If the 1911 and Glock 21 were both made in the year 1911

[coolluke01]

I don't mean this to be a 1911 or Glock bashing thread. There are enough of those out there.

I was just thinking about a hypothetical situation were the 1911 and the Glock 21 were both in the race to be the US army's sidearm in and around the year 1911.

Some will say that this is foolishness and that the Glock materials were not available in 1911. Those would miss the main point behind the exercise. The reason for this way of thinking would be to remove all preconceived notions and past experience. Also to remove personal bias and emotion.

When compared side by side in the year 1911 which one would you think the US Army would choose and why?

Grip angle is not a valid reason to chose the 1911 over the Glock. Grip angle problems are Always only due to learned behavior. This bias wouldn't be as likely in the year 1911.
Please try and make this civil. I think it's an neat point of view and an interesting way to look at the two designs.

 

[rcmodel]

The U.S. Army would have chosen the 1911.

Because horse solders needed guns with manual safety's so they don't kill their horse while holding the reins, the pistol, and holding on a bucking horse, all at the same time.

The Glock would not have met any of the requirements for a positive manual safety and would never have even been considered.

That is also the reason it wasn't considered, or included in the last service pistol tests when the Beretta M9 was chosen to replace the 1911.

rc

 

[savanahsdad]

glocks have there place , there is one in my safe (it's my wifes, I hate the dam thing !) but Glock don't meet mil spec. so the 1911 would still win .even if you made a glock out of steel , I can take the fireing pin out of my 1911 with the slide still on it! then use that pin to tare down the rest of the gun, just can't be done with a glock, , or if your in a hand to hand , and your out of ammo ,witch do you think would drop a guy faster , hitting him in the head with a glock or cracking his skull with a 1911 !!!

 

[Skribs]

RC, are you saying that the passive safety system is bad for military duty, or that the Army determined that it was bad for military duty?

 

[coolluke01]

The Glock would not have met any of the requirements for a positive manual safety and would never have even been considered.

Am I correct in remembering that the 1911 didn't have a safety either but was added because of that requirement? Or was that the grip safety?

This could have been added by Glock as well.

Glock don't meet mil spec. so the 1911 would still win

What was the mil spec? I'm pretty sure most specs are set in place once the weapon has been chosen. The specs are so that the manufacture sticks with the design that was approved.

 

[rcmodel]

I am saying that the U.S. military trials for a service pistol have always included a requirement for a manual safety, or more recently a decocker, or both.

And yes, I think a Glock without a manual safety would have been a bad choice for use by mounted calvary for the reason mentioned.

This could have been added by Glock as well.

They had that option in preparation for the Joint Service Small Arms Program in which the Beretta M9 was chosen.
But they declined to do so.


rc

 

[HorseSoldier]

That is also the reason it wasn't considered, or included in the last service pistol tests when the Beretta M9 was chosen to replace the 1911.

But it was considered for the last US pistol procurement program, the Joint Combat Pistol program that surfaced in SOCOM six or seven years ago and fizzled when Big Army jumped on board and the money involved got too big. (This is where the Glock SF-framed pistols got developed.) For the conventional army side of the program, Glock was prepared to install an external safety on the pistols, though the SOF side did not require this.

 

[GLOOB]

I think if the Glock had been invented by JMB and it was made 100% domestically, AND if it cost 70% less to manufacture than a 1911, it would have been chosen with or without the manual safety. They would have invented a better cavalry holster, better manual of arms, and/or installed a heavier trigger. The cavalry is probably the only place where a sidearm would be considered a primary weapon. Double the magazine capacity would have been very desirable.

Uhh, except for one thing. People were smaller in 1911. So the Glock 21 grip might have been too big for most soldiers.

 

[Skribs]

I'm not much of an outdoorsman, rc, but with my XDm I've not had a single discharge caused from jostling while bike riding, using the trampoline, jumping off ledges (about 4 feet high) or jogging. I don't see it as a risk for the animal. Unless the soldier doesn't keep his finger outside the trigger guard (training issue) I don't see the big deal. Or was that safety rule not around in 1911? I was born in '88, so I can't remember that far back.

I mention the training issue, because it applies to the 1911 as well. The manual safety doesn't prevent stupid.

 

[rcmodel]

You have to remember the 1911 was coming into service just as the Colt SAA was going out.

The old time officers had a hard row to hoe accepting the idea of a self-loader, let alone one you didn't have to thumb-cock for each shot.

And yes, the idea of finger off the trigger is a fairly recent thing.

Back then many holsters had a slot in them so you could get your finger in the trigger guard with the gun still in the holster.

http://www.epsaddlery.com/pc-97-12-5-patton-holster.aspx
http://www.epsaddlery.com/pc-87-12-1930-austin-holster.aspx


rc

 

[hentown]

The fallacy of this hypothetical fantasy is that, had JMB had access to polymer frames, Tenifer, etc., his first semi-auto pistols might have looked a lot more like modern Glocks than the 1911s that we love. I don't think the hypothetical comparison should be between the G21 and 1911, though...probably the G17 would wow those early doughboys. Doubling their mag capacity with a round that shoots flatter and has a longer effective kill range would have been most attractive to those guys.

 

[tarosean]

I'm not much of an outdoorsman, rc, but with my XDm I've not had a single discharge caused from jostling

Yet your xdm has a grip safety like the 1911, in addition to the trigger bar.

