Is the M45 really a good idea?

[Heritagefan]

Hang on.    (donning flame proof undies here)

I just recieved a 1911 "on loan" and after reading the manual for field stripping it, I have to wonder if it is the best .45 ACP choice for the Marines.

Let me state here that I have never served in the military, so I have no clue about how often they field strip and clean their side arms while literally in the field, but I would think that not having to need a barrel wrench or any tool to field strip it would be a good thing.

I have to agree with Eric that today's polymer .45s, like the Smith and Wesson M&P, would be a better choice for the fact that you don't need to worry about a specialized tool getting lost along the way.

I like the romaticism of the 1911, but I do question the practicality given todays choices.

Ok.

Flame away!

[lee n. field]

but I would think that not having to need a barrel wrench or any tool to field strip it would be a good thing.

You don't need a bushing wrench to take down a 1911.

[Uninformed Opinion]

Well, keep in mind one thing. No matter what love affair the military has with it's high tech toys, when it comes to dealing with the people on the ground the military fears change. Until a situation comes up that proves methods and tools no longer valid they will resist changing anything they don't have to. Also, the military loves anything it can find lots of cheep replacement parts for. Given the popularity of the 1911, I doubt they will run out of parts any time soon.

[Devereaux]

A 1911 will completely strip to bare frame without ANY outside tools. I know - I did it for my whole platoon in a GP tent at VanDerGrift Combat Base in 1969. And believe me, I had NO TOOLS there. Putting all the parts into a helmet made it easy to keep track of everything, clean it as needed, and then reassemble the parts to a working weapon. Try THAT with your Block!

[Heritagefan]

So you don't need the bushing wrench?  It looked like you did from the manual.  (How tight is the bushing then?  Hand tight?  More?)

I don't own a Glock, M&P, or a Springfield XD; But I figured they were like the Kel Tec P-11 and P3AT I've field stripped and cleaned.

@ Devereaux:  I am impressed you did that but I wonder how many others in the platoon could and did.  I know I wouldn't try it.

I still stick with the thought that simpler is better when it comes to field stripping.

[daemonpi]

some of the highly tunes 1911's may need a bushing wrench (but that is really only for the most tightly fitted bushings), but anything intended for the military, or for self-defense use for that matter, are not tight and do not need a bushing wrench.  The parenthesized questions are not really relevant though, their tightness depends on how closely the bushing is fitted (shaved) to the barrel and the slide, it is not screwed on.

Honestly it only takes a couple times taking a 1911 apart to be able to take it completely apart, let along field stripping it.  And it is very easy to do with no tools.  And it's even easier to completely disassemble with the use of a nail or pointy headed round of ammunition.

But regardless field stripping a 1911 is really easy, in my view just a easy as a Glock.

[BikerRN]

The 1911 is so simple in it's complexity.

Easy to clean, easy to shoot, and easy to love. Give me a brass case from an expended round, .45 ACP of course, and I can take the grips off. My thumb is all that's needed for releasing the pressure on the recoil spring to field strip it. It is a conglomeration of parts, that while different from the Glock, are no less of a conundrum. In short, it's not hard, and so simple even I can manage to work it, strip it, clean it, and most important, reassemble it. I'm more Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor than I am Al "Handyman" Borland.

One thing that Marines have, over the other branches, is history and tradition. They recognize the weak and strong points of any weapons system., but unlike the Army or Air Force, don't need the latest and greatest to be able to function. Heck, for much of their history they used what the Army had left over or didn't want. They just need a ride to the fight from the Navy and with a rifle they are good to go. I think there would be some benefit to the Marines going back to the 1911, or at least a .45 ACP caliber handgun.

We've been here before folks. Go back and look at the Philippine-American War and the hue and cry for something to put the enemy down. The 38 caliber rounds didn't work, and yet in it's wisdom the Pentagon decided to ignore history and go with a 9 millimeter. It's an OK or marginal round in my opinion, if one selects the proper load, but not 'ball ammo for God's sake! The issue of resupply may be a problem, in that other NATO troops aren't carrying the .45 ACP, but that can be dealt with. Pick up a weapon, and spare ammo, from the dead around you, friend or foe. I don't much care what the French carry as a caliber, or the Germans for that matter. The French will give up their guns at the first hint of resistance, and the Germans will efficiently take over the French and anyone they leave behind.

