Talk:M1911 pistol/Archive 1

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)

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. - 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. --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 Lord Bodak 13:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Error?
As I recall, the .38LC was a .386, not a .357. 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.  --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.

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. &mdash;  Kaiser B  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

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.?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. 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. 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. -Kadin2048 04:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase a quote from 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.  Friday (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.176.149 (talk • contribs)
 * So document it. Give a citation. Besides, a match-grade 1911 is a far cry from the GI model the soldiers would have used. 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. 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.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. --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. --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 --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. --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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.168.88 (talk • contribs)


 * And your basis for these statements is what? --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.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.--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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samuel Vimes (talk • contribs) 14:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC).


 * 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. --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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Never mind, it appears to be back now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

I have been unable to verify this claim at Guns & Ammo or another reliable source, and have therefore removed it per the 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 cite a source in the article that can be verified. Thanks. 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.59.46.243 (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

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?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.  —Thernlund (Talk 18:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So where is the safety and how does it work?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! 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.--Davidwiz (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Talldean (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC).


 * The terms are only briefly mentioned in captions, under barrel length specifications, particularly. --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".--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? 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."  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. Unless someone can think of a good reason to exclude it, I think the listing should stay. 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.  68.116.112.64
 * Look a little harder. D.E. Watters moved it to the Other users section, where it should be . -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.  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.. -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 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. — Mudwater 00:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe they're talking about Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms Arthurrh (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Thanks.  — Mudwater  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. --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.  — Mudwater  01:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you post it there, it will help everyone working on this issue on other firearms related pages. 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.  — Mudwater  02:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Navy use?
This was the standard side arm for submarine forces until at least the late 90s. Maybe even still now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 04:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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? Trekphiler (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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...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.--Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:) 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 02:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No. --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.  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. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't. --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."--Mbedit (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)

Naming
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 M1991A1LH 02:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * M1991A1 is a commercial designation by Colt for economy grade versions of their M1911-pattern pistol line. --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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2009 (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. 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. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.168.88 (talk • contribs)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2009 (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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.217.178 (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2006 (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. Hga 01:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Some argentine officers used those in the Falklands War, i do believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Churchill
(09/03) It may be worth mentioning that this was Churchill's favorite pistol, and he was a dead shot with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joecyborg (talk • contribs) 19:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was under the impression that Churchill's favourite pistol was the 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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

"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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"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)


 * Is this a riddle? You asked two questions about two different cartridges. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, because the two are compared in this article.--84.163.238.85 (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

(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: --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

the 1911 fires the .45 acp,not the .45 colt,and the.45 colt is a different round.the .45 colt was in military use BEFORE the .38 colt.you are confusing the .45 colt and .45 acp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keserman (talk • contribs)

Title
I think this article should be moved to M1911. There is no need for the disambiguating word "pistol" when M1911 redirects here (and doesn't really refer to anything else anyway). It just makes the title longer for no good reason, and maybe I'm just unaware but I see no reason for it to be kept. 69.234.109.71 (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The M1911 Campaign hat may or may not ever merit an article but other things do have that designation. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 12:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That would matter if any of them had articles. There's no need for a disambiguating word to make way for articles that don't exist yet. Until then, it's a unnecessary qualifier. 69.234.109.71 (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Specification Section?
What is the point of having such a section, if all of the information is posted in the sidebar at the top? I have not yet found another firearms article with a similarly redudant section, and it seems go into further detail than is necessary (especially since the calibers other than .45 ACP/WWII vintage service calibers can be covered in the "Variants" section). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.123.93 (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Users
I removed the reference to Canada being a user of this pistol. It has never been a service pistol of the Canadian Forces, which uses the Browning Hi-Power No. 1 Mk. 2 and the Sig Sauer P225. It never previously used the M1911A1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.24.160 (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * While we're talking about users, can we split it up into "former users" and "current users"?Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The list shouldn't be split into two seperate lists, but the text for individual countries could note whether the country is a former or current user. ROG5728 (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Big Boss?
Should we mention that Big Boss used this gun during Operation Snake Eater? 98.193.227.139 (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No.  It's been in many pop culture things to list off here. (see http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/M1911_pistol_series)  "Big Boss" is hardly the most famous user anyway.  (Video game?).  Just...no.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

