[Bullnettles]

WITHOUT starting a flame war and getting this thread closed, I would like to know what makes the 1911 antiquated? I just got my second 1911 (sold my first one) and was looking it over last night and comparing to my glock and a buddy's PX4. I like all three, but I few them as different and don't see how a 100 year old design is antiquated (ie outdated) if it still does it's job perfectly. It doesn't have a firing pin blocker, but it also doesn't have the striker mechanism of the Glock. The only thing I can see would be the decocker, which I don't mind, but could be dangerous I suppose. Is that all there is?

[Jbabbler]

Yes, it is outdated, antiquated and old. Since it was designed over 100 years ago it no longer possess the ability to shoot effectively. It shoots an old caliber that is impossible to find in any store. You pretty much have to be a reloader to feed the gun it's obscure caliber. The gun is made of metal which is known to be much weaker than plastic and is prone to getting hot when placed in front of a heat source for an extended period of time. The gun requires oil to run properly. Oil is known to the state of California to cause cancer when administered rectally to hamsters in large doses several times a day for 5 or more years. Thousands of people have died as a result of acute lead poisoning after utilizing the muzzle end of the 1911.

[LeonCarr]

Taken from one of my previous postings:

The main reason I shoot the Glock is because of the 1911. I hate the 1911 because:

1. After thousands of dollars worth of quality gunsmithing work by American Handgunner Club 100 gunsmiths, with every part of the gun tuned or adjusted for maximum reliability, 1911s, in my experience, will still jam, FTF or FTE, never in practice and always during a match . You can take a Glock out of the box, check the bore for grease or obstructions, and take it out and shoot it, and it will run.

2. Glocks have no grip screw bushings or grip screws to come loose. Most new 1911s, in my experience, will have at least one grip screw bushing come loose when you take the grips off the first time, and it is usually attached to the grip screw itself, and it screws out of the frame.

3. A stock Glock does not hurt your hand and draw blood when you shoot it, unlike a 1911A1 with the stock hammer and the stock grip safety (YMMV, but it does it to me).

4. A stock Glock does not have to have aftermarket expensive magazines to function properly (ie Wilson's). IME the magazine that comes with most 1911s was made by the lowest bidder with soft metal bodies and feed lips. You do not have to "tune" the magazines or buy aftermarket magazines for a Glock.

5. The number one PITA with a 1911, the extractor. Most 1911s out of the box will have to have their extractor replaced with a better quality unit to maintain extractor tension. The Glock extractor is fine out of the box.

6. Glocks do not have plunger tubes that will come off of the frame. I once had a Series One Kimber, and during shooting the plunger tube came off. A gunsmith charged me 50 DOLLARS to replace that plunger tube (at that time about a six dollar part that took two minutes to install). That is the main incident that attracted me to the Glock. No plunger tube.

YMMV, but these are the main things that make me hate the 1911. Too much money for not enough gun.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[dmazur]

The main objections to the 1911 that I've read seem to be centered on -

1. capacity
2. weight

No valid arguments to these that I know of. Original single-stack design has limited capacity. Even with aluminum frames, the 1911 is still kind of heavy. And if you start using double-stack magazines and polymer frames, it really isn't a 1911, but "1911-ish"...

Other arguments center on reliability or safety.

These arguments seem to overlook the fact that the original 1911 design was reliable. Lots of non-spec copies and a proliferation of parts that don't interchange would cause trouble in any design.

And the arguments over safety attack things like the lack of a decocking mechanism when the 1911 doesn't need a decocker. (If you have a bobbed hammer, carry it in Condition 1. If you have a traditional long spur hammer, you might consider more historical modes of carry. In that case, the long hammer is the decocker...)

Another safety argument is that a 1911 can't be dropped on its muzzle safely.
Well, if this is a worry, get a Series 80. These have the firing pin block.

[Greg528iT]

I'm surprised the flames hadn't really started. 1 post being fecicious, 1 of a bad experience, 1 good description

[Andrew Wyatt]

there are more reliable and fiddle free guns out there. I love shooting my 1911 and have a lot of fun, but it's not as reliable as other, newer guns.

[easyg]

The main objections to the 1911 that I've read seem to be centered on -

1. capacity
2. weight

No valid arguments to these that I know of. Original single-stack design has limited capacity. Even with aluminum frames, the 1911 is still kind of heavy. And if you start using double-stack magazines and polymer frames, it really isn't a 1911, but "1911-ish"...
I agree 100%.

Yes, the 1911 is still a fine pistol.
Yes, the 1911 can be used to defend oneself.
And yes, the 1911 can be made reliable.

But it was originally designed to be a service size combat pistol.
And as such it is rather antiquated.

It's heavier than most combat pistols today.
It has a lower magazine capacity than most combat pistols today.
It has a more complicated manual of arms than most combat pistols today.
And it's more complicated to field-strip than most combat pistols today.


The very reason that we see so many variations and modifications to the original 1911 design is because folks have been trying to make the 1911 competitive with modern combat pistols for many many years....with dubious success.

[tinygnat219]

Now, I am no 1911 fanboy, but even I have to agree the 1911 design for some reason or another has soldiered on for the better part of a century. For a slightly modified 100 year old design, name one other pre WWI gun designed that's still out there and whose popularity is expanding and has survived at least 2 attempts at replacement (1941 with the M-1 Carbine and 1984 with the M-9)

There's only two that I can think of and both are revolvers:
1) the 1895 Nagant, which is still in use in Russia today in limited numbers and that's mostly b/c the Russians never throw anything away.
2) the S&W Model 10 which is the current champion of still produced firearms. Not bad for something introduced in 1899 or 1902.
The main thing here is that neither one is expanding in popularity. In fact, both are shrinking in use, and the Nagant Revolver hasn't been made since the 1940s or 1950s while the Model 10 has been replaced by the auto in just about every category.

The 1911 in the meantime, has never been more popular. You have more manufacturers for it today than ever. The exception to a mainline handgun company today is to not have a 1911 of some kind or another in production. It's a feature that seems to be endemic to the 1911 design. IMHO, no other gun design comes close to it's long-lasting popularity. Glock is the only other one on the radar at this point, as is the Hi-Power, but the Hi-Power is also in decline and it hasn't been around as long.

[The Bushmaster]

I am a 1911 fan and I don't seem to have all the problems [so far] listed here. I have no problem with the capacity. I have no problem with the weight. I have no problem with reliability on both my series 80 Colt or my Kimber UCC II (which I carry daily). In fact the Colt 1911 has NEVER failed to digest my reloads and it has been modified to enhance accuracy only (without jepordizing reliability). The Kimber had its problems (7 failures) in the first 200 rounds and has had 3,000 failure free rounds sense.

I have other semi-auto [modern] platforms that are just as good. BUT you can keep the tupper ware guns (in particular glock an S&W). I prefer metal by far...

[loadedround]

If you ever have a "Kaboom" for whatever reason, would you you rather have a steel 1911 or a plastic Glock? I have seen it happen with both and I rest my case. :rolleyes:

[G27RR]

I have a somewhat different perspective. My first handgun was an HK USP. My second was a Glock 27. Good shooters and very reliable. Skip forward to my first 1911 - Colt Defender. Then, I got an STI Shadow and promptly ordered an STI Ranger II. Excellent shooters and 100pct reliable in all three cases.

Next, I bought a Kimber Super Carry Pro. I could't resist the looks and handling of this one. It's accurate, but not yet reliable. Last Kimber I will buy.

Monday, on a whim, I drove down to Cabela's to see if they had any Colts in stock. All my usual local dealers have been out for months. Saw a Colt Combat Elite and it was beautiful so I bought it. 100 pct perfect and accurate right out of th box.

What's my point? 4 out of 5 have been perfect and excellent shooters. The fifth was from a company known to have issues at times. So, the design works great when properly executed. The only handgun I can shoot as well as my 1911s is my Sig P226. I'd rather carry the 1911s. Slim grips make for easy carry, and I hea couple Kahrs that are slim but don't hold more or the same caliber.

Bottomline is, after using these STIs and Colts, I don't see myself buying more pistols that aren't 1911s, and I was a guy who started out wondering what the big deal was and avoiding them.

It's all personal preferences and needs (or perceived needs), but just having an older design doesn't make them inferior.

Oh yeah, and I have about one dozen STI mags and all work flawlessly. They only cost $14 at my local dealer.

[AirForceShooter]

Glocks have no soul.

But if I still carried everyday as a LEO I would carry a Glock

AFS

[GJW1911]

I love my 1911's, mine have been completely reliable and just plain fit me.
With that said a Glock is a work horse, very reliable, but do not stir my soul the way a 1911 does.
GJW1911

[Fourbits]

I have a WW2 Ithica Accurized in the 60's that has been trouble free for almost 50 years! It's set up for target loads (4.0 bullseye under a 200 grain LSWC) and has thousands of rounds through it. Just bought a Gen 4 Glock 17 and the recoil spring bound up after 60 rounds! Glock did quickly send a new one.

fourbits

[buck460XVR]

Glocks have no soul.



yep, and shootin' one is like havin' to french-kiss your sister, while shootin' a original Colt is like being seduced by the home-coming queen.......and yeah, she bites a little too.:neener:

[Greg528iT]

yeah, she bites a little too.

Which one? Your sister or the home coming queen?

[akadave]

Taken from one of my previous postings:

The main reason I shoot the Glock is because of the 1911. I hate the 1911 because:

1. After thousands of dollars worth of quality gunsmithing work by American Handgunner Club 100 gunsmiths, with every part of the gun tuned or adjusted for maximum reliability, 1911s, in my experience, will still jam, FTF or FTE, never in practice and always during a match . You can take a Glock out of the box, check the bore for grease or obstructions, and take it out and shoot it, and it will run.

2. Glocks have no grip screw bushings or grip screws to come loose. Most new 1911s, in my experience, will have at least one grip screw bushing come loose when you take the grips off the first time, and it is usually attached to the grip screw itself, and it screws out of the frame.

3. A stock Glock does not hurt your hand and draw blood when you shoot it, unlike a 1911A1 with the stock hammer and the stock grip safety (YMMV, but it does it to me).

4. A stock Glock does not have to have aftermarket expensive magazines to function properly (ie Wilson's). IME the magazine that comes with most 1911s was made by the lowest bidder with soft metal bodies and feed lips. You do not have to "tune" the magazines or buy aftermarket magazines for a Glock.

5. The number one PITA with a 1911, the extractor. Most 1911s out of the box will have to have their extractor replaced with a better quality unit to maintain extractor tension. The Glock extractor is fine out of the box.

6. Glocks do not have plunger tubes that will come off of the frame. I once had a Series One Kimber, and during shooting the plunger tube came off. A gunsmith charged me 50 DOLLARS to replace that plunger tube (at that time about a six dollar part that took two minutes to install). That is the main incident that attracted me to the Glock. No plunger tube.

YMMV, but these are the main things that make me hate the 1911. Too much money for not enough gun.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr
I have an old Kimber, one of their first that has thousands of rounds through it. Never a hiccup other than from a bad magazine. I call it "Mikey" because it will eat anything. It shoots as well as any Glock I have owned. Its still tight after all these years as well.

I love Glocks but they have their issues as well.

[Butter]

Never wanted to be a 1911 proponent, but after having shot a lot of plastic I realized a few things:

1) The modern guns that I have owned have all been pretty good, regardless of base model or mfr.

2) I don't like thick grips and don't own Sigs or CZs despite having shot and handled them since I have to cant the standard model guns slightly to get my smallish finger on the trigger.

3) I absolutely love the trigger on a tuned 1911.

4) The weight of the gun seems to tame muzzle flip and despite being smallish myself, at home for an SD gun, the weight and size are more comfort than hindrance.

As far as reliability or any of the other questions of temperment per a particular piece of shootingware, I have not had any real problems that spring changes wouldn't cure or regular cleaning couldn't help.

So, if you like the way a 1911 fits and handles and you shoot it better than something else, then I'd say go for it. That was my decision. As for Glocks great guns, just don't like 'em as well.

[KW]

I started shooting pistols with Sigs, Glocks, HKs etc. I always thought of 1911s as being old and outdated. But after shooting a few of them, my perspective has changed. The primary purpose of the handgun is to put the bullets on the target. In the case of a defensive handgun you want to do this as quickly as possible. For me, the 1911 does this better than anything else I have tried, and by a pretty big margin. Extra maintenance, weight, cost etc. are all things I can work around. Now the only handguns I own are 1911s.

[LHRGunslinger]

John Browning is THE single greatest firearms designer to ever walk the face of this earth. I would like to see ANY of you name ANY other designer who still has TWO of their designs in widespread use in the military and/or civilian market. Mr Browning built the M2HB and the M1911. Both are still in service with the US Military. If you need bells and whistles get something else. If you need something that's going to work each time, every time get a 1911. Don't take my word for it. Ask vets.

[BlayGlock]

The main reason the 1911 still sees the use that it does is that it is the easiest gun to make accurate hits with under stress. There is no substitute for a well tuned 1911 trigger. The platform is not without its disadvantages. The 1911 is not a platform for everbody, you need a passion for it and be willing to practice and be willing to become your own armorer. However, the platform greatly rewards those who are dilligent in pursuing it.

That is a tough question as I feel most people are best served NOT using a 1911 as a primary sidearm. Two criteria come to mind a) A passion for the 1911 platform and b) you are willing to be your own armorer and can fix relatively minor problems or fit certain parts yourself. If you are the kind of guy that doesn’t mind tinkering with your Harley Davidson motorcycle to keep it running then you are a candidate. If however you treat your pistols like we all treat our lawnmowers then don’t get a 1911 – use a Glock.

Mr. Vickers quote above sums it up nicely.

[CraigC]

I would like to know what makes the 1911 antiquated?
Perception, period. Folks' perception of what is "modern" and what is outdated is based very little in reality. Like so many other things, lots of bias against the 1911 is based on "what they heard" and very little on actual experience. Personally, while I've always been a traditionalist, I went from Glocks to 1911's because they simply fit me better. Reliability has never been an issue. Glocks are fine tools but not what one would consider "fine guns".

[easyg]

If you need bells and whistles get something else. If you need something that's going to work each time, every time get a 1911. Don't take my word for it. Ask vets.
Well I am a veteran.
And I did use the 1911 when I first joined the Army.
And for a combat service pistol, I will take a Glock over a 1911 every time.

[easyg]

b) you are willing to be your own armorer and can fix relatively minor problems or fit certain parts yourself. If you are the kind of guy that doesn’t mind tinkering with your Harley Davidson motorcycle to keep it running then you are a candidate. If however you treat your pistols like we all treat our lawnmowers then don’t get a 1911 – use a Glock.
I think they got this one backwards....

If you like to be your own armorer then get a Glock.
They are the ultimate in user-friendly-do-it-yourself pistols.

[CraigC]

The Harley reference is typical. Like most 1911's, there is no need for tinkering on a modern Harley, unless you just like to. They are easily as reliable as any import bike. Again, common perception is the only difference.

[ndindy]

I find the easiest solution to these problems is to own more than 1 pistol. I carried glock on duty, hands down reliable. Never had to work on them, they just worked. Thousands of rounds a year, no failures.

I however really like the feel of the 1911, it just doesn't have the capacity I wanted in a duty pistol, and wasn't concealable enough on my body, so it sat on the shelf. And the 45. acp didn't have the punch I liked in a hunting round, so it stayed on the shelf when the .44mag went hunting. For me personally, it didn't have a niche to fit.

But I've ordered a 460 rowland conversion for it, unless things go wrong it's going to be my new hunting pistol and the .44 will stay at home more often than not. I'm all excited about the prospect because I really like the pistol and have finally found a reason to carry it.

I do real estate now and more than once have to explain why some older houses sell for more than new. Old doesn't mean bad, old just means old.

[CajunBass]

Who said it was? :confused:

[Oyeboten]

I think the human form is antiquated...it's been around a few million years more or less, with only some very very slight upgrades, and was never very reliable to begin with...versatile, yes, adaptable to many things, while lacking entirely ever being very good at anything, compared to Birds, Aquatic Mammals, Fish, Insects, etc.

Lol...


1911 wise, I fired many many thousands of rounds, all sorts of rounds, through my 1914 Commercial, with zero malfunctions...feeds anything I ever put to it, always a joy.

People who have problems with so-called 1911s, I notice it is always some wannabe off make or newer version, never the 'real' thing.

Too bad the term 1911 ends up being applied to variations of copies of the design...but, then, what would one call them otherwise? I dunno...

[rcmodel]

I don't care what the Glock fan-boys say.
A 1911 makes a way better club then a Glock when you run out of ammo in your foxhole.

rc

[Orlando]

I guess I am one of the lucky ones. I have owned cheap and expensive 1911's and never really had any problems
The only down fall of the 1911 that I can think of is the mag capacity
Why do I love the 1911, because they arent butt ugly like the Glock :)
My daily carry and never a hicup or FTF, antiquated? Hardly
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f197/Garandlover/Dan%20Wesson%20CCO/MVC-002S.jpg

[Bullnettles]

Wow, all over the board, but thank you for keeping it reasonable. From what I gather, it's mainly the ammo capacity and some say reliablity. I appreciate your inputs and will go on loving my Glock and 1911 both, but with a better understanding of people's thoughts on them. Thanks again for the input.:)

[surjimmy]

Everyone has different tastes, that is why there is sooooo many different kinds. If you want to shoot a Glock, then shoot one same for S&W, Taurus and 1911's. However don't try to tell me 1911's are outdated. 100 years later every gun company there is are now or trying to produce the 1911, besides 100's of 1,000's of dead Commies can't be wrong.:neener:

[IlikeSA]

Its old, but I wouldn't say antiquated. It does the job I want it to do. Unlike Glock, Sig, Smith and Wesson, etc, when I look at my 1911, I say..."This is mine, it DOESN'T look like any of the others." I would never get my 1911 confused for another persons, as there isn't one like mine. I can customize it with a plethora of parts, although I only added night sights to it. It works fine as is.
Put your Glock, Sig, S&W, etc, down among others like it and then try to find it after people mix them up. Try to make your pistol yours...and still...there are others like it.

[Chainsaw2]

I've carried a 1911 since I bought my first one back in 1974. Never a FTF, and while not all of them were accurate, most would group to 4" or less at 25 yds, and that is good enough.

jim

[parisite]

Glocks and polymers in general have their niche in the market but they just don't trip my trigger. I've been through and outgrwn the polymer/hi-cap stage in my life and I just didn't feel any "pride of ownership" with them

A nice Glock or a nice 1911.....which one would you have pride about passing on to your kids or grandkids?

[Bullnettles]

Both will be passed down, one for shooting on a regular basis, the other for carrying. Carrying a G20 is NOT my favorite, but it works well in one of my jackets if I have a pistol of equal heft on the other side. Anyone put a 1911 through a test like that one guy did with a Glock? Was watching Band of Brothers (THANK YOU VETS!!!!!!) and those 1911 didn't seem to stay very clean from the looks of it. Threadjack for myself: Winters had no rifle after the initial jump, I thought officers were issued a sidearm?

[gwnorth]

I think the capacity is a non-issue for many folks if they want a .45acp pistol. I would love to find a hi-cap double stack .45acp handgun that I truly felt comfortable holding and shooting, But they are all too thick and fat in the grip for my hands - FNP, Glock 21, S&W M&P - you name it and I've probably tried it (owned an FNP 45 for a year or so to really give it a workout).

But, a single stack, 1911, fits just fine in my hand. And I really don't feel panicky that I "only" have 7 or 8 rounds to work with (if I did, guess I'd freak at the thought of carrying one of my revolvers). To be blunt, even my double stack 9mm's (SIG P226 and CZ P-01), both of which I do truly like, do not fit quite as well in my hand as a 1911. They are functional for me, but they sure feel fat and on the verge of being unwieldy compared to a 1911's grip.

The two pistols which I find by far the most comfortable, accurate and controllable to shoot are my 1911's and my SIG P232, all single stack grips. And I'll take control and accuracy over capacity any day of the week.


I have a pair of stainless Colts (MK IV enhanced gov't and a 2009 Combat Commander) and I'll be keeping them with me for the long haul.

[Oyeboten]

Excellent design, engineering, quality execution with quality Materials...is what is it, 'Excellence'.

The S&W K-Frame has changed not very much in 111 years, and with no embarassment or apologies.

Good designs and good workmanship are timeless, and have no apologies to make.


'Antiquated' is a term usually denoting merely a superficial difference from a present fashion, exhaggerated by salesman or advertisers to push the new offering.


If I lived in a rural area with bad Roads and gullies and Brooks to ford, I'd have a Horse, or, maybe plain Jane, bone stock 'T-Model' Ford roadster or phaeton, and maybe I'd nice enough to help push or pull the 'escalades' and 'landcruisers' and 'jeeps' out of a ditch now and then just to be neighborly.

[gwnorth]

I guess I'd add too, that the word "antiquated", to me, tends to mean more that something is no longer relevant or has been completed supplanted by something far superior. Neither of those two things apply to the 1911, in my mind. Still fully relevant as a defensive pistol, and while there have been incremental advances in handgun technology, there hasn't been any huge leaps in over a hundred years.

