The 1911 is still being used!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Don't get me wrong - I LOVE the 1911, but even just look at this thread.

One person's 1911 was great . . . after they changed mags (also mentioning that a friend's Kimber had issues).

Another person's was great after they changed out a spring.

My Philippine made 1911 is great too . . . after I changed out an extractor (I also have an STI double-stack 2011 that has ran flawlessly for 1000's of rounds - but it also cost nearly $3,000).

When they're tuned right the 1911 is a GREAT connoisseur's gun, but there's no denying that the design can be a bit finicky. The gun is great for an enthusiast but for a solider who just needs a tool, there are better choices. For my purposes, I'd prefer a 1911 over either a Beretta 92 or SIG P320, but for the Army's purposes, I think they made the right choice.

It'd be like asking if you'd like to drive a fully restored 1968 Mustang or a Toyota Prius. Now which one makes sense as a company fleet vehicle? Different problem, different solution.
 
Very true. I love and carried 1911s but now I carry a Sig P320 in .45acp.
 
Don't get me wrong - I LOVE the 1911, but even just look at this thread.

One person's 1911 was great . . . after they changed mags (also mentioning that a friend's Kimber had issues).

Another person's was great after they changed out a spring.

My Philippine made 1911 is great too . . . after I changed out an extractor (I also have an STI double-stack 2011 that has ran flawlessly for 1000's of rounds - but it also cost nearly $3,000).

When they're tuned right the 1911 is a GREAT connoisseur's gun, but there's no denying that the design can be a bit finicky. The gun is great for an enthusiast but for a solider who just needs a tool, there are better choices. For my purposes, I'd prefer a 1911 over either a Beretta 92 or SIG P320, but for the Army's purposes, I think they made the right choice.

It'd be like asking if you'd like to drive a fully restored 1968 Mustang or a Toyota Prius. Now which one makes sense as a company fleet vehicle? Different problem, different solution.
Must we believe that precisely manufactured parts meeting the proper designs, dimensions, and tolerances can’t be unerringly assembled into a fully functional 1911? That such parts can’t be mixed and matched without sacrificing functionality?

What was all the grade school history about the Industrial Revolution and standardization of components assembled into a whole device about if not the 1911? I just don’t understand it. At the proper tolerances gun parts including those for the 1911 should be able to be assembled into an essentially perfect gun without hand fitting. Why is it not that way?

I’m not saying that all part brands should be interchangeable, but just that within a given manufacturer or specification among multiple manufacturers completely functional guns should be able to be built off of a table full of parts. We are too good at forging, machining, molding, casting, etc. for that to not be true.
 
Could it be that there is now a plethora of ammunition choices and magazine choices not available for the original 1911s? Making all guns function with all ammo/projectiles and all magazines is a pretty tall order.
After all, sigs use only sig magazines. That takes a lot of the variables affecting reliability off the table. I guarantee that there are ammo choices that don’t run well in a sig 320. How many times have you heard “find what your gun likes and run that”?
Every modern manufacturer puts out a few guns with minor flaws. Most will make it good. I have heard of Glock, Sig, S&W, SA, Ruger, Taurus, and a host of other manufacturers issuing recalls to fix manufacturing issues. I think a well made production 1911 is of good enough (even excellent) quality to be considered as reliable as more “modern” pistols. Their big drawbacks are weight and capacity— not reliability.
I would take a bet that any good 1911 manufacturer would guarantee their product’s reliability if you were restricted to their specified magazines and specified ammo/projectiles.

Those of us who like 1911s DO like to tweak them for our own purposes (ammo, projectiles, favorite mags, handloads for target or defense or other).
 
Could it be that there is now a plethora of ammunition choices and magazine choices not available for the original 1911s? Making all guns function with all ammo/projectiles and all magazines is a pretty tall order.
After all, sigs use only sig magazines. That takes a lot of the variables affecting reliability off the table. I guarantee that there are ammo choices that don’t run well in a sig 320. How many times have you heard “find what your gun likes and run that”?
Every modern manufacturer puts out a few guns with minor flaws. Most will make it good. I have heard of Glock, Sig, S&W, SA, Ruger, Taurus, and a host of other manufacturers issuing recalls to fix manufacturing issues. I think a well made production 1911 is of good enough (even excellent) quality to be considered as reliable as more “modern” pistols. Their big drawbacks are weight and capacity— not reliability.
I would take a bet that any good 1911 manufacturer would guarantee their product’s reliability if you were restricted to their specified magazines and specified ammo/projectiles.

Those of us who like 1911s DO like to tweak them for our own purposes (ammo, projectiles, favorite mags, handloads for target or defense or other).
Good insight.
 
We would still be using the 1911 in 45 Auto if it weren't for NATO. It was a compromise, they agreed to use the .308 (7.62x51mm) so we had to agree to used the 9mm. Our military are still using the 1911 in some cases even though it's not the standard issue.
Not quite.

The Army was looking to replace the M1911A1 with something in 9mm as far back as 1953, even before 7.62mm became NATO standard. Economics dictated otherwise, with thousands of M1911A1, most less than 10 years old and lightly used, why buy more pistols?
 
