Colt 1911 was made in WWI!!!
Need to make way for the new anyone?

Anyway,in real life,a gun with less recoil/more ammo in a clip will be better,a shot will take anyone it hits out of action,no need for high powered guns.This is not Counter-Strike,this is Rainbow Six!One shot is enough,less recoil is better,more clip also better.

Having used both pistols, the M1911A is more reliable, and being a simpler design, less prone to malfunction (easier to clear when it does, too). Having said that, the 9mm Beretta has less recoil, is easier to shoot accurately, and is double-action (theoretically meaning it can be safely carried with a round in the chamber and thus be more quickly brought into action......THEORETICALLY).

Given a choice, I would pick the less expensive and more powerful Colt as a combat sidearm. Just my opinion.

Well this thread seems to have started up again

There a few things I shall add; The Colt 1911 was made in the year 1911 surprisingly enough and used during World War 1 (The Great War)

Also, for those people saying the 9mm can kill 1 shot easy, consider this, why do Ex-SAS members say that they had to develop a double-tap when using a 9mm gun against terrorists in hostage situations? Terrorists don't wear armour, and the Ex-SAS members say that one 9mm bullet will not bring down somebody in the "heat of battle" with all the adrenaline flowing and everything, and they will keep fighting, THAT my friends is why they developed the double tap.

So obviously the 9mm doesn't bring down somebody with 1 shot easily.

Also - The Colt 1911 is more reliable than the Beretta M-9 since the Colt 1911 is more basicly constructed.

Have to chuckle at the posting claiming that the Remington 870 is their tool of choice for home protection and social work!! I must agree or at least cede to their logic.
Also I must agree...the conversion to the Beretta 9mm was political to keep common ammunition with our european allies.
For information purposes our local police tried the 9mm automatics and then switched to the .40 caliber and finally switched to .45ACP in a smith and wesson automatic ...i think. Never the less it is a .45 ACP. This is very telling. Ironic also that with all the hoopla about 9mm and other calibers that they would switch to a caliber that has been around and proven for so long...the .45 ACP. This is also not the only police department to do so.
I own two .45ACPs and like them both. A Colt automatic 1911 and a five shot Tarus Tracker. I like shooting both of them and relaod also. My 1911 has been reworked with better sights, a group gripper, and semi match barrel bushing for accuracy as I found the out of the box accuracy somewhat lacking. It shoots fine now and much more accurate than factory. The Tarus Tracker is stock as came out of the box and is a great and accurate shooter. I actuall like it best as it does not throw the brass all over the range making clean up and reloading a snap.
Personally I dont have much use for the 9mm..and never took to it though I have shot a number of them. But that is a individual choice. Orangetom

I personally like the Colt 1911 its more powerful than the Berretta and more reliable. Sure it carries less ammo but one bullet from the 45 does the same job as two from the Berretta. I was personally sad when the military stopped issuing 45’s to regular troops, but to my knowledge all SF in the U.S. military still use the Colt.

Hey,

Ok, this will sound odd, but I see you lot talking about hits and the effects of these weapons muntions on hostiles, but have any of you folks been hit by one of these weapons?

On the numbers in the effects, the 45 wins hands down. In realistic action, the 45 is a b*t*h I don't care if one of you folks are the hulk, ANY extra weight that you have to carry or wave around in combat is going to hurt you later, either being tired, sore or simply just didn't have the enery left to dodge left when you should have.

I don't like the Beretta either, but the 9mm round is suitable in combat, why you ask, well in all terms, for a 9 round clip I can tell you know that the average soldier that has been forced to go to his or her secondary weapon isn't in my mind going to hit a dammed thing. If they are lucky they will hit the target they are aiming at with 1 round from 9, IF they are lucky. Why carry that extra weight if you aren't going to hit any thing with it any way, its a waste.

Sidearms in combat aren't the primary weapon, they are there if you need a backup, same way I carry a nice 9inch blade on my webbing, its there incase, no soldier I know would EVER trade their rifle for a pistol, if a soldier has to go to their knifes, I am telling you know there will be s**t on the floor.

I don't really feel that it matters, 9mm good for the average soldier, 45 for Spec Ops types and I suppose the scare factor. A 45 aimmed at you really makes you think when you see that huge hole.

- Phil

[edit on 9-4-2005 by gooseuk]

Originally posted by FredT

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.

Incorrect. The 9mm is a rather unimpressive round. One of the reasons that when you hear of a shooting by police, that they expend an entire mag into someone just to kill them. The amount of rounds was a deciding factor, but a Glock21 which is a .45ACP and holds up to 13 rounds (and is a very impressive gun) would have been a much better choice than a baretta

The .45ACP doesn't kick hard at all, and it's stopping power is legendary, it doesn't penetrate targets as you say, it's muzzle velocity and caliber are what makes the .45ACP a stopping round.

