1911??

Magnum Jones · Post by **Magnum Jones** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:24 pm

I can't help but wonder why Indy never carried a 1911 .45? I would much rather have the .45 auto, eaiser to load than a revolver that takes 1/2 moon clips on a rimless cartridge.
The revolver may be a little more reliable. But I think the .45 auto would have been a much better choice. And was well into production in the time setting.

Fatdutchman · Post by **Fatdutchman** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:46 pm

As I understand it, it was written for the character to carry a .45 auto in addition to his .45 revolver. As they were shooting in England, they found they had a shortage of .45 blanks, but an abundance of 9mm blanks, so, the used the .45 blanks for his revolver, and substituted a Hi-Power for the 1911, so they could take advantage of the 9mm blanks available.

I think all they were really worried about was getting some old '30's style guns to use and were not the least bit concerned about what would or wouldn't have been "practical" for someone to carry at the time.

Havana · Post by **Havana** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 1:38 pm

Also, I think there was a conscious effort to have Indy carry a revolver as his primary weapon to tie into the "cowboy" image. In many ways, Indy is a modified version of the classic serial cowboy heroes. He just looks less modern and so much more classic when he runs up and points his revolver at the camera.

pigirondan · Post by **pigirondan** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 4:12 pm

Havana wrote:Also, I think there was a conscious effort to have Indy carry a revolver as his primary weapon to tie into the "cowboy" image. In many ways, Indy is a modified version of the classic serial cowboy heroes. He just looks less modern and so much more classic when he runs up and points his revolver at the camera.

You obviously have never seen any of the "Spy Smasher" serial.

Post by **Michaelson** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 4:18 pm

..or any of the like serial series. They LOVED the Colt Official Police .38 specials and larger caliber revolvers in those old shows.

It seemed the bad guys were the only ones who had access to the semi-automatics.

Regard! Michaelson

Masterfulks · Post by **Masterfulks** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:07 pm

I know of a few people that even today would take a wheelgun over any automatic.

Indy being Indy he probably wants to be #### sure that his stuff works, and a revolver will go bang just a little bit more often.

A 1911 only holds 7 rounds in the magazine so there's not much of an advantage ammowise.

He'd have to carry the 1911 "cocked and locked" to do him much good on the fly. He might not like to do that either.

IndyParise · Post by **IndyParise** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 9:32 am

Another thing, if the bullet doesn't go off in an automatic, you have a jam and in a gunfight, you're pretty much screwed. With a revolver if the same happens, it just goes to the next cylinder, no jamming.

dr. tyree · Post by **dr. tyree** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:47 am

Revolvers rule! The older I get the more I like them. I think this process accelerated when I started doing a lot of stage combat choreography for theatres in my area. Revolvers have some huge advantages in live theatre:
1. They work and don't leave your actor with egg on his face at what is usually the supreme moment of the drama.
2. No messy brass casings left on the floor for the next scene, which is often supposed to be happening in a different location anyway.
3. Control over how loud the guns will be. With the revo, you can use primer blanks, quarter loads, half loads, or full loads. Autos can seldom function with anything but full loads, b/c the recoil is needed to cycle the slide, etc.

Maybe the filmmakers liked some of those same advantages. I love seeing the old classic revolvers in the serials like Spy Smasher, too.

pigirondan · Post by **pigirondan** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:18 pm

N-frame revolver primary, 1911-A1 secondary, both in .45 ACP.

Cowboy · Post by **Cowboy** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:49 am

Masterfulks wrote:I know of a few people that even today would take a wheelgun over any automatic.

Indy being Indy he probably wants to be #### sure that his stuff works, and a revolver will go bang just a little bit more often.

A 1911 only holds 7 rounds in the magazine so there's not much of an advantage ammowise.

He'd have to carry the 1911 "cocked and locked" to do him much good on the fly. He might not like to do that either.

