"Modern" auto's pro's/cons


PDA






sb350hp
October 13, 2007, 07:20 PM
This post is basically in response to a thread on "will the 1911's fade away" postings.
My question to all of you who argue that the 1911 design is unreliable and outdated in comparison to "modern" styles is : How so? What are the advantages other than magazine capacity?

Safety? No- 1911s have been proven time and again to be one of the safest if not the safest in history.

Design? Nope 1911s are the most copied ever, Even you XD homers have to admit that

Weight? Maybe but 12 or 18 rds of any thing is going to add a hefty amount of weight to you so called lightweigh ccw.

Size? Nope can't go there with your fat, short, tuppergun.

Mag capacity? Arguable point but in the real world how many stories have you heard about "shootouts" w/ regular citizens and not LEOs. My opinion if it aint over in the 1st 3 maybe 4 shots something is wrong (excluding LEOs)

Reliability? Not an issue with the modern 1911s (you cannot argue this point) the modern 1911 will eat anything your ??? will.

So, why would someone think the 1911 will eventually pass away? It is kind of like the 30-06 or the KJV bible. Neither are going anyplace. No one has reinvented the pistol in such a way to have the impact the 1911 design has had.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Modern" auto's pro's/cons" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Setzer77
October 13, 2007, 07:32 PM
I don't carry my 1911, but I do love it. I like the weight, I like the low recoil, and I like punch the .45 offers. The reason I don't carry it is b/c I don't like a SAO trigger w/ safety. I completely dislike the idea of having to think about disengaging a safety before firing. For many people this isn't an issue, but I lack the money to practice with thousands and thousands of rounds from a carry position so that it becomes second nature. For that reason, I carry a DA/SA w/ decock only, and that is the only reason.

Walkalong
October 13, 2007, 08:16 PM
1911's are just the best. Period. :D

Beowolf1911
October 13, 2007, 08:28 PM
I don't care what features you add to a plastic gun it is still a plastic gun. No one talks about grand-daddy's plastic gun. Don't get me wrong I have fired many of them and most are very good guns but for me to carry it I want either a manual safety or a cocked and locked carry like the 1911. My two carriers are a norinco 1911 and a FEG PA-63 If it is DAO in my opinion I just am not interested.

Setzer77
October 13, 2007, 08:36 PM
I failed to add, modern plastic guns don't inspire. I like my pistols to have manual controls on them, little bits and pieces sticking out that have a function. For example, my friend just bought an M&P9, and while I was considering one before, I'll never buy one now. The pistol shot great, did everything it was supposed to, but I found it.....bleh.

jerkface11
October 13, 2007, 09:05 PM
They have a grip safety which I HATE. And they can't be unloaded without taking the safety off. Give me a CZ75 or variant thereof over a 1911 any day of the week.

The Annoyed Man
October 13, 2007, 10:05 PM
As of today, I own both types. I already owned 2 1911s, one of them being an old 1943 Ithica, and the other being a Sig GSR Stainless Carry. This afternoon I bought an H&K USP Compact in .40 S&W. The main reason I bought it was that I wanted something slightly smaller than my Sig, and with the DA/SA and a decocker. I like shooting both my 1911s, particularly the new Sig. I do enjoy the ownership experience. Like Setzer77 said, I like the various manual controls, the low recoil, and the punch of the .45 round. And you just can't beat a well tuned trigger on a 1911. But also like Setzer77 said, I just can't get past the idea of carrying cocked and locked. It makes me nervous. Gives me the heebeejeebees. Intellectually, I understand that, with the redundant safety systems of a 1911 (manual safety, grip safety, firing pin block), the gun will probably never discharge accidentally. I totally get that. I still don't like it. So for me, it's the Sig for a house gun, and the H&K for a carry gun.

As far as the looks of "plastic" guns, I'm much more forgiving than some. Yes, some guns are uglier than others, but if form following function is a form of beauty, then some of them are quite good looking pieces. I didn't buy the H&K because it looked nice, but I don't think it looks that bad, either.

Youngster
October 13, 2007, 10:55 PM
The one real advantage the more recent autos have {albiet a big one} is that they are designed with today's production methods and materials in mind, so they they don't need skilled touch labor and forged innards to run to their potential.

Geronimo45
October 13, 2007, 11:56 PM
Among the cons of modern autos are appearances. Like a lot of modern architecture, they're practical... and plain. Even the stainless finishes are matte, and some are blackened. The grips are black plastic. Wood's not seen much anymore on 'em. Do they go out of their way to ugly-up the things?

Then there's the influence of Glock - and their special trigger setup. Now, LEOs want new guns that have a trigger like their old Glocks - a trigger that seems to lose the benefits of the DA and SA triggers. The poundage of the pull is like a SA. The length is more like a DA. You don't get the crispness of a nice SA, or the second-strike capability (which may or may not be useful) of DA.

In forty or fifty years, people may be rattling on about the 'classic Glock 17'... you never can tell.

wally
October 14, 2007, 12:09 AM
I completely dislike the idea of having to think about disengaging a safety before firing. For many people this isn't an issue, but I lack the money to practice with thousands and thousands of rounds from a carry position so that it becomes second nature.

AirSoft makes some gas operated 1911-like guns with working thumb safeties so you can practice your draw very safely and cheaply indeed.

I wipe the thumb safety off my Kahr as it comes up on target even though its not there :)

--wally.

Madmardig0n
October 14, 2007, 12:54 AM
I love shooting my 1911 - but I wouldn't want to carry it. I just don't like carrying the pistol cocked, even with the saftey on. I'll take my S&W 5906 w/decocker or Glock 23 for carry.

1911RjB
October 14, 2007, 02:01 AM
i carry my 1911, i have no problem with it cocked and locked.. i don't like double action to much.. i don't know why...