[tipoc]

From Webster's dictionary...


1.

Main Entry: an·ti·quat·ed
Function: adjective
Date: 1601

1 : obsolete <an antiquated calendar>
2 : outmoded or discredited by reason of age : being out of style or fashion <antiquated methods of farming>
3 : advanced in age
synonyms see old

Well the 1st definition doesn't apply the 1911 is far from "obsolete"*.

Let's look at the second. Is the 1911 "outmoded"?

Main Entry: out·mod·ed
Pronunciation: \-ˈmō-dəd\
Function: adjective
Date: 1903

1 : not being in style
2 : no longer acceptable, current, or usable <outmoded customs>

Doesn't look like it. It's still very much in style. Very current, acceptable and usable.

So the second part of the definition does not apply.

What about the third? Yep it is an "advanced in age design" So is a Mauser action on a rifle. A levergun. All double action revolvers. When you get it right, you get it right.

*Main Entry: 1ob·so·lete
Pronunciation: \ˌäb-sə-ˈlēt, ˈäb-sə-ˌ\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin obsoletus, from past participle of obsolescere to grow old, become disused, perhaps from ob- toward + solēre to be accustomed
Date: 1579

1 a : no longer in use or no longer useful <an obsolete word> b : of a kind or style no longer current : old-fashioned <an obsolete technology>
2 of a plant or animal part : indistinct or imperfect as compared with a corresponding part in related organisms : vestigial

tipoc

[BCRider]

Some guns just seem to point and shoot tighter groups with less effort and in a more natural manner for the shooter. For me one of those platforms is the 1911. Something about how they naturally fit correctly into the hand creates tight groups with less effort or tighter groups with the same effort as with my other guns.

And it's not just me. I've personally seen numerous folks that are OK but not great shooters with other guns, Glocks included, instantly produce tighter groups when they shoot a 1911 in whatever caliber they choose. I've been helping out at the local Rent-A-Gun range on Fridays so I've had a chance to see a fair sized sampling of such occurances.

In the end and despite everything else I think this is a big reason why the 1911 is still so popular with a lot of folks. That and there's just something about how a nice single stack fits the hand. Come to think about it I guess both of those things are related and it shows in the performance.

[czhen]

As someone pointed a 100 years design almost from the scratch. Gaston Glock, (here the war begin) copy from 2 or 3 other manufacturers, very well done by the way.

Drawbacks for the 1911 design:
Capacity (improved in the next step, designer post morten: BHP)
Reliability (GI specs are reliable; not match accurate though)

Old design I do agree 100%, Antiquated allow me to disagree a little bit.

Czhen
FL

[akadave]

As someone pointed a 100 years design almost from the scratch. Gaston Glock, (here the war begin) copy from 2 or 3 other manufacturers, very well done by the way.

Drawbacks for the 1911 design:
Capacity (improved in the next step, designer post morten: BHP)
Reliability (GI specs are reliable; not match accurate though)

Old design I do agree 100%, Antiquated allow me to disagree a little bit.

Czhen
FL
Wrong on the drawbacks. Reliability is not an issue with 1911's today. The drawbacks are weight and capacity. But capacity only if you shoot like a chick.

[Oyeboten]

I always liked the weight of an old Colt M1911.

The weight is a positive attribute to me, whether carrying or firing.

The Capacity never once bothered me in any way.

It is already more than a Revolver would traditionally have...and, extra Charged Magazines are very easy to appeal to if needed.


I see no drawback there in those counts far as my own comforts go.

[TexasBill]

I'm not a big 1911 fan these days, but, back in the day, I carried an unmodified, out-of-the box Colt Series 70 Government Model and never had a problem with the grip safety or the hammer (all of my handguns still have external hammers). Capacity? It carried more than the wheelguns that were typical LEO sidearms back then and I had two spare magazines. If I ever buy another 1911, it will also be a Colt.

As another poster mentioned, the S&W Model 10 has been around for over a hundred years. Yes, it's disappeared from most duty holsters but it's still one of the best home-defense handguns on the market.

Antiquated? Well, the Mona Lisa is more than 500 years old but it's still a masterpiece that attracts many thousands of viewers each year. I think the M1911 is like the Mona Lisa; a timeless masterpiece created by a genius.

[dom1104]

Wrong on the drawbacks. Reliability is not an issue with 1911's today. The drawbacks are weight and capacity. But capacity only if you shoot like a chick.

Anyone who says 1911s dont have reliability problems today, doesnt go to many action pistol matches.

[3:00hold]

The original as-issued 1911 is antiquated. I don't think the modern factory custom 'combat' 1911s are antiquated unless you consider anything made from metal antiquated.

You can't disregard the single greatest feature of the 1911, which is the trigger.

[BlayGlock]

Good designs and good workmanship are timeless, and have no apologies to make

Amen.

For a duty gun I would take a Glock as well. I would prefer the capacity if I were going into harms way everyday. However, Im a mild mannered chemcial engineer, so I carry a 1911.

[BlayGlock]

If you like to be your own armorer then get a Glock.
They are the ultimate in user-friendly-do-it-yourself pistols.

Well you are right about that easy g, but what Larry Vickers was saying is that the 1911 is more maintenance intensive and requires you to learn a little about the platform and how to troubleshoot minor problems if they arise. A glock is very easy to work on, but a 1911 is not that hard.

[G27RR]

If you really want the capacity, you can go with something like the 2011s STI makes, which give you 1911-like performance and manual of arms in a double-stack capacity format.

[mcdonl]

I don't agree with the Harley reference.... unlike 1911's there are many attributes you may consider in motorcycles that could point to a design as being antiquated... not a bad thing but stuff like water cooled engines, etc...

But, when it comes to guns the same arguments are not applicable. Sure, you may be able to get more capacity out of other guns (Although not many hi-cap .45's that I know of....) but for the most part they all perform the same functions.

Shoot, the ammo we shoot is pretty much the same design and formula that we have always used since metallic cartridges were invented.

[Walkalong]

A 1911 makes a way better club then a Glock when you run out of ammo in your foxhole.
Darn tootin'.

No foxholes at the range where most folks tout their favorite "new" weapon.

The 1911 has been proven on the battlefield.

It is made by a bunch of companies who are selling all they can make, not to mention all the small semi-custom/custom makers.

Antiquated my butt. Poorly made by some companies, but definitely not antiquated.

[tipoc]

Anyone who says 1911s dont have reliability problems today, doesnt go to many action pistol matches.

You have to explain then why the 1911 dominates the top ranks of competitive pistol shooting; Bianchi Cup, Steel Challenge, etc. If you look at the top 10 shooters in any of these more than half will be working the old gun. It has a good deal to do with the shooters who choose the 1911 of course. They choose the old gun for it's reliability and shootability, also because they can keep it that way.

The 1911, being an older design, requires some work to keep in good shape. It is not a gun for everyone I don't think, especially now days when there are other choices. Some don't care to put much effort into their guns or pay much attention to them. To them another gun may be better.

tipoc

[tipoc]

Anyone who says 1911s dont have reliability problems today, doesnt go to many action pistol matches.

There have been for decades several manufacturers of 1911s and it's clones. Right now there are around 20 internationally. There are a good many companies that make spare parts for the 1911. Some of these are counterfeiters who have specialized in making fake Colt factory mags. The old gun is also for good and bad, one of the most tinkered on guns in history. Everyone from top notch pistol smiths to your local oxy-contin fan loves the 1911 and believes they can get it to work just right.

With the odds stacked against it for the above reasons and others in general the gun still does well.

There is no gun as versatile and adaptable as the 1911. None.

Does the grip seem small? get a set of thicker stocks, install a long throw trigger, install an arched MSH and the problem is fixed. Does it seem big? thin stocks, short trigger, etc.

Wide body high capacity 1911s are widely available...Para-Ord, Wilson, Caspian and others make them and have been for years. The grips are no larger than the Berretta 92. It's interesting to me that some who believe mag capacity is low on 1911s don't know that there have been wide body guns for quite some time.

tipoc

[megatronrules]

Well I for one don't feel they are outdated,that's a subjective term. If it will fire a bullet and kill someone(what ALL guns area/were designed to do) then its not outdated is it?

I've owned several Colts,a norinco and springfield. Probably 10 altogether and only the springer gave me trouble. It turns out it had the extractor tunnel in the slide wasn't machined properly,springfield paid shipping both ways and I had the gun back made right in 10 days.

All of my other 1911's all ran 100% out of the box with their factory magazines,and they fed all brand of JHP's. One of my colts didn't like WWB JHP's but ate everyting else fine.

On the flip side I've had a Glock 19 2nd gen that wouldn't feed any jhp's period. This was with both 10 and 15rd factory Glock magazines. I've also seen a Sig 229 choke on fmj ammo and another Glock break one of its frame rails within 300 rounds out of the box new,go figure.

I'm not ragging on any of the other brands mentioned here,I'm just stating my experiences and in those experiences a quality mass produced 1911 will run fine out of the box right along side its modern brothers.

[akadave]

Its interesting that Action Pistol be mentioned. I have a highly tuned 9x23 1911 made by a well known smith on a Caspian frame and slide. The frame is interesting in that its high cap (20 rounds) but still slimmer than the normal high cap frames. The "stocks" if you can call them that are essentially inset deck tape (analagous) and it has 4x 20 round mags numbered to the gun. Interesting piece and a tack driver. It was originally a race gun. I can see where the smith filled the screw holes on the dust cover where the dot sight rails were.

[megatronrules]

Well I for one don't feel they are outdated,that's a subjective term. If it will fire a bullet and kill someone(what ALL guns area/were designed to do) then its not outdated is it?

I've owned several Colts,a norinco and springfield. Probably 10 altogether and only the springer gave me trouble. It turns out it had the extractor tunnel in the slide wasn't machined properly,springfield paid shipping both ways and I had the gun back made right in 10 days.

All of my other 1911's all ran 100% out of the box with their factory magazines,and they fed all brand of JHP's. One of my colts didn't like WWB JHP's but ate everyting else fine.

On the flip side I've had a Glock 19 2nd gen that wouldn't feed any jhp's period. This was with both 10 and 15rd factory Glock magazines. I've also seen a Sig 229 choke on fmj ammo and another Glock break one of its frame rails within 300 rounds out of the box new,go figure.

I'm not ragging on any of the other brands mentioned here,I'm just stating my experiences and in those experiences a quality mass produced 1911 will run fine out of the box right along side its modern brothers.

[kmbrman]

This argument will never be settled about which design is modern and which is outdated. So far I've not seen any Poly guns ,as good as many are, with a high end maker claiming 1" groups at 25yds. as their guarantee. Some come close as in the FNP-45 pistols . But the high end 1911 brands promise this kind of accuracy. Not many people can take advantage of this precision except Pro shooters in most cases. The 1911 is old ,but still a good choice in a lot of situations calling for precision shooting by Swat teams and military sniping. My 17L Glock is a very accurate and fine performing Poly pistol and also is much cheaper than most 1911s.

[Old Ranger]

I read the first page here, then skipped to the third. Does the 1911A1 work? Is it reliable? Is it effective to defend yourself? Is it safe to carry? Not enough magazine capacity?

Let's see: World War I (Sargeant York "touched off" that last string of German soldiers charging his position with fixed bayonettes.) World War II, Korea, Viet Nam and everything after that until it was replaced by the M9 - - - - - not because they thought it wasn't any good anymore; but due to recoil, women in service and increased magazine capacity (I concede that one). Now, again, most special ops people have them back due to demand. I wonder why??? They are, of course, antiquated and no good anymore.

They were made for combat - - - to carry 'cocked and locked'. If all the parts are good, you can't accidentally set one off. If you push the muzzle, it won't fire. Manual safety, grip safety, half cock and muzzle.

The last thing any soldier wants in combat is an unreliable weapon. That's why a lot of guys tried (some did) trade off or use something else when the 'new' M16 was first introduced. They jammed at the worst possible time and got people killed.

I get kind of get tired of that Carbine replacing the .45 for officers nonsense. I was Army and Airborne. When I entered service the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine were at the end of their service but were still being issued. We still got .45s AND Carbines. So did medics and senior NCOs. Carbines were going to support troops and Artillery as well. The M14s were creeping in - - - the first one I saw, oddly enough, was being carried by a medic. I was with the 502nd and we were a little late getting ours. Then came Viet Nam and the the little plastic Tonka toys.

The .45 ACP is a life saver; and yes, it kills people. It's still around because it is probably the best combat sidearm ever devised; I doubt that it's days are anywhere near numbered.:mad:

[Jim Watson]

One problem with the 1911 is that it is too successful for its own good.
There are so many different makers answerable to no inspector or set of standards and thinking they know better (or cheaper) than John Browning, Colt, and the Army that you get some clunkers. And there is plenty of room for them to study cheaper. As Jan Stevenson said about 40 years ago, the gun is "a maze of little fink parts."

If there were a couple of dozen sets of Glock molds out from under Gaston's rule, do you think they would still be considered the height of reliability?

[kmbrman]

Everybody has a valid idea about each design as far as I can see. The 1911 isn't going away in any forseeable future, and Poly pistols keep getting better and more accurate as they progress and refine their designs. I think we'll still be debating this for years to come, but for myself I'll continue to like both formats.

[easyg]

A nice Glock or a nice 1911.....which one would you have pride about passing on to your kids or grandkids?
You do realize that they're just going to pawn them anyway, right? :evil:


The 1911 has been proven on the battlefield.
True.
But thanks to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so has Beretta and Glock.

[easyg]

- not because they thought it wasn't any good anymore; but due to recoil, women in service, and increased magazine capacity (I concede that one).
Some folks have the strangest notions. :scrutiny:

[Old Ranger]

OK. I don't know everything; I just think I do. Perhaps I shouldn't believe everything I think. You think?

Anyway; that sidearm is a life saver, and is (or was) a great weapon. I bought one of those Beretta M9 pistols: it's proven too; but it needed a trigger job. What a beast!!;)

[Lastmohecken]

IMHO, the better examples of the 1911 are still the best combat handguns in the world, but they are an expert's gun to certain extent, and maybe not the best choice for the average cop, or anyone for that matter that isn't willing to put much effort into mastering their handgun.

The average uneducated joe blow might be better off with a Glock.

[Weevil]

Anyone who says 1911s dont have reliability problems today, doesnt go to many action pistol matches.



Could it be that those 1911s have been built tight to improve accuracy???


So because you see competition built 1911s that aren't reliable you come to the brilliant conclusion that all 1911s are unreliable???


Since you base your conclusions on competition shooting then tell what are those uber-reliable pistols that are beating the 1911s and winning all the matches???

[Old Ranger]

I know a guy down at the club who shoots a '1911' that isn't - - - it's a .38 Super. It looks a lot like something from Star Wars and cost almost three grand.

When I think military 1911 it's more like Rock Island, Auto Ordinance or Springfield, although I think the only one of those made in the US is the AO model - - - but I'm not sure about that. Does Colt still make one?

When I was in service, the two I had were on frames built in WWII; they had odd duck names ; Singer (the sewing machine people) and Remington-Rand (the typewriter people) What's a typewriter?

[JoeSlomo]

WITHOUT starting a flame war and getting this thread closed, I would like to know what makes the 1911 antiquated?

Nothing.

[Baba Louie]

...I would like to know what makes the 1911 antiquated? 99 years ago it was One of the last great "horse pistols" issued for service. (maybe the 1917 Smith & Colt's were the last?) That fact alone might well mark it as an antique design, but who puts lanyard loops on magazines nowadays?

But it's antiquated like a Ruger SBH is ancient. Doesn't mean a thing as long as it goes bang and hits POA.

[LHRGunslinger]

@Baba Louie: People put lanyard loops on combat weapons because there are people out there who simply cannot afford to be without their sidearm for even the shortest time. Like soldiers and PMC's

[1911Tuner]

There are many antiquated designs that don't seem to know or care that they're outdated and at any sort of disadvantage. Along with the 1911, there's the Browning High Power, the '98 Mauser, the lever-action rifle, and the slide-action/pump shotgun. These arms have changed very little over the last century.

In the case of semiauto pistols...even most of the "Great/New" as opposed to the "Bad/Old" examples have the original designer's fingerprints all over them. Glocks are tilt barrel/locked breech/recoil operated pistols...just like the 1911. The Beretta 92 Series? Look at the Walther P-38 to see its roots. The M14/M1-A can be traced all the way back John Garand's brainchild. The Mini-14's grandfather was David (Carbine) Williams.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[CDW4ME]

I had a series 70 Commander that I couldn't stand due to the narrow beavertail. I later got a "Enhanced" model that solved the beavertail issue.
I had a Kimber CDP that I really liked, the two tone look.

Other than I could puke from seeing 1911's on the cover of guns magazines repeatedly...

I'll agree, unless you get a Kimber or other "Enhanced" version of the gun, the narrow beavertail is intolerable. Glocks and XD are comfortable to shoot "as is".

Getting night sights installed may be pricey on a 1911 that doesn't have them. I can get Meprolights installed for about $73 on a Glock, Trijicons were about $115 ? for the XD installed by SA.

You have either 7 + 1 capacity in the Officers size models I find concealable, or 8 + 1 in the Commander or Government models (which are difficult for me to conceal due to the height). I have a 10 + 1 capacity in my 30SF and it's overall height is shorter than a Officers. If the 30 seems too thick get a 38 and you have 8 + 1 in 45 GAP with the same frame as a Glock 19.

For easy concealed carry the model 27 with 9 + 1 rounds of 40 S&W is the ticket. The 27 offers power comparable to the 1911, and has greater capacity, less weight, plus a concealment advantage.

Is the 1911 outdated? Let's see, it's heavier, has less capacity, it's more expensive, and out of the box reliability is not a certain thing.

Maybe outdated isn't the appropriate term, more like outclassed.

As far as a pistol having "soul" the ones I carry do have a soul: mine. They make sure it remains within my body for the time being.;)

If you want an expensive pistol that holds fewer rounds, might work reliably out of the box, and weighs you down then go ahead and get that 1911, I've got one; but, it's not my 1st choice for carry.

If you want a 1st class defensive tool out of the box, get a Glock. :D

[joe_security]

You cant beat the "feel" of the 1911. It has to be the most ergonomic pistol of all time. A Glock feels like a 2by4 compared to the 1911.

[1911Tuner]

Maybe outdated isn't the appropriate term, more like outclassed.

The gun is outclassed only if the shooter is outclassed. If that's the case, nothing will do.

out of the box reliability is not a certain thing.


Can't argue with that, even though it's the fault of the magazine 98% of the time...but no need in arguing points that most 1911 owners discovered years ago.

Let's see, it's heavier, has less capacity,

Can't argue with the capacity thing, either...but capacity really only helps if you miss a lot. The weight can be a distinct advantage if you run dry and the fight goes hand-to-hand, however. The also "antiquated" lanyard loop makes for a wicked skull pommel, as does the original rear sight.

[The Bushmaster]

My mind tends to wander now and then (my age or something), but...How can you say that the Colt 1911 (and the design) is "antiquated" when it is over 100 years old and still going strong? When almost every manufacturer still has one or more in their new inventory?

I need that explained to me.

[CDW4ME]

The gun is outclassed only if the shooter is outclassed. If that's the case, nothing will do.


The shooter outclassed? :scrutiny:

I can spend $1,000 for a 1911 that holds 8 +1 rounds, may work reliably.

For under $600 I can get a Glock 27 / 23 with night sights, have either 9 + 1 or 13 + 1 and IME it will work 100% right out of the box.

1911 got outclassed out of the box.

As to whether those extra rounds are ever needed, at least they are there.

For a CCW tool (that's what the gun is) I (obviously) prefer the Glock.

Nothing wrong with a reliable 1911, but I see not reason to chose a tool (1911) that's inferior to my other choices (Glocks or XDsc). :D

[1911Tuner]

The shooter outclassed?

Yeah. It can happen. There are people who can shoot distinguished expert on the range, and fall apart when the game becomes serious. Carrying (name your preferred piece) doesn't mean that you're armed any more than having a driver's license makes you a contender at the Brickyard.

As to that...the '98 Mauser and the '03 Springfield is outclassed by the AK47 and the M16...but if a man armed with the bolt rifle is a good shot and he's intimately aquainted with his weapon...and he trains his sights on you...you're in a world of ...er...sheepdip...clear out to 400 yards or more.

Far too much emphasis is placed on the equipment these days. It's not the gun that wins. It's the man who wins. His gun is incidental. The plain truth of the matter is that the average citizen is about as well served with a 5-shot J-frame .38 Special revolver as with a "Manstomper" or a Wundernine...about 99% of the time.

For a CCW tool (that's what the gun is) I (obviously) prefer the Glock.

As is your preference. We carry what we're comfortable with...because that's what inspires confidence. Personally, I can't shoot a Glock for sour owl spit...and I've tried...so the Glock isn't for me. Good, solid pistols that do well for most people in most circumstances. I just can't get my hand to wrap around one to save me from torment.

