The 1911 Project

[Spier]

If you're saying that you could take a .45 round to the chest and not fall down... you're definitely wrong. Period.

I laughed. Until I realized you were serious.

 

[Jagdtiger]

If you're saying that you could take a .45 round to the chest and not fall down... you're definitely wrong. Period.

How many times have you seen this happen? Has it happened to you? You argue points that other people have disproven time and time again. Give up already.

 

[Nightmare]

If you're saying that you could take a .45 round to the chest and not fall down... you're definitely wrong. Period.

I've been hit in the chest by a 2.10 m tall, 110 kg heavy man who jumped after running at full speed - and I didn't fall down.

 

[Hadmar]

I've been hit in the chest by a 2.10 m tall, 110 kg heavy man who jumped after running at full speed - and I didn't fall down.

Yeah but that's becouse a running man is much slower then a bullet. A bullet is much faster, it transfers some of it's speed on you and that's why it sends you flying 5m through the room and knocks you down if you don't kiss a wall first. If the man that did hit you wore a batman costume however you would have been knocked down and knocked out for at least three hours and a big OUTCH! inside of a spiked baloon would appear above your head.

 

[SaraP]

Yeah but that's becouse a running man is much slower then a bullet. A bullet is much faster, it transfers some of it's speed on you and that's why it sends you flying 5m through the room and knocks you down if you don't kiss a wall first. If the man that did hit you wore a batman costume however you would have been knocked down and knocked out for at least three hours and a big OUTCH! inside of a spiked baloon would appear above your head.

ROFTL! I almost thought you sere serious there, then I read the Batman part. LOL!

 

[Goid]

Ah, I was wondering when you’d get around to setting something like this up. I think it’s just as silly as a Colt Single Action Army revolver, but practically speaking I see no reason at all to complain about people using obsolete, inferior weapons for sentimental reasons. So much the better for logical, intelligent people who choose weapons based on performance and not looks!

What is obsolete about the 1911 pistols? If you mean specifically the originals, I can partially agree, but not if you mean current 1911 pistols.

Intelligence and logic would evaluate current 1911 pistols as being anyting but obsolete and inferior.

This year new 1911 designs will probably outnumber those of any other pistol because it is the basis for a huge number of custom pistols, and is used by a lot of people for researching new barrels, cartridges, and other features. It remains one of the best semi-auto pistol frames you can get, and it helps a lot that it has nearly a century of field use to back that up.

Many of the semi-auto pistols in the world are either based on 1911 designs, or are highly influenced by it. Many of those which are quite different are also more complicated, and often without adding any serious advantages. This almost always means less reliability, and more difficult maintenance.

The modern 1911 is one of the best pistols you can get.

 

[SaraP]

What is obsolete about the 1911 pistols?

Intelligence and logic would evaluate current 1911 pistols as being anyting but obsolete and inferior.

Thank you for the insult. Your logic, however, is severely lacking, in that you present no argument at all other than simply saying 1911s are not obsolete.

This year new 1911 designs will probably outnumber those of any other pistol. It remains one of the best semi-auto pistol frames you can get, and it helps a lot that it has nearly a century of field use to back that up.

Most of the semi-auto pistols in the world are either based on 1911 frames, or are highly influenced by it. There are almost *none* that do not have more similarities than differences.

Only in the sense of all semiautomatics having the same general slide/frame layout. Saying that the 1911 is not obsolete because modern semiautomatic use the same basic layout is like saying the Ford Model T is not obsolete because modern cars still have four tires and a steering wheel.

The modern 1911 is one of the best pistols you can get.

A modern 1911, however, is not the same thing as the Colt M1911, which is definitely obsolete.

 

[Vega-don]

stop that useless discussion. you are arguing about a pistol after all

 

[Goid]

Can someone tell me what is up with quoting? I never can get it to work right.

Sara- Much as I hate to reinforce Domino's 1911 based rantings,(Which I endured under another handle) I do need to interject. I'll adress point by point.

