PDA

View Full Version : This is not a 1911 vs Glock Thread!!



mattpittinger
06-29-09, 15:00
Since I was 5 years old I have shot 1911 style pistols. When I pick a 1911 it feels like it was made for my hand. I feel utterly confident in my ability to make any shot with most of my 1911's. In the last few year I have tinkered off and on with the Glock and M&P pattern pistols. Both are great guns, and shoot both of them well. I still feel however that I have to intentionally "make" myself shoot a Glock or a M&P, where as a 1911 feels like a natural extension. I know that this is something that can be overcame with any firearms through proper training and lots of TBS. What I am wondering to myself is, is this a necessary change? Should I stay with the 1911s that I shoot so well and feel so confident with, or should I move to a lighter, higher capacity, "more reliable" gun, and learn to shoot it as well. I am not looking to start a shouting match like I did with my last thread. I am looking for someone who has had to make this choice as well. Why did you choose which way to go? What one advantage tipped you one way or the other? I am an average civilian, not Mil or LE, this is for everyday carry. Size is not a factor, I carry a full size gun in both platforms.

ToddG
06-29-09, 15:06
Evaluate what benefits you see in switching (you mentioned weight, capacity, etc.).
Evaluate how much time it will take you to become satisfactorily proficient with the new gun.
Evaluate how much money it will take you to become satisfactorily proficient with the new gun.


Based on that, determine whether the pros outweigh the cons.

markm
06-29-09, 15:10
We need to get over the romance of carrying a WWI era pistol, and get on to the business of shooting smelly bad guys in the face with a modern pistol design. :cool:

Failure2Stop
06-29-09, 15:17
I really like 1911s.
I do not like maintaining and fiddling with high-end 1911s to keep them running.
While some say that the 1911 fits their hand, I find that modern polymer pistols fit my wallet and schedule much better.

dauber866
06-29-09, 15:25
We need to get over the romance of carrying a WWI era pistol, and get on to the business of shooting smelly bad guys in the face with a modern pistol design. :cool:

We still drive internal combustion engine powered cars, we still grill our steaks on an open fire, we still serve our country wherever, whenever we're called, I don't see it as a "romance", it's just common sense to use what works, it ain't broke yet!

ToddG
06-29-09, 15:30
We still drive internal combustion engine powered cars,

But we've made huge improvements in how those engines and the cars they power actually work, handle, etc. Few people would consider a 1920's vintage car as a practical everyday driver.


we still grill our steaks on an open fire,

But we've made improvements in what the grill is made out of, how to light the fire, how to prepare & store the meat, etc. Few people would want to eat at a restaurant that abides by 1920's era health codes.


we still serve our country wherever, whenever we're called,

But not using the same vehicles, weapons, communications, or even uniforms from 90 years ago. Few USAF or Navy fighter pilots would want to be tasked with achieving air superiority over a modern battlefield if all they had were Sopwith Camels.

decodeddiesel
06-29-09, 15:34
Oh snap! :p

diving dave
06-29-09, 15:44
Go with what you feel comfortable with and has the reliability to trust your life on. I have carried a few different types of handguns in close to 20 years of law enforcement. Started with an issue S&W 3906, which was a piece of shit. Our chief at the time, fought tooth and nail not to let officers carry high capacity 9mm's, so they bought the lowest one they could find. The 9 shot 9mm 3906. As soon as I could, I switched to a 6 in. model 586. Eventually, as policy changed, I picked up a Glock 21 which I carried for years. Even used it in a real gunfight..:eek: I later jumped to a Kimber 1911, and loved everything about that gun...except its habit of failing to feed our duty rounds. I'm back to a Glock now.
Reliability is the biggest issue, remember what a handgun is for..Saving your ass. It must go bang when you need it.

Zhurdan
06-29-09, 15:45
I shoot my Glock 32c or my 1911 with equal skill, so for me, it's mostly about which one makes a bigger hole. I haven't bought a Glock in 45 yet, thought about it many times... but I just can't get past the fact that my 1911 works just fine. Honestly though, I had the 1911 first, and I probably wouldn't be so attached to it if .357Sig ammo wasn't an arm and a leg expensive. (I reload .45, never wanted to mess with reloading a shouldered pistol cartridge, yet.)

dauber866
06-29-09, 16:00
But we've made huge improvements in how those engines and the cars they power actually work, handle, etc. Few people would consider a 1920's vintage car as a practical everyday driver.



But we've made improvements in what the grill is made out of, how to light the fire, how to prepare & store the meat, etc. Few people would want to eat at a restaurant that abides by 1920's era health codes.



But not using the same vehicles, weapons, communications, or even uniforms from 90 years ago. Few USAF or Navy fighter pilots would want to be tasked with achieving air superiority over a modern battlefield if all they had were Sopwith Camels.

Maybe if we still used the 1920's era health codes, we wouldn't be the fattest nation on earth, with the most diet induced diseases on the planet, maybe if we still used "sopwith" technology, our pilots would know how to fly a plane, instead of the computers doing it and we would again be the best pilots in the world, maybe if we still used a caliber that was capable of causing large permanent wound channels, we wouldn't have so many soldiers being wounded by enemies we thought were already out of the fight.

oldtexan
06-29-09, 16:00
Since I was 5 years old I have shot 1911 style pistols. When I pick a 1911 it feels like it was made for my hand. I feel utterly confident in my ability to make any shot with most of my 1911's. In the last few year I have tinkered off and on with the Glock and M&P pattern pistols. Both are great guns, and shoot both of them well. I still feel however that I have to intentionally "make" myself shoot a Glock or a M&P, where as a 1911 feels like a natural extension. I know that this is something that can be overcame with any firearms through proper training and lots of TBS. What I am wondering to myself is, is this a necessary change? Should I stay with the 1911s that I shoot so well and feel so confident with, or should I move to a lighter, higher capacity, "more reliable" gun, and learn to shoot it as well. I am not looking to start a shouting match like I did with my last thread. I am looking for someone who has had to make this choice as well. Why did you choose which way to go? What one advantage tipped you one way or the other? I am an average civilian, not Mil or LE, this is for everyday carry. Size is not a factor, I carry a full size gun in both platforms.

I have trod this road. I'm now in my mid-50s and started shooting 1911s in my teens. In my twenties I was carrying (as a CHL holder) S&W revolvers and 1911s. Then for about twenty years I lived in places where I couldn't carry so handguns became range/home defense instruments only.

About eleven years ago, I found myself in a place where I could once again carry. I was carrying a 1911 then, still believing that 8-9 rds of .45 would solve any handgun problem for me.

In about 2003 I began getting serious about training, and was forced to confront some of my assumptions about various aspects of gunfighting (effects of fear and movement on my hit probability, possibility of multiple adversaries, etc). I began to look for guns that would carry a large number of rds to deal with multiple moving adversaries and that would allow firing the gun without having to remember in a high-stress situation to deactivate a manual safety. I also wanted durability, reliability, excellent corrosion resistance(hot and humid here in the summer), low maintenance, and light weight. Additionally I wanted a gun that required little or no gunsmith support(good smiths can be hard to find and are expensive). Good availability of parts, magazines, holsters, etc was also important. Additionally my wife shoots 9mm much better than .45 or .40 so finding guns that would serve both of us helped to move me toward 9mm. Eventually after going through Kimbers, Para Ords P14s and P18s, and STIs I ended up with a pair of Glock 34s and a pair of Glock 19s.

I have found that I shoot the Glocks (esp the 34) about as well as I ever shot the 1911 but this is a very individual thing and would vary greatly from person to person.

I would suggest using your 1911s in some challenging, realistic training (including Force on Force) and see if they serve you well there. If so then likely you don't need to change guns. If platform-based deficiencies do arise in your training, they will help point you toward a solution.

Good luck. I hope you don't have to spend as much time and money on this journey as I did.

NCPatrolAR
06-29-09, 16:10
We need to get over the romance of carrying a WWI era pistol, and get on to the business of shooting smelly bad guys in the face with a modern pistol design. :cool:

didn't Pat Rogers say that? ;-)

Business_Casual
06-29-09, 16:14
Maybe if we still used the 1920's era health codes, we wouldn't be the fattest nation on earth, with the most diet induced diseases on the planet, maybe if we still used "sopwith" technology, our pilots would know how to fly a plane, instead of the computers doing it and we would again be the best pilots in the world, maybe if we still used a caliber that was capable of causing large permanent wound channels, we wouldn't have so many soldiers being wounded by enemies we thought were already out of the fight.

So I take it you are pro-1911 and are offended by comments from the plastic pistol people?

M_P

Failure2Stop
06-29-09, 16:14
Maybe if we still used the 1920's era health codes, we wouldn't be the fattest nation on earth, with the most diet induced diseases on the planet, maybe if we still used "sopwith" technology, our pilots would know how to fly a plane, instead of the computers doing it and we would again be the best pilots in the world,

And this has what to do with shooting a pistol from that era?


maybe if we still used a caliber that was capable of causing large permanent wound channels, we wouldn't have so many soldiers being wounded by enemies we thought were already out of the fight.

The difference between permanent wound cavities with a 9mm FMJ and a .45 ACP FJ are quite tiny. The ability to stick 16 9mm projectiles through the dude instead of just 8 .45s is a bit of a leveler anyway. Beside that, there are an astonishing few enemy combatants being shot with pistols, and those that are shot by the proficient tend to fall over and die pretty fast.

Seriously, there are tangible reasons that one may choose a 1911 over a Glock for carry, but nostalgia certainly should not be one.

FromMyColdDeadHand
06-29-09, 16:20
We still drive internal combustion engine powered cars, we still grill our steaks on an open fire, we still serve our country wherever, whenever we're called, I don't see it as a "romance", it's just common sense to use what works, it ain't broke yet!

For now we are.

I kind of split the middle. I've had 1911, STIs, XDs and P226. I have now a Sig X-five Tactical that is 9mm SAO gun. Really like it, runs like deer, but it isn't the final answer, really to big for carry. I really don't trust a gun like the Glock and M&P that, TO ME, doesn't have any safeties on it. STI mags seem to be OK if you live in a clean room. Still looking for a solution to that.

