Great article about the 1911, good and bad

The fault most folks have these days is the mentality that there has to be a "best" everything, rather than picking the right tool for a job.

The 1911 is better for some things than modern guns. Modern guns are better at other things.

I have a lot of pistols, and so far the out of the box accuracy of a 1911 is better than the Sigs, Rugers, and Smiths I have picked up. The only things I have picked up new that can come close are SA capable revolvers and my CZ75. A good 1911 trigger is better than all but the wheelguns.

That said, I carry plastic 99% of the time, mostly because they are lighter and accuracy is "good enough." Unless someone has a "surprise" bullseye match, the polymer I carry can do what needs to be done. Sweat exposure? No problem. Capacity? An improvement.

As far as 1911's needing "upgrades" - nope. People upgrade them because they want to. And if Glocks are beyond improvement, why do they have such a huge aftermarket? People want to change them, they don't need to.

And there's nothing wrong with Dinosaurs. Put any modern creature into the ring with a T-Rex and see who ends up as dinner.

Vern Humphrey said:

Personally, I think it's time for the Army to adopt the M1911A2 -- with lowered and beveled ejection port, Novak-type sights, and a beavertail grip safety with a "speed bump" and 8-round magazines. Put some research into combat-legal ammo, and I'd bet you'd have a real winner.

Click to expand...

Neat idea. But personally, I have some minor qualms with this.

First of all, the sidearm isn't a primary weapon at all for combat. So some of these modifications are rather pointless, in my opinion.

The beavertail grip safety is pretty pointless in this useage, as is the "speed bump" version.

I don't see why any modifications need to be made to the ejection port, either.

Novak type sights? Meh. I see some benefit to higher visibility sights, but not much beyond that.

8 round magazines have a proven performance track record for reliability, unlike some of the higher capacity magazines for this pistol, so I suppose that's one (minor) change that'd pass muster in my opinion.

And "combat-legal ammo" requires no research. It's ball ammo.


The combat sidearm isn't something that needs to be special...at least, not anything more special than historically. While I'm all about having the best for our troops, I'm also aware that there is "the best" and then there's "practical realities". And the plain practical reality is that the sidearm just isn't all that much of a concern in the big picture...certainly not enough to take an already proven platform and make it more expensive with what amounts to minor modifications with dubious benefits for the soldier in the field.

Don't get me wrong...I own my own Colt in that platform and love it a lot.

On a semi-related subject (since Yam himself noted this in the linked blog), Hilton Yam is the third industry professional of note who has switched from the 1911 to the S&W M&P in 9mm ... First Pat Rogers, then I caught an recent interview with Bill Rogers, now Yam. Hmm. Well, at least they didn't switch to Glocks ...

Very interesting, insightful and personally revealing article by Yam. As he says his "Personal Path Away..."

It says more about him and the changes in the industry over the last 20 years than about the 1911.

tipoc

The M1911. because tens of thousands of Moros, Hatians, Mexicans, Germans, Russians, Nicaraguans, Italians, Japanese, Viet Cong and North Vietnamese can't be wrong.

Click to expand...

Ah, no. Only officers carried the 1911, and most of those don't go into combat with that only. The MP's in their days carried a long rifle, too. If anything, a certain SGM in Vietnam accounted for a large number of VC in one battle that were killed with a 1911. Let's not exaggerate that the average Infantry platoon had up to three squads of rifle shooters, a grenade launcher in each squad, and a heavy weapons squad with MGs or mortar. And just one 2LT who might have the 1911. More likely, another rifle.

Let's not gild the lily, pistols in warfare aren't common. That's why whatever gun superceded the 1911 really doesn't make much difference. It's a showpiece of rank for officers and something easier to carry on street duty for an MP.

Mr. Yam's article is, unfortunately, all opinion and little fact. He does recognize the issue but fails to identify the cause - many of the 1911's we see today stray far from the original design, and most aren't shot with the ammo it was made to shoot - Ball.

