1911 reliability vs. more "modern day" guns

When it comes to reliability, it seems like some of the more "modern day" designed guns (glocks, xd's) outshine the 1911 design. I've had my fair share of jams recently with all of the 1911 pistols I've handled but zero with any of the glocks and xds, so this very well could just be my personal experience. It just seems like 1911's tend to jam easier when they are limp wristed or not cleaned after a few trips to the range. Not trying to start a debate, just wanted to see if others have had similar findings? Thanks.

I've heard many reasons for this. I'll try to cover a few of those thoughts.
1911s like to run wetter than newer guns (whose tennifer finishes may have better lubricity than 1911 finishes?)
Bad magazines - Originally, mags had a controlled-feed, but now they typically release like other mags (thus not adhering to older specs).
Bad QC. Manufacturers are sloppy. Only Glock makes Glocks. Nearly everyone but Ruger make 1911s. MIM parts are sometimes complained about.
Lack of original blueprints - manufacturers don't go by original specs, thus they mess things up, sometimes.
Cheap ammo.

Some 1911's do have reliability issues most don't. Ammo selection and magazines are most often the culprits. My PT1911 has never had any issues with JHP or FMJ ammo with any of my Magazines 2500+ rounds. On the other hand a batch of handloaded SWC ammo hung up (nose dive on first round) especially with Kimber and Wilson mags while the Taurus mags fed it just fine (softer springs). Loading only 7 rnds instead of 8 cured the problem. Otherwise my 1911 has been 100%.

I think it just depends. You have to consider if the 1911 or the browning tilt was a better design in the first place for reliability. After that it depends on the manufacturer interpretation of the original designs and tolerances/specs used. Simply, it just depends how the pistol was built. It will either be reliable or not. Like already mentioned, Glock is the only company building Glocks, which is still just a varation of the browning tilt design. They happen to have perfected the reliability and quality control methods to produce one hell of a reliable design.

With all that said, I personally think the "modern day" Glock or XD variation of the browning tilt design are more reliable guns than any 1911 out there. The design and operation seems to be more forgiving and less prone to failure.

Good 1911s with good mags that are cleaned/lubed regularly (not necessarily religiously) are as reliable as a Glock and probably more reliable than an XD. The difference is that the polymer guns are less expensive and do not require a break-in period (two to four hundred rounds).

I've got an SA 1911 that jammed a few times when it was brand new, but after a hundred rounds or so has never jammed since. It's so reliable it's boring.

My Glock and XD 9mm's have never once jammed from the first shot on.

My Kahr P9... Well, that's a whole 'nother story/nightmare. It took 3 months, 500+ rounds of ammo, and a trip back to Kahr to get it to run reliably. :barf:
-

1911's are more reliable now than they have ever been. My PT1911 has been nothing but a workhorse.

What bugs me is when people state that they are the most reliable gun around, which just flatly isn't true. Hardcore Glockers and 1911 nuts are the most dramatic defenders of thier platforms, when the simple truth is that personal preference aside, there are plenty of guns out there that are just as dead-nuts reliable as the 1911 or the Glock.

I've had a couple of 1911s that had feeding problems, but on the whole, the majority of my 1911s have been reliable. I have owned over twenty 1911s, so lets say about 8-10% had reliability problems. These include Colts, Springfields, Paras, Kimbers, and Smith & Wessons.

I have also owned one XD, and one Glock 26 (since you mentioned them specifically). The XD was reliable and accurate. The Glock rear sight came off after the first 100 rounds. Other "modern" designs I have owned have been reliable, but others have not.

Comparing the "1911" to specific pistols, or even specific manufacturers is not a fair comparison, because the "1911" encompasses many different manufacturers and specific designs as well as pistols.

My 5" 1911s are normally cleaned somewhere between 1500 and 2000 rounds, with a quick wipe-down somewhere in the middle. I cant remember the last time one jammed. I dont think I cleaned my mil-spec for the year or two that I owned it, I did clean it before I traded it in though.

