1911's - are they THAT finicky?
- Thread starter Triggernosis
- Start date
- Status
giggitygiggity
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,249
I’ve got a Springfield Range Officer and a Colt Combat Elite, both in .45ACP. They have functioned as reliably as my Glocks, SIGs, HKs, Walthers, Rugers, S&Ws, etc. I highly doubt that most 1911 owners have to take their 1911s for work because they were finicky out of the box.
Well, I do know thanks to James Yeager not to buy Glocks...
He said that (and I paraphrase) "1911s that work are as uncommon as Glocks that don't". I really don't want to have to buy 12 Glocks to get one that works.
PS ...and despite what it may sound like I don't carry a 1911. I carry M&P and Shield.
He said that (and I paraphrase) "1911s that work are as uncommon as Glocks that don't". I really don't want to have to buy 12 Glocks to get one that works.
PS ...and despite what it may sound like I don't carry a 1911. I carry M&P and Shield.
MecGar are half that price, and markings aside, indistinguishable.
Old Dog
Member
I love it!
1911s are, for the most part, not finicky. I used to shoot bowling pins and the preferred gun was a 1911. Some of them high end, some not. Mine was not high end. The only "finicky" 1911s were the guy running a 9mm with downloaded rounds BEFORE the 9mm magazines were perfected. The other was a home "gunsmith" who also handloaded his own 45 rounds. That guy wasn't good at either.
In a truly odd set of occurrences, I've personally seen two Glocks have failures that rendered them totally inoperable. One was an extractor breaking on a new Glock, the other was the part that retains the slide on an assembled Glock. But that doesn't make me think Glocks are failure prone.
The way to look at this, as others have pointed out, is many companies have made one over the last 108 years, like pickup trucks, while one company, for the most part, makes the other, like Teslas. In a further complication, the number of companies that make magazines for 1911s exceeds the many companies that make the gun. Consider the permutations and you can have a combo that won't play well together.
In a truly odd set of occurrences, I've personally seen two Glocks have failures that rendered them totally inoperable. One was an extractor breaking on a new Glock, the other was the part that retains the slide on an assembled Glock. But that doesn't make me think Glocks are failure prone.
The way to look at this, as others have pointed out, is many companies have made one over the last 108 years, like pickup trucks, while one company, for the most part, makes the other, like Teslas. In a further complication, the number of companies that make magazines for 1911s exceeds the many companies that make the gun. Consider the permutations and you can have a combo that won't play well together.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
That, in itself, is a biased question.
Who makes the P238?
Who makes the Glock 26?
Who makes the P30SK?
Who makes the CZ 75?
After answering all the above questions, answer the following:
Who makes the 1911?
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
When I was a kid, a 1911 was a Colt or GI gun. Things were pretty simple, and they all worked with the ammo of the time. I really cant ever remember having any troubles with any of those guns when we were shooting then. All the ammo was USGI issue ball too.
Then you started seeing things like LLama and Star showing up, but they really werent 1911's, but they looked like one. The LLamas had a pretty spotty/crappy rep, but the Stars were good guns. I had one, and it was better function wise, than most of the later 1911's I had.
Jeff Cooper is the one who basically screwed the 1911. Once he got things rolling, everything went down hill, and I really havent seen it recover.
My comment about picking one out of a pile still applies. And I dont care who makes it, I would not take that bet with any 1911. And I totally agree, I would vet anything I chose to carry. But on that bet, I would put other guns from the box to a holster, and at least shoot a match for the money.
And to kind of reinforce the point. I just picked up a SIG P226 the other day. Its used, but for the couple of hundred rounds I put through it the next day, it ran like a top, and shot like youd expect a SIG to shoot.
I also have a Springfield mil-spec 1911 that I bought new earlier this year, and its acting like the majority of the non Colt 1911's Ive owned. Being nice, its "finicky". I swore 20 years ago I wouldnt buy another Springfield, and in a weak moment, broke that rule. And here I am, like the past two decades didnt exist.
If the 1911 design was really as great as youre told, there really shouldnt be any of these problems. Of course, not everyone builds them to the proper specs, and pretty much everyone, including Colt, isnt building them to the original specs anymore. No one I know, carries FMJ/ball in one either. And another reason for the design changes.