Why not? It is a proven "safe way" to carry!

e.m.t. jones · Post by **e.m.t. jones** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:56 am

I think the reason indy chose the 1917 was price. ( assuming we leave out its a movie) The 1911,created in that year was undergoing mass production in 1936, over 5 million made between the the great wars. It was chosen by the military to phase out the british 38 which has poor stopping power. In the begining it was easy for colt and s&w to chamber a revolver in the 45. a.c.p. They both had been making revolvers for years, it was to suppliment the auto during its production. The govt 45 is a far superior combat handgun. It was desingned with the G.I. in mind. Easy to handle, easy to shoot, faster on the reload, easier to carry several loaded magazines. Maintanence compared to the revlover is a breeze, the gun almost falls apart with no tools.( would Indy want one ? Im sure) Sloppy tolernce so sand and mud wont cause it to jam, try getting sand into the action of a timmed cylinder, or mud between the gap in the cylinder and the barrel.Could this be delt with ? Yes revolvers won the west and they were carried in a flap holster for these reasons.The auto started in 1911 went through some minor mods in 1927,sometime over the late 20s and early 30s the 1917 was phased out of the military in favor for the auto. In 1936 with sevaral manafactures trying to fill govt contracts, finding a 1911 auto on the civilian market would have been rare , maybe even ilegle. One day Indy walks into a local pawn shop or an army navy store looking for a decent handgun to protect himself on his quests. In the show case sits a combat proven 1917 s&w revolver, nothing pretty but funtional and reliable. (Indys gun would have predistressed from combat)

A revolver with great stopping power, 45 ammo on the shelf and its issued holster to boot all for $ 10 give or take. If it was lost, stolen, or left behind, who cares he could always pick up another one state side. emt

Masterfulks · Post by **Masterfulks** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:28 am

Cowboy wrote:
Masterfulks wrote:I know of a few people that even today would take a wheelgun over any automatic.

Indy being Indy he probably wants to be #### sure that his stuff works, and a revolver will go bang just a little bit more often.

A 1911 only holds 7 rounds in the magazine so there's not much of an advantage ammowise.

He'd have to carry the 1911 "cocked and locked" to do him much good on the fly. He might not like to do that either.
Why not? It is a proven "safe way" to carry!

I agree with you, but some people still feel odd about carrying that way.

Which makes me also wonder if Indy carried his revolver on an empty cylinder.

pigirondan · Post by **pigirondan** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:58 am

e.m.t. jones wrote:I think the reason indy chose the 1917 was price. ( assuming we leave out its a movie) The 1911,created in that year was undergoing mass production in 1936, over 5 million made between the the great wars. It was chosen by the military to phase out the british 38 which has poor stopping power. In the begining it was easy for colt and s&w to chamber a revolver in the 45. a.c.p. They both had been making revolvers for years, it was to suppliment the auto during its production. The govt 45 is a far superior combat handgun. It was desingned with the G.I. in mind. Easy to handle, easy to shoot, faster on the reload, easier to carry several loaded magazines. Maintanence compared to the revlover is a breeze, the gun almost falls apart with no tools.( would Indy want one ? Im sure) Sloppy tolernce so sand and mud wont cause it to jam, try getting sand into the action of a timmed cylinder, or mud between the gap in the cylinder and the barrel.Could this be delt with ? Yes revolvers won the west and they were carried in a flap holster for these reasons.The auto started in 1911 went through some minor mods in 1927,sometime over the late 20s and early 30s the 1917 was phased out of the military in favor for the auto. In 1936 with sevaral manafactures trying to fill govt contracts, finding a 1911 auto on the civilian market would have been rare , maybe even ilegle. One day Indy walks into a local pawn shop or an army navy store looking for a decent handgun to protect himself on his quests. In the show case sits a combat proven 1917 s&w revolver, nothing pretty but funtional and reliable. (Indys gun would have predistressed from combat) A revolver with great stopping power, 45 ammo on the shelf and its issued holster to boot all for $ 10 give or take. If it was lost, stolen, or left behind, who cares he could always pick up another one state side. emt

The 1917 was not phased out. It was (re)issued during WWII, particularly Black units.

