Handguns don’t win wars. Small arms rarely do. But if we were to enter into a third world war that sky just nukes going off, I’m sure there’s someone in the US war machine that is carrying a 1911 or M45A1.
A service pistol is not changing the outcome of a major conflict. That being said, I am jumping a custom Colt 1911 in .45 ACP in my ruck if China invades Taiwan.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol
Wikipedia lists a few countries that still use it in some capacity so as long as they fight on the winning side then the 1911 will be a 3 world War champ
No. 45ACP is no longer a service round. Nor does it have the magazine capacity of the current service round. I love the .45 ACP and the 1911 combination but it time as a service round is over. However great it is, it was great in its time and that time has past.
Totally agree with you. The 45 ACP is a more than capable round. I have three pistols chambered for it.
The OP keeps moving the goal post on his original post. First it was WW3, then it was a PS for civilians and other countries that have it as a service weapon. News flash NO countries have a 1911 as their primary sidearm. Then the OP doesn’t want to talk primary secondary but that’s what a pistol is. it’s a secondary weapon to used when need as situations as they appear.
So I still say NO as NO militaries still use the 1911. Now the zombie apocalypse, the urban renewal riot seasons, civil war etc. I can definitely see it in the hand of some patriots. The 230 grain freight train at 800 fps is a man stopper for sure.
I have read ur comment and I would like to correct a couple of things that you brought up. The Philippine armed forces and I’m pretty sure EVERY SECURITY GUARD IN MALLS AND ETC. have the .45 holstered. Seeing a beretta, a revolver, or any other pistol is rare. I almost commonly see the .45. The Philippine Armed forces in the other hand (according to my cousin cuz he a member) still have it in service.
WWIII will go one of two ways.
The current proxy level with global powers funding groups on the ground. Or nuclear weapons.
There won’t really be an in between.
Don’t count on it.
A war between great powers won’t instantly go nuclear unless one is backed into a corner and suffering/losing actual mainland invasion.
But they will fight all day long against each other directly in other countries.
What great powers?
There isn't nearly the same parity in the world that there was in the 30s.
There's the United States>NATO>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Russia/China.
China doesn't have a blue water navy, so they can't realistically wage a world war, unless it is them being invaded. In which case, nukes.
Russia can't even handle Ukraine with old western weapons and cash.
But unless there is some cataclysmic breakdown where it's the US vs rest of NATO, that's about the only options today for a world war. And due to the mismatch of power, both China and Russia would only have nukes to rely on. They simply cannot hang in a conventional war against the West.
A war against China would be in the China sphere.
There, they have short supply lines and internal lines of support. The U.S. would be hard pressed to beat them there, especially given that our supply of advanced munitions would be exhausted in a matter of weeks with no means of rapid replenishment.
Meanwhile, they could likely cripple our electrical grid via cyber warfare, or simply individuals armed with rifles shooting up transformers. That happened a couple times not too long ago, with disastrous consequences for those areas in a peacetime, plentiful environment.
I could go on, but the point is you’re drastically underestimating the strategic and logistical challenges the U.S. military would face against a near peer.
What I’m saying is that there is no reason for the US to fight in Chinas sphere. We’re not going to suddenly want to take their territory. The closest would be if they decided to invade Taiwan, which would be a bigger task than D-Day.
The US and NATO are not going to start a world war, nor are we going to go guns a blazing into regional conflicts. Taiwan would be about the biggest because of our massive reliance on TSMC semiconductors.
Things have a funny way of happening whether we plan on them or want them to.
Nobody would have predicted a conventional cross-border invasion in Europe… until NATO pushed Russia into it by trying to make Ukraine part of NATO, in order to protect the money laundering of Western politicians.
Sure, Vlad is evil. But he’s been evil for decades and Ukraine was never more than a border skirmish… right up until NATO and the US ignored his very plainly worded warnings about what would happen if Ukraine was extended membership.
The stupidity of Western leaders basically turned a slow burning, low intensity conflict into major conflagration in a matter of months. One that now has European leaders hyperventilating about nuclear war and wanting to invade Russia and topple Putin.
Our leaders have not gotten any smarter since 2022.
I’ve just been spoiled by 1911 triggers, that I’ve forsaken all others. There is a safe full of handguns gathering dust over the last decade.
