Why Get Rid of the Colt 1911??

What I am really pissed off about is that America's Army replaced their sidearm from the Colt 1911 .45 ACP to the Beretta 9mm!! The Colt fires a .45 round that is FAR more powerful than the pussy 9mm round, yet they still replace it with the Beretta 9mm? They must be pritty stupid to do such a thing!! If they wanted to kill a man, why replace a gun that fires a more powerful with one that fires a less powerful one?? I mean sure a beretta can hold more rounds in a magazine, but the colt can still hold a fair amount (7 shots, 8 at the absolute maximum) and the .45 ACP is more powerful that the 9mm, so the colt is pritty well off...

If anyone can give me some idea why they changed this great designed gun (Colt 1911) for a less powerful and not as well designed gun (Beretta 9mm).... I would be greatful

Originally posted by The_Squid
What I am really pissed off about is that America's Army replaced their sidearm from the Colt 1911 .45 ACP to the Beretta 9mm!! The Colt fires a .45 round that is FAR more powerful than the pussy 9mm round, yet they still replace it with the Beretta 9mm? They must be pritty stupid to do such a thing!! If they wanted to kill a man, why replace a gun that fires a more powerful with one that fires a less powerful one?? I mean sure a beretta can hold more rounds in a magazine, but the colt can still hold a fair amount (7 shots, 8 at the absolute maximum) and the .45 ACP is more powerful that the 9mm, so the colt is pritty well off...

If anyone can give me some idea why they changed this great designed gun (Colt 1911) for a less powerful and not as well designed gun (Beretta 9mm).... I would be greatful

The term "kicks like a mule" comes to mind. The baretta is easier to shoot and has commonality with other NATO forces. The Marines do keep the 45 for special units. The 45 slug has a tendancy to go right through its target while the 9mm tumbles and shreads as it passes through.

I have shot a baretta but not a 45. The closes thing I have is a 44 magnum revolver. The recoil was awefull. THe springs in the automatic would eat some of that up, but it still must be pretty bad.

I HAVE shot a colt .45 and saw a beretta being shot, the recoil for a .45 isnt very bad... a .45 makes a bigger hole and would go straight through a human body and tear massive holes in any organs that got in the way, therefore being more powerful, the kick isnt bad either. The reason you would consider it to is that you shot a .44 MAGNUM, magnum meaning they stuff lots of extra gunpowder in it. The Colt is very durable and beautifly crafted, I am lucky enough to own one.

I know why they are doing this female soldiers they have to make weapons less powerful because the girls complain it well they should not be in the army if they cant take the recoil of a .45 they did this with the police in the US too.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I know why they are doing this female soldiers they have to make weapons less powerful because the girls complain it well they should not be in the army if they cant take the recoil of a .45 they did this with the police in the US too.

Where did you hear that line of crap from? I know plenty of women who have shot .45's and they never had a problem with it. I have never heard of that as a reason for switching weapons.

As stated above the reason that we are switching to the Baretta is so that we have commonality with our NATO allies. It was a political decision.

It has more to do with weight. The M-9 weighs two pounds less than the M-1911, but two pounds makes a big difference when talking about pistols.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't an M-9 carry more ammo than an M-1911?

well that would be COMPLETE bull since the Colt 1911 i have weighs 2 and a HALF pounds, and NO gun is that light. What ive heard is that beretta said they would give the goverment funding if they changed weapons from Colt to Beretta

although i am anything but PC, i dont think the female thing was valid at all.
i have seen plaenty of male soldiers that flinched shooting the M9. products of the nintendo generation.

this is something talked about by soldiers all the time, and no one really knows, at least not at our level. best i can figure out, its a combination of most of the obvious reasons. lighter, nato spec., less recoil, more ammo capacity. the main reason the trials were done was the nato spec. thing.

by the way, did y'all know that in the actual trials, Sig actually beat the beretta, but the beretta was eventually favored for its price. Sig wouldnt bid low enough.

Yeah i did, Glock-15 is also very durable and consistant. The .45 however has the stoping power for a 1 shot kill... the 9mm if ur lucky is 1 shot... but usualy take 2 shots to bring a man down (we're assuming torso shots here) So in my weapon of choice I would take the Colt as MY sidearm. I dont know about the rest of the soldiers in the armies

Let me count my personal reasons:

1) Magazine capacity - 15 rounds vs 8
2) Weight - the Berreta 92 (Millitary M9) is lighter than the 1911 it replaces
3) Accuracy - the 92 is fantastically accurate weapon for military issue
4) Recoil - While I personally like the 45, the 9mm is a much easier gun to shoot for both men and women.
5) Having the common 9mm rounds is definately a plus

I certainly agree that the 45 has it's place - and the US continues to use them and issue them to poeple who they would benefit (mainly special forces). However, IMO the 9mm is a much better choice for the vast majority of the armed forces. And yes, I realize there are a lot of custom 1911's that are extremely accuratte and/or light - but they are not practical for mass issue.

the Colt .45 isnt THAT heavy i mean sure it might weigh just a bit over the comfortable point... but it really isnt that bad... 15 shots that arnt very powerful to 7-8 shots that are very powerful... and why dont all NATO coutries use the .45 ACP its a very good round and is used in other pistols too... take the SOCOM for example. The Colt 1911 is very accurate when trained in its use aswell.

maybe that's not why the military changed it but that is why the police changed it in the US.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
maybe that's not why the military changed it but that is why the police changed it in the US.

