1911 reliability in 2-3 day class


PDA






w129
October 16, 2013, 08:39 PM
I just watched a video by Rob Pincus that had a very dim view of 1911's used in the classes he offers. In fact at the end of the video he offers to refund your money for the course as well as your ammo costs if you can get through one of his two day classes with a 1911. The caveat is that the gun must not encounter mechanical malfunctions as well as operator error concerning the manual safety.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P0edDYdqXU

I'm asking for feedback from folks that have attended classes with their 1911, that did not experience the malfunctions he refers to in the video and offers his refund on.

The video addresses sub-compact 1911's, but the offer is extended to all 1911's.

If you enjoyed reading about "1911 reliability in 2-3 day class" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ECVMatt
October 16, 2013, 10:05 PM
I dearly love 1911's, but have to admit that I have problems with them. I am left handed, so that immediately throws a monkey in the kitchen. I have moved to my Glocks for hunting and SD, because they don't jam for me. I know others that the opposite is true. I guess that is why we have so many choices. My Glock 26 has never jammed with close to 2k rounds through it.

tomrkba
October 16, 2013, 10:13 PM
I tried several times and had to switch to either a SIG P220 or a Browning High Power MK III. I always take a back up gun, but I've only gone to them when using a 1911 as primary. I'm 1911 cursed, so my 1911 expectations are different than most folks.

almostfree
October 16, 2013, 10:16 PM
I made it through a 2 day defensive pistol class (approximately 1000 rounds) without any problems using a Dan Wesson CBOB back in 2008 or so. I actually didn't expect the Dan Wesson to do that great since I had a tough break in period with it. The rear sight fell off and the FTE and FTF malfunctions were frequent during the first 500 rounds or so, but it did fine. I do recall that my hands took quite a bit of beating from frequent manipulation of the controls on the pistol (not recoil). I took the level 2 class with a Glock 20 & 21 mostly for that reason. The Glock 21 actually went down with a broken extractor, so I had to switch to the 10mm. I think malfunctions are a matter of when and not if, and I haven't really seen a quality 1911 be any worse in capable hands.

9mmepiphany
October 16, 2013, 10:38 PM
I took a 5 day (1500rd) course with a 1911 and was pretty surprised than I didn't experience any stoppages...I didn't clean it at all. But then it was a new 1911 which I'd had built and I thought it would be a good test of the build quality

I will say that while shooting IDPA matches (~100 rds), if there is a failure during a string of fire, it is usually a 1911. These are guns which I'd expect were cleaned the night before.

This doesn't mean that there aren't 1911s that could make it through a Pincus class, it is just saying that you can better your odds with a different choice of weapon

Fred_G
October 16, 2013, 10:44 PM
Are we comparing compact 1911's or regular sized 1911's?

Note the caveat of no user error with the safety. I will admit, he has a good point on the 1911 and a high round class. But, does he mention other popular guns that have a safety?

And the OP's title is a little misleading.

tarosean
October 17, 2013, 01:58 AM
Ive taken a couple courses with my 1911's (and Berettas)without a hiccup.. However, I have seen other 1911's go down in the same classes. Heck even in my last CHL renew (50rds) two 1911's went down. (Kimber and RIA) both had to finish with borrowed guns.

The vids been floating around for quite some time. No clue if he has had any takers. His attitude doesnt warrant me giving him a dime though.

9mmepiphany
October 17, 2013, 02:45 AM
But, does he mention other popular guns that have a safety?
He doesn't have to, he isn't making the offer to users of other guns with a (thumb) safety.

If you have watched the video (it isn't new), he says that he has consistently seen 1911s fail during his class

JRWhit
October 17, 2013, 09:01 AM
It still begs the question on how many of the failures are from nib guns that have not been through a break in period. I have not owned or fired the compacts but I have not heard of any failures among those I know that own them.

moxie
October 17, 2013, 10:02 AM
Interesting. I have completed courses with my Commander with no malfunctions, but did observe that most of the 1911s at those classes failed at some point. Especially the short EMPs and similar. I know one guy who has failures with his Les Baer full size, and a Wilson, but has an explanation for every failure, so they don't "count." (In his mind.)

The Glocks and M&Ps just perk right along. They are now my choice for carry and courses.

Fishbed77
October 17, 2013, 10:34 AM
If a 1911 is built right, it will be reliable. My Colt Government XSE has never had a malfunction through several thousand rounds.

hk-sigman
October 17, 2013, 03:39 PM
He's talking about the subcompact 1911's. They are well known for not being reliable. Most 1911 experts would recommend not going smaller than a Commander size for the 1911.

herrwalther
October 17, 2013, 06:05 PM
He's talking about the subcompact 1911's. They are well known for not being reliable. Most 1911 experts would recommend not going smaller than a Commander size for the 1911.

The firearm in the video is a subcompact Kimber 1911. But the "offer" is applied to all 1911s.

Subcompact 1911s get a bad rap for being unreliable, especially the 3 inch models. But I see no reason to attack all 1911s based on one subcategory. Besides I didn't realize people still listened to Pinctus. To me, he is in the same category as James Yeager as an "instructor." I remember seeing a still photo of his pistol form, with the thumb of his support hand right over the ejection port of his Glock. Good job.

DeltaKilo
October 17, 2013, 06:28 PM
I have an Ed Brown 1911. It's on its 60,000 round stretch. It has never failed to function reliably. Ever.

The issues with 1911s are usually:

1. The user shooting the gun has never properly broken it in.
2. THe user has had work done to it or has done work to it and has never made sure it works.

I know a couple of big-time trainers who don't use 1911s because they're "tired of fixing them". I've never had to do more than change springs to any of the dozen or more 1911s I've had to make them run. The caveat with some of them is to take them out, shoot the snot out of them to wear them in, and then address any hangups out of the box (which usually come down to poor tolerances, and can be fixed with a little elbow grease and some knowhow).

The other thing I find is a problem is that people buy overly tight commercial 1911s. The 1911 was originally designed to be tight but not unbelievably so. They had to have some slop in the tolerances. A properly built custom or semi-custom will run perfectly because they've been properly fitted. But when you stack a bunch of parts together with extremely tight tolerances and then don't do the necessary fitting, you're going to have a bad time.

Broker
October 17, 2013, 07:01 PM
Rob Pincus is not impressed with 1911's. That's OK, I'm not impressed with Rob Pincus. Actually, I find him pretty comical, but that's just me..........

falnovice
October 17, 2013, 07:51 PM
On the whole I am afraid I would have to agree.
While a well built 1911 can run like a top, a lot of the production ones simply don't seem to......at least not out of the box. I will say I have a Springfield loaded that I have never had an issue with, clean or dirty.
I would tend to agree about having one properly fitted, versus the pistol simply being a collection of various parts put together. Other guns don't have that issue as there simply isn't the wealth of parts for them out there. Not to mention that as of today, only Glock makes Glocks.
Everyone makes 1911's.

A friend of mine wanted to have a 1911 built with loose tolerances. I believe he wanted it tight enough to group as good as a glock, but no better, with a good barrel and trigger.

As a side note, in speaking with a lot of veterans I have never heard them complain about the 1911 not being reliable.....typically their issues were that it was an inaccurate rattletrap.

BSA1
October 17, 2013, 07:56 PM
His offer is meaningless. What does he mean by mechanical malfunction? If a round fails to feed or eject how does he determine if it is a result of mechanical failure or shooter error such as improper grip or limp wristing?

Or does he consider shooter errors to be a "mechanical malfunction"?

I have two 1911's I'll take him upon his offer with.

atomd
October 17, 2013, 08:47 PM
It's kind of a bs offer since he includes "operator error" in that line. That is pretty subjective and isn't the gun's fault that the user can't manipulate it correctly. I don't have anything against him or his class though as I've never met him or taken his class myself.

royal barnes
October 17, 2013, 09:14 PM
He hates 1911's. Period! I quit paying any attention to him a long time ago.

9mmepiphany
October 17, 2013, 09:22 PM
If a round fails to feed or eject how does he determine if it is a result of mechanical failure or shooter error such as improper grip or limp wristing?

Or does he consider shooter errors to be a "mechanical malfunction"?
That is pretty subjective and isn't the gun's fault that the user can't manipulate it correctly.
The offer sounded pretty clear cut to me. If it fails to feed/eject/fire, it is a mechanical malfunction. The inability to operated it correctly is part of the point of establishing that there are better platforms for his class

It is like blaming Glock malfunctions on "limp wristing"...it is a platform shortcoming that it can't operate when a less than optimal grip/hold is taken

I remember seeing a still photo of his pistol form, with the thumb of his support hand right over the ejection port of his Glock. Good job.
That is something I'd be interested in seeing. How would one even get their support thumb "over" the ejection port...so it was on top of the slide?

herrwalther
October 17, 2013, 09:43 PM
That is something I'd be interested in seeing. How would one even get their support thumb "over" the ejection port...so it was on top of the slide?

It was in a gun rag 5 or 6 years ago at least. When I knew much less about firearms, surprise I know. I made a note of the name and to pretty much disregard anything he said after that.

Fred_G
October 17, 2013, 10:04 PM
That is something I'd be interested in seeing. How would one even get their support thumb "over" the ejection port...so it was on top of the slide?

Left handed person shooting a right handed gun is all I can think of. Would be interested in seeing this myself.

BSA1
October 17, 2013, 10:12 PM
This is like saying the car malfunctioned when it hit the telephone after I steered it towards it. I can make any semi-automatic (heck most double action revolvers) malfunction through improper technique.

Note the O.P. Operator error with the manual safety. There are other operator errors which can cause the gun to malfunction.

Like I said I would take him up on his offer (if I afford it).

Fireforger
October 17, 2013, 10:28 PM
Who is Rob Pincus?

9mmepiphany
October 17, 2013, 10:30 PM
Left handed person shooting a right handed gun is all I can think of. Would be interested in seeing this myself.
I thought of that too, but Rob is right handed.

The first thought I had was if he had his support handover the top of the slide chambering a round (slingshotting). The other was if he was picking a gun off a table...the fastest technique requires that you scoop the gun, off the table and into your strong hand, with the support hand

9mmepiphany
October 17, 2013, 10:31 PM
Like I said I would take him up on his offer (if I afford it).
If you're convinced that you 1911 would survive the class, your only net cost would be travel, lodging and food

9mmepiphany
October 17, 2013, 10:37 PM
Who is Rob Pincus?
He's a one of the other members of this forum

Fred_G
October 17, 2013, 10:47 PM
Hmm, still trying to see how you get your support thumb over the ejection port. I just don't see how, unless the picture is out of context so to speak, perhaps the support hand was chambering a round or something.

