Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/29/2005 4:28:13 AM EDT
The Beretta M9 is supposidly the standard issue handgun of the United States armed forces. Knowing that this is true, why did the Army recently order several thousand Ruger P95's? Why were the Army Rangers competing in the Best Ranger competition on the Military Channel using
HK USP 9mm's? Why are many soldiers seen carrying Sig 226's? Even though the USMC decided to adopt the Beretta M9A1, the 1st MEUSOC and other units are using Kimber 1911's.... Obviously spec ops units have some liberty when choosing sidearms and they have an assortment to chose from, but why is there so much deviation in regular units? The M16A2/A4

and M4 are the standard issue infantry rifles, but you don't see soldiers carrying HK G36's or Sig 55x's...The Beretta is an excellent weapon and is comparable if not superior to any of the weapons I listed above and I don't understand why it is designated the standard issue sidearm, but is supplemented by so many other guns. According to several published reports, the Beretta is performing quite well and troops have better than 80 percent confidence in it. The only complaint is the 9mm FMJ wounding ability, but this has been argued since its inception. Despite the poor

Checkmate magazines, the weapon is serving quite well and I don't understand why the DoD is undertaking the logistical headache to keep several different handguns in frontline service when they offer nothing over the current "standard issue sidearm". Does anyone know what is going on here? Id be really interested in finding out...
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 4:49:01 AM EDT
over here, i see everything.

M16, A1,A2,A4,M4, Combinations of the 5, MP5, L85, M590, M870, M203, M240,M249, AUG, M9, 1911, Glock, Sig,


You name it.

standard seems to be A2 and M9. Vehicle/aircrew typically have the Sig,cause it's smaller. infantry types usualy have some M16 variant or 249.

Several thousand P95's isn't even a fart in the wind.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 4:55:44 AM EDT
It is whatever they can get their hands on the fastest and that will work well in the field.

The M11 is the SIG P228, are you sure you didn't just see them? They are usually used by women and government agents from CID and NCIS.
The Navy uses the SIG P226-Navy.

I've seen DoD contractors using Glock 17s.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 4:58:58 AM EDT
the rumor I heard is that the contractors are just that contractors and can issue as they please. the aforementioned rugers were procured for DoD (or DA) Police (not security contractors) to get more M9s into the hands of the warfighters.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 5:00:30 AM EDT
The M9 is the general issue handgun for the military. If your in a SOCOM unit or MP unit you might get something else.

Also note that just because DOD buys a pistol like the Ruger, it does not mean that its getting issued to the troops. It might be that the weapons are being purchased for the Contract Security that guards many bases these days, or it might be that the weapons are part of a Security Assistance package for a Foregin government.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 5:07:02 AM EDT
The Beretta is not a superior firearm. I think alot of units have found them lacking and are trying to get what works best for them. I for one would definitely feel undergunned with a 9mm and ball ammo. I'd take the MEUSOC Kimber any day over any 9mm with FMJ.

One gun does not fit all mission requirements. A handgun is not a primary weapon and as such the .mil should have some lattitude in who gets what.

I wonder how long it will be until the beretta is dropped altogether. I'll bet it wont be general issue 15 years from now.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 7:59:10 AM EDT
Of course, someone had to spread more of the 1911 ignorance and Beretta bashing. No one is arguing that the current M882 9mm FMJ is the pinnacle of lethality. Its not, however 15 shots of 9mm rounds is much better than 7 of .45 ACP on the modern battlefield. The 9mm has killed more people than any other military round, so it must a little lethal. There are a number of reasons that make the Beretta superior to the 1911 as a military sidearm and I suggest you read up on this. The 1911 is an amazing weapon and I enjoy shooting them and respect their legacy but thier time has passed. The weapon served well, but WWII is over. War has changed and the 1911 just

doesn't fit anymore, except for a few exceptions. The reliability of the last generation 1911 the DoD used cannot compare to the Beretta. Insert whatever excuse you want, bottom line...it lost. If the 1911 in .45 ACP that were already in the arsenal would not have been replaced at great cost if they were vastly superior to the M9. The USMC already ordered the M9A1, so I don't think it will be replaced any time soon. The Beretta M9 is an excellent weapon and continues to perform

well and offers increased reliability and performance over the last 1911s issued by the DoD. I am not trying to flame you are anything and I mean no offense, but I think you might be missing a few facts or glazing over them because you are a .45 lemming. I think if you take an unbiased look you will quickly understand that our units have not found them lacking anything, except maybe a different caliber and that isn't a reflection on the weapon. It seems like the only people who bash on the Beretta are 1911 elitists....not trying to flame Mr45auto, but I can't understand the "what I have/like is the best because I have/like it, and everything else sucks" mentality....really ignorant.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 8:04:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ryno_the_wyno:
Of course, someone had to spread more of the 1911 ignorance and Beretta bashing. No one is arguing that the current M882 9mm FMJ is the pinnacle of lethality. Its not, however 15 shots of 9mm rounds is much better than 7 of .45 ACP on the modern battlefield. The 9mm has killed more people than any other military round, so it must a little lethal. There are a number of reasons that make the Beretta superior to the 1911 as a military sidearm and I suggest you read up on this. The 1911 is an amazing weapon and I enjoy shooting them and respect their legacy but thier time has passed. The weapon served well, but WWII is over. War has changed and the 1911 just

doesn't fit anymore, except for a few exceptions. The reliability of the last generation 1911 the DoD used cannot compare to the Beretta. Insert whatever excuse you want, bottom line...it lost. If the 1911 in .45 ACP that were already in the arsenal would not have been replaced at great cost if they were vastly superior to the M9. The USMC already ordered the M9A1, so I don't think it will be replaced any time soon. The Beretta M9 is an excellent weapon and continues to perform

well and offers increased reliability and performance over the last 1911s issued by the DoD. I am not trying to flame you are anything and I mean no offense, but I think you might be missing a few facts or glazing over them because you are a .45 lemming. I think if you take an unbiased look you will quickly understand that our units have not found them lacking anything, except maybe a different caliber and that isn't a reflection on the weapon. It seems like the only people who bash on the Beretta are 1911 elitists....not trying to flame Mr45auto, but I can't understand the "what I have/like is the best because I have/like it, and everything else sucks" mentality....really ignorant.

