If the 1911 and Glock 21 were both made in the year 1911


PDA






coolluke01
August 16, 2012, 01:09 PM
I don't mean this to be a 1911 or Glock bashing thread. There are enough of those out there.

I was just thinking about a hypothetical situation were the 1911 and the Glock 21 were both in the race to be the US army's sidearm in and around the year 1911.

Some will say that this is foolishness and that the Glock materials were not available in 1911. Those would miss the main point behind the exercise. The reason for this way of thinking would be to remove all preconceived notions and past experience. Also to remove personal bias and emotion.

When compared side by side in the year 1911 which one would you think the US Army would choose and why?

Grip angle is not a valid reason to chose the 1911 over the Glock. Grip angle problems are Always only due to learned behavior. This bias wouldn't be as likely in the year 1911.
Please try and make this civil. I think it's an neat point of view and an interesting way to look at the two designs.

If you enjoyed reading about "If the 1911 and Glock 21 were both made in the year 1911" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rcmodel
August 16, 2012, 01:36 PM
The U.S. Army would have chosen the 1911.

Because horse solders needed guns with manual safety's so they don't kill their horse while holding the reins, the pistol, and holding on a bucking horse, all at the same time.

The Glock would not have met any of the requirements for a positive manual safety and would never have even been considered.

That is also the reason it wasn't considered, or included in the last service pistol tests when the Beretta M9 was chosen to replace the 1911.

rc

savanahsdad
August 16, 2012, 01:36 PM
glocks have there place , there is one in my safe (it's my wifes, I hate the dam thing !) but Glock don't meet mil spec. so the 1911 would still win .even if you made a glock out of steel , I can take the fireing pin out of my 1911 with the slide still on it! then use that pin to tare down the rest of the gun, just can't be done with a glock, , or if your in a hand to hand , and your out of ammo ,witch do you think would drop a guy faster , hitting him in the head with a glock or cracking his skull with a 1911 !!!

Skribs
August 16, 2012, 01:38 PM
RC, are you saying that the passive safety system is bad for military duty, or that the Army determined that it was bad for military duty?

coolluke01
August 16, 2012, 01:41 PM
The Glock would not have met any of the requirements for a positive manual safety and would never have even been considered.

Am I correct in remembering that the 1911 didn't have a safety either but was added because of that requirement? Or was that the grip safety?

This could have been added by Glock as well.


Glock don't meet mil spec. so the 1911 would still win

What was the mil spec? I'm pretty sure most specs are set in place once the weapon has been chosen. The specs are so that the manufacture sticks with the design that was approved.

rcmodel
August 16, 2012, 01:43 PM
I am saying that the U.S. military trials for a service pistol have always included a requirement for a manual safety, or more recently a decocker, or both.

And yes, I think a Glock without a manual safety would have been a bad choice for use by mounted calvary for the reason mentioned.

This could have been added by Glock as well.They had that option in preparation for the Joint Service Small Arms Program in which the Beretta M9 was chosen.
But they declined to do so.


rc

HorseSoldier
August 16, 2012, 02:04 PM
That is also the reason it wasn't considered, or included in the last service pistol tests when the Beretta M9 was chosen to replace the 1911.


But it was considered for the last US pistol procurement program, the Joint Combat Pistol program that surfaced in SOCOM six or seven years ago and fizzled when Big Army jumped on board and the money involved got too big. (This is where the Glock SF-framed pistols got developed.) For the conventional army side of the program, Glock was prepared to install an external safety on the pistols, though the SOF side did not require this.

GLOOB
August 16, 2012, 02:24 PM
I think if the Glock had been invented by JMB and it was made 100% domestically, AND if it cost 70% less to manufacture than a 1911, it would have been chosen with or without the manual safety. They would have invented a better cavalry holster, better manual of arms, and/or installed a heavier trigger. The cavalry is probably the only place where a sidearm would be considered a primary weapon. Double the magazine capacity would have been very desirable.

Uhh, except for one thing. People were smaller in 1911. So the Glock 21 grip might have been too big for most soldiers. :)

Skribs
August 16, 2012, 02:32 PM
I'm not much of an outdoorsman, rc, but with my XDm I've not had a single discharge caused from jostling while bike riding, using the trampoline, jumping off ledges (about 4 feet high) or jogging. I don't see it as a risk for the animal. Unless the soldier doesn't keep his finger outside the trigger guard (training issue) I don't see the big deal. Or was that safety rule not around in 1911? I was born in '88, so I can't remember that far back.

I mention the training issue, because it applies to the 1911 as well. The manual safety doesn't prevent stupid.

rcmodel
August 16, 2012, 02:48 PM
You have to remember the 1911 was coming into service just as the Colt SAA was going out.

The old time officers had a hard row to hoe accepting the idea of a self-loader, let alone one you didn't have to thumb-cock for each shot.

And yes, the idea of finger off the trigger is a fairly recent thing.

Back then many holsters had a slot in them so you could get your finger in the trigger guard with the gun still in the holster.

http://www.epsaddlery.com/pc-97-12-5-patton-holster.aspx
http://www.epsaddlery.com/pc-87-12-1930-austin-holster.aspx


rc

hentown
August 16, 2012, 02:54 PM
The fallacy of this hypothetical fantasy is that, had JMB had access to polymer frames, Tenifer, etc., his first semi-auto pistols might have looked a lot more like modern Glocks than the 1911s that we love. I don't think the hypothetical comparison should be between the G21 and 1911, though...probably the G17 would wow those early doughboys. Doubling their mag capacity with a round that shoots flatter and has a longer effective kill range would have been most attractive to those guys.

tarosean
August 16, 2012, 02:56 PM
I'm not much of an outdoorsman, rc, but with my XDm I've not had a single discharge caused from jostling

Yet your xdm has a grip safety like the 1911, in addition to the trigger bar.

It's a fantasy thread so I'll leave it at that.

Skribs
August 16, 2012, 02:56 PM
Hentown, 9x19mm predates .45 ACP.

Greg528iT
August 16, 2012, 03:09 PM
jostling while bike riding, using the trampoline, jumping off ledges (about 4 feet high) or jogging

Are you holstering and unholstering your XDM while riding, jumping jogging?

But to answer your question, IF Gaston bowed to the requests of the generals and put a manual safety on it, then, yes it would have been considered.

rcmodel
August 16, 2012, 03:11 PM
Doubling their mag capacity with a round that shoots flatter and has a longer effective kill range would have been most attractive to those guys. Not to the review board that selected the new caliber it wouldn't.
The 9mm had already failed miserably in the Thompson-LaGarde Tests in 1904.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson-LaGarde_Tests

The 9mm was never in the running for the new U.S. military caliber semi-automatic pistol.

It was pre-determined it would be a .45 caliber, regardless of what gun it was to be adopted in.

Shooting horses out from under riders was still a necessary military requirement at the time.

rc

Bio-Chem
August 16, 2012, 03:13 PM
even today our military is making orders for the 1911 while the Glock is not used in US services. if 100 years later the military is ordering 1911's but not Glocks, why would things change if we subtracted 100 years?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/28/marines-pay-22m-to-go-back-to-their-old-guns-colt-45-caliber-pistols/

coolluke01
August 16, 2012, 03:40 PM
The "only" IMO, reason the 1911 is used at all today is simply because it's been used for so long.

The fallacy of this hypothetical fantasy is that, had JMB had access to polymer frames, Tenifer, etc., his first semi-auto pistols might have looked a lot more like modern Glocks than the 1911s that we love
This is the same conclusion I came to. If we truly believe that JBM would have incorporated the newer technology then why won't we? The 1911 is outdated and has been surpassed by newer technology.
The only reason that has been shown for the US military not choosing the Glock over the 1911, in the year 1911, would be the lack of a safety. If it had a safety they would have chosen the G21!

powder
August 16, 2012, 03:51 PM
Well, I believe the Browning produced striker-fired pistosl of the day were used by militaries. Just not by the U.S..

rcmodel
August 16, 2012, 03:58 PM
One could also suppose that if A10 Warthogs, B-52 bombers, and Abrams tanks had been available then, WWI would not have lasted nearly 5 years either.

But they weren't.

rc

savanahsdad
August 16, 2012, 03:59 PM
The "only" IMO, reason the 1911 is used at all today is simply because it's been used for so long.


This is the same conclusion I came to. If we truly believe that JBM would have incorporated the newer technology then why won't we? The 1911 is outdated and has been surpassed by newer technology.
The only reason that has been shown for the US military not choosing the Glock over the 1911, in the year 1911, would be the lack of a safety. If it had a safety they would have chosen the G21!
now you do know you need a small tool box to take apart a g21 .. right ???? so why would they pic that ?? just adding a safty would not do it

coolluke01
August 16, 2012, 04:02 PM
I'm guessing you are being sarcastic about the tool requirement for the g21. So I guess you agree with me?

rc, That's for sure. Wasn't there a movie about a aircraft carrier that was time warped back to Dec 4th 1941. Boy I sure hope I got that date right.

The point of this discussion is not really a what if they had this weapon, but what would a logical weapon choice be if there were no preconceived notions or emotional attachment to this piece of Americana, the 1911.

rcmodel
August 16, 2012, 04:05 PM
Dec 7th, 1941.

Japanese attack on the U.S. base at Pearl Harbor.

The movie was The Final Countdown.

rc

Skribs
August 16, 2012, 04:06 PM
The only reason that has been shown for the US military not choosing the Glock over the 1911, in the year 1911, would be the lack of a safety. If it had a safety they would have chosen the G21!

So uh...M&P 45?

One could also suppose that if A10 Warthogs, B-52 bombers, and Abrams tanks had been available then, WWI would not have lasted nearly 5 years either.

Not necessarily. If it was available, the enemy would have had some options along the same lines. Think of it like Terminator - if I travel back in time to 1776 and give Washington a M4, someone is going to give the Brittish a LA85.

If you can further my history question, when did the rule of keeping your finger off the trigger come into effect? Was it before or after the adoption of pistols such as the Glock?

ETA: yall talk about time travel reminds me of the SNL or MAD TV skit where The Terminator blasted Judas Iscariot with a shotgun.

Auto426
August 16, 2012, 04:12 PM
The point of this discussion is not really a what if they had this weapon, but what would a logical weapon choice be if there were no preconceived notions or emotional attachment to this piece of Americana, the 1911.

In other words you want to know why anyone would choose a 1911 when they can have a Glock 21, cause Glock's are obviously the superior choice, right?

coolluke01
August 16, 2012, 04:13 PM
yeah they came back 3 days before the attack... ahem. My dad's birthday is Dec 5th so I always get that mixed up with Dec 7th Pear Harbor day. Sorry for not participating in infamy.

You are right Skribs about the M&P .45. I used the G21 as an example because that and the 1911 are the most often compared and are the most polarized. But the point is if new technology would have won then day then, why not now?


In other words you want to know why anyone would choose a 1911 when they can have a Glock 21, cause Glock's are obviously the superior choice, right?

I believe I know why many chose the 1911. It's a very valid reason too. One that I would never argue with, but most won't make it about that reason and invent other things that are trivial to make their point. They like the 1911 because that's what they are used to. Plain and simple. It's not the best gun ever made, it's not the most reliable and it doesn't use the advancements in technology that other weapons of today use. But they like it. That's great, but call it what it is and you'll here no argument from me. It's good to have something that you like and that works for you.

rajb123
August 16, 2012, 04:15 PM
Why in 1911 would the U.S. military buy a pistol that is made is Austria?

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 04:16 PM
I think if the Glock had been invented by JMB and it was made 100% domestically, AND if it cost 70% less to manufacture than a 1911, it would have been chosen with or without the manual safety.

No, it wouldn't have.

The US Cavalry requested the "manual, slide locking safety" for some very good reasons.

Namely, reholstering the piece in order to regain control of a frightened horse without shooting oneself or the horse in the process. Even in those unenlightened days, the thinkin' heads understood that a man under stress might forget to get his finger out of the trigger guard before jammin' it back into a holster. (See "Glock Leg")

"Slide locking" because jamming a dirty pistol into a holster could push the slide out of battery, possibly not returning when it was re-drawn. Bad JuJu in the middle of a close-quarters firefight.

Incidentally, the "Locked" part of cocked and locked refers to the slide...not the fire control group.

The grip safety was there in 1907 and 1909 on Colt's military contract pistols...and that was a cavalry requirement as well. Dropped from horse-mounted height, the pistol's center of gravity tended to flip it over and strike the ground muzzle up...with the heavy steel trigger's momentum firing the gun upward at the horse and the rider.

So...no. They wouldn't have picked the Glock in 1910.

rcmodel
August 16, 2012, 04:16 PM
If you can further my history question, when did the rule of keeping your finger off the trigger come into effect? Was it before or after the adoption of pistols such as the Glock?Way Before.

The first I remember it being hammered into our heads in print was Jeff Coopers four rules developed in the old Southwest Combat Pistol League in the early 60's.

It was probably a rule long before that.
But like I mentioned, gun leather of the time, including cops duty gear, usually had a slot in the holster so you could get your finger on the trigger before the gun ever moved in the holster.

rc

Skribs
August 16, 2012, 04:20 PM
"Slide locking" because jamming a dirty pistol into a holster could push the slide out of battery, possibly not returning when it was re-drawn. Bad JuJu in the middle of a close-quarters firefight.

Incidentally, the "Locked" part of cocked and locked refers to the slide...not the fire control group.

Wow, I didn't know either of these points. That's some interesting information.

Thanks for the information RC. Like I said, I ain't been around long, and (while I've always loved guns) I've only been a shooter for a couple years, so I have a lot to learn from the people with the experience you do.

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 04:24 PM
Wow, I didn't know either of these points. That's some interesting information.

Oh, there's more...even though it flies in the face of conventional wisdom.

Before the addition of the thumb safety, the half-cock was considered to be the safety position, and is so named in the original 1910 patents...and it does lock the fire control group...solidly.

savanahsdad
August 16, 2012, 04:25 PM
I'm guessing you are being sarcastic about the tool requirement for the g21. So I guess you agree with me?

rc, That's for sure. Wasn't there a movie about a aircraft carrier that was time warped back to Dec 4th 1941. Boy I sure hope I got that date right.

