Why Get Rid of the Colt 1911??

The .45 round is a better killer then the 9mm for one reason, it is bigger. It makes a bigger hole going in then the 9mm, thus more damage and more bleeding.

You will never get the velocity high enough, unless you go magnum for the bullet to expand or fragment inside it's target.

That said, the most important factor in stopping power is shot placement.

Then why NOT make it standard round?? .45 ACP and 5.56mm NATO or 7.62mm?? whichever they decide is a better round for killing.

Glocks new 45

Large magazine, modern tooling.

The round (bullet to some) is a tad different from the 1911 though
new round I suspect for reasons only known to Glock.

I agree with those that feel a 45 is a better defensive weapon than than the 9. I also agree with it being better offensively.

I have seen a few policemen with the new pistol and they like it.

I am quoting a Korea vet when I mentioned .45's and 357's.
"What?Do you want to blow his guts all over the place.Knock him through a wall??"
A combat vet.because you sometimes have clean up to do.

If you've fired both weapons you'd know why they replaced the M 1911.

Ye olde Colt .45 has a slide on it that kicks like Jet Li. While the 9mm has a much less powerful kickback. This allows someone without a lot of arm strength to pull off more shots and fatigues you less durring a firefight.

As for th bullet size, well the .45 was designed to stop someone cold in one hit. It's a nice thought but a well placed 9mm to the squishier parts does about the same.

Both are deadly weapons, both can probably be stopped pretty well by a trauma plate though so it really doesn't matter in a battlefield situation.

Ah well, give me a good Benelli MP 95 any day lol.

May Peace Travel With You
~Astral

I have a matched set of 1911A colt 45s that I have had and shot for over 30 years and I dont have any problem with the kick, it has a little but it hardly kicks like a mule.

I for one would rather have the 45 in any life and death situation.

That is where I can only have a pistol. Only in the movies does one man with a pistol take out a dozen men with assult rifles

[edit on 12-8-2004 by Amuk]

The 9mm is adequate for stopping power, double tap someone in the chest and they will go down.

Yes but this also allows the person your shooting at to shoot back at you because he wont go down as quickly. Also a 9mm will not do squat unless even the most weak body armor available a .45 will penetrate some forms of body armor. If cops are so weak that they cant shoot a .45 then they might as well be issued a slingshot for a weapon.

I have shot both and for me the 1911 wins hands down.

It might be personal preferince but none the less I like it much better.

It has less bullets but with it you dont need as many.

Some on else mentioned that it wasnt very accurate after 20 yards but most of the time a pistol is used at pretty much point blank range

One reason. NATO.

That would be the only one I could see IMO the 9mm is not even in the same leauge as the 45

Women are not the reason. Commonality with NATO is the reason. Furthermore, UNLIKE the 5.56 vs 7.62 debate, in this case the smaller bullet has sufficient killing power at realistic ranges to merit the choosing of a lighter and more compact munition. I might mention that very few troops are armed with 9mms anyway.

Women are a whole other issue for the military. In theory, segregated female combat units are a reasonable idea- especially as reserve units. The primary concern is discipline, and this is a concern which has been proven valid in Iraq. Women on extended deployments seem to get pregnant a lot- sometimes not of their own free will. Sexual distraction is the same reason we don't allow homosexuals in the military. It is a valid concern.

The secondary reason is that biologically speaking, women generally do not have as lean a body composition as men, as well as weaker bone structure, especially as they progress in age. This is of course a bad excuse in the current military, since minimum physical standards are 1/5 (or less) of what they should be.

Nice assessment, Vagabond.

I am usually leary of new cartridges for defensive arms. It is why I have focussed on the 9mm. It is an effective round (yes, I have read the thread, but the 9mm is the most widely used military and defensive round in the world and has been for about 75 years.) and it is cheap and widely available. This is especially important to those who like to practice a lot and who like to stockpile ammunition for those little emergencies. So, I was glad to see the new Glock .45 is available in the USA line.

On the other hand, it is nice when your caliber of choice has plenty of military surplus on the open market. In combat, "it is the hits that count."

the number one reaswon why, is cuz if your friend is standing directly behind the enemy and u shot the enemy not only would u kill the 'bad guy' you would also kil your friend.

America's army is already having trouble with friendly fire, this is simply to decrease friendly fire

I carry a Beretta .40 s&w. It uses the same frame as the 9mm it has almost the same stopping power as the 45 with much less kick.

A very good choice and this is reflected in the way the .40 cal. has swept law enforcement since its introduction.

I think women get a different version of the ceramic bulletproof vest. I may be wrong but i think they would need something a little more curved the DD's get in the way. Is this true or do i need to shut up?

The .45ACP is no better at pentrating body armour(and probably worst) when compared to 9mm. The larger diameter and slower speeds reduce it's pentrating capacity. In reality most pistol calibers are poor performers in the AP department, especially those with hard armour inserts.

The .45 caliber bullet will give a person more sting or more trauma when it hits their armor. The 9mm will not give as much of a kick to a person if they are wearing Body armor as the colt will.