1911s suck (not my article)


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

neviander
August 16, 2012, 12:11 AM
This article is a bit of a jaw dropper, but I really can't find much reason to disagree with him. I like the 1911, I really do, but I've never owned one, I've never even shot one. I've shot my Grandfather's Luger, that he "picked up off a kraut", but never the 1911. Nevertheless, the 1911 has been embedded in my head as outright Americana, so therefore, awesome....even though it kinda isn't.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/12/yankee-gun-nuts/the-1911-sucks/

If you enjoyed reading about "1911s suck (not my article)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Walking Dead
August 16, 2012, 12:34 AM
Sounds logical to me. I often wonder the same things. I also wonder how 1911's get such cool names like CQB, elite, range officer, tactical and such. But when you look at them they all look alike. But I guess since the marines bought some that is enough for some people.

Auto426
August 16, 2012, 12:39 AM
Oh joy, another wonderful "1911's Suck" rant on the internet filled with inaccurate information and false generalizations. Quick, someone call the dozens of manufacturers who are selling 1911's faster than they can make them and tell them their products are utter trash and unwanted in today's gun market.

but I've never owned one, I've never even shot one.

So you have no experience with the platform at all, but you know they suck because someone on the internet told you so. Interesting.

Flashcube
August 16, 2012, 12:41 AM
I wonder if these blog ranters will ever realize that no one really cares... doubt it. :scrutiny:

HDCamel
August 16, 2012, 12:58 AM
It needs tools to disassemble.

Stopped reading right there.

bds
August 16, 2012, 01:00 AM
It needs tools to disassemble.
Stopped reading right there.
Yes, only "some" 1911's require tools to disassemble.


My Sig 1911 don't suck and I am sticking to that story. :D

My friend's RIA 1911 Tactical don't suck either and I am also sticking to that story. :D

PabloJ
August 16, 2012, 01:04 AM
There is nothing wrong with the 1911. It sucks when Marine Commandos get Colt 1911s and we the taxpayers get stuck with the bill. They should have been provided with Glock 21s and if they want to parade Colts they should pay for them out of their pockets.

Walking Dead
August 16, 2012, 01:13 AM
There is nothing wrong with the 1911. It sucks when Marine Commandos get Colt 1911s and we the taxpayers get stuck with the bill. They should have been provided with Glock 21s and if they want to parade Colts they should pay for them out of their pockets.
Couldn't disagree more. I may not be the biggest fan of the 1911 but if that's what they say they need to get the job done then no questions asked on my part. And don't get me wrong by my earlier comment because I do like the 1911.

Rubber_Duck
August 16, 2012, 01:22 AM
People that like 1911s will continue to like them and those who don't care for them will continue to like something else. It's been around too long, and other alternatives have been around long enough, everyone can be happy and nobody will be swayed from their favorites. No point in even having yet another discussion about it.

For the record, I have a Colt XSE Commander and absolutely love it. It's a beautiful gun and it shoots very well.

neviander
August 16, 2012, 01:26 AM
Oh joy, another wonderful "1911 Suck" rant on the internet filled with inaccurate information and a false generalizations.
Dude, this was not even close to a rant. I tried to preface my link with some positive comments about the 1911, but still got "smacked down" by a 1911 fan boy *rolls eyes*. If you read the comments on the blog, the author gets peppered with similar, backed up by only the repliers opinion, comments.

My intention was not to start a firefight (though I figured it would) but info is info and if your opinion trumps facts, well.....

Valkman
August 16, 2012, 01:30 AM
Its a 100-year old design. It needs tools to disassemble. It has unreliable magazines. It is finicky about ammo. And, as a single-action pistol, it is unsafe for 95% of its users to carry.

I quit reading there and went to "Why 1911's DON'T Suck". I have no problem field stripping my 7 1911's with no tools, my mags all work, and they shoot whatever I put in them (mostly reloads and Win. Rangers). The last sentence really gets me - I carry the same 1911 today that I bought to carry in '03. No mishaps, how can that be? :) If a 1911 is unsafe to carry I wonder when his "Why Glocks Suck" article will be out?

HDCamel
August 16, 2012, 01:31 AM
but info is info and if you're opinion trumps facts, well.....

Facts like 1911s requiring tools to disassemble?

Where's Tuner?

Rubber_Duck
August 16, 2012, 01:38 AM
Where's Tuner?

He'll be along shortly...;)

12131
August 16, 2012, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by Auto426:
Oh joy, another wonderful "1911 Suck" rant on the internet filled with inaccurate information and a false generalizations. Quick, someone call the dozens of manufacturers who are selling 1911's faster than they can make them and tell them their products are utter trash and unwanted in today's gun market.

but I've never owned one, I've never even shot one.
So you have no experience with the platform at all, but you know they suck because someone on the internet told you so. Interesting.
No kidding!

Auto426
August 16, 2012, 01:59 AM
Dude, this was not even close to a rant. I tried to preface my link with some positive comments about the 1911, but still got "smacked down" by a 1911 fan boy *rolls eyes*. If you read the comments on the blog, the author gets peppered with similar, backed up by only the repliers opinion, comments.

My intention was not to start a firefight (though I figured it would) but info is info and if you're opinion trumps facts, well.....

The rant I was referring to the was the article you posted, not your post itself. And it's funny that you talk about facts, since you admitted to having no experience at all with 1911's, you would obviously know what was fact in that article and what wasn't.

MarshallDodge
August 16, 2012, 02:05 AM
I am tired of the 1911 is an old design crap. While I will agree that there are newer gun designs on the market that require less maintenance, a well built 1911 will hold its own.

A good 1911 will cost a bit more than a Glock, M&P, etc. but if you consider that most serious shooters own multiple handguns and that the cost of the ammo will overtake the cost of the gun, the initial investment is a mute point.

I carried a 1911 for 10 years and my wife still carries one. I now carry an HK in 9mm but would have no issue going back to a 1911 if I wanted something that shot 45ACP.

shiftyer1
August 16, 2012, 02:28 AM
Ur right 1911s are absolute junk. Don't buy one......maybe the price will go down for us that find a use for the poor antiquated design......its a stuggle but we can make it work.

Inebriated
August 16, 2012, 02:43 AM
1911's DO suck big time if you don't invest both the money and practice in them.

You can't buy a $500 1911 and expect it to run like a $500 Glock. 1911's have a lot of moving parts that need to be in tune with each other, as well as a more specialized manual of arms. Invest some effort into it, and it'll serve as well as anything else.

The author did a terrible job of conveying this.

Mr.357Sig
August 16, 2012, 02:43 AM
The 1911 "is unsafe for 95% of its users to carry." Way to pull unverifiable stats out of your butt, Yankee. Ridiculous.

tarosean
August 16, 2012, 02:54 AM
My intention was not to start a firefight (though I figured it would) but info is info and if you're opinion trumps facts, well.....

What exactly was your intention? A poorly written article certainly doesn't make a point.
How can anyone be taken seriously mentioning Chuck Norris facts? I do wonder if the author flunked out of gunsite with such annimosity towards Cooper.


Run what you brung... Don't like it don't buy it.

FIVETWOSEVEN
August 16, 2012, 02:59 AM
I wonder if people would start calling Glocks antiquated junk if other manufacturers started making clones and tightened the tolerances 75 years from now.

For general purpose for the average person, they would be better served with something striker fired and polymer for defensive use. To those that can handle the 1911 for all that it's worth are better off with a 1911. When I can I plan on building myself a 1911 that will be my "do everything" handgun.

Skribs
August 16, 2012, 03:15 AM
This article just goes to show one side of an issue I've brought up before:
Just because something works for the job doesn't mean you can't have something better. Just because something isn't the best tool for the job doesn't mean it won't work.

I am a plastic, passive safety kind of person, but I decided to go outside my comfort zone and look at various options, specifically with the goal of getting as-close-to-the-same-as-possible of two pistols, one in a single-stack pocket size and one in a double-stack duty or compact size. The last two that I had narrowed it down to were the XDm and XDs, or a double-stack 1911 and one of the 3" models. I realized that in order to get a single double-stack 1911, I would be paying more than what both the XD pistols would cost, and that pretty much made the decision for me.

The linked article is right. The 1911 is an old design. There are many guns out on the market now that can do the same thing, with more bullets, with better reliability off the shelf, for a lot less than you can buy a 1911 for. But hey, they still work, right?

el Godfather
August 16, 2012, 06:03 AM
I always enjoy reading posts in these sort of threads.

Anyways, I would much rather prefer to read a point by point disagreement supported with facts.

I have 1911s, Glocks, Sig Sauers, H&Ks and you name it. I dont get offened if any of these get bashed on internets. In fact, a healthy debate is what I would prefer.

After all its just a damn gun folks. We must realize that there people who will disagree with us.

AethelstanAegen
August 16, 2012, 06:17 AM
I stopped reading after the vast majority of his complaints proved untrue for my 1911. I have a Cimarron 1911 that I spent somewhere between $500-600 for new. It is the most comfortable and natural pointing pistol I've yet used. It has so far fed and HP I've thrown at it, the slim designs makes it significantly easier to conceal than my XD compact and I've never used a tool to disassemble it in my life (I had to look up what tools he could possibly be talking about). All of that is one of the cheapest, Philippines-made model available. I also carry that pistol on a regular basis and have managed to not shoot myself so I don't buy his unsafe argument either.

Is it better than every modern pistol? No. Is it out-dated and useless? Not at all. Mine fills a very specific role, it acts as my carry weapon because it conceals much better than my XD and has performed as well (the only downside is smaller magazines, but if I can't stop something with 24 rounds of .45acp, 36 rounds isn't going to help me much either). So do I buy into his "edgy, the emperor has no clothes" article? No, because clearly he hasn't a clue what he's talking about and merely wants to get some publicity by taking a controversial (and stupid) stance.

It'd be one thing if any of the facts he cited are true, but when they're not...there's really no chance to have any sort of reasonable discussion about it.

Pete D.
August 16, 2012, 06:26 AM
I quit reading there and went to "Why 1911's DON'T Suck". I have no problem field stripping my 7 1911's with no tools, my mags all work, and they shoot whatever I put in them (mostly reloads and Win. Rangers). The last sentence really gets me - I carry the same 1911 today that I bought to carry in '03. No mishaps, how can that be? :) If a 1911 is unsafe to carry I wonder when his "Why Glocks Suck" article will be out?
+1. Couldn't say it better.
Pete

buckhorn_cortez
August 16, 2012, 07:01 AM
1911's suck so badly that Wilson is backed up to 18 months delivery on some models, Les Baer is at 20-30 weeks, and Ed Brown is at 22 weeks. Obviously, these guns suck so badly the wait for them is getting longer because more people are ordering them...and let's not even get into true custom 1911 gunsmiths...

Fact - if the 1911 has a standard guide rod, a barrel bushing, and grips retained with slotted screws - you can detail strip the gun without tools. All of the tools needed are part of the gun. If you don't know how to detail strip the gun - then you don't know what you're talking about and the rest of your "points" are suspect.

tarosean
August 16, 2012, 07:13 AM
The linked article is right. The 1911 is an old design. There are many guns out on the market now that can do the same thing, with more bullets, with better reliability off the shelf, for a lot less than you can buy a 1911 for. But hey, they still work, right?

Do you realize striker fired is just as old? Same with a trigger safety. A 1903 actually has less parts that a glock.
I'll give you polymer since its only been 53 years since it was used on a gun. So in reality nothing is "new design"

Then we must ask ourselves what is a 1911? Colt? What about Springfield? Remington Rand? Singer? Ithaca? Union Switch? Those are the originals, everything else is a knock off.

So basically we are talking about a "type" of gun. Would it be any different lumping all polymer pistols together as a type? I certainly wouldn't consider a Hipoint, ATI or other piece of junk to be in the same league as a Glock. Yet people are fine with a blanket statement about a 1911...

Cost is irrelevant to the discussion..

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 07:57 AM
Oh, me oh my. Not this again...

*sigh*

I'm not about to waste time arguing with a man whose mind is made up, nor with anyone who listens to his drivel and spreads his gospel. He takes one or two examples and bases his theories on those instead of the vast majority that run just fine.

If all 1911s were unreliable junk, the pistol would have gone the way of the Chauchaut decades ago, and with the ones that do give a problem, most of the time it's a matter of a few simple adjustments to set right.

The vast majority of the time, it's the magazine. Wish I had a dollar for every Jammin' Jenny I've "fixed" by handing the owner a few of my magazines and telling him to try again. With the others, it's usually the extractor... a matter of a 15-minute tweak. I just recently broke a "junk" Springfield of its jamming habit with a minor extractor adjustment while sitting at my kitchen table with my attention divided between answering the owner's questions and drinking coffee while providing the background stories on the dozen dogs that were milling around vying for attention.

A small percentage actually require major surgery to correct the problems.

The biggest problem is with "Dremel Dan" doin' a Super-Duper Double Throwdown ramp'n'throat job on what was once either a perfectly functioning pistol, or one suffering from an improper magazine or in need of a light extractor tweak...and then pronouncing it as "Worthless Junk" when his efforts bear rotten fruit.

Unsafe for 95% if the users to carry.

It might be time to note that the new term added to our vocabulary is "Glock Leg" and not "1911 Leg."

Incidentally, I've seen Glocks and Sigs choke, too.

Needs tools to disassemble.

Spoken like a man who hasn't seen one stripped to bare frame and slide without tools in about 60 seconds.

Crappy magazines.

On this one, I can find at least a few reasons to agree, but the fault lies with the aftermarket and the belief that...just because you hang a cool moniker on a magazine and charge a big price for it...it's an improvement over the original. So many people have been trying for so long to outsmart John Browning, they really believe they have.

Hacker15E
August 16, 2012, 08:38 AM
As has been said, the root cause of these 'problems' are the manufacturers and users who have 'improved' (translation: messed with) the 1911 design over the years.

The "tools to disassemble" comment comes from some of the full-length guide rod guns and ones with strange recoil spring cap designs. Mr JMB's design needs none of these things.

The Man With No Name
August 16, 2012, 08:38 AM
Couldn't disagree more. I may not be the biggest fan of the 1911 but if that's what they say they need to get the job done then no questions asked on my part. And don't get me wrong by my earlier comment because I do like the 1911.
I still love the 1911 but lets be honest, they need the best platform to get the job done and that isn't the 1911. Glock 21 for example will get the job done, is less finicky about conditions (sand for example), the armorer training is so easy it is a joke, and will outlast the 1911. I want my tax dollars to be spent wisely not on the latest 1911 fad.

The most accurate handgun I've ever owned was a Les Baer 45. Doesn't mean I think it is the best combat weapon or the best choice for 99% of those that need a self defense weapon. Yes I think that blog or whatever is over the top but he hit the mark on quite a few points also.

Quack
August 16, 2012, 08:42 AM
The 1911 "is unsafe for 95% of its users to carry." Way to pull unverifiable stats out of your butt, Yankee. Ridiculous.

Yeah, they are unsafe, just look at all the people that ND a round in their leg. Oh wait, that's called a Glock Leg.

While I didn't look at the link, what irks me are the Tactifools that say that they don't want a thumb safety on their gun then post a pic of their Glock with an AR. HELLO, the AR has a safety that one has to work as well.

For me a 1911/2011 is my platform of choice. I've just ran one of mine through a 3day/~2000rd class with no cleaning, just added a few drops of oil on the barrel hood on the second day. I had no issues, neither did the other 1911's except for a SA Loaded that had the ejector come loose. The polymers started to have issues on day 2 and those were cleaned daily. On the third day, a M&P had a slam fire. Doug at AETi took a look at it and said it was from the dirt in there. A Sig Blackwater 226 cracked its slide and a HK had a bent ejector. There were numerous polymer shooters that had to come off the line because of a malfunction.


Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 08:54 AM
I still love the 1911 but lets be honest, they need the best platform to get the job done and that isn't the 1911.

Do you have a reason to believe that the Marine SOC units made their choice casually?

Really?

Or is it reasonable to believe that they evaluated several platforms before settling on the .45 caliber 1911? These people are going to saddle up and go take care of business in some very ugly, deadly places. They're not going to take that fact lightly or give it a small consideration, and they're sure not gonna base it on what grandpa used on Iwo Jima.

Could it be that the upper echelon charged with overseeing those who are going in harm's way gave them some trigger time on several different platforms and cast a vote as to which one they were more comfortable with?

You may not believe that it's the best platform, but you're not the guy who's gonna go through that door or into that cave with a pistol in one hand and a flashlight in the other.

hentown
August 16, 2012, 09:14 AM
Yawn,zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I just don't find trying to dialogue with the ignorant proletariat to be productive!! :rolleyes: The precis for this thread is so absurd as to not merit our attention. By "ignorant proletariat," I'm speaking of the writer of the referenced blog, not the OP!!

ljnowell
August 16, 2012, 09:28 AM
You may not believe that it's the best platform, but you're not the guy who's gonna go through that door or into that cave with a pistol in one hand and a flashlight in the other.


Quoted for truth.

Gunnerboy
August 16, 2012, 09:39 AM
You can't buy a $500 1911 and expect it to run like a $500 Glock. 1911's have a lot of moving parts that need to be in tune with each other, as well as a more specialized manual of arms.
I recently built a 1911 from a bag of surplus and new parts...... didnt take much tuning, and i didnt need a specialized manual either, i just used common sense and and parts diagram, and guess what 1000 rnds later and only one jam, on the other hand ive seen more than one gunsmith fight with glocks for numerous hours just trying to get them to fire every round. oh and ive had zero training on building a 1911, its a piece of cake.

The Man With No Name
August 16, 2012, 09:42 AM
Do you have a reason to believe that the Marine SOC units made their choice casually?

Really?

Or is it reasonable to believe that they evaluated several platforms before settling on the .45 caliber 1911? These people are going to saddle up and go take care of business in some very ugly, deadly places. They're not going to take that fact lightly or give it a small consideration, and they're sure not gonna base it on what grandpa used on Iwo Jima.

Could it be that the upper echelon charged with overseeing those who are going in harm's way gave them some trigger time on several different platforms and cast a vote as to which one they were more comfortable with?

You may not believe that it's the best platform, but you're not the guy who's gonna go through that door or into that cave with a pistol in one hand and a flashlight in the other.

Yeah I'm sure they put it to a vote and everyone got the exact weapon they wanted also. Like most decisions the decisions were made by committee and we all know how well that works most of the time. I'm sure they didn't pick what they thought was the coolest looking gun vs. the gun that would withstand the harshest use, have the easiest training curve, enable them to have the best armorer support, have the easiest maintenance in the field, and be the most durable (sarcasm in case you are missing it). I don't fight terrorist overseas. I fight the ones in this country. I would never go through a door with a pistol in one hand and a flashlight in the other since the invention of the gun mounted light. :)

wildehond
August 16, 2012, 09:50 AM
Oh, me oh my. Not this again...

*sigh*



+100


Yawn,zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


+100

This is really getting lame. :uhoh:

I currently primarily shoot a Glock 22, but for my own very specific reasons. Still love my Series 70 though and it is VERY realiable.

preachnhunt
August 16, 2012, 09:57 AM
The author of the article states he will only listen to people who have been there and done that. Unless I am mistaken Ayoob has his name on a signature edition Ed Brown 1911.

mljdeckard
August 16, 2012, 10:03 AM
A whole lot of opinion.

hso
August 16, 2012, 10:08 AM
I like the 1911, I really do, but I've never owned one, I've never even shot one.

So there's no basis for you to objectively evaluate the article from any personal experience.

Let's just look at some "facts" presented that are easily proven incorrect.

"It needs tools to disassemble." Well, that's an outright lie.


"It has unreliable magazines." That's no different than any magazine fed firearm. Buy good magazines and they feed. Buy bad magazines and they don't. Same for any handgun.


"It is finicky about ammo." That may or may not be the truth, but that can also be the case for other handguns so it doesn't make the 1911 a problem child.

"And, as a single-action pistol, it is unsafe for 95% of its users to carry." I don't understand how that's the case unless the guy is of the OPINION that any single action auto is unsafe as well.

I think we can logically dismiss the article.

Mp7
August 16, 2012, 10:10 AM
A whole lot of opinion indeed.


id have given the marines a friggin glock as well.
Its not like the US has any money in the bank,
and giving contracts to Colt, wont reverse the economy either.


After all ... H&K is not building any. It must be bad right?? :evil:

jmr40
August 16, 2012, 10:19 AM
I like 1911's quite a bit, but I also happen to like a lot of other old obsolete guns. I felt the article might have gone a little overboard, but was generally pretty accurate.

I'm really disappointed in he Marines decision. It seems they are now more interested on looking like Mall Ninjas than using the best available.

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 10:37 AM
Like most decisions the decisions were made by committee and we all know how well that works most of the time.

Uh...no. This time I do believe that they gave the bleeding/dying grunts some input, and a lot of the decision was based on the experiences that the first MEU-SOC personnel had with the pistol. Remember that this wasn't to be a general issue sidearm. It was to be a life taker and a widow maker issued to an elite group. They were involved in the process.

I'm really disappointed in he Marines decision. It seems they are now more interested on looking like Mall Ninjas than using the best available.

No. That statement is patently absurd. They're far more interested in staying alive, and successfully completing their mission...and units such as this one...like the SEALs...aren't in it for the glory or recognition or image. They go do it and they don't talk about it. In fact, they'd much prefer that they not get any media attention at all.

Hang the cost. Give the lads what they want. Give'em the equipment that inspires confidence. I detect a little sour grape response because they didn't choose the pistol that the Glock/Sig fanboys were so hoping for.

tarosean
August 16, 2012, 10:47 AM
jmr40
I'm really disappointed in he Marines decision. It seems they are now more interested on looking like Mall Ninjas than using the best available.



Are you serious? This has to be one of the most absurd comments I've ever read here.. That's saying something!!!!!$

HDCamel
August 16, 2012, 10:57 AM
You can't buy a $500 1911 and expect it to run like a $500 Glock. 1911's have a lot of moving parts that need to be in tune with each other, as well as a more specialized manual of arms

Regent R100
Retailed $500 when I bought it. Usually sells for significantly less.

2,000 rounds. I've had 2 stoppages, but they were the result of a handload with a split case (would stop many handguns) and the freak occurrence of an ejected brass flying up then falling back down into the action while it was cycling (would stop ANY handgun).