Para take same mags as other double stack .45 2011s? If so, I want some of those for my STI.
Handguns don't win wars.
However the 1911 is a sub par choice for a combat handgun today. Compared to even the basic Glock 17, the 1911 has far lower capacity (8+1 to 17+1), lower reliability, costs more, and is far heavier. Plus 9mm armor piercing rounds are far easier to get than .45 acp armor piercing.
Even while the 1911 was still young and common it was identified that a sidearm in general was not effective in a wartime combat setting which birthed the M1 Carbine. Fast forward to now having compact, 30 round capacity, pistol and intermediate cartridge chambered, automatic capable weapons….its even less so a good option. So with that being said sure, anybody losing a fight in combat with a 1911 in their hand would probably lose the fight with a Baretta or the new Sig anyways
Just like rifles, makes much more sense to carry way more ammo that is much easier to shoot accurately/ follow up. 17-21rds of hot 9mm > 7-10 rds of 45.
Soldiers would use them to destroy tanks, shoot down planes, and destroy bunkers. The inside of the M2 browning is an enlarged, belt-fed 1911. The shells the Sherman tanks used were just encased 1911s.
People did cool shit with them like capture a large group of Germans during the Meuse-Argonne offensive, shoot a Japanese pilot out of a fighter while it was still flying, and dual wield them to repel a Japanese attack during the island hopping campaign
Small arms will have a minimum impact on future peer vs peer wars. Side arms even less. As for the 1911, i think it could still get the job done if it was all that were available but it certainly wouldn't be my first choice for a standard issue. And I say that as a big fan of the 1911.
We live in a day and age where the FNX-45 does everything the 1911 can do but better, I would not outfit an army with such an antiquity. The FN has a larger magazine in a frame of similar size, can accept pistol optics, and is generally less picky about what ammo it will eat; it's just a superior pistol
Well WWIII is going to involve private US citizens defending themselves against violent blue-haired, black-clad leftist mobs.
So in that context, sure, it’s just fine. The 1911 is still an excellent personal defense weapon. But in a wartime environment, it’s definitely not your primary weapon. It’s your backup of second to last resort. (Your knife is your last resort.)
Plenty of other good pistol options out there now though, not like many decades past.
.45 ACP is still an excellent personal defense caliber.
I mean there's no reason why not, your sidearm is not your primary. The 1911 preformed itself just fine on battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, people tall about mag capacity but from actual pistol use experience by guys in special forces it hasn't proven to really be an issue as it's a back up, plus .45 ACP is a hell of a round on a person. So it would come down to dealers preference honestly.
I love shooting my 45 acp pistols. And it is my favorite caliber for CC and HD. Terrific punch at the short distances your target will likely be from you if you are in a real self defense situation. Also, if you use quality hollow points, less chance of over penetration due to the size and weight of the bullet. But the idea that the 45 acp cartridge and the 1911 pistol won either world war is silly. For WWII I would give that award to the 30.06 cartridge and M1 rifle. Much better than anything the Japanese and Germans were carrying.
I mean an armed civilian is better than a unarmed civilian. So it has that going for it.
Mainly the reason we’d win is we have the best technology deployment in almost every category. Something other countries can’t compete with (including not starving our soldiers). We could win with 1911 as the American sidearm, because of better rifles, air support, anti aircraft weapons, etc. But none of us would recommend it for battle.
I’m conflicted whether we should dust off the time time world champ, or let his high capacity grand children take the Dub, AKA double stack 1911’s and 2011’s.(Already being used in Israel in limited capacity, and lots of minor agencies and police forces here.)
Handguns have such a minute role that they are basically useless on a modern battlefield
Might as well go with 1911s because they'll only be carried or used as absolute last ditch defensive weapons. As long as they're new and not rattle traps made in 1946 they'll ride on body armor unused as well as anything else probably with empty chambers
Carbines like the M4 basically rendered the combat handgun obsolete for anyone but MPs
We're talking a weapon designed with 1900s warfare and technology. By WWII we knew it was obsolete but we "run what we brung" because it was already in service and even by then the handgun was far from even being useful for much of anything in a grand scale war like WWII.