The main reason for boneheaded military decisions like this are because of ignorant politicians making the decisions. Such as the M16 when it was first implimented by Robert McNamara, having been built on a production line which he was fond of, and that barrel and chamber not being chrome lined, and a ball power that had a tendency to expand and a cartridge would get lodged in the chamber.

But that's what happens when beuracrats make the decisions.

I personally prefer the .45, it doesn't have to be a 1911, but I do love that gun...

I have to admit I never got the opertunity to shoot a pistol yet, so I have little to add how they handle, I have shot airsoft counterparts, and I have a liking to the USP and Glock.

I used to love the 92F Beretta, but I grew to hate it, I personally will try to get my self a .45 as self-defense weapon some day, possibly a carbine as home defense, like a Romanian AK for example.

Originally posted by The_Squid
The colt doesnt kick very badly, and the 10mm definitly isnt as powerful as the .45ACP...

The 10mm was such a powerful round that not only was it difficult to manage, it beat the heck out of the guns' frames. The 40cal. is the result of the fiasco that was the 10mm. Same round, smaller charge that fits on a 9mm frame and has ballistics that compare favorably to the .45. That's why it's so popular with law enforcement.

Therefore its MUCH smaller than it (it IS smaller than a .32)

The 9mm ,.38, .357, and .380 are almost the same round ( bullet size) the
difference being powder charge and type.

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.

bovine feces.

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.

again bovine feces.

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.

Hollow points are almost useless against body armor and most soldiers today wear it.

yes HPs are lacking against body armor but this raises a question why in the name of all that is holy do you shoot at a place that you know is heavily protected? a .45 round to a leg,arm, or head, none of which are covered by body armor is usually fatal. This is why at the turn of the last century in the phillipines when the standard issue side arm was the .38 special and before
the 1911 was readily available ( it was in production but few were available)
the military called back to service all of the .45 longcolts in armories. STOPPING POWER. the one advantage IMO that the SAAs had over the
1911s is they fired a 250 gr. SOFT LEAD slug.

how many of you has tasted a 9mm bullet? perhaps a person high on drugs needs a double tap but i wouldn`t!!!

I took a .357 mag 158 gr. half jacketed hollow point in the leg about 8" below
the knee. to this day I give thanks to God and Goddess it was NOT a .45.
I still have my leg and it still works (mostly). Had it been a .45 my leg from the knee down would be stapmed " made by mattel".

as for the recoil issue, I taught my wife to shoot with a Ruger Red Hawk
.44 mag with a 7.5 inch barrel.

as for accuracy if you are a professional you practice. there was a time when
several friends and I went "bunny bustin" on a regular basis with flintlocks.
we could all hit 8" plates at 2-300 yards with rifles and 6" ones at 25 yards
with pistols.

[edit on 9-4-2005 by stalkingwolf]

Where did you that that 357?! that's still not nice to be hit by...

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??!

The Hague Accords. Apparently using highly expansive rounds that would kill your target quicker is somehow not as humane as letting them bleed out after being hit by a FMJ.

Points to Amuk for being the first to mention that a good knife will serve you almost as well as a pistol in most 'close' engagements. If it's longer than 'close', use your rifle. I prefer a knife over a pistol in close combat for numerous reasons, and I have my life to show for it.

If I had relied on a pistol instead of my trusty dagger, I would probably be dead know, and a crackhead would be using my pistol to rob someone else. Daggers don't jam, they don't run out of ammo, they don't misfire, they don't need to be cleaned religiously, and they don't cost hundreds of dollars. They can't be taken away from you as easily, and they kill just as surely as any bullet on the market.

Anyway, in terms of the main debate, it was a political decision, not a military one. I'm pretty confident of that. A similar situation prompted the 5.56 conversion, if I'm not mistaken.

The 1911 is a tremendous duty gun. It's just plain tough. The round also has great stopping power, but the ammo is much heavier. You can't carry as much, and it costs more in fuel to supply the troops with it. I think those concerns are offset by the reliability and durability, as well as a practically guaranteed knockdown, which, in a firefight, is the equivalent of a replay in pinball.

Ever since I saw someone pull the slide off his opponents Berretta accidentally, while practicing a disarm, I won't touch 'em. I know the problem's been fixed, but, yaknow..bad memories, bad vibes.

There are better sidearms in one category or another, but for all around usefullness, my vote's for the 1911, despite the problems associated with it. I mean, it doubles as a hammer for tent stakes! The versatility is astounding...

I'm not a handgun guru like most people on this thread, but I shot a few different weapons, including the Colt, the Beretta and the Sig, so I decided to throw in a penny.

From the precision point of view, the Sig was the best, Beretta the second and the Colt wasn't that good. Also, I have a small hand so the Sig was 5 times easier to handle.

