How come 1911 autos never took with LEOs in the early to mid 20th century?

On the Battlefield a pistol is about worthless and out moded for killing as an effective weapon. I alway thought the only reason those things got issued out anyway was to people who had the rank enough to get away from carrying a rifle. When I got deployed the first thing that popped into my mind was I hope that bastard doesn't think about trying to pull any rank on anyone and get their rifle when the SHTF because I would refuse to ever let it happen to anyone. The Pistol's main purpose in my book is to prevent troops from running from battle in the first place. Sorry but that is life in the Army
 
Happened to me just yesterday.

Detective: "Um, Cap?...."

Me: "Hi Erik! What's up?"

Det.: "Um,.... did you know your gun's cocked, sir?"

Me: "Yup! Thanks."

Det.: "Um......" (worry lines present, not sure what to say :rolleyes: :D )

Me: " Hmm. Erik, that Glock (17) you're packin's cocked too. Think about it."

Det.: "???.........., Yeah, I guess it is." (Walks away scratching head :D :D )
 
On the Battlefield a pistol is about worthless and out moded for killing as an effective weapon
Click to expand...
Untrue. There have been numerous awards written up for OIF I/II where Marines have used their M9s effectively to kill insurgents.
Same was said about the bayonet. However I know of at least two instances, from one battalion, where the bayonet was also used effectively to turn off the life light of some insurgents.
 
Military paridagams about weapons training are different than LE.
Remember, the military does a great job of taking people from any walk of life and training them for specialized situations across a broad spectrum of work projects and such.


Military training still has the core that it can take just about anybody and make them adequate at a variety of different chores.

Law enforcement training is a lot more narrow by nature. They can spend more time doing handgun training than the military does.

Also, military weapons training for handguns was designed around the m1911.
You have one soldier releave another soldier on duty and hand over his gun to him. Its just safer to have an empty chamber. And less wear and tear by cycling rounds.
Most ADs in the military take place when people were clearing guns and pointing the muzzles at the sand barrels, by the way. A friend of mine got shot in the head by a .45 when another guy pulled the trigger WITHOUT taking the mag out of the .45 first.
This is one reason why the Army wanted a weapon with a decocker, by the way.

So you have general service people who have limited time to be trained being trained to use a very, very specialized high performance weapon.
Which is why Condition 3 and Condition 4 are used by the military.

Notice that in LE circles the 1911 is still popular for SWAT type duty. Those officers have even MORE weapons training.

LE wants weapons that are SAFE first and high performance only for specialized units.



Remember, Law Enforcement had plenty of accidental discharges back when they issued double action revolvers, which are technically safer than any autoloader.
Accidents happen.

>>>If the military forced soldiers to carry the 1911 with empty chambers because of ND's, why would PD's adopt it?
<<<
 
why not .45's

Its real simple, they werent allowed to carry or use them, thats the answer, i dont know what all of the other typing is about.
 
Your answer is wrong though.
The fact is the 1911 was very popular with LE back in the 20s and 30s and was used heavily by them. Not just the Texas Rangers and the FBI either.
Remember, as late as the 1940s the Colt Single Action revolver was still a popular duty weapon in law enforcement in municipalities from New York to the southwest.
Many officers carried their newfangled autos with a loaded chamber and the hammer down and thumbed back the hammer on the draw as they had with their SA colt wheelguns.
the colt Pocket Autos in .380 were also popular back then. Let me refer you to the writings of Col. Charles Askins who was a lawman in those days. He carried both but threw away his pocket model after an AD.




The Double Action Revolver became standard following WWII for a variety of reasons.
First of all, it was cheap and available as surpluss (the Victory models). In rural West Virginia most cops carried Colt and S&W model 1917 service revolvers right up into the late sixties and early seventies. You saw more of them than you did any other gun in the coalfields.
Also, stories from poorly trained doughboys about the .45 autos kick and lack of accuracy led many shooters and lawmen to adopt wheelguns. ...Which were usually fired single action on each shot.
By the 1950s when the DA revolver became sort of standard, many people assumed there was a reason and would tend to make up stories such as "automatics jam" or "they are unsafe" when the real reason was usually very differrent --IE surpluss revolvers were cheaper, and .38 ammo was less expensive.


>>Its real simple, they werent allowed to carry or use them, thats the answer, i dont know what all of the other typing is about.
<<<
 
Yes, you're Glock is cocked and it doesn't have a safety!
Click to expand...

The Glock is "half-cocked" until the trigger is fully depressed, and the INTERNAL safeties are released.:D

And don't forget about the "trigger safety".
 
most everyone in my department in oklahoma carried a revolver...

a few guys had glocks and several were 'upgrading' to sig 220s (.45acp)...

one guy carried a stainless 1911A1. when i asked about that (after reading the SOP re: double action semis and glocks) i was told he was grandfathered in since he had been carrying it since before they added anything about semis in the SOP...

i carried a stainless king cobra and never managed to shoot LESS than expert everytime i qualified...
 
Sure it takes more training, competence and familiarity with one's pistol when carrying cocked and locked, but cocked and locked in a good holster is a perfectly safe and effective way to carry if you one is a serious, sober and competent individual (that learns his/her weapon well). Sometimes I think that people have a simple psychological aversive reaction to seeing a hammer cocked, and get a tad irrational about one's gun being "cocked" and on a "hair trigger". Once that safety is deactivated, sure, a light SA trigger does require more trigger discipline, but it is a sad commentary that armed professionals, and civilians for that matter, can't receive the training so that they can attain that discipline, and then have practical access to the best trigger/safety set up ever devised by man. :cool:
 
Because the 1911 was and still is an outdated innacurate piece of unreliable garbage created by a man not fit to lick the boots of Gaston Glock. Its too heavy, too expensive, too bulky and fires an outdated and weak caliber compared to the 9mm which has marginally more kinetic energy and is therefore vastly superior for some reason despite the fact that it creates a 66percent smaller wound track.
Click to expand...

Wow :rolleyes:
 
Only a moderate increase in capacity over revolvers, no increase in firepower over a .357 mag revolver, and would've required changing out all the ammo they already had and relearning a whole new manual of arms.
 
I think it is pretty simple.

Revolvers were viewed as police weapons.

Semi-autos were viewed as military weapons.

A few individual cops carried 45s, even a few agencies here and there, but most had revolvers.

There was also the view that a DA revolver was simple and reliable compared to semi-autos. There was some truth to that.

And really, it just was not an issue. Cops just did not think they were generally outgunned, so a DA revolver was adequate.
 
but it is a sad commentary that armed professionals, and civilians for that matter, can't receive the training so that they can attain that discipline, and then have practical access to the best trigger/safety set up ever devised by man.
Click to expand...
How much are you (generic "you") willing to pay for that training? That is what a lot of this amounts to. YOUR tax dollars at work. Want to send every LEO in the country to Thunder Ranch for a week? That's only about $2 Billion. Got to keep that in mind...civvies can train as much as they want since they pay for it. But if you want your cops to train to a level you want, you have to pay for it.
 
There is another factor that plays into this.

In many large urban areas, someone has to get a payoff for just about any government contract that is issued. It may be that it is not so easy to cover the graft on a firearms purchase, so was just not real important to the politicians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top