View Full Version : What are the benefits of carrying a
1911 style pistol to a Glock or other pistol? Im looking to purchase my first carry piece and would appreciate any insight you may have. I am leaning towards a .45 acp caliber if thats makes any difference.
Any input would be appreciated.
Thanks!
S&WM4
I find it easier to conceal a 5" 1911 in an IWB than I do a Glock 26.
I also find it easier to shoot the 1911 well.
So, more likely to have the gun with me, and more likely to hit what I'm aiming at.
i always carried a glock and it was uncomfortable to some extent, the 1911 is bigger and probably just as uncomfortable. its really all about the holster, and i like having my cannon on my hip whenever i can. plus i think its a thing of beauty.
Business_Casual
12-10-08, 20:47
If you aren't a very good shot, you might need the extra bullets.
M_P
A quality 1911 will require a notably larger initial investment, and comparatively greater lifecycle costs for repair and PM depending on your use. Verification of ammunition compatibility will be important. It offers the pride of ownership, superior craftsmanship, slimmer profile, and heavier weight. Read the articles at 10-8 on selecting and maintaining a worthy piece of this type.
The Glock will require comparatively less everything. You can treat it like a lawnmower or an old pickup truck. It's ugly, but like an ugly significant other, it will work hard for you. Read the owners manual.
Whatever you choose, shoot often, train hard, carry always.
Alaskapopo
12-10-08, 22:56
I find it easier to conceal a 5" 1911 in an IWB than I do a Glock 26.
I also find it easier to shoot the 1911 well.
So, more likely to have the gun with me, and more likely to hit what I'm aiming at.
+1 The 1911 in my opinion is the best fighting handgun made from the standpoint of being able to hit your target quickly under stress with accuracy.
Pat
1911s are slightly thinner and conceal slightly better than other pistols.
They can be slightly easier for most people to shoot well.
As a group, they have much more problems than other pistols out of the box. This is particularly so with low end production guns, and less so with semi-custom and custom guns.
They also have much lower capacity than other designs. This may be important to you for various reasons.
The advantages of the 1911 can offset by capacity and out of the box reliability of other designs.
A good holster and belt can improve comfort when carrying the wider pistols (Glock, M&P, etc.) concealed.
So, if you have have less than $2k to spend, I'd get a 2 Glocks or M&Ps with Heinie Tritium sights, extra mags, SF X300 lights, and quality holsters and mag pouches, a whole bunch of ammo, and some training.
$2k would get you 1 semi-custom 1911 (LB TRS or CC) some mags, and a holster and mag pouch.
This comes from a guy who carries 1911s and Glocks and finds merit with both.
I find it easier to conceal a 5" 1911 in an IWB than I do a Glock 26.
I also find it easier to shoot the 1911 well.
So, more likely to have the gun with me, and more likely to hit what I'm aiming at
+2
Alaskapopo
12-11-08, 02:29
1911s are slightly thinner and conceal slightly better than other pistols.
They can be slightly easier for most people to shoot well.
As a group, they have much more problems than other pistols out of the box. This is particularly so with low end production guns, and less so with semi-custom and custom guns.
They also have much lower capacity than other designs. This may be important to you for various reasons.
The advantages of the 1911 can offset by capacity and out of the box reliability of other designs.
A good holster and belt can improve comfort when carrying the wider pistols (Glock, M&P, etc.) concealed.
So, if you have have less than $2k to spend, I'd get a 2 Glocks or M&Ps with Heinie Tritium sights, extra mags, SF X300 lights, and quality holsters and mag pouches, a whole bunch of ammo, and some training.
$2k would get you 1 semi-custom 1911 (LB TRS or CC) some mags, and a holster and mag pouch.
This comes from a guy who carries 1911s and Glocks and finds merit with both.
Low end 1911 are trouble some in the reliablity department. My Wilson however has been as reliable as any Glock, Sig or HK service pistol I have ever carried. I went through more than 2000 rounds without cleaning it before I trusted it and I had no malfunctions. That was a mix of JHP's, lead reloads and FMJ ball. Magazine capacity is great but I find it way down on the list of priorities in a fighting handgun. Most gun fights are over in less than 3 rounds according to the stats I have scene. I can't picture many gun fights where the ability to fire more than 9 shots without a reload would save the day.
Pat
Robb Jensen
12-11-08, 05:41
1911 style pistol to a Glock or other pistol? Im looking to purchase my first carry piece and would appreciate any insight you may have. I am leaning towards a .45 acp caliber if thats makes any difference.
Any input would be appreciated.
Thanks!
S&WM4
The 1911 is thinner.
Other than that I can shoot either just as good as the other. I can put multiple rounds on target faster (according to my timer) with a Glock 9mm than I can a 1911 .45ACP YMMV.
A quality 1911 will require a notably larger initial investment, and comparatively greater lifecycle costs for repair and PM depending on your use. Verification of ammunition compatibility will be important. It offers the pride of ownership, superior craftsmanship, slimmer profile, and heavier weight. Read the articles at 10-8 on selecting and maintaining a worthy piece of this type.
The Glock will require comparatively less everything. You can treat it like a lawnmower or an old pickup truck. It's ugly, but like an ugly significant other, it will work hard for you. Read the owners manual.
Whatever you choose, shoot often, train hard, carry always.
Interestingly...
I have been focusing on shooting the Glock for the past year. What I have found, at least for me, is that shooting the 1911 requires much less sustainment training. I can put down a 1911 for literally months, pick it back up and shoot it reasonably well again. I can't seem to go even a week without dryfire and expect to hit the broadside of a barn with it.
So, what I have found for ME is that the 1911 may require more mechanical maintenance, but that the Glock requires more skillset maintenance.
Carrying a 5" 1911 IWB would make my pants fall down:eek:
Carrying a 5" 1911 IWB would make my pants fall down:eek:
Really? I have never found the weight to be an issue in my VMII holsters.
ThirdWatcher
12-11-08, 05:58
Living with a 1911 is kinda hard to explain. It is a natural pointer and carries better than it has a right to. I only use quality holsters, so the weight is hardly noticeable and a 1911 is flat so it's hardly noticeable (to me, anyway).
There are a lot of good pistols on the market, but you have to experience a quality 1911 to understand the mystique.:)
After switching from the 1911 to the glock, I could never go back to the weight of the 1911. The bulk of the glock doesn't bother me.
I can shoot a good 1911 a little better than I can a glock, but I'll take reliability over precision in a carry piece all day long!
variablebinary
12-11-08, 08:08
I have carried both over the years, but now all I carry is a G19. I prefer the capacity, simplicity and lightweight. The point and click interface of the glock appeals to me more as well
Since neither the .45 or 9mm can assure a 1 shot stop, I'd rather take my chances with more rounds
Scott Gerber
12-11-08, 08:24
Plastic is fantastic but there's no better feel than steel.... :D
Scott
Interestingly... I have been focusing on shooting the Glock for the past year. What I have found, at least for me, is that shooting the 1911 requires much less sustainment training. I can put down a 1911 for literally months, pick it back up and shoot it reasonably well again. I can't seem to go even a week without dryfire and expect to hit the broadside of a barn with it. So, what I have found for ME is that the 1911 may require more mechanical maintenance, but that the Glock requires more skillset maintenance.
Not surprising, and also heard from others. Most commonly attributed to the short travel, lighter weight, shorter rest of the SA, usually tuned, triggers in the design.
The best cc pistol is the one that you will put on every day. Unfortunately, it seems that it takes a few tries to find the pistol that feels right and find one that you will actually be comfortable wearing every day. Be prepared to spend some $$$ to buy a good gun belt and a quality holster. Currently, my favorite CC pistol is a Kimber Ultra CDPII holstered in a Kramer belt scabbard horsehide holster on a elephant gun belt from The Belt Man.
Interestingly...
I have been focusing on shooting the Glock for the past year. What I have found, at least for me, is that shooting the 1911 requires much less sustainment training. I can put down a 1911 for literally months, pick it back up and shoot it reasonably well again. I can't seem to go even a week without dryfire and expect to hit the broadside of a barn with it.
So, what I have found for ME is that the 1911 may require more mechanical maintenance, but that the Glock requires more skillset maintenance.
Rob,
I've found the complete opposite. I am a Glock guy, and have been for probably 10 years or so. Over that time, I've also owned SIGs, 1911s, and now my HK45. It's always taken me a bit to get used to whatever else I'm shooting, but only a few minutes to get warmed up to my Glocks, even if I haven't used one in months.
My theory is that it has to do with what we have the most experience with. Since you are mostly a 1911 guy your muscle memory defaults to that and it is harder for you to 'overwrite' it with something new like the Glock. I'm the exact opposite. It's harder for me to 'overwrite' my Glockiness with something else. I hope that makes sense.
I think that may contribute to the mine-is-better-than-yours syndrome endemic to this industry. A 1911 guy tries a Glock and hates it because it doesn't feel right; a Glock guy tries a 1911 and hates it. Then they go on the internet and argue about it. But I bet if we went back in time and switched their pistols when they first started shooting, they'd argue it from the other side.
As to which is better: Clearly the Glock is better, because that is what I shoot.
I kid, I kid. Others have gone over the advantages/disadvantages pretty well. The 1911 is flatter but heavier; the Glock is lighter but fatter. One thing I will mention that I like about the Glock: there seems to be fewer nooks and crannies for lint to collect in (grip safety, hammer, thumb safety) than a 1911.
