Why Get Rid of the Colt 1911??

dr. strangecraft
I thought they fixed the problem with the Beretta's slide? I was under the impression it couldn't be pulled off from the front anymore? If they haven't fixed that problem, that gun is as laughable as it always was.

I know you used to be able to do that, but can you still? I don't own a modern Beretta, so I can't check. (I don't own any Beretta, blech)

To the comment on reliability: Agreed, revolvers are simply unbeatable in that regard. I still prefer the capacity of clips, along with the ease of storage. It's easy to slip a couple of clips in your pocket, packing a similar amount of ammo in speed loaders would lend you the appearance of a fruit smuggler.

I thought they fixed the problem with the Beretta's slide? I was under the impression it couldn't be pulled off from the front anymore? If they haven't fixed that problem, that gun is as laughable as it always was.

The slides are just as easy as ever to remove...sorry I answered I know the Q was for Dr s.

But think about it...most people under stress and under the gun are not gonna be able to do that....that's why they teack cops to get there distance.....yeah sometimes your up close, but like I said, most as in probably 99.5% of people cannot doo that.

The benefits of the M9 even with the slide "glitch" still out weight that of the 45.

hehehe

I don't care where I get my answers from, as long as they're accurate.

Cops are better trained than criminals (thankfully), they know not to go around sticking their pistols in people's faces. Criminals tend to get much too close for their own good, probably some lame attempt at intimidation.

Anyway, thanks for the answer!

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
hehehe

I don't care where I get my answers from, as long as they're accurate.

Cops are better trained than criminals (thankfully), they know not to go around sticking their pistols in people's faces. . . .

And there is the real problem for police training.
Our insurance rep used to come around every year and give us a "talking to." That was in the old days when insurance thought they could lessen claims by teaching cops themselves.

He said that over 90% of all police firefights happen at a distance of less than 10 meters. Think about traffic stops and "suicide by cop" stunts.



I have been through a lot of firing exercizes that were a joke.

There was a case in Texas years ago where a dead Dallas PD was found with shell casings in his pocket. He had actually pocketed the spent shell casings as he reloaded his revolver, because his range officer demanded that officers pick up their casings while they practiced. Little quirks you pick up on the range can cost your life.

I have talked to internal affairs people who have seen a cop killed because he was taught the "A" stance. In the time it took him to go into the stance against a perp, the perp got a shot off.

Generally, what is taught on the range has more to do with legal liability than it does with drawing down and getting there first.

Personally, (never serving in the military) I would guess that I wouldn't want a .45 out in the wilderness. Too many moving parts, and cleaning one is a bear if you don't know much about it. We used to leave the room when a rookie was cleaning his pistol. Every time, the big spring gets away from him and goes flying. Careful, you could put an eye out!

I know what all of you say about revolvers. Mine is a K frame, five shot, so it isn't as bulky as you might think. When I carried, I made a point of letting it show through my clothes.

I know that many of you will complain about magazine limitations. I have fired in "situations," and never had occaision to shoot either the 4th or 5th bullet. Generally, the sound of the 44 mag convinces people to find a peaceful solution.

well, i may be new here, but ill sum up for both sides


Colt: can come with extended and flush clips, well now even though the colt has a 8 rounder flush mag, the colt can take extended mags which can hold up to 11 rounds.
The colt 1911a1 is a very reliable gun, and it is noted that during world war I it was very reliable in trench conditions, which were muddy, and water logged
now whoever said that the round is subsonic? what the hell are you on about? only silenced rounds are reduced to a subsonic speed, hell, the 45 ACP round wouldnt even make that loud a noise if it were subsonic, the 1911 is a supersonic round, as is every other bullet type exept for some special russian rounds.
and another thing...if anything, the conplaint about bullets right now, is that they OVER penetrate, isnt thats why a bigger round is prefered?
the fact with over penetration with small rounds is that they go in and out...well to think about it, thats generally the problem with FMJ anyway.
the 45 slug doesnt do that, and if it does, it still leaves a bigger exit wound
but i think we should all look at army indoctirine...back in world war I, i believe (correct me if im wrong) the wounding to take men out the battle idea wasnt around.
i believe the whole point of adopting the 9mm was they thought, if a man was wounded, hes down..hes outta the battle, which has been teh general idea of bullets for ages, but now we're finding insurgants who weill still fire when their down, people want a bigger slug back again
to sum up, id say, that each gun has its own ups and downs, both are reliable, though the colt more so, and colt packs more power, but the baretta 92FS has the ammo capacity, range and accuracy
it just depends on what you want

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
And I would guess that MP's are major precedent-setters for small arms in the military.

This link says what I heard before, that is the MP is using Sig's. Is that true? The link also says it's "dead accurate".

Sorry, it's just my favorite gun

Also, apparently .40 version exists.