Note that my usual carry gun is 3-inch Model 13, and my nightstand gun is a 4-inch Model 10...neither of which is stoked with fire-breathing ammunition. I carry a 1911 only occasionally, depending on where I plan to go on a particular outing. Around the house here, I've even been known to stuff a single-action revolver in the front of my belt to walk the grounds.

[Weevil]

"Out of the box reliability"???


What knid of damn fool is gonna trust their life to a brand new out of the box gun?


I dunno about you but I always put a few hundred rounds through ANY new pistol before I trust it as a carry weapon.



Unless you're a newb and it's your first and only gun why would you carry a gun that hasn't been broken in and tested so you can get a feel for it???

[MICHAEL T]

1. After thousands of dollars worth of quality gunsmithing work by American Handgunner Club 100 gunsmiths, with every part of the gun tuned or adjusted for maximum reliability, 1911s, in my experience, will still jam, FTF or FTE, never in practice and always during a match .

Theirs you problem took a 1911 and had it messed with. They were not made to be race guns. They were made as a Military Combat pistol Not a game gun.
I have never saw of felt the need to mess with my Colts. They are reliable and SD accurate right from box . Shooting full power loads . Not some cream puff load with a lite recoil spring .

[lonegunman]

Sure the 1911 is an old design, 100 years old. But it has performed very well for 100 years, the cartridge is still popular and the gun still performs its designed task as well as anything on the market. Old design does not equate to poor design or bad design. I think they still use the old aerofoil technology to make planes fly, since 1903.

So you complain about only having 7 or 8 rounds? Here is an idea. Learn to shoot already. Missing 17 times because you suck is not a firearm problem, when you are down to random chance for a hit probability and demand 17 rounds you really might just want to hire a body guard and stop worrying about carrying a gun. You are a danger to bystanders more than a toughguy.

It's heavy? Go to the gym once and a while buttercup. Not having the strength to carry a gun means you need to stay home already and just sit by the computer looking at one on the table.

It's an old design, obsolete and not needed? Really? Trojan is still making the same design of rubber and it still works. M2HB has been flattening villiagers for 90 years and we love it. Some idiot at Picatinney Arsenal is still trying to make a plastic Browning with a smaller but equal 50 cal round and still failing. Why? He is fixing a non-exisitant problem so nobody cares.

They are not realiable? Really? I have one at home that has fired 12,850rounds with one stoppage and it is documented. I doubt 99% of the internet experts have even seen 12K rounds in one place EVER. I have another that has been in competitive use for twenty years and had one barrel replaced.

There are more modern designs. Really? Have you looked at the Glock, it is slightly different but still the same as every semi-auto pistol ever built. The difference is that it is cheap and plastic. Cheap stamped metal and plastic guns have been around since WWII. The double stack magazine has as well. 9mm parabellum has been around since before WWI. Fixed sights since the gun was invented. Hammer forged barrels for decades as well. Polygon rifling has been in German guns for quite a while. DA only autos, or as they call it, "Safe action", mushy DAO with lousy feel, no as uncommon as you might think.

While materials have improved over the last 100 years and we can make many parts from plastic, carbon fiber, aluminum or some other space aged metal or material, very little has changed in design or function. Ballistics has not improved either, bullet technology has made some advances. But making a bullet that is shaped in a way that impacts the feeding as designed is not a real improvement.

A Glock might be different, hold more ammo that was designed 100 years ago, cheap or lighter to carry but it is far from new and innovative. Glock is a thirty year old design as well.

When the caseless ammunition, limitless feeding, electromagnetic rail gun arrives then you have something new.

[fase3]

I'm 70 and carry my Grandfathers Commercial 1911 (not 1911 A1). It has been used by my Grandfather and me in defense. It has never let either one of us down over all these years. Mr. Browning did good!

[BlayGlock]

Lonegunman wins the best post yet award.

[Old Ranger]

Thank you lonegunman; you said it all - - - better than I could.

Sometimes I read stuff about space gun bullets and other stuff and chuckle to myself. Patrick Henry McGurty, alias William Bonny, alias Billy the Kid - - - used a round butt .32 and Black Powder cartridges. I guess nobody told him he was undergunned or the one he carried was antiquated and inadequate.:scrutiny:

[1911Tuner]

Before the emotions run any higher...let's just agree that both pistols are solid performers. Most of the reliability horror stories pertaining to 1911s are magazine related. With so many on the market...and so many hundreds of thousands of magazines sold every year, it's bound to be a factor. If both guns are shot well, either one will do. If they're not...neither one will do. Fair enough?

One of the deadliest gunmen to ever suck air and eat ham and eggs at an all-night diner was FBI agent D.A. "Jelly" Bryce. Bryce killed more men than any three of us hate...men who were actively trying to kill him. His preferred sidearm was the Smith & Wesson .44 Special Hand Ejector and the .357Magnum...both large, heavy N-frame revolvers. This, in spite of the fact that the 13-shot Browning High Power was readily available to him on demand.

It's not the gun that carries the day. It's the man. His willingness to transform from a good fella into a mankiller in a split second is what will bring him home alive...not a 15-round magazine stuffed full of
zombie stompers.

Another plain, flat truth is that few of us really have a genuine need to carry a gun. We carry because we can...and because it comforts us...and because we simply prefer to be armed because it's better to have it and not need it than vice-versa. We want to carry one, and that's good enough. I'm happy to see that more people are starting to take their security seriously.

But a real need? The few people who I've known that had/have a defined need to carry a gun most often carry two when they're away from home...and they've usually got a hideout or two stashed around the place. They don't go to the toilet without their pistol. I knew of one who installed a hook in his shower to hang a gun on...and he wasn't at all paranoid. Men like that live on the edge. Most of us don't. We carry a gun for that one-in-a-million chance that we'll have need of it on a given day in a given place. Insurance. Nothing more.

If we know for a fact...or even suspect strongly...that the place we're about to enter will result in having to shoot for blood...99.9% of us won't go there. I know that I won't go there unless I have to rescue a member of my family...and if that's the case, I'm going to let a shotgun do the honors.

[CDW4ME]

I knew I would step on toes with my comments.

Some people get emotional about the 1911. It's made of steel, chambered for the 45 acp, has been around.

I'll address a couple of comments.

When I say out of the box reliability I mean it works with various ammunition out of the box. I DO NOT mean I would simply load and carry it out of the box. We all know some 1911's will not feed certain HP ammunition or they may require throating. Any pistol I carry will have fired "plenty" of rounds of the ammunition I'll carry in it before it's used for self protection. My point was Glocks have the advantage in inherent feeding reliability.

I do go to the gym 2 or 3 days a week and a 18 mile bike (bicycle) ride is fun too. However, that doesn't mean I want to carry a pistol that weighs as much unloaded as another does with a full magazine.

Capacity: I did mention the Glock 38 which is 8 + 1 in my first reply. I also listed the 10 + 1 Glock 30. I should have included the excellent XD45 compact with a 10 + 1 capacity. All three of these fine pistols offer either the same capacity or +2 over a typical 1911. I never implied the extra bullets were needed due to inaccuracy on the part of the shooter. I never said they were essential. No need to ridicule someone whose magazine carries more rounds than yours as being inaccurate. The Browning HP holds 13 rounds, does that mean the folks who chose to carry it are going to spray & pray? My favorite carry pistol is a 9 + 1 Glock 27; that's one round above the 1911. However, if the pistol held 13, I would load 13. Want to load up the 1911 with "only" 5 rounds? Attempting to discredit someone because their magazine holds more ammunition is ridiculous.

1911 Tuner is right. I did shoot expert on the range both years I was a LE officer, with a Glock 45. Also, either pistol will work fine for SD. As he said, most people won't need to ever defend themself with a gun, and I hope I never need the seatbelt or fire extinguisher either.

The Glock and the XD have a plastic frame. So what. If the grip feels good and the pistol is durable what's it matter? No need to debate whether the 1911 or the Glock are durable, they both are.

The new Remington 1911 sums up what I'm talking about. It's got a dovetailed front sight and everything else is old school 1911; you won't get night sights, has a narrow beavertail, slick front strap. If the pistol sells for $600 and if we assume reliability with HP ammunition you will likely have to spend over $100 more for night sights. Some people can tolerate the narrow beavertail, but I can't; there is another expense, and those typically have to be fitted by a gunsmith. It's debateable whether the slick front strap needs fixing; you could just pull a piece of bicycle tube over it to add grip. I use the bicycle tube on Glocks, but not the XD (the XD has a grip safety).

Now I spent $600 for the basic 1911 pistol, added night sights for another $120 (estimate), and the beavertail plus installation cost $100 (estimate). We now have a $800 pistol made of steel, with a soul:rolleyes:

Like I said before, I can get a Glock 23 with night sights for $600. I can spend the $200 I saved on a case of ammunition (I bought a 500 round case of Federal 180 JHP for $200). I now have a bunch of ammo for practice and / or SD and have not spent any more money than the price of a basic 1911. I said the 1911 was outclassed, let me correct, I should have said overpriced.

My plastic frame Glock (or XD) will protect me just as well as the steel 1911, be easier to conceal, lighter to carry, last just as long, and I'll have those extra rounds available IF they are ever needed (of course they won't). :D

[1911Tuner]

CD...the term "Out of Box Reliability" keeps coming up. Over the last 50 years, I've seen very few reliability issues with the 1911 platform that weren't directly attributable to the magazine or bad ammunition...and not all that many of those, even. I've got several USGI pistols ranging in birthdates from 1913 to 1945 that can't tell the difference between ball and hollowpoint and even lead SWC ammunition. I've got a pair of Colt "Billboard" 91A1 pistols that have seen nearly 375,000 rounds combined...about evenly split, and the number of malfunctions can be counted on my fingers...and most of those were due to my funky reloads and my home cast SWC bullets. Both guns are operating on many of their original parts, and one of the pair gave up its very first malfunction...ever...about a year ago. Note that I've done nothing special to either one, other than proper extractor set-up when they were replaced at the 75,000 round mark...and using good magazines...of which I have 72 that do range duty, and are used regularly in bothg guns. (No. They're not WilsonMcCormickCobra Double Throwdown Tactical Super-Doopers.)

Shooters tend to scream long and loud about the ones that give trouble, while the vast majority that don't are never mentioned. I've found the 1911 to be extremely reliable under all sorts of conditions...and I'm not at all anal retentive over keeping mine squeaky clean and dripping with oil. I clean my beaters about every 500 rounds...if I happen to think about it and I don't have anything to do at the moment.

Finally...I've seen a few Glocks that puked, too, and for various reasons ranging from bad magazines and ammunition to filth to just somethin' wrong with the gun. I know one guy who swore off Glocks because neither the three that he owned over the course of 10years met his reliability expectations. It happens. Does that make me feel that all Glocks are junk? Of course not. Glocks are good, solid pistols with an excellent reputation. If that weren't true, they'd have never gained the popularity nor the proliferation that they currently enjoy. The same applies to the 1911, the Smith Model 10, and the Winchester Model 94.

[SaxonPig]

Well, the 1911 is 100 years old.

The M98 Mauser is even older and hasn't really been improved upon for bolt action rifle design.

I love my 1911s but admit that I prefer a hi-cap 9mm DA auto for carry.

The 1911 remains the ideal military sidearm. Simple, reliable, and powerful.

Antiquated? Probably. But that doesn't make it useless.

I bought this one new in early 1973 and carried it for many years. It has "seen the elephant" with me several times and I would not hesitate to rely upon it again.


http://www.fototime.com/14E4C5EEBC5A14D/standard.jpg

[Ky Larry]

Whack. Whack. Whack, Whack. And the beating of a dead horse continues. Someone should call the Humane Society.:rolleyes:

[FLAvalanche]

Yes it's antiquted.

But I have only one pistol in my safe that has run 100% since the day it was taken out of the box. Take a guess which one it is...

[fireside44]

Various internet sources have confirmed the following to me at one time or the other over the years to be "antiquated" and "outclassed":

Pump action shotguns
Lever action shotguns, rifles, and pistols
Pump action rifles
Break action shotguns, rifles, and pistols
Bolt action rifles and pistols
Revolvers of all makes and models
1911
Ma Deuce
Any fully/semi automatic rifle manufactured before the AR-15/M-16/M4
Black powder handguns and rifles

While some are outclassed and antiquated more than others, still, it looks like most of what the world is using has been outclassed by Glock once again!

[Weevil]

My point was Glocks have the advantage in inherent feeding reliability.


Yeah because they made the angle of the feed ramp more shallow and use looser chambers.

This leaves more of the case exposed and lets the case expand more, this makes them more susceptible to case failures the infamous Glock "Kabooms" we hear so much about.



Nothing new and innovative there, guys have been grinding down feed ramps and opening up their chambers on 1911s to improve feeding with HPs and blowing out cases in the process for a long, long time.



Sacrificing a measure of safety to improve feeding wasn't a brilliant new idea invented by Glock. Although they were the first major manufacturer to put their customers at risk by doing it.

[CDW4ME]

Correction to my previous comment about bicycle tube, I would not put a piece of bicycle tube around the grip of a 1911 for the same reason I don't have one on the XD: the grip safety. Cheapest option would be some rubber grips that cover the front strap for the 1911.

I had 4 different Kimbers, all purchased new: CDP (the one with a Officers frame and Commander length slide), Ultra Carry, a polymer frame (can't remenber the exact name), and a SWAT replica. Only the CDP was reliable using the magazines supplied with the pistol.

I had a Colt Defender (purchased new) that wasn't reliable either.

My Enhanced Officers model I purchased new in the early - mid 1990's was reliable and I kept it, although I have not shot it in years. This is more of a collectors piece than a carry piece for me.

These are all "top end" 1911 pistols and only 2 out of 6 were reliable. I'm not making reliability statements based on one or two guns, rather personal experience with 6 different (pricey) models.

I probably should have kept that Kimber CDP, but I had already decided my preference in carry pistols was Glock.

The CDP I had was a reliable, nice looking 1911; it had night sights and a really good trigger. I'm no less or no better protected by the Glock 27 or XD45 compact than when I carried the CDP.

Shoot what you like, don't let emotion over materials or "heritage" cloud logic and don't belittle others for stating obvious advantages like capacity (whether it's needed or not).

The things I find advantageous about the Glock or XD like the unneeded extra rounds and lighter weight may not be important to everyone.

If I thought I was better protected by a 1911, or prefered a 1911, I could carry one easy enough (my Officers doesn't have night sights). If I really felt the urge to pack a 1911 I could get another CDP with night sights, two tone look and comfy beavertail. Instead I think I'll just carry my "soulless" OD (baby poo) Glock. :)

[Old Scratch]

Many of the criticisms made here are valid. When I bought my first handgun many years ago I chose a Colt Government Model. As it came out of the box it was, quite disappointingly, a piece of junk. With factory FMJ ammunition, every other round stovepiped. The trigger was terrible.

Gunsmiths charged me hundreds of dollars to tune the trigger and enlarge the ejection port. Then the safety simply broke off. Ten years later, the Colt-factory replacement safety broke off again. I noted that the fracture was rough and grainy - the heat treatment of the steel was defective. The gun eventually became a patchwork quilt with a number of Parkerized-finish military parts added.

It works now, but it took way too long and cost way too much to get there. Perhaps the most remarkable thing is that I actually kept it, and kept trying to make it function properly for so long. The 1911's reputation for reliability is undeserved.

[Rexster]

I think John Moses Browning understood ergonomics better than does Gaston Glock. Glock makes good stuff for guys with bit Teutonic hands, but then, there is the rest of the world to consider, which Herr Glock did not. As for reliability, I used to own problematic examples of BOTH the 1911 and Glock. I have also owned both that were 100% malfunction-free.

If a weapon functions reliably, and is accurate enough for the task at hand, it is neither antiquated nor obsolete. A design can reach a state of maturity, and then still remain relevant.

Having said that, I use SIG P229 pistols for serious purposes; police duty and personal-time carry, with revolvers in a backup role. (The SIGs have either a factory "short" trigger, or custom-contoured, slimmed-down triggers, for my non-Teutonic hands.) When the day comes that "peace officer" is removed from my list of daily activities, I may revert to revolvers for virtually all purposes. I will decide that when the time comes. Are revolvers antiquated enough for y'all? :)

Do I still have a use for the 1911? Well, my one remaining 1911, a Les Baer Thunder Ranch Special, has mostly been hibernating in the safe since 2002, but I recently took delivery of a 10-8 rear sight with a .156" rear notch, which does seem to better suit my eyes. Next, I must decide whether to buy a rear sight tool, or let a local 'smith do the swap. My chief will not let me carry a 1911 in my duty holster again, but 1911s are still authorized for personal-time carry, and back-up purposes. I can be scary accurate, relatively speaking, with a 1911 from an improvised rest, and have been thinking of keeping a 1911 in a "war bag" that would be deployed in a nightmare scenario. The 1911 is still a superb battle pistol. :)

[cacop]

First off when you say 1911 what are you talking about?

One made in 1911? One made in 1944? One made in 1975? One in 1988? Now?

How about manufacturers?

Kimber? Colt? Springfield? RRA? RIA? Armscor? Ithica? Remington? Remington-Rand? Singer? AMT? Valtro? STI? Wilson? Les Baer?

How about how it is made?

Full length one pice guide rod? Two pice guide rod? GI plug and rod? Beavertail? GI gripsafety? Ducktail? Speed bump on the GS? No speed bump? Barrel bushing finger tight? Wrench tight? Cone barrel? Ramped barrel? Traditional barrel? GI hammer? Round hole commander hammer? Oval hole hammer? Super light hamer? Arched, flat, or wedge shaped mainspring housing? Checked, chainlink, Cobraskinned or plain MSH? Add on magwell? GI thumbsafety? Extended safety? Ambi safety? Staked front sight? Dovetail front sight? GI rear sight? Novak, Bomar, or Heinie rear sight cut?

Now let us contrast that with the Glock. Since 1986 they have had 4 generations. If you average it out one change every 6 years. Now in between these changes they tweek the little parts inside the gun. (Check out a new G22 mag sometime. See what number is on the follower. The last guns my PD bought had an 8 on them. In less than 20 years they have changed the followers 8 times.)

Do you think in 2086 Glock will be selling guns that are exactly the same as they are now? Of course not but the basic design will be more or less the same. They will be polymer frame, with steel rail inserts, striker fired, modified Browning delayed blowback guns. They may have no iron sights because battery technology and red dot sights may be so advanced then there is no need for them. There may be DNA readers in the palm areas that know it is you.

Will a Glock be antiquated then? Of course not. Unless of course we have Star Trek phasers in stores. So why should a 1911 be antiquated now?

Let's be honest we have taken firearms pretty much to their limits now. About the only innovations we will have is in materials. And even them I am not impressed with the ploymer innovation. I can't help but notice polymer mags are thinker than mags made of metal for the same caliber. Which makes the grip thicker. Why do you think HK made mags of metal on their polymer guns where size is critical (think USP compact and USP45)?

Honestly all guns are antiquated in design. There is nothing new to see. Guns 9mm and up still operate on Browning's designs in regards to blow back. Smith and wesson is making revolvers, with small changes, like they did in 1899. Smokeless powder dates back to 1880. The last blackpowder guns not destined for cowboy games rolled off the lines in 1920.

All of the criticisms of the 1911 can all be refuted based on the numerous choices when it comes to 1911s or there are plenty of new designs with the same "problems." Too heavy? Yeah they make Al framed guns. Not enough bullets? Yeah funny how Justin Moon has made a living off of small capacity single stack guns.

Hell we might as well be arguing over golf clubs being antiquted. All anyone does they is hit a small white ball into a hole a couple hundred yards away. I think Tiger could still beat me using 99 year old clubs. I think his wife could beat him with 99 year old clubs too.

[KenW.]

Antiquated? Is the 1963 Corvette, or the 1965 Mustang antiquated? Plenty of people still take big dangerous game with a bow and arrow!Maybe old, but I prefer the term "Classic" over "antiquanted".

I've carried one or another 1911 professionally for 17 years. All are box stock Colt, Springfield, and Kimber. Absolutely reliable and will fire anything. Those who've experienced otherwise I cannot speak for.

I passed up the Hi-Power, HK P7, HK USP40, and now the Glock foetay in favor of my agency's awesome alternate weapon policy, and will carry a 1911 for the duration of my career. I've tried to move to a plastic hammerless gun (Glock and XD) a couple of times, but I keep gravitating back to the tried and true 1911. Granted it is not of 1910s vintage, but the basic platform is the same. Will Glock be able to say that in a hundred years? Maybe or maybe not. Perhaps they'll make a Glock G-1911, everyone else is making them...:D

[ScratchnDent]

I don't think they are antiquated, just different.

I happen to prefer steel frames and single action triggers, and am willing to trade those for reduced ammo capacity and a few extra ounces of weight.

My most recently owned newer design was an XD-45. I traded it towards another 1911 after a couple years, because I noticed it didn't have any different effect on anything with which I shot it, and I enjoyed shooting it and carrying it less than my 1911.

With a full magazine and a spare on my belt, the supposed weight advantage disappeared.

[kwelz]

Yes they are Antiquated. There are far more effective firearms out there. However that does not mean they are useless or ineffective.

