Striker Fired vs 1911 - a dispassionate discussion?
- Thread starter RPRNY
- Start date
- Status
JTQ
Member
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
Whatever you call it a Glock trigger is neither single or double action. I would call it striker action. I like and own handguns of all types. There are advantages to each depending on the intended purpose. As far as safety, the same rules apply to the handling of all handguns. If someone is unsafe in their handling of a certain type of handgun, switching to a different one is not the answer.
Ed Ames
Member
There seems to be a fairly bright line between single and double action. Single action means the trigger releases stored energy for ignition. Double action means the triger provides and releases energy for ignition.
The Glock system is double action. It doesn't have to be, but it is.
The Glock system is double action. It doesn't have to be, but it is.
JTQ
Member
http://stevespages.com/pdf/glock_2009_armorers_manual.pdf
"The Glock pistol incorporates the "Safe Action" which features three safeties, and is similar to a constant double action only system. The Glock "Safe Action" Trigger System offers several advantages over conventional double action pistol designs."
Since it says the Glock "Safe Action" is "similar" to a constant double action only system, we can assume it is not a DAO, otherwise it would be the same as a DAO system. In addition, since it "offers several advantages over conventional double action pistol designs", we can also assume it is not a DAO system. If it was the same as a DAO system, how could it have advantages?
Surely sounds like nit-picking, but I'd prefer to call it clarity. There may in fact be striker fired guns that are DAO, but the Glock is not one of them. It is a "Safe Action" which is "neither fish nor fowl" when talking about traditional double action and single action guns. It is different. It has some characteristics of both, but it is not DAO.
I agree with drunkenpoacher. The BATF assigned a DAO classification to the Glock trigger action when it was introduced. They basically had a menu with three options: single action, DA/SA. and DAO and DAO was the closest match. Glock was very happy to have them do so, because at the time of its introduction, many law enforcement agencies mandated DAO handgun designs. But I really think it would have been better to come up with a new category such as "striker-action" or "constant-action", or at the very least, qualify the DAO status by calling it a "pre-set DAO", which is what it in truth is.
Back in the revolver days, double action and single action had real meaning, and described very fundamentally different trigger actions with distinctly different pull weights and lengths of pull. The terms single action, double action, and double action only translated pretty well to auto-loading, hammer-fired pistols. Double action basically meant "trigger cocking", and in a double action pistol or revolver, so long as a live round was chambered or was in the next chamber of the cylinder, pulling the trigger accomplished everything necessary for ignition. Double action hammer-fired pistols also had second strike capability.
The term DAO has now been extended to striker-action pistols in which pulling the trigger alone will not result in ignition unless the striker has been "pre-set" by slide reciprocation, and do not have second-strike capability. These are very fundamental differences from the original meaning of double action. What is worse, the term DAO has now been applied to pistols in which the striker is virtually completely tensioned by slide reciprocation, such as the P320, whereas other striker-fired pistols with not very different trigger pull length or feel, like the Springfield Armory XD, are classified as single action. So the term DAO when applied to striker-action pistols has lost most of its predictive value in determining the nature of the trigger pull, and is now being applied to pistols with remarkably different trigger pull weights and lengths than the double action, hammer-fired pistols and revolvers that the term originated with.
Back in the revolver days, double action and single action had real meaning, and described very fundamentally different trigger actions with distinctly different pull weights and lengths of pull. The terms single action, double action, and double action only translated pretty well to auto-loading, hammer-fired pistols. Double action basically meant "trigger cocking", and in a double action pistol or revolver, so long as a live round was chambered or was in the next chamber of the cylinder, pulling the trigger accomplished everything necessary for ignition. Double action hammer-fired pistols also had second strike capability.
The term DAO has now been extended to striker-action pistols in which pulling the trigger alone will not result in ignition unless the striker has been "pre-set" by slide reciprocation, and do not have second-strike capability. These are very fundamental differences from the original meaning of double action. What is worse, the term DAO has now been applied to pistols in which the striker is virtually completely tensioned by slide reciprocation, such as the P320, whereas other striker-fired pistols with not very different trigger pull length or feel, like the Springfield Armory XD, are classified as single action. So the term DAO when applied to striker-action pistols has lost most of its predictive value in determining the nature of the trigger pull, and is now being applied to pistols with remarkably different trigger pull weights and lengths than the double action, hammer-fired pistols and revolvers that the term originated with.