Mike J
August 16, 2012, 11:00 AM
I am another that does not have any experience with the 1911 but I have read other stuff by the author of the article. The impression I get is that he is a Glock-O-Phile that isn't really that knowledgeable about other stuff. Not that there is anything wrong with liking Glocks or not being experienced with every handgun platform known to man. However if one is going to set themselves up to discuss different platforms they should really make an effort to learn enough to be able to set forth facts in an objective manner. If anyone disagrees with me that is fine but if you go back through some of his other stuff I believe you will see why I have this opinion.

neviander
August 16, 2012, 11:23 AM
most of the time it's a matter of a few simple adjustments to set right.
Tuner, I respect your knowledge and experience and barring the other knee jerk responses I got, that was one of the major points I agreed with, it does need tuning, a lot of the time, tuning that joe blow can't do. You made my point for me The vast majority of the time, it's the magazine. Wish I had a dollar for every Jammin' Jenny I've "fixed" by handing the owner a few of my magazines and telling him to try again. With the others, it's usually the extractor... a matter of a 15-minute tweak. I just recently broke a "junk" Springfield of its jamming habit with a minor extractor adjustment while sitting at my kitchen table with my attention divided between answering the owner's questions and drinking coffee while providing the background stories on the dozen dogs that were milling around vying for attention.

A small percentage actually require major surgery to correct the problems. Let me pre empt all those that take my own words of never owning one and try to say "ha! he's never even owned one, he can't possibly know anything about it!" Ya know, I've never been to China, or been governor of a state, but I feel pretty confident about forming opinions about either. I'm not in the "if you've never done it, you don't know jack about it" camp, so please, take that drivel and *paraphrasing* push it violently. :)

I just don't find trying to dialogue with the ignorant proletariat to be productive!!Just what is it that you're doing then?

I never said I thought the article was gospel and no, I'm not backtracking. It's been a while since I've posted on here. Now I remember why I rarely even mentioned the 1911. It is the holy freakin' grail of pistols and any disparaging comments made about it will be met utmost vengeance!....good grief

Hang the cost. Give the lads what they want.
I wish that were so for ALL military, but that's another subject.

Snag
August 16, 2012, 11:30 AM
I wish someone would write a decent article about why 1911's suck, or why Glock's suck for that matter. It would be nice to read something with some hard data and some verifiable facts. Every time I read one like this guys I just come away with the feeling their full of <deleted> like a Christmas tree.

bds
August 16, 2012, 11:39 AM
I wish someone would write a decent article about why 1911's suck, or why Glock's suck for that matter. It would be nice to read something with some hard data and some verifiable facts.
There are plenty of quality reviews out there.

One such example from tactical application perspective where duty pistols MUST perform reliably is done by Hilton Yam who is a LEO/armorer (browse through his articles and he tells it like it is as to why various pistols fail and how to address/work around the failures). Here's his take on "beginner's 1911" - http://10-8performance.blogspot.com/2011/01/choosing-your-first-1911-some-thoughts.html

neviander
August 16, 2012, 11:40 AM
their full of <deleted> like a Christmas tree.
???

The link bds provided puts things a bit more into perspective. Whereas the TTAG (the truth about guns) article read more like a <deleted> off consumer that got lied to and couldn't get his money back. That 10-8 article reads more professionally. Both convey the same points.

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 11:59 AM
it does need tuning, a lot of the time, tuning that joe blow can't do.

That hasn't been my experience...unless you feel that needing to adjust tension every 50,000 rounds or so is a lot.

We tend to hear about the ones that need attention, while the ones that never do quietly chug along...the squeaky wheel/grease thing...and about as often as not, the guy who has a bit of trouble loudly announces that all (insert brand name) pistols are junk.

Imagine his surprise when handing him a proper magazine or bending the extractor a little causes all his problems to disappear...and it's usually the magazine at a 10:1 ratio. Trust me. The look on his face is priceless.

You made my point for me.

Well...If that's how you read it, I can't do anything about that.

A poorly tensioned extractor isn't the fault of the gun. Look to the guy who installed it and sent it on down the line without proper adjustment. Neither is the low-quality magazine the fault of the gun. Look to the corporate bean counter who insisted on saving 50 cents per unit. You'd think that after a hundred years, the manufacturers would understand that good magazines and proper extractor adjustment are vitally important to the pistol's reliable function...but I guess that's too much to expect in this day and age.

Way back in 1910, John Browning and a team of Colt's top engineers had it all worked out. I have it on good authority that those people really did know what they were doing. That so few people these days seem to be willing to believe and accept that is curious...but what're ya gonna do. *shrug*

I've tried for lo these many years to make the horse drink water, so far with limited success.

smalls
August 16, 2012, 12:09 PM
Why are you all complaining about the Marine's decision?

Very select portions of the Marines are replacing what they already had. Meaning they shot them well, and they worked before.

Snag
August 16, 2012, 12:24 PM
their full of crap like a Christmas tree.

???

The link bds provided puts things a bit more into perspective. Whereas the TTAG (the truth about guns) article read more like a p***ed off consumer that got lied to and couldn't get his money back. That 10-8 article reads more professionally. Both convey the same points.

You do get the expression yes?

Those two articles, the TTAG and the 10-8, do not covey the same points. The first one the guy is basically stating, as he did in the first paragraph, that "the 1911 an old design that is more trouble than it is worth". It's all opinion. The 10-8 article is talking about how "If you really want a 1911, prepare to jump into the deep end of the pool". Then he goes on to explain how the "deep end" of the pool is a Springfield GI model for 5-600 bucks? He also states "For about $100 with smart shopping, you can also get one of the new manufacture Colt 1991A1 Government Models". I'm assuming that's a typo.

So really, all respect given, both articles suck.

RmB
August 16, 2012, 12:35 PM
That article is full of logic..... HOW??

PabloJ
August 16, 2012, 12:51 PM
Why are you all complaining about the Marine's decision?

Very select portions of the Marines are replacing what they already had. Meaning they shot them well, and they worked before.
In time when everyone is tightening their belt cost effective contracts should be pursued. If Marines needed steel .45 Ruger P series or SR1911 would have been less expensive then the overpriced Colt.

Tex4426
August 16, 2012, 01:16 PM
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/12/patrick-carrube/why-the-1911-doesn%e2%80%99t-suck%e2%80%a6/


O look i 1911 doesnt suck article


I have a bought used rock island that i bought a drop in trigger job ,wilson beaver tail ,hogue grip, and a barrel compensator.. o and fobus double mag and fobus cun holster...total comes 450 bucks..and its been dead nut reliable since i got it...not as nice as my brothers SR 1911 that cost 700 but a nice pistol for what i got in it

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 01:17 PM
If Marines needed steel .45 Ruger P series or SR1911 would have been less expensive then the overpriced Colt.

And maybe somebody didn't feel that the investment cast frames would have met their longevity standards under the conditions that the guns would be used. As in 1911, every part of the gun...including the slide...was an expendable service part that would need to be replaced at some point. Along with other various parts and assemblies, a couple dozen slides were ordered by the US Army for every complete pistol that was delivered...because they understood then, as now that the slide and barrel assembly is the gun. The frame is essentially no more than the gun mount and a housing for the controls. The frames had to outlast the slides because replacing the slide is cheaper than replacing the whole gun.

While a good investment cast frame is fine for normal use and abuse...it may not fare as well under the hard use that the Marines' contract pistols will be expected to hold up under. These guys are reported to burn up about 30,000 rounds a year in practice...and that's per Marine.

mljdeckard
August 16, 2012, 01:20 PM
My Kimber Custom II was $630 NIB. It's the most reliable handgun I have ever owned. I'm not sure what it is supposed to do that it hasn't.

Skylerbone
August 16, 2012, 01:24 PM
I would love to see a response from someone who agreed with the article that can turn the author's assertions into fact. Rather than claiming 1911 owners are defensive and obtuse how about some statistics and data to back it up?

I nearly halted my reading at the mention of Mr. Norris as he presents a paradox: how does one prove that Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer when the man has never cried?

I do find it sad that so many disbelievers find fault with what they have never witnessed, even sadder when 1911 owners cave to pressure and believe their pistol is more prone to failure than some modern design. There's a lightbulb glowing in a fire station right now that is testament to the laughability of modern "extended life" bulbs. There is a bridge in New York that does the same.

The Marines? Send them the best there is! A new, spaceage polymer pistol that saves a ton of money. One designed this century not way back when. I hear Diamondback meets those criteria...same as Glocks but better 'cause they're newer and all.

Skribs
August 16, 2012, 01:28 PM
I was waiting for one of the mods with 1911 in their name to speak up in this thread...

1911Tuner, while I agree with you that maybe the article doesn't present the 1911 accurately, I disagree with you that the 1911 is the best tool for the job. I agree with others in this thread that the Marines could have saved money and gotten a tool just as good (if not better) for combat in the form of a modern .45 handgun. I also think it is a waste of money to give Marines a pistol, when they already carry a rifle on their excursions. That's just my personal opinion.

I do believe the 1911 is an outdated design, and it's not because it is old. It is because I believe polymer, double stack, and rails are advancements that the 1911 predated. That being said, I understand 1911s are coming out with those features, and those modernized 1911s are making use of modern technology. I do not believe the 1911 is useless...although it would be in my hands because I haven't trained to take the safety off on the draw (training issue, not gun issue). The biggest issues I have are simply with the weight, capacity, and price - issues that are resolved by going with a Glock or similar.

ApacheCoTodd
August 16, 2012, 01:32 PM
I figure the first and most important flaw in the "article" is:

Are we gonna talk about 1911s (production ceased in 1945)?

Are we gonna talk about Colt commercial?

Are we gonna talk about the raft of alternative clones? Products that we have no right to force onto the reputation of JMB or the fellas behind the 1911 & 1911A1 service pistols.

I figure between showing a service pistol with a commercial round and that "finger in the eye" second paragraph that either;

The clown knows not of what he speaks.

Is shopping scenarios to support a "hate" thing.

Is deliberately mixing apples and oranges to build a complaint to the green grocer.

-or-

The black light in his basement bedroom in his mom's house doesn't work and he's been banned from all the on-line commando games.

Another: "If every Clone won't feed every round from every mag that I select regardless of attention to original design parameters, my cheapness or my enslavement to trends and ninjaness, it must be crap!"

76shuvlinoff
August 16, 2012, 01:37 PM
I'm really disappointed in he Marines decision. It seems they are now more interested on looking like Mall Ninjas than using the best available.

I would like to see that statement made in front of said Marines to get their honest responses... whatever they may be.

Fiv3r
August 16, 2012, 01:38 PM
I don't put a lot of stock in an article with a few typos within the first couple of sentences.

I'm not a big fan of the 1911 platform, but it has nothing to do with gun being "junk". Quite the contrary, I find the history, style, and sex appeal of the 1911 to be very, very tempting. However, at the end of the day, it just doesn't suit my needs (mainly that most are not ambidextrous as I am a lefty who has a hard time sweeping the safety, the weight of the gun for carry, and the size of the round).

I have never understood the "Us 'r Them" line in the sand that certain platform users draw. I like 1911's. I don't own one or carry one because it doesn't fit my needs or budget, but I enjoy shooting them as much as any other hand gun. I love the design but not enough to work around the limiting factors for my criteria in a carry piece.

I generally carry a Glock, but it has nothing to do with perfection. I simply like the weight of the gun, the passive safety that is lefty friendly, and that the exterior of the gun requires very little maintenance to keep clean and functional (no debris getting behind the hammer or rust spots on the steel from sweat).

That said, I find the 1911 to be a fine design, and if it works for you shoot it and carry it:) It's not my cup of tea right now. For me, a 1911 is like a really fine watch that I can't afford presently. The Glock is a cell phone. They both "tell time". One is just more of an investment grade item. A quality 1911 (for me) would be brought out on special occasions and passed down. A Glock is a defense tool that will more than likely get rotated in and out of daily carry service.

TAKtical
August 16, 2012, 02:00 PM
I love glocks. I always have. In my experience they are the most reliable pistols in the world. That being said, I also love my 1911's. There is nothing in the world like a 1911 trigger. I have put $300 into every glock I have, just to get a trigger that is almost, sorta, kinda like a 1911 trigger.

skywalkrNCSU
August 16, 2012, 02:16 PM
I don't exactly agree with the article in the OP but I do not exactly see where a 1911 excels that others fall short.

The only thing I could guess is you just like how it shoots or you want a gun you can easily customize.

I had one 1911 (Springfield Loaded) and it had more FTF's than any other gun I have used, and I was using Wilson mags. I likes how it shot alright but it wasn't exactly a religious experience by any means. I am in the market for another 45 and can't even think of a valid reason as to why I should try another 1911.

Skribs
August 16, 2012, 02:19 PM
There is nothing in the world like a 1911 trigger.

I find it amazing that this is the pistol's only real redeeming quality compared with any modern design. The amazing part is that this trigger is so great, but nobody else uses it. It's kinda like some specific calibers that fill a special niche (5.7x28mm, 7.62x25mm, .50 GI) that nobody else makes, and the one isn't even in a modern design.

Actually, in a sci-fi I'm writing, someone from a different universe where they have access to energy-powered weapons uses a 1911 as his pistol of choice. When asked why, with all the alien technology available, he chooses that, his answer is "nothing we have has that trigger."

That doesn't change my opinion on the overall design, however.

Pilot
August 16, 2012, 02:28 PM
^^^^^^^^^

You do realize that most of today's "modern designs" operating systems are based on the one used in the 1911. Right?

Skribs
August 16, 2012, 02:37 PM
Yes, I do. I also know that more people use Windows 7 than Windows 3.1, and that people are buying bagless vacuum cleaners over bag ones anymore. What separates the modern designs from the traditional 1911 is advancements in technology. Some newer models use those advancements, but the majority do not.

Skylerbone
August 16, 2012, 02:39 PM
Barrett M99 Sniper Rifles Suck (Not my assertion)

but I understand the sentiment. They big. They heavy. They loud. They ugly. Let's face it, what use could there be in slowing down some of our most elite military operators with a 25 lb., 50" hunk of metal that costs $4,500? All that and it's a single-shot and needs a scope? Why I hear R.B. thought it up and built the first prototypes in his garage! Charlatan I tell you! It don't serve my purposes or those of 95% of gun owners and facts is facts...right?

The Man With No Name
August 16, 2012, 03:03 PM
Uh...no. This time I do believe that they gave the bleeding/dying grunts some input, and a lot of the decision was based on the experiences that the first MEU-SOC personnel had with the pistol. Remember that this wasn't to be a general issue sidearm. It was to be a life taker and a widow maker issued to an elite group. They were involved in the process.
Link? The fact that I see Colt was chosen tells me even more of this decision and how poor it was for the simple fact that if cost is no object to get them the best tool available then Les Baer (among others) may not be the cool sounding investment grade choice but definitely the better weapon.

The Marines? Send them the best there is! A new, spaceage polymer pistol that saves a ton of money. One designed this century not way back when. I hear Diamondback meets those criteria...same as Glocks but better 'cause they're newer and all.

No experience with a Diamondback so I can't comment. I'm wondering from your comments if you have experience with any of the guns being mentioned. People that use Glocks and are religious about them tend to be that way because they have high round count guns that are still 100% reliable. Or they carry them on duty in exposed holsters. They get rained on, they get dirty, they work 100% of the time. They don't weigh you down like a the typical 1911 and when your daily carry consists of a vest, baton, 2 pair of cuffs, 2 loaded spare mags, 1-2 flashlights, very heavy radio with shoulder mic, audio remote for the in car camera, small seperate video recorder, and whatever assorted gear the weight of the gun is a concern. Imagine the ton of stuff that has to be carried in combat. Personally if I thought I was going to be in a fight and had a choice none of these guns would be my first choice as my sidearm or primary fighting pistol. But given what we are discussing I would choose the more durable tool.

While a good investment cast frame is fine for normal use and abuse...it may not fare as well under the hard use that the Marines' contract pistols will be expected to hold up under. These guys are reported to burn up about 30,000 rounds a year in practice...and that's per Marine.

Through their sidearms? That has got to be wrong. If it is correct then it is a joke. I doubt anyone here would even try to justify that as a necessary expense. Nothing wrong with heavy practice but 30 thousand a year is recreational shooting.

Tex4426
August 16, 2012, 03:12 PM
U can have the best of both world..rock river has a poly 1911

Auto426
August 16, 2012, 03:14 PM
Through their sidearms? That has got to be wrong. If it is correct then it is a joke. I doubt anyone here would even try to justify that as a necessary expense. Nothing wrong with heavy practice but 30 thousand a year is recreational shooting.

The information is readily available on the Internet. It's very common for the MARSOC guys to shoot upwards of 10,000 rounds in a training cycle and the deployment that follows it. And they've been doing that for years now with 1911's. You can complain about the cost of the gun, but when you look at the amount of rounds they see in their lifetime it seems sort of insignificant.

tipoc
August 16, 2012, 03:16 PM
On the Marine Corps decision. You can read a little about it here...

http://www.shootingwire.com/story/264958

Note that the order for 12,000 Colt made 1911s with rails called by Colt the Close Quarters Battle Pistol...
The CQBP contract is for a five-year period and has a potential value of up to $22.5 million. The CQBP expands on a long history of MARCORSYSCOM re-building original Government-issue 1911s, primarily for use by Force Recon and MARSOC units.

This tells you a few things if you are aware of some background on special forces units in the U.S. military.

First-These guns do not replace all standard issue sidearms throughout the Corp. Only those already in use in some units.

Second- the order replaces a good many Colt made 1911s that go back to the last time the Marines received new 1911s from any source-which was during the Second World War- they have been rebuilding their last order since 1948 and keeping those guns running. This is true. If the new guns run half as long under the conditions under which the old ones were subjected that means their last order has been running for over 60 years. You replace parts as needed and they keep going. Seems a wise economic choice.

Third, the rank and file Marine in these units, Force Recon and others, do have a say. Obviously, at some point, a committee approved the request. Understand that special forces units often have access to a variety of sidearms. The special forces units often get what they request. The suggestion that the requisition was made by a bureaucratic committee somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon is an uninformed assumption.

Kimber and Springfield have also produced limited runs of guns for other special forces units in the military. Those units also have H&Ks, Sigs, and other guns. The Seals have a reputation for using a variety of guns including 1911s. This does not mean that the M9 will be replaced anytime soon. It does mean that the 1911 soldiers on and is fit for that in the experience of many Seals, Deltas, Marines and others.

tipoc

neviander
August 16, 2012, 03:20 PM
I also know that more people use Windows 7 than Windows 3.1, and that people are buying bagless vacuum cleaners over bag ones anymore. What separates the modern designs from the traditional 1911 is advancements in technology.
Yep. A '68 Chevelle is a bad a** ride, but next to a new, say, Intrepid, (or whatever, pick a model) is a maintenance --deleted--, (I have no idea if --deleted-- is no no language on THR anymore, it's in the bible, delete if "offensive") not because the original Chevelle design was flawed, because time has passed, technology has developed. There are even family sedans that will spank any O.E. Chevelle, in every area...except looks, and will go way past 100,000 miles with no more than oil and filters changed.

That's my point. I'd love to have a '68 Chevelle, and a 5 thousand dollar 1911, that doesn't mean I'm going to make either my daily driver ;)

Skribs
August 16, 2012, 03:24 PM
Kimber and Springfield have also produced limited runs of guns for other special forces units in the military. Those units also have H&Ks, Sigs, and other guns. The Seals have a reputation for using a variety of guns including 1911s. This does not mean that the M9 will be replaced anytime soon. It does mean that the 1911 soldiers on and is fit for that in the experience of many Seals, Deltas, Marines and others.

I wonder how much of the reason why they want 1911s is because they already use 1911s. I may not serve, but I've worked with enough Army folk to know that they don't consider change to be a good thing. But I wonder if they were started on a Glock, if they would look at the 1911 and think "no way you're putting that rust-prone old thing in my holster."

That said, even with my reservations about the 1911 being the optimal tool, I will say that within 100 yards one Force Recon or SEAL with a 1911 is probably better than a whole squad of grunts with M4s.

stanmo
August 16, 2012, 03:31 PM
I never cared about 1911's and didn't really want one until I reluctantly got a one (a GI RIA) in a trade. It is now my favorite gun to shoot. I carry a 442, but the 1911 falls into the "from my cold dead hands" camp.

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 03:37 PM
Through their sidearms? That has got to be wrong. If it is correct then it is a joke. I doubt anyone here would even try to justify that as a necessary expense. Nothing wrong with heavy practice but 30 thousand a year is recreational shooting.

Nope. It's no joke, and recreational shooting is one of the best ways to develop skill, no? It's a known fact that police officers who only shoot their sidearms to qualify don't tend to do as well when the target shoots back as those who shoot for pleasure.

And...For the Marines in question...the 1911 isn't simply a sidearm in the normal sense. It's not a symbol of rank or an emergency fall back for mortar crews and the like. It's a second primary arm that will be used to shoot people. Regular infantry 11B/0311 personnel aren't issued sidearms. The SOC group all have pistols...and all those pistols are active weapons.

Link? The fact that I see Colt was chosen tells me even more of this decision and how poor it was for the simple fact that if cost is no object to get them the best tool available then Les Baer (among others) may not be the cool sounding investment grade choice but definitely the better weapon.

I'll look for the link, but don't hold your breath. It's been a while since I read up on the MEU-SOC's return/adoption of the 1911 pistol. Part of it was by letting the recruits shoot several different pistols and getting feedback from them.

Cost is always part of any military weapons contract, but there are other equally important considerations. Les Baer essentially builds a target pistol that is unnecessarily tight going to battery in order to achieve the level of (claimed) 50-yard accuracy and thus has greater potential for failures in a harsh environment. A pistol that's to be used at conversational distance has no need for that sort of accuracy, while reliable function is by far the most important criteria. A pistol that stops on the target range means little. The pistol that stops while somebody else is drawing a bead on you 15 feet away is another matter entirely. Not only does a fine, young Marine die, but his loss compromises the unit's chances of success.

It's also doubtful if Baer has the production capacity for such a contract, and...remember that the contract included spare parts and logistics support. Even if Baer could have met the contract, when all that is thrown in, the contract could have easily been double or triple the cost of Colt's bid.

And finally...is there just something about Colt that you hate? Why not Colt? They've been building the 1911 pistol non-stop for over a century, including many tens of thousands for military use. Odds are that they've got a pretty good handle on it.

