[Colt]

Let me get 2 facts out of the way:

- I own several 1911's
- I do not own any Glocks

As many have said, a 1911 maintained to specs is reliable. (I agree, ALL of mine function flawlessly.)

It's also no secret that Glocks are highly reliable. I've heard several people boast of being able to cycle empty brass without any problems.

Without sparking the very tired and boring "1911's are better than Glocks/Glocks are better than 1911's" argument, my question is, why are Glocks so reliable?

I'm looking for (but probably won't find) an answer like "The Glock's extractor is disigned to... " or "The Glock's ejection port...", etc...

Again, I believe both designs CAN be reliable. My question is why the Glock has a reputation for being more so. Another way of asking the question might be "Why is the reliability of the 1911 design so sensitive?"

Before all you 1911 people flame me, remember I'm one of your own. I don't have any intention of buying a Glock. I have shot several; they aren't for me. I'm only curious about their reliability.

[stevelyn]

I don't know if there is any one single thing you can quantify as to why the Glock is so reliable. Perhaps it's due to the methods of design (computers and software) that weren't available when JMB designed his famous pistols.
I'm inclined to think that it was a good, simple design that just got lucky.

[Texas Gunman]

Im fond of 1911s,have & have owned many over the years.
Kinda like driving a vintage car,after reworked to look good & drive.

Its American.

I'd got a Glock as a fathers day gift, never had to make mods.
It has been a good shooter since day one,less maintenance.

Both are good guns,but if it life or death situation, its my Glock.

For range guns and show & tell, it is my 1911s.

TG

[Zak Smith]

Some points:

1. The 1911 was designed when manual labor for fitting it together was cheap, and automated methods of manufacture and assembly were not. The Glock was designed when manual labor was expensive but automated manufacture & assembly is cheap and precise.

2. There are a gazillion sources of "1911"'s, from Colt, to guns built by hand by pistol-smiths, to mass produced factory guns, to pieces of junk made or hacked on in basements by monkeys.

[dsk]

Glocks are no more or less reliable than other modern pistols. I can take a Beretta 92, SIG P22x, Ruger P89, or similar weapon and get the same level of reliability. As you mentioned a 1911 that's made peroperly will also demonstrate exemplary reliability.

I think we're just hearing the same tired old comments from gunshop commandos about Glocks being the ultimate handgun, and their reputation is growing out of proportion to reality just as it has always been with 1911's. They're fine, but no better or worse than any others in my view. Either you like them or you don't.

[Graystar]

If you closely examine a Glock you'll notice that it's got a lot of slop in the design. There's play everywhere. The slide has play, the trigger has play, nearly every moving part has a good amount of play. The only two parts that don't have play is the barrel and slide when locked up. All that play allows a good deal of dirt to build up in the gun without getting in the way of its operation.

Combine that with a simple design of few moving parts and you get high reliability.

[mattw]

I think that there is not any one thing special about the glock action versus the 1911 action, just that any mechanically sound design carried out with quality materials and attention to detail while building the pistol to not match-tight but not jennings-sloppy tolerances will yield a reliable pistol

[farscott]

My opinion on why the 1911 often has reliability issues when compared to the Glock:

1) The sheer number of 1911 manufacturers. There are a lot of companies that either make or have made the 1911. The pistols have been aimed at a lot of different markets, from defense to concealed carry to steel challenge, et al. The result has been quite a few 1911 variants and there were (and are) some teething pains. Dimensions are not standardized as witnessed by my Colt 9x19 magazines not locking into my 9x19 STI Trojan 5.0 magazine well. There is only one company making Glock pistols, allowing much more standardization.

2) Chambering the 1911 in rounds that did not exist when it was designed. The cracked Delta Elite frames, due to chambering the higher-velocity 10mm Auto round, is a good example of a design issue created by stretching the design. The fix is to remove the material over the slide stop window.

3) The 1911 was designed when steel and walnut were used to make firearms. The idea of using aluminum, titanium, and polymers was decades away. As such, the design is optimized for steel, and changing materials while keeping the same form factor takes the design outside its original goals. It also introduces failure modes that are not an issue with the original design. A good example of this is cracked Colt Commander frames due to using aluminum alloys. The Glock was designed to use modern materials.