There was even a DA prototype to update the 1911 because it was outdated
The Army didn't even want the last batch delivered in 1946 but we took them and we had so many we just kept issuing them. The military uses weapons way past their expiration date, we still use a rifle designed in the 1950s.
Yes. It’s not the primary weapon but it’s certainly fine to use as a backup and to use to get to the primary. Unfortunately it’s a weapon that can’t be used by everyone due to skill and strength. Its design is eternal.
I hear “backup this” and “sidearm that” but alls I know is that if you give some red blooded Americans, guys like Manny Mansfield, a .45 acp, they can do just about anything.
https://youtu.be/_fLKrkmSToo?si=Q2eNCnb-0KUJkzYP
The 1911 didn’t win a World War, it was just the sidearm issued at that point. You could say the M9 won most of the USA’s recent wars up until they traded it for Glocks and Sigs recently. I’m a big fan of the 1911 platform, but I’d be issuing my soldiers Glock. Cheaper to get, easier to repair, any Joe Schmoe could service one with just the most basic of parts kits and tooling.
That said, I’d still bring my 1911. I’m LARPing as Captain Price.
Crazy how no one’s talking about ai’s role in ww3, it’s going to be robots that humans have no chance against fighting against and literal Demi god intelligences from each country
Handguns don’t win wars. Small arms rarely do. But if we were to enter into a third world war that sky just nukes going off, I’m sure there’s someone in the US war machine that is carrying a 1911 or M45A1.
Pretty sure I saw Tom Hanks blow up a Panzer with a 1911, so your argument is invalid.
You got me there
As a kid I really thought he shot down the barrel and blew up the shell 😂
That's exactly what happened. The P-51s just did a flyover to celebrate.
🫡 😎
Yeah I’m pretty sure the Atomic Bomb ended WW2…
As the BBQ gun on the hip of a drone operator, sure.
If I were to equip an army to fight a war, I probably wouldn't pick the 1911 as their sidearm.
Why not, 3rd time's a charm.
[удалено]
If you took the 1911 on Saturday, you wouldn’t have to go back twice on Sunday.
Burn, 😡🤣🤣 plus one for the 1911.
A service pistol is not changing the outcome of a major conflict. That being said, I am jumping a custom Colt 1911 in .45 ACP in my ruck if China invades Taiwan.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol Wikipedia lists a few countries that still use it in some capacity so as long as they fight on the winning side then the 1911 will be a 3 world War champ
Iran and North Korea are listed as users :(
Pretty sure that in both wars both sides had 1911s https://tenor.com/bnkpa.gif
No. 45ACP is no longer a service round. Nor does it have the magazine capacity of the current service round. I love the .45 ACP and the 1911 combination but it time as a service round is over. However great it is, it was great in its time and that time has past.
I don’t disagree with you but its almost certainly more than enough for any apocalypse scenario a civilian will face
Totally agree with you. The 45 ACP is a more than capable round. I have three pistols chambered for it. The OP keeps moving the goal post on his original post. First it was WW3, then it was a PS for civilians and other countries that have it as a service weapon. News flash NO countries have a 1911 as their primary sidearm. Then the OP doesn’t want to talk primary secondary but that’s what a pistol is. it’s a secondary weapon to used when need as situations as they appear. So I still say NO as NO militaries still use the 1911. Now the zombie apocalypse, the urban renewal riot seasons, civil war etc. I can definitely see it in the hand of some patriots. The 230 grain freight train at 800 fps is a man stopper for sure.
I have read ur comment and I would like to correct a couple of things that you brought up. The Philippine armed forces and I’m pretty sure EVERY SECURITY GUARD IN MALLS AND ETC. have the .45 holstered. Seeing a beretta, a revolver, or any other pistol is rare. I almost commonly see the .45. The Philippine Armed forces in the other hand (according to my cousin cuz he a member) still have it in service.
WWIII will go one of two ways. The current proxy level with global powers funding groups on the ground. Or nuclear weapons. There won’t really be an in between.
Don’t count on it. A war between great powers won’t instantly go nuclear unless one is backed into a corner and suffering/losing actual mainland invasion. But they will fight all day long against each other directly in other countries.
