M1911 vs. M9

The Sight M1911-A1 ^ | unknown | unattributed

[Dawgsquat]

M1911vsM9

Click here for The Sight's main menu	Visit The Sight's Gear and Supply Shop
M1911 vs. M9

In 1985, the United States Armed Forces replaced the M1911 with the Beretta 92 F to the everlasting consternation of 1911 devotees everywhere. There were several reasons for the switch. The U.S. was the only NATO country not using a 9mm as the standard issue sidearm and there was a desire to issue a pistol chambered for the ubiquitous 9mm for logistical reasons. The Beretta will hold 15 rounds in its magazine as compared with 7 rounds of the military issue 1911 magazine and is lighter and easier to field strip than the 1911. The double action/single action Beretta was perceived as being a safer pistol to carry in a state of readiness than the "cocked and locked" 1911. In some quarters, the .45 ACP was viewed as too powerful and difficult to control for those having only nominal training with the weapon.

Defenders of the 1911 will vehemently contest these last three perceptions, pointing to the superior trigger and durability of the 1911, and the superior stopping power and inherent accuracy of the .45 ACP cartridge. In terms of safety, three conditions must be met for the cocked and locked 1911 to fire: (1) a firing grip must depress the grip safety; (2) the manual safety must be taken off, and (3) the trigger must be pulled. Nevertheless, it looks scary and the Armed Forces have documented negligent discharges from improperly handled pistols.

It could be said that the 1911 fell victim to its own mythology. I grew up hearing the stories of the .45--that it kicked so badly that an inexperienced person couldn't hit a door from twenty feet away with one, that a man, struck anywhere on the body by a .45 round would be knocked down as if hit by a truck, and that you could shoot down a Japanese Zero with a .45. (A Zero was downed with a .45 but by a head shot on the pilot by an American aviator parachuting from a bomber. The Zero was trying to strafe the American.) In 1998 The FBI S.W.A.T. team adopted the Springfield 1911A1 as standard issue. Anecdotal evidence out of Desert Storm indicates that the Berettas jammed because of the fine sand in the desert and the Marines broke out the 1911's.

My Own Opinion:

The M9, Beretta 92 F, has the smoothest slide and the lightest recoil spring of any major caliber pistol I know of. When you rack the slide of the M9, you can feel the precision and quality of its manufacture. Those bottomless 15-round magazines could prove to be life savers should you decide to shoot it out with the Crips or invade a small foreign country. My wife is of the opinion that the Beretta is the nicest shooting autoloader around. It has a very good trigger for a DA/SA and the long barrel and sight radius give it adequate accuracy.

Too bad the 92 F is a 9mm. The 9mm is a reasonable defensive round. It will do its part if you do yours, but of course, the same could be said of a .32 caliber pocket gun. Questions have been raised about the "stopping power" of the 9mm and people whose lives depend on their handguns have been migrating away from the 9mm and toward the .40 S&W and .45 ACP in recent years. If I had to shoot someone and I had one shot to do the job, I'd rather that shot be a 230 grain .45 ACP.

My target and competition gun is a Kimber Compact. The question of "inherent accuracy" is the grist of endless debates, but I do believe that some cartridges are more inherently accurate than others. I base this on nothing more than my own experience with shooting them. In my hands, .38 and .45 are more accurate rounds than 9mm and .40 S&W. I shoot .45 with much greater accuracy than I do 9mm, so it is more rewarding for me to shoot .45 for fun and competition. .45 ACP is heavier and more expensive than 9mm, and folks who are particularly recoil sensitive will enjoy the 9mm more than the .45. Last, but not least, 9mm pistols tend to be lighter and more comfortable to carry than 1911s, although some lightweight models of the 1911 are beginning to appear.

Did the Armed Forces make a good choice? Well, I hope so. The M1911 isn't the best gun for a beginner. In an absolute sense, the M9 is probably safer at ready than an M1911, although, in the hands of a trained person, the 1911 is perfectly safe. The additional rounds might also be an advantage to the nominally trained soldier or law enforcement officer possessed of marginal marksmanship. Which one do I like the best? The M1911, of course.

 

MORE BERETTA 92 LINKS

Beretta's Model 92FS Page

Beretta Info Page

Francesco's Unofficial Beretta Page

M9 Manual (PDF) from BiggerHammer

---

If you don't see a blue navigation button above, click here.

This page was last updated on 12/13/01

[KneelBeforeZod]

the links were probably not full links...they just pointed back to the page iself...ie img src="92f.gif" instead of =http://gunpage.com/92f.gif....

When you pull the html out to post it somewhere else, the new page doesn't know where to look for the pix

[Don Joe]

"I think it was last year when the army didn't have any 9MM ammo to train with."

This is a national disgrace. We send these people out to risk their lives for us, and don't give them sufficient training.

[Tailback]

I hate the M9. It's trigger pull is very long, the grips are awful for someone with smallish hands (think of all the female MP's and clerks) and there were problems with the slides cracking. The Sig or Glock were not accepted because I believe they don't have a positive safety lever, instead they have multiple internal safety's. Of course, the SigP228 was later accepted as the M11 for use as a concealed weapon for CID and for special ops. The Army would be better off by forcing NATO to change to the .40 SW and adopt either the Sig or Glock.