Only because the new school of thought is to win by slinging more lead and to not worry as much about accuracy.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 8:05:40 AM EDT
You can say that again. The Army is already well into testing for a replacement to both the M9 and the 9mm cartridge. The rumor is that the H&K USP in .45 is the front runner for any number of reasons. One of the reasons you see the M11 (i.e. Sig 228) is that the Beretta has a grip that is so large that more troops have trouble with it than they did the 1911.


Originally Posted By Mr45auto:
The Beretta is not a superior firearm.

I wonder how long it will be until the beretta is dropped altogether. I'll bet it wont be general issue 15 years from now.

Link Posted: 8/29/2005 8:09:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/29/2005 8:12:18 AM EDT by thedoctors308]

the last 1911s issued by the DoD



Anyone want to clue him in, as to WHEN the last 1911 model was mfged as general issue?
Late 40s/50s?

The 1911s replaced were broke dick, worn out, beat to death warhorses.
They had been used non-stop for the past 50 years!

The 1911 has been, and always will be the pinnacle of handgun design.

The last 1911A1 was manufactured in 1945.
See link
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 8:16:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ryno_the_wyno:
Of course, someone had to spread more of the 1911 ignorance and Beretta bashing. No one is arguing that the current M882 9mm FMJ is the pinnacle of lethality. Its not, however 15 shots of 9mm rounds is much better than 7 of .45 ACP on the modern battlefield. The 9mm has killed more people than any other military round, so it must a little lethal. There are a number of reasons that make the Beretta superior to the 1911 as a military sidearm and I suggest you read up on this. The 1911 is an amazing weapon and I enjoy shooting them and respect their legacy but thier time has passed. The weapon served well, but WWII is over. War has changed and the 1911 just

doesn't fit anymore, except for a few exceptions. The reliability of the last generation 1911 the DoD used cannot compare to the Beretta. Insert whatever excuse you want, bottom line...it lost. If the 1911 in .45 ACP that were already in the arsenal would not have been replaced at great cost if they were vastly superior to the M9. The USMC already ordered the M9A1, so I don't think it will be replaced any time soon. The Beretta M9 is an excellent weapon and continues to perform

well and offers increased reliability and performance over the last 1911s issued by the DoD. I am not trying to flame you are anything and I mean no offense, but I think you might be missing a few facts or glazing over them because you are a .45 lemming. I think if you take an unbiased look you will quickly understand that our units have not found them lacking anything, except maybe a different caliber and that isn't a reflection on the weapon. It seems like the only people who bash on the Beretta are 1911 elitists....not trying to flame Mr45auto, but I can't understand the "what I have/like is the best because I have/like it, and everything else sucks" mentality....really ignorant.



I carry a 9mm all day every day as my personal defense round, but there's no denying the fact that everytime the US enters a major shooting match with a .35 caliber handgun, the shooters rapidly find a way to lay their hands on something of .45 caliber.

Single Action Army in the Phillipines. 1911 for WWI. Now the SOCOM pistol and the MEUSOC guns.

Pretty hard to argue with that.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 8:20:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ryno_the_wyno:
Of course, someone had to spread more of the 1911 ignorance and Beretta bashing. No one is arguing that the current M882 9mm FMJ is the pinnacle of lethality. Its not, however 15 shots of 9mm rounds is much better than 7 of .45 ACP on the modern battlefield. The 9mm has killed more people than any other military round, so it must a little lethal. There are a number of reasons that make the Beretta superior to the 1911 as a military sidearm and I suggest you read up on this. The 1911 is an amazing weapon and I enjoy shooting them and respect their legacy but thier time has passed. The weapon served well, but WWII is over. War has changed and the 1911 just

doesn't fit anymore, except for a few exceptions. The reliability of the last generation 1911 the DoD used cannot compare to the Beretta. Insert whatever excuse you want, bottom line...it lost. If the 1911 in .45 ACP that were already in the arsenal would not have been replaced at great cost if they were vastly superior to the M9. The USMC already ordered the M9A1, so I don't think it will be replaced any time soon. The Beretta M9 is an excellent weapon and continues to perform

well and offers increased reliability and performance over the last 1911s issued by the DoD. I am not trying to flame you are anything and I mean no offense, but I think you might be missing a few facts or glazing over them because you are a .45 lemming. I think if you take an unbiased look you will quickly understand that our units have not found them lacking anything, except maybe a different caliber and that isn't a reflection on the weapon. It seems like the only people who bash on the Beretta are 1911 elitists....not trying to flame Mr45auto, but I can't understand the "what I have/like is the best because I have/like it, and everything else sucks" mentality....really ignorant.



Right. Do you work for Beretta?
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 8:25:30 AM EDT

The Beretta was chosen because small handed women could handle the smaller 9mm better than the 1911. I have an early letter from the Pentagon saying so.

Any new trials will I'm sure be held to the same high standards.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 8:33:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Robert2011:
The Beretta was chosen because small handed women could handle the smaller 9mm better than the 1911. I have an early letter from the Pentagon saying so.

Any new trials will I'm sure be held to the same high standards.

