Why Get Rid of the Colt 1911??

The colt doesnt kick very badly, and the 10mm definitly isnt as powerful as the .45ACP, the .45 wont over penintrate, the 9mm does. the 9mm will go through you because it has a higher velocity, the .45 does so it isnt as bad.

if it is the .45 cal you want,what is wrong with a .45 SIG or Glock?

I agree,that a modified 1911 can be a great gun,even target quality,but the design is so archaic.

Anyone know if the 9mm uses the new La Man bullet? I know several PDs including LAPD use the bullet for their swat team 9mm handguns.

Remember everyone, the size of the bullet does matter against kevlar and trauma plate in a way that most people don't think of: The reason that a normal (non magnum) .45 can be stopped by kevlar is because it hits more fibers than a smaller and faster (say 7.62mm) round. The same is true with ceramic or metallic trauma plates that are worn in urban combat by most forces.

I agree that the main reason to switch was NATO, it makes a lot of sense. I do remember hearing that there has been some movement in European militaries (mainly France and Germany) to move to a 10mm round for sidearms (probably the Glock 20 or Benelli ASCOM) so that could bring the whole point moot.

Now to all of you people who believe size matters most, you also need to remember that the main point of the sidearm is not to engage fully armed and armored enemy troops with (that's what the M16's for) but as a last resort weapon or for lighter combat (like what an MP may face) therefore it makes sense to switch to weapon more in line with what PDs use because the point more often than not is to disable not kill.

It's probably why the US didn't go with a bigger round like oh the .50AE round from the Israeli Desert Eagle. LOL

Interestingly, my girlfriend has a liking for the Colt .45, she actually likes the kickback. Well to each their own, I'll take a Glock 20 over the M1911 any day.

Peace
~Astral

The best round for law enforement is the .40 S&W, it's a nice all around package.

The best round for military is the 5.7x28mm. It doesn't kick, it slices through kevlar, and you can hold a lot of them.

Sure, maybe for taking out body armour a smaller bullet IS better... but how many armies out of the world ACTUALLY use body armour?? The iraqies dont!! Alot of other countries dont!! So from that point size matters! The .45ACP doesnt kick badly (unlike a .50) and still does alot of damage and is still accurate.

As for an assult rifle, I recon they should make one (if they havnt already) which is reliable (like the AK-47) and uses a 6.5mm bullet, since a 6.5mm bullet is one of the most accurate bullets you can find, and still does a fair bit of damage, since its bigger than the 5.56mm that is used in M-16s and SA-80s, and would be deadly accurate, powerful and reliable.

[edit on 13-8-2004 by The_Squid]

The assumption that the .45 ACP is more powerful than the 9mm is a bit vague. Technically speaking, the 9mm moves a lot faster than the .45, in fact, the .45 is subsonic while the 9mm is supersonic. Since momentum equals mass times velocity, the two rounds are about the same. Also energy wise they are not very different from each other.

The faster a round is, the more accurate it is. The flight path is straighter as well. This could play a role at larger ranges.

It is a commonly known fact I think that in gunfights, especially with unexperienced shooters, most of the bullets miss their target. When you are facing a stressful situation, it is not the same as when you are at the shooting range or even in training. So having a gun which holds more rounds would be the better choice. "One shot one kill" implies that you have plenty of time to aim precisely.

Originally posted by SocialistOrder
The faster a round is, the more accurate it is. The flight path is straighter as well. This could play a role at larger ranges.

It is a commonly known fact I think that in gunfights, especially with unexperienced shooters, most of the bullets miss their target. When you are facing a stressful situation, it is not the same as when you are at the shooting range or even in training. So having a gun which holds more rounds would be the better choice. "One shot one kill" implies that you have plenty of time to aim precisely.

Not really.

I teach a short course over combat pistol shooting and I use the "Point" method. Most gunfights involving pistols happen within a few feet, almost point blank range. Any futher than that is rifle range.

I teach them how not aim, but rather just point at the target and at those ranges, yes, one shot is all you need.

That is one of the reasons I prefer the 45 because the 9 has a tendency to over penatrate which at close range could harm a by-stander.

As amuk pointed out, a pistol would not be used much beyond 10yards, a 9mm isnt anywhere near as big as a .45ACP, bigger the bullet, bigger the hole, as the bullet goes through you (unless its AP) it crushes and spreads out wider and gets shorter... tearing and by the time its gone far into your body has made a massive hole tearing through organs.