Personally, though, I would probably pass on both the 1911 and Glock for a .45. I would look at the M&P45 or the HK45C for a .45 carry gun these days. If you want a Glock, the best ones are the G17 and G19, IMO. If you want a 1911, a steel 5" is the way to go. Thats just my opinion though.
The best advice I could give is to find a range with a well stocked rental cabinet and shoot them all. Find what works for you.
Interestingly...
I have been focusing on shooting the Glock for the past year. What I have found, at least for me, is that shooting the 1911 requires much less sustainment training. I can put down a 1911 for literally months, pick it back up and shoot it reasonably well again. I can't seem to go even a week without dryfire and expect to hit the broadside of a barn with it.
So, what I have found for ME is that the 1911 may require more mechanical maintenance, but that the Glock requires more skillset maintenance.
Read it folks. It's the truth.
I love my Colts, but would probably not carry them concealed ever again. To me they are indeed great guns and I can shoot them extremely well. They are just as much a piece of history and Americana as mom, baseball and apple pie. They are also heavy, maintenance intensive and precious. The Glocks... aren’t.
Carry pieces (mine anyway) tend to see a lot of "abuse" for lack of a better word. Scratched, dinged, dented are things I don't want to happening to any of my Colts. Glock, meh, it'll be fine. Tell me this, which gun are you going to take with you on a white-water rafting trip or even tubing down a river? Camping?
Comfort of carrying... I carry a Glock 23 everywhere everyday. It is a tad thicker than a 1911 at its widest point, but it does not have a hammer or beavertail sticking up off the back end. To me, that was the worst thing about carrying a 1911; that damn hammer was always biting into my side, very uncomfortable. The Glock, well, it's just the same old ugly, blocky back end of the slide.
As far as shootability goes, it takes some time and practice to learn to shoot anything well. Took some time to learn to shoot the 1911 well, took me time to become proficient with a DA revolver and took time to get good with a Glock. Put some time and effort into it and it can be done. The thing I have found with most new Glock shooters (especially the "1911 or no gun at all" guys) is that they don't want to learn to shoot the Glock; they're self sabotaging. They are their own worst enemy. They seem to think that as well as they can shoot whatever other gun and can't (or won't) shoot a Glock well right out of the gate, the Glock is no good. A lot of those same people complain about shooting DA revolvers too. It's almost like the 1911 is a crutch.
So, what I have found for ME is that the 1911 may require more mechanical maintenance, but that the Glock requires more skillset maintenance.
Read it folks. It's the truth.
The extent to which it is would be important though. There's a difference, just not as great as some might think. The difference would also vary across skill levels. I'd like to see it quantified over a sampling of shooters and abilities.
The 1911 is thinner.
Other than that I can shoot either just as good as the other. I can put multiple rounds on target faster (according to my timer) with a Glock 9mm than I can a 1911 .45ACP YMMV.
+1
When people start going on and on about how much more "shootable" the 1911 is, it's important to put things in context.
It's almost always a gunsmithed 1911 being compared to a stock (insert brand here). It's almost always a full size all-steel 1911 being compared to a smaller, lighter (insert brand here). Frequently, the tester is measuring accuracy only without any speed component. No doubt, a really nice 1911 trigger is more forgiving of mistakes when shooting bullseyes. When speed is a factor, it is still being measured in terms that reflect a level of raw capability that has little analogue to realistic performance under stress in a dynamic situation.
I would posit that for almost anyone on this board, if you had $1,250 to spend on a decent 1911, you'd be better prepared for a fight if you instead spent $450 on a Glock and $800 on training & practice ammo.
The 1911 is an enthusiast's gun. If you're an enthusiast, you're willing to spend the money, and you're willing to accept the work necessary to keep the gun in proper fighting condition, they're certainly fantastic guns. They've proven their effectiveness countless times. As long as your specific gun is proven with your specific ammo in your specific mags, no one can fault you for the choice.
In my experience, the number of people who think they know what they're doing with a 1911 outnumbers the people who actually know what they're doing with a 1911 by about 20:1.
The extent to which it is would be important though. There's a difference, just not as great as some might think. The difference would also vary across skill levels. I'd like to see it quantified over a sampling of shooters and abilities.
The simple explanation is, grip angle and trigger of 1911 compared to say a glock. To each their own, but I know what I've experienced when handing people different weapons for the first time.
FWIW, I don't carry my 1911.
+1
When people start going on and on about how much more "shootable" the 1911 is, it's important to put things in context.
It's almost always a gunsmithed 1911 being compared to a stock (insert brand here). It's almost always a full size all-steel 1911 being compared to a smaller, lighter (insert brand here). Frequently, the tester is measuring accuracy only without any speed component. No doubt, a really nice 1911 trigger is more forgiving of mistakes when shooting bullseyes. When speed is a factor, it is still being measured in terms that reflect a level of raw capability that has little analogue to realistic performance under stress in a dynamic situation.
I would posit that for almost anyone on this board, if you had $1,250 to spend on a decent 1911, you'd be better prepared for a fight if you instead spent $450 on a Glock and $800 on training & practice ammo.
The 1911 is an enthusiast's gun. If you're an enthusiast, you're willing to spend the money, and you're willing to accept the work necessary to keep the gun in proper fighting condition, they're certainly fantastic guns. They've proven their effectiveness countless times. As long as your specific gun is proven with your specific ammo in your specific mags, no one can fault you for the choice.
In my experience, the number of people who think they know what they're doing with a 1911 outnumbers the people who actually know what they're doing with a 1911 by about 20:1.
No argument there. What I think Rob was alluding to was, right off the bat what is easier.
Everything you said points towards, training. Which you and I both know, many people don't do often enough.
I certainly hope no one is taking offense to what Rob said, and to what I agreed with. The truth of the matter is in the last line of what rob's post. 1911 - more mechanical maintenance, glock - more skill set maintenance.
If you have time for the latter, by all mean put more rounds on your belt. It's what I do.
John_Wayne777
12-11-08, 14:09
1911 style pistol to a Glock or other pistol? Im looking to purchase my first carry piece and would appreciate any insight you may have. I am leaning towards a .45 acp caliber if thats makes any difference.
Any input would be appreciated.
Thanks!
S&WM4
For me the benefit of the 1911 is that it is the easiest centerfire handgun I've ever tried to shoot. I've been through multiple training courses with my carry 1911 and making hits with that weapon requires almost zero mental effort. It's so easy to shoot it seems to practically shoot itself.
The ability to put a bullet exactly where you want it on demand the first time almost every single time you draw the weapon is a significant advantage...and it's why the 1911 earned the title of the "King of Combat Handguns."
That ability comes with significant drawbacks in the reliability and cost departments, but the enthusiast might find those to be small prices to pay.
It's possible to get an acceptable level of performance out of any service quality handgun...but the truth is that some people shoot some weapons better than others. If you have the luxury of all the training time and ammo you want, you can learn to be deadly accurate with just about anything. If, however, you are like most people and have very limited opportunities to train, a weapon that works WITH you as much as possible could be a significant advantage for you.
I'd like to add a few thoughts...
In the late 80's I was taught to shoot a handgun by the original armorer for Delta. He told me to get a Colt Govt model, preferably a series 70, but an 80 was fine. They were THE combat handgun at the time. I did as he said, and have been shooting one since.
That was 20 plus years ago, what else was there at the time? 9mm ammo was not as good as today, there was no .40, and the Glock were relatively new. Though some liked them. Everything else was a fat, DA 9mm,.... an 80's gun.
Today, its different. The Glock is a proven weapon, the 9 has some very effective ammo, and despite what some say, I think the 40 bridges the gap very nicely. Not to mention the introduction of the M&P line.
So while a quality custom 1911 may still be "King", there are at least a few guns that now come so close as to render it mute. And they have some advantages of their own.
Shoot-ability...
I hear things like, "I wish I had my 1911!"... Dude, I've seen your target, a 1911 would not have helped. Or as LAV says, you are using the 1911 trigger as a crutch. If you can only shoot well with a 1911, you don't need a 1911, you need more training.
I'm all for the easier gun to shoot, and its the reason I stuck with a 1911 for so long. But, really, put a 3.5 connector in a Glock, or get a decent trigger in an M&P, and its not much different, certainly nothing insurmountable.
At LAV class, I shot my Vandenberg custom Kimber on day one, and my stock M&P45(w/about a 10lb trigger) on day two, shot them both equally well. yea it was a bit easier with the Kimber, but not enough to make much of difference, even LAV commented on it.
I've been shooting a Glock 22 at work for about 8 years now, my current employer issues them with 8lb connectors, they suck out loud(the connectors). But, I can easily shoot well past 90 percent. Some of the best shooters we have, only shoot at work, and own no guns.
Here's an interesting story..
A recent new hire, never shot a pistol before in his life, was given the aforementioned 8lb triggered Glock, he qualed with I believe a perfect score, he then went out for the shooting team, he won the DOE officer of the year, which is based solely on shooting. His last qual, after not shooting at all for over 6 months, was one point short of perfect. And our qual is no joke, it still goes to 50 yards.
I also find it interesting that of the three former members of CAG I've trained with, none of them would take a 1911 first, though they all like short trigger guns, like the Glock. These are guys, that have shot untold rounds thru them and carried them and used them in combat, that's something to think about.