It is interesting that it seems no one has taken the SAO soul out of a 1911 and properly translated it into polymer yet?

geminidglocker
06-29-09, 16:32
I agree about the way a 1911 feels in the hand. I too, feel I could make just about any shot with my Colt MkIV Series 80, Enhanced Competition Model. It is however too heavy for me to carry comfortably on a daily basis, especially in the summer. I carry a Glock 26, have for about 4 years now. I practice regularly with the Glock and find that I have become quite proficient with it. I use the Pearce Model 2733 base plte extensions. I also did a backstrap reduction. Very pleasant to shoot and I'm able to hit milk jugs dead center at 40 feet consistantly. It took more practice to be able to shoot my Glock effectively, than it did my 1911. If I were going into a known combat scenario, where my gun would be at the ready, I'de stick with my 1911. If I were just doing what I normally do everyday, I have the Glock in my RH pocket, in an Uncle Mikes #15 Sidekick IWB holster.

decodeddiesel
06-29-09, 16:32
Maybe if we still used the 1920's era health codes, we wouldn't be the fattest nation on earth, with the most diet induced diseases on the planet, maybe if we still used "sopwith" technology, our pilots would know how to fly a plane, instead of the computers doing it and we would again be the best pilots in the world, maybe if we still used a caliber that was capable of causing large permanent wound channels, we wouldn't have so many soldiers being wounded by enemies we thought were already out of the fight.

Maybe if we used sharp sticks instead of guns we would all be better warriors. :rolleyes:

markm
06-29-09, 16:39
didn't Pat Rogers say that? ;-)

I think so! :D

dauber866
06-29-09, 17:45
So I take it you are pro-1911 and are offended by comments from the plastic pistol people?

M_P

I am not nor have I ever been offended by those that choose to carry the "plastic wonder." The first handgun I purchased upon reaching the age of 21 was a glock 19, pre light rail/ finger grooves. I now carry a glock 22 on duty, and absolutely love the gun. I am truly impressed by the large jagged hole that exists after a 50 round qualification course. I was unable to do the same with the Sig 229 .357sig i carried for 8 years or the ever-so-lovely S&W Sigma 9mm that was my first duty firearm. All I am saying is, I have never carried a 1911 for the "romance" of it, it, as does my glock 22, has a tendancy to shoot everything I feed it into a large jagged hole, down range.

FromMyColdDeadHand
06-29-09, 18:42
Maybe if we used sharp sticks instead of guns we would all be better warriors. :rolleyes:

Drive by spearings, Saturday night special twigs, Extra sharp wicker-armor piercing spears, whittled off serial hierloglyphics, and the issues with wood detectors at the pterodactyl-port.

I want a 5 inch barrel, 10mm H&K PSP clone in polymer/metal, that at slide lock drops the empty mag with a squeeze, and then drops the slide with another squeeze when the new mag is inserted.

Hellfire
06-29-09, 19:01
Since I was 5 years old I have shot 1911 style pistols. When I pick a 1911 it feels like it was made for my hand. I feel utterly confident in my ability to make any shot with most of my 1911's. In the last few year I have tinkered off and on with the Glock and M&P pattern pistols. Both are great guns, and shoot both of them well. I still feel however that I have to intentionally "make" myself shoot a Glock or a M&P, where as a 1911 feels like a natural extension. I know that this is something that can be overcame with any firearms through proper training and lots of TBS. What I am wondering to myself is, is this a necessary change? Should I stay with the 1911s that I shoot so well and feel so confident with, or should I move to a lighter, higher capacity, "more reliable" gun, and learn to shoot it as well. I am not looking to start a shouting match like I did with my last thread. I am looking for someone who has had to make this choice as well. Why did you choose which way to go? What one advantage tipped you one way or the other? I am an average civilian, not Mil or LE, this is for everyday carry. Size is not a factor, I carry a full size gun in both platforms.
Maybe if you'd been shooting Glocks since you were 5, and in the last few years picked up 1911s, they would feel "odd". I mean no disrespect, as my dad shoots 1911s, and I like them as well, but I have shot mostly Glocks as far as HGs go, the 1911 trigger always takes me several mags to adjust to, where as I can pick up any standard Glock and the trigger pull feels natural, some take up-break. It's all in what you spend the most time with I guess.

murphy j
06-29-09, 21:02
Maybe if you'd been shooting Glocks since you were 5, and in the last few years picked up 1911s, they would feel "odd". I mean no disrespect, as my dad shoots 1911s, and I like them as well, but I have shot mostly Glocks as far as HGs go, the 1911 trigger always takes me several mags to adjust to, where as I can pick up any standard Glock and the trigger pull feels natural, some take up-break. It's all in what you spend the most time with I guess.

I agree with this. I started out shooting 1911s and now have switched over to a Glock 19. I made the switch for a couple different reasons, but as of yet I don't shoot the G19 better than I do a 1911. It's practice , practice, practice and I will get there, but the transition can be uncomfortable.

JonInWA
06-29-09, 21:54
I like my 1911s. I trust MY 1911s. But I am cognizant that in many ways, a 1911 is still a bit of tempermental machinery-or rather, it can be, or become over time tempermental. For trustworthiness for self-defense/combat, I think a pretty strong argument can be made that it really necessitates being set up by an expert first (preferably both before and after break-in), and then periodically examined and maintained by an expert/qualified armorer.

Glocks, on the other hand, particularly in the 9mm incarnations (and I'm also perfectly trusting and content with my personal G21 in .45 ACP) are pretty much the industry gold standard for durability and reliability, over protracted time, regardless of envoironment. They need singularly little lubrication, and are not only easily field-stripped, but also easily detail-stripped.

I agree that Glocks can be a bit of an acquired taste, particularly regarding their grip angle and trigger characteristics. That's easily (and relatively quickly) acquired through familiarization, practice and use. Figure at least 5,000 repetitions of pertinent actions/activities with your gun/operating system of choice to sufficiently engrain its operation into your "muscle memory."

Short version: While I cherish my 1911s, but if I needed to choose one gun to go into an environmentally challenging or uncertain environment, with limited or non-existant organic and/or higher echelon support, my choice would be either a Glock G17, G19, or G21.

Best, Jon

bgoode
06-29-09, 22:24
This is a note I wrote on my phone one night when I couldn't sleep. I am a diehard 1911 guy but I am also a diehard user oriented guy. Here is my note...

I am a better shot with a 1911 and I can get on target faster from holster with the 1911 VS Glock BUT.......

In most CCW situations 1 hand shooting might take place (Glock points better 1 handed I think). I don't think you actually have time to get a proper grip and stance like most guys shoot paper.

I think I need to get better aquainted with the G26 + G19 combo because......

I sweat like a bitch in the summer (a + for the Glock).

The .22 conversion seems more bang for the buck than a 1911 conversion.

The G19 is lighter and more compact than my full size 1911 so it is a tad more convienent in real world non I am cool because I carry a 1911 world.

Simple integrated rail for X300. No cost adding a rail to existing gun but light needed.

If I ever in the long haul need to repair the Glock I can do that in house more than not.

A 2nd pistol is more costly to set up on a 1911 (Despite me having 4 1911's now there not all set up the same due to cost involved and finding labor).

My G26 is my carry when no print desired gun and the G19 mags fit + its similar in pointing and function as the G26 so comonality exists.

Despite my love for the 1911 there are +'s for the Glock that outweight the simple comfort and ease of accurate groups of the 1911 platform.

Anyway!!! It does build a pretty good argument for spending time and energy to get acoustomed to the Glock huh??? :) I did am currently am :)

CoryCop25
06-29-09, 22:50
There is too much loyalty to either pistol. I think people feel that if they are 1911 owners they are cheating on their gun if they pick up a plastic wonder and vice versa. It's all about how the weapon feels in your hand and how proficient you are with it. I absolutely love my Kimber compact CDP. Looks good shoots smooth BUT... I can not shoot half as well with it as I can with any of my Glock pistols. I do find myself carrying my Kimber in the winter months when clothes are thicker but my primary carry weapon is a Glock. When I go to a shooting class, the Glock comes with every time.

flyboy1788
06-30-09, 00:29
We need to get over the romance of carrying a WWI era pistol, and get on to the business of shooting smelly bad guys in the face with a modern pistol design. :cool:

That maybe kind a bad analogy markm. It has lasted so long for a reason. Im not saying they are overall more reliable, accurate, ergonomic, than all the pollywogs such as glocks, m&ps. etc. etc., but they are different and in my mind it is nice to have a choice when polymer just isnt for you. I want to get an m&p very soon because they have a lot going for them, but I doubt it will ever feel as "right" to me as my 1911 does. That being said Im going to get rid of all of my families automobiles because those are a thing of the past and we are going to switch to hovercrafts :D

Littlelebowski
06-30-09, 10:55
Maybe if we still used the 1920's era health codes, we wouldn't be the fattest nation on earth, with the most diet induced diseases on the planet, maybe if we still used "sopwith" technology, our pilots would know how to fly a plane, instead of the computers doing it and we would again be the best pilots in the world, maybe if we still used a caliber that was capable of causing large permanent wound channels, we wouldn't have so many soldiers being wounded by enemies we thought were already out of the fight.

You have got to be kidding me. Tell us about your flight training. There's naval aviators on this site you know....

Also, cite your data on "soldiers being wounded by enemies we thought were already out of the fight." No anecdotal data please.

markm
06-30-09, 11:02
That maybe kind a bad analogy markm.

There's no analogy in my statement at all.


It has lasted so long for a reason.

Right! People refuse to get over the romance of an outdated design. Emotion is inherently irrational, and people have an emotional attachment to the 1911 platform.

I still own 2 1911s. I just know their place.

Business_Casual
06-30-09, 11:06
The emphasis should be on the software (human) side, not the hardware (pistol) side of the equation.

Good shooters with Ruger P89s are going to prevail over poor shooters with Nighthawk GRPs. Simple fact.

Pick an adequate pistol; train with it, practice with it, carry it. Problem sorted.

M_P

Zhurdan
06-30-09, 11:15
The emphasis should be on the software (human) side, not the hardware (pistol) side of the equation.

Good shooters with Ruger P89s are going to prevail over poor shooters with Nighthawk GRPs. Simple fact.

Pick an adequate pistol; train with it, practice with it, carry it. Problem sorted.

M_P

I agree. Right now, I have a choice between my 1911 and my Glock 32. Being able to train with one or the other is all about the financial burden associated with one round or the other. That's why I carry the 1911 right now. The software side, as you say, is definately important, as long as it's kept up with actual trigger time. I guess I often get to thinking about 13 rounds vs. 8 rounds of capacity, but the one thing that keeps me on the 1911 is that I reload for it, so I can actually shoot the darn thing and keep in practice with it. Whereas with the .357Sig, my wallet hurts a little more each time I pull the trigger, making me not want to train with it, and carrying a gun you aren't confident with is tantemount to carrying a gun that just doesn't function.

For me, it's not about the romance as some have pointed out, it's about finance. If you can't afford to practice with it, there's no point in carrying it.

John_Wayne777
06-30-09, 13:12
For me, it's not about the romance as some have pointed out, it's about finance. If you can't afford to practice with it, there's no point in carrying it.