M1911 v Browning HP
I have read both articles. Although the guns look similar they were in fact different. What is interesting is that the BHP was designed as a military weapon with a larger magazine whereas the 1911 was used by the military but was not primarily a military weapon. I just wonder whether these points should be addressed here? It seems otherwise, that the articles are reduced to "this is a gun, that is a gun" without critically explaining the key differences, in performance, usage and purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.224.179 (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Image Inquiry
Not that I want to image-whore this article, but I've noticed that the infobox image was a 1911 that was produced by Remington Rand. I was wondering if we should change it out to a more appropriate one, seeing as the original was famously produced by Colt Manufacturing and used in its roles in WWI and WWII. Not that I endorse or don't endorse Colt, but I think that infobox image should be the original. --


 * That'd be ideal, but the infobox should use the image that best illustrates (lighting, angle, etc) the gun. If there is a better image of a Colt model 1911, please post it for comparison to currrent infobox image. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

for what it's worth,a lesser quality genuine colt image could be used outside the infobox so that a genuine colt image is on the article,until or unless an image of a genuine colt 1911 or 1911A1 of equal or higher quality than the remington rand image can be found and used.Keserman (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The article deserves at least an original Colt 1911 image. --58.146.17.101 (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Navy 34 Reverse Rifling?
I was in U.S.N. over 50 years ago.Does the Navy 34 pistol have reverse rifling? I am not sure but if i9d did I think it was to make the kick more controlled and directional. 99.56.161.35 (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nazi German Flag?
In the users section it refers to Germany but shows the nazi German flag. Very inapropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.250.119 (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably not. Given that entry is cited, that probably refers to captured M1911s during World War II. -fnlayson (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * then it should be mentioned as such. ill add it. Joesolo13 (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you are going to even bother saying that Nazi Germany manage to get ahold of this weapon then it one should also state that the Empire of Japan have some as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.139.224 (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nazi Germany also used 1911s manufactured in occupied Norway. So it wasn't just the occasional captured pistol. Also, putting captured foreign weapons into service was a wide-scale practice by the Nazis. They even had their own official designation for the American M1911A1: Pistole 660(a). The Norwegian ones, based on the original M1911 rather than the M1911A1, were called Pistole 657(n) by the Nazis. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Civilian Model Section
The section on 'civilian models all refer to Colt product names. Yes the Government, Commander and Officer names have become standard lexicon, but they're far from the only size available - just look at what Kimber produces - and are they REALLY 'custom' when they're mass-produced? I'd like to take a stab at reworking the section but didn't want to step on any toes.Lepeu1999 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Muzzle velocity
Where is that information from? The .45 ACP page only lists one ammunition close to that low speed and it's uncommon. The .5 inch shorter barrel than their test gun should lose about 10-25 m/s but not down to 251 m/s. Maybe that 251 is from an older munition type or an original 1911 model? Alatari (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Mag size
I cam here to look up some info, and I didn't see any info about ammo capacity. I think the M1911 service issue had a 8 round magazine, is this right? While magazine sizes might be widely varied in civilian models, some mention of magazines might be mentioned for Army issue models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.180.206 (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 7 rounds in magazine plus 1 in chamber. See the data in the Infobox.  Aftermarket magazines are available that hold 1-2 rounds more. This info is in the article, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

USMC returns to the M1911
USMC annouced they are buying new M911's to issue to troops: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.119.167.204 (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it was USMC Special Ops only, and not the entire branch. --173.60.132.188 (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the order is for up to 12k pistols for special operations troops according to this source. The text in this article's Operators section says this also. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

What is this "effective method of aiming" nonsense?
''The slide stop pin of the 1911 can be depressed with firing if the index finger is placed along the side of the gun to assist in aiming the gun. This is an effective method of aiming which has been known since the early 19th century. Cautionary language against using that method of aiming and firing was included in the initial manual on the 1911 which was published in 1912. It also is found in other military manuals on the 1911 up to the 1940s.[34]''