Do they make a left handed Glock? I could see myself messing up shooting one of those right handed.

tarosean
October 17, 2013, 11:10 PM
It still begs the question on how many of the failures are from nib guns that have not been through a break in period.


Just an FYI the Kimber shown in the vid is not a new gun.. Kimber stopped putting external extractors on quite some time ago, they were widely known to have serious issues.. Wouldn't you know it not extracting was the issue shown by the fumbling owner.

w129
October 17, 2013, 11:14 PM
Thanks for all info, I'm new to the 1911, but not new to guns. I'm planning on taking a couple of classes in 2014 with one being a 3 day class and 2000 rounds.I was planning on taking my DW Guardian which has about 700 rounds through it since new. The only problems I had with it were in the first 50 rounds and they were all RTB issues, I put a few drops of EWL on it and has since run flawlessly. I will take my Glock 20 as a back up (hopefully I won't need it).

Is there any spare parts (I plan to bring at least six magazines for each) for both the 1911 and Glock 20 I should bring along, just in case?

tarosean
October 17, 2013, 11:35 PM
3 day class and 2000 rounds


All pistol??? Lots of pain killers.. Unless your young that would be pretty brutal with a 45ACP.

assorted springs and an extractor for both pistols is probably what I would bring.

9mmepiphany
October 17, 2013, 11:45 PM
It wouldn't hurt to take along an extra extractor (the one for the DW will need to be fitted)...maybe an extra Firing Pin stop

700 rounds isn't a whole lot of rounds...will it make it through all the mags without a stop?

I really like the DW line of 1911s and think it is one of the better out of the box 1911s for carry after being test with the mags and ammo I'd use (I like to shoot 200 rounds through it without a bobble)

I've heard a lot of good things about Slip 2000, but I'd still use a good grease on the frame rails...like Slide Glide

threoh8
October 17, 2013, 11:51 PM
"The caveat is that the gun must not encounter mechanical malfunctions as well as operator error concerning the manual safety."

So ... what exactly is he teaching, if not how to operate the pistols quickly and well under stress?

BSA1
October 17, 2013, 11:52 PM
If you're convinced that you 1911 would survive the class, your only net cost would be travel, lodging and food

Well I'm not sure exactly how the bankruptcy court judge will look at that....and there are little incidental expenses like filling the propane tank up before winter, putting up hay for the winter...you know little things you need to stay alive (dang livestock think they have to be fed all winter). :( On the other hand it would be a heck of lot of fun.:D

One thing I have learned over the years is you can't win against a stacked deck, especially one like this.

For example the magazine is the weakest part of a semi-auto and their quality varies widely from manufacturer to manufacturer. When the gun has a feedway stoppage the two most common suspects are the ammo and the magazine. Since the round has been fired it is impossible to verify it as the cause.

Generally additional testing is required before the magazine is trashed but first we have to decide if the magazine is part of the gun that should be counted against it for a feedway failure.

Or is it a stand alone part?

And how do we judge a unknown $5.00 mag against a high quality, more expensive one such as Wilson or Shooting Star?

And magazines can and do fail on all makes of semi-autos so if one should fail on both a 1911 and a Glock won't that make both guns equally unreliable?

I consider a 1911 generally to be a cult gun...it has a very loyal following.
Glock is the much the same except the claims for it are more extreme...like it never breaks.

I am absolutely convinced two of my 1911s can go the distance if the issues with magazines and how shooter induced failures could be decided on which are both common to all semi-autos.

In all fairness both of them have been worked on by top notch gunsmiths. My basic one though is pretty much what Jeff Cooper recommended, trigger job, good sights, polished feedramp and tuned extractor. The other one...well it what happens when you read to many gun magazines and too much spare change.

RetiredUSNChief
October 18, 2013, 02:16 AM
I'll take this with a grain of salt. Even go so far as a "whatever" with an eye roll to go along with it.

I don't have a problem with my full sized Colt 1991A1, factory original with no modifications.

A brother of mine with the Commander version of the Colt 1991A1 likewise does not have any problems. And unlike me, he HAS done quite a bit of combat and self-defense training with his.

I have no idea what the heck "catastrophic errors in regard to the use of the manual safety" is. Errors in the use of something like a manual safety is a TRAINING issue, not a MECHANICAL issue. If there are so many issues with respect to training, then perhaps this is an indication that the training is at fault and not the gun.

And if the issue with safeties is that Rob simply doesn't want to deal with teaching people how to properly use the safety devices on their firearms, then perhaps he should just come right out and say that.

It's obvious that Rob doesn't like 1911's in general ("I think 1911s are a bad idea to start with, but it is simply reckless to offer these mini-versions as defensive firearms to the public"), but if the 1911 platform was REALLY this bad in real life, then it would not have survived for over a century.

Things that make you say "Hmmmm..."


BUT, if good ole Rob Pincus wants to make such an offer, more power to him. Perhaps I'll even take him up on his offer some day, if someone hasn't already done so and passed his criteria.

But with my family and work load, I honestly don't see that happening in the near future. Too bad. I really would like to take such a course, regardless. And yes...I'd take my Colt 1991A1 to it. It's my normal carry weapon, and if there's going to be a problem with it, I'd like to find out. (But after 22 years, I'm thinking it'll do just fine.)

:rolleyes:

Old Dog
October 18, 2013, 02:26 AM
I made it through a pretty advanced two-day pistol course requiring over 700 rounds with a Kimber Custom TLE II. Strangely, this pistol failed to malfunction even once. Silly me, of course, I'd brought a lightly modified Colt's Series 70 as a back-up but didn't need it .

Is Pincus still based in Colorado? I could make it out there during ski season ...

tarosean
October 18, 2013, 03:18 AM
The inability to operated it correctly is part of the point of establishing that there are better platforms for his class

Judging by his "recommended list" of firearms. It would appear that safeties period are a hindrance.



From an article written by the man...


My company currently recommends the following firearms, in 9mm, as the first places to look when choosing a defensive handgun. In alphabetical order, they are:

* Caracal — C & F models without the “quick sight” option.

* Glock Models 26, 19 or 17. If you choose a 4th Gen, ensure you have the currently recommended springs. This specific model was plagued with problems when first released.

* Smith & Wesson M&P — models without a manual safety or magazine disconnect.

* Springfield XD. This model is suggested with one caveat: the grip safety presents a failure point that is most significant when clearing complex malfunctions or shooting in unorthodox positions. But it is recommended particularly because of its better fit for many shooters with small hands.

All of the above MSFs have been observed to be reliable under a variety of circumstances with a variety of shooters.

Handguns that get Honorable Mentions as defensive choices:

* Snub Nosed Double Action Revolvers, such as the S&W 642, for the reasons spelled out above.

* Walther PPS. This slim MSF is currently going through an extended reliability test and has performed very well to date.

* Ruger LCP. This reliable gun is an extreme compromise to carryability, is chambered in the less-than-optimal .380 ACP round, and has relatively low shootability. But it has proven reliable and is extremely convenient to carry because of its small size.

http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/how-to-choose-a-personal-defense-handgun/

RetiredUSNChief
October 18, 2013, 03:29 AM
Judging by his "recommended list" of firearms. It would appear that safeties period are a hindrance.

From an article written by the man...

Hmmmm...

Seems to me that I'd do better to find a course which doesn't have such a bias against guns which have a safety.

And again with terms which have ambiguous definitions...what, pray tell, does "carryability" and "shootability" mean?

JRWhit
October 18, 2013, 06:15 AM
I guess it's just hard to believe the idea that 1911s are," inherently unreliable and a bad idea", considering the extensive battle history. My Grandfather always maintained that his had saved his life in combat.

But, I suppose I can't argue the point too much as I choose a polymer 9mm for carry. When it comes to punching holes in paper the 1911 is my first pick and in that regard I have not had any failures.

Perhaps the whole out look is from the sub compacts but he did extend the offer to any of them.

moxie
October 18, 2013, 08:43 AM
Whichever gun you bring to one of those high round count courses, be sure to clean and lube during the lunch break each day as well as at night. Also clean, check, each mag. Also with 1911s make sure grip screws are tight! Have the correct tool to tighten them.

BSA1
October 18, 2013, 09:18 AM
moxie,

One of my criteria for carrying a semi-auto is it must fire 500 rounds without cleaning and any malfunctions other than those determine to have been caused by ammunition, shooter error and magazine. If I can't determine the cause of the malfunction the testing starts all over

For example I currently have a old Ruger P-89 that has previously always been 100% reliable. After ignoring it for several years last year I dragged it out of the box and started having light hammer strikes. Given the age of the gun and the fact I brought it used many years ago with a unknown round count I suspected tired springs so I replaced all of them with new ones.

Guess what??? Still having light hammer strikes.

Well I am using my own reloads and have rarely had misfire problems. But when I inspect the remaining unfired rounds (350 =/-) left out of the batch low and behold I spotted a couple of high primers.

AHA! Careless reloading. (I reloaded these round many years ago so I don't know where my mind was when I seated the primers).

But then my son shoot 100 rounds from the same batch without a single problem from a different 9mm.

So back to the drawing board. I'm going to finish up shooting the suspect rounds as it will give practice with malfunction drills. Then reload using new more current production primers and powder and start the 500 round test all over.

Time consuming...yes.
Expensive...not really as I will do the testing as part of regular practice.
Demanding...dang right! There are no room for alibis in a self defense situation.

moxie
October 18, 2013, 10:38 AM
I'm sure you'll solve the problem eventually.

Regarding your 500 round criteria. That seems high to me, as I can't imagine a realistic SD scenario requiring the gun to go that long without clean and lube. To me, 100-200 rounds is enough. Even that is very high. Running the drills in SD courses is not representative of a single SD event, so clean and lube at lunch break is not being unrealistic, it's prudent and smart.

seastrike
October 18, 2013, 12:48 PM
Shoot what you feel comfortable with and bring a spare.
One of my guns is a Ruger 1911. They are loose but both reliable and accurate. I've been shooting the Ruger at IDPA for 6 mos and have about 5k through it. Not a hiccup.
This is with 100% handloads of RN lead and shooting low powered loads.
It my opinion it's as reliable as my Glocks. It just weighs more and holds less rounds.

David E
October 18, 2013, 03:22 PM
I clean my guns every 1000 rounds or so, whether it needs it or not.

powder
October 18, 2013, 05:53 PM
Google "1911 extractor test".

If yours can pass it, your probably GTG.

RetiredUSNChief
October 18, 2013, 06:20 PM
I'm sure you'll solve the problem eventually.