4) Manufacturing has changed since the 1911 was designed. The 1911 is not as "Design for Manufacturing"-compliant as the Glock. The 1911 assembly requires more skilled labor than the Glock. As such, it is more prone to being delivered with issues.

5) There are a lot of people tinkering with 1911's. Some of the tinkering turns a perfectly good pistol into a malfunction-prone paperweight. That phenomenon is just reaching critical mass for the Glock. As such, I expect to see more "my Glock does not work" threads in the future.

6) The internal extractor of the 1911 requires some knowledge to fit and adjust by the end user. In addition, the extractor in many new 1911 pistols has been cost-reduced, causing more than a few failures. This is also related to 4) and 5). The external spring-loaded Glock extractor works quite well without the need for fitting.

7) The Glock appears, by design, to promote better feeding. The barrel has an integral ramp and the magazine seems to hold the round higher to better enter the barrel. The 1911 frame ramp does work well, but it is another variable that needs to be addressed.

Just my thoughts.

[Darth Ruger]

I can't give you any technical answers, I just know my G26 works. It's still bone-stock (except for the addition of a Pearce +0 extension to the magazines to give my little finger something to grab onto), and it functions flawlessly.

I'm planning to try some G19 mags and an extended mag release, but that shouldn't cause any problems. If it does, I'll just put it back the way it was.

As it is, it's my carry gun and I won't carry a gun if I don't feel like I can count on it.

[Boss Spearman]

Glocks may be reliable, but I know from renting several range models that
Glocks are not as reliable as claimed when they have not been cleaned. They can talk about the tests they did all they want, but I rented a few different models that experienced several problems until I took them apart and cleaned them.

[wrangler5]

Our club had an IDPA classifier match last weekend, which about 65 shooters showed up for. During the course of the match I saw 5 different shooters experience failures to feed (it looked like - I was not standing right next to them) that were so "unclearable" that the match director let them start their segment over. One of these shooters had the same problem on the second run through, and had to quit. ALL of these failures were 1911 pattern guns. I saw NO mechanical failures with any other model of gun (there were a few failures to insert a magazine fully, with the usual results.)

I don't know what 1911 makers were involved, but I do know that none of them were GI stock guns. And this admittedly is a small sample, so it may not be statistically significant.

That said, I NEVER had a failure shooting my as-issued Remington Rand 1911A1 over the past 45 years, as long as I was using regular power hardball. That's what the gun was designed for, and within those parameters it has worked PERFECTLY. So there's nothing inherently flawed in the basic 1911 design. But as others have suggested, when you get away from the initial design parameters and start introducing tighter tolerances and closer fitting parts, and maybe different ammunition power levels with attendant changes in spring rates, etc., you open to door to imbalances that just weren't there in the original design.

I will admit to being intrigued by the Glock design and the legendary reliability, and I've rented a few at ranges over the years, but while they're interesting machines, I've actually spent my money recently on a couple of Browning Hi Powers (and a 380 Kel Tec that lives in my pocket - can't do that with a 1911 of any flavor.)

[ruger270man]

Glocks are no more or less reliable than other modern pistols. I can take a Beretta 92, SIG P22x, Ruger P89, or similar weapon and get the same level of reliability. As you mentioned a 1911 that's made peroperly will also demonstrate exemplary reliability.

I think we're just hearing the same tired old comments from gunshop commandos about Glocks being the ultimate handgun, and their reputation is growing out of proportion to reality just as it has always been with 1911's. They're fine, but no better or worse than any others in my view. Either you like them or you don't.

sounds like a disgruntled 1911 owner :neener:

[Rob96]

If you closely examine a Glock you'll notice that it's got a lot of slop in the design. There's play everywhere. The slide has play, the trigger has play, nearly every moving part has a good amount of play. The only two parts that don't have play is the barrel and slide when locked up. All that play allows a good deal of dirt to build up in the gun without getting in the way of its operation.

Combine that with a simple design of few moving parts and you get high reliability.

I was going to say something similar. I have a bone stock Colt 1991A1. The slide to frame fit does allow for a little vertical and horizontal play. But you know what?????? Both of my Glock19s have the same kind of play.:rolleyes: I think Gaston looked to John for some building advice.