Ed Ames
Member
Distinctions should reveal rather than obscure information.
Just about every gun has safety mechanisms that operate incidentally to trigger actuation so that's not really a factor, even though it is what Glock is referring to with their "Safe Action" schtick.
There are two "actions" needed to ignite a primer. Store ignition energy and release ignition energy. If pulling the trigger releases the spring that's one action. If pulling the trigger compresses and then releases the spring that's two actions. There really shouldn't be a degree to it, but if there must be, I would say that any semi-auto that has enough energy for ignition stored after firing is single action (because even if it is transferring energy from finger to spring, it doesn't need to), and any that doesn't is double action (because whatever energy is stored is insufficient for ignition).
There are pistols that are SA/DA, DA/SA, SAO, and DAO. I don't know what the ATF official categories are but those four are all available commercially.
Just about every gun has safety mechanisms that operate incidentally to trigger actuation so that's not really a factor, even though it is what Glock is referring to with their "Safe Action" schtick.
There are two "actions" needed to ignite a primer. Store ignition energy and release ignition energy. If pulling the trigger releases the spring that's one action. If pulling the trigger compresses and then releases the spring that's two actions. There really shouldn't be a degree to it, but if there must be, I would say that any semi-auto that has enough energy for ignition stored after firing is single action (because even if it is transferring energy from finger to spring, it doesn't need to), and any that doesn't is double action (because whatever energy is stored is insufficient for ignition).
There are pistols that are SA/DA, DA/SA, SAO, and DAO. I don't know what the ATF official categories are but those four are all available commercially.
JTQ
Member
Note we have a "sticky" thread that explains the different trigger mechanisms if anyone has questions.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/trigger-mechanisms-a-guide-to-whats-what.248556/
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/trigger-mechanisms-a-guide-to-whats-what.248556/
As a certified Glock Armorer and Instructor for many years, I have no questions because I couldn't care less what it is called. That's what the instructor called it in class...a DAO. Good enough for me.
Some of us can get a little anal can't we...LOL
M
Some of us can get a little anal can't we...LOL
M
Last edited:
Coal Dragger
member
Semantics arguments aside on the 1911 vs striker fired pistol debate the striker fired guns are going to win on logic.
I love 1911's and own a fairly nice Kimber Super Match II that I used as a competition pistol for league matches and bullseye. It's a nice pistol, the trigger is excellent, and it has proven to be very accurate. However, as much as a I love it, if you asked me to pick a sidearm to stake my life on the 1911 would not be it these days. If I were in charge of acquiring a large number of sidearms to issue to an agency or military unit the 1911 would not be on my list.
This is really a discussion about modern service pistols versus outdated and obsolete service pistols. The 1911 is outdated. Sorry there it is. The pistol is too labor intensive to be competitive or to maintain in comparison to a modern service pistol. In 1911 up until the late 1970's or early 1980's there was no finer service pistol except maybe the Browning High Power. That was over 30 years ago, and times change. Glock got the ball rolling with the combination of a polymer frame and striker fired ignition along with high capacity magazines in a pistol that flat out works. Now there are numerous good quality striker fired polymer framed pistols that all work right out of the box. Uncle Sam has started issuing a few namely the Glock 19 and the SIG P320.
Using those two as examples you have two very durable, relatively inexpensive pistols that will go far longer between cleanings or lubrication with more rounds fired between malfunctions than a 1911. Both the Glock and the SIG have fully interchangeable parts (not with each other) and require zero fitting of parts to maintain a high degree of mechanical accuracy and reliability. In the case of the SIG P320 there is no easier auto pistol in the world to fully strip down for cleaning or maintenance. Plus it is totally modular, and can be user configured to a variety of sizes. The trigger is more than serviceable with a clean break, short reset, and no grittiness. Plus my example (my wife's actually) is very accurate.
