I think the 1911 was/is a great design with a lot to recommend it. That said, I think a lot of people get hung up on the "cool" factor and the history and believe it's the best handgun regardless of any features it lacks compared to newer designs.
Then again, newer designs lack some features that the 1911 has, such as its trigger, and the combination of large size and thinness that makes it so controllable yet concealable. It may not be the be-all-end-all for everybody, and it never was, but it fills a significant niche even for those who aren't just into it for the history or coolness. In addition, there are updated 1911s that add some newer features without significantly detracting from its other qualities.
A lot has happened in the gun industry over the past century. Why not embrace progress?
On the other hand, why embrace "progress" for its own sake? Because newer is cooler or something? Are the infamous S&W internal locks a type of "progress" that we all should embrace? Maybe people should send their old revolvers in to get them retrofitted.
I don't believe that personal preferences are rendered obsolete just by the mere passage of time. For example, I for one have no use for certain newer features such as DA/SA trigger systems. I don't fault those who prefer it for their own reasons, though, any more than I would fault anybody for preferring the 1911. My own primary defensive handgun happens to be a newfangled polymer pistol, so I'm not against "progress" per se, but I'm not saying that it's better just because it's newer, either (and the 1911, old as it is, still has some advantages over it and other more modern pistols).
On a side note, I don't know of any military that issues either a 1911 pistol or the .45ACP for a general service issue sidearm. If anyone knows feel free to let me know so I can remove that information from my database.
Would it mean anything if they did? I think that military organizations make a lot of poor decisions about equipment and many other things.
There isn't a lot of truth to this. Not much at all, in fact. I would wager more troops (usually under the banner of special forces, etc) carry an HK than a 1911, and there aren't a whole lot of them out there.
I don't know about 1911s and HKs, but I see a lot of them carrying Glocks these days. I guess that means the old M9 is becoming obsolete (or is it?).
Obvious, most troops carry an M9 or variant by an overwhelming majority. And they aren't used often enough for a soldier to have more than an uninformed preference.
The M9 is most frequently carried because it is issued, but soldiers who show a preference tend to carry Glocks, at least from what I've seen. I'm not trying to promote Glocks here (I don't even own one), but I think that's a smart choice because Glocks are exceptionally well suited for the environments in which our troops typically operate. Not that I'd fault anybody for preferring the M9/Beretta 92FS overall for personal use, but the fact that the US military issues it does not mean that it is inherently superior to any other pistol, or for that matter even that it is the best choice for their troops.
Those are all fine and dandy, but you're showing your colors to be a little more than just patriotic. You also have a preference for the exaggeratedly priced options.
Perhaps that is the main niche that many American handgun manufacturers currently find themselves in--producing the best quality at higher than mass-produced prices, while European manufacturers currently dominate the mass-produced gun market. If the situation were reversed, I am positive that somebody would use it to make American manufacturers look bad, as well.
Why, might I ask, is Ruger not in your pile? I'm not sure if you've ever heard of them, but Korth (Germany) makes a pretty fine revolver. I would put it on par with any of the ones you mentioned as far as workmanship is concerned. I don't think I've ever handled a finer revolver in my life.
Korth--nice workmanship alright, but now you're really talking OVERpriced.