Small arms that should never have seen service

Yeah, because sticking with a first generation auto-pistol whose design was seventy years old at that point is a great idea. Also add in the fact that most of the USArmy's stock of M1911's had been rebuilt two or three times each by the 80's and you're really looking at a weapon to see out the 20th century.

I actually quite like the Colt 45, but this constant banging on about the thing like it's a doomsday device is plain dumb. If you want a .45 pistol for your military then fine, but pick one that takes advantage of the last hundred years worth of improvements in design and ergonomics.

Actually, Colt developed the Colt SSP, which, for all intents and purposes, was an updated 1911. It was chambered for 9mm though and lost in the trials to the M92 anyway (from what I've read, like most Colt developments from the 1970's on, it was quite a poor performer).

The point about the .45 ACP most people miss is that the U.S. military was going to switch to 9mm NATO no matter what, specifically to standardize ammo and lighten the combat load.

The Colt SSP, had it worked, probably would have ended up the M9, and, as mentioned above, it was basically a modernized 1911A1 (DA/SA, staggered mag, 3-point dots, ambi safety switch, combat hammer, etc...) but it was going to pack the underpowered 9mm too.

The 1911A1 had to be upgraded, that's a fact, but people focus too much on the M9 being 9mm, rather than .45 ACP, and blame the weapon rather than the philosophy that implemented the change in chambering.

The M92 is a perfectly good pistol, and it's even desirable when chambered for a round with good man stopping power (.40 S&W or .45 ACP for example) so I'd say the problem with the M9 is more a matter of the ammo being junk, rather than the weapon itself.

As for weapons that never should have seen the battlefield, I still say the M1 carbine.

If it can't penetrate heavy wool clothing, the weapon's just going to get troops killed to no good end.

My grandfather was part of a 105 crew in WW2 and after surviving The Bulge (by using first a Garand inherited from an unfortunate infantryman, then a 98k and captured ammo from an equally unfortunate German who got too close to his foxhole) he sent a letter home from the hospital for his Remington 12 gauge auto and carried that through the rest of the war.

He told my dad once that it was either that or just carry around a sharpened entrenching tool the rest of the way, because he absolutely hated quote "That worthless hunk of metal and wood.".

His youngest brother was a paratrooper. Got dropped into Normandy with one. "Inherited" a grease gun a few hours into the fighting and never let go of it for the rest of the war.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
What about the two guns chambered for 5,45x18mm made by the soviets in the 70s, the PSM and the OC-23. I've got confused info though, but half the impressions I got were that it was a precursor of the FN 5,7mm (so basically 9mm in a small, nasty package), the other half is that it was a peashooter even worse than a .22 :p

Also I find the US army insistance for .45 a bit weird given that the main limitation of .38 at the time was that it couldn't shoot through the makeshift rope-armor of the Philippine revolutionaries. Except now you can get armor piercing capabilities in a 9mm (and of course the FN Five-seven is there if you really care about a sidearm that can go through armor :p ).
 
You can install different grips and sights, but there's nothing wrong with the basics of the weapon. But yes, age is an issue...

It's not just the age, it's things like weight and magazine capacity. I've done a quick spreadsheet comparing various .45 pistols and the M1911 is both the heaviest by ten ounces and has the smallest magazine.

All these guns are full size models chambered in .45 ACP with the 9mm Beretta M9 used as a control.

gunspread.jpg
 
It's not just the age, it's things like weight and magazine capacity. I've done a quick spreadsheet comparing various .45 pistols and the M1911 is both the heaviest by ten ounces and has the smallest magazine.

All these guns are full size models chambered in .45 ACP with the 9mm Beretta M9 used as a control.

Ummm... your data shows it is less than an once heavier than the CZ and is tied for 1st place for the longest barrel. Also, they make double-stack version these days. Purist may not consider that a 'real' 1911, but...

I'd also consider sight radius, reliability, cost, and ergonomics. I'm not saying the 1911 is the best thing since sliced bread, in fact I love my S&W M&P (mine's a .40, but hey...), but weight and magazine capacity aren't the be-all and end-all of pistol specs.
 
If it can't penetrate heavy wool clothing, the weapon's just going to get troops killed to no good end.

Another small arms myth. Tell you what, you stand in front of me dressed in woolen clothing while I have an M1 and we'll see if it penetrates the wool, shall we? Willing to risk your life on that belief? I wouldn't be.

The M1 carbine was never intended to be an infantryman's weapon. That it ended up being misused as one is not a fault of the weapon but rather the user.
 
Rickshaw, I specified the SA80/L85A1. If I'd meant the A2 version, I'd've said so.

Fair point but without the L85a1, you'd never see the L85a2 (BTW, under normal British nomenclature the "a" is not capitalised).

Also, both it and the M16/M4 series suffer from the 5.56 mm cartridge. The Brits would likely have been much better served if they'd stuck with the .280. 60 years later the ballistically similar 6.8 mm Remington SPC is widely seen as been the superior replacement for the insufficient 5.56 mm.