Understand that special forces units often have access to a variety of sidearms. The special forces units often get what they request. The suggestion that the requisition was made by a bureaucratic committee somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon is an uninformed assumption.

Bingo! Give that man the chocolate layer cake.

Jeff White
August 16, 2012, 03:37 PM
I still love the 1911 but lets be honest, they need the best platform to get the job done and that isn't the 1911. Glock 21 for example will get the job done, is less finicky about conditions (sand for example), the armorer training is so easy it is a joke, and will outlast the 1911. I want my tax dollars to be spent wisely not on the latest 1911 fad.

And what is the job? Do you know? These new Colts are to replace the Kimbers that were spec'd out by Pat Rogers to replace the the in house built 1911s (built on WWII vintage frames) that were used by certain USMC units for decades. Nothing wrong with the Kimbers, they simply wore out from the number of rounds put through them. These pistols are used. The units that issue them burn through quantities of ammunition in their normal training cycles that make commanders of conventional units green with envy.

The units that use these pistols have a long history with the 1911 platform. Their training and their TTPs are designed around it. Their logistical support is set up for it.

There is a lot of ancillary equipment, holsters, magazines, mag pouches, armorers tool kits etc. that go with issuing a new pistol to a military unit. I don't know if you've ever looked at those costs, but if you changed platforms, buying all that new stuff would probably run the price per unit significantly higher then $500 for a Glock pistol.

As for the Glock 21 being the better platform, that's a matter of opinion. If I were going to pick a Glock to issue to any group, it certainly wouldn't be the 21. It's simply too big to fit most people's hands. I have worked for two departments who issued the Glock 21. Most officers end up learning the fundamentals on a loaner Glock in 9mm or .40 in the academy and moving to their issued 21 on the 2d or 3d day of firearms training.

The agency I work for now issues the Glock 21. We do have a liberal personal weapons policy and several of us carry 1911s. None of us are bothered that it's a 100 year old design. None of us are bothered by that fact we don't have 13 round magazines. And then there is this point, none of us thinks we are better armed then the deputies who carry the issue Glock 21s and not one of them has ever expressed the thought that they are better armed then those of us with 1911s.

It comes down to what works for you. And for a lot of reasons the Marines feel the 1911 works best for the special units that use it. If they had chosen Glocks I certainly wouldn't be saying they made the wrong choice. That's not my place.

Skribs
August 16, 2012, 03:45 PM
The units that use these pistols have a long history with the 1911 platform. Their training and their TTPs are designed around it. Their logistical support is set up for it.

There is a lot of ancillary equipment, holsters, magazines, mag pouches, armorers tool kits etc. that go with issuing a new pistol to a military unit. I don't know if you've ever looked at those costs, but if you changed platforms, buying all that new stuff would probably run the price per unit significantly higher then $500 for a Glock pistol.

Very good way of highlighting why "the best" isn't always the best.

Auto426
August 16, 2012, 03:50 PM
Yep. A '68 Chevelle is a bad a** ride, but next to a new, say, Intrepid, (or whatever, pick a model) is a maintenance whore, (I have no idea if whore is no no language on THR anymore, it's in the bible, delete if "offensive") not because the original Chevelle design was flawed, because time has passed, technology has developed. There are even family sedans that will spank any O.E. Chevelle, in every area...except looks, and will go way past 100,000 miles with no more than oil and filters changed.

The technological progress of cars doesn't compare very well to guns. In the past 100 years cars have come quite a long way, while guns haven't really developed all that much. Glock's don't have ECM models controlling their air/fuel mixtures and timing and 1911's don't have unhardened valve seats designed for leaded fuel.

I do find it funny that talks of 1911's being super intensive maintenance hogs usually seem to come from people like you, who have never even shot one, much less carry one daily.

Skribs
August 16, 2012, 03:55 PM
Maybe we should re name it the 2011

STI has done that with their double-stacks.

Jeff White
August 16, 2012, 03:56 PM
Very good way of highlighting why "the best" isn't always the best.

When you are writing MTOEs for units then you get to decide what's best. The Marines decided sticking with the 1911 was best for them and that's the end of the story. You don't have to agree with it, you just have to live with it.

Why don't you let those people who have the training and operational experience make those decisions. Our special operations forces from all branches have the freedom to choose what works best for them. I would not presume to tell them what equipment fits their needs and I spent 20+ years as an Army Infantryman. In that time I lived with a lot of equipment that was clearly a mistake, the Dragon antitank missile springs immediately to mind. Fortunately SOF isn't constrained by that kind of procurement.

People with a lot of time at the pointy end made that decision and I'm not going to say it's the wrong one.

FMF Doc
August 16, 2012, 04:04 PM
I like the 1911 the same way I like a Corvette. When propperly tuned and maintained, it is an excellent weapon of war. That is why the Marines (MARSOC and Recon) have them. But if you don't have an armorer and have to do and pay for the upkeep yourself, it becomes a bit more of a burden. I carry a glock and drive a Silverado...workhorses, not fine tuned racing machines.

dom1104
August 16, 2012, 04:08 PM
If my 1911s suck.. then I would LOVE to shoot a gun that doesnt. :)

saturno_v
August 16, 2012, 04:10 PM
Can the experts, the ones in the know, please tell me exactly what this Marine super 1911 can do that you regular M9 (or a 92A1 if you need the accessory rail), maybe with the same exterior finishing and tricked up a little if you wish, cannot??

Please do not mention the effectiveness differences between the FMJ 45 ACP and the FMJ 9x19mm NATO...I have not seen any irrefutable proof of that...yet...

I remember that when the M9 was selected it showed very impressive reliability and durability results and it is battle tested around the world in the last 30 years.

Same thing for a Glock or a SIG platform...what this special 1911 can do that these cannot??

Please FACTS and not OPINIONS or personal preferences...I would be very curious to know.

FMF Doc
August 16, 2012, 04:16 PM
Can the experts, the ones in the know, please tell me exactly what this Marine super 1911 can do that you regular M9 (or a 92A1 if you need the accessory rail), maybe with the same exterior finishing and tricked up a little if you wish, cannot??

Please do not mention the effectiveness differences between the FMJ 45 ACP and the FMJ 9x19mm NATO...I have not seen any irrefutable proof of that...yet...

I remember that when the M9 was selected it showed very impressive reliability and durability results and it is battle tested around the world in the last 30 years.

Same thing for a Glock or a SIG platform...what this special 1911 can do that these cannot??

Please FACTS and not OPINIONS or personal preferences...I would be very curious to know.
The M9 and now the M9A1 that most Marine units carry is a fantastic weapon. I loved minea. And someday when finances permit, will own one myself. What I did not like was 124gr NATO FMJ. I don't have any statistics, just first hand experiance. COM shot do not drop hostiles as quickly as 230gr FMJ .45. Period. If you want to debate that go to the sand box and figure it out for your self, as I already have. With non-expanding ammo, bigger bullets passing through make bigger holes and kill bad guys faster. When the round stays put in the body because of proper expansion, energy transfer plays a huge role. But with FMJ...bigger really is better

neviander
August 16, 2012, 04:26 PM
The technological progress of cars doesn't compare very well to guns. In the past 100 years cars have come quite a long way, while guns haven't really developed all that much. Glock's don't have ECM models controlling their air/fuel mixtures and timing and 1911's don't have unhardened valve seats designed for leaded fuel.
True, but there weren't too many CNC mills, or plastic injection mold machines in 1920 either.

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 04:39 PM
Same thing for a Glock or a SIG platform...what this special 1911 can do that these cannot??

As Jeff pointed out, these units have a lot of trigger time with the M1911 pistol. They know it intimately. They've shot it a lot and they're confident with it. The old adage: "Beware the man with only one gun" comes to mind. That, and confidence with one's weapon is a big part of it.

But if you don't have an armorer and have to do and pay for the upkeep yourself, it becomes a bit more of a burden.

A major factor in the adoption of the 1911 pistol a hundred years ago was because it was easy to maintain in the field without need for an armorer, so that one doesn't fly, either.

In its original configuration, it could be quickly stripped to bare frame and slide without tools. I haven't seen one of the new pistols, so I don't know if any of their modifications have made that a lot more difficult, but I'd bet not. Even so, it would require a minimum in the way of tools in order to take it apart should it become fouled with dirt or mud.

The unit armorers are used for more major repairs...rebuilding the frames and refitting slides and barrels that are worn out or beaten out of serviceable condition. In the field, the pistol is a snap to maintain.

If you're ever in my neck of the woods, look me up and I'll knock one down for ya in about 60 seconds without so much as a punch...starting with a completely assembled gun.

Skribs
August 16, 2012, 04:43 PM
Why don't you let those people who have the training and operational experience make those decisions.

They make those decisions, and then use the equipment from those decisions to fight for my right to criticize them for it. You're right, I'm not in the middle of what they are, and I haven't needed to actually use my firearm. With that said, it doesn't mean I can't theorize like we always do in these types of threads. I personally don't see an advantage the 1911 provides in this scenario, but I do see disadvantages. But, like I said, I think that when you're talking about the types of units that get to choose what they want, their skill and training is so far above the standard soldier that it's not going to make a difference.

My comment wasn't specifically aimed at the 1911, but more of the general idea that I might have a theoretical "best" option, but choose something else because it fits my situation better. For example, some think the .45 is the best, and regardless of whether or not you agree, a recoil-sensitive person would be better suited with a 9. I think an AR is better than a shotgun for HD, but because of the different rules at various local ranges, I feel I can practice better with a shotgun, so I use a shotgun.

Old Shooter
August 16, 2012, 04:54 PM
For those who don't care for them or think 1911's suck....


It's a 1911 thing, you wouldn't understand :)

CommanderCrusty
August 16, 2012, 04:57 PM
I think of myself as primarily a revolver shooter. I have always shot revolvers better than automatics because the rolling trigger pull on the wheel gun is more flinch resistant. HOWEVER, two things have happened to make me change my mind and appreciate the 1911 single action .45 ACP.

1) I finally mastered the single action trigger--thank you J. Michael Plaxco! Prep-Set-Squeeze-Freeze. Now I can shoot pretty good groups with a 1911, Glock, DA/SA pistol OR a revolver.

2) Then, I developed arthritis in the first finger, first joint of both hands. Suddenly a single action pistol was actually EASIER to shoot than any other action type.

In one sense, 1911s still suck! My Para Ordnance GI Expert, no-frills-nothing-extra-to-break pistol, bought new by me, was slightly defective. The hammer would follow the slide down about 1 time out of 50 shots. I sent the gun back to Para. They replaced the defective parts. Now, NOW, the gun is reliable! I've put about 500 rounds of factory ammo through the Para since then with zero malfunctions.

For me, I plan on every new gun I buy being a piece of junk. I now EXPECT every firearms I buy to be defective and budget time and money to send it back. So far, I haven't have to do that with my M&P .45, but I did choose to send it out for a trigger job. My Ruger GP100 has never malfunctioned, but my Ruger SR9 had to go back to the factory for a recall. My Browning .22 was a piece of junk. My S&W .22 revolver needed an action job.

So, I guess I believe ALL handguns suck--until proven otherwise.

powder
August 16, 2012, 04:58 PM
Yup..."victims of marketing hype."

Same as what's going on in the black-rifle craze: " You need to spend $1200 with AR/M4 company xyz to have a true battle rifle!" Marketing hype that's over the top, yet effective.

Interestingly enough, two of the top tier weapons trainers (IMHO) have made the switch from 1911 to polymers in the last 18 months, particularly in their competition and duty carry. (Glock and M&P) Actions speak louder than words.

Skylerbone
August 16, 2012, 05:17 PM
No experience with a Diamondback so I can't comment. I'm wondering from your comments if you have experience with any of the guns being mentioned. People that use Glocks and are religious about them tend to be that way because they have high round count guns that are still 100% reliable. Or they carry them on duty in exposed holsters. They get rained on, they get dirty, they work 100% of the time. They don't weigh you down like a the typical 1911 and when your daily carry consists of a vest, baton, 2 pair of cuffs, 2 loaded spare mags, 1-2 flashlights, very heavy radio with shoulder mic, audio remote for the in car camera, small seperate video recorder, and whatever assorted gear the weight of the gun is a concern.

I can say my training came from dear old dad, a man who spent 43 years in uniform as a soldier and LEO, who graduated from 2 police academies at the top of his class, a man who posted at age 60 (with trifocals) outshot every officer from 2 departments that day with an M9. This was not his personal sidearm, in fact his duty 92FS (from a civilian LE agency he spent several decades with) was sold off after 2 years in favor of a 686 (that's an old tyme wheel gun what only held 6 rounds).

As for me, dad started me on single shot firearms, progressed to bolts & levers, SA/DA revolvers and eventually autos like the Buckmark, Colt Mustang and 1911. How much do I shoot? Maybe 10,000 rounds in a good year and 5,000 in an off year. Do I own polymer frame pistols? Yes. Revolvers, automatics, shotguns, rimfires, centerfires, rifles, an AR, alloy frame? Yes to all of the above. Can I outshoot dad? The stars have occasionally aligned and the rest of the time it's damn close. Hope that answers your questions about me.

Now, back to the question I asked: can any here make fact of the "writer's" assertions? You see, over and over it is being asked "What does the 1911 do that a xxx cannot?" Well, what can an xxx do that a 1911 cannot? Cost less and have a pitiful trigger? I lumped in the Diamondback as a cheap Glock alternative since cost is apparently critical to many and because it's a "modern" firearm.

A few from my stash. Note the "old tyme" 1911 and the "ultra modern" M&P. What a difference 100 years makes!

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=164493&d=1337044838

tarosean
August 16, 2012, 05:25 PM
Interestingly enough, two of the top tier weapons trainers (IMHO) have made the switch from 1911 to polymers in the last 18 months, particularly in their competition and duty carry. (Glock and M&P) Actions speak louder than words.

Well in that case, what does Brian Zins compete with again? :)

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 05:32 PM
Interestingly enough, two of the top tier weapons trainers (IMHO) have made the switch from 1911 to polymers in the last 18 months, particularly in their competition and duty carry. (Glock and M&P) Actions speak louder than words.

Which has nothing to do with what the Marine SOC units want. The trainers aren't going through the doors and they won't be crawling into the caves. In my way of thinking...the guy who's gonna go do that gets to pick whatever he wants to take in with him.

mavracer
August 16, 2012, 05:50 PM
With what it costs to train a Force Recon Marine griping cause they splurged a little on a sidearm, is kinda like buying a Ferrari and griping about what tires cost.

bikerdoc
August 16, 2012, 05:55 PM
the 1911. It is the holy freakin' grail of pistols

To me it is. I also like revolvers and CZ pistols.

To each his own, for his own purpose.

ccsniper
August 16, 2012, 05:59 PM
I stopped reading after "its unsafe for 95%" blah blah blah, if you don't know how to carry a gun cocked and locked then don't carry a gun. I don't even like the 1911 but that guy is just ridiculous

wow6599
August 16, 2012, 06:14 PM
What is this guy's "beef" with Jeff Cooper? He is right that the 1911 was the prevalent sidearm in his time, but didn't Cooper champion the idea and creation of the Bren Ten?

IIRC, he was looking for a replacement for the 1911 / .45 ACP with the *idea* of the 10mm rd used in a non-1911 platform?

Ky Larry
August 16, 2012, 06:30 PM
I have no idea who this bozo is who wrote this article. I carry a Kimber .45ACP Custom Defender II because it works for me. Does this person really think I'm going to stop using a weapon that works just because he said so? It's a shame that stupid isn't painful.:rolleyes:

el Godfather
August 16, 2012, 07:40 PM
From all the discussion that is going on here three questions come to mind:

1. If as stated in posts above Marines will be going through door and crawling in cave, would not it be better they carry a pistol with higher capacity then 7/8 rounds? In civil defense I understand and read arguments on how gun fight doesnt last more then few rounds, but in military operations its different ball game. I have DW vbob (and ordered Nighthawk custom) for daily ccw, but would take my H&K USP in a combat scenario.

2. Some one stated that Marines choice is partially based on the fact they have lot if trigger time on 1911. To me, this just isnt a good enough reason. Leaving the argument whether 1911 is adequate for certain role or it isnt, training on modern and better design should be a preference rather than using an older design with shortcomings.

3. If some one likes to use 1911 he should and ignore the rant. Why is there so much platform and brand conflicts? Double stack 1911 are available, but ruin the best that that I like about 1911- the grip. Trigger on 1911s are awesome, but I also like trigger on Mk23 and FiveseveN and my Beretta 92 Combat Combo and CZ Czechmate ;)

Sergei Mosin
August 16, 2012, 07:47 PM
Much like Robert Farago's previous endeavour, thetruthaboutcars.com, thetruthaboutguns.com thrives on manufactured controversy, sensationalism, a holier-than-thou attitude, and the spreading of hate and discontent. Farago is often wrong, never in doubt. But he has been reasonably successful, so I guess there's a market for his brand of blogging.

Quack
August 16, 2012, 07:48 PM
From all the discussion that is going on here three questions come to mind:

1. If as stated in posts above Marines will be going through door and crawling in cave, would not it be better they carry a pistol with higher capacity then 7/8 rounds? In civil defense I understand and read arguments on how gun fight doesnt last more then few rounds, but in military operations its different ball game. I have DW vbob (and ordered Nighthawk custom) for daily ccw, but would take my H&K USP in a combat scenario.

2. Some one stated that Marines choice is partially based on the fact they have lot if trigger time on 1911. To me, this just isnt a good enough reason. Leaving the argument whether 1911 is adequate for certain role or it isnt, training on modern and better design should be a preference rather than using an older design with shortcomings.

3. If some one likes to use 1911 he should and ignore the rant. Why is there so much platform and brand conflicts? Double stack 1911 are available, but ruin the best that that I like about 1911- the grip. Trigger on 1911s are awesome, but I also like trigger on Mk23 and FiveseveN and my Beretta 92 Combat Combo and CZ Czechmate ;)

The handgun is usually the secondary firearm.

Polymer melts and will deform/break easier than steel. Did you happen to see the HK that broke at the grip from a fall?

How many issues did the Gen4 Glock have when a light was mounted?

My hi-cap 1911's are a smidge thinner than a 1911 with standard grips, just blockier.



Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

BushyGuy
August 16, 2012, 07:49 PM
1911's dont suck! they just lack distance penetration past 50 yards they wont penetrate barriers well as the 9mm.

9mm FMj will penetrate alot better then the 45 at a distance but point blank range they are equal.

el Godfather
August 16, 2012, 07:52 PM
My H&K fell a few times no breakage.

I dont worry about melting my H&K as i do not intend to microwave and if i am in a temp where my H&K could melt, i guess i would be more worried about myself then a freakin gun.

Quack
August 16, 2012, 08:23 PM
My H&K fell a few times no breakage.

I dont worry about melting my H&K as i do not intend to microwave and if i am in a temp where my H&K could melt, i guess i would be more worried about myself then a freakin gun.

There's a difference between the gun falling (a Hi-Point can survive that) and the user falling with it holstered and breaking the grip off.

Rare chance of it happening, but it can happen.


Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Quack
August 16, 2012, 08:26 PM
http://loadoutroom.com/3817/when-polymer-guns-fail-hk-p2000/

http://cdn.loadoutroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/loadout-room-p2000-4-660x320.jpg

http://cdn.loadoutroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/loadoutroom-p2000-2-660x393.jpg

http://cdn.loadoutroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/loadoutroom-p2000-1.jpg

MarshallDodge
August 16, 2012, 08:28 PM
From all the discussion that is going on here three questions come to mind:

1. If as stated in posts above Marines will be going through door and crawling in cave, would not it be better they carry a pistol with higher capacity then 7/8 rounds? In civil defense I understand and read arguments on how gun fight doesnt last more then few rounds, but in military operations its different ball game. I have DW vbob (and ordered Nighthawk custom) for daily ccw, but would take my H&K USP in a combat scenario.

2. Some one stated that Marines choice is partially based on the fact they have lot if trigger time on 1911. To me, this just isnt a good enough reason. Leaving the argument whether 1911 is adequate for certain role or it isnt, training on modern and better design should be a preference rather than using an older design with shortcomings.

3. If some one likes to use 1911 he should and ignore the rant. Why is there so much platform and brand conflicts? Double stack 1911 are available, but ruin the best that that I like about 1911- the grip. Trigger on 1911s are awesome, but I also like trigger on Mk23 and FiveseveN and my Beretta 92 Combat Combo and CZ Czechmate

It is because the Internet knows better than anybody. :p

Hacker15E
August 16, 2012, 08:29 PM
I absolutely love reading internet "gun experts" riffing on what the Marines "need" or "should have bought".

I still love the 1911 but lets be honest, they need the best platform to get the job done and that isn't the 1911. Glock 21 for example will get the job done, is less finicky about conditions (sand for example), the armorer training is so easy it is a joke, and will outlast the 1911. I want my tax dollars to be spent wisely not on the latest 1911 fad.

Are you making that statement based on all the time that you spent in the Marine Special Ops world?

Some one stated that Marines choice is partially based on the fact they have lot if trigger time on 1911. To me, this just isnt a good enough reason.

Again...what basis do you have for determining what the "reason" is for a special operations unit selecting a tool they use? Unless you are part of that unit, and know what it is they need, none of us are qualified to have even an opinion on that choice.

Quack
August 16, 2012, 08:33 PM
at the rate Glock is going at, they'll be on Gen16 for the 100th Anniversary. :lol:

Hacker15E
August 16, 2012, 08:33 PM
it does need tuning, a lot of the time, tuning that joe blow can't do

Yes, this is why units that use small arms have a position known as an "armorer" (or by various other names, but the one who maintains the unit's small arms). I've never been in any military unit where "joe blow" was in charge of storing, maintaining, and issuing small arms -- it's always been someone specifically trained in that field.

Hacker15E
August 16, 2012, 08:42 PM
Interestingly enough, two of the top tier weapons trainers (IMHO) have made the switch from 1911 to polymers in the last 18 months, particularly in their competition and duty carry. (Glock and M&P) Actions speak louder than words.

...and Chris Costa switched over from the M&P to the Nighthawk 1911 when he left Magpul and started Costa Ludus.

hentown
August 16, 2012, 08:44 PM
The author of the article states he will only listen to people who have been there and done that. Unless I am mistaken Ayoob has his name on a signature edition Ed Brown 1911.

