View Full Version : Question about fighting 1911s
Does anyone build 1911s these days to original mil-spec? Reason I ask is that if someone wanted a CCW 1911 that would run day in, day out, wet, muddy, sandy, ect wouldn't the original spec be better than some of todays custom/semi-custom "tight fit" guns? I envision a "loose" 1911 with modern ergo updates like beaver-tail, grips, checkering, ect. I have a 1918 built 1911 that runs no matter what, can't say the same for some of the modern 1911s I have shot.
My perfect 1911 would be an original with a beavertail, SA magwell, and modern sights. Really, what else does JMB's design need to work as a fighting tool?
Gutshot John
03-17-10, 19:05
Does anyone build 1911s these days to original mil-spec? Reason I ask is that if someone wanted a CCW 1911 that would run day in, day out, wet, muddy, sandy, ect wouldn't the original spec be better than some of todays custom/semi-custom "tight fit" guns? I envision a "loose" 1911 with modern ergo updates like beaver-tail, grips, checkering, ect. I have a 1918 built 1911 that runs no matter what, can't say the same for some of the modern 1911s I have shot.
My perfect 1911 would be an original with a beavertail, SA magwell, and modern sights. Really, what else does JMB's design need to work as a fighting tool?
My thoughts would be that "original mil-spec" is not as good as some custom or semi-custom 1911s. I think the original spec was something on the order of about 8K rounds before service/rebuild. More modern pistols like a Glock well exceed that number.
Modern parts, experienced gunsmith or a high-end 1911 will get you closer to what you've described than the original.
One way or the other you're looking at ~$2k.
Does anyone build 1911s these days to original mil-spec? Reason I ask is that if someone wanted a CCW 1911 that would run day in, day out, wet, muddy, sandy, ect wouldn't the original spec be better than some of todays custom/semi-custom "tight fit" guns? I envision a "loose" 1911 with modern ergo updates like beaver-tail, grips, checkering, ect. I have a 1918 built 1911 that runs no matter what, can't say the same for some of the modern 1911s I have shot.
My perfect 1911 would be an original with a beavertail, SA magwell, and modern sights. Really, what else does JMB's design need to work as a fighting tool?
Find a nice S80 Repro with the 'slop' fit you are after, or elect to build on your trusty 1918, and give Steve at MARS a call. http://marsguns.com/Home.htm
He may, or may not build one to your 'specs' however. Either way, it will run.
Thank you guys for your thoughts. I will admit that I have not shot any truly custom guns(NH, Wilson, ect.), but the modern ones I have played with just could not hang with my old standby. Everyone of them had something that was not up to (my)snuff when it comes to betting my life on it. Maybe I have had extremely bad luck with new ones and extremely good luck with my old one. FWIW, I am about to buy a Glock 19 until I find that perfect(for me) 1911 which may or may not exist.
I won't bash Glocks I love them although they don't fit my hand, Don't have any experience with M&P, etc.........but why must most here bash 1911's.
I've carried some form of 1911 pattern pistol on 3 continents in harms way and never felt anything but comfort on those occassions it was called for.
Problem is NOT the 1911 but the user IMHO. Yes they take maintenance, they require understanding, etc. They require EFFORT.....something lacking in most today.
Too many of the "now generation " who carry a gun, can't detail strip it, don't really know how it works, and want to maintain it like their lawnmower. Just like they don't check their cars oil belween changes.......
As to looseness any reputable smith will tell you that a loose 1911 is less reliable than one that has been worked over. the key to reliability is to have every aspect of that pistols function do everything the same each time it is fired.
Not tryin to start a whizzin contest just stop the bashing.
I will agree a semi custom 1911 is now out of most folks budget. as is the cost of 45 ammo.
You can still find like new Wilson CQB's for around $1700 .
DocHolliday01
03-17-10, 20:24
Thank you guys for your thoughts. I will admit that I have not shot any truly custom guns(NH, Wilson, ect.), but the modern ones I have played with just could not hang with my old standby. Everyone of them had something that was not up to (my)snuff when it comes to betting my life on it. Maybe I have had extremely bad luck with new ones and extremely good luck with my old one. FWIW, I am about to buy a Glock 19 until I find that perfect(for me) 1911 which may or may not exist.
I just ordered a Nighthawk GRP Recon. I just ordered it last week so it is still probably 7-8 weeks out but I will let you know hot it works out. Until then I have my 19.
My TRP (see avatarn) has run 100% to the 3k round mark with two cleanings, the first at 1200 rds. It's Glock-like in pure reliabiliity but way more accurate.
However, my last local "action pistol" match cured me of 1911's for serious stuff. We had failure to stop targets that required 5 hits interspersed. I was reloading constantly. LOL
Give me a high cap to shoot high chest area.
So what parts exactly need all the maintenance on a 1911?
Thanks
JiMfraRED1911
03-17-10, 20:58
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=32267
DocHolliday01
03-17-10, 21:03
So what parts exactly need all the maintenance on a 1911?
Thanks
I believe its mostly springs that wear out rather quickly. I think recoil springs are around the 2500 mark on a Gov't size around 1500 for the 4-4.25in guns and about 500 for the 3in guns. The main problem I see lies in the fact that if a part breaks it requires fitting to be replaced and work properly as opposed to say a Glock or M&P that you can just drop the part in and go back to shooting. Not to mention the longer take down process of a 1911.
John_Wayne777
03-17-10, 21:08
Does anyone build 1911s these days to original mil-spec? Reason I ask is that if someone wanted a CCW 1911 that would run day in, day out, wet, muddy, sandy, ect wouldn't the original spec be better than some of todays custom/semi-custom "tight fit" guns? I envision a "loose" 1911 with modern ergo updates like beaver-tail, grips, checkering, ect. I have a 1918 built 1911 that runs no matter what, can't say the same for some of the modern 1911s I have shot.
My perfect 1911 would be an original with a beavertail, SA magwell, and modern sights. Really, what else does JMB's design need to work as a fighting tool?
Before you contemplate spending any serious money on a 1911, go to the Vickers 1911 course. Watch what happens in the class. Take notes on what Mr. Vickers has to say about the platform.