[Walkalong]

Old, but not antiquated....... ;)

My latest purchase was another 1911. Shot it today (http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=124708&d=1280009098). Love it.

[mljdeckard]

I paid $630 NIB for my Kimber Custom II, it's the best handgun I have ever owned. I have carried Glocks, Sigs, Berettas, Taurus, S&W, Para-Ordnance, Ruger, etc.

Don't confuse "Good or Bad" with "I like it and I Don't like it." Personal preference and quality are two completely different things.

When Glocks are 100+ years old, they won't be more popular than ever.

[easyg]

"Out of the box reliability"???

What knid of damn fool is gonna trust their life to a brand new out of the box gun?

I dunno about you but I always put a few hundred rounds through ANY new pistol before I trust it as a carry weapon.

Unless you're a newb and it's your first and only gun why would you carry a gun that hasn't been broken in and tested so you can get a feel for it???
This might come as a surprise to you, but the vast majority of soldiers, Marines, sailors, airmen, and coastguardsmen don't get the luxury of shooting several hundred rounds through their assigned weapons before being deployed to the front lines.

[Taniwha]

Of course the 1911 is an outdated design. It came from an era when weapons were desgned to win fights, not to avoid product liability lawsuits. It came from an era where it was the norm to learn how your weapon operated and to practice that operation until it became second nature, not to design the piece to the lowest common denominator. It came from an era in which our country tried to supply it`s fighting men with the best tools possible, unlike today, when our fighting men and women are issued hardware that was adopted because of international deal-making or the fact that the factory is in some well-connected congressmens district. Yes, Beyond any shadow of a doubt, the 1911 IS an outdated design....and thats exactly what I love about it.
- Rosco S Benson

[Hatterasguy]

My Springfield 1911 has been 100% reliable, I have over 1k rounds through it now and havn't done anything to it other than stick mags in it and shoot.

I'd have no issues taking it into combat, it just seems to work.

I think reliability problems are not because of Brownings design, but because of all the company's that make them, and try to improve or change certain things. A 1911 built to spec is totaly reliable out of the box.

[1911Tuner]

the vast majority of soldiers, Marines, sailors, airmen, and coastguardsmen don't get the luxury of shooting several hundred rounds through their assigned weapons before being deployed to the front lines.

And how often is a brand new, unfired/untested weapon issued to a rifleman who is going in harm's way? They've all been fired, and any problems duly recorded and turned in to the unit armorer for inspection and repair.

[Prosser]

"I would like to know what makes the 1911 antiquated?"

The biggest single factor is that it's still mostly made of steel, or metal.

That, and a lack of magazine capacity. Also, it is an old design, and is VERY easy to work on.

The biggest problem is for some reason, people aren't inclined to buy plastic 1911's with larger mag capacity. Wilson tried it, and they didn't sell.

Also, since so few have been made, you don't have the endless supply of 1911 parts avaliable for it.

I for one, would like the 1911 design, with a double stack magazine, and in polymer.

All that said, the 1911 is NOT antiquated. It's an old, proven design. Glock, Sig Sauer, have certainly come up with higher capacity weapons, that are lighter to carry, and more simple in design. They have not come up with a better trigger, and a gun that is as thin, and easy to conceal, or carry for that matter.

Just because a firearm has a different set of features, and is designed for a different situation doesn't mean that a newer model is better.

Glocks have a certain set of design features, not the least of which is they are real cheap to produce.

Glock designed a gun that is cheap to produce, has the highest capacity, in the lightest package, going. It is very reliable, but, much like the original 1911, they aren't all that accurate, or easy to shoot, and, the loose tolerances designed for combat don't help with accuracy.

[1911Tuner]

much like the original 1911, they aren't all that accurate,

Whoops! Time to shoot another myth in the sittin' place.

The original 1911s were quite accurate, with off the rack/average examples often shooting into a 4-inch circle at 50 yards with issue ball ammo. A number of them would shoot even better with match grade hardball. Many would break the 3 inch line...and that's actually how service pistols were chosen for match tuning. If they'd shoot into 3 inches, they got the nod. If they didn't...even by a tiny bit...they were returned to line duty.

[The Bushmaster]

The old WW-II Colt (or its copy) not accurate? Who said. In 1984 I completed "Expert" with a WW-II Remington-Rand .45 ACP (from ships armory) at 25 yards. Not accurate? I shot a 298 out of 300 score...

[SuperNaut]

In all the years of THR's existence I cannot believe this hasn't been brought up before! Thanks OP for a timely and fresh topic!

[Dobe]

SuperNaut, that's good. What's more difficult to believe is that I'm back in this topic looking for somethng fresh. I did find one for sure. Tuner, I didn't know how some of the match 1911's were selected.

It is amazing how some rumors get started, and no matter how loudly or vehemently one proves the contrary, the myth persist. I remember reading on a forum where a poster had claimed that in order for a 1911 to be reliable, it had to be a rattle-trap. Which meant it would be very inacurrate. He went on to write that in order for a 1911 to be accurate, it had to have extremely tight tolerences. Thus it would be unreliable. I wonder how may of these people actually have owned and shot 1911's, even some of those who say or write that they have.

I believe myths are implanted into young impressionable minds, and are long and lingering. I remember hearing the myth that M16 projectiles started tumbling in fight the moment the projecile left the bore. I have been told this by Viet Nam combat vets. I suppose, if you hear a drill sargeant say that the light M16 bullet will fragment and tumble within a human body, it is not hard for a young mind to extrapolate from this information that the bullet must start tumbling somewhere, why not from the bore?

I have an uncle who still believes that a .45 ACP will knock a man down, and severe his arm, if he is only shot in the hand. It gets to be humorous sometimes. Sometimes, it's just pathetic.

[kmbrman]

All of the talk about the 1911 having to be extremely tight fitted to be accurate is no longer true. More and more of the High End pistols can be easily broken down without a bushing wrench. My Kimber is like this and is more accurate than I can ever shoot it with my level of skill. The quality of the barrel and the smoothness of the trigger also come into play,not to mention the quality of the ammo. But the statement made on one contri about knowing how the qwerks of the 1911 affect the shooters skill, would probably dictate that a newby to auto pistols should use some design simpler at first until he becomes familiar with the operation of the 1911. Then after you become more proficient with a less complex action ,move on to the 1911. It is a more complex arm than a typical striker pistol.

[1911Tuner]

I remember reading on a forum where a poster had claimed that in order for a 1911 to be reliable, it had to be a rattle-trap.

Another one of my favorite myths!

While a little clearance is desirable, one that's so loose you can almost field strip it by shaking it vigorously is as bad or worse from a reliability standpoint than one that's too tight. Those huge clearances let big pieces of grit get into the works.

Loose doesn't guarantee reliability any more than tight guarantees accuracy. By the same token, tight and reliable aren't mutually exclusive. It mostly depends on the skill of the builder, and his attention to detail. I've seen pistols that were far tighter than I like to see'em, but never stopped on any reasonable ammunition. I've also seen a few that met my standards, yet wouldn't make it through a USPSA stage without choking.

Most of my "building" is actually rebuilding and refitting slide to frame clearances with the occasional barrel fitting if needed. I like to see .003 inch of side and vertical play, and I don't fit the barrel so that it pushes the slide up tightly against the frame. .003 inch between the hood and breechface is good, and the same for the sides, though .005 inch at the sides is also good. I like .002 inch clearance between bushing and barrel, and maybe a thou between bushing to slide...but mainly for durability's sake rather than accuracy.

With such clearances, the pistol won't be a contender at Camp Perry, but it'll shoot 3 inches or less at 50 with good ammunition, and it'll run under adverse conditions, even if pretty badly neglected.

Of course, my idea of "perfect" is different from some few others'. My goal is to set it up primarily for reliability and longevity. Accuracy runs a fairly distant third place. If a particular gun will shoot into 2 inches at 50 yards...as long as it runs...I'm as happy as a duck, but it's purely a fluke and not by intent on my part. I'm just as happy if it doesn't do any better than 4 inches...though they normally shoot much better.

[Weevil]

I wonder how may of these people actually have owned and shot 1911's, even some of those who say or write that they have.





Yeah I tend to question the credibility of a lot of these characters, especially the ones who trot out those long lists of all the problem guns they've supposedly owned.

In over 30 years of shooting and at least a couple of dozen handguns I've only had a couple that were lemons, yet these guys claim to have owned a half dozen or more total clunkers from top name makers.


Yeah right!


Either they're extremely unlucky or telling tales and I'd bet money it's the latter.

[surjimmy]

This has come up before, and if I'm reposting I'm sorry. I didn't read every post. Bottom Line 1911 has been around for 100 YEARS has the Glock? NO. I'm not putting down the Glock, but when it's been around for 100 YEARS come talk to me. Every gun factory builds guns to sell to make money, if their guns don't sell no money. Then they go out of business, so there must be a reason why everyone and their dog is making 1911's. Wait.........I think I know this, because THEY SALE. If the design was crap, or they didn't hold enough ammo then they would not sale. So since they are selling and everyone is making them, they must hold enough ammo, not be too heavy, and are NOT a piece of crap. END OF RANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Prosser]

Glock designed a gun that is cheap to produce, has the highest capacity, in the lightest package, going. It is very reliable, but, much like the original 1911, they aren't all that accurate, or easy to shoot, and, the loose tolerances designed for combat don't help with accuracy.

1911Tuner: that is my quote, and don't take it out of context. I've had guys complain that the 1911's they had in WW1 and II were very inaccurate. They said it was due to worn out guns and parts being put into service when they should have been retired.

The guys I'm talking about are not gun stupid.

1911's are my favorite semi-auto, and my comment was really a dig at Glocks. With that horrible trigger, it makes a 1911 combat trigger look like a perfect trigger.

Browning designed the gun to be reliable first, period. It's a combat gun. The glock was designed to be a light weight, cop carry piece, that really isn't used often, but, when it is, has enough rounds to make up for the inaccuracy of the overall package. Glocks have to be accurate enough to pass LEO testing, and that's about it.

I guess I should post my 1911 experience. I shot, everyday, for 5 years, at least 2 hours every other day at the LEO range with a Detonics Combat Master VI.
I shot .451 Detonics level, 200 grain speer flying ashtrays at 1200 fps, all the time. I put stiff springs in the gun, shot the heck out of it, and, it drove tacks. I rarely ever cleaned the gun, and, after the first heavy springs put in it, never changed the springs.
It ran flawlessly for 5 years until the idiot user sold it. I was young, stupid...

I also have a custom smith tuned Kimber 1911, setup for 45 Super, changed timing, etc. and it just drives tacks.

I'm willing to say that perhaps, with a couple hundred thousand rounds through one, a Glock 34 or 35, custom tuned, MIGHT provide the same consistency, and accuracy
I get from a 1911.

Finally no one talks about Glocks flat mag springs, and other use of flat springs.
Flat springs are just not as reliable or consistent, period, as 1911 springs.
These springs caused my SWAT friend to pick Sig Sauer P220
s for our local PD. He's also a licensed S&W gunsmith, so he's no dummy.

[1911Tuner]

I didn't take it out of context, and I wasn't even responding directly to you. I was addressing a myth that keeps popping up, and used part of your post to illustrate and home in on that particular aspect of the debate.

Many times, we can be in agreement on a writer's comments, but in disagreement on a single, important point. We don't argue with the whole, but rather focus on the point.

I often quote a single sentence or even a few words instead of a whole paragraph in order to cut directly to the chase and direct the reader's attention to a point of debate or contention...and I'll continue to do so in the future when it's warranted. In this case, it was the oft-repeated myth that I wanted to address...not necessarily your comment.

[Dobe]

You boys are up early. 'Ya need to at least pour down that first cup before getting back on line.

[CDW4ME]

So far in this thread I've posted my preference for the Glock or XD over the 1911. However, I would chose a lightweight Officers size frame 1911 over some other popular pistols.

In another thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=535000&page=2 I would pick the 1911 over the original OP's current pistol.

Here is what I posted:

"On another THR thread I posted how I prefer the Glock or XD to a 1911.

However, I would rather have a 1911 Officers, CDP compact, or other 5'' height model 1911 over any DA/SA pistol like a Sig 226, Beretta 92 or S&W 5906 ect.... I do not like the DA/SA transition.

I want a consistent trigger whether it's "safe action" or single action.

The 1911 offers a consistent trigger, has a grip that fits most peoples hand, and launches a "big" bullet; it's also thin & flat which makes it fairly easy to conceal.

If I was going to carry a 1911 style pistol it would have a lightweight Officers frame (5'' overall height) and preferably a 4'' or Commander length barrel / slide. I had a Kimber CDP that was exactly what I'm talking about".

Is the 1911 antiquated? No.
Would I prefer a 1911 as described above over a DA/SA pistol? Yes.
Did I really have those various 1911 pistols and 4 out of 6 wouldn't feed 100%? Yes. (In 2007, I quickly traded the SWAT replica back at the store where I bought it for a Glock 38 & 39 (I've already gotten rid of the 39, too chunky for it's size.))

In fairness, I had a Glock 36 that pinched my pinky where the oversize magazine base met the frame, I sold it. Couple of years later I bought another 36 only to experience the same problem again (Duh). I have no love for the Glock 36.

I aslo have no use for the 17,22, or other Glocks with a overall height greater than 5''. This 5'' height requirement applies to XD's, 1911's ect... If I can't conceal carry the pistol without too much trouble it's usefullness is diminished.

I have not yet addressed the Kahr, but might as well. The PM9 is a nice little pistol offering a good blend of power and concealibility with a consistent trigger, I like it. The PM40 however kicks like heck. The PM45 has a stout recoil too and mine was ammo picky. The PM40 and PM45 went bye bye. I'll keep the PM9, but I seriously doubt I'll buy another Kahr.

Summary:
Glock & XD (26,27,33,19,23,32,30SF, XD45 compact, XDsc)= 1st choice
1911 with lightweight Officers frame (concealed carry in mind)= 2nd choice. 2nd place isn't bad. ;)
Semiauto with DA/SA trigger (S&W, Sig) = 3rd choice

[CZ223]

The 1911 design is antiquated in much the same way that the wheel is. Sure it has been a round for a lot of years but it is still relevant and useful. Are there newer designs, sure. Are there some that are better, probably. The fact is that a man armed with a properly tuned 1911, is well armed. Are there reasons to choose other newer high cap guns, sure. But when all is said and done I feel just as comfortable carrying my 1911s as I do carrying my Glocks.

[Jim Watson]

The glock was designed to be a light weight, cop carry piece, that really isn't used often

Actually, the Glock was designed to be an Austrian made Austrian military service pistol to replace their old P38s. Gaston G. got into the gun business because he did not want to see his country have to depend on a foreign supplier. And to make money, of course.

The Glock and the AUG rifle are made to be dead simple to operate because at the time they were adopted, Austria had universal military service with short active duty and there was not much time for training and practice.

[Joe Demko]

The 1911 will still do what it was designed to do. I own a couple of them and carried one as a duty pistol for several years with no worries. That said, I don't get all emotionally overwrought about them, either. I have here a S&W MP 45 that will run right alongside my 1911's in accuracy. In terms of reliability, it equals the Springfield 1911 (both have been free of problems) and exceeds the Colt 1911 (which has required work a couple of times). The Smith holds more ammo than the 1911's, has an even simpler manual of arms, and field strips/reassembles more easily.
Yes, I'd still carry a 1911 and not feel sorry for myself. It still does what it was designed to do. The S&W will do the same job while weighing less and holding more ammo. Snark about "outclassed shooters" aside, I'd rather have more ammo than less at my disposal if there is going to be 2-way shooting.
YMMV.

[1911Tuner]

Snark about "outclassed shooters" aside, I'd rather have more ammo than less at my disposal if there is going to be 2-way shooting.


No snark intended. That falls in line with Cooper's dictum that you're only outgunned if you miss. Hit first. Hit hard. End the fight.
That's the key to surviving.

And, I can't think of anyone who wouldn't prefer to have a Ma Deuce and a thousand belted rounds in a gunfight.

[Mp7]

I guess it´s taste. As the guy from germany i´d happily bring
a Luger to the BBQ .... and most of you would carry 1911s

For going into combat .... make it a Glock.

( interesting, mostly cool-headed thread here guys )

[Joe Demko]

That falls in line with Cooper's dictum that you're only outgunned if you miss. Hit first. Hit hard. End the fight.
That's the key to surviving.

Sage advice, indeed. How does having the four additional rounds per magazine violate Cooper's dictum?

[Walkalong]

So danged antiquated, I bought another one the other day. ;)

It's sweeeeet :D

[06]

Ditto on Walkalong's. It is a SA stainless. My old Colt still works fine and it my "back door" gun. A bud's wife had a Kimber and sent it back--just would not work right. We all get a "lemon" sometimes but will take a 1911 when the chips are needed.

[akadave]

Just finished a 2 day course and put nearly 1,000 rounds of my handload 230gr LRN through my old old Kimber and not one hiccup! I used Bullseye powder too and its really dirty stuff. Cleaned the weapon once and that was the first night of the course.

[Shadowdancer]

I've had both Glocks and 1911's. I'm more accurate with the 1911. It fits my grip better because it is thinner. I stay out of war zones so I don't really need high capacity (besides... my previous carry gun was a S&W Airlite). I don't care that the 1911 is old school. It meets my needs better than any other firearm out there.

[1911Tuner]

How does having the four additional rounds per magazine violate Cooper's dictum?

It doesn't...and that sounds kinda "snarky" in its own right. ;)

Nobody is claiming that more ammo is a bad thing. The point is that there's too much emphasis placed on equipment...and capacity...and that's a faulty approach. I think it was Clint Smith who said that capacity only means anything if you plan on missing a lot.

i.e. If you can't solve your immediate problem with seven rounds of .45 ACP, you're probably in so far over your head that you can't solve it at all...either by way of the situation or the fact that you can't hit your assailant.

Another of Cooper's wisdoms:

"It's the man who wins the fight. His weapon is incidental."

Reference the story of Brown on Resolution.

Condensed version:

Able seaman Brown, taken captive by German sailors abord the gunship Zeithen, jumped ship with a Mauser rifle, and was able to stop all repair work on her by firing on the repair crew from different points on the beach. A powerful warship was thus rendered inconsequential by a 20 year-old British seaman and a bolt-action rifle.

[Joe Demko]

Too much emphasis on equipment and capacity is certainly a bad thing. Gunfights being the uncertain and turbulent environment they are, though, one does want to accrue every possible advantage. This, obviously, means training, practice, and mindset. It also means things like equipment and capacity. See, every training program of which I am aware spends a lot of time on things like being able to reload one's weapon under the stress of battle. Why would I not, therefore, want the weapon with the higher capacity and equal levels of accuracy and reliability? I can shoot more between those magazine changes.
As for "planning on missing a lot," that is very glib but has little to do with using a gun in self-defense. Nobody plans on missing a lot, but if we were able to plan gunfights to be exactly the way we want them to be, I'd simply plan on not having any. Goblins (to use a pet word of Cooper's) don't always react to being shot the way we'd like them to react. Sometimes we have to shoot them some more. Sometimes there is more than one of them. Sometimes they are shooting back.
I try not to be so fixated on equipment that I cling to a particular piece when I could be using something that loses me no advantages and brings me additional ones.

[Dobe]

You give up in order to get. With a 1911, you give up high capacity, in order to have the 1911 ergonomics. You also get that 1911 trigger. I have read that Larry Vickers said that the 1911 was the easiest handgun to shoot well while under pressure. That means a lot. I'll give up capacity for that. Especially since I know there is very little chance of an armed confrontation going beyond 8 or 9 rounds.

[easyg]

I think it was Clint Smith who said that capacity only means anything if you plan on missing a lot.

i.e. If you can't solve your immediate problem with seven rounds of .45 ACP, you're probably in so far over your head that you can't solve it at all...either by way of the situation or the fact that you can't hit your assailant.
Those remarks sound stupid when applied to the 1911, which was designed as a service pistol to be used in war.

In fact, one the 1911's greatest strengths, at the time of its creation, was that it offered greater capacity than the service handgun it was replacing:

the 6-shot revolver.



As a service handgun designed for war the 1911 is clearly antiquated.
As a civilian self-defense handgun it's as relevant as the revolver. ;)

[1911Tuner]

As a service handgun designed for war the 1911 is clearly antiquated.


I guess that's why the Special Operations Capable Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU-SOC) ask for them by name. Or maybe those boys are also antiquated...or stupid...or somethin'...

[easyg]

I guess that's why the Special Operations Capable Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU-SOC) ask for them by name.
If they are asking for a pistol that is a copy of the original 1911 design, including magazine capacity, then yes, that is stupid on their part in my opinion.

Just because one elite unit, within one branch of the military, wants a specific weapon, that does not make that weapon the best tool for the job.

Take the beret for example....
For many years only a few elite units wore the beret (British SAS, US Rangers, SF, and Airborne, etc...), but it's the most useless and stupid form or military headgear used today.
But everybody wanted a beret because that's what the elite wore.
Just utterly stupid. :barf:

[Dobe]

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[The Lone Haranguer]

Antiquated is not the word I would use. Other than the materials from which they are made (much of it related to cost cutting, e.g., plastic and MIM), virtually every firearm out there differs little from its ancestors of 70-100 (or even more) years ago. Rather, it suffers from a huge number of makers building them to different specs, exacerbated by often poor quality control. There seems to be little correlation between price and quality as well.