I own a glock. I carry a 1911.

The "design" is just as reliable as anything out there. :cool:

It sometimes gets iffy in manufacturing and assembly. :banghead:

Ditto to Walkalong.

Find an old Sistema or pre 1960 something Colt and just try to induce a malfunction. A well made 1911 with good mags is near unbeatable.

I have stated this many times. I do not have problems with my 1911's jamming. The only ones I see that do jam have cheap mags, or the owner "never" cleans them, OR, it seems people like to "improve" them. An example is when companies try to cut them down to make them easy to carry. Yes, those things jam. But that is not the gun that was designed. The more you change from the orginal the more problems you have.

When I first started buying 1911's I did not have to "break them in" They worked as designed. The more "crap" people improve them with the more problems develop.

They work just fine as JMB designed them.

They worked just fine in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and numerous other actions around the world. IF they where truly a problem they would be gone. In fact they only get more popular.

The only problems I have with my 1911's are the ones I create myself. Since the 1911's I own are used for Steel Challenge (no power factor required) and for run and gun (165PF) I tend to forget to change a spring here and there and cause a jam. But that is hardly the guns fault.
As others have stated mags can be an issue. I've switched all the carry and competition mags I use over to Tripp Research mags and all mag related issues have vanished. It's funny, I now use Wilson 47d mags strictly for practice since some people consider them the best 1911 mags out there. Damn plastic followers.

Springfield MIL-SPEC .38 Super - All kinds of modifications, competitive use only.
Springfield Loaded .45ACP - Standard GI Guide Rod, CCW
Para SSP .38 Super - Stock, Competitive use only
Para SSP-SE1 .45ACP - Stock, CCW
Les Baer Premier II - Stock - Competitive Use Only

I'm a huge fan of the 1911, but the design has a couple of flaws and is overly complicated compared to modern handguns. The link has always been an issue, and the fitting of the lugs, just as on the High Power is a much more complex task compared to the Sigs, Glocks, etc.

The biggest drawback to the 1911, and one that is well know to 1911 shooters, is the feed ramp. Most modern handguns have the feed ramp integral to the barrel. The 1911 splits the ramp between the barrel and the frame, and this interface can be problematic.

For the longest time, no one considered the commercial 1911 ready to fight out of the box. Now there are quite a few that have all the requisite tuning as shipped. Most of the 'wonder guns' like the Sig, Glock, HK have always been ready to shoot right out of the shipping box.

No offense intended to the OP, but this topic has been covered so many different ways in the forum that almost any search on "1911s" should provide numerous threads hashing out the 1911 reliability issue.

Yes, there are some 1911s sold that don't always run out of the box. Just fix, sell, trade or disable and throw 'em on the scrap heap.

Frankly, I've come to believe that only people who will commit to actually learning how their pistols function, what makes them tick, what could go wrong with them, and bother to learn how to maintain their pistols, should buy 1911s. The 1911 is not that complex, and it's relatively simple to keep your 1911 running -- if you can be bothered to learn the platform.

The rest of you can go buy Glocks. And keep taking your car to Jiffy Lube for oil and spark plug changes.

Can I steal that last paragraph?

Most 1911's I've had have been 100% reliable. Mags seem to be the weak link. Extractors can be a problem too.

...

+2 with Old Dog's last paragraph..


Ls

I love my 1911s, and find many to be pretty darn reliable...

but as reliable as a Glock? sorry, nope.

Glocks are boring but they simply run all the time....I wish I could shoot my 1911s 500rds at a time and just wipe off the exterior.

Thats being said, I do prefer to shoot the 1911s!

1911 guy asked
Hey, Old Dog

Can I steal that last paragraph?
Sure (I think I first used it on the 1911 forum about 4 years ago; can you tell I'm a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to this topic?) ...

