USMC Raiders chooses the Glock 19 over the issued 1911

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the 1911 suffers more from mag problems than anything else.

This is one common complaint about the 1911 platform that's never jelled with their legendary military service reputation for reliability. During WW2, at least 3 main companies (Colt, Remington Rand, Ithaca) made 1911's for the US military, as well as a few smaller ones. They made over 2 million during the war I believe, so these guns were not all hand crafted, hand fitted by magic gnomes like everyone seems to think 1911's must be to run right.

If the common theme among 1911 users today is that the gun is un-reliable with anything but Wilson mags because the design is so finicky, how did these WW2 guns ever function in much more adverse conditions than the firing range using magazines that were probably not that great, or uniformly made?
 
I think the 1911 suffers more from mag problems than anything else. The design could be made damned-near perfect with a few tweaks, but there is strong culturally-driven resistance to doing anything too far removed from Browning's "perfect" design,

Lordy! Here's a fella who does not know that the 1911 is the most tweaked over gun on the planet! If's it's possible to have been tweaked the 1911s had it done. No part has been left alone, from the magazines, to the slide stops, to the triggers to the bushing, name it and someone has "improved" on it.

It speaks a good deal that some fellas don't know that.

If the common theme among 1911 users today is that the gun is un-reliable with anything but Wilson mags because the design is so finicky...

This is an incorrect observation. First figure out why Wilson decided to alter his magazines from the GI design in the first place.

tipoc
 
Holy cow....a military unit being able to choose what they carry into the fight.

Maybe even tailoring their load out to the specifics of whatever they're about to do?

The end if nigh. If this keeps up, why the entire Army might issue camo that works, the Air Force might realize that Afghanistan doesn't have a force of MiG-29s, and well, you see my point.
 
This argument is basically would you rather have an AK47 or an M1A target rifle.

Two totally different guns. Neither is capable of competing with the other in what they do best.

Arguing over M9 vs Glock makes more sense to me.

Plus, they have a choice and military people are just people. Some of them will not even think about carrying a Glock and some of them will want nothing but a Glock.

That said, that SOCOM 1911 is so BA looking I don't think I could ever put it down.
 
From a quotation in Tipoc's post #41:

They’re issued to Force Reconnaissance Marines as secondary weapons to submachine guns.

And again the internet reveals military secrets. We are not supposed to know that the USMC Recon chappies are still using Reisings . . . Reisings with red dots. :p

Bart Noir
 
That would be an awesome job working at the USMC Precision Weapon Section modifying and testing all day long using the best parts Wilson Combat has to offer. I would be like a kid in a candy store and they would have to watch me close otherwise I would start making my own variations...
 
Last edited:
Not trying to turn this into a caliber debate, but there are numerous reports of the devastating potential and one-shot stop capability of the .45 ACP ball round in combat. Compared to 9mm NATO ball, it is simply far more effective in the field and that's been proven for over 100 years now by both round. In WW2 the Germans feared the .45 Thompson and .45 M1911A1, even to this day .45 ACP is considered something of an "elephant gun" type cartridge in Europe. There was a soldier in Vietnam who's main weapon jammed and he had to use his M1911A1 to fight. He shot three Vietcong each with one round, all were instantly killed. He later claimed that he probably would have been dead if he had a 9mm.

I think the Marines are wise to stick with the .45 ACP. The lighter Glock is useful in some situations, but as a force on force multiplyer the M1911 and .45 ACP are just too effective to go away anytime soon. No combat pistol has as much accuracy or stopping power as it has.
 
Lordy! Here's a fella who does not know that the 1911 is the most tweaked over gun on the planet! If's it's possible to have been tweaked the 1911s had it done. No part has been left alone, from the magazines, to the slide stops, to the triggers to the bushing, name it and someone has "improved" on it.

It speaks a good deal that some fellas don't know that.

I apologize to Zombietactics. in post #62 I read kinda snarky. I didn't intend to be.

It's irritatingly near-impossible to make me feel insulted. In some ways, I prefer snark and insult over overly timid communication (which I am ironically often guilty of, BTW). So ... no probs. :p

Regarding "tweaks", I think we're taling about two different things. I am aware that what we usually call the "1911" is not so much the 1911 design as it is the 1924 design, for instance.

MY comment goes more to changes which - by their nature - would result in a gun with incompatible parts to a 1911 ... significant changes of that kind.