A good 1911 will cost as much as a SIG P320 with a bunch of magazines and two different slide/barrel assemblies (maybe even three...) along with several different sized grip frames. The polymer SIG will hold more ammunition, likely be just as accurate, probably be more reliable, and certainly be more versatile. Plus when you need to replace parts or change configurations or calibers, you can do it yourself no trip to a gunsmith or the factory is needed.
I may buy a few more nice 1911's but I regard them as more of functional pieces of art than as a working pistol.
I love 1911's and own a fairly nice Kimber Super Match II that I used as a competition pistol for league matches and bullseye. It's a nice pistol, the trigger is excellent, and it has proven to be very accurate. However, as much as a I love it, if you asked me to pick a sidearm to stake my life on the 1911 would not be it these days. If I were in charge of acquiring a large number of sidearms to issue to an agency or military unit the 1911 would not be on my list.
This is really a discussion about modern service pistols versus outdated and obsolete service pistols. The 1911 is outdated. Sorry there it is. The pistol is too labor intensive to be competitive or to maintain in comparison to a modern service pistol. In 1911 up until the late 1970's or early 1980's there was no finer service pistol except maybe the Browning High Power. That was over 30 years ago, and times change. Glock got the ball rolling with the combination of a polymer frame and striker fired ignition along with high capacity magazines in a pistol that flat out works. Now there are numerous good quality striker fired polymer framed pistols that all work right out of the box. Uncle Sam has started issuing a few namely the Glock 19 and the SIG P320.
Using those two as examples you have two very durable, relatively inexpensive pistols that will go far longer between cleanings or lubrication with more rounds fired between malfunctions than a 1911. Both the Glock and the SIG have fully interchangeable parts (not with each other) and require zero fitting of parts to maintain a high degree of mechanical accuracy and reliability. In the case of the SIG P320 there is no easier auto pistol in the world to fully strip down for cleaning or maintenance. Plus it is totally modular, and can be user configured to a variety of sizes. The trigger is more than serviceable with a clean break, short reset, and no grittiness. Plus my example (my wife's actually) is very accurate.
A good 1911 will cost as much as a SIG P320 with a bunch of magazines and two different slide/barrel assemblies (maybe even three...) along with several different sized grip frames. The polymer SIG will hold more ammunition, likely be just as accurate, probably be more reliable, and certainly be more versatile. Plus when you need to replace parts or change configurations or calibers, you can do it yourself no trip to a gunsmith or the factory is needed.
I may buy a few more nice 1911's but I regard them as more of functional pieces of art than as a working pistol.
Really? care to explain what is exactly modern about a plastic pistol?
Striker action? 100 years +
Tilting barrel action? 100 years +
Double stack mag? 80 years +
Plastics in firearms? 60 years +
So again what exactly do you feel is outdated technology?
Fact is firearms really haven't evolved much in over 100yrs and calling one type over another outdated when they are employing the same basic actions is laughable at best.
When and if we ever move from cartridge ammunition. Then you can talk smack about outdated this and that. Until then relish I the fact that your sig and glock are functionally no different than those "outdated and obsolete" guns, you just lambasted.
Coal Dragger
member
*Sigh* here we go again.
Materials have little to do with my points, nor do specific features like magazine capacity, or lock up method. Or any of the other points you listed. You're right no individual feature is new or particularly innovative (aside from SIG P320 modularity).
So again, for the second time, this is about manufacturing and design. The 1911 pistol does not lend itself to modern manufacturing methods where minimal hand fitting is one of the goals, as is minimal machine time. Nor does the 1911 pistol lend itself to easy long term maintenance by minimally skilled "armorers" or end users.
So in the 1911 you have a design that requires skilled labor to produce a duty grade highly reliable pistol, made from parts that are not easy or quick to produce. The end product then requires a skilled individual with lots of tools to service and maintain long term. Granted a well made 1911 with a skilled operator/maintainer is capable of running almost forever if you keep it in fresh springs, lube, and parts as needed and properly fitted when needed.