A properly built gun, especially shooting ball, is normally a wondrous thing, and a good gun. So are some of the guns that have been modified to make them more current.
One that doesnt work, no matter its era and whats been done to it, and one you have to constantly fiddle with, is a very frustrating thing. Ive been on both sides of that equation. And the latter has been the more common denominator.
I bought this back in the 90's. Kimber Ultra Carry. Came from the factory with an inoperable grip safety. The steel followers in the factory mags were wearing a grove into, and chewing up the feed ramp on the alumium frame. And the gun never made it through a full mag, the whole time I had it, and no matter the ammo. Pretty gun though.
This is a "kit gun" on an Essex frame. It fed ball OK once it was together, but the trigger was horrible, and Im not one to bitch about triggers. It was bad. Gave it to EGW. They fixed the trigger and did their reliability package on it, put some sights on it, and its worked great ever since, and shoots anything I put in it. Still have it, and just shot it the other week.
Got this from a guy that was getting divorced for $200. Bead blasted it and replaced a couple of plastic parts, and it worked great. More than doubled my money on this one.
Bought this Springfield Loaded when they first came out. It wouldnt feed ball out of the box. This thing was a major POS and never did work right.
This is the Commander I carried daily for about 10 years. It started out as a nice, bright "Colt Blue", and before the year was out, was a rust bucket and had to be hard chromed. It worked OK out of the box for the most part, but it too went to EGW and had work done to it. Still have this one too and shoot it on a regular basis.
Wanna buy a new this year Springfield Mil-Spec? Just be forewarned, its acting like a Springfield.
Bought these back in '09. The 26 had 25K or so on it when I quit counting. The 17, 150K. Broke a rail back in May and sent it back to Glock. They replaced the frame and rebuilt the rest of the gun. The barrel, slide and night sights are the only original parts. Basically got a new gun and it didnt cost me a cent. 9 years out of warranty too.
In those 10 years, the only other thing to go wrong, was I broke a couple of trigger springs at 90 and 120K. Gun still worked with it broken too. Other than that, just load the mags and shoot. No fiddling. As it should be.
If youre going to build a 1911, and call it a 1911, then stop making excuses, build it so it works like a proper one, and works out of the box, like a Glock.
SSN Vet
Member
These are very insightful points. Here's my personal anecdotes that confirm some items.... starting with point 1
The M9 and M16 were not standard issue in the small arms locker of US submarines until the 688 class.... And Sturgeon class subs were still in service up until 2005. So we had to depend on 1911's and M14s to secure both the ship and all the weapons that we could neither confirm, nor deny existed. The 1911's were literally 45 year old 45s and were total jam-o-matics (with 230 gr. ball). They had visibly distorted feed lips on the old style mags (think of mid-watch top side sentries playing with their side arms every night out of boredom for decades). The only good part about them was that we became quite proficient at tap-rack-bang. They also had the original GI sights (barely a nub) and were loosey goosey, so it's a good thing that the qualification standards were so low.
And for point 3.
Some will recall that Numrich attempted to salvage Auto-Ordinance and were selling 1911s. So not having a lot of gun fun money, that was the only 1911 in the gun shop I could afford. Can you say stove pipe? Later I learned that pretty much all of these old Numrich Thompsons were junk, but at the time, it just served to further my impressions, and I traded it for a Taurus clone of the S&W686.
Fast forward a couple decades... I bought a S80 Colt Commander with my Christmas bonus. It has been 100% since day one.
And for pt. 3....
I'm a total gear head and do hobby gun smithing.... So I've invested significant time in studying the 1911. One thing I've learned is that the timing of the ejection and feeding is greatly affected when you start shrinking the length of the slide. So it is no surprise to those who understand the platform, when Kimber's little micro 45's don't feed challenging bullet profiles. And MIM is the bane of 1911 durability. You need a "real" steel slide stop, extractor and sear. When the "me too" manufacturers cut corners on these parts, the guns likely won't go 10,000+ rounds without failure. But with quality components, Colt Deltas chew up 10 mm auto all day long and are considered one of the only platforms that can reliably do so.