Compared to a modern 9x19mm pistol like the Beretta M9, the Colt M1911 has:
- Inferior penetration of infantry body armor - This can be altered, as one can easily adapt the 1911/1911A1 design to operate with a huge variety of chamberings. But we'll stick with base designs. Point to the M9
[\quote]

Inferior penetration with the original cartridges and designs, but modern 1911 pistols are excellent in this area. I would love to see a 10mm 1911 in the game, even though it is politically incorrect in modern times.

I don't think the original 1911 should be put in the game, and didn't realize that's what people were suggesting. If it were me, I'd say offer 9 and 10mm 1911's, and 45s, but modern versions.

Personally, I'd just like to have a large arsenal to choose from for creating my own scenarios. One thing I'd like to see in INF is military versus partisan scenarios, where the "rebels" have a more wide variety of weapons, many of them older, or even modern civilian weapons.

- Inferior magazine capacity- No arguement. Although I still prefer shot placement to "One mag, one kill". This then opens the stinky can of worms, "personell training, and basic markmanship" which seems to have died, long ago. Point to the M9- it IS easier to shoot, and does have a larger magazine capacity.

10 rounds is enough (1 chambered, 9 in the first clip) for most uses.

There are a lot of people who do not like the kick of weapons that have the hotter
10mm or 45 cal rounds. Personally, I don't find a 10mm or a hot 45 to be difficult. Yes,
you can get some real wrist breaker cartridges, but if you look at actual performance data, many of them do not perform like their recoil makes you think they do. Therefore, there is
no real point to them.

For target practice, I generally buy a smaller round, though a lot of that has to do with costs, not handling the gun.

The heavy weight of many 1911 frames is a benefit IMHO, I generally dislike the lighter pistols. Some of the Glocks, for example, are hard to control unless they have fairly wimpy rounds.

 

[Goid]

Thank you for the insult. Your logic, however, is severely lacking, in that you present no argument at all other than simply saying 1911s are not obsolete. [\quote]

Re-read your own post: it had no valid argument to support your point that the 1911 was obsolete. Then you add the line about logical and intelligent people choosing better weapons. That's both wrong and also an insult. It's a bad idea to throw stones from glass houses.

I didn't present an exhaustive argument, no, but I shouldn't need to. No one who knows anything about pistols would present an argument that the 1911 is obsolete. The original has problems that reflect the rounds available at the time, and the materials and knowledge, but the design itself is still perfectly valid, and later versions of it are still fine pistols even today. They are accurate, powerful, and reliable. How is that obsolete?

If it were, people would not still be using it.

The sales and continued of 1911 pistols are high because it is still good technology, not because all of the buyers are sentimental.

 

[Meplat]

Goid- Name one readily available .45 ACP "AP" load.

Civillian users, and military users of a pistol design are from very diffrent spectrums. A military has to look at arming tens of thousands. A civillian looks just at his own needs.

I own, and carry a 1911A1 on a daily basis. But I'm not going to belittle the amount of firepower, and accuracy a modern 9X19 handgun can offer.

Meplat-

 

[SaraP]

Pretty much any full-size handgun can be modified to fire any pistol round if you really want it to, but militaries simply don't have the budget for custom-modified versions of anything.

 

[Hadmar]

Can someone tell me what is up with quoting? I never can get it to work right.

You use a backslash instead of a slash in the ending tag.

 

[Goid]

Oh, I know the 1911 design is quite modifiable; one of the top handguns on my wish list is the Colt Delta Elite in 10mm AUTO. Which, unfortunately, is a rather rare variant.

How about one from Springfield, or one of the others? One company has a website where you can custom design your gun, and they send you a cost estimate.

Of course, they are not cheap, but supposedly make very good pistols. You should be able to find it with Google.

I also favor a smaller number of more powerful rounds, which is why I'm fond of the 10mm AUTO caliber. I do, however, feel that the .45ACP is in many ways the worst of both worlds, in that it's a large-caliber round with a medium-caliber punch.

You keep saying ".45ACP" as if that were some specific round. It isn't. There is
great variety in that ammo. Which one is it that you are referring to?

See next quoted response for a link.

Doesn't the .45ACP round have inferior ballistics, though? I've always been much more inaccurate with 1911-series pistols than 92FS, even though I'm strong enough to handle a .44 Mag without much trouble. Or maybe it's just me.