My beretta is a POS. I've seen people shot with a 9 and I've seen people get shot with a .45 No contest. I've heard the same thing about hand size and all that. I wonder how many soldiers have died after being shot with a 9 and not going down as quickly as they would have if shot with a .45
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 8:42:08 AM EDT
Just go to ruger's website, they brag about it there.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 9:15:49 AM EDT
The M9 is standard issue for 95% of the military.
The M11 is issued to some aircrew and others who need a concelaeable firearm (such as CID or OSI investigators).
NAVSPECWAR issues the Sig P226.
No idea why they were using USPs at Best Ranger. Are you sure?
The army bought the Rugers for civilian security guards.
The USMC did not "adopt" the M9A1. It is an M9 with a light rail on it b/c there is a need for lights in some situations.
There is no such thing as the "1st MEUSOC." USMC SOCOM Det 1, does have Kimber pistols.
Force Recon units attached to the various MEUSOCs use MEUSOC .45s as backup weapons for DA.
I'm not sure what a "Spec-Op" unit is. But, standard issue in Army SF unit is the M9. Service members in these units cannot just carry whatever sidearm they choose despite what the errornet, TV, and movies say.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 9:21:23 AM EDT
I've never heard a knowledgeable person argue that the Beretta was chosen over the 1911 solely on the basis of technical merit before. Anyone who followed this issue back in the '70s/'80s when the decisions were made knows that there was a lot of politics that entered into the decision; the desire to standardize ammo within NATO, the need to placate the Italian Government, etc. Plus the fact that the U.S. Military has never taken the pistol very seriously as a combat weapon. All of these things entered into the decision making.
The reason there are a lot of pistols being used IMO is a reflection of the basic fact that the pistol is a weapon that must be fitted to its user. There is no "one size fits all" pistol. This is the very nature of the beast. Grip size, controlability, psychological confidence in the platform, all of these things and more are all part of what makes a given pistol a suitable fit for its owner. This has been an integral part of handgun ownership since its inception.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 9:22:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SSeric02:
The M9 is standard issue for 95% of the military.
The M11 is issued to some aircrew and others who need a concelaeable firearm (such as CID or OSI investigators).
NAVSPECWAR issues the Sig P226.
No idea why they were using USPs at Best Ranger. Are you sure?
The army bought the Rugers for civilian security guards.
The USMC did not "adopt" the M9A1. It is an M9 with a light rail on it b/c there is a need for lights in some situations.
There is no such thing as the "1st MEUSOC." USMC SOCOM Det 1, does have Kimber pistols.
Force Recon units attached to the various MEUSOCs use MEUSOC .45s as backup weapons for DA.
I'm not sure what a "Spec-Op" unit is. But, standard issue in Army SF unit is the M9. Service members in these units cannot just carry whatever sidearm they choose despite what the errornet, TV, and movies say.

I believe you but when there are rangers out there telling people that they can carry whatever they want and other soldiers coming back from the middle east telling people they can take whatever they want but they probably will never get it back to the us it makes it a tad hard to believe for most. My idiot brother went out and bought a glock 22 just because his ranger buddy told him he could take whatever he wanted, that army SF and rangers didn't issue handguns. He's a 4star moron. Both of them
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 9:34:34 AM EDT
It is true that there are some that use "pickups" when they get in country. And it makes sense logistically if you are away from normal sources of supply for long periods of time. In fact, one Marine I know had his life saved by a pickup AKMS he was carrying as a when his M9 failed. And yes, pickups get left in country. But, I take any statement by anyone that they can "carry whatever they want" with a grain of salt.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 9:39:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SSeric02:
It is true that there are some that use "pickups" when they get in country. And it makes sense logistically if you are away from normal sources of supply for long periods of time. In fact, one Marine I know had his life saved by a pickup AKMS he was carrying as a when his M9 failed. And yes, pickups get left in country. But, I take any statement by anyone that they can "carry whatever they want" with a grain of salt.

I do to. The fucked up thing is that I know for a fact that this retard is a ranger. I had no clue how such an asshat made it, then I found out that his dad is somehow involved in the Ranger school. Which makes him even more of an asshat.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 9:56:43 AM EDT
Another reason was that the Army felt that carying hammer down in DA mode was 'safer' than the SA mode of the 1911. When I was an Army MP, the SOP was hammer down on an empty chamber (condition 3). The M9 is carried hammer down on a loaded chamber. Back in the day, (1985 or so), we had some female MP's (small ones too) that refused to carry the .38 revolver because they didn't want special treatment.


Originally Posted By Robert2011:
The Beretta was chosen because small handed women could handle the smaller 9mm better than the 1911. I have an early letter from the Pentagon saying so.

Any new trials will I'm sure be held to the same high standards.

Link Posted: 8/29/2005 11:12:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

the last 1911s issued by the DoD



Anyone want to clue him in, as to WHEN the last 1911 model was mfged as general issue?
Late 40s/50s?

The 1911s replaced were broke dick, worn out, beat to death warhorses.
They had been used non-stop for the past 50 years!

The 1911 has been, and always will be the pinnacle of handgun design.

The last 1911A1 was manufactured in 1945.
See link


the 1911 has a lot of potential but compare a 1911 that goes for about $500 brand new out of the box with an M9. I understand that you probably shoot 1911s a lot and probably compete with them. Most 1911s that I have seen and would love to own go for well over $1000. Taking into consideration the price difference ($500 vs $1000), the capacity difference (7 vs 17), and the ability to find the rounds in almost any country justifies the switch to me. However, I would not object to being issued either one
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 12:14:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 52brandon:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

the last 1911s issued by the DoD



Anyone want to clue him in, as to WHEN the last 1911 model was mfged as general issue?
Late 40s/50s?

The 1911s replaced were broke dick, worn out, beat to death warhorses.
They had been used non-stop for the past 50 years!

The 1911 has been, and always will be the pinnacle of handgun design.

