[bear71]

Can someone explain why dozens of authors and gun writers seem to think that the 1911 is a fine handgun "for experts only".

Insert magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights.

Does that take an expert?

Without a suitable answer, I think I'm going to go on believing that good many of these gun writers are rather elitest.

I submit that it takes more expertise to accurately shoot DA and DAO auto's than the 1911 or Hi Power.

[Grizfire]

Does that take an expert?

No. 'nuff said

[Zerodefect]

Guess it depends if knowing how to clear a jammed up gun makes you an "expert".


:neener:

Its actually much closer to this:

Insert magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, pull trigger, BANG, stovepipe, tap magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, pull trigger, BANG, fail to feed, tap magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, pull trigger, BANG, fail to feed, tap magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, CLICK, drop mag, rack slide, Insert magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, pull trigger, BANG, fail to feed..........

[ironvic]

It isn't the gun. Good practice makes the expert.

[Dutch1911]

Guess it depends if knowing how to clear a jammed up gun makes you an "expert".


:neener:

Its actually much closer to this:

Insert magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, pull trigger, BANG, stovepipe, tap magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, pull trigger, BANG, fail to feed, tap magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, pull trigger, BANG, fail to feed, tap magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, CLICK, drop mag, rack slide, Insert magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, pull trigger, BANG, fail to feed..........
Hmmm maybe you should not work on your own guns anymore!

[paul45]

Originally Posted by Zerodefect
Guess it depends if knowing how to clear a jammed up gun makes you an "expert".




Its actually much closer to this:

Insert magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, pull trigger, BANG, stovepipe, tap magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, pull trigger, BANG, fail to feed, tap magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, pull trigger, BANG, fail to feed, tap magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, CLICK, drop mag, rack slide, Insert magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, pull trigger, BANG, fail to feed..........


http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k57/paul10mm/bsmeter.gif

[Dr.Rob]

You shouldn't get advice from people writing fiction.

[ReadyontheRight]

I think it's pretty simple.

If it's ready to shoot...It's a gun that WILL discharge if you just touch the trigger while picking it up. That light trigger is what make the 1911 so good.

If it's not ready to shoot, there are a large number of "conditions" why this may be so.

Revolvers and DAOs are simply not as complicated.

I wouldn't say a 1911 requires and "expert", I would say it requires more interest in shooting and practice than a simple DAO autoloader or DA revolver. At least in terms of gun safety, not necessarily accuracy.

[KenW.]

In my agency, the 1911 comes recommended. All the while, until recently if you wanted to carry a Glock you get extra training.

[jigglyjames29]

They're easy to shoot but 1911s take a lot more time to understand how the platform works than say, a glock.
And parts usually require fitting.

[ezypikns]

I submit that it takes more expertise to accurately shoot DA and DAO auto's than the 1911 or Hi Power.

For me, the 1911 just seems to point itself. I probably shoot mine better than the other pistols or revolvers I own.

And no one would call me an expert.

[bear71]

"You shouldn't get advice from people writing fiction."

Some pretty big names claiming 1911's are for experts only. Otherwise well respected authors.

[.38 Special]

Seems to me it's not so much "The 1911 is only for experts" as "The 1911 should only be carried by experts". As a defense gun I can understand how it demands more training. Pull out a Glock, or a DA revolver, and you don't have to worry about the relatively fine coordination required to activate the safety -- under the stress of potentially mortal combat, mind you -- and you are managing a 12-14 pound trigger pull rather than a 4-6 pound trigger pull. Those two factors, IMO, require a lot of training before they become the "second nature" that they should be in life-or-death conditions.

[BlackHand1917]

I would hardly call a 1911 an experts gun. Perhaps folks are thinking about new handgun users that find .45acp to be a high recoil round. I have owned a M1911 for about 15 years and my only complaint is that .45 ammo is so expensive.

[bear71]

"Seems to me it's not so much "The 1911 is only for experts" as "The 1911 should only be carried by experts". As a defense gun I can understand how it demands more training. Pull out a Glock, or a DA revolver, and you don't have to worry about the relatively fine coordination required to activate the safety -- under the stress of potentially mortal combat, mind you -- and you are managing a 12-14 pound trigger pull rather than a 4-6 pound trigger pull. Those two factors, IMO, require a lot of training before they become the "second nature" that they should be in life-or-death conditions."

That's a really good post, thanks.

[doc2rn]

I just wish the darn things werent so big and actually fit my hands! I just might go get one of the EMPs and see if the fit is better. Yes I own a Colt safe queen.

[M&PVolk]

1911 owners are the polar opposites of Glock fanatics, and just as pretentious. Expert my @$$

[David E]

It's not an "expert's gun" per se, but for serious use, it does require someone willing (and able) to dedicate to the 1911 system.

This has nothing to do with the kick, accuracy or jam clearing. It has everything to do with the "cocked and locked" state of readiness and thoroughly integrating that into ones subconscious.

If you can't or won't do that, find another defensive gun.

[Old Fuff]

Well there are two kinds of 1911 pistols.... :scrutiny:

The kind that used to be made, that were simple and trouble free.... :)

And the kind that are made now - John Browning would hardly recognize 'um. :uhoh:

Now with these, getting them to work does indeed require an expert, and a lot of ammunition to break 'um in... :banghead: :neener:

Sidenote: I started shooting (real) 1911 pistols when I was 14, and at the time I was no expert - regardless of what I thought. :D

[L-Frame]

The 1911 is a great platform, but, it is not a gun for someone who doesn't want to put in a great deal of time training with it, hence the "experts" label. It can be a very dangerous gun in the hands of someone who is not willing to commit the 1911 to muscle memory because when the sh-- hits the fan and they have their finger on the trigger, that's just screaming accidental discharge.

David Hackworth wrote a book called "About Face" in 1985. He was one of the most decorated soldiers in the US army during the Korea/Viet Nam era. In the mid 60's he did a study of friendly fire casualties in the Viet Nam war and among his findings were that the 1911 was more likely to cause a friendly fire casualty than an enemy casualty, due simply to the lack of training the troops had with the pistol and it's single action functioning. He strongly recommended going to a double action semi-auto for that reason alone.

[lechiffre]

Insert magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, pull trigger, BANG, stovepipe, tap magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, pull trigger, BANG, fail to feed, tap magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, pull trigger, BANG, fail to feed, tap magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, CLICK, drop mag, rack slide, Insert magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, pull trigger, BANG, fail to feed..........

kimber was not specified.

oh yeah,and how many weights does a single action trigger have ?

[eldon519]

I recall a certain DEA agent of internet infamy explaining how "professional" one needs to be to handle a Glock as well.

People just like to run their mouths.

[easyg]

No, the 1911 is not for "experts".

For many many years the military took 18 year old teenagers and successfully taught them to be proficient with the 1911 in less than two weeks.

It's a very simple firearm to use.

Having said that....
Glocks are even more simple to use. :neener:

[easyg]

David Hackworth wrote a book called "About Face" in 1985. He was one of the most decorated soldiers in the US army during the Korea/Viet Nam era.
Hackworth is a hack.

[marriedguy1]

Cool I'm an expert is something other than BS

[kentucky_smith]

Maybe some author's want their character to look super1337tacticool?

[Clarence]

Like any firearm the 1911 should only be used by folks who are proficient in its use.

Only folks who are proficient should be handling or carrying any firearms unsupervised.

Anyone who doesn't pay attention to Rule #3 is going to have an ND regardless of what kind of sidearm they are using.

1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target.
4. Identify your target, and what is behind it.

The "Only for experts" comment is BS in my opinion.

[earlthegoat2]

I think that comparatively speaking a 1911 is harder to master than say a revolver or a glock. But if your familiar with firearms with safties then I dont think it is a big deal.

[ljnowell]

IMO an experts gun would be one that has no manual safety at all. There is a lot less room for error there.

[easyg]

IMO an experts gun would be one that has no manual safety at all. There is a lot less room for error there.
So now revolvers are for experts too?

[skoro]

"experts only?" :confused:

Seems a bit overblown to me. I'd phrase it more like, "not a beginner's handgun."

[CWL]

you don't have to worry about the relatively fine coordination required to activate the safety -- under the stress of potentially mortal combat, mind you -- and you are managing a 12-14 pound trigger pull rather than a 4-6 pound trigger pull. Those two factors, IMO, require a lot of training before they become the "second nature" that they should be in life-or-death conditions.

