[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!