I see no reason why the design should be inherently less reliable. The problem with too many of them is all the different makers and their executions of the design. And the original maker (Colt) has in the past had quality control problems, too.

I have Taurus PT145, PT745, SA XD45 and even a Glock 21. I don't feel that any of them is "more reliable" than either of my 1911s. Also, I can easily strip my 1911s down to their individual pieces except for the plunger tube and ejector, clean everything, check it for wear and reassemble in minutes. I don't have to punch out roll pins or anything like that and even if I felt comfortable doing the same to my tupperware, I fear in time they would loosen up just from the disassembly and reassembly. Furthermore the 1911 is not only every bit as reliable as my tupperware, it makes a dandy striking weapon in close quarters also, something I rather doubt my other lightweights would survive too well.:uhoh:

I'm glad that we're having this discussion on here, with real shooters, rather than listening to the "experts" in the gun rags. I swear that I cannot find a reason other than "looks" to recommend a 1911 over a G-23, xd-45, sig 220, or h&k mp-45. The 1911 is NOT a better design than ANY of these pistols. This has been proven time after time. I'll let the 1911 fanboys take it from here.

'Simpler is better', while not always accurate, is a good place to start.

Someone mentioned the extractor issue on the 1911, which is another prblem area I forgot about. If the tension on the extractor on a 1911 isn't right, it can cause problems.

In my experience, with 1911s it still tends to be accuracy versus reliability. I have a GI WWI veteran 1911 that is dead nuts reliable with anything except wadcutters, and always have been. I have Kimber, Les Bauer and some custom-builts that occasionally have issues. I have an fairly basic SA that runs the best of the non-GI, with a few tweaks and no close tolerances.

We've all seen the multiple reliability tests that Glocks have been put through. Show me a similar test with a modern manufacture 1911.

I bought a Colt .45 auto (series 70) new in 1980. It looks a little worn now, but in THOUSANDS of rounds over 27 years, I've had two malfunctions. Both were 200 gr. LSWC reloads of my own recipe. I have a six year old Kimber CDP series 1 that hasn't malfunctioned yet. I read all the stuff about "getting a 1911 to run", but I've never experienced a problem. With that said, I rarely leave the house without at least one Glock on my belt.

I was once shown a high speed video of the feeding cycle of a 1911 Colt, series 70. The location of top round in the mag is well below the centerline of the bore in the first place. When the slide strips the round along the feed lips (commercial magazine, truncated cone hollowpoint, looked like a Speer JHP), the nose of the round strikes the feed ramp in the frame and actually noses up and hits the hood of the chamber. At that point, the tail end of the round is just about releasing from the front of the feed lips. The lips are wider at the forward end, so the case is also sitting higher, and the head of the case is now sliding up the breechface and under the extractor hook. By this time, the round has straightened out and is pretty much funnelling into the chamber. This is why it is BAD to drop rounds into the ejection port and dropping the slide. It will break the extractor pretty quick.
On the other hand, Glocks, Sigs, etc. the top round in the mag is sitting pretty much in line with the chamber in the first place. There is a straight push into the mouth of the chamber, and there is no controlled feeding of the cartridge. It's like the difference between the "push feed" and the controlled round feed of the Winchester Model 70s. The extractor hook just snaps over the rim.
Service autos have larger chamber dimensions than true "match" chambers, which also helps with reliability when the going gets dirty.
It has been well documented that most 1911s headspace on the extractor hook, rather than the chamber ledge. Most guys that reload .45 ACP don't bother to trim cases, because the average brass will split at the mouth before it grows long enough to cause a headspace or chambering issue. I used to use a snap gauge to check case lengths of my brass, and there was so much variation in length that it wasn't worth trimming all of them to the shortest one. The pressure levels of the .45 don't stress the brass very much. It didn't seem to make any difference at combat distances, anyway. Maybe the bullseye shooters trim their brass every reload.
Anyway, I find that magazines were the #1 cause of reliability problems in my 1911s. I switched to Wilson mags, and swear by them. I use the same ones for IDPA as with carry, and the mags are dropped during slide lock changes all the time. Never had a mag failure in over 15 years.