Do you need to remember to put your finger on the trigger, or is that automatic? If your trigger finger knows where to go, then why wouldn't your thumb 'remember' how to swipe the safety? "Muscle memory", it is called muscle memory.

IIRC, 2 million Govt, 1911A1s were manufactured in WWII. How come there weren't any complaints from soldiers who lugged them all over the world and into (and out of) hell?

The biggest complaints about 1911s being too difficult are from armchair commandos.

[mljdeckard]

I don't think that the 1911 is for experts, I think that more recent designs are dumbed down.

You will have people argue it both ways, that a combat handgun should have a manual safety and an exposed hammer, and others who will argue that more switches and controls are difficult to remember how to use in a crisis.

I say if you can walk and chew gum and drive a stick, you can learn the controls on a 1911. (I carry one and don't prefer anything else for any situation.)

HAVING SAID THAT; There is no such thing as a foolproof system. It's a question of finding a sufficiently talented fool. (opening the 1911 vs M9 door,) Among the reasons the military claims to like the M-9 better, they can't caim it's because it's LESS complicated. If I were in charge of rapid familiarization for pistols with a bunch of green soldiers who have never fired a handgun before, and this may well be the ONLY training they get before they take it to war, I would prefer to show them how to use a Glock.

[raz-0]

Well, I don't call it an "expert's gun" but I do not recommend them to first time gun buyers. Mainly because I want them to enjoy their first gun, and there are enough quirks about the platform as it exists in the market right now that you should know what you are getting into to not have buyer's remorse.

There are a number of reasons I believe a 1911 can make a first time owner very unhappy.

1) So many of the 1911s out there don't run reliably out of the box. Unless you have a grasp of the operation of the platform, you are going to be sending a lot of them back under warranty. This tends to make people unhappy, especially if the manufacturer makes you pay for the return shipping.

2) Lots of 1911 makers and owners will tell you the gun "needs to break in." Most first time buyers are also going for a 1911 in .45 ACP. This means that that pricey 1911 that you are now told needs another 500 rounds through it to work. Adding another $200 to the price of an already pricey gun tends to make people unhappy.

3) Disassembly of the gun is complicated compared to a lot of other designs. This makes people unhappy.

4) reassembly can be a PITA. An "Idiot mark" on your brand new expensive 1911 doesn't make people happy. Being referred to as an idiot for doing something so common that you can buy tools to avoid it also doesn't make people happy.

5) Junk magazines. You just stretched your budget to buy your nice 1911. Now you have to replace all the mags with something that works. Add another $60 to $200 to the price of your already pricey 1911. This does not make people happy.

6) Crappy extractors. So many of them are not set up right, or are made to save money and fail fairly early in life. Sure you can get a good one in there for $25 or so, but you have to know how to tune it yourself. First time owners tend to not like this situation.

7) They mostly come in .45 ACP. most new shooters tend to regret not having something cheaper to feed if they go for a .45. The additional expense can turn a new shooter off shooting for good.

[Vern Humphrey]

Virtually every man in the US Army and Marine Corps was trained to use the M1911 from its adoption to the mid-80s. Think about that -- kids out of the slums, farms, factories and suburbs, who had never held a loaded pistol in their lives got a few hours' training on the M1911 and they were good to go.

[Oldtrader3]

The US Army did not make soldiers proficient with the 1911 in (2) weeks. At least not the same army that I was in. I carried a 1911 and qualified with it for nearly the entire (3) years that I was an infantry medic. I did not become truly proficient with the 1911 until I started practicing with the Fort Lewis Pistol Team and shooting 300 rounds .45ACP/day with a match grade 1911, practicing trigger control and proper grip.

The issue 1911 that I had rattled when you shook it, it was so loose and worn out. The Armory in our unit only cared about rifles and machine guns. Officers and Medics 1911's did not receive any much needed tuning or even part tolerance matching. The Kimber's that I own now are an entirely different animal than any .45, 1911 that I was issued for carry in the Army.

[Vern Humphrey]

The US Army did not make soldiers proficient with the 1911 in (2) weeks.
They didn't have to make them proficient. They only had to train them to carry it safely and take care of it. And that's the M1911-unique aspect -- proficiency with a handgun is a matter of shooting, and any handgun will take as much shooting to reach proficiency as any other.

[mljdeckard]

I should probably add that my idea of an expert's gun is a P3AT, or a snub-nose revolver. Little guns have more felt recoil and a smaller sight radius. They are what you move up to as you become more experienced. They are NOT what you should start with because you think they're more convenient to carry.

[owen]

bear71, who is claiming the 1911 is for experts. you keep saying "big names." Name some names, or your just using a strawman.

[m4jockey]

I 2nd mljdeckard's comment.

[raz-0]

Virtually every man in the US Army and Marine Corps was trained to use the M1911 from its adoption to the mid-80s. Think about that -- kids out of the slums, farms, factories and suburbs, who had never held a loaded pistol in their lives got a few hours' training on the M1911 and they were good to go.

They got a few hours training. And an armorer. Said armorer got more than a few hours training. They also did not have to pay for their 1911. And nobody cared about their opinion or wanted them to enjoy owning their 1911, which they also didn't actually own.

[Vern Humphrey]

The point is, for over 70 years, the organizations that had to train litterally millions of men on the quick used the M1911 and had no trouble accomplishing their mission.

As I said, there are two things to train -- those that are gun-specific, and those that are common to any gun. The gun-specific matters are quickly trained on the M1911. Those that are common are pretty much the same with any gun (although, as pointed out, snub-nosed revolvers are probably the most difficult to train to proficiency.)

You don't have to be an "expert" to safely carry, handle and maintain an M1911.

[GRAYRID3R]

I have a Colt 1911 and have never felt like it needed any more attention than my other handguns. It, and my Ruger Vaquero .45 are my 2 favorites, and probably why I am more "proficiant" (proficiant being a very relative term) with them. I am least proficiant with my Redhawk .44 mag and my S&W 642. The 642 is an awsome CCW because of size but I have big hands and it is harder for me to use. My wife loves it and shoots better with it than I do. The .44 mag fits good but everyone knows it's hard to be consistantly accurate with that big recoil. I own 2 XDm 9s that are my HD handguns (one has a Veridian laser). I guess I don't really understand the fuss over the 1911 being an "expert" gun, because I sure don't consider myself an expert.:confused:

[DAVIDSDIVAD]

I think gun writers get too caught up in all of the "If you don't pay 6 figures for a tactical 1911 and wear a milt sparks holster, you are not an expert" kinda junk.

[tipoc]

From bear71,

Some pretty big names claiming 1911's are for experts only. Otherwise well respected authors.

Like who? Do you recall names?

I can see where some folks may believe the 1911 or single action semis with thumb safeties could be for those with more training. If you look at this thread here...http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=458945... you can see confusion and concern.


tipoc

[Vern Humphrey]

I think gun writers get too caught up in all of the "If you don't pay 6 figures for a tactical 1911 and wear a milt sparks holster, you are not an expert" kinda junk.
I laughed when I read that -- it called to mind an "expert" who used to write something called "Tactical Teddy" presenting problems to the readers. A typical "Tactical Teddy" problem would start like this:

You're wearng a custom Graz-Buria with Zimmerstutzen night sights in a kangaroo skin small-of-the-back holster by Alonzo Yold.

For half a page, he'd discuss all your arms and acoutements, and finally get to the point -- "A thug approaches you and asks for a cigarette. What do you do?"

[Dazen]

Those of you that make 1911's sounds complicated are Nut's. The pistol is nothing but simple. Easy to Shoot, easy to TAKE down and easy to clean.

[easyg]

Oldtrader3
The US Army did not make soldiers proficient with the 1911 in (2) weeks. At least not the same army that I was in.
You're right, I exaggerated the time....it didn't even take two weeks, just a couple of days.

I carried a 1911 and qualified with it for nearly the entire (3) years that I was an infantry medic. I did not become truly proficient with the 1911 until I started practicing with the Fort Lewis Pistol Team and shooting 300 rounds .45ACP/day with a match grade 1911, practicing trigger control and proper grip.
I reckon some folks just need more time and practice than others. :p

It really depends upon your definition of "proficient".
The military can take a teenager who has never even held a pistol before, and in just a day or so, that young teen will be able to load the magazine, insert the magazine correctly in the pistol, chamber a round, shoot and hit targets at self defense distances, clear stoppages, disassemble, and re-assemble the pistol even in the dark and under stress.
I certainly wouldn't call that "non-proficient".

The 1911 is NOT hard to learn.

[Drail]

.."the relatively fine coordination required to activate the safety.." Yeah almost as much coordination as it takes to pull the trigger. Who comes up with this stuff?

