[Smiley]

Nearly everyone understands when someone speaks of Glock or AK durability. Drop it in the mud, kick it around, battlefields conditions etc. and it will still function.

How do modern day 1911s like Kimbers and Springfields shape up on this scale?

Can you beat on them and will they still function like they are suppossed to?

[dfariswheel]

Not as well as the old GI Colt 1911's did.
These days people want near-target gun accuracy, and in the pursuit of that, some guns are a little less able to handle abuse than they might be.

The older Colt's were combat accurate enough to reliably hit a man in the chest at practical ranges, and since they were made with looser tolerances, they could handle mud, dust, and fouling better.

[dsk]

It's quite obvious that dfariswheel is very adamant about what he just said. :rolleyes:

Current production 1911s have slides, frames, and barrels made of tougher steels and better heat-treating methods than the old GI 1911's. However, they are also made to ridiculously tight tolerances in the name of match-grade accuracy (yet they still often fail to achieve such), and worse yet most of them use small parts made of inferior materials such as MIM and cast. Colts up until the Series 70 era used all tool-steel parts in their construction.

What this basically means is that a new slide and frame will probably hold up as long as its owner does, but that said owner will probably have completely gutted and replaced all the small parts several times over by then.

Regarding reliability, as dfarsiwheel already said said said the tight tolerances of new 1911s mean that they're much more sensitive to dirt and fouling. My most reliable 1911 (over 75,000 rounds with maybe a half-dozen FTF's) is an older Series 80 with a slide and frame so loose it rattles loudly when shaken.

[ruger357]

The problem with the new 1911's are tight tolerances.

[10-Ring]

Agreed, the tigher tolerances found on Kimbers & loaded SA's add to accuracy & comfort but in turn decrease the chances of things gumming up and failing. That's not to say these guns aren't durable, just a little less so. A steel gun is still gonna take its share of abuse ;)

[farscott]

I think this discussion might be addressing two different issues: durability and reliability. I think of how many rounds (absolute) will the gun fire as durability, and the number of rounds fired per the number of rounds attempted to fire as reliability.

In terms of durability, I suspect (I have no hard data to confirm) that the newer guns will outlast the older guns due to the improved steels and, more importantly, vastly improved heat treatment.

While I see a lot of discussion about the smaller parts on newer guns failing, I am not convinced the new generation of cast and MIM parts are worse than the "tool steel" parts. I am convinced that it is possible to botch both MIM and "tool steel" parts. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of MIM parts failing. Unfortunately, I do not have access to any statistical data suggesting failure rates, so I cannot conclude anything.

As for reliability, tighter tolerances may aid or hinder, and it may be luck which one happens. It all depends on whether a tight gun would let dirt or fouling get into a place where the pistol function would be impaired or where the foreign debris could cause wear. I would suspect that exceptionally tight guns like Les Baer's pistols would be more susceptible to not functioning when dirty. I do know my Freedom Arms revolver must be clean to function; it is so tight that any dirt can stop the cylinder from turning.

Perhaps automotive experience can be a guide. Modern engines typically have tolerances at least an order of magnitude higher than those of the early 1970's, and these new engines have much longer design lives.