The point of this discussion is not really a what if they had this weapon, but what would a logical weapon choice be if there were no preconceived notions or emotional attachment to this piece of Americana, the 1911.
sarcastic ?? just a little , maybe not a whole tool box but more than a 1911 would need, taking the slide off and removing the barrel is not takeing the whole gun apart , on a 1911 you can change the frieing pin and extractor with no tools

coolluke01
August 16, 2012, 04:27 PM
The grip safety was there in 1907 and 1909 on Colt's military contract pistols...and that was a cavalry requirement as well. Dropped from horse-mounted height, the pistol's center of gravity tended to flip it over and strike the ground muzzle up...with the heavy steel trigger's momentum firing the gun upward at the horse and the rider.


Unless I'm wrong about this but the drop safety would protect against this.

Very interesting about the cocked and locked. I didn't know the 1911 slide would lock when cocked. It will release when the hammer falls then?

rcmodel
August 16, 2012, 04:31 PM
No, it is released when you take the thumb safety off to fire the gun.

rc

coolluke01
August 16, 2012, 04:34 PM
I see so the locked refers to both the safety being on and the slide locked.

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 04:53 PM
Unless I'm wrong about this but the drop safety would protect against this.

In 1911, the grip safety was the drop safety. There was no other.

Very interesting about the cocked and locked. I didn't know the 1911 slide would lock when cocked.

That's what the triangular cut in the slide and the shape of the thumb safety accomplish. Engage the thumb safety and try to manually cycle the slide. Can't do it.

The point of this discussion is not really a what if they had this weapon, but what would a logical weapon choice be if there were no preconceived notions or emotional attachment to this piece of Americana, the 1911.

Preconceived notions and emotional attachments have nothing to do with it. The Marines didn't choose to resurrect the 1911 because that was what grandpa carried ashore at Normandy or because they think that John Wayne's looked cool in the Sands of Iwo Jima. Their reasons were much more practical and realistic. They're not playing soldier. They're going into places that you can't visit, even in your worst nightmares.

powder
August 16, 2012, 05:23 PM
sarcastic ?? just a little , maybe not a whole tool box but more than a 1911 would need, taking the slide off and removing the barrel is not takeing the whole gun apart , on a 1911 you can change the frieing pin and extractor with no tools


Here's where you let us know, what you don't really know.


There is one punch tool that disassembles the whole Glock in less than 30 seconds, with exception to removing the sights from slide. Not sure where/how you heard you need a tool box full of tools? Yes, that's a complete strip of frame and slide.

ny32182
August 16, 2012, 05:25 PM
sarcastic ?? just a little , maybe not a whole tool box but more than a 1911 would need, taking the slide off and removing the barrel is not takeing the whole gun apart , on a 1911 you can change the frieing pin and extractor with no tools

You can take a Glock completely apart in less than 5 minutes with nothing but a small flathead screwdriver.

Kleanbore
August 16, 2012, 05:26 PM
Rc and 1911Tuner nailed it.

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 05:31 PM
You can take a Glock completely apart in less than 5 minutes with nothing but a small flathead screwdriver.

Excluding the grips and the ejector...I can take a true 1911 completely apart in about a minute with nothing at all other than the gun's own parts.

Clemson? You're within strike distance. If you're ever up this way, look me up and I'll give ya a demonstration.

Quack
August 16, 2012, 05:32 PM
You can take a Glock completely apart in less than 5 minutes with nothing but a small flathead screwdriver.

A 1911 can be detail stripped with no tools.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Quack
August 16, 2012, 05:34 PM
Excluding the grips and the ejector...I can take a true 1911 completely apart in about a minute with nothing at all other than the gun's own parts.

Clemson? You're within strike distance. If you're ever up this way, look me up and I'll give ya a demonstration.

I know you know this, but for others.

If you have standard slotted grip screws, the only thing that can't be taken out without tools are the sights and ejector.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Skribs
August 16, 2012, 05:36 PM
Preconceived notions and emotional attachments have nothing to do with it. The Marines didn't choose to resurrect the 1911 because that was what grandpa carried ashore at Normandy or because they think that John Wayne's looked cool in the Sands of Iwo Jima. Their reasons were much more practical and realistic. They're not playing soldier. They're going into places that you can't visit, even in your worst nightmares.

Actually, it was brought up in another thread that maybe the emotional attachment isn't there, but the requirement to change training manuals and purchase new accessories is one of the reasons to stay with the 1911.

Now that I think about it, though, I don't like the idea of a safety that locks the slide forward...it's one of the things I don't like about my XDm (grip safety locks it forward). Reason is, I shouldn't have to take the safety off to clear the gun. My personal preference. Each option fixes a different problem. Of course, the grip safety won't be active when I holster it (hand is on the grip) which means it doesn't solve that problem.

ny32182
August 16, 2012, 05:36 PM
Clemson? You're within strike distance. If you're ever up this way, look me up and I'll give ya a demonstration.


I'll be at IDPA East Coast championship and Nationals in the next few weeks. Looks like Lexington is right on the way.

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 05:37 PM
If you have standard slotted grip screws, the only thing that can't be taken out without tools are the sights and ejector.

Yup. The original slotted grip screws were also dished in the slots, so they could be removed with a case rim.

I'll be at IDPA East Coast championship and Nationals in the next few weeks.

Does that bring ya anywhere near Lexington, NC? I'm within 5 minutes of I-85...out here in the boondocks.

savanahsdad
August 16, 2012, 05:41 PM
Excluding the grips and the ejector...I can take a true 1911 completely apart in about a minute with nothing at all other than the gun's own parts.

Clemson? You're within strike distance. If you're ever up this way, look me up and I'll give ya a demonstration.
THANK YOU ,, and I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed , but "a punch tool " and "screwdriver" those are tools ,,,, right :banghead: :banghead::cuss:

TAKtical
August 16, 2012, 05:41 PM
Glock lol. I know we have tons of 1911 fans here but please be honest with yourself. Glock, hands down, landslide victory. Durability, reliability, round capacity, ease of takedown and maintenance, weight, and design (striker instead of hammer). Just my opinion.

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 05:43 PM
Glock, hands down, landslide victory. Durability, reliability, round capacity, ease of takedown and maintenance, weight, and design (striker instead of hammer). Just my opinion.

Come play follow the leader, and do as I do...and I'll take that bet.

THANK YOU ,, and I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed , but "a punch tool " and "screwdriver" those are tools ,,,, right

I don't even need those. The 1911 is its own tool box.

Skribs
August 16, 2012, 05:44 PM
Glock lol. I know we have tons of 1911 fans here but please be honest with yourself. Glock, hands down, landslide victory. Durability, reliability, round capacity, ease of takedown and maintenance, weight, and design (striker instead of hammer). Just my opinion.

As a Glock-ish fan myself, I have to say that the majority of what you mentioned is a wash between the two. Weight and capacity are really the only two bonuses the Glock has over 1911.

I say Glock-ish because I'm more a XD fan, but its closer to Glock than a 1911. I do like the striker over the hammer, but I'm not really sure that's an advantage unless you're concealing it in a pocket where the hammer is a potential snag.

ny32182
August 16, 2012, 05:49 PM
THANK YOU ,, and I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed , but "a punch tool " and "screwdriver" those are tools ,,,, right

So you were knowingly equating "a punch" to a "toolbox"? I think that is where the disconnect is occuring in people's minds. You need one small tool. Hell the striker probably could work in a pinch if you have strong fingers.

Does that bring ya anywhere near Lexington, NC? I'm within 5 minutes of I-85...out here in the boondocks.

Yes both take me right up 85. Depending on carpool arrangements and timing I might not mind checking out your setup.

savanahsdad
August 16, 2012, 05:49 PM
so how many of you have both ? as i do . putting my 1911 up agianst a glock just it's fair to the glock, heck my Ruger P89 tops a my glock (wifes glock I meen ):neener:

savanahsdad
August 16, 2012, 05:51 PM
So you were knowingly equating "a punch" to a "toolbox"? I think that is where the disconnect is occuring in people's minds. You need one small tool. Hell the striker probably could work in a pinch if you have strong fingers.



Yes both take me right up 85. Depending on carpool arrangements and timing I might not mind checking out your setup.
you may want to go back and read again ,,, the word sarcastic was used

powder
August 16, 2012, 05:54 PM
Glock lol. I know we have tons of 1911 fans here but please be honest with yourself. Glock, hands down, landslide victory. Durability, reliability, round capacity, ease of takedown and maintenance, weight, and design (striker instead of hammer). Just my opinion.

Geez yeah, I think the G19 even has higher capacity than a double-stack 9mm 2011, but there the G weighs probably 1/3 of the 2011.

Ever get in and out of a car all day, in a 10 hour shift, with a 1911 on your hip? The weight/energy savings alone, in that 10 hr. period, is THE largest factor that agencies choose polymers.

However, I digress from the OPs thread. If they were both made in 1911, the USAF would be Glock by now. What has been the hurdle for Glock? They already have a customer base bigger than another Mil contract, to justify a team ($$$) that will specialize in jumping through the DOD hoops. It would be a nice feather in their cap, but they do not need it.

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 05:56 PM
ny32182...Advise me of your schedule and we'll arrange it. I used to be up for grabs pretty much any day, but now...with Kelie's work-from-home setup...Weekends are about it. She'll be out of town on September 7th-9th...so that Friday is open.

It's complicated. She's a casework nurse, and when she's on the phone, the dogs have to be kept quiet. A knock on the door sets'em off.

savanahsdad
August 16, 2012, 05:59 PM
Come play follow the leader, and do as I do...and I'll take that bet.



I don't even need those. The 1911 is its own tool box.
right !! and a great hammer all in one

savanahsdad
August 16, 2012, 06:01 PM
Geez yeah, I think the G19 even has higher capacity than a double-stack 9mm 2011, but there the G weighs probably 1/3 of the 2011.

Ever get in and out of a car all day, in a 10 hour shift, with a 1911 on your hip? The weight/energy savings alone, in that 10 hr. period, is THE largest factor that agencies choose polymers.

However, I digress from the OPs thread. If they were both made in 1911, the USAF would be Glock by now. What has been the hurdle for Glock? They already have a customer base bigger than another Mil contract, to justify a team ($$$) that will specialize in jumping through the DOD hoops. It would be a nice feather in their cap, but they do not need it.
Rock River makes a Poly 1911, takes care of that

ny32182
August 16, 2012, 06:06 PM
Tuner, I'll PM when the time comes. I've got this mental picture of your shop.

GLOOB
August 16, 2012, 06:09 PM
As a Glock-ish fan myself, I have to say that the majority of what you mentioned is a wash between the two. Weight and capacity are really the only two bonuses the Glock has over 1911.

I'd put cost and method of mass manufacturing as the #1 difference. The forged barrel of the Glock, the stamped sheet steel internals, and the molded frames are all incredibly efficient to mass produce.

Rather than subcontracting random machine shops and sewing machine companies to hobble together enough 1911's to fight a war, one might argue that many of the Glock's parts might have been made at the same factory, to a single set of specs, which would have made all those parts interchange with each other with a minimum of hand-fitting.

Many more parts in a 1911 are milled. Takes more time which means more cost. And bigger tolerances as the machines wear out, trying to keep up with the demands of a war. And the design is such that those increased tolerances can lead to more problems in the 1911 design, such as 3 pt jams or whatnot.

Skribs
August 16, 2012, 06:11 PM
I'd put cost and method of mass manufacturing as the #1 difference.

True, but I was just talking about the quality of the weapons, at least from my perspective (personal defense, same traits apply to LEO/military, IMO). The cost is the reason why I'm staying XDm over 2011.

Fastcast
August 16, 2012, 06:34 PM
What if, lol....101 years later and Glock still can't get in the game....While the 1911 soldiers on with dignity and class!

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 06:36 PM
Don't have a shop, ny. I got out of the bidness years ago. What work I do these days, I do the old-fashioned way...by hand with files and stones. Mostly, what I do is address functional issues and make delinquent pistols abide by the rules. I'll occasionally fit a barrel for a friend on request...or for my own use...but that about covers it.

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 06:46 PM
Glock! The great innovation!

Not.

If the Glock camp knew how many of John Browning's fingerprints were on Gaston's toy, they'd have a stroke.

Let's count the ways.

Tilt barrel/locked breech/short recoil operation...Browning.

Locking/recoil lug(s) mounted on top of the barrel/inside the slide...Browning

Incorporation of slide and breechbolt into a single part...Browning.

Front slide dismount...Browning.

Double column/single feed position magazine...Browning/Grande Rendement

Striker fired...Browning/Grande Rendement

Magazine release button located near the thumb...Browning.

Linkless frame cross member to effect barrel rise and fall...Guess we'll have to give this one to Saive, though Browning was probably involved.

Yeh. Whenever I look at a Glock, I envision John Mose peekin' over the top of the slide in a "Kilroy was here" pose. heh

deputy tom
August 16, 2012, 06:46 PM
Glock's grip fit Eastern Europeans large hands well. Back in the day the 1911 fit ALMOST everyone's hands in the USA. A little while later they altered the 1911 into the 1911A1 for a reason. Americans had smaller hands.That is the reason for the relief cuts on the frame behind the trigger on 1911-A1s. tom.:)

el Godfather
August 16, 2012, 06:47 PM
A manual safety can be added to any glock.

If Glock was in race back then they would added the manual safety.

They would have taken the contract for sheer capacity sake. Role of pistol was more back then than now and capacity would have been a major element.

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 06:53 PM
If Glock was in race back then they would added the manual safety.

Sure they would've. Grip safety, too. The man with a fistful of money and an order on the table for a half-million pistols gets to pick what he wants.

They would have taken the contract for sheer capacity sake. Role of pistol was more back then than now and capacity would have been a major element.

Yep...as long as it was .45 caliber...but tryin' to sell the old heads in the Army Ordnance Department on a plastic frame might've taken a dump in Glock's mess kit.

el Godfather
August 16, 2012, 06:59 PM
Well we are talking about 45.

Not sure whether or not polymer would have faced resistance.

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 07:04 PM
Not sure whether or not polymer would have faced resistance.

You can go ahead and bet that it would've. Self-loading pistols in general met with resistance enough as it was. A plastic automatic wouldn't have been given more than a curious glance.

el Godfather
August 16, 2012, 07:10 PM
1911Tuner
I admire your support for 1911. More importantly, I enjoy ready your posts. Not only they are interesting when you are defending 1911, but your knowledge on handguns in general is an asset for all of us here on THR.