That's part of the reason why the 1911 doesn't make a lot of sense for most people these days.

If we set aside the specialized knowledge required to maintain the pistol and the question of whether or not you can find one that's built properly, simply buying a decent 1911 is going to cost a minimum of 1500. Frankly these days you're lucky if you can get one that's under 2K. Then there's the cost of feeding it. When I was prepping for the Vickers 1911 course earlier this month getting .45 hardball was PAINFUL.

If money is no object or if there are people who ship you 50,000 rounds of ammo it's not a problem...but I'm not rich and nobody is lining up to send me free stuff, so it's kind of a big deal for me.

These days I'd much rather have a G17 than a 1911....and you have no idea how much it hurts to say that.

Pk14
06-30-09, 13:12
Maybe if we still used the 1920's era health codes, we wouldn't be the fattest nation on earth, with the most diet induced diseases on the planet, maybe if we still used "sopwith" technology, our pilots would know how to fly a plane, instead of the computers doing it and we would again be the best pilots in the world, maybe if we still used a caliber that was capable of causing large permanent wound channels, we wouldn't have so many soldiers being wounded by enemies we thought were already out of the fight.

Dude - don't know where your perception of our pilot training comes from, but you're definitely out of the box on this one. Since I couldn't find ToddG's awesome image, this one will do...

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q43/Pk14_photos/stay-in-your-lane.jpg

The right analogy with respect to fighter aircraft and the 1911 vs more modern designs comes down to the trade-offs in reliability, cost to acheive and maintain proficiency (including operating (platform maintainance) relative to the projected threat.

One of the hardest aircraft for F-14s and F-18 pilots to fight in the WVR arena were the 1950's era A-4E adversaries. Why? That little airplane was tough to see and absolutely nimble in the <200 kt range were dogfighting would end up if you didn't kill them in the first 30 sec. If you trained to leverage your platform strengths against his weaknesses, you'll beat them. The problem (like the Ault report pointed out in Vietnam) was that we lost the fundamentals of BFM and put too high a value on the technical solution. The adversary guys (and I was one of them for a little while) got to eat, drink, and sleep ACM all the time. Put a Fleet pilot without much recent ACM experience up against a well trained adversary and the Gee-whiz technology may help an average pilot survive the encounter. (It's pretty humbling for an average fighter pilot flying a 4th gen platform to have his hands full with a 'lil ole T-34 in his kitchen...)

I'm not saying I'd kick out the NVGs or HMCS and scream to bring back the steam guages, because if I'm not bringing any unfair advantage I can to the fight, then I'm not serious about my business. Trying to bring stuff I haven't trained extensively with to the fight is just plain dumb. Russians have some pretty cool stuff, and several 3rd world countries have their platforms. Until those countries start investing in well-developed training programs and a significant flight hour program (very costly), I'm not too worried.

Where was this going? Oh yeah, if you're not handicapped by the platform compared to the anticipated threat, then train until you're the best you can be with it (including instruction from a professional cadre of instructors) given the limitations of your resources. When the PT M&P 9 finally comes out, I'll have a reconning with my current CCW and focus just that platform.

Pk

Zhurdan
06-30-09, 13:22
That's part of the reason why the 1911 doesn't make a lot of sense for most people these days.

If we set aside the specialized knowledge required to maintain the pistol and the question of whether or not you can find one that's built properly, simply buying a decent 1911 is going to cost a minimum of 1500. Frankly these days you're lucky if you can get one that's under 2K. Then there's the cost of feeding it. When I was prepping for the Vickers 1911 course earlier this month getting .45 hardball was PAINFUL.

If money is no object or if there are people who ship you 50,000 rounds of ammo it's not a problem...but I'm not rich and nobody is lining up to send me free stuff, so it's kind of a big deal for me.

These days I'd much rather have a G17 than a 1911....and you have no idea how much it hurts to say that.

Yup. Feeding them is becoming more of a limitation on training than anything else, but luckily I have been reloading .45 for years so I have plenty of components. That damn .357Sig though is a spendy bugger. I love the round, I shoot it well, but man, as of late, the wallet rules the weapon for the most part.

I've been considering buying a 9mm. I like the .45, probably for nostalgic reasons, and if I could find a good comfortable holster, I might actually carry my HK, but being that spending my way out of this problem isn't going to happen unless I win the lottery sometime soon, it's what I've got to work with.

As an aside, I really do know that some people think 1911's are choke-machines, but over the years, shooting the hell out of them and maintaining good springs seems to work for me. I probably shoot around 5000-6000 rounds a year, 90% of which is reloads. I think I'd have to start selling stuff (wifes shoes?? don't tell her I said that) to feed it factory ammo all the time.

flyboy1788
06-30-09, 13:38
There's no analogy in my statement at all.

Oops, I cant believe I called it that....I was pretty tired when I wrote that. :D


Right! People refuse to get over the romance of an outdated design. Emotion is inherently irrational, and people have an emotional attachment to the 1911 platform.

I still own 2 1911s. I just know their place.

I am not going to claim that 1911s are consistantly more reliable than glocks, m&ps, or XDs, because they are not, Period. The user often has to know a thing or two about 1911s to make them run great whereas the polymers and other modern pistols tend to all be ready to go right away and ususally never need to be worried about. But 1911s are not quite as outdated and worthless as some people make them out to be.

Bob Reed
06-30-09, 16:14
If we set aside the specialized knowledge required to maintain the pistol and the question of whether or not you can find one that's built properly, simply buying a decent 1911 is going to cost a minimum of 1500. Frankly these days you're lucky if you can get one that's under 2K.
Hello John,

With all due respect, you don't have to spend that kind of money to get a decent 1911. And please tell me, what kind of "specialized knowledge" is involved in maintaining a 1911.

BTW: I'm not trying to be a smart ass, it's just that I personally find The 1911 to be one of the easiest pistols to work on & maintain.

Here's a link to my friend's basic $500 dollar Mil-Spec that has been totally reliable since day one.
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Critical%20Look%20at%20Springfield%20Mil%20Spec.htm

And here's an update on the same pistol.
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Springfield%20Armory%20MilSpec%20Update.htm

Business_Casual
06-30-09, 16:24
Bob, a sample size has to be in the hundreds before you can draw conclusions. As well as a single example may function, it is not indicative of general experience. In other words, most of those pistols will not function problem-free.

M_P

JonInWA
06-30-09, 16:51
Bob, when you thoroughly go through Stephen Camp's threads on his Mil-Spec Springer (particularly in the second thread you provided a link to), he goes into considerable detail how he in fact had his gunsmith (Teddy Jacobsen/Actions By T) thoroughly go through the gun and replace many of the fire control components-even though he in retrospect wasn't absolutely sure that such replacements were in fact necessary.

The fact was that he felt the need to subject the gun to a professional for such an examination, and that the professional felt the need to replace the components at all is arguably significant in and of itself. I don't recall him sharing what his total dollar expenditures regarding the gun and its subsequent work/parts replacement/gunsmithing costs were.

I do think that you can get a reliable , durable 1911 for under $1,000-the SIG-Sauer GSR XO is an example that I've personally got that comes to mind. But mine required a trip to SIG for some further post-break-in tuning and parts replacement-totally covered by SIG-Sauer (including shipping), and they not only performed the necessary work and tuning, but also comp'ed me with grips and magazines for my trouble (which I thought was eminently decent of them)-but it still needed these after-sale ministrations and set-up by an knowledgeable gunsmith to reach acceptable performance.

And, at the end of the day, while they certainly aren't an apple-to-apple comparison, you CAN get a Glock for far less than a 1911 in most cases. That price differential can be applied to training, familiarization, ammunition, competitions etc. which can all go a long way to establishing proficiency between an individual and his firearm of choice. And, in the case of the Glock, a discerning shooter's needs will likely be limited to replacing the sights (or juduciously ordering the gun from the onset with Trijicon sights as an alternative to the polymer sights) and that's pretty much it-no extensive after-sale (or pre-sale) tuning or set-up needed, nor extensive maintenance requirements or critical periodic gunsmith visits.

Stephen Camp has also written some illuminating blogs on his Glock 17 in the same site which are well worth reading.

Best, Jon

Littlelebowski
06-30-09, 17:18
And please tell me, what kind of "specialized knowledge" is involved in maintaining a 1911.


Right here, Bob (http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=32267).

A class taught by a 1911 armorer for Delta Force.

MarshallDodge
06-30-09, 18:08
I am in a similar position having shot the 1911 for over 15 years and tens of thousands of rounds. When I pick up a Glock, it just doesn't feel right. I have played with the M&P and thought it was a nice gun but still not enough for me to change. Sure, I could spend the time learning a new platform but I am not sure if it would satisfy my needs.

You have to weigh the pros and cons of each, then decide for yourself. That is all I will say at this time without stirring up a hornet's nest in your thread. :cool:

Greg Bell
06-30-09, 18:26
Well Hell, I just enjoy shooting my 1911s more than I enjoy shooting my Glocks. :D

I don't think that modern guns are much of an improvement--and CERTAINLY nothing like the improvement of modern automobiles over their ancestors. The 1911's only real drawbacks are its pickiness (particularly with modern hollowpoints) and its weight. Modern designs like the HK45 and M&P are certainly more reliable and lighter--but they are fairly large guns that are more difficult to shoot--especially for folks with smaller hands. I have never personally shot another .45 that was as easy to shoot well (with the possible exception of the old P9s--but it had an awful safety and the over-travel stop was required). As LAV says, the 1911s magic is a combination of weight, long sight radius, and a lightweight trigger with little take-up or reset.

It is a wonderful pistol--and I enjoy carrying and shooting mine.

JiMfraRED1911
06-30-09, 18:36
Right here, Bob (http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=32267).

A class taught by a 1911 armorer for Delta Force.


Ba-zing!

Bob Reed
06-30-09, 18:37
Bob, when you thoroughly go through Stephen Camp's threads on his Mil-Spec Springer (particularly in the second thread you provided a link to), he goes into considerable detail how he in fact had his gunsmith (Teddy Jacobsen/Actions By T) thoroughly go through the gun and replace many of the fire control components-even though he in retrospect wasn't absolutely sure that such replacements were in fact necessary.

The fact was that he felt the need to subject the gun to a professional for such an examination, and that the professional felt the need to replace the components at all is arguably significant in and of itself. I don't recall him sharing what his total dollar expenditures regarding the gun and its subsequent work/parts replacement/gunsmithing costs were.

