M9 vs M1911A1

[Greyman50]

Years ago had a USMC Officer friend that we shot with. This was when the M-9 was first issued. He told us the first time shooting the M-9 the slide broke. He went to his CO and showed him and asked to carry his 1911. CO gave him the ok and he carried his 1911 for years. He's long retired so have not talked to him in years.

 

[Harv 24]

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.

Agree

I carried both for Uncle Sugar and would ditch both for G19...if you know...You know.

 

[erikpolcrack]

I'm hopelessly in love with both of them! One thing I really go for in guns is versatility. Got a bunch of Savage bolt actions with which I play switch barrels/calibers. Got one full size Glock that can quickly switch 40 S&W/357 Sig /9mm. I have a 40 S&W slide assembly for my Beretta 92 and multiple variations for my 1911s: 45 Super/45 ACP/ 400 Corbon - 10mm/40S&W (still on the lookout for a bargain on a 357 Sig barrel) - 9mm/38 Super. It may be because of population density, but I do find myself playing with one of my 1911s a lot more than my Beretta.

 

[cleger]

I'd carry a couple of extra rifle mags.

 

[poledorus]

The last twenty or so years has greatly changed the emphasis on handguns in military service. Before the GWOT, MPs were amongst the few soldiers issued both a sidearm and a long gun for field work. For other branches, sidearms went mostly to officers, medics, senior NCOs, and some enlisted troopers in crew-served positions. Tankers, for instance, each carried a sidearm for self-defense; if they had to abandon the tank, they shared a single M3 Grease Gun, the M240 coax gun and any ammo they could salvage. The tank was their primary weapon.

It seems nowadays everyone carries both a long gun and a pistol, a change influenced by decades of urban warfare and Special Forces' practice. A 'gunfighter culture' has accompanied these changes, one that places much greater emphasis on service pistols in CQB settings than ever before.

But I think this modern emphasis distorts our conversations about fighting handguns in military service. Handguns were meant to be a backup to a primary or crew-served weapon, to get you off the 'X' when things go pear shaped. You might want more than an anemic .32 ACP. But if that's all you have, it'll do in a pinch -- if you're not already out of Schlitz.

If I had been at Normandy in 1944, I wager I would have been less concerned about whether I carried a S&W M&P or the Colt 1911A1, than whether I had enough ammunition for my M1 Garand. And if I had to choose based on the weight I carried, pass me another bandoleer.

Over several decades of military service, I was issued the 1911A1, M9, S&W 36, Sig 226, and the Sig 229. Like everyone, I extolled or groused about them, for the various reasons you might imagine.

But these were always secondary to the M3 Grease-Gun, M16A1, M16A2/M203, Winchester Model 12 trench gun, Remington 870, or M4 carbine that I carried as my primary weapon. (And on one foreign assignment when I was issued only an M9, I managed to acquire a slightly worn AK-47 under-folder for peace of mind.)

 

[Krobar]

Which handles better for you, which gives your the better chance of your first round being on target? Answer those two questions and you have your answer.

 

[VinnieL59]

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.

As a Law Enforcement Officer for 28 years (now retired) I also have both the Beretta, and several 1911's. My oldest 1911 was made in 1914. Early-on in my career, I saw cops and civillians alike who had to have every gadget made for whatever they carried. (e.g. grips, sights, lasers etc) A true shooter will adapt their technique to the weapon they are equipped with. I'm sure there are people who claim they can't handle a .45, a .357 magnum, 44 magnum etc. I can shoot almost any pistol with deadly accuracy. A few winters ago, I got out a brand new Foster Industries-made 1911 frame and slide out of my safe and built my own 1911. It was amazing how much I learned about the 1911 while doing it. For me now retired I can fire any handgun accurately. I began my career with S&W revolvers, first a Model 15, and then a Model 66 in .357 mag. We had cops who struggled with the revolvers and couldn't his squat with them. Some elected to carry .38 special ammo on duty. Im the mid 1980's we were authorized the Beretta 92F. I got one and almost immediately liked it. For a long period of time however, I went back to the revolver because of the weight and bulk of the 3 mags and total of 46 rounds we carried. I'll have to say I don't have a favorite pistol. One officer however had a problem with a Beretta in a situation where he was going to shoot an offender. He pulled the trigger and nothing happened. Apparently in the struggle, somehow, the safety had been applied. Imagine the feeling he experienced. After that incident he immediately went back to his revolver.