With enough training, any gun can be shot well, but I certainly believe the easier gun to shoot well, will do better given the same number of rounds, time, and training resources. So, a good 1911 will do well there, but, a Glock or M&P will also do quite well, and w/o some of headaches associated with 1911's.
As for me, I'm moving toward the M&P 40. I hope one comes out with a long slide, pro sear and thumb safety.
My 1911's are in the drawer with my RayBan aviators and (sadly) my Seiko watch.
Bob
If you can only shoot well with a 1911, you don't need a 1911, you need more training.
http://images.usatoday.com/money/_photos/2006/06/21/cannes-bud-radio.jpg
Alaskapopo
12-11-08, 15:38
After switching from the 1911 to the glock, I could never go back to the weight of the 1911. The bulk of the glock doesn't bother me.
I can shoot a good 1911 a little better than I can a glock, but I'll take reliability over precision in a carry piece all day long!
I agree but you can have a reliable 1911 you just have to pay for it. I take reliability and precision over just reliability any day.
pat
Alaskapopo
12-11-08, 15:42
I'd like to add a few thoughts...
In the late 80's I was taught to shoot a handgun by the original armorer for Delta. He told me to get a Colt Govt model, preferably a series 70, but an 80 was fine. They were THE combat handgun at the time. I did as he said, and have been shooting one since.
That was 20 plus years ago, what else was there at the time? 9mm ammo was not as good as today, there was no .40, and the Glock were relatively new. Though some liked them. Everything else was a fat, DA 9mm,.... an 80's gun.
Today, its different. The Glock is a proven weapon, the 9 has some very effective ammo, and despite what some say, I think the 40 bridges the gap very nicely. Not to mention the introduction of the M&P line.
So while a quality custom 1911 may still be "King", there are at least a few guns that now come so close as to render it mute. And they have some advantages of their own.
Shoot-ability...
I hear things like, "I wish I had my 1911!"... Dude, I've seen your target, a 1911 would not have helped. Or as LAV says, you are using the 1911 trigger as a crutch. If you can only shoot well with a 1911, you don't need a 1911, you need more training.
I'm all for the easier gun to shoot, and its the reason I stuck with a 1911 for so long. But, really, put a 3.5 connector in a Glock, or get a decent trigger in an M&P, and its not much different, certainly nothing insurmountable.
At LAV class, I shot my Vandenberg custom Kimber on day one, and my stock M&P45(w/about a 10lb trigger) on day two, shot them both equally well. yea it was a bit easier with the Kimber, but not enough to make much of difference, even LAV commented on it.
I've been shooting a Glock 22 at work for about 8 years now, my current employer issues them with 8lb connectors, they suck out loud(the connectors). But, I can easily shoot well past 90 percent. Some of the best shooters we have, only shoot at work, and own no guns.
Here's an interesting story..
A recent new hire, never shot a pistol before in his life, was given the aforementioned 8lb triggered Glock, he qualed with I believe a perfect score, he then went out for the shooting team, he won the DOE officer of the year, which is based solely on shooting. His last qual, after not shooting at all for over 6 months, was one point short of perfect. And our qual is no joke, it still goes to 50 yards.
I also find it interesting that of the three former members of CAG I've trained with, none of them would take a 1911 first, though they all like short trigger guns, like the Glock. These are guys, that have shot untold rounds thru them and carried them and used them in combat, that's something to think about.
With enough training, any gun can be shot well, but I certainly believe the easier gun to shoot well, will do better given the same number of rounds, time, and training resources. So, a good 1911 will do well there, but, a Glock or M&P will also do quite well, and w/o some of headaches associated with 1911's.
As for me, I'm moving toward the M&P 40. I hope one comes out with a long slide, pro sear and thumb safety.
My 1911's are in the drawer with my RayBan aviators and (sadly) my Seiko watch.
Bob
With enough training you can shoot anything well. However all things being equal you will always shoot a 1911 better. That is why they are the top choice of competition shooters and they are the top choice of many of the very best military and civilian leo units. I like Glocks as well but to me they are a clear and distant second choice to a custom 1911.
Pat
With enough training you can shoot anything well. However all things being equal you will always shoot a 1911 better. That is why they are the top choice of competition shooters and they are the top choice of many of the very best military and civilian leo units. I like Glocks as well but to me they are a clear and distant second choice to a custom 1911.
Pat
I'm not so sure about "always", at least not as sure as I used to be. But,e ven if that was the case, how much better? At what point is it "good enough", and believe me, I'm not one of those 8 inches at 10 yards is GTG guys.
But at some point we need to consider other factors. I just belive that with a decent Glock or M&P, the gap narrows considerably, giving other factors more weight.
Many competition shooters are moving away from the 1911, as are some of the top military units.
Bob
ETA:
To prevent what happened to me at anotehr forum, let me state this.... I do not beleive everyone should dump their 1911's(and associated years of training and gear) and get a Glock or M&P, I do not beleive you are as good as dead if you carry a 1911, etc etc etc. I just believe there are more choices today, and for a new shooter, you could do very well with a Glock or M&P.
If you can only shoot well with a 1911, you don't need a 1911, you need more training.
So?
I freely admit that with more training and practice I could get back to the point where I shoot my Glock as well as my 1911, and I freely admit that there are thousands of people that shoot Glocks better than I shoot my 1911 (of course, there's also people that shoot a dumb ole' revolver even better than they do ;).
The statement above sounds an awful lot to me like the old "it's a training issue". Which is all well and good until you try to work that training in between life, a job, a wife, kids, picking up groceries, etc.
While I acknowledge that the Glock and similar have advantages over the 1911 (chief among them, to me, being cost) the realities of life keep many from getting that training and practice, and it seems stupid to me to hamstring yourself right out of the gate with a platform you can't shoot as well.
In my experience, the number of people who think they know what they're doing with a 1911 outnumbers the people who actually know what they're doing with a 1911 by about 20:1.
Frankly, that applies to any gun.
I also find it interesting that of the three former members of CAG I've trained with, none of them would take a 1911 first, though they all like short trigger guns, like the Glock. These are guys, that have shot untold rounds thru them and carried them and used them in combat, that's something to think about.
Which would probably be why CAG has gone to G22's. If they haven't switched back?
For me, there are two pistols to use, the 1911 and the G19. No other pistol has the same handling characterisitics to me.
Alaskapopo
12-11-08, 17:23
I'm not so sure about "always", at least not as sure as I used to be. But,e ven if that was the case, how much better? At what point is it "good enough", and believe me, I'm not one of those 8 inches at 10 yards is GTG guys.
But at some point we need to consider other factors. I just belive that with a decent Glock or M&P, the gap narrows considerably, giving other factors more weight.
Many competition shooters are moving away from the 1911, as are some of the top military units.
Bob
ETA:
To prevent what happened to me at anotehr forum, let me state this.... I do not beleive everyone should dump their 1911's(and associated years of training and gear) and get a Glock or M&P, I do not beleive you are as good as dead if you carry a 1911, etc etc etc. I just believe there are more choices today, and for a new shooter, you could do very well with a Glock or M&P.
I don't see many competition shooters moving from a 1911 unless they are trying out a division that does not allow them. Its not just about accuracy its about speed and the trigger. The 1911 has the best trigger by far and it makes good hits easy even under great stress.
Pat
So?
I freely admit that with more training and practice I could get back to the point where I shoot my Glock as well as my 1911, and I freely admit that there are thousands of people that shoot Glocks better than I shoot my 1911 (of course, there's also people that shoot a dumb ole' revolver even better than they do ;).
The statement above sounds an awful lot to me like the old "it's a training issue". Which is all well and good until you try to work that training in between life, a job, a wife, kids, picking up groceries, etc.
While I acknowledge that the Glock and similar have advantages over the 1911 (chief among them, to me, being cost) the realities of life keep many from getting that training and practice, and it seems stupid to me to hamstring yourself right out of the gate with a platform you can't shoot as well.
So? So buttons, I guess..
If you notice I said in my follow on post, that the easier gun to shoot, is still the easier gun to shoot.
I also said "well" not the best, not stupendously, not IPSC grandmaster or Presidents Hundred level, just "well". What "well" is may be open to debate.
At some point it is a training issue, and not an equipment issue. Everything is a compromise. No one is saying to take an old Colt SAA, or even an issue 1911, and just train away the advantages that modern firearms give you, but at some point you still need to train.
Perhaps I'm not sophisticated enough to appreciate the nuances of the properly tuned "crisp"(I love that one) trigger, or the differences between a Glock and M&P trigger, etc. But, I don't think it takes an insurmountable amount of more effort to shoot a Glock or M&P "well".
But, i still contend that if you can only shoot to a reasonable level of competency with a 1911, you need more training.
I am not talking about training with a seriously harder to shoot gun, like a revolver, DAO, or DA/SA gun, etc. But a short trigger gun like a Glock, M&P or I guess the XD(never shot one). And, as I said even if you still shoot the 1911 better, how much better? So much better that a few extra hundred rounds couldn't help the shooter? Is that better, enough of a difference to justify the cost of a good 1911, and the maintenance of one? And, for the record I believe most of the 1911 headache stuff is not reality, but when was the last time we saw a long thread on which Glock mag to use?
Every gun out there is a compromise, whether its cost, accuracy, ergo's, reliability, etc, something has to give.
If the custom tuned 1911 is the most "shootable" gun, but I could, for less money and headache, have a gun that is 90-95 percent, if not more, shootable then a good 1911, I call that a good compromise.