The 1911 has functioned in every environment that we have fought battles in. The desert, the jungle, the beaches of Normandy, North Africa, the frozen Chosin Reservoir, and even this little diddy, in Vietnamese, the offensive is called Cuá»™c Tổng tiến công và nổi dậy ("General Offensive and Uprising"), or Tết Mậu Thân (Tet, year of the monkey).  All have seen the 1911, and it has functioned as well or better than many. True, it has it's own unique complexities, but so does the AR. I agree with Col. Cooper that, "The .45 ACP is a caliber of consequence."

Now I need to go see Mr. Wilson next door to help me deal with my wife's female issues.

Biker

[Eric R Shelton]

http://gunnuts.net/2011/02/08/1911-as-a-hobby-gun/
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2011/02/but-it-says-custom-right-on-gun.html

No offense to Dev or Biker, but both your posts are so dependent upon nostalgia they're almost not even valid in a discussion of current military procurement or, hate it as you may, state of the art.

I'm not arguing against a .45 ACP pistol, as Biker's post wanders into.  I will simply say that NATO-spec 9mm isn't SAAMI-spec 9mm, and caliber wars are stupid.  We've covered this ground before- hitting is less important than hitting something important.  Both rounds (and even the .40 S&W that I supposedly loathe) will do this.

I'm very, very cool with the idea of a .45 ACP service pistol.  It's like lobbing cinder blocks.  But the 1911's day in this role is done, and it's time we admit it.  It's not a cost effective, nor efficient way of doing things.  MIM parts pervade modern manufacturing processes to reduce cost, and that's not the way to build a service grade 1911 that will meet the needs of those who need their gun to work when things go tango uniform.

Bushing wrenches are only needed with that damn-fool full length guide rod that JMB (may His name be praised) never intended on anyway.  The gun ran fine for ~80 years without that stupid addendum.  It's a sales gimmick.  Period.  Get over it.

I will say, however, that Dev's recollection of taking down the 1911 with no tools, while accurate, isn't really reflective of the 1911s produced today.  These days, you need an armorer who truly specializes in the 1911, and it's not as time or cost effective when a rack grade Glock is quicker, easier, more field-hardy, cheaper, more user-serviceable...  It's a field gun.  We can extoll the virtues of the 1911 trigger all day, but when reality enters the picture, we're not shooting bullseye competition with a service gun.  It's there to save our lives- nothing more, and certainly nothing less.  I don't give a crap about how finely crafted it is, or how beautiful it is, or that it was handed down to St. Browning from the mountains of Olympus.  The best, most beautiful gun in the world is the one that saves my bacon when the chips are down.

Dev, as for all the parts in the helmet being easy to keep track of?  Just the frame, grip panels, screws and bushings on a 1911 and you're well more than a third of the way to the total parts count on a Glock.  You've already exceeded the parts count on a detail-stripped slide. 

I mention Glocks just as an example I'm familiar with, but the fact is that any modern poly gun would be a better choice- even an XD.  No parts fitting, no fine-tuning, no obsessive discussions about which magazines function best.  You know what the best Glock/HK/XD/M&P magazines are?  OEM Glock/HK/XD/M&P.  Pretty simple.  Armorer level support a 12 year old could master between games on an Xbox.  Cheaper, more efficient, more rounds in a magazine, more reliable, easier to train users with...

I'll never say the 1911 is dead, because it's obviously not.  But it's time to get over slick ad campaigns and nostalgia when we're talking about a duty gun to be issued en masse.  Even for a smaller, specialized unit like LAPD SWAT or FBI HRT (when a specialized 1911 armorer/smith is far more viable)- we keep hearing stories that when the SHTF the guys on the ground grab poly guns instead of their highly-publicized 1911s.  These guys likely know something we don't- the true importance of reliability when things get loud.