[Darth Ruger]

I think Gaston looked to John for some building advice.
Gaston Glock was an office furniture maker and didn't know anything about guns when he decided to make his own. Maybe that had something to do with it. He examined some other guns before he started working on his own design because he didn't know how guns worked, but he didn't go into it with any sort of preconcieved bias. He just did what he thought would work best.

[FullEffect1911]

Fewer moving parts doesn't always mean a more durable/reliable product. although I truely believe in simplicity, if you put flimsy parts in and get the part count down say five parts that flimsy part isn't going to last and durability/reliability suffers. (this can also apply to overly complicated parts that require a lot of attention to make, or not, depends on the design.)

Its like sticking a toothpick into a gun as a critical part. It just ain't gonna last my friends.

Just throwing it out there.

Me. I love simple designs with relatively durable parts. Both a properly set up 1911 and a Glock is a fine choice. I just prefer the 1911. Better looks and better feel all in my humble opinion of course.

[ghost squire]

Pray tell what 1911s today are like the old 1911A1 Remington Rand one you use?

[hkusp]

Glock:
Pros:
1) Well designed external extractor
2) Ramped barrel
3) Looser chamber
4) Better feeding angle

[wrangler5]

Pray tell what 1911s today are like the old 1911A1 Remington Rand one you use?

I'm not sure, as I've not surveyed the market in any detail. Springfield's "GI .45" is billed as "nearly identical" to the A1 versions of WWII - small sights, small ejection port, no firing pin safety, etc. - but I don't know if that extends to tolerances/clearances as well.

Unfortunately my ageing wrist and elbow don't tolerate anything much beyond 9mm these days, and I recently gave my 45 to my son (along with the paperwork with which MY father bought it from the government in 1960.) So at least it stays in the family for a while longer.

[Biker]

I carried a Colt LWC for years. It wouldn't reliably feed all ammo but I found some that it did like and stuck with it. I never felt completely comfortable with it though. Kinda like a dog that bites ya once will sooner or later bite ya twice.
Then, 10-15 years ago, I read about the new 'plastic pistols' in a new (then) 40 SW caliber.
I did some reading and went to my local gunshop and handled a G23. It felt a bit strange, but after doing the ol' 'close you eyes and point' gig, I found that it fit me perfectly. I bought it and have since put over 16,000 rounds through it without a single malfunction of any kind with every ammo imaginable. I rarely clean it (as compared to my Colts), and in competitions I do well with it.
I have complete confidence in the gun, and although it isn't my main carry gun, it is the one that I would choose if I had to take a handgun to a gunfight. I also own a G19 and a G27 and have had zero problems with both. Why they work so well I can't say, but work they do.
Biker

[Thumper]

Farscott,

Very salient post.

[megatronrules]

The 1911 when left to its original design is probably the most reliable pistol ever made. My colts have all been 100% reliable out of the box.

[Graystar]

I was going to say something similar. I have a bone stock Colt 1991A1... Exactly. A Spingfield Mil-Spec I used to own was like that was well. Never had a problem with it. But I think the 1911 design is more prone to inaccuracy under those conditions than the Glock.

[Shootcraps]

The Glock (and Sig) are more "reliable" because of the feed angle from the magazine to the chamber. Makes it much easier for rounds to enter the chamber.

[Rob96]

Exactly. A Spingfield Mil-Spec I used to own was like that was well. Never had a problem with it. But I think the 1911 design is more prone to inaccuracy under those conditions than the Glock.


I said I have slide to frame looseness not barrel to slide. Barrel to slide fit is rock solid. It is one hell of an accurate pistol.


Gaston Glock was an office furniture maker and didn't know anything about guns when he decided to make his own.

i thought he was a kitchen knife and utensil maker?:confused: As I recall this is how he got his knowledge of steel.

[Darth Ruger]

He was making knives before he started making guns.

He also used to make hand grenades for the military. Talk about a man of diverse interests. He didn't know how to shoot, but he knew how to blow things up. :D

[Ash]

Reliability is very simple in concept, less so in application.