[Oldtrader3]

Procient in my terms is being able to shoot better than 250/300 in a three stage NRA match. Maybe this bar is too high for most people. It's like how you get to Carnegie Hall: practice, practice, practice.

Actually I became "proficient" much more easily on K frame Smith's and Ruger Single action magnums than the 1911. The 1911 took me a while to master. I have small hands and the grip angle was not set up for my stature.

[Frank Ettin]

Sure 1911s are for experts. So are SIGs and Glocks and revolvers and guns in general.

Folks who have sought out proper training and practice diligently on a regular basis, whatever their handgun of choice is, tend to handle their weapons well, efficiently and safely and also hit what they are shooting at. It's folks, whatever handgun they might be shooting, who aren't getting proper training, shooting 100s of rounds and practicing regularly, who display the atrocious gun handling and abysmal marksmanship I see all the time.

No gun will make up for a lack of training and practice. And with training and practice, pretty much any gun of decent quality will do.

As Jeff Cooper used to say, "It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully."

[MagnumDweeb]

My Uncle is a 1911 fiend. His wife is making him sell off most of his handguns with the exception of his self-custom Caspian and Fusion kits builds (he owns 7 of them, three in .45 Acp, one in 10mm, one in .38 Super, one in 9mm[the one he did for his wife and she doesn't like it]) and my grandpa's RSBH 7.5" .44mag (the gun that taught me to love the .44 Mag) and a little Colt Detective .38.

I shoot his 1911s at least once a month, the biggest reason why I don't get one myself. I've shot springfield and auto-ordinance. The auto was the only one I ever had troubles with at twenty yards. Granted I grew up shooting since 13, and it was a good three trips to the range before I could put a magazine inside a playing card at 20 yards. Granted I had been shooting .44 magnum for a few years before that so it was a pleasant load.

Once I'm done picking up a few more handguns(Ruger Sp 101 3" or Taurus 605 3", Ruger LCP[seeing a trend here], Ruger GP100 4") I'll go hunting for a 2nd hand 1911 in either a Springfield or Taurus that I can convert for .460 Rowland. After that I'll take up kit building in 10mm in officer and .45 ACP in officer but I'll get one of the Rock Islands for that.

The 1911 is endearing, something we've all seen in WWII movies pretty much. If you got an average hand size it can be tricky to get used to. If you got weak wrists or hands you are in trouble, and you think 9mm kicks you are in even more trouble. .45 ACP is a nice warm welcomming caliber.

[w_houle]

In my agency, the 1911 comes recommended. All the while, until recently if you wanted to carry a Glock you get extra training.

In what? Reading, math, or science?

[yongxingfreesty]

you need to be experts because they aren't as reliable compared to other semis.

[PT1911]

you need to be experts because they aren't as reliable compared to other semis.

I just cannot help but laugh at that...

[Frank Ettin]

...you need to be experts because they aren't as reliable compared to other semis.... I must be an expert then, because I have about 20 1911s; and they're all completely reliable. I have one I used for IPSC (Limited Division) that's been completely trouble free for something like 30,000 to 40,000 rounds. I was taking a class a few months ago, and the 1911 I was using was 100%; but another guy was having all kinds of trouble trying to get his Glock to run.

[Diamondback6]

I'd say you don't have to be an expert, but you do need to be willing and able to commit to the higher standards of care required for being a switch-flip and 5 pounds' pressure away from "BANG!"... A Glock, you'll hopefully feel that trigger starting to move and rethink your Rule Two violation if it's not intentional, cocked single-actions don't give you that luxury.

Posted by a 1911 user.

----------------
Now playing: John Williams - The Millennium Falcon - Imperial Cruiser Pursuit (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/john+williams/track/the+millennium+falcon+-+imperial+cruiser+pursuit)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

[doubs43]

you need to be experts because they aren't as reliable compared to other semis.

Do you seriously think the US Military would have kept it as long as it did - and some still use it - if it were as unreliable as your statement implies? You'll find it difficult to find another pistol that outshines the 1911 for reliability when it's made to GI specs.

Look around and tell me what other semi-auto pistol has been selling as well for nearly 100 years and shows no signs of slowing down. There isn't a single model of any other make that comes close to the 1911 for customizing. It'll still be around 100 years from now and going strong.

[mljdeckard]

I agree. The statement that G.I. 1911A1s were/are unreliable is nonsense. A 1911 is, like any other machine, a compromise of tolerances and performance. It's not a matter of KNOWING HOW to make a good, tight, reliable, accurate 1911, it's a matter of what consumers are willing to pay for. I am of the (well-informed, backed up by experience) opinion that there are many semi-custom 1911s that run fine, out of the box without tweaking, and that if you get one with a problem, it will reveal itself early. Therefore, thoroughly testfire your carry gun, REGARDLESS of make and model.

I carried a 1911 to start. I read a lot of magazines, and listened to a lot of fat guys behind the counters of gun stores, and believed the rhetoric. "It's too old. It's too complicated. Cops don't use them. Newer rounds in other calibers are magical. You look STUPID carrying one of those. You need high capacity or you will surely die." I carried S&W, Glock, Taurus, Beretta, Sig, Para-Ordnance, Colt, etc. I never felt like I carried, shot, or LIKED any of them as well as my Kimber Custom II.

I have argued in here repeatedly that Kimbers are just as good as any other 1911 manufacturer, that their high numbers do not mean higher failure RATES, that if you need high capacity in a handgun you need to train more, blah blah blah. But the period at the end of the final sentence is, THIS IS WHAT WORKS FOR ME. I have tried darn near EVERYTHING, and this is what I came back to. You do your homework, make your own mistakes, and make up your own mind. This is MY *ss, not yours. Your opinions won't save it.

[Frank Ettin]

And it's my experience that it's a myth that tight 1911s are necessarily finicky or need special care or don’t work if they’re dirty. Some time ago, I decided to go out to the range with the second Les Baer I bought, a Concept IV.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/fiddletown_2006/Nice%20Guns/IMG_4048E1X.jpg

I bought the gun about 8 or 9 years ago, a year or so after I bought my first, a Premier II. I used the gun on occasion for IPSC – to give the PII some rest. Then when I went to Gunsite about five years ago, I decided to use the CIV. (For IPSC, I had it set up with an S&A magazine well, an extended magazine release and a tungsten guide rod. Before going to Gunsite, I restored it to its original configuration, and trained with it that way for a while to prepare.) All in all, I’d estimate that it’s had about 12,000 to 15,000 rounds through it. (No, I don’t keep detailed records.)

And now back to our story.

So a while ago, I decided to take the CIV to the range. Shot about 200 rounds and came home – put it in the safe. (And no, I’m not always diligent about cleaning my guns.)

Then about ten days later, I had time to go to the range for some pistol shooting and took the CIV. I ran a bore snake down its gullet a few time, stripped it, wiped what I could reach easily, and put a few drops of Gun Butter here and there. Shot another 200 rounds – came home and put it in the safe. I took myself to the range again a few days later; and yup – took the CIV out again – and yes, it was still dirty. That trip I didn’t even do a once over – just shot another 200 rounds and back to the safe it went.

A little later, a last minute change in plans left me with some time on my hands – so off to the range. I grabbed the CIV – no time to clean it – packed up and off to the range again with a very dirty gun. Now I put another 250 rounds through it – quick 2 and three round strings.

So I’ve fired some 850 rounds with this tight Les Baer that has only has a casual cleaning after the first 200. The dirty Baer ran absolutely flawlessly, and displayed its customary, first rate accuracy as well.

So tell me again how these 1911s that are too tight and can’t be relied upon unless they’re pampered, freshly cleaned and oiled. I suspect that it's true that some tight guns will be prone to hiccups. But it's not just a question of how tight the gun is. It's a question of how it's put together and fitted. If it's fitted properly it can be tight, extremely accurate, utterly reliable and not finicky.

[ljnowell]

So now revolvers are for experts too?

I was referring directly to autoloaders, but I do appreciate you misinterpreting my words and posting that, it was rather comical. And to be honest, most people would need more practice to effectively use a revolver in DA and reload it quickly than they would with an autoloader.

[fedlaw]

IMHO 1911's are not for beginners. There is a difference between "experienced" and "expert". Safe gun handling requires practice. Guns in a smaller caliber and with a simpler manual of arms make it easier to learn the basics and are more forgiving of operator error. I also wouldn't start a beginning motorcyclist out on a crotch rocket.

[Vern Humphrey]

IMHO 1911's are not for beginners.
How are M1911s any different regarding the need for expertise than any other handgun?

