Posted on 07/05/2014 12:47:51 PM PDT by virgil283
At one time I had three 10mm autos. Two were Colt Delta elites which were identical. They had the rowell hammer, rubber grips and were stainless. I could hardly tell the difference in recoil between them and the .45 auto.
I also had a Thompson Auto Ordinance in 10mm. Also one of their guns in .45 auto. One thing I noticed was they must have put twice the effort into their 10mm than the .45. It was better made, better finished and more accurate.
The .45 also had a small bubble where the rifling tool must have exposed. I called them and they sent me a new barrel. When I decided the original flawed barrel was more accurate they graciously let me keep both.
That’s because America tries to play by the rules, while our enemies say they play by their own rules. “The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibited the use in international warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body”.
That doesn’t come in pistol configuration. But the .40 S&W fit’s the bill well in 1911 giving good sectional density excellent stopping power and extra ammo capacity.
Yes, I know that. I was just being silly. It would be kinda cool to see a gun manufacture try and do it. Don’t know how much kick it would have.
This is the opportunity for the left to demand all new military sidearms have biometric based security... and then force it on the plebians across the nation.
If not, what's the story on it?
I ask because I have a model made in 1914 in the Springfield Armory and the one in your pic looks pretty old itself. Sweet.
Many revolvers also have lousy triggers because of the lack of a safety, meaning off target shots are more likely. I will stick with my Kimber. TO get the gun to go bang, you need to do FOUR STEPS, two of them concurrently.
1. Clear the holster
2. Drop the thumb safety.
3. Hold the grip safety.
While
4. Pulling the trigger.
Seems pretty safe to me especially seeing how the Cavalry used 1911’s while on horseback in the early 20th Century. And for those who will claim the gun was not designed to be carried chambered. Try putting the safety up without around chambered. You can’t.
Wrong! The U.S. military has never chambered any of their weapons with the .45 ACP round. Not the Model 1911 pistols, not the 1917 Revolvers, not the Thompson sub machine guns, not the M3 'Grease Gun' series, not the Liberator Pistol, not the Riesing sub machine guns, etc. The all were chambered for the Cartridge Ball, Caliber 45, Model of 1911.
The .45 ACP, .45 Auto and .45 Model 1911 are distinctly different cartridges, all built to different Technical Data Packages with different acceptable pressure limits, tested by completely different equipment and techniques. The fact that they are dimensioned similarly is irrelevant to safety considerations. Same is true of .223 Rem & 5.56mm, 9mm Luger and 9mm Luger+P, etc.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufactures Institute (SAAMI)are the authorities on cartridge names and designations.
SAAMI obsoleted the ACP designations prior to WWII. Where have you been? Granted, most gun writers and off-shore manufactures haven't gotten the word either.
Many ill informed folks want to argue this issue by pointing our how many others are ignorant of history and reality. Matters not. To paraphrase James Carville, "It's the headstamp stupid!" Or the designation on the firearm.
It is no more appropriate to address a married woman by her maiden name than it is to use obsoleted cartridge designations.
I agree with you on all points. There’s no reason to carry a 1911 that’s not “Condition One,” unless you want to use it as a bludgeoning weapon.
As I mentioned, although I’m certainly capable of carrying a 1911 safely (formerly competed in bowling pin & IPSC shooting), my personal preference would be to carry my 645, because I’m more comfortable with it. It’s got a really sweet trigger, as Ron Power performed an action job on it, as well as “tightening up” the tolerances a bit. It’s extremely accurate, and a wonderful shooter.
If I want to use a SA semi-auto, I’ve got an old Star Firestar in .40 S&W. It’s about the size of a typical .380, and is a real beast to shoot, but I can shoot it accurately.
But in a CCW situation, I’m just more comfortable with a revolver, and as I said, that’s strictly my personal opinion, and applies only to myself.
Mark
I need to add a revolver or 2 to my collection. As it stands now, the only revolvers I have are Ruger Vaqueros in 45 Colt, and I won’t be using them as a carry piece anytime soon.
OTOH, I love S&W revolvers, and I've got an awesome model 57 in .41 magnum that is an incredibly sweet shooter.
Mark
Rugers are some of my favorite guns. A few weeks back I picked up an SR762 and just added EOTech optics and and EOTech magnifier to it. Always wanted an original Eugene Stoner gun as he designed it. A true thing of beauty.
But the US Army’s SSA was a .45. It was fed either .45 (long) Colt, or .45 Schofield.
There is no such cartridge. Never has been and probably will never be despite how badly some laymen want to rename cartridges for nefarious reasons.
Nor has there ever been a ".45 Short Colt", ".45 Medium Colt", .45 Extra Long Colt", etc. The correct designation for subject cartridge is ".45 Colt". Period.
To paraphrase James Carville, "It's the headstamp, Stupid".
That’s why I put it in ().
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.