The last 1911A1 was manufactured in 1945.
See link


the 1911 has a lot of potential but compare a 1911 that goes for about $500 brand new out of the box with an M9. I understand that you probably shoot 1911s a lot and probably compete with them. Most 1911s that I have seen and would love to own go for well over $1000. Taking into consideration the price difference ($500 vs $1000), the capacity difference (7 vs 17), and the ability to find the rounds in almost any country justifies the switch to me. However, I would not object to being issued either one



All very good points.
An intelligent answer.
Well said - I just don't like people bashing the 1911.
I don't mind a 9mm - I just have some issues with the M9.
I commend you for your well reasoned and thought out response.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 12:37:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SSeric02:
The M9 is standard issue for 95% of the military.
The M11 is issued to some aircrew and others who need a concelaeable firearm (such as CID or OSI investigators).
NAVSPECWAR issues the Sig P226.
No idea why they were using USPs at Best Ranger. Are you sure?
The army bought the Rugers for civilian security guards.
The USMC did not "adopt" the M9A1. It is an M9 with a light rail on it b/c there is a need for lights in some situations.
There is no such thing as the "1st MEUSOC." USMC SOCOM Det 1, does have Kimber pistols.
Force Recon units attached to the various MEUSOCs use MEUSOC .45s as backup weapons for DA.
I'm not sure what a "Spec-Op" unit is. But, standard issue in Army SF unit is the M9. Service members in these units cannot just carry whatever sidearm they choose despite what the errornet, TV, and movies say.



I too watched the show on the Military Channel "104 Time Warner Columbus OH". It was on Sunday I think. I saw the users using the HK USP, but I didn't know what caliber it was in.

I think the Beretta M9 is far superior reliability wise. I have seen and heard a bunch of problems with 1911's over on the 1911 forums. It seems like every time someone buys a 1911 they seem to not work well out of the box. Heck, I posted a recent thread about selecting a Kimber and was instantly turned off for how crappy the guns seem to come out of the factory. A 1911 is an older design, given new tricks in the 21st Century. I am not saying the weapon is obsolete, but there comes a time when the design and flaws of the weapon needs to be realized in modern times.

There are MANY, MANY, MANY better .45 ACP's out there than the 1911 design. You have Glocks, SIGs, and HK USP's just to name a few that all work 100% out of the box in most instances. The GLOCK and USP hold way more rounds than the single stack magazines that were being used nearly 100 years ago in such devices as the Luger and 1911. The 1911 crowd over here is crazy and fanatical.

The basic .45 ACP 1911, was created in the early 1900’s. The newer A1 version was introduced sometime around WWII. The design of the pistol is OLD. The pistol was made for combat in a time that is radically different from today’s battlefield. The modern battlefield demands high capacity weapons, hence the change to 30 round magazines for the M16, over the 20 rounds M14, and even 8 round M1 Garand. The M16 is a better weapon than both of those.

Why have the M1 Garand in today’s battlefield?
That’s exactly what one is doing when they choose a 1911.

I am not bashing the .45 ACP. I think it is a great round that performs much better than a 9mm or .40 S&W. But why pick a 1911 when you can have a modern .45 ACP such as a Glock or and HK USP?

Link Posted: 8/29/2005 12:55:09 PM EDT
LOTS of errors in this thread.

Firstly, 1911s are not unreliable. JMBs submission to the War Department went 6,000 rounds rapid fire, without cleaning, and without failure. In 1910. The reputation for unreliable 1911s comes from all the fubared 1911s that were introduced after War 2, beat to shit after the Military made its last order of 1911s in 1945 (excluding SpecOps SA purchases in the 80s and 90s) or smithed togethr by some numnuts with a vice on his kitchen table.

Note that the units that can choose their pistols do not choose the Berreta. The Rangers will be switching to a .45 soon, probably a USP. SF uses a mix of pistols, including Berettas. USMC uses mostly 1911s for its special forces types. In my experience, the more experience a shooter has, expecially one who fights or intends to fight with his weapon, the more likely he is to choose a 1911 and at least a .45.

Magazine capacity does not win gunfights. Shooters win gunfights, and they want a trigger and ergonomics that help them make the hits, and a caliber that leaves a big hole.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 1:16:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 1:40:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/29/2005 1:53:31 PM EDT by olds442tyguy]
It's my understanding that the 1911 wasn't phased out for being a 1911, it was being phased out because it was a .45. As said before in this thread, the 1911's that had the bad reputations, were war horses that had seen more battle time than quite possibly any other small arm in military stock.

If I had my choice, it would be a 1911 or a USP. John Browning knew what he was doing when he designed the 1911, and HK knew what they were doing when they used that same action in their pistols.

The 1911 doesn't need to proove itself to anyone, as it's proven itslef to the people who relied on it in actual battle. When you have a pistol with that high of production numbers from so many different brands, manufacturing to so many different specs, you're destined to see more problems.

I'm sure if 20 different brands were manufacturing high numbers of their own model of Beretta 92's, you'd hear of alot more problems with 92's also. No other pistol in the world is made by so many different companies to so many different specifications.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 2:01:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/29/2005 2:02:07 PM EDT by Death_006]

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:


Firstly, 1911s are not unreliable.



I've seen 6 1911s break this year between classes, competitions and casual shooting. One was a custom gun, don't know who made it, the others were all Colts or Kimbers. Yeah but that doesn't prove anything, they're reliable...



+1

I have seen the same thing with a SA Mil-Spec that my grandfather owns. It didn't extract the rounds properly when he first got it out the box. But after he sent it back to SA it works PERFECTLY, just like a gun should right out of the box. They polished the feedramp and tuned the extracor. All of the Beretta's I have seen, Glocks, SIGs, and USP's I have seen work perfectly right out of the box. That cannot be said for thee majority of 1911's out there.

Granted you get alot of internet hysteria about Berretta's locking blocks breaking, Glocks blowing up and stuff like that, but the facts about the 1911 are not hysteria, a great deal of them actually do not function well out of the box. Once again check out 1911 forums.

The .45 ACP round is a great round.
The 9mm FMJ SUCKS

The Beretta M9 is an excellent pistol, but it shoots a poorly performing round. Do not bash the pistol just because of a bad round.

