I remember this being part of the debate. The argument doesn't make much sense to me because to me the difference in the recoil isn't all that great, and as someone else pointed out the ergonomics on the 1911A are quite good. Either pistol can be shot well if the person is trained correctly regardless of gender.
Actually, it had NOTHING to do with women...and 20 years ago, Heckler & Koch made a .45 ACP handgun that had practically NO felt recoil because of the delayed roller block action...similar to the MP5 Submachine Gun.
What actually happened is that NATO had rules about bringing all nation members to use common ammunition. You could keep the .45, even order new ones, but if you changed pistol types, you had to go to the 9MM Parabellum round.
The elitist Air Force carried the Smith and Wesson .38 Special, for pilot's survival weapons.
Sooooo...After a number of years of use, the Air Force Revolvers were warn out.
They could rebuild them, at a prohibitive cost, since it involves a LOT of hand fitting the parts. Master Gunsmith grade work. Their desire to go to an Automatic triggered the NATO rule...hence the 9 MM Parabellum. (To rebuild an Automatic requires the skill of an Apprentice, not a Master, gunsmith)
The M-16 in 5.56 MM was originally an Air Force survival rifle too. The Air Force didn't care, as the 38 Special is really 0.357 inches in diameter, whereas the 9 MM is really 0.355 inches, a miniscule difference.
The H&K pistol is no longer made. In the 45 cal version, the felt recoil was delivered over about a 3 times longer interval, making it VERY pleasant to shoot right out of the box.
In retrospect, I should have kept it
The reason for the success of the M-16 in Vietnam was the smaller stature of the enemy, and Communism in not as motivating as Jihadist Islam. But we already Knew that!
We switched to the 45 from the 38 due to our experience in the Pillippenes in hand to hand cobat with the Moslems on the Island of Mindinao prior to WWI
The 1911 .45ACP fits womens' hands far better than the Beretta M9, which has both a thicker grip and a longer trigger reach. The .45 admittedly has more recoil, but I've know tiny little women who handle it effortlessly.
“that it was because the women in our AF found the .45 ACP too large for their hands, too much recoil, etc?”
Prior to the adoption of the 9 mm, I saw some of the smaller women carrying .38 revolvers. The propaganda (excuse me, “reasons”) put out by officials was that the 9 mm carried more rounds, and that the .45 was old and outdated – we needed something newer and more “high-tech” and accurate.
I used to teach .45 handgun marksmanship at our company – we had a couple dozen Warrants as well as the Commissioned Officers who needed to qualify with the pistol. After a block of instruction and qualification, none complained about the accuracy of the .45, none complained about the recoil, and all praised it.
The real reasons seems to be that all ammo was to go to NATO standard, and the Europeans used 9 mm – but the Europeans have always considered the officers' sidearm more of a badge than a weapon. I would rather carry a pistol with 6 rounds that meant 6 knockdowns, than carry a pistol with 15 rounds than meant maybe 3 or 4 knockdowns at best.