I do think that you can get a reliable , durable 1911 for under $1,000-the SIG-Sauer GSR XO is an example that I've personally got that comes to mind. But mine required a trip to SIG for some further post-break-in tuning and parts replacement-totally covered by SIG-Sauer (including shipping), and they not only performed the necessary work and tuning, but also comp'ed me with grips and magazines for my trouble (which I thought was eminently decent of them)-but it still needed these after-sale ministrations and set-up by an knowledgeable gunsmith to reach acceptable performance.

And, at the end of the day, while they certainly aren't an apple-to-apple comparison, you CAN get a Glock for far less than a 1911 in most cases. That price differential can be applied to training, familiarization, ammunition, competitions etc. which can all go a long way to establishing proficiency between an individual and his firearm of choice. And, in the case of the Glock, a discerning shooter's needs will likely be limited to replacing the sights (or juduciously ordering the gun from the onset with Trijicon sights as an alternative to the polymer sights) and that's pretty much it-no extensive after-sale (or pre-sale) tuning or set-up needed, nor extensive maintenance requirements or critical periodic gunsmith visits.

Stephen Camp has also written some illuminating blogs on his Glock 17 in the same site which are well worth reading.

Best, Jon
Hello Jon,

My bad for not mentioning that Steve was involved with Teddy in teaching an on-line 1911 Smithing Class at the time, called Project Street-Gun. So, Teddy has actually never touched Steve's pistol, just the specially prepared parts that he sent him.

And since Steve was helping him with the on-line class, it was only logical to send him the same set of parts that all their students received. Other wise, I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't have changed any parts untill a failure occured, excluding the foolish ILS Mainspring Housing, grip safety & the short spur hammer due to him having large hands and suffering from hammer-bite.

Again, sorry for not mentioning it in my first post.

BTW: Steve originally bought the glock to use as a loner gun to lend to CCW students that he instructs so they can get their Texas carry permit.

He also said at the end of the review, Quote: It is my intention to keep shooting and learning the Glock. Will it ever find a warm spot in my traditionalist mind? It already has… but it won't replace my Hi Power or 1911.
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Hi%20Power%20and%20Glock17.htm

Bob Reed
06-30-09, 18:49
Bob, a sample size has to be in the hundreds before you can draw conclusions.M_P
Hello,

Very True, and there are hundreds of'em that are running just fine, and there are some of'em that's had problems just like any other make & model of weapon.

User Name
06-30-09, 18:54
We need to get over the romance of carrying a WWI era pistol, and get on to the business of shooting smelly bad guys in the face with a modern pistol design. :cool:

I like that.

JonInWA
06-30-09, 19:05
Thanks for the clarification, Bob-and it's good seeing you here (as well as in you normal Hi-Power website haunts).

The conundrum with a low price 1911 as I see it is this: Can you truly get a low-priced 1911 with durable, reliable components, or are you falling into the trap of getting something initially low-priced, but requiring significant overhaul/parts replacement disproportionately early?

As Todd mentioned very early in the thread, the user really has to consciously evaluate his expected use, requirements, and anticipated round-count.

In the sub $1K range, the Springfield Mil-Spec enjoys a decent reputation for being a well made gun with decent Brazilian-origin components. I believe that many of the fire control components are MIM steel. MIM in and of itself isn't necessarily a curse-but I'd suggest that most reputable, established gunsmiths will more likely that not suggest replacing them with higher-quality forged/tool steel (or better) components, particularly for protracted, and/or high round count use. That will raise the price bar...

In the first and second generation iterations of the SIG-Sauer GSR/Revolution/1911 (or whatever they're calling it today) the gun was comprised of high-end, non-MIM components. Although vendoring in the current generation guns has changed, I believe that only their disconnectors are MIM today-so for under $1K (at least with the XO) you can get a gun with acceptably decent parts for hard use are inherently there-but it'll still arguably require breaking in, and then ensuring proper set-up.

So-can you get a decent sub-$1K 1911? "It depends" is my best answer.

Best, Jon

Bob Reed
06-30-09, 19:06
Right here, Bob (http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=32267).

A class taught by a 1911 armorer for Delta Force.
Hello, what does that have to do with anything.

FN, Sig, Glock, Beretta, HK, S&W, Ect., Ect., Ect.. offers Armorer's Courses as well.

Bob Reed
06-30-09, 19:24
Thanks for the clarification, Bob-and it's good seeing you here (as well as in you normal Hi-Power website haunts).

The conundrum with a low price 1911 as I see it is this: Can you truly get a low-priced 1911 with durable, reliable components, or are you falling into the trap of getting something initially low-priced, but requiring significant overhaul/parts replacement disproportionately early?

So-can you get a decent sub-$1K 1911? "It depends" is my best answer.

Best, Jon
Hello Jon, Your Very Welcome Sir & Thanks a Million, especially for this: (as well as in you normal Hi-Power website haunts).

Jon, that honestly made me laugh so hard my sides are hurting. Thanks Again for that one!

As far as your question goes regarding low-priced 1911's... Well, we all know that we get what we pay for. That being said, I still prefer the higher end ones, but something like a Springfield GI also suits me just fine because I do all my own work. So the added expense of forged parts, Ect. isn't too bad.

Thanks Again Jon,
Bob

PS: I love this one (as well as in you normal Hi-Power website haunts).

Littlelebowski
06-30-09, 19:30
Hello, what does that have to do with anything.

FN, Sig, Glock, Beretta, HK, S&W, Ect., Ect., Ect.. offers Armorer's Courses as well.

I'm more than a little surprised that I need to explain this but he not only shot the 1911s his unit used in combat but repaired and customized said weapons. Think of it as a samurai that is a swordsmith.....

Vickers is not just a high end pistolsmith but someone who's actually gone into harm's way using these pistols and not just pounding a beat but out in the world in the Army's most elite fighting unit.

And he recommends the G17 as a service pistol :D

MarshallDodge
06-30-09, 19:31
The emphasis should be on the software (human) side, not the hardware (pistol) side of the equation.

Good shooters with Ruger P89s are going to prevail over poor shooters with Nighthawk GRPs. Simple fact.

Pick an adequate pistol; train with it, practice with it, carry it. Problem sorted.

M_P

Amen!

At a recent class that I attended, one of the shooters had the Ruger P90 and shot near the top of the class in speed and accuracy.

FromMyColdDeadHand
06-30-09, 19:35
Hello, what does that have to do with anything.

FN, Sig, Glock, Beretta, HK, S&W, Ect., Ect., Ect.. offers Armorer's Courses as well.

I agree, maybe when he works his way from Delta to Alpha......


:D

The interesting thing to me about 1911s is how easy it is to tear them down and with a little practice to put together. That and how all the parts are inter-related. Shave a little off here to solve that problem and you cause can cause another issue. I can't find the site, but there was some guy who had bought a parts kit 1911 and built it up. Really interesting to read. Very Zen.

sff70
06-30-09, 20:49
I like both, own both, am an armorer for both, teach users in both, have carried both on duty, and shot both extensively.

Both designs have been successful.

Of course, only Glock makes Glocks (CCF frames don't count). 1911s are made by dozens of companies, many to their own specs, which causes many problems.

Anyway, if I had to choose one of the two designs and use it and it only, I would pick Glock (17 or 19).

Littlelebowski
06-30-09, 21:22
Well Hell, I just enjoy shooting my 1911s more than I enjoy shooting my Glocks. :D

I don't think that modern guns are much of an improvement--and CERTAINLY nothing like the improvement of modern automobiles over their ancestors. The 1911's only real drawbacks are its pickiness (particularly with modern hollowpoints) and its weight. Modern designs like the HK45 and M&P are certainly more reliable and lighter--but they are fairly large guns that are more difficult to shoot--especially for folks with smaller hands. I have never personally shot another .45 that was as easy to shoot well (with the possible exception of the old P9s--but it had an awful safety and the over-travel stop was required). As LAV says, the 1911s magic is a combination of weight, long sight radius, and a lightweight trigger with little take-up or reset.

It is a wonderful pistol--and I enjoy carrying and shooting mine.

Aren't the Glocks far more corrosion resistant, have less moving parts, easier to work on, and require less training for armorers?

Greg Bell
06-30-09, 21:48
Yessir

JSandi
06-30-09, 22:22
1911 vs. Glock

Anyone ever try to pistol whip someone with a Glock?
:o

Rider79
06-30-09, 22:48
1911 vs. Glock

Anyone ever try to pistol whip someone with a Glock?
:o

Haha.

I'm not going to lie, and its a dumb reason, but I got into a 1911 again recently because I've watched Ronin with Robert DeNiro one too many times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SShMYqzAxqo&feature=related

I know, lame.

That being said, my every day CCW gun is a Glock 19 or 17.

FromMyColdDeadHand
06-30-09, 23:07
Haha.

I'm not going to lie, and its a dumb reason, but I got into a 1911 again recently because I've watched Ronin with Robert DeNiro one too many times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SShMYqzAxqo&feature=related

I know, lame.

That being said, my every day CCW gun is a Glock 19 or 17.

Wild Bunch and Way of the Gun ;)

Bob Reed
06-30-09, 23:18
I'm more than a little surprised that I need to explain this but he not only shot the 1911s his unit used in combat but repaired and customized said weapons. Think of it as a samurai that is a swordsmith.....

Vickers is not just a high end pistolsmith but someone who's actually gone into harm's way using these pistols and not just pounding a beat but out in the world in the Army's most elite fighting unit.

And he recommends the G17 as a service pistol :D
Of course I have heard of LAV and I hope I didn't come across to him or his fans as dismissing his knowlage & clout. I admire him too! I guess I've been lucky to not require that level of a 1911 course in order to keep'em running and figure out why if they didn't. And that doesn't mean that I wouldn't love to take the course that you linked me to back there. I have no doubt I'd pick-up some great knowlage.

chriskc04
06-30-09, 23:27
The largest differences I see here are weight and capacity. If neither bother you for what you use it for, why reinvent the wheel?

JSandi
07-01-09, 00:01
+1 for Way Of The Gun!

http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2000_The_Way_of_the_Gun/ryan_phillippe_benicio_del_toro_the_way_of_the_gun_002.jpg

JohnN
07-01-09, 00:35
Haha.

I'm not going to lie, and its a dumb reason, but I got into a 1911 again recently because I've watched Ronin with Robert DeNiro one too many times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SShMYqzAxqo&feature=related

I know, lame.

That being said, my every day CCW gun is a Glock 19 or 17.

Truth be known, that is probably why a lot of guys carry them or at least say they do.

Greg Bell
07-01-09, 00:49
"And he recommends the G17 as a service pistol "

That is true. He recommends G17 as a basic combat pistol. He also recommends the Valmet in 223 as the best standard infantry rifle. What he recommends for top-tier guys is something different.

Zhurdan
07-01-09, 01:02
If you have the time, inclination...


