Is the M45 really a good idea?

[Heritagefan]

Now that makes a difference to me.

If they are already using a 1911 sidearm and want to continue, then fine.   If they were going from the Berretta to a .45 caliber, then I think they should check all options available.

[BikerRN]

Hi Eric,

I just listened to your latest podcast, and while not trying to have an argument with you, I do want to add a few points that I think are relevant.

The 1911 has served in an environment similar to the one we find our troops in now. I think North Africa would qualify as being similar. Granted the 1911's used in North Africa were what was referred to as the "Rattletrap". However, at the time they were being used in that location they were newer, and I would venture to say probably not as much of a "Rattletrap" as they became after seeing 75-100 years of use. The "Rattletrap" came to be because of usage, not because it was designed that way.

I think it would be interesting to see if Colt has changed their slide to frame fit on a Government Model, if they made one to Mil-Spec. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. As for the agency that gave up their 1911's, that has the appearance of impropriety at this point. Also, please note, it wasn't a 1911, but a shortened pseudo 1911. As you noted in your podcast, the 1911 was designed as a 5" gun.

As for nostalgia, yes there is some. I don't find that to be a bad thing. "Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it." You make the point that the 1911 isn't in demand by the guys over in the sandbox right now, and only those that served in another time period, or never served, hold the 1911 dear. Gee, I think it is the Marines currently serving that are asking for the 1911, or something suitable for combat that is better than what they currently have.

Part of what makes the 1911 so great is it's adaptability. It can be adapted to be a BBQ Gun, Race Gun, Duty Gun, Home Protection Gun, and just about anything else you would design a handgun for short of being a Revolver or Hide-Out gun. That is part of what makes it a good issue gun for the troops. I do think however that the training needs to be improved, but then you can never have too much training IMO. Granted seven or eight rounds may be light in the ammo department, but I don't find Mr. Higginbotham's findings to be all that flawed.

If we go with the premise that you shoot until the threat is down, and it takes two to three hits with a .45 ACP and five to eight hits with a 9mm to stop a threat, given that you shoot until the threat is down. I would venture that the .45 ACP is more effective, given that you have to shoot less to effect the same result as the 9mm firing twice as many rounds. In porportion they each have roughly the same capacity, with a slight edge going to the .45 ACP. The 1911 holds eight rounds, and the 9mm holds sixteen rounds. 8/3 = 2.6. 16/8 = 2.0, (Rounds in Gun / Number of Rounds to Effect Stop).

So, one fully loaded 1911 can handle, on average, two point six targets. One fully loaded 9mm can handle two point zero targets. Given the ergonomics of the 1911, when compared to most doublestack 9mm handguns, I find that most shooters can shoot the 1911 faster with a slight difference in accuracy results that favor the 1911. If one moves to a 9mm 1911, which I agree is not a wise choice, IMHO, then I would venture to say they will shoot faster and more accurately than the .45 counterpart.

This is sort of a two edged battle here, as one deals with caliber and the other deals with the luanching platform. You think the 1911 needs an Armorer in tow to keep it running, I disagree. If a soldier or Marine can keep an AR running then they have the technical capability to keep a 1911 running in the field until a major parts breakage or time for a rebuild. I would also venture that a properly maintained and lubricated 1911 will function in a combat environment. I've run more than 200 rounds through my gun without issues, or cleaning. If the troops are running their AR's dirty and wet they can do the same with the 1911.

History, here's that nostalgia again, has shown that larger bullets tend to be more effective at putting down the threat unless certain things are changed. Either the bullet design has to be changed, or the velocity of the bullet travelling has to be changed. Look at the current troops scrounging all the .308 Win/7.62x51 calibered rifles they can get their hands on. You can change the bullet to get better results with the smaller caliber, but if you change the smaller bullet wouldn't it make sense to change the larger bullet too and reap the rewards?

I don't think the 1911 is as deficient as some think it is, but that may be a generational thing. I was raised by a Daddy that fought on Okinawa and Peleliu. Others came of age in the polymer pistol era. That's not an insult, just an observation of fact. It's as if, to some degree, it's a generational thing.

Good podcast, and I enjoyed it.   I may not agree with everything, but we'd be pretty boring if we agreed with each other all the time. We'll have to go shoot my .375 H&H when it comes in.   It has mild recoil IMHO.

Biker

[Devereaux]

Let me add a few comments to Biker's.

?What precisely is the point of a military handgun. There are only a few.

