View Full Version : Anyone moving towards a 1911?
Leonidas77
04-25-12, 13:47
I know there's a 1911 forum, but I've posted this here to get feedback from people who might not be die-hard 1911 fans.
Recently, I had a friend ask me about buying a new ccw handgun. He asked which one was best to get. That's a difficult question to answer, so I asked him what features were most important. He said ergonomics, reliability, and it must be chambered in 9mm.
I thought about the features he wanted and it made the question more difficult to answer. Given the problems Glock and Sig have had, I wasn't going to recommend them. He had a M&P, but didn't like it. I finally suggested a PPQ. A few days later he called to tell me he bought the PPQ and that it shot great. The only downside for the PPQ is the availability of mags and their prices.
His experience got me to wondering if I'm looking at things the wrong way. I currently carry an older G19. The gun is perfect for my needs. But what if something breaks? Will the newly manufactured Glock parts affect my perfectly reliable carry piece? Or what about my HKs? Parts are often hard to come by and usually expensive for HKs. Plus, there aren't many people who can work on an HK. What happens if something breaks on them?
My point is this: At any given moment I can go online or even to the local gunstore and buy quality 1911 parts at decent prices from a number of manufacturers. Most of the parts I could install myself. But if the need arose, any gunsmith in my area could work on my 1911. I am not tied to any one company with their ups and downs in product quality or parts availability. Neither am I completely at the mercy of one company's customer service.
Has anyone else thought about this?
This whole thing about Glock issues is being blown waaaaayyy out of proportion. There are 10 million different companies that make parts for Glocks, if you break an extractor or something, you won't have too difficult of a time finding a quality part to replace it.
But, I do see real value in the 1911 platform. You can't beat the ergonomics, and in my experience, in an environment where 1911's can be kept reasonably clean and have maintenance preformed on them they'll out preform anything else.
They also carry surprisingly well for their size
I have and tried it.
Then I realized a 1911 is a big piece of steel, that even in my favoritist of holsters was noticeably heavy. It is also a pretty big pistol. The spare mags were super easy to conceal though.
As another poster stated, the issue with Glocks is being blown out of proportion. And, in my opinion, it usually is blown out of proportion with every gun. Try to keep in mind that these incidents are exceptions to a generality or rule, they are not rules or generalities themselves. Unfortunately, it usually seems the opposite to people because you go onto the internet to a forum, one like this forum, and you will see problem threads and troubleshooting threads for EVERY pistol buried somewhere in its pages. And somewhere you might find a review about a guy who bought one and it worked fine, but for the most part you will only find problem threads. Why? Well, not everyone is going to run to the internet to update everyone about their pistol that worked just fine, like it should. On the other hand, people are more likely to report and share problems with a community to help diagnose and find an answer.
So, it quickly looks like you have 10 problem threads to one or two review threads where the gun actually works. The statistic unnerves people and makes them lose confidence in their gun. Go around long enough on forums searching for problems for any pistol and I guarantee, before long, you'll come to the conclusion that no pistol currently manufactured is suitable to even be a paperweight, much less a defensive carry gun.
The important thing to remember is that these are not rules, they are exceptions. Find a pistol from a manufacturer with a decent and established reputation and a model with a decent and established track record. Make sure the company has at least a one year warranty and has a decent track record and reputation for customer service and go from there. Nobody can guarantee any pistol is going to be 100% out of the box, but that is far more likely than you getting a lemon. And any company that is at least halfway decent will replace, fix, or send you the parts necessary to make your gun work until you're satisfied. You'll have to decide yourself whether that's a Glock, an H&K, an M&P, or even a 1911 or anything else.
Edit: As far as parts go, things break. You're not going to find a gun that will never need parts replacement, just as you will never find a car that doesn't need its oil changed and some basic care and maintenance once in a while. The important thing here is to find out what parts are common for needing replacement, snagging a few spares for the ugn, and keeping track of how much you fire and when to replace these parts.
As another poster stated, the issue with Glocks is being blown out of proportion. And, in my opinion, it usually is blown out of proportion with every gun. Try to keep in mind that these incidents are exceptions to a generality or rule, they are not rules or generalities themselves. Unfortunately, it usually seems the opposite to people because you go onto the internet to a forum, one like this forum, and you will see problem threads and troubleshooting threads for EVERY pistol buried somewhere in its pages. And somewhere you might find a review about a guy who bought one and it worked fine, but for the most part you will only find problem threads. Why? Well, not everyone is going to run to the internet to update everyone about their pistol that worked just fine, like it should. On the other hand, people are more likely to report and share problems with a community to help diagnose and find an answer.
So, it quickly looks like you have 10 problem threads to one or two review threads where the gun actually works. The statistic unnerves people and makes them lose confidence in their gun. Go around long enough on forums searching for problems for any pistol and I guarantee, before long, you'll come to the conclusion that no pistol currently manufactured is suitable to even be a paperweight, much less a defensive carry gun.
The important thing to remember is that these are not rules, they are exceptions. Find a pistol from a manufacturer with a decent and established reputation and a model with a decent and established track record. Make sure the company has at least a one year warranty and has a decent track record and reputation for customer service and go from there. Nobody can guarantee any pistol is going to be 100% out of the box, but that is far more likely than you getting a lemon. And any company that is at least halfway decent will replace, fix, or send you the parts necessary to make your gun work until you're satisfied. You'll have to decide yourself whether that's a Glock, an H&K, an M&P, or even a 1911 or anything else.
Edit: As far as parts go, things break. You're not going to find a gun that will never need parts replacement, just as you will never find a car that doesn't need its oil changed and some basic care and maintenance once in a while. The important thing here is to find out what parts are common for needing replacement, snagging a few spares for the ugn, and keeping track of how much you fire and when to replace these parts.
I agree with most of what you've said, but I've also been thinking a lot about what the op is asking.
I have quite a few glocks, but the only ones I carry and keep loaded at night are my gen 2 ones. my gen 3 19 hits me in the face with brass and to me that's a problem because I find myself sometimes flinching in anticipation of getting hit.
my gen 2s have never given me a problem, but they have thousands of rounds through them and I've wondered about replacement parts on a gun from the early 90s.
At any given moment I can go online or even to the local gunstore and buy quality 1911 parts at decent prices from a number of manufacturers. Most of the parts I could install myself. But if the need arose, any gunsmith in my area could work on my 1911. I am not tied to any one company with their ups and downs in product quality or parts availability. Neither am I completely at the mercy of one company's customer service.
I dearly love the 1911. I grew up shooting them in bullseye competition, and carried them when I was in the military. But there are better choices now, for the exact reasons you cited, plus a lot of others that I won't belabor.