Post by **Michaelson** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:33 am

Masterfulks wrote:Which makes me also wonder if Indy carried his revolver on an empty cylinder.

Why should he? He wasn't carrying a single action revolver that DID require that to be done, but a double action Smith and Wesson that had the rebound safety feature that Smith created and patented back in 1898.

Regards! Michaelson

Masterfulks · Post by **Masterfulks** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:45 am

Michaelson wrote:
Masterfulks wrote:Which makes me also wonder if Indy carried his revolver on an empty cylinder.
Why should he? He wasn't carrying a single action revolver that DID require that to be done, but a double action Smith and Wesson that had the rebound safety feature that Smith created and patented back in 1898.

Regards! Michaelson

If he was like my dad, he carried it with one empty anyway.

Post by **Michaelson** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:05 am

Your Dad had a well trained habit of doing that, and I'm positive based on what HIS Dad taught HIM when HE learned how to use and carry a handgun. It really wasn't necessary if he was carrying a double action revolver....but nothing wrong with it. Just drops the number of shots you have if you don't have time to put in the missing bullet.

Regards! Michaelson

Fatdutchman · Post by **Fatdutchman** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:33 pm

It is quite pointless to carry the gun with the hammer on an empty chamber on any DA revolver....and on many single action ones..

The .45 auto is NOT an easy gun to shoot!!!! It takes practice. The casual shooter will NOT be able to get the gun to function without producing a stovepipe jam caused by "limp wristing" the gun!!!

I rarely carry my .45, but when I do, it is on half cock and I thumb cock when ready to shoot (meaning the instant it clears leather!). The thumb safety is awkward for me to use. Far easier to cock for me, plus, since I am far more familiar with revolver handling, it is much more natural for me! If I ever draw a revolver, the hammer WILL be cocked.

I shoot in a very old fashioned manner, learning from my grandfather.

Masterfulks · Post by **Masterfulks** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:41 pm

Actually I've found the 1911 to be a very simple and straight forward gun to shoot. My wife was hitting well with it within seconds.

Half cock on a 1911? I've always heard that wasn't very safe (for carry) as it was meant to just keep it from firing if your thumb slipped off the hammer while cocking it.

Masterfulks · Post by **Masterfulks** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:46 pm

Michaelson wrote:Your Dad had a well trained habit of doing that, and I'm positive based on what HIS Dad taught HIM when HE learned how to use and carry a handgun. It really wasn't necessary if he was carrying a double action revolver....but nothing wrong with it. Just drops the number of shots you have if you don't have time to put in the missing bullet.

Regards! Michaelson

My dad is typically of the "better safe than sorry" crowd, and his first pistols were old single actions. I'm positive it's just his old habit.

Even if the original designer of said pistol was to tell him it was ok, he wouldn't stop.

I have a Ruger Vaquero .44 magnum which has their little saftey tab that makes carrying fully loaded safe. He liked the idea (probably because you can easily see how it all works) of it, but I'd be surprised if he broke the habit with it.

I was planning on getting him one, but he ended up getting another single action .44 this year so it would be kinda pointless.

Post by **Michaelson** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:29 pm

Well, heck, if you're in a 'giving spirit', let me give you my address....

I own an old model Ruger Blackhawk that I carry with the empty chamber under the hammer....but I have a New Model Super Blackhawk that has the safety feature, and I carry it fully loaded.

Regards! Michaelson

Cowboy · Post by **Cowboy** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:06 pm

Fatdutchman wrote:It is quite pointless to carry the gun with the hammer on an empty chamber on any DA revolver....and on many single action ones..

The .45 auto is NOT an easy gun to shoot!!!! It takes practice. The casual shooter will NOT be able to get the gun to function without producing a stovepipe jam caused by "limp wristing" the gun!!!