Then once you know what you need to know about the 1911 from that class, make a decision about the 1911.
http://www.10-8performance.com/1911_Duty_Use.html. A Great article on the 1911 platform, speaks very highly of the Springfield Operator.
I've stopped dumping money into the never-ending quest to have a "fighting" 1911. Instead I've simply decided to go with a modern system to meet my "fighting" 45 needs.
Yeah I'll have to agree. My M&P runs like a scalded dog and my 1911s ... maybe, maybe not.
GhostB14--NH, Wilson, etc... are NOT true custom pistols, they are semi-custom production pistols. True custom pistols are those done by folks like Chuck Rogers: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=48880.
While a properly customized 5" steel-frame single-stack 1911 in .45 ACP is a superb, unparalleled choice for the dedicated user willing to spend a significant amount of money to get it properly initially set-up and considerable time to maintain it, these days, if I already didn’t have several 1911’s that were as reliable as my 9 mm Glocks, along with extensive accessories for 1911’s, I would just use an S&W M&P instead. Keep in mind with 1911 pistols that calibers other than .45 ACP and barrels shorter than 5" induce increasingly greater problems. I personally will not use any 1911 with a Schwartz firing pin safety (like on the Kimber II pistols) as I have seen high numbers of them fail; the Colt Series 80 firing pin safety is the only one I might trust for urban LE use, but they have also been known to fail in harsh environments (particularly surf zone and high dust) so I generally prefer a standard USG style 1911 pistol w/o firing pin safety. However, I personally would not choose to carry most stock or even semi-custom 1911's on duty or for CCW without making sure they were set-up properly with reliable function, durable parts, and ergonomic execution. I firmly believe that if you want a 1911 for serious use, the minimum level of quality for a duty/carry weapon is the SA Pro model (either PC9111 or PC9111LR if you want a light rail); if you’re not willing to invest that much into the weapon system, don't get a 1911... I write this after being around quite a few 1911's over the past two decades of military and LE duty, including GI, commercial Colt, SA (Milspec, Loaded, MC Oper, Professional models), Wilson, Kimber, Nighthawk, Les Baer, and Para Ord, as well as custom pistols by folks like Bill Laughridge, Wayne Novak/Joe Bonar, Ed Brown, John Jardine, Hilton Yam, Larry Vickers, and Chuck Rogers. I'd strongly recommend anyone contemplating a 1911 for serious use read all of the material on 1911's here: http://www.10-8performance.com/Articles.html. For folks who want a .45 ACP pistol, but don't want to invest the funds and effort into getting a good 1911, they would be better served with the S&W M&P45 or HK45
Interesting, I though you just replaced the part. Does anyone know what military armorers did during it's time as the standard firearm?
Did they have to hand fit all those parts being replaced.
I ran just shy of 20K rounds through one of my Springfields last year, which for the gun-game crowd isn't a lot, but not a single part broke - oddly.
Must have been a complete fluke from what I've been reading, they are supposed to be so unreliable and break fairly often :( I ran another 2,000 through it last week for the "2,000 round challenge" posted elsewhere on this site. It stopped when I ran out of ammo.
Then again, both of my Glock 30SF's wouldn't return to battery due to a faulty run of trigger bars that Glock didn't want to admit to. That must have been a fluke as well because those modern guns run no matter what.
DocHolliday01
03-17-10, 22:40
I ran just shy of 20K rounds through one of my Springfields last year, which for the gun-game crowd isn't a lot, but not a single part broke - oddly.
Must have been a complete fluke from what I've been reading, they are supposed to be so unreliable and break fairly often :( I ran another 2,000 through it last week for the "2,000 round challenge" posted elsewhere on this site. It stopped when I ran out of ammo.
Then again, both of my Glock 30SF's wouldn't return to battery due to a faulty run of trigger bars that Glock didn't want to admit to. That must have been a fluke as well because those modern guns run no matter what.
You did this without replacement of springs or other parts?
"1911, 45?...old gun" :rolleyes:
"Served my country well, long time" :D
Jason Burton
03-18-10, 00:19
A Glock, HK, S&W is a tool... the 1911 is a lifestyle.
Kinda’ a neat way to put it... I may have to borrow it. :)
To the point of the original question... loose no more means reliable than tight means unreliable. In the end the only thing that matters is that the gun is configured and built correctly. There is often much confusion between a gun that is fit right and one that is fit tight but with some care and skill both are quite achievable in the 1911 platform. Parts choices and their application are important but even more so is the correct fitting of every part and this begins at the frame and slide and transcends the entire gun. You can easily have a 1911 that exhibits an extraordinary fit while still being completely reliable but the standard of work it takes to get there is different than what other platforms require.
Simply put, the 1911 is just different than anything else out there and as such it requires an array of different stuff. But admittedly I’m still a romantic who has yet to learn. ;)
My first, and only, handgun is a Springfield Mil Spec. It's been as reliable as I could ask of a handgun, but I've learned a couple lessons since I first started carrying it. First is that 8 + 1 rounds means a lot less margin for error on my part; cover may be more than 8 rounds away, or I might simply have to shoot more to stop the threat(s). Second is that shooting one-handed and/or off-handed is not very easy with a full-sized steel gun. As much as I love shooting my 1911, my next handgun will be a Glock or M&P.
I just wish someone could put a 1911 trigger into a modern polymer-framed handgun. Or, thinking more ambitiously, just make that polymer-framed, fully-ambidextrous, slide-release-within-easy-reach, 10+ capacity 1911 ("2011", name-infringement be damned) for under a grand that we all know can be done.
Yeah, a guy can dream.
-B
seems like a lot of trade offs for a cool looking gun with a nice trigger...
Business_Casual
03-18-10, 07:52
My first, and only, handgun is a Springfield Mil Spec. It's been as reliable as I could ask of a handgun, but I've learned a couple lessons since I first started carrying it. First is that 8 + 1 rounds means a lot less margin for error on my part; cover may be more than 8 rounds away, or I might simply have to shoot more to stop the threat(s). Second is that shooting one-handed and/or off-handed is not very easy with a full-sized steel gun. As much as I love shooting my 1911, my next handgun will be a Glock or M&P.