Sure subsonic/supersonic would make a different in ACCURACY, but in a situation where your shooting at close ranges, accuracy doesnt make much difference, The speed of sound is damn fast, you all look at it like its "granny speed" these days! The .45 will make a bigger hole, therefore more effective at killing your enemy, therefore BETTER AT SAVING YOUR LIFE

So give me both guns, so I can chuck the beretta out the window..

why does that "piss you off"?theres more important things in the universe than the us army side gun

The bigger the wound the bullet makes, the better the stopping power. A 9mm that expands is better then a .45 that doesn't. So baseline the .45 does have better stopping power.

Originally posted by Kozzy
The bigger the wound the bullet makes, the better the stopping power. A 9mm that expands is better then a .45 that doesn't. So baseline the .45 does have better stopping power.

Thats why you use hollow points it also cuts down on the over penetration I spoke of earlier. All of this, of course is non-military a pistol does not belong on a real battle-field except as a back-up weapon

Thats another point, why arnt the army allowed to use Hollow Points or Hardened Plastic bullets? Instead they HAVE to use Full Metal Jacketed bullets, If the hardened plastic and hollow points are better at killing why not use THEM??!

Originally posted by The_Squid
Thats another point, why arnt the army allowed to use Hollow Points or Hardened Plastic bullets? Instead they HAVE to use Full Metal Jacketed bullets, If the hardened plastic and hollow points are better at killing why not use THEM??!

Hollow points are almost useless against body armor and most soldiers today wear it. But again as I said a pistol is just slightly better than a K-bar as a back-up weapon. If you plan on using a pistol in real combat you wont last very long, its only in the movies that one man with a pistol takes out a couple dozen men armed with assult rifles (and without even reloading)

The M1911/M1911A1 series suffers from feeding problems if using sub-standard magazines. (but this could probably be said about most semi-automatic pistols)

Maybe the single-action design is also being questioned, as the shooter would have to be properly trained in short arms to carry a M1911A1 with a chambered round.

[edit on 28/8/04 by COMSEUR]

Originally posted by Subvert
The M1911/M1911A1 series suffers from feeding problems if using sub-standard magazines. (but this could probably be said about most semi-automatic pistols)

Maybe the single-action design is also being questioned, as the shooter would have to be properly trained in short arms to carry a M1911A1 with a chambered round.

There are safetys on Colts, and Maybe evena grip safety... I own a colt with a grip safety and its double action.

Also a soldier will have been trained in the arms he would be given, and a soldier carries a Primary weapon with chambered rounds, whats wrong with that?

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

As a Gulf War I veteran, I had a 1911 Colt 45 as my side arm. (tanker).
I would have been happy to have a 9mm beretta as my colts' barrel
used to shake WHILE firing and if I had to use it to defend myself at close range, I probably would not have hit my target!

Otherwise, it was a great weapon.

Maybe it was an old Colt 1911, and the ramrod was loose.

I think that the millitary had to replace the colt 1911's and instead of doing that they just switched to beretta because they had a cheaper deal.

Old topic but what the h***

the powerdifference between the two guns can be discussed forewer but the fact remains, the beretta is a great gun (if it's operated properly)i know because i own one myself and compete with it regulary.
The power of a 45 means nothing if you cant hit the target, my beretta is very accurate right out of the box with swedish militaryammo that are known as copkillers (one of the most powerfull), they kan penetrate a kevlarvest due to its thick coating that doesn`t deform. (doesnt`t nato forces use kevlar) .....
Correct me if im wrong... wasn�t thomson rifles made for the 45 cal? a standard ammo makes logistics easier in war but now the thomson isn`t in use anymore so the 1911 has played out its role as a standard issue handgun.
As all soldiers know or should know atleast is that it is better to wound an enemy in a war than it is to kill him.... a wounded soldier occupies two of his friends to help him.
And why does many of you say that it takes more than one shot to stop a man with a 9mm?? how many of you has tasted a 9mm bullet? perhaps a person high on drugs needs a double tap but i wouldn`t!!!
And the powerdifference at 20yards + would be at the 9mm favour, it has a flatter bullet path and wont drop so much in speed.
But at close range its a different story, however if you want a 45 there is a LOT better guns than the 1911 for example sig.
And it`s strange that i know this but you dont... beretta passed the "dirt test" that is functionallity after it has been dragged in dirt.

TextI'm glad the MK 23 is out. It's gay that we changed such caliber weapons from a .45 to a 9mm. Plus, with the MK 23, it has a 12 Round Mag, and a Silencer.