There's a big difference between installing parts on a 1911 and fitting them properly so the gun is safe and reliable. Yes, your gunsmith MIGHT be able to work on a 1911, but very few smiths really understand the finer points of making one run 100%. The occasional hitch is OK for a range gun, but not for a concealed-carry piece that sees a realistic training regimen.
On the other hand, Glock parts truly are are drop-in, and if you have to be tied to one company for parts and service, you could do a hell of a lot worse than Glock.
Finally, you can buy several Glocks for the price of a proper 1911.
Okie John
Leonidas77
04-25-12, 15:36
I would by no means recommend a 1911 for everyone, but I believe there is a place for them, especially for people willing to learn the platform.
I also don't believe 1911s require some special gunsmith with black magic skills in order to be made reliable. A local gunsmith might not be able to build a 1911 on par with Wilson, Nighthawk, etc, but he should be able to tension an extractor or replace a broken part if you can't do it yourself.
I agree that the Glock problems are probably blown out of proportion, but that doesn't matter when you have a $500 paperweight.
For all of the 1911's drawbacks, it does offer you a wide array of parts and a larger pool of people who can work on the platform. While I'll continue to carry my G19, I think I'll still keep my 1911.
Pistol Shooter
04-25-12, 16:36
My first handgun purchase was a Colt MKIV Series '70 Government Model in 1975 when I was 21 yrs. old.
I love the 1911 platform but over the years I've searched for something as totally reliable as possible with different kinds of HP ammo.
Several years ago, (after I bought a problematic Colt Combat Commander XSE) I came to the conclusion that HK pistols were the answer for me.
LAV makes a great point about 1911's in this link:
http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2011/06/08/read-this-before-you-buy-your-first-1911/
If I wanted a reliable pistol out of the box, with OEM mags and drop-in parts everywhere, all at a very affordable price, I would pick a Gen 3 glock 17/19. It is truly the world standard for a service pistol.
I know how to do basic work on a 1911 and mantain it, I've shot maaany thousands of rounds with them, and I really like the design. But with these same limitations, the 1911 would probably be the last pistol I would pick.
Leonidas77
04-25-12, 18:00
Guys,
I don't believe the 1911 will ever be as reliable or as easy to maintain as a HK or Glock. I carry a glock for a reason. But does anyone consider the fact that at any given moment parts could become nonexistent because of problems with the manufacturer?
Consider if the same were true for rifles. Imagine if there were only one manufacturer making parts and doing repairs for the M4 platform. I think that would concern some people. That's exactly the case for SIG, HK, Walther, and Glock to a lesser degree.
All I'm asking is if anyone considers this fact and chooses to keep a 1911 around for that very reason i.e. parts availability and variety of parts manufacturers.
Guys,
I don't believe the 1911 will ever be as reliable or as easy to maintain as a HK or Glock. I carry a glock for a reason. But does anyone consider the fact that at any given moment parts could become nonexistent because of problems with the manufacturer?
As reliable, yes they can be. Just not that easy to maintain.
Consider if the same were true for rifles. Imagine if there were only one manufacturer making parts and doing repairs for the M4 platform. I think that would concern some people. That's exactly the case for SIG, HK, Walther, and Glock to a lesser degree.
All I'm asking is if anyone considers this fact and chooses to keep a 1911 around for that very reason i.e. parts availability and variety of parts manufacturers.
There are many makers of glock parts, but I prefer mostly original parts and thankfully they are plentiful. To me, the popularity of the design, its widespread distribution, and the zillions of OEM parts floating around is a very strong point in its favor.
Why take a step backward?
Beat Trash
04-25-12, 20:13
I always will have a fondness for the 1911.
But my days of carrying one are long past.
OP, in my opinion, a 1911 requires a Gunsmith, trained in the 1911. A Glock requires an armor, or access to an Armors manual, or watch YouTube.
A Gunsmith trained to hand fit parts and an armor trained to swap parts are not the same thing. A drunk idiot can swap parts in a Glock. I know because I've done it. The number of Smiths I'd trust to work on one of my 1911's is small. None of the Gunsmiths found in my local yellow pages fall into that category.
discussions like these have been going on for years. Replies are always filled with a lot of fact, but also a lot of opinion. I think you need to go with what best fits you. If I had to choose between Glock and 1911 platform, i would definitely take the Glock, but not because of the lack of reliability. I will admit, i used to have a TRP and it was finicky with HP's. I now have a Wilson and NH and I cant make the things malfunction! I was way harder on my WC then my NH just because it is my go to gun and if i had to say i had a safe queen the NH would be it. So far, I have 10k through my CQB with only 3 failures. 2 attributed to my reloads and 1 due to the magazine spring being shot. I am still on entire original springs on this thing!! Being that it is a game, range, and class gun i dont care for it nearly as much as my carry guns. It gets cleaned before state and sanctioned matches and besides some HP and fmj's here and there, it gets a steady diet of 200 gr LSWC. WC recommends 1,200 break in period before you clean the gun the first time. I took it to 3800 and it never malfunctioned, but couldnt take how damn dirty the thing was so i broke down and cleaned it(That was not fun by the way!). Both platforms have been shown to be extremely reliable over the years, the difference is $500 or $4000.
QuickStrike
04-25-12, 20:36
I switch back and fourth between a 1911 and smaller glocks in 9mm depending on how I dress. Mainly because shorter 1911's aren't as inherently reliable so i can't just carry a small one.
I've tried shooting both designs at the range, back to back. Obviously the 1911 is easier to hit accurately, but I feel that I shoot decent enough with glocks to carry one.
Copied the press out technique where the front sight starts out high and the rear sight rises to meet it as the gun reaches full extension, gets rid of the problem of different grip angles.
Thumb safety isn't a problem. Instead of my thumb resting on top of a 1911 safety, it rests in the exact same position on the slide of a glock. Looks like double thumbs up. :cool:
I personally don't like SAO for carry. SAO requires a manual safety to carry safely and I am used to the trigger pull of striker fired or DAO pistols and have no desire to retrain.
Magazine capacity given the size of the firearm, total weight of a all metal firearm are other reasons I would not consider the 1911 for carry.
Also I prefer the .40 or 9mm round over the .45.
Guys,
I don't believe the 1911 will ever be as reliable or as easy to maintain as a HK or Glock. I carry a glock for a reason. But does anyone consider the fact that at any given moment parts could become nonexistent because of problems with the manufacturer?
Consider if the same were true for rifles. Imagine if there were only one manufacturer making parts and doing repairs for the M4 platform. I think that would concern some people. That's exactly the case for SIG, HK, Walther, and Glock to a lesser degree.
All I'm asking is if anyone considers this fact and chooses to keep a 1911 around for that very reason i.e. parts availability and variety of parts manufacturers.
Not really. There are so many Glocks out there now that I don't think Glock parts are going anywhere anytime soon, so it's not really a concern.