[edit on 5-5-2005 by Aelita]

I have owned both a Colt MKIV Series 70 (the last single-action) and the Beretta Model 92F. I consider the 92F superior in several ways: the magazine is larger, the amount of ammunition one can carry easily is greater, the recoil is not greater (although, given the Model 92's typically lighter weight, the perceived recoil is about the same); the ammunition is cheaper, and there is more commonality with NATO allies.

I think the discussions of ballistics and muzzle velocity, while interesting, are mostly irrelevant. in a firefight -- whether between soldiers and Bad Guys or cops and Bad Guys -- the more bullets you put in the air, the better your chance of winning. And I think most cops and soldiers would agree that if you hit someone in the torso with eirhter a 9mm para of .45 ACP round, they will be disabled unless they are on, say, crank; in which case, neither round will reliably do the job.

Now my first autoloader was the aforementioned MK IV, which I bought almost new from a colleague at work. It was completely stock -- and a mess. The ejector port was a bit too small, which would toss a brass back and hit me in the face about once every two magazine's worth; the breech was tight, which would result in a round keyholing about every third box; the stock barrel bushing was so oversized that the barrel would rattle when you shook the gun from side to side, and the front sight looked like some had dropped a blob of solder on the front of the barrel.

Now I will admit the gun worked fine -- after I had a smith throat the breech, enlarge the ejector port, and install tritium sights; and after I replaced the barrel bushing, recoil spring guide, recoil spring plug, recoil spring, and magazine guide in the grip.

Of course, that added about $275 to the cost of the pistol, and the smith told me that such "upgrades" were just about standard with the MK IV.

The 92F, on the other hand, was every bit as accurate and reliable as the "upgraded" Colt -- right from the box.

Of course, I can't shoot IPSC senior with the 9 mm para, but you need a .45 ACP or Smith .40 hot-rod pistol to compete there anyway, so what the hey.

And I'll be honest; the idea of carrying the Colt cocked and locked with the pancake holster's flap between the hammer and the frame weirded me out, illogical as that might be to all you real pistoleros out there.

By the way, I don't have either one any more. My wife does not like auto pistols, saying she won't have something around that she can't understand. She has a Taurus 4" double action in .357 magnum (which she loads with .38 wad-cutters, of course); and, to keep the logistics simple, I own one, too. Needless to say, we don't keep either gun loaded, because no pistol is a good home defense weapon; the only loaded firearm I have is a 12-gauge shotgun with #7 dove shot.

If I were a collector, I'd've kept the Colt; it is a wonderful piece of military history.

But then, so is a Webley .455 or a Mauser Broomhandle.

I don't have a 92F, but I have two 1911's (one a rare pre-WWI model), and it is a big, heavy pistol by any standard.

I'm a pretty big guy, with big hands, so it doesn't bother me.
But I can see how the 92F might be a little easier to handle for the average person, and the big clip could prove to be a lifesaver in a pinch.

dr. strangecraft

He said that over 90% of all police firefights happen at a distance of less than 10 meters. Think about traffic stops and "suicide by cop" stunts.

I'd definitely believe this. 30 feet is spitting distance, so I would definitely take a less accurate, more powerful weapon under those circumstances. As far as disarming someone, 10 metres might as well be a football field, but hey, that's the reason cops carry guns.

As far as the story about the officer taking his shooting stance and getting capped, that's really unfortunate. I don't know what sort of ninny would advise presenting a bigger target for your adversary, but I hope he no longer passes on his vitally important, 'life saving' information. Target shooting and combat shooting are two completely different animals. What works for one doesn't necessarily work for the other.

And the cleaning is a notable point, but I would strongly disagree that it's too complex to serve as a reliable weapon in the field, or in the wilderness. And didn't you get the memo? The spring is there for entertainment purposes only! Have a laugh at someone elses expense, it's good for the heart.

One more quick point...

The muzzle..it's damn intimidating. The diffference in having a .45 vs. a 9mm pointed at you is very distinct. The .45 looks like a canyon compared to the 9mm's teacup. It's just mean looking. I mean, it's not an elephant gun, but it sure as hell looks like one when it's pointed at your head.

OTS
Mossberg? And why dove shot? Just 'cause you're in New Mexico? Just curious. If it's just for home defense, and you're not a dove hunter, why not load a double slug or a combination slug/pellet shell?

xmotex

I'm a pretty big guy, with big hands, so it doesn't bother me.
But I can see how the 92F might be a little easier to handle for the average person, and the big clip could prove to be a lifesaver in a pinch.

Ditto, which is, I guess, why the shape and weight of the gun don't bother me. I like the extra weight for a couple reasons, not the least of which is accuracy/recoil reduction. Also can be used for a nice little love tap, or, as I said earlier, as a hammer in a survival situation. And it'll still shoot straight.

