Was the .45 ACP M1911 inevitable?

phx1138

Reading this thread got me thinking.

I believe the M1911 was going to win the 1907 competition no matter what. However, the .45 ACP round has been frequently criticized since, & there were other, more potent options available at the time. So, did the Army have to specify the .45? Or could it have tried something else?

For instance:

All of these had performance exceeding the OTL .357 Mag. Or would these, all being .38s, have been considered too "minor caliber"? If so, what about these?

If the smaller caliber is acceptable, could this have led Browning to make the 1911 with a double-stack mag, like the GP35? That is, the Army accepts a smaller caliber in exchange for being able to put more rounds into a target.

In addition, does this affect the Marine/Army use of the Thompson? Is it adopted in 9mm Mau/Bergman, & so more effective? Does that impact on the M1C at all?
 

Delta Force

Banned
Most of those rounds did not exist until decades after 1907. Also, the .45 Super article mentions that modern cases and powders avaliable around the 1980s can provide about twice as much pressure as their 1900s counterparts. Trying to use some of those cartridges with technology avaliable at the time would likely lead to catastrophic failure.
 

phx1138

I'm not suggesting the exact round be duplicated (in, frex the .41 Super), only that similar ones be developed. (Which means .41 & longer than the existing .38 ACP, in this instance.)

Not to mention the Mars rounds, offering proto-Magnum performance, were around...
 

Crowbar Six

You need to understand the context of why the US Army wanted a .45 in the first place.

The US were involved in a nasty guerilla war in the Philippines, they had recently selected a new revolver in .38 to replace their old .45 weapons. The new .38 revolvers lacked the stopping power of the old weapons leading to the US Army re-issuing the old weapons and also to buying new .45 revolvers. They conducted additional testing and found that .45 caused much more damage than the somewhat anaemic .38 round adopted (which is 9mm). The US decided to replace their revolvers with automatics and this resulted in a series of trials in which the Browning designed Colt .45 1901 eventually evolved into the 1911 and then after WW 1 experience into the definitive 1911A1 in 1921 which is still in military use (with minor mods) today.

As Delta Force pointed out, metallurgy and materials science was not as developed as it is today and a hotter 9mm or .45 would have to be heavier to stand up to the breach pressures, more importantly it would have required a lot more training to to use these hotter weapons effectively due to recoil; Another point to remember is that in the early 1900's people were actually shorter and lighter than today, if you make a weapon too hot they are not going to be able to handle it. . Having fired 9x19 and .45 myself I found the .45 a lot more pleasant to shoot.
 

phx1138

Crowbar Six said:
You need to understand the context of why the US Army wanted a .45 in the first place.

The US were involved in a nasty guerilla war in the Philippines, they had recently selected a new revolver in .38 to replace their old .45 weapons. The new .38 revolvers lacked the stopping power of the old weapons leading to the US Army re-issuing the old weapons and also to buying new .45 revolvers. They conducted additional testing and found that .45 caused much more damage than the somewhat anaemic .38 round adopted
Click to expand...
I do know that, which is why I'm suggesting a hotter 9mm rather than, what, the .38 Colt or .38 S&W Spl?
Crowbar Six said:
metallurgy and materials science was not as developed as it is today and a hotter 9mm or .45 would have to be heavier to stand up to the breach pressures
Click to expand...
I'm not aware the 9mm Bergmann was dramatically heavier than the .45 Gov't; indeed, a quick online search (which I just did) says the Bergmann was 36oz & the Colt 40.
Crowbar Six said:
more importantly it would have required a lot more training to to use these hotter weapons effectively due to recoil
Click to expand...
They're going to have to be retrained on the auto anyhow...:rolleyes:
 

Crowbar Six

The purpose of a pistol is as a final defensive weapon. This means at close range, when you are that close you don't really need to have a hyper-powered round to do damage, in fact it can be a problem due to over-penetration.

Firing a powerful round makes it less controllable for the average user without a lot of ADDITIONAL training to reach a basic standard of marksmanship. I would rather fire 100 rounds of .45 ACP on a range than 100 rounds of .44 Magnum (if it was still legal to own and shoot pistol in the UK) mainly because my wrists wouldn't hurt so much.

You are looking at the muzzle velocity and not taking into account muzzle energy. The 9x23 Largo (Bergmann) varies between 450-580 j and the .45 ACP varies from 480-500j. And of course the other point is why bother? the terminal ballistics is what is important. A hotter 9mm doesn't necessarily cause more damage to an enemy soldier than a .45 ACP round anyway.
 

phx1138

Crowbar Six said:
The purpose of a pistol is as a final defensive weapon. This means at close range, when you are that close you don't really need to have a hyper-powered round to do damage, in fact it can be a problem due to over-penetration.

Firing a powerful round makes it less controllable for the average user without a lot of ADDITIONAL training to reach a basic standard of marksmanship. I would rather fire 100 rounds of .45 ACP on a range than 100 rounds of .44 Magnum (if it was still legal to own and shoot pistol in the UK) mainly because my wrists wouldn't hurt so much.