As Is aid, I don't think the 1911 is a bad gun or choice, you've obviously made your choice, and compromises. But, I certainly don't think EVERYTHING else is a "distant second".
Bob
Which would probably be why CAG has gone to G22's. If they haven't switched back?
For me, there are two pistols to use, the 1911 and the G19. No other pistol has the same handling characterisitics to me.
As far as I know, its what they use.
Paul Howe was/is a big fan of the Glock, and made comment of the 1911 problems.
Take a LAV class and see how he feels.
Bob
I don't see many competition shooters moving from a 1911 unless they are trying out a division that does not allow them. Its not just about accuracy its about speed and the trigger. The 1911 has the best trigger by far and it makes good hits easy even under great stress.
Pat
Sorry, I don't keep up with the competition circuit, but I seem to remember the Sevigny? guy winning an awful lot with a Glock, and Leatham using an XD here and there, could be wrong though.
I never said it was about accuracy, and I never said the 1911 doesn't have the best trigger, etc etc. But see my above post.
Bob
As was said, anyone can learn to shoot any gun well. The first pistol I ever bought was a SIG P229. After shooting that exclusively for several years I bought a G23 for something a little smaller and lighter to carry. At the first trip to the range with it, I shot it more accurately and with more speed than my P229. I've been a Glocktard ever since.
Can a DA/SA pistol be shot well? Sure, ask a SEAL, FAM, USSS agent or Ernest Langdon for a demo. But why voluntaraily subject yourself to such a steep learning curve?
If I've got a limited budget in terms of both time and money, I want to maximize those limited resources. For me that means using something I'm naturally proficient with rather than forcing myself to use a design that just doesn't fit me.
The point has been missed..... :rolleyes: Moving on.
Commenting to the OP:
Glocks are simple. Get one. High cap mags are something to consider concerning the unsure future. Like Todd said, take the difference in the money and buy ammo and training.
You can conceal them, sometimes it takes a little imagination but lots of people do it all the time.
Decide later if you want a 1911.
That's my opinion based upon the information you provided. Good luck. :cool:
I own 1911s and G19s. That's it. I formerly owned a bunch of DA/SA pistols.
Have shot 1911 and G19 extensively back to back to compare. I get consistently better results with the 1911. Enough better to justify the lessened capacity and increased maintenance? I think so. But I feel quite well armed with a G19.
When TGO shoots the XD, or Max or Travis shoot the M&P, or Dave shoots his G34, they are competing in USPSA Production Division. They are not competing against the 1911s. 1911s are not allowed in Production.
Apples and oranges.
For an apples and apples comparison, we can use Dave shooting his G35 in limited or limited-10, where does compete with 1911s. He does very well, but he is the only Glock shooter I know of that does.
For another apples and apples comparison, the 2008 IDPA nationals CDP divison (1911s primarily, but others can shoot in this division, too) was won with a M&P 45.
So, some people can outshoot 1911s with striker fired guns, but that is generally not the rule.
Alaskapopo
12-11-08, 19:08
Sorry, I don't keep up with the competition circuit, but I seem to remember the Sevigny? guy winning an awful lot with a Glock, and Leatham using an XD here and there, could be wrong though.
I never said it was about accuracy, and I never said the 1911 doesn't have the best trigger, etc etc. But see my above post.
Bob
Sevigny was the first to win with a Glock in limited. Leatham uses and XD in production division that does not allow 1911's. Sevigny is a great shooter who got lucky this year. I don't expect a Glock to win limited again except by luck.
Pat
Alaskapopo
12-11-08, 19:10
Which would probably be why CAG has gone to G22's. If they haven't switched back?
For me, there are two pistols to use, the 1911 and the G19. No other pistol has the same handling characterisitics to me.
I don't take any group of agency seriously that goes from 1911's to the problematic Glock 22.
Pat
John_Wayne777
12-11-08, 20:28
I don't take any group of agency seriously that goes from 1911's to the problematic Glock 22.
Pat
Even the very best can occasionally make equipment decisions that bite them in the ass.
...and CAG is among the very best.
The point has been missed..... :rolleyes: Moving on.
Commenting to the OP:
Glocks are simple. Get one. High cap mags are something to consider concerning the unsure future. Like Todd said, the the difference in the money and buy ammo and training.
You can conceal them, sometimes it takes a little imagination but lots of people do it all the time.
Decide later if you want a 1911.
That's my opinion based upon the information you provided. Good luck. :cool:
:rolleyes: indeed, what point has been missed?
That some don't kneel at the alter of the 1911, or some disagree with others? Anyway you slice it, no matter how the OP asked, it was a 1911 vs Glock thread, and it was going to go that way, I should've known better.
Bob
I don't take any group of agency seriously that goes from 1911's to the problematic Glock 22.
Pat
I'll be sure and let Delta/CAG/ SFOD-D/ whatever they are callin themselves this week, know, that you don't approve. Hope they don't lose any sleep over it.
Considering the problems that can be and are associated with custom 1911's, I'm sure they have figured out away to get the G22's to run.
Bob
I own 1911s and G19s. That's it. I formerly owned a bunch of DA/SA pistols.
Have shot 1911 and G19 extensively back to back to compare. I get consistently better results with the 1911. Enough better to justify the lessened capacity and increased maintenance? I think so. But I feel quite well armed with a G19.
When TGO shoots the XD, or Max or Travis shoot the M&P, or Dave shoots his G34, they are competing in USPSA Production Division. They are not competing against the 1911s. 1911s are not allowed in Production.
Apples and oranges.
For an apples and apples comparison, we can use Dave shooting his G35 in limited or limited-10, where does compete with 1911s. He does very well, but he is the only Glock shooter I know of that does.
For another apples and apples comparison, the 2008 IDPA nationals CDP divison (1911s primarily, but others can shoot in this division, too) was won with a M&P 45.
So, some people can outshoot 1911s with striker fired guns, but that is generally not the rule.
Like I said, I don't follow the competition circuit, I noticed some top shooters were using Glocks, XD's and maybe M&P's. I'll conceed, perhaps it was apoor analogy.
But, speaking of apples to oranges,
No one is comparing a 500 dollar 1911 to a 500 dollar Glock or M&P, either.
Bob
:rolleyes: indeed, what point has been missed?
That some don't kneel at the alter of the 1911, or some disagree with others? Anyway you slice it, no matter how the OP asked, it was a 1911 vs Glock thread, and it was going to go that way, I should've known better.
Bob
I'll just ask that you re-read, this time with comprehension, what rob and I said.
No one at anytime, in this thread, built an altar to the 1911.... Anywhere.
The bold part: This is your fault. This thread was not an X vs X anything. You seem hellbent to turn it into that though.
I'll just ask that you re-read, this time with comprehension, what rob and I said.
No one at anytime, in this thread, built an altar to the 1911.... Anywhere.
The bold part: This is your fault. This thread was not an X vs X anything. You seem hellbent to turn it into that though.
I read just fine, thanks. I just don't agree with everything he or you said. That doesn't mean I can't comprehend.
The OP asked what are the benefits of carrying a 1911 as opposed to another gun, that becomes 1911 vs. XXXX, no matter how you look at it.
Maybe no alter, but there are a few comments that come awful close.
Bob
Matt Edwards
12-11-08, 21:45
I too am curious as to what point Moran has missed. He seems to be dead on to me.
I, like Moran, am a dyed in the wool 1911 guy. I think it is an excellent weapon and an excellent choice. I just don't think it is "the" choice or that it is second to none. Sadly, for me I guess, I found that when actually taking the target and the timer into consideration, I MAY not shoot the 1911 any better then a Glock. I'll admit whole heartedly that I am not "the man" in any way shape or form, however. As slow as I am, as I stated before, I do use the timer, so how well I shoot has nothing to do with how I "feel" about a certain weapon. I suggest to a someone "new" to pistols to try and let the target and the timer tell you which gun you should use, and not the internet.
I think Todd and Moran are on the money. Neither of them are decrying the 1911. They are only stating that there are other good choices. All of these come with good and bad and some may be better then others. The plastic guns have narrowed the gap between themselves and the 1911.
Just so we are tracking, my 1911s aren't going anywhere. If the ammo was cheaper, I'd shoot them more often.
Just for fun, as far as who is using what, I think there is only one poster on this forum who is qualified to answer these questions. He is known for accuracy and his work on 1911s. Ask him what he recommends as a fighting/duty/ carry gun. His choice may surprise you. I'm sure it may be hard to take advice from someone who would recommend that you go from a 1911 to a Glock, however. (funny, but as Moran alluded to, Many of his former unit members agree with him)
I chose both, with a slight edge going to the G-lock.
I too am curious as to what point Moran has missed. He seems to be dead on to me.
I, like Moran, am a dyed in the wool 1911 guy. I think it is an excellent weapon and an excellent choice. I just don't think it is "the" choice or that it is second to none. Sadly, for me I guess, I found that when actually taking the target and the timer into consideration, I MAY not shoot the 1911 any better then a Glock. I'll admit whole heartedly that I am not "the man" in any way shape or form, however. As slow as I am, as I stated before, I do use the timer, so how well I shoot has nothing to do with how I "feel" about a certain weapon. I suggest to a someone "new" to pistols to try and let the target and the timer tell you which gun you should use, and not the internet.