Don't get me wrong - I LOVE the 1911, but even just look at this thread.

One person's 1911 was great . . . after they changed mags (also mentioning that a friend's Kimber had issues).

Another person's was great after they changed out a spring.

My Philippine made 1911 is great too . . . after I changed out an extractor (I also have an STI double-stack 2011 that has ran flawlessly for 1000's of rounds - but it also cost nearly $3,000).

When they're tuned right the 1911 is a GREAT connoisseur's gun, but there's no denying that the design can be a bit finicky. The gun is great for an enthusiast but for a solider who just needs a tool, there are better choices. For my purposes, I'd prefer a 1911 over either a Beretta 92 or SIG P320, but for the Army's purposes, I think they made the right choice.

It'd be like asking if you'd like to drive a fully restored 1968 Mustang or a Toyota Prius. Now which one makes sense as a company fleet vehicle? Different problem, different solution.

Yeah, I love the 1911, but there is a saying I've read somewhere ( and I'm sure I won't get it exactly right ) that I'd have to agree with: You show your Colts & Kimbers to your friends. You show your enemies your Glock.

Tuckerdog1
 
AACD

BTW there were still National Guard units using the .30-06 in 1973 (M1 Rifle, BAR, and M1919 A4 and A6 ) and I have to wonder how long the 1911A1 lasted in the National Guard as well.

I was issued a 1911 in the US Navy in 1989. I got out in 1992, then joined the Army National Guard in 1994 and was issued an M9.
 
The reason aftermarket parts will not "drop in" a 1911 is because there are so many manufacturers today and they all seem to be working off of a different blueprint. The variations and tolerances are all over the map. It seems as if some of them got their blueprints from Wikipedia........ It's not that they cannot hold the tolerances tightly enough - they just don't bother.
 
What was all the grade school history about the Industrial Revolution and standardization of components assembled into a whole device about if not the 1911? I just don’t understand it. At the proper tolerances gun parts including those for the 1911 should be able to be assembled into an essentially perfect gun without hand fitting. Why is it not that way?

Because companies are driven by sales departments not engineering departments. Sales people seem to always think that something needs to be better, cooler, slicker to sell well. Engineering is left to “make it work”. Take Kimber for example. They make fine guns, but in a lot of different configurations, and with fine tolerances. Unfortunately, with a higher failure rate. What do you think would happen if Kimber only made one model and like the 1911’s of old, it rattled?
 
The reason aftermarket parts will not "drop in" a 1911 is because there are so many manufacturers today and they all seem to be working off of a different blueprint. The variations and tolerances are all over the map. It seems as if some of them got their blueprints from Wikipedia........ It's not that they cannot hold the tolerances tightly enough - they just don't bother.
Sure, I agree. I wouldn’t propose that aftermarket would just drop in and work. But if there were two or three contractors supplying the military or a large LE organization, specifications should be tight enough under the contract to allow interchangeability.
 
About the Glocks, I am just having a little fun with you folks. I should have been using emojis to make it clear I’m just messing with you. :)

True, I don’t like them for aesthetic reasons. Blocky, stocky, clunky compared to almost any other gun, especially 1911s. And I don’t care for the trigger pull even compared to my SR9 which is less than wonderful itself. I’m just a single action pistol guy down at the heart of the matter.

This is a good thread. I don’t want to be the cause of it going off the rails.
 
I have one in 10MM and at least one in 45 Automatic. I do love my 1911's as tools and toys. I tend to carry my G27 mostly, but on occasion will haul around a full size 1911. I just love guns.
 
Regardless of all the ranting by 1911 and ,45 enthusiasts, they are gone and never coming back. Just like the
Trapdoor , the Krag and the Springfield.
 
Regardless of all the ranting by 1911 and ,45 enthusiasts, they are gone and never coming back.

Into general military issue? Probably right, and for entirely sensible reasons.

As commercially-viable products for shooters who get to choose their own guns? Preposterous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vba
Into general military issue? Probably right, and for entirely sensible reasons.

As commercially-viable products for shooters who get to choose their own guns? Preposterous.
Why are the reasons sensible? If you make the 1911 frame out of polymer and modify it for double stack and the slide and barrel for any specified caliber, I think you have a nearly perfect handgun. Produce it in whichever size is appropriate for the use with some slight reengineering to guarantee functionality in that size and, voila, there is little left to complain about. Manufacture it to the necessary tight tolerances for reliability. The necessity of condition 1 carry is no drawback IMO. Before anyone says, "But that's not a 1911," I beg to differ. The essential features of single action and hammer fired are preserved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vba
They will always be available vfor civilian use, just like the Colt SAA and cap & ball revolvers are.

Many peoploe, myself included, love old historical arms. I still have two Match Grade (bullseye) 1911s, and I love to shoot them. but thst doesn't make them viable for military/LE usage.
 
Robert, all that stuff is expensive. Stuff like the barrel link is always going to make the gun more sensitive to fitting than an inherently-sloppy design like a Glock or Sig 320.

I say that as someone whose CC gun is most often a commander-length 1911, and who thinks, in terms of pure shooting performance, 1911-based guns are very tough to beat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top