The linked article does indeed warn against using the middle finger to squeeze the trigger but says nothing about indexing the first finger as an "effective method of aiming". Tchaika (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like some high school kid from the UK got confused. That whole paragraph was pretty non-essential so I just cut it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The latter half of that paragraph with the cautionary part was cited and has been restored. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And you think it really adds something to the article?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody gave a reason to remove that part previously. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While reading the article, I "tripped" on the finger against the slide statement. Assumed it was a safety issue.  Maybe the moving metal parts can cause injury, I don't know.  Still needs work.  It might be interesting to do an entire section on this method of aiming, and how it has (I assume) been disregarded, but as I see it, it's "all or nothing".  Either add enough text to make the statement meaningful, or take it all out.  As it is right now, it's a distraction and a roadbump. Jonny Quick (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree the original paragraph quoted is garbled. You should not have the right index finger on the M1911 slide stop pin as the slide recoils. The retained end of the slide stop would be pressed against the inside of the slide on the left which can damage the slide stop as the slide takedown notch passes the pressed out slide stop during recoil. With certain guns, the index finger on the frame, middle finger on the trigger can be effective--I am thinking here about my Explorer II pistol--but it is a bad idea with the M1911.--Naaman Brown (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wars as standard issue pistol
Shouldn't the Invasion of Grenada be listed along with the World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam? Spartan198 (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on M1911 pistol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706155756/http://www.imbel.gov.br/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=113 to http://www.imbel.gov.br/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=113

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on M1911 pistol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.girsan.com.tr/tr/mc1911/mc1911-siyah
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mnhm.lu/pageshtml/virtualmuseumtour.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/07/marine-corps-marsoc-new-colt-45-caliber-pistols-071912
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060117085540/http://www.coltautos.com/ to http://www.coltautos.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Bad link
Fourth paragraph in the Early history and adaptations section, the link to "bottlenecked cartridge" can be corrected to here bottlenecked cartridge. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Good point. I created the Bottlenecked cartridge redirect to Headspace (firearms).  Regards, --Finlayson (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M1911 pistol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100405085747/http://www.exercito.gov.br/01inst/armtmuni/pistola.htm to http://www.exercito.gov.br/01inst/armtmuni/pistola.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.imbel.gov.br/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=113