It's not inferior within its designed range. A 10mm for example, at least the hot ones, will be far flatter, but some target shooters prefer the .45.

Also, what exactly are you talking about when you say ".45ACP"? There are a great many cartridges out there which fit that description, and they vary greatly in weight, charge, and design.

Look at the bottom of this chart for example:

Chuck Hawk's Handgun Power Chart

Also note the fact that the .45ACP rounds show good penetration and power compared to the 9mm and 10mm rounds.

The M9 was much more heavily torture-tested than the M1911 prior to adoption, though, and is rated to a higher MRBF. Or was that simply a matter of the 1911 predating the newer, tougher standards?

There were not as many standards back then. I've watched film footage of the testing for the 1911. They were not the most scientific testing methods you've ever seen.

However, one test the 1911 has had something the M9 has not: nearly a century of battlefield and street use. It's performed very well there, and continues to do so.

The M9's double-action trigger is supposed to be less likely to fire accidentally than the M1911's single-action. As I recall, this was considered a significant selling point when the Army picked it.

They could have had a DAO 1911 if they'd asked for it.

Most of the move away from 45 and 10mm was political, not technical.

Look how long the U.S. hung onto the BAR, too. Not that it wasn't a great gun for its time, and still a pretty awesome one now -- the civvie semiauto version of it is #1 on my wish list (but too pricey to be #1 on my will-really-get list), and a full-auto version is drool-worthy.

Some of the reason for the long run of this weapon was because alternatives had serious flaws too. The BAR was at least reliable and worked well. Some of the suggested alternatives were definitely not.

Just look how long it took before the M16 became a reliable weapon!

 

[Goid]

Goid- Name one readily available .45 ACP "AP" load.

First of all, an AP round is not always appropriate.

Second, military procurement often involves creating and manufacturing a new round. Even the police have to do that, and they buy far fewer rounds, which is generally harder to make happen than a large contract.

A good number of the 9mm rounds used today were not always readily available either.

Civillian users, and military users of a pistol design are from very diffrent spectrums. A military has to look at arming tens of thousands. A civillian looks just at his own needs.

Understood, though I don't remember talking specifically about civilian usage. The military had to gear up for 9mm, and if I recall correctly, when they moved to the 92S, the chosen round was not produced in sufficient numbers at that time and production had to be increased. This could have been done with any other round, even a new one.

Even fairly low quanties of ammo is enough to make profit, as gearing up for a new round is not very difficult. The mass production is the easy part.

For the military, you are talking about very good and profitable economies of scale.

I own, and carry a 1911A1 on a daily basis. But I'm not going to belittle the amount of firepower, and accuracy a modern 9X19 handgun can offer.

Agreed.

I don't recall belittling them.

 

[Meplat]

I'm going to just annotate these a bit.. Bear with me, and read carefully.

Oh, I know the 1911 design is quite modifiable; one of the top handguns on my wish list is the Colt Delta Elite in 10mm AUTO. Which, unfortunately, is a rather rare variant.- "Rare" for a number of very valid reasons. their frames were not up to the battering. 10MM beats up 1911's.


How about one from Springfield, or one of the others? One company has a website where you can custom design your gun, and they send you a cost estimate.- Interesting suggestion, but then it would'nt be a Colt Delta Elite. It'd be a one off.

Of course, they are not cheap, but supposedly make very good pistols. You should be able to find it with Google. -I trust the internet for firearm info like I trust a bum for hygene tips.

I also favor a smaller number of more powerful rounds, which is why I'm fond of the 10mm AUTO caliber. I do, however, feel that the .45ACP is in many ways the worst of both worlds, in that it's a large-caliber round with a medium-caliber punch. -No arguement here. It is.

You keep saying ".45ACP" as if that were some specific round. It isn't. There is
great variety in that ammo. Which one is it that you are referring to?- For 99.999% of the time, it'd be safe to say that .45 ACP is referring to the M1911 Ball load.


Doesn't the .45ACP round have inferior ballistics, though? I've always been much more inaccurate with 1911-series pistols than 92FS, even though I'm strong enough to handle a .44 Mag without much trouble. Or maybe it's just me. -Already answered this. The 1911 pistol is not an easy one to shoot well.