In comparison you have the ubiquitous striker fired pistols exemplified by Glock, HK VP series, S&W M&P, Walther PPQ, and the SIG P320. They were all designed with modern manufacturing in mind, plus being recent enough designs all benefit from the much tighter parts tolerances possible today. So parts invariably fit with virtually no human tinkering, filing, or fitting required. You can buy a replacement part and plop it right in and it will work just like new and require no more than a properly sized punch, a small mallet, and a Delrin bench block. Even less tools if we're talking about something like a barrel. Try that with a 1911. Plus the parts are usually pretty cheap because they were designed for those lower cost higher efficiency manufacturing methods.
The only redeeming feature of the 1911 that keeps it alive is the trigger quality. Other than that there is the nostalgia and affection for a classic design that people are still willing to pay for. Like a hand crafted hand forged sword or knife, the 1911 can be functional art. As a design though, it is obsolete, not because it is bad but because times, and technology change.
I'm not trying to rustle anyone's Jimmies, just pointing out what no one seems to want to talk about.
Materials have little to do with my points, nor do specific features like magazine capacity, or lock up method. Or any of the other points you listed. You're right no individual feature is new or particularly innovative (aside from SIG P320 modularity).
So again, for the second time, this is about manufacturing and design. The 1911 pistol does not lend itself to modern manufacturing methods where minimal hand fitting is one of the goals, as is minimal machine time. Nor does the 1911 pistol lend itself to easy long term maintenance by minimally skilled "armorers" or end users.
So in the 1911 you have a design that requires skilled labor to produce a duty grade highly reliable pistol, made from parts that are not easy or quick to produce. The end product then requires a skilled individual with lots of tools to service and maintain long term. Granted a well made 1911 with a skilled operator/maintainer is capable of running almost forever if you keep it in fresh springs, lube, and parts as needed and properly fitted when needed.
In comparison you have the ubiquitous striker fired pistols exemplified by Glock, HK VP series, S&W M&P, Walther PPQ, and the SIG P320. They were all designed with modern manufacturing in mind, plus being recent enough designs all benefit from the much tighter parts tolerances possible today. So parts invariably fit with virtually no human tinkering, filing, or fitting required. You can buy a replacement part and plop it right in and it will work just like new and require no more than a properly sized punch, a small mallet, and a Delrin bench block. Even less tools if we're talking about something like a barrel. Try that with a 1911. Plus the parts are usually pretty cheap because they were designed for those lower cost higher efficiency manufacturing methods.
The only redeeming feature of the 1911 that keeps it alive is the trigger quality. Other than that there is the nostalgia and affection for a classic design that people are still willing to pay for. Like a hand crafted hand forged sword or knife, the 1911 can be functional art. As a design though, it is obsolete, not because it is bad but because times, and technology change.
I'm not trying to rustle anyone's Jimmies, just pointing out what no one seems to want to talk about.
I have to pretty much agree with Coal Dragger. I love shooting model 1911s and I own two of them, but my pistols are far from "high end". One is a Springfield Armory 1911A1 "GI 45", a model no longer offered by SA. The second is a Rock Island Armory full-size "Rock" .45 ACP.
Both pistols have been problematical. The Springer has had issues with many stovepipes and occasional failures to feed. It has been in the hands of two different gunsmiths to try to correct this and I have tinkered with various recoil springs, and two different ejectors, and have also changed the extractor and firing pin stop. This improved the feed problem and eliminated most of the jams, but now it has a random ejection pattern and I frequently get hit with ejected brass. So it has now gone to a third gunsmith. If the pistol had not been given to me by a friend, I would have dumped it long ago.
The RIA pistol is relatively new but in the first few hundred rounds I have had quite a few failures to feed even with 230 grain ball ammo, and a couple of failures to extract and one stovepipe. I am debating whether to send it back to RIA at this time.
I know a lot of people are thinking "what do you expect from a cheap 1911?" I know that I could go out and buy a $1000+ 1911 and probably have fewer issues. But why should I when my SIG P320 full-size .45 ACP which I bought for less than $500 has been absolutely reliable?
Both pistols have been problematical. The Springer has had issues with many stovepipes and occasional failures to feed. It has been in the hands of two different gunsmiths to try to correct this and I have tinkered with various recoil springs, and two different ejectors, and have also changed the extractor and firing pin stop. This improved the feed problem and eliminated most of the jams, but now it has a random ejection pattern and I frequently get hit with ejected brass. So it has now gone to a third gunsmith. If the pistol had not been given to me by a friend, I would have dumped it long ago.