The 1911 will likely be around for another 100 years.  It truly is that good of a gun, and just look at single-action revolvers remarkable persistence.  But would any of us truly argue that a SAA should be an issue gun?  Arguing that a 1911 should still be a service weapon is just as silly as arguing the SAA in the face of modern tactics, manufacturing processes, costs of operation, and the ever-watching eye of public scrutiny.

[NS2]

 


I think this love of polymer can all be attributed back to the type of Tonka truck we had as kids.  

The 1911 guys love the tradition of the "well-functioning," sturdy design made of metal; sure it took some minor tweaking added maintenance, and could even be a bit un-safe at times due to the sharp metal edges and rust but it was the what our dads and grandfathers played with. Even at the risk of needing a tetanus shot, I still loved my metal Tonka.

The poly-kids are enamored with the lightweight, easily replaced and low cost plastic truck to which Hasbro changed over.  Sure, it delivers smaller grains of sand but, they are many more of them.  The poly-truck requires much less maintenance and it always works until it doesn't.  At this point, a replacement is delivered by Santa and things are all good again.  

In fact it's all Hasbro's fault!  If they kept the Tonka Truck the way John Moses Tonka designed it in 1903-11, we would all still be shooting 1911's.  That's it, where's my sand pile? (script note:  shake fist at wind...now)

Hell, we can even blame the obesity epidemic on the change over to the plastic Tonka!  The metal truck was much heavier, although just as easy to roll about, as the poly truck.  How many days of pushing the heavy steel trucks around did the poly-kids miss out on?  How much muscle mass were they short changed on due to the lighter weight trucks.  Damn!  It's all Hasbro's fault again!  JMT (blessed be his name) designed a truck that was forged from metal and wood!  Those trucks required boys with muscles of steel to use them.

The poly-truck kids missed out and while they may look upon the metal Tonka with a somewhat indifferent attitude, they still secretly want one.  If for no other reason than because their grandfather had one. (production note: point out Eric's love of the 1908 due to the fond memories he has of the event that goes with his.)

Of course there are some exceptions to this metal-truck v. poly-truck rule, such as our resident GOF, but we're not certain he was ever a child anyway...


 


Projectile delivery systems.  As long as they fit your hand and work when required, why does the rest matter?  If the "Men's Department" of the Navy wants to carry the 1911, then they should do so.  Most of their other gear is retro, so why blow the look of the ensemble with something that so obviously doesn't go with their outfits?

[Devereaux]

I think this love of polymer can all be attributed back to the type of Tonka truck we had as kids.  

The 1911 guys love the tradition of the "well-functioning," sturdy design made of metal; sure it took some minor tweaking added maintenance, and could even be a bit un-safe at times due to the sharp metal edges and rust but it was the what our dads and grandfathers played with. Even at the risk of needing a tetanus shot, I still loved my metal Tonka.

The poly-kids are enamored with the lightweight, easily replaced and low cost plastic truck to which Hasbro changed over.  Sure, it delivers smaller grains of sand but, they are many more of them.  The poly-truck requires much less maintenance and it always works until it doesn't.  At this point, a replacement is delivered by Santa and things are all good again.  

In fact it's all Hasbro's fault!  If they kept the Tonka Truck the way John Moses Tonka designed it in 1903-11, we would all still be shooting 1911's.  That's it, where's my sand pile? (script note:  shake fist at wind...now)

Hell, we can even blame the obesity epidemic on the change over to the plastic Tonka!  The metal truck was much heavier, although just as east to roll about, as the poly truck.  How many days of pushing the heavy steel trucks around did the poly-kids miss out on?  How much muscle mass were they short changed on due to the lighter weight trucks.  Damn!  It's all Hasbro's fault again!  JMT (blessed be his name) designed a truck that was forged from metal and wood!  Those trucks required boys with muscles of steel to use them.

The poly-truck kids missed out and while they may look upon the metal Tonka with a somewhat indifferent attitude, they still secretly want one.  If for no other reason than because their grandfather had one. (production note: point out Eric's love of the 1908 due to the fond memories he has of the event that goes with his.)

Of course there are some exceptions to this metal-truck v. poly-truck rule, such as our resident GOF, but we're not certain he was ever a child anyway...