It's not inferior within its designed range. A 10mm for example, at least the hot ones, will be far flatter, but some target shooters prefer the .45. - Because a day shooting competetion with a 10MM handgun will not be a plesant experience, for one.

Also, what exactly are you talking about when you say ".45ACP"? There are a great many cartridges out there which fit that description, and they vary greatly in weight, charge, and design.- Answered above.

Look at the bottom of this chart for example:

Chuck Hawk's Handgun Power Chart

Also note the fact that the .45ACP rounds show good penetration and power compared to the 9mm and 10mm rounds.- Yay. Charts.


The M9 was much more heavily torture-tested than the M1911 prior to adoption, though, and is rated to a higher MRBF. Or was that simply a matter of the 1911 predating the newer, tougher standards?

There were not as many standards back then. I've watched film footage of the testing for the 1911. They were not the most scientific testing methods you've ever seen.- Is it me, or is there an echo in here? I think I said this earlier. Pig board..Pig Board..

However, one test the 1911 has had something the M9 has not: nearly a century of battlefield and street use. It's performed very well there, and continues to do so.- *Shrugs* The M9 is based from the M1951, and the Walther P-38. also, well tested, and proven over 50 odd years.

Quote:
The M9's double-action trigger is supposed to be less likely to fire accidentally than the M1911's single-action. As I recall, this was considered a significant selling point when the Army picked it.

They could have had a DAO 1911 if they'd asked for it. -not in the mid 70's when the selection began. DAO autos did not come into vouge til the late 1980's anyhow. Shy of the VP-70, you'd be hard pressed to find a dao auto handgun of that era.Let alone one made in the U.S.

Most of the move away from 45 and 10mm was political, not technical.- Huh? It was LOGISTICAL. NATO, and SEATO use the 9X19 as their primary handgun, and SMG round. the U.S. was the lone standout. Kind of silly to not be able to use the ammo made by one's "allies".

Look how long the U.S. hung onto the BAR, too. Not that it wasn't a great gun for its time, and still a pretty awesome one now -- the civvie semiauto version of it is #1 on my wish list (but too pricey to be #1 on my will-really-get list), and a full-auto version is drool-worthy. - And about $30,000 for a nice transferrable M1918, made by Colt.

Some of the reason for the long run of this weapon was because alternatives had serious flaws too. The BAR was at least reliable and worked well. Some of the suggested alternatives were definitely not.- When you make a statement like this, do back it up. what alternatives? the BREN? The MG42? How about the Johnson LMG?

Just look how long it took before the M16 became a reliable weapon!- So what exactily were it's problems? Do remember, there are people on this board who actually work/worked in the firearms industy, and you will be graded for accuracy.

Goid- Name one readily available .45 ACP "AP" load.

First of all, an AP round is not always appropriate.- Hmm. It was related to something you inferred.

Second, military procurement often involves creating and manufacturing a new round. Even the police have to do that, and they buy far fewer rounds, which is generally harder to make happen than a large contract.- Umm, NO. Police departments buy off the shelf products. Sometimes they test em, frequently they get whatever other larger deaprtments are using.

A good number of the 9mm rounds used today were not always readily available either.-Such as? Case in point, please.

Quote:
Civillian users, and military users of a pistol design are from very diffrent spectrums. A military has to look at arming tens of thousands. A civillian looks just at his own needs.

Understood, though I don't remember talking specifically about civilian usage. The military had to gear up for 9mm, and if I recall correctly, when they moved to the 92S, the chosen round was not produced in sufficient numbers at that time and production had to be increased. This could have been done with any other round, even a new one.- Yes, the ammo WAS avilable . The M882 is just the U.S. designation for the 124 grain NATO standard 9X19mm round (Of which Europe had scads). Also, the USAF had been using S&W M39's since the late 50's, so there was quite a stash of 9X19 NATO spec munitions floating about.

Even fairly low quanties of ammo is enough to make profit, as gearing up for a new round is not very difficult. The mass production is the easy part.- Wrongo. It's VERY difficult. Ask how I know this.