It's a fantasy thread so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Skribs]

Hentown, 9x19mm predates .45 ACP.

 

[Greg528iT]

jostling while bike riding, using the trampoline, jumping off ledges (about 4 feet high) or jogging

Are you holstering and unholstering your XDM while riding, jumping jogging?

But to answer your question, IF Gaston bowed to the requests of the generals and put a manual safety on it, then, yes it would have been considered.

 

[rcmodel]

Doubling their mag capacity with a round that shoots flatter and has a longer effective kill range would have been most attractive to those guys.

Not to the review board that selected the new caliber it wouldn't.
The 9mm had already failed miserably in the Thompson-LaGarde Tests in 1904.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson-LaGarde_Tests

The 9mm was never in the running for the new U.S. military caliber semi-automatic pistol.

It was pre-determined it would be a .45 caliber, regardless of what gun it was to be adopted in.

Shooting horses out from under riders was still a necessary military requirement at the time.

rc

 

[Bio-Chem]

even today our military is making orders for the 1911 while the Glock is not used in US services. if 100 years later the military is ordering 1911's but not Glocks, why would things change if we subtracted 100 years?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/2...ck-to-their-old-guns-colt-45-caliber-pistols/

 

[coolluke01]

The "only" IMO, reason the 1911 is used at all today is simply because it's been used for so long.

The fallacy of this hypothetical fantasy is that, had JMB had access to polymer frames, Tenifer, etc., his first semi-auto pistols might have looked a lot more like modern Glocks than the 1911s that we love

This is the same conclusion I came to. If we truly believe that JBM would have incorporated the newer technology then why won't we? The 1911 is outdated and has been surpassed by newer technology.
The only reason that has been shown for the US military not choosing the Glock over the 1911, in the year 1911, would be the lack of a safety. If it had a safety they would have chosen the G21!

 

[powder]

Well, I believe the Browning produced striker-fired pistosl of the day were used by militaries. Just not by the U.S..

 

[rcmodel]

One could also suppose that if A10 Warthogs, B-52 bombers, and Abrams tanks had been available then, WWI would not have lasted nearly 5 years either.

But they weren't.

rc

 

[savanahsdad]

The "only" IMO, reason the 1911 is used at all today is simply because it's been used for so long.


This is the same conclusion I came to. If we truly believe that JBM would have incorporated the newer technology then why won't we? The 1911 is outdated and has been surpassed by newer technology.
The only reason that has been shown for the US military not choosing the Glock over the 1911, in the year 1911, would be the lack of a safety. If it had a safety they would have chosen the G21!

now you do know you need a small tool box to take apart a g21 .. right ???? so why would they pic that ?? just adding a safty would not do it

 

[coolluke01]

I'm guessing you are being sarcastic about the tool requirement for the g21. So I guess you agree with me?

rc, That's for sure. Wasn't there a movie about a aircraft carrier that was time warped back to Dec 4th 1941. Boy I sure hope I got that date right.

The point of this discussion is not really a what if they had this weapon, but what would a logical weapon choice be if there were no preconceived notions or emotional attachment to this piece of Americana, the 1911.

 

[rcmodel]

Dec 7th, 1941.

Japanese attack on the U.S. base at Pearl Harbor.

The movie was The Final Countdown.

rc

 

[Skribs]

The only reason that has been shown for the US military not choosing the Glock over the 1911, in the year 1911, would be the lack of a safety. If it had a safety they would have chosen the G21!

So uh...M&P 45?

One could also suppose that if A10 Warthogs, B-52 bombers, and Abrams tanks had been available then, WWI would not have lasted nearly 5 years either.

Not necessarily. If it was available, the enemy would have had some options along the same lines. Think of it like Terminator - if I travel back in time to 1776 and give Washington a M4, someone is going to give the Brittish a LA85.

If you can further my history question, when did the rule of keeping your finger off the trigger come into effect? Was it before or after the adoption of pistols such as the Glock?

ETA: yall talk about time travel reminds me of the SNL or MAD TV skit where The Terminator blasted Judas Iscariot with a shotgun.

 

[Auto426]

The point of this discussion is not really a what if they had this weapon, but what would a logical weapon choice be if there were no preconceived notions or emotional attachment to this piece of Americana, the 1911.

In other words you want to know why anyone would choose a 1911 when they can have a Glock 21, cause Glock's are obviously the superior choice, right?

 

[coolluke01]

yeah they came back 3 days before the attack... ahem. My dad's birthday is Dec 5th so I always get that mixed up with Dec 7th Pear Harbor day. Sorry for not participating in infamy.

You are right Skribs about the M&P .45. I used the G21 as an example because that and the 1911 are the most often compared and are the most polarized. But the point is if new technology would have won then day then, why not now?

In other words you want to know why anyone would choose a 1911 when they can have a Glock 21, cause Glock's are obviously the superior choice, right?

I believe I know why many chose the 1911. It's a very valid reason too. One that I would never argue with, but most won't make it about that reason and invent other things that are trivial to make their point. They like the 1911 because that's what they are used to. Plain and simple. It's not the best gun ever made, it's not the most reliable and it doesn't use the advancements in technology that other weapons of today use. But they like it. That's great, but call it what it is and you'll here no argument from me. It's good to have something that you like and that works for you.