The RIA pistol is relatively new but in the first few hundred rounds I have had quite a few failures to feed even with 230 grain ball ammo, and a couple of failures to extract and one stovepipe. I am debating whether to send it back to RIA at this time.
I know a lot of people are thinking "what do you expect from a cheap 1911?" I know that I could go out and buy a $1000+ 1911 and probably have fewer issues. But why should I when my SIG P320 full-size .45 ACP which I bought for less than $500 has been absolutely reliable?
Yes as long as you spew the same incorrect information, you're gonna catch flack for it.
BS it just need parts made to original specs and they'll drop in and function, IT WAS AN ORIGINAL DESIGN PERAMITER.
again BS if it's an original military spec 1911 all it really requires to completely disassemble is a cartridge.
Tell you what when you can get your Glock to run with a Springfield barrel and a S&W mag let me know.
Tighter tolerances??? You have that completely opposite of the truth. Looser tolerances allow for drop in compatibility.
Pretty much... People love to lump the 1911 in as a singular gun. yet its made by more manufactures than just about any other handgun in existence. Should I really be expected to swap my Wilson Slide on a RIA Frame? Yet not be expected to shove my XD Slide in my Glock? After all they are the same "type" of gun. Course I cannot even switch parts between my Gen4 and Gen3 Glocks.
you shouldn't... I expect a working gun regardless of the type of manufacture.
Coal Dragger
member
Why are you bringing up old specs that no one makes a 1911 to anymore? If you want to compare the performance of say a WWII era 1911 made with such wide clearances that all the parts drop in, you get a pistol so loose the mechanical accuracy is basically non existent. If you want to compare the performance and feature set of a GI Spec 1911 to a modern service pistol the 1911 loses every time on every front. Uncle Sugar agrees because he dumped his cruddy old 1911's for pistols that work right and are easier to maintain back in 1985. Although he probably picked the wrong configuration of Beretta 92 (should have gone with a G variant de-cock only and a Brigadier slide).
On long term maintenance I'm not talking about disassembly for cleaning, I'm talking about long term keep the gun running maintenance. Like changing parts that are not part of field stripping. For example you can't change a plunger tube on a 1911 frame with a cartridge. Nor can you change the ejector with nothing more than a cartridge, and you sure as heck can't tune it with one either... well except to see where the cartridge is ejected to as you profile the striking face of the ejector with a file. You can't change the barrel link pin with only a cartridge, much less properly fit the barrel feet to the slide stop if you have a pistol that needs this done.
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply with your last point? Are you implying that a GI spec 1911 can use any barrel from Springfield or any S&W magazine and work? So you claim that a M1903 Springfield barrel and a magazine for a S&W Model 41 will work in a 1911? That is nonsense, and you know it. Maybe you are implying that you can use parts made for a given make and model of gun by a different manufacturer, and they'll drop in? Well in case you didn't know there are about eleventy billion sources other than Glock for Glock parts, that all drop right in. You can build a Glock now and not use one single Glock part if you want to, including magazines. Plus it will probably more than likely work perfectly after you assemble it, a 1911 assembled in this manner will not unless you have some serious gunsmithing skills.
There is this great website called moderserviceweapons.com run by Hilton Yam. Hilton is a 1911 affectionado, gunsmith, and lover of all things 1911. He no longer recommends a 1911 as a general issue duty gun because of what I've already pointed out. Same for Larry Vickers. You may also notice that serious end users that still run 1911's hard like Larry, or Hilton, or Ken Hackathorn don't use run of the mill guns or recommend them. They all run very expensive hand built guns, because they understand that is the level of care required to get a 1911 these days that is 100% reliable.
At any rate enjoy your delusions.
On long term maintenance I'm not talking about disassembly for cleaning, I'm talking about long term keep the gun running maintenance. Like changing parts that are not part of field stripping. For example you can't change a plunger tube on a 1911 frame with a cartridge. Nor can you change the ejector with nothing more than a cartridge, and you sure as heck can't tune it with one either... well except to see where the cartridge is ejected to as you profile the striking face of the ejector with a file. You can't change the barrel link pin with only a cartridge, much less properly fit the barrel feet to the slide stop if you have a pistol that needs this done.
