Jump to content

Talk:M1911 pistol: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
set auto-archiving
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs)
234,552 edits
m Archiving 22 thread(s) (older than 24h) to /dev/null.
Line 24: Line 24:
{{Archive box|auto=long}}
{{Archive box|auto=long}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archive =
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:M1911 pistol/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 |small=yes}}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 |small=yes}}


== Naming ==
== Specifications ==
for whoever insists on the word nomeclature:
A nomenclature is a system of naming. "M1911" is a name or designation, '''based''' on military nomenclature, which often names equipment after the year it is adopted.
: I prefer the term "designation" and would like to see it stick. Thanks for adding it.


I may be confused, but I think the current version is designated the 1991A1, not the 1911A1. It's commonly ''referred to'' as a 1911 gun, but the manual for mine is designated M1991A1[[User:L33th4x0rguy|LH]] 02:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:M1991A1 is a commercial designation by Colt for economy grade versions of their M1911-pattern pistol line. --[[User:D.E. Watters|D.E. Watters]] 16:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the actual "original" one, and the one that goes to combat with the US armed forces is definbately 1911 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/134.36.93.46|134.36.93.46]] ([[User talk:134.36.93.46|talk]]) 23:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Weight v. mass ==

I agree that it is correct in a technical sense to speak of the weapon's "'mass,'" it is to a certain extent "'weight'" that is the issue here; i.e. the force the weapon would exert if you were to hold or carry it. Thus I left weight in place when I revised the article. Also, at least in American firearms literature, the only time I have seen the word 'mass' used (however correct it might be in other places) is when referring to the slide or other moving parts within the blowback mechanism, which move during the firing cycle by absorbing the recoil (opposite the bullet's direction of travel) force. But ... I have left it, since you are technically correct, and I suppose there's no reason to follow that convention, since it is not really based on anything.

Also you will notice that I reordered the English and metric units; this was for two reasons. Firstly, it was because all the other dimensions are listed in English first, then metric -- but before you go and reorder all of them! -- it was more importantly because the English units are the ones actually taken from the weapon's specifications, and the metric ones were converted from those (introducing some rounding error). So therefore I think it is correct to keep them this way, since the English ones are in this case "measured" and the metric "derived" quantities. Come to think of it, there should really be 'approximately equal to' (aka tilde or ~) signs in front of the metric quantities, probably.

Perhaps the next time I have my 1911 out, I will measure it and come up with some more precise figures. Also, although I applaud whoever uploaded the photo for their effort, I think it would be nice to have something which IMO is more representative of the brilliance and beauty of the design. I'll see what I can do.
:I forgot to sign this comment originally. It's mine. - [[User:Kadin2048|Kadin2048]]

:Wikipedia has a fairly good description of the differences between [[mass]] and [[weight]] (I've also taken a fair amount of physics in college). Basically, [[mass]] is an object's resistance to a force put on it. So if I pick up an object, the mass will always be a certain way, and I will always have to exert a certain amount of force to get the object to move. The mass of the object will be the same, regardless of where it is (Earth, space, wherever, at least when the object is at rest to the person observing the object). [[Weight]], on the other hand, is a measurement of how gravity puts force upon an object. The weight of an object will change depending on where it is. The is because gravitational force differs from the surface of the planet, space, sea level, the top of Mt Rainier, underwater, etc (consequently, objects are somewhat buoyant in air, just as they are in water, which means objects will weigh the most in a vacuum not that it happens very often). For practical purposes weight is probably fine, but if you really took the time and found a nice scale and weighed your pistol in, say, Los Angeles and then Denver, you would find two different results. --[[User:Trakon|Trakon]] 07:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

== Production Numbers ==
Someone changed 1.9 million to 19 million; I corrected this. Around 1.9 million were produced during WW2, with around 2.7 million over the entire service life. Source: http://www.olive-drab.com/od_other_firearms_pistol_m1911.php3 [[User:Lord Bodak|Lord Bodak]] 13:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Specifications ==
I just changed method of operation from [[blowback (arms)|blowback]] to [[recoil-actuated]], which is much more accurate. The key to [[recoil-actuated]] vs. [[blowback (arms) |blowback]] is the locking lugs on the barrel, coupled with the swinging link. In [[blowback (arms)|blowback]] operated firearms, such as the Walther PPK, the barrel doesn't move, the slide does all the movement. In the M1911, the barrel recoils a short distance with the slide, maintaining postive lockup until chamber pressure drops to a safe point, whereupon the swinging link drops the barrel free from the slide and performs the extract-eject-feed portion of the cycle. [[User:kemkerj| kemkerj ]] 24 June 2005 22:16 EDT
I just changed method of operation from [[blowback (arms)|blowback]] to [[recoil-actuated]], which is much more accurate. The key to [[recoil-actuated]] vs. [[blowback (arms) |blowback]] is the locking lugs on the barrel, coupled with the swinging link. In [[blowback (arms)|blowback]] operated firearms, such as the Walther PPK, the barrel doesn't move, the slide does all the movement. In the M1911, the barrel recoils a short distance with the slide, maintaining postive lockup until chamber pressure drops to a safe point, whereupon the swinging link drops the barrel free from the slide and performs the extract-eject-feed portion of the cycle. [[User:kemkerj| kemkerj ]] 24 June 2005 22:16 EDT