I like the 1911. Really, what's not to like about it. A good one, while expensive, has the has the best handgun trigger of any service gun. Their extremely accurate and if you get one set up right, they're extremely reliable and durable. Having said that, as you pointed out earlier, maintaining one takes commitment. If you're ok with that and you can do the work; excellent. Regarding a gunsmith; I believe the right gunsmith can make all the difference in the world on a 1911 as can the wrong one.
Love the sex appeal but too much damn weight for 8 shots before a reload for me.
l sold my my 2 1911s a year or so ago, l hadnt carried them in years. l even bought a g21 to make use of all the montana golds and large pistol primers l had left over begging to be used.
l think a 1911 can be a really good pistol but its gonna take some tlc to be carry reliable, also probably end up costing 3-4x more than a glock.
l even bought a g21 to make use of all the montana golds and large pistol primers l had left over begging to be used.
I'll bet you noticed a change in accuracy level.
I have two 1911s, a Kimber, a Springfield and a G21. One day I took out all three with three different types of ammo, and fired them from a supported rest. I just had to compare the three together, at the same time and place. Granted, the type of ammo was limited on that day, and I was making a quick morning of it.
I found no matter what load was fired, the Glock ended up in third position, but wasn't really that far off from the Springfield, which has had quite a few rounds through it. I was shocked with the Kimber though, since it halved the groups of the other two, and it is "only" a basic Custom II 5".
I would HAPPILY be still carrying 1911s save for one thing... money.
I find a fullsize steel 1911 to be easier to conceal than even a Glock 26 or 19. The trigger on the 1911 allows me to be lazier and therefore get better hits more often. The weight of the gun means less stress on my injured right arm. The bigger bullets mean easier scoring and target assessment in competition, and make me feel better when carrying (and for the vast majority of us, carrying is all about feeling secure).
I would love to have four Nighthawk or Wilsons. I even know how I'd configure them.
Fullsize 5" .45 with light rail. Bedside/home defense gun.
Fullsize 5" 9mm without light rail. Competition and training gun.
Officer's size .45 aluminum frame. Carry gun 99.9% of the time.
Dedicated full-time .22 Rimfire with threaded barrel. General plinking, pest control, cheap practice, teaching.
and I'd probably truthfully want one more of each of the two fullsize guns, one is none and all that crap.
So just for the four guns I outline above that'd be.... oh around $12k. Or I could buy the plastic equivalent of all of them (Glock or M&P, I don't care) and be into the whole thing for $3k with mods (sights, slide release, mag release). and if one of the Glocks goes missing I just empty the sofa cushions and go by a new one. If one of those 1911s goes missing I take out a home equity loan to replace.
I love the 1911. I shoot it better, I freely admit to liking the nostalgia of it, I like that I can carry a .45 in a package thinner than a wonder-9, etc. But having to pay $3k+ per sample to get one I'd trust is a non-starter for me, personally. Having shot 1911s for years I don't believe all the maintenance hype AT ALL, but I do believe that if you want to do it right you have to start out properly, and starting out properly means you pay. Through the nose. Repeatedly, if you want redundancy (and I do).
As another poster stated, the issue with Glocks is being blown out of proportion.
It's "blown out of proportion" until it happens to you, or half the people you know who shoot Glocks and had NEVER had problems with their older guns.
Glock deserves the negative attention they're getting now. Until they feel it in their pockets, they're not likely to change a thing.
It's "blown out of proportion" until it happens to you, or half the people you know who shoot Glocks and had NEVER had problems with their older guns.
Glock deserves the negative attention they're getting now. Until they feel it in their pockets, they're not likely to change a thing.
Bingo!
C4
As a 1911 fan, but one that realizes the negatives of the gun, I switched to a polymer based gun a long time ago.
The main reason for the switch was because of capacity and weight.
Now that I have attended the Vickers 1911 pistolsmith school, my knowledge on the 1911 is ten times what was it was previously. So now if my gun exhibits any issues, I can know WHY it is doing it and how to resolve the problem.
The same cannot always be said for some of the problems we are seeing with polymer guns these days.
Just sayin.......
C4
The main reason for the switch was because of capacity and weight.
C4
I switched from my lw 45 to my lw 38 super for the same reason...both ounces and rounds were minimal, but enough to make a change.
Army Chief
04-26-12, 11:13
I've not weighed-in to this point because I choose to carry a 1911; that said, it isn't really a case of being a "die-hard enthusiast" as much as it is a matter of basic pragmatism, as I simply don't care for any of the contemporary polymers enough to make the switch.
With the 1911, I contend with greater weight and a lower capacity, true. Of course, the weight is hardly a liability when it comes to actually shooting the gun, and the capacity is more than adequate for 99% of the defensive scenarios that I could ever anticipate in my life; especially when a spare magazine is carried. If I can't end a confrontation and/or fight my way to safety -- or a longarm -- with 17 rounds of .45, then I've probably got bigger problems than any handgun is likely to remedy. Yes, I do have to give a bit more thought to holster and belt selection, but in return, I get a very hard-hitting pistol with a fine trigger and exceptional accuracy.
So, why no special love for the polymers? The truth is that I would probably be very comfortable carrying a P30, 45C or PPQ, but when we look toward compactness, even the best of the genre still falls somewhat short against the likes of Old Slabsides. A polymer gun has a "fat" frame and an even fatter slide, and although they are certainly getting better in that regard, I've yet to find one that offers truly compact dimensions, an excellent trigger and a chambering that instills the kind of confidence one gets from .45 ACP.
AC
emphatically no... if i wanted a quirky all metal single stack i'd get another hk p7. if i wanted a 45 i'd get a m&p or an HK45.
Army Chief
04-26-12, 12:22
emphatically no... if i wanted a quirky all metal single stack i'd get another hk p7. if i wanted a 45 i'd get a m&p or an HK45.
Emphatically? Wow.
Yeah, I've got a P7, too. ;)
AC
I've not weighed-in to this point because I choose to carry a 1911; that said, it isn't really a case of being a "die-hard enthusiast" as much as it is a matter of basic pragmatism, as I simply don't care for any of the contemporary polymers enough to make the switch.
With the 1911, I contend with greater weight and a lower capacity, true. Of course, the weight is hardly a liability when it comes to actually shooting the gun, and the capacity is more than adequate for 99% of the defensive scenarios that I could ever anticipate in my life; especially when a spare magazine is carried. If I can't end a confrontation and/or fight my way to safety -- or a longarm -- with 17 rounds of .45, then I've probably got bigger problems than any handgun is likely to remedy. Yes, I do have to give a bit more thought to holster and belt selection, but in return, I get a very hard-hitting pistol with a fine trigger and exceptional accuracy.