The 1911 is a nice pistol. The Model T Ford is a nice car. The M1 Garand is a nice rifle. The Luger is a nice pistol. However, there comes a time when on the modern battlefield when using an outdated piece of equipment will get you killed. Why is the military not considering replacing the M9 (Gun not bad, caliber bad) with .45 ACPs such as the USP and Glock? I'll say it again, the 1911 is OUTDATED, along with the Model T and Windows 3.2.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 2:14:04 PM EDT
What makes a pistol outdated? The age or the operation? Age alone is no good reason to let go of a good thing. The operation is among the best operating systems, still to this day. Just because some people don't manufacture their pistols to spec, does not mean the 1911 action is unreliable.

Would you judge the AR platform in whole off of a Hesse rifle? Would you judge the AK platform in whole off of a WASR-10? When millions of 1911's are pumped out a year, expect to hear more problems due to the higher production numbers alone.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 2:16:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/29/2005 2:43:31 PM EDT by lu380]

Originally Posted By SSeric02:
The M9 is standard issue for 95% of the military.
The M11 is issued to some aircrew and others who need a concelaeable firearm (such as CID or OSI investigators).
NAVSPECWAR issues the Sig P226.
No idea why they were using USPs at Best Ranger. Are you sure?
The army bought the Rugers for civilian security guards.
The USMC did not "adopt" the M9A1. It is an M9 with a light rail on it b/c there is a need for lights in some situations.
There is no such thing as the "1st MEUSOC." USMC SOCOM Det 1, does have Kimber pistols.
Force Recon units attached to the various MEUSOCs use MEUSOC .45s as backup weapons for DA.
I'm not sure what a "Spec-Op" unit is. But, standard issue in Army SF unit is the M9. Service members in these units cannot just carry whatever sidearm they choose despite what the errornet, TV, and movies say.



They were probably using USP9mm's that were supplied by an HK representitive for publicity purposes. It would kinda be like Tiger Woods wearing a pair of Nike cleats at a golf match.

BTW, I own three 1911's and one Beretta. The Beretta has never had a malfunction of any kind, all three of my 1911's have had several malfunctions. Two of my 1911's are series 70 Colts, and one is the Springfield GI. I still like the feel of a 1911 in my hands much better than a Beretta, but I would choose the Beretta if my life depended on it, especially since I'm not limited to ball ammo.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 2:27:14 PM EDT
In 1910, I am sure that test gun had a lot more hands on time for fitting than the ones produced today, and this is the problem. For whatever reasons, the 1911s of today cannot function well without a human hand to blend everything to perfection. Hands on labor was cheap back then, and machining expensive, while today it is exactly the oppisite.

We don't need the 1911 back in service. what we need is a new pistol to take the good attributes from the 1911(grip angle, trigger, safety), and insert them in a platform capable of being produced in our modernized, CAD/CAM machining world. Can this be done? Can the middle finger be waved at all those liability lawyers as we say, "I don't want a lawyer gun, I want a gunfighters gun!"? Can we give our armed forces a sidearm with the intent of killing the enemy quickly, accurately, and reliably?
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 2:48:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:


Firstly, 1911s are not unreliable.



I've seen 6 1911s break this year between classes, competitions and casual shooting. One was a custom gun, don't know who made it, the others were all Colts or Kimbers. Yeah but that doesn't prove anything, they're reliable...



And more than likely they were ALL built "tight" at the Factory , because that's what most
people want. (not a good idea in a "self defense" 1911 )

I own a stock SA GI .45 that will sling 230 gr ball all day long and never Hiccup ,
but it ain't a Target Gun.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 3:42:09 PM EDT
Tight 1911s arent a problem. One of the moderators of this forum has a Les Baer that has fired 35k times without malfunction. The problems is that modern manufacturers have learned that they can use a certain amount of shortcuts, cheap materials and poor QC and then still come out head when some of the pistols are sent back for repair.

Aimless, I was at one class where 7 shooters using M1911s fired over 8000 rounds total with no malfunctions that could not be traced back to some sort of shooter error. The one Glock, one Sig and one HK didn't fail either, but only the shooter with the HK could keep up with the class--the one with the Glock was an idiot (no, really) and the one with the Sig couldn't get past the heavy, creepy DA pull. The HK was used Condition 1 and was the equal of the 1911s.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 4:24:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Agrippa:
We don't need the 1911 back in service. what we need is a new pistol to take the good attributes from the 1911


The HK USP series covers most of that, and adds in more features. Aside from being a plastic gun, I think it's the most up to par handgun currently. I'll take a 1911, followed by the USP in a very close second, and anything after that is pretty much a compromise for what I'd want in a combat pistol.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 4:48:46 PM EDT
If manufacturers went back to the original specs of the 1911, used the proper materials for the extractor [original was SPRING steel NOT tool steel] and properly set it, it would run as well as any pistol made, problem is, that takes time, and time is money. The 1911 is not outdated but the manufacturing is, therefore companies have cut corners on materials and fitting. Tight is not fitted, proper LOCKUP is what should be strived for.

While Berattas are fine, mags problems have occured, and grit in a DBL stack can be a nightmare as rounds roll against each other as they feed up the tube.

I have had flawless running 1911s and ones that had problems, almost all of which were attributed to overly tight fits, horrible extractor tensioning, [one company that shall remain nameless makes a great 1911, then either never bothers with tensioning or monkeys do it] or cheap small bits.