However, I am not a betting man. I place more stock on objective view and collective wisdom of folks deciding purely based on merits, rather.

76shuvlinoff
August 16, 2012, 08:05 PM
These threads are waaay better than TV. Every time I read 1911 vs xyz I can't get the thread open fast enough.

When it's over... well, see sig line.

Skribs
August 16, 2012, 08:09 PM
Well, the Glock may have gotten a lot from Browning, but it certainly feels different than a 1911. Although, my favorites are far from original. I'm not focused on originality, but rather on function.

Do both Glock and 1911 function? Yes. Does the Glock fit what I would want better? Yes. Is the Glock cheaper? Yes. Would I still use a 1911 if it was available? Yes, but I'd have a very slow time before my first shot because I'm used to my XDm and I would forget to take the safety off.

Does 1911Tuner know more about firearms than me? Yes. That fact doesn't make me second-guess my decision to not own a 1911, because I know my XDm will work better for me.

1911Tuner
August 16, 2012, 08:11 PM
I admire your support for 1911.

Not so much in support of the 1911 as it is tryin' to dispel with a few myths and set the record straight. I understand how the pistol functions and I know what to do in order to make one behave...but I'm not actually all that enamored with it, other than collecting military pistols. Revolvers are my first love. Give me a good K-Frame or two and a few single-actions, and I could be happy for the rest of my days if I never pulled the trigger on another 1911.

rcmodel
August 16, 2012, 08:21 PM
Americans had smaller hands.That seems very unlikely to me.

Although men in the early 1900's were certainly of smaller stature in general then today?
Americans were better fed and grew larger in 1911 then any Eurpean nations men.

Ever try to put a German army helmet on your head??

rc

el Godfather
August 16, 2012, 08:23 PM
Yes give me a Colt SA 5" in 357, I dont need a pistol unless I have to go into a combat in which case it would be H&K USP 45.

coolluke01
August 16, 2012, 09:23 PM
Understand that this discussion was using the premise of 1911 vs G21 in the year 1911, not to really figure out the what if, but to shed some light on why we choose what we use now.

There were a few things that made the G21 not fit in the US Military's box in the year 1911.

1. External Safety
2. Locking Slide
3. Not steel, they would have likely been ignorant of the possibilities of polymer.

Are theses issues really problems today?

External safety isn't an issue for me or many others. So I think that's just kinda a feel good, might as well have one issue.

Locking slide. Cool idea but I don't see the need for me to ever need that.

Polymer. I think enough has been shown to prove that polymer is a very good material to use for handgun frames.

What makes the 1911 worth carrying now? Arn't there better options available?

As I have said before, I think the main reason is familiarity and nostalgia. Which is just fine.

The current military bid for new 1911's is just more of the same. Government entities don't like change. Also the current requirement for US made products rule out Glock.

rcmodel
August 16, 2012, 09:33 PM
I think the main reason is familiarity and nostalgia.I think you are wrong.

The average age of a Marine in one of the Expeditionary Force units getting the new 1911's puts him still soiling his diapers when the Beretta M9 became the standard issue sidearm.

In case you didn't know, many Glocks are made in the Smyrna, GA factory now days.
If they had a military contract all of them could be, just like FNH M16's & machine guns we use.

rc

coolluke01
August 16, 2012, 09:48 PM
I think we all know the boots on the ground are not usually the ones with the say. The brass that's making these decisions are likely not the young guns that only ever knew the m9.

I think the GA factory only assembles the Glocks, they are manufactured in Austria I believe. I don't know the in's and out's of the military's requirements, but I thought that would still exclude them.

rcmodel
August 16, 2012, 09:53 PM
I think we all know we are not going to change your opinion that the Glock is better then the 1911.

Nor or we going to change that the 1911 continues to be chosen by the country's elite war fighting combat units that have a choice of any weapons they want to use.
Because it works better in combat then any other pistol so far.

So I think I am going to give up trying to change your mind.

rc

Kleanbore
August 16, 2012, 10:05 PM
Posted by coolluke01: What makes the 1911 worth carrying now? Arn't there better options available?One really should talk to the FBI Hostage Rescue Team, the FBI SWAT team, the LAPD SWAT Team, MEU (SOC), and MARSOC.

If I had to guess, I would say that the reason is trigger pull, for their special needs, and the trigger pull in question obviously creates the need for safety systems that differ from those on Glock pistols, for example.

Since both the FBI and LAPD do use Glocks in other applications, it is very likely that their decision was an informed one.

As I have said before, I think the main reason is familiarity and nostalgia. Basis for that assertion?

coolluke01
August 16, 2012, 10:23 PM
Sorry rc, I don't mean to be that guy that can't be convinced of something because he already has his mind made up.

I have learned new things about the 1911 and why it was originally chosen.

By main basis for thinking it's often nostalgia that effects the choice, is the reaction of the 1911 fan base. It's often, not here or by those posted on this thread, defended by the statements like, "it's been around 100 years" "i used one in the war" " you young kids and your tupperware" Needless to say it's often a emotional reaction. Not that that's wrong. They can love their gun for what ever reason. It doesn't mean that its the best option by any means.

Another thing that leads me to believe that it's an emotional choice, is the advancements in technology. Many things are better than they were years ago, the older crowd often has a hard time keeping up and they get lazy and won't put the effort into learning a new system. Again, they have learned their laziness with years of hard work. They can like what ever they want and get no beef from me.

Many special units do like the 1911 over other weapons. They have preferences and many times it takes a 1911 that is specially made to meet their demands. The cookie cutter Glock's don't always fit the bill out of the box. I also think they don't like the idea of after market parts to make the gun fit the bill.

savanahsdad
August 17, 2012, 12:18 AM
I got to thinking about this a bit more, I would guess if you showed up with any poly gun in 1911 , I think they would have locked you up in the funny-farm and started scanning the sky for your mother-ship :neener:
whats up with all this "it's lighter crap" I wore a tool belt for years . with dikes, stripers, lineman pliers, hammer, 6"adj wrench 10"channel locks, some screwdrivers, and a voltage tester, a guess would be about 10lbs , I still can't grow hair where it rubbed my hip all those years and I never gave it a thought to get LIGHTER TOOLS !:banghead: I mean really ladys... this tread was about picking a gun for are fighting men and women , you fine me one that would walk up to there SGT and say "My gun is to heavy " and I'll show you someone that is about to go for a long run !:)

GLOOB
August 17, 2012, 03:16 AM
I think the GA factory only assembles the Glocks, they are manufactured in Austria I believe. I don't know the in's and out's of the military's requirements, but I thought that would still exclude them.
This. Glock refused to hand over all their manufacturing techniques/secrets.

Bio-Chem
August 17, 2012, 04:11 AM
coolluke01 it's not nostalgia in my opinion that keeps the 1911 around. the military is always looking for the next best thing. look at the F-22. we built a plane that made the F-15 obsolete when no one else could.
the reason the 1911 has been in service all those years is because it works. and the reason our military still uses it in certain situations is because it's the best tool for the job.

tarosean
August 17, 2012, 04:47 AM
I think the GA factory only assembles the Glocks, they are manufactured in Austria I believe. I don't know the in's and out's of the military's requirements, but I thought that would still exclude them.
This. Glock refused to hand over all their manufacturing techniques/secrets.


Both would be incorrect...

Glock declined to participate the XM9 competition due to the fact they would have to retool to meet specification. We must remember Glock was in its infancy when this happened. It would have been a expensive undertaking in an extremely short time span to even attempt.

For example:
(6)a loop in the butt of the gun compatible with published military specifications for
braided rope lines used to secure the gun to a firer’s belt.
While it is polymer its not like they could have just glued on one of the requirements!!


In addition for the non USA statement. here is the list of competitors..

Manufacturer
Steyr-Da!mler-Puch, AG Austna
Fabnque Nationale Herstal, SA,Belgium
Colt Industries, Firearms Dlvlslon,USA
Carl Walther Waffenfabrlk, West Germany
Heckler & Koch, West Germany
Smith & Wesson U S A
Schwelterische lndustne Gesellschaftb Switzerland
Armi Beretta, SpA Italy

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 05:31 AM
One really should talk to the FBI Hostage Rescue Team, the FBI SWAT team, the LAPD SWAT Team, MEU (SOC), and MARSOC.

If I had to guess, I would say that the reason is trigger pull, for their special needs, and the trigger pull in question obviously creates the need for safety systems that differ from those on Glock pistols, for example.

Since both the FBI and LAPD do use Glocks in other applications, it is very likely that their decision was an informed one.

Can you explain why this is a benefit in the situations the FBI uses the 1911 in, and a hindrance in the other situations? I'm not trying to be facetious, I'm really looking for an answer.

1911Tuner
August 17, 2012, 06:32 AM
Can you explain why this is a benefit in the situations the FBI uses the 1911 in, and a hindrance in the other situations?

You'd probably have to speak with those agencies in order to get a specific answer. I'm sure they had their reasons...reasons that they arrived at after careful consideration and evaluation of several platforms.

Men who are on the tip of the sword...when given a choice...tend to be very picky about their equipment. More than anything else, they want to go home alive. If they feel that X gives them even a little better chance of doing that than Y...then X is what they go with.

Greg528iT
August 17, 2012, 10:48 AM
the advancements in technology
This is said over and over again.. and to tell the truth the only technology improvements I see in a Glock are, the use of polymers or NEW polymers that were not available in the 1900s. YES this makes the gun lighter, which is important. We really need to lighten the load of the individual grunt. but weight is NOT the end all be all in weapons choice.

You might say tighter machine tolerances is a technology advancement, but it's not really. Watch and clock makers prove that high precision was available pre 1900. The cheapness of machining higher tolerance parts made it more readily available to manufacturers as we progressed. As has been stated thousands of times here, using the existing machine allowables, the 1911 was capable of being mass produced in a fully reliable fashion. With today's cheaper higher tolerance machines, we've just been able to produce guns for less.

Now, as for a Glock being simpler, I just do not quite see it. If you compare these 2 pictures, eliminate parts on the 1911 do to grips, grip screws etc.. stuff the plastic frame doesn't need. Then expand the parts list on the Glock side expanding the Spring Assy (count each spring, each retainer etc) the multiple parts of the trigger not shown, the steel rails embedded into the plastic frame, add a manual safety and a grip safety.. I see the parts count being about the same. I would expect that if the services had Glocks, the duty of tearing that pistol down would still fall to the Armorer.
http://i1177.photobucket.com/albums/x349/jaggoett1/1911/1911gunparts.jpg
http://i1177.photobucket.com/albums/x349/jaggoett1/1911/GlockParts1.jpg

I have to guess tuning the trigger assy on the Glock is similar to tuning the trigger on a 1911.

I just saw it's a series 80 pistol.. you can remove another handful of parts if we are talking 1911 era pistol.

Doc3402
August 17, 2012, 10:57 AM
The 1911. The Glock couldn't pass the testing in regards to rough treatment and harsh environment. In every other mil-spec test I can think of it would be pretty close. And yes, I do own one of each.

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 10:58 AM
Tuner, it sounded like KB had an idea in mind, which is why I asked the question here.

I also think that the officers in units where they need to differentiate between weapons at that level are probably busy with things more important than my question as to why they differentiate between weapons at that level.

Jeff White
August 17, 2012, 11:31 AM
Uhh, except for one thing. People were smaller in 1911. So the Glock 21 grip might have been too big for most soldiers.

I hate to break this to you, but the Glock 21 grip is still too big for most people.

The agency I currently work for issues the Glock 21. They bought the slimline version. However, a large percentage of the deputies we send to the academy end up spending the first day or maybe the first 2 days of firearms training shooting a Glock 17, 19 or 22 that was loaned to them by the academy. The large grip combined with the recoil impulse of the .45 makes it hard for a new shooter to learn the fundamentals. So if they struggle on the first day they are loaned a smaller, easier to handle weapon.

I think we all know the boots on the ground are not usually the ones with the say. The brass that's making these decisions are likely not the young guns that only ever knew the m9.

The M9 was adopted in 1985. Fielding was completed throughout the force in 93 or so. We are talking about an almost 20 year period where unless you were in an SOF unit, the M9 or maybe the M11 was the only service pistol you knew.

Kleanbore
August 17, 2012, 11:55 AM
Posted by Skribs: Tuner, it sounded like KB had an idea in mind, which is why I asked the question here.Yep. They have unique missions, and therefore unique mission needs.

It does not take a lot of conjecture to lead one to the likely conclusion that someone trying to rescue a hostage, or to neutralize an ensconced terrorist before he can do damage, or to kill an enemy look-out immediately, might well need more first-shot accuracy, and therefore a lighter and better trigger, than someone who generally requires less precision to defend oneself in a gunfight or to effect an arrest.

But you would have to ask them.

But the original question had to do with the situation a century ago. The mission was to use the pistol from horseback. Everything would have hinged upon safety on a horse, reliability, and effectiveness against enemy horses.

Even the Luger .45 prototypes had grip safeties.

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 12:06 PM
It does not take a lot of conjecture to lead one to the likely conclusion that someone trying to rescue a hostage, or to neutralize an ensconced terrorist before he can do damage, or to kill an enemy look-out immediately, might well need more first-shot accuracy, and therefore a lighter and better trigger, than someone who generally requires less precision to defend oneself in a gunfight or to effect an arrest.

Is that first-shot accuracy really that much better with a 1911? I understand the advantage of a SAO trigger mechanism, but my understanding is that carry 1911s have a slightly different trigger pull than competition guns, and from what I can tell from the numbers (granted, I don't have much trigger time with a 1911) the overall difference wouldn't be that great.

rcmodel
August 17, 2012, 12:09 PM
Trust me!

It is!

rc

Greg528iT
August 17, 2012, 12:21 PM
Trust me!

It is!

rc

How about lets refine that.. Don't trust me.. try it for yourself.
I shot a buddies Glock a couple weeks ago. I pulled and pulled and pulled on the trigger, it moved and moved and moved.. I'm sure I can get used to it.. but even the crappiest 1911 triggers I've pulled were much better. I should say, depressed.

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 12:25 PM
I should also specify that I'm not talking about a stock Glock trigger, but rather a striker-fired trigger that has had some work done to it. I thought my XDm trigger was fine until I shot one that had a trigger kit.