Regarding your 500 round criteria. That seems high to me, as I can't imagine a realistic SD scenario requiring the gun to go that long without clean and lube. To me, 100-200 rounds is enough. Even that is very high. Running the drills in SD courses is not representative of a single SD event, so clean and lube at lunch break is not being unrealistic, it's prudent and smart.

I don't think the intent is to have a gun which can sustain a theoretical 500 round fight. I think the intent is to exercise the weapon under arduous enough conditions to establish that one has an extremely high probability that the gun will 100% reliably function for the few rounds that it's actually needed in a self-defense scenario.

Marion Cobretti needs a gun which can sustain a 500 round fight. We do not.

;)~

BSA1
October 18, 2013, 06:33 PM
Moxie,

Like David some of my guns only get cleaned once a year like my Cowboy Action Shooting ones.

If my guns will run trouble free for 500 rounds than 100 rounds is a piece of cake. In your case you don't have any idea how many rounds past 100 your gun will continue to function.

I demand that all of my guns be reliable with high round counts. Demanding...yes. Unrealistic... Well when the stuff hits the fan I KNOW my gun will function as I have pushed it hard previously. When I worked at a Indoor Shooting Range we usually didn't clean the rental guns until they quit working. The round count in some of those guns easily passed 1,000.

Many shooters feel like you do. 50 rounds and it is good just like some shooters think shooting a 12" group at 7 yds is good enough marksmanship. But a gun that has to be cleaned every 50 - 100 rounds so it will keep working is unacceptable to me personally.

powder
October 18, 2013, 06:45 PM
But a gun that has to be cleaned every 50 - 100 rounds so it will keep working is unacceptable to me personally.

...and that's why CASS/ cowboy action is USUALLY done with revolvers, correct?

You run 1911s in CASS?

moxie
October 18, 2013, 09:23 PM
What I don't like about running a gun to a high round count has to do with what happens to that nice lube the gun started out with. It slowly becomes a very nice lapping compound that just wears the gun without really proving anything.

I agree that a gun shouldn't HAVE to be cleaned every 50-100 rounds, but it SHOULD, in my opinion, be cleaned often during high round count drills/courses/competitions.

BSA1
October 18, 2013, 10:12 PM
Powder,

Cowboy Action Shooting is done with 19th Century firearms / clones or similar design such as the Ruger Vaquero that were used until 1899. The 1911 missed it by 12 years.

You are thinking of Wild Bunch matches for using the 1911.

David E
October 18, 2013, 10:25 PM
I said I didn't clean 'em for 1000 rds, didn't say I never lubed 'em.

.

powder
October 18, 2013, 10:25 PM
I'm well aware that CASS is revolver based.

This thread is about 1911s.



Cowboy Action Shooting is done with 19th Century firearms / clones or similar design such as the Ruger Vaquero that were used until 1899. The 1911 missed it by 12 years.

You are thinking of Wild Bunch matches for using the 1911.

38super
October 18, 2013, 10:32 PM
Hi to all I am new to the forum. I have been carrying a 1911 government since I obtained my permit in 2009. Several times I have tried other platforms but keep going back to my governments. The only time I have had issues with my old 70 series in 45 is when I was developing loads. The only issues I had with my 38 super were magazine related. After taking all the non colt magazines I had purchased out of my rotation I have had zero problems. I've put a several thousand rounds through the 45 including without cleaning for several hundred at a time. I am not sure if it would be aloud or not but if one had a 1911 that was not a match grade gun with a good break-in behind it. I think it could be done with a cleaning the evening of day one. After all these guns were designed to be carried in the trench's and work after thousands of rounds.

Deaf Smith
October 18, 2013, 11:59 PM
Having been to several shooting schools I have to agree with Rob.

Few 1911s go thorough the whole class without problems.

The major problem is that most of the students try to 'improve' their guns and thus introduce after-market parts that are not in spec.

I've even seen an odd Glock fail, no because the gun was bad, but the user had modified it and not tested it throughly.

Kind of like Obamacare people do all kinds of jazzing up their stuff, with no testing, and then are shocked when it fails.

John Farnam says he sees the same things with ARs. They put on all kinds of do-dads and the stuff fails in class. Some of the gizmos just drop off right in the middle of firing.

Deaf

RetiredUSNChief
October 19, 2013, 12:07 AM
Having been to several shooting schools I have to agree with Rob.

Few 1911s go thorough the whole class without problems.

The major problem is that most of the students try to 'improve' their guns and thus introduce after-market parts that are not in spec.

I've even seen an odd Glock fail, no because the gun was bad, but the user had modified it and not tested it throughly.

Kind of like Obamacare people do all kinds of jazzing up their stuff, with no testing, and then are shocked when it fails.

John Farnam says he sees the same things with ARs. They put on all kinds of do-dads and the stuff fails in class. Some of the gizmos just drop off right in the middle of firing.

Deaf

So in your experience, the issue seems to have been related to untested modifications of the guns, regardless of the make of gun?

THAT is revealing.

:):)

tarosean
October 19, 2013, 02:56 AM
Few 1911s go thorough the whole class without problems.

The major problem is that most of the students try to 'improve' their guns and thus introduce after-market parts that are not in spec.

There in lies the problem 1911's are generally lumped together as a single entity yet are produced by dozens and dozens of companies. All with their own version of what ""specifications"" mean to them.

While we all have our personal biases. Instructors, however should be leaving their bias at the door IMO.

JRWhit
October 19, 2013, 10:06 AM
I guess i don't see what is to be proven by a course where you go through a 2000 round count without maintenance. The training I understand, and the failure in the extractor on the Kimber in the video I understand. I can see training to 500rds as a realistic reliability goal. But I don't quite understand the idea of running to 1000 or 2000 without taking time for maintenance. I could drive my truck for 20000 miles without changing the oil, but why on earth would I intentionally put that kind of wear on it?
I can't dispute that today's 1911 is built more for accuracy than reliability. With the guns being fitted more tightly for accuracy, that is going to reduce the quantity of grit it will endure. So in my opinion that means they are not the war ready pistol that was so successful for so long. But for their purpose in SD protection, a realistic reliability number rides inside of one, maybe two magazines.These firearms far surpass that number. If you where to rely on a higher number than that, I doubt highly one would do so with a sub compact. When they start pushing a compact pistol to that level, I believe it leaves what was to be it's intended purpose and they no longer have the right tool for the job. That's not a slam on the compact 1911s, just a recognition of there design purpose.

BSA1
October 19, 2013, 10:46 AM
I'm well aware that CASS is revolver based.

This thread is about 1911s.

Well ok does this one count?

I use to have a Llama 1911 pattern 45 semi-auto. I got it for a song after the previous owner had left it in the trunk of his car for a year. It was a mess covered with heavy rust and deep pits. It was so bad I had it sandblasted and then just dipped in a bluing tank deep pits and all. I had a gunsmith check the trigger pull and action to make sure everything worked properly and just started shooting it for just about anything...IPSC, plinking, target practice. Since I was working at the shooting range at the time I used it for training, as a loaner and a rental. When it would start cycling slow I would oil it. If that didn't work then a basic cleaning got it back into operation. Being a shooting range I can't even begin to guess how many different people shot it and how many 1,000's of bullets went down the barrel. It was just a beater that worked very, very well.

If it was so great why didn't I keep it? Well like many of my gun deals I got the wants for something else and someone offered me enough cash.

:banghead: I never claimed to be very smart when knowing when to keep a good gun. :banghead:

Deaf Smith
October 19, 2013, 12:07 PM
So in your experience, the issue seems to have been related to untested modifications of the guns, regardless of the make of gun?

THAT is revealing.

:):)
Well regardless of the makes I saw in the classes.

Now a old Llama .45.. didn't see to many of those. Or real cheapos or put-togethers like 1911 slides and Essex frames.

But Colts, Springfield Armories, Norincos, and such usually had mods like extended side releases, larger thumb safeties or ambidextrous safties (not factory), non-original recoil springs, 'tweaked' extractors, etc.. that the users failed to test well before class. Some even had fancy aftermarket sights fly off.

And they would 'throat' their 1911s to feed better but not check to see it worked well. Or match bushings or guide rods added.

And of course they brought fancy magazines that again they didn't test (like if the slide release worked with the new mags.)

See the big problem is so many makers don't use the original 1911 specs to go against and thus you have incompatibility problems.

And they never check to see if all the gizmos added work. I mean at least 200 or 300 rounds before spending all that money and time going to a class.

Deaf

Fred_G
October 19, 2013, 01:20 PM
You would think people would test any new gun or mods on a gun before taking it to a class...

tarosean
October 19, 2013, 02:47 PM
I guess i don't see what is to be proven by a course where you go through a 2000 round count without maintenance. The training I understand, and the failure in the extractor on the Kimber in the video I understand. I can see training to 500rds as a realistic reliability goal. But I don't quite understand the idea of running to 1000 or 2000 without taking time for maintenance.


You generally have time at lunch or the evenings for a cleaning, etc... They just frown on you for taking "time outs" in the middle of something. Hi round count classes push you and your gun to its limits.

Other than fun/learning there is no scenario/situation I could imagine needing to expend a 1000+ rounds of pistol ammo.. After all that's what the LaRue is for.......

Deaf Smith
October 19, 2013, 03:09 PM
You would think people would test any new gun or mods on a gun before taking it to a class...
It has been my experience most people don't test.

Why?

Cost of ammo.
Don't have time.
Assume it works.
Fire just a few and don't realize things can work loose.

Deaf

RetiredUSNChief
October 19, 2013, 03:27 PM
And they never check to see if all the gizmos added work. I mean at least 200 or 300 rounds before spending all that money and time going to a class.

Deaf

Yeah...I looked up the cost of a typical course, and you're looking at around $500 for the course. Figure 1,000 rounds for calculation, and you're talking about another $500 just for WWB. That a thousand clams, and that doesn't even take into account food, lodging, and travel for the period involved.

So you're talking around $1,500, give or take.

Yeah, it makes a LOT of sense to be sure you have a reliable to take BEFORE spending $1,500 for the class.

Sam Cade
October 19, 2013, 03:40 PM
I'm asking for feedback from folks that have attended classes with their 1911, that did not experience the malfunctions he refers to in the video and offers his refund on.


THR Staff has taken 1911s to Gunsite.

http://www.shootingreviews.com/sti-vip-review/

http://www.shootingreviews.com/rock-island-armory-1911a1/

http://www.shootingreviews.com/american-classic-commander-review/

BSA1
October 19, 2013, 05:47 PM
Humm some interesting comments.