[schmeky]

you need to be experts because they aren't as reliable compared to other semis.

Wow, what a statement. In a "shoot-off" last year, only 2 pistols went 1,000rounds w/o a single bobble: a 1911 and a Glock.

I have several 1911's, and they are the autos I depend on because of their reliablity.

[Vern Humphrey]

The M1911 has two flaws -- first of all, it's extremely popular. Secondly, all the patents covering it have long since expired. Those two flaws combine to drive everyone and his dog to manufacture and sell M1911-type pistols. As a result, there are some M1911s that were made with poor quality control and inferior materials.

An M1911 made as it was meant to be made is the most reliable automatic going. Conversely, if you started people manufacturing Glocks in every corner of the world, you'd find Glock's reputation for reliability suffering.

[hillbillydelux]

Like any firearm the 1911 should only be used by folks who are proficient in its use.

Only folks who are proficient should be handling or carrying any firearms unsupervised

I totally agree.

you need to be experts because they aren't as reliable compared to other semis

I totally dissagree.

[rbernie]

Can someone explain why dozens of authors and gun writers seem to think that the 1911 is a fine handgun "for experts only".
I note that several people have asked for the names of the 'dozens' of writers that are saying such silly things, and I also note that Bear71 has not seen fit to answer that question.

Since I have never seen such things said about the platform and Bear71 cannot bring himself to substantiate his claims, I am left to conclude that Bear71 is simply pulling this reference out of his fourth-point-of-contact.

[raskolnikov_22]

Couple extra steps in field stripping, that's all.

[Pizzagunner]

I'm guess it is yet another sign of our degenerate times that something as dead simple as the operation of a SAO pistol like the 1911 or BHP has become "complicated."

Is Springer on yet? I feel like watching some Glock owners applying their "keepin' it simple" philosophy to the other desperate aspects of their lives.

[MacTech]

When I let another shooter try my 1911 (Kimber Custom II), I ask them if they have shot any 1911's before, if they have, I still load up a snap-cap first, and have them try the trigger so they can see how light it is, then hand them the loaded mag

If the shooter hasn't shot a 1911 before, I go over the basics with them (cover the two manual safeties, the sight radius, explain what kind of recoil they should expect - more of a straight push back), then let them know that the trigger requires a far lighter touch than their current gun, load up a snap-cap, and have them dry fire a few times, when they feel comfortable, I hand them the loaded mag and let them go live fire

most first-timers fall in love with that light trigger, and are surprised at how "tame" the recoil is, they start off thinking "Oh, I could *never* shoot a .45, it's too big/recoils too heavily", and end up thinking "this is *GREAT* I love this gun/hey that wasn't as bad as I thought it would be"

my favorite novice 1911 story was a couple who was shooting next to me, the woman was shooting some ultra-light-weight .357 snubby, flinching with every shot, getting battered by the recoil, between firing we got to talking, comparing guns, I offered to let both her and her male companion try my Kimber, the guy declined, as he had shot 1911's before, the woman decided to try it, and after a brief familiarization, and explaining how the heavier steel 1911 frame helps soak up recoil, she was putting rounds downrange, decent accuracy, and not a single flinch, she thanked me, and we all went back to shooting

As we were reloading, I heard her say "I like his gun better, why can I shoot that one better than my revolver, can we get one of those instead?"

the main thing I stress to novice 1911 shooters is how little pressure is needed to pull the trigger and fire the gun, for someone familiar with a DAO/safe action/DA-SA handgun, the SA trigger pull of the 1911 is quite different to what their used to

[yeti]

Can we please leave it that a 1911 IS an 'experts only' gun, my mind scoffs, but my ego really enjoys the title.

[SCKimberFan]

Its actually much closer to this:

Insert magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, pull trigger, BANG, stovepipe, tap magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, pull trigger, BANG, fail to feed, tap magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, pull trigger, BANG, fail to feed, tap magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, CLICK, drop mag, rack slide, Insert magazine, rack slide, responsibly operate thumb safety, know single action trigger weights, pull trigger, BANG, fail to feed..........

Yuk, yuk, yuk.

[DuncanSA]

Anyone can use any weapon. Using it well requires training and practise.

Talking about "experts" only confuses the issue. I shoot a lot of black powder weapons and in their day young soldiers used them well - they did not need to be experts. I also shoot modern stuff including Glocks etc.

Its not the gun that matters but the person using it - I like 1911s, they are a simple design that has stood the test of time and still features well in competition.

Lets be honest here, a weapon designed "way back" for the use of simple soldiery, that passed the 6 000 round ordinance test and is still going strong can't be that difficult to use. It sure is reliable.

[kmbrman]

No, the 1911 is not only for experts. I think that idea is out there because more shooters that are[ Into ] guns tend to like the 1911. Most beginning shooters choose less complicated autos with such popular pistols as the striker fired Glocks , M&Ps and XDs that operate easily and don't have grip safeties , hammer block safeties, barrel bushings and such. As you get more into the shooting sports you become interested in different types of pistols. I shoot both striker pistols as well as the 1911 Kimber I own and would never consider myself a Snob. Both forms have their functions and I'm equally fond of shooting them both.

[Arbor]

To those who say a Glock is simpler to use without training-

Why did NYPD go to the "New York Trigger"? Because the AD-rate went down when they adopted the Glock and they just wanted to give it a horrendous heavy trigger pull for no reason?

Not trying to say the Glock is a bad gun, but DAO with no safety definitely isn't the be-all end-all of handguns, especially without proper training.

[weisse52]

I am left to conclude that Bear71 is simply pulling this reference out of his fourth-point-of-contact.

Ha, Ha, Ho, Ho, we laugh....

[weisse52]

First "google" search, I am sure I could find better ones if I took more than 5 minutes to do so.

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/other/why_the_m1911.htm

[atomd]

Those crazy new 1911 guns that hold more than one bullet and have all these new fangled levers and springs! What will those whippersnappers think of next? Those things are overly complicated and nearly impossible for most people to operate....heck....they're almost as complicated as that internet thing!

[easyg]

The 1911 is endearing, something we've all seen in WWII movies pretty much. If you got an average hand size it can be tricky to get used to.
Not at all.
The 1911 is nice and slim, and even folks with small hands typically have no problem shooting it.
Here are a few guns that will give one a hard time should they have average or smaller hands:
The Beretta
The Glock 21
The HK USP

[Mags]

The 1911 - "for experts only"
How did I ever get my hands on one?

[Archie]

The Government Model Colt - to include the US M1911 and 1911A1 - were pretty much the standard semi-automatic pistols in the United States at large. There were some Lugers and P38s and Nambus and a large number of Browning High Powers around, but the Government Model as the commonest.

In fact, handling the Browning, Luger and Nambu is very much like the Government Model. Load magazine, insert, charge set safety. The P38s were more of a novelty.

There were some other commercial auto pistols, but most were designed by John Browning (all the Colt semi-automatic pistols) and the occasional Mauser. Some Berettas. Still, they were most all single action pistols with manual safeties.

The S&W M39 was the first commercially accepted double action pistol.

Since that time, gun owners have been repeatedly told anything other than a DA/SA auto pistol is inherently and absolutely dangerous. They will 'go off' without warning if one looks at them wrong. They are possessed! Some believe that.

I don't, but I'm an old guy.

Should you own a Government Model? Can you handle it safely?
Only if you can read and pay attention. If one cannot safely handle a Government Model, take the bus or a taxi.

[JTQ]

I completely agree with "easyg". I cannot think of a service size handgun that has a better grip for people with small hands.

[Magnumite]

Some aren't getting what the expert use status was in reference to.

The expert status referred to for 1911 use is in relation to its use as a carry weapon. That was alluded to several times along with the reasons for it. I read many of those same articles and that is what the reference was. I won't go into the writers, because some ellude me and the others I won't mention.

There is another notion that the modern rendition of the 1911 is less reliable than the origonal format. That's not true as long as the modern rendition is held to the same attention to detail and mechanical relationships.

[1911 guy]

Here we go again. The same folks that will take the time to sort through five remote controls to change the television channel are now proclaiming that the 1911 is too difficult for a novice to operate.

And the same folks are claiming that the 1911 isn't reliable. Get one that hasn't been messed with, has a proper barrel on it (five inches) and watch it run until you are out of ammo.

Most of the newer design handguns are decent to great quality, and perhaps the DAO trigger has some merit. Perhaps the vestigial controls on them have merit, too. If you like your Kahr/Glock/Sig/Bersa/Whatever-the-heck, great. Buy ammo and practice. But claiming the 1911 is inferior or requires some kind of advanced training or guru level of training is simply ignorant of the facts.

