magnum would mean that they have put ALOT more gunpowder in it... therefore it WILL travel fast... and i know that velocities are important in damage factors

While in the service, I carried a Colt for many watches, and I even qualified for the marksmanship ribbon with the "E" for expert. I also own a small Firestar 9mm, so I think I can judge the difference between the two types pretty well.

The Colt is definately a defensive weapon. Beyond 20 yards, anybody but the most experienced shooter is gonna have a hell of a time hitting a target, especially a moving target. The gun does kick, but not substantially so. But the combination of heavy pistol weight, moderate kick, and low muzzle velocity makes the Colt not very accurate for the average user. What is does have is stopping power. The large round with lower muzzle velocity creates an incredible amount of kinetic energy transfer when you hit a person. Anybody hit by a 45 is going down on their butt - no doubt about that.

The problem is that in the services the current inventory of Colts are all pretty old. I once had a Gunner's Mate on my first ship show me a 45 he pulled out of the pistol locker that was manufactured in 1938. And it was still in use almost 50 years later. Some of these guns are just plain wearing out. Also, the magazines are so old that most of the time you can only put in 5 rounds, because anything more than that would wear out the spring in the clip, causing the gun to jam up due to rounds not coming up all the way.

The Colts still have their uses. I would definately want one if I were being bum-rushed by some knife wielding manic. However, I think the move over to the 9mm is way overdue....

P

i dont know why they are converting to a 9mm after all this time i just hope that spec ops still use the .45 cal because that gun is the best in my mind.

Most people can not shoot the .45 accurately. They plow dirt. That is one of the reasons. Another reason is that you can carry more .9mm ammo. I tend to think of the handgun as a last resort and would prefer to use the .45. One shot one kill. Using the .9mm you are trained to do a double tap or the israeli style one in the pelvis one in the gut and the other in the mid section. Not needed with the .45. But if most people can not hit the target than what difference does it make.

Listen Pyros, I dont want be disrespectful in anyway, because i respect anyone who has served in the armed forces. However, I own a Colt 1911 Colt Commander that was made not too long ago, and before the US army took them out of service they still made them, they might evens till make them! I can hit a target at 25 Meters, and im not the greatest pistol marksman in the world!! So as you can see... You might see the reason i have a different opinion.

I have shot both the Beretta 9mm and the Colt 45 Auto. Recoil in the 9 mm is more brisk than in the 45, akin to a jolt vs a shove. What it boils down to is: Would you rather get hit with 147 grains of copper/lead moving 1200 f/s or 230 grains copper/lead moving 850 f/s?

Back at the time of the first Army trials, they tested the 45 Auto vs a 9mm on live goats (try that today with the bunny huggers around). The 45 Auto managed to kill quicker and more reliably put the animal down than the 9mm. Handgun combat ranges being equal (about 20 yards), I'll take the 45. Remember: A handgun is a weapon you bring to a gunfight you didn't know was going to happen.

Indeed I own both but my constant companion is my Colt .45...I can hit a clay pigeon @ 40 meters and a running cat @ 20...LOL

never EVER go to a gunfight with a pistol whos first name dont start with 4

Altough I agree the 1911 is a pretty cool gun I have to agree with the change to 9mm. The main reason I can think of (correct me if i'm wrong) is that they dont really want to kill everything in sight. With 9mm more prisoners can be taken and, well lets face it the americans cant keep killing each other on the battlefield with friendly fire as easily.

Yes beef_spread i can see your point, however the pistol is used as a last resort. Like if you were in a firefight and your primary weapon jammed or ran out of ammo and you didnt have enough time to reload... So in effect you would only use it against a soldier that is likly to kill you, if a .45 ACP is going to bring him down in 1 shot I would prefer that to a 9mm who if you shot the target could keep going and shoot you.

The Beretta decision was a bad one. They should have chosen a Glock. The caliber is a factor (NATO) . The berettas are not holding up well, years ago the Navy replaced all their slides with aftermarket ones made by Phrobis ( the bayonet designer) when they discovered cracks in them. " You can;t be a Navy Seal if you haven't tasted Italian steel" , was coined after a slide failure occured in front of some Gov't officials opening a seals face when it did. The 9mm has superior range and recoils a bit less but, these are less important in a real pistol-range fight. I have a HK USP Tactical and I love it. The Socom is a bit too big. The 45 is nowhere near dead it is commonly carried by many who bet their life on it. And the 9mm overpenetrates not the 45 as someone stated.

Finally we have some Colt lovers in the room AS WELL as some Beretta lovers... now the debate can really begin =P

Any pistol when used in the armed forces would be used as a backup weapon... or to clear a house, neither requires far out acuracy (probally no more than 20 yards) so its the STOPPING POWER thats really important (Especially when clearing houses!!)

What is wrong with the Browning P-35? I fired it.Works very well.Hols 13 rounds of 9 millimetre.
The Beretta? I have heard some complaints about.And all those levers...

The Colt 1911 which fires .45 ACP rounds, which will usually deliver a 1 shot kill, and can hit things about 40 yards as sombody posted earlier... I can hit things with it at 25m, The 9mm can hit things about the same distance but is abit more accurate, the kick isnt as bad as the colt, but there isnt much difference... and the 9mm can take upto 3 shots to kill sombody, the SAS say that you will need at least 2 9mm rounds to bring a man down. The .45 ACP is so powerful and effective the Special forces are still issued with it. Also many people who realise how good it is would trust it with their life.

The Colt 1911 is also the AK-47 of the pistol world, its extreamly reliable, and well put together.

! think I am in love! Tell me more squid! The new .40's? I know the .45 is a manstopper.

I would love to have a model 1911 chambered for the .45 LONG COLT.

errrr... your in love with what?? may i ask? and the .40's are basicly 10mm rounds, these are fairly accurate and powerful for pistols, they dont kick as much as a .45 ACP, but still dont usually deliver 1 shot kills, they are closer to the 9mm than the .45 in that respect.

With the colt 1911 you have the peace of mind knowing you just have to shot at your enemy once and he will go down. With a 9mm you have to be exposed more to shoot 2-3 rounds to take him down. Also the Colt 1911 looks better than the Beretta.

thank you! lol, yay finally sombody see's my point of view =)

No,we have to standardize ammo.You forced the 5.56mm down everyone's throat.Now they are forcing the 9mm on you.
Good enough.Not perfect.

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.

Um, Bullcrap.

I was in the service when females were firing the .45 and they did fine.

The 'upgrade' was done just like everything else, say the 'upgrade' from the M-14 to the M-16. Lighter, faster, more dependable. Yeeeaaahhh...

By the way this subject is extremely old now.