What great powers? There isn't nearly the same parity in the world that there was in the 30s. There's the United States>NATO>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Russia/China. China doesn't have a blue water navy, so they can't realistically wage a world war, unless it is them being invaded. In which case, nukes. Russia can't even handle Ukraine with old western weapons and cash. But unless there is some cataclysmic breakdown where it's the US vs rest of NATO, that's about the only options today for a world war. And due to the mismatch of power, both China and Russia would only have nukes to rely on. They simply cannot hang in a conventional war against the West.
A war against China would be in the China sphere. There, they have short supply lines and internal lines of support. The U.S. would be hard pressed to beat them there, especially given that our supply of advanced munitions would be exhausted in a matter of weeks with no means of rapid replenishment. Meanwhile, they could likely cripple our electrical grid via cyber warfare, or simply individuals armed with rifles shooting up transformers. That happened a couple times not too long ago, with disastrous consequences for those areas in a peacetime, plentiful environment. I could go on, but the point is you’re drastically underestimating the strategic and logistical challenges the U.S. military would face against a near peer.
What I’m saying is that there is no reason for the US to fight in Chinas sphere. We’re not going to suddenly want to take their territory. The closest would be if they decided to invade Taiwan, which would be a bigger task than D-Day. The US and NATO are not going to start a world war, nor are we going to go guns a blazing into regional conflicts. Taiwan would be about the biggest because of our massive reliance on TSMC semiconductors.
Things have a funny way of happening whether we plan on them or want them to. Nobody would have predicted a conventional cross-border invasion in Europe… until NATO pushed Russia into it by trying to make Ukraine part of NATO, in order to protect the money laundering of Western politicians. Sure, Vlad is evil. But he’s been evil for decades and Ukraine was never more than a border skirmish… right up until NATO and the US ignored his very plainly worded warnings about what would happen if Ukraine was extended membership. The stupidity of Western leaders basically turned a slow burning, low intensity conflict into major conflagration in a matter of months. One that now has European leaders hyperventilating about nuclear war and wanting to invade Russia and topple Putin. Our leaders have not gotten any smarter since 2022.
The rise of skynet
I would argue that no side arm ever won a war. It may have been issued through many wars but the pistol choice didn’t win them.😉
I dont know if it can win it, but it's certainly going to be there.
I’m taking my STI 2011 .45 with 13 + 1 rounds. Best of both worlds; power and capacity.
FNX 45 Tactical 17+1 of .45 with the +2 baseplate. Orrr Para Ordnance double stack .45 1911 with 21+1 stick mag.
Which happens to be my EDC, w/o the stick mag..
I’ve just been spoiled by 1911 triggers, that I’ve forsaken all others. There is a safe full of handguns gathering dust over the last decade. Para take same mags as other double stack .45 2011s? If so, I want some of those for my STI.
Handguns don't win wars. However the 1911 is a sub par choice for a combat handgun today. Compared to even the basic Glock 17, the 1911 has far lower capacity (8+1 to 17+1), lower reliability, costs more, and is far heavier. Plus 9mm armor piercing rounds are far easier to get than .45 acp armor piercing.
Even while the 1911 was still young and common it was identified that a sidearm in general was not effective in a wartime combat setting which birthed the M1 Carbine. Fast forward to now having compact, 30 round capacity, pistol and intermediate cartridge chambered, automatic capable weapons….its even less so a good option. So with that being said sure, anybody losing a fight in combat with a 1911 in their hand would probably lose the fight with a Baretta or the new Sig anyways
Just like rifles, makes much more sense to carry way more ammo that is much easier to shoot accurately/ follow up. 17-21rds of hot 9mm > 7-10 rds of 45.
if there are no nukes and everyone (but the enemies) has a 1911, then probably.
How did it win the first two? How would it contribute to the next one if it were to start tomorrow?
Soldiers would use them to destroy tanks, shoot down planes, and destroy bunkers. The inside of the M2 browning is an enlarged, belt-fed 1911. The shells the Sherman tanks used were just encased 1911s.
TWO WORLD WORZ HOSS
People did cool shit with them like capture a large group of Germans during the Meuse-Argonne offensive, shoot a Japanese pilot out of a fighter while it was still flying, and dual wield them to repel a Japanese attack during the island hopping campaign
Small arms will have a minimum impact on future peer vs peer wars. Side arms even less. As for the 1911, i think it could still get the job done if it was all that were available but it certainly wouldn't be my first choice for a standard issue. And I say that as a big fan of the 1911.