So, why no special love for the polymers? The truth is that I would probably be very comfortable carrying a P30, 45C or PPQ, but when we look toward compactness, even the best of the genre still falls somewhat short against the likes of Old Slabsides. A polymer gun has a "fat" frame and an even fatter slide, and although they are certainly getting better in that regard, I've yet to find one that offers truly compact dimensions, an excellent trigger and a chambering that instills the kind of confidence one gets from .45 ACP.
AC
Just out of curiosity since you stick to 1911s, how do you carry them?
Psalms144.1
04-26-12, 19:29
With the possible exception of the HK P7M8, the 1911 is my favorite semi-auto of all time. I "grew up" shooting one - and, when I was old enough to buy my own pistols, if it wasn't a 1911, I wouldn't own it.
Then, logic and reality entered the picture. First, even sticking exclusively to Colts, I literally couldn't buy a 1911 that was reliable even with FMJ out of the box. They all required "tweaking." Secondly, while the 1911's ergos are legendary, in their stock hammer/grip safety consideration, they pretty well suck, requiring gunsmith attention to make the pistol more user friendly. Are they accurate - heck yes! Are they easy to shoot well - certainly.
However, they're also large and heavy compared to payload, they're notoriously finicky about ammunition and magazine selection, the manual of arms is NOT for the neophyte or "hobby" shooter picking a carry gun, they're much more demanding of maintenance, and they're expensive, if you're going to get a decent quality pistol. Lastly, and most importantly, they're NOTORIOUSLY unreliable in any caliber that isn't dimensionally close to the .45 ACP, or when you try to "downsize" them much more than "Commander" size.
Contrast the G19, which is the most size-efficient pistol on the market, and, as long as you don't have one made after 2011, is likely to be WAY more reliable than you could ever have a right to ask. Our issue G19s were 2005 make, and we put 7-10K/year through them, and they're still running like sewing machines with the original extractors and ejectors, so, I'd be willing to bet your 2nd Gen G19 is going to be JUST FINE for decades to come.
Now, I'm the stupid guy who can't leave well enough alone, so, back in 2010 I traded in a PERFECT 3rd Gen Austrian-proofed G19 to get a Gen4, and have subsequently had a total of four G19s (two 3rd Gens, and two Gen4s) that were all so unreliable that the factory couldn't fix them. I'm carrying HKs now - P30 and P2000 all with LEM, and, while they're great pistols, if I KNEW FOR SURE that Glock had figured out and addressed all the bugs with their current production 9mms, I'd go back to a G19 in a microsecond.
So, long story short, no, I haven't, and wouldn't, consider going back to a 1911 for serious work.
Regards,
Kevin
misanthropist
04-26-12, 22:57
While I love the 1911, if your concern is future parts availability, I would take the cash that a quality fighting 1911 would cost, and buy 3 Glocks and several sets of every consumable part and figure I'm good for the next 50 years of heavy, frequent shooting.
The 1911 is a gun I love very much, but parts availability and gunsmith availability are not in its favour when the cost is calculated, or the commonality of QUALITY 1911 smiths is factored in.
If you are someone that needs to go to a smith to get anything other than major work done, the 1911 is not for you.
Just out of curiosity since you stick to 1911s, how do you carry them?
IWB quality leather holster (think sparks vmII style). With a good belt, either doubled leather, or a reinforced "instructor" belt.
I wear mine from 7am to 11 or 12pm every day. And I feel like I have a disadvantage in keeping my pants up cause I have no ass. Even with that problem I don't feel like the weight is a problem at all.
But summer is coming so I think my g26 or g27 will get some belt time soon.
I dipped into the 1911 waters for a time; owned 3 of them. As much as I like them, I sold them off mostly because of weight and capacity like Grant mentioned. And suprisingly, I shoot my XDs better anyway.
IWB quality leather holster (think sparks vmII style). With a good belt, either doubled leather, or a reinforced "instructor" belt.
I wear mine from 7am to 11 or 12pm every day. And I feel like I have a disadvantage in keeping my pants up cause I have no ass. Even with that problem I don't feel like the weight is a problem at all.
But summer is coming so I think my g26 or g27 will get some belt time soon.
Where on your belt though? I'm assuming the standard 3 o'clock would print like crazy so AIWB?
Emphatically? Wow.
Yeah, I've got a P7, too. ;)
AC
they're wonderful, though they hardly enjoy the parts/gunsmith support of the 1911..... I once bought a 13 dollar spring for my p7. it was about the size of one of the letters on this page.
so glock and j-frame for now. boringly practical.
My first pistol was a taurus PT1911 at the age of 19. over the next couple years I would take pieces off and replace them. The pistol is no where near what I would call a top or even mid tier handgun. But that 1911 has a soft spot in my heart becuase of the fact it was my first pistol purchased for me by my father before i entered the service. At 22 I purchased a S&W commander sized 1911 for carry. I love that handgun, but would sell it in a heart beat if given the opportunity. After getting a glock and shooting it for a while I have found that the glock is the pistol for me.
I had 3 1911 now Im down to 2 and thinking of selling one more. I like them enough but they dont hold any special place in my heart or my safe. They are pretty but just a tool. The 2 I have are a new SA milspec stainless and the old pre ban Norinco I picked up for $250. The Norinco was meant as a project gun. Keep the slide and frame as they are actually quality and slowly replace parts as needed. Interestingly enough it is slightly loose and hasnt shown any problems yet. So far feeds all HP ammo Ive tried. Ive thrown it in the dirt with the slide open, kicked some dirt in, picked it up, shook it off, loaded a mag and it fed fired and ejected all 3 mags.
Still they are just tools to me and maybe eventually make their way into the carrying rotation, if I dont sell them first. However atm its G19/17, USP9, M&P45
Army Chief
04-27-12, 08:01
Where on your belt though? I'm assuming the standard 3 o'clock would print like crazy so AIWB?
I use a quality leather gunbelt -- or instructor belt -- and an IWB rig (Brommeland) that puts the gun strong-side at the back of my hip. The printing potential is somewhat more significant with a full-sized gun than with a compact, but I've found this is mostly only a concern when seated -- just as it would be for any other pistol. As stated, the flat profile of the 1911 allows it to blend in surprisingly well if it is moved just behind the hip, so I suppose we're talking about the 4 o'clock (or in my case, 8 o'clock) position.
AC
Recently I realized if one puts together requirements of concealability, ergos, active control over firing mechanism for safety during appendix reholstering, ambidexterity of controls and ability to use crimson trace lazer, the 1911 is the only thing that fits the criteria. Get rid of first two that are admittedly subjective - and you're still left with very limited choices, none of which is a polymer.
While I carry it less and less, when I do, I don't feel at all that I stepped backwards.
I own a P7 too; it will be sold this year...
Mine sits in the same general area but wear a basic outside Kramer leather pancake & a lw commander 99% of the time.