I would rather have a .45 hole then a 35 cal hole especially limited to hardball.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 5:30:52 PM EDT
I am in the Coast Guard and it is no secret that the CG is now under the Department of Homeland Security. After 911 a lot of things changed, especially the budget. With more money you can buy more of what you want. The DOHS is in the process of changing to the Sig P229 and P226 DAK's. I could not be more pleased, although the 9mm caliber is an excellent round for accuracy, capacity and because of its physical size is an easy round to feed, the platform it is used in is not the greatest (Beretta M9). The gun has a lot of little articulating parts that break often with use and abuse. Bare in mind who uses these...unlike you or I who clean our guns after use and store them in safes or other relatively controlled inviornments the Beretta gets beat. I am not saying that the guns in use do not receive care by competent custodians. Also, because of the grip of the Beretta and the trigger it is not the most comfortable gun to shoot. For those who love your Berettas that's great and we are all FREE to choose whatever gun we want. I do not know for a fact but maybe the contract with the Beretta is up? Also, the ammo we use is standard FMJ ball ammo and the 9mm is one of those rounds that is prone to passing right through people/objects...yes, I know any round can do this depending on entry-point. However, if someone gets hit with a .40cal or better yet a .45cal they are less apt to still put up resistance. Look, I have cunducted boardings on ships the last thing I want is to have to use my gun, moreover, the last thing I want is that round going through the target and bouncing back at me or anyone other than my target. This is also why we are trained to shoot at center of mass, yes I know. The .40 and .45 cal's in FMJ standard ball ammo just do the job better. Trust me I know...my father was shot 4-times by a some punk home-invasion-robber with a .45 standard FMJ ammo and at very close range (less than 7ft) and the one bullet that passed through him was deformed quite a bit. Yes, my dad is alive and well. The shooter pulled his gun on two police officers and was killed the other two accomplices were arrested and are currently behind bars. As for .45's not being reliable, I beg to differ. They are just as reliable as anything else (no more/no less). The problems arise when ANY gun is "Smithed" on and reliability is compromised. These are just my .2cents though, again as stated above we are all FREE to purchase whatever gun we desire as long as it is within the laws that govern us. As far as what is going on over there in the Middle East I wouldn't know I am not there. The trainning and tactics though, will be forever changed as a direct result of this war and maybe this change in handguns is a direct result of things going on. Like I said before, with more money come more toys!
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 6:37:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ryno_the_wyno:
Of course, someone had to spread more of the 1911 ignorance and Beretta bashing. No one is arguing that the current M882 9mm FMJ is the pinnacle of lethality. Its not, however 15 shots of 9mm rounds is much better than 7 of .45 ACP on the modern battlefield. The 9mm has killed more people than any other military round, so it must a little lethal. There are a number of reasons that make the Beretta superior to the 1911 as a military sidearm and I suggest you read up on this. The 1911 is an amazing weapon and I enjoy shooting them and respect their legacy but thier time has passed. The weapon served well, but WWII is over. War has changed and the 1911 just

doesn't fit anymore, except for a few exceptions. The reliability of the last generation 1911 the DoD used cannot compare to the Beretta. Insert whatever excuse you want, bottom line...it lost. If the 1911 in .45 ACP that were already in the arsenal would not have been replaced at great cost if they were vastly superior to the M9. The USMC already ordered the M9A1, so I don't think it will be replaced any time soon. The Beretta M9 is an excellent weapon and continues to perform

well and offers increased reliability and performance over the last 1911s issued by the DoD. I am not trying to flame you are anything and I mean no offense, but I think you might be missing a few facts or glazing over them because you are a .45 lemming. I think if you take an unbiased look you will quickly understand that our units have not found them lacking anything, except maybe a different caliber and that isn't a reflection on the weapon. It seems like the only people who bash on the Beretta are 1911 elitists....not trying to flame Mr45auto, but I can't understand the "what I have/like is the best because I have/like it, and everything else sucks" mentality....really ignorant.




I've owned both, still have 1911s do not own a 92. I carried an M9 as an issued gun, did you? I discovered the 1911 years later after thinking the M9 was superior and DA autos were better than an SA could ever be. I was wrong, you are too.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 7:50:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 10:40:18 PM EDT
There is nothing inferior in any way with the design of the 1911. However, in execution it is more difficult and expensive to build properly. I get my second 1911 this week, and it cost as much as 7 Glock 17s.....but to me it is worth every penny.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 10:56:21 PM EDT
I am not the first person to make the argument that the Beretta is technically superior to the 1911. That is the same argument that the DoD made when they replaced it. The 1911 is an amazing weapon and served proudly. Its time has passed, plain and simple. Of course the excuse was made that the last 1911s used were made in the 40's... I guess they were never maintained by armorers over thier lifetime. They all had orginal slides/barrels, right? Unlikely. If the Browning system of operation was superior to the Beretta or the Sig*which actually won* then we would be using HiPowers. 9mm bullets have killed more people than any other service round ever, this is a

proven fact. Thats pretty good for a round that has "poor lethality". If a bigger bullet was always more lethal, why aren't we using M14's chambered in .300 win mag? The same reason we aren't using a .45 handgun. Bigger bullets weigh more, offer less capacity and don't necessarily offer an advantage in terminal ballistics. Instead of being a .45 lemming, you should really learn the facts.
Just because the 1911 is an amazing gun, doesn't make the it best handgun ever and the only weapon suited to our current military requirements. People bitch about the big grip on the Beretta, I guess the grip on a Para P14 is skinny? There is nothing wrong with liking your weapon, but

there is something wrong with being an ingorant elitist and ignoring facts. If the .45 1911 is so much better than the M9 why did the military spend a fortune replacing them? No one has yet to address that. The Beretta M9 is not the greatest hand gun ever made, its not even my favorite, but that doesn't make it a piece of shit. And actually, the USMC's new Beretta is being designated the A1 and it includes a different slide, light rail and stainless magazine. Anyone who is advocating the .45 1911 for our service pistol obviously knows nothing about modern warefare. Having women being able to shoot the Beretta is a big deal, as our service is now co-ed...incase you are to ignorant to know that. If you would rather have 7 rounds when you are being

overwhelmed by 20 insurgents, you really are stupid. Just because the M9 is better suited than the 1911 for todays military doesn't make the 1911 a piece of shit. I guess all you 1911 lemmings must be smarter than everyone in the government. I would advise you to read the JSSAP reports, but I am sure that its probably a little advanced reading for some of you and despite the clear results, there will most likely be some other excuse defending the 1911. No one is making excuses for the Beretta or the Sig...they won.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 11:06:33 PM EDT
1) Bigger is better. The more people a particular group kills, the bigger the round their weapon uses. The three units in the LAPD that have the highest rate of shootings, all use .45s. SF tends to use .45s.