[Prosser]

I guess part of it comes down to the quality of the people using the gun, and, it's purpose for which they are using it. Glocks to me are simple, inaccurate, with more reliability and durability attributed then is actual.

Glocks have a clear advantage: they are made by one company, and, therefore when you get replacement parts you don't have to worry about if Ed Browns' safety is going to fit your Kimber.

1911's are made by dozens of companies, and even more make quality parts. There is a custom 1911 for EVERYONE, unless you want polymer and a double stack mag.
So, your chances of malfunction with a 1911 are not due to the design itself, but to the fact that they are produced by so many different companies, and, even these companies may use another companies parts. Doesn't happen with a Glock.

Glocks, most of them, are cheap to produce, easy to maintain, kind of sloppy fit on purpose, to allow for ammo variation, dirt, etc.

They are great guns for people that are required to carry a gun, or, someone that is not a gun person. Point, aim, pull terrible trigger, and you've just made a chest shot.

I have found accurate Glocks, but, they are custom tuned 34's and 35's.
Excellent triggers, etc. but, this is not the gun for your average soldier or police officer.

In short, experts can find either a Glock or a 1911 that fits their needs. Non-gun people, or people with limited shooting experience, and limited gun use are going to find a glock
passable, and may even think it's a great gun.

The real advantage to the 1911 is for a reasonable amount, or unreasonable amount,
you can have your own custom gun, designed as you want it.

With a Glock, you buy it, and your options aren't much. What has kept me from getting a Glock is the relatively high initial cost. I really don't think the gun is worth what is asked for it these days. I think Glocks cost is probably around 100 dollars or less, considering the quality of the parts.
I think he's made a LOT of money from his gun company, over 100 million dollars.
I suspect his profit margin is around 500%. I really don't want to give more money to Austria.

[MagnumDweeb]

The 1911 is one of the mostly heavily Custom and Self gunsmithed firearm platforms in the U.S.. It can be found in 9mm, 10mm, .40, .45 ACP, .38 Super, 9x23 Winchester, 9x25 Dillon, .22lr, .460 Rowland, .38 Casull to say the least. If it not had been for companies like Astra, there wouldn't have been the Mustang and Pony .380.

The 1911 is one of the most heavily copied platforms available. In the Phillipines today(Rock Island) the police use 18+1 9mm 1911 copies. Where pistols can still be owned by the public you will find the 1911.

The orignial 1911 like any good tool is not a victim of inefficiency but a victim of technology. And let us be reminded that the great John Mosses Browning was not a man to fixate himself on one design or idea. Had he still lived another twenty years he would have likely invented something better given the newer developments in technology and metallurgy. Had he lived on we could have seen a 1951 so to speak.

Give me a 1911 built hardy enough to digest 10mm doubletap loadings on a regular basis with a nine shot capacity, and I can't think of too many people who wouldn't want to carry that as a side arm to a battle rifle, a 10mm 200 Grain FMJ at 1250 fps and all the government supplies ammo you could practice with would make for a heck of battlefield side arm.

[Hatterasguy]

The 1911's capacity doesn't really bother me. A lot of people still carry and love revolvers and most of them are 5-6 shot guns.

People faught wars and defended themselves for hundreds of years with single shot black powder pistols, and than revolvers before automatics were invented.

I figure if 7 bullets isn't enough I'm on the wrong side of the argument.:D

[Hatterasguy]

The orignial 1911 like any good tool is not a victim of inefficiency but a victim of technology. And let us be reminded that the great John Mosses Browning was not a man to fixate himself on one design or idea. Had he still lived another twenty years he would have likely invented something better given the newer developments in technology and metallurgy. Had he lived on we could have seen a 1951 so to speak.


He did make a modern pistol, its called the Browning Hi Power. Which is another very good pistol, BTW, I'd put it up alongside any Glock 17.:D:neener:

It has a 13 round mag, and I'm sure their are some higher capacity versions. I beleive the militarys standard issue M9's are what 15?

[1911Tuner]

If they are asking for a pistol that is a copy of the original 1911 design, including magazine capacity, then yes, that is stupid on their part in my opinion.

What planet have you been residing on? They aren't asking for it. They have it, and they've been putting it to good use in the Middle Eastern Theater for several years now...and quite effectively, according to the reports.

[FuzzyBunny]

The 1911 just fits my hand better.

[Billy Shears]

If they are asking for a pistol that is a copy of the original 1911 design, including magazine capacity, then yes, that is stupid on their part in my opinion.
Yeah, those highly trained professionals couldn't possibly know what fits their needs best.:rolleyes:

[easyg]

Yeah, those highly trained professionals couldn't possibly know what fits their needs best.
There are many elite highly trained professionals fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.
And a lot of them use different handguns.
The fact that one small group of them prefers an outdated service pistol does not impress me.


Again, the 1911 is a great pistol.
The design is pure genius.
But as a service pistol its day has come and gone.
There are simply better choices available today.

[Prosser]

Handguns are trade offs. The 1911 platform has some features that are NOT antiquated. The grip is a size, and design that lets a large number of people shoot it well. Likewise the trigger, sites, and the slim package.

Other service pistols compromise. The Browning High Power gives you a thicker grip, trigger that isn't as good, but it's close. Still, its 9mm.

The other service wonder nines sacrifice trigger, grip size, overall ergometrics, to accomplish their goal. And I nearly forgot recoil as part of the equation.
The usually heavier 1911 design is exceptional at absorbing recoil.

Depending upon which group you are trying to provide a service arm for, or whatever your intended purpose, the combination of caliber, and design may work or not.

One size does not fit all, and, the 1911, in it's variety has a viable, current, feature group.

[1911Tuner]

There are many elite highly trained professionals fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. And a lot of them use different handguns.
The fact that one small group of them prefers an outdated service pistol does not impress me.

There's a small but important difference. Most of the personnel who are issued handguns in a war zone have no real expectation of using them. Officers...Mortar and tank crews...Forward observers, etc. For the ones that actually carry a pistol with the possibility of shooting someone with it, it's there as an emergency backup weapon when everything is going to hell in a handbasket and the rifle is broken or dry. As a rule, 11B/0311 personnel aren't issued handguns, and are usually forbidden to carry them....even though many do in violation of policy.

The MEU-SOC personnel are the tip of the sword. They go into an AO with the expectation of fighting, and the pistol is much more than a fallback or expedient, last-ditch means of staying alive. They use them for extreme close quarters engagements and house clearing in tight dwellings...where the rifles would be a hindrance. They use rifles whenever possible, but the pistol is as much a first-response weapon as is the M4, and they train to use it as such, with each man firing upward of 25,000+ rounds annually in practice. They know that they'll be shooting people with that pistol...people who are doing their best to kill them.

They specifically asked for the .45 to be refurbished and returned to service because they weren't confident with the 9mm ball cartridge or the M9, even with 15 rounds on tap...and the Beretta M92/M9 has proven to be troublesome in the mid-east environment...while the 1911 has fared much better.

To quote part of an article that I read a few days ago...

"They wanted the .45 because of its reliability and its lethality."

Reports that trail in say that rarely is there a need to shoot twice with the .45 auto.

Whether or not you're impressed with their choice is of no consequence. They are...
and that's strong evidence that it has something going for it besides doublestack capacity, double-action, and a decocker thingy.

[Billy Shears]

Whether or not you're impressed with their choice is of no consequence. They are...
and that's strong evidence that it has something going for it besides doublestack capacity, double-action, and a decocker thingy.
Well said. A lot of people are overly impressed with magazine capacity, and like easyg here, seem to think that if a pistol isn't a hi cap, lightweight, DA it's an antiquated piece of junk. They forget that for soldiers, pistols are weapons of last resort, and even cops, for whom they are the primary weapon, take a long gun into situations where a fight seems likely, and if you are in a situation where you need 40+ rounds and you have to rely on a pistol, you're pretty much screwed six ways from Sunday. Most of time time, and this even applies to cops and soldiers (even elite ones) the fight is over with a relatively small number of pistol rounds expended. Thus, magazine capacity and/or quick reloading is a nice thing to have, but it's not necessarily foremost. Reliability, lethality, and ergonomics all come in ahead. The 1911 has them, thanks to its slim grip, low bore axis, powerful cartridge, and single action trigger, and to this day there is no other pistol that allows faster accurate fire. And given today's liability conscious society, there probably never will be, since it seems unlikely that any modern service pistol will ever again be designed with a single action trigger.

Seriously, what is it that make people like easyg dismiss it as antiquated? The single stack magazine? As I said, they put too much emphasis on magazine capacity, the vast majority of the time, a shooter won't need even the eight rounds a 1911 has available, so why must a gun have more? And the single stack magazine has advantages: a slimmer, more ergonomic grip that fits even smaller hands well, and this makes it easier for many people to shoot. Since only hits count, that's an advantage for some people. The single action trigger? It takes slightly more training time, but not much more, and the light, consistent, short pull rewards the skilled shooter by increasing his ability to hit the target with rapid follow up shots. This is another advantage. The greater weight of an all steel pistol? Again, this soaks up recoil, and in a holster, the extra few ounces are hardly noticeable. The fact that the 1911 is an older design, with more machining, and thus greater cost? This may make it less ideal than a more modern handgun for general issue, but for elite shooters, the extra capability that the gun gives them is worth the extra money.

Bottom line is that the elite shooters who prefer the 1911 have the skill, training, and experience to know what fits their needs best, and to know what particular qualities are most important in a handgun, and knowing these things, they still tend to prefer the 1911. Whether easyg or anyone else understands this or not, that's how it is.

[1911Tuner]

Billy, when I hear somebody talk smack about the old/outdated/obsolete 1911, and sing the praises of the Glock/Sig/HKUSP...I wonder if they're aware that those three fine/new/modern pistols have the heart of Browning's brainchild beating within them.

All three of those are short recoil, locked breech, tilt barrel designs. They work exactly the same way, and the ergonomics are incidental.

Double-action capability means nothing in the military...which has a policy of Condition Three carry until something is about to happen.

A smaller, lighter caliber that's less effective for man killing in the Hague acceptable hardball loadings.

A 9mm pistol with a double column/single feed position magazine. New? Innovative? Hardly. John Browning and Dieudonne Saive had that part figured out in the 1920s.

A decocker that's probably not a bad idea for conscripts who've had little training with the pistol beyond familiarization and qualifying, but is essentially an answer in search of a question for those who make an effort to learn to use a thumb safety until such time that the gun can be properly cleared and reholstered...in Condition Three as per Uncle Sugar's policy.

Now, then. Let's have a look at the Beretta 92 series...or M9 if you prefer.

Think that one is all new and superior? The product of a modern design genius? Head and shoulders above all others that have preceeded it?

Sorry. Wrong again. Go field strip a Walther P38 beside the Beretta and see whatcha think.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Good post, by the way.

[Prosser]

Billy Shears you bring up an intresting point. If glock did design the gun for the Austrian military, short time, poorly trained, maybe the high capacity mags are because they expect
the people to miss, and, they NEED the extra rounds?
Combine that with a trigger glock knows is not condusive to good shooting, and the design starts to make sense.

Also, let's not forget that the military has to play with ball ammo.

The Beretta's that have been the issue gun simply aren't that accurate, and, 9mm ball just doesn't hit like a .45ACP ball ammo.

Despite Glocks puffing, a Glock has NO safety. If you take the trigger down to the 1911 level, you now have a gun that is REALLY unsafe for carry, or use by police or military.

These limitations are just that.

[Billy Shears]

Billy Shears you bring up an intresting point. If glock did design the gun for the Austrian military, short time, poorly trained, maybe the high capacity mags are because they expect
the people to miss, and, they NEED the extra rounds?
Perhaps, but since I think they expect pistols to get little actual combat use, I suspect it has more to do with the dimensions of the 9mm cartridge -- since it's a cartridge that allows a high capacity magazine without making the grip unmanageably large, why not give it a high capacity magazine?

European armies have generally been a lot less concerned over pistols than we have. I've read that a lot of European military officers thought we made an unnecessarily large production over our pistol selection when we switched to the Beretta in the 1980s, given that pistols are really seldom used in combat. And I think that historically, American soldiers have tended to get slightly more use from their pistols, for whatever reason. Noted firearms expert Ian V. Hogg wrote about the gun the British issued in WWII, the Enfield .38/200 revolver, that "As a hip-shooting emergency weapon it was serviceable enough, but I have been unable to find any reliable record of it being used to good effect." About the 1911, by contrast, he wrote "There is no doubt that it was the most widely used of combat pistols (perhaps because the Americans are rather more 'hand-gun oriented') and there are innumerable stories of its effectiveness in combat."

I think American forces really have tended to use handguns more than European armies. The Austrians probably selected the Glock for service because it's dead simple, and admittedly very reliable. It has a small number of parts, its incredibly easy for armorers to work on, and it is easy to shoot when needed. That makes it ideal as a general issue sidearm from a cost-effectiveness standpoint.

[Hatterasguy]

Old design? I put 250 rounds through my 1911 today and shot just as well if not better than my friend with his brand new Sig 239 and 92FS.

The 1911 can still keep up with any modern pistol. I'll keep my 1911 thank you very much.
:cool:

[Hatterasguy]

Old design? I put 250 rounds through my 1911 today and shot just as well if not better than my friend with his brand new Sig 239 and 92FS. Now its filthy and covered in powder but keeping watch on my night stand, still 100% reliable.:cool:

The 1911 can still keep up with any modern pistol. I'll keep my 1911 thank you very much.
:cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKBpbGoEN_U
Here is a 1911 in its natural habitat, light duty mud; not anywhere near WW1 trench mud, Battle of the Bulge mud, or Iwo Jima sand. But still a good light duty test. You can argue about civilian use, but no other pistol has proven itself in combat for the last 100 years like the 1911 has. It doesn't have to defend itself, its record speaks for it.

Glock needs another 60-80 years.

[tipoc]

From Easyg

Again, the 1911 is a great pistol.
The design is pure genius.
But as a service pistol its day has come and gone.
There are simply better choices available today.

The day when the 1911 was the weapon of choice for arming the U.S. military (aside from a number of special forces units) has passed. The U.S. military wanted a da/sa weapon with an alloy frame, a decocker and in 9mm with a higher round count. They have that. That is the direction most militaries and law enforcement agencies world wide went in following the second world war. There are reasons for that. But that the 1911 was antiquated or useless wasn't one of them.

It is simply a fact that, aside from some special forces units and a number of elite SWAT type units in the U.S. the 1911 will not see wide spread usage again as a military or police sidearm. It could be usefull to discuss the reasons for that. I think it has more to do with broader changes in military doctrine and in police practice than with what some see as weakness in the 1911's design.

On this point what easyg had to say was right. As a military sidearm the 1911 has been by passed. I disagree that it has been passed over for "better choices" as easy believes, but because doctrine and needs changed.

tipoc

[postalnut25]

I've been reading this thread and it is somewhat amusing. 1911s are love or hate firearms, just like Glocks. There is no middle ground. I only have issue with one thing said so far.

"The Beretta's that have been the issue gun simply aren't that accurate"

I am NOT a fan of the M9 that I carry on a daily basis. However, I'll pull the B******T flag on this statement. The issue M9s are very accurate. That is about the only thing I like about them.

[TonyT]

It's diffcult to call a pistol which has been around for almost a century and currently manufactured by more firms than the fingers on my hands antiquated.

In the normal pstol games I do enjoy shooting the 1911 platform as it provides me with the fastest second shot capabilioty.

For serious purposes whether carried or at home I opt for more modern designs without any external safeties.

[easyg]

Whether or not you're impressed with their choice is of no consequence. They are...
and that's strong evidence that it has something going for it besides doublestack capacity, double-action, and a decocker thingy.
I think that you are assuming that everyone in MEU-SOC wants the 1911.
Having been in the military I can assure you that if you take 50 Marines, or 50 soldiers, (even from elite "tip of the sword" units) and ask them what handgun they prefer for combat you will probably get about 30 different answers.
But the simple truth of the matter is that those who are kicking down doors seldom get to choose their weapons, even in elite units.
Do you really believe that every SEAL wants a Sig or a Beretta?
Or that every SAS member wants a BHP or a SIG?
Of course not!


A lot of people are overly impressed with magazine capacity, and like easyg here, seem to think that if a pistol isn't a hi cap, lightweight, DA it's an antiquated piece of junk.
Nowhere did I ever say that the 1911 is a "piece of junk".
It's just outdated as a service pistol.
40+ oz for only 7+1 shots???
No way. Not in this day and age.

And yes, a single-stack 1911 is very comfortable in the hand.
But a double-stack Glock 23 or a Glock 19 is certainly not uncomfortable in the hand.
Neither is a double-stack CZ 75B .40 or 9mm pistol.

Just because a pistol is high capacity that does not mean that it must be uncomfortable to hold and shoot.

[Billy Shears]

Nowhere did I ever say that the 1911 is a "piece of junk".
It's just outdated as a service pistol.
40+ oz for only 7+1 shots???
No way. Not in this day and age.
Yes, way. Absolutely in this day and age. You also essentially just declared revolvers obsolete as well (they're just as heavy, have even fewer rounds, and are even slower to reload). Sorry, not buying it.

Again, you're stuck on magazine capacity, and there is precious little evidence that magazine capacity is critical in the vast majority of gunfights involving handguns, and that includes use by law enforcement or the military. The overwhelming majority of shooting incidents involving handguns are concluded with less than those 7+1 rounds fired, and given that this is so, why are you going to elevate a theoretically nice, but in reality seldom used capability to the very front rank of your selection criteria? *

The 1911's short, light, quick resetting trigger -- which is really why these elite shooters want it -- is unsurpassed. It rewards high levels of skill with an increased ability to deliver accurate rapid fire, and that enhanced ability to get rounds on target more quickly under stress is a lot more valuable to these highly skilled shooters than an extra ten rounds that they are unlikely ever to need (and which, if they do, they can get with the expedient of a very fast speed reload anyway).

And yes, a single-stack 1911 is very comfortable in the hand.
But a double-stack Glock 23 or a Glock 19 is certainly not uncomfortable in the hand.
Neither is a double-stack CZ 75B .40 or 9mm pistol.

Just because a pistol is high capacity that does not mean that it must be uncomfortable to hold and shoot.
I never said it was. But a lot of people find the 1911 still more comfortable and shoot it better. Many also want that wonderful trigger because it allows them to shoot better, and a gun that you can shoot eight rounds more accurately from is an advantage over a gun that allows you to shoot more rounds less accurately -- again only hits count, and a gun that increases your ability to achieve hits is an advantage over one that merely gives you more rounds. This may not apply to you, but it does apply to some people, and just who exactly are you to say their choice is "stupid"? (Frankly it seems to me that that word might apply better to someone who presumes to tell a highly trained, highly skilled special ops soldier, with more experience than he has, that he's doing it wrong.) Finally, some people, especially in the military where hardball is mandated, want the .45 over the 9mm.

*I'm amazed at how commonly people do this -- base their decisions on criteria that they haven't really thought out, and which they haven't checked to see if their assumptions match observed reality. When I was going through the police academy, they divided us up in pairs and told us to argue opposite sides of an issue (this was supposed to prepare us to articulate our arguments better, and make us testify more effectively in court). My partner and I picked an argument involving sidearms. I argued for allowing officers to select from a range of approved sidearms (as some departments do), and he argued for having one standardized weapon that everyone had to use. We each argued our sides, and the class was allowed a couple of minutes to ask us each a few questions. One know-it-all declared with finality that standardized weapons were the way to go, because if we both responded to a scene, and he had shot up all his ammo, having the same weapon would allow him to stay in the fight by borrowing one of my magazines. Sounds nice too, doesn't it? I saw heads around the class nodding (even one of the instructors) as people found that argument persuasive. Fortunately I had done my homework. I have been unable to find even a single instance, ever, in the entire history of American law enforcement where patrol officers got into a gunfight like that, and one officer had to use another's magazines because he'd gone through all his ammo. Not one. So how likely is that capability ever to be needed? And more than that, we would be carrying, once sworn in and on the street, one fifteen round magazine in the pistol, and two twelve rounders as spares (the department issued the S&W 6906 at the time). Along with the round carried in the chamber, that makes a total of forty rounds. I asked this know-it-all why, if he has managed to fire off forty rounds at the suspect(s) without neutralizing the threat, I would ever give one of my magazines to him. Some of those same people who had been nodding (including the instructor) now laughed.

The point is that some capabilities sound very nice in theory, but when you actually look at the evidence, it turns out that other criteria prove to be much more important in the real world.

[harmon rabb]

Honestly, it's almost laughable to see some of the guys on here defending a smaller magazine capacity, as if it's a good thing... and having contempt for a larger magazine capacity, as if it's a bad thing. Ridiculous.

The 1911 has many great points, no doubt about it, but its magazine capacity is downright antiquated and outclassed. Sorry.