I think Todd and Moran are on the money. Neither of them are decrying the 1911. They are only stating that there are other good choices. All of these come with good and bad and some may be better then others. The plastic guns have narrowed the gap between themselves and the 1911.
Just so we are tracking, my 1911s aren't going anywhere. If the ammo was cheaper, I'd shoot them more often.
Just for fun, as far as who is using what, I think there is only one poster on this forum who is qualified to answer these questions. He is known for accuracy and his work on 1911s. Ask him what he recommends as a fighting/duty/ carry gun. His choice may surprise you. I'm sure it may be hard to take advice from someone who would recommend that you go from a 1911 to a Glock, however. (funny, but as Moran alluded to, Many of his former unit members agree with him)
I chose both, with a slight edge going to the G-lock.
The point that myself, and I'll assume rob, have explained: We aren't saying the glock isn't a viable choice. If you read what I wrote on this page you will see that I recommended the glock and adhere exactly what Todd said.....................
Rob said and I agree with, the 1911 is an easy weapon to get on target and operate for the first time and/or social user than say a glock. That was it... Nothing more.
We also both agree that the reality of training isn't exactly as easily realized as others due to cost, time, and desire.
My first opinion: If you don't have the time, money, or desire to train with a weapon that you are planning on carrying, don't get one.
My second opinion: If you must own a weapon and it's likely to not see much action/practice, then get a quality 1911 as it is easier to operate (shoot) with some measure of accuracy than say.. a glock. This is from my personal experience of exposing new shooters to the world of firearms.
My third opinion: (already posted on this page)
Glocks are simple. Get one. High cap mags are something to consider concerning the unsure future. Like Todd said, take the difference in the money and buy ammo and training.
You can conceal them, sometimes it takes a little imagination but lots of people do it all the time.
Decide later if you want a 1911.
That's my opinion based upon the information you provided. Good luck.
The best I can do..............
I do appreciate all your input. Im not sold on the glock yet but im leaning towards the G30. The M&P has really peeked my interest though and I would like to shoot that first. I'll make my choice after that and let you guys know.
Again, thanks for all your input.
Bob
John_Wayne777
12-11-08, 23:00
I do appreciate all your input. Im not sold on the glock yet but im leaning towards the G30. The M&P has really peeked my interest though and I would like to shoot that first. I'll make my choice after that and let you guys know.
Again, thanks for all your input.
Bob
The 9mm Glocks are the best models Glock makes. Most people are better served with a Glock as a tool for serious social purposes than a 1911.
As it was stated earlier, the 1911 is an enthusiast's handgun. To quote Ken Hackathorn: "1911's are like Ferraris. They drive really good, but if you want one you'd better know a good mechanic and you'd better bring money."
I do appreciate all your input. Im not sold on the glock yet but im leaning towards the G30. The M&P has really peeked my interest though and I would like to shoot that first.
The M&P would be my first choice if I were looking for a single action pistol in 45ACP.
Matt Edwards
12-12-08, 00:18
ZDL,
Roger, I know what you stated. I was just curious as to the point Moran was supposed to have missed. That was all. He is basically saying the same thing you are, but from an opposite(ish) position. He seemed to be very much tracking on everything that was said, then added his own thoughts, as I did.
Here is a case in point. You stated;
"If you must own a weapon and it's likely to not see much action/practice, then get a quality 1911 as it is easier to operate (shoot) with some measure of accuracy than say.. a glock."
Many, myself included, would say if you are going to get a pistol that is NOT going to see much use or practice, get a Glock. I'd have no issues recomending either here, or anywhere for that matter. Although I think the 1911 is extremely easy to operate and shoot, I can't say that it is "easier" then shooting a Glock, especially for a new shooter. I'm tracking that the 1911 does tend to be more accurate, however, a 7 yds, a ragged hole is a ragged hole. I'm not one of those guys that thinks that the 1911 should be reserved for the "experts", but I do agree with KH when he says that the 1911 does not tolerate novices well.
Most knowledgeable shooters could give a convincing argument as to why the Glock (example) is the best gun on the planet. Everything he says could be drop dead fact. We just have to remember that the same shooter could give an argument for the 1911 that is just as convincing and also factual. However, the strong points of both guns may be slightly different. In the end, the shooter needs to decide which strong points he thinks are most important to make his choice.
I don't think any one of the pistols mentioned has a lock on a particular use or venue. One still has advantages over the other. This is quite evident becuase they seem to be used side by side by the best competators, most elite Military units, law enforcement organizations and knowlagable instructors and CCW types. The rest just seems to be personal preferance. (as long as you know better)
With enough training you can shoot anything well. However all things being equal you will always shoot a 1911 better.
Except multiple experienced & accomplished shooters here have already said they don't shoot 1911's better.
Even if you're talking about all-steel single-stack duty-sized .45 pistols, I don't shoot 1911's best. :cool:
That is why they are the top choice of competition shooters ...
They're the choice of competitive shooters for games built around the 1911, like IPSC/USPSA. Change the scoring system and COF rules a little bit and you get something like IDPA where the 1911 is at best an equal performer to the Glocks, Berettas, SIGs, and Smiths that have won many major matches (irrespective of division).
... and they are the top choice of many of the very best military and civilian leo units.
Not as many as you might think. Some of the very best of those very best have stopped using their 1911's over the past couple of years, and others are looking to make a similar move in 2009 if budgets and logistics allow.
People have to learn to understand the difference between "best for me" and "best for everyone."
Frankly, that applies to any gun.
Shooting, yes. My comment (which I hope made sense in context) was that since most of us agree the 1911 requires a much higher level of knowledge in terms of selection and maintenance, many people think they know what they're doing when in fact they do not.
So, some people can outshoot 1911s with striker fired guns, but that is generally not the rule.
Since you brought up IDPA, I don't remember the last time a 1911 won CDP. It's been dominated by Smith, the XD, and Glock for the past few years. In fact, non-1911 guns have been winning the top few slots in CDP recently. A Glock won ESP (the "other" 1911 division) this year, as well.
Then there was the year a DA/SA SIG won CDP ... :cool:
I'm not suggesting that the results among top (paid) shooters is evidence of the 1911's inferiority, but it certainly doesn't demonstrate superiority over the past few years, that's for sure.
Sevigny is a great shooter who got lucky this year. I don't expect a Glock to win limited again except by luck.
When I see Dave next month, I'll let him know you said so. I'm sure he'll care.
I don't take any group of agency seriously that goes from 1911's to the problematic Glock 22.
When I see old acquaintances from that unit next month, I'll let them know you said so. I'm sure they'll really care.
Quite a few folks have made the comment that a "beginner" shooter will do better with a 1911 than anything else. Multiple points on this:
How many beginners have you taught? I've taught hundreds and my experience is that weapon selection -- beyond getting something that fits the hand properly -- plays a tiny role in how quickly a student gains proficiency.
Someone who thinks the 1911 is the greatest invention of all time is very likely going to extend that bias to a student.
Furthermore, someone who feels only the 1911 is shootable probably doesn't know how to shoot other guns well (see Mr. Moran's outstanding comments earlier) and thus probably isn't qualified to teach someone how to shoot another gun. If you can't shoot a Glock well, no shit your student can't shoot a Glock well. I used to see this all the time in terms of DA/SA guns ... amazingly, accomplished DA/SA shooters seem to be able to teach students to shoot DA/SA guns just as well just as quickly as anything else. Voodoo.
Even if we assume arguendo that the 1911 really is somehow magically better for a new shooter, that person's very "newness" makes him a horrible candidate for a gun that has as many idiosyncrasies and pitfalls as the 1911. As has been said many times here even by the most stalwart 1911 fans, it's a gun that requires more knowledge & skill to get running and keep running.
In my experience, the guys who trumpet the loudest that their chosen sidearm is so vastly superior to everything else ... they're the ones with the least confidence in their actual shooting ability. As shooters become more skilled, more seasoned, more mature, and more confident their mindset shifts towards "this is what works the best for me, but I know lots of guys who do better with (insert many other options here)."
Shooting, yes. My comment (which I hope made sense in context) was that since most of us agree the 1911 requires a much higher level of knowledge in terms of selection and maintenance, many people think they know what they're doing when in fact they do not.
Since you brought up IDPA, I don't remember the last time a 1911 won CDP. It's been dominated by Smith, the XD, and Glock for the past few years. In fact, non-1911 guns have been winning the top few slots in CDP recently. A Glock won ESP (the "other" 1911 division) this year, as well.
Then there was the year a DA/SA SIG won CDP ... :cool:
I'm not suggesting that the results among top (paid) shooters is evidence of the 1911's inferiority, but it certainly doesn't demonstrate superiority over the past few years, that's for sure.
When I see Dave next month, I'll let him know you said so. I'm sure he'll care.
When I see old acquaintances from that unit next month, I'll let them know you said so. I'm sure they'll really care.
Quite a few folks have made the comment that a "beginner" shooter will do better with a 1911 than anything else. Multiple points on this:
How many beginners have you taught? I've taught hundreds and my experience is that weapon selection -- beyond getting something that fits the hand properly -- plays a tiny role in how quickly a student gains proficiency.
Someone who thinks the 1911 is the greatest invention of all time is very likely going to extend that bias to a student.
Furthermore, someone who feels only the 1911 is shootable probably doesn't know how to shoot other guns well (see Mr. Moran's outstanding comments earlier) and thus probably isn't qualified to teach someone how to shoot another gun. If you can't shoot a Glock well, no shit your student can't shoot a Glock well. I used to see this all the time in terms of DA/SA guns ... amazingly, accomplished DA/SA shooters seem to be able to teach students to shoot DA/SA guns just as well just as quickly as anything else. Voodoo.