I'm glad that we're having this discussion on here, with real shooters, rather than listening to the "experts" in the gun rags. I swear that I cannot find a reason other than "looks" to recommend a 1911 over a G-23, xd-45, sig 220, or h&k mp-45. The 1911 is NOT a better design than ANY of these pistols.
Perhaps the superior trigger which directly engages the sear, rather than using a link or series of linkages? Perhaps the fact that a 1911 can be detail stripped using nothing more than a cartridge case and the parts of the pistol itself. Perhaps the ability to easily replace these parts in the field. Perhaps the ability to change backstrap feel with various mainspring housing & grip safety variations, and change grips, all to fit the user's hand. Perhaps the weapon's actual record in combat as both a standard issue sidearm and now as a weapon used by more specialized units. None of the pistols you list begin to approach these attributes.
This has been proven time after time.
When have any of the pistols you list been widely issued to combat troops in a war?

Further, could you please tell us why you chose the .40 S&W Glock 23 rather than Glock 21 which is chambered in .45 ACP like all the other pistols you list? Also, when you refer to the "H&K mp-45" do you mean the H&K HK-45, H&K USP 45, H&K Mk23, the H&K MP-5 or SP-89 in .45 ACP, one of the other H&K machine pistols, or the S&W M&P 45?

I'll let the 1911 fanboys take it from here.
I'll ask that you refrain from the use of "fanboy" and other derogatory language, and point you to the forum rules as to why.
There are only a few house rules:

1.) All topics and posts must be related to firearms or civil liberties issues.
2.) Multiple user registrations are prohibited.
3.) As a family-friendly board, we ask that you keep your language clean. If you wouldn't say it in front of your dear old Grandma, you probably don't want to say it here.
4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
5.) We cannot provide a comprehensive list of "Things Not To Say".Posts that are contrary to the above policies, or to the mission of The High Road, may be edited or deleted at our sole discretion. Membership may be revoked if such a step is deemed necessary by us. We're a private venture enabled by an all-volunteer staff. Please treat this venue as a polite discussion in a friend's home and respect the wishes of the hosts.

http://www.thehighroad.org/code-of-conduct.html

Perhaps the superior trigger which directly engages the sear, rather than using a link or series of linkages? I am unconvinced that using a link or series of linkages degrades trigger pull as much as it is compromised by the M1911 single stage trigger. The limiting factor in a single stage trigger wihin a self-loading design is the required depth of sear engagement. In a double stage trigger such as is used in the SIG P210, the sear engagement between 0.5mm and 1mm (0.02" to 0.04") leaves an adequate safety margin when the action cycles. But in the second stage of the trigger pull the sear engagement is only 0.05mm (0.002"), causing next to no creep. Whereas a M1911 must have its sear engagement of at least 0.4 mm (0.016") to prevent the hammer from following the slide in cycling. Consequently, its trigger has to creep an order of magnitude more than a double stage design.

To the original question, I submit that while controlled feed is not as critical in a recoil-operated semiauto as it is in a bolt-action rifle, it certainly does not compromise reliable action cycling in either design. The main obstacle in the feeding cycle of the M1911 is a truncated barrel ramp fed from low-slung magazine lips. As regards its production parameters, the M1911 is compromised by its reliance on variable fit in bushing and barrel link, made obsolete in 1935 with the advent of Radom Vis.

I told myself for five years that the 1911 was the only handgun, until I woke up one day and realized my 1911s spent more time at the gunsmith than they did in my holster. I wish I had the money I have spent over the years trying to get 1911s to run right (hint: 6 brand new Glocks with night sights).