I prefer the officer for comfort but the commander simply gives more confidence.
...I currently carry an older G19. The gun is perfect for my needs. But what if something breaks? Will the newly manufactured Glock parts affect my perfectly reliable carry piece?...
My point is this: At any given moment I can go online or even to the local gunstore and buy quality 1911 parts at decent prices from a number of manufacturers. Most of the parts I could install myself. But if the need arose, any gunsmith in my area could work on my 1911. I am not tied to any one company with their ups and downs in product quality or parts availability. Neither am I completely at the mercy of one company's customer service.
Has anyone else thought about this?
Without coming in on either side, I'm trying to follow your logic.
First, without intending to be persnickety, If something on your Glock breaks, it will be the old part, not the new one, that spoiled the "perfect reliability" of your carry gun.
I have a deep affection for the 1911, but at present I own four Glocks: a Gen3 G17 I shoot in local club matches, a Gen4 G26 I carry, and a pair of Gen3 G19s that are spares/backups. I've spent more money on ammo for them than I did on the guns themselves, and they've been absolutely reliable for me.
While I'd like to be able to change RSAs every few thousand rounds, even if every Glock part disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow and no one ever made another one I'd bet at least one of these guns would still be functioning when I leave this world for the next.
And I would have spent much less money than if I'd gone with the 1911 platform.
Recently I realized if one puts together requirements of concealability, ergos, active control over firing mechanism for safety during appendix reholstering, ambidexterity of controls and ability to use crimson trace lazer, the 1911 is the only thing that fits the criteria. Get rid of first two that are admittedly subjective - and you're still left with very limited choices, none of which is a polymer.
While I carry it less and less, when I do, I don't feel at all that I stepped backwards.
I own a P7 too; it will be sold this year...
These requirements are different for different people. I can conceal a g19 just fine with a tight t-shirt, ergos are great for me, safety is all about being extra careful when I holster - look in and ensure its clear, its ambidextrous enough to be used efficiently with my left hand(weak hand - in fact it has a reversible mag release for left handers), crimson trace is a moot point for me. I can have 15 rounds vs 8 and I think it may weight less(not sure though). Plus the grip is shorter which means a lot.
Choices are not limited, I'm 6' 155lb and could conceal an m9 with a button up. Also, a ruger lc9 fits your criteria very well - just saying.
OP, 1911s are great guns(but you probably have to spend a lot), and very fun to shoot. I may buy one, but I wont "make a move" towards them, as a plastic gun for the same price as the cheapest 1911's fits my needs/wants much better.
I love my bobtailed WC Professional Model. Off all my handguns, it is the one I enjoy shooting the most.
However, when it comes to carry, I reach for my Glock 19. It weighs less and holds twice as many rounds. You can't beat that.
These requirements are different for different people...
Also, a ruger lc9 fits your criteria very well - just saying.
Yep, the requirements are different for different folks, as they should be. Moreover, sometimes one would prioritize his requirements and compromise on some if others are more important. For example, I carry a P30 that has no laser grips available.
What I am saying that those are mine (part of a bigger list), they are not contrived as I know enough people who want the same, and 1911 belongs to a surprisingly small list that may answer them.
Never seen LC9, my understanding it is a bigger brother of LCP; if that's the case - no-go for me, I wouldn't carry a DAO as a primary, DA/SA - maybe but not DAO. Reasonable shootabililty is another one on my requirements list...
Leonidas77
04-28-12, 10:47
Without coming in on either side, I'm trying to follow your logic.
First, without intending to be persnickety, If something on your Glock breaks, it will be the old part, not the new one, that spoiled the "perfect reliability" of your carry gun.
I have a deep affection for the 1911, but at present I own four Glocks: a Gen3 G17 I shoot in local club matches, a Gen4 G26 I carry, and a pair of Gen3 G19s that are spares/backups. I've spent more money on ammo for them than I did on the guns themselves, and they've been absolutely reliable for me.
While I'd like to be able to change RSAs every few thousand rounds, even if every Glock part disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow and no one ever made another one I'd bet at least one of these guns would still be functioning when I leave this world for the next.
And I would have spent much less money than if I'd gone with the 1911 platform.
I agree with your points. I can see how for the same cost someone could pick up multiple Glocks, mags, and ammo. For most people, this is the better option. Glock is probably the best example to counter my logic, but I think HK or SIG offer examples of how being tied to one company can be a burden.
I didn't intend for this thread to turn into a 1911 or Glock debate. I freely admit the 1911 is 100 year old technology with many drawbacks. It is interesting, however, how many people do not factor in what I'm saying.
I would HAPPILY be still carrying 1911s save for one thing... money.
I find a fullsize steel 1911 to be easier to conceal than even a Glock 26 or 19. The trigger on the 1911 allows me to be lazier and therefore get better hits more often. The weight of the gun means less stress on my injured right arm. The bigger bullets mean easier scoring and target assessment in competition, and make me feel better when carrying (and for the vast majority of us, carrying is all about feeling secure).
I would love to have four Nighthawk or Wilsons. I even know how I'd configure them.
Fullsize 5" .45 with light rail. Bedside/home defense gun.
Fullsize 5" 9mm without light rail. Competition and training gun.
Officer's size .45 aluminum frame. Carry gun 99.9% of the time.
Dedicated full-time .22 Rimfire with threaded barrel. General plinking, pest control, cheap practice, teaching.
and I'd probably truthfully want one more of each of the two fullsize guns, one is none and all that crap.
So just for the four guns I outline above that'd be.... oh around $12k. Or I could buy the plastic equivalent of all of them (Glock or M&P, I don't care) and be into the whole thing for $3k with mods (sights, slide release, mag release). and if one of the Glocks goes missing I just empty the sofa cushions and go by a new one. If one of those 1911s goes missing I take out a home equity loan to replace.
I love the 1911. I shoot it better, I freely admit to liking the nostalgia of it, I like that I can carry a .45 in a package thinner than a wonder-9, etc. But having to pay $3k+ per sample to get one I'd trust is a non-starter for me, personally. Having shot 1911s for years I don't believe all the maintenance hype AT ALL, but I do believe that if you want to do it right you have to start out properly, and starting out properly means you pay. Through the nose. Repeatedly, if you want redundancy (and I do).
Well said! Agree 95%.
My list would be as follows:
1. SA railed pro backup gun/home defense or railed Wilson cqb
2. SA pro no rail for classes or Wilson cqb
3. SA custom carry for carry or Wilson cqb elite
4. SW mp in 9mm for classes/plinking
Only other difference is (from reading your blog) is that I am where you were several years ago and still on a 1911 kick (although I own glocks etc..).
Army Chief
04-28-12, 11:57
Let me step on a few toes, albeit as good-naturedly as possible.