 


Projectile delivery systems.  As long as they fit your hand and work when required, why does the rest matter?  If the "Men's Department" of the Navy wants to carry the 1911, then they should do so.  Most of their other gear is retro, so why blow the look of the ensemble with something that so obviously doesn't go with their outfits?

Dog gone but I think you may have hit on it! And I STILL have my metal trucks. I thought my kid would find them almost as neat as I did, but no such luck. I have a 4-locomotive American Flyer train set in the basement, complete with 6 sets of paired electric switches and one manual set, 2 x-crosses, a metal tunnel, a mail delivery stand, and other stuff. Haven't had it out of the boxes for at least 25 years, but ONE day...

I THINK the Marine Corps has arrived into the early 20th century. I certainly recollect being issued Deuce gear on arrival in-country, which I politely declined and found a stolen Army frame pack. Seems the whole Marine Corps that was deployed had found the same source I did, as I didn't see a single set of deuce gear in my platoons. So obviously the Army was also supplying the MC - and didn't even know it.

Eric makes his usual, and well spoken, defense of poly guns. So let's take up a few of his comments.

Calibre. We talk endlessly about SD calibres. We have all come to agree that it needs to go "BANG" when you pull the little stick. Today's choices of loads is extensive and MOST of them perform quite adequately - for a handgun. They peal open, bust glass, go through car doors, create decent wound channels, and overall do - OK. The military is constrained, constipated, whatever. They keep sticking to this anciet and revered thing called the Geneva Convention, wherein you only are allowed to have FMJ bullets. With that in mind, there is NO SUBSTITUTE for a .45 cal 230 gr FMJ. Certainly not a 9x19 115 gr FMJ, or a 124 gr FMJ - or any other 9x19 FMJ you would care to quote.

Poly guns. Nice idea, great designs, good carry out. Problem is that when you whack a guy over the head with a Block, it tends to have the slide come off the frame. It is not a particularly good item for pounding makeshift tent pegs into the ground. You can't really drive a nail into a board or anywhere else with it. Like the old SAA in the 19th century, a pistol performs a number of tasks out in the field - none of which you would dream of doing back in "the world". You need a steel frame. Poly is certainly lighter, but you would then lose any benefits of the weight reduction by having to carry a tool kit to make up for its other uses. And, yes, I carried a Camillus pocket knife and it WAS more useful than my K-Bar - but you never saw me without both.

Detail stripping. Yup, the Block has fewer parts. ?Would I like to have a military detail stripping one because of its ease. Maybe a couple times, after which I would seriously worry about the pins being too lose in the poly and disappearing on me when I needed them. Gun maybe NOT go "BOOM" when I pull the little stick. It was a serious issue with out old M16's - to the point we had a general order issued NOT to detail strip those puppies because of that problem. The pins in a 1911 are such that they are covered by stuff so they can be loose and not fall out. Nice design. Sigs are nice steel guns, well made, highly functional, etc. But you need a punch to take them apart. ?What do you use to take the grip screws off - no sear spring to get those puppies. I admit I DIDN'T take the grip bushings off, but then I whine that they were staked in anyway. I truly don't have any idea about Berettas. They were kind of after my time - by then I had moved to the AF, where one learns about a chip shot, not a head shot, as part of officer training. (Har, har - Eric!)

There is a timelessness about the 1911. There is a functionality - at least for the military. I realize that they have stepped away from it, and I really don't want to get into huge arguments about that. For me there is a nostalgia about them, and there always will be. I love the feel in the hand. I compare any other grip to that. I enjoy how they function. It IS a bit like SAA's - there were many that loved those old guns well after S&W introduced a truly modern and highly functional DA sixgun. Took a while for old western lawmen to warm to the "new fangled" stuff. But eventually change comes. I await something more functional and rational to replace the AR - that bolt locking system is "interesting" but it just isn't what I would do for a rifle that has to go anywhere and shoot.

[NS2]

I THINK the Marine Corps has arrived into the early 20th century.

Sure, but...it's the 21st century now.

Cheer up, they're only 11 years behind the curve.

[Devereaux]

I THINK the Marine Corps has arrived into the early 20th century.