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Colt government model
hello, i have a colt government model, 1933, serial #, G 169438, in 95 % condition, with a number on the barrel at the opening on the slide, and the same number back of the opening, on the slide, 2831. can someone, please tell me what is it. many thank you, john t anderson, coltgun11@gmail.com2601:6C5:201:490:C17D:AE18:7FFC:1A51 (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, according to Colt's own database, your firearm may have been originally manufactured in 1917. This would be before the A1 revision of 1924. Does your pistol have an arched mainspring housing (below the grip safety, at rear of the grip) or does it run parallel to the front edge of the magazine well? If it is not arched, this serial is more than likely correct. Either way, it sounds like you have a nice piece of memorabilia on your hands. Aquinassixthway (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Criminal use
This edit was reverted with the reason "Not significant for its own category. Military and police is the usual listing here." What is the reasoning behind only listing military and police use? I would consider this to be a notable use of the weapon, and we do include criminal use in other firearms articles. If this truly isn't significant for its own section, where would be a better place to put it?–dlthewave ☎ 04:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a better place to put it. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of that proposal, but we would still include at least a brief mention in this article per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.–dlthewave ☎ 11:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. My feeling is that gun articles should not have a section on criminal use.  This is based on the fact that millions of guns were made for each of the major types, and it is inevitable that hundreds, if not thousands, have been used in major crimes.  I have no problem with articles about criminal events describing the weapon used, but don’t feel the converse applies here.--Dmol (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I respect your personal opinion, but community consensus is that criminal use can be included and should be decided case-by-case basis. How would you apply Wiki policies and guidelines such as WP:WEIGHT to this particular case? –dlthewave ☎ 20:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That crime is not widely associated with this gun and thus didn't merit inclusion. In context of the gun article that crime had basically no weight. Springee (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you apply that same logic to the list of military and police users? We're using a lot of sources that aren't about the gun itself and arguably carry little weight. –dlthewave ☎ 11:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If we can't find articles about the gun that says it was used by those users then I think there is a good case for removal. Since the M1911 was specifically created at the request of the US military I think we can assume military use is germane to the topic.  That also opens the door for other governmental users since that would be a simple extension of the user for which the gun was created.  Springee (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how 'criminal use' and 'list of users' is all that comparable. (I'm sure I just wrote that somewhere). As for the "community consensus", it can still be discussed on a case by case basis on whether or not to include criminal use on particular article in the first place. Inclusion is not automatic. - the WOLF  child  20:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe wolfs and others explanation summed it up quite well. I would only add community consensus refers to a talk page conversation and consensus before you would attempt to include criminal content into firearm articles. -72bikers (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No, there is no need to discuss before adding content. WP:BRD is widely accepted practice and that is exactly what we're doing here. The discussion should focus on applying WP:WEIGHT to this specific situation, not editors' general preference for excluding this content from all firearms articles. –dlthewave ☎ 17:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And asking for "criminal use" inclusion, article by article, is a creeping attempt to modify a broader consensus against inclusion.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  07:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Trekphiler Where would I find evidence of this "broader consensus" and what would be wrong with trying to modify it? –dlthewave ☎ 13:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The local consensus is 4:1 against inclusion. I think we need to ask if there is any compelling reason for inclusion rather than the other way around. Springee (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * y2cts lets say 5:1 --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Lets say 6:1. -72bikers (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion of that incident. Even if this article were to have a criminal use section, the selection of the M1911 in that crime does not have much significance. The article only lists the M1911 in the infobox and does not cover the M1911 in the article proper. There is no interesting comment made about the weapon. The crime could have been committed with some other gun. Compare Dillinger's mods. Glrx (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose including the text of this incident. The text does not state why it is notable among all of various criminal uses of the model 1911. Move the link to the See also section connect via a category instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the above mentioned event does merit inclusion as it is just too insignificant against the rest of lengthy, storied history of the 1911. Inclusion would bring undue weight. - the WOLF  child  15:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There is scope for exceptional uses of a firearm outside of its usual service or law enforcement roles: the Carcarno allegedly used by Oswald, Patton's silver and Ivory butted revolvers, the iconic use of the Thompson during prohibition, the firearm of choice (and for which they were noted) of a particularly notable figure in law enforcement, crime sport etc. John Wayne;s pear leaver Winchester would be an example. A no-mane crime by some no-name crims (no I didn't read it but a post-office heist is hardly the crime of the century) just doesn't cut the mustard, sorry. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Cinderella157, this was not a "post-office heist". It was an extremely deadly mass shooting, one of the worst ever at that time I believe, that received world-wide media attention, spawned the meme "going postal", and embedded itself in the consciousness of a generation of Americans.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 12:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose For all the reasons mentioned above. -72bikers (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This was an extremely notable event, and this weapon is closely associated to it. An RfC on a closely related question resulted in consensus for inclusion, here.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 03:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you missed a critical factor. No one disputes that a 1911 pistol was used in that crime.  The catch is that it isn't widely associated with the crime.  Your reference to the Port Arthur RfC is a non sequitur in this case.  Springee (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Springee, my impression is that it was widely associated. How about this - if I can find some reliable sources that make the association, will that satisfy you?   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 12:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is nothing notable about the usage of 1911s in the Edmond post office shooting. As for comparing notability of criminal use to government and military users in weapons articles generally, listing these institutions tells where stocks of surplus might exist, implies historical alliances (viz. Warsaw Pact or NATO), and help the user gather an understanding of a national or specific TOE. Aquinassixthway (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * listing these institutions tells where stocks of surplus might exist - ? Wikipedia is not a locator service for surpluss firearms. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you propose that makes his objection any less valid? Also you misspelled surplus. -72bikers (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Be truthful a moment, is a simple list of militaries and nations who use a firearm really a 'locator'? Hardly. No. The enumeration of place and whatever that connotes to the reader's imagination regarding the variety of service of the M1911 adds to the article: first and foremost *factually*, and in another manner, by fascinating curiosity in the vexillologist or fan of militaria or geography. Aquinassixthway (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 June 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

M1911 pistol → M1911 – Per WP:PRECISE, there is no need to specify in the article title that this M1911 is the M1911 pistol, as there is no other M1911, and M1911 just redirects here. The only time it is necessary to specify such a thing is when the regular name is taken up by another article, e.g. M16 is taken by the disambiguation page, hence why we have M16 rifle. Loafiewa (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Move to 1911 pistol. This is the only notable thing named "M1911", and the only "M1911" with an article on Wikipedia, so there's nothing wrong with the proposed move. Furthermore, the equally common name of "1911" for this pistol and imitators is surely ambiguous. However, the article does cover the "1911 platform" clones in addition to the original, so it's better to move to 1911 pistol to reflect the scope. Note that .45 automatic and .45 caliber pistol already redirect here despite those being much more general terms. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current name is by far the best, least ambiguous and commonest name. 1911 pistol is certainly not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)