Line 66: Line 38:
*The Kimber Warrior is not an exact clone of the MCSOCOM ICQB pistol, nor has the Warrior been purchased or issued to USMC units. The ICQB was ordered as a stop-gap until MARCORSYSCOM could choose an Improved MEU(SOC) pistol. MARCORSYSCOM recently chose a variation of the Springfield Professional as the Improved MEU(SOC). --[[User:D.E. Watters|D.E. Watters]] 23:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
*The Kimber Warrior is not an exact clone of the MCSOCOM ICQB pistol, nor has the Warrior been purchased or issued to USMC units. The ICQB was ordered as a stop-gap until MARCORSYSCOM could choose an Improved MEU(SOC) pistol. MARCORSYSCOM recently chose a variation of the Springfield Professional as the Improved MEU(SOC). --[[User:D.E. Watters|D.E. Watters]] 23:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


== Error? ==
== Swastika Model ==


As I recall, the .38LC was a .386, not a .357. [[User:Trekphiler|Trekphiler]] 05:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

:No, a .386" diameter bullet would be a characteristic of the .41 Long Colt. In 1889, the Navy's original .38 load based on the .38 LC case did use an outside lubricated bullet, but it was more along the .376" range. However, by 1892 the Army began work on their .38 loaded with a smaller diameter, inside lubricated bullet. Manufacture of the Navy load ceased in 1897, with the Navy adopting the Army version of the round. The standard .38 Long Colt can be safely used in .38 Special and .357 Magnum revolvers. --[[User:D.E. Watters|D.E. Watters]] 01:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

==7.65mm on Photo==
Just to demonstrate that it really is a 7.65mm on the Photo.
[[Image:Cartridges 765 9 45.jpg]]

The left one is a 7.65mm (model/make I don't know), I know that for sure, however I'm unsure where it came from, probably from a Iraqi made [[Tariq 7.65mm]] (some [[Beretta model 70]] licenses if i'm not mistaken). Middle is a 9mm Luger, I took that straight out of a [[SIG P210]]. Right the [[.45 ACP]], came with the US.M1911A1 pistol confiscated.


:The 7.65 could be from a .32 cal Czech [[Skorpion]], or one of many other weapons in that region using that caliber. <b>&mdash; &nbsp;</b>[[User:Kaiserb|<font color="990000" face="system" >Kaiser</font><font color="006600" face="system" >B</font>]] 06:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

:Most likely that is [[.32 ACP]] - still a fairly common caliber in the U.S. The NATO designation is 7.65 x 17, and commonly referred to in Europe as 7.65 Browning. This cartridge was fairly common in Europe in the early part of the 20th Century, but considered to have insufficient stopping power to be an effective military weapon. Most nations adopted the more powerful [[9mm Parabellum]]. - Jana Deenax 22 Jun 06 08:30 UTC

==Looking for some some help==
As of March 11, 2006, I am writing a research project on the weapons used in WWII. One of the weapons used was, of course, the Colt M1911. Well, I have a question that needs to be answered for my paper, so if you could answer, it would be a great help that would be greatly appreciated. The question- Does the M1911 have any special features that make it cifferent from any of the other pistols of the time? Again, I stress and express my gratitude towards all of those willing to help. Thank You. [[User:OmniAngel|OmniAngel]] 18:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

:The recoil-actuated mechanism of the M1911 was a departure from the more common blowback action of WWII era autopistols. The Germans later introduced the [[Walther P38]], which also incorporated the recoil-action and were issued to replace the costlier and dirt-sensitive P-08 Luger.