DAVE RICHARDS
October 14, 2007, 02:09 AM
Yes I can from real life experience argue the reliability point. Of 8-9 1911's I've owned all but three needed work from the box to get up and running. Some they couldn't get running and keep running. Common problems with 1911's
1. Extractor tension problems. Too heavy/tolight.
2. Plunger tubes breaking off or becoming loose. More frequent changes of recoil springs.
3. Multiple makers of multiple 1911 models with different specs than the original. Different batches from the same company can come with different mags from different makers at different times.
4. Poor quality control from some makers.
Every Sig, HK, or any modern high quality firearm I have bought has worked from the box. Some of the lower grade guns needed work. But Sig, HK, and so on use the same design specs on their specific models and the same parts. Uniform construction makes for uniform performance. Many years ago Glock did a demonstration in which they broke down a bunch of G17's and threw the parts on a table. They let people put the guns back together from any of the parts on the table. Do that with a bunch of 1911's.

Euclidean
October 14, 2007, 02:17 AM
I defended the 1911 in the other thread so here I'll show my other side.

Safety? No- 1911s have been proven time and again to be one of the safest if not the safest in history.

Relative to what? Sure 1911s are safe to use, but Glocks are safe, Sigs are safe, Taurus pistols are safe, etc.

Design? Nope 1911s are the most copied ever, Even you XD homers have to admit that

Part of the reason I like the XD so much is that it cherry picks the best parts of the 1911 design and leaves out the parts I don't like as much.

Weight? Maybe but 12 or 18 rds of any thing is going to add a hefty amount of weight to you so called lightweigh ccw.

It's still lighter though. Plus show me a 1911 that's as light as say a Keltec PF9.

Lighter isn't always better of course, it depends on what we're talking about.

Size? Nope can't go there with your fat, short, tuppergun.

I've taken calipers to my 1911 and my XD45 before. The width was the same when I put the calipers across the 1911's grips. The Glock 19 I have is a more compact package than the 1911; it's shorter and almost exactly the same thickness.

Granted I could put slimline grips on the 1911 and shave off about .1" (which does make a difference) but it's still thicker than single stack poly guns even if I do that, and not much thinner than double stacks.

Mag capacity? Arguable point but in the real world how many stories have you heard about "shootouts" w/ regular citizens and not LEOs. My opinion if it aint over in the 1st 3 maybe 4 shots something is wrong (excluding LEOs)

Why exclude LEOs? Defensive shooting is defensive shooting.

I'm not a capacity junky either, I carry 5, 6 or 7 rounds all the time and feel perfectly happy about it. I don't think a CCW necessarily needs umpteen bajillion rounds either. But more is still better, and if the design of your gun will accommodate 10 or more rounds, you should take advantage of that. I load all six of my double action revolvers' chambers. Even in the 1911, I prefer to take advantage of 8 round magazines instead of 7.

Reliability? Not an issue with the modern 1911s (you cannot argue this point) the modern 1911 will eat anything your ??? will.

Well, sort of. If we're talking about specific specimens of guns we know to be reliable I think you're right. But I also think with the 1911 you have to know where it's going to fail and know a little something more about how your gun works and how to keep it maintained. Granted it's not complicated, but it's a more complex endeavor than running say a Glock.

So, why would someone think the 1911 will eventually pass away? It is kind of like the 30-06 or the KJV bible. Neither are going anyplace. No one has reinvented the pistol in such a way to have the impact the 1911 design has had.

Gaston Glock.

I own a 1911. I see the appeal, I really do. I'd like another one some day. But everything has its uses and unique appeal.

tipoc
October 14, 2007, 02:32 AM
1911s aren't for everyone. You have to want to learn the gun and get to the point with it that you don't think about wiping off the safety. You just do it, like you shift the gears of your vehicle, or apply the brakes.

We're fortunate these days. There are quality operating systems for just about every need and taste. Most work very well. You pick what you feel works for you.

I've owned Glocks, Sigs and a couple of HKs. All were good guns and did what they should and did it well. But the 1911 felt and feels right in my hand (as do the Browning HP and the CZ 75). My gun of choice. It has it's strengths and weaknesses. I have no problem carrying the gun or haveing it about me and ready to go, in all three conditions and have. It works for me.

tipoc

Hoppy590
October 14, 2007, 02:42 AM
Quote:
So, why would someone think the 1911 will eventually pass away? It is kind of like the 30-06 or the KJV bible. Neither are going anyplace. No one has reinvented the pistol in such a way to have the impact the 1911 design has had.

Gaston Glock.



Gaston Glock
1


JMB

Handguns
1903 Hammerless
1903 Hammer
FN1910
1911 (Still in use)
P35 (BHP) ( still in use)

Long guns
1887
1894
1897 ( original "trench gun")
Browning Auto 5 (sought after)

Automatics
M1895 Potato Digger
BAR
M1917/1919
M2 50cal ( still in use)

some of JMB's rounds
.25 ACP
.32 ACP
.38 ACP
9mm Browning Long
.380 ACP
.45 ACP
.50 BMG



looks like Gastons not nearly the "revolution" when you compare it to a legend. also if im not mistaked glock didnt invent the polymer frame. i think it was used by another manufacturer.

Euclidean
October 14, 2007, 02:48 AM
looks like Gastons not nearly the "revolution" when you compare it to a legend.

He only asked about pistols not a comprehensive catalog of firearms.

JMB's other accomplishments are amazing but irrelevant to the discussion.

Hoppy590
October 14, 2007, 03:07 AM
ok, then these 2 alone should be sufficient
1911
P35
and these rounds
.32 ACP
.380 ACP
.45 ACP



also thats hardly a comprehensive list of JMB. those are just the most well known and easily reconized

SDDL-UP
October 14, 2007, 03:09 AM
I stated this in another thread, but I'll do so again here - I think people that like the 1911 do so for all of the things it is, not what it isn't. If you must compare it to everything else out there it will be left wanting in some areas. I can't believe that you would post it's just as reliable as anything else out there, but okay. I just love it for what it is - a great gun! But I'm not a homer that will claim it's the end all of handgun design either, it's not. But it's not going anywhere either and that's the way it should be.

bigred82
October 14, 2007, 03:10 AM
Was the HK P7 based off of a JMB design?

It is arguably still one of the best ccw 9mm on the market.

The P9s was another non-JMB based design wasn't it?

It saw some good use by our military. Excellent design before the age of high-capacity.


JMB was a engineering genius no doubt - but he's not the only one who knew how to make a good firearm. Luger has some pretty good ideas as well.