[Billy Shears]

Honestly, it's almost laughable to see some of the guys on here defending a smaller magazine capacity, as if it's a good thing... and having contempt for a larger magazine capacity, as if it's a bad thing. Ridiculous.

Straw man. I never said it was a bad thing, nor do I have contempt for a large magazine capacity. I merely assert that it is not nearly as high in importance as some people seem to think. And sorry, but the demonstrable fact that most gunfights don't require that much ammo, along with the continued selection and effective use of the 1911 by some of the top shooters who depend on a firearm for their lives tends to support my assertion thank you very much.

The 1911 has many great points, no doubt about it, but its magazine capacity is downright antiquated and outclassed. Sorry.
Yeah, sorry the facts do show that the 1911 can and does continue to be used effectively in combat, and remains the first choice of some of the most elite shooters who can pick any gun they want.

[1911Tuner]

The 1911 has many great points, no doubt about it, but its magazine capacity is downright antiquated and outclassed.

Outclassed how, exactly? If you rapid-fire and set the air to howlin' with hot lead in the general direction of your foe...it may have some merit for suppressive fire...but that can't be counted on too heavily to keep you alive. What keeps you alive is hitting him first...hitting him hard...and ending the fight as quickly as possible. As in "The sooner it's over, the less shot you get."

Like Billy...I never said more ammunition is bad. I just think that too much emphasis is placed on it.

Remember...Spray and pray doesn't work well, and you're only outgunned if you miss. Depending on the equipment to save the day is bad policy. The man wins the fight. His weapon is incidental.

[Joe Demko]

The lower magazine capacity is not a flaw, it's a feature.:rolleyes:

"Planning on missing a lot..." I'll say again that this is very glib and might be amusing if we were talking about a weapon to be used for hunting or other hobbyist pursuits. As I said upthread, I own a couple 1911's and I carried one as a duty pistol. I feel far from unarmed with one in my hand. I've put thousands of rounds through 1911's, so I know quite well about the nice trigger and everything else that the design's accolytes keep bringing up here. For an actual combat weapon, increased ammo capacity is a positive thing; provided the grip size doesn't become unwieldy. My S&W MP 45 fits my hand very well. It has a trigger that is more than good enough, though admittedly not the equal of my Springfield 1911 which had a trigger job done by a gunsmith. It has been flawlessly reliable, which I can't say for my Colt 1911. With a full magazine and one in the chamber, it has 11 rounds at my disposal. With two extra magazines on my belt, as we carried back in my deputy dawg days, that makes 31 rounds available to protect my precious, precious ***. When I carried the 1911, the total rounds available to protect my *** was eight in the gun plus 14 more on the belt for a total of 22. So, because I like having the extra rounds does that mean I am planning on missing a lot or that I am some kind of untrained dufus? No, it means that I have examined the pros and cons of two differing models of handguns and found that, all things considered, the Smith offers me some very desirable advantages over the 1911. To whit: the only advantage the 1911 offers is a somewhat improved trigger AFTER it has had the attention of a gunsmith. If my only goal here were punching holes closely together in paper on a sunny day at the range, the 1911 would have a clear advantage for that purpose and it would get the nod.

[harmon rabb]

Straw man. I never said it was a bad thing, nor do I have contempt for a large magazine capacity. I merely assert that it is not nearly as high in importance as some people seem to think.

For a carry gun, I agree, it's not all that important. Hell, I carry a revolver sometimes, a 7+1 single stack 9mm other times, a 6+1 single stack .380 still other times, etc. But, I doubt anybody gets into a self defense situation and, afterward, says "damn, i wish i didn't have all that ammo with me."

However, for a service weapon? Get the hell out of here. Large capacity is necessary.

[Billy Shears]

The lower magazine capacity is not a flaw, it's a feature.
Whether you mean to be or not, you are actually partly right. Some instructors, such as Stephen Wenger have commented, on the issue of high capacity: "This would seem to be an advantage, except that experience suggests having a lot of rounds in the gun seems to discourage good marksmanship."

There's some truth to this. Having a large number of rounds in the magazine does seem to encourage some shooters to "spray and pray" rather than practice good marksmanship.

[Gryffydd]

40+ oz for only 7+1 shots???
If you're going to be so oddly obsessed with magazine capacity you could at least be accurate and call it 8+1 ;)

[easyg]

You also essentially just declared revolvers obsolete as well (they're just as heavy, have even fewer rounds, and are even slower to reload). Sorry, not buying it.
Obsolete as a service handgun?
Absolutely!
Both revolvers and the 1911 are outdated as service handguns.
For civilian self-defense either will do just fine.
But I would never saddle our fighting men and women with a revolver and then send them to war.

Again, you're stuck on magazine capacity, and there is precious little evidence that magazine capacity is critical in the vast majority of gunfights involving handguns, and that includes use by law enforcement or the military.
Evidence that magazine capacity is critical???


A soldier never knows how many of the enemy he might encounter in any given firefight.
And, unlike most civilian shootings, most combat force-on-force firefights are not over in 3-5 shots.

A soldier never knows when he might be separated from his unit and be forced to hold out until friendlies arrive, or fight his way back to friendlies.

A soldier never knows when he might be in a situation where resupply is impossible for days, and sometimes even weeks.

A soldier never knows when he will need to share ammo with his fellow soldiers:
You have 4 magazines of ammo...you meet three other soldiers who are out of ammo...now you each have 1 magazine of ammo.

A paratrooper never knows which jump will land him off course and far from friendlies.



The fact is that, in the military, sometimes what you have on your person is ALL that you will have for quite a while.
Often there's no backup on the way and often there's no going back to get more ammo or supplies.
And when you have exhausted all of your rifle ammo, your handgun will become your primary weapon.

And more bullets is better than less.



One of the reasons the 1911 was chosen to replace the revolver in the military was because it offered more capacity.

Even in 1911 the military understood that more bullets in the gun was better than less.

[Billy Shears]

For a carry gun, I agree, it's not all that important. Hell, I carry a revolver sometimes, a 7+1 single stack 9mm other times, a 6+1 single stack .380 still other times, etc. I doubt anybody gets into a self defense situation and, afterward, says "damn, i wish i didn't have all that ammo with me."

However, for a service weapon? Get the hell out of here. Large capacity is necessary.
Prove it.

You'll find that harder than you think, since most shootouts don't involve that many rounds fired.

Even for law enforcement (and I ought to know, since that's my career), where the handgun is the primary weapon most of the time, not all that many shots are fired. Back in the days when the Colt SAA was picked for the army, it was selected over the faster reloading S&W Schofield because the army didn't consider fast reloading important. Most cavalry soldiers only carried twelve rounds of pistol ammunition on their persons, and experience from both the Civil War and Indian fighting showed they seldom needed to fire more than the five shots carried in their revolvers in any given engagement. Today, even though more firepower in general is the rule, remember that the pistol is the weapon of last resort. The back up. These special ops soldiers do use their handguns, but they primarily rely on long guns, and the handgun is secondary.

If high capacity were really that critical in a pistol, don't you think the special ops soldiers who have to use their handguns in combat would know it? And knowing it, don't you think they would make it a priority? Remember, these are the guys with the most training and experience. If they found the 1911's capacity lacking, there wouldn't be as many of them choosing it. That suggests to me that in real world use, they seem to think it meets their needs quite well. It's hard to argue with experience.

[easyg]

If you're going to be so oddly obsessed with magazine capacity you could at least be accurate and call it 8+1.
Nope. The original 1911 had a 7 round magazine.

[easyg]

If high capacity were really that critical in a pistol, don't you think the special ops soldiers who have to use their handguns in combat would know it? And knowing it, don't you think they would make it a priority?
News flash for you:
The vast majority of special ops soldiers, from armies, all around the world, DO carry high capacity handguns.

Only a tiny percentage of special ops. units prefer low capacity weapons like the 1911.
And none that I know of routinely carry revolvers.

[Billy Shears]

Obsolete as a service handgun?
Absolutely!
Both revolvers and the 1911 are outdated as service handguns.
For civilian self-defense either will do just fine.
But I would never saddle our fighting men and women with a revolver and then send them to war.
Why not? For most the revolver would do just fine. Once again you are overlooking real world experience in light of your theoretical ideas. For years, the air force issued .38 revolvers, and found they served quite well. In World Wars One and Two, the army filled out its issue of handguns with Colt and Smith & Wesson M1917 revolvers, and those guns were used very effectively in combat. The revolver, being very simple and reliable in operation, has certain advantages, especially for troops who seldom actually have to use handguns, and get very little training with them.

Evidence that magazine capacity is critical???

Yeah, like documented proof that most gunfights involving handguns require more than seven or eight rounds. You will find such proof hard to come by, since most gunfights, it turns out, don't require that many.

A soldier never knows how many of the enemy he might encounter in any given firefight.
And, unlike most civilian shootings, most combat force-on-force firefights are not over in 3-5 shots.
Again, prove it. This is just an assertion. You are forgetting two key facts. First, the handgun is not the primary weapon for a soldier, it is a backup. Second, the soldier is not alone on the field facing the barbarian hordes (and if he is, and all he has is a handgun, he's screwed anyway), he is usually accompanied by his squad, platoon, company, etc., and he most often only has to engage one or two targets himself, because his buddies are engaging all the others (and in the vast majority of exceptions to this, he's using his rifle or carbine to engage these multiple targets, not a handgun).

A soldier never knows when he might be separated from his unit and be forced to hold out until friendlies arrive, or fight his way back to friendlies.

A soldier never knows when he might be in a situation where resupply is impossible for days, and sometimes even weeks.

A soldier never knows when he will need to share ammo with his fellow soldiers:
You have 4 magazines of ammo...you meet three other soldiers who are out of ammo...now you each have 1 magazine of ammo.

A paratrooper never knows which jump will land him off course and far from friendlies.



The fact is that, in the military, sometimes what you have on your person is ALL that you will have for quite a while.
Often there's no backup on the way and often there's no going back to get more ammo or supplies.
And when you have exhausted all of your rifle ammo, your handgun will become your primary weapon.

And more bullets is better than less.
Yes, but everything is a trade off. The point you seem determined to miss is that the 1911 is often chosen by those who want it because it is seen by them as an acceptable trade off to give up a few extra rounds of a backup weapon that is not likely to be used much anyway, in exchange for increased hit probability and increased stopping power.

ne of the reasons the 1911 was chosen to replace the revolver in the military was because it offered more capacity.

Even in 1911 the military understood that more bullets in the gun was better than less.
All things being equal, yes. But all things are not equal. To get that extra capacity you make certain sacrifices, like stepping down to a less powerful round, and sacrificing the superb single action trigger that increases hit probability for those with the skill to use it to full advantage.

[Billy Shears]

News flash for you:
The vast majority of special ops soldiers, from armies, all around the world, DO carry high capacity handguns.
Bully for them. If that's what they prefer, then I'm sure they have good reason for it. And I would not arrogantly presume to call their choice "stupid" because I personally would pick a different gun.

Only a tiny percentage of special ops. units prefer low capacity weapons like the 1911.
Yet those that do (Delta Force, LAPD SWAT, FBI HRT, et al.) are among the most elite in the world, and they have the skill, training, and experience to evaluate their own needs best. Having done so, they prefer the 1911, and it works quite well for them.

[918v]

Taken from one of my previous postings:

The main reason I shoot the Glock is because of the 1911. I hate the 1911 because:

1. After thousands of dollars worth of quality gunsmithing work by American Handgunner Club 100 gunsmiths, with every part of the gun tuned or adjusted for maximum reliability, 1911s, in my experience, will still jam, FTF or FTE, never in practice and always during a match . You can take a Glock out of the box, check the bore for grease or obstructions, and take it out and shoot it, and it will run.

If you hog out a 1911 chamber to the same dimensions as a Glock, it too will run any POS handload.

2. Glocks have no grip screw bushings or grip screws to come loose. Most new 1911s, in my experience, will have at least one grip screw bushing come loose when you take the grips off the first time, and it is usually attached to the grip screw itself, and it screws out of the frame.

Heard of Locktite?

3. A stock Glock does not hurt your hand and draw blood when you shoot it, unlike a 1911A1 with the stock hammer and the stock grip safety (YMMV, but it does it to me).

It does too. Every KB I have read about involves at least a little blood drawn.

4. A stock Glock does not have to have aftermarket expensive magazines to function properly (ie Wilson's). IME the magazine that comes with most 1911s was made by the lowest bidder with soft metal bodies and feed lips. You do not have to "tune" the magazines or buy aftermarket magazines for a Glock.

If you buy a quality 1911, i.e. Colt or Springfield, you will not need aftermatket magazines.

5. The number one PITA with a 1911, the extractor. Most 1911s out of the box will have to have their extractor replaced with a better quality unit to maintain extractor tension. The Glock extractor is fine out of the box.

Extractors ar cheap and easy.

6. Glocks do not have plunger tubes that will come off of the frame. I once had a Series One Kimber, and during shooting the plunger tube came off. A gunsmith charged me 50 DOLLARS to replace that plunger tube (at that time about a six dollar part that took two minutes to install). That is the main incident that attracted me to the Glock. No plunger tube.

You talk about rare occurances as if they are common. Glocks KB alot more frequently than 1911 punger tubes failing.

YMMV, but these are the main things that make me hate the 1911. Too much money for not enough gun.

And paying $500 for a $250 gun isn't too much money?

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

In addition to the above, a Glock peens near the ejection port and at the barrel shoulder. Glocks tear frame rails as well.

The main problem with these types of debates is the utility of a pistol depends on ergonomics. Some people prefer the 1911 grip to the Glock and vice versa. Some people prefer the crispness of the 1911 trigger to the long and sloppy striker of the Glock. Some people prefer wood to plastic, etc.

[1911Tuner]

Well now, if we're gonna apply this to military service where the ammunition is restricted to ball ammunition...

It's been reported many times that the 9mm isn't cutting it in the Middle East, often requiring 3 or 4 center hits to bring their man down. The SOC Marine units report that it rarely takes more than one solid hit with the .45 auto to do it. So, if we start with 16 rounds in the M9...and assuming even 2 rounds per insurgent/terrorist/freedom fighter, or whatevery you want to call him...the capacity advantage reaches the point of diminishing returns. If it steps up ro 3 rounds per target...it goes in the negative direction.

Neither is the wide open M9 faring all that well in the talcum powder-like sand.
According to the guys carrying the 1911, it's much more reliable under those conditions.
It still requires reasonable care, of course, but it seems that caliber isn't the only reason that it got the nod.

The rifle remains the primary smallarm in these units, with the pistol used only when the expected action will be so close that even the short M4 is hindered.

This can go on and on, and nobody is going to change anybody's mind with any argument. All we can do is decide for ourselves which pistol we'd rather carry in a similar situation. I'll cast my vote for the .45 caliber 1911...not because I think it's perfect or because I feel like it's the Hammer of Thor. I'd choose it because it's relaible under adverse conditions, and because the caliber is proven...but mostly because it's what I shoot best with. The 1911's ergonomics are conducive to fast hits...and only hits count. If I wanted more capacity, I'd pick the High Power over any of the modern offerings for that same reason...that being it's easier for me to shoot well. Of course, your mileage may vary.

We're into the 7th page of beating this horse. I'm pretty bored with it. Ya'll have fun, though.

Be nice! :)

[easyg]

Once again you are overlooking real world experience in light of your theoretical ideas.
Well, there's no way that you could know this, so I don't take offense....
But I have been in Iraq, and I have been in a firefight.
My opinions are not based upon "theoretical ideas".

More bullets in your weapon, be it rifle or handgun, are better than less....especially in combat.

Yeah, like documented proof that most gunfights involving handguns require more than seven or eight rounds. You will find such proof hard to come by, since most gunfights, it turns out, don't require that many.

You can't compare civilian gunfights with combat engagements between opposing military units.
In most civilian shootings it is easy to document exactly how many rounds had been fired and from exactly which gun.
This is not true of military engagements.
How many handgun rounds were fired on D-Day?
How many rounds did Marines shoot from their 1911's on Iwo Jima?


Second, the soldier is not alone on the field facing the barbarian hordes (and if he is, and all he has is a handgun, he's screwed anyway), he is usually accompanied by his squad, platoon, company, etc., and he most often only has to engage one or two targets himself, because his buddies are engaging all the others.
I wish this were true, sadly it's not.
Too often, especially when making a trip to a nearby support unit, it's often just you and your driver and no one else.
I know because I've been there.


Remember these sailors....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38424239/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/


And what about these soldiers....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062000242.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8127636&page=1

Call it mistakes, call it the "fog of war", call it lack of leadership, call it whatever you like....but sometimes soldiers find themselves far from home and far from help.
It's very seldom like that for police or civilian shooters.



Again...
More bullets in the weapon, handgun or rifle, is better than less.

[myasis]

The 1911 design is a proven design and just because it is 99 years old does not mean it is antiquated. Improvements have been made along the way and it is an extremely reliable and accurate handgun.

I have a Wilson Combat and it is a piece of art and reliable as ever and accurate.

[Billy Shears]

Well, there's no way that you could know this, so I don't take offense....
But I have been in Iraq, and I have been in a firefight.
And did you even have a handgun at all? Most soldiers don't. I wasn't in Iraq, but I was in the infantry, and most of us didn't have one, even the officers. When you're on long foot march, carrying a heavy ruck every ounce matters, and few people wanted to be bothered with the extra weight for a weapon they'd almost certainly never use. But if more bullets were better and that was it, period, how could you justify that decision? The fact you won't admit is that there are also other considerations besides magazine capacity, and those other considerations might just be more important, in the balance. Is having eighteen rounds in a weapon better than having eight in a weapon that you shoot better with, and which has more stopping power?

My opinions are not based upon "theoretical ideas".

More bullets in your weapon, be it rifle or handgun, are better than less....especially in combat.
See above. Is it worth the trade offs you have to make to get it. Strictly by that logic, it would be best to have a .22LR as your weapon, because that's what you could carry the most rounds for. If you want a hi cap 9mm as your sidearm, and that's what you shoot best with, then that does indeed make it the best choice for you. Other people -- very experienced and highly skilled people with more experience than either of us -- however, shoot better with the 1911, and like the .45's stopping power, and to dismiss their choice as "stupid" is, frankly, absurd. They know what works best for them.

You can't compare civilian gunfights with combat engagements between opposing military units.
In most civilian shootings it is easy to document exactly how many rounds had been fired and from exactly which gun.
This is not true of military engagements.
How many handgun rounds were fired on D-Day?
How many rounds did Marines shoot from their 1911's on Iwo Jima?
It wouldn't surprise me to discover none at all. Remember the pistol is a backup. That just reinforces the fact that eight rounds, and a quick reload will probably be more than adequate for a soldier or marine who makes little use of that weapon, and much use of his others.

Remember these sailors....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38424239..._central_asia/


And what about these soldiers....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062000242.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8127636&page=1

Call it mistakes, call it the "fog of war", call it lack of leadership, call it whatever you like....but sometimes soldiers find themselves far from home and far from help.
It's very seldom like that for police or civilian shooters.

I can't see anything in those stories that even hints those unfortunate solders and sailors would have been saved by a high capacity pistol and let down by a 1911 with only eight rounds on tap. If you are completely cut off and surrounded, and you are about to be overwhelmed by superior numbers, I really don't think an extra ten rounds are going to save you. ANY handgun is going to prove inadequate in those circumstances. And just because you have more rounds, doesn't automatically mean you can use them more effectively. A pistol with slightly less capacity, but which you personally can shoot better, and which has more stopping power, thus requiring fewer bullets per target, may actually serve you better.

Again...
More bullets in the weapon, handgun or rifle, is better than less.
Again...
All things being equal, yes, but since all things are not equal, and more ammo cannot be had without making certain trade offs to get it, other advantages may actually be of greater import in the real world of practical application.

[Blakenzy]

WITHOUT starting a flame war and getting this thread closed, I would like to know what makes the 1911 antiquated?

What makes something antiquated is the simple fact that it is not in line with today's trend. Trend is what is preferred by most at the time. Antiquated is not the same as obsolete.

Modern trend for full size service handguns has been for some time now a metal/plastic marriage, >10 round capacity(mostly 15+), light weight, double action or some hybrid action, medium bore, low maintenance, user friendly. Are these qualities necessary? Many do make life easier... but 1911s still put multiple bullets on target with the same ease of operation as modern designs. Yet few new designs (if any) pull in the direction of all steel, <10 capacity, large bore, hefty, single action only, scary C&L.

Bottom line the 1911 was designed to cater to the preferences, perceived needs and wants of users 100 years ago, and can't help but be antiquated because preferences have changed since then. But it is not obsolete. There is no great divide in what a shooter can accomplish in practical terms with a modern design handgun instead of a 1911. All modern guns are still based on the slide operated, magazine-fed design for crying out loud.

The 1911 will become obsolete only when there is a major, widespread technological revolution that renders magazine fed, metallic cartridge shooting guns impractical in comparison. Until then it will be a valid choice for those who like it for what ever reason.

[jmorris]

It should be obvious by the fact that everyone and his brother is now making a 1911 because they made too much money selling all of their much more modern pistols and wanted to give employees a well deserved break.