[ableChair]

Basically, I don't see any significant technological improvement over the Model 1911-A1, despite all the hype about modern designs. Until such time that chemically propelled missiles are supplanted by something more sophisticated, I don't see that there is much that can be done to dramatically improve on the 1911.

As for "stopping power", the U.S. Army has collected data on this for decades and two crucial findings are immediately evident:

1.) Handguns, of just about any caliber, are not reliable in stopping human aggressors. Only rifles (and some shotguns) offer much reliability in that arena.

2.) Under the conditions of stress encountered in combat/firefights, long guns have a much better record when it comes to actually hitting targets. Accuracy drops off precipitously during stress, and only long guns can assist the shooter in compensating for this by allowing shoulder contact. In fact, accuracy with handguns in combat, statistically speaking, is abysmal.

So, if I have to use a handgun, my first choice would be the 1911, but I'd much rather have a 7.62x54 mm NATO rifle.

[Tailback]

7.62X54 is a Russian round with a rimmed case. 7.62X51 is the NATO round. I agree with your premise, I'd take a M240 medium machinegun over just about anything as long as I didn't have to carry it far!

[ableChair]

"7.62X51 is the NATO round"

Thanks for the correction.

[Gadsen]

I make those Rugers.
.
.
.
.
I carry a 1911-A1.

[ableChair]

Hey, do you know what happened to the USAS-12 semiautomatic shotgun? It was 12 gauge (2 and 3/4" only) and had a 20 round drum magazine. It looked like a beefed up M-16. A friend of mine owned one a few years ago but I don't know if they make them anymore. We put a "hellfire" switch on it. Wheewww!!

[Illbay]

I thought this was an amateur astronomy thread, actually.

[Tailback]

I think I've seen pictures of those but I've never seen one in real life. Saiga makes a shotgun on the AK-47 action and gas system with a magazine. I'm not much of a shotgun person. I've stuck to mostly the M-60, M-240, and M-2 machineguns and shoot AR-15's and M-16's in service rifle competitions.

[ableChair]

Now, am M-60 would be nice, but unfortunately, they require a transfer tax and cost about 20K! I used to shoot the s@$t out of those in the military. Fun.

[Lurker]

That's 1/2 a grain less than the Sierra manual calls for.

Try doing a little thing called 'reading' before you post.

It helps one avoid looking like an idiot.

Regards,

L

[Tailback]

If you liked the 60 you'd LOVE the M240. Higher rate of fire, more reliable, easier to clean, and a built in accessory rail to mount night vision or your favorite telescopic sight. Only drawback is it's a few pounds heavier.

[Don Myers]

"I've read good things about the .40 S&W, but have never had the pleasure of owning a gun in that caliber."

I have two: a S&W Model 4006 and a Sig Sauer Model 239. Use a high performance round such as the Corbon and there should be no problems. Even using hardball, which most people don't recommend for defense purposes in any caliber, it still makes a .40 hole. I doubt that a person shot with a .45 or a .40 could tell you the difference.

[american_ranger]

The Armed Forces have more than nominal firearms training, and some training is with weapons even more powerful than the pistol, hard to imagine but true.

The US Army does jack ____ for firearms training. A few years ago I was involved in reviewing the training syllabus for new Armor Lieutenants; they received more time on sensitivity and homosexual training than they did shooting their pistol. I kid you not.

[ableChair]

I've heard about it. I don't know what they've done with the M-60 as far as improvements, but we used the "delta", M-60D. And that thing was heavy, especially humping it in the jungle, so I can imagine what the 249 is like! But the 249 fires the 5.56 doesn't it? I would think it would be lighter, even with accessories.

[ableChair]

P.S.

Yea, the 60 was a beast to clean. Lots of small parts to lose :-(

[Euro-American Scum]

Never handled a Kimber in my long, sordid career. Mine's a Para-Ordinance P-14. Not a Glock, to be sure, but it's definitely the 1911 I prefer. Solid, well-built and accurate.

If I wasn't sold on my G21, this one would be my favorite. As it is, it's a very close second, and a very good choice for a combat pistol.

[Lurker]

From the Speer Manual:

6.4 grains Bullseye with 185 grain Gold Dot bullet:
(Note, Speer lists 6.4 grains of Bullseye as a maximum load. My original response was a full 1/2 grain under the listed maximum.)

986 fps.

From the Lee Table under 'Starting Loads'(Another note, that's a Starting Load, not a maximum load):

5.9 grains Bullseye:

995 fps.

Now, an apology for having my original response pulled would be nice, seeing as how you were completely wrong and all.

And just for the record, Lurker never, ever exceeds the maximum recommended loads published in recognized reloading manuals.

Everything I post here has been personally used by myself in factory made firearms for at least 1,000 rounds.

Next time, check your facts and you will avoid the pain of me making you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

L