The 1911 will never fade away. They have way too big of a religiously devoted following to ever fade away. I think everyone should own at least 1 in their life. Just to try it out. But to state that most modern-day 1911s are as reliable as say Glocks, HKs, or SIGs - that's a far stretch. Most 1911s are made tighter than JMB's original design to sqeeze ever last bit of match accuracy out of them - hence why they are more prone to stoppages than other makes. Which is one of the reasons there are so many 1911 gunsmiths and armorers - they get a lot of business.

sm
October 14, 2007, 03:14 AM
Youngster wrote:
The one real advantage the more recent autos have {albiet a big one} is that they are designed with today's production methods and materials in mind, so they they don't need skilled touch labor and forged innards to run to their potential.

This is where I have a problem and respectfully disagree.

Allow me stay with one Platform - the 1911 - for ease of posting.

-First off the Gov't Model called for certain Specifications and includes Metallurgy -like the bar stock extractor.

-Quality Control, and Craftsman who took pride in their work.

-Guns run from the get-go.

-IF, If a customer needed Service, Customer Service was Great.
Maybe a new set of stocks, re-blue from hard abuse.
The guns run, still with anything in life , Customer Service is needed to repair or get parts.

--Stay with that for now-

Today, Clones of 1911's. Some do a better job of staying with Specs as far as dimensions go, still Metallurgy is different, Short cuts taken, QC is "assumed" because a computer aided machine "cut it" and it is NOT about you the Consumer, instead Money for the Mfg and shareholders.

Customer Service? Now some have NO idea what this concept is, some are better than others.


Oh, I do miss the days one just ordered a gun with the Postcard in Field & Stream for instance, then the Postman delivered it C.O.D to your door.

Setzer77
October 14, 2007, 03:15 AM
Wally, I have several airsoft guns, one of which is a 1911. My preference still leads me to DA/SA, it's just the way I am. To the others, the first poly framed pistol was the HK VP70, not the Glock.

Sunray
October 14, 2007, 03:54 AM
"...Ithica..." IthAca?
"...airsoft guns..." Toys don't count. No matter how much fun they are, they're not firearms.
"...these 2 alone...and these rounds..." The Browning P35 is 9mm.
"...Safety?..." Inanimate objects are neither safe nor unsafe.
"...designed with today's production methods and materials in mind..." Exactly. If JM was around now, he'd be using them too.
"...HK VP70..." The only pistol I've ever seen called a jam-o-matic in a gun rag review. The VP70 was designed as a machine pistol, not a semi-auto handgun.
"...Weight?..." Most cop firearms are carried far more than they're fired. The weight matters.
"...HK P7 based off of a JMB design..." No. That squeeze cocking isn't that great either.
"...Guns run from the get-go..." Only with RN ammo and a taper crimp is required.
The whole thing boils down to how well a pistol fits your hand and how often you use it. I find polymer frames slippery. Easily fixed with a Pachmayr grip sleeve. DA pistols don't fit my hand. Mind you, neither do stock Smith revolvers. If a handgun fits your hand and you can shoot it well, nothing else matters.

Euclidean
October 14, 2007, 04:02 AM
ok, then these 2 alone should be sufficient
1911
P35
and these rounds
.32 ACP
.380 ACP
.45 ACP



also thats hardly a comprehensive list of JMB. those are just the most well known and easily reconized

I agree, that's impressive. And I would even say that when discussing any sort of firearm, JMB is probably responsible for many or most of the key features we take for granted.

But the hard fact of the matter is that in the context of handguns, the Glock 17 is just as important as the 1911 in terms of engineering, prominence, design innovation, and widespread service use. Really, aren't most of the service pistols currently on the market a derivative of a JMB design or the striker fired polymer gun?

Look at the huge catalog of striker fired poly guns from all makers which represent what we consider to be contemporary service pistols... are they closer to the Glock or the 1911/BHP/etc?

Now I will give you this: the Glock wouldn't be possible unless the 1911 had come first, but that doesn't take away from the fact that its introduction was just as important. After all, the 1911 wouldn't have been possible if the Colt Peacemaker hadn't come first.

Also, it doesn't matter if another polymer gun technically came first, it's not the frame material that made the Glock so important. The Glock's overall level of engineering is amazing and its method of operation combined with its utter simplicity caused it to succeed where others faded into obscurity. The polymer frame is a key feature but it's not the entire story. That'd be like saying the 1911 isn't important because there were steel framed guns before the 1911 came about.

Afterthought: and really, JMB had a natural advantage when it came to pioneering new cartridges. The problem with making a new cartridge is that it really has to do something new that a pre existing one doesn't. Yes he was brilliant for being the first to come up with it, but just as someone besides Edison would have figured out the light bulb had Edison failed, the ballistic equivalent of those cartridges would have come into being eventually by someone's hand even if JMB hadn't bothered.

The Annoyed Man
October 14, 2007, 08:21 AM
"...Ithica..." IthAca?Yep, I made a typo. You got me. Can I EVER be forgiven? :D

:rolleyes:

mavracer
October 14, 2007, 09:13 AM
I wipe the thumb safety off my Kahr as it comes up on target even though its not there
yep its just part of my draw.which is why I won't carry anything where down is safe IE smith autos.

mavracer
October 14, 2007, 11:16 AM
Quote:
So, why would someone think the 1911 will eventually pass away? It is kind of like the 30-06 or the KJV bible. Neither are going anyplace. No one has reinvented the pistol in such a way to have the impact the 1911 design has had.

Gaston Glock.
can you please explain all the inovative features Gaston Glock has contributed to the gun world.there's only one his safe action trigger.its the only thing Patened on it.How many patents does JMB have?128

Hypnogator
October 14, 2007, 01:50 PM
No one talks about grand-daddy's plastic gun.

Perhaps because in grand-daddy's day, they didn't even have plastic, much less plastic guns! :rolleyes::neener::neener::neener:

The 1911 was, and is, a good design, but it has been superseded in all but limited utility by more modern designs, including the cursed "combat tupperware."