The U.S. military (and a few others) took folks who'd never even held a firearm before and made them safe operators of these handguns. Expertise comes with traiing and practice, both of which are more lacking in the military than some would belive it to be.

In short, if you still think the 1911 is for somebody with god-like command of all things gunnie, maybe you should spend less time on the 'net and more time shooting different platforms other than what's in your safe and your comfort zone. You may find your comfort zone expanded considerably. And maybe your safe contents, too.

[OurSafeHome.net]

Perhaps it is better to say that the M-1911 is the weapon preferred by experts.

Come to think of it, my "Pistol Expert" badge has not one, but two M-1911's depicted on it...

[JoeSlomo]

I agree.

While the title "expert" is indeed debatable, the 1911 can indeed be more challenging than say, a glock, for novice shooters simply because of the extra features common to the type.

A common theme found in self defense circles is a failure to disengage the safety resulting in a failure to fire. While the 1911 is not alone in this regard, that is NOT an issue with a firearm that has "glock-like" features or revolvers. The lack of a manual safety makes it much easier, and novice friendly, to operate a firearm simply because you don't NEED to remember to disengage a safety.

The single action trigger aspect is also another concern for novice shooters not accustomed to trigger control / safety that can result in unintended discharges. You generally have a little more weight to pull with a "glock" or a DA type of pistol.

Another common fault associated with the 1911 model stems from a failure to properly engage the grip safety, which is a result of a poorly tuned grip safety, or a FUNDAMENTAL error made by a shooter with a POOR grip on the firearm. Again, this is not an issue with a "glock" type of pistol or revolver, which means that fundamental grip errors will not result in a failure to fire.
I have witnessed this first hand, and most recently at a club match. We have a group of LEO's... (NOT A BASH ON LEO'S!!! I SUPPORT AND RESPECT MY LEO'S FORE THEY DO A VITAL JOB I COULD NEVER DO!!!!)...anyway, this group shoots with us, and I notice that one of their senior members was shooting a 1911 instead of the duty weapon they usually shoot. During the first 2 stages of the match, he drew, and had a failure to fire due to making a fundamental error with his grip, and failed to depress the grip safety.
Being a 1911 shooter, I am always on the look out for my brothers to either learn, or assist when I can. (That's what we do!!! TEAM single stack!!) I asked him about his weapon, which was fine, helped him identify his problem, and he had no issues afterward. Naturally, I chided him for shooting the "tupperware" guns, which allowed him to develop a bad habit of obtaining a poor grip on the gun.
I have also seen shooters inadvertantly safe the gun while shooting due to poor grip / thumb placement. These shooters are usually extremely proficient with other handguns that lack the thumb safety common to the 1911.

So, while the term "expert" can indeed be debated, there is no doubt in my mind that the 1911 can pose more problems with a novice shooter than say a glock or revolver. These "problems" can indeed be addressed with proper training.

It's not rocket science...

[Zerodefect]

LOLz!

My first real hand gun was a 1911. (after begining with a Ruger p95) Thanks to its frame safety and grip safety it's one of the safest guns around. It's weight makes it easy to shoot. It allmost allways has good sights and a decent sight radius making it easy to aim.

The trick seems to be keeping one reliable and rust free.

So if a beginner really wants one, the only real advice I have is to at least get a good one. Danwesson, LesBaer, Wilson, Fusion. Don't expect any good 1911 to be anywhere near a Glocks pricepoint. Alot of work goes into these to get them right.

Dan Wesson Valor:

http://i584.photobucket.com/albums/ss290/zerodefect2533/Danwessonvalor.jpg

Fusion:

http://i584.photobucket.com/albums/ss290/zerodefect2533/Fusionhwjekhfkwja.jpg

http://i584.photobucket.com/albums/ss290/zerodefect2533/fusion_online.jpg


http://i584.photobucket.com/albums/ss290/zerodefect2533/fusionjgklja.jpg


And still, as a 1911, even with all the reliability mods done, you will still have the top round floating in the mag problem. Just part of a 1911's desighn.

[Deanimator]

M1911s are not for people who don't care enough to learn how their firearm works or to practice with it.

If you're responsible enough to know how your firearm works and to shoot it from time to time, then you're "expert" enough to use and carry an M1911.

[Deanimator]

I completely agree with "easyg". I cannot think of a service size handgun that has a better grip for people with small hands.
The Browning Highpower is close, but only with aftermarket grips.

[Deanimator]

I agree. The statement that G.I. 1911A1s were/are unreliable is nonsense.
Some of the ones I saw weren't. I once saw one have the slide close while it was sitting untouched on a sandbag.

Of course I don't think I EVER saw one newer than 1945 vintage. Most of them had never been properly taken care of. They were worn out after a world war's (and in some cases, two) worth of use, plus Korea, Vietnam, etc. I wonder how an automobile given that level of care (or lack thereof) would do after that amount of time.

I've got four M1911s. All of them are superbly reliable, including what would be considered the "cheap" one, my Norinco. Even it took only a modest amount of parts replacement and gunsmithing to make it 100%. I carry it frequently. I wouldn't trust my life to it if I didn't think it was reliable. But then it hasn't had 60 years of random boobs neglecting and "fixing" it either.

I guess that you can judge all P-51s by one that's sat rusting in a jungle in the Philippines since 1945 too...

[bigmike45]

bear,

I have a good friend, who is the range officer, that qualifies all local LEO's for their handgun/sidearm proficiency requirements. To look at this guy, who wears glasses thicker than the average person, you would never believe his proficiency. This guy, literally can pick up a handgun that he has never shot before, and in a couple of rounds, outshoot the owner in accuracy.....in some cases by a very large margin. He is a natural born pistolero. We used to tease him about having crosshairs in his eyeballs. He took a buddies worn out 1911 that his dad brought back from WW2, that when you shake it from side to side, sounds like a bag of coins rolling around in a clothes dryer, and proceeded to cut a .50 cent sized hole, in a target 25yards away, and that is with those all but worthless tiny sights on those guns. You should see him with his PPC revolver and some good wadcutters.
I would definately consider him a 1911 expert. He works on all kinds of guns but makes the 1911's run like a well oiled machine.

bigmike45

[sweet45]

Hey Zerodefect! Your mistakin. You see. You think you cycled the Glock with perfection because you saw holes all over the target. But the 1911 left just one hole in the target, so you assumed something was wrong. Don't spray and pray Glock daddy. Get a real gun and hit your target.

[sohcgt2]

1911's are for experts because they require maintainance. They will not continue to cycle without cleaning and lubrication like the striker fired pistols will. In responce to sweet45 both of my Glocks will shoot tighter groups than any 1911 I've ever fired as long as I concede that the first round will be slightly off target due to the long first pull of the Safe Action trigger.

[sweet45]

You must have some pretty lame 1911's. Also, A Glock trigger has the same trigger pull first to last shot.

[DAVIDSDIVAD]

Man, those are some sweet guns, zerodefect!


Honestly, I wish I could have my slide without all of the Kimber billboards.

[.38 Special]

Do you need to remember to put your finger on the trigger, or is that automatic? If your trigger finger knows where to go, then why wouldn't your thumb 'remember' how to swipe the safety? "Muscle memory", it is called muscle memory.

And you develop muscle memory through practice. Hence "The 1911 may not be the best gun for the inexperienced user to carry".

IIRC, 2 million Govt, 1911A1s were manufactured in WWII. How come there weren't any complaints from soldiers who lugged them all over the world and into (and out of) hell?

So you can prove that there were no complaints, and more to the point, that no one ever fumbled the safety or unintentionally discharged the light trigger?

The biggest complaints about 1911s being too difficult are from armchair commandos.

Hmm. I don't remember being rude to you in my post. In fact, I don't remember addressing you at all. So how about you imagine the suggestion I'd make to you on an unmoderated forum, cupcake, and then have at it. Don't forget to stretch first!

[.38 Special]

.."the relatively fine coordination required to activate the safety.." Yeah almost as much coordination as it takes to pull the trigger. Who comes up with this stuff?

Huh. Looks like the fanboys got their panties in a bunch. And I wasn't even trying.

[.38 Special]

Getting beyond the internet tough-talk, JoeSlomo's post sums it up perfectly: there are simpler guns to learn and use than the 1911. That doesn't mean the 1911 is a bad gun, or can't be learned, or is only for action heroes. It simply means that if you're going to buy a gun for self defense, shoot one box of ammo through it, and then put it into your nightstand or hang it under the counter in your store -- and like it or not a lot of people do exactly that -- then the 1911 is not a good choice.