Also, would a duty 1911 (used for the specific purpose of accuracy) use a trigger more like a carry trigger or a competition trigger? Or am I mistaken that there is a difference?

ugaarguy
August 17, 2012, 12:39 PM
Coolluke01, you start with:
I don't mean this to be a 1911 or Glock bashing thread. There are enough of those out there.

Please try and make this civil. I think it's an neat point of view and an interesting way to look at the two designs.
Then a few posts later you add:
The "only" IMO, reason the 1911 is used at all today is simply because it's been used for so long.

The 1911 is outdated and has been surpassed by newer technology.
So much for not wanting the bash 1911s. :rolleyes:

Grip angle is not a valid reason to chose the 1911 over the Glock. Grip angle problems are Always only due to learned behavior. This bias wouldn't be as likely in the year 1911.
Hogwash. I'm in my early 30s, and a Glock 22 was the first pistol I owned. I couldn't shoot it worth a darn. Then a friend handed me a 1911 on the range and my shooting instantly improved.
I believe I know why many chose the 1911. It's a very valid reason too. One that I would never argue with, but most won't make it about that reason and invent other things that are trivial to make their point. They like the 1911 because that's what they are used to. Plain and simple. It's not the best gun ever made, it's not the most reliable and it doesn't use the advancements in technology that other weapons of today use. But they like it.
I've chosen to carry a 1911 of some form or other because I shoot it better than anything else. Don't tell me why I like what I like from your ignorant point of view. Do you understand?
I think we all know the boots on the ground are not usually the ones with the say. The brass that's making these decisions are likely not the young guns that only ever knew the m9.
I guess you've never actually talked about choice of gear with a troop who belongs or belonged to US SOCOM. They get what they want if the mission requires it.

Kleanbore
August 17, 2012, 12:41 PM
I should also specify that I'm not talking about a stock Glock trigger, but rather a striker-fired trigger that has had some work done to it. I thought my XDm trigger was fine until I shot one that had a trigger kit.You can make it smoother and eliminate creep and overtravel, but if you make it much lighter or do anything to shorten the pull, you are going to have to do something about safeties if the weapon is to be carried.

Also, would a duty 1911 (used for the specific purpose of accuracy) use a trigger more like a carry trigger or a competition trigger? The MARSOC CQBP and the MEU(SOC) M45 triggers are specified at 4.5 pounds--and they are short and clean.

Massad Ayoob advocates a pull weight of eight pounds for a Glock that is to be carried.

1911Tuner
August 17, 2012, 12:42 PM
Also, would a duty 1911 (used for the specific purpose of accuracy) use a trigger more like a carry trigger or a competition trigger? Or am I mistaken that there is a difference?

It would be a duty/carry trigger. The thing about the 1911 is that...even the WW1 and WW2 examples had pretty good triggers. Spec was 5.5-6.5 pounds. Couple that with the short pull length, and it's not as hard to manage as a long trigger pull...even if the release weights are the same.

This isn't to say that a long, heavy trigger can't be managed. It can. Just that the 1911's isn't as much trouble and doesn't take as much training and practice.

As a side note...on the matter of trigger pull...the heavier the gun, the less it gets disturbed with a given trigger action.

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 01:01 PM
Massad Ayoob advocates a pull weight of eight pounds for a Glock that is to be carried.

Well, that might be good for him, but my XDm came from the factory with a pull weight closer to that combat 1911 than that 8 lb. Glock he advocates. I have plans, when I finally go up to 45 or down to 9 (leaning towards down to 9) to get a kit that settles it around 5-5.5 pounds and is nice and crisp (and then pay someone to install it for me so that way it actually works). I am confident that it will be just as safe as with the factory trigger, because the same rules apply - quality holster while carrying, finger off trigger when drawn.

Although I also know you to be a bit more safety-oriented (aka paranoid - just kidding), by this I'm referring to your requirement in another thread that a gun have a manual safety. Or am I confusing you with someone else?

As a side note...on the matter of trigger pull...the heavier the gun, the less it gets disturbed with a given trigger action.

This is a good point.

Fastcast
August 17, 2012, 01:15 PM
So much for not wanting the bash 1911s. :rolleyes:




Add in the slight handed jabs at 1911 owners also but that's alright as that's the way these things go but why the OP acts like it's not their intent is anyone's guess. :confused:

"For some no explanation is necessary and for others no explanation is possible."

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 01:22 PM
Add in the slight handed jabs at 1911 owners also

Oh I'll definitely throw these slight jabs at people, but from me it's all in good fun. And I don't pretend it's not my intent ;)

Kleanbore
August 17, 2012, 01:36 PM
Posted by Skribs: Well, that might be good for him [(Ayoob)], but my XDm came from the factory with a pull weight closer to that combat 1911 than that 8 lb. Glock he advocates. And it has a grip safety. We were talking about Glocks.

Ayoob knows what is "good" for police officers; he is a recognized expert witness.

The NYPD folks often use an eight pound pull.

But pull wight is only one factor. I carry a striker-fired pistol, but I can shoot a lot more accurately with a high grade SA auto.

That doesn't matter when one is trying to hit three steel plates several times each in less than a second and a half, but it does matter when precision is required.

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 06:02 PM
KB, the M&P has no grip safety (and most of the ones I've seen in videos have no manual safety) and people get it stock with a 5.5-6.5 pound pull, and try to tune it into that 5-5.5 pound range (with reduction of creep, etc).

Just curious, does someone have the numbers for what a kitted-up carry XDm or M&P trigger's characteristics (i.e. the lengths of different stages, weight of pull) vs. a carry 1911 are? "It's better" is nice, but the numbers would tell me more. Or if someone has a link to a comparison, that'd be awesome.

savanahsdad
August 17, 2012, 07:51 PM
I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and say, a lot of the glock fans on here have never shot a 1911 ,(with all the talk of triger pull) and maybe they can't get there hands on one to try it , or they don't want to spend the cash for one , or the glock was there first gun or only gun and would hate to think they could have got some thing better for a few more bucks , well if you fall in this group and you can get your hands on a good DA wheel gun , then try this , shoot 6 rounds in DA with the long triger pull , then 6 in SA with the hammer cocked , and see how much better you shoot ! even with my S&W 19-5 .357mag with light loads , I shoot better in SA and that gun has a great triger !

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 07:59 PM
I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and say, a lot of the glock fans on here have never shot a 1911 ,(with all the talk of triger pull) and maybe they can't get there hands on one to try it , or they don't want to spend the cash for one , or the glock was there first gun or only gun and would hate to think they could have got some thing better for a few more bucks , well if you fall in this group and you can get your hands on a good DA wheel gun , then try this , shoot 6 rounds in DA with the long triger pull , then 6 in SA with the hammer cocked , and see how much better you shoot ! even with my S&W 19-5 .357mag with light loads , I shoot better in SA and that gun has a great triger !

Umm...really?

1) My question was regarding specifically two weapons with triggers tuned for carry. I have a XDm, but it is not tuned for carry. I do not have a 1911, and I do not know if the 1911s at my local range are tuned for carry or range use. So yes, it would be a lot of time and money invested for me to get this answer myself. I am asking the question not only so I don't have to invest the time and money (since I'm assuming someone has access to both), but also to help me make decisions as to what gear I want to pursue.

2) If your answer is "buy it and try it" when I'm asking the question, you bet I'm going to ignore that advice and just stay with what I have. I can't afford to shell out hundreds of dollars on a "I want to see what this is like".

3) I'm pretty sure that comparing the DA and SA pulls of a revolver is entirely different than the striker-fired pull and single-action pull of an autoloader. On the DA side, I'm probably at less than half the weight on my XDm as I am on my SP101. On the SA side, I don't have a SAO autoloader, but I'd hope it doesn't have quite the hair trigger that my SP101 has in single action mode. I wouldn't carry a gun like that.

1911Tuner
August 17, 2012, 08:22 PM
I'm pretty sure that comparing the DA and SA pulls of a revolver is entirely different than the striker-fired pull and single-action pull of an autoloader.

It is. Even if the length of pull and the let off weights are the same...it's different. Theoretically, there should be no difference, but as our old friend Yogi Berra noted:

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they ain't."

allaroundhunter
August 17, 2012, 08:41 PM
On top of the reasons already mentioned, back in the early 20th century, through the '50s, the phrase "buy American" meant a lot more to many more Americans (and it still does for the gvt procurement of firearms).

Sent from my HTC One X

savanahsdad
August 17, 2012, 09:53 PM
Umm...really?

1) My question was regarding specifically two weapons with triggers tuned for carry. I have a XDm, but it is not tuned for carry. I do not have a 1911, and I do not know if the 1911s at my local range are tuned for carry or range use. So yes, it would be a lot of time and money invested for me to get this answer myself. I am asking the question not only so I don't have to invest the time and money (since I'm assuming someone has access to both), but also to help me make decisions as to what gear I want to pursue.

2) If your answer is "buy it and try it" when I'm asking the question, you bet I'm going to ignore that advice and just stay with what I have. I can't afford to shell out hundreds of dollars on a "I want to see what this is like".

3) I'm pretty sure that comparing the DA and SA pulls of a revolver is entirely different than the striker-fired pull and single-action pull of an autoloader. On the DA side, I'm probably at less than half the weight on my XDm as I am on my SP101. On the SA side, I don't have a SAO autoloader, but I'd hope it doesn't have quite the hair trigger that my SP101 has in single action mode. I wouldn't carry a gun like that.
umm....really ,,, what?............ I was NOT answering your question . if you read it again . I said. "shot in the dark" "Glock fans" and used the word "THEY" not "YOU" sorry I can't answer your question , as I don't have a M&P or a XD, and the point ot the DA and SA test would be to show how much better you can hit without such a long pull

Hangingrock
August 17, 2012, 10:12 PM
"I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and say, a lot of the glock fans on here have never shot a 1911"

Assume = Ass-U-me. You may not be correct on your observation.:what:

GLOOB
August 17, 2012, 10:17 PM
"I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and say, a lot of the glock fans on here have never shot a 1911"

I agree a good trigger pull means better accuracy. That's why I shoot a P220 better than a 1911. :)

I must be an anomaly. I have shot 1911's for a decade before I ever picked up a Glock. And I shoot Glocks very well. I can shoot a Gold Cup 1911 slightly better than a G19, but I think it's due to weight, slide length, and sights. G34 and 1911 are about equal, even with stock Glock sights.

But like I said, I must be an anomaly. When I dry fire a Glock, the sights stay rock steady. I can't say the same for a good number of hammer fired DA/SA pistols I've owned and sold (talking SA pull).

savanahsdad
August 17, 2012, 10:36 PM
"I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and say, a lot of the glock fans on here have never shot a 1911"

Assume = Ass-U-me. You may not be correct on your observation.:what:
cool ... so you must know everyone on here and I'm worng becaues you KNOW they all have shot 1911's , ok... I'm sorry ,, just can't figure out why they have asked about 1911 trigers ????????????? so I wont ass-u-me that they have not , even though they asked , :banghead::cuss::banghead: just WOW!!!!

Kleanbore
August 17, 2012, 10:37 PM
Posted by Skribs: KB, the M&P has no grip safety (and most of the ones I've seen in videos have no manual safety) and people get it stock with a 5.5-6.5 pound pull, and try to tune it into that 5-5.5 pound range (with reduction of creep, etc).

Mine has a manual safety. I will carry no other kind.

The stock trigger pull weight is 6.5 lb.

Anyone who lightens it is taking chances. It is ill advised for anyone to do so.

The pull distance is .3 inches.

There is no comparison with a good 1911.

X-Rap
August 17, 2012, 11:01 PM
One really should talk to the FBI Hostage Rescue Team, the FBI SWAT team, the LAPD SWAT Team, MEU (SOC), and MARSOC.

If I had to guess, I would say that the reason is trigger pull, for their special needs, and the trigger pull in question obviously creates the need for safety systems that differ from those on Glock pistols, for example.

Since both the FBI and LAPD do use Glocks in other applications, it is very likely that their decision was an informed one.



^^^ Good an explanation as I have seen.
I'm no special operator nor do I get to put 30,000 rounds through one specific gun each year so the trigger thing and capacity is what leans me in the direction of the Glocks.
The Marines in MARSOC and other elite units have lots of buddys with them when they run out of ammo, I am by myself, I don't get that much trigger time and in the civilian world I don't care to be amped up with a beautiful trigger like that of a 1911 in my hand. If my Glocks had triggers like my 1911's I'd want a safety on them too.

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 11:57 PM
Anyone who lightens it is taking chances. It is ill advised for anyone to do so.

That's interesting, because most of the videos I've seen have people trying to center it around 5 lb., using the D/CAEK kit, the same kit suggested by another moderator on this forum. I will have to disagree with you that 6.5 lb. and a manual safety are the minimum to have a safe carry pistol.

But, you are right. A stock M&P isn't a comparison to a good 1911. I'm not asking about a stock M&P, and that's not really a fair comparison.

ETA: Things like "its no comparison" or "the 1911 is better" are all nice statements to make, but in this particular case I'm asking for numbers, not words, so I can see what the difference is (in terms of X - Y = difference) between the two.

allaroundhunter
August 18, 2012, 12:22 AM
Skribs, lightening it with an Apex kit is one thing, lightening it by yourself (read without proper parts) is what is not advised by S&W.

Sent from my HTC One X

Skribs
August 18, 2012, 01:01 AM
Skribs, lightening it with an Apex kit is one thing, lightening it by yourself (read without proper parts) is what is not advised by S&W.

I've been talking about these kinds of kits the whole time.

Hangingrock
August 18, 2012, 03:15 PM
The Complete Book Of The Model 1911 The Cooper Edition. Article: Learning from the Gunfighters a Three Day Operators Course Featuring Two of America’s Preeminent Small Arms Instructors by Jeremy Stafford. The following quotation:

“There was no glossing over the platform’s weaknesses, and both instructors stressed that for real world use for most people, this probably wasn’t the platform. Larry (Vickers) was bluntly honest about why the Tier One unit (Delta) that he once belonged to migrated away from the 1911 and toward the Glock”

I go back a long-long time with the 1911-A1 of which I’ve previously mentioned on the forum as my youthful inexperience in the Marine Corps to a seasoned or lets say somewhat seasoned combative experience. The point is I’m not new to the 1911/1911-A1-45ACP. Along the way Ithaca, Colt, Springfield and S&W platforms with non 1911/1911A1platforms such as SIG-220, S&W-4506, Glock-G21 and the SW99.