In regards to the shooting class I am actually confused exactly what the purpose of it is. A high round count during the class does not guarantee the shooter is going to learn good shooting skills. As an Instructor myself I know it is important to reinforce positive shooting skills and quit before the shooter gets too tired and starts forgetting what they are being taught. All continued shooting does at this point is just reinforcing bad techniques. I would argue that a class that focuses on the fundamentals with the shooter only using 500 rounds over several days is superior than a what is an endurance test of the shooters physical ability to merely shoot a high number of rounds in two or three days. Frankly with my soft hands and desk job body 200 – 250 rounds of 45 a day would be about all I would care to shoot.

Some points to the various comments about the guns;

As David E. says “I said I didn't clean 'em for 1000 rds, didn't say I never lubed 'em” he is right on target. In one of links Sam Cade posted the author commented the only maintenance he did was to lube the gun with six drops of CLP during a 1,200 round shooting course.

JRWitt says “I guess i don't see what is to be proven by a course where you go through a 2000 round count without maintenance.” Maintenance yes, cleaning no. A few drops of oil may improve functioning or maybe not. It may make the gun less reliable by attracting dust, dirt and gunk. This was one of the lessons learned in the Sandbox Wars.

Deaf Smith says “The major problem is that most of the students try to 'improve' their guns and thus introduce after-market parts that are not in spec.” I agree completely. I don’t know what it is about the 1911 that attract so many home “gunsmiths” but gunshow tables are full of them. I consider myself as a advanced gun tinker…I have a collection of proper tools and screwdrivers and can disassemble and properly reassemble many different type of firearms. I can spot and correct minor problems like burrs, can do hand file work like recutting sight dovetails and tune-ups on some models. None of this in any way makes me even close to being a gunsmith and there are parts on the 1911 I will not touch. In fact I previously commented that the 2 1911’s I have that will go the distance for 2,000 rounds have been worked on and tuned by top gunsmiths in the country.

As a aside I have acquired enough cast off 1911 parts that about all I need to build my own gun is a slide and frame. I have given considerable thought to learning and trying to build a true GI spec gun along the lines of the old Llama I used to have. Generous tolerances with the slide and frame fit and one that rattles when you shake it. In other words just a rock solid gun that will just keep ticking when neglected while being reasonably accurate…4 – 6” groups at 25 yards.

Shienhausser
October 19, 2013, 08:28 PM
All of this is why I'm super reluctant to do anything to my Sistema Colt 1911. It does have a new barrel from the previous owner but after 400+ rounds without cleaning I've had no jams whatsoever. I did buy 2 Chip McCormick 8 rd mags but they are great as well. I don't shoot HP ammo from it nor do I care to, even in self defense. It's just not made for it and I don't want to modify it other than a light polish on the ramp. I'll bet that gun would make it through the course, and I'd be proud to do so with a pistol I paid 300$ for because to most it's old and inaccurate.

Same reason why I bought a standard M1a over a National Match. I want to feed it anything, get it dirty and not worry.

Generally things designed during the great wars were designed a certain way for a reason. They knew what it meant to go 1000's of rounds without maybe having access to cleaning materials. Loose tolerances for me all the way!

TestPilot
October 19, 2013, 08:30 PM
Errors in the use of something like a manual safety is a TRAINING issue, not a MECHANICAL issue. If there are so many issues with respect to training, then perhaps this is an indication that the training is at fault and not the gun.

"TRAINING ISSUE" STILL IS AN "ISSUE."

It is an issue that only exist in guns that require such manipulation.

Training can reduce the probability of the manipulation failure, but it can NEVER eliminate it.

It is only a matter of how much of that probability you are willing to accept with the amount of training you think is sufficient and call it good.

w129
October 19, 2013, 08:44 PM
Some interesting comments on the number of rounds per day, which has me thinking I need to do more research on classes available

I live in Ohio and there is a local school called TDI (Tactical defense institute) and their level 1-3 course is three days with an 1800 round minimum which I had planned to attend.

I appreciate all the info you have posted and now I need to do some more research on different classes. I may have to travel farther, but with the cost of ammo these days I might actually save money and get more out of a class that has more emphasis on learning than round count.

Shienhausser
October 19, 2013, 09:00 PM
1800????!!



Sounds more like Ohio trying to run all the ammo dry haha.

Deaf Smith
October 19, 2013, 11:37 PM
Yeah...I looked up the cost of a typical course, and you're looking at around $500 for the course. Figure 1,000 rounds for calculation, and you're talking about another $500 just for WWB. That a thousand clams, and that doesn't even take into account food, lodging, and travel for the period involved.

So you're talking around $1,500, give or take.

Yeah, it makes a LOT of sense to be sure you have a reliable to take BEFORE spending $1,500 for the class.
AND take a spare gun in cause it does have any problems.

Yes, even a Glock can break so bring one spare gun that uses the same ammo and hopefully the same magazines.

I've been to several schools over the years, at least six of them, and I always have brought a second gun just in case the primary goes down for any reason.

In fact, when I go hunt in Colorado I bring a spare rifle!

Deaf

Fred_G
October 20, 2013, 12:05 AM
Absolutely bring an extra gun, holster and such. Oddly, my M&P took a dive at the last class I was at, we got it back up and running, was an ammo issue. Was ready to toss on a glove and go back to the hand ripping Remington 1911. I have got to replace that safety.

RetiredUSNChief
October 20, 2013, 12:14 AM
"TRAINING ISSUE" STILL IS AN "ISSUE."

It is an issue that only exist in guns that require such manipulation.

Training can reduce the probability of the manipulation failure, but it can NEVER eliminate it.

It is only a matter of how much of that probability you are willing to accept with the amount of training you think is sufficient and call it good.

Good point. And yes...I agree that it's still an issue. But if the purpose and intent of a firearms instructor for a course is NOT to have to deal with, or teach, a course with firearms which have manual safeties, then he should be completely up front about that as a REQUIREMENT for his course. Otherwise, his course should teach and reinforce the essentials required for proper operation of whatever manual safety presents itself.

What you said can also be said for other aspects as well, such as being able to hit the target. Just because one TRAINS do be able to do that doesn't mean that one WILL hit the target.

But still, that is why one trains in the first place. Just because one MIGHT miss, or even DOES miss doesn't necessarily mean there's a fundamental flaw which is the end of the world. It simply means that one needs to train enough to be able to minimize his misses and to cope with them when they occur.


This pretty much says it: "It is only a matter of how much of that probability you are willing to accept with the amount of training you think is sufficient and call it good."

I can engineer ways to virtually eliminate missing my target under a lot of circumstances, such as smearing peanut butter on the end of my rifle barrel and waiting for a squirrel to have at it before I pull the trigger. But that's not the way I train to squirrel hunt.

My hunting guns have safeties on them as well...I train to use them properly, too.

If I ever get a handgun with no manual safety on it, then I'll train to use it as it's designed as well. But until then...if I take a firearms training course, I want to be trained on how to best operate and utilize the weapons platform I HAVE, not the platform I DON'T have and which somebody else SAYS I should have.

:)

tarosean
October 20, 2013, 02:22 AM
THR Staff has taken 1911s to Gunsite.

http://www.shootingreviews.com/sti-vip-review/

http://www.shootingreviews.com/rock-...armory-1911a1/

http://www.shootingreviews.com/ameri...mander-review/

Kinda makes you appreciate a gun thats been gone over with a file or two.

Vodoun da Vinci
October 20, 2013, 09:52 AM
He has a right to his opinion....I'd love to take him up on it but that won't happen. ;)

I'm curious if he'd extend the offer to *all* the pistols his students bring in. It's kind of a way to bash 1911's I think. I'm willing to bet he has failures of all kinds of pistols depending on the severity of the class and the experience of the students/participants with their chosen pistol.

He just dun't like 1911's and this is his way of jabbing them and the folks that use 'em. Lemme guess....he's a dyed in the wool Glock Fan Boy? Not that that's a bad thing - got my first Glock and I'm loving the heck out of it. Not as much as my 1911's but, hey....it is what it be like.

VooDoo

JRWhit
October 20, 2013, 11:13 AM
You know another angle of this may just be the fact that the challenge will bring more business. 2000 rounds without any sort of failure, including operating error, is quite a feat from any handgun. The way his challenge is worded it would be very difficult to achieve. First day and 600 or so shot's in, you fail to insert a magazine fully due to fatigue, resulting in a fail to feed. According to his challenge you are out the fee's and ammo cost. This could very well just be a way to drum up business.

tipoc
October 20, 2013, 03:40 PM
Post number 37 quotes from a piece written by Pincus...

My company currently recommends the following firearms, in 9mm, as the first places to look when choosing a defensive handgun. In alphabetical order, they are:

* Caracal — C & F models without the “quick sight” option.

* Glock Models 26, 19 or 17. If you choose a 4th Gen, ensure you have the currently recommended springs. This specific model was plagued with problems when first released.

* Smith & Wesson M&P — models without a manual safety or magazine disconnect.

* Springfield XD. This model is suggested with one caveat: the grip safety presents a failure point that is most significant when clearing complex malfunctions or shooting in unorthodox positions. But it is recommended particularly because of its better fit for many shooters with small hands.

All of the above MSFs have been observed to be reliable under a variety of circumstances with a variety of shooters.

Handguns that get Honorable Mentions as defensive choices:

* Snub Nosed Double Action Revolvers, such as the S&W 642, for the reasons spelled out above.

* Walther PPS. This slim MSF is currently going through an extended reliability test and has performed very well to date.

* Ruger LCP. This reliable gun is an extreme compromise to carryability, is chambered in the less-than-optimal .380 ACP round, and has relatively low shootability. But it has proven reliable and is extremely convenient to carry because of its small size.

http://www.personaldefensenetwork.co...fense-handgun/

The link is to an article also by Pincus that is useful reading.

Pincus has developed his own training course which has gained him some respect based and which he has written about in a couple of books based on the idea of "instinctive shooting". Some of his thinking harks back to the point shooting of Rex Applegate and others. The basic idea is that under stress humans do certain things instinctively and so techniques which play to those strengths are useful and techniques and methods that cut across the grain of those "instincts" are problematic and less useful, even dangerous.

After ensuring you can get the minimum aspects of a good grip on a firearm, next look to see that you can manipulate any levers or buttons beside the trigger without shifting your grip. Optimally, the only other button you’ll need to use will be the magazine release. Decockers and manual safeties decrease the practical reliability of the gun and/or the shootability of the gun by making them more complicated than they need to be. Most people benefit from an oversized or extended magazine release in order to be able to eject the magazine as efficiently as possible. It is not vital that you can eject the magazine with no shifting of the hand, but you should look for a gun that requires as little movement of the hand as possible.

One of those is guns with external safeties. So in his list above and other writings you notice his preference for striker fired pistols without manual safeties of any type (he cautions about the grip safety of the XD) and double action wheelguns particularly those which are double action only, like the 642 Centennial model that he recommends above whi9ch have no external hammers.