2) The 1911A1 as was in US service in 1985 was worn out. Or at least a good number of them were. If an average of 500 rounds were fired yearly, the least used gun in the inventory would have been fired 20,000 times. Add in the poor fit and finish, and metallurgy, of Wartime USGI weapons, and you have some seriously worn out guns.

3) The government is literally organized stupidity. Look at the M16A2. Target shooters forced the A2 length stock on everyone, and for ten years the military thought it was a good idea.

4) If a 1911 goes back into US service, it won't be a USGI gun. It will be comparable to a SA or Kimber, and probably with better components.

5) In the days of the unisex army, the 1911 is actually a BETTER sidearm. Surprised? The 1911 is smaller around, esp. with thingrips (which should be standard, IMHO). It also has a lighter trigger. Females have trouble with 12+ pound DA triggers.

6) Capacity is much less of an issue than you make it sound. Knowing how to change a magazine almost eliminates the concern, as it is the rare occasion when many targets are presented to a person armed only with a handgun. First round hits are more important, and the SA trigger makes that much easier to achieve.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 11:56:54 PM EDT
Hey ryno,

I wish I knew as much as you. You must be some kind of "super shot" dead-eye guy.

I'm just a 45 lemming....

I've carried a heck of a lot of different firearms and calibers in my time. I was in the Army back when the 1911 reigned supreme and M16 had triangle hand guards. I've carried a flock of glocks probably before you were making poop in water to please Mom. I've carried a 3" model 29 44 mag as a primary carry gun and didn't feel under-gunned. I bought one of the first 500 imported USP45's back in 1994/95. I've carried a Secret Service trade in P228. I've carried a tried and true 1911 as recently as last year, every day and it was an 8+1 capacity. Didn't feel under-gunned with it either. I bet those guys in the sandbox don't feel under-gunned with their 1911's. We all know that you know better.

You are correct that the 9mm bullet has killed more people historically. Because both sides of WWII carried the round except for the US. Doesn't make it a better round. Did you know that the Nazi's copied the 1911 in .45 as well? They did and they issued it as well. Rare, but it is out there.

A DOJ corrections officer for AZ once told me that he saw many, many inmates walking around with 9mm bullet wounds on them - some multiple times. He also said that you never saw anybody with .45 bullet wounds walking around. Could be because nobody gets shot with the .45 round much. Or, more probably, they don't survive the incident.....

A wise man once said that you should never get into a gun fight with anything less than a point four zero caliber. That man was one of the greatest, if not the greatest gunfighter ever. That man was Wild Bill Hickcock. And I bet he'd carry a 1911 today and not worry about it.

But we all know that you are smarter than him or us because we are all just 1911/45 lemmings.

BTW, I carry an 8+1 Sig P220 every day now. But I'm just a .45 lemming. How many gun fights have you been in, anyway? I'm sure we'd all love to know.... I’ve been in a couple, myself. Most in the line of duty and some just to protect myself.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 12:26:25 AM EDT
At least we're all in agreement.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 12:40:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:


Firstly, 1911s are not unreliable.



I've seen 6 1911s break this year between classes, competitions and casual shooting. One was a custom gun, don't know who made it, the others were all Colts or Kimbers. Yeah but that doesn't prove anything, they're reliable...



Old fashioned , plain jane, Mil-Spec 1911A1's had anvil like durability.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 1:00:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/30/2005 1:19:01 AM EDT by Mr45auto]
Ryno_the_wyno


Since you know so much about modern warfare and proper weaponry to deal with insurgents, which military unit are you with? How many people have you seen shot with the superior 9mm FMJ rounds? You really think the military chooses thing wisely? You've never been active duty


Aimless, I bought my first 1911 in 1992 right after getting out of the mil. It is my primary sidearm and was 100% right out of the box. It has undergone many changes through the years but is still 100%. I see glocks malfunction at EVERY range qual with my agency. ( yes they are neglected and not cleaned) My SIG does not malfunction ( not this one anyhow) but mine is properly maintained. It is true that not all 1911s are created equal and even the big guys have had bad years. My series 80 colt commander "enhanced" is not nearly as good a shooter as my SA GI model.



Anyhow, I'm glad we're all having this argument on the internet. I'm sure we'll all reach a common conclusion to this thread and put an end to this whole 9mm vs 45 and M9 vs M1911 debate once and for all.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 5:40:25 AM EDT
Getting back to the original topic, let's inject some truth here:

The M1911A1 was a great gun, but just like today, it wasn't the only handgun being used at the time. Due to the need for more pistols in the hands of troops (just like today) the Army bought revolvers that were chambered for the service pistol ammo (S&W and Colt M1917's) in WWI and again in WWII they bought revolvers in .38 special. That process of making up shortages with "off the shelf" sidearms continued throughout the life of the 1911. When I was in the Army in the 80s-90s I had an Ithaca M1911A1, then a S&W Model 10, then another M10, then a M9 Beretta. We also had Ruger 4" Speed-Six's in many places alongside the Smiths. I'll tell you flat out that that Ithaca was one worn out POS and I wasn't too happy with the six-shooter firing FMJ/800fps .38 ammo. When I got the M9 NIB, it was definately a step up from the wheel-gun.

So the whole point of buying "non-standard" handguns is acutally a pretty "standard" practice.

The M9 and M11 are the standard sidearms for the DoD. The Army and USMC continue to issue contracts to BUSA for M9s/M9A1s. It will also contiune to buy off-the-shelf guns to fill needs quickly. It always has done so in the past, and always will in the future. Except for possibly a couple years here and there, the M1911 series was never the only handgun in military service. That doesn't make the M1911A1 less of a pistol. It's just the way it was in real life. That's the same real-life that goes on today.

You can claim whatever .45 vs 9mm things you want from either side, but the situation now is the same as it was in 1917, 1977 or will be in 2007. The Army buys what it needs to fill the requirement. If it can, it goes with the standard one. If it needs it faster, it goes non-standard.