:There were two versions of the M1911 - the M1911 and the M1911A1. The M1911A1 incorporated a larger grip safety with an extended tang designed to keep the 'web' part of the shooter's hand between the thumb and trigger finger below the path of the slide (and preventing a disabling injury your shooting hand!) when the slide cycles between shots. The rear portion of the handle was also redesigned with a curve to fit more naturally to the hand. - Jana Deenax 23 Jun 06 08:39 UTC

:Arguably, the 1911 was more reliable than most of the other pistols of the era. [[User:Talldean|Dean]] 22:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

:In addition, the original spec weapon could be taken completely apart using solely a .45 ACP bullet and itself. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:98.197.168.88|98.197.168.88]] ([[User talk:98.197.168.88|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/98.197.168.88|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

Yeah the A1 is better because if you dont hold it properley the original would take a chunk out of the webbing between your thumb and the rest of your hand when the slide went back. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/134.36.93.46|134.36.93.46]] ([[User talk:134.36.93.46|talk]]) 23:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Image request for semi-custom==
The current semi-custom 1911's (Kimber, Springers, SIG's GSR, Wilson, Les Baer, etc.) as well as the "race guns", esp. those from Strayer-Tripp or Strayer-Voight, look vastly different from a Remington-Rand M1911A1. I don't have access to a race gun, but could somebody out there with access to one get a photo of all 3 (or at least one of the more modern designs) to show where it has changed - lowered and flared ejection port, beavertail, return to the long trigger (but now with speedholes!!!), etc.?[[User:Attakmint|Attakmint]] 08:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
:Actually, I have access to a Kimber TLE II and a Wilson CQB, should I post a picture of either to show what the "modern" 1911 looks like? Please leave some feedback. [[User:Attakmint|Attakmint]] 19:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

==In popular culture==
Does it make sense for all the pop culture material to be split off and become its own article. This content has really become a major distraction to an article about the real gun. [[User:Yaf|Yaf]] 03:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
: I would support this. I agree, I think the main article should be kept specifically focused on the gun itself, as it exists in real life. There certainly appears to be enough content and interest to support a separate article on the 1911 in popular culture. However, the merge nazis will probably try to recombine them the second it's split out ... but we can always try. -[[User:Kadin2048|Kadin2048]] 04:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
::To paraphrase a quote from [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M16 rifle in popular culture]], when you're considering where the best place for M1911 cruft is, you really need to include 'nowhere' in your list of choices. I don't personally agree with the idea of keeping junk in the encyclopedia in order to keep junk out of the encyclopedia. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 19:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

==Swastika Model==
I have one of these. Any collectors know what its worth? I can provide a picture for the article too if needed.
I have one of these. Any collectors know what its worth? I can provide a picture for the article too if needed.


== Colt ==
==Effective Range vs. Maximum Range==
The M1911A1 pistol range stated in the article is the maximum distance the weapon can fire a bullet.

Military weapon ranges are always stated in two categories:
:Maximum Range, which is the absolutely the farthest distance a projectile can be shot from a weapon. Accuracy and effectiveness are greatly diminished at these extreme ranges.

:Effective Range, which is the range the weapon is intended to be used with the reasonable accuracy and effect as designed. This range is ''much'' shorter than maximum range.

For the 1911A1, the intended use is a backup or close-quarters weapon, and only for short range targets. In the U.S. Armed Forces, the official effective range of the M1911-series weapons is 50 meters, and is the designed range an average soldier can fire this weapon and expect to hit a man-sized target. Soldiers are generally trained to use their rifles to shoot at targets in the 50-500 meter range, and pistols and machine pistols (submachine guns) are to be used at ranges under 50 meters, or in close-quarter environments where full-length rifles would be too cumbersome and awkward, such as inside structures, crawlways, tunnels and naval vessels. During WWII, there are instances of US soliders using their 1911 to engage Japanese soliders at 100 yards distance.
:No bloody way they were hitting anything at 100 yards. Engaging targets means nothing more than shooting at them. [[User:CynicalMe|CynicalMe]] 19:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
::It is documented. Plus, it is not uncommon for a well-built 1911 in .45 ACP or .40 S&W to be able to hold 6" groups at 100 yards.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:68.80.176.149|68.80.176.149]] ([[User talk:68.80.176.149|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/68.80.176.149|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:::So document it. Give a citation. Besides, a match-grade 1911 is a far cry from the GI model the soldiers would have used. [[User:CynicalMe|CynicalMe]] 23:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
::::I can't give you a "citation", but I can speak from personal experience. I own a 1941 GI model 1911A1 that has had little or no "tuning", and I have fired it at 100 yards. It is certainly no rifle, but I was able to hit a 18" diameter target about half the time.
:::::Hitting a target that size in range conditions and still only hitting it 50% of the time proves my point. 100 yards is certainly beyond the maximum ''effective'' range for combat. [[User:CynicalMe|CynicalMe]] 18:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::Agreed. For comparison, a .22 LR's maximum range is over mile (that is, if I shot a .22 at a 45 degree angle, it could hit the ground over a mile away). But if I wanted accuracy and some sort of power at a mile away, there's no way I would choose a .22 - I would use something heavier and with much more powder. Likewise with the 1911 - you can successfully engage targets beyond the effective range, but that's dependant on a lot of luck, and the effectiveness would be greatly diminished.[[User:Attakmint|Attakmint]] 22:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
:I think the preceding comments basically underline the fact that there is definitely a difference between an "effective" and "maximum" range (even if we can't all agree on what each of them are). Since there probably won't ever be consensus among shooters as to what the "effective" range is (because how do you define it, even if you can't hit someone at some distance, you might be able to make them keep their heads down, so it's useful for suppression, etc. etc.), I think we should go with the U.S. military's definition and figure. --[[User:Kadin2048|Kadin2048]] 07:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
::I agree. Use the US military's definition. Maximum range is going to be dependent on the angle of the gun, the altitude at which it was fired, ammunition grain, and so forth. Ultimately it is the pistol (and ammo and environment) that defines the maximum range. Similarly it is the person (or group of people surveyed who are considered normal) firing who defines the effective range. --[[User:Trakon|Trakon]] 07:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