- As a "weapon" for those who don't usually take part in the primary effort of combat. So officers either in primary combat units or in staff positions.

- As a Back-up weapon for someone who has a different primary weapon. So machine guners, mortar men. We had M-79 men, but today that role is taken by a rifleman with a grenade launcher under the barrel, so a back up weapon isn't really needed.

- In certain specialized units. Here there is often a use for a suppressed weapon, and in this case a .45 ACP is a better choice than a 9mm since it is already a subsonic round, whereas one would need specialized subsonic ammunition in 9mm (and we all know that isn't particularly effective stuff).

- For personnel such as MP's, prison guards, etc.

In some of these usages there isn't much actual use of the weapon, while in others there would be substantially more. But weapons are recycled in the military, so durability and long life are other considerations. And in the military there generally IS a lot of use over the life of a weapon, in practice, qualification, field use, etc. Poly guns have an inherent weakness - when they "wear out" your only recourse is toss them. Not so with a steel-framed weapon. So, without going to 1911's, the list narrows for choice.

[NS2]

I'm pretty sure it's, "This is my RIFLE..."

Handguns are inefficient tools which do not meet the mission requirements of the US fighting man. That being close with and kill the enemy.

Arguing about which handgun is right for GENERAL ISSUE, is pointless.  Follow Mr. Hamilton's point here. The high speed guys know what they want, have the budgets to get the right tools and possess the skills to deploy them effectively. 

I'm not sure there is any benefit to them in our opinions.

[Devereaux]

....I'm not sure there is any benefit to them in our opinions.

+1! As if they're even listening.

OTOH these kinds of discussions can be "fun" even if they aren't full of meaning. Some times one gets to lighten up and not have a "lesson in life".

[NS2]

I tried that with my Tonka analogy.  Didn't work.

Back to comedy school with me it is then!   

[BikerRN]

I tried that with my Tonka analogy.  Didn't work.

Back to comedy school with me it is then!   

Nah, you don't need to go back to comedy school.

I just need to loosen the waistband on my Under-Roos. 

Biker

[stickhauler]

I'll offer my perspective, even if I wasn't asked to. My understanding of the use of a pistol of any kind for combat troops was to use either to get to a rifle, or for use after all other options had failed.

My time playing army was as an 11C10, a mortar man, with both 81 MM & 4.2" mortars, and our issue weapon for all in the crew except ammo bearers was the 1911. As such, I grew to know that famed pistol quite well, tore it completely down usually daily to clean and maintain it. It ain't all that hard to do. And in my experience, training new troops in the use and care of it wasn't a huge challenge either.

I'd have rather had the old M-1 Carbine over the plastic Mattel rifle they issued us in Vietnam, really I'd have rather had a Garand, but those were in short supply in my unit. Because somehow, going to that school to learn how to drop a round in a big old pipe didn't get me a job doing that over there, they decided in their opinion, I was better suited to walk through Elephant grass and mud and get shot at by short gentlemen.

But I digress, the old 1911 has done her job well for years, and I'm sure Uncle Sam can find a boatload of parts to maintain it. Though we didn't have a trained armorer in each squad, we learned enough to keep it shooting when needed. Plastic guns have no soul. I own some, even carry them for a daily carry gun. I agree, the 1911 is a load on your hip, but somehow back then I wasn't all that concerned about how much it weighed. It was a lot lighter than my pack.

[Eric R Shelton]

The 1911 has served in an environment similar to the one we find our troops in now. I think North Africa would qualify as being similar. Granted the 1911's used in North Africa were what was referred to as the "Rattletrap". However, at the time they were being used in that location they were newer, and I would venture to say probably not as much of a "Rattletrap" as they became after seeing 75-100 years of use. The "Rattletrap" came to be because of usage, not because it was designed that way.

Are you really going to assert that the guns made back then were made the same way as now?  That they had a focus on making pistols with crazy tight lockup and 4.5 pound triggers?  Because that's crazy talk.  Yes, at lunch the other day you mentioned Hilton Yam's 1911 doing a sand test comparable to a poly gun.  And like I said then- show me a 1911 doing a sand test as well as a poly gun and I'll show you a $4,000 1911.  It's just not cost effective, and I'm shocked people are still arguing this tiny aspect of 1911 deployment as if it's valid.

As for nostalgia, yes there is some. I don't find that to be a bad thing. "Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it."

Studying history and adamantly demanding a 100-year old design hasn't been or can't improved upon are two totally different things.