Hoppy590
October 14, 2007, 02:39 PM
Look at the huge catalog of striker fired poly guns from all makers which represent what we consider to be contemporary service pistols... are they closer to the Glock or the 1911/BHP/etc?

and look at the even larger catalog of 1911 clones. and the 1911/bhp are viewed as the all time combat pistols. matter of fact that very large list of excellent JMB firearms. i believe only the 1903 Hammer
FN1910 and M1895 are the only ones not STILL being made. the BAR and m1917/1919 are being made in SA form due to NFA/86

even the 1903 hammerless has a following that includes a guy out in CA i think who makes 1,000$ CCW versions/modifications.


the idea of a striker firing a gun isnt new. bolt action rifles have done it for a long long time. the only differance in the wide view of the "safe action" is its only partialy cocked, the operation of the trigger pushes it back those few extra centimeters and then lets it go.. the irony in this is if you ask me "safe action" is much less safe then a plain old mechanical DA.

tipoc
October 14, 2007, 03:23 PM
OK, the 4 most important pistols of the 20th century were:

The P08 (Luger) adopted by the German Navy in that year with the new 9mm cartridge. The first pistol adopted by a major power as a service sidearm.

The 1911.

The Walther P38, the first da/sa pistol adopted by a major power as a service sidearm it set the stage for all those that followed including the Berretta M9 (which closely resembles the Walther design) and made the passing of the revolver as sidearms for law enforcement the order of the day.

The Glock. While the most innovative thing about the Glock was it's trigger (striker fired pistols had been around since the French developed them prior to the Second World War and HK developed the first polymer framed guns) the overall package of the Glock, it's reliability and ruggedness, set the stage for all other polymer framed guns to follow. There are polymer framed 1911s out there now.

When the 1911 was first introduced, and made by Colt, parts interchangeability was a requirement. It was the first pistol adopted by a major power that you could take any 10 of them, completely strip them, mix up the parts and reassemble them and have 10 reliable working pistols. For it's day it was unsurpassed for reliability. This is not hype, just a statement of fact.

The large industry for custom and aftermarket parts for the 1911 is not because it is an unreliable design. Instead it's because it is a popular design and there is a good deal of money to be made by offering custom parts. There is a smaller aftermarket industry for the Glock, Springfield, etc. that sells sights, mag releases, slide stops, finishes, etc. not because it is unreliable, but because they are popular.

tipoc

Geronimo45
October 14, 2007, 03:44 PM
there's only one his safe action trigger.its the only thing Patened on it.How many patents does JMB have?128
The Glock 17 was so-called because it was Gaston's 17th patent. :p

JM Browning was around in a pivotal time for firearms changes. Metallurgy had significantly improved at that time, and good smokeless powder had come into being. The fairly traditional Gatlings had been supplanted with the more modern Maxim gun. Browning had the chance to take brand-new technology - new metals, new operating systems, new cartridges, new powders. Glock didn't come at a turning point of technology - he didn't really invent anything new, he simply refined what was already there. He took the high-cap 9mm and he took the not-so-successful polymer frame. He comined 'em into a very simplistic setup that turned out to be very popular and pretty widely copied. Obviously not as much as the 1911, since that's been through two world wars and innumerable movies. It's been around over 90 years... while Glock is about 25 years old.

sm
October 14, 2007, 04:08 PM
Modern Modern Autoloaders today come in a Plastic Box.

This requires a degree in Engineering to Open, as the Research & Design folks - really goofed this all up... and
This Modern Autoloader gun also requires a First Aid kit to repair all the damage done to the human body in trying to open, and in just handling the thing.

I predict we will see more folks get into De-Horning these Plastic Boxes and stay pretty busy with this new niche market related to guns.

These Modern Semi-Autos:
They come with pretty cable locks for kids to use on tricycles, and to lock kitchen cabinets with, so parents cannot get to the Dishwasher Detergent.
Kids have to protect Parents from Evil Cascades ya know?


We never had a problem with the Cardboard Boxes, with the brown paper and cleaning rod, brush, mop , screwdriver, little bottle of oil and other neat accessories back in the day.

mavracer
October 14, 2007, 04:36 PM
The Glock 17 was so-called because it was Gaston's 17th patent.
ok homer its a Glock 17 refers to its capacity acording to the Glock websight.I don't know why they changed nomenclature.
JM Browning was around in a pivotal time for firearms changes.
you got that backward it was a pivotal time for firearms changes because JM Browning was around.

Glock didn't come at a turning point of technology - he didn't really invent anything new
that you got right.

Crow61
October 14, 2007, 04:47 PM
I do not own a 1911, but have wanted one. Would I carry it cocked and locked? Probably.

I have been around handguns all my life and I have owned revolvers and autos. I prefer an auto for carry, but for some reason can never do without a .38.

I know this is in tha auto forum, so enough talk about revolvers.

What I really posted for was to say that when one really THINKS about it; a 1911 carried with round chambers, hammer back is not that much different than carrying a Glock with a round chambered.

Think about this: How many of you have hunted with an automatic shotgun? You carry it ready to go with the safety on. Think about walking through the woods and moving the gun around and, hopefully with the muzzle pointed in a safe direction at all times. But, the gun is not secured in a holster and in a still position.

Ok, with the above in mind, how many have actually had a ND with a shotgun?

As far as remembering to get the safety off quickly before the shot; think about a bird flushing or a rabbit jumping up in front of you. I know that if you miss a shot at game it is not life threatening like it would be with a BG. But, you take that safety off the shotgun and down the game very quickly. The same could be done with a pistol in a defensive situation.

As far as a better designed pistol: Time will tell. So far, the 1911 has been around a very long time. Will a Sig, or Glock, or any other pistol make it that long. Oh, yeah, there is the Hi Power. I think that it has been around a while and copied a good bit. Why wasn't it in the discussion?

AK103K
October 14, 2007, 05:20 PM
Yes I can from real life experience argue the reliability point. Of 8-9 1911's I've owned all but three needed work from the box to get up and running. Some they couldn't get running and keep running.
This is the main reason I no longer carry one. I did carry one daily, most of my adult life, until about three or four years ago.

I sold off all but three of my Colts, the only make 1911 I was comfortable enough with to carry, and switched to SIG's. I havent been disappointed with my choice. They have all worked 100%, right out of the box.