::OK. The 1911A1 has an EFFECTIVE range of about 50-70 yards (or roughly 50-70 meters). At that range, a full size government model (5" barrel) built to spec should be able to hit a standard K7 man size target. However, the true engagement range without some sort of rest or bracement is about 25-50 yards. Beyond this, most users will have trouble being steady enough to consistantly make the shot. In comparison, the .22LR is regularly pushed to 50 yards in NRA collegiate shooting with good results (more tens than nines on a good shooter). The greatest story of a 1911 being employed at long range is the incident where a shot down pilot hit a Japanese Zero pilot (who was strafing him) with a 1911 at a range indeterminent, but surely (with an aircraft and by the account) atleast 10 yards (spacial distance is often under estimated in air), 2d Lt. Owen J. Baggett shot the pilot of the pilot with a 1911 in four shots. So, effective? Pistol marksmen are hard to come by without years of training and nerves of steel to shoot well under pressure. But to blatantly say that no one can push the 1911 beyond 50 yards is laughable and naive. (http://www.sightm1911.com/) <- Source --[[User:Pyrewyrm|Pyrewyrm]] ([[User talk:Pyrewyrm|talk]]) 07:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

:::This is a fundamentally flawed discussion. Pistols don't have these ranges. Effective range of any pistol in a military engagement is about 50 feet at best, but the word '''about''' is a big qualifier. Why are you talking about 100 yards? The 45 slug is lethal out to far beyond that, but you aren't effective at that range in terms of being able to hit your target with any reliability. These range figures are intended for artillery and rifles with volley settings. Most modern rifles are effective at between 200 and 500 meters. Pistols and revolvers??? 15-20 meters. --[[User:Asams10|Asams10]] ([[User talk:Asams10|talk]]) 12:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

:50 yards is not unreasonable. The NRA Collegiate circuit holds a 50 meter .22LR pistol as one of the courses. Holding a sub 3" group is what we trained to do. Hitting a man at a 50 yards isn't terribly difficult considering the average man is more than 12 inches at the waist. Chest shot could be more than 18 inches. The reduced size man targets used for I use zeroing are placed at 25 yards and simulate a man at 25 yards further. IDPA competitions sometimes have targets near the 50 yard mark. Its not easy. But practice can yield results but I'd recommend not using the original combat sights due to their lack of good picture for those ranges. For reference, you may of course review the IDPA website (www.idpa.com) and the NRA Collegiate site (http://www.nrahq.org/compete/coldir.asp). Pistol marksmanship requires years of effort but if this was some sort of deterrent, we wouldn't have shooters clocking 1800 yard shots with with muzzle-loading rifles. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:98.197.168.88|98.197.168.88]] ([[User talk:98.197.168.88|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/98.197.168.88|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

::::And your basis for these statements is what? --[[User:Pyrewyrm|Pyrewyrm]] ([[User talk:Pyrewyrm|talk]]) 01:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

