I spoke to a friend, mentor, and former boss (D.A.Y) this evening, and let him know that in semi-retirement I was able to shoot a great deal more. He told me that he had just visited Gunsite, and remarked how seldom a 1911 is seen on the training line anymore. He remarked that “Colonel Cooper is probably rolling around in his grave.”
There has been a defection. Many dyed in the wool 1911 guys have reformed themselves into the Uber 9 camp, and knowing how vehemently they had defended the 1911 back in the day, I cannot get over my surprise. Tom Givens is one of those that surprise me the most- I had never believed he’d carry anything else, but seeing what he can do with a Glock 17, I don’t think that he can be chided too much. I haven’t broken bread with Tom in a while, but if and when I do, I am surely going to ask him about it.
I was happy to talk to my old boss, but I was also as happy not to be stranded alone on 1911 island. There are a few of us left, here and there. One of my partners, a gentleman name of Gary McInturf, has four that are nearly identical in 38 Super, and blatantly refuses to even try a Glock; formally ignoring the patron saint of the Uber 9. Greg H., my oldest and dearest friend- packs his Kimber 45 about when he hunts, relating that he can hit longer with it than his Ruger 44.
I must say that I am devoid of any sort of unnatural attraction to the gun, or the platform. I know that pistols are a highly personal choice, and that once a pistoleer has invested blood and treasure he can become passionate about it. Those that are passionate, that live to argue around campfires, may be disappointed to learn that I do not believe that JMB was inspired by the creator to bring forth the milk and honey utopian American pistol perfection in the form of a 1911. I do not think that it is the alpha and omega for any common sensical pistol man, have nothing bad to say about you if your gun is an uber 9, and have no political disparagement for those not of the 1911 tribe. For me, I run one- because I hit with it.
This was not always the case. Second Lieutenant Hogan reported to the 1911 range one day, as it was my assigned sidearm when I was officer of the guard. After I was issued a rattle trapped Remington Rand and a 7 round mag, I squared to the target, ran the action, and put the first one into a dirt plume about a foot and a half in front of the target base. Holding higher, I shot the single target support beam in two. The next round didn’t chamber, a few others did not either. “Good Lord, what a piece of junk.”
I had been issued several 1911s in the old Army, prior to the Beretta taking over; a development of modernization which I considered a huge improvement. The Colt and Ithaca that I had on active duty were parted out so often that they would have trouble getting through a mag of 7. The guns in the Ky guard, much better- the US & S gun (Yes, a Union Switch and Signal made gun was my duty sidearm for a bit) would only get crabby if it was dirty, or after about at 300 rounds or so. Still, I did not consider the platform dutifully reliable enough. They graduated from “Piece of Junk” to a gun that was simply outdated. “Good enough- considering it is 1911 technology”. It was a small promotion, but I was evermore a Beretta man.
Years pass. Thirty some years with the Beretta, twenty five or so with the Glock 19; I shoot, and do so often, having run one of those Uber 9s more than anything else in the arsenal, and to this day they are number 1 and 2 what I have the most time behind. I picked up a 1911 after I had spent a few days at Tom G’s Rangemaster course, (shot with the Beretta) and believed that it may be time to see what had changed in the 1911 world since the last time I had handled one.
I still own this first Kimber 45 ACP that I picked up. It wears a set of Kimber stocks with the Army Eagle on it, and carries the call-sign “Old Army.” It runs, and I can hit with it. In 2001, Kimber made guns that a man was instantly satisfied with, and with this sidearm I remain satisfied. It is an honest sidearm, nary a corner cut.
Time passed, and it wasn’t too long before I knew that I “needed” a commander length, so I picked up a Para LTC, which also I can hit with. The next “need” was a 10mm, so I picked one up after I got back from Iraq; and then a Colt in 38 Super which was my Master’s degree graduation present to myself. I now shoot and carry 1911s in 45 ACP with 6, 5, 4, 3.5, and 3 inch barrels, and with the 10mm and the first 38 Super- I added another in Super and a 40 S&W. I can hit with all of them. In fact, there are few that I own, only two of the Uber 9s, none of the trio of 40s, only a couple of my old wheelguns, but none of the rest of the bunch that come close. When hitting the target counts, I opt for a 1911. That is what it comes down for me, if I need to actually hit the target, if it is important to test the man and not the machine- I am going to run a 1911.
I think the goal is not to develop a sensible fighting sidearm. If a pistol works, I can fight with it well enough, and do not feel confined in operating anything if that is what I have handy. The goal for confidence sake, is to have a fighting pistol, that also can be put into service as a target arm. Precision in such an arm is the primary factor, and any of the 1911s mentioned previously can and will be placed into service to shoot a match, if I know one is in the offing. I consider this elevated concept of confidence important.
The recent narrative on these pistols is similar to mine in the 1980s. The platforms are obsolete, and that they are not as reliable, that defensive pistols should not have a safety, that they are too complicated, and that they are of too low of capacity to merit serious consideration; are those complaints that I have certainly hear. I can testify only to my own experience.
Reliability has not been a concern, save one example, which after a while I understood to be a batch of bad magazines, from surprisingly, the company with the loftiest of reputations. The safety, which has two jobs, to render the weapon safe going in the holster, or get in the way upon presentation- has not that much of a concern either, I’ve trained myself to work the thing, and it never gets tiresome to manipulate, even “on the line” with several hundred rounds going downrange in 2s and 3s. Complication is a complaint, but not one that registers on those of us that carried double action autos as a duty piece, which I believe are more complicated. I believe that because they are.