Missing from his list are of course the 1911 and the high power, but also the Beretta M9, Sigs particularly da/sa Sigs with decockers, the CZ75 and it's kin and clones, all third generation Smith and Wesson handguns and many others. Mostly all the most widely used handguns by the military and law enforcement over the last century do not make his list of recommended guns that fit with his method and concepts.

Pincus' challenge is directed at the 1911 which is the most visible and popular of the external safety handguns. But others could stand in as well. The M9 for example.

In the vid you see a fella who brought the sub compact Kimber in 45 acp to a 2-3 day "combat" oriented course. You see that gentleman struggling with a gun he is clearly unfamiliar with and does not know how to properly manipulate. You see the man fumble under pressure.

The man who brought the Kimber made a couple of errors. He brought a small back up gun to a combat oriented course where several hundreds of rounds would be fired. It's not a good choice for that. Anymore than a J frame S&W would be. He also brought a gun he wqs unfamiliar with and expected that he would learn more about gun handling there from a fella willing to teach him. He made a mistake on that as well.

tipoc

wow6599
October 20, 2013, 03:57 PM
In the vid you see a fella who brought the sub compact Kimber in 45 acp to a 2-3 day "combat" oriented course. You see that gentleman struggling with a gun he is clearly unfamiliar with and does not know how to properly manipulate. You see the man fumble under pressure.

Absolutely. I wondered if it was his first time with it too.........anxious and jerky with it.

9mmepiphany
October 20, 2013, 06:30 PM
Also understand that this course isn't a beginning or even an intermediate course. You're supposed to know how to run your gun before attending, that isn't the point of taking this class.

I was one of the Staff that attended the 1911centric course at Gunsite mentioned in Post #64. A couple of the 1911s we brought were straight from the manufacturer and hadn't been testfired...but we also had backup 1911s, which had proven reliable prior to attendance.

None of the guns I shot had a failure during the class, but many others did. Fewer than I expected, but then we weren't running them very hard and many folks were cleaning at lunch and during the evening

jimbo555
October 20, 2013, 07:28 PM
Who cares what Pincus likes or don't like! I don't! He's obviously getting free advertisement from all this!

tarosean
October 21, 2013, 12:09 AM
I'm willing to bet he has failures of all kinds of pistols depending on the severity of the class and the experience of the students/participants with their chosen pistol.


In the following link you will find some of Pincus's comments regarding this video.


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/05/rob-pincus/rob-pincus-sub-compact-1911s-suck/



FWIW, the success rate for 1911′s in class is less than 10%. For the major Striker Fired guns it is over 80%…



I only mean an operator error in regard to the manual safety… Extending the gun and trying to shoot with it on or going to holster with it off.

While this vid is specifically about subcompacts, I don’t recommend 1911s for defensive use at all because of the high failure rate we see in class and the inherently more complicated nature of the system (as compared to modern striker fired guns)


I recommend a lot of guns for a lot of people with a lot of problems… the 1911 simply isn’t on the list. Name a problem and I’ll offer solution that I feel is a better option. Saying “sell it” isn’t a cop out… it is a reality check.

Gordon
October 21, 2013, 12:33 AM
"Rob Pincus is not impressed with 1911's. That's OK, I'm not impressed with Rob Pincus. Actually, I find him pretty comical, but that's just me."
This.
Having gone thru lengthy schools like Starlight Academy with a 1911, American Pistol Institute 250 and 499
ITTS Handgun 1 thru Handgun 3
Everthing Lewis Awerbuck could throw at me including the infamous Arizona Gunfighters Conference (6 days)
# 1 the only course I shot in those 35 years that approached a 2000 round handgun count was Ray Chapman's old Starlight course which was brutal , yet the 1911s all made it thru it (pre tricked out days) pretty well. In an advanced course about 500 rounds a day gets you quality training, less for elementary training.
I think I did close to 2000 rounds at API 499, in five days, with a series 70 Gold Cup!

tipoc
October 21, 2013, 03:25 AM
From 9mmEpi...

Also understand that this course isn't a beginning or even an intermediate course.

Which course are you referring to?

You're supposed to know how to run your gun before attending, that isn't the point of taking this class.

In the video from Mr. Pincus the fella he shows is clearly unfamiliar with the gun he has. Maybe unfamiliar with semi-autos of any type and if not then maybe just flustered under pressure. But if folks are supposed to know how to run their guns before attending then maybe the gentleman in the video is not typical. But if not why use him in the vid?

Mr. Pincus does not favor guns with external safeties. He gives his reasons clearly. He thinks 1911s are particularly problematic. He can't explain why, as he says he's not a gunsmith or engineer, his opinion he says is based on his experience. He has issued a challenge. Folks can come to his class with a 1911 and take it and he will challenge them to not have a malfunction of any type or a handling error in a class where it is to be expected that such will be induced and where he will instruct folks on when to engage or disengage their safeties.

tipoc

9mmepiphany
October 21, 2013, 12:00 PM
From 9mmEpi...



Which course are you referring to?
Pincus' Combat Focus Shooting course.

In the video from Mr. Pincus the fella he shows is clearly unfamiliar with the gun he has. Maybe unfamiliar with semi-autos of any type and if not then maybe just flustered under pressure. But if folks are supposed to know how to run their guns before attending then maybe the gentleman in the video is not typical. But if not why use him in the vid?

From their FAQ:

Q: Is there any prerequisite or prior experience required to take this course?

A: No, there is not a course prerequisite to take the Combat Focus Shooting course. We have trained students from all disciplines and skill levels. It is recommended that you know how to operate your firearm and holster prior to attending a CFS Course. For those completely unfamiliar with defensive firearms, I.C.E. Training Company offers the Introduction to Defensive Handguns course.

Let me state that I'm not defending his course or his challenge. I don't know him well enough to defend him. But I'm familiar enough with his teaching history and the 1911's shortcommings (especially the subcompact ones that are the original focus of the Youtube video we are discussing), that I think it is unfair to vilify him for his stance.

RE: Shooter in the video. I think that he represents a fairly typical shooter he gets caught up in the legend of the 1911 and selects a sub-compact model without understanding it's limitations and the small operating window it has.

The important take-away that I'd hope this video and this discussion would present is that one should know more about a gun before buying it than it's legend/myth/romance

Old Dog
October 21, 2013, 02:34 PM
Gordon's experiences pretty much mirror mine.

I don't intend anything I say to necessarily be a defense of the 1911, but every pistol class I went through from 1987 through 2005 (excepting some military courses post-M9 transition) was using a 1911.

I have personally never seen anyone using a 1911 smaller than a Commander in a commercial training course (NOT a local CCW class) but I've seen numerous 1911s make it through some pretty intense, down-and-dirty courses without malfunctions that couldn't be instantly rectified. I have also seen some pretty high-end 1911s choke on the firing line.

But it's been my experience that the savvy 1911 folks can run their guns well, as a rule. And I've seen guys with more money than experience have problems with Wilson 1911s ...

In one weekend course, an extractor tip on one of my (repro) Series 70s broke. In another high-round count one day session, an extractor problem on the same Series 70 interfered. These were the only instances I've had where my 1911s went down and a back-up pistol was needed to finish a class.

Almost seems as though Pincus is trying to stir the pot a bit as a marketing technique.

And -- as tipoc noted -- the fact that Pincus seems to dismiss such battle-worthy icons such as SIGs, CZs, Gen 3 S&Ws and Berettas makes me believe that he is blinded by his prejudices, as I'm pretty sure most of us have seen the products of those four makers provide stellar service in both the training and combat arenas.

tipoc
October 21, 2013, 04:43 PM
Not all criticism is vilification, so in looking at the Pincus video and challenge critically I'm not aiming to vilify Mr. Pincus.

Is the video an honest depiction of the average shooter of a compact 1911 who has some experience with their gun? I'm not so sure of that. The vodeo and it's challenge are over the top. Attention getting. There is a bit of P.T. Barnum in it and in many of his other you tube vids as well. I've seen one of him doing bicep curls with a weight in one hand while shooting with the other.

From what I've read so far from Mr. Pincus he has developed a concept of "Combat" training that focuses on the stripped down gun without manual safety so that nothing impedes the ability of the shooter to draw and fire. No thumb safety, no grip safety, etc. Those type safeties are not "instinctual" where it is instinctual to draw point and shoot. A semi is better than a revolver due to higher round count and that you can carry 2-3 spare mags. If a revolver is used he prefers hammerless models and dao versions. A hammer can snag and single action is not needed in defensive encounters.

Point shooting is emphasized as defensive encounters are rarely beyond 21 feet.

It appears to focus on the CCW urban carrier.

There is some validity to some of his thinking here particularly as it's not original to him.

The challenge is over the top as well. It's a valid challenge but not one that proves much.

I expect that if I go to any high round 2-3 day combat oriented training course with any gun that I'm going to experience some kinda failure of some type. I'll drop a mag, shoot before I'm sure of my target 100%, put a round in the dirt downrange, fumble un-holstering, or holstering, fumble a safety on or off, etc. That's part of what the course is for. Malfunction clearance drills involve inducing malfunctions.

The point of the vid does not seem to me to be mostly warning about the limited role of shorty 1911s or educating about their foibles. Or to preach realistic expectations from sub compact 1911s. To do that would mean less "they suck" and more explanation. Seems mostly about, indirectly, publicity for his course and methods.

My take anyway, for the little it's worth.

tipoc

9mmepiphany
October 21, 2013, 06:56 PM
The point of the vid does not seem to me to be mostly warning about the limited role of shorty 1911s or educating about their foibles. Or to preach realistic expectations from sub compact 1911s. To do that would mean less "they suck" and more explanation. Seems mostly about, indirectly, publicity for his course and methods.
I agree with your take on it. I've long advised against selecting the sub-compact 1911 as a first time defensive pistol

BTW: my reference to vilification wasn't directed at you

I expect that if I go to any high round 2-3 day combat oriented training course with any gun that I'm going to experience some kinda failure of some type. I'll drop a mag, shoot before I'm sure of my target 100%, put a round in the dirt downrange, fumble un-holstering, or holstering, fumble a safety on or off, etc. That's part of what the course is for. Malfunction clearance drills involve inducing malfunctions.
I'd agree to everything except holstering, we've sent shooters off to the side for dropping their guns while reholstering...that is usually a sign of lost of focus and becomes a safety issue.

I've done all the others at one time or another during training

Vern Humphrey
October 21, 2013, 07:19 PM
The title of the video is "Subcompact 1911s Just don't work well...." It doesn't address full-size M1911s.