==Grip Safety Elimination==
I wasn't aware that this was an issue. A different grip safety, or even taping it down, sure, but I've never heard of any issues or personally had any with the grip safety on any 1911 I've used.[[User:Attakmint|Attakmint]] 08:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This whole section seems like nothing more than advertising for Novak, as it is copy-pasted from the magazine. I'm going to clean it up.--[[User:Davidwiz|Davidwiz]] 23:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I found this a little strange too. Wouldn't you be holding the gun in that position anyway? Why would you need an additional safety there? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Samuel Vimes|Samuel Vimes]] ([[User talk:Samuel Vimes|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samuel Vimes|contribs]]) 14:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:::The grip safety is a remenant of the cavalry days. In addition, the weapon (when drawn from a holster properly) should not have its grip safety engaged until just clear of the holster, when the hand of the operator must take a full grip to control the weapon. --[[User:Pyrewyrm|Pyrewyrm]] ([[User talk:Pyrewyrm|talk]]) 06:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

== 25-round Air Corp mag ==

I recently read of a Gov't issue WWI-era 25-round magazine for the M-1911. I added this information about it, but it was deleted.

Source: Guns & Ammo, Surplus Firearms, 2005 Issue, Page 85. The article was written by Charles W. Karwan. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/66.191.17.168|66.191.17.168]] ([[User talk:66.191.17.168|talk]]) 21:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:Never mind, it appears to be back now. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/66.191.17.168|66.191.17.168]] ([[User talk:66.191.17.168|talk]]) 21:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

I have been unable to verify this claim at ''[http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ Guns & Ammo]'' or another [[WP:RS|reliable source]], and have therefore removed it per the [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] policy. I acknowledge that there are 25-round aftermarket magazines available, but I could not find a source to verify whether they were ever officially issued by the U.S. military. If you wish to reintroduce this claim, please [[WP:CITE|cite]] a source in the article that can be verified. Thanks. [[User:Accurizer|Accurizer]] 20:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for the reply. I'm aware of the aftermarket mags, but according to this article, it was gov't issue. The information is contained in a image sidebar of the article. The Surplus Firearms issue is a special with G&A, so I don't know if the article would be online. I don't believe I can provide a scan of the page, as that would be a copyright violation.

:Anyway, it's not a big issue. It's just an interesting item from the WWI era. If I come across something, I'll post the link. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/209.59.46.243|209.59.46.243]] ([[User talk:209.59.46.243|talk]]) 03:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


==Safety==
In many movies, someone gets the bad guy's pistol and aims it at him, but he just laughs, because they have not turned off the safety. So for the sake of an informative article, how can one be sure the safety is turned off, and that the weapon will fire when the trigger is pressed?[[User:Edison|Edison]] 05:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

:The safety can't be seen when the pistol is pointed at you. There'd be no way to tell in that situation whether or not the saftey was engaged. The individual holding the weapon could easily disengage the safety without the person the pistol is pointed at ever knowing either way. That's movies for you. ''—[[User:Thernlund|Thernlund]] <sup>([[User talk:Thernlund|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Thernlund|Contribs]])</sup>'' 18:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

::So where is the safety and how does it work?[[User:Edison|Edison]] 07:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

:::3 Safeties: The two that you are probably concerned with though are the grip safety and the thumb safety. The thumb safety is on the left side above the grip (or both sides in those with an ambidextrous safety). This requires a simple downward motion with the thumb. The grip safety, the projection where the web of the hand goes (see the picture in the article, click it for larger), is pressed in by the hand when a proper grip is taken. Not obvious whether it's off or on. The third safety is a half-cock notch on the hammer that is also invisible...

:::The only obvious way to tell anything about the status of a safety from the front is if the pistol is visibly "out of battery" (the slide is not all the way forward and you can see more of the barrel). This means the thumb safety is OFF because the thumb safety locks the slide to the frame only when the slide is fully forward...

:::...Ironically, this would also be an obvious indicator that the pistol would not go off when the trigger is pulled! [[User:Deathbunny|Deathbunny]] 07:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A 1911 can have 4 safeties, if it has a firing pin safety, such as a Colt Series 80 or a Para Ordinance.--[[User:Davidwiz|Davidwiz]] ([[User talk:Davidwiz|talk]]) 03:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

==Argentine M1911s?==

Forgive me if I'm missing it, but it seems that the Argentine production of the Sistema copy of the M1911A1 has been overlooked. I don't ''know'' much about these guns, except that one of them may have been my introduction to the M1911: it was an Argentine Army model that may have been part of the earlier ones manufactured by Colt, or may have been made there.