If you want to spend some time learning the gun -- and then keeping those abilities, if not sharp, then at least not rusty -- then the 1911 is a fine choice.

[tipoc]

It simply means that if you're going to buy a gun for self defense, shoot one box of ammo through it, and then put it into your nightstand or hang it under the counter in your store -- and like it or not a lot of people do exactly that -- then the 1911 is not a good choice.

I think this is about right. The 1911 is not for everyone. It does not require "experts" but it does require some dedication.

Many either don't know, or they've forgotten, that the 1911 was often cussed by GIs throughout it's time of service. Many servicemen had little to no experience with handguns prior to being drafted. Those that did had most of that experience with wheelguns. The 1911 was considered too heavy. The .45acp too powerful. The gun too hard to learn to shoot well. During WWII many dumped the 1911 for the Luger or the Walther P38.

As soon as reliable DA/SA pistols made an appearance there was a mass switch to those by law enforcement and the military. Jeff Cooper pointed out that the reason for this was the belief that safety could be built into a gun and make up for a lack of training. He was correct about that.

tipoc

[doubs43]

Many either don't know, or they've forgotten, that the 1911 was often cussed by GIs throughout it's time of service. Many servicemen had little to no experience with handguns prior to being drafted. Those that did had most of that experience with wheelguns. The 1911 was considered too heavy. The .45acp too powerful. The gun too hard to learn to shoot well. During WWII many dumped the 1911 for the Luger or the Walther P38.

I've known scores of WW2 Vets and many of them were harsh critics of the 1911A1. Their complaints ranged from "It kicks like a mule" and "It's too heavy" through "You can't hit a barn door with it". As I grew older, I came to realize that the complaints were from men who were not given proper training or adequate practice with the pistol. It's also impossible to say who was simply repeating rumors and who actually had experience with the gun. Not all WW2 GI's were trained on or issued the 1911A1.

[ChCx2744]

LOL I am FAR from a firearms "expert" but handling and knowing extensive operation of a 1911 style pistol is not difficult to grasp; It is actually very simple to use a 1911, hence it is a favorite amongst the shooting and firearm ownership community.

And Zerodefect...1911's aren't likely to have that many FTFs/FTEs when shooting, if it is one that has been properly taken care of, properly manufactured and/or made from a reputable company...1911's are rugged weapons that will function fine if maintained properly.

[sohcgt2]

And Zerodefect...1911's aren't likely to have that many FTFs/FTEs when shooting, if it is one that has been properly taken care of, properly manufactured and/or made from a reputable company...1911's are rugged weapons that will function fine if maintained properly.

The key in this statement is "1911's are rugged weapons that will function fine if maintained properly." That is why they are "for experts only". A Glock, a SW M&P, a Springfield XD all are free of FTF without the maintainance. The new generation of autos is idiot proof by comparison to the 1911. Plus when they do require maintainance they fall apart with the touch of a button. True in the case of Glocks it may result in the operator shooting himself. Again that is why they are "for experts only".

[tipoc]

A Glock, a SW M&P, a Springfield XD all are free of FTF without the maintainance.

I have to disagree. All firearms require maintenance. Proper cleaning, lubrication, the replacement of recoil springs when needed, periodic cleaning of the mags, etc. are all part of keeping a gun in working order. It's no where near true that the guns mentioned will run well without maintenance. But we get a bit closer to the heart of the matter.

The idea that you can build a gun that requires no to little maintenance, no training to use, no skill to use well, etc. means you want the work to be built into the gun and not come from the shooter. Safety and skill come from the shooter and can't be built into the gun. Poor gun handling is poor gun handling and poor maintenance is poor maintenance.

To get good with a gun, any gun requires some work. It ought to. Fellas not willing to do the work often complain more about 1911s than some other designs.

A DA/SA gun is no safer than a 1911 or BHP but many think they are.

tipoc

[mljdeckard]

Correct. You should frequently clean your carry gun no matter what it is.

[tipoc]

I've known scores of WW2 Vets and many of them were harsh critics of the 1911A1. Their complaints ranged from "It kicks like a mule" and "It's too heavy" through "You can't hit a barn door with it". As I grew older, I came to realize that the complaints were from men who were not given proper training or adequate practice with the pistol. It's also impossible to say who was simply repeating rumors and who actually had experience with the gun. Not all WW2 GI's were trained on or issued the 1911A1.

Yep I agree it was a lack of proper training. Even with the right training not everyone would have liked the 1911. Many did like it, Jeff Cooper for one. We're fortunate to have choices.


tipoc

[Vern Humphrey]

Yep I agree it was a lack of proper training. Even with the right training not everyone would have liked the 1911. Many did like it, Jeff Cooper for one. We're fortunate to have choices.
People who say "You can't hit anything with the .45" are people who don't have any experience with other handguns -- they see people in the movies shooting from the hip, or thrusting a gun foreward as if throwing the bullets and think that's how it's done. They don't realise that no one can hit anything with any gun without training and practice.

[doubs43]

The key in this statement is "1911's are rugged weapons that will function fine if maintained properly." That is why they are "for experts only". A Glock, a SW M&P, a Springfield XD all are free of FTF without the maintainance. The new generation of autos is idiot proof by comparison to the 1911.

If field stripping, cleaning and lubricating a 1911 is beyond anyone's mechanical abilities then they don't have any business owning one. That is ALL the normal maintenance required to keep the 1911 running like a watch.... and it's not needed as frequently as some seem to think. It's not rocket science and it's not difficult if the person can walk and chew gum at the same time.

The 1911 is little more complicated than a brick in spite of those who think maintenance involves Voodoo and weird dances with chickens that could get one arrested. The brick is likely not as tough either.

It's one thing to work well in police and security service that rarely involves the harsh conditions of a battlefield and quite another to survive severe conditions and keep on truckin'. When one of the plastic miracle pistols has 75 years - or more - of hard military service under it's belt and has been as good as the 1911 is and will continue to be, then maybe I'll change my mind..... but don't bet on it.

[Vern Humphrey]

Get a little sand in your typical Wonder Nine double-column, single-feed magazine and tell me such pistols need no maintenance!!

[sohcgt2]

sweet45 wrote You must have some pretty lame 1911's. Also, A Glock trigger has the same trigger pull first to last shot.

You are mistaken on both counts. I have a middle of the road Springfield 1911 that is kept in very good condition and fired at least 100 rounds per month. It is also completely cleaned and lubed after firing. As for the Glock trigger pull the initial pull is nearly 1/2 inch and subsequent pulls are less than 1/2 that distance. Also let me welcome you to the high road the same way I was welcomed. Not to be argumentative, but if you don't know what you're talking about it would be best to keep quiet. "It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Um, my opinion is yes and no (mostly no). But yes, I think that one ought not carry a 1911 unless one trains *more than the average bear*, mainly to make disengaging a manual under stress 2nd nature, but also to get used to the lighter trigger, to avoid NDs under stress of a real shooting.

[sohcgt2]

mljdeckard wrote You should frequently clean your carry gun no matter what it is.

I agree fully and usually will set asside 1 hour per gun fired for cleaning after shooting. I belive in maintaining my equipment. It is the reason I am able to drive my 300,000 mile car and my 500,000 mile truck at the turn of a key. I am not so silly as to think the expertise required to operate them is the same. If you have maintained a revolver after a day at the range and maintained a 1911 after a day at the range you know there is no comparison. My 1911 dissassembles to 34 pieces, my Glocks dissassemble to 4-8 pieces each, and my revolvers require I roll the cylinder out. 1911's require more expertise to operate effectively, but as many here have already stated, The U.S. Military was able to train many soldiers to use them effectively. In my neighborhood I can throw a rock and will likely hit someone who knows a 1911 "expert" and if not I can drive one of my high mileage automobiles to the VFW and talk to a room full of "experts".

[doubs43]

I was in the home of an Army Vet this afternoon who served during the early 1960's. He told me an interesting story about his qualification with the 1911A1.

He was lounging around one day when an NCO announced that anyone who wanted to qualify on the .45 should jump on the truck outside. He did and went to the range where he failed to qualify. Feeling pretty glum as he waited for the truck back, the NCOIC of the range apparently noticed and asked how he did. When he said he'd failed, the Sgt asked if he'd like to stick around and try again. He did and he said that in less than 45 minutes of instruction from the NCO, he easily qualified. He's been a 1911A1 man ever since.