Out of the last five 1911's I bought, all Springfields, four required some work to be somewhat reliable, and the most expensive, a Loaded model, was nothing more than a boat anchor, and had troubles with hardball out of the box and never was reliable, even after work.

I think the biggest issue is there are to many makers out there who have their own idea of what a 1911 is. If they stayed to the basic Colt/GI specs, especially the slide to frame fit, and the proper frame dimensions, I think you wouldnt see the many problems you see today. You dont need, and I know I never wanted, all the gimmicky add ons the games people seem to want. Good sights and a good trigger are all thats needed.

The difference between the 1911's, and even Colt 1911's, and the SIG's are, the SIG comes out of the box the way I want it, and works like I want it, and I dont have to fiddle with it at all to get what I want. Even with Colt, I usually have to spend more money for something else to get it the way I want it.

Nothing wrong with a good, working 1911, but even some of us old fogies have moved on without regret.

Autolycus
October 14, 2007, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Mavracer: ok homer its a Glock 17 refers to its capacity acording to the Glock websight.I don't know why they changed nomenclature.

First off there is no need for the personal attacks. It makes you look childish.

Can you post a link that says it was called the Glock 17 because of its 17 round capacity? I have read that it was called the Model 17 because it was his 17th patent as well.

According to Wikipedia: The designation 17 is derived from the gun's being Gaston Glock's 17th patent, rather than its magazine capacity. The Glock 17, like all Glock pistols, has a well known reputation for being extremely rugged and reliable. I know its from a site that allows anyone to post but I think it is somewhat valid as I dont think most people care to edit it for trivial matters such as this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock_17

I went and checked the Glock website and it does not say it is the model 17 because of its capacity on the Glock 17 page. Why then isnt the Glock 22 called the Model 15? Or the Glock 19 capable of holding 19 rounds, according to your theory?

sb350hp
October 14, 2007, 07:20 PM
I must say I started this thread and have enjoyed the discussion although it seems as of some of the latest posts have disolved into attacks. Each weapon of choice has it's inherent weaknesses most of which are seemingly personal preferences. Very very few new firearms these days are "junk" as the market has demanded better quality. One must be cautious at gun shows but a NIB of just about anything these days seems to function nearly flawlessy if "fit and accuracy" are not considered. Longevity is another issue. Will a new in box poly last as long as a "steel" firearm of equal cost/value? Time will tell.

Anyway I have enjoyed all of the bantering about and I must confess I naturally lean toward the 1911 style but the new SAO sig and the 24/7 styles have peaked my interest.

quickcanary
October 14, 2007, 07:26 PM
Some people need to come to the realization that JMB wasn't God, and that the fact that the 1911 came first doesn't make it the best. It IS the best to a lot of people, and that's fine, but it's so common to see Glock get put down just because Gaston wasn't born earlier...a lot had already been done by the time he was ready to design a pistol, so I don't think it's fair to criticize him for not having a firearm that's been around for a century or that doesn't mimic the 1911. What he did was revolutionary in its own right, as evidenced by the amount of Glock sales, the number of Glock followers, and the number of polymer pistols produced today that use parts of Glock's design.

I'm sure glad he decided to make what he did rather than another 1911 clone. Things would be a lot more boring had he decided that it wouldn't be in his best interests to produce something different.

The 1911 is a great design, but it shouldn't be considered blasphemous to compare it to modern semiauto pistols. They're all designed to do the same thing and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. There are people who vehemently defend the 1911 (and for good reason) but that doesn't mean that anything newer or that strays from the 1911 design is automatically inferior.

sm
October 14, 2007, 07:29 PM
1911 as I was exposed to, was the Gov't Model of 1911 as a kid, born in the mid 50's.

A tool unto itself.
This fascinated then, and always has. Here is a gun, that can be taken down, inspected, maintained, and requires no tools.
Spend brass will undo grip screws if need.
Spend brass will work as a GI Plug on the recoil spring.

JMB thought this out, really well. Folks share about guns for various conditions, and here is one Older gun, with all this taken into consideration for Combat Conditions, and proven.


New 1911s are often "Clones" of what I grew up with, holds true for others around here as well.
Guess that is why we replace FLGR with GI set up, and use flat-head grip screws instead of torx.

Sentimental bunch of old farts we are. ;)

HammerBite
October 14, 2007, 07:37 PM
Modern Modern Autoloaders today come in a Plastic Box.

This requires a degree in Engineering to Open, as the Research & Design folks - really goofed this all up... and
This Modern Autoloader gun also requires a First Aid kit to repair all the damage done to the human body in trying to open, and in just handling the thing.

Funny you should mention that. This morning I pinched my finger while latching closed a blue SIG box. :( I guess I must be a klutz.

Maybe I should fluff and buff all my boxes before I really hurt myself bad.

Hoppy590
October 14, 2007, 11:01 PM
Some people need to come to the realization that JMB wasn't God

he wasnt god. but like Muhammed,Abraham, king David, JMB was a phrophet sent to us to better man kind in our pursuit of shooting sports and defense

HammerBite
October 14, 2007, 11:40 PM
Some people need to come to the realization that JMB wasn't God
He didn't need to be God. All he needed was to be the first one to do it right. Once you've done it right it's hard for anyone to make any serious improvement. Browning showed us how to make reliable and uncomplicated SA recoil-operated hammer-fired pistols. Adding doo-dads to them doesn't change that fact.

rdrancher
October 14, 2007, 11:46 PM
even the 1903 hammerless has a following that includes a guy out in CA i think who makes 1,000$ CCW versions/modifications.

Don't mean to hijack, but do you have more info on this?

rd

RPCVYemen
October 14, 2007, 11:51 PM
If you are really seeking an answer, it might be worth trying to understand how/why 1911's went from being a more or less common military weapon to be being a niche "sport" weapon.

I know 1911 fanatics tell me that every supra ultra secret Delta Black Death squad they know of uses 1911s - but the reality is that it's not issued much any more for military/police forces. I know there are always rumors about some new test where a 1911 design is just about to be re-adopted by the Army , or Navy, or somebody - and then it doesn't happen.

The 1911 has been a mainly a "sport"weapon for quite a while. I don't know the numbers, but I imagine that non-1911s are bought by army/police forces a thousand times as frequently as 1911s.