IF I'm not mistaken, Ayoob has never been in a gunfight. He hasn't "been there and done that," has he?

Quack
August 16, 2012, 08:48 PM
...and Chris Costa switched over from the M&P to the Nighthawk 1911 when he left Magpul and started Costa Ludus.

He was currently shooting an STI 4.0 Tactical 9mm in class last month. I asked him why he wasn't shooting his NH, he told me because his elbows are injured and NH no longer makes a 2011.

He also had a G19 and his AETi M&P, but used the STI for most (2.5 of the 3 days) of the class.

http://photosbydon.smugmug.com/photos/i-gw2gbmG/0/L/i-gw2gbmG-L.jpg

EddieNFL
August 16, 2012, 08:50 PM
...and Chris Costa switched over from the M&P to the Nighthawk 1911 when he left Magpul and started Costa Ludus.
I would use whatever someone paid me (enough) to use.

Skylerbone
August 16, 2012, 08:54 PM
3. If some one doesn't like to use 1911 he shouldn't and stop the rant. Why is there so much platform and brand conflicts?

How'd that be?

If my thread title was Glock, the Worst Pistol Ever!!! would you ask Glock shooters to shrug and move along? Ignore the ignorance, the lies and the posturing? Would you say a forum for discussion and learning simply isn't the venue for correcting or calling to task imbeciles?

What I don't understand are the constant attacks, the same tired rhetoric and lies put forth week after week after month after year. My 1911s still haven't failed and your claim that they aren't as reliable as your Glock/H&K/XD/M&P/Sig still ain't true. 100% is 100%, no matter how many rounds you claim to shoot vs. how many you snatch from thin air about how many you think I shoot.

Help Gen 4 G17 FTE! "You're limp wristing, WWB isn't powerful enough, do you have the revised recoil set-up, Glock got a bad batch of extractors, mag spring is weak, Glock mags are cheap, you should sling shot it, are you running reloads, my Glock is good to go, I call BS Glocks never fail".

Help $360 1911 clone FTE! "Those aren't reliable".

coalman
August 16, 2012, 08:54 PM
Another 1911-bashing, Glock fanboy taking a break from the Glock kool-aid to stir the pot. IMO, the more simple and cheaper Glock is a better defensive gun for the masses IMO, but a good 1911 a finer and more refined tool in the hands of skilled shooters. But, let's not talk about the Glock Gen 2 AD issue, the Gen2 .40sw KB issue, the Gen2 .45acp light primer strike issue, the Gen4 9mm FTE/FTF issue, the G30sf FTRTB issue, the Gen3 .40sw FTF light issue, and so on.... afterall, wouldn't want to actually be fair or objective in our internet gun bashing.

Skribs
August 16, 2012, 08:55 PM
Regarding the guy breaking his HK, that fall put him in the hospital, and might have been worse if his gun didn't break. Also, just because metal wouldn't have broke, doesn't mean it wouldn't have bent out of shape.

Double stack 1911 are available, but ruin the best that that I like about 1911- the grip.

I actually don't like the grip of a single stack. Only reason I would want one is for a slimmer pocket carry pistol. I'm a gamer, and my hand is used to gripping a fat mouse, not a teensy little pistol grip.

The rest of your post seems to highlight what I've been thinking. If you're in a war, the ability to carry more rounds counts. It's one reason why we switched from 7.62mm to 5.56mm, and I thought why we switched to 9mm. Honestly, the 9mm makes more sense than the .45 in a military setting, IMO. But, like I said, I trust that the operators who are of such an elite level that they get to choose their own stuff are capable of dealing with (what I see as) the shortcomings of the platform over others.

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 09:04 PM
. Some one stated that Marines choice is partially based on the fact they have lot if trigger time on 1911. To me, this just isnt a good enough reason.

Well...I guess you'll just have to accept that it's a good enough reason for them. After all, they'll be going through the door and into the cave, etc. Hey...If one of'em turned to me and asked for big red lollipop before he hit the door...I'd be scramblin' around lookin' for a big red lollipop.

Again...what basis do you have for determining what the "reason" is for a special operations unit selecting a tool they use? Unless you are part of that unit, and know what it is they need, none of us are qualified to have even an opinion on that choice.

And we've got another winner! Give that man a big seegar!

el Godfather
August 16, 2012, 09:17 PM
Ummm the farmer down stream has been using sling shot for past fifty years so he and other decided upgrade their sling shots but refused to go with Remington 870. I cant argue with them either. Lolz.

Enjoy.

Jeff White
August 16, 2012, 09:24 PM
IF I'm not mistaken, Ayoob has never been in a gunfight. He hasn't "been there and done that," has he?

Are you inferring that unless you have been unfortunate enough to have been in a gunfight you bring nothing to the table?

Boyd, the father of modern dog fighting was never in a dog fight, yet everyone in the fighter community is taught the TTPs he developed. Hiw thoughts on mindset are applicable training for any kind of combat.

The Army that rolled up the Iraqis in 1991 was almost completely taught bby officers and NCOs with no combat experience. Most of those with leadership experience during Vietnam having long retired and SOF was the only repository of recent combat experience.

By the time the war on terror rolled around in 2001 those people with combat experience in the first gulf war who were still in uniform were in senior positions and not sharing their experiences directly with the troops except for the most part through articles in professional publications.

Yet we did pretty well for ourselves. Of course we have a good institutional memory.

Just because someone has "seen the elephant" doesn't mean he is the know all/be all when it comes to combat. What you need to know is what he did when he saw the elephant. Many people get through on luck alone.

I'm truly sorry that the USMC Special Operations unit didn't select your favorite pistol be it a Glock or Hi Point. All that means is that given a thorough review of their mission requirements they bought what they thought they needed to accomplish the mission.

If your favorite pistol didn't make the cut, well that's just tough. When you are organizing, training and equipping your unit, feel free to choose your personal favorite. Make sure you draw on the institutional knowledge you gained from whatever organization you were associated with before you were tasked with forming a unit.

I swear some of you guys think that decisions like these are made in a vacuum or that the people who wrote the requirements picked up a copy of Custom 1911s at the PX and used it as their sole source document. :scrutiny:

tipoc
August 16, 2012, 09:27 PM
Yankeegunnuts over at www.thetruthaboutguns.com knows something that some of us may not (and that many radio talk show hosts have known for years)...that the more hits you have on your website the more the advertisers pay you for renting space on that site. So if you purposefully write articles filled with half truths and distortions it generates controversy and more hits on your site and more revenue.

Now that youtube is paying out cash for some hits to posted vids there we see more goofy stuff there about guns as well. Above and beyond the regular goofy stuff.

It's interesting to see how many fellas agree with the points in the article yet themselves know next to nothing about 1911s and admit it. It's sometimes helpful to at least know something truthful about what you are speaking about.

tipoc

meanmrmustard
August 16, 2012, 09:27 PM
How'd that be?

If my thread title was Glock, the Worst Pistol Ever!!! would you ask Glock shooters to shrug and move along? Ignore the ignorance, the lies and the posturing? Would you say a forum for discussion and learning simply isn't the venue for correcting or calling to task imbeciles?

What I don't understand are the constant attacks, the same tired rhetoric and lies put forth week after week after month after year. My 1911s still haven't failed and your claim that they aren't as reliable as your Glock/H&K/XD/M&P/Sig still ain't true. 100% is 100%, no matter how many rounds you claim to shoot vs. how many you snatch from thin air about how many you think I shoot.

Help Gen 4 G17 FTE! "You're limp wristing, WWB isn't powerful enough, do you have the revised recoil set-up, Glock got a bad batch of extractors, mag spring is weak, Glock mags are cheap, you should sling shot it, are you running reloads, my Glock is good to go, I call BS Glocks never fail".

Help $360 1911 clone FTE! "Those aren't reliable".
Excellent post.

tipoc
August 16, 2012, 09:33 PM
Jeff White,
I'm quoting here from the original post linked to in the beginning of this thread. After a rant against Jeff Cooper the author says:

If you have documentation about Cooper’s real-world experience, please drop me a line. I am happy to revise my opinion. I have no doubt that he was qualified to teach people how to shoot on a range. Beyond that, a grain of salt is required. I prefer to get my advice on defense & gunfighting from men who have actually been there & done that; Massad Ayoob, Jim Cirillo, etc. Am I a qualifications snob? No, I am an results snob.

This is where the references in this discussion to Ayoob had there beginnings. I don't think anyone here was dissing Ayoob. The author of the rant against the 1911 was unaware of Ayoobs positive writings on the 1911 and seemed to think Ayoob had been in numerous gunfights. Or possibly he just did not care about the facts and was trying to stir up a fight.

tipoc

mavracer
August 16, 2012, 09:35 PM
Are you inferring that unless you have been unfortunate enough to have been in a gunfight you bring nothing to the table?
I don't believe that was hentown's point, but the point of the original article's author

Gunnerboy
August 16, 2012, 09:38 PM
I would like to see that statement made in front of said Marines to get their honest responses... whatever they may be. Oh boy where do we buy tickets to watch that mess unfold ???? :D

Crazy Carl
August 16, 2012, 10:06 PM
The guys at the pointy end of the spear have a vested interest in coming back home. If they're confident that the 1911 will help make that happen who are any of us to disagree?

IF a 1911 is built to John Moses Browning's specs, it will run. Period. It's when they're improved upon that issues begin to arise. I'll let Tuner expound upon that, if he wishes, but ol' JMB knew what he was doing the first time around. 'N hey, if the 1911 were crap, dontcha think our fathers & grandfathers who faced the enemy with them, lo these many years ago, would've mentioned that fact?

If 1911s don't blow yer skirt up, fine. Move along, nothing to see here, etc., but don't badmouth that which you know nothing about or second guess those who run toward the sound of the guns.

FMF Doc
August 16, 2012, 10:07 PM
A major factor in the adoption of the 1911 pistol a hundred years ago was because it was easy to maintain in the field without need for an armorer, so that one doesn't fly, either.

In its original configuration, it could be quickly stripped to bare frame and slide without tools. I haven't seen one of the new pistols, so I don't know if any of their modifications have made that a lot more difficult, but I'd bet not. Even so, it would require a minimum in the way of tools in order to take it apart should it become fouled with dirt or mud.

The unit armorers are used for more major repairs...rebuilding the frames and refitting slides and barrels that are worn out or beaten out of serviceable condition. In the field, the pistol is a snap to maintain.

If you're ever in my neck of the woods, look me up and I'll knock one down for ya in about 60 seconds without so much as a punch...starting with a completely assembled gun.
Maybe the original 1911s used in the WWI or WWII, but I know first hand that the one MARSOC and Recon use are tuned, and anything more than cleaning requires some knowlege and tools. It can be learned, but it is no where as simple as a Glock or M9 for that matter. That was my big point. These are finely tuned warriors using finely tuned implements of war. Both require a certain level of maintainence above that of the basic grunt level. Most importantly, though, it works for them.

neviander
August 16, 2012, 10:23 PM
Well gentleman, and perhaps ladies, if there were any present, I really do appreciate your input/info. I really was not trying to stir up up a hornet's nest just for kicks and I wasn't trying to generate ad revenue, as one poster put it. I have learned volumes from this community over the years and wanted to know everybody's feelings on that article. You guys are my base (I have not served in the military, I just think the term fits) and I like to know what you think.

I know tempers flare and opinions will be heard with all kinda crazy fervor, but I'm glad at the end of the day we can all part ways peacefully with the same common interest and the same common enemy.

For y'all that have served, may God bless you. Here's to the best way of securing peace: preparing for war. Cheers. :)

jeepnik
August 16, 2012, 11:18 PM
I really don't care whether some self appointed expert thinks the 1911 is a poor weapon or not. I KNOW it works, or I wouldn't be typing this.

So cast aspersions on the most beautiful firearm ever made, it just shows you've never really needed one.

powder
August 16, 2012, 11:26 PM
Which has nothing to do with what the Marine SOC units want. The trainers aren't going through the doors and they won't be crawling into the caves. In my way of thinking...the guy who's gonna go do that gets to pick whatever he wants to take in with him.


You take a liberal assumption of who/where these 2 trainers are. You're wrong, so don't take basic comments as personal sleight: both of these guys still dabble in the 1911s, but their bread/butter, trophies and lives hang with polymer handguns.

powder
August 16, 2012, 11:28 PM
So cast aspersions on the most beautiful firearm ever made, it just shows you've never really needed one.

On duty, I have really needed one, and my COC chose we wear Glocks: choose the 17 or the 19. Beauty don't go far in an urban gunfight.

FIVETWOSEVEN
August 17, 2012, 01:11 AM
Touching upon the Marine's choice in picking the 1911. I must ask, what advantages does a 1911 have over other less expensive and "more modern" pistols? A match trigger isn't needed in a service sidearm for war and the accuracy that is found with poly service sidearms is enough.

What you get with a 1911 is a heavier pistol that is rarely used, low capacity compared to the double stack weapons found today, and something that has more parts then the common choices in service sidearms. More parts means more money spent on buying more parts. I see no advantage a 1911 offers over something such as an M&P or a Glock for a duty role.

That all being said, I would prefer a 1911 over anything else for service use. However I don't think it should be a general issue handgun due to mainly costs. Then again I think that soldiers should be allowed to carry what they want as long as it's reliable and uses standard issue ammo. We would save a lot of money that way.

barnbwt
August 17, 2012, 01:49 AM
1911's DO suck big time if you don't invest both the money and practice in them.


So they don't suck, they're just a pain in the ass? :neener:

I don't think the 1911 lovers are fan-boys, the guns do deliver what they advertise. But that's no excuse for being apologists;
-Yeah, it's more expensive to make it work right, but...
-Yeah, it's less consistent out of the box than other platforms, but...
-Yeah, it needs more maintenance to be reliable, but...

The one hard fact that puts the 1911 over the top that I see over and over, is that its trigger is highly preferred by target shooters. That's more than enough reason for most folks. If not that, it's looks and reputation.

The real reason I believe they are so popular, is because they are more heavily marketed than other platforms. Count the 1911-pistol ads in a gun-rag sometime; it's around 75% in the few I've thumbed through while getting a haircut. I see articles and ads for Les Baer's so often, it makes me wonder how much those precious guns actually cost to make.

I don't want to buy one (cool as they are) simply because "1911 Gunsmithing Problem" outnumbers all other issues combined in the 'Smith forums with alarming regularity. Kinda puts me off, even if it is just due to user-error.

TCB

...if that's what they say they need to get the job done then no questions asked on my part.

And that my friends, is how we justify borrowing for billion-dollar airplanes *bows*

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 01:57 AM
Jeff White, that reminds me of an argument I had with a coworker about a Vietnam War History class I took. His position was that unless the person was there, he isn't qualified to teach the class because he doesn't know what it was like (even if he went to Iraq, it wasn't the same war, so he's not qualified to teach on Vietnam). My position was that someone who was there knows what it was like where he was, but the historian is the one who knows the events for the entire war.

While experience helps you understand something, often times people can know more of the theory than the person doing the practical application. Just going into space doesn't teach you about the stars, just shooting doesn't teach you about the guns. Obviously someone with both the knowledge and experience offers a valuable well of wisdom, but we need both the grunts (people getting experience) and the thinkers (people doing lab tests) to move forward.

tarosean
August 17, 2012, 02:16 AM
Count the 1911-pistol ads in a gun-rag sometime; it's around 75%

It just so happens I have a copy of Guns OCT 2012 in my in box..

Colt 1911
Kimber 1911
Sig 1911

Glock
XD - 2 full ads.

Now there is an AR ad or accessories for them on damn near every page, but thats beside the point.

The Man With No Name
August 17, 2012, 03:07 AM
Honestly I don't have time to pick out every notion in this thread by those that can't look at it objectively. Suffice to say that it does not take 30000 rounds per year out of a pistol to become an expert. Anyone that thinks it does is just deluding itself. The fact that so many extra slides were ordered per pistol tells me how little even those who made this contract with Colt think of the durability of the gun. The fact that a Les Baer is precision fit doesn't mean it is not a better combat arm than the Colt. Make up your minds, they need the best tool or they don't. Which is it? A Glock would have the same service life with just periodic spring changes and eventually a firing pin change with the kind of round counts I'm led to believe they expect out of these Colts. Cost isn't the issue. Durability is. With Glocks they wouldn't need multiple slides per gun for spares. For those that say the average special ops soldier is more deadly at 100 yards with their pistol than the average soldier with an M4, I've shot with many and while good shots that is plain silly. The fact remains they would be even more deadly at 100 yards with an M4 so what is the point?

God forbid anyone dare say the 1911 is no longer the ultimate fighting tool when it comes to a sidearm. Same goes for anyone that dare say the choice of platform is so ridiculous as to be irresponsible when so many better choices exist.

The Man With No Name
August 17, 2012, 03:34 AM
I really don't care whether some self appointed expert thinks the 1911 is a poor weapon or not. I KNOW it works, or I wouldn't be typing this.

So cast aspersions on the most beautiful firearm ever made, it just shows you've never really needed one.

I'll answer this one since I see it on the same page I'm on right now. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I think the SAA is the most beautiful firearm ever made but that doesn't mean I think beauty is a qualification for duty use.

Never really needed one? The Les Baer 45 I had was for a need. I have current guns that fill various needs. Two specific needs currently though that the Glocks fit...
1. I need a duty weapon that just plain works, is accurate, and can withstand being banged around, dragged across the ground possibly, carried dirty strait from the range to a call of a man with a shotgun threatening his neighbor (yes this has happened), rained on, snowed on, covered in mud while I tried to rescue people from trailers after a tornado (yes this has happened), ect. Also nice is it not weighing me down more than necessary considering the amount of gear I have to carry.
2. I buy my off duty weapon. I want the same trigger, the same accuracy, the same durability.
That is not my Les Baer and that is why (considering I don't shoot competition any longer also) I finally sold it off after over a decade. It is not an heirloom. It (for me) was simply a tool to get a job done. If some of you are making emotional decisions about what to buy to defend your life with then fine. I am making a decision of the best tool to get the job done right then and if necessary allow me to fight back to a shotgun or rifle. Practical and the fact that I live with death threats, have to go outnumbered constantly into situations where I'm not the only one armed, and possibly take a humans life are what are on my mind. This is from someone that has range queens but doesn't want them in his holster when it is time to fight. Any 1911 (short of that polymer framed one possibly) is not even close to my first choice.

AethelstanAegen
August 17, 2012, 04:07 AM
While experience helps you understand something, often times people can know more of the theory than the person doing the practical application. Just going into space doesn't teach you about the stars, just shooting doesn't teach you about the guns. Obviously someone with both the knowledge and experience offers a valuable well of wisdom, but we need both the grunts (people getting experience) and the thinkers (people doing lab tests) to move forward.

Skribs, I'm with you that you don't have to have been somewhere to talk knowledgeably about a subject, but if your only source for the theory is one article with substantial factual errors, you really don't have much support for your theoretical position. Also, a discussion of a piece of kit, is far different from the discussion of a war. If you'd simply used a basic 1911, you'd know that the article you were reading was incorrect on many points and I think you would then look for alternative sources of theoretical information.

Long story short, I don't know why you would try to argue with people who own 1911s and know the article is incorrect unless you had experience with the platform that rang true to the article.

Using your analogy, you're trying to tell the Vietnam vet that his experience in the war was X because an article said so when he knows for a fact that his experience in the war was Y. And so while the article may be true for the experiences of select other vets (a minority of the sample), it certainly doesn't apply to all Vietnam vets and so should be considered with some degree of skepticism.

The Man With No Name
August 17, 2012, 06:12 AM
The handgun is usually the secondary firearm.

Polymer melts and will deform/break easier than steel. Did you happen to see the HK that broke at the grip from a fall?

How many issues did the Gen4 Glock have when a light was mounted?

My hi-cap 1911's are a smidge thinner than a 1911 with standard grips, just blockier.



Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
1. Correct. Or incorrect. Some make it out that all this cave fighting is going on overseas with a handgun and flashlight as the only tools.
2. What is the melting point of polymer. I've carried my Glocks for hours on end in 100+ degree heat this past summer without them melting. The HK example is one we know next to nothing about. For all we know any gun would have been rendered useless from whatever happened. Or has more info come out about what happened?
3. None in my department. We are all issued lights and the appropriate retention holsters and have had zero issues.
4. The last one I held was a Para Stainless P14 I think was the model. Compared to me single stack Les Baer it felt like a brick. It was noticeable wider in the grip and blockier feeling. Killed the killer grip of the original design.

The Man With No Name
August 17, 2012, 06:19 AM
I absolutely love reading internet "gun experts" riffing on what the Marines "need" or "should have bought".



Are you making that statement based on all the time that you spent in the Marine Special Ops world?



Again...what basis do you have for determining what the "reason" is for a special operations unit selecting a tool they use? Unless you are part of that unit, and know what it is they need, none of us are qualified to have even an opinion on that choice.
1. I'm not the one that brought them up as an example. Read back some.
2. Spent zero time in that world. Are there needs that much different than any of us that have to fight with a gun. Not just range work but have to actually use the gun in our holster as a tool to fight with? One gun as a better range queen or competition tool does not make it a better fighting tool in truly rough environments. I didn't start the debate about it as I've always cared less about whatever the fad of the day was in the spec ops world but I'm certainly not happy to see another example of my tax dollars being wasted on the inferior tool.
3. Well if none of us are qualified then lets discuss why we don't see them frequently in the modern cops holsters. I'll discuss that as an leo at length in particular why it is inferior in that role.

Let's not get too preachy about the whole thing. I didn't bring it up but at the same time dislike it being used as an example of why the design is supposedly superior when thousands of examples exist of it not being chosen for serious use.

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 06:29 AM
Aeth, where did I say I agree 100% with the article?

I agree with the author's position that the 1911 is not as optimal a choice as a Glock or similar, but I never said I agree with all his reasons. My biggest issues with it are capacity and weight, and (for most models) price. I also agree that double-stack or polymer-frame 1911s fix those issues, although the price issue is still there (I don't think I've ever seen another autoloader go for nearly as much as I've seen some 1911s go for...and people say "you get what you pay for" even at $3k).