Gee, I think it is the Marines currently serving that are asking for the 1911, or something suitable for combat that is better than what they currently have.

It was also a Marine decision to adhere to the M16A2 for as long as they did, initially doing CQB with 20" barrels.

Part of what makes the 1911 so great is it's adaptability. It can be adapted to be a BBQ Gun, Race Gun, Duty Gun, Home Protection Gun, and just about anything else you would design a handgun for short of being a Revolver or Hide-Out gun.

I never said any of that was untrue.

That is part of what makes it a good issue gun for the troops.

HOLY EXPLETIVE DELETED A BUNCH OF TIMES!    How many times do we have to go over cost and efficiency before this point sinks in?  Parts, armoring, training, reliability, and true parts swapping rather than smithing- poly takes the cake for field use every time.  Look at the 2,000 round challenge on M4Carbine.net and seriously tell me a 1911 is a good issue gun.  You're delusional.

If we go with the premise that you shoot until the threat is down, and it takes two to three hits with a .45 ACP and five to eight hits with a 9mm to stop a threat, given that you shoot until the threat is down.

That has nothing to do with time or rounds available.  You are literally skewing the available timeline and premise to make Mr. Higgenbotham's result fit.  That's not how objective reasoning functions, though.  We're supposed to look at available data to form a result- not decide on a conclusion than make the premise work around it.

You're also mixing and matching calibers vs. pistols.  Seriously.  Stop it.

This is sort of a two edged battle here, as one deals with caliber and the other deals with the luanching platform. You think the 1911 needs an Armorer in tow to keep it running, I disagree.

Hilton Yam thinks so, too.  And I'd wager he knows more about the 1911 than either of us.  Vickers and Hackathorn both love the 1911, but recognized the shortcomings enough to help HK make a better 230gr. launcher with the HK45...

I don't think the 1911 is as deficient as some think it is, but that may be a generational thing.

Just because a Formula 1 racer can't compete ina monster truck rally doesn't mean it's deficient.  The crux of this entire thread seems to stem from people unwilling to admit there may be a facet or purpose that the 1911 doesn't reign supreme in.  No one gun can be perfect for all things.

[BikerRN]

It was also a Marine decision to adhere to the M16A2 for as long as they did, initially doing CQB with 20" barrels.

Maybe those RIFLEMEN know something that the others don't, like the primary purpose and ability of a rifle and the man behind the trigger.

The point that seems to be missed is that at one time, way back when the guns were newer, they were tighter than the "rattletraps" you refer to today. My contention is that if you build a 1911 to military spec that is will function fine in combat conditions. I'm not talking about your $4,000 1911, but rather your <$1,000 GI Spec 1911 built true to spec. The 1911 is not some conundrum that only those blessed with enormous intelligence can operate. Heck even the dumbest recruit learns how to maintain his or her AR, and the 1911 is certainly less complicated than that.

I'll tell you what, since neither of us is going to convince the other, I'll stick to what I consider "real guns" made out of metal and you can have your plastic Tupperware. We can just agree to disagree and let those who carry the pistol in harm's way decide what will best suit their needs without either one of us giving our input on the matter. We will just sit back and see what they select.

Biker

[Kevin]

I'm not sure there is any benefit to them in our opinions.

WHAT? You mean, the guys that have to do this for real aren't listening to an old Air Force Wideband Radio Tech?... Their loss 

I tried that with my Tonka analogy.  Didn't work.

Back to comedy school with me it is then!   

Personally, from one old metal Tonka driver to another, I loved it.

Nah, you don't need to go back to comedy school.

I just need to loosen the waistband on my Under-Roos. 

Biker

I just quit wearing them altogether. Helped my attitude quite a bit
-Kevin

[Gandalf]

I'd also like to interject yet another tangent, after listening to Eric's podcast yesterday.

As background, I entered military service in 1978 (Air Force) as a security policeman (I know, I know, mall cops of the military).  Back then the service issue sidearm was the .38 caliber revolver.  Now, up to that point the only handgun I had fired in my life was my father's old single action Ruger .22 revolver.  I was familiar with a revolver's operation, loading, etc and was a decent shot with that old Ruger.

When I first tried using the .38, it sucked.  The grip was tiny and felt incredibly awkward in my hands. It felt more of a toy gun than my father's old Ruger.  I still managed to shoot and qualify expert with the firearm, but I hated it.  It wasn't the recoil.  It was how the grip was designed.  Some of the law enforcement guys even went to far as to go out and purchase aftermarket grips for their duty weapons.  I didn't bother since the .38 wasn't a firearm I'd normally be issued anyway.  Could I kill someone with it?  Sure.  Would I go out and buy one for myself?  Hell no.