Along with that I have my much worn and read 1991 edition of: The Modern Technique of The Pistol by G B Morrison, Jeff Cooper Editorial Adviser.

Yes there are law enforcement entities and military units that use the 1911/1911-A1 series pistols. Law enforcement and Military (Example USMC) have a logistical system for maintenance and repair to keep those pistols functional.

As taken from the opening quotation:” There was no glossing over the platform’s weaknesses, and both instructors (Vickers and Hackathorn) stressed that for real world use for most people, this probably wasn’t the platform.

In my opinion most people maybe better served with a Glock which includes me for the subject being addressed.

savanahsdad
August 18, 2012, 05:58 PM
ok!! wow page 5 ! we have gotten a bit side tracked , lol.... the OP wanted to know what the the US Army would choose and why ? putting the 1911 and the G21 side by side , and not adding a safty to the G21 or adding a dbl stack mag to the 1911 the US Gov. could just have made snale drums for both makeing both 50 round guns , so thats a mute point, saying the G21 is lighter is also a mute point , they were not looking for the lightest gun , and we could say just make a poly 1911, or a steel G21, and what someone said about them after the fact is also a mute point (thats what they picked right) this tirger kit that tirger pull this ....... not the point ,,,
they had stricker fired guns back then , thats not what they wanted , ,lets not forget the 1903 Colt , it had a hammer but it was inside the gun and that didn't get picked, the G21 has no safty on the outside of the gun , the 1911 dose , then there the tear down , no tools needed for the 1911
the OP asked witch would fit the bill , not what can we do to the G21 to make it fit the bill

so like it or not , love it or leave it they would have picked the 1911

and just to be fair my 1911 is a S&W it would not fit the bill eather and my glock (wifes glock) is a gen 1 mod 17 , and not a .45 , I'm just put a stock out of the box G21 side by side with a out of the box 1911/1911 A1 just like the OP asked

1911Tuner
August 18, 2012, 06:38 PM
so like it or not , love it or leave it they would have picked the 1911

Maybe. Maybe not. During the trials, there were a few of the honchos charged with overseeing the exercise who were holding out hard for the Savage, stating among other things, that the Colt was too big and too heavy. Had it not been for the Colt's quick detail strip without tools...Johnny's ace in the hole...it's very possible that the Savage would have won out, despite its problems.

So, this is a question that we'll never know the answer to.

coolluke01
August 18, 2012, 07:52 PM
ok!! wow page 5 ! we have gotten a bit side tracked

No this is exactly where I want this to be. The 1911 vs Glock in the year 1911 was only an exercise to evaluate the two guns with less bias and preconceived notions.

I can see that the 1911 can be fine turned and have a better trigger and be "slightly" safer for some than the Glock with the same trigger. The external safety does add an element of... safety, believe it or not! lol.

I can see why the military in that day chose the 1911. There were a few features that the gun was build specifically with, the Glock was not built with the same requirements.

I never once bashed 1911's in the post. The 1911 is not the latest and greatest and pointing out facts about this is not mindless bashing. I also do not have hidden agendas but truly do like to find the truth. I have learned a great deal by this thread and will most likely some day own a 1911. I don't see how I could avoid it. It's a piece of American history and a fine weapon.

2wheels
August 18, 2012, 09:19 PM
Maybe. Maybe not. During the trials, there were a few of the honchos charged with overseeing the exercise who were holding out hard for the Savage, stating among other things, that the Colt was too big and too heavy. Had it not been for the Colt's quick detail strip without tools...Johnny's ace in the hole...it's very possible that the Savage would have won out, despite its problems.

So, this is a question that we'll never know the answer to.
What would have really been crazy to imagine, is if the Luger had ended up winning the US Army pistol trials...

JohnBT
August 18, 2012, 10:16 PM
"When compared side by side in the year 1911 which one would you think the US Army would choose and why?"

1911, it's not good to scare the horses.

1911Tuner
August 19, 2012, 12:31 AM
I can see that the 1911 can be fine turned and have a better trigger and be "slightly" safer for some than the Glock with the same trigger.

Fine-tuned triggers to me mean Match Grade triggers. A bit too light for my tastes on a carry gun. The stock trigger action on a 1911 is generally quite good at around 5.5 pounds.


The external safety does add an element of... safety, believe it or not!

Mainly for those who can't seem to keep their fingers away from the trigger until they actually mean to fire the gun, which seems to be too much to expect from some people...regardless of what they carry.

coalman
August 20, 2012, 12:43 AM
When compared side by side in the year 1911 which one would you think the US Army would choose and why?

The all steel, hammer-fired one with the manual safety that went 6k without a failure. Glock was ahead of it's time in the '80s. Going from wheelguns to the Glock in 1911 would have been too much. Regardless, I do not believe plastic handguns to be the better troop general issue weapon.

powder
August 20, 2012, 04:28 PM
I've had 3 G21s: gen3, gen3SF, and a gen3c. Kept the gen3c.

Next one I try will be the gen. 4 G21.

I have 3 1911s, love them all.

Simple test really, you've seen it on Youtube-dig a hole in the backyard, fill it with water and make a big mudpie mess of it. Now throw in a G21 and a 1911. Cover em with more dirt and water and mix it up.

Pull em out, hose em off quick, and try to shoot them both.

I have "spent the cash" several times, as I am a firearms enthusiast, Instructor, etc.. I love guns and the 1911s in particular for THAT trigger. However, it is not the top tier fighting gun it once was.


The top tier training/LE/Mil guys agree; M&P, Glock, FNH, ....they still have their 1911 hobbies.









I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and say, a lot of the glock fans on here have never shot a 1911 ,(with all the talk of triger pull) and maybe they can't get there hands on one to try it , or they don't want to spend the cash for one , or the glock was there first gun or only gun and would hate to think they could have got some thing better for a few more bucks , well if you fall in this group

1911Tuner
August 20, 2012, 04:58 PM
Now throw in a G21 and a 1911. Cover em with more dirt and water and mix it up.
Pull em out, hose em off quick, and try to shoot them both.

Did it. Springfield GI mil-spec about 10 years ago. Didn't hose it, but I dunked it into a bucket of water and agitated it for about 15 seconds. Slung it a few times and let it drip for about 15 seconds. Worked fine.

45_auto
August 20, 2012, 05:10 PM
Simple test really, you've seen it on Youtube-dig a hole in the backyard, fill it with water and make a big mudpie mess of it. Now throw in a G21 and a 1911. Cover em with more dirt and water and mix it up.

Pull em out, hose em off quick, and try to shoot them both.

Why hose them off? This guy did it with a 1911 straight out of the mud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FshMCKkfsW4

It is a well known fact among internet commandos that NO 1911's were ever allowed to get dirty during WW1, WW2, Korea, or Vietnam.

ugaarguy
August 20, 2012, 05:21 PM
The top tier training/LE/Mil guys agree; M&P, Glock, FNH, ....they still have their 1911 hobbies.
MARSOC, LAPD D Platoon, FBI HRT, and other top tier units agree on 1911s as the best tool for the job. A friend who's a retired US Army E8 Spec Ops instructor has used 1911s in combat overseas (COTS replacement for their ineffective M9s), and prefers 1911s to his current dept. issued Glock.

buckskinbob
August 20, 2012, 05:43 PM
It Just aint right ta go comparin a real gun, The 1911 with no plastic, seriously the original glock caliber 9mm. is the 45 set on stun. it does little to stop a perp. high on drugs. the good ole boys tried to replace the 45 cal with a 38 [about equal to a 9mm] and during the moro uprising all it did was piss them off. hence back to the 45cal.
history is just repeating itself. All that a high capacity magazine does is give poor shot a spray and pray mentality. the real shooters still use steel guns. My buddy has a Glock and when i shoot it the stupid trigger bites my trigger finger, not a pleasent expierience. the accuracy in O.K. on a a sihllouette target but not on a par with my 4 digit 1911 and you just cant get one any older than that. The most comfortable is the Luger that grip just fits my hand.



















it just don't5 seem right to compare a gun with a plastic

JTQ
August 20, 2012, 05:46 PM
In December of 2004 the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command at the Rock Island Arsenal awarded SIG SAUER a contract for 5,000 SIG SAUER SP2022 pistols chambered in 9mm.
They must have bought a bunch of pistols, since the same organization also bought 5,000 Ruger P95's.
http://www.ruger.com/corporate/news/2004-12-23.html

The Air Force is issuing the Glock 19
While I'm sure it is possible, and some units may be buying them with unit funds, I'm not sure they are truly an issue item as I think the M9 is still the issue USAF sidearm.

ugaarguy
August 20, 2012, 07:01 PM
The US Air Force is not issuing the Glock 19. One US Air National Guard unit bought Glock 19s with unit funds during the first Gulf War because they hadn't received the M9s that were to replace their 50 year old 1911s.

As the US Army TACOM purchase, TACOM oversees purchasing of arms for issue to allies we're supporting - like the new Iraqi Army and Police.


Just what is the point
The point is that another poster asserted that top tier police and military units have relegated 1911s to hobby use, and choose other pistols for work. My post was a counter to that false assertion by listing top tier police and military units who've chosen 1911s for work, and not hobby use. DEA general issue is not top tier, and does not compare to issue by true top tier units like the FBI's HRT.

powder
August 20, 2012, 10:03 PM
Here it is, the dandy that says it all...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj5Kcs4dzro

JTQ
August 20, 2012, 10:59 PM
ugaarguy wrote,
The US Air Force is not issuing the Glock 19. One US Air National Guard unit bought Glock 19s with unit funds during the first Gulf War because they hadn't received the M9s that were to replace their 50 year old 1911s.
I'm sure you're probably right about the Guard unit buying the G19's, but I'm pretty sure they would have been replacements for S&W K-Frames in .38 Special, unless the Guard guys were using something different than the active duty guys.

allaroundhunter
August 20, 2012, 11:36 PM
I'm sure you're probably right about the Guard unit buying the G19's, but I'm pretty sure they would have been replacements for S&W K-Frames in .38 Special, unless the Guard guys were using something different than the active duty guys.

I know that .38's were standard issue for most AF units up until the M9 took over, but there were so many M1911's in inventory that it would not surprise me if they were used by both Guard and a few active duty units. I know that my grandfather was issued a 1911 until he retired in the late '70s (final years in a Guard unit).

TAKtical
August 21, 2012, 01:57 AM
I have an $1800 1911 and its a great gun, worth every penny. That being said, I carry a glock 17 every day. Im not a "glocks are better than 1911's" guy. The glock just fits my needs more than a 1911. Ive used hundreds of pistols over the years and the only pistols I own now are 1911's and glocks. I only carry glocks because they are lighter, have better mag capacity, and Ive changed the trigger to be as 1911ish as possible. 2.75 pounds with no pre-travel. For target and competition shooting, the 1911 is almost impossible to beat. For concealed carry and self defense, I will always use a glock.

Pete D.
August 21, 2012, 06:14 AM
If the 1911 and Glock 21 were both made in the year 1911
"If......were" = past subjunctive mood. Used to express conditions contrary to fact.
The Glock wasn't. The 1911 was. Done.
Now....if you were to speculate about the future......
Pete

45_auto
August 21, 2012, 07:48 AM
I only carry glocks because they are lighter, have better mag capacity, and Ive changed the trigger to be as 1911ish as possible. 2.75 pounds with no pre-travel.

LMAO.

allaroundhunter
August 21, 2012, 10:15 AM
I only carry glocks because they are lighter, have better mag capacity, and Ive changed the trigger to be as 1911ish as possible. 2.75 pounds with no pre-travel.

To each his own......but 2.75 lbs does not make it "1911ish", I have a Remington 700 with a 2.75lb trigger that isn't "1911ish".

2.75 lbs is definitely light for a carry gun, most people won't go under 4.5 lbs on a carry gun.

What modifications have you made to the trigger to accomplish this? And What was your reasoning for going with a sub-3lb trigger for a carry gun? Not trying to be snide, just wondering.

vba
August 21, 2012, 10:33 AM
1911Tuner, "Excluding the grips and the ejector...I can take a true 1911 completely apart in about a minute with nothing at all other than the gun's own parts."

The grip screws can be removed with the grip safety leaf spring, I've done it.

allaroundhunter
August 21, 2012, 10:37 AM
1911Tuner, "Excluding the grips and the ejector...I can take a true 1911 completely apart in about a minute with nothing at all other than the gun's own parts."

The grip screws can be removed with the grip safety leaf spring, I've done it.

And just like that, the "Tuner" will be even better at what he does ;)

TAKtical
August 21, 2012, 10:40 AM
Accuracy at 25 and 50 yards. Glockworx fulcrum trigger kit. Glockworx firing pin safety and spring, titanium striker, stainless guide rod. I say 1911ish because it is a very short, smooth trigger pull that I can adjust from 2.75lb to factory weight. I like the trigger light because it lends itself to better accuracy. At 25 yards i can punch out the bullseye on a 6inch shoot-n-c. There have been numerous debates about adjusting the trigger for your carry gun but no one has ever gotten sued for it. If it was a good shoot, it was a good shoot.

1911Tuner
August 21, 2012, 10:56 AM
The grip screws can be removed with the grip safety leaf spring, I've done it.

As long as they're not too tight.

The original grip screws were dished in the bottoms of the slots so that a case rim could be used as an expedient screwdriver. Another one of those little things that present-day clone makers have overlooked...like sear and hammer pins that sit flush with the frame. People have griped about "poor quality control" when they discover those pins that stand .003-.005 inch proud of the frame on some pistols...but they're supposed to be that way...so the thumb safety doesn't scratch it.

buckfynn
August 21, 2012, 04:01 PM
"If......were" = past subjunctive mood. Used to express conditions contrary to fact.
The Glock wasn't. The 1911 was. Done.
Now....if you were to speculate about the future......

^^^Exactly!^^^ And such is why threads like this one rarely lead to productive conversations IMO.

coolluke01
August 21, 2012, 04:32 PM
Near sightedness, ignorance and lack of understanding the reasoning behind this discussion is the problem. Not the discussion.

Kleanbore
August 21, 2012, 04:35 PM
Posted by TAKtical: There have been numerous debates about adjusting the trigger for your carry gun but no one has ever gotten sued for it.Do you have some way of supporting that assertion?