Sure, but...it's the 21st century now.

Cheer up, they're only 11 years behind the curve.

I THINK you may have to send a memo to the Commandant - not sure the MC has recognized the 21st century. After all, they still believe in thing like honour, trust, responsibility, courage, and manhood. ?You see any of that about today (except in specific little pockets).

[BikerRN]

I THINK you may have to send a memo to the Commandant - not sure the MC has recognized the 21st century. After all, they still believe in thing like honour, trust, responsibility, courage, and manhood. ?You see any of that about today (except in specific little pockets).

Bravo!

Sadly I find your assessment to be spot on mate.

Biker

[NS2]

I THINK the Marine Corps has arrived into the early 20th century.

Sure, but...it's the 21st century now.

Cheer up, they're only 11 years behind the curve.

I THINK you may have to send a memo to the Commandant - not sure the MC has recognized the 21st century. After all, they still believe in thing like honour, trust, responsibility, courage, and manhood. ?You see any of that about today (except in specific little pockets).

Touche'

I yield to you Sir!!!

[Devereaux]

Whee! ?Can I take off my vest and asbestos suit now.

[Gandalf]

While I agree with Eric that shot placement is more important than caliber, I'd have to say if that was the case we'd all carry .22s as self defense weapons.

Caliber DOES have bearing on the conversation.  In addition, as Devereaux pointed out, the military is limited to FMJ loads, hollowpoints are not allowed.  I'm willing to bet that Eric isn't packing his Glock 19 with white box FMJ ball ammo.

Eric also complained about mass production specs, how the 1911 "rattled", etc.  This is contrary to the fact that you can walk into any gun store and pick up an off the shelf 1911 from any number of manufacturers that are mass produced and function fine.  You don't need to take that Springfield 1911 (or colt, or taurus (gasp) or any other 1911 maker) to some custom gunsmith and have them do a $3,000.00 makeover to have them function.  They work perfectly well out of the box as much as any Glock or XD.

Personally I'd rather have our military outfitted with .45s regardless of it's design over the 9MM, simply because of it's restrictions on ammo choice.  Going away from the .45 was a huge mistake to begin with.  If the military decides on adopting a M&P in .45 ACP, good for them.  Anything but the 9MM ball ammo.  If they want to keep with a 1911 platform simply because of tradition, fine.  There's nothing wrong with keeping to tradition, and there's nothing wrong with the 1911 design and modern manufacturing techniques.

[Eric R Shelton]

Again I'll repeat (for those who seem to have missed it) that NATO spec 9mm is not SAAMI spec 9mm.  The only thing a .45 FMJ buys you over a 9mm FMJ is about 2mm in diameter.  These arguments that a .45 performs so much better make me want to run and tell everybody killed by a 9mm "Get up!  It was just a 9mm!  You're not really dead!"  You can miss with both, you can hit with both, and what you hit is up to you.  "Indian, not the arrow", etc.

Sheesh, how did it get overlooked that I pointed out that was a digression in response to Biker and that I like the idea of a .45, anyway?

I grew up with a metal Tonka, btw.

Please keep in mind that everything I said about the 1911 was specifically in regard to it as mass-issued service weapon.  Dev makes the argument about poly gun pins coming loose and maybe the gun not working...  Seriously, the Glock has been around 25 years.  I think the little pins are de-bugged technology.  But ANY poly gun is more serviceable en masse.  And the parts are cheap and plentiful.  They're also far more durable and reliable.  (It strikes me as akin to clinging to carburetors despite the advantages of fuel injection.)

The argument that begins to be made for the 1911 is it's "timelessness".  I'm not arguing that.  It's a great gun.  I'm just glad that the admission of nostalgia came soon after.   The 1911 is not a bad gun.  It is a great gun.  I have carried one for personal protection and will again in the future.  That does not mean it's a great field gun for mass issue.  That's like saying a Honda Civic Si can keep up with a Corvette Z06, cause they're both the fast versions.  Different missions require different tools.