The problem with the M1911 subcompact is no different from any other "subcompact" tilting barrel gun. If the gun is made by simply shortening the slide and barrel, the steep tilt angle needed to function the gun becomes a reliability problem.

The solution is to re-engineer the gun's geometry, not just cut it down.

Old Dog
October 21, 2013, 08:04 PM
Okay, so I feel silly ... finally watched the video. Sub-compact 1911s. Note to self: stop posting unless I watch the video provided ...

I like my SA Loaded LW Micro-Compacts, but I'd never use one for a training course ... sheesh.

tomrkba
October 21, 2013, 09:14 PM
The major problem is that most of the students try to 'improve' their guns and thus introduce after-market parts that are not in spec.

I've even seen an odd Glock fail, no because the gun was bad, but the user had modified it and not tested it throughly.

The above quote does not explain why five of the seven factory stock 1911's I have purchased did not function reliably from the factory. Production 1911's *can* be correctly built, but most are not. Even the Springfield EMP had problems (incorrectly cut feed ramp, incorrectly fitted barrel, loose ejector, rough breech face), but Springfield managed to fix that gun. My Kimbers were a disaster, as were my (non-EMP) Springfields. Only my Colt XSE and Colt WW II Repro worked perfectly so long as the extractor was in good condition and did so from the first shot. I attribute both guns' reliability to a correct build with the addition of the barrel dimple.

Deaf Smith
October 21, 2013, 11:49 PM
Tom,

You will find that most 1911 builders do not exactly follow John Moses Browning's schematics on his gun. The barrel was supposed to sit the lugs on the slide stop pin. Most today do not do that but instead the pin itself forces the barrel to lock. JMB also specified the tension of the extractor and most just stuff extractors into the hole and not bevel the ends nor adjust tension. Alot of short cuts are taken to get the weapons built.

My Dan Wesson CBOB has a S&W style extractor and it works wonderfully BUT only with GI mags. Wilsons or Chip McCormicks don't hold open the slide on last shot. My Kimber Gold Match (MK 1) works perfect with SWCs but unless you use a GI mag it might not feed FMJ!

Only my Colt Combat Commander, made in 2012, works perfect with anything. I mean any mag or bullet design. And yea, that's one keeper of a gun.

Deaf

tarosean
October 22, 2013, 12:41 AM
BTW: my reference to vilification wasn't directed at you


Must be me posting quotes in his own words????

As I stated previously any bias from an instructor should be left at the door.. It shouldnt matter if grandma signs up with a top break revolver. Teach her how to do the drills effectively and safely as that is what you were hired to do.

While he may have been irritated at the shooter for holding up the class (?) it is still not an excuse IMO.

Regardless if I think my 1911's could pass the class or not, I'd rather give my money to Ignatius Piazza, Clint Smith, Buz Mills, etc. than a _____________.

SE Flyer
October 22, 2013, 06:55 AM
I tried several times and had to switch to either a SIG P220 or a Browning High Power MK III. I always take a back up gun, but I've only gone to them when using a 1911 as primary. I'm 1911 cursed, so my 1911 expectations are different than most folks.
You must have trying to use a Kimber.

Vern Humphrey
October 22, 2013, 04:37 PM
You must have trying to use a Kimber.

I have one of the early Kimbers (bought in 1995) and have put literally tens of thousands of rounds through it. The only stoppages I've had were traced to failure to iron out the belling during the crimping process.

tomrkba
October 22, 2013, 06:11 PM
You will find that most 1911 builders do not exactly follow John Moses Browning's schematics on his gun.

I know...the problem is finding a production gun that is correct.

In your estimation, which manufacturer most closely adheres to the standard for production guns?

I have one of the early Kimbers (bought in 1995) and have put literally tens of thousands of rounds through it. The only stoppages I've had were traced to failure to iron out the belling during the crimping process.

I did not have a "good" Kimber. I had the Kimber II series with the ineffective external extractor. They also lacked the proper space at the top of the feed ramp (the one on the frame) so the bottom of the barrel extended past it. The breech face was rough and the radiused area was higher than the rest of it. The Kimber techs missed the burr in the chamber twice. I know there were several other problems with them, but I cannot remember at this point.

moxie
October 22, 2013, 07:39 PM
Posts like these make me yearn for a gunmaker who would replicate the Star PD with some updated metallurgy. Basically leave the rest intact, external extractor and all. Maybe some Novak sights.

Then you would have a 1911 based gun that would run 100% of the time with little to no attention beyond cleaning and lubing and would last virtually forever, instead of just 25K rounds or so.

Vern Humphrey
October 22, 2013, 08:39 PM
I did not have a "good" Kimber. I had the Kimber II series with the ineffective external extractor. They also lacked the proper space at the top of the feed ramp (the one on the frame) so the bottom of the barrel extended past it. The breech face was rough and the radiused area was higher than the rest of it. The Kimber techs missed the burr in the chamber twice. I know there were several other problems with them, but I cannot remember at this point.
I don't deny that Kimber from time to time has slipped in quality (so has Colt and Springfield, for that matter.) But the early Kimbers were so good they scared the pants off Wilson, who took out attack ads against them.

9mmepiphany
October 22, 2013, 09:30 PM
Posts like these make me yearn for a gunmaker who would replicate the Star PD with some updated metallurgy. Basically leave the rest intact, external extractor and all. Maybe some Novak sights.

Then you would have a 1911 based gun that would run 100% of the time with little to no attention beyond cleaning and lubing and would last virtually forever, instead of just 25K rounds or so.
Part of the reason the Star PD ran so well, is that it wasn't too closely based on the 1911. That is also why the Star BM and BMK run better than most 9mm 1911s

Deaf Smith
October 22, 2013, 11:25 PM
In your estimation, which manufacturer most closely adheres to the standard for production guns?

Oddly enough, from what I hear the Rock Island Armory 1911s are pretty much good to go out of the box. Wither they are exact reproductions of JMB's 1911A1 I am not sure. But they are close as I looked at several of them today.

Today I also examined a mirror image of my Colt Combat Commander (mine being made in 2012.)

The throat on the chamber was cut exactly like mine (it has a visible trough cut where the rounded barrel entrance is.) Now that is not a JMB spec but it definably helps feeding ash-tray style .45 ACP ammo. Catch is they want almost 1000 bucks now for those Commanders!

I'd give RIA a hard look. No frills but you can get them with better hammers and 'duck billed' grip safeties.

Deaf

tarosean
October 23, 2013, 01:45 AM
In your estimation, which manufacturer most closely adheres to the standard for production guns?
Oddly enough, from what I hear the Rock Island Armory 1911s are pretty much good to go out of the box.

I have *heard* just the opposite, that they are out of tolerance for a lot of aftermarket small parts that simply cannot be fitted. I have absolutely no first hand experience though.

Ive never taken a caliper to any of my 1911's and compared them to the blueprints though... Doubtful as I ever would, as all 5 of mine work reliably even though; one is a 4" Cone Barreled Commander sized, a 5" with full length dust cover, two other 5"s and a LW Commander.

My latest acquisition #6, (Commander Slide on Officer frame) is unfired so I cannot comment on that one till I am back in the US.

SharpsDressedMan
October 23, 2013, 07:32 AM
Who is Rob Pincus? As of yet, he has not made himself know to me.:p:)

frankiestoys
October 23, 2013, 07:59 AM
My STI is the best running 1911 I own while I've had a few issues with my Kimber or even my Sig I can't say I've ever experienced anything out of my Trojan and would trust it against anything

savanahsdad
October 23, 2013, 01:52 PM
Who is Rob Pincus? As of yet, he has not made himself know to me.:p:)
I use to watch him on the Outdoor Chanel "The Best Defense" the show had a lot of great ideas and tips, and a lot of the time he and the other host would say " do what works best for you " then there was the show where they were showing how bullets would go through house walls, I just grind for that one, as my house is made of old 2X4 and lath and plaster and there tests used sheetrock , and now I see he seems to be anti-1911, ?? just goes to show you can be a trainer with 10+ years and still be short bus smart. I'll stick with what he has said in the past and use what works best for me, and that would me my S&W1911 , not my G17, or my Ruger P89, or one of my wheel guns or a pocket gun , and the worst gun I have ever had was a S&W and the best guns I have ever had are S&W , so I don't get hung up on brands , but for type of gun ??? just can't beat a gun that feels right

Zerodefect
October 23, 2013, 08:25 PM
That opinion deos have plenty of ammo behind it. I'm inclined too agree. From an average users perspective the 1911 is rubbish. So are cheap AK's built in a damp chinese basement. And el cheapo AR's Nothing new there. The market is flooded with cheap guns.

-Not many 1911 builders avoid making smaller 1911's even though they know thier kinda weak in reliability.
-plenty of crappy 1911 builders out there
-the 1911 has a crappy magazine. Glocks hold the top round allmost completely inline with the barrel, but 1911 rounds have to travel up a much greater distance, and that's only if they get past the nosediveing mag problem.

That being said. If Pincus is still teaching a year from now. I'm game. My Dan Wesson Valor has been extremely reliable. Easy the most reliable 1911 I've ever shot. I'd put it up against a EB, W, or LB any day.

And the safety is a non issue. Same manual of arms as my AR15. But many don't under stand....that the 1911 safety has the same manual of arms as your finger on the trigger of the Glock. If it's ok for your trigger finger to be on the trigger, then off safe is ok. And vice versa.

A Dan Wesson ECO ain't hardly a 1911 anymore with that odd bull barrel. Those seem reliable. My only concern is ammo (Federal seems to be the best plinking ammo) and magazines (Wilson and Tripp).

But I've taken my Valor apart again for some custom work, and I'm in no hurry to finish. (sights, custom finish, pro test shoot and accurizing) But when it's done I think I'll email that trainer and take him up on that offer. By the time I get it done I'll be overdo for some training anyways. And some free training would be sweet! If any 1911 is capable of passing that test, mine is.

Nuclear
October 24, 2013, 03:27 AM
Weird, I have friends with subcompact 1911's that just run. Don't know what they may have done to them, other than replacing a grip safety with a more comfortable one.

I have a full sized Sig GSR 1911 that finally needed an external extractor replaced after about 20k rounds. You know, one of the early ones that reportedly had all those problems. Maybe I'll take Rob up on his generous offer.

Vodoun da Vinci
October 24, 2013, 06:16 AM
I have a completely stock Colt Officers ACP that has never had a FTF, FTE, or any problem in the 25+ years I have owned and been shooting it. Granted, I have never competed with it or trained with it and shot a couple thousand rounds a day with it.

Maybe that's the issue. Not so much reliability as not being able to shoot hundreds of rounds filthy dirty and fast without a malfunction?

I don't know about that but I'm tempted to give it a whirl.