Military weapons are designed to function, reliably, with military loadings, and those loads are highly restricted in terms of options, powders, bullets, etc. A military shelf of ammo that is currently issued has one or two choices, largely because we need to shoot up the last rounds of what has been superceded. But highly varied bullet weights, gas pressures, and bullet shapes are anathema - you don't see the military shooting white box plinker rounds for practice. It's ALWAYS full power battle ammo, same as issued in combat.

What are the 1911 shooters of today attempting? Well, that actually goes back over 35 years now, when they first started shooting cheaper wadcutters for target and competition, and others carried the first hollowpoints for self defense. Neither were optimal for the design, and that's when all the great 1911 gunsmiths got their start trying to force non optimal rounds to feed in guns that were never meant to shoot them. If there is one major failure in the use of the 1911, it's using something other than ball ammo. From there, all the alterations to make it do so have come down the years as "improvements" when in fact they are actually the cause of the reliability issues.

Second - adopting race gun parts. Most of the "competition proven" enhancements are for range gun use only. They often don't have a place for a daily carry duty gun, and are even the cause of things going from bad to worse. The original sights were fairly low profile and resisted snags, then adjustable hi profile target sights were added. That makes the top of the slide a snag master, which only adds to the difficulty of withdrawing it from a holster if carried under a jacket. In that regard, the confrontation is usually less than 21 feet and service sights are more than adequate.

Goes to a lot of other race mods, like aggressive mag releases that do if the gun is compressed in the holster. Seat belts do that, and also manipulate ambidextrous safeties.

Mr. Yam isn't wrong about pointing out the "1911" has problems as a service pistol, what he isn't saying is that most of todays 1911's aren't service pistols. They are the descendants of fluff and buffed competition guns attempting to shoot hollowpoints, which as a class of ammo is problematic in feeding across the board. It takes a gun designed with appropriate feed ramps to do that, and why the M&P seems to be a more reliable choice. What is happening is that it's a comparision between apples and oranges - the highly modified race 1911's and the bone stock issue M&P.

Send that M&P down the road with a five year exercise in making it a competition gun with two dozen gunsmiths tinkering with the features and then compare them. No doubt it will come back as a finicky unreliable shooter unfit for duty - which is what happens to any duty gun modified for competition.

Ah, no. Only officers carried the 1911,

Click to expand...

This was not true Tirod. Sidearms at the turn of the century were regularly issued to all soldiers in cavalry units, artillery units, and select infantry units and assignments. The U.S. Army had a long tradition of this.

During WWI an effort was made for all troops to be issued the 1911 (or a 45acp revolver) or a suitable substitute.

For most of the 20th century the standard sidearm of officers in the U.S. Army was the Colt M1903 pocket hammerless pistol in 32acp and later 380acp.

It is an exaggeration to claim the 1911 won any wars but the gun was widely distributed to regular troops of the Army, Navy, Marines and the new air corp by the time of the first WW.

tipoc

1911s as sidearms/CCW guns.....

I agree with some of the points Yam made.
The 1911a1 .45acp isn't "all that" for most shooters/CCW license holders.
Many 1911 pistols take a lot of TLC & proper after market parts to keep them going; barrels, grips, sights, magazines, etc.
I agree with James Yeager of TN's Tactical Response that a fighting 1911/1911a1 needs to be hand-fit with high quality parts. Those aren't cheap, .
The 1911 market really boomed around 2000 or so. Even before 09/11/2001 & the rise in CCWs/gun sales. It seemed like every US gun maker had or R&Ded a 1911 format gun.
Kimber, www.KimberAmerica.com had a early lead on US sales for the 1911 warhorse in the early 2000s but over time, they seemed to have tanked.
The line of "SIS" Kimbers for the LAPD went south. I read a web story of a mid south state liquor enforcement agency that had many issues with the Kimber 1911 .45acp duty pistols. They ended the contract & sent the pistols back to Kimber.
FWIW; I packed a Remington Rand WWII era .45acp in the US Army(1989-1990) while in USFK(South Korea). Would I choose that pistol over a M9 9x19mm? Maybe not.