If you assume that he buyers are acting rationally, and in the general case making a reasonably good decision for their troops/officers, I think that you will be able to uncover for yourself the strengths/weaknesses of modern designs compared to 1911 weapons.

My guess is that low maintenance, reliability, cost of manufacture are some of the reasons - but I may be wrong. However, I think that it's unlikely that nearly all of the armed forces/police forces in the world are consistently making the same wrong decision.

Note that that may have nothing to do with the 1911's attraction as a sporting weapon. For example, it may be that a really sweet trigger may just not be that important to armed forces/police forces.

My general impression is that a few folks get a reliable out of the box 1911, but that most folks don't. An awful lot of folks seem to be willing/able to fiddle with a 1911 until it become very reliable - but in general I think if you randomly selected 1000 new Glocks or Berettas, or SIGs, you find fewer out of the box reliability issues than if you did the same with 1911s.

So maybe the difference is that people who use 1911's for sport accept a higher initial failure rate, because they are not using a 1911 out of the box in a life and death situation.

But I think that if you assume that the folks who buy the vast number of service weapons are making reasonably rational decisions, and try to understand why next to none of them are buying 1911s, then you will understand the strengths/weaknesses of the designs.

Mike

PPGMD
October 14, 2007, 11:55 PM
Great another flame bait thread by the 1911 lovers.

The 1911 can be a great pistol for some uses. But not for others. Get over it, the 1911 isn't the end all be all of pistols, neither is the Glock, XD or even the Hk.

HammerBite
October 15, 2007, 12:10 AM
And after Browning did his magic some people were uncomfortable with cocked-and-locked and still wanted the benefit of a quick first shot. The Walther brothers showed us how to do that. Military services went to DA/SA pistols in the hope that they would be more idiot proof.

Glock did for striker-fired pistols what Walther did for hammer-fired pistols, along with showing that polymer is a viable option.

PPGMD
October 15, 2007, 12:11 AM
Glock did for striker-fired pistols what Walther did for hammer-fired pistols, along with showing that polymer is a viable option.

Actually it was Hk that showed that polymer pistols were a viable option.

HammerBite
October 15, 2007, 12:20 AM
Actually it was Hk that showed that polymer pistols were a viable option.
Oops!! :o

Hoppy590
October 15, 2007, 01:20 AM
rdrancher

give me a day or two to find it. i found an article about it when searching for a new barrel for my 1903. i later found the shops site and they were selling 1903's with new sites, front slide serations, new barrels for a very premium price

tipoc
October 15, 2007, 08:55 PM
Glock did for striker-fired pistols what Walther did for hammer-fired pistols, along with showing that polymer is a viable option.

Actually striker fired pistols were in use before the Glock. The Nambu was one, Browning's early designs for the P35 also employed a striker mechanism, between 1925 and 36 the Soviets employed the striker fireing Korovin pistol, etc., etc.

The most unique thing about the Glock was the trigger.

tipoc

Beowolf1911
October 15, 2007, 09:29 PM
I think much of this dialoged got way away from the point since when did the most popular guns become the best guns? Most of the gun owners I know (and avoid) now shockingly little about guns. It has been mentioned and ignored before and will be ignored again but the best gun is the best gun for you. NOT the best gun for the majority of people out there. If you like a glock, HK, heck even a hi point go nuts. I just know with my 1911 I can close my eyes at 10 yards and put every shot in the first three rings of a silhouette. My brother in law can do it with his Glock. If we switch we can barely hit the paper.

AK103K
October 15, 2007, 09:32 PM
If we switch we can barely hit the paper.
Thats not the guns fault. :)

The BEST gun is the one in your hand when you really need it. Hopefully, your not just stuck on one and didnt bother to learn to use them all reasonably well. ;)

tipoc
October 15, 2007, 09:37 PM
... some people were uncomfortable with cocked-and-locked and still wanted the benefit of a quick first shot. The Walther brothers showed us how to do that. Military services went to DA/SA pistols in the hope that they would be more idiot proof.

Pretty much on the money. At the end of WWII the U.S. military wanted to go to another pistol and dump the 1911. They wanted a gun that was da/sa, that was in 9mm, that had an alloy frame for lighter weight, that had a de-cocker, and that was as reliable as the 1911. Colt came up with the alloy framed Commander in response, S&W, a few years later came out with the M39. But the funds for a change over were not available so the 1911 soldiered on till the M9 (Berretta 92F) was introduced.

Was the reason they wanted a change because the 1911 was a bad design as RPCVYemen suggests?

No, it was because in the hands of poorly trained or little trained troops a da/sa gun was "safer". Same reason most law enforcement agencies opted for that or the Glock years later. The belief was, and is, that a long da pull for the first shot will give the officer, or soldier, a better chance of preventing an accident or a bad shooting. Same with DAO guns. In the case of police it will also limit liability.

My general impression is that a few folks get a reliable out of the box 1911, but that most folks don't.

A mistaken impression.

So maybe the difference is that people who use 1911's for sport accept a higher initial failure rate, because they are not using a 1911 out of the box in a life and death situation.

Another mistaken impression.

There is a reason that Colt, Sig, Smith and Wesson, Kimber, Springfield, Taurus, Wilson, Brown, Baer, Detonics, Armscorp, China, Llama and others all manufacture variants of the 1911. Glock chambered their guns in .45acp and .45 GAP to compete with it. Variations of it go for a few hundred dollars to a few thousand. This is the most widely produced and copied handgun around.
It is in most cases reliable out the box. It is more expensive to manufacture than several other types of handguns. It is the most widely customized gun in existence. They sell like hotcakes on a cold morning.

Is this possible with a gun that is "unreliable" in "life and death situations"?

Nope.

tipoc

76shuvlinoff
October 15, 2007, 10:11 PM
On other boards I belong to this discussion would be.... Honda or Harley? And there I would say there's an ass for every saddle.

The only question I have is somewhere above here I read that people can be a little nervous about carrying "locked and cocked" on a 1911. I don't see how that's much different in MY 1911 than it is in MY XD or YOUR Glock.Sig etc etc.
You (probably) have a round chambered.
The firing mechanism (striker or hammer) is "ready".
A safety of one type or another is engaged.