The Man With No Name
August 17, 2012, 06:31 AM
Another 1911-bashing, Glock fanboy taking a break from the Glock kool-aid to stir the pot. IMO, the more simple and cheaper Glock is a better defensive gun for the masses IMO, but a good 1911 a finer and more refined tool in the hands of skilled shooters. But, let's not talk about the Glock Gen 2 AD issue, the Gen2 .40sw KB issue, the Gen2 .45acp light primer strike issue, the Gen4 9mm FTE/FTF issue, the G30sf FTRTB issue, the Gen3 .40sw FTF light issue, and so on.... afterall, wouldn't want to actually be fair or objective in our internet gun bashing.
Low road if I've ever seen it.

Gen 2 AD issues? The only AD issues I saw were those caused by shooters. Seen just as many from those handling a 1911 in an unsafe manner.

Gen2 40sw kb issue? That is actually the gun I have the most experience with. I doubt I will ever reach that kind of round count with a gun again. Not one kb. Never saw an issue other than those hot loading their own home brewed ammo.

Gen4 9mm fte/ftf issue? We have a whole department of officers that have not experience that during qualification or duty use yet.

I'm sure Glock has had issues. I'm sure anyone that has manafactured 20million guns has also. Let's not pretend that we are talking about anything other than 1911 fans not wanting to admit the obvious truth. I'm hardly a fan boy. I just like things that work for their intended purpose. If one thing is better than the other then I don't mind saying so either.

el Godfather
August 17, 2012, 06:33 AM
What if a hammer lowering device is optionally added to frames? Would that an double stack take care of some of the key issues?

The Man With No Name
August 17, 2012, 06:36 AM
Well...I guess you'll just have to accept that it's a good enough reason for them. After all, they'll be going through the door and into the cave, etc. Hey...If one of'em turned to me and asked for big red lollipop before he hit the door...I'd be scramblin' around lookin' for a big red lollipop.

And that is why so much money is wasted on such a routine basis still. Too many will blindly accept things. If one of them asked for a big red lollipop before he hit the door and was serious then I would figure he was either bucking for a trip to a psychiatrist or actually needed one. This is going to be how I see the justification of inferior tools in the future for our military. The Big Red Lollipop Syndrome. :)

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 06:37 AM
Personally I see no reason for a decocker on a SAO pistol...but I would absolutely require it if I ever went DA/SA (otherwise why not just go SAO?).
Throw in a polymer frame (with as much gear as they wear, I'd say every ounce counts) and you fix most of the issues I see.

Of course, the problem is that I don't really see what a double-stack polymer 1911 would offer over a Glock (same vice-versa). Little bit different control scheme, but if both are built and tuned for combat, I don't think there will be much functionally different at that point.

The Man With No Name
August 17, 2012, 06:53 AM
I can say my training came from dear old dad, a man who spent 43 years in uniform as a soldier and LEO, who graduated from 2 police academies at the top of his class, a man who posted at age 60 (with trifocals) outshot every officer from 2 departments that day with an M9. This was not his personal sidearm, in fact his duty 92FS (from a civilian LE agency he spent several decades with) was sold off after 2 years in favor of a 686 (that's an old tyme wheel gun what only held 6 rounds).

As for me, dad started me on single shot firearms, progressed to bolts & levers, SA/DA revolvers and eventually autos like the Buckmark, Colt Mustang and 1911. How much do I shoot? Maybe 10,000 rounds in a good year and 5,000 in an off year. Do I own polymer frame pistols? Yes. Revolvers, automatics, shotguns, rimfires, centerfires, rifles, an AR, alloy frame? Yes to all of the above. Can I outshoot dad? The stars have occasionally aligned and the rest of the time it's damn close. Hope that answers your questions about me.

Now, back to the question I asked: can any here make fact of the "writer's" assertions? You see, over and over it is being asked "What does the 1911 do that a xxx cannot?" Well, what can an xxx do that a 1911 cannot? Cost less and have a pitiful trigger? I lumped in the Diamondback as a cheap Glock alternative since cost is apparently critical to many and because it's a "modern" firearm.

A few from my stash. Note the "old tyme" 1911 and the "ultra modern" M&P. What a difference 100 years makes!

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=164493&d=1337044838
Yes. Read the thread. Specifically a Glock can go 100k plus rounds WITHOUT a slide replacement. The armorer training is so easy that all operators could be trained as armorers if needed. Ordering multiple spare slides per gun is not needed. Also you pretty much killed any hopes of me taking you serious the second you admitted you were lumping in a gun you have no experience with because you feel it is a cheap Glock alternative.

1911Tuner
August 17, 2012, 07:01 AM
Maybe the original 1911s used in the WWI or WWII, but I know first hand that the one MARSOC and Recon use are tuned, and anything more than cleaning requires some knowlege and tools.

Yes. I know. I had a Marine SSgt...one Chris Matute...who was one of the armorers involved with the project back in 2005 as a guest here not long ago. He described exactly how the pistols are built and tuned.

"Tuned" doesn't mean that the pistol requires an armorer's tool kit to disassemble it. It's still a 1911, and the procedure can be taught quickly. I've taught people to do it in less than a half-hour, and they've reported that after about 10 repetitions, they knocked the time down to around 10 minutes for the complete process...starting with a fully assembled gun and back to a fully assembled gun. The 1911 ain't exactly a Swiss watch.

And you can bet that it is taught to Special Ops personnel. At times, they're in the field, far from armorer support. The ability to keep their weapons running is paramount.

Now, I'll go ahead and tease ya a little.

The 1911 is its own tool box, and the thumb safety is the key that opens it. If the thumb safety isn't made to, or approximate the original specs, a nail or something similar will do as an expedient key.

Choclabman
August 17, 2012, 07:16 AM
I owned a Kimber Series 1 once. It was sold. Have shot other 1911's over the years. There is nothing about the 1911 like.
The Marines could have done better.


No, I have never served with an elite unit. Spent a lot of time with 2nd Tank Bn however. I hated the issue M9 as well.

1911Tuner
August 17, 2012, 07:51 AM
You take a liberal assumption of who/where these 2 trainers are. You're wrong, so don't take basic comments as personal sleight: both of these guys still dabble in the 1911s, but their bread/butter, trophies and lives hang with polymer handguns.

Which still has nothing to do with the reasons that the Marine Special Ops units chose the 1911...and regardless of where the trainers have been and what they've done...they still won't be going into the hell that these Marines will. What works on the streets of Chicago or LA may not work so well in the mountains of Afghanistan.

As Jeff White so eloquently put it...They didn't make their choice based on the latest custom pistol on the cover of Guns and Ammo, and they didn't make it on any misplaced feelings of nostalgia.

Try try try to wrap your head around something. They tested and evaluated several pistols and they made their choice... carefully...because making the wrong choice increases their chances of coming home in a plastic bag. There was no fanboyism involved. There was no Mall Ninja/Tacticool or Jeff Cooper idolatry in the equation. These guys are carefully selected, and highly trained professionals. They don't have time for such silliness.

el Godfather
August 17, 2012, 08:03 AM
I didnt use the term decocker intentionally. Instead i said hammer lowering device for folks want to carry round in pipe and hammer lowered- to avoid accidnent in manual lowering. Or perhaps a fast action like mechanism like dp51.

Hacker15E
August 17, 2012, 08:30 AM
And that is why so much money is wasted on such a routine basis still. Too many will blindly accept things.

I find it hilarious that you'd think that a Marine SOF unit, in selecting a sidearm, would be doing anything 'blindly'. They had a competition -- it's not like they sat back, thumbed through a gun rag, and selected what they thought looked coolish.

You're right -- next time we have a thread about LEOs and sidearms, I'll be listening to what you have to say on the matter.

1911Tuner
August 17, 2012, 08:33 AM
Touching upon the Marine's choice in picking the 1911. I must ask, what advantages does a 1911 have over other less expensive and "more modern" pistols? A match trigger isn't needed in a service sidearm for war and the accuracy that is found with poly service sidearms is enough.

And again...none of that has anything to do with it. If launching .45 caliber bullets at the bad guys was the only factor, any number of pistols would have fit the bill. There's more to it than that. Much more.

Suffice to say that it does not take 30000 rounds per year out of a pistol to become an expert. Anyone that thinks it does is just deluding itself.

Which has nothing to do with the Marine SOC training requirements. If that's what they demand, then that's what the Marines do.

Another way: "The amateur practices until he gets it right. The professional practices until he can't get it wrong."

This isn't preparation for a Sunday afternoon game of "Let's pretend we're in a gunfight." There are no Grand Masters or Distinguished Experts. There are only men fighting for their lives, and lives often depend on placing one shot...one...where it needs to go before it's too late. If these guys have determined that the 1911 gives them the best chance of that, then who are you or anyone else to argue with them?

1911Tuner
August 17, 2012, 08:54 AM
I didnt use the term decocker intentionally. Instead i said hammer lowering device for folks want to carry round in pipe and hammer lowered- to avoid accidnent in manual lowering.

Why would a decocking device be necessary on a pistol that can be maintained in Condition One indefinitely? The M16/M4 rifles are kept in Condition One whenever action is expected...no?

powder
August 17, 2012, 09:36 AM
Which still has nothing to do with the reasons that the Marine Special Ops units chose the 1911...and regardless of where the trainers have been and what they've done...they still won't be going into the hell that these Marines will. What works on the streets of Chicago or LA may not work so well in the mountains of Afghanistan.

As Jeff White so eloquently put it...They didn't make their choice based on the latest custom pistol on the cover of Guns and Ammo, and they didn't make it on any misplaced feelings of nostalgia.

Try try try to wrap your head around something. They tested and evaluated several pistols and they made their choice... carefully...because making the wrong choice increases their chances of coming home in a plastic bag. There was no fanboyism involved. There was no Mall Ninja/Tacticool or Jeff Cooper idolatry in the equation. These guys are carefully selected, and highly trained professionals. They don't have time for such silliness.



Uh yeah, and try try try to wrap your head around both of these guys still being active in LE and Mil Ops, going through doors here and abroad. They are not mall ninja wanna-bes, and most days the big black plastic bag is a baggage option for them too. Yes, they go into this imaginary hell that the Marines go into, you speak of, on a daily basis. They both have chosen polymer pistols for those duties, and for their aftermarket sales points, and IDPA/IPSC shooting comps..

As you mention correctly I believe, it comes down to training professionals, who have done lots of work. When my teams walk out the door to take care of business many of us would like to wear our 1911s, but command has decided otherwise. It's nothing personal.

1911Tuner
August 17, 2012, 10:40 AM
Uh yeah, and try try try to wrap your head around both of these guys still being active in LE and Mil Ops, going through doors here and abroad.

And again...what their training sessions center around are largely cops/civilians and what works on city streets. What is good enough there may not cut it in harsher environments, especially when routine maintenance like cleaning and inspection is often hit and miss.

I'd venture a bet that if they were charged with training the Marines or the SEALS, the classes would include their issue sidearms...not necessarily what the instructor prefers.

The class is adapted to the participants' needs...not vice-versa. An instructor who has scheduled a rifle class for Army Rangers isn't going to show up with a lever-action carbine. If he's scheduled a shotgun class for a major police department, he's not going to use an exposed hammer coach gun. He's going to use whatever shotgun that department issues, or as close as he can get to it.

Even Jeff Cooper understood that the 1911 wasn't the pistol for all reasons and all seasons. Gunsite had revolver-centered classes as well as other autopistol platforms specifically for those people who were limited in their choices. In a general pistol class, the students ran what they brought.

What I'm starting to pick up on is that you and a few others just don't like the Marine Spec-Ops choice. That's fine. You don't have to. They're the ones who have to live with it.

The SEALS picked the Sig P-226 after careful selection and elimination. They have different requirements for a sidearm than the Marines do. I'm not a huge fan of the 9mm cartridge, but I'm not about to stand in front of a SEAL team and explain to them that their choice was stupid. They know what they need better than you or I...or any high-speed/low-drag instructor, for that matter.

Thaddeus Jones
August 17, 2012, 10:49 AM
I consider 1911's to be fun range toys and historical pieces, nothing more.

For a carry 45 I prefer the HK USP and my favorite 45 the S&W 4566. Unlike 1911's I've owned these two guns go bang every time, and cost less than a mortgage payment too! :)

Skylerbone
August 17, 2012, 11:53 AM
Also you pretty much killed any hopes of me taking you serious the second you admitted you were lumping in a gun you have no experience with because you feel it is a cheap Glock alternative.

Ahhh...I see. It's AOK for you to lump Cimmaron, RIA, Auto Ordnance, Para Ordnance, Regent, ATI and all the rest in with Colt but not ok for me to hang Diamondback and their reputation on Glock.

Speaking to that, I would assert now that polymer is not the issue. Striker fired is not the issue. Modern is not the issue. DAO is not the issue. The real issue for you is brand or weight savings or capacity. Well, tell the sniper with his Barrett he should ditch it for an M4. If he's a good shot, he'll be even better when he sprays and prays because volume makes him more effective.

Why Colt? Production capability. Answered the open call. Parts interchangeability (yes Brent from Colt's Custom Shop has confirmed this). Passed required trials. A Glock can go 100,000 rounds with the same slide? Ask Tuner what his commercial Colts have slung for numbers. If it's built right- and Colt does, it will run right without any undue fuss.

With regard to the Marine 1911 specifically, this is a military firearm. The military does not take pride (as some of you do) in firing 2,000 rounds and leaving them dirty for months. Frankly, that is ignorance on display. It does not run better covered in mud or soot or filled with sand but some boast of showing up unprepared to an actual gunfight? Because a Glock can. Well I suggest never cleaning or lubricating it if it's just as reliable because they aren't bought for looks. How'd that go for the original M16?

Take whatever position you like on the 1911 but I'll ask again: what does your xxx do that a 1911 does not? Weight? Is that a factor for LA SWAT? Ditto on capacity. If an 870 or a 700P is the best tool for the job do you pass based on weight and capacity? And which "reliable" pistol would you choose? H&K? Beretta? XD? S&W? Ruger? Hi Point? Should we like to argue that one next?

Doc3402
August 17, 2012, 12:05 PM
I loved the line about what other designs have been around for 100 years. How about the internal combustion engine, the lightbulb, bifocals, hot air balloons... ah the heck with it. Just another idiot with an over inflated ego thinking his opinion is worth a hoot.

el Godfather
August 17, 2012, 12:15 PM
Yes if you mean cocked and locked. However i meant for those situations where you manually lower the hammer.

1911Tuner
August 17, 2012, 12:33 PM
I would assert now that polymer is not the issue. Striker fired is it the issue. Modern is not the issue. DAO is not the issue.

Just this. The choice was made after considering several factors, and no one thing fueled it. After extensive testing and evaluation, including torturing the pistols far beyond any normal limits...they settled on the 1911. I don't pretend to know all the things were that came into consideration or the Marines' requirements, but you can bet that "Oh, yeah man! 1911s are way cool! Let's get those!" wasn't one of them...and neither did the pistol or caliber that a stateside combat school instructor happens to prefer.


Why Colt? Production capability. Answered the open call. Parts interchangeability (yes Brent from Colt's Custom Shop has confirmed this). Passed required trials.

And there ya have it. A comment was made regarding "Some sewing machine company" building 1911A1 pistols for the WW2 contracts. So did three other firms that had never built guns. So what? Not only did Union Switch & Signal, Remington Rand, and Singer meet or exceed specifications, from mid-1944 until the end of production in late 1945, Remington Rand was building a better pistol than Colt, and they were doing it a little cheaper. As a matter of fact, Remington Rand supplied more pistols to the Army than the other four combined. If the specs are satisfied, they're satisfied. It doesn't matter who builds it.

Could Glock have met the requirements? No doubt that they could have, but this was a contract for a few thousand pistols. They weren't about to tool up for such a small volume. If an order for a half-million pistols had been on the table, they very likely would have thrown their hat into the ring, and they possibly could have won it. But that's not how it went. Sorry.

coalman
August 17, 2012, 12:39 PM
Low road if I've ever seen it.

Gen 2 AD issues? The only AD issues I saw were those caused by shooters. Seen just as many from those handling a 1911 in an unsafe manner.

Gen2 40sw kb issue? That is actually the gun I have the most experience with. I doubt I will ever reach that kind of round count with a gun again. Not one kb. Never saw an issue other than those hot loading their own home brewed ammo.

Gen4 9mm fte/ftf issue? We have a whole department of officers that have not experience that during qualification or duty use yet.

I'm sure Glock has had issues. I'm sure anyone that has manafactured 20million guns has also. Let's not pretend that we are talking about anything other than 1911 fans not wanting to admit the obvious truth. I'm hardly a fan boy. I just like things that work for their intended purpose. If one thing is better than the other then I don't mind saying so either.

One thing about being a higher volume, long time shooter is remembering or experiencing things instead of needing to research them. This site (http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/gindex2.html), though having the reverse of your Glock pro-bias, documents many of said Glock issues. Glock has "upgraded" parts related to ADs (changed FP and FPB) and KBs (added chamber support at 6) in Gen2 guns and the light primer strikes (lengthened crucifirm) in .45acp guns. The Gen3 .40sw FTF light issue remains and was "fixed" with Gen4 .40sw guns. The Gen4 9mm FTF/FTE/Extraction issues (and some late Gen3 Glocks) remain for many (despite newer recoil spring assemblies, extractors, etc.) and the G30sf FTRTB appears resolved with a newer trigger assembly. I've experienced the light primer strike in .45acp Glock (needed "newer" trigger assembly), light issue in .40sw Glock (could not resolve with "newer" parts), mini-KB in .40sw (case failure 2x, factory new ammo), and extraction issue in late Gen3 Glock (needed "older" extractor).

I agree with the post that said:
Q. Help, having problems with my new Glock.
A. Must be cheap ammo, limpwristing, poor technique, modifications, reloads, imagination, troll ...
Q. Help, having problems with my new 1911.
A. Those aren't reliable. Get a Glock.

I still choose Glock. I still choose 1911. Both have presented problems. Once resolved, both remain comparably reliable for me. They are both tools. Nothing is perfect.

Guillermo
August 17, 2012, 12:53 PM
the obviously biased and poorly written article did have one point. 1911s seem to have more finicky magazines than many other guns.

I am not sure why.

My constant companion for many years was a Combat Commander. It would hardly run with any aftermarket magazine. With the Colt mag it was 100%.

Another thing that everyone has to admit, the fan-boys tend to have tunnel vision.

(BTW, I tease my daughter saying that I wanted to name her John Moses...so one could argue that I fall into that category. JMB was a genius and a great patriot for the way he took a huge financial hit to get the BAR into the hands of our soldiers more quickly)

1911Tuner
August 17, 2012, 01:38 PM
the obviously biased and poorly written article did have one point. 1911s seem to have more finicky magazines than many other guns.

I am not sure why.

I know why.

Guillermo
August 17, 2012, 01:44 PM
I know why.

do tell

1911Tuner
August 17, 2012, 01:53 PM
What? Again? *sigh*

AethelstanAegen
August 17, 2012, 02:09 PM
the obviously biased and poorly written article did have one point. 1911s seem to have more finicky magazines than many other guns.

I am not sure why.

We'll save 1911Tuner some grief. Simply put, there are a ton of aftermarket manufacturers of 1911 magazines. Those run the gambit from very high quality to total crap. With most other pistols, there's pretty much just the factory mags. Oobviously there are exceptions, ie Glocks have aftermarket mags available some of which are also crap and some of which work great, but I think it's still safe to say there are probably more aftermarket manufacturers of 1911 mags than for pretty much any other pistol type, thus there's a wide spectrum of qualities available.

1911Tuner
August 17, 2012, 02:18 PM
Thanks, Aethel...but it's not even that. Making a good magazine ain't exactly rocket science. During WW2, there were several contractors that did it. It's not adhering to the proper specs that starts the problems. So many people are unwilling to admit that Browning and his Dream Team really did have the answer, and they keep trying to prove that they're smarter than those guys were...so far without a lot of success.

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 02:26 PM
During WW2, there were several contractors that did it.

HEY! Are you implying that because contractors can do it, it's easy? As a contractor, I resent that! (Just kidding)

1911Tuner
August 17, 2012, 02:31 PM
See...here's the thing.

The 1911 was ultimately headed for war, where men could die if their weapon failed to function.

The 1911 was designed to function. If it's built to correct specs and fed halfway decent ammunition from a proper magazine, it will function. It doesn't have a choice. It's a machine.

I use proper magazines, and nothing else. I don't remember the last time that I had a feed-related malfunction in any of my pistols...even with my funky reloads made up of my home-cast SWCs...but it's been many years and many tens of thousands of rounds.

And, no. My pistols don't rattle like a beer can fulla rocks.

Neither do I remember the last time I had to adjust extractor tension, and that's related to magazine function, too.

I've also handed a few of my magazines to frustrated 1911 owners who were having many feed issues...and watched their faces light up when the problems disappeared.

I've also seen a few of those people go back to the magazines that were causing their problems, unwilling to admit that their highly recommended magazine was at the root of their problems. I've bought a few pistols from these people at a reduced price, only to discover that there wasn't a thing wrong with them...except the magazines.

Skylerbone
August 17, 2012, 02:33 PM
I sincerely hope that people can take something positive away from all of this verbal sparring and that is nothing can ever be optimized for every purpose.

Taking the brush as an example: one should not use their toothbrush to clean a toilet nor a toilet brush to brush their hair. While an old toothbrush can be used to apply shoe polish (and work well) that was never its intended purpose as manufactured.

I cannot know how all others use any given firearm only how I use them and what has worked for me. I own numerous handguns, 1911s, a Kahr, 3 M&Ps, a Beretta and several revolvers among others and I consider all capable and reliable for firing projectiles. Beyond that I decide what provides me the greatest advantage for the task at hand.

There is no better than all others. There is capable and incapable. That will apply to every product whether brush or tractor or lawnmower or belt or boat or even firearm.

Ky Larry
August 17, 2012, 02:38 PM
I've known many Marines and I can tell you, as a group, they ain't stupid. I don't now the parameters they used to choose the 1911 but I'm sure they had their reasons. If they want a 1911 to protect their backsides, then so be it. They are the people going in harms way, not a group of gunstore commandos or internet gurus. I haven't walked the walk, so I can't talk the talk.

Tuner, this has been pointed out dozens of times on this and other forums. The 1911 works as advertised when built to spec, is properly cleaned, lubed, and maintained, and is fed the ammo it was built for. Some people just can't, or won't, grasp this concept.

Vern Humphrey
August 17, 2012, 03:52 PM
Its a 100-year old design. It needs tools to disassemble.
What tools?