As close a test as I can give you in short notice. I've been shooting them both for many years... now there's much more than a months worth of history. As long as you train with a weapon for long enough, you can shoot them both with great efficiency.

First video is a 1911 Raptor Pro 4"
http://s143.photobucket.com/albums/r127/Zhurdan/?action=view&current=kr45195189.flv

Second video is a Glock 32C 357Sig
http://s143.photobucket.com/albums/r127/Zhurdan/?action=view&current=gl357183180.flv

A whopping 0.09 seconds difference. I'd say that I shoot them pretty well the same. Just because it's plastic and plastic is newer, doesn't mean it's any better, or worse for that matter, being I actually shot the Glock a touch faster. 0.09 seconds was most likely in the draw, you can do the math off the shot timer if you want, but I'd say they were both pretty solid runs, at least for me.


** edit** And no, there wasn't anyone else there... just a camera and a tripod.

Greg Bell
07-01-09, 07:00
Nice!

decodeddiesel
07-01-09, 10:23
As close a test as I can give you in short notice. I've been shooting them both for many years... now there's much more than a months worth of history. As long as you train with a weapon for long enough, you can shoot them both with great efficiency.

First video is a 1911 Raptor Pro 4"
http://s143.photobucket.com/albums/r127/Zhurdan/?action=view&current=kr45195189.flv

Second video is a Glock 32C 357Sig
http://s143.photobucket.com/albums/r127/Zhurdan/?action=view&current=gl357183180.flv

A whopping 0.09 seconds difference. I'd say that I shoot them pretty well the same. Just because it's plastic and plastic is newer, doesn't mean it's any better, or worse for that matter, being I actually shot the Glock a touch faster. 0.09 seconds was most likely in the draw, you can do the math off the shot timer if you want, but I'd say they were both pretty solid runs, at least for me.


** edit** And no, there wasn't anyone else there... just a camera and a tripod.

Impressive! Very solid with both pistols!

Ed L.
07-01-09, 16:44
"And he recommends the G17 as a service pistol "

That is true. He recommends G17 as a basic combat pistol. He also recommends the Valmet in 223 as the best standard infantry rifle. What he recommends for top-tier guys is something different.

This is exactly what Larry said in my class, with an emphasis on third world armies who could not be relied upon to care for their weapon.

He regarded the 1911 as the most shootable centerfire handgun due to its ergonomics and its trigger; but also the most pain in the ass to get running and keep running. This often involved buying an expensive one to begin with, then fiddling around with magazines or combinations of magazines and followers to get the maximum reliability (as I have had to do using 10-8's advice to run CMC magazines with Trip springs & followers). Then there was the maintenance issues. Extractors typically last a bit over 5000 rounds and then need replacement--with fitting requiring the skills of a gunsmith or someone who really knows how to adjust one for the gun.

ToddG
07-01-09, 16:51
Extractors typically last a bit over 5000 rounds and then need replacement--with fitting requiring the skills of a gunsmith or someone who really knows how to adjust one for the gun.

Good going, Ed! Now we're going to hear from all the people who have put "about 40,000 rounds, though I didn't keep an exact count" through their 1911's without ever changing the extractor. :p

Ed L.
07-01-09, 17:06
Good going, Ed! Now we're going to hear from all the people who have put "about 40,000 rounds, though I didn't keep an exact count" through their 1911's without ever changing the extractor. :p

That's right. Blame me for an invasion of "those guys." :eek:

And there are people who have had High Points that worked from the factory and soldiered on.

The number 5000 was a rough figure from my memory which may be infected by Mad Cow disease. I checked the 10-8 article on 1911s (http://www.10-8performance.com/id9.html under the section on extractor tension and it states: "most modern internal extractors have a minimum service cycle of about 5000 rounds."

That doesn't mean that at round 5001 every gun will stop working. Remember, the 1911 was originally designed to have a 6000 round life.

Another crucial thing that Larry Vickers said is that the 1911 dates back to a time when machinery was expensive and labor was cheap. So a lot more handfitting went into the gun. Also, all guns, spare parts, and ammunition were made to one standard, not like today. None of this holds true today, since most makers and parts makesrs have changed the original specs here and there, which means that you may need to get a gunsmith who knows what he is doing.

I love 1911s. I have 2 high grade ones. But it is not a gun that I would recommend for a beginner or someone on a limited budget. If you happen to have one that works great, fantastic.

ToddG
07-01-09, 17:15
And there are people who have had High Points that worked from the factory and soldiered on.

I was once contacted by someone from the "Hi-Point Owners Group" or somesuch, asking if I could do a Hi-Point only class. I didn't have the heart to tell him there wasn't much we could get accomplished in 150 rounds before the guns started to fail. :cool:

Greg Bell
07-01-09, 18:01
Ed L,


I love 1911s. I have 2 high grade ones. But it is not a gun that I would recommend for a beginner or someone on a limited budget.

Exactly.

mattpittinger
07-02-09, 12:40
Good thing it didn't turn into a 1911 vs. Glock thread.....lol

JonInWA
07-02-09, 14:53
Well, you certainly got some food for the questions that you raised from some eminently qualified forum members.

Best, Jon

the1911fan
07-02-09, 19:05
IIRC there was testing done on how fast certain guns could be fired and the 1911 took the longest by far for the testers to make go bang. If you should be in the unfortunate circumstance of a gun grab the difference between you getting shot and not getting shot could very well be the difference between having an active safety and having passive (no) safeties.

Amp Mangum
07-02-09, 20:56
I've got 36,878 documented rounds on a Colt Gov't Model built by Novaks with the factory extractor. The gun just runs and runs. I did replace the factory sear and hammer at 30,000rds because the sear was starting to show it's age and the trigger was developing creep. Getting this many rounds on one extractor is an anomaly though. Usually I get around 10,000rds give or take before they loose their tension. This extractor must have been made on a good day.:D

I've had some not make it 2000rds before needing replacement.

FromMyColdDeadHand
07-02-09, 21:04
While 1911s and Glocks are arguing, M&Ps are training.

Dunderway
07-02-09, 21:32
Good going, Ed! Now we're going to hear from all the people who have put "about 40,000 rounds, though I didn't keep an exact count" through their 1911's without ever changing the extractor. :p

After the cost of 5,000 rounds is it really so much of a burden to fit a $30 extractor? It's honestly not that hard to tension and bevel an extractor.

A 1911 does require more maintenance, but I think the difficulty of performing that maintenance is much overstated. Many times by someone that makes a living off of fixing those 1911s.

JSandi
07-02-09, 21:44
A 1911 does require more maintenance, but I think the difficulty of performing that maintenance is much overstated. Many times by someone that makes a living off of fixing those 1911s.

This is so true, I'm living proof, mechanically illiterate capable of breaking a steel ball with a rubber hammer and even I can do the basic maintenance including fitting a beavertail and a thumb safety.
:o

Ed L.
07-02-09, 22:00
After the cost of 5,000 rounds is it really so much of a burden to fit a $30 extractor? It's honestly not that hard to tension and bevel an extractor.

Not a burden, just not easy to do. At least not something that I can do, and from my experience, it seems to escape many gunsmiths.

I had one supposed 1911 smith completely screw it up so the gun was not functioning correctly. I brought it to another one who made it work much better, but not perfect. The second Smith claimed that the orriginal fix was too tight, which made sense since I was having feeding issues where the rim of the round did not completely slide behind the extractor. The second smith made it work much better, but not 100%

When Larry Vickers took a look at it in the 1911 Operator's class he made some mods to it and commented that I had some real "assclowns" working on my gun.

Dunderway
07-02-09, 22:17
Not a burden, just not easy to do. At least not something that I can do, and from my experience, it seems to escape many gunsmiths.

I had one supposed 1911 smith completely screw it up so the gun was not functioning correctly. I brought it to another one who made it work much better, but not perfect. The second Smith claimed that the orriginal fix was too tight, which made sense since I was having feeding issues where the rim of the round did not completely slide behind the extractor. The second smith made it work much better, but not 100%

When Larry Vickers took a look at it in the 1911 Operator's class he made some mods to it and commented that I had some real "assclowns" working on my gun.

I won't claim to be an expert and maybe I'm just lucky. I have to assume that my success with 1911s has relied on two things.

1. They are my guns (or friends) and I care about that. Before it goes into a holster it is right. If that requires a lot of test firing than so be it, but it usually doesn't.

2. There is so much information out there about 1911 maintenance that one can become very well versed from their home. Studying this information gives me confidence in the platform. If a 1911 goes down, I can probably get it going. If a Glock or Sig goes down, I can only stare at it.

ToddG
07-02-09, 22:26
After the cost of 5,000 rounds is it really so much of a burden to fit a $30 extractor? It's honestly not that hard to tension and bevel an extractor.

No, it's not much of burden, especially if you have the skills to do-it-yourself. As Ed L. points out, though, quite a few people who think they know how -- including some well paid "experts" -- seem to screw it up on a regular basis.

But I don't think you'll find many knowledgeable people who say the 1911 is junk. They can be superb, like a Ferrari ... as long as you're willing to deal with the quirks of owning a Ferrari.

For the record, I'd be willing to deal with the quirks of owning a Ferrari. Wonder if I could convince them they need a 50,000 miles-in-six-months test ... :cool:

Ed L.
07-03-09, 00:10
Well obviously this has turned into a 1911 thread.

My fault.

First, for the original poster. If your gun(s) run reliably and you are happy with them, stick with it.

I find I shoot better with a good 1911 than anything else, but they have also given me far more problems over the years than anything else.

I actually had a long response written about my negative experiences with a 1911s, but that's not what this thread is about.

Zhurdan
07-03-09, 03:49
OK... so polymer guns are cash and carry, whereas 1911's are a labor of love. So what. As I demonstrated, shooting a pistol is more about good practice than anything else. Does a world class runner just grab the first pair of shoes that comes his way? I'd bet no. If we are talking about "cash and carry", then fine... polymer pistols fit the bill. That's as long as the person behind it is willing to shoot it enough to actually HIT the thing they are shooting at. Assuming that most of the people here care enough to practice, I'd also assume that they care enough about their gear to maintain it. Is maintainance all that hard? Learn your weapon, in all it's nooks and crannies, and TAKE CARE OF IT! If you've seriously bought a plastic fantastic and not actually tried to break it down to each and every part, then how much are you interested in it's function?

I can guarantee that every weapon I have in my gun safe has been completely broken down to every single component. Why? Because I want to understand what makes what happen. Yeah, I'm new to AR's when compared to many people here, but I've taken the time to break every piece down (that wouldn't cause damage) so that I understand how it works. It also helps for when crap breaks. If it's a tiny little spring in the hammer group of a PS90... I can replace it, given the parts. If it's a mainspring in a 1911, fine, I'll do it. If it requires me to do some research... GREAT. I am always looking to learn more about anything related to guns. That's why it's my hobby! I wouldn't pick basketweaving as a hobby because it wouldn't maintain my interest. Firearms on the other hand have my full attention.