I rarely carry my .45, but when I do, it is on half cock and I thumb cock when ready to shoot (meaning the instant it clears leather!). The thumb safety is awkward for me to use. Far easier to cock for me, plus, since I am far more familiar with revolver handling, it is much more natural for me! If I ever draw a revolver, the hammer WILL be cocked.

I shoot in a very old fashioned manner, learning from my grandfather.

The Colt 1911 is the most depenable auto out there. It is proven tried and true and from my own personal experience, one of if not THE most acurate gun out of the box period. Cocked and locked is a very safe way to carry by TRAINED individuals. Folks who have not been trained should not even think about it. Guns do go off and any one who has handled for any good amount of time will undoubtedly have such a story about an unintentional discharge. With that said, proper gun handling will reduce such incidences and most assuredly ensure no human harm will occur.

To become good with any firearm takes a practise. One must be trained by pros on proper technique of loading, holstering, drawing and firing. This training also includes clearing a jamb safely as well as always leaving one "in the pipe" when firing multiple magazines in a Combat event. After a few thousand rounds, you start getting the hang of it.

I doubt Indy would have bought a SW from a pawn shop. Like the whip, hat and jacket, he knew what he liked. Why did he have a Webley? Indy makes no mistake in choosing his tools.

Cowboy · Post by **Cowboy** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:11 pm

Michaelson wrote:Well, heck, if you're in a 'giving spirit', let me give you my address....

I own an old model Ruger Blackhawk that I carry with the empty chamber under the hammer....but I have a New Model Super Blackhawk that has the safety feature, and I carry it fully loaded.

Regards! Michaelson

I as well. Infact, when I am in the High Country, I always carry my Black Hawk OR GP-100. Feels good to have a leg iron strapped on when you really need one!

Michaleson, I congratulate you on your choice of fine tools. You are welcome at my fire any time. Regards, Cowboy

Fatdutchman · Post by **Fatdutchman** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:00 pm

The .45 auto requires a consistent, FIRM grip, which many people have a hard time with....including my boss, who carries a .45 in one of those fanny pack holsters. He complains of the gun jamming, and I asked him if it was jamming by an empty case sticking straight up in the ejection port. He said yes, and I told him he was "limp wristing" the gun. You gotta hang on to that sucker hard. Of course, it doesn't help him that he's got a Para Ordnance with a stubby frame, and not enough handle to hang on to... The "stovepipe jam" is quite commonly encountered, and it takes a lot of folks some bit of practice to eliminate it.

I am so used to handling S&W revolvers that when I pick up my .45 (which I haven't shot in quite some time), the thing points towards the ground...the grip angle is wrong for me. It's the .38 Masterpiece for me!

The crossdraw holster...something else inherited from my Grandfather.

pigirondan · Post by **pigirondan** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:22 pm

I would really like to see S&W re-issue the 38/44 Heavy Duty.

Alan Eardley · Post by **Alan Eardley** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:26 pm

e.m.t. jones wrote:The 1911,created in that year was undergoing mass production in 1936, over 5 million made between the the great wars. It was chosen by the military to phase out the british 38 which has poor stopping power.

I don't understand. Are you saying that the M1911 auto was chosen by the US military to phase out a S&W revolver chambered for the British .380/200 round? That's news to me! Why would that be?

S&W has been making .38 revolvers since 1876. In the Thirties a number of types of .38 ammo were available - e.g. .38 Standard, .38 Special and .38 Super Police. Which were, predictably, a favourite with US cops. Were these ever issued to the US military?

By the way, the British .380/200 round as used in the Webley and Enfield revolvers (and S&W Victory models supplied under Lend-lease in 1942) has considerably greater 'stopping power' than the S&W .38 standard round, being more like the .38 Super Police (200 grains and 160 ft/lbs of muzzle energy). The two should not be confused.

Alan

Post by **Michaelson** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:54 pm

Cowboy wrote:Michaleson, I congratulate you on your choice of fine tools. You are welcome at my fire any time. Regards, Cowboy

Thank you sir, I take that as a high compliment coming from you!