The 1911 pistol isn't going to lose any steam anytime soon but as Yam noted, more armed professionals & CCers will move away from it.
A small PD I'm working with uses the SIG Sauer P220 .45 but they authorize the 1911a1 SAO for SWAT & detectives if they buy it.

Anybody that uses Kimber as a benchmark for the reliability of the 1911 design. :banghead:
Hilton Yam is another to chalk up on the list as not being smarter that JMB

I bought into the Gun magazine porn and switched to a 1911 (Kimber CDP Pro II) as my main carry gun a few years ago. It was an excellent weapon once I went to Wulff XtraPower springs. It was reliable (except for a bit of surface erosion on the bbl), provided quick presentation, and hit what I pointed it at every time.

But I have since made the switch to Tupperware. While I still believe that for civilian CPL carry they are excellent choices if you are willing to spend the extra time to maintain them, and the extra entry cost for a quality weapon. I believe Hilton is spot on. The 1911 as a duty weapon for a large force is just too costly and difficult to maintain for a large group. Remember not all military or Police are "gun nuts" and willing to spend the time to properly break in and service a 1911.

For me it was a matter of cost. I wanted to switch to the same platform for all my SD guns (my primary use for pistols) and I couldn't afford any more Kimbers, a Dan Wesson, or much less a Wilson or Nighthawk. And if I could I couldn't afford the ammo to break them in (4-600 rounds) verses the 100 or so rounds to check reliability on a poly gun. Plus I got tired of 30 minute cleaning sessions (I'm not a mechanical genius) compared to 5 minutes for my Glocks.

I switched to a Glock 30SF, I picked up a 21 G4 for home protection and range use. And I also practice with my 19 (much cheaper ammo). All of them shoot great (they actually have less recoil than my 1911's) and I get great groups with them out of the box. If you can afford a 1911, they are great and historic guns, but it's a bit like buying a classic Porsche over a Subaru. They are more fun to drive, but be prepared to spend a lot of time in the garage and to pay a lot more for the privilege, the ownership costs are higher. And both get you from point A to point B in about the same amount of time.

And seriously, if I could afford the Porsche, I'd own one.

The beavertail grip safety is pretty pointless in this useage,

Click to expand...

I should have taken pictures of how a Mil Spec 1911 would open up the web of my father in laws hand as he shot. I'm not talking hammer bite, I'm talking edges of the tang on the grip safety. Granted the Korean War era US Airforce veteran did have diabetes and his skin was rather soft, I did notice the same abrasions on my hand. Not bleeding, but after a 300-400 round session was noticeable. Put on a beavertail safety and viola, problem solved. Sure it's a combat weapon, and I'm sure Sgt York had such rough hands he never felt it in the 10-20 shots taken on that day. But he wasn't given a choice to have one or not. In truth combat pistols should NEVER be fired.. use your damn rifle.

Ah, no. Only officers carried the 1911, and most of those don't go into combat with that only.

Click to expand...

At company level, only the Company Commander and the First Sergeant carried the .45. The platoon leaders and platoon sergeants carried rifles. Machine gunners, recoilless rifle gunners, mortarmen and so on were issued the M1911.

For most of the 20th century the standard sidearm of officers in the U.S. Army was the Colt M1903 pocket hammerless pistol in 32acp and later 380acp.

Click to expand...

The standard sidearm for officers was the M1911. General officers were issued the Colt M1903 and M1908 on memorandum hand receipt when they pinned on their first star.

The 1911 as a duty weapon for a large force is just too costly and difficult to maintain for a large group. Remember not all military or Police are "gun nuts" and willing to spend the time to properly break in and service a 1911.

Click to expand...

*cough*

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

And, no. A new to-spec 1911 isn't rattletrap loose, either.

No "Break in" required. Very little maintenance required. Shoot'em and clean'em. Works for me, anyway. I don't remember the last time I even had to retension an extractor. It's been many years.

Mr. Yam isn't wrong about pointing out the "1911" has problems as a service pistol, what he isn't saying is that most of todays 1911's aren't service pistols. They are the descendants of fluff and buffed competition guns attempting to shoot hollowpoints, which as a class of ammo is problematic in feeding across the board. It takes a gun designed with appropriate feed ramps to do that.