I also have a friend who bought one (again, I think it was made there, but am not sure) with Interior Ministry markings that with issue sights and trigger shot quite a bit better than another friend's made by Colt with the modern frills version in 2000 or so. These various Argentine models may not be all that significant in terms of total production numbers, but they were certainly significant to Argentina, and some number of us got and still get our M1911 introduction or practice with these solid and inexpensive surplus weapons. [[User:Hga|Hga]] 01:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Some argentine officers used those in the Falklands War, i do believe. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/134.36.93.46|134.36.93.46]] ([[User talk:134.36.93.46|talk]]) 23:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Government, Commander, Officers ==

I was under the impression that Government, Commander, and Officers were fairly standard terms across manufacturers for the 1911. Any reason those terms aren't mentioned here? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Talldean|Talldean]] ([[User talk:Talldean|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Talldean|contribs]]) 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:The terms are only briefly mentioned in captions, under barrel length specifications, particularly. --[[User:Trakon|Trakon]] 09:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Colt has a trademark on the terms "Government", "Officers" and "Commander" when applied to handguns, so those terms can't be used by any other manufacture, that is why you'll see a description like "officer-length".--[[User:Davidwiz|Davidwiz]] ([[User talk:Davidwiz|talk]]) 03:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

== "Trench magazine" ==

I've come across several references to something called a trench magazine; apparently, they were made for private purchase in London during WWI and used by American officers, holding substantially more than the standard 7-round clip. Does anyone know more about this piece of kit? [[User:Andyana|Andyana]] 19:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:I've read of a 25-round magazine for air use (see above). There are also references to a 11-round "trench magazine." [http://ww2ky.moreheadstate.edu/page10.html] [[User:68.116.112.64|68.116.112.64]] 21:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

== Greek Army? ==

Why was the note under 'Current Users' removed for the Greek Army? The Wikipedia page lists the M1911 as the standard sidearm (except marines and special forces). So does other sources [http://greekmilitary.net/greektroops.htm]. Unless someone can think of a good reason to exclude it, I think the listing should stay. [[User:68.116.112.64|68.116.112.64]] 21:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

:It was added back, and sourced by both a Greek military site and Wikipedia. However, the referenced was removed by [[user: D.E. Watters]]. Is there any reason why this keeps getting deleted? There is a list of a number of organizations that issue the M1911, so I think the fact that a national military (and [[NATO]] member) issuing it would be of interest. [[User:68.116.112.64|68.116.112.64]]
:: Look a little harder. D.E. Watters moved it to the Other users section, <s>where it should be</s>. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] 14:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
:::I see. All of the 'Other Users' are ''past'' users rather than ''current'', so I didn't put in that section. However, I suppose it works there too. Thanks. [[User:71.92.157.61|71.92.157.61]] 14:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
:::* True the others in the Other users section are past users. It is a little vague.. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] 15:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

== Flag icon ==

In two recent edits, the American flag icon was removed from the infobox, then restored with the edit summary saying, in part, "the discussion on this issue seems to lean toward inclusion of flags". I would request to know where this discussion has taken place, as I don't see it on this talk page. My reading of [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)]] is that it would in fact be preferable not to have the flag icon. I personally like the flag in this case, but I'm inclined to think that it's better to follow the Manual of Style. [[User:Mudwater|<font face="cursive">— Mudwater</font>]] 00:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
:I believe they're talking about [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms#Flag_icons]] [[User:Arthurrh|Arthurrh]] ([[User talk:Arthurrh|talk]]) 00:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

::Ah, I see. Thanks. [[User:Mudwater|<font face="cursive">— Mudwater</font>]] 00:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Sorry for my hunt and peck style of editing. 1 in 20 people I revert asks for a clarification and I'm not always diplomatic or responsive immediately. MOS is a new guide and only a guide. Further, it does not say you can't use flags, only to have a good reason to have them. This is neither a gratuitous use or one merely for decoration. --[[User:Asams10|Asams10]] ([[User talk:Asams10|talk]]) 01:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the reply. I've started reading the discussion on the WikiProject Firearms talk page. Very interesting, and it's not as clear cut as I originally thought. If I have anything more to add after I get done reading the whole discussion, I'll post it either there or here. [[User:Mudwater|<font face="cursive">— Mudwater</font>]] 01:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::If you post it there, it will help everyone working on this issue on other firearms related pages. [[User:Arthurrh|Arthurrh]] ([[User talk:Arthurrh|talk]]) 01:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

::::::That makes sense. Then there's one big discussion about the whole topic, instead of lots of little discussions. [[User:Mudwater|<font face="cursive">— Mudwater</font>]] 02:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

== Churchill ==

(09/03) It may be worth mentioning that this was Churchill's favorite pistol, and he was a dead shot with it. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Joecyborg|Joecyborg]] ([[User talk:Joecyborg|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Joecyborg|contribs]]) 19:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::Actually, I was under the impression that Churchill's favourite pistol was the [[Mauser C96|c96]]; especially considering that he would have been past active service at the point the M1911 was released.--THobern 10:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:THobern|THobern]] ([[User talk:THobern|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/THobern|contribs]]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

