what do you think is a better combat weapon on the modern battle field?

the 92f(m9) has a high mag cap, low recoil, and a strong design

the 1911 is tried and true, has a very powerfull round, and a good feel to it

what would you prefer?

I'd go with the 92f, for a number of reasons. Most importantly, it is an easy gun to shoot. The 1911, even though it is a very effective weapon in competent hands, is prone to accidents and mechanical failure if the user dosen't have the necessary of training. The 92f also needs less care to work reliably. Cleaning your weapon is a major embuggerance when you are in the field, and soldiers tend to skip it, given the chance.

IMO, the 9mm is also a better suited caliber compared to the .45. The rounds weigh less, enabling the soldier to carry more rounds, and they take up less room in the magazine. The 9mm has better penetration performance than the .45, and while this is not very important in a home defense gun, it may very well be a decisive factor on the modern battlefield. After passing through a full magazine of 5.56 (on the webbing) and a flak jacket, the .45 has very little energy left, if any at all.

~Drunk

here we go.

ive been waiting for a topic i could really sink my teath into and here you go confronting me with this very complex question....sigh*

its no supprise that i love the 1911, hell, ive owned 3 of em. i would chose the 1911 for almost any combat aplication, with the exception of mass issuing to soldiers abroad.
i would myself, carry one in a tatical situation but i wouldnt give em to everyone.

IMO the 1911 is the better gun for a few reasons, the first of which being the superior balistics of the 230 grain fmj (though i use the 165 grain hydroshocks)
a 230 grain will go through about 4 inches of phone book (from 25 feet) before it stops.
thats more than enough to go through webbing, heavy clothes and most of the time, all the way through a person. the 1911 is also one of the strongest side arms in the world, having seen combat in every american conflict between WW-1 and 1980. its so good a design that it has been copied by many top gun manufactures including Colt, Wilson, Kimber, ParaOrdinance, SafariArms, Llama, NewDetonics, AutoOrdinance, and even Smith and Wesson(in the form of their 945 performance center model) it has a superior ballance and pointability putting it in the comfort catagory along with glock. its single action design offers carry options that you cant safely achieve with a double action auto. the 1911 is used by both ipsc champion shooters and SWAT tatical units for some of the above mentioned items.

but alas, the things that make it so great in those situations, are the things that make it a bad idea for mass issuing.

training costs $ and training a soldier on a 1911 costs more than training em to use a double action auto. the lack of proper training in our militaries is a disgusting thing but that doesnt make it any less real. most soldiers nowadays couldnt hit an elephant in the ass in 5 yards with a bazooka. my buddy Brian was a marine saw opperator and he didnt even know how to sight in the fixed 10 on top of the m-82 light .50 they let him play with.( they apparently do all that at the armory.)

thats why i think its importiant to give em more rounds and simpler weapons. they just cant afford to train em right. if they could, the 1911 would be the better choice.

as far as the 92F (M9) is concerned, i think its a pretty weapon but i wouldnt use one in combat. the M9 is NOT the same as the 92F by the way, incase anyone was wondering. the M9 is the military varaint and it has some things that make it more suitable for field use than its 92F predecesor.(like the slide materials) the beretta design suffers from having a 2 peice slide that is prone to breakage under harsh conditions. in the later M9, they claim to have fixed the breakage problem but i still dont trust it. it still looks the same to me.

another advantage to the M9 is that it uses standard 115 grain nato ball ammunition. this stuff can be found almost anywhere. almost every nation in the world uses 9s and so finding ammo on the modern battlefield shouldnt be much of a task.(i personally have probably 20 rds or so and i dont even own a 9)

i say the 1911 is better on a smaller scale but the beretta is more suited to our military nowadays. (well, our militaries and those who just want the gun from the movies)

ok so go ahead and tell me if im wrong

M9 vs 1911

Capacity is a poor substatute for stoping power. Neither 9mm nor 45 will penitrate a flack jacket, but 45 will deliver more energy. That is the name of the game; start the bleeding, stop the breathing, and bring on shock. The .45 is more well suited for that purpose especaily in a military context (as ball ammo must be used).

The 1911 has a consistant 5 lb. trigger pull(military) where the Beretta will have a 10 lb. trigger pull for the first round and 5 lb. pulls after that. This inconsistantcy will lead to follow up shots having different points of impact from the first.

Though the masses of the armed forces are now armed with a 9mm, the special forces still opt for the .45 in their sidearms. Though they are not always 1911's.

I've owned 2 1911's and have shot many. My personal favorites have the been the Kimber, the Springfield, and surprislingly the Llama. The Llama was not a tried and true 1911 as many parts are not interchangeable. Especially on thier hi-cap model that I have owned. 13rnds of .45 is a great pistol. However the user must have larger hands to accomodate for a larger grip.

I've never owned a 9mm pistol, I believe I've shot 2. The first a Lorcin, the second the Taurus version of the Beretta 92F. Recoil was light, control was great. But as much as I've shot the 1911's I could hit better with those, easier.

I don't think the 9mm is even in same ball park when it comes to the kinetic energy delivered by the .45ACP.

There are 3 main types of 9mm that are not interchangeable: 9mm short, which is the same as .380ACP, but still called and even labeled as 9mm in some countries, 9mm Para, and 9mm Luger. 9mm Para is the most common and is what the M9 uses, it is also the caliber we most often refer to as the 9mm. Just beware of what you are going to get if you ask for 9mm in a foreing place. The .45 anywhere you ask for it is, still a .45ACP.

I'm afraid you've got your calibers mixed up. You're right with regards to the .380 ACP, which is 9x13mm, also called 9mm Corto, but the 9mm Luger and the 9mm Parabellum are in fact the same round, the 9x19mm. The larger 9mm round you are referring to is the 9mm Largo, which is 9x23mm if my memory serves me.

~Snake

parabellum= latin "for war"
9x23= some new winchester round (i hear it kicks ass)
.38 super= 9x21
9mm parabellum= 9mm luger= 9x19
9mm mackarov= 9x18
9mm browning court= .380= 9x17

id go with the 92f in either .40 cal or 10mm because you would then have about the best mix of stopping power and magazine capacity

i like the m9. mag capacity is a big issue and the ammo interchangeability is also important. the m9 will shoot all 9mm luger rounds, p +p +p+ will all work but only p is recomended for repeated use. (+p+ is smg ammo). i like the durability of the m9 allthough one might argue that the 1911 is equaly or more reliable. aside from that i have used the m9 many times and i am accustomed to its feel and operation.

if the 92F is what your used to, then by no means should you sacrafice familiarity for power. you have to be comfortable with whatever your using to save your life.

i was just lucky enough to be comfortable with the 1911.

and whoever said that thing about the 92F in .40 or 10, you need to study. i thought the .40 version of the 92F was the 96. just an observation.

one of the biggest problems with the 92f was that before they added a stopper a person could pull off the whole barrel assembly, not a big deal for war but man did the police complain.