[Frank Ettin]

...As for the Glock trigger pull the initial pull is nearly 1/2 inch and subsequent pulls are less than 1/2 that distance....I would not characterize a Glock trigger quite that way. There is an initial, fairly light take-up of about a half inch (unless you've fitted a NY trigger, in which case, there is still take-up but not lighter than the rest of its travel). After that, there's heavier pull for a fairly short distance until the shot breaks. To me it feels something like a single action trigger with a fair amount of creep.

After the first shot, you have two choices. You can either let the trigger fully out, in which case firing the next round will be just like the first round with about a half an inch of light take-up. Or you can let the trigger out only until it resets. That basically eliminates the take-up for the next shot.

...my Glocks will shoot tighter groups than any 1911 I've ever fired as long as I concede that the first round will be slightly off target due to the long first pull of the Safe Action trigger.... If you learn to prep the trigger for the first round, you won't have this problem.

[sohcgt2]

If you learn to prep the trigger for the first round, you won't have this problem.

I don't shoot competitively so I practice as if my life depended on it. If I try to pull that first round in with the others I can, but since it stays inside the center mass area of the targets I just don't worry about it. I accept 2 holes for 14 rounds down range.

[tipoc]

If you have maintained a revolver after a day at the range and maintained a 1911 after a day at the range you know there is no comparison. My 1911 dissassembles to 34 pieces, my Glocks dissassemble to 4-8 pieces each, and my revolvers require I roll the cylinder out.

There is no reason to detail strip a 1911 for routine cleaning. If you are doing this you don't need to. All it requires is a field strip. Seeing as how there are more than 32 parts to a 1911 when you detail strip it I'm not sure where you get the 32 from, unless you just threw out a number to make the gun seem more complicated than it is. Heck takes me less time to field strip, clean and lube a 1911 than it does a wheelgun.

tipoc

[Vern Humphrey]

Um, my opinion is yes and no (mostly no). But yes, I think that one ought not carry a 1911 unless one trains *more than the average bear*, mainly to make disengaging a manual under stress 2nd nature, but also to get used to the lighter trigger, to avoid NDs under stress of a real shooting.
I think you're seeing non-existant problems. Any gun -- any gun at all -- requires its own manual of arms. Some training on the specific piece (yes, even the Glock) is necessary.

The M1911 is simple -- the proper presentation is with thumbs over the safety lock, trigger finger indexed. To fire, simply close your hand. There is no danger of an ND with your finger indexed, and when you close you hand, the safety comes off automatically.

Now, if the subject is NDs, let's talk about holstering a Glock while wearming loose-fitting clothes.;)

[chriske]

Contrary to what many would like to be true (and some seem to actually believe), merely owning a 1911 doesn't make one an expert handgunner.

[Frank Ettin]

I don't shoot competitively so I practice as if my life depended on it....Prep'ing the trigger for the first shot, with practice, takes no more time than just resetting the trigger for subsequent shots.

But in any case the only reason that the trigger pull on your Glock is different for the first shot compared with subsequent shots is because of the trigger reset technique you employ (which works with the 1911 as well, BTW). Of course that means that sweet45's statement in post #94 that, "...A Glock trigger has the same trigger pull first to last shot..." is essentially correct. And that also means that your statement to him in post #109 chiding him that, "...if you don't know what you're talking about it would be best to keep quiet..." was way out of line, since he does know what he's talking about.

[Vern Humphrey]

Prep'ing the trigger for the first shot, with practice, takes no more time than just resetting the trigger for subsequent shots.
Help me out here. When you say "prep'ing the trigger" do you mean putting your finger on the trigger before you have made the final decision to shoot?

[Frank Ettin]

Help me out here. When you say "prep'ing the trigger" do you mean putting your finger on the trigger before you have made the final decision to shoot? Certainly not. But many triggers, including the 1911, are, in effect, two stage. There is first a short, light take-up working only against the trigger spring (or trigger return spring). At the end of that short, light take-up, the fire control mechanism begins to bear on the sear and slightly more pressure is needed until the shot breaks.

In the very first stage of learning to shoot, I've found it helpful to be conscious of that two stage process. Of course as muscle memory is built and one reaches the point of unconscious competence, the process becomes more and more compressed until it seems to be one continuous, smooth and quick action.

But the finger doesn't touch the trigger nor the press begin until the final decision to shoot is made.

[Vern Humphrey]

Thanks for clearing that up. At one time the FBI taught "prepping the trigger" as putting the finger on the trigger and taking up all the slack while holding a suspect at gunpoint -- in fact, an FBI agent wrote an article illustrating this "technique" for The American Rifleman.

[Frank Ettin]

Thanks for clearing that up. At one time the FBI taught "prepping the trigger" as putting the finger on the trigger and taking up all the slack while holding a suspect at gunpoint -- in fact, an FBI agent wrote an article illustrating this "technique" for The American Rifleman.Whoa! :eek: :eek:

[Vern Humphrey]

That's what I thought when I saw a photograph in the article illustrating the "technique."

[sohcgt2]

There is no reason to detail strip a 1911 for routine cleaning. If you are doing this you don't need to. All it requires is a field strip.

I promise not to ever tell you how to take care of your equipment. I remove and clean the mainspring housing every time I shoot and remove soot from the mainspring housing every time I clean it. I will continue to maintain my equipment as if my life depended on it and I will be sure to post in bold print when and why my next failure occurs.


After the first shot, you have two choices. You can either let the trigger fully out, in which case firing the next round will be just like the first round with about a half an inch of light take-up. Or you can let the trigger out only until it resets. That basically eliminates the take-up for the next shot.

How is your description different from mine? first pull long, subsequent pulls short. Other than my good judgement stopping at the reset point as the firearm was designed, rather than fully releasing the trigger and starting over from scratch. I don't own any DA/SA autos, but what you suggest would be similar to lowering the hammer after each shot so as to only fire in DA mode. Based on your description however, I think we can agree the first pull is different from followup shots. As for my chiding sweet45, I learned that from the likes of oldtimers like you and RC and since sweet45 didn't respond I'll assume his skin is thicker than your own.

[Frank Ettin]

...I remove and clean the mainspring housing every time I shoot and remove soot from the mainspring housing every time I clean it....Have fun.

How is your description different from mine?...You implied that it was inherent in the nature of the gun. It is not. It is a function of your technique -- a technique which is applicable to many guns. In any event, sweet45 was correct. And I do know what I'm talking about.

...I learned that from the likes of oldtimers like you...And I suggest that you keep learning. You have a ways to go.

[sohcgt2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sohcgt2
...I remove and clean the mainspring housing every time I shoot and remove soot from the mainspring housing every time I clean it....

Have fun.

It's not about fun its about safety, security, and resposible firearms ownership and usage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sohcgt2
How is your description different from mine?...

You implied that it was inherent in the nature of the gun. It is not. It is a function of your technique -- a technique which is applicable to many guns. In any event, sweet45 was correct. And I do know what I'm talking about.

I think you inferred nature, I simply operate the machine as it was designed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sohcgt2
...I learned that from the likes of oldtimers like you...

And I suggest that you keep learning. You have a ways to go.

I pray every day that I never stop learning, but should I reach that plateau I know where I keep the shovel and I've already picked out a place to dig.

[Frank Ettin]

...I simply operate the machine as it was designed.No, you operate it one way it can be operated. The technique of trigger reset may be effectively used with an number of types of guns. It works quite well, for example, with the 1911. But that is not the only way to operate such guns.

For example, Rob Leatham fully releases the trigger on the 1911s and XDs he shoots. In fact, he brings his finger fully forward to touch the inside forward surface of the trigger guard. And it would be difficult to find a faster and more accurate at speed shooter. Of course, Rob Leatham is Rob Leatham, and he is very talented, and trains and practices a good deal.

The again, Massad Ayoob teaches releasing the trigger until it reaches the forward extent of its travel. In other words, he does not teach releasing the trigger only to reset. He teaches things thus for a reason, and considering he is teaching the use of the gun for self defense, his reason can be thought to be a good one.

If you have to defend yourself with a gun, you will be under considerable stress. But releasing the trigger only so far after a shot is a fairly precise, fine motor skill -- something that deteriorates under stress. And if you don't let out the trigger enough and allow it to reset properly, you can pull on it all you want, and nothing will happen. That's a very bad thing if someone is attacking you. So, argues Mas, let the trigger come fully forward. Thus is has redoubtably reset and, while it is a little less precise, the gun will definitely go "bang" the next time you pull the trigger.