I just wish someone could put a 1911 trigger into a modern polymer-framed handgun. Or, thinking more ambitiously, just make that polymer-framed, fully-ambidextrous, slide-release-within-easy-reach, 10+ capacity 1911 ("2011", name-infringement be damned) for under a grand that we all know can be done.
Yeah, a guy can dream.
-B
Have you tried the M&P 45 with a Burwell trigger job?
Try it, if you can. Perhaps someone on the forum can let you shoot one.
M_P
RogerinTPA
03-18-10, 09:13
My first, and only, handgun is a Springfield Mil Spec. It's been as reliable as I could ask of a handgun, but I've learned a couple lessons since I first started carrying it. First is that 8 + 1 rounds means a lot less margin for error on my part; cover may be more than 8 rounds away, or I might simply have to shoot more to stop the threat(s). Second is that shooting one-handed and/or off-handed is not very easy with a full-sized steel gun. As much as I love shooting my 1911, my next handgun will be a Glock or M&P.
I just wish someone could put a 1911 trigger into a modern polymer-framed handgun. Or, thinking more ambitiously, just make that polymer-framed, fully-ambidextrous, slide-release-within-easy-reach, 10+ capacity 1911 ("2011", name-infringement be damned) for under a grand that we all know can be done.
Yeah, a guy can dream.
-B
Try the M&P45 BAC, I think you'll like it. I like the stock trigger and it shoots very accurately, but waiting for the Apex 45 sear. I am totally sold on those sears with my other M&Ps. I have the full size, but recommend the mid-size with the 10 round mag as the full size. If you'd like to take mine for a spin, PM me and let me know.
I just wish someone could put a 1911 trigger into a modern polymer-framed handgun. Or, thinking more ambitiously, just make that polymer-framed, fully-ambidextrous, slide-release-within-easy-reach, 10+ capacity 1911 ("2011", name-infringement be damned) for under a grand that we all know can be done.
Yeah, a guy can dream.
-B
S&W M&P45 w/ manual safety and a Bowie Tactical Concepts LX trigger. (VERY close to 1911 trigger pull IMO)
Belmont31R
03-18-10, 10:47
I, too, have given up on 1911's. I've owned some very nice ones, and none of them have been reliable as either my USP 45C or my wife's G19.
Had one Kimber that couldn't get through a single mag without a failure, 2 TRP's that choked a lot in the first 500 rounds. One of them became quite reliable for the next couple thousand rounds, and one the ambi safety broke, a Nighthawk that had a couple failures in around 1k rounds, and a Springfield Pro that would start chocking after 500 rounds until it was cleaned again. I had a Series 70 Colt where the plunger on the left side popped off the gun on the 3rd round I fired through it. A Sig 1911 that would barely run....
My HK USP 45C has seen over 7k rounds without a single malfunction. Ive owned two USP 45 Tactical's in which both saw over 3k each, and one of them had a bad magazine that caused failures. Other than that they ran perfectly. My wife's G19 has seen many thousands without a failure. Ive got 2 Sig's that have never malfunctioned. A 229R and 220.
I really wish the 1911 was a more reliable platform as I love the feel, and I shoot very good with them. After spending many thousands on guns, and ammo shooting them I just think I'm better off with a different platform. I don't really like factory Glock grip angles, and recently picked up a SW MP 45. So far its ok.
Another thing about the 1911 is being a single stack system you are carrying a relatively heavy large with the same magazine capacity as a compact "modern" gun. My 45C has the same mag capacity for instance. They are expensive for anything but an off the shelf base gun which is probably going to be poorly fit with just parts put together where the tolerances work for that individual gun.
A Glock, HK, S&W is a Honda ...... the 1911 is a Harley:)
A Glock, HK, S&W is a Honda ...... the 1911 is a Harley:)
that's cool, but if you really really gotta get to work in 20 minutes, you're probably gonna hop on the honda. (assuming we're talking old harleys, as the new ones are very reliable)
I've stopped dumping money into the never-ending quest to have a "fighting" 1911. Instead I've simply decided to go with a modern system to meet my "fighting" 45 needs.
I dont view it as bashing as much as it having a moment of clarity. Why would I want to dump an excessive amount of money into a gun that has limited capacity and is much more maintainence intensive than modern offerings? I can easily spend the $2k+ it takes to get a "good" 1911 nowadays and buy a modern gun, ammo, and attend a class (or two). It simply doesnt make sense to me. And I say that as the owner of 3 reworked 1911s.
Exactly. I have a soft spot for 1911's but, prices have been way out of control. If I were to go back to a .45 ACP, without hesitation it would be an M&P.
It always the low post count guys that shoot 20k plus rounds a year/ 2k rounds a week with no issue. :rolleyes:
Be nice. Not everyone with a low post count is a novice; just as not everyone with a high post count is an expert.
Interesting, I though you just replaced the part. Does anyone know what military armorers did during it's time as the standard firearm?
Did they have to hand fit all those parts being replaced.
Armorers replaced mil-spec parts with mil-spec parts.
Kinda’ a neat way to put it... I may have to borrow it. :)
To the point of the original question... loose no more means reliable than tight means unreliable. In the end the only thing that matters is that the gun is configured and built correctly. There is often much confusion between a gun that is fit right and one that is fit tight but with some care and skill both are quite achievable in the 1911 platform. Parts choices and their application are important but even more so is the correct fitting of every part and this begins at the frame and slide and transcends the entire gun. You can easily have a 1911 that exhibits an extraordinary fit while still being completely reliable but the standard of work it takes to get there is different than what other platforms require.
Simply put, the 1911 is just different than anything else out there and as such it requires an array of different stuff. But admittedly I’m still a romantic who has yet to learn. ;)
I concur. Having attended LAV's 1911 Operators class, I took away that he is of the same opinion. The problem, if one would call it that, with todays 1911's, is a part fitment issue. You have so many different part mfg's who are building 1911 parts. While different mfg.'s parts may appear to be dimensionally equal to the naked eye, more times than not, they aren't. Taking into account that there are quite a few parts inside the 1911 and if a few of those parts are "off" by a hair here or there, the gun isn't going to run. That is why only a truly qualified 1911 gunsmith can work their "magic".