It has unreliable magazines.
The magazines are as reliable as the maker -- I personally favor Chip McCormic 8-rounders, and they haven't failed in tens of thousands of rounds.

It is finicky about ammo.
Not mine -- and I have three of them.

And, as a single-action pistol, it is unsafe for 95% of its users to carry.
Pure BS!

The Man With No Name
August 17, 2012, 04:30 PM
Ahhh...I see. It's AOK for you to lump Cimmaron, RIA, Auto Ordnance, Para Ordnance, Regent, ATI and all the rest in with Colt but not ok for me to hang Diamondback and their reputation on Glock.

Speaking to that, I would assert now that polymer is not the issue. Striker fired is it the issue. Modern is not the issue. DAO is not the issue. The real issue for you is brand or weight savings or capacity. Well, tell the sniper with his Barrett he should ditch it for an M4. If he's a good shot, he'll be even better when he sprays and prays because volume makes him more effective.

Why Colt? Production capability. Answered the open call. Parts interchangeability (yes Brent from Colt's Custom Shop has confirmed this). Passed required trials. A Glock can go 100,000 rounds with the same slide? Ask Tuner what his commercial Colts have slung for numbers. If it's built right- and Colt does, it will run right without any undue fuss.

With regard to the Marine 1911 specifically, this is a military firearm. The military does not take pride (as some of you do) in firing 2,000 rounds and leaving them dirty for months. Frankly, that is ignorance on display. It does not run better covered in mud or soot or filled with sand but some boast of showing up unprepared to an actual gunfight? Because a Glock can. Well I suggest never cleaning or lubricating it if it's just as reliable because they aren't bought for looks. How'd that go for the original M16?

Take whatever position you like on the 1911 but I'll ask again: what does your xxx do that a 1911 does not? Weight? Is that a factor for LA SWAT? Ditto on capacity. If an 870 or a 700P is the best tool for the job do you pass based on weight and capacity? And which "reliable" pistol would you choose? H&K? Beretta? XD? S&W? Ruger? Hi Point? Should we like to argue that one next?
1. Actually I've only discussed specific models I have experience with. Glocks, Les Baer, and Colt. I don't know what a Diamondback is so I haven't brought it into this. You have admitting you don't really know anything about it. When I had a need for a 1911 style 45 I bought the one that I had seen work time and time again. I didn't go with Colt because yes they do get "shot out" meaning loose with extensive use requiring extensive mods to make reliable for said extensive use.
2. I have never said capacity or weight is the only issue. It is just plain silly also to compare and Barrett to an M4 and use them as proof of your point. The 1911 is not that far off from a Glock other than the fact that the Glock will outlast it and function far longer than it will without the need to order spare slides. I am still laughing that people think that is a reasonable thing. :)
3. Colt and production capability. Are you aware of the fact that Les Baer was famous long ago for being one of the first to adopt Haas 5 axis CNC milling machines as a manafacturer of a firearm? Haas sure made a big deal of it. Only the final fitting is done by hand. Once again my point is that if having the best tool available really is the issue and the 1911 platform is that tool Colt is still not the best choice.
4. I can ask tuner and I'm sure his answer will be an honest one. I've seen more than one Colt with my own eyes that just don't hold up to that kind of round count though.
5. One day I was leaving qualification and a call came out about a man with a shotgun threatening his neighbor. I had already been listening in and knew that at most 2 officers would respond as all the others were tied up with prisoners. I ran 10-18 traffic to respond instead of taking a dinner break before we did our night shooting. Was my gun dirty? Yes. Did I have a choice to stop and clean it before responding to that call? No. Should I have stopped to clean my Glock before responding letting those officers face a man with a shotgun that is not stable (I was already familiar with him)? The fact is situations can and do happen where you may have to respond with a dirty gun. Mine has gotten dirty and wet on more than one occasion during a shift. I'm bouncing from call to call over 12 hours. When the domestic with weapons involved call comes should I tell them to wait while I clean my gun? Operators in a desert or jungle environment will not face worse?
6. Now we are on to LA Swat? Shall we name all the Swat teams across the country that issues something other than any 1911 while we are at it? Every Swat team for me locally including my own for example?

Seems any points about the 1911 platform are getting lost in the clutter of what is best for one small Marine group. I think we can all agree that what may be best for them does not make a good example of why the platform is the modern best choice for many or all. Just the same as why we can use examples of elite units using Sigs, HKs, Berettas, Glocks, or (insert your favorite brand here) as a good example of what is the best modern platform. The telling thing is that the 1911 users always seem to feel a need to use some elite group buying a particular gun as proof while the "Glock fanboys" don't. :)

1911Tuner
August 17, 2012, 04:33 PM
The magazines are as reliable as the maker -- I personally favor Chip McCormic 8-rounders, and they haven't failed in tens of thousands of rounds.

You should play the lottery, Vern. I won't allow those things in the yard.

Vern Humphrey
August 17, 2012, 04:36 PM
You should play the lottery, Vern. I won't allow those things in the yard.
I've got a couple of dozen of them, put literally thousands of rounds through some of them, and never had a magazine-induced failure of any kind.

Hacker15E
August 17, 2012, 04:37 PM
Speaking of being finicky about magazines, I turned a friend's Glock into a useless brick via some of those Korean-made magazines. Based on all the hype I've heard over the years, that was surprising...I arrived at the "surprising" conclusion that the Glock is just another human-designed tool like any other (and a lot more like a 1911, or any other autoloader, than many fanboys on both sides of the aisle would want to admit).

Hacker15E
August 17, 2012, 04:39 PM
Seems any points about the 1911 platform are getting lost in the clutter of what is best for one small Marine group. I think we can all agree that what may be best for them does not make a good example of why the platform is the modern best choice for many or all. Just the same as why we can use examples of elite units using Sigs, HKs, Berettas, Glocks, or (insert your favorite brand here) as a good example of what is the best modern platform.

This is really the no-kidding bottom line.

This is vanilla-vs-chocolate, Ford-vs-Chevy, Pepsi-vs-Coke, Nikon-vs-Cannon, the list goes on. Ultimately it's personal (or group/unit/organization) preference about what works best for them and them only that matters most.

Jeff White
August 17, 2012, 04:49 PM
The magazines are as reliable as the maker -- I personally favor Chip McCormic 8-rounders, and they haven't failed in tens of thousands of rounds.

These are my magazines of choice too. My Wilson 47Ds are relegated to range use. My duty mags are the Chip McCormic. Of course I have a stash of USGI mags that work well too.

tarosean
August 17, 2012, 04:56 PM
I'm reminded of a quote from a man I know who was one of those brave men were talking about serving our country in Force Recon 1 and later Army Special Forces..

" It doesn't matter if it's true or not it's what you perceive to be true. If you want something to be real then it is and if you choose not to believe it then you have that right.
Finger out"

1911Tuner
August 17, 2012, 04:56 PM
Powerball, gents! Go play Powerball! I'll only take a 10% commission for that fine advice.

The Man With No Name
August 17, 2012, 04:57 PM
This is really the no-kidding bottom line.

This is vanilla-vs-chocolate, Ford-vs-Chevy, Pepsi-vs-Coke, Nikon-vs-Cannon, the list goes on. Ultimately it's personal (or group/unit/organization) preference about what works best for them and them only that matters most.
Chocolate. Chevy. Coke. Nikon.

On a side note I've also seen more than one 1911 that was functioning fine until some genius decided to use some off brand gun show special magazine. Also I'm a little confused about Chip McCormick mags. I used them in my Les Baer and saw many a competitor use only their stainless steel mags without issue.

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 05:02 PM
Vanilla. Chevy (never had one, but I've had a Ford). Neither (cola gives me a sore throat, other sodas are fine). Cannon.

1911, someone just won, I'm waiting it out. Although if I do win the powerball, a 1911 (well, really a 2011) is back on the table as an option for me :P. I'm sure it won't be hard to convince someone to make me some ambi options.

(See, I tied it back to the 1911 topic)

Auto426
August 17, 2012, 05:02 PM
Colt and production capability. Are you aware of the fact that Les Baer was famous long ago for being one of the first to adopt Haas 5 axis CNC milling machines as a manafacturer of a firearm? Haas sure made a big deal of it. Only the final fitting is done by hand. Once again my point is that if having the best tool available really is the issue and the 1911 platform is that tool Colt is still not the best choice.

You've obviously never seen what the insides of Les Baer and Colt look like or how they build guns. Here's a tip: according to the ATF statistics for handgun production in 2010 Les Baer made 2540 handguns. In that same year, Colt made 29,331. That means Colt made over 11x more pistols than Les Baer did.

The Marines aren't interested in overly tight pistols designed to shoot tiny groups at 50 yards at the range. They want guns that work and they want a factory that has the capability to produce them in a timely manner and the ability to support them throughout their service life. A Colt Rail Gun may not have as much hand fitting as a Les Baer or be as accurate, but it will still shoot accurately enough to get the job done, be completely reliable, and last the desired time.

tipoc
August 17, 2012, 05:04 PM
There are a few other misconceptions about 1911s that have repeatedly cropped up in this thread and in the article that began this thread. Some of these are the result of bad or poor information and some I suspect intentional falsification:

1911s won't feed hollowpoint ammo. The gun was designed at a time when there was no jhp ammo. The military wanted a gun that reliably feed ball ammo. They got that. Between the first and second World War shooters found that with a quick modification to the barrel the 1911 would also feed lead semi wadcutters and full wadcutter ammo reliably. These were often used for target or hunting purposes and self defense. When jhp ammo came on the scene in the 1970s Colt was slow to adapt. Gunsmiths though found that quick modification to the barrel would let jhp feed reliably. Bar-Sto and others made a good deal of money making such modified barrels. Since the 90s though all 1911s made pretty much reliably feed jhp same as any other sidearm.

You have to get a $2,000-3,000 dollar gun to get one that is reliable.
Absolute nonsense. Colt, Springfield, and others make quite reliable guns in the $500-$700. dollar range. Most folks new to 1911s would be much better off getting one of these and learning the gun.

It must be constantly tuned to be kept running Not true. Particularly not true with the GM and Commander sized guns. You can get off the shelf a gun that is quite reliable and run it as is. Sub compact 1911s can require a good deal of attention that can be beyond the abilities of most shooters to keep up with. Shooters new to 1911s sometimes begin with these sub compacts and often regret it.

The gun is too heavy First, for over 50 years the Commander has been made with an alloy frame in .45acp, 9mm and 38 Super. Lightweight, handy and reliable. Second, too heavy for what? It weighs what it weighs. If you find the piece weighs too much to carry on you all day (same as some steel framed revolvers) than get something else. But be at least straight in your mind that a problem you have with the gun is not a problem of the gun.

It takes tools to take down Usually not. But if the shooter chooses to have a 2 piece full length guide rod, that will require a tool. If the shooter chooses to have a very tight bushing to slide to barrel fit that may require a bushing wrench. But these are choices the gun owner makes. Seems odd to make them and complain about them afterward.

There are also a category of complaints that fall under the heading of a shift of perception and I'll lump them all together...
I want a gun that will shoot 5,000 rounds without a malfunction
The 1911 is too hard to clean I just wipe my Glock down and I'm ready to go.
The 1911 is too hard to field strip and takes too long.
I need a gun that will shoot all brands and types of jhp ammo reliably, no questions!
The gun has too many parts.

and there is more of these.
Just as with a S&W revolver the gun has as many parts now as it did in 1911. The 1911 was easy to field strip and maintain then in very rough conditions and it is the same today. Plus the sights are better today. But today some shooters have less mechanical aptitude then folks used to have. A Sig P220 is extremely easy to field strip and some shooter feel that anything beyond that is too hard. The same folks often think it's too hard to clean a revolver.

There is a mindset today that, lacking confidence in their own abilities, seeks to draw that confidence from inanimate objects they can buy. The 1911 is today as rough and ready a gun as it ever was. But maybe shooters have changed.

tipoc

coloradokevin
August 17, 2012, 05:09 PM
I like 1911s, and I like other handguns. I have 3 guns in my collection that are approved for duty use with my department. One of them is a 1911, the others are Glocks. I don't carry the 1911 for duty use.

I love shooting the 1911, and I think it is a beautiful design... it fits nicely in a hand, feels like a gun should, and has a wonderful single-stage trigger. The 1911 was far ahead of its time when it was built, and when people mention the fact that it is a 100-year-old design I don't believe they are necessarily trying to talk the 1911 down, as much as they are trying to defend against the MANY people who seem to think that no other decent handgun has been built in the past century.

Regardless, the Glock is arguably a more reliable design for use with the most commonly carried types of defensive ammunition. The Glock is simple, clean, reliable, and effective. It won't win a beauty contest, but I've trusted my life to it for quite a few years.

When 1911s are working correctly, they work very well. But, the consequences of a single stoppage in my business can be deadly, and the 1911 hasn't proven to be as reliable as some more modern designs (that's not to say that 1911s are unreliable, per say, as much as it is to say that 1911s aren't AS reliable).

Even the beautiful limited and open class IPSC guns that are often built off of 1911s show this trend. I see guys cleaning their guns and magazines between each stage, and I still see stoppages during the stage itself. When I shoot IPSC with my Glock I clean nothing between stages, and sometimes not even between matches. If you have a malfunction during a game, you may lose the game. If you have a malfunction in combat, you may lose your life. A 1911 is a fine sporting gun, and it is still a fine defensive pistol. But, anyone who claims that the 1911 is more reliable than modern guns (like Glocks) is ignoring a wealth of evidence to the contrary.

Flame away if you must, I still love my 1911 and my Glock. I just know that each one of them has a certain role. I also love my Mauser and my AR-15, and I know which one of those I would choose to go into a gun fight with (even though both were revolutionary fighting guns when they were first introduced).

For me, I first noticed this trend about 5 years ago, while talking with one of our armorers at work. He's a very accomplished competitive shooter, and carries a 1911 for competition. At work he carries a Smith and Wesson M&P or a Glock. I asked him why he didn't carry a 1911 for work, when it is obvious he loves them for competition (he's an armorer on both platforms). He told me to watch during our quarterly qualifications. He said that the 1911s seem to have issues far more frequently than the other choices. I started watching this trend myself. Despite the fact that 90% of our department is carrying "plastic pistols", I still started to notice that I was counting about 5 times as many failures with the 1911s (and this occurred despite the fact that the 1911s were typically only carried by some of our more experienced shooters... the guys who actually practice on their own time -- experienced guys also carry Glocks and whatnot, but the newbies generally don't go for the 1911s). The 1911s are great guns for other reasons, and I've occasionally worn mine for ceremonial purposes ('cause it is pretty), but the 1911 just isn't as categorically reliable as the modern tactical tupperware.

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 05:15 PM
You have to get a $2,000-3,000 dollar gun to get one that is reliable.Absolute nonsense. Colt, Springfield, and others make quite reliable guns in the $500-$700. dollar range. Most folks new to 1911s would be much better off getting one of these and learning the gun.

What I've read (which may or may not be true) is that in the lower price range, you're either sacrificing accuracy or reliability, so while the cheaper ones may not have reliability issues, it's because of looser tolerances and thus less precise shooting (which may be fine for most shooters). But to get accurate, reliable fire it takes $$.

The gun is too heavy First, for over 50 years the Commander has been made with an alloy frame in .45acp, 9mm and 38 Super. Lightweight, handy and reliable. Second, too heavy for what? It weighs what it weighs. If you find the piece weighs too much to carry on you all day (same as some steel framed revolvers) than get something else. But be at least straight in your mind that a problem you have with the gun is not a problem of the gun.

Regardless of how you disect it, 1911s are heavier than their polymer grandkids, and that weight presents a disadvantage for EDC. It might still be acceptable, but that doesn't mean a plastic fantastic wouldn't be easier.

Just because the 1911 isn't difficult to field strip and clean doesn't mean that the Glock can't have the advantage. The 1911 might be rough and ready, but that doesn't mean that advancements haven't provided a more suitable tool.

I'd also like to argue that pursuing the best tool for the job (whether you decide that's a 1911 or a Glock, or whatever you decide it is) doesn't mean that you are not confident in your own abilities. It could mean you want to compliment your abilities with better equipment. I'm a gamer, and I can tell you that skill is valued over gear, but skill+gear is better than skill alone. I'd trust a Navy SEAL with a crossbow just fine, but I'm pretty sure he'd do better with a firearm.

Skylerbone
August 17, 2012, 05:15 PM
The fact that so many extra slides were ordered per pistol tells me how little even those who made this contract with Colt think of the durability of the gun. The fact that a Les Baer is precision fit doesn't mean it is not a better combat arm than the Colt. Make up your minds, they need the best tool or they don't. Which is it? A Glock would have the same service life with just periodic spring changes and eventually a firing pin change with the kind of round counts I'm led to believe they expect out of these Colts. Cost isn't the issue. Durability is. With Glocks they wouldn't need multiple slides per gun for spares.

Asking for a 4th time, how is this fact? How many extra slides did they order? Why must we be captive to events you have seen and not mine? You're lead to believe those Colts are expected to wear out slides because those who disapprove of the 1911 have claimed it without any supporting evidence. Show me the facts.

Why not a Les Baer? Already answered. Parts interchangeability. Nothing to do with anything except a requirement for drop-in parts (like a Glock or the original contract 1911s).

How is giving a sniper an M4 different than giving gardening tools to a chef? You Glock guys claim they're all tools, pick the best one for the job. Give the snipers Glocks or YOU admit that Glocks may not be the best choice for every situation and every person on planet earth. Hell all Gaston did was eliminate the 1911's safeties, add a staggered magazine, package it in polymer and label it "Perfection". Now you're staking your word on those pistols outlasting 1911s because you've been lead to believe an anemic lie? Just which climate was it that the 1911 failed so miserably in? North Africa? No. South America? No. Europe? No. Asia? No. Just where exactly have Glocks been carried by any army and proven (not trusted but proven) effective?

Guillermo
August 17, 2012, 05:18 PM
My commander would only reliably work with the Colt magazine.

As to the others that I had, I don't remember, but they were brand-names.

I still don't understand, a single stack magazine is a pretty simple device. I have owned dozens of other guns that have never had a magazine related misfire. What is the inherent problem with the 1911 magazines?

jeepnik
August 17, 2012, 05:25 PM
On duty, I have really needed one, and my COC chose we wear Glocks: choose the 17 or the 19. Beauty don't go far in an urban gunfight.
But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So, for you the Glock is likely a beautiful thing. I can accept that. But don't try and tell someone who has had to depend on something that it sucks. You'll likely end up wondering why you even had such a silly idea to begin with.

tarosean
August 17, 2012, 05:28 PM
The gun is too heavy

Here is a post from the archives concerning weight..


Kimber Custom II w/8 rounds of 230gn - 44.7 oz.
Glock 21 (stock) w/14 rounds of 230gn - 40.1 oz.

Definitely not several #'s as some would like you to believe..

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 05:32 PM
Might not be the "several pounds", but you have to factor in that you're looking at 6 extra rounds in the Glock. Take those 6 rounds out, and the gun is going to be even lighter.

Factor in spare magazines, and you're adding ounces by having extra magazines to get the same capacity in the 1911 as you are in the Glock. Those ounces might not make much of a difference, but if you're looking at carrying with fifty pounds of gear or looking at carrying it several hours a day...ounces start to add up.

Auto426
August 17, 2012, 05:37 PM
What I've read (which may or may not be true) is that in the lower price range, you're either sacrificing accuracy or reliability, so while the cheaper ones may not have reliability issues, it's because of looser tolerances and thus less precise shooting (which may be fine for most shooters). But to get accurate, reliable fire it takes $$.

That seems to be something oft repeated by those that don't actually own or have experience with the guns they are preaching about. You may be sacrificing accuracy over a $2k Les Baer, but that Les Baer will be shooting 1.5" at 50 yards. The mid level guns like Colt, Springfield, or S&W will shoot with any of the modern polymer guns and usually, not always, may be a slight bit more accurate. They will feed almost anything, and with a little care they will last a lifetime.

Asking for a 4th time, how is this fact? How many extra slides did they order? Why must we be captive to events you have seen and not mine? You're lead to believe those Colts are expected to wear out slides because those who disapprove of the 1911 have claimed it without any supporting evidence. Show me the facts.


The post you quoted shows a lack of understanding of the 1911's history. Back during WWII the military did order multiple slides per gun. Why you ask? Because up until WII the slides were not heat treated at all.

The technology simply wasn't as developed back then as it was today, and trying to fully heat treat a slide would result in a warped and unusable part. With a un-heat treated slide, after about 5k-6k rounds the slide would start showing extensive wear and would need to be replaced.

Around 1925 methods were developed that would spot harden portions of the slide, but not the entire thing. These slides were good to around 10,000 rounds. After WWII ended methods were developed that would allow slides to be fully heat treated without warping the parts, and the new hard slides could last upwards of 100k rounds without needing a rebuild.

tarosean
August 17, 2012, 05:41 PM
Factor in spare magazines, and you're adding ounces by having extra magazines to get the same capacity in the 1911 as you are in the Glock

Outside of military or law enforcement. Why would you need more ammo? Not a single gun I carry holds more than 8 and that includes an M&P.

God forbid, I'm content with 5 whole rounds sometimes. (/sarcasm)

1911Tuner
August 17, 2012, 05:42 PM
Asking for a 4th time, how is this fact? How many extra slides did they order?

When the US Army contracts were being filled, they ordered about a dozen slides and barrels for every complete pistol delivered, along with various other parts. Everything except the frame was considered to be an expendable service item.

There's too much concern over the frame. The frame will outlast the slide 10:1 It's the slide and upper barrel lugs that catch all the hell. The slide and barrel assembly is the gun. The frame is essentially the gun mount and a housing for the controls.

The post you quoted shows a lack of understanding of the 1911's history. Back during WWII the military did order multiple slides per gun. Why you ask? Because up until WII the slides were not heat treated at all.

In 1936, Colt addressed the problem with battering of the breechface by installing a hardened insert known as the "Recoil Shield." It can be seen in WW2 USGI pistols, and is usually mistaken for a toolmark. It solved that problem, but the slides will still crack in the port adjacent to the breechface from the recoil forces and having to pull the barrel backward against the bullet's opposing forward drag. Fully hardened slides did a lot to forestall this, but it will still happen. I've cracked a few. The most recent was an early 1991A1 that had about 150,000 rounds through it. The reason that it lasted that long is because 99% of the ammo that I shoot is cast lead SWC. Less frictional drag on the barrel means less stress on the slide during recoil.