People often ask me why I like guns. My basic answer is, I don't fully understand everything about them... it makes me want to learn. By everything I mean what makes this go wrong, what makes this go right. I understand the safety and basic workings, but I WANT to learn more. What's wrong with wanting to learn what it takes to make a 1911 work? I bet I'm better for it. What's wrong with wanting to learn what makes a pistol easier to control? I'm better for researching it.

Guns aren't just about "which ones better", they are about enjoying them. I've found a passion for the 1911. I've also been able to appreciate the speed and simplicity of a Glock, and a Walther P99, and a HKUSP, and a Springer XD9mm, as well as many other pistols. I don't carry most of them, but I like to figure out what makes them tick, or not tick in some cases. Learning about guns isn't just about what "superblowemup dude" says is cool, it's about enjoying them for what they are.

Personally, I shoot the Glock a touch faster, but I have a passion for the 1911 because my Grandfather introduced me to them. I was supposed to get his when he died, but some random uncle got there first and probably traded it out for drugs or some other stupid stuff. That doesn't take away from my passion for the 1911. Now, if my Grandfather had handed me a plastic pistol when he showed me how to shoot, I might be more particular for plastic. Call it age discrimination or hard headedness... but 1911's remind me of my Grandpa, and he was a great man in my eyes. Therefore, it will always have a special place in my heart, regardless of whether or not I can save 0.09 seconds on the draw.

Shoot because you love it and you'll be better for it, regardless of what you shoot.

ToddG
07-03-09, 10:32
OK... so polymer guns are cash and carry, whereas 1911's are a labor of love. So what. As I demonstrated, shooting a pistol is more about good practice than anything else. Does a world class runner just grab the first pair of shoes that comes his way? I'd bet no. If we are talking about "cash and carry", then fine... polymer pistols fit the bill. That's as long as the person behind it is willing to shoot it enough to actually HIT the thing they are shooting at. Assuming that most of the people here care enough to practice, I'd also assume that they care enough about their gear to maintain it. Is maintainance all that hard? Learn your weapon, in all it's nooks and crannies, and TAKE CARE OF IT! If you've seriously bought a plastic fantastic and not actually tried to break it down to each and every part, then how much are you interested in it's function?

You're right about the world class runner. And the same would be true for world class shooters. But a whole lot of below-average shooters think they should behave like -- and be treated like -- world class shooters. :cool:

I have a certain number of hours per month to devote to "gun stuff." I can spend 99% of that time on the range practicing to become a better shooter, or I can spend 80% of that time on the range and 20% "maintaining" my gun. I prefer the former. You sound like someone who enjoys tinkering and appreciates the engineering behind your weapons so you prefer the latter. Different strokes ...

From a practical standpoint, there are obvious benefits to a gun that does not need frequent maintenance, does not need frequent parts replacement, and does not need hand-fitting of parts.

markm
07-03-09, 10:44
There's too many romantics here.

The 1911 is dreamy and seductive. But just like a crazy bitch, it'll cost you over the long haul.

Greg Bell
07-03-09, 10:58
Mark,

Honestly, I think anybody who spends as much time talking about guns as we do is a romantic. Some of us just find different aspects of gun ownership pleasing.

kmrtnsn
07-03-09, 11:20
To paraphrase Master Wong from Balls of fury,

Shooting a 1911 is not the macarena. It takes patience. She is like a fine, well-aged prostitute... it takes years to learn her tricks.

She is cruel, laughs at you when you are naked, but you keep coming back for more, and more! Why? Because she is the only prostitute I can afford.

R Moran
07-03-09, 11:34
There's too many romantics here.

The 1911 is dreamy and seductive. But just like a crazy bitch, it'll cost you over the long haul.

You should visit some 1911 centric forums, where the answer to such questions always revolves around:

Looks/feel
dead nazis
mom and apple pie
what JMB intended, and thereby what God intended
etc.

Much like women, sometimes ya gotta put feelings aside and dump the bitch.

I have a few more thoughts to add, give me a minute to collect them...

Bob

markm
07-03-09, 12:02
Mark,

Honestly, I think anybody who spends as much time talking about guns as we do is a romantic. Some of us just find different aspects of gun ownership pleasing.

For sure!

DacoRoman
07-03-09, 13:06
this has been a very enjoyable thread to read..I especially enjoyed the various analogies to tarts, prostitutes and bitches :D

I love my 1911 (Wilson CQB), but to me it is more of a collector's piece, and although I do plan on taking a class or two with it, I do see it as elegantly arcane in a sense. I say arcane because I'm still disinclined to learn how to detail strip it yet as I'm afraid to screw it up. I am actually thinking of getting a cheaper 1911 as my beater gun, and the gun that I want to tinker with and maybe even take a 1911 armorer's class with. I'm waiting for LAV to come around North Texas with his 1911 operator's course.

I am also susceptible to the argument that based on a weight/power/reliability basis, the 1911 is essentially obsolescent. Having said that though I also agree that it is a superlatively shootable pistol, and one of the best, if not the best, amalgamation of form and function for fast and accurate shooting ever made. Not to mention that it just looks so damn cool, is a piece of American history, and is so fascinating mechanically (at least to me, and probably more so that I'm afraid to detail strip it :o). Overall, it is probably my favorite pistol.

However, I can shoot my Glocks just as well if not better, although they are admittedly 9mm, and I can essentially be my own Armorer with very little effort. One of the most amazing things about the Glock design in my opinion is how easy they are to take apart, drop parts in and out, etc. It is nice not having to worry about issues such as hand fitting barrels to the frame, getting the correct length barrel lug, fitting the barrel bushing to the barrel, having the correct frame ramp and breech face angles, getting the right barrel throat angle and the right frame to barrel gap, having the correct extractor tension, the right ejector length, etc. etc. etc.

So for these reasons, I've chosen the Glock for my carry/practical pistols. But when it comes down to it, the 1911 is still my favorite pistol, but do to practical reasons, the Glock is my preferred tool for self defense applications.

just thought I'd throw my 2 cents into the pot

Zhurdan
07-03-09, 13:55
You're right about the world class runner. And the same would be true for world class shooters. But a whole lot of below-average shooters think they should behave like -- and be treated like -- world class shooters. :cool:


Rest assured, I don't think I'm anywhere near world class, and if you took what I said to mean that I thought I was all that and a bag of chips, please don't. I'm not. I just love to shoot. It's like anything else in life, if you are passionate about it, it gets your motor going, as it did with me.

I hear you when you say time is limited, but luckily, I don't have kids (can't) so I've been given a lot more time to do things than most people who may have kids. Luckily, I also work at a desk most the day, so reading up and making notes about smithing is just part of my day most of the time. So, I do very much appreciate the mechanics of pistols, and I've come here to learn more about the mechanics of the AR. What I didn't do was come here to tell everyone I'm all that, because I'm not. I feel that I'm an average shooter on my best day. I only posted the videos because I thought it was a good comparison of two pistol platforms in one shooters hands as there was a "test" posed.

R Moran
07-03-09, 15:20
First, they all turn into 1911 vs. XXXX threads...:)

Why switch? Because my design basis threat exceeds the capacity of a 1911.


OK, let me preface this with a few things...

I started shooting the 1911 back in 1987(?), when a man named Ron Wannanan taught me to shoot a handgun. Ron's name can be found in Col. Beckwiths book, he was the armorer for LAV's old unit. When I asked Ron what was the best combat handgun out there, he said a tuned 1911.( better reason then a movie)
And, back then it probably still was.
What else was really viable?
Glocks, had not been out long
9mm was still considered ineffective, and the modern JHP were not yet introduced, nor was the.40
Most would argue that the 80's guns, hi cap DA 9mm were harder to shoot, and were still 9mm's

Things have changed a bit.

I shot custom 1911's for years, even when I carried other guns on duty, mostly Glock 22's. I switched back and forth with little effort or detriment.
Go back a few years at 1911forums, and you'll see I was a staunch supporter of the 1911, I still believe a lot of what I said back then, its just been tempered a bit.

W/o going thru all the previous posts to quote, I'll add a few thoughts...

To those that mention old cars, planes etc.....Do you really think the US Military would be better off with Stuart tanks and bi-planes then M1 Abrams and Joint Strike Fighters?
Its that kind of thinking, that leads to the "romance" comments. Its that kind of thinking that saddled the American GI with the Trapdoor, Krag, M14, etc. The US was looking at replacing the 1911 in the 50's. It didn't happen, not because it was so great, but because it was good enough, & pistols play a small role in modern combat.
You could really come up with a better argument.

Reliability..
Does anyone not find it interesting that guys who have used the gun, extensively, in modern combat, like LAV and Howe, don't recommend it?
While, I have had some problems with my 1911's, they have not been as bad as many others have had. That does not mean I should just dismiss their opinion. I can not in good conscious just say" not in my experience" to them.
While you may enjoy tinkering with your guns, fixing them may be fun to you, or no big deal, it is still a fact, it needs to be done. If fitting an extractor to a 1911 is no big deal, every 5000 rounds, how easy is not doing it at all on a Glock? The fact is, 1911's can be more temperamental then most modern designs.
When asked why he doesn't carry a 1911, Paul Howe, answered...I don't want to spend 2000 dollars on a pistol, and I don't have 6 armorers on standby.
Just look at the gymnastics the cartridge needs to do to get into the chamber...
Durability is another issue..

Mil-spec style guns...
Most of them are cheap, period. While they may be reliable in the short run, how long will that last? If your a weekend shooter, it'll be fine. When units shoot 5000 rounds in very short periods of time, maybe not so much. You can start to see, also, where periodic maintenance becomes a hassle.

As mentioned before, the market of the 1911 has done almost as much to hurt the gun as it has done to help it. All the manufacturers of guns, parts, mags, etc all with varying standards have created a quagmire to wade thru if you want a good gun. Maybe not strictly the 1911's fault, but its still an issue to be dealt with.
As a side note, I have a Kimber that went to the same smith ED L. spoke of. My gun has run like a scolded coyote, with little if any issues. How come he did a good job on mine and not Ed's? Who knows, I bet it has more to do with the individual gun, and components, then the smith, though.

When your 1911 shits the bed, and it will, you need to fit the individual parts. I've seen a 1911 trap a magazine, because the leaf spring was not fitted. Grip screws and bushing,(10 parts just for the grips), etc. Whether or not you as an individual can do it, or you need to send it out, it is still a requirement.
When your Glock shits the bed, and it will, there's a certified armorer, with a box of 10 dollar OEM parts on every corner. And many of them will do the work free to cheap. I had a friends gen 2 G19 "rebuilt" and factory night sights added, for free by the local police supply shop.


