| Hmm... it really is sort of a question of the modern U.S. sidearm versus the classic. The Springfield faithfully recreates the WWII-era .45 aside from the little saftey lock device on the mainspring housing. I have noticed a thread on here before where a guy had some problems with his magazine, but Springfield builds a quality gun and stands by it as far as I know. And, I might add that the .45 1911 is probably the most satisfying automatic pistols I've ever fired. The G.I. .45 is bone-stock military issue with no extra frills which is just the way I like it. Only thing odd is the one I handled, I noticed the magazine catch has to be depressed for you to insert the magazine but maybe there are alot bulit that way and I'm just not used to it. The safety was really stiff, too. Probably too stiff for a carry gun.
The Beretta offers you high capasity and low recoil in a package that's said to be improved even over the already popular M9. This is probably your better choice for tactical shooting and a 9mm's stopping power is honestly pretty good regardless of how one might compare it to the .45. I'm sure the M9A1 can handle the hotter +P and perhaps even +P+ loads which are nothing to sneeze at. However, I have heard complaints about Beretta's customer service and it might be more troublesome to have your Italian lady repaired under warranty than your trusty .45. But overall, it's a nice handling weapon with a very professional feel to it and handles really well.
If I were in your shoes right now, it would probably be the .45 for me but mainly because earlier this year I too was faced with a difficult decision and had to get a L-frame S&W .357 Magnum instead of the Springfield G.I. .45. I do enjoy my fire breathing six-gun, but I sure felt like a dog for having to leave the .45 behind! |