Massad's latest article, the 1911 etc. 2003version

I couldn't fit the entire title in the header. But since we have had so many questions on the 1911 and 45 caliber ammo of late I felt this article answered many questions posed by some members who were aquiring interest in this classic handgun. Instead of me fumbling around trying to explain it, I suggest the link to his websight Backwoods .com. you will find a history of the gun along with examples of it's power and the comparisons to other calibers, primarilly in the professional arena. I hope you find it as interesting as I hoped you would. It addresses several of the recent posts on if the gun is still current , the ammo, and more.Enjoy the read.
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob83.html,
I asked for permission to post parts from the article, but decided a link would be better as this is his public email that goes to anyone who asks to sign up, of which I am a party to, so no foul me posting a link to something that I am sent. Since I have referenced Mr Ayoobs email before, I don't think he would mind.

Killer link thanks for posting.

RE: The M1911 in WW1

In the National World War One Museum an M1911 is displayed in a place of honor, flanked by an M1897 Trench gun and an M1903 Springfield, below it is this quote:

"Nothing will make the Jerries turn and run faster than this wondrous new American .45 Automatic pistol..."

-Allied Ordinance Officer

One of the neatest stories I ever heard was from a WWII European theater vet.

"We busted through the door and surprised a kraut. My sergeant had acquired a Luger and was dying to use it. He shot the kraut three or four time before I hit him with a burst from my Tommy gun. He gave the Luger away and got another .45."

You might take notice of the date on the article. In nine years ther are more 1911 options and ammo differences have narrowed.

Okay, I'll put on my flame-proof suit and jump in. Yeah, the 1911 is a very capable pistol. It is easier for me to shoot well than any other autoloader. Yes Ayoob has forgotten more about firearms than I will ever know. But as a Range Saftey Officer that spends many weekends on the range observing and shooting a plethora of firearms in the hands of shooters from every skill level, from what I have personally observed, the 1911 is by far the one firearm most likely to fail to go bang every time. Fail to feed, fail to fire, fail to eject, pick your poison it happens over and over and over. Sorry guys but that is simply my personal observation. Go ahead, I'm ready, flame on!:fire:

Mas uses many different handguns in his job, but he is known to favor the Glock 30 45acp.

Plan2live, the failures you are seeing (I believe you) have nothing to do with the guns being 1911 designs. They are failing because they are mass produced firearms built to very loose specs and no tuning or testing is done by the manufacturer. Quality control is at an all time low. We live in an age now where a product only has to sell, it doesn't have to perform 100%. I have sold, repaired, customized and competed with 1911s since the 80s and I can assure you that if the gun is built to original specifications they WILL run 100%. I have a safe full that are flawless.

I have sold, repaired, customized and competed with 1911s since the 80s and I can assure you that if the gun is built to original specifications they WILL run 100%. I have a safe full that are flawless.

This. ^

It was designed to function. If it's built to correct specs and fed decent ammunition from proper magazines, it will function. It's a machine. It doesn't have a choice.

No super-secret gunsmith tricks, tweaks or tune-ups necessary, either.

Okay, I'll put on my flame-proof suit and jump in. Yeah, the 1911 is a very capable pistol. It is easier for me to shoot well than any other autoloader. Yes Ayoob has forgotten more about firearms than I will ever know. But as a Range Saftey Officer that spends many weekends on the range observing and shooting a plethora of firearms in the hands of shooters from every skill level, from what I have personally observed, the 1911 is by far the one firearm most likely to fail to go bang every time. Fail to feed, fail to fire, fail to eject, pick your poison it happens over and over and over. Sorry guys but that is simply my personal observation. Go ahead, I'm ready, flame on!:fire:
Since you live in the same city as my ex, I do not find your post credible. ;)

Funny you mention officiating. I SOed a match today and the only malfunction (multiple) I witnessed was a with Glock 19. Glock mags, stock gun (pre the owner) and factory ammo. At least six 1911s on my squad completed the match without problems...other than mental malfunctions.

Despite not being "a 1911 guy", I respect the platform. The SR9c that I carry appears to be completely different than a 1911, but it shares many of the same positive attributes. It's SAO, soft-shooting, and carried with the safety on and a round in the pipe. Physically, it's slimmer than most double stack 9mms (as the 1911 is slim among .45s).