[Skillet]

the question I have is why is it that people love or hate a gun? its not a live thing, so why hate or love it? that's kinda like saying i love or hate my electric toothbrush. its a gun. yeah, it functions decently and so does many other guns, but it basically goes bang just like any other gun. yay.

just my opinion.

[Greg528iT]

Skillet.. same story as to cars. I suppose if they started making toothbrushes that were something more than a appliance, we'd have a forum with Colgate and Crest lovers and haters. ;)

If you decipher why men argue over guns, you'll unravell the mystery of man.
I didn't even get into Redheads, Brunettes and Blondes (errrrrr OK that's a live thing.. HOPEFULLY)

[akadave]

I wouldnt put an electric toothbrush or any other kind of appliance in the same category. To do so invites less than desireable results. Its a tool yes. A very special tool that is used for something a bit more serious than cavity prevention. Its literally a life or death kind of thing.

[Irate Iguana]

Funny how both sides go on and on about what soldiers might or might not want and yet nobody comes up with interviews or official documents. Right now this is a very nice thread full of hearsay and personal preference projected upon a very large group of individuals.

[Greg528iT]

akadave. wait I'm not talking these new fangled electric gizmos. :cuss: I'm talking the toothbrushes like our grandfathers used in the trenches of WWII. The standard manual toothbrush is much SLIMMER and fits in smaller hands. Is the quickest, back on tooth action than any electric would ever wish to have. :neener:

[Prosser]

SUPPRESSIVE FIRE!!!
AMMO COMPATIBILITY WITH SUBMACHINE GUNS IN A PINCH.
LIGHTEST POSSIBLE WEAPON, MOST MAG CAPACITY.
The above should be mentioned when discussing high capacity combat pistols.

For those uses, the wonder 9's were made. IIRC, someone did a study and the actual kill to bullets fired ratio in was was something absurd, like 250k rounds to one death.

By far the greatest use of ammunition is to gain positional advantage, and to incapacitate, not kill.

Glocks remind me of Linus' blanket: you always want it with you, it makes you feel
good...

If I want to hit something, I'll take an M1A.

[easyg]

the question I have is why is it that people love or hate a gun? its not a live thing, so why hate or love it?
Just to be clear, I don't hate the 1911.

It's a fine handgun and will go down in history as one of the greatest handguns ever created.
I just happen to think that it's outdated as a military service pistol.
And some folks disagree.
And, apparently, we all like spirited debate.
Which is what this forum is all about.
After all, it wouldn't be much of a forum if we all thought the same.;)

[jackpinesavages]

It's a lot like the 5.7 liter, 350 that GM dumped: someone else like Toyota or Dodge will pick it up and run with it, across the finish line, to stand on top of the podium at a track near you.

My STI in .45 is an heirloom destined to stay in the family, with instructions written into the will, for at least until ammunition is available. :D

[akadave]

I think the round is the most important. I personnally think that 9mm has had its chance and .45 ACP should be the round of choice. Lots of info out there about its superiority to 9mm

[Joe Demko]

There's some truth to this. Having a large number of rounds in the magazine does seem to encourage some shooters to "spray and pray" rather than practice good marksmanship.

Then the flaw lies in the shooter, not the gun. If lowered capacity so effectively promotes marksmanship, why don't you block your 1911 magazines so they hold only four or five rounds? By your reckoning, that should make an already great gun even better.

[Billy Shears]

Then the flaw lies in the shooter, not the gun. If lowered capacity so effectively promotes marksmanship, why don't you block your 1911 magazines so they hold only four or five rounds? By your reckoning, that should make an already great gun even better.
Hey guy, it's not my fault if large capacities sometimes seem to encourage "spray and pray" and there's no need to be snide with me for pointing out a fact that plenty of other people have observed. It's just human nature to be profligate with abundant resources, and more frugal with limited ones. When you have lots of rounds, it's easy to take less care spending them. When you know you don't have as many, on the other hand, you take more care not to waste them. This is human nature. What it means, in practical terms, however, is that a lot of shooters will negate whatever advantage they might get from having more rounds, because they'll waste more by shooting less carefully and missing more often, so their total number of hits may not be any higher, despite all the extra rounds they have available. And pointing out that this flaw does indeed lie with the shooter doesn't cure it.

And don't be absurd. I don't really see any disadvantage to having a large magazine capacity per se. I merely point out that shooters with lower capacity guns have a tendency to make a virtue of necessity and exercise a little more fire discipline, as well as pointing out the fact that large capacity magazines don't come without costs of their own -- such as requiring the use of a smaller, less powerful round, and dictating larger grips that some shooters my find less ergonomic. And what that means is that a skilled shooter who finds the 1911 a more ergonomic platform, and who can take advantage of its trigger, may be better able to achieve accurate rapid fire with it than he can with any other handgun, thus making that gun the best choice for him as a combat arm.

Why so many people seem to have a problem with that mystifies me.

[1911Tuner]

When you have lots of rounds, it's easy to take less care spending them.

This phenomenon was noted by Jeff Cooper in one of his writings. This may not be verbatim, but he said:

"High magazine capacity seems to encourage sloppy shooting. The guy with the AK47 tends to make a lot of noise and run out of ammunition quickly, while the man with the rusty old Mauser knows that he has to hold and squeeze."

[Prosser]

Oh please, it's not sloppy shooting. It's 'suppressive fire'.

John Linebaugh once wrote I can keep their head down with my 451 Detonics, while he sneaks around and hit's them with a REAL round: near 454 45 colt rounds.

In one sentence, he summed all this stuff up, 20 years ago...
Not bad for a guy that built guns as a crude smith...

[Joe Demko]

"High magazine capacity seems to encourage sloppy shooting. The guy with the AK47 tends to make a lot of noise and run out of ammunition quickly, while the man with the rusty old Mauser knows that he has to hold and squeeze."

That's a load of bollocks whoever said it. The untrained/undisciplined shooter makes a lot of noise and runs out of ammunition with any gun. The trained/disciplined shooter tries to make each shot count. No less of a marksmanship-oriented organization than the USMC has been issuing box-magazine fed rifles holding 20 or more rounds for several decades now. The key is training and self-discipline. 1911's do not magically instill it, however much you may personally like the design.

[1911Tuner]

That's a load of bollocks whoever said it.

That would be Jeff Cooper. What an idiot! Saying such a ridiculous thing after only having combat experience in the Pacific and Korea with a bunch of undisciplined Marines...

[Joe Demko]

Cooper was still but a man. That's the problem with any discussion involving Cooper. His admirers tend to get him confused with the other JC.

[Greg528iT]

As predicted, this thread has moved on from "is the 1911 antiquated" to another subject.

Pretty much from what I've read.. All pistols have been replaced as the primary fighting tool. (antiquated) Pistols are secondary / back up pieces of hardware.

[1911Tuner]

I'm not a staunch admirer of Cooper's, but the man was no idiot. There were many things that he had right...and that was one of them.

[Roswell_Kid]

"...fires lead pellets, propelled by expanding gasses."

Sulu, explaining his newly-found DA revolver to Kirk in "Shore Leave."

Provided we don´t all exterminate ourselves first, the day is coming when even the adored Glock (:barf:) will be regarded as an antique.

[CDW4ME]

Here is how a Colt lightweight Officers compares to a XDsc 40, Glock 27 (with pinky extension), and Glock 23.
I can't see the advantage in packing a 7 + 1 when it's size and weight are so comparable to other offerings that have more capacity.

The Glock 23 and Officers are very close in size. The 23 offers 13 + 1 rounds. Fully loaded weights of these two is nearly the same. Overall height is 5'' for both.

The XDsc and 27 are both smaller (easier to conceal) than the Officers. They both have a 9 + 1 capacity of 40 S&W and are very controlable.
Compared to the 27 and XDsc, with the Officers you give up 2 rounds, and increase size, for what? :scrutiny:

I'm not buying less is better when it comes to capacity available in a SD situation.

[valorius]

I am sure that Jeff Cooper understood that the idea behind firing a lot of rounds, and having high ammo capacity in a military rifle is to create a high volume of fire for the purpose of suppressing enemy fire while your elements maneuver into position for a coup de grace (or break contact).

[Joe Demko]

I'm not buying less is better when it comes to capacity available in a SD situation.

I'm not either and I'm still waiting on an explanation of why the "less is more" crowd does not block or download their magazines to hold only four or five rounds. If having 7 or 8 shots is better than having 10 or 11, than having four or five should be better yet. Likewise, I'd expect revolver shooters who ascribe the same magic to lower ammo capacity to always keep an empty chamber under the hammer whether the design requires it or not.
This "less ammo makes you better" idea is a rationalization, plainly and simply. If you like the 1911 and can live with its ammo capacity, carry one and may you always triumph over your enemies. Don't try to float me a raft of **** that its more limited ammo capacity is an advantage, though. The shooter will shoot as he has trained and practiced. If he's a slob with a Glock 19 he will be a slob with a 1911 or a S&W Chiefs Special or a Ruger Vaquero. He'll be a slob with an AK or a Mauser 98 or a Savage 99. Shooters make guns perform well or poorly, not the other way around.
Cooper, rest him, was closely associated with the Bren Ten pistol. One notes that in 10mm it held 11 rounds whilst the .45 acp variant was to hold 10. Fancy that.

[valorius]

My carry pistols only hold 8 and 9 rounds respectively.

There is much to be said for the theory that "If you have it, you'll use it." Been a long time since i saw the stat, but after cops transitioned from wheel guns to autos in the US< the average police shooting went from something like 2.8 rds expended per shoot out, to approx. 4x that amount.

[Joe Demko]

Been a long time since i saw the stat, but after cops transitioned from wheel guns to autos in the US< the average police shooting went from something like 2.8 rds expended per shoot out, to approx. 4x that amount.

They perform as they were trained to perform and as they practice. LE, especially at the local level, in the US has never been wont to spend much money or man hours on training or mandated practice. So, poorly trained shooters miss a lot. Wow. In other news, the sky is blue. Do not ascribe poor performance on the shooter's part to some pernicious influence from higher capacity magazines.

[Dobe]

I don't believe high cap mags cause poor shooting. Rather, poor shooters miss and continue to miss more with high cap mags. The point is: what does the average CCW holder need more, and is it worth the trade off? Each person carrying has to make his on decision about that. To me, it is like my rationalization of AR vs. AK. The AK may be more reliable in the most extreme situations. Yet, the AR is more than reliable enough, and the trade off is that I have a very accurate rifle, very easy to maintain, very easy to add optics, and assessorize. Plus, the ergonomics are superior. This is NOT meant to envoke AK vs AR post. It is only meant to serve as an example.

The 1911 has wonderful ergonomics, a superior trigger, easy to detail strip, and chambers a proven cartridge, and has proven reliability. Whether or not you feel you need more rounds is up to you.

As far as U.S. military handguns goes, the 1911 is dead. Only in rare circumstances will the 1911 be used again, and then by those most likely to actually use it, but still in very small numbers. The DA/SA high cap is here to stay, a least for some time. If I were back in the Army, I wouldn't want to carry a handgun at all. As well as the M4 works, I'd rather save the room and weight for more ammo. As a civilian, a 1911 will work just fine.

[valorius]

They perform as they were trained to perform and as they practice. LE, especially at the local level, in the US has never been wont to spend much money or man hours on training or mandated practice. So, poorly trained shooters miss a lot. Wow. In other news, the sky is blue. Do not ascribe poor performance on the shooter's part to some pernicious influence from higher capacity magazines.
Nothing else changed, so why would i attribute the change to anything but the increase in capacity?

PS: Compared to, say, German cops (or European cops in general), American cops typically shoot 10x or more more ammo per year.

[Joe Demko]

Badly trained shooters miss more when they have more ammo with which to miss. Please, let us not attribute the missing to the magazine capacity_again_when the issue is poor shooter training. What about blocking those magazines in your personal carry piece? Did you get around to doing that yet? Why not?

[bdb benzino]

As far as the reliability aspect goes for the 1911, in my experience I have owned 4 different 1911's and 3 of them being lower end 1911's.

1. 5'' Charles Daly 1911- used- no malfunctions of any kind
2. 5'' Metro Arms 1911 - new- flawless in function, really smooth for a inexpensive 1911
3. 3 1\2'' 1911 RIA Officer model - used- no malfunctions of any kind
4. 5'' Springfield Loaded 1911 - used- no malfunctions of any kind

I personally have not seen any reliability issues concerning 1911 but then maybe I am lucky.

[yeti]

What about blocking those magazines in your personal carry piece? Did you get around to doing that yet? Why not?

Ruins the balance of a 1911. Would make it feel too much like a Glock, or even worse, something made by H und K.:neener:

Is the 1911 Antiquated?

Maybe, but I don't care, I like it and all mine run fine. And if I feel the need to carry one of them new fangaled, high round count thingies, I just take the High Power and feel as thoroughly modern as Milly.:rolleyes: I will admit to occasionally thinking of getting a 1911 in .38 Super, but I don't know, I'm still not completely sold on that light and fast being better than big and slow stuff...yet, but I'm getting there.;)

And nothing, except for a few old S&W revolvers come close to looking as good as a 1911 does, so if I can't beat them with bullets I can disarm them with design.

[Billy Shears]

I'm not either and I'm still waiting on an explanation of why the "less is more" crowd does not block or download their magazines to hold only four or five rounds.
For the exact same reason you probably don't carry a high capacity .22LR. Why don't you? If magazine capacity is the end all and be all, and more rounds is better, period, then your ideal defensive carbine should be a Calico .22 with a 100 round drum. Why would you want an AR-15 with a piddling 30 rounds when you can have 100 on tap?

So how about it? You ready to stow away that AR and get a Calico? Think our soldiers should? After all, more rounds is always better, right?

I explained this to you, you're just being obtuse. Having a gun with a single column magazine, and making the most of it does not mean going to a ridiculous extreme and limiting yourself beyond any constraint imposed by the actual firearm. You are engaging in a false dilemma fallacy, and artificially limiting the choices to extremes. The reality is that any defensive firearm is a compromise. Ideally, you'd like the stopping power of a .50BMG, the capacity of a Calico .22, the lightness and compactness of an S&W bodyguard, and the accuracy and controlability of a .22 target pistol, but the laws of physics dictate that there's no way to have all those things at once, so you make what compromise you can to get the best balance of features. Lots of smaller rounds, like a hi cap 9mm is one balance that some people choose, fewer big rounds is a balance chosen by others. And the ergonomics and unique character of a particular handgun will also affect the overall final product and how well it suits you, the individual shooter. It just so happens that whether you would choose it or not, whether you agree with this compromise or not, and whether you like it or not, some people opt for a smaller number of bigger and more powerful rounds, as well as the particular features of the M1911 design. And if the smaller number of rounds happens to encourage the shooter to exercise a little more fire discipline... well as I said, it's a case of making a virtue of necessity, not of going to ridiculous and artificial extremes.

[Txbushmaster77]

I have shot two 1911's. A Kimber and a Taurus both of which fired without a hitch and naturally flew to the targets. I own a PT145 millennium Pro made by Taurus and it has a tendency to stick a round against the feeding ramp every once in awhile. My next purchase will be a Taurus PT1911 and I will carry it everyday. Seven rounds of 45acp is plenty in most self defense situations. (unless you watch a lot of television and movies) If you feel you need more carry more magazines either way you still have more rounds than almost all wheel guns(I would bet my life on a good wheelie any day).

[valorius]

Badly trained shooters miss more when they have more ammo with which to miss. Please, let us not attribute the missing to the magazine capacity_again_when the issue is poor shooter training. What about blocking those magazines in your personal carry piece? Did you get around to doing that yet? Why not?
Nothing else changed, so why would i attribute the change to anything but the increase in capacity? But i repeat myself... ;)

Ruins the balance of a 1911. Would make it feel too much like a Glock, or even worse, something made by H und K.
Hehe, wise guy. ;)

[Jim Watson]

M Ayoob once wrote that the optimum seemed to be the single stack auto.
That a gun with capacity of 7-10 rounds yielded more hits in case studies than either a 5-6 shot revolver or a 12-17 shot high cap auto.

[akadave]

I have been considering a hi-cap Infintiy 1911. I was talking to some shooters at the range and one of them had one in a holster and I didnt even notice it, the way he was carrying. Im thinking 15+1 is a good thing!

[easyg]

M Ayoob once wrote that the optimum seemed to be the single stack auto.
That a gun with capacity of 7-10 rounds yielded more hits in case studies than either a 5-6 shot revolver or a 12-17 shot high cap auto.
I would have to see the data that backs up this notion.

Smells like BS to me.

[1911Tuner]

easyg...Mas is a member here. You can shoot him a PM and ask him yourself...unless you think you may not like the answer.

I saw a report once...don't know where to find it, but I'm sure it's there if you want to take the time to look for it.

To wit:

In WW1, the American armed forces were equipped with 5-round bolt action rifles. 7500 rounds of smallarms ammunition were expended for each enemy casualty.

In WW2, they had 8-round, semiauto M1 Garands, 15-round M1 Carbines, 20-round BARs, and Thompson submachineguns with varying capacities. The number of rounds to produce one enemy casualty jumped to 25,000. The Korean War produced similar numbers. WW2 gave birth to the term "Walking Fire" in which a rifle company walked abreast, firing a round or a burst every time the left foot hit the ground. They weren't firing at anything in particular. They were just laying down a wall of fire. Employed heavily in the hedgerows of Normandy, but it was much less common in other areas because it wasted ammunition to little effect.


In Vietnam, US forces entered the conflict with 20-round selective-fire M14 rifles, though most of them were equipped with the semiauto lockout. Later, the M16 became general issue. There was a plethora of smallarms used in that conflict, and saturation fire was the order of the day. The round count per casualty was off the scale at 50,000. This was due in no small part to select-fire capability at the disposal of all riflemen, and UH-1 Hueys standing ready to resupply the troops. Too often, when the flag went up, the tendency was to flip the switch and grab the trigger...as scared men are prone to do if the weapon will accommodate them.

Anybody see the connection between high capacity...rapid fire...fast reload capability...and on-call airborne resupply?

[bikerdoc]

Boyd -Mind set, skillset, toolset.

Cooper- You are ouy gunned only if you miss.

[Blakenzy]

I think the problem of high miss/hit ratio - if you can even blame it on hardware- comes from the semiauto (or fullauto or even the revolver double action) function rather than magazine capacity. Any gun that requires you to manually manipulate the action between each shot forces time upon you that makes it more likely to reacquire a good sight picture before the next round is in place be fired. With semiauto, you can easily fall into the flaw of firing again and again and again before you recover enough to even catch a glimpse of the front sight, much less get a square line up on the center of the target. It's even more than easy, it is just plain FUN to "let 'er rip". In this respect the 1911 and all modern pistol designs have the same potential for misuse, hi cap or not.

All that a large magazine capacity will do is magnify whatever it is you are already doing (hitting if you are disciplined or missing if you are mindless).

[Joe Demko]

All that a large magazine capacity will do is magnify whatever it is you are already doing (hitting if you are disciplined or missing if you are mindless).

Thank you. Exactly right.

[harmon rabb]

M Ayoob once wrote that the optimum seemed to be the single stack auto.
That a gun with capacity of 7-10 rounds yielded more hits in case studies than either a 5-6 shot revolver or a 12-17 shot high cap auto.

I'd like to see this study. It's likely flawed because the single stack auto in the study is likely the 1911. Gee, is it a shock that people hit more often with a 1911 than with a DA revolver? Lol.

If the 1911 represented the majority of single stack autos used in that study, all it shows is that the 1911 ergonomics and trigger make people shoot better, something which I will agree with 100%.

[Joe Demko]

Anybody see the connection between high capacity...rapid fire...fast reload capability...and on-call airborne resupply?

Do you suppose the whole doctrine of suppressive fire/maneuver that evolved during that time period might have something to do with your figures? Or that automatic fire went from something that sat on a tripod and weighed a lot to something every squad (and then every soldier) had? Do your figures include all rounds shot from every weapon or are they limited to the rifles carried by the individual soldiers? Until there is some context and provenance, those numbers don't mean anything.

[Roswell_Kid]

During the years I worked for a gaming computer company we sponsored or internally conducted many computer simulator and game competitions. One of the more interesting was an internal (employee) competition between two avid groups devoted to a very good WWII air combat simulator. Group A had far more practice and had competed online as a group for about a year. Group B, the challengers, was a loose organization of company middle management that decided to learn the game and challenge Group A.

The highly experienced Group A was decidedly beaten. With just a few months prep, Group B pounded A in every engagement without exception. Turns out the challengers learned the game and only practiced among themselves using Limited (realistic) Ammo option enabled, which severely restricts offensive strike capability using any aircraft. Group A always played "unlimited."

Not saying that 15 vs. 7 rounds is going to make any real difference among disciplined shooters, but I would not be a bit surprised. Having a lot of resources available vs. being forced to conserve makes a not-so-subtle difference in attitude and approach.