If it was a good shoot, it was a good shoot.I'm afraid that's an incredibly naive statement. It may have been a 'good shoot", but to avoid criminal conviction and/or civil liability, it is necessary that others, staring with the investigators, the charging authority, possibly a grand jury, and perhaps civil and/or criminal trial juries, decide, on the basis of the available evidence, that they believe it was a "good shoot."

The trigger pull will be tested, and if it is found to be particularly light, a plaintiff's attorney will have no difficulty finding expert witnesses who will testify about the likelihood of a light pull contributing to an unintentional discharge under stress, contradicting the defendant's claim of justified, intentional self defense. There's money in it.

There is also risk from the standpoint of a criminal negligence finding.

rcmodel
August 21, 2012, 04:39 PM
Regardless of that, a 2 1/2 pound trigger on a gun with no safety is too light for SD use.

Our minds and body's do strange things we didn't anticipate when under a great deal of stress.

A simple twitch of your finger can make a shoot a bad shoot real real fast!

rc

1911Tuner
August 21, 2012, 04:48 PM
The trigger pull will be tested, and if it is found to be particularly light, a plaintiff's attorney will have no difficulty finding expert witnesses who will testify

Yep, and that's why the trigger any 1911 that I carry...which is seldom these days...is set between 5.5 and 6 pounds, as per ordnance blueprint spec.

76shuvlinoff
August 21, 2012, 07:50 PM
My 5" Kimber is at 3.5 to 4 lbs using a buddy's Lyman tester. This is not my carry pistol but it is within reach of the pillow.

TAKtical
August 21, 2012, 09:24 PM
There is no case law anywhere in the united states showing that a lightened trigger pull has caused someone to be sued or charged in a self defense situation in which they responded appropriately. Please prove me wrong and show me a case where this has happened. As far as your comment about unintentional discharge, my finger isnt on the trigger until im ready to shoot. Idk how you were trained or how people do things where you are from or how many real life self defense situations you have been in. All I can say is that my argument would be that since I am responsible for every round that exits my barrel, I modify my weapons to make them as accurate as possible. And yes, a good shoot is a good shoot. If you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. Maybe you are one of those shaky handed nervous types that are likely to squeeze off a round before you are ready, but im not and im not worried about it.

Kleanbore
August 21, 2012, 09:41 PM
Posted by TAKtical: There is no case law anywhere in the united states showing that a lightened trigger pull has caused someone to be sued or charged in a self defense situation in which they responded appropriately.Case law refers to judicial precedence--the establishment of law via the ruling of appellate courts. Not the question here.

Please prove me wrong and show me a case where this has happened.The burden of proof is upon you to prove your assertion, but don't bother--one cannot prove a negative.

As far as your comment about unintentional discharge, my finger isnt on the trigger until im ready to shoot.See how far that gets you.

If you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.Naviete again, I'm afraid.

Kleanbore
August 21, 2012, 09:50 PM
Posted by 76shuvlinoff: My 5" Kimber is at 3.5 to 4 lbs using a buddy's Lyman tester.

This post (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4999167&postcount=36) suggests that that might be a little on the light side.

TAKtical
August 21, 2012, 09:53 PM
You will not find a case to support your claims. It has never happened and never will happen. You are obviously not a trained professional or a lawyer. I am and my wife is a lawyer. We have searched long and hard to find one case that supports this urban legend. There is nothing anywhere to support your claims. Dont put out false info on a matter that you know nothing about.

Kleanbore
August 21, 2012, 10:03 PM
Posted by TAKtical: You will not find a case to support your claims.The only claim I have made is that a plaintiff would have little difficulty in finding an expert witness who would testify about the danger of light trigger pulls.

We have searched long and hard to find one case that supports this urban legend.Have you read the transcript of every trial that has been conducted in every one of the courts of every one of the five thousand or so courts in this country?

The insistance of many police departments on long, heavy trigger pulls, and the modification of DA revolvers to eliminate SA capability before that, were done for a reason. Care to guess what it was?

TAKtical
August 22, 2012, 02:09 AM
Im not gonna derail the thread further.

1911Tuner
August 22, 2012, 05:58 AM
The insistance of many police departments on long, heavy trigger pulls, and the modification of DA revolvers to eliminate SA capability before that, were done for a reason. Care to guess what it was?

Just so. Several years ago, I read an article by Mas Ayoob on that very subject. He strongly advised against carrying guns with modified triggers for that very reason. To wit: "A prosecutor or civil litigator would have little trouble showing that a deliberately created "hair trigger" is reckless and dangerous, and possibly suggests that the owner of a gun with such a trigger intended to take "dead aim" so that he could be assured of killing the victim.

All it takes to sway a jury is to create a doubt or a suspicion in their minds.

You can believe what you wish, but establishing a good shoot is almost never black and white. It can get pretty complicated, and the opposing team will use everything that they can find to prove their case. They're there to either send you to prison or take your assets. That's their job.

tarosean
August 22, 2012, 06:24 AM
Personally Id be more concerned about a AD/ND of a carry gun that light in the trigger, rather than a trial or prosecution.

There is a reason experts suggest 4-6lb triggers on carry/use guns.

45_auto
August 22, 2012, 07:09 AM
As far as your comment about unintentional discharge, my finger isnt on the trigger until im ready to shoot. Idk how you were trained or how people do things where you are from or how many real life self defense situations you have been in. All I can say is that my argument would be that since I am responsible for every round that exits my barrel, I modify my weapons to make them as accurate as possible. And yes, a good shoot is a good shoot.

LMAO! If you and your wife were real lawyers, you would know that NOTHING in court is as cut and dried as "A good shoot is a good shoot". For example, by all accounts Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman beating Zimmerman's head against the concrete. That would put the fear of death or serious bodily injury into anyone. Was that a good shoot? If it turns out that Zimmerman's gun has a modified light trigger, will that help his case? A jury will decide. Good luck with that.

Don't think your finger is ever on the trigger till you're ready to shoot? There have been studies with instrumented guns (that WILL be introduced into court) proving that under stress a trained operator's finger can touch the trigger without him being aware of it. All it takes is a little doubt in a jury, especially in a civil case, and they're into your insurance company and you for damages due to negligence.

Massad Ayoob on light triggers. He's been in expert witness in a bunch of self-defense cases. If you don't know who he is, you haven't done much legal research on firearms/shootings.

Massad Ayoob is recognized around the world as an expert in personal defense. He’s been “on the job” with law enforcement since 1972, and has written countless articles, books and courses on self-defense. He’s also been called as an expert witness in hundreds of self-defense cases.

I've highlighted a couple of areas to help you out, but you really should read the whole thing.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01/brad-kozak/the-massad-ayoob-chronicles-part-v/

The two things I would strongly advise against doing and have strongly advised against doing, would be a trigger pull lighter than the factory recommends, and removal or de-activation of a safety device.

You try not to give weapons to your opponent. If I have an [opposing] attorney trying to nail my scalp to the wall, I’m not gonna give him the sound bite of “Ladies and gentlemen, you’re here to determine whether this man was reckless, and arrogant, and negligent. Ladies and gentlemen, he was so reckless, he deactivated the safety device on a lethal weapon. And he was so arrogant, he thought he knew more about this gun than the designer.” Tell me how you’re gonna get past that.

As far as the light trigger pull, your problem there, number one, is it has historically been linked to unintended discharges. So problem one, under stress, we SAY we’re gonna keep our finger off the trigger.

The trouble with that study done in Europe with trained emergency-response personnel, indicated that several times, the sensors that were put on the test gun picked up a finger touching it [the trigger], when the officers swore that during the high-stress exercise their finger had never entered the trigger guard. It apparently occurs unconsciously, as the mind says “Hey, if we have to shoot this thing, we want to verify we can reach the trigger.”

Second, you can go to court and say “I didn’t accidentally discharge the gun, I always keep my finger outside the trigger.” And they will then hit you with the bomb. “So, you want this jury to believe that you’re incapable of making a mistake? You’re the first perfect human being in two thousand and ten years. Is that what you’re telling this jury?” Now that is gonna be a pretty tough sell.

Where the accidental discharge theory comes, is they know you have a justifiable shooting, but you’ve got either the rare prosecutor that is politically driven and has some political hay to make by hanging you out to dry, or the much less-rare plaintiff’s lawyer who’s trying to sue you or your insurance company for something – mainly your insurance company.

They know there is no such thing as a justifiable accident. They know that in a state like Florida, or many other states now, even on the street, the so-called Castle Doctrine has been extended. Basically, particularly if you’re attacked in the home, the presumption is that you were right to shoot the intruder.

If you read the fine print, you’ll find all those laws are worded so they do not cover negligence. So all the other side has to come up with is say “Yeah, well, but he killed him by accident, and that’s not what this law is about. Our theory is, he accidentally shot him.” The light trigger lends itself to that. And you’ve basically just given them an argument they can use against you.

The prosecutor who is politically-motivated will use that argument, because he knows it’s a very tough sell to convince the jury that somebody like that, somebody like you, a productive member of society, with a clean criminal record has suddenly turned into Hannibal Lecter and decided to maliciously murder another human being for sport. They know it’s an easy, slam-dunk to convince the jury that somebody just like them got careless for just one second, and did something stupid.

So that becomes their theory of the case, and it’s a much easier sell. They don’t get bonus points for convicting you for murder instead of manslaughter. It’s really real simple, pass/fail. If you win the conviction, you done good. If the guy is acquitted, you’ve made an ass of yourself. So a lot of them will go for that low-hanging fruit, and that is where the false theory of “he shot him by accident” comes from. And that’s one of the reasons I don’t want to see a lighter-than factory spec trigger on a defensive firearm.

The other is in the civil case. The plaintiff’s lawyer is not looking for justice – they are looking for money. There are damn few people who are both so rich and so stupid, that if I won a civil judgement of a million dollars against them, there would be an unprotected, liquid million dollars that I could put my claws on and seize to satisfy the judgement.

Probably everybody reading your blog has a million dollar homeowner liability coverage. The insurance company has the money. And bingo, that’s where they go. If they make their theory that he shot them by accident, it’s homeowner negligence, they can get into the deep pockets of the insurance company. If they say, no, he deliberately, maliciously shot my client to watch him die, the attorney knows there’s not a homeowner’s policy in America that covers you for what’s called a willful tort, the deliberate act that harms another person.

So if they say you deliberately shot him, basically, they are closing off their access to where the money is. So that’s why it’s so attractive to them to say you shot him by accident with a hair-trigger gun. I do not like to leave blood like that in the water for the sharks.

Someone might argue that with a lighter trigger, I’m gonna hit better, so therefore it comes under your thing it’s safer for the bystanders. Actually, no, it fails to pass another legal test called the doctrine of competing harms. History tells us that light triggers are so often associated with accidental shooting tragedies, that trying to say “Well, I did it for safety,” just is not going to pass muster. It doesn’t pass the balance test.

So what I tell folks is, nothing lighter than “factory spec” in the trigger. Certainly make your trigger smooth, I’ve never seen anyone accused of having too-smooth a trigger pull, in 31 years as an expert witness, and 39 years of teaching this stuff, and 40 years of writing about it. But what I have seen again and again, is that the trigger is too light, and therefore reckless and negligent, and guilt-producing, and culpability-producing.

If I don’t like the disconnector safety on a Browning, I would get another gun, or have the one I have smoothed up so my problems with it are solved. If I don’t like the grip safety on a 1911, I’d buy a pistol that did not have a grip safety and be done with it. And the other modifications I think are going to be very defensible, and I my experience has been that they are very defensible.

1911Tuner
August 22, 2012, 07:14 AM
There is a reason experts suggest 4-6lb triggers on carry/use guns.

6 pounds on a 1911, I'm good with. That's ordnance spec. 4 pounds, not so much. I remember a night about 12 years ago that if my LW Commander had a 4-pound trigger, a father wouldn't have gone home to his little girls, and I'd have been facing a heavy legal burden proving that it was a "good shoot." (And it would have been)

I'd already centered on his chest from about 10 feet away, and had about 3 pounds of pull started on a 5-pound trigger when he suddenly stood down.

It came just that close. If it had gone the other way, a 10-pound pull wouldn't have made any difference. It was a win for both of us. Maybe...hopefully he'll remember it should he get drunk and fly into another rage and decide to grab an ax handle and corner somebody.

76shuvlinoff
August 22, 2012, 08:53 PM
Quote:
Posted by 76shuvlinoff: My 5" Kimber is at 3.5 to 4 lbs using a buddy's Lyman tester.


From Kleanbore: This post suggests that that might be a little on the light side.

No argument from me on that but I have done nothing to mod this gun. Maybe my buddy's tester is reading light.

Skribs
August 22, 2012, 10:28 PM
6 pounds on a 1911, I'm good with. That's ordnance spec. 4 pounds, not so much. I remember a night about 12 years ago that if my LW Commander had a 4-pound trigger, a father wouldn't have gone home to his little girls, and I'd have been facing a heavy legal burden proving that it was a "good shoot." (And it would have been)

I'd already centered on his chest from about 10 feet away, and had about 3 pounds of pull started on a 5-pound trigger when he suddenly stood down.

It came just that close. If it had gone the other way, a 10-pound pull wouldn't have made any difference. It was a win for both of us. Maybe...hopefully he'll remember it should he get drunk and fly into another rage and decide to grab an ax handle and corner somebody.

While in this particular case it saved the man's life, I'm not counting on my trigger pull to be the detterent between shoot and no-shoot. My finger is staying outside of the trigger guard until I've made the decision to shoot, and then it's going to pull the trigger back before the assailant can react. I'm counting on it to prevent the gun from going off accidentally.

From what I've read, most people consider under 4# with a manual safety or under 5# with a passive safety system to be unsafe (you consider under 6# to be unsafe, which means you also consider under 4# to be unsafe, that's how I'm justifying "most" here). That's what I consider, at least for prevention of NDs. If you want a harder pull, that's your peragotive.

I also read one article that suspects that NY triggers on Glocks are part of why police departments have such abysmal accuracy in shootouts.

1911Tuner
August 23, 2012, 05:42 AM
While in this particular case it saved the man's life, I'm not counting on my trigger pull to be the detterent between shoot and no-shoot.

Nor would I, but that's the way it worked out in that particular instance.

My finger is staying outside of the trigger guard until I've made the decision to shoot, and then it's going to pull the trigger back before the assailant can react.