On the which ever you shoot best argument.
That needs to be tempered against reality and mission.
How much better do you shoot it? enough to off set the price, time and energy? or put up with its other idiosyncrasies? Enough to offset its low capacity, weight, etc.
I can shoot a ruger mkII really well, but I ain't carrying it into the facility. I know, an over the top analogy, but it makes the point.
And, I've said this before, but many people who insist they shoot their 1911's better, really mean, they shoot less bad with a 1911.

Why did I put my 1911's in the drawer with my Seiko watch and Ray-Ban's?

Because I could not ignore the recommendations of guys that used the gun far more, and for real, then all the Internet know it all's, who's adoration for the gun is beyond reasonable.
Because, with the intro of the M&P, particularly the .40, I can have a gun, that is somewhat smaller, lighter, has a built in rail, double the mag capacity, simpler take down, simpler maintenance and support, much lower price, and with a bit of practice, is just as "shootable" as most 1911's.

1911's have some good points, shootability and modularity/adaptability being the big ones.
If you choose to stick with the 1911, or go Glock or M&P, you'll be in good company whichever you choose.

Bob

ZDL
07-03-09, 15:53
1911s and glocks (9mm) is all I own now other than my issued sig.

Don't know enough about the 1911 yet to carry it on duty but, I'm working on that.

Ed L.
07-03-09, 16:40
Years ago I had a Colt Combat Govt and Lt Officers ACP that were not reliable despite lots of gunsmithing. The Colt Combat Govt also broke a factory slidestop and ejector within about 200 rounds of each other--both within the first 2000 rounds fired through the gun. The Officer's ACP--well, that was a non-5 inch gun and light weight so I can't blame 1911s on that.

More recently I bought a Kimber Warrior, just to have one 1911. I discovered that I shot better with that handgun than I did with any of my others including Glock 19, Sig P228, H&K USP40 & P7M8 when it came to shooting plates and making headshots at a silhouettte at 25 yards.

However, the gun was not reliable from the factory, not reliable after 500 rounds, and not reliable with a variety of mags (CMC powermags, Wilson 7 rounders). It had numerous failures to feed and the slide often locked back when I still had rounds in the magazine. So I sent it off to a gunsmith who came highly recommended and was a member of the gunsmith's guild for .45s. The gun came back no better than it was. It went back to him and that corrected the problem with the slide locking back with rounds in the mag, but it still had feeding problems. A trip to another gunsmith got it feeding much better, but still with an occasional feeding problem. Larry Vickers adjusted the extractor and declared that I had had some real assclowns working on that gun. Even afterwards the gun did some wierd thingss like the slide closing without feeding a round and another time it pulled an empty case back into the magazine. The ambisafety once loosened inside the gun so that it was stuck in safe. That gun went Bye-bye.

Before I dumped that gun I bought a used Springfield Professional. To get 99.9% reliability out of that gun I went to CMC 8 round powermags and trip super 7 springs & followers. I also bought another high grade 1911 from the Springfield Custom shop that had to be sent back to work close to 100%. Strangely after it came back a left-handed friend fired the gun he was experiencing failures to feed and the slide locking back with rounds still in the mag. Luckily it worked 100% for me for the 500 or so rounds I fired after tit came back.

Right now I am heading off to see the movie Public Enemies, a Michael Mann film about Dillinger and bad guys in the 1930s with lots of good Tommy Gun, BAR, and 1911 footage--which will probably get me thinking better things about the 1911.

I don't hate the platform. I shoot better with it than anything else. But to be fair, I have to wonder about the cost vs. benefit, and hesitate to recommend it to people without pointing out the drawbacks and costs.

R Moran
07-03-09, 16:51
I just watched "Road to Perdition" with Tom Hanks the other day on TV.

Much better movie then I had recalled. And of course I thought how the 1911 and the 1928 Thompson was the shit back then,.... back then.

Of course, I'm sure a lot of revolver shooters looked at the 1911, in 1931, the way a lot 1911 shooters look at the Glock today.

Look for the scene when he asks the "messenger" to deliver a message:D

And when he systematically kills all the bad guys from down the street with the' 28, awesome.

Bob

dobe
07-03-09, 17:34
I've got 9 1911's. They range from Norinco to Ed Brown, and include a Colt XSE. I've put 1000's of rounds through these 1911's without problems. I'm curious. I keep reading about the high maintenance of the 1911. I change recoil springs, firing pin springs, and extractors as needed. I don't consider this high maintenance. What other maintenance do any of you perform?

flyboy1788
07-03-09, 17:43
There's too many romantics here.

The 1911 is dreamy and seductive. But just like a crazy bitch, it'll cost you over the long haul.

but...but...they're so sexy, I cant say no them :D <<1911s that is:cool:.

mattpittinger
07-03-09, 17:53
While 1911s and Glocks are arguing, M&Ps are training.

I kinda like that

FromMyColdDeadHand
07-03-09, 18:05
ToddG-


You having worked for handgun manufacturers, including SIG who makes two different SAO guns systems, why is it so hard to take the reliability of a Glock and wrap 1911 ergonomics and operation around it?

What is at the heart of a 1911s trigger, which to me is the main reason I like the platform. Is it the trigger bow and sear set-up? Do the trigger safeties on Glocks and M&Ps eliminate that set-up?

Thanks

ToddG
07-03-09, 19:08
You having worked for handgun manufacturers, including SIG who makes two different SAO guns systems, why is it so hard to take the reliability of a Glock and wrap 1911 ergonomics and operation around it?

If anyone was going to get a factory 1911 to run right 100% every gun, it would have been SIG. The company spent $1M and even brought in an outside engineering firm to get it working. In the end, it just ... wasn't ... possible. The production cost went up because more hand fitting was necessary than anyone expected.

But the reality -- and 1911 aficionados can correct me if I'm wrong -- is that the main problem with 1911s is 1911 aficionados.

What, exactly, is a 1911?

To some, it's a bullseye gun.
To some, it's a combat weapon.
So to some it needs to be incredibly accurate, to others it needs to be incredibly reliable under harsh conditions.

To some, it has a fantastic glass-rod-breaking trigger.
To some, it can handle being mistreated, abused, and left to sit for years without any TLC.

To some it should be 100% out of the box.
To some, it's a personalized, customized weapon that they want to send off to a 'smith before they use it.

Etc.

Too many people want too many different things from the 1911. And when the kool aid drinkers sit around talking about how great the 1911 is, they pretend every gun has every feature. Every gun is bullseye accurate and mud-proof simultaneously. Every gun has a 3.5# crisp trigger but can go twelve rounds with Mike Tyson. And every gun needs to be compatible with every part made by every company. It's insane.

So when a company comes along and says, "Well, I think we better change the extractor design because the traditional 1911 extractor doesn't work so good," the Army of JMB rises up and calls it an abomination. Take out the grip safety? Good God man, don't you know that fifty different people need fifty different grip safety designs, sizes, shapes, contours, etc. in order to shoot the gun well?

It's just not possible.

Could a company make a gun that met the old military specification for durability and reliability? Absolutely. That gun would be very unpopular.

Could a company start from scratch and design a gun with very tight tolerances for all parts that worked as well as other modern designs? Probably, at least for the most part. That gun would be very unpopular.

But a 1911 that probably works decently enough for the casual shooter and has all the glory and history of the M1911A1, the room to grow in the hands of a 'smith, and an army of fans behind it ... that gun sells like crazy.

It's often forgotten that the 1911, as a design, was on its way out the door by the early 90's. Even in competition circles it was losing ground to new contenders. The Assault Weapon Ban did as much for the 1911 market as it did for the AR market.

Part of the appeal of the 1911 is the very thing which keeps it from being on par with modern designs in terms of durability (especially of small parts) and reliability. Not that you could convince a 1911 aficionado of anything I wrote in this post. :cool:

R Moran
07-03-09, 19:40
But the reality -- and 1911 aficionados can correct me if I'm wrong -- is that the main problem with 1911s is 1911 aficionados.



as a good friend says....there's 1911 guys and there's "1911 guys".

same thing is happening with Glocks...



Could a company make a gun that met the old military specification for durability and reliability? Absolutely. That gun would be very unpopular.

I'll hear for this, but I don't think those specs were terribly hard. The gun was a marvel when it went 6000 rounds w/o issue. Didn't the FBI require theirs to go like 20,000 w/o problems?




Some "1911 aficionado's", are just one because it carries some sort of elitism with it. Strangely, some Glock guys are Glock guys, because it carries some sort of reverse elitism with it.:rolleyes:

Bob

John_Wayne777
07-03-09, 20:02
It's rare to find 1911 owners who have a deep understanding of the design and how it works. I was just speaking with a gentleman today who didn't know what a stovepipe malfunction was, yet he proclaimed his Charles Daly 1911 the best gun he's ever had.

I saw 4 big issues with the gun just looking at it, including a feed ramp angle that was way too steep.

...and he caries it for defense. Not on him, mind you, under the seat of his car. With an empty chamber.

He's representative of a lot of 1911 owners out there.

DacoRoman
07-03-09, 20:31
ToddG-


You having worked for handgun manufacturers, including SIG who makes two different SAO guns systems, why is it so hard to take the reliability of a Glock and wrap 1911 ergonomics and operation around it?

What is at the heart of a 1911s trigger, which to me is the main reason I like the platform. Is it the trigger bow and sear set-up? Do the trigger safeties on Glocks and M&Ps eliminate that set-up?

Thanks

Well, I know that this will stir up great controversy, but Wilson Combat seemingly has created this "perfect" pistol that you are referring to with its new Spec Op Pistol or whatever that dumb name they chose happens to be. The idea behind the pistol seems to be a shot at perfection as far as I'm concerned:

- 1911 ergonomics
- 1911 trigger/safety
but with
- a polymer frame with stainless steel chasis
- a ramped barrel with a Browning short recoil tilting barrel action used by all of the modern pistols
- 15 round 9mm double stack magazine

Other than the ridiculously high price and lame name, to me this seems like a perfect amalgamation of features in a pistol. What am I missing here?

Dunderway
07-03-09, 20:36
Not that you could convince a 1911 aficionado of anything I wrote in this post. :cool:

I agree with your post completely. The 1911 has just strayed too far from it's original design, and it can't do it all in one package.

All I ask of a 1911 is that it is reliable, has a good trigger break between 4-5lbs., and will consistently shoot within 3-4" @ 25yds. I am always happy.

