M9 vs M1911A1

[Glenn R. McMannly]

Below is my Tisas GI edition .45 automatic along with WW2-based pistol belt gear. Below that is my Beretta M9 with a similar setup based on Desert Storm or early GWOT.



I love shooting them both and have a hard time picking which would be the one I'd want to carry in combat.

For me, the M1911A1 is a hard hitting classic and harkens back. But the M9 is a smooth shooter with benefits in capacity and (for me) shootability. It's a very tough choice!

What are your thoughts on the matter? Which one do you think was the better military sidearm?

-Glenn

 

[Rocketmedic40]

The m9, and it's not particularly close.

The service pistol is intended to be as broadly useable and accessible and maintainable as possible, and as "safe" as possible, for the largest majority of users possible. By this very definition, it will not be the **most** of anything. For every soldier who instinctively knows the secrets of the barrel bushing, there's four more who struggle; for every soldier who can beast-mode the .45ACP, there's another who struggles with recoil management; for everyone comfortable with Condition 1 carry, there's someone who isn't.

The M9 is a potent, accurate, reliable, easily-maintainable handgun that has proven itself useful in many, many, many hands and circumstances.

Both pistols are very well-proven, very reliable and have been lambasted and controversial since they were introduced. Plenty more 1911s were bought, traded, dropped, lost, sold, made, etc, as weapons accountability wasn't the same back in the day, but both designs had massive civilian exposure too. The m9 had far more media discussion.

At the end of the day; the M9 does everything a sidearm needs to do and does it well, well enough that the negative attributes of the older 1911 are greater in most given circumstances than the negative attributes of the M9.

 

[VaTom]

Each pistol has its pros and cons. Hard choice but in today's environment the M9 would be the choice. Only carried S&W K frame revolvers and Glock 23 in my working career so no war time experience. I enjoy shooting both. My military contract WWII 1943 Ithaca 1911A1 and 1985 Beretta 92F. (92f is the original design chosen by US military in 1985 to become M9).

 

[sceva]

Which one was the main service pistol the longest?

Which one came back AFTER a switch to the other?

Nuff said

 

[Sevens]

Generally speaking the 1911 is better than the Beretta, IMO.

With FMJ required ammo, .45 does a better job than 9mm.

If I were sent in to harm's way and I had to pick one of the two, that's a slightly different answer. If I had the chance to have a range day with each, I would choose whichever of the two performed best for me after getting to know both for a couple hours.

If it was a blind pick, I would probably grab the 1911.

 

[Muley Gil]

I carried a 1911 for most of a 25 year police career here in the States. I carried a Beretta for 5 years as an international police officer and police advisor in Kosovo and Afghanistan. The Beretta was too big for a 9mm, IMNSHO, and it didn't fit my hand well. That said, I shot 100% with it on every qualification I shot.

I love my 1911s, but I think there needs to be a lot of training done before you should carry one on duty. The Beretta isn't dummyproof either. I saw several folks carrying one with the hammer cocked!!!

Considering most G.I.s won't use a handgun as their primary weapon, I would suggest the Glock Model 19 as a better choice.

 

[rockquarry]

I'm not going into combat, but I've been shooting both for more than thirty years. The only negative aspect of the Beretta is the 9mm cartridge. The only negative aspect of the 1911 is it's lack of a single-action/double-action design.

With only one negative each, it's a tossup; both good pistols.

 

[Rocketmedic40]

**stares in Beretta 96/Taurus PT101

 

[rockquarry]

**stares in Beretta 96/Taurus PT101

What does that mean?

 

[Rocketmedic40]

What does that mean?

Those are the 40 caliber Smith & Wesson variations of the Beretta 92 design. Exact same function in economics, but chambered in 40 Smith & Wesson for that little extra punch. The size of the 92 relative to most 9 mm makes them a perfect host for the 40.

 

[65-2x2]

Below is my Tisas GI edition .45 automatic along with WW2-based pistol belt gear. Below that is my Beretta M9 with a similar setup based on Desert Storm or early GWOT.

View attachment 791072

I love shooting them both and have a hard time picking which would be the one I'd want to carry in combat.

For me, the M1911A1 is a hard hitting classic and harkens back. But the M9 is a smooth shooter with benefits in capacity and (for me) shootability. It's a very tough choice!

What are your thoughts on the matter? Which one do you think was the better military sidearm?

-Glenn

Is the M3 knife original?

