I also spoke at great length that the military's typical manual of arms for pistols precludes pretty much all pistols that don't have a manual safety. Glocks are automatically out for any realistic discussion there. But if they change policies, then a glock would be perfect for combat. Heck the UK recently switched to the glock 17 and South Korea uses the glock 15. For a .45, the glock 21 is too fat for most folks, maybe something like the glock 21sf would be appropriate. Also this assumes the military could ever accept a polymer frame versus steel or aluminum.
-
If you are having trouble changng your password please click here for help.
Time to trade in your 1911s?
- Thread starter Jester7
- Start date
I also spoke at great length that the military's typical manual of arms for pistols precludes pretty much all pistols that don't have a manual safety. Glocks are automatically out for any realistic discussion there. But if they change policies, then a glock would be perfect for combat. Heck the UK recently switched to the glock 17 and South Korea uses the glock 15. For a .45, the glock 21 is too fat for most folks, maybe something like the glock 21sf would be appropriate. Also this assumes the military could ever accept a polymer frame versus steel or aluminum.
There are better combat pistols then the 1911....but unless the us military changes it's training and policies regarding the handling of sidearms, the differences between modern guns and the 1911 are not as different as you might think. Assuming .45 still of course
I apologize if it appeared that I was trying to dismiss your previous statements about the current military doctrine. That was not my intent. I will be going to read up on this. Didn't know this existed.
Yeah, I think it is a silly argument to go with a 1911 or even a 45 at all. If you are carrying a gun for defense, your life is on the line. you don't go with some nostalgic nonsense "because it's what worked for great great great granpappy when he was in 'the service'". That's a line of thinking that means you are not being rational, and you may ignore reality, but you will not ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
The 1911 is an antiquated platform, and the 45ACP is also a lackluster choice for a carry round. The 9mm takes the cake. Absolutely no statistical correlation exists between increased lethality with a 45 vs a 9mm. Read that again. Absolutely ZERO statistical evidence exists, whatsoever, to suggest that a 45 is more lethal than a 9mm.
People need to understand that all handgun rounds are crappy, and a handgun is only a means to get to a rifle. Look at the kinetic energies of all your modern loadings in 45, 40, 9mm, 38, 357 sig, etc. They are nearly identical.
So why go with a 9mm? Because in a gunfight the name of the game is peace through overwhelming and superior firepower, and you can carry a lot more 9mm than you can 45. One mag of 9mm is 3 mags of your 45 macho caliber. And for those of you who think you are going to hit something with one round "because you don't want to shoot twice with a 9mm" (macho bull$h!t attitude guaranteed to get you smoked on the 2 way range), you clearly have never *trained* under adrenaline, so you don't know what happens to your fine motor skills under stress.
If you're going to carry a 45, which I don't think you should, at least make it a reliable one. You can ***** all you want about "how you don't want a plastic gun" and other such nonsense, and we can have a discussion about aesthetics, but you won't one up the reliability of the Glocks and in a gun fight, you will want the reliability and capacity of the 21st century.
Put your ego aside and decide rationally which one you want. Which is more simple? Which has fewer parts? Which is easier for a novice (less training demand) to operate? Which is demonstrably more reliable.
Now ask yourself this one question: If you had to send your daughter into combat, would you want her to have a Glock, or would you cling to nostalgia, romanticism and ego and send her with a 1911?
The 1911 is an antiquated platform, and the 45ACP is also a lackluster choice for a carry round. The 9mm takes the cake. Absolutely no statistical correlation exists between increased lethality with a 45 vs a 9mm. Read that again. Absolutely ZERO statistical evidence exists, whatsoever, to suggest that a 45 is more lethal than a 9mm.
People need to understand that all handgun rounds are crappy, and a handgun is only a means to get to a rifle. Look at the kinetic energies of all your modern loadings in 45, 40, 9mm, 38, 357 sig, etc. They are nearly identical.
So why go with a 9mm? Because in a gunfight the name of the game is peace through overwhelming and superior firepower, and you can carry a lot more 9mm than you can 45. One mag of 9mm is 3 mags of your 45 macho caliber. And for those of you who think you are going to hit something with one round "because you don't want to shoot twice with a 9mm" (macho bull$h!t attitude guaranteed to get you smoked on the 2 way range), you clearly have never *trained* under adrenaline, so you don't know what happens to your fine motor skills under stress.
If you're going to carry a 45, which I don't think you should, at least make it a reliable one. You can ***** all you want about "how you don't want a plastic gun" and other such nonsense, and we can have a discussion about aesthetics, but you won't one up the reliability of the Glocks and in a gun fight, you will want the reliability and capacity of the 21st century.
Put your ego aside and decide rationally which one you want. Which is more simple? Which has fewer parts? Which is easier for a novice (less training demand) to operate? Which is demonstrably more reliable.
Now ask yourself this one question: If you had to send your daughter into combat, would you want her to have a Glock, or would you cling to nostalgia, romanticism and ego and send her with a 1911?
When I Googled Glock 15 all I got back was "HAHAHAHAHAHAHA TROLLED".
Just kidding. Thanks for clarification!
Why does the military want manual safeties? That idea seems antiquated as well.
I would think for liability but I have no idea.
While I've never served, talking with vets and Internet research shows that most services require sidearms to be carried unchambered and a safety on. This is because there have been incidents where young soldiers had accidental discharges etc. because they often didn't have high levels of training. Remember that most soldiers serve for 3-4 years and then are discharged. Hundreds of thousands of different guys serve over a certain period and the training has to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Otherwise known as make it as hard as possible for some young idiot to screw up.
That thinking is actually why the 1911 had a frame safety. Brownings original design had just the grip safety but the military required the frame safety to cover their butts. Talk to any old fella who carried a 1911 in the service I'm sure they can tell you all the safety precautions they had to follow.
That sort of thinking is hard to unlearn, which is why they replaced the 1911 with the m9 which had a manual safety also. Now, there is no reason they can't all switch to a DA/SA like a sig....the coast guard and navy use them and I'm not aware of an mass casualties from the switch lol.
If the army, Air Force, and marines can change their procedures with sidearms then I'm sure a modern polymer pistol would be fantastic. Something like the glock 21sf
That thinking is actually why the 1911 had a frame safety. Brownings original design had just the grip safety but the military required the frame safety to cover their butts. Talk to any old fella who carried a 1911 in the service I'm sure they can tell you all the safety precautions they had to follow.
That sort of thinking is hard to unlearn, which is why they replaced the 1911 with the m9 which had a manual safety also. Now, there is no reason they can't all switch to a DA/SA like a sig....the coast guard and navy use them and I'm not aware of an mass casualties from the switch lol.
If the army, Air Force, and marines can change their procedures with sidearms then I'm sure a modern polymer pistol would be fantastic. Something like the glock 21sf