There is nothing wrong with the 5.56x45mm round. A great deal of criticism has been unfairly levelled at it because of the poor accuracy of the M4 carbine with its miniature barrel. Instead of sheeting blame home where it belongs - to the US Army commanders who decided arming infantry with a weapon with a 14in barrel and expecting them to engage enemy targets at greater than 100 metres range - the round it fires gets the blame.

IF the US Army commanders who made these decisions had actually looked at the design specifications of the M4 and what it was intended to be - a carbine designed for the use of troops whom because of their duties the carriage of a full length service rifle was difficult - otherwords a replacement for the the concept of an SMG - they would not have decided to make it their main infantry longarm.

Problem was, it looked "cool" and the fact the SF had decided to adopt it because they believed it better suited their needs than the standard M16, which again added to the "coolness" factor substantially. The result was, as we both know, general adoption as the main infantry longarm. No one stopped to think, "hey, this thing has a pitifully short barrel, won't that effect its usefulness?"

5.56x45mm SS109 at the time of its adoption was a perfectly adequate round. It was superior to the older US round, with better ballistics and better penetrating power and came close to the great 7mm round. Circumstances have however changed so it can't be faulted for being now considered "inadequate" now.

I agree that the .280 would have been a better choice in the long run but as we know the US forced the decision on that one. Hindsight is wonderful, isn't it? :rolleyes:
 
As to the M1911 versus the M9 debate, I would question first the utility of the pistol over the calibre of the round fired or the weapon that fires it. Pistols are useless in a military context. Only the US gun culture emphasises the reverse. In every other modern military they are seen as a status symbol, not a weapon that has any real value in a modern firefight. If given a choice between a longarm and a pistol, I'll choose the longarm every time. In the Australian Army, all officers up to Company Commander in the Battalion, while having an entitlement to a pistol will invariably draw a longarm so that if necessary they can contribute to the firefight, rather than being forced to spit at the enemy.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Another small arms myth. Tell you what, you stand in front of me dressed in woolen clothing while I have an M1 and we'll see if it penetrates the wool, shall we? Willing to risk your life on that belief? I wouldn't be.

The M1 carbine was never intended to be an infantryman's weapon. That it ended up being misused as one is not a fault of the weapon but rather the user.

No reason to be abusive.

Just saying it was a myth would have been sufficient, even if incorrect.

If you had bothered to actually read the post rather than react you might have noticed that his source of information was his FATHER, who actually used the weapon in combat. He also noted that his UNCLE (noticing the family theme here?) was dropped into combat as a parachute infantyman with a M-1 Carbine. Don't get much more infantry than a paratrooper.

Might want to think before hitting submit on an insult.
 

Cook

Banned
Don't get much more infantry than a paratrooper.

Stop blowing wind up the Splat Cats arses Cal, they get enough of that on the way down.

Bloody meat bombs, you throw them out the back of a plane at low altitude, miles behind enemy lines with 60 kilos on their back and no heavy fire support and all of a sudden they thing their special…
:p
 
Being a large frame person the 1911, or updated versions of it (I have a Kimber), is no problem to handle. Also, pistols are OK for folks who only have to use it as a last resort type of thing (like us doctors). Having said that our RAS (regimental aid station) ready weapon was the new combat shotgun. Having treated (as a surgeon) shotgun wounds, let me say that as nice as the stopping power of a .45, at similar or even longer ranges a 3" mag 00 buck round will amputate a limb, or cause massive and instantly disabling (if not fatal wounds).

One reason that, starting in Vietnam and currently, there is a tendency for even MDs with the Marines (to say nothing of corpsmen) to carry rifles is to prevent "looking different" & being identified as medical - specifically targeted by the VC, and the current collection of religious fanatics.
 
Last edited:
Actually, Colt developed the Colt SSP, which, for all intents and purposes, was an updated 1911. It was chambered for 9mm though and lost in the trials to the M92 anyway (from what I've read, like most Colt developments from the 1970's on, it was quite a poor performer).

The point about the .45 ACP most people miss is that the U.S. military was going to switch to 9mm NATO no matter what, specifically to standardize ammo and lighten the combat load.

The Colt SSP, had it worked, probably would have ended up the M9, and, as mentioned above, it was basically a modernized 1911A1 (DA/SA, staggered mag, 3-point dots, ambi safety switch, combat hammer, etc...) but it was going to pack the underpowered 9mm too.

The 1911A1 had to be upgraded, that's a fact, but people focus too much on the M9 being 9mm, rather than .45 ACP, and blame the weapon rather than the philosophy that implemented the change in chambering.

The M92 is a perfectly good pistol, and it's even desirable when chambered for a round with good man stopping power (.40 S&W or .45 ACP for example) so I'd say the problem with the M9 is more a matter of the ammo being junk, rather than the weapon itself.

As for weapons that never should have seen the battlefield, I still say the M1 carbine.

