The 1911...I just don't get it.

I think at this point, there are pistols that are better than the M1911 in almost every respect. Nevertheless it is still my favorite handgun. If only because after 100 years there isn't anything you can't do with an M1911 so long as you have money and time and expertise (or the former two and access to a good gunsmith). My M1911 is currently giving me trouble but I'll get that sorted out soon enough.

I'm a shooter, not a gunsmith. My guns have to be reliable. That is, if I'm going to use them to defend myself. If they are range guns that I shoot for fun, then reliability isn't so important. The people who bad mouth the modern guns like Glocks and such often cite the plastic used in production. That doesn't matter to me in a gun I will use for defending myself. I can't really understand why anyone would mention it. If the gun is reliable I don't care if it is made of corn. Now the 1911's, of which I have a few, are great guns and I wouldn't give them up. But they are not as reliable as some of the new disigns. If you're a gunsmith, then fine, you can tune them and adjust here and there continually and so forth, but these guns will never be as reliable as some of the newer designs. I like 'em both. The 1911 feels wonderfull. But it is heavy and unreliable.

whalerman

The 1911 feels wonderfull. But it is heavy and unreliable

Click to expand...

.

They are not all unreliable...despite the common consenus among many. I have been around awhile and the majority of the 1911s that I have had, have been reliable out of the box and this is across several different brands and in the mid-range as far as price...as I have never been willing to cough up the money for a custom. We cast bullets, reload and shoot competitions with these guns and I will trust any of them to defend me if called upon...and I am not a gunsmith.YMMV

And, just for the sake of the record, I have a Glock 17 in the safe that has always had it's share of malfunctions using factory ammo as we do not reload 9mm because we only have the one gun in that caliber and it is seldom shot.

Also, for the record, my CCW is a 642 in my pocket because I know that it gives me the advantage of having my hand on my gun without anyone knowing that I have it...and that means that I WILL get out of the gate first if the situation goes south.

Look, the ultra-reliables didn't come out until the Beretta 92. Colt 1911s were not so hot out of the box and often needed/needs work before it becomes ultra-reliable.

In the first real military test, the Beretta scored an average of one malfunction out of 2,000 or so rounds, which was astounding. Next in line was the S&W 459, which malfunctioned an average of once every 952 rounds, which was still phenomenal! The Colt 1911 control gun? It failed once or twice every 100 rounds. A joke!

Since then, Sigs and Glocks, S&Ws and many others that are ultrareliables have hit the market. It's not unusual to buy a gun for $500 and to never have a jam or malfunction. You just keep shooting the hollowpoints through them and they work every time. But take a $1,200 Kimber 1911 knock-off or one of these other copies and you have to have it slicked up by a gunsmith before it becomes ultrareliable!

What I'm saying is that the Colt 1911 design is not an ultrareliable design!

I have a S&W 645 that you can get for about $475, and the thing feeds empty (sized) .45 cases! It strips them right off the top of the magazine and seats them in the chamber. Let's see a Kimber do that! And the 645 will shoot all day long without jamming.



...

The 1911...I just don't get it.

Click to expand...

I don't like pickles. It's the same thing.

Confederate


In the first real military test, the Beretta scored an average of one malfunction out of 2,000 or so rounds, which was astounding. Next in line was the S&W 459, which malfunctioned an average of once every 952 rounds, which was still phenomenal! The Colt 1911 control gun? It failed once or twice every 100 rounds. A joke!

Click to expand...

Just google military handgun test March 15 1911 and you will see that the 1911 fired 6000 rounds without a single malfunction. So, 2000 rounds is not so impressive for a gun in the 1980's...and this is not to disperage the M9 as it is a fine firearm.

Was the "control" 1911 in the M9 tests decades old? Because IIRC the government had not procured new M1911s since 1952.

shootniron said:

Just google military handgun test March 15 1911 and you will see that the 1911 fired 6000 rounds without a single malfunction. So, 2000 rounds is not so impressive for a gun in the 1980's...and this is not to disperage the M9 as it is a fine firearm.

Click to expand...

On 15 March 1911, an endurance test was held. The test involved having each gun fire 6000 rounds, with cleaning after every one hundred shots fired, then allowing them to cool for 5 minutes. After every 1000 rounds, the pistol would be cleaned and oiled.

Click to expand...

I can't find the details of the 1980's trials, but I kind of doubt they cleaned the guns every 100 rounds.

But take a $1,200 Kimber 1911 knock-off or one of these other copies and you have to have it slicked up by a gunsmith before it becomes ultrareliable!

Click to expand...

Uh, no. That's just a foolish statement.

What I'm saying is that the Colt 1911 design is not an ultrareliable design!

Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that you are just simply incorrect. But these are our opinions.




I like 1911's.
I like Glocks but I found that I have to perform a grip reduction before they will point correctly for me.
The unnatural grip angle will not allow a Glock to give me a proper sight picture without canting my wrist forward.
That doesn't make them bad, that makes them a less than perfect choice for me.

If a 1911 fits your hand naturally, a Glock usually won't.
If a Glock fits your hand naturally, a 1911 usually won't.

Good thing there's choices out there.