Personally, I think this tends to turn into one of those "much ado about nothing" discussions. Carrying a handgun is a purely defensive practice, and unless we're talking about professional security operations in some sort of official/protective capacity, the overwhelming odds are that the mere presentation of a weapon will end the threat. When that proves not to be the case, statistics tell us that 1-3 rounds should commonly suffice. Multiple assailants? Extended barricading? Low illumination? Forced to take a low probability shot? Sure, I get that it could prove useful to have more firepower, but I still say that the guy with a two-shot derringer is adequately armed for most encounters one is ever likely to encounter in civilian life. Double that. OK, now triple that. Guess what? You're still in solid 1911 territory without needing a reload.
So, the question is, what level of exponential increase does one really need to satisfy a legitimate defensive need? I get that it might make sense to carry 40 rounds (or whatever) if it could be done with a minimal weight penalty and acceptable bulk, but we're talking about CCW applications almost exclusively, and at what point do you transition from looking like a prepared citizen to looking like a nut-case who is spoiling for a fight? Don't get me wrong: I'm not suggesting it is wrong to carry as much ammunition as one can reasonable accommodate, but when your basic load is equal to -- or greater than -- what a typical LEO might carry on duty, one is left to wonder where it is that you expect to be going, and if it is that perilous, why are you going there in the first place with just a handgun?
Again, I'm not inviting the usual "it doesn't have to make sense" or "you never know what you might face" schtick, nor am I indicting anyone who might offer such; that said, if you don't realistically think that a 1911 with a backup magazine is adequate firepower, than you should probably give some serious consideration to wearing a helmet while you drive in your car or truck, because your Threat-O-Meter might be in need of a bit of calibration. Why not carry the additional firepower if there is no downside to doing so? Indeed -- I can't think of any reason not to. But, at the same time, I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't make sense to carry a 1911 -- or even a revolver -- if that is what has earned your confidence, that is what you can hit with, and that just happens to be your tool of choice.
Do as you wish, but be cautious about rendering judgment on another's choices, for the first rule of a gunfight (just as it has always been) is to have a gun. What sort of gun depends very much on the man or woman that feels compelled to add it to his/her daily kit in the first place, and there is room at the table for all.
AC
Let me step on a few toes, albeit as good-naturedly as possible.
Personally, I think this tends to turn into one of those "much ado about nothing" discussions. Carrying a handgun is a purely defensive practice, and unless we're talking about professional security operations in some sort of official/protective capacity, the overwhelming odds are that the mere presentation of a weapon will end the threat. When that proves not to be the case, statistics tell us that 1-3 rounds should commonly suffice. Multiple assailants? Extended barricading? Low illumination? Forced to take a low probability shot? Sure, I get that it could prove useful to have more firepower, but I still say that the guy with a two-shot derringer is adequately armed for most encounters one is ever likely to encounter in civilian life. Double that. OK, now triple that. Guess what? You're still in solid 1911 territory without needing a reload.
So, the question is, what level of exponential increase does one really need to satisfy a legitimate defensive need? I get that it might make sense to carry 40 rounds (or whatever) if it could be done with a minimal weight penalty and acceptable bulk, but we're talking about CCW applications almost exclusively, and at what point do you transition from looking like a prepared citizen to looking like a nut-case who is spoiling for a fight? Don't get me wrong: I'm not suggesting it is wrong to carry as much ammunition as one can reasonable accommodate, but when your basic load is equal to -- or greater than -- what a typical LEO might carry on duty, one is left to wonder where it is that you expect to be going, and if it is that perilous, why are you going there in the first place with just a handgun?
Again, I'm not inviting the usual "it doesn't have to make sense" or "you never know what you might face" schtick, nor am I indicting anyone who might offer such; that said, if you don't realistically think that a 1911 with a backup magazine is adequate firepower, than you should probably give some serious consideration to wearing a helmet while you drive in your car or truck, because your Threat-O-Meter might be in need of a bit of calibration. Why not carry the additional firepower if there is no downside to doing so? Indeed -- I can't think of any reason not to. But, at the same time, I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't make sense to carry a 1911 -- or even a revolver -- if that is what has earned your confidence, that is what you can hit with, and that just happens to be your tool of choice.
Do as you wish, but be cautious about rendering judgment on another's choices, for the first rule of a gunfight (just as it has always been) is to have a gun. What sort of gun depends very much on the man or woman that feels compelled to add it to his/her daily kit in the first place, and there is room at the table for all.
AC
Very well said as well.
My father and I have recently been discussing this very topic. In a CCW situation you are unlikely to ever need more than a couple rounds so the capacity "limitations" of the 1911 is kind of moot to me, I know lots of people carry j frames for CCW and round capacity seems to never be brought up. Our great nation hasn't turned into a war zone yet so I feel very comfortable walking out the door with 9 rounds.
Now for our members that are LEO/.mil a polymer based pistol may be a better option for the obivious reasons...cost,maintenance etc..
Once again, Army Chief speaks wisdom.
If I had to choose between a Glock and a 1911, I'd take the 1911. My reasons are personal and as much as I'd like to believe otherwise, have little practical application. Basically boils down to simply not liking a Glock.
There are folks that think a 1911 is unreliable without all the custom work. Truth is, if a shooter were to simply get a well made basic 1911 with little to no modifications, it would prove to be as reliable as the day is long with minimal maintenance.
I don't feel I'm better armed carrying a 1911 than someone else who carries a Glock. My brother carries a Glock into harm's way every day. He is a highly trained professional and I am just an aircraft technician who loves firearms. His training and experience means he's ten times better armed than I am, no matter what I carry
I'm not sure if I'll ever go to a 1911. I have to admit I like the way they handle and the trigger is very nice. I'm just not excited about possibly having to spend a decent sum of money to get one that works and the possible extra tuning/maintenance. Handguns for me are largely tools and I just want something that I can go out and shoot/carry.
I have thought about picking up a cheap 1911 like and RIA tactical for a range pistol, but considering it's still a low end 1911 that costs almost as much as my used USP45 did, it's hard for me to justify it. That and a .45 pistol doesn't make for a cheap to shoot range gun anyway. Maybe some day I'll get the desire to buy a 1911 and learn about them, but for now I'll just stick with more modern pistols.
No absolutely not. I like them for a collection and historical value. But I'm not going to start using one. If I need to pick up a 45 I'll grab my Hk. If it breaks, I'll get the spare in the safe.
DeltaSierra
04-29-12, 10:46
Why take a step backward?
Best post in the thread...
YES! After it's reliability is proven.
I think the 1911 is a gorgeous pistol, I would own one to shoot at the range and to stare at in the safe but I dont think I would carry one.
I have been shooting my M&Ps for years and am comfortable and confident in them, so I will and will continue to carry them in the future. I guess you can call me stubborn.