I see no reason to carry any other way whatever the sidearm is.

right or wrong?

Hoppy590
October 15, 2007, 10:36 PM
The only question I have is somewhere above here I read that people can be a little nervous about carrying "locked and cocked" on a 1911. I don't see how that's much different in MY 1911 than it is in MY XD or YOUR Glock.Sig etc etc.
You (probably) have a round chambered.
The firing mechanism (striker or hammer) is "ready".
A safety of one type or another is engaged.


exactly. the striker is still semi cocked, and can still MechMalf. the fact that there is no physical safety on a glock only adds to the likelyhood some one will ND

AK103K
October 15, 2007, 10:48 PM
Quote:
My general impression is that a few folks get a reliable out of the box 1911, but that most folks don't.

A mistaken impression.
Unless its a Colt, and even then, depending on era and ammo, I have to disagree. Its been my personal experience that this statement is correct, and I have owned many 1911's by different makers over the years. Of all of them, Colts by far, were the only truly reliable out of the box guns, and even they needed work "in the beginning" to reliably feed anything but hardball.(they got better in the Series 80 guns) They also needed S&W sights if you wanted something to look at on top of the slide. To this day, I'd still take that old out of the box Commander with its S&W sights and "reliability package" over any Kimber, Springfield, S&W, or any other "modern" 1911 maker.

Most box stock 1911's usually require "something" to make them right, and even the higher end guns are not always right.

If given the choice between any 1911, a SIG, an HK, or Todd forbid, even a Glock, without hesitation, that 1911 would still be sitting on the table.

the fact that there is no physical safety on a glock only adds to the likelyhood some one will ND
safety or no safety, whats it matter? a 1911 with the safety off is no more dangerous than a Glock in your hand or holster, if your competent. If your not, all the safeties in the world wont matter.

HammerBite
October 15, 2007, 10:58 PM
Glock did for striker-fired pistols what Walther did for hammer-fired pistols, along with showing that polymer is a viable option.
Actually striker fired pistols were in use before the Glock. The Nambu was one, Browning's early designs for the P35 also employed a striker mechanism, between 1925 and 36 the Soviets employed the striker fireing Korovin pistol, etc., etc.
I didn't say that Glock introduced the striker-fired pistol.

Hoppy590
October 15, 2007, 11:35 PM
safety or no safety, whats it matter? a 1911 with the safety off is no more dangerous than a Glock in your hand or holster, if your competent. If your not, all the safeties in the world wont matter

so what the hell right, were all super tactical operators right heck my pants exploded when i walked in the door, screw safetys in total. a safety is a speed bump. its not meant to completely stop accidents only make a vain attempt to. were all gunna mess up at one point.


ANY AND ALL FIREARMS INSTRUCTORS IN HERE.

safety or no safety, whats it matter?

lee n. field
October 15, 2007, 11:45 PM
Design? Nope 1911s are the most copied ever, Even you XD homers have to admit that


Might have something to do with any of the original patents having expired a human lifetime ago.

It is kind of like the 30-06 or the KJV bible.

Comparing yourself to KJV only nutters? We'll soon be hearing tales of Austrian heretics deliberately corrupting the pure design handed down through St. JMB, and impassioned bemoaning of "the modern versions".

RPCVYemen
October 16, 2007, 12:10 AM
Was the reason they wanted a change because the 1911 was a bad design as RPCVYemen suggests?

If you think that I was commenting that the 1911 was a bad design, then either I didn't explain myself, or you didnt' read what I wrote. :)

My point was that the various available pistols have designs that reflect the needs and or requirements of the people that buy them. As I do more and more design work on my job (not firearms), the more I understand the critical link between requirements and design.

There have been many times where I look at a piece of code and said, "That's stupid! What bozo wrote this crap?" Then I look a little deeper and consider the requirements at the time the code as designed, and more often than not, the code seems like a more or less reasonable response to requirements.

Speaking of a "good design" or a "bad design" seems silly to me without trying to understand the requirements (needs or perceived needs) of the users.

It must not be by accident that the 1911 is not the standard issue sidearm by any major armies in the world today. The 1911 was once the standard issue sidearm for at least one major army. The tells me that either the buyers' requirements changed - or solutions that more closely matched requirements have been developed.

It must also not be by accident that 1911 designs dominate some of the shooting sports. That must fit the requirements of that sport better than other weapons.

I suspect that the design requirements for a modern service pistol are reliability and low cost of manufacture. That leads to non-1911 designs.

I suspect that the design requirements for a sporting pistol are a light and predictable trigger, and ease of modification. That leads to non-1911 designs.

Different requirements = different designs.

What are the advantages other than magazine capacity?

I thought that your question was a real question - maybe you just wanted to spout. :)


My general impression is that a few folks get a reliable out of the box 1911, but that most folks don't.
A mistaken impression.

My experience is not a reasonable statistical sample, but a lot of my friends who have 1911s seem to have had at least one or two that have had to go to a gunsmith or back to the factory before they were reliable.

I do not like to shoot Glocks, but none of my friends that have them have had to take them to a smith. The friend that has the most weapons loves to shoot his 1911 the most of all his weapons, but a Glock is on his night table. I don't think that's at all unusual.

Of course they all look unreliable compared to my favorite - a Ruger Blackhawk. Though I love to shoot it, I would not argue that it would make a great service handgun today.


Mike

RPCVYemen
October 16, 2007, 12:15 AM
It is kind of like the 30-06 or the KJV bible.

I shoot a Blackhawk in 45 LC, am saving for Marlin 1895 in 45-70, and read the Bible in Hebrew.

I don't much of these new fangled notions. :) I like to stick with the old time tested standards.

Mike

brashboy
October 16, 2007, 12:19 AM
1911 - the grip, the balance, the trigger, the pure mechanical beauty of it. It ain't perfect, although Ted Szabo was getting it there...

Best is ridiculous when it comes to pistols, might as well have a shootout over the best flavor of ice cream.