Considering a 1911 for issue to troops in the face of the M&P 45, HK45, and FNP-45 is a remarkably foolish notion.  Again I'll point out cost vs. MIM, and simply say that the 1911 holds no advantage over a poly gun to justify it's insanely higher cost.  (Note I didn't suggest a Glock in .45, because I don't believe the G21 performs as well as those listed above.  This isn't Glock vs. 1911.  This is a realistic discussion about the suitability of certain guns for service issue.)

Gandalf, if you really think an off-the-shelf 1911 performs as well as any poly gun, no offense, but you don't shoot as much as you think you do.  Ask Chris Christian or Jon Hodoway or James Yeager what the relative failure rates they witness are.  Ask about round counts.  Ask Hilton Yam about his 1911 maintenance.  For the record, I didn't complain about the old 1911s being rattle traps- if anything I was trying to convey that an old rattletrap is the only 1911 I would trust in field conditions.  But guess what?  They don't make 'em that way anymore...

[Chris]

Just a thought from a old guy who spent a number of years as a Navy Small Arms Instructor training sailors on the 1911. The single action mechanism, and correct manual of arms, was beyond the comprehension of those sailors that only fired one once a year, but may have been called upon to carry one on duty (Quarterdeck Watch, ASROC Security, etc). There were accidents when transfering a gun between one watch stander and another. I remember a memorable round that sailed somewhere over Naples harbor one night when the mid-watch sailor (who got to actually shoot the gun about once a year, but carried one much more frequently) was showing clear and transferring the gun to his relief. I do believe that the Beretta M9 (DA first shot with decock lever) is easier to train the "casual" military shooter with. And, many military types (in any service branch) are just casual shooters. They just don't get the exposure to the platform on a basis regular enough to become totally familiar with it. That does not apply to the more elite units. They get the time, and rounds down range. The SEALs I trained had lotsa ammo and time, as did the nuclear weapons security/response teams I trained and sometimes lead. Time and training was the factor there.
I won't argue with the effectiveness of a 230 grain .45 ACP ball load over a 9mm NATO load. It does work better, and until the Hague Conventions are modified to allow the carrying of expanding ammo, the 45 still rules. But, for "general" troop issue there are better platforms than the 1911.
Chris Christian

[daemonpi]

(It strikes me as akin to clinging to carburetors despite the advantages of fuel injection.)

It's interesting that you bring that up, since the advantage of the poly gun is much the same as the advantage of fuel injection: weight, and interestingly enough training time requirements (I speak in generalizations of course).  Much like the poly gun training regimen, the time required to train a new person how to reprogram a fuel injector is minimal, one just needs the computer to read and reprogram.  But for the same reason people like steel guns people also like carburetors, the ability to tweak.  The difference in accuracy betwixt the twain is much like the difference in fuel economy: negligible (as fuel economy has much more to do with vehicle weight and driving pattern).  The difference in reliability is much the same as well: steel guns and carburetors both rattle out of the box and require a little tinkering to work well, whereas poly guns and fuel injectors are plug and play.  But I digress.

[BikerRN]

Again I'll repeat (for those who seem to have missed it) that NATO spec 9mm is not SAAMI spec 9mm.  The only thing a .45 FMJ buys you over a 9mm FMJ is about 2mm in diameter.  These arguments that a .45 performs so much better make me want to run and tell everybody killed by a 9mm "Get up!  It was just a 9mm!  You're not really dead!"  You can miss with both, you can hit with both, and what you hit is up to you.  "Indian, not the arrow", etc.

Sheesh, how did it get overlooked that I pointed out that was a digression in response to Biker and that I like the idea of a .45, anyway?

I grew up with a metal Tonka, btw.

Please keep in mind that everything I said about the 1911 was specifically in regard to it as mass-issued service weapon.  Dev makes the argument about poly gun pins coming loose and maybe the gun not working...  Seriously, the Glock has been around 25 years.  I think the little pins are de-bugged technology.  But ANY poly gun is more serviceable en masse.  And the parts are cheap and plentiful.  They're also far more durable and reliable.  (It strikes me as akin to clinging to carburetors despite the advantages of fuel injection.)