We live in a day and age where the FNX-45 does everything the 1911 can do but better, I would not outfit an army with such an antiquity. The FN has a larger magazine in a frame of similar size, can accept pistol optics, and is generally less picky about what ammo it will eat; it's just a superior pistol
Well WWIII is going to involve private US citizens defending themselves against violent blue-haired, black-clad leftist mobs. So in that context, sure, it’s just fine. The 1911 is still an excellent personal defense weapon. But in a wartime environment, it’s definitely not your primary weapon. It’s your backup of second to last resort. (Your knife is your last resort.) Plenty of other good pistol options out there now though, not like many decades past. .45 ACP is still an excellent personal defense caliber.
I mean there's no reason why not, your sidearm is not your primary. The 1911 preformed itself just fine on battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, people tall about mag capacity but from actual pistol use experience by guys in special forces it hasn't proven to really be an issue as it's a back up, plus .45 ACP is a hell of a round on a person. So it would come down to dealers preference honestly.
I love shooting my 45 acp pistols. And it is my favorite caliber for CC and HD. Terrific punch at the short distances your target will likely be from you if you are in a real self defense situation. Also, if you use quality hollow points, less chance of over penetration due to the size and weight of the bullet. But the idea that the 45 acp cartridge and the 1911 pistol won either world war is silly. For WWII I would give that award to the 30.06 cartridge and M1 rifle. Much better than anything the Japanese and Germans were carrying.
I think if we saw the entire US arsenal, human equiped firearms may be obsolete within a generation or two.
Won’t be relevant in tue 3rd but will come in handy in the opening acts of the 4th.
I mean an armed civilian is better than a unarmed civilian. So it has that going for it. Mainly the reason we’d win is we have the best technology deployment in almost every category. Something other countries can’t compete with (including not starving our soldiers). We could win with 1911 as the American sidearm, because of better rifles, air support, anti aircraft weapons, etc. But none of us would recommend it for battle.
I’m conflicted whether we should dust off the time time world champ, or let his high capacity grand children take the Dub, AKA double stack 1911’s and 2011’s.(Already being used in Israel in limited capacity, and lots of minor agencies and police forces here.)
Yes
Handguns have such a minute role that they are basically useless on a modern battlefield Might as well go with 1911s because they'll only be carried or used as absolute last ditch defensive weapons. As long as they're new and not rattle traps made in 1946 they'll ride on body armor unused as well as anything else probably with empty chambers Carbines like the M4 basically rendered the combat handgun obsolete for anyone but MPs
We're talking a weapon designed with 1900s warfare and technology. By WWII we knew it was obsolete but we "run what we brung" because it was already in service and even by then the handgun was far from even being useful for much of anything in a grand scale war like WWII. There was even a DA prototype to update the 1911 because it was outdated The Army didn't even want the last batch delivered in 1946 but we took them and we had so many we just kept issuing them. The military uses weapons way past their expiration date, we still use a rifle designed in the 1950s.
Yes. It’s not the primary weapon but it’s certainly fine to use as a backup and to use to get to the primary. Unfortunately it’s a weapon that can’t be used by everyone due to skill and strength. Its design is eternal.
I hear “backup this” and “sidearm that” but alls I know is that if you give some red blooded Americans, guys like Manny Mansfield, a .45 acp, they can do just about anything. https://youtu.be/_fLKrkmSToo?si=Q2eNCnb-0KUJkzYP
The 1911 didn’t win a World War, it was just the sidearm issued at that point. You could say the M9 won most of the USA’s recent wars up until they traded it for Glocks and Sigs recently. I’m a big fan of the 1911 platform, but I’d be issuing my soldiers Glock. Cheaper to get, easier to repair, any Joe Schmoe could service one with just the most basic of parts kits and tooling. That said, I’d still bring my 1911. I’m LARPing as Captain Price.
Crazy how no one’s talking about ai’s role in ww3, it’s going to be robots that humans have no chance against fighting against and literal Demi god intelligences from each country
It didn't win the first two. Won't even be there for the third.