The number of parts has NOTHING to do with being reliable. Jennings have few parts and from personal experience, they are not reliable. CZ-75's have many parts, and they are reliable. Glocks are reliable with few parts, 1911's are reliable if in original specs and are reliable. Tokarevs have many parts and are reliable, etc, etc, etc.

What does matter is the geometry of the round exiting the magazine and entering the chamber, then the case being removed from the chamber and ejected from the pistol. There is a perfect relationship between the magazine, feed ramp, and chamber that must be attained to have reliable feeding. This relationship can be flawed by bad magazines, or bad angles between the magazine and chamber, or too much gap, or several other factors. Getting it just right techincally should be a matter of getting the formula right in the first place and then replicating it. The slide must be able to move freely, so into the design comes the need to run in dirt/mud/fouling. This is so that the perfect relationship between magazine and chamber can be maintianed and nothing more (the amount of play often ensures this, but other things can as well).

You then must have the right relationship between the ejector and extractor in order to remove the round and eject it. Proper design of both of these will ensure reliability. Design either one poorly, with poor angles or materials or grasping surfaces, or spring strength and you have failures to extract or eject.

Fundamentally, there are perfect angles for each round and each pistol should idealy be designed around each round only. Much of the time, this is more trial and error than exact science. However, should enough study be employed, there can be established the optimum angle, distance, etc. for each caliber of ammo (and of course, this would have to be a generalization based on different types and weights of ammo).

Achieving the symetry mentioned above is technically not that insurmountable. It can come from measuring the angles of successful designs and using that as guides.

Simplicity of parts has nothing to do with reliability save for where parts breakage comes into play, and this can be eliminated with quality parts. But in most cases, a pistol breaking is not the cause or reliability problems. As I mentioned above, there are very comlex pistols that are reliable and very simple pistols that are reliable, there are very complex pistols that are not reliable, just as there are simple pistols that are not reliable. The 1908 Parabellum is not reliable but complex just as the 1999 Jennings is not reliable but simple.

Ash

[Beav]

but he knew how to blow things up. :D

Apparently he still does :neener:


...could not resist

[Thumper]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaston_Glock

"Glock, whose personal background is that of a mechanical engineer specializing in machine tool construction, had developed and provided the Austrian Army with a heterogeneous mix of products, all of which combined his unique talents in the fields of both metallurgy and plastics. Glock produces nondisintegrating (but detachable) links for the MG74-3 machine gun (Austrian nomenclature for the MG42 in 7.62mm NATO), military fighting knives, entrenching tools and training grenades."

[ghost squire]

http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-pstl-1911-fs.shtml

I'm wondering does this product still have that legendary reliability that the old 1911s did?

[Thumper]

My Black Stainless didn't have that sort of reliability, but read my review of the Parked model here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=161329

[albanian]

Berettas are more reliable than either the Glock or the 1911. One reason is the open slide design. There is less chance of a case getting hung up on the slide during ejection and causing a jam and almost zero chance of a stove pipe jam. These are some of the more common types of jams and Beretta has almost compleatly taken them out of the equation.

[Shootcraps]

That's right. I had forgotten about that.

[1557]

Asfar as the 1911's go,some pretty competent old gunsmiths,like Armand Swenson and some others discovered throating a few other mods to complement accuracy and the feeding of SWC shape bullets.
Over the years the modifications,IMO were taken to the extreme,and now the basic design has been all but completely changed.
Most of the custom mods appearing on current 1911's,again, IMO, is useless and unecessary tinkering with an otherwise proven design.
I own an old Colt Combat Gov't model,that shoots as well as I possibly could. I changed the sights to my own liking when I got it and that's all I did to it. I'll never part with. And I'll never buy another. I couldn't get one this reliable.And I won't pay their ridiculous prices. I also now prefer my Glocks.
Oops! Did I say that?

[ChuckB]

The slide of a Glock rides on small rails on the frame, while the 1911 rides on full-length rails. I've heard that this makes a difference, but am not a gunsmith.

Chuck, who uses both

[briang2ad]

7) The Glock appears, by design, to promote better feeding. The barrel has an integral ramp and the magazine seems to hold the round higher to better enter the barrel. The 1911 frame ramp does work well, but it is another variable that needs to be addressed.

I think this is HUGE - ramp and ANGLE...