Thanks to modern defensive rounds providing a solution to the 9mms old-days performance issues, we are able to take advantage of some of JMB's ideas, even without using his designs.

I wonder what the man would have designed if he had modern ammunition and materials to design around.

I SOed a match today and the only malfunction (multiple) I witnessed was a with Glock 19. Glock mags, stock gun (pre the owner) and factory ammo. At least six 1911s on my squad completed the match without problems...other than mental malfunctions.

This goes against everything I have ever read about the 1911 on the internet.

I think it all comes down to care and feeding. The range I frequent rents mostly Glocks and I see them give people fits with Alibis. I bet they are abused and not highly cared for.

My Springfield 1911 can shoot anything and never gives an ounce of trouble.

Maintenance is key for all mechanical devices.

I had the good fortune to recently visit the JMB museum in Ogden, Utah.

I stopped at the glass cabinet holding the original prototype of the 1911. Time stood still. They had to clean up a puddle of drool once I came out of my trance....

This goes against everything I have ever read about the 1911 on the internet.
Well, some of us leave the keyboard and turn off the play station for real trigger time.

In the article Mas is right.

FMJ .vs FMJ and the .45 is the winner (and I never doubted it.)

JHP .vs. JHP and both are quite good.


I have sold, repaired, customized and competed with 1911s since the 80s and I can assure you that if the gun is built to original specifications they WILL run 100%. I have a safe full that are flawless.

And I agree with that. The problem is so many companies make 1911s and alot of parts are NOT in original specs.

Glock on the other hand is made by, uh, Glock (and it's original specification) and thus it runs 100%.

Deaf

Ayoob made mention of the "geneva convention mandated 9mm ammo." I thought that was a fallacy?

Ayoob made mention of the "geneva convention mandated 9mm ammo." I thought that was a fallacy?
What he meant by "Geneva convention mandated" was not 9mm but hardball. In other words, the 9mm is deficient in stopping power with the kind of ammo mandated by the Geneva convention: hardball. If you can use modern JHP rounds, 9mm is just fine, but if you're stuck with hardball, as the military is, thanks to the Geneva convention, you're better off with a .45.

Actually,the Hague Conventions... Geneva was more about treatment of prisoners. Don't believe we're actually signatory to the HC, either, though we generally abide by it owing to our commitments to our NATO allies. It is of course cruel and unsporting to shoot a man with a hollowpoint bullet, so naturally our .50 cal sniper rounds are FMJ... more sporting and less messy. :rolleyes:

What's always struck me as odd about the Hague convention is the arbitrariness of what weapons are considered inhumane. So it's inhumane, and therefore not permissible to shoot a man with hollowpoint ammo. However it's perfectly acceptable to blow his legs and reproductive organs off with landmines, immolate him with assorted types of incendiary weapons, blow him apart with high explosive artillery shells, etc. etc.

What he meant by "Geneva convention mandated" was not 9mm but hardball. In other words, the 9mm is deficient in stopping power with the kind of ammo mandated by the Geneva convention: hardball. If you can use modern JHP rounds, 9mm is just fine, but if you're stuck with hardball, as the military is, thanks to the Geneva convention, you're better off with a .45.

Thats what I was saying the Geneva convention did not cover the hardball, JHP thing, at least thats what I was always told.

The problem is so many companies make 1911s and alot of parts are NOT in original specs.

Glock on the other hand is made by, uh, Glock (and it's original specification) and thus it runs 100%.

1911s issued to our troops in WWI and WWII weren't just made by one manufacturer.

They were made by several manufacturers including Colt, Remington-Rand, Springfield Armory, Ithaca, Union Switch & Signal, and others.

The 1911 has always been made by many different manufacturers.

If Colt, Remington-Rand, Springfield Armory, Ithaca, Union Switch & Signal, and others could produce 1911s to the proper specifications, then why can't companies today produce 1911s to proper specifications?

I'm going to go ahead an answer my own question:

The problem with the 1911 today, is that it's not 1911 today. Allow me to explain below.

It's not that reliable and combat worthy 1911s cannot be mass produced. In World War I, the Army wanted every soldier to carry a handgun. That's a whole lot of reliable and combat worthy 1911s that had to be mass produced. World War II added thousands more. All the 1911s from World War I and World War II have a near legendary status for combat effectiveness. Thus, there's no question to whether reliable and combat worthy 1911s can be mass produced.