Fully hardened slides appeared in mid-1946.

The Man With No Name
August 17, 2012, 06:48 PM
Vanilla. Chevy (never had one, but I've had a Ford). Neither (cola gives me a sore throat, other sodas are fine). Cannon.

1911, someone just won, I'm waiting it out. Although if I do win the powerball, a 1911 (well, really a 2011) is back on the table as an option for me :P. I'm sure it won't be hard to convince someone to make me some ambi options.

(See, I tied it back to the 1911 topic)
I can agree to disagree about anything. Just to blow your mind though I used to take old industrial Canon lenses and convert them to Nikon F mount for high speed macro work just for fun. :)
On topic:
In a money is no object world I think I'd have a tuned SVI in 40cal with a Glock23C as a backup.
In a do what I'm allowed to do world I'd carry a stainless Ruger New Vaquero in 45LC with the same Glock23C as a backup.

Of course I have to actually carry these guns with a ton of duty gear so even then I'd probably still carry one single Glock.

You've obviously never seen what the insides of Les Baer and Colt look like or how they build guns. Here's a tip: according to the ATF statistics for handgun production in 2010 Les Baer made 2540 handguns. In that same year, Colt made 29,331. That means Colt made over 11x more pistols than Les Baer did.

The Marines aren't interested in overly tight pistols designed to shoot tiny groups at 50 yards at the range. They want guns that work and they want a factory that has the capability to produce them in a timely manner and the ability to support them throughout their service life. A Colt Rail Gun may not have as much hand fitting as a Les Baer or be as accurate, but it will still shoot accurately enough to get the job done, be completely reliable, and last the desired time.

Has Les Baer gone to pieces. The inside of mine had tool marks but it almost took a magnifiying glass to find them. Not that increases reliability even 1%. Just saying. Frankly I'm shocked that now someone says accuracy isn't a primary concern with so many saying how deadly some are at 100 yards. A 100 yard shot can certainly be done without a custom 1911 but a custom 1911 makes a 100 yard accurate shot more reasonable.

Someone states...
Kimber Custom II w/8 rounds of 230gn - 44.7 oz.
Glock 21 (stock) w/14 rounds of 230gn - 40.1 oz.
As an example of why the weight difference doesn't matter. Really? The Glock has 6 more rounds and still weighs less? That weight doesn't matter to some but for anyone carrying 50+ pounds of gears I'm sure every little bit matters. Escpecially when that little bit equals more ammo. Not a concern to me as I'm already carrying close to a full 50 round box of ammo on my duty belt but for someone that may possibly go days or longer at a time without more I would think it is. I also don't have to pack my food (24hour restaurants in my area), medical supplies, explosives, maps, shelter, ect. My long gun is in my trunk unless I know it will be needed before I arrive. My binoculars hang on my passenger side seat. I could go on and on. Weight of each piece of gear should matter although it shouldn't be the only concern. The fact is lighter gear exists that will get the job done. According to most now a finely fitted custom piece that costs thousands is not needed. So we are back to why a Glock isn't chosen or something else proven reliable and durable over the long term without weighing so much.

The Man With No Name
August 17, 2012, 06:59 PM
At this point I'll bow out of the thread as we are clearly running in circles. I will end my involvement by stating again that I find it comical that this type of thread will always bring out someone wanting to use some elite SWAT or elite military unit as the example of why the 1911 platform is still superior. Glock users seem to never bring up as examples all the SWAT or elite military units using anything else which even the 1911 defenders would admit outnumber those using their platform. I find the choice of the 1911 almost irresponsible for these units unless we are talking about a very specialized need (ultimate accuracy at greater than average distances) that honestly I still think numerous custom 1911's are still the better choice for. Finally weight does matter. When I'm open carrying my high polish stainless steel Ruger New Vaquero with birdshead grip it doesn't. I'm sure to someone carrying everything they need to fight and live with for an extended period of time it does.

1911Tuner
August 17, 2012, 07:06 PM
Frankly I'm shocked that now someone says accuracy isn't a primary concern with so many saying how deadly some are at 100 yards.

With a gun that's built for express purpose of "Close Quarters Battle" it's not a primary concern. When things are up close and personal...and lethal...intrinsic accuracy is way way behind reliability.

The African big game hunters of old gave accuracy only a passing interest. They were much more concerned with reliability, which is why the ones who could afford them used double rifles instead of bolt-actions. Nothin' like a short-stroked bolt to wreck your day when a Cape Buffalo breaks cover 20 feet away with a full head of steam.

Or, as one of'em put it...mighta been Karamojo Bell...but don't hold me to it.

"I don't care a whit about these fellows who can split a pea at a hundred paces. What I want to know about a man is how he does with a charging lion at 6 feet."

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 07:09 PM
Tuner, it's like what I've said about a carbine in my home. I don't need 0.5 MOA accuracy to hit a dinner plate at 4 yards.

1911Tuner
August 17, 2012, 07:20 PM
True that, Skribs.

Another one sprang to mind...from Jeff Cooper.

"This question on the utility of absolute accuracy in a fighting pistol is rather like discussing the top speed of a Ford pickup truck. Interesting, but irrelevant."

gym
August 17, 2012, 07:39 PM
If they suck so bad, how come every day more companys are springing up with new models. It's getting to the point that "BUDS" has a 1911 section now.
Everyone wants one. there are bound to be dissapointments as they have more than a half dozen parts in them and require an actual bit of knowledge to really enjoy them.
The point and shoot crowd will undoubtedlly lose interest in them very quicklly. Of course this will be the gun's fault, and at $350-400.00, it's impossible to build a 1911..Let alone sell one at that price. It will tarnish the guns reputation to the untrained or ill advised new shooter, who will assume that for $500.00 they should get a Glock like machine that runs forever with no maintenance, and little thought.
The words "idiot mark" say it all. I seldom see a 1911 for sale that doesn't have these words in the description. As if it is supposed to be a "given", as in, "has the idiot mark", or "Came with the idiot mark", Is someone adding this as an option?
So as they trample on the last bastion of our sacred 1911, I bow my head and wave goodbye to the last pistol to be turned out like a $2 dollar hooker. "showing my age".
Goodbye my friend, I thought you might slip by, but they got you at the border.
Wait until they figure out that they have to keep putting ammo in you, and they will quicklly tire and sell you as LNIB, only test fired, and throw in a holster for $100 more than they paid, Maybe we will meet again as they trade you in on the latest 25 round Taurus 9mm, or 40 round 22 magnum. "justkidding" sad thing is it's mostlly true.

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 07:42 PM
If they suck so bad, how come every day more companys are springing up with new models. It's getting to the point that "BUDS" has a 1911 section now.

Probably because its about the only model where they don't have to do any work except provide the equipment. Every other pistol is a slight remodeling or adding/removal of certain features. I don't think I've ever seen two striker fired pistols that really look "the same". 1911s are 1911s.

Skylerbone
August 17, 2012, 07:46 PM
The post you quoted shows a lack of understanding of the 1911's history. Back during WWII the military did order multiple slides per gun. Why you ask? Because up until WII the slides were not heat treated at all.

I am aware of the history, the argument was over the MEU(SOC) order not butter soft slides of old.

Sure I mentioned an "elite" group, LA SWAT, just as Glock lovers mentioned MEU(SOC). Both are great examples of professionals at the top of their game who chose 1911s. I don't claim to know more than they about which is best for them but some people do...had they chosen Glocks I would not have started a thread claiming Glocks were junk and these men were penny wise equipment foolish imbeciles who need a good learning from me. I did suggest to a local SWAT member, who I consider a friend, a traditional 1911 rather than the TRP he chose due to his unfamiliarity with the platform as a whole.

I chose vanilla, Coke, Ford and every Canon or Nikon I've ever had (5 total) has failed.

tipoc
August 17, 2012, 08:03 PM
This thread begins with an article on why the 1911 "sucks" that is full of half truths and distortions. It ends with saying Jeff Cooper "sucks" as well. Some folks believe a good deal of what was written in the article and honestly did not know the difference between the content of that article and honest criticism of the 1911 as a platform. So folks tried to explain.

In that discussion a poster noted that if the 1911 sucked so bad and was such an inferior gun why had a special forces branch of the Marine Corp just ordered 12,000 1911s from Colt along with spare parts for them.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/07/marine-corps-marsoc-new-colt-45-caliber-pistols-071912

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/01/marine-marsoc-pistol-45cal-012511w/

This set off a few fellas who believe that the Marines were wrong in their pick and should have gone with another gun. Most often mentioned by them is the Glock.

The choice of the Colt will not replace the M9 which is the standard service sidearm of the Corp. The 1911 goes to those units which have been using 1911s for a very long time. Including some built and rebuilt on 50 and 60 year old frames.

The choice of the Marines does not mean that the 1911 is the greatest fighting handgun in the world...

From The Man With No Name:
. I will end my involvement by stating again that I find it comical that this type of thread will always bring out someone wanting to use some elite SWAT or elite military unit as the example of why the 1911 platform is still superior.

I don't recall anyone saying that other than TMWNN. Folks cited the Corps preference against the charge that the 1911 "sucked".

There are several guns today (more than 100 or even 50 years ago) which I believe are better suited to arm a police force or to be the standard sidearm of an army than the 1911. But that does not mean that the 1911 "sucks"or that it's "day is past". It continues to soldier on in service around the globe and in law enforcement and is the preferred sidearm of many. This is because it continues to work.

tipoc

1911Tuner
August 17, 2012, 08:33 PM
I am aware of the history, the argument was over the MEU(SOC) order not butter soft slides of old.

Well...24-26 Rc isn't exactly butter soft. Fully hardened slides only hit about 32. I've seen modern "hard" slides with peening at the breechface around the firing pin hole, albeit with more rounds through the pipe than the average shooter will use in a lifetime. Personally, I wish they'd go back to the hardened insert. That thing was hard and tough.

One of the main advantages of heat treating the slide is relieving stress risers. They're not all that much harder than the dead soft...meaning the hardness of the steel in its raw state...3000 Series steels used in the originals. The heat treating makes them tougher, which is more important than harder.

Auto426
August 17, 2012, 08:41 PM
I am aware of the history, the argument was over the MEU(SOC) order not butter soft slides of old.

From what I could tell it seems The Man With No Name took that bit of history on multiple slides for each service gun from Tuner's post and believed that it still applied to the 1911's being produced today, hence the lack of understanding. As far as the MARSOC 1911's that Colt will be providing, I'm sure that there will be some extra slides included in the spare parts portion of the contract, but it's not because the guns will wear through them like the unhardened slides of old. Anything can and will break, and having spares on hand is never a bad idea.

1911Tuner
August 17, 2012, 09:28 PM
As far as the MARSOC 1911's that Colt will be providing, I'm sure that there will be some extra slides included in the spare parts portion of the contract.

You can bet that there will be. There will be extra slides and barrels and every other part needed to build up another gun on a used frame. All this is figured into the cost of the contract. The Marines aren't just getting the pistols. They're getting everything needed to keep them running for a long time, and if the spare parts inventory runs low, they'll buy more. I'd venture a guess that the spare parts and the gauges and specialty tools for the armorers probably cost as much as the pistols themselves.

Smokin Gator
August 17, 2012, 10:24 PM
It seems it's very common that if someone is reviewing a gun they like, that a high percentage of the time any malfunctions will be attributed to bad ammo, a bad magazine, limp wristing,etc. Now when they review a gun they don't like (a lot of 1911 haters out there) any malfunction is quickly judged to be a problem with the gun or it's design. Mark

1911Tuner
August 18, 2012, 06:10 AM
It seems it's very common that if someone is reviewing a gun they like, that a high percentage of the time any malfunctions will be attributed to bad ammo, a bad magazine, limp wristing,etc.

Well...When a feed issue is in the offing, most of the time it is the magazine, and that's the first thing that I look at whenever dealing with one...whether it's a 1911 or a Glock or a Raven.

beerman
August 18, 2012, 06:57 AM
The wheel is a lots older design , therefore it sucks more than my 1911's

918v
August 18, 2012, 12:50 PM
I disagree with the author of the article:

The 1911 design, while 100 years old, is as modern as a rear wheel drive front engine passenger automobile. Think about it- are our cars hovering? Are they teleporting? Are they flying at light speed? No. They roll on four wheels. They burn gas. They steer with a wheel.

1911 magazines are reliable. I have never had any issues with quality standard magazines. I think the problem is the aftermarket for the 1911 brought done crappy magazines to ignorant customers, thereby compromising 1911's legend. How many aftermarket mags do you see for the Glock?

How many aftermarket Glock's are there? Do they run 100%? nope. Even Glock can't get it right when they deviate from the original design: Gen-4. Why is Apex designing a reliable extractor? Isn't the Glock perfect?

As far as being difficult to learn, the 1911 requires some ability to operate machinery. I requires the user to hold things with one hand while turning things with the other. It has a few more parts in it. And while I fully understand the effects of public school education, even the dumbest of the dumb can learn to fieldstrip a 1911. If not, that person is just too stupid to shoot and should look at edged weapons or blunt objects instead.

The 1911 is popular not because of propaganda, but due to the very design the author is besmetching. People like the design. People like how the 1911 feels in their hand. They like the way the trigger breaks. They like the Swiss Watch effect as opposed to the cordless drill feel of the Glock. They like the wood on steel. They like the infinite customization potential.

Is the Glock better than a Colt 1911? No. Is it better than a Springer? No. Is it better than a third world import? Yes.

High mag capacity isn't everything. Most people don't need or want 20 rounds in their pistol. If that were not the case, revolvers would have gone extinct in 1911.

1911Tuner
August 18, 2012, 01:51 PM
It is a undeniable fact that Glock is one of the most sought after and successful pistols designs to have ever been thought up.

I guess, but Gaston Glock didn't have to do a whole lotta thinkin' on it. John Browning and Dieudonne Saive took care of that part. All Gas had to do was work out the plastics end.

tipoc
August 18, 2012, 01:58 PM
Dusty,

The thread isn't about Glocks, hating or liking them. It's about replying to misinformation in an article.

Glocks are solid and reliable firearms. Their revolutionary design and cost effective methods of production helped propel the industry forward. They inspired other excellent guns like the Springfield XD and the S&W M&P, arguably better guns. It's for this reason that many hold them up as an example of a modern gun that "is better" than the older 1911 design and as "proof" that the 1911 is obsolete. This leads to arguments that are sometimes pointless or can seem pointless.

We all know that Browning's real claim to fame was his high capacity double stack 9 mm Hi Power he worked on in Europe.

I disagree with you here. Browning was famous before he worked on the 1911. He was known for his work on rifles, shotguns, and pistols all before the 1911. His designs powered Winchester and Colt forward. He had a working relationship with FN in Belgium that produced beautiful and internationally known handguns, so that in Europe and elsewhere his name was synonymous with semi-auto pistols before 1911. Browning's machine guns also won him renown. Some are still in use today. The bulk of the work on the Hi-Power was concluded by Saive years after Browning's death.

I personally would like to see what Gaston Glock and John Moses Browning could come up with in a collaborative effort.

Interesting idea. I tend to think of Glock's abilities being more akin to Samuel Colt's, strong in marketing with good engineer's working with you.

tipoc

Jim Watson
August 18, 2012, 02:12 PM
The African big game hunters of old gave accuracy only a passing interest.

The hunters - as opposed to the Professional White Hunters, the guides - were all too often not good shots. The PWH needed a big powerful rifle because his client was very likely going to leave him wounded game to follow up, including wounded dangerous game.

Another one sprang to mind...from Jeff Cooper.

"This question on the utility of absolute accuracy in a fighting pistol is rather like discussing the top speed of a Ford pickup truck. Interesting, but irrelevant."

On the other hand, Jeff Cooper also said "Since the dispersion of the weapon is added to that of the shooter, it can only be desired that the weapon have no dispersion at all."


I think the main problem with the perceived faults of guns erroneously called 1911s is that nearly all the highly touted advances in machine tools and metallurgy have gone into cutting costs by cutting corners and providing fashion driven "features" instead of true quality. Not to mention the knock off artists who think they know better than John Browning, Colt, and the Army and change actual design elements.

If you started running the guns through 100% inspection by hard-to-please inspectors not dependent on sales for their pay, kind of like the Army used to do, the complaints would fall off a lot.


My position on Glocks is that the Glock 17 is a fine service pistol because it was designed, built, and evaluated as a real service pistol. Its successors are merely reasonable commercial efforts, largely driven by the American market. They are usually ok but from what I have seen, not up to the base model in reliability or durability.

tarosean
August 18, 2012, 02:12 PM
We all know that Browning's real claim to fame was his high capacity double stack 9 mm Hi Power he worked on in Europe.


Really? ACP rounds, Macine guns like the BAR & Ma Duece! Semi auto shotguns. The list goes on and on.. Every gun you pick up has ideas from him..

tarosean
August 18, 2012, 03:02 PM
I do believe ACP is a designation for (Auto Colt Pistol).

Correct, but it JMB who designed them for the guns he was building for Colt.

ugaarguy
August 18, 2012, 03:23 PM
I can disagree with this. Gaston fixed a great many Browning shortcomings such: as staked on parts,
You're ignoring the part about Dieudonne Saive, you know, the guy who completed Browning's work on the GP-35 - aka the Browning Hi Power. The BHP doesn't have staked on parts.
two section feeding ramps,
Gaston didn't do that, the BHP has a ramped bbl.
elimination of the link lug with a slotted sliding configuration to open and lower the breech,
Also on the BHP, way before Gaston's time. It's also not a fundamental change, but rather a modification of Browning's tilt breech locking mechanism.
elimination of barrel lock up rings and lug and using the square block cut out on the slide to accomplish lock up.
Again, it doesn't change the operation of the pistol. It just shifts the top lock up from multiple lugs forward of the front of bbl hood to the bbl hood itself. It's less expensive to manufacture that way, but it comes at the expense of a thicker and heavier slide. It's not an improvement at all. Glocks are just polymer frame BHPs with a 1903 Browning striker mechanism cobbled in, and the thumb safety deleted.

tipoc
August 18, 2012, 04:25 PM
I'll add...

... elimination of barrel lock up rings and lug and using the square block cut out on the slide to accomplish lock up.

Done earlier by Sig as I recall. The move in this direction can be seen in Charles Petter's designs and in the Radom Vis. This feature was not original to the Glock.

Original to the gun is the trigger, which is unique.

tipoc

tipoc
August 18, 2012, 04:49 PM
I think there was a great deal of thinking put into the Glock pistol design.

A good deal of thinking and studying did go into the design. A committee of experienced ordnance people and engineers pulled together by Gaston Glock spent time developing concepts for the gun. The result was a classic firearm, one of the most important of the last century.

...But that's just my opinion and I am one of those guys that think 1911's suck and are overpriced. I don't even like the looks of them to be honest. The Walther PP series are the prettiest guns I have ever seen in my day.

I respect when a fella says up front what they think.

There is a book I'm reading right now which I recommend to all shooters, it's...

"Glock: The Rise of America's Gun" by Paul Barrett

a very good read and quite a useful book on the firearms industry in the U.S. and the development of the Glock.

I also like the looks of the Walther PP.

tipoc

LTR shooter
August 18, 2012, 05:39 PM
If they suck so bad, how come every day more companys are springing up with new models. It's getting to the point that "BUDS" has a 1911 section now.

Yeah that's why after reading the "1911 Sucks" article I posted it was the most outrageous crock of horse manure I've ever read.

101 years later you have companies like Smith & Wesson , Ruger , SIG , Dan Wesson and the current Remington making 1911s just to name a few. Try picking up a Ruger 1911 somewhere , I've yet to see one.

Pretty obvious that the 1911 design is doing quite well for itself. From reading here it seems most of the bashing comes from the Glock Boy crowd. You know , those same Internet Commandos that participate in weekly gun battles and shootouts or so it would seem. As if they are so highly qualified to tell us how great of a battle pistol the Glock is.

Judging by the Glock shooters I have seen at the range it is more likely that someone with a 1911 probably schooled them on the art of hitting your target. I've yet to see any of them "Glock is the Greatest" advocates that could shoot , the reason the high capacity is always stated as being so critical.

1911Tuner
August 18, 2012, 06:22 PM
I also think Browning recognized the shortcomings of the 1911 patent and that is why the HP did not have those stupid staked on plunger tubes and was in double stack 9 mm instead of limited 11 mm (.45) the US Army wanted for killing horses.

Oh, please. The mythical things that keep poppin' up...it's all I can do to keep up!

First off...Browning didn't have a lot to do with the High Power. He never even saw one. John Browning died in 1926 in the FN plant...and he was working on a stackbarrel shotgun at the time. He designed the Grande Rendement, which Dieudonne Saive used years later as a springboard to design the High Power, which was completed and introduced nearly nine years after Browning's death.

Second...There were no mistakes made with the 1911, nor with the High Power...and the High Power wasn't a doublestack 9mm because the .45 had limited capacity, and the .45 cartridge wasn't for killing horses, though that may have been considered.

Like any contract item, the paying customer gets a say in what features said item has. The US Army wanted .45 caliber because the mid-bore revolvers did so poorly against the Moros during the Philippine insurrection.

Because the thumb safety was added in the 11th hour on request by the US Cavalry, the staked-on plunger tube was the most expedient means to get one working in time to meet the deadline for the trials...and if it's properly staked, it won't loosen up readily...and even if it does, the proper grip panel design will hold it in place.

Also consider the fact that the plunger tube would be difficult, slow, and expensive to machine as part of the frame...and that if it had been, a damaged tube would be time-consuming to repair. It would require that the pistol be taken out of service...and that the necessary equipment to effect a repair would be both bulky and prohibitively expensive to maintain in a theater of operations. With the then 25 cent tube and a 2-dollar tool, the pistol could be returned to service in a matter of minutes...in the field. Ease of maintenance and repair in the field was one of the 1911's strong points.

There are reasons for everything on that pistol. Even the tiny pad on the thumb safety was made that way for a specific reason.

Third...The High Power being a contracted item, was also subject to customer specifications. The French wanted a high capacity 9mm pistol, and that's what they got. They wanted a magazine disconnect, and they got one. The didn't want a grip safety, so the pistol doesn't have one. If they had, the High Power would be wearing a grip safety today. Bet on it.