YMMV, but do a search on LeonCarr and Glock, or LeonCarr and 1911, to get the full story on my experience (hate-hate relationship) with 1911s.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

I've got five 1911's now, from a 1917 Model of 1911 to a couple of Dan Wesson Razorbacks in 10mm. I've owned others. All have functioned flawlessly right out of the box.

I also own a Glock 29, and a Glock 20. The Glock 20 will need to be sent in for repair as it is not functioning correctly. I can shoot the Glocks more accurately than the 1911's...marginally. When it comes down to comfort of carry in an IWB holster, I can forget the 1911 is there while the Glocks feel as if a brick was at my waist.

But there's this thing called personal preference, folks. I can't abide single action/double action autoloaders. If someone gave me one, I'd sell it. Others think they're the best thing since sliced bread. The fact that I don't like them means one thing: I don't like them. The fact that you drool all over them means you like them. It's no big deal.

If I may - you might be better served in comparing NEW mfg 1911s to NEW more modern guns, Comparing NEW 1911s to old, original, 1911 & 1911A1s is a completely different horse. The purpose and the markets are not even similar.

b-

If I may - you might be better served in comparing NEW mfg 1911s to NEW more modern guns, Comparing NEW 1911s to old, original, 1911 & 1911A1s is a completely different horse. The purpose and the markets are not even similar.

b-
I would agree with you. Most current 1911s are made to be range toys and not weapons. The price of a current production 1911 which was built as a weapon, either from the manufacturer or rebuilt by a competent gunsmith as such, has become quite high. The price of a Glock vs. the price of a current 1911 properly built as a weapon falls clearly in favor of Glock. Availability of parts, quality magazines, and competent gun smiths & armorers is a push between the two. Higher quality 1911 parts will certainly be more expensive than factory Glock parts though. That's why I love selling Glocks. However, I shoot 1911s far better than I shoot Glocks, so I find it worth the money to buy the ammo to reliability test my 1911s and pay the smith to make any necessary changes.

My.02 cents guys
JMB started the project in 1908 or so, new materials came up later, new machinery. Therefore, it is impossible to compare with news designs, he was a head of the time about some physics principles, though. He was copied to the limit that new pistols still used cam lock systems today.

czhen

I've had the "plastic guns, a glock, pt745 and they were nice guns. But the springfield G.I. i have now just plain feels good and shoots great.A real soild weapon. this is just my own opinion. What ever you feel good with.

I own and shoot 1911s, the only non 1911 I own is a Glock 17. I carry only 1911s and trust with my life. That being said they are simply not as reliable as modern designed handguns as a whole. My $400 Glock would go longer without a reliability issue than any 1911s I know of.

So what? Can not really ever imagine myself in a 50, 100, 300 or 500 rds gun fight, be kinda hard to carry all those magazines around anyways. Those 10,000 rds torture are worthless in my view, who cares if a handgun can shoot 10,000 rds without incident?

My current 1911s are: (Reliability)

Baer TRS Comanche (Very Good with FMJ)
STI Lawman (Outstanding)
Springer Black SS Loaded (OK)
Colt New Agent (Perfect)

Past 1911s: (Reliability)

Springer GI (Great)
Springer Mil Spec (Great)
Springer Loaded (Bad)
Kimber UCII (Very Very Bad)
Kimber Warrior (Bad)
Para LTC (Great)
Springer Operator (Great)
Colt Defender Plus (Good)
Colt Commander (Great)
Para Warthog (Very Good)
High Standard (Bad)
Colt Commander XSE (.38) (Perfect)

As you can see price really has no effect on reliability, the Para LTC was every bit as reliable as the Baer TRS at 25% of the cost. Kimbers and I just do not get along for some reason. Springers are hit and miss with me. Colt has been pretty good to me. STI has been pretty impressive to me. Baer are nice but I ma not sure they are worth the cost difference. The real jewel has been the Colt New Agent, a little 3" 1911 than just plain runs.

:)