If folks do not have the time or money to go that route then go semi-custom. I have an Ed Brown SF model that runs like a sewing machine. Hasn't hiccuped once in over 5k rounds. I attribute that to the fact that all of Ed Browns parts are made in-house on CNC machines to precise specs. Then hand fitted. If Ed Brown is your flavor, then Wilson Combat or Nighthawk.
There's a reason why people still use 1911's when the design is a century old. How many other firearms can hold that claim? The bottom line is if they are built by the right person, they will run. If they are shoddily slapped together, they wont. Do not fear the 1911. Do your research and purchase wisely. You will not be sorry.
What I think is fascinating is that we can actually have this debate 100 + years after the initial design.
Seriously. Does anyone ever advocate using a '27 Thompson in place of a more modern weapon? I haven't seen it. Not even considered I would think.
I admit to an affinity for the platform, but I'd add that I have more realistic expectations of it. If I actually had to use the extra durabiltiy and less maintainence afforded by a more modern design, that would mean that I'm fighting primarily with my sidearm, and that would mean that I'm probably going to die quickly.
My take, meaningless as it is: There are better options for large groups or individuals looking for the lowest cost, lowest maintainence weapons availible. But for those willing to take the time and spend the money, there is nothing like them. Like has been said, it really is a lifestyle.
NCPatrolAR
03-18-10, 12:28
Be nice. Not everyone with a low post count is a novice; just as not everyone with a high post count is an expert.
Oh trust me; I was being nice. :p
Misc Ex-Member
03-18-10, 12:32
"The 1911 is an enthusiast's gun." - LAV
"The 1911 is the ultimate close quarters combat weapon, and king of the feedway stoppage." - Ken Hackathorn
Business_Casual
03-18-10, 12:38
But for those willing to take the time and spend the money, there is nothing like them.
That may or may not be true, but how many Internet dopes (us) can even score a 600 on the Humbler with one cold, let alone break 650? Until you are pushing a 690+ score regularly, do you really need a 1911's trigger and accuracy? Plenty of dudes that post here with colored titles score higher than 650 with Glock 17s.
And is that trigger a crutch for those shooting sub-600 scores?
M_P
John_Wayne777
03-18-10, 12:52
There's a reason why people still use 1911's when the design is a century old. How many other firearms can hold that claim?
The reason why people still use them is because they are the easiest centerfire handgun to shoot under stress thanks to that cheater trigger.
The bottom line is if they are built by the right person, they will run. If they are shoddily slapped together, they wont.
I would modify that somewhat. IF you buy one built by the right person and maintain it, it will run. Eventually you're going to need to replace springs and retension the extractor, perhaps deal with a little peening here or there with a file, etc.
Also, do not underestimate the burden of finding one made by the right person. I haven't seen every 1911 maker out there but I've seen a bunch of them and so far out of the 1911's I've personally witnessed the only maker that I've seen zero problems from is with a couple of guns built by....Larry Vickers. With every other brand/maker I've seen (and I freely admit that I haven't seen them all) I can point to specimens that had issues.
Then it's a question of whether or not the company/maker will stand behind the product to make issues right. Unfortunately in the 1911 world that's also a huge problem. Horror stories abound of people who put X thousand dollars into a gun that doesn't work and that the maker/manufacturer can't/won't get to work.
That may or may not be true, but how many Internet dopes (us) can even score a 600 on the Humbler with one cold, let alone break 650? Until you are pushing a 690+ score regularly, do you really need a 1911's trigger and accuracy? Plenty of dudes that post here with colored titles score higher than 650 with Glock 17s.
And is that trigger a crutch for those shooting sub-600 scores?
M_P
Most 1911's will shoot better than the end user. But there's a whole lot of guns that are capable of shooting better than the person behind the trigger.
Yes, the trigger is a crutch in that it can make a bad shooter into a decent one. But I could say that the ease of maintainence and ability to run with less lube of the more modern designs is a crutch used by people who are lazy with maintainence. I'd be wrong in a lot of cases, but for an individual with the time and inclination to properly care for a 1911, a crutch is exactly what it is.
ETA: I very much enjoy the lack of maintainence afforded by my G17. :)
David Thomas
03-18-10, 13:36
Choosing a 1911 because one appreciates the history, design, or artistry that goes into building a truly top flight sample is fine. A 1911 has a character and a level of personalization that is unmatched with other handguns. Handle one of Jason's or LAV's guns and the number of hours spent painstakingly perfecting every angle and tuning every part is unmistakable.
But trying to justify the choice in practical terms is childish. If you're looking for a shootable, reliable, durable pistol the 1911 is an expensive, maintenance intensive option.
"I love 'em, I know how to use 'em, and I can afford 'em" is all you need to say. As soon as you start telling me that a 1911 instantly transforms you from a novice to an expert, you've lost all credibility.
Amen.
I could not have said that better myself... and I tried twice.
I am a dyed-in-the-wool 1911 fan. They are superb. IF... As many have stated you must have the right parts combo and have them fitted just so. Then you have to maintain it. If you can do all of that and learn to fit extractors, safeties, slide stops and trigger stops then NOTHING compares to it.
Most of us have not and won't.
I love the M&P9 and I adore the Glock 17. They can do much of what my semi-custom TRPs do. They don't FEEL as nice doing it but they do all except pile the bullets on top of each other at distance. That's as much me as anything else I'll readily admit.
For what 99% of us do: Carry Concealed - it's much more than adequate. For those who may cross the Hindu Kush they may prefer something else as they probably won't have an armorer trailing along just in case something goes awry. With the Glock and M&P models it's nothing to have a COMPLETE spare parts set with you (and it's only $150 or so and you can do the work yourself).
At the end of the day if I need to shoot something very fast or at distance I much prefer my 1911s as I hit better and quicker with them than anything else I have shot or own. That said, the difference between the shootability of the 1911 and, say, the Glock and M&P, is narrower than ever and as Apex Tactical (for the M&P)and other aftermarket firms make internal parts for them it will narrow further.