Since then I've shot too many different handguns, both revolver and semi-auto, to count.  My favorite was a Colt Trooper .375 mag.  The grips were wonderful, and the gun was balanced very nicely.  The worst was a .44 mag.  Not because of the grips, but the recoil was just a bit too much to handle, even with an extended eye relief scope on top.  The guy that owned it had bought two .44 mag revolvers, nickle plated, 6" barrels, with scopes on them, sequential serial #s.  They were bad-assed looking guns and he probably dropped some serious cash on them.  But I wouldn't own one even if it was given to me.

Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is that I've shot just about every caliber handgun from just about every possible platform out there.  I'm certainly not a master shooter, but I am more than happy to try new (and old) firearms.  Some I've liked more than others.  But there's an aftermarket out there for replacement grips (for example) for a reason.  Can people adapt to shot any handgun?  Yes, but why should they, if they have a nearly infinite combination of platforms, calibers, grip angles, etc?  They should own a firearm they feel most comfortable with, not a firearm someone else tells them they should shoot.  People are unique.

[Eric R Shelton]

Maybe those RIFLEMEN know something that the others don't, like the primary purpose and ability of a rifle and the man behind the trigger.

Or maybe bureaucracy gets too mired in "that's the way we've always done it" to accept that times change and there are better tools for a job.

The point that seems to be missed is that at one time, way back when the guns were newer, they were tighter than the "rattletraps" you refer to today. My contention is that if you build a 1911 to military spec that is will function fine in combat conditions. I'm not talking about your $4,000 1911, but rather your <$1,000 GI Spec 1911 built true to spec. The 1911 is not some conundrum that only those blessed with enormous intelligence can operate. Heck even the dumbest recruit learns how to maintain his or her AR, and the 1911 is certainly less complicated than that.

Never, not once in this thread, have I made the argument that a person can't be trained on it.  My argument is that is not cost effective, too limited in capacity, and too maintenance intensive.  Points that nobody has effectively countered.

I'll tell you what, since neither of us is going to convince the other, I'll stick to what I consider "real guns" made out of metal and you can have your plastic Tupperware. We can just agree to disagree and let those who carry the pistol in harm's way decide what will best suit their needs without either one of us giving our input on the matter. We will just sit back and see what they select.

And rather than debate valid points logically, or simply admit a revered (and beautiful) century old design is no longer the best choice for one particular type of use, we get "real guns" vs. tupperware insult.  This is what makes it hard for younger guys to heed the good knowledge that some of the "old timers" do have- because we see them as stuck in their ways and not willing to examine something honestly beyond their own set of prejudices.  I think this is why Mas is so revered- he's a self-confessed gun slut and examines them for what they are and their intended purpose.  (Did you notice at MAG40 that he shot an M&P despite having a signature model 1911 from Ed Brown? )

Finally, those who go in harms way don't get to pick what best suits their needs.  Layers upon layers of government do that for them.

[Eric R Shelton]

It should be noted that while the HK45 or M&P 45 would be a far better choice for an issued service gun than a 1911, this is a bit like a midget standing on the shoulders of a giant.  Poly guns are 3' tall with a better view only due to the immense work put in by the giant that is JMB.

[Kevin]

Eric,
Maybe if you did a side by side, drag behind your truck comparison of a 1911 and a Glock... 
-Kevin, with absolutely nothing worthwhile to contribute...

[CarsonH.]

+1 for Eric. Hell +10 for Eric. He makes a darn good point.
Now let me wipe the brown off of my nose.

[Devereaux]

Finally, those who go in harms way don't get to pick what best suits their needs.  Layers upon layers of government do that for them.

Sadly, this may actually be the MOST important fact stated here. And the guys at the sharp end won't have a thing to say about it. (Except maybe the MC is just a schosh different - one can always hope.)

[NS2]

The ability to choose what you carry is earned.

Making it through assessment & selection is a good start.

[Jeffh]

If you can't get what you want, then make do. If you are issued an m9 and wish it where a 1911, just take most of the ammo out, cock the hammer, and presto!

[Devereaux]

If you can't get what you want, then make do. If you are issued an m9 and wish it where a 1911, just take most of the ammo out, cock the hammer, and presto!

Ahh! More Comedy Central aspirations here!