Ummm...well, it was mainly due to hand size being smaller rather than recoil (and what you percieve as women with less strength). Also the ammo is cheaper and easier to get (especially in foriegn countries). More capacity in a 9mm over a .45 ACP (although custom clips can give you more like 10+1 rounds of .45 in my Sig Sauer, in the same size as a 7 round clip) and 9mm is also less fatal than the .45. Rather than a huge hole, they are smaller and easier to patch up but usually require the double-tap anyway.

Originally posted by The_Squid
the Colt .45 isnt THAT heavy i mean sure it might weigh just a bit over the comfortable point... but it really isnt that bad... 15 shots that arnt very powerful to 7-8 shots that are very powerful... and why dont all NATO coutries use the .45 ACP its a very good round and is used in other pistols too... take the SOCOM for example. The Colt 1911 is very accurate when trained in its use aswell.

The .45 ACP is a fine weapon, no one will dispute that. But also don't overestimate the power difference between the two. Although the 9 MM is obviosly a smaller round (.357 cal), with the +P and +p+ rounds (which are used by the military) it has much greater cyclinder pressures. All in all, the average high power 9mm has near the muzzle energy of a .45 ACP (or even more). Yes it makes a smaller hole going in - but that doesn't stop the .357 Magnum (exact same bullet size) from being quite effective.

I would much rather have 16 rounds than 8+1 (or 10+1) of a more powerful round any day of the week. (in a combat environment - sitting at home where I'm quite sure 5 or 6 would do I might change my mind)

The 9mm is smaller than the .357 its smaller than the .32!! Its VERY small conpared with the .45 if u got the 2 cases you wud see that the 9mm fits easily inside the .45 and has plently of room to move around. Therefore its MUCH smaller than it (it IS smaller than a .32) so it cant be as powerful... and why does the amount of bullets matter? if u have 7/8 very powerful rounds... then thats 7/8 people dead. If you have 15 not so powerful rounds... well god knows how many people dead, you cant tell, it could take upto 3 9mm's to kill sombody!

Gotta love that 45!! I plan on getting one soon. The conversion to 9mm the world over leaves alot of 45's on the surplus market.

yay, finally sombody who agrees with me! The Colt 1911 DOES rule doesnt it!

The 1911 is, like all handguns, difficult to shoot well. It is complex in it's operation, has many controls, and in the hands of the untrained the chance of a stupid bang is relatively high.

That said, it is still the preferred weapon of persons who know. There is no better fighting handgun, anywhere. The .45 ACP round is still the biggest hole for something you can conveniently carry in your pocket.

Still, the issue is not what the gun can do, but what the user can do. This is a pistoleer's (sp-1?) gun, designed from the ground up to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to function, to work, and to go band when you squeeeeeze the trigger. However, if the user is not up to the job, then the firearm will not save them.

And that brings us to TRAINING. You must, must, must shoot the thing to know the thing. Ross Seyfried won the Worlds in 1987(?) with an old, worn-out 1911A1, not because he's an outstanding shot (although he is), but because he knew precisely where the gun shot and all its quirks.

He knew this because he shot the thing regularly.

Recoil, energy, weight, only-seven-rounds-in-the-mag; all these can be overcome and compensated for with training.

The choice for the man with one gun.

And besides, there is no such thing as an assault pistol.

Pistols are by definition DEFENSIVE tools.

We like to say that having a pistol gives you the opportunity to fight your way up to a bigger gun.

Personally, in a combat sit or in my home, where social work takes on a very different meaning, the Remington 870 is my choice first, last, and always.

But that's another story...

Originally posted by The_Squid
The 9mm is smaller than the .357 its smaller than the .32!! Its VERY small conpared with the .45 if u got the 2 cases you wud see that the 9mm fits easily inside the .45 and has plently of room to move around. Therefore its MUCH smaller than it (it IS smaller than a .32) so it cant be as powerful... and why does the amount of bullets matter? if u have 7/8 very powerful rounds... then thats 7/8 people dead. If you have 15 not so powerful rounds... well god knows how many people dead, you cant tell, it could take upto 3 9mm's to kill sombody!

The bullet size (what really matters) is the exact same size as the .357 (or .38 Special) what matters is the powder charge and cylinder pressures. In fact, the .357 Magnum could easily have a smaller case than the .38 Special - it was made larger to prevent cross-loading. This does not mean it would be less powerful.

Here are some muzzle energies:
9mm +p Cor-bon (115gr JHP) : 466 ftlbs (not even a +P+!!)
9mm (115gr JHP,Winchester) : 383 ftlbs (not even a +p)
45 ACP Cor-bon (230gr JHP) : 461 ftlbs (+p)
45 ACP (185gr HP,Winchester): 411 ftlbs

Just for comparison:

357 Magnum (125gr JHP) : 584 ftlbs (Corbon as well)
357 Magnum (158gr JHP, Win.): 535 ftlbs
38 Special (125gr JHP,Win. +P): 248 ftlbs
32 Auto (Cor-bon 60gr JHP) : 150 ftlbs
357 Sig (125gr JHP, Win. : 506 ftlbs (.40 S&W necked down to 9mm)

Yes, muzzle energies are not everything - but they are very important. And they show the realitavely small power difference between the 2 cartrdiges..