Even if we assume arguendo that the 1911 really is somehow magically better for a new shooter, that person's very "newness" makes him a horrible candidate for a gun that has as many idiosyncrasies and pitfalls as the 1911. As has been said many times here even by the most stalwart 1911 fans, it's a gun that requires more knowledge & skill to get running and keep running.
In my experience, the guys who trumpet the loudest that their chosen sidearm is so vastly superior to everything else ... they're the ones with the least confidence in their actual shooting ability. As shooters become more skilled, more seasoned, more mature, and more confident their mindset shifts towards "this is what works the best for me, but I know lots of guys who do better with (insert many other options here)."
Bold #1: In my context, teaching wasn't a segment in my point. I've observed, (no idea the amount but not near 100's) that handing someone a 1911 and saying "here try this out" seems to provide some measurably better results then doing the same with a glock. Long term? Man I don't know. That's your arena and you have spoken. I'm more than comfortable relying on your knowledge.
If you look in my post re: opinion 2, I stated that if you insist on having a weapon and not training with it, IMO and my limited experience with new/inexperienced shooters (which someone who doesn't train will fall under), a 1911 might be a better option.
You and I both know, those who don't train yet think they are going to rely on some sort of ninja skills, it doesn't matter if you give them a 1911, single shot .22 rifle, glock or wiffle bat. The result will more than likely be the same. This is why I suggested he follow your advice about receiving training with a glock. More rounds is always, more rounds. This is why I don't carry my 1911.
Bold #2: I don't fall in that camp at all.
Bold #3: If the weapon is being used, therefor trained with, I completely agree. If it's just sitting in the bedside drawer.... I don't think the issue is as prevalent. This is why I gave 3 opinion with 3 different scenarios. Whichever the OP falls under, that's for him to decide, as well as what advice he takes.
Bold #4: As usual, I agree.
Taken from previous post:
People have to learn to understand the difference between "best for me" and "best for everyone."
Agree, however I have to say. The answer to these questions will always be: "shoot it and see what works for you", therefor the vote would be to can this answer over and over to many..........................many posts here.
This deluge of opinion, coupled with the qualifications of those giving them, is what helps people learn.
You and I both know, those who don't train yet think they are going to rely on some sort of ninja skills, it doesn't matter if you give them a 1911, single shot .22 rifle, glock or wiffle bat. The result will more than likely be the same.
and
If the weapon is being used, therefor trained with, I completely agree. If it's just sitting in the bedside drawer.... I don't think the issue is as prevalent.
... need to go together as a package. If someone is just leaving a gun in a drawer without training, it's not going to matter what you give him as long as the gun is reliable.
Agree, however I have to say. The answer to these questions will always be: "shoot it and see what works for you", therefor the vote would be to can this answer over and over to many..........................many posts here.
No question. But there's a flipside to that, too.
If you've got something that is working well for you -- be it a 1911, Glock, M&P, or SP101 -- then don't be in a rush to buy something different just because it might be better. Yes, it might be better ... but probably not so much better that an equal $-value of ammo wouldn't have been even more better. Betterer?
Todd-
I think the fork in the road is my assumption that a 1911 with few rounds down the tube will be reliable. I could be wrong, my exposure to 1911's is to a lesser degree than some others on here.
My point was simply, that while a 1911 is an easy weapon to gain and maintain a level of proficiency, guns like the Glock and M&P have significantly narrowed the gap. Enough so, to make other factors carry more weight then before.
Also, many shooters, whether in this thread, this forum, the internet or the shooting community at large, who claim they shoot better with a 1911, really mean they shoot "less bad" with a 1911.
Bob
1911 style pistol to a Glock or other pistol? Im looking to purchase my first carry piece and would appreciate any insight you may have. I am leaning towards a .45 acp caliber if thats makes any difference.
Any input would be appreciated.
Thanks!
S&WM4
maybe some side-x-side numbers & pics would help (my 2nd gen G19 and Colt Combat Commander)...
1911 slide width = 0.912"
G19 slide width = 1.006"
1911 width w/pachmayr rubber grips = 1.300"
1911 width w/CTC laser grips = 1.270"
1911 width w/wood grips = 1.278"
G19 grip width - 1.154"
1911 trigger reach = 2.670"
G19 trigger reach = 2.816"
(measured from grip safety to front of trigger; note my 1911 has short trigger installed)
1911 trigger circumference = 6.375"
G19 trigger circumference = 6.75"
1911 grip circumference = 5.5"
G19 grip circumference = 5.5"
http://tinyurl.com/5wc5xp
http://tinyurl.com/6z5675
http://tinyurl.com/5ucghv
http://tinyurl.com/6n2y69
Robb Jensen
12-12-08, 06:18
Good infor lindertw.
But if you compare 1911 .45s to Glock .45s the Glocks are wider.
Good infor lindertw.
But if you compare 1911 .45s to Glock .45s the Glocks are wider.
but I didn't have a .45acp glock to measure :p
PM sent on an unrelated topic...
ThirdWatcher
12-12-08, 06:27
As it was stated earlier, the 1911 is an enthusiast's handgun. To quote Ken Hackathorn: "1911's are like Ferraris. They drive really good, but if you want one you'd better know a good mechanic and you'd better bring money."
My experience with 1911's supports this statement... but I still carry one of my 1911's daily.
Matt Edwards
12-12-08, 08:04
My point was simply, that while a 1911 is an easy weapon to gain and maintain a level of proficiency, guns like the Glock and M&P have significantly narrowed the gap. Enough so, to make other factors carry more weight then before.
Also, many shooters, whether in this thread, this forum, the internet or the shooting community at large, who claim they shoot better with a 1911, really mean they shoot "less bad" with a 1911.
Bob
I can't fit that in a Sig line can I?
I also think Todd, once again hit it on the head as far as "who is carrying what."
The members from an organization that have chosen Glock over 1911 won't loose any sleep over the dismay they have caused on the net. Of course the change is not that new, and has been happening steadily over the last many years.
I have many friends who are in another Military organization where they have the choice. Glocks dominate. They shoot just fine with them. I'll let them know also that you don't understand their decision. I hope they don't freak out...
It is important to note, I'm not saying that Glocks rule and 1911 suck. I know that is not the case. But as Bob eluded to, the gap between shoot ability and accuracy between a Glock (example) and a 1911 is much more narrow, with a normal human behind it, then the Internet claims.
The M&P would be my first choice if I were looking for a single action pistol in 45ACP.
If I understand you correctly, a hidden fully cocked mechanism comprises the M&P fire control. Add a mushy trigger with a vague re-set, and we have the essence of an M&P.
After reading your post, I went out to the local gun shop and field stripped an M&P. Still don't see how it could possibly be a DAO when the trigger bar functions a sear that releases the striker. I know some that claimed the XD was DAO, by virtue of a sear that caused striker movement as the sear moved off the contact point on the striker.
Not that I am skeptical of what you posted, but that so many in the gun magazine industry continue to define the M&P as DAO. Heck, even S&W did not call it such for the first publicity drive, and then not for the first two evolutions of catalogs. The 2008 catalog describes all the M&P pistols as DAO, although the M&P manual does not.
I suspect there is a reason for the subterfuge. For most folks, they probably don't care. Those who do, likely have specific needs established.
Hat -- Skintop called it a SAO, not a DAO.
Smith, like Glock, began calling its gun a DAO as soon as they saw LE/mil procurements requiring DAO guns.
The trend is to put all such firearms in their own category (SFA, striker fired action) but the regulators and accountants in procurement offices don't always keep up with state of the art firearms terminology.
some really great points made in this thread. :cool:
Hat -- Skintop called it a SAO, not a DAO.
Smith, like Glock, began calling its gun a DAO as soon as they saw LE/mil procurements requiring DAO guns.
Yes. He sure did. And I am in agreement. I'm somewhat familiar with some recent specifications regarding military procurement.
Who would you say started the trend of such descriptions?
Littlelebowski
12-14-08, 20:00
I don't take any group of agency seriously that goes from 1911's to the problematic Glock 22.
Pat
No one here takes you seriously either.
No one here takes you seriously either.
lol. :cool:
Matt Edwards
12-14-08, 21:28
No one here takes you seriously either.
We need a medic over here!!!
i always carried a glock and it was uncomfortable to some extent, the 1911 is bigger and probably just as uncomfortable.
So I take it you have not actually tried it with a a 1911? Because I can tell a huge difference between the two. I like the thinner feeling 1911, but that is just me. I am also a better shot with it than a glock, again that is just my opinion
Wow! And here I thought there was angst over in the shotgun thread in "Training & Tactics"... This is morbidly spectacular!
The 1911 is an enthusiast's gun. If you're an enthusiast, you're willing to spend the money, and you're willing to accept the work necessary to keep the gun in proper fighting condition, they're certainly fantastic guns.
+1
And for the life of me, I can't come to grips with spending $1,500+ on a pistol that won't do me any better than a $500 M&P or Glock.
..and it's why the 1911 earned the title of the "King of Combat Handguns."
...and the Queen of Feedway Stoppages
The M&P would be my first choice if I were looking for a single action pistol in 45ACP.
+1
I was just curious as to the point Moran was supposed to have missed.