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply with your last point? Are you implying that a GI spec 1911 can use any barrel from Springfield or any S&W magazine and work? So you claim that a M1903 Springfield barrel and a magazine for a S&W Model 41 will work in a 1911? That is nonsense, and you know it. Maybe you are implying that you can use parts made for a given make and model of gun by a different manufacturer, and they'll drop in? Well in case you didn't know there are about eleventy billion sources other than Glock for Glock parts, that all drop right in. You can build a Glock now and not use one single Glock part if you want to, including magazines. Plus it will probably more than likely work perfectly after you assemble it, a 1911 assembled in this manner will not unless you have some serious gunsmithing skills.
There is this great website called moderserviceweapons.com run by Hilton Yam. Hilton is a 1911 affectionado, gunsmith, and lover of all things 1911. He no longer recommends a 1911 as a general issue duty gun because of what I've already pointed out. Same for Larry Vickers. You may also notice that serious end users that still run 1911's hard like Larry, or Hilton, or Ken Hackathorn don't use run of the mill guns or recommend them. They all run very expensive hand built guns, because they understand that is the level of care required to get a 1911 these days that is 100% reliable.
At any rate enjoy your delusions.
Coal Dragger
member
Tighter tolerances??? You have that completely opposite of the truth. Looser tolerances allow for drop in compatibility.
Pretty much... People love to lump the 1911 in as a singular gun. yet its made by more manufactures than just about any other handgun in existence. Should I really be expected to swap my Wilson Slide on a RIA Frame? Yet not be expected to shove my XD Slide in my Glock? After all they are the same "type" of gun. Course I cannot even switch parts between my Gen4 and Gen3 Glocks.
you shouldn't... I expect a working gun regardless of the type of manufacture.
No in order to allow drop in capability tolerances have to be extremely tight. The parts must be made to exact specific dimensions. You're thinking of clearances, or the amount of room between two parts. Even clearances can be kept pretty tight on modern manufacturing equipment as long as the design allows for it. For example I have an HK VP9 and so does my brother. As a test we mixed and matched all the field strip level parts of the two pistols and shot them. Both were 100% reliable, and both still maintained a high degree of mechanical precision (what you'd call accuracy). HK builds to such strict tolerances that loose clearances are not required on barrel to slide fit from one gun to another. Same for SIG Sauer, I used to have a P229 with one barrel in .40 S&W and added a factory .357 SIG barrel. The new barrel dropped right in with no need for fitting, worked right, and shot as well (actually better) than the original barrel. The two 1911's I've owned wouldn't even interchange barrels and they were both Kimbers (still have the Super Match II).
Ed Ames
Member
We seem to have lost the "dispassionate" part of the thread. 
So you agree you're lumping all out of spec pistols into one category.
This is complete BS I've held a few low mileage Uncle Sam 1911s they don't rattle.
And in 1985 the youngest 1911 in inventory was 40 and yet that test mule is the only one that made it through the endurance tests unscathed.
Don't worry tarosean got it and expressed exactly what you don't understand.
Coal Dragger
member
You are still cherry picking what you want to talk about.
We can't discuss long term sustainability of a platform without addressing maintenance. Specifically ease of maintenance and cost of maintenance. The 1911 loses to more up to date designs.
For that matter getting an "in spec" 1911 is vastly more expensive than a more modern design.
Since the goal of a duty pistol is at a minimum to: launch bullets to impact where the user desires, with as close to 100% reliability as possible and do it for as long as possible why would anyone choose a 1911 over a current modern alternative? The modern alternatives are far easier for low skill level users to maintain, for that matter the modem alternatives are easier for most users to learn proficiency with in a structured training program. Modern alternatives have parts just as durable if not more durable than a 1911, and because there aren't a ton of out of spec versions floating around all the parts an armorer buys will drop right in and work, unlike a 1911. Plus the armorer maintaining the pistol doesn't need a lot of tools or training to keep a modern service pistol running, unlike the 1911. Then we can get into feature sets if you want, but here again the 1911 is going to lose.