Neither John Browning nor Dieudonne Saive cobbled up their respective pistols and went looking for buyers. Both pistols were designed under contract by military entities. Saive was the chief designer at FN Herstal, and Browning worked under contract with Colt.

Following his tenure at Colt on the 1911, he went to work...under contract...at FN Herstal. Both pistols were assignments. Nothing more and nothing less.

1911Tuner
August 18, 2012, 07:31 PM
Dusty, I wouldn't try to influence ya on your choice. Just tryin' to dispel with a few myths and set the record straight.

But...

I don't feel that the Glock has anything on a 1911 as far as reliability goes, as long as it
's built to spec and fed from proper magazines...and I'll stand by that until pigs fly.

Hacker15E
August 18, 2012, 08:00 PM
I think anyone who has the opinion that any pistol design with both the extremely-long-duration combat and commercial success of the 1911 "sucks" has some serious rectal-cranial inversion, or at the least some serious ignorance.

I don't know where so many people get the idea that in order to like one brand/item/club/political party/etc, it means that they also must hate or disparage another. Unfortunately, for too many people, they need to do that in order to make themselves feel better about whatever camp they're in. I just don't understand it.

I have Glocks and Colts and Berettas and Stars and Smiths in my safe...all living together, in harmony, and all extremely well designed and built firearms. I don't have to spit on the 92FS in order to take the Colt out and shoot it.

beerman
August 18, 2012, 08:19 PM
Thank you ! ! !

1911Tuner
August 18, 2012, 10:39 PM
Tuner, Those pigs stopped flying in 1944 at the Remington Rand Corporation as far as I am concerned.

Don't bet on it. I've got a pair of early 1991A1 Colts that are collectively approaching 400,000 round, about evenly split. I don't remember the last malfunction I've had with either, but it's been years, and I can count the total number on my fingers without using my thumbs. No super-secret pistolsmith stuff has been done to either one. There hasn't been a Remington Rand made that would have stood up to that many rounds.

The 1970's Colts were a disaster

No argument there. Those were what I refer to as Colt's dark days. They were having a lot of problems then in labor and management. You could get two with consecutive serial numbers and one would be fine, while the other one wasn't worth bringing home.

The present day 1911 is a mutation of a mutation and a pinochle of bad quality control and so wide in tolerances that Christopher Columbus may need to discover them again.

Again, not a lot of room to argue. So many present-day clone makers are not only cutting corners, but they also seem to be making up specs as they go...but a good many also get things right.

If you'll remember my original statement:

"The 1911 was designed to function. If it's correctly built to spec and fed decent ammunition from a proper magazine, it will function. It's a machine. It doesn't have a choice."

And that brings me back to the present crop. I haven't seen that many real problems, and in most of the ones that don't behave, it can be traced straight to the magazine. With most of the others, it's the extractor. A very small percentage require major surgery.

You can't really call a bad design for a corporate bean counter's decision to save 50 cents per magazine and order from the lowest bidder, and you can't really call it on an assembly worker's failure to properly adjust the extractor before sending it to the next station.

98% of the work that I do on the 1911 is addressing functional and reliability issues. It's not often that I need to do much more than hand the owner a good magazine or adjust the extractor. Some extractors require some modification...but that's the vendor's fault for not sticking to specs and QA's fault...both the vendor's and the manufacturer's...for not catching it.

It's usually somethin' simple, and I'm most often in and out of it in 30 minutes or less.

By and large, the biggest problem that I see is the hack that buys a Dremel and fancies himself a gunsmith. Whenever a call comes and I hear the words: "I jes' cain't unnerstan' it. I done me a killer ramp and throat job and the dang thang still won't feed!"
I just go ahead and load up on Excedrin Migraine an hour before he gets here.

bds
August 18, 2012, 11:56 PM
So what if we just simply duplicate what John Browning did back in 1910?
- http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=672470

6000 round torture test is quite a feat and I would say THAT 1910 did not suck.
On the testing and qualification day, 1910 model did not experience any malfunction during the 6000 round continuous firing "torture test". John Browning attended the first day of testing/qualifications only to make any modifications that may be needed and since the 1910 model did not experience any malfunction, he did not attend the rest of testing/qualification days.

Ben86
August 19, 2012, 01:07 AM
To me 1911 is an outdated design. It is a fine design, that can be made to work well if done properly, but is behind the times none the less.

Most modern defensive pistols by collective nature are dominated by designs that are polymer framed, lightweight, very reliable out of the box, striker fired (or some other mechanism excluding an external hammer), high capacity, grossly simple by design, and priced around $500 or under. The 1911 just doesn't fit the modern pistol mold like it or not.

I still think they are great guns and for those that choose to rely on them for serious purposes my hat is off to you. I just hope you are honest about the shortcomings that can exist in its design and know how to cope.

I also think that the .45 acp is an obsolete caliber due to the advent of ammunition that expands reasonably reliably, but that's a different subject. ;)

1911Tuner
August 19, 2012, 01:51 AM
You should, Dusty. They're quite good.

Me and the 1911 go back a long way. In the early 60s, my father...a tool and die maker, and his no-good brother...a retired Navy armorer...used to hit the gun shows and snap up USGI pistols to rebuild and shoot. Back then, there were usually 3-4 tables that had'em stacked like cordwood, and they couldn't give'em away. You could buy a decent one for 35 bucks and a nice one for 50. They usually bought the dogs. The ol' man like the pre-A1s while my uncle was partial to the WW2-era pistols.

The next tables had all the surplus parts needed and the ammunition was so cheap that nobody bothered to even pick up the brass because it cost more to reload it, even with home cast bullets.

And we shot'em. Boy howdy did we shoot'em. As the slides busted or beat the lugs to mush...they'd go to the shop and get another slide and barrel, and we were back in business. When the frames were so worn that they couldn't be used again, they'd toss'em and start over. And, of course, they sold a few to finance their hobby.

I shot a few of those pistols until the late 80s, and shot'em to destruction. The last one...an Ithaca...I rebuilt one last time and put it up. I still have it.

I realized that if I wanted another beater, I'd need a newer pistol...so I bought a 1991A1 in the fall of '91 and another in the spring of '92. I was so impressed that I bought three more over the next two years, and wound up selling two to friends who wanted'em more than I did. One is being kept as a spare, and has only seen about 15,000 rounds.

Armed with an unlimited supply of free wheelweights and cheap 60/40 bar solder, I proceeded to try to break both guns...so far without any real success. They both got tightened up and refitted at about 75,000 rounds, along with new barrels, which I wore out and replaced again with Kart barrels about 2 years ago. One is still operating on its OEM sear and disconnect...both MIM...and I replaced the disconnect in the other one at the refitting. Not because it was bad, but because it looked a little worn. Both still run with the original hammers.

I swapped the triggers for short ones. Even with large hands, I like the flat mainspring housing and short trigger. Did away with the Series 80 system because with cast bullets, I detail strip and clean every 2500 rounds, and it's faster and easier without the lawyer parts. I installed USGI grip safeties just because...and USGI thumb safeties because I like'em.

Jim Watson
August 19, 2012, 02:02 AM
A friend, since deceased, assembled a number of serviceable pistols on Essex frames in the 1970s. His brother was in the USMC and would periodically send or bring home on leave ammo cans full of parts; sometimes a can of slides, sometimes a can of barrels and small parts. His STORY was that they had on contract regular deliveries of so many spare parts above actual needs that they just scrapped the old stock when a new shipment came in. So he wasn't really stealing anything, just salvaging scrap. Riiight.

barnbwt
August 19, 2012, 02:13 AM
I'm honestly curious because I do not know; how common are 1911's (or very close variants) overseas in countries where pistol ownership is legal? I keep hearing over and over that 1911s popularity is proof of its awesomeness and superiority. Is that still the case in countries absent the storied past of our military's Pistol?

TCB

Auto426
August 19, 2012, 02:28 AM
I'm honestly curious because I do not know; how common are 1911's (or very close variants) overseas in countries where pistol ownership is legal? I keep hearing over and over that 1911s popularity is proof of its awesomeness and superiority. Is that still the case in countries absent the storied past of our military's Pistol?


I haven't seen anyone here claiming that the 1911 is superior to any other gun. It is, however, undeniably popular and that fact was used to dispute the assertion that they suck.

As far as military service goes, off the top of my head the Norwegians, Argentinians, Brazilians all adopted the gun as a standard service sidearm and manufactured them in-country. We also supplied a few countries such as Greece with 1911's that were surplussed from WWII. I can't speak to the civilian gun culture of other countries, but there are few where 1911's are popular. The Philippines seem to especially like the gun, to the point that they have a problem with fake Colts. .38 Super 1911's seems to be hugely popular in Mexico, where military calibers are banned from civilian use. That's just what I remember at the moment, but I'm sure there are others that can provide more detail.

tarosean
August 19, 2012, 04:20 AM
I'm honestly curious because I do not know; how common are 1911's (or very close variants) overseas in countries where pistol ownership is legal? I keep hearing over and over that 1911s popularity is proof of its awesomeness and superiority. Is that still the case in countries absent the storied past of our military's Pistol?

I travel quite a bit for work and can honestly say Ive only seen ONE outside of North/South America. It was in France, and Im pretty sure it was a Llama. Which were made across the border in Spain.

*Keep in mind business and my contact with guns in most foreign countries is noticing what the Police/Security forces have. In that retrospect Glock and Sig dominate. Its rare that I see anything but.

1911Tuner
August 19, 2012, 07:41 AM
The Europeans are more heavily invested in the 9mm Luger cartridge. Even though the 1911 is available in 9mm, there are others more suited to the round...like the High Power, Glock, Sig, etc.

76shuvlinoff
August 19, 2012, 09:01 AM
Very interesting thread but ...7 pages of "I didn't mean to stir up crap." Yeah, ok.

;)

1911Tuner
August 19, 2012, 09:24 AM
Very interesting thread but ...7 pages of "I didn't mean to stir up crap." Yeah, ok.

Well...Sometimes a little needs to be stirred once in a while to provide the opportunity to intermingle some of the facts into opinion and internet myth. While some will never be convinced...a good many will at least open their minds to the concept that raving fanboys generally spin their versions of the truth by using two or three experiences with a given platform to "prove" that they all suck.

It's easy for a guy who's had a bad experience with a (Insert name of pistol here) to draw that conclusion because it cost him money and caused him no small amount of stress and frustration. If he has two such experiences, he's convinced, and nothing that you can say and nothing that you can show him that will change his mind.

The logical question that begs to be asked is:

"If the 1911 is so sucky...why is it still around and selling in record numbers after a hundred years?" Seems to me that if it was that fraught with problems, it would have become a museum curiosity sometime around 1918 with the rest sold for scrap.

dos0711
August 19, 2012, 09:36 AM
I will say this...if I need a gun to defend myself, I know my 1911 or my Glock 19 will deliver the round on time and on target. I've had no problem with either.

el Godfather
August 19, 2012, 09:37 AM
A good accurate 1911 is one with tight tolerance. I just dont see that beating out Mark 23 in torture test that is if it was pitched againt mk23.

1911 has its following just like Glock and then at lesser scale CZ. These devoted souls cannot ever be convinced orherwise.

1911 is here to stay. Its been 100+ years. One should get that by now. There are certain advantages of 1911 that appeal to me. Like single stack grip, accuracy and all metal pistol for engravings etc

Glock has its advantage. Reliability and durability. Not to forget its customizable to your liking.

All that said, I believe tax payers view on the philosophy how money their money is spent in undeniablely important. Cost benefit analysis and audits are imparative on departments. Give them what they need to do the job effectively and efficiently, not what they want as they are subservient to national cause. Now, if after due diligence 1911 is chosen then so be it. Otherwise, if its a slip in accoubtibility it should be discussed in public accounts committee.

1911Tuner
August 19, 2012, 10:05 AM
All that said, I believe tax payers view on the philosophy how money their money is spent in undeniablely important.

Of course it is, but this contract wasn't for a quarter-million pistols. It was small, and intended for an elite group of young lions. When your annual budget reaches multiple billions, griping over 20 million dollars is a little like worrying over the salinity of Lake Superior after ya take a leak in it. There was more money than that spent just recruiting and training those guys.

Consider the cost of a single Tomahawk missile. The term: "Swallowing the camel and gagging on the gnat" comes to mind.

Give them what they need to do the job effectively and efficiently, not what they want as they are subservient to national cause.

I'll have to disagree. Again, this is an exclusive club with a comparatively small membership. They have a very specific mission statement with the bottom line being that completing the mission successfully is paramount and critical to the above mentioned national cause. When a man is more confident with Weapon A than with Weapon B...he's more likely to complete that mission because when the chips are down...he wants to be alive at its conclusion, and he wants his comrades to be alive as well. Imagine yourself as a front-line infantryman in WW1. Would you feel better going over the top with a Chau Chaut in your hands or a BAR?

el Godfather
August 19, 2012, 11:55 AM
1911
I dont think you disagree with me even though you stated so. I am not saying that they should have sub standard weapons by any means. Like I said, they should have weapon that enable them to complete task effectively and efficiently. I doubt anyone can argue with that.

As for whizzing in Lake Superior, if we open the sewerage lines of entire Michigan in it, it may become a problem albeit its just one state. Therefore, the prespective is different. I being in public sector face these issues in routine, which end up having aggregate effect and setting weak/wrong precedents if not enjoined from derailing from the stated philosophy if any. From a citizen's perspective yes its like one man whizzing in the Lake.

This by no means should be construed as equiping elite soldiers with inferior weapons. I am all in support for providin the best to those who defend a nation, just with proper accountability on spending so we can continue to provide the best for those brave men and women.

Skylerbone
August 19, 2012, 12:35 PM
Tuner, I don't think 115FMJ...er..."Dusty Roads" will be revisiting the 1911 at any point. He already has that classic Remington Rand and a super rare United Switch & Signal, 1 of 1 I would bet... If they ain't the same feller they ought to get together, they both love Glocks, own R. R.s and Sig Pro 2022s and think the 1911 sucks...

1911Tuner
August 19, 2012, 01:15 PM
I dont think you disagree with me even though you stated so. I am not saying that they should have sub standard weapons by any means.

Never said that you did.

Therefore, the prespective is different. I being in public sector face these issues in routine, which end up having aggregate effect and setting weak/wrong precedents if not enjoined from derailing from the stated philosophy if any.

And if the US military was talking of ordering a half-million of the pistols at the same cost per unit, I'd be questioning it, too...and loudly.

And from Dusty:

Regardless of caliber or make, the fact is that all handguns suck when you just get down to it.

True that, but the difference in effectiveness of the .45 ball and 9mm ball is known. If the pistol must be used, you want the heavier caliber, given a choice.

And...

It's also a fact that the 1911's clean, short single-action trigger is more conducive to getting hits on target quickly...and...In a situation where hitting quickly and hitting first can easily mean the difference between living and dying...the 1911 shines.

Contrary to what it may seem, I'm no 1911 fanboy. I'm well aware of its shortcomings and its limitations. Revolvers are my first love, and I can manage the DA trigger pretty well...but if I were limited to a sidearm to go with me into a nightmare, it would be the .45 caliber 1911 because I've found no other pistol that I can shoot quite as well with in a hurry. Almost as well wouldn't cut it. Lives often hinge on times measured in hundredths of seconds.

The pistol that is most often on my belt is a pure stock Model 13 Smith & Wesson, 3-inch round butt, and my nightstand gun is an old Model 10 with the tapered barrel.

918v
August 19, 2012, 02:31 PM
Would you feel better going over the top with a Chau Chaut in your hands or a BAR?

For those who don't know what a Chau Chat is, imagine a machinegun made out of a PVC pipe, cuz that's what they would have used is PVC was around back then.

1911Tuner
August 19, 2012, 02:33 PM
I think that the Sig 226 and the Glock 17 are just as good in a high stress situation.

As many do, including a lot of law enforcement agencies. My feeling is that, in a high stress situation, getting the action stopped with as few rounds as possible...hopefully one...is what makes the most sense to me. The more bullets in the air, the greater the chance of one or two goin' somewhere you don't want'em.

As Cooper noted:

"The man with the StG is more prone to spending rounds before he's got a solid lock on the target becasue he's got plenty in reserve, while the man with the Mauser knows that he as to hold and squeeze."

coalman
August 19, 2012, 02:39 PM
True that, but the difference in effectiveness of the .45 ball and 9mm ball is known. If the pistol must be used, you want the heavier caliber, given a choice.
Agreed.
It's also a fact that the 1911's clean, short single-action trigger is more conducive to getting hits on target quickly...and...In a situation where hitting quickly and hitting first can easily mean the difference between living and dying...the 1911 shines.
Agreed.
I will trade that for the added 2 millimeters in diameter of the projectile any day of the week.
I often feel the need to address this incorrect information. You have to compare surface area and percentages. May matter to you, may still not. But, at least you'll be working with the right numbers.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-5zBe5TeohRc/UBDjHXDz52I/AAAAAAAAF-s/5Ojhg5byFEI/s912/comparisons-updated.jpg
One 15 round double stack mag beats a single 7 in my book. I feel the more lead on the target the better.
So, if 7 9 (8+1) rounds of .45acp and 15 16 (15+1) rounds of 9mm all hit the target they put a comparable amount of "lead on target" in terms of effected surface area (depending on how bias you choose to be towards 9mm expansion vs. .45acp expansion). Sure, "all handguns suck", but compare 1 vs. 1 and it's no contest in favor of .45acp "sucking less" than 9mm. And, you can't predict misses or hits. But, if you tend/plan to spray-n-pray, definately 9mm no doubt.

I choose Glocks in 9mm and .45acp and the 1911 in .45acp as my primary platforms. I accept the strengths and weakness of both. And, I still choose 9mm for some applications, but I'm not in denial about it's capabilities or effectiveness vs. .45acp.

el Godfather
August 19, 2012, 02:50 PM
So, we agree cost per unit is high, but the difference is on the numbers bought and whom they are bought for.

Assume you were chairing the standing committee on new purchase of quarter million pistols for the USAF, and the recent purchase by marines was sited as good reliable pistol by the USAF. You would be very hard pressed to turn them down to a more economical pistol. In which event the recent purchase would be questioned. Dont you think so?

Skylerbone
August 19, 2012, 03:16 PM
I would think any elite group, small in size would constitute a higher cost to equip than a standard infantry. Note the multi-billion dollar fighter jet with a single pilot or the huge sum paid for aircraft carriers or submarines. If a few can do the job of many while reducing the loss of life the cost is justifiable. Force multipliers.

tipoc
August 19, 2012, 04:20 PM
Assume you were chairing the standing committee on new purchase of quarter million pistols for the USAF, and the recent purchase by marines was sited as good reliable pistol by the USAF. You would be very hard pressed to turn them down to a more economical pistol. In which event the recent purchase would be questioned. Dont you think so?

Well no, I would not be hard pressed to turn down a request by the USAF for 250,000 Colt made 1911s with rails because no such request has been made or will be made. No such request has been made in over 60 years.

In 1948 at the close of the second world war the U.S. military ceased to order any large orders of 1911s and decided that their next sidearm issued across the board as the general service sidearm would be quite different from the 1911. Colt continued to provide the military with spare parts though. From 1948 or so on the U.S. military made no new orders for 1911 pistols from any manufacturer (except for some branches of special forces).

However the U.S. military had little money to change over handguns at that time so the matter was put off. So through Korea and Viet Nam the 1911 soldiered on, spare parts being cobbled together and acquired from Colt. The gun did as it had always done an excellent job under the most rigorous conditions.

By the mid 80s though the U.S. military had the time and money and they chose, after extensive trials and debates, with the Berretta M9 and the Sig became an acceptable alternate in time. From that point on the 1911 was graduated out of service except in the hands of various of military police and special forces detachments (Seals, Force Recon, Deltas, etc.) It is not and will not be a general issue sidearm again in the U.S. or elsewhere.

Outside the U.S., by the 1960s and 70s other nations that issued the 1911 and used them in 45acp or 38 Super, phased them out for more modern and easier and cheaper to manufacture sidearms. In most cases it was a da/sa gun in 9mm, that was lighter than the 1911 and carried more rounds than the 1911. This was the type of gun the U.S. military wanted at the close of the Second World War but could not afford the transition to.

So why fellas worry about the cost of 12,000 handguns desired by MARSOC and to be delivered over a period of several years is kinda beyond me. Guns that may last them decades. It should be noted that MARSOC and other outfits like the seals, etc. have ordered and used slides from Springfield Armory, guns from Kimber, etc. over the last decade or so. This order from Colt is one of the larger special forces one.

tipoc

tarosean
August 19, 2012, 04:34 PM
So why fellas worry about the cost of 12,000 handguns desired by MARSOC and to be delivered over a period of several years is kinda beyond me

Cause it's not their favorite pistol! Any brand would end with the same animosity...

As a US taxpayer who doesn't earn a single dime in the US. I vote to fire the 535 idiots in congress to help finance whatever a soldier wants.

1911Tuner
August 19, 2012, 04:37 PM
So, we agree cost per unit is high, but the difference is on the numbers bought and whom they are bought for.

We don't know what the exact cost per pistol is. All we have is the cost of the contract, which includes spare parts, factory support, armorer training, and...for all we know...ammunition, and that's just what we know about. We're not privy to all the details of the contract.

Assume you were chairing the standing committee on new purchase of quarter million pistols for the USAF, and the recent purchase by marines was sited as good reliable pistol by the USAF. You would be very hard pressed to turn them down to a more economical pistol.

But MARSOC isn't your rank and file 'leven bang-bang infantry. The USAF has no real need of anything other than the standard issue sidearm, and not many of those...so your question is purely academic, and you're still trying hard to make me say that the pistols cost too much when I don't think so.

Again...the Corps has spent more money than the cost of the contract recruiting and training those guys. A lot more. If that's the pistol and the caliber that gives them the confidence to git'r done...I say God bless'em and give'em what they want.

And Marines is capitalized.

el Godfather
August 19, 2012, 05:29 PM
Tipoc
Apparently you chose not to read word "assume" in the begining of my post and yet argued in length that is not really in response to my post. Thus as soon as noticed you are choosing to ignore the assumption, I stopped reading.

1911
I guess it is now impractical for me to continue arguing since fundamentally we now differ on "need" and "want" aspect.

If you enjoyed reading about "1911s suck (not my article)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!