I think my take away from all this is that not everyone is (or wants to be) a mechanically inclined gear head. Those who are seem to get and love the 1911. Those who aren't, maybe not so much.
I'm not the saltiest dog in the sea, but I've been around the block with quite a few hand guns and the trigger pull on none of them has ever come close to the out of the box trigger on my new production S70 Gold Cup. In my mind, it turely is the "gold standard". Can you say "tink"
Last edited:
ClickClickD'oh
Member
Now you are just being intellectually dishonest by only counting Glocks and not "Glocks", and at the same time lumping every 1911 into one group. Doubly so since in your examples on the next page you include a kit built 1911, but won't consider the epic failures of many kit built "Glocks". Go visit /r/polymer80/ over at Reddit for a constant stream of "My gun won't run" posts. Ergo, by your standard, Glocks have reliability problems and shouldn't be trusted. I say that wearing a custom Glock 26 right now. That I absolutely trust. Because I know that counting the failures of "Glocks" made by bubba the dremmel slave against the reliability of Glocks isn't logical. Just like counting the reliability of a 1911 put together by a bunch of ham fisted morons trying to jump on the 1911 craze shouldn't be counted against 1911s in totality
On a side note, someone might need to go tell ZEV Technologies, Grey Ghost Precision, Faxon and Taran Tactical that they aren't building "Glocks". I'm pretty sure they will be surprised to hear that.... and a little confused.
I have owned six 1911s. Five of them I still own. I have never owned one that has been in the $1k or above range.
The first gun I ever owned was a second hand Colt MK IV Series 80. The previous owner had removed the firing pin block and done some work on the internals. It was prone to light strikes.
RIA GI: Runs perfectly
Citadel Compact: Runs perfectly
Citadel full size: Runs perfectly
Taurus PT-1911: Ran this gun in IPDA for years flawlessly. Right side safety fell off eventually, replaced with standard safety. Ended up selling it to a friend.
PSA Two Tone: Runs perfectly
So, other than the actual Colt, my 1911s have all be trust worthy. Of course, the Colt was the only one fiddled with. Some of the cheapest 1911s are the best 1911s in terms of functionality since they tend to be building closest to the original specs and not fuddling about trying to make the gun with tighter tolerances or fancy features.
Counterpoint: I picked up a second hand German made Sig P220 for an absolute steal. It couldn't get through a single magazine... which is probably why it was sold so cheap. Replaced all the springs and some of the internals and now it runs like a sewing machine.
The lesson here is that anecdotal evidence is only good for story telling.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
I'd guess there are far fewer companies that make 1911 mags than companies that make 1911s.
Old Dog
Member
Well, it did take six pages before someone turned this into a Glock is better than 1911 thread, so there's that. At least you chronicled your own history with the 1911 …
But, returning to the topic at hand, I would just say for those who've been away from the 1911 for a while, don't judge the platform on the old shipboard watchstander guns or military duty issue pistols with the clapped-out mags from your time on active duty in the 70s or 80s. I was fortunate to get into a unit with a dedicated 1911 armorer and supply folks who let us order decent magazines, and that's when and where I learned to love the 1911 (also, I had a Marine instructor cadre who were disciples of Col. Cooper) -- if I based my opinion on the pistols I was given to stand duty and qualify with during my first enlistment (early 80s) I'd absolutely hate the 1911 (my experience may have resembled SSNVet's).
Old Dog
Member
So maybe I do have an answer to the OP's asking, "are they that finicky?" I'd just say, you could get unlucky and get one that can be somewhat (not that) finicky at first, but by choosing quality magazines and actually applying yourself to learn how the parts of the 1911 interact with each, you should be able to get your pistol running smoothly …1911s, like Harley Davidson motorcycles, old tractors and my old bass boat, can be a labor of love.
But again, if you just want something you can throw down on the floor of your truck if you have to, if you don't appreciate a good trigger on a handgun, if you don't worry about top-notch accuracy or need decent factory sights on your pistols, if you actually like ugly handguns, if you hate cleaning or doing maintenance on your firearms, if you don't appreciate history and don't want to learn how your guns operate … maybe you should buy a Glock or another pedestrian black plastic pistol.