[migkillertwo]

The "best" 1911s today, IMO, are not much better than a glock or sig, but they can easily be twice as expensive as a glock or a sig. The firepower is lacking, and the battery of arms is too complex and hard to learn. You can't carry it with the hammer down, and you have to always remember to actuate the safety. On glocks and sigs, there are no safeties to dick around with, the triggers are just as good, and last but certainly not least, you get way more firepower.

Yes, IMO the 1911 is outdated as a defensive pistol, but I still love them for their history and the workmanship that has go into almost any 1911.

[1911Tuner]

The mental part of it plays a large role, too. Even with area/saturation fire, if there's a seemingly inexhaustible supply of ammunition on tap and on the way, the shooter tends to give in to firing at nothing in particular. Even saturation fire supposedly requires at least a suspicion that there's a target within the beaten zone...a reason for blowing it to hell and gone. All to often, the machine gunner will continue to pump rounds into it after the threat...real or percieved...has been neutralized. I've seen it happen.

The man who knows that his ammunition is limited...either on tap or in the way of resupply...tends to be more frugal with it when he puts his finger on the trigger. Rather than try to use "suppressive fire" in a kill or be killed situation that may involve multiple threats, or a single threat that has proven to be an evasive target. He knows instinctively that rynning dry can have dire consequences for him.

Incidentally, supressive fire works well when there's an automatic weapon used as a base of fire to allow a squad or a fire team maneuver. Not so well for a man operating alone with a pistol. He may get lucky and put his man down, but the odds are greatly against him.

I'd like to see this study. It's likely flawed because the single stack auto in the study is likely the 1911.

The man armed with a double-action revolver tends to be even more careful with his ammunition expenditure because he knows that a reload..even from a speed-loader...is slower than with a magazine change. The most frugal of the lot is the man armed with a single-action revolver. He's the one that will work harder than any of the others to make every shot count. Even with a single-stack, the tendency is there to get on the trigger too quickly. During the testing phase with the M1 Garand, there were concerns over the weapon leading to ammunition waste. Running dry was the concern...not cost.

So, here we are...bogged down in another quagmire that we're not going to win with the present tactics...and it's been mostly responsible for creating an ammunition shortage in the private sector that we haven't seen since WW2. I don't have any documentation to verify it, but I've heard rumors that the round count to casualty ratio is apporoaching 100,000:1.

[1911Tuner]

The "best" 1911s today, IMO, are not much better than a glock or sig, but they can easily be twice as expensive as a glock or a sig. The firepower is lacking, and the battery of arms is too complex and hard to learn.

Firepower is lacking mainly if you miss a lot. As Clint Smith noted: "You can't miss fast enough to catch up." You're only outgunned if you miss.

Complex and hard to learn? Oh, please! Were the farm boys who went into the trenches in WW1 somehow that much smarter and better coordinated than we are today?

[Joe Demko]

For the exact same reason you probably don't carry a high capacity .22LR. Why don't you?

Kind of hard to carry what nobody makes. Feather made one for a while back in the 80's, never saw one in the flesh and they've been out of production for a long time. The TEC-22 would take high capacity 10-22 mags, but it was a shoddy POS and has also been out of production for a while. Keltec displayed a 30-shot .22WMR pistol at the SHOT show this year. I believe I'll pick one up after Keltec actually starts delivering some (and the Keltec fanbois finish debugging it).

But that is all neither here nor there. You're the one handicapping yourself by carrying those extra rounds.:neener: Don't you want to shoot the very best you could?

[migkillertwo]

well, people in the third world generally have better eyesight than us Anglo-saxons...

But anyway, with regards to firepower, I really dont buy that "you just need to shoot better" talking point. In a defensive situation, especially in a war-zone or disaster area, you might have to gun down more than one guy. Even though I'm probably not going to need all 17+1 rounds with my glock (hell, I might not even need the 5 rounds from my POS .38 revolver), I still want to have as much options.

And the battery of arms is complex, once again there IS a safety that you have to dick around with before you can shoot with. Also there's the grip safety. It's pretty damn easy to grip the 1911 in such a manner that you dont actuate the grip safety.

[Billy Shears]

The "best" 1911s today, IMO, are not much better than a glock or sig, but they can easily be twice as expensive as a glock or a sig. The firepower is lacking, and the battery of arms is too complex and hard to learn. You can't carry it with the hammer down, and you have to always remember to actuate the safety. On glocks and sigs, there are no safeties to dick around with...
Sorry but this is balderdash. The battery of arms absolutely is not "too complex and hard to learn" and the generations of men who have used the 1911 very effectively in combat are living proof of this statement. I'll never understand why people are prone to making statements that are directly contradicted by observed facts.

As for having to "dick around with" the safety... Buddy, if you can't learn to wipe the thumb down the side of the frame during your draw as you acquire the proper grip, then you must have a real hard time unsnapping a thumb brake holster or even pulling a trigger, because the motion is not one whit more complex. And it goes without saying that if the simple act of pushing down a lever that is already placed right under your thumb is "too complex and hard to learn" then speed reloads are quite beyond your capability.

[Billy Shears]

But that is all neither here nor there. You're the one handicapping yourself by carrying those extra rounds. Don't you want to shoot the very best you could?
Yeah, I do. Unfortunately my department won't let me carry the Les Baer Premier II Super Tac that I can do that with. I have to carry a Glock 17 instead. I like the Glock, and it's a huge step up from those crappy S&W 5946s we used to have, but I just plain shoot better with the 1911, especially at the longer ranges. Unfortunately, my department won't approve single actions. I get as close as I can off duty, because they did approve a .40S&W FN Hi Power with an SFS trigger (since FN's official position is that it is a DA handgun, for purposes of classifying it with the BATF). But if I had my choice I'd carry a 1911 and never look back.

[Hangingrock]

1911 Tuner: In Vietnam, US forces entered the conflict with 20-round selective-fire M14 rifles, though most of them were equipped with the semiauto lockout.
In the Marine Corps one M14 in every four had the selective fire switch. Thats how it was in my time 1964-1968

[1911Tuner]

In the Marine Corps one M14 in every four had the selective fire switch

Yep...and most often restricted to the man who had exercised control and fire discipline, and designated as the squad automatic rifleman...either officially or unofficially. Rank and file 0311s were locked out.


In a last attempt to get through to the firepower fanatics, I'll call attention to our own Revolutionary War.

The tactics of the day was massed volley fire from smoothbore muskets in a set-piece battle...followed by a bayonet attack. Essentially, it was the machinegun of the era, loosed in hopes of hitting someone in the opposing line, and thus thin the resistance in the bayonet and pike action that followed. It was the way things were, and it worked pretty well...until the British encountered Nathaniel Greene's riflemen, who refused to play their game.

The British were bulldogs, and unafraid to face anybody in an open field...and most of the time, they'd win. Enter The Green Mountain Boys, and the British lines were consistently wrecked by deliberate, aimed rifle fire.

Horrified, the British accused them of not fighting fair...of outright murder...because they were so terrifyingly effective. The British were suffering high casualties...and they were losing...despite their superior "firepower" and volley fire tactics.

Aimed fire works.

[Joe Demko]

What a nice historical anecdote! If only it had something to do with what we are discussing. Still, it was kind of you to note that aimed fire, from (relatively) precision arms, directed at individual targets inflicts more casualties at range than does mass fire from (relatively) imprecise weapons directed at an area.

[jmorris]

I don't feel anymore underguned with a 1911 than I would with any pistol.

[Greg528iT]

We are so removed from what we originally were discussing, it's funny. :eek:

[Dobe]

Yes, but for the most part, it has been interesting, and hopefully no feelings hurt. Threads like these rarely changes the minds of the active participants. If anything, we active participants become more ingrained with more post (not always). Yet many readers will have food for thought, and can make up their on minds with more information gleened from this thread.

[yeti]

I will say I prefer the 1911 over any other fighting handgun, but if you could stick 15 rounds of .45 acp into the handle of that thing, without changing anything else but it's cartridge capacity, I would claw my way to the front of the purchase line. Otherwise, I'm satisfied.

[akadave]

The "best" 1911s today, IMO, are not much better than a glock or sig, but they can easily be twice as expensive as a glock or a sig. The firepower is lacking, and the battery of arms is too complex and hard to learn. You can't carry it with the hammer down, and you have to always remember to actuate the safety. On glocks and sigs, there are no safeties to dick around with, the triggers are just as good, and last but certainly not least, you get way more firepower.

Yes, IMO the 1911 is outdated as a defensive pistol, but I still love them for their history and the workmanship that has go into almost any 1911.
Depends on the trigger and then only maybe. Comparing a 1911 trigger to the Glock marshmallow trigger is just silly. Other autos have a pretty decent single action trigger but DA is always more diffilcult to hit with all things being equal.

[Prosser]

With the Sig, favored as they are, I never figured out why one would want to reveal your position with your first round, with a trigger pull that is so different, and hard to hit with as the DA pull of the gun.

[Walkalong]

the battery of arms is too complex and hard to learn. This one never fails to amaze me. Simple it is, not complex.

[dmazur]

... but if you could stick 15 rounds of .45 acp into the handle of that thing, without changing anything else but it's cartridge capacity, I would claw my way to the front of the purchase line...

Capacity issues used to cause anxiety, so I practiced magazine changes until I felt better. :)

[Boris bush]

WITHOUT starting a flame war and getting this thread closed, I would like to know what makes the 1911 antiquated? I just got my second 1911 (sold my first one) and was looking it over last night and comparing to my glock and a buddy's PX4. I like all three, but I few them as different and don't see how a 100 year old design is antiquated (ie outdated) if it still does it's job perfectly. It doesn't have a firing pin blocker, but it also doesn't have the striker mechanism of the Glock. The only thing I can see would be the decocker, which I don't mind, but could be dangerous I suppose. Is that all there is?

First off 1911s are great guns. Some copies are much better than others for sure.

However if you were to have someone on a forum tell you a model T is all anyone needs the outcome might be different.

The model T will take you to work, get groceries, a trip to the stop and rob. It just lacks some of the advancements we enjoy in cars we all drive today.

Its a great gun and design (when made proper). When is all said and done it will do the job just as good as anyother. Just like the model T will get you to work and back home again. The end means is all that matters.....

[Joe Demko]

I have to carry a Glock 17 instead. I like the Glock, and it's a huge step up from those crappy S&W 5946s we used to have,

...but you do carry the Glock with only 8 rounds in it, right? Otherwise, you might suddenly become a poor shot.

[Billy Shears]

..but you do carry the Glock with only 8 rounds in it, right? Otherwise, you might suddenly become a poor shot.
I've explained this matter twice. Now you're just being hard headed. This is not an admirable quality. Grow up.

[1911Tuner]

*sigh* tsk tsk.

No, Joe. Carrying more ammunition won't make you a bad shot any more than carrying less will make you a better one. It's not a matter of skill, or lack thereof. It's a matter of mentality. Having less ammo will make you more careful as to how you expend it, regardless of your skill level...and that makes it more likely that you'll hit the target.

Like the guy who's flush with cash. He's not too concerned with dropping 5 bucks on something on a whim, while the poor stiff who only has 20 dollars to last until next payday becomes more discerning on his expenditures.


Back on topic.

The 1911 is no more antiquated than the Model 94 Winchester or the '98 Mauser. All are capable of gettin' the job done. It lies wholly in the hands of the shooter, and in his capabilities. It's not the weapon that wins the fight. It's the man.

[Joe Demko]

No, Billy Shears and 1911Tuner, I am not being hard headed and you are not explaining yourselves as clearly as you believe you are. If it helps you to assume that I am completely ignorant of guns and shooting, try that. From where I am sitting, you seem to be saying that it is advantageous to have less ammo in the gun because it will make you shoot better/more carefully since you have less ammo. Full stop. If that is the case, then downloading a Glock has the same effect. If having less ammo forces you to shoot better simply because you have less ammo, then it doesn't matter why you have less ammo. It makes no difference if it is because the pistol you chose will hold only eight or you elected to load only eight into one of higher capacity. Based on what you have said in this thread, the sheer fact of having only the eight rounds forces you to shoot better. Eight rounds is eight rounds is eight rounds is eight rounds no matter how you get there. That being the case, why wouldn't you download your magazines?
It's a matter of mentality.
Whose mentality? Parsimony or profligacy in ammo expenditure is a direct result of how the shooter trains and practices. For example, the fellow who first taught me to shoot a handgun taught me to shoot one shot at a time, concentrating on that shot. Many years later, I heard the concept phrased wrt handgun practice as something like "Don't fire 20 shots; fire one shot 20 times."
I will refer again to every training program of which I am aware placing great importance on being able to reload quickly and smoothly under pressure. I will note that many, many instructors (and their pupils) are firm believers in carrying a back-up gun. Just for old timey shiggles, I'll even note that Duck Bill Hickock, a luminary among pistoleros, carried two Navy revolvers...a cap n' ball version of the New York reload.
So, do you practice reloading? Do you carry extra magazines? A BUG? Or does extra ammo have its deleterious influence on "mentality" only when it is actually in a "high capacity" magazine seated in the gun?
As I've said, if you like the 1911, more joy to you. I own a couple, I carried one on duty, and I still shoot mine a lot. You don't have to convince me that it is a fine gun, it has already done that on its own. If you are going to convince me of anything, it'd have to be this hazy idea you have that magazine size somehow deteriorates the "mentality" of the shooter.

[yeti]

I never thought I would actually live to see a magazine capacity discussion drop down to the level of "mine is bigger than yours" vs. "it's not the capacity of your magazine, it's how you use it.":eek:

I guess that leaves me as secure in my weaponalinity; I'm happy with what JMB gave me, but I would not be upset if he had kept his perfect creation the same just packed a little more into it.:scrutiny:

[1911Tuner]

Yeti, my father was a vereran of the Ardennes and Market garden during WW2. He noted the tendency of soldiers with rapid fire and high(er) capacity to waste ammunition. He flat said that if the war had been fought solely with rifles, the Germans would have won in a matter of weeks...because they aimed, while the GIs tended to throw the Garands up to shoulder level when things got hairy...look over the sights...and start yanking the trigger. The Wehrmacht troopers knew that they had to work the bolt for another shot, while the Americans knew that another round was just a trigger pull away.

It's an interesting but understandable phenomenon.

It was also noted in Vietnam with the M16s. The boys were generally instructed to engage on semi-auto, and reserve burst and full auto for extreme close range engagements, or...as a ticket across the street to keep an enemy's head down until a better position could be reached. While supressive, area fire works well when you've got a squad or a fire team backing you...as an individual operating alone mano e mano...it doesn't work so well.

Or...as the man said:

"Gunnery! Gunnery! Gunnery! All else is twaddle. Hit the target!"

[Billy Shears]

No, Billy Shears and 1911Tuner, I am not being hard headed and you are not explaining yourselves as clearly as you believe you are. If it helps you to assume that I am completely ignorant of guns and shooting, try that. From where I am sitting, you seem to be saying that it is advantageous to have less ammo in the gun because it will make you shoot better/more carefully since you have less ammo. Full stop. If that is the case, then downloading a Glock has the same effect. If having less ammo forces you to shoot better simply because you have less ammo, then it doesn't matter why you have less ammo. It makes no difference if it is because the pistol you chose will hold only eight or you elected to load only eight into one of higher capacity. Based on what you have said in this thread, the sheer fact of having only the eight rounds forces you to shoot better. Eight rounds is eight rounds is eight rounds is eight rounds no matter how you get there. That being the case, why wouldn't you download your magazines?
AS I SAID: for the same reason you don't carry a high capacity .22. And spare me the "they don't make one" rejoinder. If magazine capacity were all that mattered, they would. The reason they don't is that other considerations are important. I don't know how many different ways I can say it. It is one thing to select a gun that doesn't have a high capacity magazine (because it has other features that are deemed more advantageous), and then make the most of the rounds you've got. It is something else to needlessly give up a feature that the gun does give you.

I carry the Glock fully loaded because A) my department requires it, and because B) it generally doesn't hurt to have all those rounds, even though I'll almost certainly never need that many. But I also carry the Glock because it's what I have to carry on duty. If I had my own choice, I'd carry a 1911 because I shoot it better, and that gives me a real advantage that would apply in any gunfight, whereas the extra rounds in the Glock's magazines are, statistically speaking, actually unlikely to be used.

Whose mentality? Parsimony or profligacy in ammo expenditure is a direct result of how the shooter trains and practices. For example, the fellow who first taught me to shoot a handgun taught me to shoot one shot at a time, concentrating on that shot. Many years later, I heard the concept phrased wrt handgun practice as something like "Don't fire 20 shots; fire one shot 20 times."
And that's all well and good in practice. Under stress, however, it's easy for instinct and fear to overtake training.

I will refer again to every training program of which I am aware placing great importance on being able to reload quickly and smoothly under pressure. I will note that many, many instructors (and their pupils) are firm believers in carrying a back-up gun. Just for old timey shiggles, I'll even note that Duck Bill Hickock, a luminary among pistoleros, carried two Navy revolvers...a cap n' ball version of the New York reload.
So, do you practice reloading? Do you carry extra magazines? A BUG? Or does extra ammo have its deleterious influence on "mentality" only when it is actually in a "high capacity" magazine seated in the gun?
As I've said, if you like the 1911, more joy to you. I own a couple, I carried one on duty, and I still shoot mine a lot. You don't have to convince me that it is a fine gun, it has already done that on its own. If you are going to convince me of anything, it'd have to be this hazy idea you have that magazine size somehow deteriorates the "mentality" of the shooter.
You mean you really can't understand the observed human tendency to be wasteful with abundant resources and frugal with limited ones? This is actually something you have a hard time comprehending?

[1911Tuner]

From where I am sitting, you seem to be saying that it is advantageous to have less ammo in the gun because it will make you shoot better/more carefully since you have less ammo.

You mean you really can't understand the observed human tendency to be wasteful with abundant resources and frugal with limited ones?

Let's take it to two extremes and see if that works.

Situation A. You've got a stone, cold killer gunning for you. He has a pistol. You know he's out there, and you catch a glimpse of him once in a while as he makes his way to you. You're armed with an M16 and you have 20 loaded magazines stacked up beside you.

Situation B. You've got a 1903 Springfield with 5 rounds in the well...and that's all you've got.

In situation A, you're likely to rip off a burst at him, even when he only exposes himself briefly...maybe for a second or two. After all, you've got 600 rounds of ammunition.

In situation B...you're far less likely to fire at a shadow because every round wasted reduces your supply by 20%...and that much closer to being down to only one round when he gets close enough to kill you. You're going to be more careful. You're going to hold your fire until you've got a clear shot that gives you a good chance of hitting him. You're going to aim and squeeze.

Now do you see it?

[Joe Demko]

Now do you see it?

I see what you are claiming. I do not agree that a trained shooter will do as you say.

[Joe Demko]

Let us consider some one-way shooting: whitetail deer hunting. In these here parts, repeating rifles are the rule during the primary season; single shots are seldom seen. It has been a truism since I was a kid that, when shots are fired, one shot means he almost certainly got the deer. Two shots mean he might have got it. Three, or more, means he almost definitely didn't get it. Now, repeating arms are the rule, remember. Basically, all the hunters could fire many shots. Yet some do, and some don't. The ones who are disciplined wait til they have a clear shot and fire. The undisciplined throw the gun up and start cranking the bolt/working the lever/shucking the pump as fast as they can. Typically, they shoot at the whole deer rather than aim at the vitals.
So...the difference here lies in the shooters, not in the weapons.

I will agree with you insofar as to say that if you give an untrained and/or undisciplined shooter a higher capacity weapon, he will expend all his ammo and he will miss with most or all of it. Of course, he will likely do the exact same thing with a lower capacity weapon, but he will log fewer misses because he had less ammo to start.

[Old Ranger]

Comparing the .45 auto to a Model 'T' is silly:neener: The .45 has been combat proven in two major World Wars, Korea, Viet Nam and now in the hands of special ops troops.:banghead: Give it up! This weapon has held it's own for over a hundred years, and isn't about to go away any time soon. Doesn't that tell you something?:scrutiny:

[Billy Shears]

I see what you are claiming. I do not agree that a trained shooter will do as you say.
Why? It is a documented fact that among both law enforcement officers and soldiers, the number of rounds fired in any given engagement went up after the adoption of weapons with greater magazine capacities. What more proof do you need that trained shooters do, in fact, follow this tendency? It doesn't get much more conclusive.

[Boris bush]

Comparing the .45 auto to a Model 'T' is silly The .45 has been combat proven in two major World Wars, Korea, Viet Nam and now in the hands of special ops troops. Give it up! This weapon has held it's own for over a hundred years, and isn't about to go away any time soon. Doesn't that tell you something?

It is silly, but a model T will get you to work and back. Will it not? Therefore it serves the same purpose as the car in your driveway right now. You just made a choice to have a more modern car.

I just got back from my 3rd tour. SpecOps might still have a 1911 here and there and some might use them. I am not some ninja super highspeed spec ops super soldier. I do leave the wire though and I even worked with some. They all, every one I ever seen and worked with, even the ones only on the FOB..... ALL of them had G19s. Just sayin, and as always this is just an observation, nothing more. FWIW I even seen a couple HS2000s (not XDs), never a 1911 though......