Yeah, I got lost on this one, too. :confused:
As it was stated earlier, the 1911 is an enthusiast's handgun. To quote Ken Hackathorn: "1911's are like Ferraris. They drive really good, but if you want one you'd better know a good mechanic and you'd better bring money."
I must say that this is true from my experience. I almost wish I had started with a different pistol for this very reason. I took the plunge and got a 1911 for my first pistol. I LOVE my Custom Goverment model and it runs like a striped @ss ape, but damn if it didn't cost me a couple grand. There are other very viable options like the Glock and XD. I've shot an M&P too, but didn't like it. If you decide on a 1911 be prepared to throw down some serious money for a good one and some good training. If money is an issue you'll probably be better off with a Glock/XD and some good training.
variablebinary
12-14-08, 22:58
When it comes to CCW pistols it helps to imagine yourself in a position where you need to draw down.
And example being the Trolley Square mass shooting. Right away the CCW/Off Duty LEO realized his 1911 wasn't up to the job.
He said something to the effect, "I only have 7 rounds, I cant be doing this"
A couple of years back, I had to draw down with an HK USPc .40. Instantly in my head I knew I have no confidence in the HK. I had doubts about the 1st double action pull, and the recoil and capacity, I hated the safety position which affected my draw and grip. It was all fun and games shooting targets in class, and at the range, but at the moment of truth, I had no faith in the gun. I dumped it for a G19 right after
In your head, and in your hands you need to believe in yourself and the weapon 100%
Whichever weapon you know in your heart will best serve you, that is the one you want.
Personally, I will never part with my Glocks again.
And example being the Trolley Square mass shooting. Right away the CCW/Off Duty LEO realized his 1911 wasn't up to the job.
He said something to the effect, "I only have 7 rounds, I cant be doing this"
I seem to recall reading an AAR that noted that he was carrying only the magazine in the gun. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Because, if that was indeed the case, I'd say a poor tactical decision is to blame for that mindset rather than the equipment itself.
John_Wayne777
12-15-08, 00:19
I seem to recall reading an AAR that noted that he was carrying only the magazine in the gun. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Because, if that was indeed the case, I'd say a poor tactical decision is to blame for that mindset rather than the equipment itself.
That's how I remember it. Only the magazine in the weapon. Had the uniforms not arrived on scene he would have been dead meat. During the Vickers Handgun class in September I was discussing that with another class member while waiting for our relay to come up again. It's a mindset issue.
It sounds like you are new to handguns and to 1911's. The 1911 is not ideal for your first handgun or carry weapon. First it is a maintenance intensive weapon, and it requires experience to manipulate the safety and use the short single action trigger safely. If you really want a .45 I would recommend an M&P mid-size for carry. I do like Glock .45's but they have really blocky slides that are not ideal for carry. If you are new to handguns i would stick with 9mm.
I wish I had know you were our spokesperon before I posted my own thoughts.
Quote:Originally Posted by Littlelebowski
No one here takes you seriously either.
The first M&P's did not have great triggers that is for sure. All the M&P's I have seen for some time now have been fine out of the box. The reset may not be Glock level distinct but I don't have an issue with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hat Creek
If I understand you correctly, a hidden fully cocked mechanism comprises the M&P fire control. Add a mushy trigger with a vague re-set, and we have the essence of an M&P.
You obviously don't know much about Sevignys record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaskapopo
Sevigny is a great shooter who got lucky this year. I don't expect a Glock to win limited again except by luck.
Pat
variablebinary
12-15-08, 03:59
I seem to recall reading an AAR that noted that he was carrying only the magazine in the gun. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Because, if that was indeed the case, I'd say a poor tactical decision is to blame for that mindset rather than the equipment itself.
Yes he had one mag, but that inst close to being the point.
If a person is going to carry a gun, any gun, than their mind, body and soul need be 100% confident in the weapon and their skills with said weapon. In my own drawn down experience, during the moment of truth I knew the HK USPc was all wrong.
During the Trolley Square shooting the CCW holder knew instantly knew there was an aspect of the 1911 that was suspect. For him it was capacity.
Before anyone settles on a gun for carry they need to visualize and replay a drawn down and shooting in their head over and over. When you find a gun that alleviates the majority, if not all your concerns about being the right tool for the right job during a draw down, then you've found the right gun to carry.
For me it's Glock. Specifically the 22 and 19. For some people its the 1911. Neither are really right or wrong.
Littlelebowski
12-15-08, 06:36
Sevigny sure gets lucky a lot :D
8-Time USPSA National Champion
7-Time IDPA National Champion
2-Time TSA National Champion
2-Time Steel Challenge World IDPA Champion
2-Time Winchester World Challenge Champion
Light & Laser Invitational Champion
Steel Challenge World Rimfire Champion
Steel Challenge National Steel Master Champion
Steel Challenge National Limited Champion
IPSC World & Pan American Production Champion
Matt Edwards
12-15-08, 08:23
Yes he had one mag, but that inst close to being the point.
If a person is going to carry a gun, any gun, than their mind, body and soul need be 100% confident in the weapon and their skills with said weapon. In my own drawn down experience, during the moment of truth I knew the HK USPc was all wrong.
During the Trolley Square shooting the CCW holder knew instantly knew there was an aspect of the 1911 that was suspect. For him it was capacity.
Before anyone settles on a gun for carry they need to visualize and replay a drawn down and shooting in their head over and over. When you find a gun that alleviates the majority, if not all your concerns about being the right tool for the right job during a draw down, then you've found the right gun to carry.
For me it's Glock. Specifically the 22 and 19. For some people its the 1911. Neither are really right or wrong.
Just to jump on the "other side" for sec. Even though My primary is usually a G-lock, I'd carry a 1911 and not look back, not for a second. Don't blame the 1911 for the guy who is carringing it being a duche. I am guilty of only carring the mag in the gun with both a G19 and a 1911 sometimes. If the shooting starts, and I wet myself, it has nothing to do whit what I'm carrying. Don't let the Trolly Square guys mistakes sway your choices here. See the above post. I don't want to come off as a "anti 1911 guy". I'm way down with it. My opinion is based on training.
If your not worried about a 1911 having all the whiz bangs and cosmetic improvements you can have a pistol built for under 1k that performs. Why ppl think you need 2k plus gun is beyond me. My advice shoot a bunch of different guns and buy the one you shoot best and are most comfortable with...then shoot it allot more and get some training. If your new to handguns the 1911 may not be your best bet it takes more maintenance and can have a higher cost ratio for repair and accessories.
Sevigny sure gets lucky a lot :D
http://images.funadvice.com/photo/image/old/45730/WhosAwesome.jpg
OH, and as for the original question. 'spos if your out on Lake erie fishing and your anchor line comes untied you could always use your 1911 as a secondary. ;p
I love my operator but carry it around less frequently than my xd simply because of weight, It's literaly a pain in the back without a belt due to the waistline getting bent into a nerve in my back that annoys the hell out of me after about two-three hours of walking around. That's with a kydex paddle. Suppose I could investigate more into a raven or some leather but I'm too damn poor now a days. Love the gun and all, full confidence in it, and no issues with capacity, carrying a couple mags anyways.
Dont think I'd trust a $500 1911 though, i'd say closer to a grand for a base reliable model.
I'll parrot I believe it was Rob_s towards the beginning of this thread who said it seems I can go longer between training and retain more when shooting the 1911 as opposed to some other pistols.
Littlelebowski
12-15-08, 18:07
I have a good friend who took a 1911 to Katrina. After dealing with all of the corrosion; internal and external, he now carries a G19.
MarshallDodge
12-15-08, 18:53
1911 style pistol to a Glock or other pistol?
As you can see there are many opinions about what are best. I guess I am a 1911 "enthusiast" based on the description of others on here. :D
Personally, I like a good trigger on a gun and I think that is what draws me to a 1911. There are some mediocre 1911's on the market and there will continue to be as long as people buy them, shoot 50 rounds a year, and keep them in the safe without testing the full potential of the gun.
I will not argue whether or not a Glock, M&P, Sig, or a quality 1911 are best for you. They will all run and give you good service. My concern would be like others on here; find a gun that you like by checking out the rental section at your local range, purchase the gun that fits you best, shoot it lots, and maintain it.
Failure2Stop
12-16-08, 03:40
Here's my perspective on what the advantage of carrying a 1911 over anything else brings-
You get to smile smugly to others that carry 1911s while performing the secret 1911 handshake, looking down at the rest of the gun-carrying public with a mixture of superiority and pity.
It's still the singer over the song. If you own, are proficient with, and carry a 1911, great. No reason to ditch it if it truly is reliable and you have proven your ability to use it to some recognized standard. However, I do not find the cost to performance ratio of the 1911 to be superior over other more modern pistols, and I am one of the guys that shelled out a load of dough on a custom 1911, just because I like 1911s.
I have carried 1911s. I currently carry a Glock. I will probably be moving on to something else, but that is outside the scope of the discussion.
Here's my perspective on what the advantage of carrying a 1911 over anything else brings-
You get to smile smugly to others that carry 1911s while performing the secret 1911 handshake, looking down at the rest of the gun-carrying public with a mixture of superiority and pity.
Ok, the whole thread was worth it just to get to this! :D
Matt Edwards
12-16-08, 09:04
Gee, and here I always though guys carried 1911s because they were good with them.
It seems that carrying ANY make of popular firearm quickly earns you cult status. The 1911 and the Glock are at the top of the list.