Here is a poll:
If you could have just one pistol and travel the US what would it be?
The 1911 would probably rank #1 for me based on MY pistols which I've run over 8,000 rounds through both (TRP and Les Baer TRS) with no malfunctions. The rounds consists of several classes and [the rest of the rounds were fast paced] shooting drills. [So I KNOW that 1911s can be reliable]. The Glock 17 Gen IV and S&W M&P9 would be inseparably very close second.
If you could have just one pistol and travel abroad what would it be?
Glock 17 or Glock 19. Period. Parts "fall off trees" and can be had for "pennies on the pound."
I think that about sums it up; in the continental US the 1911 and "plastic fantastic" are nearly equal; limit me access to parts and 'smithing and it's "platic fantastic".
It's been said (here, too) that with 1911s you pay to play and then you pay to maintain. It's true. I still carry mine as they've proven reliable but I won't (and don't) flinch, much less care, with a Glock or M&P, either.
I might as well join the chorus. I started with 1911's at the age of 17 in the Marine Corps. That was in 1977 which doesn't seem so long ago to me but will to others...
I saw it as the be all end all for a long time. I was issued 1911 for many years including the MEU (SOC) on so many deployments I would have to think about it to count them. I have also owned plenty of high dollar 1911's that were not reliable and required excessive maintenance and parts replacement. Now I enjoy cleaning and taking care my pistols so if its excessive maintenance to me then it probably is to a lot of other people.
I have used pistols and rifles in very arduous conditions for a long time and think I have a pretty realistic idea of what makes a reliable pistol. I have come around to the view that the 1911 has too many parts, too many points of failure, and the amount of maintenance, parts replacement, and effort is not worth it. So for awhile now I have shot .45 in Glock, M&P, HK, and a few others. In the last few years I am not even seeing the need for .45. I'm just fine with 9mm Corbon DPX or Gold Dots which I can shoot accurately and quickly. It was actually a bigger jump for me to switch from .45 to 9 than from 1911 to polymer. My carry pistol is a Glock 19 with Corbon DPX and I could not be happier with it.
I've posted at least a few times before here, that I shot almost entirely 1911's during the late 80's to early 2000's. Probably a couple dozen examples passed through my hands during the period, me trying different barrel and grip lengths, stainless versus steel versus alloy, etc.
Up until the last few though, they were all Colts that by modern standards had loose barrel-to-slide-to-frame fit, as well as creepy triggers and other "deficiencies". Those guns were as reliable though as any of the equal number of Glocks I have since owned. They worked clean, dirty, or very dirty, and with all kinds of ammo.
I think every one of the old Colts came with a less-than-desirable grip safety, which I replaced in every case with the superb (to me) Ed Brown beavertail. Other improvements included fitted Videki triggers, full-length guide rods, extended mag releases, various sights and grips, etc. I did all the work though and never hired a pistolsmith for anything. I also always kept the slide/frame/barrel arrangement just as it was.
Only toward the end, with one or two of the Springfields and/or Kimbers, did I start running into reliability problems. Ironic, since these had a lot tighter slides, crisp trigger pulls, and all the ergonomic goodies that I thought would make them "superior".
Aging hands, carpal tunnel, arthritis, etc. now has me shooting 9 mm only, which although I know you can get a 1911 chambered for, just seems wrong, so I have therefore parted with them for other platforms. Still miss the good old slab-sides though.
I was able to make more than a few sloppy-but-reliable 1911's very nice handling as well.
Some of my most reliable 1911's have been Les Baers which are very tight. It would take me about 1,000 rounds to break them in and several of them did that without a bobble. But they all had fit issues that had to be fixed out of the box such as loose thumb safeties and a few other things.
"The 1911 is an enthusiast's gun." - LAV
"The 1911 is the ultimate close quarters combat weapon, and king of the feedway stoppage." - Ken Hackathorn
So what weapons or actual fighting pistols do LAV and KH carry and use?
the majority of GI 1911's that built the designs reputation for reliability did NOT have the maintaining or spring replacement schedule we give our high end 1911's. Most of the reliability issues with the "modern" 1911 we create ourselves. Take a rattle trap feed everything always works 1911,then people want to fix it with bigger sights,magwells,ambi-safes, tighten it to shoot better etc. If it works leave it alone does not seem to be heard by 1911 users. We consistently try to get the 1911 to do things it was not designed to do. That it can often do these things does not mean it should. Of all the weapon systems out there none has been hurt more by fixing than the 1911
I think the GI 1911's reputation for reliability is a myth. It may have been reliable for the time, assuming low round counts, but it isn't for now and it never was with high round counts. Not to mention the excessive amount of work on the part of the user and armorers to keep them going. Thats based on many years of issued 1911's, and very high round counts in deployment workups. These 1911's that had close attention by armorers and they were not reliable by current standards. I do not think tight necessarily = unreliable. Plenty of Baer owners like myself have not found them to be unreliable compared to "loose" 1911's.
So what weapons or actual fighting pistols do LAV and KH carry and use?
At the last Vickers class I went to, Larry was using a borrowed 1911. However, he referred to the 1911 as an "affectionados" gun. I can't remember the term he used, but Glocks were for the professional/serious user or something along those lines. I don't believe M&Ps or HKs were mentioned, but that doesn't mean they weren't as my brain isn't as reliable as it once was.
I will tell you what KH recommends/uses after the April Grey Group class as that will be my first experience training under him (which I am very much looking forward to).
Stay safe
Great input guys, really appreciate it. I know that most(all?) of you have more real world knowledge as well as higher round and post counts. It means a lot to me that you have been willing to share on the subject. I guess It comes down to the fact that it seems I have been unlucky with the semi-customs(thanks for correcting me) and very lucky with my original. I don't plan on getting a dedicated carry 1911 until I get things sorted out. I am in the process of selling my XD45 so that I can pick up a Glock 19 this weekend. Who knows, maybe I'll never get a CCW 1911 if all goes right with the Glock.
Thank You
Patrick Scott
"I love 'em, I know how to use 'em, and I can afford 'em" is all you need to say.
This is the exact reason I use one.