You are looking at the muzzle velocity and not taking into account muzzle energy. The 9x23 Largo (Bergmann) varies between 450-580 j and the .45 ACP varies from 480-500j. And of course the other point is why bother? the terminal ballistics is what is important. A hotter 9mm doesn't necessarily cause more damage to an enemy soldier than a .45 ACP round anyway.
Click to expand...
And now we're getting somewhere. The ME issue is a product of both MV & bullet weight, & weight is a function of diameter. (Not only, but...) So does that require a larger caliber than .38/9mm, for equal ME? Does it push toward .41 or .429 (.44)? To get 500ft-pd with 210gr needs 1040fps. That's stiff, but not insanely stiff. (I can't translate joules to ft-pds...:eek:)
 

hx87

phx1138 said:
And now we're getting somewhere. The ME issue is a product of both MV & bullet weight, & weight is a function of diameter. (Not only, but...) So does that require a larger caliber than .38/9mm, for equal ME? Does it push toward .41 or .429 (.44)? To get 500ft-pd with 210gr needs 1040fps. That's stiff, but not insanely stiff. (I can't translate joules to ft-pds...:eek:)
Click to expand...

Muzzle energy can only do so much when you're limited to nonexpanding full metal jackets by the 1899 Hague Convention. Pistol bullets are too short and slow to tumble and fragment the way rifle bullets do, so past a certain point additional muzzle velocity will only cause overpenetration and thus inefficient energy transfer to the target. The only way pistol bullets maim and kill is by direct tissue destruction. Therefore the best way to improve the performance of a handgun cartridge against unarmored targets is to increase the caliber while keeping muzzle velocity modest; the .455 Webley used by the British was considered a very effective handgun cartridge for this reason despite having <300 ft lbs of muzzle energy.

Now, if soft or hollow point bullets are allowed, or the feeding issues with miniaturized rifle cartridges like 5.7x28mm, 4.6x30mm, or (for extra insanity) .224 Boz are solved, then the possibilities expand.
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
Maybe this is a tangent, but why did the Russians go with the 7.62 for the Tokarev?
 
Last edited:
100Fathoms

100Fathoms

Driftless said:
Why did the Russians go with the 7.62 for the Tokarev?
Click to expand...

Because they obtained a lot of Short barreled Mauser 1896 broom handle 7.63x25mm pistol during the Russian Civil war. And the use of Short barreled C96 type pistols became so linked with the Bolsheviks that all such weapons became known as Bolo pistols. When the Soviets went looking for a new pistol design in the late 20's, they simply hot rodded the existing Mauser round and rebranded it as the 7.62 X 25MM Soviet.
 

phx1138

hx87 said:
past a certain point additional muzzle velocity will only cause overpenetration and thus inefficient energy transfer to the target.
Click to expand...
I'll accept that without a qualm. The threshold, IMO, is the question, here. Does the .45 ACP (or, indeed, the .455 Webley) meet it? Or does a hotter round?

That's the issue I'm getting at: would (could) the Army ask for a hotter small-caliber or a (less hot, but hotter than OTL .45 ACP) larger-caliber round? Or is the .45 ACP the best compromise?
 

Crowbar Six

IMHO .45 ACP is about the best combination available at the time.

It had good terminal performance, reduced the risk of over penetration and wasn't too overpowered allowing the weapon to be relatively easy to train and teach.
 

muskeg13

Not only WAS the .45 ACP M1911 inevitable, its grandson is being brought back on to active duty. https://www.defencetalk.com/marine-corps-orders-new-close-combat-pistol-43892/. It's hard to argue with perfection.

The .45 ACP is powerful enough to get the job done, yet be controllable, and that job was and is to incapicitate an attacker with one or two solid hits.

For decades, many U.S. soldiers and Marines trusted their lives to their .45s.

A more modern truncated or rounded flat point FMJ might be even more effective.
 

The Wizard

Driftless said:
Maybe this is a tangent, but why did the Russians go with the 7.62 for the Tokarev?
Click to expand...


For that matter why did the French go with the 7,65 mm Longue (Long) when both the 9 mm Parabellum (Luger) and the .45 ACP were both fully developed and combat tested.

Back on the subject, I can attest from personal experience that the Cartridge, Caliber .45, Model of 1911 (.45 ACP) and its launch platform the U. S. Pistol, Caliber .45, Model 1911A1 accomplishes its intended purpose in an extremely outstanding manner out to ranges of 50 meters.
 
Last edited:

Crowbar Six

God knows, the French actually developed some really good weapons.

Unfortunately, the design of pistols doesn't appear to be one of them.
 

The Wizard

Crowbar Six said:
God knows, the French actually developed some really good weapons.

Unfortunately, the design of pistols doesn't appear to be one of them.
Click to expand...

The French ignored the first principle of engineering design: "DO NOT REINVENT THE WHEEL!". I hope you do not include among France's "really good weapons" the Chauchat LMG and the Lebel Model 1886 rifle.
 

Vjacheslav Malyshev

Banned
The Wizard said:
The French ignored the first principle of engineering design: "DO NOT REINVENT THE WHEEL!". I hope you do not include among France's "really good weapons" the Chauchat LMG and the Lebel Model 1886 rifle.
Click to expand...
lol what the 1886 Lebel was the world's first rifle firing a smokeless powder cartridge, a cartridge which was only designed in three months. The Chauchat was the most produced LMG during WW1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top