Then, I advise you not to stand still while you try to decide what his reaction will be. I've demonstrated the reality to more than a few people...cops included...that a man standing with a pistol in one hand, pointed straight at the ground...can raise it and fire a killing round before they could react and pull the trigger. After about three tries, the best of them were able to fire at the same instant that I did...but none were able to beat me...AND...they were fully expecting my move...AND...I'm an old man with bad shoulders. It was a real eye-opener for all who participated.

I recently took a fall and wrecked what was left of my right rotator cuff, so I can't play "Beat the Drop" any more...or I'd offer to demonstrate it to any who are within driving distance.

Kleanbore
August 23, 2012, 11:27 AM
Posted by Skribs: My finger is staying outside of the trigger guard until I've made the decision to shoot,... that's what we all say, but as previously posted,

So problem one, under stress, we SAY we’re gonna keep our finger off the trigger.

The trouble with that study done in Europe with trained emergency-response personnel, indicated that several times, the sensors that were put on the test gun picked up a finger touching it [the trigger], when the officers swore that during the high-stress exercise their finger had never entered the trigger guard. It apparently occurs unconsciously, as the mind says “Hey, if we have to shoot this thing, we want to verify we can reach the trigger.”

X-Rap
August 23, 2012, 12:03 PM
The reality is that the study is probably very correct and is exactly the reason I have relagated my 1911's to a more recreational use and have chosen to carry guns with a more forgiving trigger for defensive purposes.
At this moment I have only one 1911 and 3 Glocks handy and no scale but I can say with my crude method of measurement that the Kimber Raptor has about 1/16" take up and the Glocks all run around 7/16". I'll check the weights later but I'm guessing they are within 1-1.5 lbs of each other.
Once the lead starts flying I think it's pretty much a wash since I don't percieve that much difference in the reset of either.
If it was my job to train up to operator status in some elite Military or LE team with the intent of very specific surgical targeting the trigger of the well tuned 1911 would shine and be invaluable, in the EDC world of joe citizen who isn't charged with kicking in doors and rescuing hostages or neutralizing groups of terrorists the extra 3/8+" of trigger take up might make the difference in everyone going home with the same holes they came with but if the attack plays out in full it won't make enough difference to one who shoots and knows his gun to matter.

LNK
August 23, 2012, 01:00 PM
Ever get in and out of a car all day, in a 10 hour shift, with a 1911 on your hip? The weight/energy savings alone, in that 10 hr. period, is THE largest factor that agencies choose polymers.




I don't jump in and out of a car for 10 hours, but I do 12 hrs out of a truck. In and out all day. I don't carry my lighter M&P9, I carry the 1911. I am also no olympic athlete. Glocks are great guns, I just don't understand the constant discussions comparing them to something else. Relax....

LNK

LNK
August 23, 2012, 03:13 PM
Umm...really?


3) I'm pretty sure that comparing the DA and SA pulls of a revolver is entirely different than the striker-fired pull and single-action pull of an autoloader. On the DA side, I'm probably at less than half the weight on my XDm as I am on my SP101. On the SA side, I don't have a SAO autoloader, but I'd hope it doesn't have quite the hair trigger that my SP101 has in single action mode. I wouldn't carry a gun like that.

I have both a M&P9 and a 1911. Neither is a target trigger. The M&P has a much longer, smooth trigger. With a rather vague, compared to the 1911 which is very short and crisp. Someone posted about a really nice revolver having both triggers. SA is close to 1911, DA is more like M&P. That is the closest you will find without shooting both.

LNK

powder
August 23, 2012, 03:24 PM
Uhhhhhh, relax about what: the entire thread is about a G21 comparo. to a 1911. Duh?



I don't jump in and out of a car for 10 hours, but I do 12 hrs out of a truck. In and out all day. I don't carry my lighter M&P9, I carry the 1911. I am also no olympic athlete. Glocks are great guns, I just don't understand the constant discussions comparing them to something else. Relax....

Teachu2
August 23, 2012, 04:15 PM
If the 1911 and G21 were both made TODAY...

Here's another thought: You have multiple assailants headed your way, and you have to choose one - a NIB 1911 or a NIB G21. Which one are you going to bet your life on - untested?

Every 1911 I've ever owned needed some tuning to be reliable. Every Glock has functioned perfectly right out of the box. I love 1911s, but I'd grab the Glock.

Skribs
August 23, 2012, 05:06 PM
Here's another thought: You have multiple assailants headed your way, and you have to choose one - a NIB 1911 or a NIB G21. Which one are you going to bet your life on - untested?

Personally? Definitely Glock. I have very little experience or practice with 1911s, but what I've read suggests the 1911 might need some work, the Glock should be fine. I'm also more trained on a Glockish platform (XDm, in this case) and so would be more apt to succeed with that particular weapon.

1911Tuner
August 23, 2012, 05:56 PM
Here's another thought: You have multiple assailants headed your way, and you have to choose one.

It won't matter much. If they've all got guns, you probably won't live long enough to empty the magazine. If they're not, they'll disappear like snowflakes in a hot fire when the first one gets tagged. We're probably not talkin' about highly trained and motivated people here.

Walter Mitty fantasies aside, of course.

Skribs
August 23, 2012, 05:59 PM
It won't matter much. If they've all got guns, you probably won't live long enough to empty the magazine. If they're not, they'll disappear like snowflakes in a hot fire when the first one gets tagged. We're probably not talkin' about highly trained and motivated people here.

Walter Mitty fantasies aside, of course.

Then it would matter for me. Glock would be draw-fire-they run. 1911 would be draw-click-"oh yeah, there's a safety"-safety-fire-they run.

76shuvlinoff
August 23, 2012, 06:12 PM
Here's another thought: You have multiple assailants headed your way, and you have to choose one - a NIB 1911 or a NIB G21. Which one are you going to bet your life on - untested?

Since we're fantasizing and I don't have a rifle or shotgun... I have two hands, why would I choose one?

:evil:

Skribs
August 23, 2012, 06:17 PM
Since we're fantasizing and I don't have a rifle or shotgun... I have two hands, why would I choose one?

The symmetry-OCD in me could never akimbo two different guns.

X-Rap
August 23, 2012, 06:20 PM
Fantasy or not I have owned a few new ones of each and the truth is what everyone knows without me saying it.
Out of the box I bet the reliability of the first 50-100 rds is at least 5 to 1.

1911Tuner
August 23, 2012, 06:51 PM
1911 would be draw-click-"oh yeah, there's a safety"-safety-fire-they run.

Well, I guess if ya can't teach yourself to wipe off a safety...

Of course, you could carry it in Condition Zero...Cocked and unlocked.

coolluke01
August 23, 2012, 07:31 PM
why would that be any worse than carrying a Glock? The grip safety is still active right?

Would the trigger be too light to make it worrisome or dangerous?

1911Tuner
August 23, 2012, 10:41 PM
why would that be any worse than carrying a Glock? The grip safety is still active right?

That's right. Still gotta pull the trigger to fire it. As long as it's in the holster, the grip safety blocks the trigger.

Would the trigger be too light to make it worrisome or dangerous?

Only if ya get on it too quick before it clears leather.

Skribs
August 23, 2012, 11:14 PM
Well, I guess if ya can't teach yourself to wipe off a safety...

It's not that I can't, it's just that I haven't. Why do I need to teach myself to when my current handguns are XDm, SP101, and LCP, and my planned setup is XDm and XDs?

1911Tuner
August 24, 2012, 05:57 AM
Why do I need to teach myself

So you can be more versa-tile? Like learnin' to drive a stick-shift car when yours has a slushbox transmission.

allaroundhunter
August 24, 2012, 09:11 AM
It's not that I can't, it's just that I haven't. Why do I need to teach myself to when my current handguns are XDm, SP101, and LCP, and my planned setup is XDm and XDs?

Plans are great and all.... Until you realize that the bad guys don't follow your plans. What if you ever have to use a firearm (that isn't yours) that does have a manual safety? It helps to be knowledgeable and fairly proficient at disengaging a safety, even if it isn't on a gun that you typically carry. It actually is a good idea to have a basic to very good understanding of the manual of arms of many modern pistols.

Sent from my HTC One X

waterhouse
August 24, 2012, 01:21 PM
Ever get in and out of a car all day, in a 10 hour shift, with a 1911 on your hip? The weight/energy savings alone, in that 10 hr. period, is THE largest factor that agencies choose polymers.

My duty belt weighs about 23 pounds. While I would
Love to shed weight, I doubt the 10 ounce difference between a steel gun and a plastic gun makes a huge difference in my energy level at the end of a
Shift and I doubt it is the largest factor that agencies choose polymers.

allaroundhunter
August 24, 2012, 01:46 PM
What the heck is on your duty belt to make it weigh 23 lbs?

Sent from my HTC One X

Skribs
August 24, 2012, 01:48 PM
So you can be more versa-tile? Like learnin' to drive a stick-shift car when yours has a slushbox transmission.

I learned stick when I got one, I'll train on a 1911 if it looks like I'll actually ever use it.

Plans are great and all.... Until you realize that the bad guys don't follow your plans. What if you ever have to use a firearm (that isn't yours) that does have a manual safety? It helps to be knowledgeable and fairly proficient at disengaging a safety, even if it isn't on a gun that you typically carry. It actually is a good idea to have a basic to very good understanding of the manual of arms of many modern pistols.

Why, when I carry the same gun every day, would I have to use someone else's handgun? If I do, I can use the safety on it, I'm just not very quick. Also, there are different types of safeties. From what I understand, the 1911 goes down, Beretta's goes up, the FiveseveN has it in a place where no thumb should ever go. I know how they work, but my initial reaction to grabbing a pistol isn't to turn off the safety.

I'm going to use the oft-quoted "fear the man with only one gun", if I keep the same MOA, I shouldn't get confused.

Kleanbore
August 24, 2012, 04:00 PM
Posted by Skribs: I'm going to use the oft-quoted "fear the man with only one gun", if I keep the same MOA, I shouldn't get confused.Sounds great--until one has to defend himself with a different fierarm.

Why, when I carry the same gun every day, would I have to use someone else's handgun?Consider the possibilities--your firearm fails, or you are separated from it, or you don't happen to have it....

There was a scenario on one of the self defense programs showing how to figure out what do do--I think the skit involved a disabled LEO in an active shooter situation.

Posted by allaroundhunter: Plans are great and all....Exactly. There are three things upon which one should not place excessive reliance:


I need only to know how to handle my gun
No one else wii ever pick up my gun
I'll keep my finger off the trigger until I'm going to shoot


The first has to do with more than safeties; SA vs strIker vs DA/SA variations can all make a difference when the going gets serious.

It actually is a good idea to have a basic to very good understanding of the manual of arms of many modern pistols. Yes, it is.

But the original question had to do with the selection of a cavalry weapon, and anyone who knows anything about handguns and horses surely knows the answer,

Brockak47
August 24, 2012, 04:23 PM
I think the firearm chosen still would be a 1911, my reasoning is you can't fate. Plus I mean C'mon the 1911 is sooo purrrdy.

Skribs
August 24, 2012, 04:30 PM
If my firearm fails I'm drawing my backup...which has the same MOA (it's just smaller). I consider the situation where I do not have a working firearm and someone else has a firearm that I will have access to is a sufficiently rare occurance that I'm not going to train for it. Like I said, I'm not going to be stumped by a 1911 or a Beretta, I just won't be as quick with it.

There's also a difference between an understanding of the MOA and muscle memory for the MOA. I have the understanding, I just might forget a step before being able to fire. What I don't have is the muscle memory for it.

I need only to know how to handle my gun

Like I said, I know how to handle a 1911. Doesn't mean I'm practiced on it. If I were to practice on a 1911 enough to get to the point where I can draw and use it without thinking, where does that get me? How do I get that level of practice with the drawstroke on a 1911 without having my own? (places I've gone to rent you can use the gun, but they don't offer holsters for you to practice drawing with). That sounds like a whole lot of time and money spent on training that really would only come into play in the extremely rare situation mentioned above.

No one else wii ever pick up my gun

I'm not really sure how this is relevant to the discussion of 1911 vs. Glock.

I'll keep my finger off the trigger until I'm going to shoot

This seems to be a manual safety vs. passive safety argument, one which I disagree with. If the belief is that someone who trains enough on a 1911 can use muscle memory to deactivate the safety on draw, why does the same logic not apply to keeping the finger off the trigger? Not firing when you want it to can be just as dangerous as firing when you don't.

allaroundhunter
August 24, 2012, 05:52 PM
Skribs, keeping your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire is not connected in any way to what gun is in your hand. If you have drawn your weapon and it has a manual safety, it should be disengaged as you clear the holster. If you do not have a manual safety, then there is not one to worry about. In both situations, the operator's finger is now the only thing keeping the gun from discharging. That means that regardless of what gun is in your hand, keep your finger off the trigger.

The chances of you having an AD/ND from having your finger on the trigger when it shouldn't be are too high to risk, especially with adrenaline flowing.

Sent from my HTC One X

Skribs
August 24, 2012, 05:55 PM
Skribs, keeping your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire is not connected in any way to what gun is in your hand. If you have drawn your weapon and it has a manual safety, it should be disengaged as you clear the holster. If you do not have a manual safety, then there is not one to worry about. In both situations, the operator's finger is now the only thing keeping the gun from discharging. That means that regardless of what gun is in your hand, keep your finger off the trigger.

I realize that. But some people argue that you need a manual safety because, even though you train for keeping your finger off the trigger, in a situation where you're stressed you might forget that training.

The argument I was making is that if you forget that training, you would also forget to swipe the safety. I guess you're right, though. Safety off, the same training should apply - trigger finger in the trigger guard only when ready to shoot.

mavracer
August 24, 2012, 06:23 PM
The G21 would not have been adopted by the US military. You'd think even the most rabid fanboy would realize that, since they don't use it now.
The nice thing about knowing how to drive a stick is, there's no affect on your ability to drive an auto equiped car.

76shuvlinoff
August 24, 2012, 08:26 PM
As far as running a different sidearm. In the defensive handgun course I took we had a drill where we fired a couple from our own pistol as we approached a table of 5 different sidearms with various stoppages like stovepipes in place and/or dummy rounds sprinkled though their mags. We had to clear the stoppages and send rounds downrange with all of them as the clock was running.

I think it was time well spent ..... and I vote 1911.

Kleanbore
August 24, 2012, 08:53 PM
Posted by Skribs: I'm not really sure how this [No one else wii ever pick up my gun] is relevant to the discussion of 1911 vs. Glock.Safety.