For the military, you are talking about very good and profitable economies of scale.- Not always. many contracts, and subcontracts are issued to starting concerns. This sometimes leads to disaster, such as out of spec parts, rejected lots of issue material, etc. One case led to the dumping of a large quantity of out of spec M16 mags onto the civillian market.

Quote:
I own, and carry a 1911A1 on a daily basis. But I'm not going to belittle the amount of firepower, and accuracy a modern 9X19 handgun can offer.

Agreed.

I don't recall belittling them.- Nope ,doggedly holding that a design is superior to all others because of it's age is not very defensible. Especially when better comes down the pike.


Meplat-

 

[OICW]

http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001355.html

The all too frequent threads monotonously discussing what handgun to carry can become tedious. For me, there are basically two choices for an individually purchased hard-use primary carry gun: a Glock 17 or a 1911.
The 9 mm Glock 17 has proven to be an an affordable, simple pistol that offers good reliability and acceptable durability (except for fragile sights) right out of the box.

For the experienced shooter, willing to invest significant time, money, and practice effort, there is no better handgun than a properly customized .45 ACP 1911. If you are not willing to spend $2500.00 or so and do not have the time or patience to wait for a qualified pistolsmith to transform your 1911 into a pistol of incomparable combat reliability and durability, then DO NOT get a 1911 for a carry gun!

See? The Colt is so great...you see to spend over two grand US to get the best out of it, either doing it yourself or buying one of the more expensive and reliable Colt variants.

After all that, you get a single stack pistol. Yes, there are dual-stack Colts, but every Colt fan I've spoken to told me to run like the wind from them, since they were unreliable and generally garbage.

 

[Meplat]

OCIW- *Shrugs* Yes and no. Para Ord of Canada has the bugs pretty much worked out. The problem (Albeit minor) is that one can no longer use the scads of cheap reliable 1911 mags floating about. Managed to score some Pre WW1 era U.S. issue mags for four bucks each, then some 30's era commercial mags for two and a half each. (Now I have a lot of really OLD 1911 mags. joy.)

I was lucky, as I bought WW2, and earlier era Colt 1911's before they were considered scarce.Even so, the 1944 vintage piece I carry might be worth about 700.00. The addition of a collet type barrel bushing, a trip to "Gunsite" in Paulden Az for some trigger work, and the late issue chromium lined barrel set another 150 odd on it. It's a typical ww2 era 1911. Ugly, and very reliable. The 30's vintage commercial I just don't shoot much anymore, and will probably sell, so I can fund a SiG P210.

Anyone who sinks two large into a 1911 needs to seek psychiatric help in my opinion.

The G-17 is a work of art. I miss mine. (Sold it hoping to score a G17L, a deal that never materialized.)

Meplat-

 

[SaraP]

After all that, you get a single stack pistol. Yes, there are dual-stack Colts, but every Colt fan I've spoken to told me to run like the wind from them, since they were unreliable and generally garbage.

Para Ordnance makes good double-stack 1911 clones, but the grips of any double-stack .45 are entirely too fat for my taste.

 

[SaraP]

So what exactily were it's problems? Do remember, there are people on this board who actually work/worked in the firearms industy, and you will be graded for accuracy.

If I recall correctly, the M-16's primary problem was that the U.S. Army insisted on using ball powder (which was cheaper and more readily available because it was used for the M-14's rounds) instead of the Dupont IMR powder recommended by the manufacturer and also decided not to chrome the weapon's chamber and bore as is generally done with military weapons. This meant that not cleaning the M-16 was a big deal; using ball powder meant a lot more residue built up inside the gun, and not chroming it meant that the residue was a lot harder to clean off.

Then they told soldiers the M-16 was self-cleaning and didn't issue any cleaning kits, which led to a lot of cases in which the rifle jammed because the gas system was too clogged up to cycle the action. Also, the non-chromed chamber tended to rust and become pitted when left uncleaned in the hot, humid jungle weather; a pitted chamber could make a spent round stick, and the cartridge rim would then shear off when the bolt extractor tried to pull it out.

In other words, it was the Army's fault for being cheap and stupid, not any inherent flaw in the rifle itself.