Voodoo

mes228
October 24, 2013, 07:53 AM
There are exceptions in everything. I have several 1911's that are reliable and accurate. However, overall Pincus is right. I carry a plastic pistol. I have several plastic pistols of various brands that I would carry before I would carry a 1911.
I've had many 1911's that jammed on occasion. I've never had a Glock (several), H&K (several), CZ 75 P07 Duty (two), XD (several) Sigs (several) etc.etc.etc. In fact I've owned many more reliable plastic guns than 1911's. I also like the weight and capacity of plastic pistols for carry.

I love 1911's for the aesthetics, the accuracy, the triggers, the ease of shooting them accurately, the quality and heft of steel, etc.etc. And shoot them a lot at the range. But I carry plastic as the only thing that really means anything is "does it work, any time, all the time?". Just my opinion and yours may be different.

mavracer
October 24, 2013, 09:39 AM
Maybe that's the issue. Not so much reliability as not being able to shoot hundreds of rounds filthy dirty and fast without a malfunction?
He's not just banking on the gun malfunctioning but that 1500 rounds and 12 hours in you'll have a brain fart and forget to manipulate the thumb safety.

tarosean
October 24, 2013, 12:10 PM
Interestingly enough....

Here is a recent quote from another trainer (swiped from another forum).

My personal experience mirrors his. Lots of people seem to suffer from malfunction amnesia though....

And fwiw, my biggest realization wasn't that the 1911 was awesome (apologies to all). It was that most of the other guns I see week in and week out in classes -- guns that are supposed to be so much better & more reliable than the 1911 like Glocks and M&Ps -- weren't really as reliable as a lot of us had convinced ourselves. Do a lot of 1911 shooters have mechanical issues with their guns during a 1,200rd 2-day class? Yup. But so do a lot of <insert favorite polymer gun here> shooters.

If you're going to need to replace half the parts to get the gun running, and you're going to replace another half dozen parts to customize/ergonomic-ize the gun to your taste, how is that different than the alleged issues with a 1911?

9mmepiphany
October 24, 2013, 12:19 PM
you'll have a brain fart and forget to manipulate the thumb safety.
If you're going to carry a 1911...I did as a duty gun...you should have ingrained wiping off the thumb safety as the muzzle rotates onto the target. I've carried pistols without thumb safeties for years...SIG, Glock, M&P, Kahr...and my thumb still sweeps the area, where thumb safety would be, during my presentation.

Sweeping the thumb safety off should be part of your subconscious pattern when presenting the gun from the holster. When you remove the gun from the holster and do not intend to fire...stowing/cleaning/administrative loading...it should be a conscious action to not thumb down the safety.

If you forget to disengage the thumb safety during a defensive drill, you either need to practice more or pick another platform for your carry gun

mavracer
October 24, 2013, 12:33 PM
If you forget to disengage the thumb safety during a defensive drill, you either need to practice more or pick another platform for your carry gun
So if you're not perfect, you should practice, Well no S@*&.
I guess I should have added every possible shooter induced malfunction possible in my post to eliminate nit picking my one possible scenario.

Derek Zeanah
October 24, 2013, 01:30 PM
I'm far from the most experienced poster here, but since our Gunsite trip was mentioned I thought I'd speak up.

I think the 1911 is a fine handgun, and I'm convinced that a good version will run well. I bought a $550 1911, shot 50 rounds before boxing it up and taking it to Gunsite, then ran it dirty most of the class. 1,200 rounds with no failures that weren't operator-induced isn't bad, really. (Yes, I added 6 drops of CLP, but I couldn't help myself. I'm not sure the pistol needed it.)

There are some caveats about the platform, however: Yes, there's an external safety that needs to be disengaged before firing. You should train to do so -- it's second nature for most of us, and is just part of the draw stroke. It works. It's got some advantages.
Magazines matter. We ran 5 different magazine types, marked for testing, and none of them failed on us. All were high quality though. And I should note that base pads make a difference, and if you're going to use them or not then do so consistently. Speed reloads in training where ~ 20 magazines have base pads and two don't may mean that you don't seat those 2 consistently. Pick a style and stick to it.
We had something like 25 people on the line, with all sorts of pistols, and none had any real problems except one, which had to go to the gunsmith. In that case it was a Ruger rep with an interim model of their 1911 (the final design wasn't yet finished) and a spring wasn't to spec.
The 1911 is a product of another age, where labor was cheap and automation was expensive. It's meant to be made by real people, and they aren't all as consistent as we might have liked. We ran STI guns with no issue, Tang's gun was awesome, my Rock Island was perfect throughout the class, but another Philippine 1911 I brought never finished a single magazine without a malfunction. (The factory will fix/replace it free of charge and has a lifetime guarantee on it, but I haven't sent it off yet. Not sure what I'm waiting for.) If you're going to use a pistol for anything other than plinking, then test it with the ammo you intend to use. This goes for any gun, not just 1911's.
Likewise, train to deal with failures. They happen. Sometimes it's ammo, sometimes it's because the environment has entered your firearm or magazine and causes a problem, sometimes it's the gun, and sometimes it's just bad luck. If you get a malfunction you should be able to clear it and get the gun back in action without any/much thought. That's just basic competence.I like the 1911, and I think they run well. They're not as tolerant of abuse as some, but a pair of them ran 6,000 rounds each without cleaning and without failure way back at the beginning of the last century before they were adopted by the military. If yours isn't running well, either there's something wrong with it, or there's something wrong with you.

Both types of problems can be corrected. :)

9mmepiphany
October 24, 2013, 01:42 PM
I guess I should have added every possible shooter induced malfunction possible in my post to eliminate nit picking my one possible scenario.

In the OP, the user induced malfunction concerned the thumb safety. Your post mentioned the same. I don't think it is nit picking to stay on track with the subject of the OP.

Name one that shouldn't be sub-conscious before you start carrying that gun for defensive purposes. Name one that is possible with a 1911 that isn't with a Glock or M&P.

Perfection isn't possible, but to blindly/knowingly accept less in a defensive firearm is setting yourself up for failure

Master Blaster
October 24, 2013, 01:48 PM
So let me get this straight he is offering a financial incentive to attendees of his class to bring a gun he knows will malfunction. He must be a great instructor.!!!!

mavracer
October 24, 2013, 02:05 PM
Name one that is possible with a 1911 that isn't with a Glock or M&P.
Grip safety;)

Deaf Smith
October 24, 2013, 02:14 PM
There are exceptions in everything. I have several 1911's that are reliable and accurate. However, overall Pincus is right. I carry a plastic pistol. I have several plastic pistols of various brands that I would carry before I would carry a 1911.
I've had many 1911's that jammed on occasion. I've never had a Glock (several), H&K (several), CZ 75 P07 Duty (two), XD (several) Sigs (several) etc.etc.etc. In fact I've owned many more reliable plastic guns than 1911's. I also like the weight and capacity of plastic pistols for carry.

I love 1911's for the aesthetics, the accuracy, the triggers, the ease of shooting them accurately, the quality and heft of steel, etc.etc. And shoot them a lot at the range. But I carry plastic as the only thing that really means anything is "does it work, any time, all the time?". Just my opinion and yours may be different.
Pretty much the same experience as I have.

Deaf

Teachu2
October 24, 2013, 02:19 PM
I have three 1911-based guns that have proven highly reliable: a Series 70 Colt Govt; a Series 80 Colt stainless Govt; and a LB SRP. All have been flawless in their current configurations, with the Baer being a plesant surprise - that is one TIGHT pistol.

I would take a Glock to training over any of my 1911s, because I carry the Glocks, but it would be tempting to take a 1911 just to prove him wrong....

9mmepiphany
October 24, 2013, 02:26 PM
Grip safety;)
While I'd say that is something that should also be part of the subconscious when carrying a 1911, I'm sure that is why he recommends against this also.

This is an additional factor when considering what not to take to a class. Gripping a "bit off", too high, or having a overly sensitive grip safety can really ruin your shot

9mmepiphany
October 24, 2013, 02:28 PM
So let me get this straight he is offering a financial incentive to attendees of his class to bring a gun he knows will malfunction.
No, he's challenging you to prove that your 1911 won't malfunction

hemiram
November 1, 2013, 03:57 AM
The only 1911's I've seen that didn't have some sort of issue, even a minor one, are ones that were older and rattled like crazy. A friend has his grandfather's old gun from the 30's, not much blue left, and a little pitted, and if you shake it, it rattles, a lot. It shoots great though. No limp wristing nonsense like some of his "nice" 1911's have. No feed issues, no jams, it just shoots away.

Myself, I've had two 1911's, and I'm done with them. I only have one .45ACP gun, a S&W 4506, it hasn't missed a beat. If I want to buy another .45ACP gun, a 1911 is not on my list.

atomd
November 1, 2013, 07:36 PM
I think part of the problem is what people consider to be quality and what people associate cost versus reliability with. It's not about the cost of it either. Just because you bought an $1100 Kimber at Cabelas doesn't mean you bought the most reliable gun on the planet because you spent $1100 on it. Cutting the barrel in half on a 1911 doesn't mean it's going to work the same as it did when it was full length either. There's a lot more to the equation with any 1911 let alone a compact model.

Cranky CJ
November 2, 2013, 01:22 AM
I think I'd take him up on his offer with my $369 Rock Island Armory .45. It has been years and thousands of rounds of stuff I've loaded that its had any kind of 'didn't go bang" issue. Fact is, since I've started loading for it, its never failed to go bang.

In fairness, my XD9 has NEVER failed to go bang either. Confidence level with that gun is 100%.

9mmepiphany
November 2, 2013, 01:34 AM
Let us know how it goes when you complete the class

Quack
November 2, 2013, 10:17 AM
3 days, 2000rds, no cleaning, no extra lube, no malfunctions.

In the same class, there were malfunctions on XDM's, Sigs, HK, 1911, M&P, Beretta and Glocks. There was not a single platform that had a flawless gun, well except for the 2011 (maybe). Costa used one (STI Tactical 4.0) for 2 days, another student used a 2011 (Nighthawk) on 1-2 days, and i let another student borrow my STI Tactical 4.15 after one of her 1911 went down. I can't say if the others ran the 2011 if they would've been trouble free, but they performed great.