Speaking for myself..I am a history buff..and enjoy history very much. For this reason I bought myself a .45 Colt Automatic. I was not satisfied with the out of the box performance of this weapon as I felt is was not sufficiently accurate for my liking. A trip to a local gunsmith took care of this problem with the replacement of the standard issue sights and some other internal modifications.
This weapon...the Government model Colt Automatic has undergone lots of modifications and model changes at the factory over the years since its introduction and is now days even being manufactured in compact models for concealed carry.
I personally like the weapon very much.
However..there are plenty of newer and very suitable
model firearms out by different manufacturers in .45 acp caliber. The most significant improvement in function that I can see is the double action trigger..not found on the governnment model Colt. Magazine capacity is a matter to me of individual taste. If I want ultimate reliability in a firearm ...I carry a revolver.
There is nothing wrong with this particular caliber.. .45 ACP. The the fact that it is still around and going strong with its adoption by many police departments...albet in newer model arms...speaks volumes. However ..for private ownership..this once again is a matter of individual taste.
Owning a piece of history is my main reason for my purchasing a Colt .45. Same with my M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, and 1903 Springfield, and Type 99 Arisaka. Eventually I hope to add a SMLE Enfield. However I would prefer one of the more recent models in 7.62x51 Caliber rather than the .303 british caliber. This too is a matter of individual taste. The Enfield is a robust, hearty , dependable, firearm...she has this historical track record to her credit...like my Colt .45 Automatic. Looking foreward to adding Enfield to my historical library of firearms.

Thanks,
Orangetom

I guess it all comes down to usage.
As much as I would like to carry a .45 my build does not allow it. I'm lucky to get away with a S&W 915 in the winter with a long coat.
In the summer months I have to scale down to a Walther in .380 just for concealment purposes.
The new .45 GAP may have some potential if it's commercially adopted. All that I have read puts the ballistics right up there with the ACP but in a smaller package. I'll wait a bit before moving from 9mm.

P.S. to whoever it was that said "you don't go to a gunfight with anything that starts with less than a 4" My response is...
Don't EVER go to a gunfight! Just do your best to leave.

Domestically, there are a couple of reasons for the 9mm being chosen over the .45, as far as law enforcement history goes.

1. The FBI uses 9mm because two agents (armed with 45's) once shot each other in a shootout with a mob. Good ole J. Edgar made 'em switch to the 9mm. Nowadays, the story is that 9mm is less likely to penetrate through drywall and harm noncombatants in a firefight. Which is certainly true, since a niner can hardly penetrate dry wall. Or even wet paper.

2. 9 mm are less likely to be lethal. Westmoreland's theory in nam was, we wanted casualties to be wounded, and thus take additional resources. Personally, I want opponents to go straight to the marble garden. Otherwise, I wouldn't have a piece out.

3. 9 mm is legal for law enforcement in mexico. .45 US is not. 10mm, which is 40 caliber, IS legal for law enforcement there, and a lot of investigators in the policia judicial carry 4-0's. They call them "back up" guns. Funny though, that the copper jackets on their 9mm ammo in the holster is turning green with age, while the "backup" piece is in perfect order. Since most of our cross border work is with them, it has a definite impact on Federal law enforcement policies.

4. III-A body armor will stop 9mm. Most cops wear III-A, and it was conjectured that if cops made 9mm their weapon of choice, then perps would, too. In the end, everyone would use 9mm, and the cops would be safe in III-A.
The original hope in the gun-control crowd was to outlaw 10mm and above, and the cops were just gettting their departments ready for the inevitable, which has just never happened.
It is partly a regional thing. Most people in western states like heavy calibers. Maybe it's the greater distances. The only people who wear III-A armor (I mean really wear it, and not just tell the insurance co's they do) are city cops. Usually motorbike patrol do, since it couldn't hurt to be wearing a steel girdle if you lay down your bike. Jailers wear III-A too, since it'll stop a shiv.
Most investigators carry 45 or better, and skip the armor.

I don't know what impact the decisions of Law enforcement agencies would have on the military, but I suspect that MP's probably end up copying civilian protocols. And I would guess that MP's are major precedent-setters for small arms in the military.



*****

As far as the Baretta, it is a lethal liability in law enforcement: You can walk up to a man holding a Baretta, and remove his slide if you can depress the little button sticking out of the side of the gun. I have seen perps practicing this in jail and on the street. A lot of departments are moving away from Barettas for this reason.


Personally, I like my .44 mag wheel gun. It has saved my life repeatedly, and NEVER jams, regardless of water and dirt, even blood (heh heh.)

Yup,
Thats one thing I really like about my wheel guns..reliability. I like my Colt .45 government..no doubt..but I just plain olde like wheel guns. Even bought one in .45 ACP. for target shooting.

Thanks ,
Orangetom