The question is whether reliable and combat worthy 1911s can be mass produced today at a price that people are willing to pay.

I believe the answer is "no."

Firearm manufacturing costs in 2011 are a whole lot higher than they were in 1911. Even when adjusted for inflation, it costs more to hire a factory worker today than a factory worker in 1911. Labor costs are high. Material costs are high. Liability and insurance costs are astronomical. Unions and government regulation increase costs even more.

In contrast, a Glock, Smith & Wesson M&P, Springfield Armory XD, and so forth are purpose built to be mass produced today at a price people are willing to pay. All of these designs are well regarded as reliable and combat worthy.

A lot of cost cutting and short cuts must be made in order to make a 1911 competitive in price to a Glock, Smith & Wesson M&P, or Springfield Armory XD.

Unless you're an experienced gunsmith, willing to pay for an experienced gunsmith, or can afford an Ed Brown or Wilson Combat, you would be well advised to stay away from todays mass produced 1911s.

The question is whether reliable and combat worthy 1911s can be mass produced today at a price that people are willing to pay.

I believe the answer is "no."


Sig 1911s are pretty nice, and are mass produced. So are Kimbers. People will pay for a good 1911. Just look at what people are doing to get Ruger 1911's. 1911's are more popular today than in 1911.

I pretty much stopped reading anything by him after he foolishly, and very ignorantly, wrote so negatively about the Browning Hi-Power. The article was so full of inaccuracies and repeated myths that I decided anything he had to say just wasn't worth my time. He has become nothing more than your standard gun-mag writer.

I pretty much stopped reading anything by him after he foolishly, and very ignorantly, wrote so negatively about the Browning Hi-Power.You have not specified what it is with which you disagree. Mas does have quite a bit of personal knowledge about the Hi Power. And I haven't read it yet, but Mas devotes a chapter to the Hi Power in his book, Massad Ayoob's Greatest Handguns of the World Volume 2. I do intend to read it.

In any event, if I "pretty much stopped reading anything by" someone on the basis of one article on one subject, my knowledge and my ability to learn would be pretty limited.

In any event, the article in question dates back almost a decade. I enjoyed it. I also like going back and reading Sixguns by Keith, but I will not base any decisions on it.

Well I agree and disagree with Plan2Live. I do a lot of the same thing, spend lots of time ROing at the range and yes, 1911s DO jam. So do revolvers (brand new S&W 25-2 had the barrel unscrew while firing), Glocks (.40 S&W choked on factory ammo. Also seen, WITH MY OWN EYES, NOT hearsay, four Glocks blow up, several others also blown up but I was in club house so did not actually see those), Henry AR-7 (worst gun I ever saw! After being returned to factory, jams every other shot, which is 100% improvement), on and on and on. I, personally, had a Ruger DA revolver jam on me. Saw Ruger P-series pistol jam on factory ammo.

OK, want 1911 horror stories?

Guy shows up with Bill Wilson (who I have met) 1911 that cost $2500. REFUSED TO FEED! PERIOD! Six brands/types of factory ammo, eight different brands of magazines (including Wilson), it would not feed at all! Test fired at factory? Don't make me laugh!!

Kimber 1911. Purchased for Christmas presant. Unfinished extractor, probable70+ lb trigger pull (OK, that is a WAG, I had nothing to measure it with, when the trigger pull was reduced to what felt like half, at least I could now pull the triggger with one hand, it was a measured 36 lbs!), junk mag (common for Kimber), cheapo plastic grips. Test fired at the factory? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH! Stoned about an oz of burs out of it, new extractor, new grips, new mag, trigger job, yeah, it is OK. Look on ALL the custom pistolsmith sites to see what they recommend and DO NOT recommend before buying a Kimber!

The point? Well all guns can and do jam.

Bought a cheapo Century Arms SHOOTERS CHOICE 1911 and it worked pefectly! Excellent trigger pull out of the box! List of everyone who worked on pistol included! Great gun! Feeds empty shells out of mag with no problem. Never jammed.

Take anything built by man and it will screw up sometime. 1911s are a great design, but built by makers who turn out junk and it will jam, as will anything else they turn out of any design.