Now if the table were turned and I have been shooting 1911s for years then the same would be true for them.:agree:
The 1911 allows me to make hits faster and more accurately than any other platform. It's thinner than it's plastic competitors and I feel that steel is a fine application for IWB carry.
If you fell it is too heavy, buy an aluminum frame. If you need capacity, the 1911 can accomodate that too. The 1911 can be practically whatever you want it to be, if you've got the scratch.
The cost issue is interesting. Look at how much you spend in shooting over a 5-10 year period--that $2850 Wilson CQB is not as significant a cost as you would think. You may blow twice that on vehicle depreciation each year.
In regard to maintenance, if you cannot maintain a 1911, you probably should not own a car, lawn mower or home. Replacing springs and lubricating is too much?
I have 2 1911's I carry them almost daily, I have 2 Springfield Amormy XD 9's I carry rarely. I also have to S&W 38's I also carry regulary. The 9mm are bulky and when I train with them I must get use to the muzzel flip because to their light weight. I don't have a problem with My 1911's they are dead on accurite, With my 1911 I hit what I aim at where I aim. not so much with the plastic guns. I find I send more bullets down range to make up for larger groups.My Smith's are always good weapon, reliable accurite 5/6 shot. I also hit what I aim at where I aim with them. So my point is in my opinion the 1911 is a better all around weapon with 100 years on use, 3 wars and still the best least problematic weapons platform. I do not know alot about the glock it may be all those things that the glock boy says it is. I bought 2 polymar guns because some told me how good they were and how cheap. I shot and carry what I feel comfortable with and what is feel I can use to defend myself and my family. Like my cop brother tells me it is not about the number of shots it's the placement of those shots that matter
Gary1911A1
04-30-12, 17:57
The 1911 allows me to make hits faster and more accurately than any other platform. It's thinner than it's plastic competitors and I feel that steel is a fine application for IWB carry.
If you fell it is too heavy, buy an aluminum frame. If you need capacity, the 1911 can accomodate that too. The 1911 can be practically whatever you want it to be, if you've got the scratch.
The cost issue is interesting. Look at how much you spend in shooting over a 5-10 year period--that $2850 Wilson CQB is not as significant a cost as you would think. You may blow twice that on vehicle depreciation each year.
In regard to maintenance, if you cannot maintain a 1911, you probably should not own a car, lawn mower or home. Replacing springs and lubricating is too much?
I feel the same and as a matter of fact I've never moved away from the 1911. Then again I'm almost 60 so the 1911 was my first love.:D I will try other pistols at times, but I always come back to the 1911. Take some good classes on how to troubleshoot and maintain it and there is still no better pistol for my needs.
Urban_Redneck
04-30-12, 19:09
Let me step on a few toes, albeit as good-naturedly as possible....
AC
Well said.
U_R
mallowpufft
04-30-12, 21:28
If a 1911 existed that was within $100 the cost of a plastic fantastic and was as reliable out of the box I would carry one.
I don't mind maintenance, springs, lube, etc. All my semi auto pistols get a feed ramp polish before they're fired by me and most of them end up with a few after market springs.
My biggest concern with the 1911 is that somehow, a 100 year old pistol design, never works out of the box unless you've got 1k+ in it.
It's best to blame my misspelled words on autocorrect.
NEVER say "never" lest you weaken your argument.
I've had three perform flawlessly from the very first shot.
If you mean that one needs to spend $1k I know of many who disagree. Being an "egg head" I know what alloy, manufacturing and material processes I wish for which easily doubles the price. As such, I won't be purchasing any more.
if a shooter were to simply get a well made basic 1911 with little to no modifications, it would prove to be as reliable as the day is long with minimal maintenance.
Where would one set about getting such an animal?
As an IDPA safety officer for nearly 10 years and frequent attendee at various training classes and other shooting events I have seen a wide range of guns come through, and so far I have not seen a 1911-pattern handgun that I would trust that starts under about $2k. And even then I'm going to want way more rounds through it before I'd carry it than one of the wonder-9s.
I do believe that it *should* be possible to do as you say, I just have yet to see it done.
although I wonder at your definition of "no modifications". Does a Kimber that comes stock with a beavertail, night sights, extended thumb safety, lowered and flared ejection port, etc. count as "no modifications" or must we buy an A1-spec 1911 for it to count? Are we talking modifications from stock as it comes from the factory or modifications to the original design?
Where would one set about getting such an animal?
As an IDPA safety officer for nearly 10 years and frequent attendee at various training classes and other shooting events I have seen a wide range of guns come through, and so far I have not seen a 1911-pattern handgun that I would trust that starts under about $2k. And even then I'm going to want way more rounds through it before I'd carry it than one of the wonder-9s.
I do believe that it *should* be possible to do as you say, I just have yet to see it done.
although I wonder at your definition of "no modifications". Does a Kimber that comes stock with a beavertail, night sights, extended thumb safety, lowered and flared ejection port, etc. count as "no modifications" or must we buy an A1-spec 1911 for it to count? Are we talking modifications from stock as it comes from the factory or modifications to the original design?
I do not disagree with the $2K comment. IMHO, about the only way to get a quality built 1911 for under $2K is to build it yourself. Then again, you would have to gain that knowledge and that knowledge isn't going to come all that cheap.
C4
Army Chief
05-01-12, 09:03
Where would one set about getting such an animal?
Rob,
I'd say that current production Colts come pretty close from what I've seen to date, save for the fact that they've still got more sharp edges than a stealth fighter. My sense is that it is the irresistable urge to "improve" these guns that often leads to failures out on the line, and magazine choice probably plays a part here, too. If you're out on the line with a Glock, M&P or HK, you're probably using a factory mag made to OEM specs. If you're shooting a 1911 -- even if you're sticking only to "premium" selections -- you could be feeding the gun from a product made by Wilson, Tripp, CMC, Novak or a handful of other vendors. It stands to reason that some up-front experimentation should be in order to see what the gun actually prefers, but in the real world, it is far more likely that the shooter will just show up at the range expecting flawless performance. While stupid, I'm not exactly casting stones, as I've been guilty of equally brilliant feats more times than I can count. =]
AC
mallowpufft
05-01-12, 09:16
I do not disagree with the $2K comment. IMHO, about the only way to get a quality built 1911 for under $2K is to build it yourself. Then again, you would have to gain that knowledge and that knowledge isn't going to come all that cheap.
C4
There you go, Grant. New business model for you. Start selling complete kits with an instructional DVD and book. Sandpaper and elbow grease not included. ;)
brickboy240
05-01-12, 14:28
Actually, as time goes on...I am moving AWAY from 1911s.
All the money and aggravation spent on making my 2 old Colts fly right...man....I could have bought 4-5 Glocks and a Dillon progressive reloader! LOL Could have been loading and shooting instead of ordering Wilson parts and hoping that this will fix what is wrong this time around.