That being said, I am changing over to the G17. I like the expanded capacity and the WAY softer shooting 9mm.
I don't believe M&Ps or HKs were mentioned, but that doesn't mean they weren't as my brain isn't as reliable as it once was.
At least three classes I've attended of his, he nominates the M&P45 and HK45 as very suitable 45acp successors to the 1911. At two of those classes, one a 1911 operator's course, he had both the HK45 and M&P45 on hand to demo fire to drive home his point.
John_Wayne777
03-18-10, 15:12
So what weapons or actual fighting pistols do LAV and KH carry and use?
Ken often carries a 1911. He also often carries an M&P, as that's his department's duty gun.
I've even heard a rumor that he may have a 9mm Glock somewhere in the mix.
I have no idea what Mr. Vickers carries on a daily basis, but in classes I've seen him use 1911's, Glocks, and H&K's.
At the last Vickers class I went to, Larry was using a borrowed 1911. However, he referred to the 1911 as an "affectionados" gun. I can't remember the term he used, but Glocks were for the professional/serious user or something along those lines. I don't believe M&Ps or HKs were mentioned, but that doesn't mean they weren't as my brain isn't as reliable as it once was.
I will tell you what KH recommends/uses after the April Grey Group class as that will be my first experience training under him (which I am very much looking forward to).
Stay safe
Okay, thanks.
Seriously. Does anyone ever advocate using a '27 Thompson in place of a more modern weapon? I haven't seen it. Not even considered I would think.
Well never say never... ;)
B
Well never say never... ;)
B
:D
I thought about you just as soon as I wrote that. I remembered reading JW_777's AAR on the M4C Vickers class. I'm quite sure I couldn't have taken mine to that class. Drum works great. Can't get through more than two consecutive stick mags before a stop, though. Still don't regret buying it. The most fun you can have with your clothes on if you ask me. :)
I have to agree with HK 45- the myth of 1911 reliability is the same as the myth of 45 's always knocking adversaries down. In my military experience the pistol (and to a great extent the rifle/carbine) is carried a lot and shot a little. many of the old 1911's and today's m9's look road hard and put away wet, but it is wear from daily carry in very harsh environments rather than shooting. Most of the so called shot out 1911's are that way from use in the old days with corrosive primed ammo and then inadequate care. On the other extreme the military so over cleans alot of weapons and this also results in significant wear.
The reason why people still use them is because they are the easiest centerfire handgun to shoot under stress thanks to that cheater trigger.
I would modify that somewhat. IF you buy one built by the right person and maintain it, it will run. Eventually you're going to need to replace springs and retension the extractor, perhaps deal with a little peening here or there with a file, etc.
Also, do not underestimate the burden of finding one made by the right person. I haven't seen every 1911 maker out there but I've seen a bunch of them and so far out of the 1911's I've personally witnessed the only maker that I've seen zero problems from is with a couple of guns built by....Larry Vickers. With every other brand/maker I've seen (and I freely admit that I haven't seen them all) I can point to specimens that had issues.
Then it's a question of whether or not the company/maker will stand behind the product to make issues right. Unfortunately in the 1911 world that's also a huge problem. Horror stories abound of people who put X thousand dollars into a gun that doesn't work and that the maker/manufacturer can't/won't get to work.
Again, I concur. If I was going to build a ground up 1911, I would only trust LAV or Heirloom Precision. Thats not a knock against anyone elses work. I have a buddy who I'm going with to KH's class this weekend that owns the proverbial 1911 horror story. Dumped thousands into a 1911 with a "top" builder yet he cant get more than 70-80 rounds down the tube without a problem. I keep telling him to dump it and start over. 1911's I guess are a lifestyle (that almost sounds creepy and weird lol). There are more modern, less complicated designs out there. I love the Glocks and M&P's myself. I guess I'm a romantic or traditionalist. I just love the way they look. I love the huge hunk of lead they put downrange. Its the pistol I've lusted after since I was a kid. That damn Thomas Magnum!!! Ever since I saw that tv show, I loved 1911's and Ferrari's and helicopters!!! While I haven't gotten around to owning a Ferrari (yet)or a helo, I have gotten a few 1911's. One EB and 2 Colts. I'm happy with them.
Thats reminds me, OP, check out the Colts. They've been building them for a long time.
sabashimon
03-18-10, 16:02
I go back and forth between my M&P45 and this SA Marine Corps Operator, and truth be told, I never feel undergunned with the 1911's 8+1.
It has always felt like a natural extension of my hand, and nothing else comes close to it's inherent accuracy.
4492
Trying to keep an LAV commentary in perspective. From his website there is an article on accuracy:
"Another question I get frequently asked is what is the acceptable mechanical or intrinsic accuracy for a service pistol or carbine. Meaning what should the weapon/ammo combination be capable of producing from a shooting device or rest that eliminates shooter error. Keep in mind I come from a surgical accuracy oriented Special Operations background with little margin for error. Based on this and years of experience I have concluded that a service pistol should be capable of head shots at 25 yds and a service carbine should be capable of the same at 100 yds – basically 5 inch groups. However, there is a catch; I have found that under conditions of stress a shooter will only be able to shoot to within roughly 50% of the accuracy potential of a given weapon. And that is only for the best shooters; the majority will not even be close to that. That means in order to achieve my standard of head shots (5 inch groups) at a given distance the weapon/ammo combination needs to be capable of at least 2.5 inch groups. I personally measure that accuracy standard with 10 shot groups. Many quality service pistols and carbines with good ammo will achieve this but there are many other factors involved such as sights and trigger pull characteristics. By these criteria it is not hard to see why a tuned 1911 pistol is so popular in selected Spec Ops units. Keep in mind that any effort to make a weapon more accurate almost always means tightening tolerances which can lead to a less than acceptable reliability standard for a combat weapon. A balance between accuracy and reliability has to be achieved. Surprisingly there are many pistols and carbines that do a good job offering an acceptable blend of both. In addition weapons of this type will require a higher degree of end user maintenance to keep them running. Don’t expect a pistol to shoot like a custom 1911 but be as forgiving about maintenance as a Glock 17; it just doesn’t happen that way."