Click to expand...

I have a number of original, unaltered USGI pistols ranging from 1913 manufacture to four of the five WW2 contract pistols. None of them can tell the difference between hollowpoints and 200-grain cast SWCs and issue ball, and they'll do it from the GI "Hardball" magazines.

I once heard that Hilton recommended replacing the extractor every 5,000 rounds, or the first time that it needed tension adjustment...whichever comes first.

Mr. Yam is doubtless a talented pistolsmith, and he does do pretty work...but he still hasn't figured out what keeps beatin' the tension out of his extractors.

I wrote and told him that I'd like to have a couple dozen of those takeout 5,000 round extractors...offered him a buck apiece and even told him I'd pay shipping. He never replied.

I said earlier that Yam's article told us more about him than about the gun. Let's see...

Starting with IPSC back in the 80′s, I traveled a long road of being a devoted user of the 1911 in both competition and duty applications, a builder of custom 1911s, and a designer of 1911 components. The last 15 years or so had seen the 1911 absolutely dominate my existence, and everything I did seemed to revolve around the gun.

Click to expand...

The path he chose came to dominate his life and wear on him. He built a trap for himself. This had nothing to do with the 1911 but as he says about "his path", or his career.

When he began to develop tendinitis, after years of dedicated shooting, he began to experiment with other platforms. He began to favor the M&P.

After only a short retraining cycle, I quickly learned that I was able to match my performance standards using the M&P. This first rather serendipitous step made me realize that I did not need the 1911 trigger or ergonomics as a performance crutch.

Click to expand...

Later he makes the same reference, referring to the 1911 as a crutch. He means, he says, that the guns ergonomics and trigger enabled him to be a better shooter in competitive matches. He says that from sometime in the 1980s till 2011, about 30 years more or less, the 1911 and no doubt it's reliability and accuracy enabled him to excel in competition and build a career built around the gun. That right there is a pretty good recommendation for the gun.

He says that only after he moved away from the gun and learned to shoot about as well with the M&P did he realize how much he relied on the 1911 to make up for his skill level (his crutch). Another recommendation for the 1911.

Hilton built a career based on building guns that ran well with his custom parts installed but not so well with other parts.

tipoc

He says that only after he moved away from the gun and learned to shoot about as well with the M&P did he realize how much he relied on the 1911 to make up for his skill level (his crutch). Another recommendation for the 1911.

Click to expand...

Reminds me of a Royal Marine mountaineering instructor I knew. He said beginners should use hobnailed boots, because Vibram soles "make it too easy."

Guys, when I'm clinging to a sheer rock wall a thousand feet above the valley, I WANT it to be easy.

The 1911 pistol isn't going to lose any steam anytime soon but as Yam noted, more armed professionals & CCers will move away from it.

Click to expand...

I don't have a prejudice. I've had many pistols and revolvers over the years including a few 1911's. Here's a few of my impressions. It's easy to shoot well and it's safe. It's reliable if you get one with close to original USGI tolerances, shoot 230 gr ball ammo and use the 7 round mags it was designed for. It's a very cool outdated CQB pistol that people like to shoot matches and tinker with. I still have one but the only use I can find for it is punching holes in paper. It might also come in handy if the Taliban show up but I have other relics for that.

I said earlier that Yam's article told us more about him than about the gun.

Click to expand...

Breaking news:

Hilton Yam's decision to give up sex, and how it will affect us all.

I, too pretty much stopped messin' with 1911s other than my own a couple years ago for various reasons. Eyesight, time constraints, etc...but mostly because I'm just tired.

Yam coulda made his announcement in a short paragraph.

"Ladies and laddies...I'm tired of fiddlin' with 1911s. Time to expand my horizons and move on to other shooting devices. It's been a hoot."

Regards, all.

Now that is real wisdom!

I took a close look at the gun used as an illustration in his article. It's a good example of what's "wrong" with 1911s today.

http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=6631

tipoc

Killing gun.....

Media reports & history books say General George A Patton called a Smith & Wesson registered magnum .357magnum, his killing gun.