But again, if you just want something you can throw down on the floor of your truck if you have to, if you don't appreciate a good trigger on a handgun, if you don't worry about top-notch accuracy or need decent factory sights on your pistols, if you actually like ugly handguns, if you hate cleaning or doing maintenance on your firearms, if you don't appreciate history and don't want to learn how your guns operate … maybe you should buy a Glock or another pedestrian black plastic pistol.
bdickens
Member
I have so far had no problems out of my Taurus PT1911.
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
Youre the one who wants to lump in things that "arent" a Glock. I said "Glock".
As far as the "1911's" go, what do each of the companies that make them, call them? What do they sell them as or refer to them as? 1911's.
Those companies making things "similar" to Glock, arent selling them as "Glocks". Are they? Do they say Glock on the gun? Whats on most of the 1911's? ....... more often than not, something like 1911 or 1911A1.
And Glocks were what I was referring to whenever I say Glock. I dont buy the others youre referring to, and have no experience with them.
1911's to me, are either a Colt or GI gun. The others are clones, like your Glock clones. Yet, they are still considered a 1911 by most, so they all get lumped together. I dont see anyone differentiating between them when they describe them. As an example...."What kind of gun do you have?" A 1911. "OK.....What kind?" A Springfield. A Kimber. A Colt. Whatever.
And......what kind of gun is it?
See my point? I understand what youre saying, but the fact is, to most people, a 1911 is a 1911, no matter who made it.
And even then, throw all the "clones" out, and use just "real" 1911's, whatever that may be these days, and head to head against a SIG or Glock, would you still take that bet?
Lucky you.
Youve had totally different experiences than I have.
As best as I can remember and count up, Ive owned around 40 over the years, and basically 75% of them, were a PITA of some sort. Even the "good ones" usually required something to make them right too. Even if that just meant changing out some crappy parts, or having the slide cut for sights, etc.
I dont normally buy custom guns either, normally just box stock things that, in the case of the 1911's, usually required a gunsmith to help get them right. Which just adds to the cost. Still, other than that POS Loaded, all my 1911's are basic guns with stock triggers, or triggers in the 6# range.
So why is it, I can buy other things, of similar or less cost, that work right out of the box, yet I cant buy a factory 1911 (of any kind) that will? At least with enough confidence that it will. I dont have that confidence, and thats from actual, personal experience.
Yea, one gun anyway. Ive owned four P220's, German and US Standards, Carry, and Compact, and a German P245 as well. Never had a lick of trouble with any of them, and every one of them worked 100% right out of the box, new and used.
So again, we seem to have totally different experiences. Or stories.
It wasnt my intent to make this a 1911 vs anything. Simply using one as an example of what works vs one that seems to often have trouble doing so, and why cant we get that.
If you dont like the Glocks, then use SIG, or any of the others that seem to not have any difficulty building guns that actually do work, right out of the box. If you dont like SIG, HK's work like that too.
Look, I like 1911's as much as the next guy, as long as they work, and I dont have to keep dealing with them. I want to shoot them, and be able to count on them, just like anything else. The 1911s I have now that do work like that, are a Colt, and a gun built on Colt parts, and both those guns, still required a gunsmith to get them to be reliable and how I wanted them. Almost 30 years later, and a lot of rounds downrange, they still work as I want. As Ive said, a good, working 1911, is a wondrous thing. Im not disputing that in the least.
Ive bought two "current" "1911's this year, a High Standard, and a Springfield, and neither of them has worked as they should, and realistically, if I still lived near EGW, if they are even still doing that type work, and I felt it was something I needed to dump more money into (which I dont) Id have dropped them off and had them made right. Anything I ever gave them, and I gave them a number of things, always worked when I got it back, and as far as I know, still are. The ones I no longer have that they did, went to friends in trades.
But thats been the whole point of my bitching! NOT having to do that.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
Let's take this back to where this little bit started shall we?
What I said earlier in the thread said:
The point is that if all 1911s, no matter who makes them, are to be judged as a single standard, why isn't this applied to other things, like "Glocks", no matter who makes them. The answer is obvious. Because it we did apply that standard equally, then we would be having a conversation about how bad Glocks are. We don't, because that's silly. Glock makes very good guns. High end custom "Glock" makers make very good guns. Some "Glock" clones are absolute rubbish and should be avoided at all costs. In the same way that there are 1911 makes that make very reliable guns, and 1911 makes that exist just to separate people from money.