 

[Glenn R. McMannly]

Is the M3 knife original?

No, it is a U.S. made Camillus reproduction from the early 1990's. Widely considered the best M3 repro ever and made from the same company that made them during the war.

But unlike a period original, I have no qualms about using it for camp chores (and do).

 

[65-2x2]

No, it is a U.S. made Camillus reproduction from the early 1990's. Widely considered the best M3 repro ever and made from the same company that made them during the war.

But unlike a period original, I have no qualms about using it for camp chores (and do).

I get that!

 

[AJ]

I carried both on active duty. I own both. My choice will be a M1911A1 for carry duties. In the night stand sits an 92F with a 20 round mag and two 15 round mags. More trigger time with the M1911A1 and also taught a "Combat Pistol Course" that was designed by Jeff Cooper for the USMC Security Force Battalions. Getting a bit long in the tooth as they say for that sort of thing. So keep the 92 in the drawer for use if needed. Hopefully won't run out of ammo before the Deputy that lives next door comes to see what is going on.

 

[Phenix]

I carried a 1911 for most of a 25 year police career here in the States. I carried a Beretta for 5 years as an international police officer and police advisor in Kosovo and Afghanistan. The Beretta was too big for a 9mm, IMNSHO, and it didn't fit my hand well. That said, I shot 100% with it on every qualification I shot.

I love my 1911s, but I think there needs to be a lot of training done before you should carry one on duty. The Beretta isn't dummyproof either. I saw several folks carrying one with the hammer cocked!!!

Considering most G.I.s won't use a handgun as their primary weapon, I would suggest the Glock Model 19 as a better choice.

I agree 100%.
I prefer the 1911 myself.
But in the hands of recruits nowadays who usually have no prior experience with firearms, especially handguns, the Glock (especially if it had a thumb safety) would be the better choice.

 

[65-2x2]

I agree 100%.
I prefer the 1911 myself.
But in the hands of recruits nowadays who usually have no prior experience with firearms, especially handguns, the Glock (especially if it had a thumb safety) would be the better choice.

When I went to boot camp, I had no experience with handguns and I took to the 1911 like a fish to water and was shooting it well from the first time out. It was a love affair that has lasted...

 

[Faulkner]

I carried a Beretta M92 as my LEO duty handgun for a couple of years and never did warm up to it. In fact, it was my dislike for the M92 that pushed me towards Glocks, which I took an instant liking to once I tried one at the range.

I've also shot 1911's a great deal in the past 10 years or so recreationally, and have carried one off duty on occasion. Between the M9 and the M1911, I'd probably stick with the M1911 if those were my only options.

But, I agree with Muley Gil, the G19 is a better option as is. I tell folks who complain that a Glock needs a thumb safety they just need to get a M&P and be done with it. In my opinion if someone is not firearms competent enough to carry a Glock without a thumb safety then don't carry one.

 

[Kanewpadle]

That's a tough question.

When I joined the Air Force I first qualified with Smith model 10. A year later I qualified with a WW II era 1911. Two years later I qualified with the M9.

Back then we were taught point shooting only. For most people the 1911 points naturally. The Beretta not so much because of the large grip.

Part of me thinks that I would want the Beretta because I done messed up and lost track of my rifle and I need as many bullets as I can to get back to it.

The other part thinks that ball ammo stinks and a bigger bullet is better.

Both are great guns. But I'm also in the Glock camp. A Glock 17 specifically. Longer sight radius and more bullets. Glock has never failed me.

 

[Phenix]

When I went to boot camp, I had no experience with handguns and I took to the 1911 like a fish to water and was shooting it well from the first time out. It was a love affair that has lasted...

There are exceptions to my statement, of course, as with any blanket statement regarding human beings.
I'm guessing you had some experience with rifles and proper sight picture, safe handling of firearms, etc. before entering the service. Even that helps develop skill and safe-handling of handguns.

 

[sousana]

Below is my Tisas GI edition .45 automatic along with WW2-based pistol belt gear. Below that is my Beretta M9 with a similar setup based on Desert Storm or early GWOT.

View attachment 791072

I love shooting them both and have a hard time picking which would be the one I'd want to carry in combat.

For me, the M1911A1 is a hard hitting classic and harkens back. But the M9 is a smooth shooter with benefits in capacity and (for me) shootability. It's a very tough choice!

What are your thoughts on the matter? Which one do you think was the better military sidearm?

-Glenn

Carry both