only holsters. (.45s back in the day) ...or having the current issue holster. I think if they go with a new pistol they should put a lot of thought into carry. I was not in a unit where we always get to roll our own, and some day we'll be stuck with issue like we were in '02.

[delta13soultaker]

Originally Posted by Dakota Red 1

Our scrounger got the flashbangs(M84s), hand to hand, from somebody who lived south of Red Socks road. We tried to think of some scenarios whith them (get the boss out of a long meeting) but they probably all hit the amnesty box on the way out. I checked and our commercial 9mm was pass back, with about 3 different attributions, the one I heard...Uncle Ned via APO, Santa Claus...but good ball was tight for us. When the pass back stuff got shop worn, I filled up on the Israeli stuff.
I liked the minimalist CQC holster from Blackhawk for our mission. It never gave any problems but wouldn't be the choice for IMT in dirty conditions. Their leg drop platform was compfy. Any of the new stuff is better than being stuck as a lefty with RH only holsters. (.45s back in the day) ...or having the current issue holster. I think if they go with a new pistol they should put a lot of thought into carry. I was not in a unit where we always get to roll our own, and some day we'll be stuck with issue like we were in '02.

I see...shows how things are different in places and how things keep changing...we prolly had a quad-con at any time full of 9mm but had to wiggle out .45 from where ever. One time we had to sit and wait for enough TNT to drive up from Kuwait to properly process some captured caches lol

M84s are good. Easy to get in trouble with but good lol If you want the NSN for the 12 pack lemme know so next time you can get em legit lol

So you're wrong-handed huh? The duty issue holster prolly best if you're worried about IMT in dirt/sand, ironically, but honestly ya know all your stuff is gonna get saturated with grit if you IMT very far anyway....IMHO. I like drop holsters a lot...the only real complaint I have is they pose a leverage problem for you in a hostile retention situation because it's so below your center of gravity. Not a huge worry but a real one.

[dogngun]

I was in the Army when the 1911A1 was the service pistol, and at the time, a lot of people hated it. It was NOT the popular pistol in civilian life it has become since it was espoused by Jeff Cooper, nor was the .45 ACP considered the greatest as it lately has become. It was considered obsolete and difficult to master.
Most pistol users back in those days (late 1960's) very much wanted exactly what we have now-a high capacity 9mm TDA pistol that was accurate and reliable
I doubt we will ever return either to the .45 ACP or the SA pistol.

I have to tell you that the first centerfire pistol I bought when I left the Army was a WWII issue Remington Rand 1911A1. IT came with a box of ammo and cost me all of $170.
Today, I have 2 9mm TDA pistols and 2 1911's in .45 ACP- and a whole lot of revolvers.

I doubt seriously that this question will ever be settled "once and for all"
but it's always a good thread if no one gets mad about it.

mark