I shot in smallbore and bigbore rifle rifle matches as a kid. Our retired WWII Army Colonel Range Officer once told us " A hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .45." He told a story of his small group encountering a group of German soldiers in WWII. There were 2 of his men with M-1 Garands and him with a .45. He said he shot the big old German with the 1911 and the force spun him around and he simply sat down dead.

 

[Dave Haynes]

My Late Buddy Ray Barrios, 50th Inf 11B around '67-68 told me an incident that he witnessed. Two guys were investigating a hooch. They caught a VC going down a tunnel, he was holding a 1911 and shot the front guy in the chest as he disappeared down the hole. Ray said that the front guy was knocked completely off his feet and back a ways. He was wearing a flack vest and was knocked cold and stayed out for 5 minutes. He was a mess when he regained consciousness. No way a 9mm comes close to this kind of effective power. I really liked the 1911 when I was there, it was safe, reliable and thank god I never had to use that weapon against anything except beer cans.

 

[DR505]

Started out in LE with a S&W Model 27, then went military, then back to LE. I carried a 1911 on active duty in the USN. Qualified with it quarterly. Even though it was during and after the transition, the Security Forces at my base did not have Berettas, but they had very well maintained 1911s. Shot expert every time.

I never warmed to the Beretta...poor ergonomics and sized like a boat anchor for 9mm. After active duty and back into LE it was all Glock all the time...21, 22, 19, 27.

Now that I am retired and can carry what I please, I choose the 1911.

 

[Tabby Lynn]

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

My choice, and did carry both over the years is hands down the 1911. This is based on accuracy as well as ease of reloading and operation. For those who could not handle the recoil of the 1911 there should have been a 1911 available in 9mm, Two extra rounds over the .45 but much more accurate than any M9 ever hoped to be.

 

[rockquarry]

My choice, and did carry both over the years is hands down the 1911. This is based on accuracy as well as ease of reloading and operation. For those who could not handle the recoil of the 1911 there should have been a 1911 available in 9mm, Two extra rounds over the .45 but much more accurate than any M9 ever hoped to be.

I've found the Beretta and the 1911 to be quite accurate, though most of my experience has been with cast bullets. They should both do well with jacketed bullets also. My accuracy rule of thumb with regard to handguns is 25 yard accuracy. If one won't shoot well at that distance, I'll likely trade or sell it.

 

[bph9]

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

I can answer your question in two ways.

The best mechanical design: "The 1911"

The safer design to handle and use: The M 92

The best caliber: "The 9mm" and read below why.

In 1945, 34 years after adopting the 1911 the U.S. Military actually tested the .45 acp v/s the 9x19 and what they found shocked them out of their shoes.

The 9x19 penetrated a steel military helmet at an astonishing 125 yards and might have done so even further away but no one succeeded in hitting it beyond 125 yards.

The .45 acp bounced off the steel helmet at a scant 35 yards shocking everyone.

Considering the fact that the 9x19:

Recoils less resulting in faster recoil recovery time. You can get off 3 shots to one .45 acp shot.

Less recoil results in more accurate shooting.

Holds twice as much ammo.

A man can carry more ammo.

Has a flatter trajectory making longer range hits easier.

Has superior penetration.

Costs less to manufacture.

A pistol with a decocker is a safer gun to handle.

All this makes the 9x19 the superior military round and just about every nation adopted it and roundly rejected the 1911 .45 acp. Now you know why they did.

So should the military have just rechambered the 1911 to 9mm?

No, as it was a big heavy gun and a pistol in 9mm designed from the ground up can be made smaller, and lighter and have less grip circumference so it fits a wide variety of hands. This the Beretta 92 did not do as it was a big gun like the 1911. A Plasticky pistol may turn your stomach but "without" removable grips the grip circumference is smaller and the 9mm cartridge is shorter in length which means it has a smaller grip circumference as well and the plasticky gun is lighter in weight. And the overall length of a new plasticky pistol can be made less compared to the existing and ponderous 92 and 1911 pistols. And as mentioned a pistol with a decocker, and a chamber loaded indicator is safer to handle and use (which the M 92 did have).

 

[ISCS Yoda]

What

Rocketmedic40

said. No need to repeat it.