As far as ammo capacity... I was raised to believe that quality is more important than quantity. In other words, hit what you aim at, or don't bother shooting. If you have 8 rounds, you should be able to kill 8 men. Carry two clips, and you're up to 22 (?). I'd say that's more than a full day's work. Unless cover fire comes into the equation, like in situations where you're trying to pin somebody down, then the extra rounds would come in real handy.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by WyrdeOne]

[edit on 5-5-2005 by WyrdeOne]

the colt well always be regared as a classic, and its still a very reliable gun to work for 50 plus years, but i think we should all remember, that the 92 is probably more aimed towards accuracy, which is what the 9mm is good for, the colt is great at close up, mean weapons come first fights
basically....the army most likely adopted it because of its accuracy and mag capacity, which seem to be more and more important over power in todays milltary

Originally posted by M6D
the colt well always be regared as a classic, and its still a very reliable gun to work for 50 plus years, but i think we should all remember, that the 92 is probably more aimed towards accuracy, which is what the 9mm is good for, the colt is great at close up, mean weapons come first fights
basically....the army most likely adopted it because of its accuracy and mag capacity, which seem to be more and more important over power in todays milltary

That is a critical point as regards my comments about police work; and also why enforcement is another world from militaria.

The strategery for enforcement is concentric rings around the target.

The cops close in are either unarmed, or carry bulldog type stuff: short range and overwhelming. shotguns, 45's, etc. My 44mag meets that criterion best, naturally.

Further out, you want someone who can pick off a perp trying to get out of the circle. For THIS element I might choose a sig pistol and a AR-type. (smithing an AR for 45 cal is ideal in cop work, since it interchanges with the first ring around the perp. . . . )

Finally, outside of range of the first ring, you want someone who can survey an entire scene. That dude needs a weapon that can reach out and touch someone. A scoped weapon with as much penetrating as you can legally carry. 50 cal rifles have been used for this.

This doctrine was used for Timothy McVeigh's trial, if you remember the dudes on the roof. The one standing with the scoped rifle on his hip was for show. (I'm sure it wasn't loaded) There was another dude in the top-floor window. I'd be willing to bet HE was armed and scoped, sitting on a pile of sandbags.

If the cops in the Atlanta courthouse had been following this, they wouldn't have lost 4 people, and armed a dangerous criminal.

When I bailiffed, I stood next to the judge with a little 38 revolver with a three inch barrel and the first two chambers empty. That way, if someone tries to commit suicide by cop, they will be shocked when they get my gun and find that the thing won't fire at least twice in a row. What the crowd didn't know was that there was a deputy in the back with a .45. And this was in Texas, so the judge had a walther in his vest pocket as well. (I had a .32 in my boot.)

We also had a mock-up of the courtroom at our practice range, and we'd practice take-downs. Most perps can pick up on the fact that subconsciously, you present the aura of a man confident in his control of any situation.

Anyway, you can see how different police work, especially moving perps or entering a building, is way different from what the military does. When the cops enter, they have all the time in the world to set up. Marines have to go with the frontal assault.

Cops work in concentric circles of threat. Military probably cannot define zones of specific types of threat.

The more I think about it, the more I convince myself that copwork and soldiering are in different universes as far as weapon needs go. I still think the 45 ACP is unsurpassed as a duty weapon for regular uniformed police, but I can see how it doesn't meet current military needs.



[edit on 5-5-2005 by dr_strangecraft]

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
And I would guess that MP's are major precedent-setters for small arms in the military.

This link says what I heard before, that is the MP is using Sig's. Is that true? The link also says it's "dead accurate".

Sorry, it's just my favorite gun

Also, apparently .40 version exists.



[edit on 5-5-2005 by Aelita]

Well Im sure about the Army, really don't care either. But I know that Marine Corps MP's still use M9's as thier sidearm........Im not an MP but I know a few.

Cut cost for production of rounds.
Reduce weight of ammunition.
Higher capacity magazine.
Less expense in production for the firearm.

In short, cost analysis and reduction.

Originally posted by SportyMB

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
And I would guess that MP's are major precedent-setters for small arms in the military.

This link says what I heard before, that is the MP is using Sig's. Is that true? The link also says it's "dead accurate".

Sorry, it's just my favorite gun

Also, apparently .40 version exists.



[edit on 5-5-2005 by Aelita]

Well Im sure about the Army, really don't care either. But I know that Marine Corps MP's still use M9's as thier sidearm........Im not an MP but I know a few.

do you mean M1911a1? its just you phrase that sentance in a way that suggests its the M9 thats out of service....

wyrdeone says:

OTS Mossberg? And why dove shot? Just 'cause you're in New Mexico? Just curious. If it's just for home defense, and you're not a dove hunter, why not load a double slug or a combination slug/pellet shell.