You are really going to great lengths to refuse to admit that when a similar product is manufactured by a wide variety of companies, with a wide variety of quality, judging the class of products based on the worst examples is dishonest.
Do you really need it explained to you why Glock clones don't say "Glock" on them, but you can write 1911 on any thing you want?
I mean, seriously, that's your argument now? A terrible understanding or corporate law?
That's weak.
Well then, I guess we just have to ignore tons of evidence that Glock clones have problems... because:
1) Their manufacturers didn't violate the law by writing Glock on them, and
2) AK103K hasn't personally tried one out yet.
I guess we can go over to /r/polymer80 and tell the guys with barrel to slide fitting problems that it's not a concern anymore. Glad that's been cleared up for them.
You don't think this exact conversation happens with custom Glocks?
Guy 1: What are you shooting?
Guy 2: Glock
Guy 1: Cool, which one?
Guy 2: PF940C with a Heavy Armor Division slide.
Without knowing what and when, that's pointless. You could have bought 40 late '70s Colts, and I wouldn't be one bit surprised if 100% of them needed work.
You could have bought 40 C&R 9mm Largo Lamas, and I wouldn't be one bit surprised if 100% needed work.
It also makes me wonder, if you've bought 30 1911s that don't work... why do you keep buying 1911s?
Wait... You are counting having to cut the slide for different sights against them? So, you bought a gun knowing it's features, then later decided to change those features... and that's a problem with the gun?
It seems like you are just looking for excuses now.
Although, if that's the level you are going to judge 1911s against, I can't help but notice that both of your Glocks in the picture above have had custom grip work done to them... So, so much for your whole position.
Wait, are you contending that a SIG can't have springs and parts wear out?
Seriously, you are just arguing to be silly now.
Mosin Bubba
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,936
It's been said before in this thread, but it bears repeating. Magazines are the weak point in any autoloader.
I forget what THR poster said it, but as they put it, "Glocks are a mediocre pistol paired with an excellent magazine", and I'd have to agree. That's a major key to their reliability. To their credit, Glock realizes this, and they don't skimp on their mags. People say that the G44 22 LR should have been a double stack, there's enough meat on the bone with their single stack 9 to make it a 15 shot double stack, etc... but if the pistol doesn't feed 100%, they don't sell it. And Glock only has to tune those mags to run in one gun.
With 1911s, you have a smorgasbord of magazines ranging from great to crap, needing to function in a variety of pistols ranging from great to crap, so the mag geometry isn't going to be as precise. And that's when you get feed issues.
I think the 1911s are always going to be somewhat more unreliable than polystrikers because of said polystrikers' crazy low parts count. But with that being said, if you had a decent mid-market 1911 feeding Wilson Combat mags tailor-made for it akin to Glock has, I doubt there would be any complaints about that pistol being finicky.
I forget what THR poster said it, but as they put it, "Glocks are a mediocre pistol paired with an excellent magazine", and I'd have to agree. That's a major key to their reliability. To their credit, Glock realizes this, and they don't skimp on their mags. People say that the G44 22 LR should have been a double stack, there's enough meat on the bone with their single stack 9 to make it a 15 shot double stack, etc... but if the pistol doesn't feed 100%, they don't sell it. And Glock only has to tune those mags to run in one gun.
With 1911s, you have a smorgasbord of magazines ranging from great to crap, needing to function in a variety of pistols ranging from great to crap, so the mag geometry isn't going to be as precise. And that's when you get feed issues.
I think the 1911s are always going to be somewhat more unreliable than polystrikers because of said polystrikers' crazy low parts count. But with that being said, if you had a decent mid-market 1911 feeding Wilson Combat mags tailor-made for it akin to Glock has, I doubt there would be any complaints about that pistol being finicky.
LaneP
Member
Yep, cheap "mil surp" GI type magazines that used to sell for dirt prices decades ago and earlier would turn off anyone to the 1911. However, get a quality mag like Ed Brown and they feed flawlessly.
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
OK. You win the internet. No point in going any further.