Alan, I think he was referring to the .38 Long Colt that was indeed issued to the military just before and during the Spanish American War, which proved to be a REAL dud, as were the revolvers that Colt made to chamber the round, specifically the Army and Navy models. The Smith Military and Police was being developed in 1898 to replace these guns, and unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on who you ask

) the war ended before those M&P revolvers were completed to send to Cuba....so they were sold to police departments, and live to this day as the famous Smith Model 10. The military side stepped their original contract discussion with Smith with the excuse that with the war now over, there was no further need of these revolvers, as well as they were looking forward to obtaining a semi automatic for the troops instead of another revolver. Colt and Smith still won a contract to make their big 1917's when WW1 was on the horizon, but the day of the revolver was about over as a standard issue sidearm.

The Colt 1911 and a prototype .45 Luger were tested to replace the old Colt .38 LC, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Regards! Michaelson

Fatdutchman · Post by **Fatdutchman** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:09 pm

The .38-200 (.38 S & W/.38 Colt New Police) cartridge is a pretty anemic little thing. It has a big, heavy 200 grain bullet, but that's about all it has going for it. The British military load pushes that 200 grain bullet at a pathetically slow 630 fps with an unimpressive 176lb/ft2 of muzzle energy. The American loads used lighter bullets, at somewhat higher velocities, but the energy and limited effectiveness was about the same. This, I believe, is an actual .380" bullet too, I have a cartridge here and it will not chamber in a .38spl revolver. The .38 S&W cartridge was introduced in 1877, and was commonly chambered in top-break pocket revolvers. No, I wouldn't want to get shot with it, but there are far more dangerous bits of lead to throw at someone!!!

The .38 short and long Colt cartridge is the forerunner of the .38 special. A representative .38 long Colt load would have a 150 grain bullet going 770 fps, with a muzzle energy of 195 lb/ft2. (more powerful than the .38/200!)

By comparison, the old .38 special "FBI load" with a 158gr SWC might be pushing air at something like 850-900fps, and around 284 lb/ft2 of Muzzle energy. A modern 125 gr. JHP +P load might be around 1000 feet per second, and 278 lb/ft2 of energy.

The .38 super automatic varies widely in power, depending upon the load. A "hot" load, as was popular in the '30's with police and gangsters alike would have a 130 FMJ bullet at 1215 feet per second (this is .357 magnum territory here, guys!) and 426 lb/ft2 of muzzle energy.

The 9mm military ball cartridge is also not well known for stopping power, though I do not have any performance data at hand. Only recently have there been advances in 9mm loads that make it a real contender...of course, all these loads are EXTREMELY high pressure, and beat guns to death.

The old .45 acp with ball ammo is certainly better than any other military pistol round with ball ammo. It is not as good as modern 9mm +P hollow point loads, but modern loads in the .45 stand with the best of 'em, with the added advantage of not needing higher pressures! A standard .45 military 230 grain fmj load will have a velocity of about 850 fps, and 450 lbs/ft2 of muzzle energy. The King of the Hill Federal Hydrashock load has similar ballistics.

The stats are from the book "Cartridges of the World" by Frank C. Barnes.

And, YES .38 special revolvers were issued by the US military. During WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. You can often come across the so called "Victory model" S&W revolvers, used by the British and Americans. The British versions chambered for the .38/200 and .38 Special, and American guns (apparently) only in .38 special. Generally, they were only issued to pilots (?), but were probably not too hard for a GI to obtain if he wanted one. A guy I work with was in Vietnam and carried a Ruger .357 revolver, and used issue .38 special ammo in it.

My Grandfather (an ordinary infantryman) carried a .455 Webley revolver during the war.