Well, I like the Mossberg because it's cheap and reliable. True, its ejector slide isn't as robust as that of, say, an Ithaca 37, but no matter how superior a firearm is, it's worthless if you can't afford to buy one! I paid $215 for the 500 combo (18"cylinder bore bbl, 28" cylinder bore barrel, and pistol grip), threw away the pistol grip because I didn't want to get into a wrestling match with a Bad Guy, and spent another $130 for a 21" rifled slug bbl with rifle sights.

And I have #7 dove shot because I know that the maximum distance between me and a Bad Guy in my house is 3 meters. At that range, #7 dove with the 18" cylinder bore bbl spreads out to about 4 inches diameter, and even a 2-3/4 " cartridge will push all those little #7 shot guys into a 4" hole through the bad guy, and an immediate opportunity for him to explain things to Jesus.

However, the individual shot won't be able to penetrate two layers of sheet rock, and if it does, will certainly be stopped by a closet full of clothes. This means I won't kill my son asleep in the next room of our house, or take out Norman the Cat, or neighbors' little girl whose bedroom is about 30 feet from mine.

And if the Bad Guy is more than 3 meters from me, it means he's either in another room or leaving the premises, in which case I call 911 and wait.

Finally, I keep the gun loaded but not chambered; if I hear a Bad Guy, I want him to hear that unmistakeable sound, which, hopefully, will make him suddenly recall a previous engagement in Apache Junction.

And I live in Arizona, although I think New Mexico is a beautiful place.

do you mean M1911a1? its just you phrase that sentance in a way that suggests its the M9 thats out of service....

Im not sure about the army, but the Marine Corps sometimes standardizes the names of it's weapons. M9 is the official name for the Beretta 9mm in the Corps. It might be the same in the army..not sure.

Link here

The M9 MM is a relatively new addition to the Marine Corps weapons family. Officially the 9MM was adopted in 1982, but the Fleet Marine Force did not see this weapon until much later. I personally did not work with this pistol until late 1989, when I was training as a Marine Security Guard at Marine Corps Security Forces Battalion, Mare Island, Vallejo, California.

Here's another link that refers to the 9mm as the M9

cause it's a gun.

I know, we're not there yet, but it's fun to be straght forward.

Its because the UN is sayin, "you have too big an advantage, reduce your calibre or else..." so 7.62 is replaced by 5.56 and the rest is crap. (p.s. I want a MK 23 if anyone knows any cheap dealers... j/k)

The UN...what a bunch of useless wimps...

Those guys are responsible for more deaths in the name of Peace...than most nations.

What a bunch of panty waste wimps.

They have let so many die in uprisings/revolutions while they sit in New York and debate and argue. What a waste of time and space.

And these guys want to debate what caliber people are carrying. lol lol lol...


What am I laughing about ..these panty waste wimps will be given a free pass to play through the very next time liberals get in office. They would have the UN play through ...run rough shod on us who will be unarmed by then ..while once again they "debate " the future of nations. The UN makes me sick.
Look foreward to the day they are kicked out of the USA but wont hold my breath. They need to be exiled to Brussels , Belgium where the other panty wastes can debate with them.

Thanks,
Orangetom

While this is a bit off the subject of the Colt 1911 I am going to post it as the very mention of the UN sickens me.

The history channel had a program on Mercenarys a few months back. After going through the history of this trade they interviewed some people who were imployed by a company out of South Africa named Executive Outcomes. They described two incidents where they went into different nations in Africa and created stabilty when others had not after being hired by different governments.
The second nation as I recall was in Liberia and the same result ..the rebel forces could not deal with the training level of the mercenarys and ran back to the hills. The people of this nation were grateful for a sense of stability and actrocitys against civilians fell.
The UN however...was stuck with a tremendous loss of face for the second time because for all their posturing they could do little about the situation. The UN proceeded to protest the action of the mercenarys and with the help of the then liberal administration of the United States put tremendous pressure on the government of Liberia. The Liberian government under this pressure broke the contract with Executive Outcomes and before leaving the Mercenary leaders told the government that the rebels would be back in six months. It took the rebels less than three months to come back and the UN fled. The UN could not contain the situation. Then to add insult to injury ....the UN tried to hire Executive Outcomes to do twice what they had already done the first time. They declined.
It was a very intresting and informative program and a view one did not get from the nightly news media..who is supposed to be looking out for us.
This is not the first time the UN interfeared in affairs in Africa with horrible results. The first one I can recall was the interfearing in the Belgian Congo in the 1960s. As I reacall that history it was mercenarys too..who saved many peoples from disaster caused by mishandling of the UN.
I will never trust the UN to look out for us...just as I dont particularly trust the news media to give us the truth ...they are of the same cut of cloth.

Thanks,
Orangetom