"he would have been past active service at the point the M1911 was released"

He was an commander of some sort in the royal navy in world war one, so it seems unlikely he would have got his hands on an american pistol. Maybe during world war two? a gift? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/134.36.93.46|134.36.93.46]] ([[User talk:134.36.93.46|talk]]) 23:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Navy use? ==

This was the standard side arm for submarine forces until at least the late 90s. Maybe even still now. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TCO|contribs]]) 04:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Variants? ==

Since the Gov't was often copied, & the style is so popular, do variants using the same pattern bear inclusion? I see the Ballester Molina in passing, but I'm thinking of, for instance, the AMT Hardballer (in stainless) & the ARM (with a 14rd mag). Comment? [[User:Trekphiler|Trekphiler]] ([[User talk:Trekphiler|talk]]) 14:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)<br />

== Photo of Gen Crozier ?? ==

This is a minor thing, I realize, but why is there a photo of General Crozier in this article? Its the exact same pic as shown in his Wiki biography article. I suppose (or assume) he was perhaps instrumental in adopting the 1911 for the US military. But why not a photo of Browning instead?? Crozier is not talked about in depth here; more like just in passing...[[User:Engr105th|Engr105th]] ([[User talk:Engr105th|talk]]) 20:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

:Why not pictures of both? To be honest, there are WAY too many photos of guns in this article. Most of them adding nothing to the article. I'd go after them first.--[[User:Nukes4Tots|Nukes4Tots]] ([[User talk:Nukes4Tots|talk]]) 22:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)<br />

::Hmmm...ok, I concur...kinda:)...but if there are too many pics of guns (The 1911 ?? Well, thats what the article is about!) theres cetainly one too many about Crozier...Ah well, I don't really care:) [[User:Engr105th|Engr105th]] ([[User talk:Engr105th|talk]]) 04:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

== recoil ==

The gun has a very large recoil, particularly compared with a 9mm. Shouldn't the article mention that? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TCO|contribs]]) 02:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:No. --[[User:Winged Brick|Winged Brick]] ([[User talk:Winged Brick|talk]]) 02:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

::Why not? When I qualled on it (and I shot sharpshooter ribbon and all), it was like the first thing I noticed about it. [[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|talk]]) 02:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

:::TCO, you should read [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:NOTE]]. Recoil is a subjective thing. You might feel your experience is significant, however addition to the article requires a weight of reliable references. Others might say the .45 ACP is anemic compared to the 10mm and .44 Magnum. This would give the 45 'average' recoil. That's why none of this is in the article. --[[User:Nukes4Tots|Nukes4Tots]] ([[User talk:Nukes4Tots|talk]]) 11:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

:It doesn't. --[[Special:Contributions/84.163.253.116|84.163.253.116]] ([[User talk:84.163.253.116|talk]]) 02:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


==Colt==
When I 1st read the article, it led me to the wrong conclusion that the M1911 was manufactured by Browning and not Colt. This was due to the fact that the manufacture is not mentioned in conjunction with the model until the 3rd paragraph of the History section. I thought the opening paragraph should mention the actual manufacturer at some point if for no other reason to provide clarity and setup the rest of the article. When I look at other fire arms articles they mention the manufacturer in the open introduction. for exmple, under the Mini-14 article the 1st sentence reads "The Mini-14, Mini-30, and Mini-6.8 are small, lightweight semi-automatic carbines manufactured by the U.S. firearms company Sturm, Ruger."--[[User:Mbedit|Mbedit]] ([[User talk:Mbedit|talk]]) 10:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
When I 1st read the article, it led me to the wrong conclusion that the M1911 was manufactured by Browning and not Colt. This was due to the fact that the manufacture is not mentioned in conjunction with the model until the 3rd paragraph of the History section. I thought the opening paragraph should mention the actual manufacturer at some point if for no other reason to provide clarity and setup the rest of the article. When I look at other fire arms articles they mention the manufacturer in the open introduction. for exmple, under the Mini-14 article the 1st sentence reads "The Mini-14, Mini-30, and Mini-6.8 are small, lightweight semi-automatic carbines manufactured by the U.S. firearms company Sturm, Ruger."--[[User:Mbedit|Mbedit]] ([[User talk:Mbedit|talk]]) 10:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