If it can't penetrate heavy wool clothing, the weapon's just going to get troops killed to no good end.

My grandfather was part of a 105 crew in WW2 and after surviving The Bulge (by using first a Garand inherited from an unfortunate infantryman, then a 98k and captured ammo from an equally unfortunate German who got too close to his foxhole) he sent a letter home from the hospital for his Remington 12 gauge auto and carried that through the rest of the war.

He told my dad once that it was either that or just carry around a sharpened entrenching tool the rest of the way, because he absolutely hated quote "That worthless hunk of metal and wood.".

His youngest brother was a paratrooper. Got dropped into Normandy with one. "Inherited" a grease gun a few hours into the fighting and never let go of it for the rest of the war.

The M-1 Carbine worked fine in the pacific theater of war until we closed in on japan were the weather was colder .

Also Remember it was build to replace the 1911 pistol for service troops . Against troops wearing light weight clothing
it works fine . As an arty man your father never should of had to of used his M-1 carbine in combat .
 
The M-1 Carbine worked fine in the pacific theater of As an arty man your father never should of had to of used his M-1 carbine in combat .

Famous last words, I think. Of course he shouldn't have but the reality of the battlefield, particularly in the modern world since WWII is that there is no "front line". Arms or Service Corps other than Infantry should be expected to provide their own protection. The Australian Army has been planning and using a concept of "all arms defence" since WWII, where the nature of Jungle Warfare precluded reliance on other units to provide defence against potential enemy attack. Just as the Marines expect all their troops to be a "rifleman first and a specialist second" so does our Army.
 
No reason to be abusive.

Just saying it was a myth would have been sufficient, even if incorrect.

If you had bothered to actually read the post rather than react you might have noticed that his source of information was his FATHER, who actually used the weapon in combat. He also noted that his UNCLE (noticing the family theme here?) was dropped into combat as a parachute infantyman with a M-1 Carbine. Don't get much more infantry than a paratrooper.

Might want to think before hitting submit on an insult.

Calbear how would you like to jump in with the M-1 Rifle .
I jumped with the M-14 ,M-16 and the M-1 Carbine and I liked the M-1 Carbine was a better choice to drop in with .

Part of the Reason a lot of the Airborne troops carried the M-1 Carbine was you could carry more ammo then you could with the M-1 rifle . Also what mo did the Troops drop into Normandy it Was June not October and both sides were wearing summer uniforms .


Also CalBear I bet you like the Stoner system .
 
Famous last words, I think. Of course he shouldn't have but the reality of the battlefield, particularly in the modern world since WWII is that there is no "front line". Arms or Service Corps other than Infantry should be expected to provide their own protection. The Australian Army has been planning and using a concept of "all arms defence" since WWII, where the nature of Jungle Warfare precluded reliance on other units to provide defence against potential enemy attack. Just as the Marines expect all their troops to be a "rifleman first and a specialist second" so does our Army.


Remember pre war US arty men had pistols as back up weapons as did cooks , drivers , and supply and support troops The M-1 Carbine was build as a weapon that they could have with more range then the pistol .

Now in New Guinea when my father was first issued his M-1 Carbine he fell in love with it for its rate of fire and size and weight . Of course it replaced his 1903 Springfield that he had before when he was sent to New Guinea .
 
As for weapons that never should have seen the battlefield, I still say the M1 carbine.

If it can't penetrate heavy wool clothing, the weapon's just going to get troops killed to no good end.

My grandfather was part of a 105 crew in WW2 and after surviving The Bulge (by using first a Garand inherited from an unfortunate infantryman, then a 98k and captured ammo from an equally unfortunate German who got too close to his foxhole) he sent a letter home from the hospital for his Remington 12 gauge auto and carried that through the rest of the war.

He told my dad once that it was either that or just carry around a sharpened entrenching tool the rest of the way, because he absolutely hated quote "That worthless hunk of metal and wood.".

His youngest brother was a paratrooper. Got dropped into Normandy with one. "Inherited" a grease gun a few hours into the fighting and never let go of it for the rest of the war.

Okay, your anecdotes are compelling, but you fail to point out the most salient fact about the M1 carbine--it was a substitute for a pistol, originally issued to soldiers who couldn't make room for the Garand rifle in their kit.

Sure, the carbine's round isn't ideal for riflemen (or for your particular artilleryman grandfather) but it was a very good stopgap weapon for most of the US military who weren't serving in rifles companies, and for officers who otherwise might have used their 1911s as primary weapons.

LATE EDIT: The stories about heavy clothing stopping the .30 roundnosed bullet are mostly from Korea, right?

Look at the ballistics for that round and you find it's basically a 'Magnumised' version of 7.62mm Tokarev or .30 Mauser--aka rounds that were much superior to 9mm Parabellum before heavier projectile inserts were invented.

I assume the 'it won't penetrate wool or down jackets' stories come from the weapons being fired at targets at maximum range, not in close quarters actions.
 
Last edited:
Top