It's been known that a major point of failure is the actual design of the magazines, for instance. The current mags are an adaptation of something originally designed to be a consumable product, meant to be used once or twice and then discarded.

There are some easy fixes which could make the mags more durable, but the resulting changes would result in a pistol which would no longer work well with "standard" 1911 magazines, and the new design would not even fit into older guns.

The nature of the "controlled feed" design means that a lot of things need to be in pretty precise balance: ramp geometry, breech face, extractor, and (again) magazine dimensions to name a few. Modern designs are built around looser tolerances, and therefore less picky. You could "fix" that ... but once again you'd have something incompatible with a "true" 1911 design.

In short, to address the issues (I won't say "failings" in this context) of the 1911 ... you need to redesign it to be something "not a 1911".

That's just not going to fly with purists, who constitute a large part of the 1911 market.
 
If I was in a battle where my rifle ran out of ammo I think I would like to have the Glock with the largest possible magazine, but I can make do with the 1911 back home. I feel safer with the 1911 and its safeties. If someone picked up mine they would have to know the pistol in order to fire it unlike the Glock where anyone can just yank the trigger. I wonder how many times American forces had to turn to their pistol in Iraq or Afghanistan. It looks like they carry at least 9 magazines at any given time and probably have more stashed.
 
It's been known that a major point of failure is the actual design of the magazines, for instance. The current mags are an adaptation of something originally designed to be a consumable product, meant to be used once or twice and then discarded.

Magazines for semi-automatic pistols are always a weak point. If they are damaged, bent, etc. they can be put out of commission. This is true for every pistol made.

I'd be interested if you can point me to a source for your opinion that they were intended to be disposable.

Steel magazines for pistols had been in use for about 14 years before the 1911 was deployed. The Borchardt, the Luger, and Browning's own designs had all used steel magazines. They were not intended to be "used once or twice and then discarded" they were built to be durable and used for years. They in fact were. From 1911 till 1916 all magazines for the 1911 were made with a lanyard loop. The loop was to be attached to a soldier so that the magazine would not be lost and so that it could be reused.

The magazines have remained essentially the same from a design standpoint throughout their production history up till today with only small changes to enhance durability. Colt and others still make military type magazines. The production process, grade of steel and heat treating changed some, as did how and where they are welded. They worked well with ball ammo because that was all their was.

The first significant changes to the magazines came in the 1920s and 30s from bullseye shooters who began to adapt the lips of the magazines to more easily feed lead semi wadcutter and full wad cutter ammo.

In the postwar period more changes began to be made as custom gunsmiths made changes to the guns. Some of these magazines were sold commercially as especially made for LSWC rounds. Pachmyer and Al Capone from L.A. began to market their own magazines touted as more reliable often because the guns built by them worked well with their mags but not with GI mags.

Beginning in the late 1970's jhp bullets became more reliable and common.

In the 1980s Charles Kelsey developed the 8 round magazine for the 1911 which had a radically different design follower. His company and the magazines were called Devel. He sold the patent to Chip McCormick and they are known as Shooting Star mags.

The competitive shooter Bill Wilson became a custom gunsmith and opened his own company. He introduced design changes to materials of the follower. These worked well with his guns he marketed them as more reliable. Especially with JHP ammo. He and others also introduced changes in the parts, slide stops, safeties, etc. which made use of standard mags less reliable.

It would take a longer essay to go through the changes in mag design and why they occurred. But GI magazines still work with GI guns and even with LSWC ammo and JHP with only slight alterations to the barrel. Those changes have become commonplace in production 1911s over the last couple of decades.

tipoc
 
Last edited:
I will continue to ask this question: In what way does their choice effect, change, alter or influence your opinion of a particular gun and why.

I think, and this is IMHO, that the military has the perception of having spent time, money and has developed some expertise in their armaments selection.

To the extent that this set of criteria can be transferred to the civian world, the assumption is that a milspec weapon will be "better" than a civilian-only weapon, or at least more robust.

Military contract also, by sheer volume, determine the trends seen in the civilian sector. If NATO adopts .38 revolvers, there will be a renewed interest in .38 revolvers because there will be so many variants on the theme to get a military contract.

There will always be specialty firearms developers as there are niche car mfgs. But most of us live in a Ford/Checy/Honda/Toyota world of weaponry-perfectly adequate for our needs and most of our wants, but nothing particularly memorable.
 