If pistols were actually regarded as a tool, like a power drill, you guys wouldn't have your Jimmies all rustled. Because you have an emotional attachment to an object and your argument, you guys are not allowing logic to enter into your equation. Essentially you're vehemently arguing that an ancient power drill that weighs twice as much as a newer model, has less battery capacity, requires more skilled maintenance to keep it running, costs 2X as much, and is at best only as reliable as a modern drill (but probably not) is better.
We can't discuss long term sustainability of a platform without addressing maintenance. Specifically ease of maintenance and cost of maintenance. The 1911 loses to more up to date designs.
For that matter getting an "in spec" 1911 is vastly more expensive than a more modern design.
Since the goal of a duty pistol is at a minimum to: launch bullets to impact where the user desires, with as close to 100% reliability as possible and do it for as long as possible why would anyone choose a 1911 over a current modern alternative? The modern alternatives are far easier for low skill level users to maintain, for that matter the modem alternatives are easier for most users to learn proficiency with in a structured training program. Modern alternatives have parts just as durable if not more durable than a 1911, and because there aren't a ton of out of spec versions floating around all the parts an armorer buys will drop right in and work, unlike a 1911. Plus the armorer maintaining the pistol doesn't need a lot of tools or training to keep a modern service pistol running, unlike the 1911. Then we can get into feature sets if you want, but here again the 1911 is going to lose.
If pistols were actually regarded as a tool, like a power drill, you guys wouldn't have your Jimmies all rustled. Because you have an emotional attachment to an object and your argument, you guys are not allowing logic to enter into your equation. Essentially you're vehemently arguing that an ancient power drill that weighs twice as much as a newer model, has less battery capacity, requires more skilled maintenance to keep it running, costs 2X as much, and is at best only as reliable as a modern drill (but probably not) is better.
LOL what year is it now?? I would call 106yrs + a pretty good stretch and its likely easier to name a company that doesn't make a 1911 clone than does.
Nope I own guns of every type.. The only guns I am emotionally attached to are ones that Ive inherited or had since I was knee high to a grasshopper (none of which are pistols). Obviously the same cannot be said for yourself.
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
"a dispassionate discussion"
Not
Not
Ed Ames
Member
I probably shouldn't, but....
I don't think it is reasonable to compare "a 1911" to just about any other handgun I can think of. "An AR pistol" is a fair comparison, but something like "a CZ75BD" or "SIG 320" is not.
The reason has already been alluded to: "a 1911" can describe about 100 different guns from at least 20 different manufacturers. Some have feed ramps on the barrel, some on the frame, some are double stack, some are single stack, some are built on modern tooling that allows complete part interchangeability, some are hand fitted and buying three from the same factory, with the same model number, made in the same year, can give you totally different configurations. Different materials, different manufacturing methods, etc. are all represented.
For example: you can buy a polymer 1911. At least two different versions actually. EAA/Tangfolio and American Tactical both make them. You can also buy them in cast steel, forged steel, aluminum, explosive-welded aluminum/steel combos, ETC..
It is getting to the point where "g17g3" is becoming similar to "1911" but only barely. You can pay $1700 for a Zev g17. Does it have any Glock-made parts? If not, it at least is related.
I don't think it is reasonable to compare "a 1911" to just about any other handgun I can think of. "An AR pistol" is a fair comparison, but something like "a CZ75BD" or "SIG 320" is not.
The reason has already been alluded to: "a 1911" can describe about 100 different guns from at least 20 different manufacturers. Some have feed ramps on the barrel, some on the frame, some are double stack, some are single stack, some are built on modern tooling that allows complete part interchangeability, some are hand fitted and buying three from the same factory, with the same model number, made in the same year, can give you totally different configurations. Different materials, different manufacturing methods, etc. are all represented.
For example: you can buy a polymer 1911. At least two different versions actually. EAA/Tangfolio and American Tactical both make them. You can also buy them in cast steel, forged steel, aluminum, explosive-welded aluminum/steel combos, ETC..
It is getting to the point where "g17g3" is becoming similar to "1911" but only barely. You can pay $1700 for a Zev g17. Does it have any Glock-made parts? If not, it at least is related.
- Status