Capacity has been the final frontier and is a legitimate limitation, but normally not in the defensive carry mode, rather if I am shooting on the training line- which is generally based upon a 15 round mags. The matches that I fired as well, base their strings on 10 rounds more often than not- as in, 5 or 10 rounds per target, switch, repeat, etc.; with the guns that carry 7 or 8 rounds, I tend to lose count, and I am slower than the uber 9 competitors. A few 10 round Wilson magazines in 38 super have cured this ill for me too.
But capacity is a thing, a real thing, and especially important to the newer generation of shooters. The handle of the weapon is just a dang convenient place to carry extra rounds. Convenience is a thing when one considers the day to day carriage of the weapon, and does not wish to don a full kit with light, knife, spray, cuffs….etc.- rather put on a 15 rounder and go about one’s day.
The one consideration that falls squarely into the capacity category is my notion that if you are in a fight with a pistol, you had likely not planned to be in a fight that day. If you did not plan to fight that day, you have likely been surprised. If you have been surprised, assuming that you are paying attention and not stumbling about in your AO in “condition White”- the threat is likely not a large body of folks, possibly no more than two. If you are fighting with a pistol, in the open, in a surprised state, with a body of threat actors no greater than two- capacity doesn’t seem as important to me; as if you cannot fix your problem with 8 rounds, than your problem cannot be fixed with 15. You won’t live long enough in the open to shoot 15 rounds. The moral of the story, is not to allow yourself to be surprised.
If you did not allow yourself to be surprised, surely you are not remaining out in the open. So disposed behind cover, magazine changes can be done properly, which negate capacity from any really serious consideration. In this optimal of circumstance, where an operator has anticipated the violence, positioned himself properly, has confidence in himself and his sidearm; accuracy becomes the optimal feature, and surely it will trump capacity. Capacity works the very best on the firing line, and as we are training for the real world, and not training to train the next time, does the Uber 9 come up short?
A few things that I find interesting, that I thought you may as well. The first is that I read the entire 1985 report furnished to the US Army comparing the M9 Beretta to the model of 1911 45 caliber pistol. I was learned that during the trails, the 1911 outdid the Beretta in only a very few criteria, the most surprising is that it performed overwhelmingly better for female soldiers. I think this, by itself discounts the notion that the 45 ACP’s recoil is unmanageable.
Secondly, I am acquainted with the fellow who served as an armorer at the former Armor school at Fort Knox. 1911 familiarization training would rotate soldiers to positions on the firing line, secure the weapon from the firing table, shoot 50 rounds, place the pistol back on the table, and repeat that process for the “next man.” Twenty soldiers a day at least so familiarized, 1000 rounds a day, for days on end. This gentleman that served as the armorer reported that at that time he still had 1911s in service at that time with over a million rounds through them, and had shooting logs to prove this assertion- although he did replace the drive springs literally every day. The 1911 is a durable gun.
Lastly, I openly question the narrative that a .355 caliber hollow-point bullet fired at 9mm NATO velocities, is as effective in wounding as a 45 ACP in its defensive form. The FBI did not furnish me with their testing datum, but was transparent in how they tested. It is my assertion that there were 3 main reasons that the 9mm adoption and the narrative that followed developed as much as it did. 1) Fear of recoil impulse for its non-“gunny” agents, 2) smaller expense for the bean counters and 3) the fact that the larger calibers did not shoot through sheet metal at all, or plate glass that well. As a responsible armed citizen can determine his own recoil threshold, manage his own budget, will likely not shoot through car bodies or plate glass- and finding no intimidation here- this brings us back to wounding capacity as an important consideration. My contention is that the larger bullet has greater wounding potential generally.
I know that I have said exactly the opposite in the past, and have carried a 9mm officially in harm’s way without complaint. I would enjoy it very much if a 9mm could be made compare with a 45 ACP in terms of wounding capacity, and would love to be proven wrong. Despite the current narrative that supports this and pre-defends the FBI decision, I do not think this is possible. My own research shows is not to be the case. Math Lesson, found here: https://www.tag-ky.com/2020/10/06/math-lesson/
I would think that one benefit of being 1911 technology is that it has been modified and improved maybe more than two or three dozen times- as opposed to the Glock 19, which is on version 5, and arguably version five is a throwback to version 1. Thousands of dollars of development have been spent to make the 1911 combat worthy, modern by 1911 standards, certainly, and worthy of a fight these platforms are certainly.
But again, the big thing is that I hit with it. I will put those little 2 inch “shoot n see” on the middle of the target board, and at 10 yards play that game like at the country fair where you win only after all of the star has been shot all the way off of the paper. So, I try to shoot out the entire paster. This is huge fun, and does not really take that many rounds.
I shot the FBI course clean (perfectly) with the Para LTC, although I did have a few alibis- because of the round count business. Likewise perfect (40/200) with the Old Army on the US Army 25 meter paper target qualification. I dropped 2 outside of the circle on the USCCA qual course (48/50) with the Kimber in 38 Super, and during my time with that particular sidearm, I have come to understand how particular such a weapon can be- when the run of the mill Super 38 is loaded with rounds that do not outpace garden variety 9mm, while some is right there velocity wise with the 357 sig.
The size and weight of the gun is something that is concerning, absolutely, and they are heavy. They likely do not carry as heavy as one would think, but I have found that a lightweight commander or smaller length pistol carries as lightly as a Glock 19, which we can agree is the standard for a carry pistol. Still, a full size on one’s belt and under a coat, says that the fellow will feel it there during his day to day. It is the “heavy” option, for such a thought- and if carrying heavy is the intention it is not too much so.
I am not in love with the 1911s, and will surely listen with patience if it does not fit another pistol fighter’s purpose, and such talk surely can be had. But, it is combat worthy, is a solid and reliable sidearm, I have confidence in the gun, and I can hit with it. What more can be asked?