I have found the HK45 to shoot with similar accuracy of my TRP and Les Baer TRS. It does NOT however hold a candle to these 1911s when it comes to hitting targets at speed - especially coming from the drawstroke. Yes, Virginia, there is STILL a place for the venerable 1911 - just open your wallet or bring plastic! I have found that NOTHING SHOOTS like a 1911.
theblackknight
03-18-10, 17:59
http://www.10-8performance.com/1911_Duty_Use.html. A Great article on the 1911 platform, speaks very highly of the Springfield Operator.
Ditto on that. Thats the loaded MC operator they are talking about.
Hint: This is a thread about 1911's. If you do not like 1911's please go else were on the forum to voice your opinions.
I personally love a well built 1911. It's a functional work of art to me. Is it the handgun everyone should carry - No. They require to much work for everyone. But, if you love them find a good builder and shoot away.
I have a Colt '70 series, my first handgun. The design is my favorite bar none since I was a kid and that probaly won't change.
I think the bottom line on fighting 1911's is regardless of who builds it, make sure what you get is reliable with acceptable accuracy. I've heard good and bad about most brands. This Colt and my SW 1911PD have both worked fine for me.
VA Dinger, perhaps you could answer my previous question about how regular military armorers back in the day manitained 1911A1s. I would be surprised if they had to hand fit parts?
Thanks
VA Dinger, perhaps you could answer my previous question about how regular military armorers back in the day manitained 1911A1s. I would be surprised if they had to hand fit parts?
Thanks
Not VA Dinger, but I've read that they DID have to hand fit parts. I don't see how they would not. This is especially true for barrel hood, lugs and link, hammer-sear-external safety interface as slide and firing pin stops. Essentially, everything that requires some fitting today.
ADDITIONAL FITMENT: Barrel bushing if it ever required a new one and slide to frame fitting if ever a new slide was required.
I think it's either in one of Kuhnhausen's books where this was described briefly. My source may be incorrect. Manufacturing methods have improved much since 1945.
So what weapons or actual fighting pistols do LAV and KH carry and use?
Ken and Larry spend several hours explaining the advantages of Glock 9mm handguns in a recent class. Ken joked members of the same class who did not personally own a 1911 and highly suggested they buy one.
From my experience;
Ken: various 1911's, Glock 9mm, and MP handguns
LAV: various 1911's, Glock 9mm, and HK handguns
Not VA Dinger, but I've read that they DID have to hand fit parts. I don't see how they would not. This is especially true for barrel hood, lugs and link, hammer-sear-external safety interface as slide and firing pin stops. Essentially, everything that requires some fitting today.
ADDITIONAL FITMENT: Barrel bushing if it ever required a new one and slide to frame fitting if ever a new slide was required.
I think it's either in one of Kuhnhausen's books where this was described briefly. My source may be incorrect. Manufacturing methods have improved much since 1945.
Thanks,
I haven't been able to find an old TM to look at. I used to have K's book years ago but I though he only talked about match guns. I could be wrong though.
I have a Colt '70 series, my first handgun. The design is my favorite bar none since I was a kid and that probaly won't change.
I think the bottom line on fighting 1911's is regardless of who builds it, make sure what you get is reliable with acceptable accuracy. I've heard good and bad about most brands. This Colt and my SW 1911PD have both worked fine for me.
VA Dinger, perhaps you could answer my previous question about how regular military armorers back in the day manitained 1911A1s. I would be surprised if they had to hand fit parts?
Thanks
Again not Dinger and definately not LAV but I have been fascinated with and researched the hell out of the 1911. Back when our military was still exclusively using the platforms as their primary pistols, from my understanding, the companies mfg.'ing the 1911's had a standardized, precise set of plans to build the 1911 and its components. So, if the companies are building the parts to the specs of the plans and then hand massaged some, all should go well.
Nowadays, companies aren't building parts to a certain spec or plan. The same part from two different mfg.'s may appear to be visually identical but one might be slightly larger or smaller. This is where the skilled craftsman/artisan comes into play. They have to take a pile of parts from various different mfg.'s (who may hold various levels of tolerances) and blend them all together into the functioning/fighting 1911. Not an easy task.(as many have witnessed first hand!!).
Sorry to keep bringing up the age of the pistol but it is amazing. To think that a pistol is still a highly effective tool after almost a century is a testament to the genius of the design not to mention the designer!!! Think back to where firearm development was a century before JMB designed the 1911!!!! How many firearm designs are still relevant after 100 years??? I dont have my thinking cap on right now but I would have to say ...NONE!!!! It may be that simple fact that has people intrigued. Whatever it is, I am hooked!!! The 1911 design is American ingenuity at its best.
Have you tried the M&P 45 with a Burwell trigger job?
Try it, if you can. Perhaps someone on the forum can let you shoot one.
M_P
If memory serves the only M&P I've shot is the full-size 9mm, stock from the factory. Shooting it side-by-side with the Glock 17, it didn't especially impress me. But I'm willing to give the M&P another shot, just to see. Once school lets up I'll probably bug Roger to take him up on his offer. :D
To clarify, by 1911-ish trigger, I'm not just referring to trigger pull. I'm talking about the linear-motion trigger. I'm fine with the hinge triggers that most handguns have, but it's the type of trigger a 1911 has that keeps people coming back to the platform. Like John_Wayne said, it's a "cheater's trigger". I want that. I just want it in a modern, lighter, ambidextrous handgun package with a 10-12 round capacity and a grip made for the human hand.
-B
I understand and agree with most of the arguments being made in favor of carrying a modern platform pistol over a 1911. At this point I'm carrying M&P's mostly, though I still own 2 1911's, both significantly customized for reliability, and both costing a LOT more than any of my M&P's.
Just an observation, it does seem that there while it's impossible to deny certain advantages that modern pistol platforms have, it's also hard to deny the effectiveness of a well tuned 1911 in the hands of a well trained user.