If anyone can produce a 36 plus-pound trigger, Kimber would be my first guess. WOW!

I SOed a match today and the only malfunction (multiple) I witnessed was a with Glock 19. Glock mags, stock gun (pre the owner) and factory ammo. At least six 1911s on my squad completed the match without problems...other than mental malfunctions.

This goes against everything I have ever read about the 1911 on the internet.

I have been in about a dozen Glock v. 1911 matches (though renamed for the last couple as "1000 Round Open Challenge" to allow for other platforms. Glocks have gone the distance more often than 1911s but Glocks have also been the ones to fail earlier than 1911s.

In these matches, there is no maintenance allowed. If you pull the trigger and the gun doesn't go bang and isn't on safe (1911), it is a malfunction. For several years, Glocks have been the first to fail, at least 3 times in less than 5 shots. However, those that don't tend to go a long way.

1911s have gone the distance on several occasions, but not as often as Glocks. Part of that is a design issue and part an ammo issue in that most 1911s are .45s and produce a lot more residue during firing than 9mm guns. It is the nature of the beast. The long rail contact areas of the 1911 mean having more area that can gunk up during a match. The Glocks have much less and it seems beneficial to them.

However, it should be pointed out that while Glocks are made by Glock only and to Glock specs (unlike 1911s made by a bazillion folks), .45 acp and .45 GAP Glocks have been terrible performers in the matches. In 9mm, the Glocks seem most in harmony.

The matches are currently held near the end of October each year at a privately owned range about an hour east of OKC. Usually there are 20 stages of 50 rounds each. Maybe on average, one gun breaks per year. Some years, none break. Some years a couple or three will break. The shooter can continue so long as the breakage doesn't affect the gun's ability to function safety and the shooter can shoot it safely. For example, one year the rear sight fell of one of the guns, but the shooter continued and actually shot pretty well, but had a devil of a time with the 2" targets.

The winner of the match is the person with a gun that has gone the distance and if more than one has, then the person with the lowest score. More often than not, who won is known without tabulating scores.

I don't know who originally came up with the notion of 1000 rounds with no maintenance. It is a silly standard. To be combat-worthy, mine only need fire 25 rounds reliably to be a great gun for me as I don't carry over 25 rounds with me at any one time (8+1 in the gun and 2 spare mags of 8 rounds each). I know of nobody that has ever been in a fight requiring 1000 rounds of pistol ammo, LOL. Heck, in the North Hollywood Bank Robbery, most of the cops with pistols didn't actually shoot that much. The most pistol shots fired by any one officer that I know of was less than 70 by a motorcycle cop who rolled up on the incident early in the fight as one of the first responders. He had never fired his gun in the line of duty on the street and was something like 3 months from retirement. He fired his full compliment that day.

Maybe somebody else has some data on gunfights where shooters fired high numbers of rounds with their carry pistol, but I don't know of any that top the motorcycle officer's <70 rounds.

I think if the 1000 round match was reduced to a more doable 500 round match, we would see a lot more guns that go the distance and at 500 rounds, it is still many times more than what any person will need in combat and scoring would become salient.

Kleenbore, Ayoob's article on the Hi-Power has been discussed at length in the past, both here and on other sites. No need to rehash it all now, but his views on that subject permanently tainted him in my eyes. There are lots of gun writers out there to read, just one less for me.

The question is whether reliable and combat worthy 1911s can be mass produced today at a price that people are willing to pay.

I believe the answer is "no."


I don't know. My Regent R100 (retails <$500) has been flawless in 3000+ rounds. Even with the POS Italian ACT-mag that it came with. I can even make it hold 2-3" at 25 yards.

GI config buillt to GI specs.

"If Colt, Remington-Rand, Springfield Armory, Ithaca, Union Switch & Signal, and others could produce 1911s to the proper specifications,"

They couldn't. Here's one example from:

www.coolgunsite.com

Under the Springfield Armory section, in the first paragraph:

"However not only were there many subtle difference in the parts, but many of the parts will not completely interchange between a Springfield and a Colts made pistol. It was not until WWII that proper tolerances were specified for all parts to function and interchange."

Part of that is a design issue and part an ammo issue...

Nothing wrong with the design; deviation from causes problems.