The 1911 isn't going anywhere. Even when we get to death-ray energy-bolt weapons, I'm keeping the 1911. And the Taurus, and the CZ97B, and... and... and...

woodstock72000@yahoo.com
October 16, 2007, 12:55 AM
Yes the 1911 is a great gun but you must understand that as time moves on, so does innovation. Saying that the 1911 is a great gun is correct but speaking down on the more modern weapons is to me, thoughtless. I`m not trying to be offensive I`m just saying that I think that in time the 1911`s will probably fade away; not because their bad but because better weapons are developed now and will only get better as time passes.
Just my opinion sir. No offense intended

M1 Shooter
October 16, 2007, 03:35 AM
Yup, the 1911 will fade away, just like the Colt Model P. Don't even get me started on DA revolvers, we all know how absolutely useless those are now that we have our plastic hi cap 9's and .40's. (BTW, that was sarcasm)

Look, the 1911 is a great pistol. So are most of the newer designs, it is useless to try and say one is better than the other because we all have our own preferences and needs, and I do like many of the newer designs just fine. I just prefer the 1911 for my uses.

IMO, the 1911 is a pistol that is more suited to someone who is willing to put in the time to learn it, inside and out. If you are not willing to do that, or you are one of those with an irrational fear of condition 1 carry, fine, buy whatever you like and stop telling all us 1911 users that we are stupid because we like our "outdated", "unreliable" old pistols.

For the record, not all of us 1911 fans go around telling everyone who doesn't use one that they're a fool. I don't do that, and I expect the same courtesy from you. It's called respect. I respect your decision to carry and shoot whatever sidearm you want, and I respect your right to do so.

What I have been known to do is tell people looking for a 1911 to buy Colt, since those are the most reliable standard production 1911's in my experience.

Many here in this thread seem to have a problem with the concept that not all of us are the same. We all have our own preferences, needs , and wants for a defensive sidearm. What works for you may not work for me and vice versa. I don't understand what the problem is. I like what I like, it works for me, and you all like what you like, and it works for you. Just accept that and move on. Can't we find something more constructive to talk about?

sm
October 16, 2007, 03:58 AM
Many here in this thread seem to have a problem with the concept that not all of us are the same. We all have our own preferences, needs , and wants for a defensive sidearm. What works for you may not work for me and vice versa. I don't understand what the problem is. I like what I like, it works for me, and you all like what you like, and it works for you. Just accept that and move on. Can't we find something more constructive to talk about?

Great Post.

I suggest we do a thread on who had the best Cardboard box, and what all came in the box.

Like a real honest to goodness owner's manual, one could actually read with pictures, exploded diagram, parts numbers.

Neat goodies like a rod, brush, oil, screwdrivers.

Even the free box of ammo that came with the Cardboard box with whatever gun inside.

Quality Control Inspector Name and date, and by golly that person was proud to put their name on that box, and the gun worked from the get -go!

mavracer
October 16, 2007, 08:53 AM
Like a real honest to goodness owner's manual,
ya like one that actually used 4 or 5 pages to explain how that model worked not 30 pages of generic warnings.

tipoc
October 16, 2007, 09:10 AM
RPCVYemen wrote:

If you think that I was commenting that the 1911 was a bad design, then either I didn't explain myself, or you didnt' read what I wrote.

Actually that is what you wrote. If, as you suggest, the majority of 1911s made are not reliable in life and death situations it's no wonder that more militarys don't use them.

Deductive logic works fine, in it's own humble way, when writing code but when applied to the broader world it requires facts to work with. The history of the development of firearms and how they are used supplies us with those.

There is no mystery as to why law enforcement and the military have not gone with the 1911, or moved away from it. Myself and others have explained that.

The 1911 has dominated the shooting sports for 80 or so years. In the last decade or two it's been giving way to other designs in competitive shooting. Particularly as those designs are service sidearms. The 92F, the Glock, Sigs and others. No one gun will or has taken it's place. No other design will dominate the way the 1911 has. Why? History.

We live in a good time for handgunners. There are many choices available to suit about everyone and their tastes and needs.

The 1911 is not for everyone. You have to want to learn it and get used to the operating system. Very often operator error leads folks to believe that the gun is to blame for what they aren't used to. But it has proven itself time and time again to be useful and reliable.

By the way, the 1911 you buy today is usually quite a bit different from what was passed out to troops in 1913.

tipoc

PPGMD
October 16, 2007, 12:21 PM
The 1911 has dominated the shooting sports for 80 or so years. In the last decade or two it's been giving way to other designs in competitive shooting. Particularly as those designs are service sidearms. The 92F, the Glock, Sigs and others. No one gun will or has taken it's place. No other design will dominate the way the 1911 has. Why? History.

Depends on the sport. They dominated in the early days, but they lost favor in the era of wonder 9's, with the AWB magazine ban 1911's saw a resurgence, followed by the 2011's. But even with the 2011's EAA and CZ have been doing well in IPSC for quite a while.

tipoc
October 16, 2007, 01:29 PM
Depends on the sport. They dominated in the early days, but they lost favor in the era of wonder 9's, with the AWB magazine ban 1911's saw a resurgence, followed by the 2011's. But even with the 2011's EAA and CZ have been doing well in IPSC for quite a while.

Exactly my point.

tipoc

AK103K
October 16, 2007, 08:35 PM
so what the hell right, were all super tactical operators right heck my pants exploded when i walked in the door, screw safetys in total. a safety is a speed bump. its not meant to completely stop accidents only make a vain attempt to. were all gunna mess up at one point.
:rolleyes:


Your right about the messing up part, and it doesnt matter if the gun has a safety or not. I once dropped a freshly loaded Series 70 Commander before I got the safety on, and luckily, it didnt discharge when it bounced off the kitchen floor.(one reason I really prefer the Series 80 guns).

The main safety on any weapon is between your ears, not on the weapon. If your reasonably competent, its a non issue. Accidents do happen, and again, safeties, or lack there of, are usually not the cause.

Then again, with the 1911's, some people think the half cock IS a safety, and worse yet, some think its OK to lower the hammer on a live round. And your worried about ND's with a Glock! :)


Just curious, but how many guns without safeties, or with them for that matter, have you handled and or carried that discharged without your consent?

If you enjoyed reading about ""Modern" auto's pro's/cons" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!