Im not sure about modern times, but the time I was in the Army there was absolutely nothing issued to me which could be considered good. I remember many people, to include myself, buying gear at places like Ranger Joes because the issued gear "sucked". The M16s they had in the armory were bad copies so to speak. When I got out of the Army there was nothing I wanted to keep. A Northface jacket outperforms any jacket the Army has. I certainly wouldnt buy anything in that armory if offered for sale.

Im sure things have improved in modern times...
 
For what it's worth I was in 29 Palms last summer around June and all of the MARSOC (Raiders) guys I saw out there (3 or 4 of them) were carrying the 1911. First time I saw it in person and I had make a conscious effort to keep myself from making googley eyes at their holsters. I was pretty envious, wishful thinking but maybe one day my unit will get them.
 
Not trying to turn this into a caliber debate, but there are numerous reports of the devastating potential and one-shot stop capability of the .45 ACP ball round in combat. Compared to 9mm NATO ball, it is simply far more effective in the field and that's been proven for over 100 years now by both round.

You're repeating fiction, not facts. Most of these stories began with Coopers fictional writings after the war. Neither the 1911, nor 45 ACP were particularly liked during WW-2 or Korea. By Vietnam some of the mythology was being accepted as fact. The Army knew that by WW-2's end that the 9mm was the better military pistol and pushed for a change in the 1940's. Not only did it cost less to shoot, recoil less and hold twice as many rounds, it gave up nothing in performance. In fact it penetrated barriers far, far better. A huge consideration in warfare. But with millions of guns in inventory and no "big" war on the horizon the 1911's were kept until most were worn out in the 1980's.

The truth is that 9mm and 45 ACP in comparable loadings (FMJ vs FMJ or JHP vs JHP) the end result is exactly the same. It isn't due to better modern 9mm loadings. The test results have always shown that to be true. Rather than present factual test and research data some want to always repeat the "war stories" of the 45 ACP's successes. Never repeating the stories of it's failures or the equal number of stories showing 9mm successes.

One fact about wars, the winners generally write the history books. While many in the USA are quick to point out how effective and great the 45 and 1911 were, I'm sure there are just as many stories from the German perspective of 9mm stopping attacks successfully.
 
Nice post jmr40.

The higher capacity,

M9=15 round magazine,
1911=7 round magazine,

would sure be a factor in my considerations too.

I am a big 1911 fan from way back but IMhO there are better guns for civilian concealed carry or for general military use.
 
My dad was a vet of WWII in Europe. Even though he brought back a .45 himself, I still remember how happy he was to trade a 22 rifle into a 9mm Radom pistol.
He seemed to have a lot of respect for the 9mm.
That Radom became my first SD pistol when I moved out...
 
I'm astounded that this product has not been mentioned (in a thread of four pages).

Yes, I'd choose the .45 ACP. It has certain advantages.

But I'd choose THIS ONE!

http://us.glock.com/products/model/g21

The Glock 21 .45 ACP.

I've had 1911s, I've trained with 1911s in both the Navy and Air Force and also trained with the M9 Beretta.

I've owned 1911s. Used them for years.

Now I have Glocks. They're better.
 
Oh, and the old 1911s we had in the military years back......did they jam?

Well, during my admittedly limited training experience (seven to ten sessions, I guess) I don't recall seeing one jam.

I myself never had one jam on me in military training, but the new commercial models I purchased usually jammed and sometimes jammed a lot.

I guess the military ones were well-worn and had loose fitting parts and the new commercial models were tightened up to give better accuracy. That's the only difference I can think of.

Anyhow.....there was quite a difference in my experience.
 
I'm astounded that this product has not been mentioned (in a thread of four pages)...
Yes, I'd choose the .45 ACP. It has certain advantages...
The Glock 21 .45 ACP.

I think that was mentioned earlier.

But the military did choose another 45 acp handgun awhile back and it wasn't a 1911. It was the H&K Model O Mark 23 SOCOM pistol.

In 1991 the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Special_Operations_Command

started the search for a special missions pistol in 45 acp. the gun (or system as it had a silencer and attachments for laser and lights) was seen as not a sidearm but as a primary weapon. It was adopted in 1996 after extensive testing, possibly the toughest any handgun has gone through, or so some say.

http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1947

http://sgcusa.com/handguns/h-k/45-acp/hk-mark-23-45-socom.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_Mark_23

The USP is a descendant. But the Mk 23 has not seen wide service.

It's the Marines of MARSOC who have stuck with the 1911. They have access to the M9, the Sig P226 and the Glock 19 and a few others. They ordered more in 2012 from Colt.

tipoc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top