I was referring to the risk of an inadvertent discharge, but there is another aspect: experience has shown that safeties can help when weapons fall into the wrong hands

If the belief is that someone who trains enough on a 1911 can use muscle memory to deactivate the safety on draw, why does the same logic not apply to keeping the finger off the trigger?Already discussed. See Post 155.

But some people argue that you need a manual safety because, even though you train for keeping your finger off the trigger, in a situation where you're stressed you might forget that training.It's not a matter of "possibly forgetting". It's a matter of subconscious behavior denied by the actor.

I no longer ride a horse, but I will neither own nor carry a semi-auto without a positive safety or two.

The Austrian military disagrees. The Croation army selected a different concept. Fine. It's a simple matter of risk management.

Skribs
August 24, 2012, 09:05 PM
Already discussed. See Post 155.

That doesn't address the other half of my issue. How is it that someone can be so well trained to flip off the safety on a 1911, but will bo so inept in basic gun safety that they can't remember to keep their finger out of the trigger guard? On the draw, my finger is outside the trigger guard, and I have no reason to move it in until I shoot. It's part of my draw stroke to put my finger in a safe position. So why is it so easy to turn off the safety, but hard to keep the finger off the trigger?

I was referring to the risk of an inadvertent discharge, but there is another aspect: experience has shown that safeties can help when weapons fall into the wrong hands

I only let people handle my guns at the range, where they are given a safety briefing and only point it downrange. The only people who would know where to grab my gun should I be unable to use it are capable of using it safely - they have the same model. Or they'd just use theirs.

Only time someone is going to get my gun is if they take it out of my hands (if I had a 1911, safety would be off at that point) or if they took it from my safe (which would give them ample time to figure out the MOA).

Kleanbore
August 25, 2012, 08:38 AM
Posted by Skribs: On the draw, my finger is outside the trigger guard, and I have no reason to move it in until I shoot. It's part of my draw stroke to put my finger in a safe position.That's the "plan", but tests have shown that trained persons sometimes do otherwise, even though they are not aware of it.

So why is it so easy to turn off the safety, but hard to keep the finger off the trigger?One can only speculate. I do not know how one would design an experiment to determine the reason.

Why is it important?

I only let people handle my guns at the range, where they are given a safety briefing and only point it downrange.How many inadvertent shootings by children and others, and how many deliberate shooters by wrong-doers, are done by persons who had been knowingly and willfully permitted to handle the guns?

The only people who would know where to grab my gun should I be unable to use it are capable of using it safely - they have the same model. Or they'd just use theirs.

Only time someone is going to get my gun is if they take it out of my hands (if I had a 1911, safety would be off at that point) or if they took it from my safe (which would give them ample time to figure out the MOA).Assumptions, upon which one should not place excessive reliance.

The Illinois State Police found that the safety devices in their Model 39 pistols provided an extra margin of safety that saved lives. Tests conducted by officers I know show that people who gain control of 1911-based back-up guns often cannot fire them.

X-Rap
August 25, 2012, 09:38 AM
I would say switching the safety off is or can be very intuitive with the draw, the problem I see is turning it back on if a situation diffused itself. In that way I think it is much like what has been discussed about what I will call "phantom trigger finger" movements because it is done under stress and applied as a disconnected motion from the practiced draw.
Hunters will have probably noticed it when they check their rifles after a shot at a BG animal and find a fresh round chambered and safety off after their game is down. Hunting and defense both require some time to compose after the adrenilin rush and the rules are very important in this time since much has happened in a very compressed amount of time.

1911Tuner
August 25, 2012, 11:47 AM
. How is it that someone can be so well trained to flip off the safety on a 1911, but will bo so inept in basic gun safety that they can't remember to keep their finger out of the trigger guard?

Happens a lot. Under stress, people tend to keep doing whatever they were doing when the stress was introduced. That's why cars that flip onto their tops in high-speed accidents are often found with blown engines. The driver just keeps his foot nailed to the floor as the car rolls.

And...

That's why the thumb safety was added to the 1911 during the final tweaks. The Army Ordnance Board thinkers realized that a man might not remember to remove his finger from the trigger guard, but with a manual safety within reach and in close proximity of the natural thumb range of motion would be easier to train for. Thumb down...safety off. Thumb up...safety on.

I've manipulated that thumb safety so often for so long, that it's become automatic, and I never have a clear memory of sweeping it off or on. If I pick up a handgun...any handgun...my thumb just goes to the thumb safety position...or where it would be if there isn't one.

Same thing when I pick up a guitar. I play the Merle Travis/Chet Atkins fingerstyle with a muted thumb-picked 5-4-6-4 alternating bass. My hand rests on the bridge and my thumb finds the 5-string as soon as it's across my knee. I don't have to think about it or remember it.

HorseSoldier
August 25, 2012, 12:29 PM
The G21 would not have been adopted by the US military. You'd think even the most rabid fanboy would realize that, since they don't use it now.

Unless you're in CAG (the artist formerly known as Delta Force), who've been using Glocks for years now. Or are in one of the white side SOF units that managed to scrounge up Glocks for downrange use (admittedly this phenomenon is as much about Beretta hate/dissatisfaction as it is about Glock enthusiasm in many cases, and is the same engine driving units pulling 1911s out of storage and rebuilding them, and the use of other non-standard pistols).

I would rate Glock as a pretty strong contender for the next US service pistol contract, if we ever get around to doing one of those. Glock was willing to play ball on the issue of US production and such for the now defunct Joint Combat Pistol program a few years back. It's a design that has served effectively with US law enforcement across a wide range/quality of firearms training programs among different departments. It's inexpensive. It may be inelegant, but our next service pistol will either be a Glock or be another polymer framed design marketed to fight Glock for market share.

X-Rap
August 25, 2012, 12:35 PM
In reality I wonder how many of those old Cavalry men remembered to swipe on the safety when that horse acted up, not to mention the shavetails.

mavracer
August 25, 2012, 02:11 PM
Unless you're in CAG (the artist formerly known as Delta Force), who've been using Glocks for years now.
They use 17s not 21s.
I would rate Glock as a pretty strong contender for the next US service pistol contract, if we ever get around to doing one of those.
I'll bet ya a soda ;)

HorseSoldier
August 25, 2012, 04:07 PM
They use 17s not 21s.

Within the last decade they've issued most major flavors of the Glock except for the big frame 45 and 10mm's, with the G17/19 combo being replaced by the G22/23 combo (with which they reportedly had some problems, and switched back to the 9mm's).

45_auto
August 25, 2012, 05:19 PM
We sometimes have SEALs from the local unit show up to shoot our pistol matches. They're using Glock 21's.

1911Tuner
August 26, 2012, 01:05 PM
In reality I wonder how many of those old Cavalry men remembered to swipe on the safety when that horse acted up, not to mention the shavetail.

Apparently, they did okay...or the complaints would have prompted the Army to take action, the way they did when they modified the firing pin stop after complaints of the difficulty in hand-cycling the pistol with the hammer down.

And the change to the arched mainspring housing because the troops had a tendency to shoot low under stress.

And the change to the short trigger after complaints that the long was was too hard to reach.

If things like that had been common, we'd have heard about it.

The way to train yourself to perform an action is to do it repetitively...to make the same move the same way every time...over and over. After a while, it becomes an auto response. No "remembering" needed.

As the pistol comes up on target, the safety goes off. As it comes back down to low/ready...it goes back on. Do it 200 times, and it's part of you.

X-Rap
August 26, 2012, 01:36 PM
That comment was a little tongue in cheek but since the safety is most often originally attributed to the needs of the mounted rider I thought I'd throw it out there.
Back in those days most everyone was an accomplished rider by necessity if they rode at all but having spent some time on horseback myself and been in a few rodeos along the way I question my own presence of mind to flip on the safety, especially in the heat of battle. I just wonder how much or often it was deployed as designed or requested.

76shuvlinoff
August 26, 2012, 01:49 PM
Do it 200 times, and it's part of you.

That is true, I had never ran a de-cocker until I had to borrow a SIG .40 to finish a course. Since I did not want to switch back I used it the next day through another 600 rounds.
By the end of the first 1/2 hour no one had to remind (yell) at me to de-cock before I moved to the next target. I'm a lefty so I was using my index finger and at the end of a day and a half of shooting I had raised a decent blister on my double duty trigger finger.

I decided I hated de-cockers right there. :D


.

1911Tuner
August 26, 2012, 02:04 PM
I question my own presence of mind to flip on the safety, especially in the heat of battle.

Repetitive motion. Presence of mind not necessary. Do the same thing over and over and it becomes automatic. This has been proven.

In the 70s, an Illinois state trooper became involved in a shooting. According to witnesses, he shot his revolver dry...dumped the empty brass in his hand...made a quarter turn to his left, and died while he stood looking for the bucket that wasn't there to drop his brass into...because he'd performed that series of moves on the practice range over and over and over. Funny thing, stress. That's why we should be careful of repetitive moves that we make while shooting for recreation. We tend to repeat them without thinking when the game is real.

While I'm sure that the US Army taught them to remove their fingers from the trigger before reholstering, it's a more difficult move to make. Under stress, we tend to clench our fingers into a fist...not straighten them out. So it becomes an unnatural move. While there are no guarantees, teaching both would reduce the probability of a discharge into one's own leg or into the horse. And, finally, the slide-locking feature was given consideration as well, and was likely equally important.

That comment was a little tongue in cheek but since the safety is most often originally attributed to the needs of the mounted rider I thought I'd throw it out there.

Mounted rider notwithstanding, there are still holsters to put pistols into and stress can be found today on a city street as well as the French countryside in 1918. Pistols that get jammed into holsters after a tense moment can still discharge if the finger isn't removed from the trigger. The term that's has been added to our lexicon that addresses the phenomenon is "Glock Leg" and it seems to happen pretty often.

I just wonder how much or often it was deployed as designed or requested.

There's no way of knowing.

The outcry seems to be that we'll forget to engage or disengage a manual safety. Yet, thousands of people use manual safeties year in and year out. If the problem was a common one, it would have been well documented by now.

rcmodel
August 26, 2012, 02:16 PM
I'd have to guess if those shavetails forgot to put the safety on a 1911?

They might have been related to the older ones with a limp who forget to un-cock thier SAA if they decided not to shoot after cocking it.

rc

Knockdownpower
August 27, 2012, 02:02 PM
If a man is so freeked out that he can't keep his finger off the trigger while drawing or holstering his secondary firearm, he should find some other line of work. 1911 or Glock, it doesn't matter, sufficient training is the answer.

Kleanbore
August 27, 2012, 02:17 PM
Posted by Knockdownpower: If a man is so freeked out that he can't keep his finger off the trigger while drawing or holstering his secondary firearm, he should find some other line of work. 1911 or Glock, it doesn't matter, sufficient training is the answer.Read Post #155 one more time. Training does not eliminate the risk.

Nothing do do with secondary weapons, either. I did mention back-up guns in Post #190, but not in the context of fingers on triggers.

tarosean
August 27, 2012, 03:11 PM
Back in those days most everyone was an accomplished rider by necessity if they rode at all but having spent some time on horseback myself and been in a few rodeos along the way I question my own presence of mind to flip on the safety, especially in the heat of battle.

I'm not sure which way you swung in this charade. I was however curious as to how many favored the glock had actually been on a horse. I Would imagine quite a few mounts were lost when they swapped to the 1911 a SF pistol would multiply that ten fold...

X-Rap
August 27, 2012, 03:29 PM
I'm not sure which way you swung in this charade. I was however curious as to how many favored the glock had actually been on a horse. I Would imagine quite a few mounts were lost when they swapped to the 1911 a SF pistol would multiply that ten fold...
I prefere the Glock in todays world given the holsters and the fact I don't fight off a horse. I actually think the horse criteria wouldn't have been so important had the selection been in the 20's or 30's since the last real Cavalry charge was in Mexico in 1917 I think. The US did have horse mounted Troopers well past that but they were far from the primary means of conveyance.

I doubt switching from the SA revolver to the SA semi auto killed anymore horses, the SA Army would have its own set of decocking hazards on an unruly horse.

Horseback or not it is clear that the Army still loves its safetys as they chose it on their most recent pick, we can only speculate of what the next will be when it comes to pass but I say it will start with a G and end with a K.;):evil:

tarosean
August 27, 2012, 03:50 PM
we can only speculate of what the next will be when it comes to pass but I say it will start with a G and end with a K.

Why on earth would the Army pick a Glassik Deringer? :D

Skribs
August 27, 2012, 04:23 PM
Honestly, if the Army does decide to go for a polymer striker-fired pistol, I more see them going with a SR9, FNS9, or M&P9 with the safety, as opposed to jumping to the non-safety model. If they did eschew the manual safety, my guess is they'd go XD for the grip safety.

GLOOB
August 27, 2012, 04:32 PM
It's pretty obvious that if Austria had invented the Glock 70 years earlier, it (or a more evolved handgun inspired by it) would be even more popular, today, than it already is.

If it had been invented and produced in America, it could very well have been adopted by the US military by now.

The safety issue is overblown. Many units that carry/carried the 1911 mandated condition 3 carry, anyhow, unless imminent contact was expected. I think a Glock type handgun with an adequate holster could be adopted without too many resultant Glock-legs.

1911Tuner
August 27, 2012, 04:57 PM
Many units that carry/carried the 1911 mandated condition 3 carry, anyhow, unless imminent contact was expected.

That was mandated from day one, just like for the service rifles...for everybody.

Maintaining the pistol in Condition One has never been allowed unless action is expected.

MARSOC may have altered that for their operations, but if they have, I'm not aware of it.

Kleanbore
August 27, 2012, 07:45 PM
The instructions for firing from horseback contained in this manual from 1940 (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM23-35.pdf) cover extensively the rules for locking and unlocking the pistol an for keeping the finger out of the trigger guard while on horseback.

It is the War Department Basic Field Manual, Automatic Pistol Caliber .45 M1911 and M1911 A1.

It discusses firing from different gaits, and it even covers horse training.

One will note the occasional use of the word "clip".

That was not uncommon.

I knew a cavalry officer who demonstrated firing .45 from a horse and reloading it. One person who was in the audience was Herbert Hoover.

If you enjoyed reading about "If the 1911 and Glock 21 were both made in the year 1911" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!