For myself, I still love 1911's though I mostly carry M&P's these days, but will always prefer the grip and trigger on a 1911, along with the natural way it points. And if the trigger on a 1911 is a "cheater's trigger" or whatever? Well, so be it. Guess I'll just have to train more, so it won't mess me up when I shoot my M&P's. I find that a rather odd thing to argue AGAINST the 1911, that it's trigger is TOO easy to shoot well. I mean, for me, I'd want EVERY unfair advantage I can get in a gunfight (as Jeff Cooper said), and if I could get a 1911-like trigger on one of my M&P's, now THAT would be ideal! From what I hear, a Bowie Tactical trigger can get me pretty close, and I am seriously considering getting one on my M&P .45.
"Back when we audited the FBI academy in 1947, I was told that I ought not to use my pistol in their training program because it was not fair. Maybe the first thing one should demand of his sidearm is that it be unfair.” — Col. Jeff Cooper, GUNS & AMMO, January 2002
What I think is fascinating is that we can actually have this debate 100 + years after the initial design.
Seriously. Does anyone ever advocate using a '27 Thompson in place of a more modern weapon? I haven't seen it. Not even considered I would think.
I admit to an affinity for the platform, but I'd add that I have more realistic expectations of it. If I actually had to use the extra durabiltiy and less maintainence afforded by a more modern design, that would mean that I'm fighting primarily with my sidearm, and that would mean that I'm probably going to die quickly.
My take, meaningless as it is: There are better options for large groups or individuals looking for the lowest cost, lowest maintainence weapons availible. But for those willing to take the time and spend the money, there is nothing like them. Like has been said, it really is a lifestyle.
from a civilian standpoint, the pistol IS your primary in most cases. I'm certainly in favor of owning/shooting 1911's and any other sort of cool, accurate, fun pistol you can get your hands on, but as a carry gun or home defense gun, for many people it is a poor solution.
so is there truly no modern pistol with a trigger equal to the 1911? this seems unlikely to me. :confused:
as a carry gun or home defense gun, for many people it is a poor solution.
IF a person has an IQ higher than today's low (or tomorrow's high) nothing prevents them from using a 1911 effectively.
Some people make it seem that it's less reliable than a Kel Tec P3AT, Raven, Lorcin and High Point... :rolleyes:
Oh, well...
IF a person has an IQ higher than today's low (or tomorrow's high) nothing prevents them from using a 1911 effectively.
Some people make it seem that it's less reliable than a Kel Tec P3AT, Raven, Lorcin and High Point... :rolleyes:
Oh, well...
Thats too funny!!! As for the 1911 NOT being good at self defense, there's alot less people walking the earth because of the 1911 (who I think if they could, would disagree!!).
Ken often carries a 1911. He also often carries an M&P, as that's his department's duty gun.
I've even heard a rumor that he may have a 9mm Glock somewhere in the mix.
I have no idea what Mr. Vickers carries on a daily basis, but in classes I've seen him use 1911's, Glocks, and H&K's.
I could see if you're attending a high volume shooting class like they teach you'd want a poly pistol, Glock, M&P or even a Beretta. At least I'd bring one of mine.:)
Hunter Rose
03-19-10, 10:02
I love 1911 threads, very interesting stuff.
The arguments on this site against the 1911 as a viable platform seem to be slightly biased from a large unit or agency standpoint. Generally, the two most detractive points being high cost of entry and extensive preventative and periodic maintenance, i.e. "Why should we spend all the time and money for 1911s when we can get GLocks for less than half as much and do maintenance four times less often." All for a pistol of relatively low capacity. All very valid points, and from an agency view, the 1911 truly does not seem to make sense.
That doesn't mean it is not viable for an individual especially in the CCW role. It seems you just have to accept the following:
1. High cost of entry/set-up from a competent smith
2. Higher preventative/periodic maintenance
3. Need to send to a gunsmith for repair/replacement of parts
4. Low capacity
If you have the finances or skill to meet the above and feel comfortable with only 7+1 or 8+1 capacity, then why not choose the 1911? It conceals very well and can be shot fast and accurately.
When I was asking about the efficacy of the 1911 at an EAG Tactical class I received the following, I think sage, advice:
"Buy a Colt, send it to Steve Morrison and have him set it up with 3 extra extractors, an extra firing pin stop, and an extra slide stop. Then stop worrying about it and shoot it. Oh, and carry at least one reload."
I love 1911 threads, very interesting stuff.
The arguments on this site against the 1911 as a viable platform seem to be slightly biased from a large unit or agency standpoint. Generally, the two most detractive points being high cost of entry and extensive preventative and periodic maintenance, i.e. "Why should we spend all the time and money for 1911s when we can get GLocks for less than half as much and do maintenance four times less often." All for a pistol of relatively low capacity. All very valid points, and from an agency view, the 1911 truly does not seem to make sense.
That doesn't mean it is not viable for an individual especially in the CCW role. It seems you just have to accept the following:
1. High cost of entry/set-up from a competent smith
2. Higher preventative/periodic maintenance
3. Need to send to a gunsmith for repair/replacement of parts
4. Low capacity
If you have the finances or skill to meet the above and feel comfortable with only 7+1 or 8+1 capacity, then why not choose the 1911? It conceals very well and can be shot fast and accurately.
When I was asking about the efficacy of the 1911 at an EAG Tactical class I received the following, I think sage, advice:
"Buy a Colt, send it to Steve Morrison and have him set it up with 3 extra extractors, an extra firing pin stop, and an extra slide stop. Then stop worrying about it and shoot it. Oh, and carry at least one reload."
This is a good post, and a good counter-balance to some of the earlier statements about the 1911. This is one of the things I love about M4c: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. :p
Misc Ex-Member
03-19-10, 10:38
Thats too funny!!! As for the 1911 NOT being good at self defense, there's alot less people walking the earth because of the 1911 (who I think if they could, would disagree!!).
Your statement is inaccurate and silly. Read the thread.
Misc Ex-Member
03-19-10, 10:39
I could see if you're attending a high volume shooting class like they teach you'd want a poly pistol, Glock, M&P or even a Beretta. At least I'd bring one of mine.:)
Neither Ken nor Larry teach "high volume" classes. You don't know what you are talking about.
Misc Ex-Member
03-19-10, 10:40
This degeneration of 1911 vs. whatever has run its course.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.