Revision as of 03:57, 25 June 2009

Specifications

I just changed method of operation from blowback to recoil-actuated, which is much more accurate. The key to recoil-actuated vs. blowback is the locking lugs on the barrel, coupled with the swinging link. In blowback operated firearms, such as the Walther PPK, the barrel doesn't move, the slide does all the movement. In the M1911, the barrel recoils a short distance with the slide, maintaining postive lockup until chamber pressure drops to a safe point, whereupon the swinging link drops the barrel free from the slide and performs the extract-eject-feed portion of the cycle. kemkerj 24 June 2005 22:16 EDT

Marine Force Recon's use of M1911A1

Excellent page, congrats to the author. However, the author is mistaken in claiming that the Marines had 'recently' switched to M1911A1 pistol. The Marine Corps was not impressed by the then new M9 pistol, and almost immediately recirculated their M1911A1 pistols back to their Force Recon platoons as a modified version known as M1911A1 MEU. Nor is the purchased Kimber pistol called ICQB; the final version of the weapon is named "Warrior", with a number of improvements over the ICQB model, particularly the safety.

  • The Kimber Warrior is not an exact clone of the MCSOCOM ICQB pistol, nor has the Warrior been purchased or issued to USMC units. The ICQB was ordered as a stop-gap until MARCORSYSCOM could choose an Improved MEU(SOC) pistol. MARCORSYSCOM recently chose a variation of the Springfield Professional as the Improved MEU(SOC). --D.E. Watters 23:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Swastika Model

I have one of these. Any collectors know what its worth? I can provide a picture for the article too if needed.

Colt

When I 1st read the article, it led me to the wrong conclusion that the M1911 was manufactured by Browning and not Colt. This was due to the fact that the manufacture is not mentioned in conjunction with the model until the 3rd paragraph of the History section. I thought the opening paragraph should mention the actual manufacturer at some point if for no other reason to provide clarity and setup the rest of the article. When I look at other fire arms articles they mention the manufacturer in the open introduction. for exmple, under the Mini-14 article the 1st sentence reads "The Mini-14, Mini-30, and Mini-6.8 are small, lightweight semi-automatic carbines manufactured by the U.S. firearms company Sturm, Ruger."--Mbedit (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue wasn't the content, it was that it was poorly placed in an already busy introduction. --Winged Brick (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the introduction is quite busy, and I would still suggest that opening paragraph somehow mention Colt as actual initial manufacturer, but as one of the most copied designs I'm aware that there are and have been many other manufactures of a M1911. I guess it depends on the focus of entry. If the intention is to focus on only the design, then leaving Colt out of the introduction is probably best. Some options may be to change the 1st sentence to read "The Colt M1911 is a single-action, semi-automatic pistol (handgun) chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge." Or "The M1911 is a single-action, semi-automatic pistol (handgun) initially manufactured by Colt and chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge."--Mbedit (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"slower, heavier bullet"

According to the .38 Long Colt article it created a muzzle velocity of 770fps, according to the Single Action Army article the .45 Colt created a muzzle velocity of 970fps. So, which of the three statements is wrong? --84.163.238.85 (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a riddle? You asked two questions about two different cartridges. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because the two are compared in this article.--84.163.238.85 (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, what's the THIRD statement? The .38 and .45 Colt specs seem right, what are you missing? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The third statement is that .45 Colt was slower than .38 Long Colt. The statement in the M1911 article which is quoted in the headline. --84.163.235.6 (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you put it in the title of the section. At any rate, that appears to be a misaprehension on the part of the original writer. The .45 Colt was only marginally faster than the 38 at around 800fps if memory serves. The loads listed in the .45 colt article are modern, smokeless powder loads. I believe that the loads used during THAT time were all smokeless... like 35-40gr of black powder. Just take out the word "slower" and you should be good. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The data in the SAA and .38LC articles are very specific, there's no room for misinterpretation. One statement is false and since the one in this article is the least detailed I suspect it to be the false one. --84.163.235.6 (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, there are several 'false' statements. Actually, the .38LC article appears to be the correct one. You're extrapolating some things by saying that there is anything really false beyond what I've said. The .45 Colt article could be misleading in that it lists current, smokeless loads rather than the original load. This article is also about the M1911, not the .45 ACP and not about the other two calibers. The fix is to take the "Slower" out and it's good. I'll do it. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article names "original .45 Colt black powder load" I'm referring to. The topic of the article is irrelevant, it's still a contradiction. --84.163.250.205 (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Well it's hard to keep track, you're jumping around in articles here. It might be that all of the articles are right. Here's a good reference that explains some of the confusion: [1] --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M1911_pistol&oldid=298494250"