FWIW; US Army regulations say general officers can wear uniforms how ever they want or carry whatever weapons they choose.
See General Ricardo "Rick" Sanchez's tan leather tanker rig for his Beretta M9 9mmNATO pistol in OIF(SW Asia).

tipoc said:

I took a close look at the gun used as an illustration in his article. It's a good example of what's "wrong" with 1911s today.

http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=6631

tipoc

Click to expand...

I spy a Kimber!

Nuff said.

I have a number of original, unaltered USGI pistols ranging from 1913 manufacture to four of the five WW2 contract pistols. None of them can tell the difference between hollowpoints and 200-grain cast SWCs and issue ball, and they'll do it from the GI "Hardball" magazines.

Click to expand...

I was wondering about that, my 1918 AA rework has not seen anything but ball for many years ever since I determined that it would not reliably feed hollowpoints. I went many a mile with a hollowpoint in the chamber and ball in the magazine. But that was a long time ago, and bullets have changed. So I dug it out of the back of the shelf and loaded it up.

Today:
Remington 185 gr JHP, si.
Hornady 200 gr XTP, si.
Bulk "68" SWC, si.

Back then:
Norma 230 gr JHP, no.
Super Vel 190 gr JHP, no.
Federal 185 gr SWC, no.

So the bullets HAVE improved. I conclude that if your so-called 1911 won't shoot most current loads on the market, it isn't right.

Originally Posted by tipoc
I took a close look at the gun used as an illustration in his article. It's a good example of what's "wrong" with 1911s today.

http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=6631

tipoc

Click to expand...

meanmrmustard wrote
I spy a Kimber!

Nuff said.

Click to expand...

Not at least in the linked article. The 1911 pictured is a Springfield TRP.

American’s love their M1911 and for a long time for anyone to suggest that it is not merely old hat, but has been superseded, the critic would run the risk of being cast out of the kingdom.

The M1911 is over one hundred years old, it was not the end of history for firearms. It was an excellent service weapon, just compare the competition of the era and I can’t think of one that is not considered a museum piece. I always loved the looks of the Lugar, could never afford a quality version, and they have not gotten any cheaper.

I am surprised by the number of malfunctions Hilton Yam claims to see, my M1911’s are reliable, but the guy teaches classes and gets to see more M1911’s in operation in one class (or in a month) than I will ever get to own, so he sees things that I will never experience. I don’t know what the problems are, but there are a lot of aftermarket parts for M1911’s and I don’t believe there is actually an agreed to standard that all of industry follows for dimensions. A bud of mine was able to get Government M1911 drawings, (he said through a freedom of information act) and he claims the drawings had lots of errors. Everyone making a M1911 must have taken a best guess for dimensions to correct for the drawing errors, and everyone’s best guess is probably a little different from everyone else’s. I would not expect this for a SIG or a Glock as only SIG and Glock are making their pistols and every part is under their configuration management control. That would also include aftermarket accessories, if SIG and Glock are like GM, to put their name on something, you have to have an agreement, and you have to make the parts to their standards.

I think the M1911 makes a great target pistol but that external safety really takes the pistol out of any combat considerations for me. I want a semi auto that is as close as possible to a double action revolver hence my preference for the SIG P220 type of operating controls. First shot is a heavy double action pull, or you can thumb cock the hammer. There is no external safety to forget to take off, and there is no external safety which might get bumped on, when you thought it was off. I have had the experience of the latter at the range and was very surprised when my M1911 did not go bang, because the safety was bumped on. This is not uncommon, and is a very good reason why Thunder Ranch teaches you to place your thumb on top of that safety, to keep you from bumping it up.

It takes a lot less time to clean up the SIG P220 compared to my M1911. That might be because I also take the firing pin and extractor out of my M1911’s and clean the recesses, something I don’t know how to do for the SIG, but also, the SIG is much easier to field strip and there is no barrel bushing.

Can someone provide a link to a source of modifications necessary to make the 1911 reliable? I am new to 1911s and want to enjoy it (Series 80, GM) with SWC bullets, not hardball.