I carry a basic Gunsite type pistol (trigger job, dehorn, tall sights) and most 1911 guys think I am antiquated or useless. I can build my ideal pistol for about $700. All I really like is the handling, trigger, caliber, and thumb safety. I am not married to the design, and would like to start exploring newer options some time just out of curiosity.

The biggest problem with 1911s is that newbs have been trained to dismiss a basic S70 which is dead reliable, but then get a $3000 super gun which is way beyond what the original dsign called for and wonder why it chokes.

If you want a 1911 for defense, buy a basic gun from SA or Colt, perform the basic Jeff Cooper mods and I think you will be happy. Or just buy a new Glock and avoid all of this old shit.

IrishDevil
07-03-09, 20:37
But the reality -- and 1911 aficionados can correct me if I'm wrong -- is that the main problem with 1911s is 1911 aficionados.


Todd, you're 100% correct. I was almost crucified after saying this at a local USPSA match awhile back. It didn't help that I had an HK45 in my holster. One guy told me to ditch the "Nazi" gun and buy a 1911.

R Moran
07-03-09, 21:10
I agree with your post completely. The 1911 has just strayed too far from it's original design, and it can't do it all in one package.

All I ask of a 1911 is that it is reliable, has a good trigger break between 4-5lbs., and will consistently shoot within 3-4" @ 25yds. I am always happy.

I carry a basic Gunsite type pistol (trigger job, dehorn, tall sights) and most 1911 guys think I am antiquated or useless. I can build my ideal pistol for about $700. All I really like is the handling, trigger, caliber, and thumb safety. I am not married to the design, and would like to start exploring newer options some time just out of curiosity.

The biggest problem with 1911s is that newbs have been trained to dismiss a basic S70 which is dead reliable, but then get a $3000 super gun which is way beyond what the original dsign called for and wonder why it chokes.

If you want a 1911 for defense, buy a basic gun from SA or Colt, perform the basic Jeff Cooper mods and I think you will be happy. Or just buy a new Glock and avoid all of this old shit.

I used to see alot of this kinda stuff on that 1911 centric forum. I don't anymore, not because it has subsided, I just don't go there anymore.

Most of the stuff that goes beyond what Jeff Cooper wanted has little to do with reliability, and has no effect on it.
Much of the money put into a $3000 dollar 1911, is for the hand labor going into it. Granted much of it is on stuff that is border line or straight up asethetcs. Hand checkering, straightening of lines, no seam bevertail fits, etc.

Many of the basic S70's were not dead reliable. Many of the basic guns lack quality parts, fitting and manufacturing steps. These may not be an issue early on, but over time may cause problems.
Its got nothing to do with features, and everything to do with build quality.

Bob

dobe
07-03-09, 21:15
The Assault Weapon Ban did as much for the 1911 market as it did for the AR market.
Actually, competitive shooting did more for the 1911 than anything else. From Bullseye to IPSC, the 1911 did very well.

The problem with the 1911 is not just the 1911 afficionodos. It's the flexibility of the platform. You can have a tack driver, or a fighting gun. The problem as mentioned above, is that it is hard to have both, and still keep it reliable. Aother problem is that the 1911 is simply manufactured by so many different companies, that the mere definition of a 1911 has been skewed. Is the EMP a 1911? Most people on a forum would say it is. How about those other compact and sub compact 1911's? It seems that everything with a trigger bow and a swinging link is a 1911.

There are still some very good out-of-the box 1911's that are very reliable. Colt's quality is back. I bought an XSE 4 weeks ago. The next week, I picked up a P30. I shoot both every weekend, and clean them very litte. The XSE has been flawless. The P30 (while a great handgun) doesn't seem to cycle well with some brands of ammo. Dan Wesson is another. In my humble opinion, they are as good as Colt. I hope they keep up their standars.

I'm not married to any one platform. One of my favorite carry guns is still the P7M8. It's hard to beat for a CCW.

Dunderway
07-03-09, 21:45
I used to see alot of this kinda stuff on that 1911 centric forum. I don't anymore, not because it has subsided, I just don't go there anymore.

Most of the stuff that goes beyond what Jeff Cooper wanted has little to do with reliability, and has no effect on it.
Much of the money put into a $3000 dollar 1911, is for the hand labor going into it. Granted much of it is on stuff that is border line or straight up asethetcs. Hand checkering, straightening of lines, no seam bevertail fits, etc.

Many of the basic S70's were not dead reliable. Many of the basic guns lack quality parts, fitting and manufacturing steps. These may not be an issue early on, but over time may cause problems.
Its got nothing to do with features, and everything to do with build quality.

Bob

Very true. But few manufacturers will step forward with a quality, while many will step forward boasting features. I don't need an ambi safety, beavertail, commander hammer, Novaks, checkering, etc. That is why a $700 gun without these features performs better than a $700 gun with them. I spend my money on quality, not flash.

ETA: I see it differently on 1911 forums than you have. Most consider a 1911 without a beavertail and Novaks as either a "retro" novlety gun, or as completely unservicable.

ZDL
07-03-09, 22:39
Todd,

In terms of reliability, ruggedness, and accuracy; could a 1911, custom or production, ever compete with the glock in the same areas simultaneously?

flyboy1788
07-03-09, 22:42
Well, I know that this will stir up great controversy, but Wilson Combat seemingly has created this "perfect" pistol that you are referring to with its new Spec Op Pistol or whatever that dumb name they chose happens to be. The idea behind the pistol seems to be a shot at perfection as far as I'm concerned:

- 1911 ergonomics
- 1911 trigger/safety
but with
- a polymer frame with stainless steel chasis
- a ramped barrel with a Browning short recoil tilting barrel action used by all of the modern pistols
- 15 round 9mm double stack magazine

Other than the ridiculously high price and lame name, to me this seems like a perfect amalgamation of features in a pistol. What am I missing here?

I agree with you, but I will not consider it until they change that completely stupid mall ninja name that it has.

R Moran
07-03-09, 22:45
Very true. But few manufacturers will step forward with a quality, while many will step forward boasting features. I don't need an ambi safety, beavertail, commander hammer, Novaks, checkering, etc. That is why a $700 gun without these features performs better than a $700 gun with them. I spend my money on quality, not flash.

ETA: I see it differently on 1911 forums than you have. Most consider a 1911 without a beavertail and Novaks as either a "retro" novlety gun, or as completely unservicable.

Agreed, I would rather have an old guy 1911, built properly, then a modrn gun built cheaply. I would rather have a modern style built properly, though. Hence 1500 dollar 1911's.

I don't see many $700 1911's that are built properly though. Most Colt 1991's are creeping up toward the 4 digit mark.
I believe, the SA mil-spec still come up short in afew area's.

We must visit different threads, as I constantly see deragatory remarks like 'tactikewl", do dads, ge gaws, etc. when refering to the items you mention. One of thereasons I gave up over there.
If you even suggest that, maybe, just maybe the 1911 has seen its day, you would think you had a wet dream about the virgin Mary.

Bob

ToddG
07-03-09, 22:54
In terms of reliability, ruggedness, and accuracy; could a 1911, custom or production, ever compete with the glock in the same areas simultaneously?

Comparing apples to apples (G21 to 1911), I'd say "yes" for accuracy & reliability, and "maybe" for ruggedness ... depending on how you defined the term. Throw in price, though, and the 1911 doesn't have a chance.

ZDL
07-03-09, 22:56
Comparing apples to apples (G21 to 1911), I'd say "yes" for accuracy & reliability, and "maybe" for ruggedness ... depending on how you defined the term. Throw in price, though, and the 1911 doesn't have a chance.

What apples to oranges ie: G17 v. 1911?

ToddG
07-03-09, 23:01
What apples to oranges ie: G17 v. 1911?

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c348/DraTuicichNovae/Grammar.jpg

ZDL
07-03-09, 23:12
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c348/DraTuicichNovae/Grammar.jpg

I'm slipping. I swear I typed the word "about".

Let's try again. What ABOUT apples to oranges? ie G17 v. 1911.

ToddG
07-03-09, 23:23
I doubt there is a 1911 on the planet, anywhere, at any price, that could go toe-to-toe with the G17 round after round in terms of reliability and durability. I'm far from a Glock cheerleader or kool aid sipper, but ... dude ... it's a G17. If yours doesn't work, consider it concrete evidence that God hates you.

ZDL
07-03-09, 23:29
I doubt there is a 1911 on the planet, anywhere, at any price, that could go toe-to-toe with the G17 round after round in terms of reliability and durability. I'm far from a Glock cheerleader or kool aid sipper, but ... dude ... it's a G17. If yours doesn't work, consider it concrete evidence that God hates you.

ahahaha. I have to pass that quote on to a buddy.

Matt Edwards
07-05-09, 17:50
Bob,

I'd like to use your "long" post here as a sticky over at another fourm, but I'm sure they wouldn't be happy about it.

That post should be requierd reading for anyone pondering weather or not to go with the "man gun."

Business_Casual
07-05-09, 19:41
So... did the dude that started this thread pick a pistol yet?

M_P

spr1
07-05-09, 20:14
I doubt there is a 1911 on the planet, anywhere, at any price, that could go toe-to-toe with the G17 round after round in terms of reliability and durability. I'm far from a Glock cheerleader or kool aid sipper, but ... dude ... it's a G17. If yours doesn't work, consider it concrete evidence that God hates you.

Now, that is funny as heck. And true.......

I switched from 1911's to a G17 in the late 80's and have never looked back. Now I love my 1911's, and will probably always keep a couple, but there is no comparison in any regard other than emotional ones.
A buddy was not sure he could switch and hated the way the G17 pointed for him, so he fondled a G19, liked it better, and for 10 years has not used anything else except for fun.
IMHO, switching from a 1911 to a Glock is a reasonably easy switch.

RetreatHell
07-05-09, 21:07
I say you should carry the one you are most accurate with and feel the most comfortable with, as long as it is reliable. Go ahead and buy a Glock model that you're interested in and shoot the shit out of it at the range. If and when you get as good as, or better, with the Glock as you are with your 1911s, then and only then do you seriously need to consider switching for good.

I am a firm believer that most people shoot really well with a particular handgun, and they are just "so-so" or "decent" with others. I personally shoot VERY well with my glock 19, 22 and 26. When I tried shooting both a Sig P228R and a Kimber 1911, I SUCKED horribly with both of them! I think it's just mainly because of the "extra space" on the left and right as I'm looking down the sights, as I'm so used to there being ZERO space (or air?) when I'm looking down the sights of my Glocks. Im sure I could get a lot better with the other two handguns if I had a desire to and with hundreds of dollars in ammo, but I'm more than satisfied with my Glocks... at least for now!:D

-Paul