[hotspot_one]

1911 is still a great design. yeah, single-action trigger, but there are draw techniques which rack the slide and the gun is designed to enable these-- and double-action requires a heavier first trigger pull, which can throw your aim off both for the first shot (heavy pull) and second shot (massively easier pull but you are expecting heavy).

Yeah, small magazine compared to 9mm, but that's because police tactics have changed; the 1911 was not designed for "fire and maneuver" tactics. 1911 is more "one shot stop", something which 9mm doesn't do reliably.

[dmoy]

I agree somewhat generally, but some minor things:

> yeah, single-action trigger, but there are draw techniques which rack the slide and the gun is designed to enable these

The 1911 is sorta designed to be carried with a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked, relying on the grip safety and thumb safety.

But militaries often didn't (still don't sometimes?) have people outside of MP carry pistols that way, because the pistol is a last resort backup. The accident rate from stupid during normal times outweighs the benefit of a fractionally faster draw in the rare case of use.

Which brings to the second point:

> 1911 is more "one shot stop", something which 9mm doesn't do reliably.

That was the working theory for many decades (like.... 8-9 decades). That's been thoroughly disproved by modern science and ballistics. Size of pistol bullet doesn't really do anything (compared to other pistol calibers that can penetrate far enough), but increased accuracy does work much better. This is especially true in a military context where the rifle is designed around one shot stop (mostly due to 3-4x faster velocities).

Law enforcement agencies will still make bad decisions around this for political / optical reasons. See e.g. the FBI's terrible choice of going to 10mm, backing off to 40s&w, and then finally coming around to 9mm

[bombcar]

Pistols are horrible weapons, and anyone who HAS to use guns will do anything they can to avoid having to rely on a pistol.

You use a pistol because you need it to be small, unobtrusive, or it's your last option.

A rifle or a shotgun is almost always better than a pistol if you don't have the size constraints (which are sometimes optics - a police office with a holstered gun looks way less threatening than one with a rifle).

[youainti]

45ACP has isn't much more better than 9mm (or even .380acp) at one shot stop.

http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/an-alternate-look-at-h...

[qball]

>something which 9mm doesn't do reliably

Neither does .45, of course. Handguns (well, 9mm anyway) dispense what is functionally a single pellet of buckshot- the pellets (while still potentially lethal) aren't that powerful on their own, which is why the shotgun launches 8 of them at a time.

>but there are draw techniques which rack the slide and the gun is designed to enable these

The 1911 was designed back when pistol doctrine was "carry with chamber empty" and "fire one-handed", despite that not being particularly conducive to accuracy. Pistols are a badge of rank more than anything else; the overwhelming majority of military casualties caused by them are same-side (used on deserters, etc.).

>small magazine compared to 9mm

Not really. Remember that until the '80s, the concept of a "double-stack" handgun was limited to the Hi-Power; every other 9mm handgun had a capacity of 7-8 rounds, just like the 1911. And now you know why revolvers lasted so long in service- because not only were you not giving up capacity in those days, but you had a consistent and safe (though heavy) trigger pull, and you could use hollow-point ammunition without risk of a jam (which 1911s are just flat out unreliable with).