I'm not "the man" with a fire arm. Not even close, but I have learned a thing or two. I let the timer and the target decide what I carry. They seem to be the only thing that is totally without bias. For me, that means Glock and/or 1911. Avoid guys who love one and hate the other. You will never get good poop.
Also, I'm compelled to mention this again;
In what reality is 7 rds of .45 under armed when going up against one man, a kid no less? I'm not Monday morning quarterbacking with this. What I'm saying is what would have made that guy more happy, what was his cut off. If I run like a girl in the same situation, it would have nothing to do with what I was carrying.
I agree that it is the singer and not the song. However, if the singer is not singing a good song, it won't matter how good a singer they are. The singer is the most important ingredient here, but the song they choose is very, very important. A good singer generally won't pick a bad song. The song that is picked can be down right life changing.
Sorry guys. I didnt mean for this to turn into a 1911 vs. Glock vs. M&P vs. HK battle.
Im going to look into the M&P compact 45acp and see how that feels. Ultimately it will be the gun that feels best to me and that I operate best.
With all the replies about the 1911, I dont think I will go down that road until later. The capacity and maintenance do not seem to be what I am looking for in a CCW. To each his own though.
Sorry guys. I didnt mean for this to turn into a 1911 vs. Glock vs. M&P vs. HK battle.
It's not your fault. The sun rises in the East and sets in the West. Some things are just forces of nature.
Im going to look into the M&P compact 45acp and see how that feels. Ultimately it will be the gun that feels best to me and that I operate best.
One word of advice: if you get the chance to test fire guns, the ones that work the best need to trump the ones that feel the best. A gun can fit your hand like a glove, but that is not a good indicator of how well you'll shoot it.
With all the replies about the 1911, I dont think I will go down that road until later. The capacity and maintenance do not seem to be what I am looking for in a CCW. To each his own though.
The M&P45 Compact has the same capacity as a standard 1911, just fyi.
It's not your fault. The sun rises in the East and sets in the West. Some things are just forces of nature.
One word of advice: if you get the chance to test fire guns, the ones that work the best need to trump the ones that feel the best. A gun can fit your hand like a glove, but that is not a good indicator of how well you'll shoot it.
The M&P45 Compact has the same capacity as a standard 1911, just fyi.
Todd,
I appreciate all the advice! I really think it is going to be down between a Glock or XD but who knows. In the end, buy them all!!
Bob
Matt Edwards
12-16-08, 14:20
if you get the chance to test fire guns, the ones that work the best need to trump the ones that feel the best. A gun can fit your hand like a glove, but that is not a good indicator of how well you'll shoot it.
Well said.
Todd,
I appreciate all the advice! I really think it is going to be down between a Glock or XD but who knows. In the end, buy them all!!
Bob
Something else to consider in shootability (and usually you won't be able to practice this at a rental range), is how you do with the firearm drawing and shooting, shooting at moving targets, and shooting while you are moving. While I am extremely fast/accurate standing still and shooting a stationary target with my HK45c, G19, or 1911s, the G19 has an obvious advantage for me in how it handles in the above type drills.
Be extremely careful trying this though if you're new to any of it. It would be better to be introduced to all of these skills in a class first before trying it out for the first time at the range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hat Creek
If I understand you correctly, a hidden fully cocked mechanism comprises the M&P fire control. Add a mushy trigger with a vague re-set, and we have the essence of an M&P.
You obviously don't know much about Sevignys record.
Is he shooting an M&P now? Is that what you are hinting at?
You are wrong or you are mis-reading something.
Hat -- Skintop called it a SAO, not a DAO.
Smith, like Glock, began calling its gun a DAO as soon as they saw LE/mil procurements requiring DAO guns.
The trend is to put all such firearms in their own category (SFA, striker fired action) but the regulators and accountants in procurement offices don't always keep up with state of the art firearms terminology.
Glock, unlike Smith, calls the mechanism something else, but intentionally designed it to be trigger cocking, following several versions of European police & military design requirements. The same requirements that gave birth to the P5, P6 and P7. While some claim that is it already partially cocked by the re-engaged sear, the same could be said of any mechanism that maintains control over the firing mechanism, prior to using trigger pressure to fully cock the firing pin or hammer.
Physical examination of the S&W M&P mechanism seems to reveal that the trigger bar moves a sear which releases the firing pin and moves the firing pin safety.
S&W was pretty slow out of the gate in declaring their pistol a DAO. It's taken them a few years as they've figured out that most folks don't pay attention to such details, however some police and military organizations do.
While there may be a trend to "put all such firearms in their own category", I would look to see who is doing so and check their financial interest in such.
Failure2Stop
12-16-08, 19:27
Glock, unlike Smith, calls the mechanism something else, but intentionally designed it to be trigger cocking, following several versions of European police & military design requirements. The same requirements that gave birth to the P5, P6 and P7. While some claim that is it already partially cocked by the re-engaged sear, the same could be said of any mechanism that maintains control over the firing mechanism, prior to using trigger pressure to fully cock the firing pin or hammer.
Physical examination of the S&W M&P mechanism seems to reveal that the trigger bar moves a sear which releases the firing pin and moves the firing pin safety.
S&W was pretty slow out of the gate in declaring their pistol a DAO. It's taken them a few years as they've figured out that most folks don't pay attention to such details, however some police and military organizations do.
While there may be a trend to "put all such firearms in their own category", I would look to see who is doing so and check their financial interest in such.
And the relevance is . . . what?
Since 1985, at various times I have been issued, qualified with, or authorized to carry the Beretta 92F & M9, Sig P226, S&W 3913 & 5906, Glock 17/19, S&W 4013 & 4006, Sig P220, S&W 4513 & 4566, various 1911’s, as well as several S&W revolvers including J, K, L , and N-frames. I also have a fair degree of experience with Browning Hi-Powers, Glock 22/23, G21, various HK pistols, as well as the recent S&W M&P pistols. All of these handguns had both good and bad characteristics. I have been lucky to have gotten to travel around the country and world quite a bit and gotten to see what other units and agencies are using and assess how their weapon systems are functioning.
At this point in time, I have gotten rid of almost all my handguns. Along with the ubiquitous .38 sp J-frame BUG and a .44 mag N-frame for wilderness use, the only pistols I routinely use are 1911’s and 9 mm Glocks. I shoot 1911's better, but a G19 is easier to carry and more carefree; I feel equally armed with either...
FWIW, these days, if I already didn’t have several 1911’s that were as reliable as my 9 mm Glocks, along with extensive 1911 accessories, I would use an M&P instead--the .40 M&P w/ambi safety and Performance Center sear could easily become my favorite duty pistol should I need a new one...
Edited to Add--In states with idiotic magazine capacity restrictions, the .45 M&P might be the best out of the box CCW choice currently available.
I currently carry either a Gock 19 or 5" 1911. Here is what I wrote in a similiar thread......
"For a while, I was going back and forth - 1911 or Glock, 9mm or .45, 17 rds or 8, etc. Then I got some very sound advice from a gunfight survivor. He said all that crap doesn't matter. He told me that it is my gunfight, I own it, and I have to decide what is best for me. I won't be able to get advice on the internet.
So I put some thought into what I carried, why, how I trained, how well I shot, and what I thought I might face. I carry two guns. Primarily a 5" 1911 with 8 rd mag plus one in the chamber, along with 2 spare 8 rd mags, or a Glock 19 14+1 with one spare mag. I am comfortable with either, though I shoot the 1911 better. Both have proven reliable.
What is more important to me is that I am carrying a gun that I am competent with, that I'm able and prepared to use, and that will work when needed. I tend to favor the .45 based off my experiences of dealing with gunshot wounds. The area I work in is ghetto, to be blunt. I deal with gunshot victims damn near daily. I have seen cases where an extra .1" may have made the difference between cutting an artery, or hitting the spinal chord.
Again, based of what I have seen with my own eyes, I feel bigger is better. The bigger the hole, the harder it is for me to stop the bleeding. It also seems that the bigger calibers do a better job of smashing bone, especially the heavier bones such as the femur and pelvis. None of this is scientific, I'm not that smart. I'm just staying in my lane posting what I have experienced and seen first hand. No need to argue with me or tell me why the 9mm is better, thats not my point - I don't want to get shot with either. The point is that I came to a educated, informed decision on what I prefered to primarily carry based on my own experiences and research.
On the flip side, bigger calibers will recoil more. You may be able to recover faster with a 9mm and get more hits on target faster.
I'm not as concerned with the capacity issue. In three years, I have been on well over 30 shootings. I can't remember any over 5 rounds, including OIS. Again, I know statistically 30 is nothing, but it is what it is, my first hand experience. Yes I could end up facing a bunch of armed MS-13 guys, but I could also get struck by lightning. I'm comfortable with 9 in the gun.
A well built 1911 with 8+1, plus a couple spares, in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing is nothing to take lightly. Neither is a Glock 19. Both our outstanding platforms to protect yourself with. Neither is perfect, each has its trade offs, and nobody but you can decide which is better.
For me the key is to have true confidence in your weapons system and yourself. "
STS--Bravo Zulu! You post above is one of the most logical and well thought out that I have ever read on any firearms related internet forum. Congratulations!
I also have to commend STS on what he wrote. I came to the same conclusions as he in regards to the 1911 and the G19. He is just able to put it to words way better than I ever could.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.