Demi-human
maybe likes firearms a little bit…
Isn't it blasphemy to get a 1911 in anything other than .45acp?
No.
To have several M1911s, in several different calibers, and none of them being .45 Auto, is a sin.
It is, however, an easily remedied and oft forgiven one.
GAAHH! Blasphemer! Get thy demon filled soul and snake tongued mouth from my presence!
Return to the safetied and righted path and clean those impure thoughts!
Let your resolve be steeled in its grip and your malice warmed from its stocks.
The Righteous need not a hailstorm of fury, but a single ray of light for each of the dark and deadly Seven Sins.
And should the Debble set a multitude upon you, let the crushing weight of the Truth bludgeon the wicked in the name of Justice!
And may St. Browning have mercy on their cursed Souls!
I think I may have a preference...
But like @AK103K, I shoot my Uncle’s Glocks so well...
While I wish Gaston would jump a high cliff, I am smitten with the elegant simplicity of the company’s pistols. Modern mechanical genius, well made.
Ya know, true aficionados have room in their heart to appreciate all of the Browning inspired pistols.
Now the radially delayed blowback pistols those are weird. Totally dislike those, it’s ok.
Demi-human
maybe likes firearms a little bit…
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
The only mags Ive found that seemed to work in "all" my 1911's, across the board, are a lot of USGI 7 round contract mags I bought somewhere back in the late 80's, early 90's. Im still shooting number of them today.
Even the Wilson 47D's I have didnt do that.
The mag issues alone for the 1911's has always been an problem, and like anything else, every mag needs to be vetted in what you use it in. The mags seem to just be an extension of the whole general 1911 problem. Like the guns, a boatload of people make 1911 mags, and you get what you get.
And on top of that, you have the counterfeiters, making junk look like something thats worth some bucks, with just a stamp on the baseplate. Got burned with a bunch of "Colt" mags on eBay one year.
These days, I use a mixed lot of about 15-20 mags that seem to work across my guns. Those are a mix of GI, Colt, Wilson, Springfield, and Mecgar's.
Since the Glocks come up as a comparison with mags as well, I shoot factory Glock mags, as well as a bunch of the Korean mags, some of which are supposedly military surplus (Kahn/KCI) and some I just got, that look to be something else.
As far as function goes, they all function shooting wise. This new batch of Korean mags, dont drop free and have to be pulled from the gun. Annoying, but at least they function. They were cheap. $4 a mag.
The KCI/Kahns ran me between $5 and $9 a mag over the past 10+ years or so. Ive been shooting them, one or two times a week, for those same ten years, and they are still going strong, and most of thsoe are still on the original springs.
Factory Glock mags go for around $20, and have also never been an issue.
So, like the 1911's, it seems the factory and military contract mags, built to correct specs, arent a problem. Once someone whos main interest is making a bunch of money selling mags the look the part get involved, all bets are off.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
When I was a kid, a 1911 was a Colt or GI gun. Things were pretty simple, and they all worked with the ammo of the time. I really cant ever remember having any troubles with any of those guns when we were shooting then. All the ammo was USGI issue ball too.
Then you started seeing things like LLama and Star showing up, but they really werent 1911's, but they looked like one. The LLamas had a pretty spotty/crappy rep, but the Stars were good guns. I had one, and it was better function wise, than most of the later 1911's I had.
.
.
.
If youre going to build a 1911, and call it a 1911, then stop making excuses, build it so it works like a proper one, and works out of the box, like a Glock.
Soooo...what you're saying here is the problem lies with the manufacturer/builder and not the gun?
Last edited:
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
Yea. To a point. I thought I made that clear.Soooo...what you're saying here is the problem lies with the manufacturer/builder and not the gun?
Some of the older, original guns are not going to work 100% with different types of ammo, but should be fine, with ammo they were designed to shoot.
If you need sights, or other upgrades so many seem to need to be able to shoot, youre going to have to deal with that too.
So, if youre not willing to accept the gun as it comes, like out of that USGI cardboard box, or a 1970's Colt box, youre still probably going to have to "do something" to them, to make them acceptable.
But, once again, in case you missed it. I think 1911's are great guns, IF you have one that works.
- Status
Similar threads
