One of the most astounding things about these threads is the byzantine and absurd argumentation of the low capacity apologists.
Even a cursory study of actual shootings, pro-active, re-active, civilian, law enforcement, military, ANY OF THEM, show an overwhelming need for capacity. Few, if any, are decided in only a handful of rounds. Further, without bringing up any other issue beyond capacity, even if a shooting is resolved in fewer than than 7 or 8 shots, the cost associated with losing that bet is absurdly high. To lose is often to die.
To summarize, no one that I know who has gone into harms way has ever wished for less ammunition on their person or in their primary weapon (which was generally a rifle, when possible). If anything, they swapped a handgun and magazines for additional rifle magazines, depending on their AO & TPP.
If you are taking the act of gunfighting seriously, the low capacity of a 1911 alone makes the platform obsolete.
Full stop.
If you are an artist and the 1911 is your paintbrush, then so be it. Most of us are not, and frankly, I'd prefer a deep magazine to make up for my shortcomings.
But the world is supposed to stop spinning and everyone fall to their knees when Glock comes out with a 6 shot 9mm.
The capacity argument for "civilians" (non-LE/military for the sake of discussion) is mostly BS. If you actually look at civilian shooting stats, long drawn out gun battles are few and far between. For the most part civilian gun fights occur at relatively close range and they're won by the person that gets rounds into the other guy first and in the majority of cases it is the bad guys that are trying to get away when targeted victims guns come out.
The most popular civilian concealed carry guns are smallish, lower capacity .38spls, .380s, and 9mms. For most people their carry choices are driven by cost, size, weight, and convenience of carry. And there isn't a thing wrong with that, because the first rule of gun fighting is "have a gun" and a .38 snubby or a Ruger .380 beats the hell out of being unarmed. For the better part of a century the majority of LEOs carried 6 shot revolvers and managed just fine in more dangerous environments than todays Average Joe faces.
Certainly a modern day LEO needs to seriously evaluate his own situation when choosing a sidearm for duty or off duty carry, if he has any say in the matter. But he has an obligation and responsibility to respond that the civilian concealed handgun carrier is not burdened by. If the guy with his permit wants to kit himself out with an 18rd polymer wonder and 2 spare mags, a couple of knives, etc., that's cool, but it's not for everyone. In fact, it's not for most people. Most people drive Camrys and mini vans, and take their kids to soccer and work regular jobs that don't allow or make that sort of carry very difficult. They carry a gun in a manner that fits their lifestyle.
So, to say that the 1911 is obsolete based on capacity, is to say that most people that carry guns in this country are carrying guns that are similarly obsolete by that same measure. Which is a load of crap and is totally unsupported by the facts and the stats.
On top of that, I'll go out on a limb and speculate that the concealed handgun carrier that does carry a 1911, whether a civilian or not, is, in most cases, probably a better informed, better trained, more practiced,
more committed gun owner/carrier than average, with more time and money invested in training, practice, and equipment than the average. And, because of that, stands a better chance of surviving and prevailing in a gun fight, regardless of the pistol's capacity.
and the dumbest keyboard commando statement in this thread goes to