You know, all these threads about 1911 unreliability become huge yawns when you do own reliable 1911s.

I guess I dont care if anyone thinks they arent, but pushing 10k rounds in competition has convinced me, its a reliable design.

I've only owned about eight 1911's.

2 new and 6 used.

They were all totally reliable, all of them.

The only time any of them became "unreliable" was after I'd modified them.

Imagine that.

fwiw: I own and carry both 1911's and Glocks.

Beauty


and the Beast

Before I got into shooting, I'd read a lot of people talking about how comfortable single stacks were compared with double stacks. I still looked over things and thought I wanted to go with a high-capacity .40, but a coworker took me to the range. I tried his 1911 in .45, and it felt like I was holding a piece of silverware. Okay, not exactly, but it felt weird in my hand, but I still shot okay with it. I rented a XDm 40 (when it was the only .40 model in XDm) and it felt like a dream.

I believe this is because of my heavy gaming background. A double-stack feels a lot more like a mouse than a single-stack does.

In the first real military test, the Beretta scored an average of one malfunction out of 2,000 or so rounds, which was astounding. Next in line was the S&W 459, which malfunctioned an average of once every 952 rounds, which was still phenomenal! The Colt 1911 control gun? It failed once or twice every 100 rounds. A joke!

Click to expand...

See attached. Very interesting read.

The "45 control" average # of rounds between malfunctions was 165 in the 1981 test and 162 in the 1984 test. In the 1984 test, the worst gun averaged 93 shots between jams, the best weapon was 467. Compare this to the Beretta which worst gun was 875 rounds between jams, the best weapon exceeded 3,500 rounds between jams. Of course, even the military tests are only so valid with the small sample size they tested. I don't think the 1911 design is unreliable, it is maybe just not AS reliable as the Beretta or Glocks.

Also interesting to note was that the 1911 aced the mud test while all the others had some jams.

Not sure if these were brand-spanking new 1911's that they were testing.

Regarding the 1911, "If I have to explain you just wouldn't understand"

Shot what you like and what you can handle, darn the rest.

I prefer Glocks as my carry pistols, but I also enjoy shooting my 1911s.

I love 1911's. I like Kahrs, Sigs & HK's. You could only get me to carry a Glock if my other choice was a bag of rocks. If someone has to explain a 1911 to you after shooting one, you would never get it anyhow.

How many times are we going to have this discussion before we all just shoot what we like and don't worry what the other guy is shooting?

How many times are we going to have this discussion before we all just shoot what we like and don't worry what the other guy is shooting?

Click to expand...

You know, you'd think that, but then there are the threads "what 10 guns should every person have?" 1911 often pops up.

I've been shooting 1911s for 35 years. The only one that was unreliable got fixed pretty easily. I can't remember the last time I've had a problem with either of my two current ones - and they are both standard-grade Colts.

Tried G17s and 19s, felt like they were from another planet, and I was all over the target with them. Then I tried a G30, and liked it enough to buy one. And a G34, and a G21. (And a M&P 9c, a Sig 20229, and a Ruger LC9.) I spent a few hundred rounds on the 34 before I found a hand position that worked well - and I'm getting pretty good with it.

I will always prefer a 1911 for target shooting, but the G30 is my CCW.

I could never get used to how close the trigger is to the handle. always felt like I was shooting a gun designed for a 5 year olds hand. Its almost like you are pinching the trigger instead of squeezing it. I like a trigger that's out there another 1/3 or 1/2 inch that I can actually pull.

Click to expand...

Actually that's part of the beauty of the 1911. You want a short trigger? Medium? Long? How about an arched main spring housing or a flat. You can mix and match the trigger and MSH to get a custom fit.

A 1911 trigger is pulled.. but it just eliminates all that pre travel. A good carry trigger is set at 4-5 pounds.. it does not go off until you reach that level of pull. My carry gun, I pull until I reach 4.5 lbs.. BANG.. lift to reset, and then another 4.5 lbs until the next BANG.

I didn't "get it" either, for a long time. While I appreciated the pistol, it just seemed to be overly long and heavy, with a relatively cumbersome takedown process (compared to "modern" pistols like the Sig, etc...). The slide stop particularly vexed me.

Then the bug bit me, and bit me hard. Over the past few years, I've grown to really appreciate the 1911. Though the slide stop still vexes me.

When built to original specs, and properly maintained, the 1911 goes bang with regularity.

Magazine fed semi-autos... Some like them, some don't. Good to have choices, eh?

i wanted a 1911(still do) but i was handling a few usps at the last gunshow and they just felt right in my hand. If i come across a good deal on one i probably get it over a 1911

First off, I don't own a Glock so I am not biased toward them. However, I hear a lot of posters bashing Glocks because of the awkward, unnatural feel. When I bought my first gun, I looked at a Glock and I thought the same thing, so I didn't buy one. The Glocks I looked at were generation 3 (the gen 4 had not come out yet) and there were other guns that had more confortable ergonomics (like the Sig 226 that I ended up buying). After the gen 4 Glocks came out, I shot a couple and the gen 4 is much more pleasurable to shoot than the gen 3.

I wouldn't object to owning a Glock if it was a gen 4.