Really the situation isn't much different now than it ever has been as far as numbers of non-standrad pistols in service.

As for the M1911 series coming back to general issue, forget it. Too many GIs shot themselves with those things due to poor training. Since the Army isn't ever going to fix (let alone even address) that issue, the result is the 1911 won't be making any real comeback. You'll never see a Glock as standard for the same reason, the Army won't invest in the training needed.

Most pistol packers in the Army shoot 50 rounds a year, right after sitting in bleachers at the range for a 15 min class on how to shoot the pistol. That's it. That's reality. Frankly, when most of your force is trained like that, it doesn't matter too much what you give them for a pistol.

Link Posted: 8/30/2005 10:14:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/30/2005 10:20:35 AM EDT by olds442tyguy]

Originally Posted By Ryno_the_wyno:
I am not the first person to make the argument that the Beretta is technically superior to the 1911. That is the same argument that the DoD made when they replaced it. The 1911 is an amazing weapon and served proudly. Its time has passed, plain and simple. Of course the excuse was made that the last 1911s used were made in the 40's... I guess they were never maintained by armorers over thier lifetime. They all had orginal slides/barrels, right? Unlikely. If the Browning system of operation was superior to the Beretta or the Sig*which actually won* then we would be using HiPowers. 9mm bullets have killed more people than any other service round ever, this is a

proven fact. Thats pretty good for a round that has "poor lethality". If a bigger bullet was always more lethal, why aren't we using M14's chambered in .300 win mag? The same reason we aren't using a .45 handgun. Bigger bullets weigh more, offer less capacity and don't necessarily offer an advantage in terminal ballistics. Instead of being a .45 lemming, you should really learn the facts.
Just because the 1911 is an amazing gun, doesn't make the it best handgun ever and the only weapon suited to our current military requirements. People bitch about the big grip on the Beretta, I guess the grip on a Para P14 is skinny? There is nothing wrong with liking your weapon, but

there is something wrong with being an ingorant elitist and ignoring facts. If the .45 1911 is so much better than the M9 why did the military spend a fortune replacing them? No one has yet to address that. The Beretta M9 is not the greatest hand gun ever made, its not even my favorite, but that doesn't make it a piece of shit. And actually, the USMC's new Beretta is being designated the A1 and it includes a different slide, light rail and stainless magazine. Anyone who is advocating the .45 1911 for our service pistol obviously knows nothing about modern warefare. Having women being able to shoot the Beretta is a big deal, as our service is now co-ed...incase you are to ignorant to know that. If you would rather have 7 rounds when you are being

overwhelmed by 20 insurgents, you really are stupid. Just because the M9 is better suited than the 1911 for todays military doesn't make the 1911 a piece of shit. I guess all you 1911 lemmings must be smarter than everyone in the government. I would advise you to read the JSSAP reports, but I am sure that its probably a little advanced reading for some of you and despite the clear results, there will most likely be some other excuse defending the 1911. No one is making excuses for the Beretta or the Sig...they won.



You say all these so called facts. You also said it was fact that the HK 4.6mm round was ballistically superior to the 5.7mm round. Remember how that turned out? I think you should regroup instead of insinuating people are ignorant or stupid. I'm not trying to offend you, but after seeing the way you conducted yourself on the 4.6 vs. 5.7 debate, I don't consider your opinions to be professional.

ETA: The 1911 was ditched because the military wanted a high capacity, smaller caliber pistol. I will admit there's not really any high capacity 1911's I'd want to take into a battle. The Beretta is a good choice for the military's requirements.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 12:54:40 PM EDT
I smell so much BS in this thread, I could have sworn I just walked over a freshly fertilized pasture.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 1:16:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ross:


Most pistol packers in the Army shoot 50 rounds a year, right after sitting in bleachers at the range for a 15 min class on how to shoot the pistol. That's it. That's reality. Frankly, when most of your force is trained like that, it doesn't matter too much what you give them for a pistol.




Mostly true, but the fact is that the people who actually shoot people for a living (Force, SF, etc...)prefer the 1911. No amount of pontificating by anti-1911 folks will change that. They aren't carrying USPs, Glocks, or Berettas...they're carrying 1911s, when they have the choice.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 1:16:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/30/2005 1:25:19 PM EDT by racezilla500]
Well, here's my two cents.
Grab yourself a 9mm round and a 45acp round. Face the bullet toward you so you are looking directly at the bullet. HMMMM......looks like the 9mm has to expand to double it's original size just to get where the 45acp is to begin with. SO.....if it takes two 9mm rounds to equal one 45acp round, your high cap mag really means nothing to me.
Any intelligent human being would rather sling 230 grains of lead. I get so tired of hearing about the lack of capacity on any 45acp.

Also, let's not forget that the government is sometimes cheap and accepts bids based on price and not function. (Example: "The Kimber 45acp is our number one choice, but we can get the M9 so much cheaper.")
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 1:38:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By modog:

Originally Posted By Ross:


Most pistol packers in the Army shoot 50 rounds a year, right after sitting in bleachers at the range for a 15 min class on how to shoot the pistol. That's it. That's reality. Frankly, when most of your force is trained like that, it doesn't matter too much what you give them for a pistol.




Mostly true, but the fact is that the people who actually shoot people for a living (Force, SF, etc...)prefer the 1911. No amount of pontificating by anti-1911 folks will change that. They aren't carrying USPs, Glocks, or Berettas...they're carrying 1911s, when they have the choice.



All the Army SF guys i have seen had M9s. My buddy who used to be at 2nd Force worked with some of the really hard guys from Bragg and said they all had M9s. the original reason for the MEUSOC was as a backup to the diminutive MP5. SEALs still carry Sig P226s. Bottom line is, the use of the 1911 is overblown by TV and the internet. Do some special units still use it for special purposes? Yes. But it's not like these troops can just walk into the armory and pull out whatever they want.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top