Post by **Michaelson** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:17 pm

The sectional density was the selling point of the .45, not the bullet speed. You could make all the above bullets move as fast or as slow as you wanted, but essentially all it represented was how quickly the bullet would reach it's target before expending it's power/speed. The .45, or .44, on the other hand had its mass working for it...so it could lumber down range at subsonic speeds, and still knock you down due to it's immense size/sectional density (as compared to any of the .38's).

Regards! Michaelson

Masterfulks · Post by **Masterfulks** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:09 pm

The 9mm has plenty of power behind it.

The last stats that I've looked at has it around the 90% or higher (depending on ammo) for one shot kills. The .45, in some loads, was well below the 9mm in one shot stops.

I'm going to have to dig up some numbers now because I'm curious again to how close they were.

Ah here's one.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm

Post by **Michaelson** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:16 pm

Yep, but that list is copyrighted 1997. Anything pre-1980 in a 9mm is a dismal comparison to today's standards. After the FBI shootout back in the 80's where the then current issue 9mm ammo was essentially useless in stopping a shootout, getting several of the agents killed in that action against criminals armed with .357 magnums, 9mm handguns and the supporting ammo was drastically overhauled.

.45 acp loads have remained essentially unchanged since their inception back at the turn of the 20th century. Not to shabby for an old war horse...and I'm not even a .45 acp fan!

Regards! Michaelson

Masterfulks · Post by **Masterfulks** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:21 pm

I'm still a fan of shot placement over anything.

I figure shoot the biggest that you can control and you'll be alright. I do perfer the extra shots, on average, that a 9mm provides.

Although a few hi capacity .45's have been drawing my attention lately.

Cowboy · Post by **Cowboy** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:50 am

Masterfulks wrote:I'm still a fan of shot placement over anything.

I figure shoot the biggest that you can control and you'll be alright. I do perfer the extra shots, on average, that a 9mm provides.

Although a few hi capacity .45's have been drawing my attention lately.

When my Colt Commander is not tight enough for privacy, I employ a Springfield XD 40 sub compact. What a great date! Looks alot like a Glock, but in my opinion a whole bunch more fun to shoot. Even the little lady handles it just fine.

Post by **Michaelson** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:25 am

Masterfulks wrote:I'm still a fan of shot placement over anything.

.

Amen, Brother! The old 'spray and pray' technique is pretty silly....effective, but silly.

Regards! Michaelson

Indiana Johnson · Post by **Indiana Johnson** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:32 am

For me, its the model 1911 .45 all the way. That's one thing I did inherit from my father, is a love for that gun. He also loves revolvers, but I haven't really moved into that niche yet. I keep thinking I'll buy one one of these years.
I've carried my 1911 as my primary LE duty weapon for 9 years now. Although I own and love the older fashioned classic style Colts, my carry weapons are a Wilson Combat and a Les Baer.

Oh and Michaelson, I don't personally own a 45/70, but my Dad does, a Marlin lever action 1895 cowboy, and I do love to shoot it. (I think my dad owns one of about every type of gun).

Post by **Michaelson** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:46 am

Indiana Johnson wrote: Oh and Michaelson, I don't personally own a 45/70, but my Dad does, a Marlin lever action 1895 cowboy, and I do love to shoot it. (I think my dad owns one of about every type of gun).

The biggest lever action I ever owned was a Marlin .444, and brother, that monster would stomp you when fired, then go back to car and wait on you while you were picking yourself out of the dust.

I LOVED that gun, and still regret trading it off years ago....but ammo was hard to find, and the kids needed fed at the time.

Regards! Michaelson

Fatdutchman · Post by **Fatdutchman** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:21 pm

My .45 is a Springfield Armory about 15 years old. Blued, of course. I put in a Dwyer group gripper (a good investment!), a long trigger, oversize slide stop, and did a good bit of trigger work to it, along with making a pair of grips. It shoots pretty well, but since I'm so used to revolvers, the grip angle is really wrong for me now. For a defense load, the ONLY thing I would reccommend is the Federal Hydra shok. It's just so superior to everything else, plus, it is just a standard power load.