Then, I blew another 800 plus on the Kimber TLE II...and even though it shoots fine, I find out that it is chock full of sintered metal parts and probably won't last very long. Turns out you have to blow at least 2500 bucks to get a decent 1911 that is made of good steel and will last.
Yeah...give me a few striker fired pistols and I am happy. I'd rather shoot than diagnose and nitpick.
I'll probably always keep one around but to be honest, with the cost of a decent 1911, the possible problems they have and the cost of 45ACP ammo these days...I am moving AWAY from the 1911...sorry.
- brickboy240
I think most are moving away. The size, weight, capacity, price, and reliability (of some, not all) hurt it compared to a $500 gun that is easier to learn, twice the capacity, half the weight and runs right out of the box. That said, I'll always own and enjoy 1911s, but it is not my go to gun.
As an IDPA safety officer for nearly 10 years and frequent attendee at various training classes and other shooting events I have seen a wide range of guns come through, and so far I have not seen a 1911-pattern handgun that I would trust that starts under about $2k. As a USPSA Chief Range Officer, I have seen dozens, upon dozens of guns puke. Some of the most problematic are Glocks that guys mess with trying to make them run better for Limited Division. The platform I see choke most often are the 1911 pattern pistols, but that is also the platform I see the most often. That said, I have seen a lot (and I mean a lot) of under $2,000.00 1911s run flawlessly match after match after match. I have had several under $2,000.00 1911s myself that I ran over 50,000 (closer to 100,000 in some) rounds through without a problem.
Still, if I were to walk into a sporting goods store and go to the gun counter to choose a pistol that would most likely run with a variety of self defense hollow point loads, I would take a Glock, M&P, XD, etc. ahead of a 1911. Just the way it is (for me).
To answer the OP, I went from revolvers to 1911s, then to polymer safe action guns, then back to 1911s. Right now I have both and both have their place.
There you go, Grant. New business model for you. Start selling complete kits with an instructional DVD and book. Sandpaper and elbow grease not included. ;)
LOL, right.
C4
skywalkrNCSU
05-06-12, 21:44
I want to like 1911's because I love the look of them but I just don't see the point. I am probably too practical because the way I see it is that there are other guns that do the same thing the 1911 does but better. I would rather get an H&K if I am going to spend the coin on a nicer pistol than a Glock. Love the way those guns shoot.
Also, I had a Springfield Loaded 1911 and had nothing but FTFs with it so I am a bit timid to get another.
davebee456
05-07-12, 00:27
Just got a Colt Series 80 Commander blue with wood grips
Brand new built this year, love the way it looks,Paid around $845
I only put 100 rounds through it so far and out of the several 1911s I have had 1400$ to 700$ valued guns this might be running th best so far with "0 fails out of 100 rounds" ha ha
I just moved back to 1911 for duty carry. I just shoot them more accurately then any other gun. Oddly enough I shoot DA/SA sigs better then the issued glock and I decided that if I was going to carry that heavy of a gun it might as well be a 1911. I also like to carry my duty gun off duty, and the 1911 being thin hides really well. The weight doesn't bother me either as I use a good holster and belt.
beschatten
05-10-12, 23:14
I'm 23 and as my first gun I was debating between a M&P, Sig, and a 1911. I pulled the trigger on the 1911 and haven't regretted it since.
For my frame (6'3 210lbs), concealment hasn't been an issue at all.
I love the feel, the accuracy, and the fact that this is something I can have for a long time, work on it over time, and make it just the way I want.
Granted I'll be buying more guns in the future, my next one will probably be an M&P Pro in a .40 or an FNS-40; I strongly believe a 1911 still has it's place in a man's arsenal. However, this is all a matter of personal preference and get what suites you right.
I fall in with the 'moving away' crowd. Just no point these days. Big, heavy, low-cap, hard to work on (relatively), unreliable (generally), expensive (comparatively) and just an all around PITA to use in a modern training environment that is geared more for a hi-cap gun that works.
I have observed the same things rob_s has, time after time. I do have to say though, the die-hard 1911 guys I've seen are very patient and forgiving, quick to make excuses for why their gun choked this time!
So... holsters? I haven't found a 1911 holster thread yet.
Where would one set about getting such an animal?
As an IDPA safety officer for nearly 10 years and frequent attendee at various training classes and other shooting events I have seen a wide range of guns come through, and so far I have not seen a 1911-pattern handgun that I would trust that starts under about $2k. And even then I'm going to want way more rounds through it before I'd carry it than one of the wonder-9s.
I do believe that it *should* be possible to do as you say, I just have yet to see it done.
although I wonder at your definition of "no modifications". Does a Kimber that comes stock with a beavertail, night sights, extended thumb safety, lowered and flared ejection port, etc. count as "no modifications" or must we buy an A1-spec 1911 for it to count? Are we talking modifications from stock as it comes from the factory or modifications to the original design?
Note that I said "little to no modifications". The point I'm making is that the 1911 in it's original GI configuration is a very reliable pistol. I had a WWII Remington Rand when I was a very young man, that I put many rounds through and it ran with no malfunctions. It had no modifications done to it. Sights were tiny, but it always fired. I have a Gold Cup Commander I was putting 500 rounds a week through right out of the box with no mods and no malfunctions. (I made changes to it later, but that's another story.) I saw many commercial Colt and various surplus 1911s run fine in their original configuration while growing up.
Many problems with 1911s can be traced back to deviations from the original GI specifications, in both dimension and manufacturing methods. Some mods are true improvements to the original GI, such as lowered & flared ejection ports, angling the mag well opening, Beavertail grip safety just large enough to prevent hammer bite, more useable sights, radiusing where the trigger guard meets the grip for example.
Some modifications trade reliability for possible performance gains, like hand fitting a barrel or tightening up the guide rails. These modifications when done in moderation pose no problem. The trouble is, moderation is subjective.
A properly made Colt Government Model is a solid, reliable pistol and usually is so right out of the box. Sometimes it will need attention when new, but never $2000 worth of work to run reliably
(I stick to talking about Colt commercial and military surplus 1911s because they are what I have the most direct experience with. My experience with Kimbers is very limited and mostly based hearsay, therefore I feel unqualified to offer an opinion on this pistol)
I only have maybe 200 rounds through my Colt but so far not a single issue. Shouldn't be saying much but makes me wonder about all those pistols that malfunction on the first box of ammo.
I've put several thousand rounds through a stock Colt 1911 with only mod a trigger job and this was without malfunction except for two rounds not going bang. Of course it was 45 year old French GI ammo and shouldn't be blamed on the 1911. They had very good firing pin strikes and didn't go bang with a second strike either. That was during a class or two.
$500 to spend? Then buy a Glock 17 or 19.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.