[David E]

I don't shoot competitively so I practice as if my life depended on it. If I try to pull that first round in with the others I can, but since it stays inside the center mass area of the targets I just don't worry about it. I accept 2 holes for 14 rounds down range.

If you're really practicing "as if your life depended on it," then you're doing it wrong.

First of all, there is no reason a pistolero of even mediocre skill has to "concede that the first round will be slightly off target due to the long first pull of the Safe Action trigger." Take up the take up and make the shot. The take up is light, so it shouldn't thow off your shot in the least. The fact that it DOES reveals much.

Second of all, if you're "practicing as if your life depened on it" and you're throwing the first shot wide, but then put the remaining 13 rounds into the same hole means you're shooting those 13 shots waaaaay too slow. Now, maybe you're a gifted shooter and can put those 13 shots into the same hole at a quarter second per shot pace........but your thrown first shot contradicts that presumption.

Jeff Cooper maintained that if the second shot is within 8 inches of the first, you're shooting too slow.

How is your description different from mine? first pull long, subsequent pulls short.

Because the weight of the trigger pull is the same for each shot. This is unlike a Beretta 92 that has a long, measurably harder trigger pull, followed by short, measurably lighter ones. The Glock has the same trigger pull weight each time, regardless of the take up.

[sohcgt2]

For example, Rob Leatham fully releases the trigger on the 1911s and XDs he shoots.

Rob fires custom guns remade by great gunsmiths. I fire defensive pistols straight from the manufacturer. There is considerable difference in trigger pull, both weight and cleanliness of the break.


Massad Ayoob teaches releasing the trigger until it reaches the forward extent of its travel.

He is teaching basic defensive skills in the K.I.S.S. method so under pressure the civilians he teaches won't freeze up since in all likelyhood they will not practice these skills daily after they complete his course.

If you have to defend yourself with a gun, you will be under considerable stress.

Something on which we aggree. The decision to return fire is the most difficult and high stress decision most of us will ever make.

[Frank Ettin]

Rob fires custom guns remade by great gunsmiths. I fire defensive pistols straight from the manufacturer. There is considerable difference in trigger pull, both weight and cleanliness of the break.So what? We were talking about alternate ways of operating a gun.

He [Massad Ayoob] is teaching basic defensive skills in the K.I.S.S. method so under pressure the civilians he teaches won't freeze up since in all likelyhood they will not practice these skills daily after they complete his course.Absolutely wrong --

[1] What's wrong with K. I. S. S.? Keeping things simple is central to effective training and self defense. Skill at arms is primarily executing the fundamentals proficiently, consistently, quickly, repeatedly and on demand. Louis Awerbuck gave his second book, More Tactical Reality, the subtitle, "Why There are No Such Thing as an 'Advanced' Gunfight."

[2] In the LFI-I class I took from Mas last Fall, four students were experienced LEOs, two of whom were "use of force" trainers for their agencies. Of the private citizens in the class, almost all were "high mileage" shooters with extensive previous training. They were "enthusiasts" who shot a great deal, practiced regularly, and who competed and/or took professional training on a regular basis.

[3] If you don't know what you're talking about it would be best to keep quiet. "It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

...The decision to return fire is the most difficult and high stress decision most of us will ever make.It's not so much a matter of the decision being high stress. It's a matter of the event itself creating enormous stress and the physiological, cognitive, perceptual and physical changes that accompany high stress.

[sohcgt2]

I appreciate that you are far more knowledgable than I in the operation of firearms and that you have trained with the best, while my training all came from poor old uncle sam. Certainly you are also well read on the subject whereas I limit my reading primarily to Dr. Seuss. This has strayed way off topic and I fear has become a waist of time to those who may actually wish to see the opinions of others as to why a 1911 might be considered a pistol that by design requires slightly more expertise to operate than other designs. I thank you again for the education and extend an invitation, should you ever visit Atlanta please look me up and we can go shooting together.

[Frank Ettin]

I ...extend an invitation, should you ever visit Atlanta please look me up and we can go shooting together.That is very gracious, and i'd be delighted to go shooting with you. And if that happy event comes to pass, I hope you'd let me treat you to dinner afterward at wherever you deemed appropriate for a "mending fences" party. I apologize for my harsh words.

This has strayed way off topic...And I apologize for my contribution to that.









And I don't believe that your reading is limited to Dr. Seuss.

[Vern Humphrey]

Originally Posted by sohcgt2
...The decision to return fire is the most difficult and high stress decision most of us will ever make.

The decision to return fire is easy -- assuming you're still able after the other guy fires. It's the decision to forestall him by shooting first that's difficult.

[ChCx2744]

sohcgt2:
The key in this statement is "1911's are rugged weapons that will function fine if maintained properly." That is why they are "for experts only". A Glock, a SW M&P, a Springfield XD all are free of FTF without the maintainance. The new generation of autos is idiot proof by comparison to the 1911. Plus when they do require maintainance they fall apart with the touch of a button. True in the case of Glocks it may result in the operator shooting himself. Again that is why they are "for experts only".

I heed you to read over the aforementioned phrases I highlighted in bold in your "extremely knowledgable, sage-given statements." I would like to see you cite and articulate your contribution to this thread (more so, to my post); until then, your deliberation on the subject will merely stay as an opinion until your findings proove otherwise. I will not dignify a debated answer with my analysis until you provide the rest of the posters with such. I've learned from kicking the dead horse and it only makes things go further down south.

[sohcgt2]

"extremely knowledgable, sage-given statements."

I thank you for your sarcasm. You are correct in weighing my statements as opinion, it is, as is most everything in most of the posts on this forum. If you take portions out of context or read the paragraph as literal than certainly it won't hold water. Glocks don't come apart at the touch of a button. You must clear, hold down on the slide release, squeeze the trigger and then let the slide go foreward. Also clearly no machine is maintenance free and to suggest such a statement should be taken literally is just silly. I do however stand by the idea of the statement that 1911's are considered by some to be more complex machines than the newer striker fired design pistols.

I will not dignify a debated answer with my analysis until you provide the rest of the posters with such. I've learned from kicking the dead horse and it only makes things go further down south.

I don't think this can go further south and I will not revisit debate since I have with the help of others pulled this post far off its original topic. Feel free to anal-ize away, and yes I know I misspelled analyze.

[tipoc]

I do however stand by the idea of the statement that 1911's are considered by some to be more complex machines than the newer striker fired design pistols.


This is a true statement. There are a good many newer shooters these days who believe that the 1911 is not only an antiquated design but one that is overly complex. I think they have been taught this or led to believe this by some writers and some instructors. Here is an example below which I lifted from here...ttp://www.sightm1911.com/lib/other/why_the_m1911.htm


. Tom Givens, Author and Trainer

That said, the 1911 is NOT a gun for the casual user, or what we call NDP's (non-dedicated personnel). The gun was designed when technology was expensive, but skilled labor was not. The exact opposite is true today. A carry 1911 should be gone over by an experienced specialist (Heinie, Burns, Yam, Yost, Garthwaite, etc) and then properly maintained by the end user. The average cop or typical CCW holder would be better served with a Glock or SIG in most cases. If you're willing to spend the money to get a properly set up 1911 and TRAIN with it, then you're not "average".

Some observations, especially if taken out of context, can lead folks to move away from the 1911. A newer shooter can decide, based on what they have been told, that 1911s are too finicky or require special dedication. After all, if a newer shooter has 600-700 bucks to spend and they want a reliable, useful, accurate and safe sidearm will they look at the Sig P228, for example, or a gun that needs an "experienced specialist" to go over it before it can be relied on? Will they go to the S&W M&P or a gun that requires that they not be "average" just to shoot it well? If the 1911 is the "gun of professionals" and you know you ain't no "professional" where ya gonna go?

I met two young shooters at the range a while back who told me my 1911 was an "old design", "complex", "hard to take down", took "skill" to shoot well, etc. I offered to let them shoot my Colt, one refused and the other did shoot it explaining he had never shot one before. But they both "knew" all about the 1911.

The 1911 is a simply design. Mechanicaly it is simpler than any da/sa gun and simpler than many striker fired guns. Easy to field strip and easy to clean. It's no harder to learn to shoot well than any other gun and easier then some IMHO.

Some folks, trained on guns with no external safety or with decocker guns, worry they will have to remember to disengage the safety under stress. Whenever I fire a gun without a thumb safety I automatically try to disengage the missing safety and then look to see where it went when it broke off.

tipoc

[JSmith]

dozens of authors and gun writers seem to think that the 1911 is a fine handgun "for experts only".

Don't believe everything you read on the 'net.