Here's some photo's of mine after the 3 days.

http://photosbydon.smugmug.com/photos/i-3HdnTgq/0/L/i-3HdnTgq-L.jpg

http://photosbydon.smugmug.com/photos/i-tpKW9Fx/0/L/i-tpKW9Fx-L.jpg

http://photosbydon.smugmug.com/photos/i-MFk2ZMS/0/L/i-MFk2ZMS-L.jpg

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

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

http://photosbydon.smugmug.com/photos/i-Kb2vGg5/0/L/i-Kb2vGg5-L.jpg

http://photosbydon.smugmug.com/photos/i-rb3TBzh/0/L/i-rb3TBzh-L.jpg

http://photosbydon.smugmug.com/photos/i-m8mNdXP/0/L/i-m8mNdXP-L.jpg

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

http://photosbydon.smugmug.com/photos/i-mhqGdQ4/0/L/i-mhqGdQ4-L.jpg

mavracer
November 2, 2013, 12:26 PM
No, he's challenging you to prove that your 1911 won't malfunction
Not entirely true since he includes shooter malfunctions.
My question if he calls it a malfunction to reholster a 1911 without engaging the manual safety then how do Glocks pass. Since it's arguably safer to holster a 1911 than it is a Glock.

9mmepiphany
November 2, 2013, 02:19 PM
My question if he calls it a malfunction to reholster a 1911 without engaging the manual safety then how do Glocks pass. Since it's arguably safer to holster a 1911 than it is a Glock.
I would propose that it is only a malfunction is you have a ND while holstering.

I would also say that the relative safety of holstering the two examples is completely dependent on technique and has nothing to do with the platforms...for either to experience a ND would require something to enter the trigger guard

mavracer
November 2, 2013, 03:57 PM
I would propose that it is only a malfunction is you have a ND while holstering.
Wouldn't it be nice if people were entitled to their own opinion but according to Rob you are wrong. It is a malfunction to reholster without engaging the manual safety.
I would also say that the relative safety of holstering the two examples is completely dependent on technique and has nothing to do with the platforms...for either to experience a ND would require something to enter the trigger guard
Except that there is no technique for one platform that would prevent a ND with something in the trigger guard.
There is really no way to assure you are safely reholstering a Glock without diverting your eyes from your surroundings to the holster. IMO this is a tactical liability

tipoc
November 2, 2013, 05:31 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if people were entitled to their own opinion but according to Rob you are wrong. It is a malfunction to reholster without engaging the manual safety.

Yes, according to the challenge, if the shooter fails to either put on, or swipe off the safety when the instructor feels you should, it is a "shooter induced malfunction" and you fail the challenge.

Given that Mr. Pincus advocates for no safeties on guns of any external type other than the trigger it should be expected that the instructors there would expect to validate the utility of that concept by showing how external safeties can "cause" or induce malfunctions, under his definition of a malfunction.

Remember this isn't a combat oriented torture test or shooting endurance challenge like an Iron Man triathlon for guns. The word "Challenge" doesn't mean a competition or a level playing field. It's a combat oriented class where the shooter follows the instructors direction. I'd expect the instructor will put the 1911, BHP, M9 shooter under pressure to have a "malfunction" if for no other reason than to show that an external safety is problematic.

tipoc

9mmepiphany
November 2, 2013, 07:05 PM
There is really no way to assure you are safely reholstering a Glock without diverting your eyes from your surroundings to the holster. IMO this is a tactical liability
At Gunsite, they teach to reluctantly holster...it isn't a speed contest. What they mean is that you should be clearly in a reduced alert level before you even think of reholstering...bear in mind that we are talking about non-LE usage.

Now that I'm no longer in LE, I think this would greatly reduce your "tactical liability"

mavracer
November 2, 2013, 08:02 PM
Now that I'm no longer in LE, I think this would greatly reduce your "tactical liability"
See this illistrates of the problems that almost universally exists with "trainers".
What does you not being LE anymore have anything to do with me or my needs?

9mmepiphany
November 2, 2013, 09:10 PM
Different level of tactical liability due to differing levels of expected interaction before the threat level is reduced enough to reholster

Zerodefect
November 2, 2013, 09:40 PM
At Gunsite, they teach to reluctantly holster...it isn't a speed contest. What they mean is that you should be clearly in a reduced alert level before you even think of reholstering...bear in mind that we are talking about non-LE usage.

Now that I'm no longer in LE, I think this would greatly reduce your "tactical liability"

Except for when It's a speed contest if your trying to transition back to your rifle.
So for carbine training and 3 gun competition, I always choose my 1911's over my Glock. A safer, faster reholster is handy, in that exact situation.

Also there is the stressed "Where do I put my gun so I can grab my kid" problem. I'd likely just toss my Glock and not even bother reholstering it.

Still, I'll have to look this trainer up in the future. My biggest concern is magazines and whether I can clean my gear at the end of the day. 500 rounds without cleaning is not a real life problem I'm concerned about.

9mmepiphany
November 2, 2013, 11:07 PM
I'll point out that I was talking about handgun usage in a hand gun course.

But I'll follow that drift with a question that I've always wondered about. If you need to transition from you handgun to a carbine, wouldn't it make more sense to just let the handgun drop...as it is either inoperative or ineffective; otherwise why would you transition to begin with?

Isn't that why folks use lanyards on their handguns?

...or is the thought process different than letting an expended magazine or speedloader fall; or a primary pistol when going for your backup pistol?

mavracer
November 3, 2013, 12:59 AM
Different level of tactical liability due to differing levels of expected interaction before the threat level is reduced enough to reholster
So your not being in law enforcement changes my level of expected interaction.
Somehow I just don't believe that's a correct statement.

9mmepiphany
November 3, 2013, 01:12 AM
Not yours, mine.

When not in LE, there isn't the expectation to have to holster and go hands-on with a suspect (handcuff) while he still presents a viable threat.

This means you would have reduced tactical liability as you wouldn't have to holster while a threat was still present...you can look at your holster while re-holstering; or you shouldn't be reholstering. Why would you feel that you need to reholster while a threat was still being presented?

RetiredUSNChief
November 3, 2013, 04:46 AM
...you can look at your holster while re-holstering; or you shouldn't be reholstering. Why would you feel that you need to reholster while a threat was still being presented?


And excellent point, one once made to me by the police officer who gave me my CCW permit training course in SC. (SC requires an 8 hour training course as part of the CCW permit process.)

TestPilot
November 3, 2013, 06:08 AM
Except that there is no technique for one platform that would prevent a ND with something in the trigger guard.
There is really no way to assure you are safely reholstering a Glock without diverting your eyes from your surroundings to the holster. IMO this is a tactical liability

When assessing risk or liability, it is not sound to only look at one aspect. You need to look at the overall risk and liabilities.

Sure, there might be less risk if the gun's firing is inhibited by some sort of manually operated thumb lever.

But, that manual firing inhibitor device comes at a risk of manipulation failure.

People can shout "It's a training issue" and try to dismiss the risk of manipulation failure all they want, but the fact remains that training issue is still and issue. No matter how much you train, the probability of manipulation failure can only be reduced, but never eliminated.

It is just like no matter how careful a Glock is holstered, there always is a probability of accidental discharge. However, history proves that 1911 is not safe from accidental discharge while holstering either.

Botton line is that if you are arguing that a mistake or accident can happen with a trigger, no matter what the training level, you must accept that mistake or accident can happen with the thumb lever too. It would be irrational to argue that human is imperfect with the former, but at the same time argue that somehow humans are perfect with the later.

Zerodefect
November 3, 2013, 09:45 AM
I'll point out that I was talking about handgun usage in a hand gun course.

But I'll follow that drift with a question that I've always wondered about. If you need to transition from you handgun to a carbine, wouldn't it make more sense to just let the handgun drop...as it is either inoperative or ineffective; otherwise why would you transition to begin with?

Isn't that why folks use lanyards on their handguns?

...or is the thought process different than letting an expended magazine or speedloader fall; or a primary pistol when going for your backup pistol?

We'll I usually transition from carbine to pistol, if the carbine goes down or runs out of ammo. It's quicker to go to pistol at CQB distances than it is to reload a carbine. Then once the threat is reduced, or I have time, I holster up and repair the carbine.

The idea is that speed and constant fire are more important in CQB than which weapon you're using. Obviously at range or behind cover, you'd ignore the pistol and bring the carbine back into the fight.

Marines will avoid the pistol and repair their carbine first instead. Just like how they never, ever chamber check before reloading. Doesn't really matter if they mistake a double feed for an empty mag, when you have a twin on each side of you, still in the fight. That's how their team works. Besides, a pistol is fairly useless where they work.

But for police and us, you have to train as if you're alone. Team tactics stink when civvys are involved, so I train to just transition to pistol anytime my rifle stops. One of the reasons why: It's unlikely I'll ever have a 5.56 reload on my belt.....ever.

The carbine is the primary, not the pistol. If I have to drop the pistol then I have two down guns. A baaad day for anyone. But yeah, I've got no problem dropping my pistol and just making a run for it at that point.

45_auto
November 3, 2013, 10:24 AM
Marines will avoid the pistol and repair their carbine first instead. Just like how they never, ever chamber check before reloading.

Do you have references to ANY training anywhere that teaches doing a chamber check before reloading in a combat situation? Or any other situation, for that matter. I've never even heard of that in the most over-the-top basic civilian range safety classes.

I've had substantial firearm training (Marine, Army, and civilian) and I've never heard anything about "chamber check before reloading" in any of them.

mavracer
November 3, 2013, 12:23 PM
Sure, there might be less risk if the gun's firing is inhibited by some sort of manually operated thumb lever.

But, that manual firing inhibitor device comes at a risk of manipulation failure.
I agree my problem with Rob's challenge is two fold.
1: if you're training properly you will push to the edge and make mistakes, hopefully small ones but mistakes all the same.
2: How can you help somebody to learn how to use a device when you ultimately want to see them fail.

RetiredUSNChief
November 3, 2013, 04:41 PM
If Rob's point is that manual safeties present another opportunity for errors or mistakes in a self-defense scenario, then he should come right out and say that instead of calling personal errors "malfunctions". They're NOT malfunctions.

Holstering a 1911 without putting the safety on is NOT a malfunction, PERIOD. In fact, holstering a 1911 without the safety on pretty much places the weapon in the SAME condition as (gasp) a Glock, a weapon Rob avidly prefers over any 1911 anyway. And it's perfectly acceptable to carry a 1911 this way, if one wishes.

Failing to disengage the safety on a 1911 when drawing the weapon is a PERSONAL error, and yes, it's one that can have bad consequences. But hardly unrecoverable.

I don't have a problem with anybody, especially one who gives self-defense training, pointing out the inherent weaknesses of any given weapons platform, or even preferring one over another. That's to be expected and encouraged.

I DO, however, have a problem with someone spouting BS tripe that is obviously untrue and made up simply to support one's own point of view. I deal with this quite enough from the anti-gun folks and I don't see why we need to engage in this within our own community. Call it like it is and deal with it honestly.

If you enjoyed reading about "1911 reliability in 2-3 day class" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!