The argument that begins to be made for the 1911 is it's "timelessness".  I'm not arguing that.  It's a great gun.  I'm just glad that the admission of nostalgia came soon after.  The 1911 is not a bad gun.  It is a great gun.  I have carried one for personal protection and will again in the future.  That does not mean it's a great field gun for mass issue.  That's like saying a Honda Civic Si can keep up with a Corvette Z06, cause they're both the fast versions.  Different missions require different tools.

Considering a 1911 for issue to troops in the face of the M&P 45, HK45, and FNP-45 is a remarkably foolish notion.  Again I'll point out cost vs. MIM, and simply say that the 1911 holds no advantage over a poly gun to justify it's insanely higher cost.  (Note I didn't suggest a Glock in .45, because I don't believe the G21 performs as well as those listed above.  This isn't Glock vs. 1911.  This is a realistic discussion about the suitability of certain guns for service issue.)

Gandalf, if you really think an off-the-shelf 1911 performs as well as any poly gun, no offense, but you don't shoot as much as you think you do.  Ask Chris Christian or Jon Hodoway or James Yeager what the relative failure rates they witness are.  Ask about round counts.  Ask Hilton Yam about his 1911 maintenance.  For the record, I didn't complain about the old 1911s being rattle traps- if anything I was trying to convey that an old rattletrap is the only 1911 I would trust in field conditions.  But guess what?  They don't make 'em that way anymore...

Eric, without getting into a urination contest I will just state that some of us are fully aware that 9mm NATO is "hotter" than SAMMI spec, but it's still a poodleshooter. Poodle Shooting is fine for the French, but the Men's Department of the Navy does more than shoot poodles. History and tradition is something to be respected, revered, and honored. Things become old for a reason, they work!

Now there is a wrinkle in the paper, so to speak. It's that the 9mm round travelling at 1350 fps is a very effective load when the projectile is a JHP. The thing is however, it's a 9mm bullet, for conversation purposes, but traveling at .357 Magnum velocities, which it was designed to mimic. That's the 357 SIG round. It's not always size, speed, or what not. It's a combination of all three with a blessing of luck. The .45 ACP just seems to eliminate some of that need for luck, which is fickle.

The .38 caliber handgun was proven ineffective a long time ago when loaded to military spec, yet those who didn't study history went and repeated that mistake again when they selected a round designed for Cooks, Bakers, and Typist. The 9mm is actually even smaller than the .38 caliber round, .355 versus .357. It didn't work then, and from what I see it's not working so good now when compared to the .45 ACP. There's a fella that has posted the average number of rounds, depending on caliber, that you will statistically have to shoot an offender to effect a stop. His name is Jim Higganbotham, and I do listen when he speaks.

Granted, with judicious selection of ammunition, the 9mm may work quite well, but the .45 ACP will never shrink. I happen to be a fan of big holes, and if I could manage it I'd use nothing but a 12 Guage Slug, as that's what I consider a decent sized hole maker. Given that the military is constipated, in regards to ammunition selection, it only makes sense in my mind to use the .45 ACP, and many of us have found the 1911 the best platform for doing that. Heck even SWMBO likes ol' slabsides compared to various other doublestack bullet luanching systems.

I don't think the 1911 is a good general issue to the troops weapon for law enforcement, but it is worthy of consideration for the military given that they routinely carry hammer down on an empty chamber. The guns I have had the least issues with have been 1911's and P35's. My Glock 36 has had more failures than all my 1911's combined over the years. The Glock 19 has even had a few, but I got those issues fixed. There is no man made item that won't fail at some point.

Given the conditions that combat entails it is entirely conceivable that a handgun may be used as a bludgeon. Heck my Brother had to use his malfunctioning revolver one time as a bludgeon being that his gun wouldn't function as a firearm that night. The Model 28 S&W Revolver is pretty good for beating a miscreant about the head and shoulders with, let alone driving tent stakes. It's entirely possible, heck likely, that a Grunt will use a tool, which the 1911 is, in a manner that it wasn't designed for. Come over some time and I'll show you how to open beer bottles with the 1911. I'll bet you can't do that with your plastic gun, huh?  

Plastic guns are nice for loaning to other people, but steel has it's place.

Biker