Glock design vs the 1911

JR24 said:

Both good designs, both good for a large number of uses.

Click to expand...

No matter all the responses, this^^^^ is the key!

Also you really can’t compare designs that are basically a hundred years removed from each other.

Glock vs M&P. Sure
SIG P226 vs Beretta 92. Sure
1911 vs Glock. No. You just cannot compare with any validity.

Honestly one could argue the 1911 is the FAR better design simply because many modern handguns are derivative of it.

Again, I do not believe the 1911 is the better handgun in any way barring the trigger vs any number of more modern designs. That said it’s design was amazing.

Bulletski said:

I have to say at the outset AND the reason for this post is that I'm sick & tired of the comparisons between the Glock & 1911s.

Click to expand...

You're either new to the internet, or new to gun forums, aren't you?



You want a 1911? Get a 1911.

You want a Glock? Get a Glock.

You want both? Get both.

Heck, get them in every caliber, model, and frame design if you wish!

That's the beauty of it!

Bulletski said:

I have to say that I think the 1911 is not particularly well designed.

Click to expand...

BLASPHEMY!

I'm a big fan of the 1911, I have a number and have built a few. I have one or two more 1911's on my want list.

I bought a Glock 17 to see what the hype was all about (yawn) and my British son-in-law was interested in shooting one when they came across the pond for Thanksgiving.

The Glock 17 shoots fine and is a fun range toy. I did buy a Glock 42 and 43 as a result of the 17 but am not very impressed with them. That's the end of my investment in Glocks.

FYI, my preferred carry gun is an H&K P30SK-V3.

Let me know when your Glock has won two World Wars and is 109 years old.

Remember that you are referring to a pistol designed over 100 years ago that set the standard for quality for decades and was one of the first successful automatic pistol designs, as well as the basis of countless others (at least in part) to this very day, not to mention that the original 1911 design is still being produced and used in virtually every sport and duty capacity that could call for the use of an autoloading pistol. Where are all of the Lugers and other pre-1960 designs (excluding the BHP) still riding in holsters in competitions (other than milsurp niche use) or being used for duty purposes by LE and the military? As for the Glock, it was created in 1982 (71 years later) and we (in the Special Operations community) considered it a "fad", a "joke" and "a really badly designed hand grenade" (along with other things I can't post here on THR) when we first saw them. It was made from plastic (a substance essentially invented in 1907 - Bakelite) and not in heavy use until the 1960's. A lot happened between 1911 and 1982. Look at NASA, for example. Is the Glock an excellent design? Absolutely. I use them for any application, and prefer them to the 1911. But after over 100 years, the 1911 design is still popular and relevant in numerous applications- still in production, and with few mechanical changes from the "original recipe". Outside of the most basic hand tools (like hammers and manual cutting implements that have been around since antiquity) there aren't many other products of any type in common use today with so few changes in basic design.

Does the Glock work? I suppose so (outside of "KB malfunctions"). Personally, though, I think it's ugly, square, it has a goofy trigger, and there's that stupid notch on the bottom of the triggerguard that chews up the knuckle on my middle finger. That one alone does it for me. No thank you. If it suits you, great. If they suited me, I'd have one. But they don't.

I'm always bemused by the claims that "the 1911 isn't reliable!", and wonder where the he// that comes from? I can only imagine that it may come from the fact that today, everybody and their brother makes a 1911.... and they don't all do a good job of it. And YES, they often do need work when brand new. It is irritating, and shouldn't be that way, I agree. But these are manufacturing problems, not design problems.

I owned and shot 1911s for years. I started shooting Glocks in 2005. I have shot a lot of other autoloaders. My favorites out of all the autoloaders? Glocks.

My favorite handguns over all? Smith & Wesson revolvers. Rugers come in second. Glocks third.

You see, it’s not all chocolate and vanilla.

By the way, bulletski, welcome to the monkey house! Keep yer' language clean and don't try to spell "California" with a K and you will do well.

I have one 1911 and one Glock, a G-17. One is pretty and the other one is pretty ugly. I love them both.

FL-NC said:

A lot happened between 1911 and 1982

Click to expand...

That was my premise! You're essentially comparing a disk phone to a cell phone, a Model T to a 288 GTO. A lot happened between 1911 and 1982. A Radio to a TV, etc. etc. etc.

Who honestly compares the engineering between the two given the decades? The link pin was solved in the P35, Glock is nothing but a continuation of the idea.

Seems the OP's comments are more toward the design elements and how one is better instead of preferred flavor. I'm not a Glock fan (at all) but I can appreciate their usefulness and reliability, etc...
The things I don't like about them are strictly my own tastes, so I'm not for bashing them.

I like the automotive comparison...1911's are kinda the classic truck. Still runs and drives, can still haul stuff and looks good doing it.
Glocks are the Toyota Tacoma. Probably run forever, but never gonna wow anyone with aesthetics. They'll have a dedicated following, but they'll never be a classic.

And if my life depended on it, I'm pretty sure I could use my 1911 as a hammer to help build shelter.

And the winner of the superfluous pot-stirring award goes to...

Outlaw75: said:

That being said; there is nothing wrong with either platform. Shoot what you like and don't worry what other people think.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I own, shoot, & like both

1911's were designed to be made in factories without electricity. I know they never were, but the tooling used was of that era. The reason Glock can use its simpler cam is because metallurgy allows safe through hardening of complex parts. The 1911 was kinda stuck with with surface hardened round shapes.
Glocks are not easier to clean than 1911's, not by any stretch. Thats plain fantasy. They may be easier to field strip, but thats not the same. A 1911 can be dissembled using no tools but its own parts down to where only a few "permanent" parts. I once proved this to some people while waiting for a pull out from some mud for hours. Took the thing down to small parts, put them on a towel, waited until after dark, reassembled them by feel alone, with zero light, in 10 minutes. Can't see that with a Glock.
45ACP pistols need their extractor channels cleaned out. Taking an extractor out of a Glock is not a 1 minute job. The 1911 was from an era when corrosive ammo was the standard, and pistols needed to be user serviceable. You can tear a 1911 down to its base parts thousands of times. How long before that glock's plastic holes get too big?
Contrary to popular believe, the US government DID require drop in compatibility for contract 1911's, so the design is drop in compatible. The "needs fitting" side comes from the makers that can't follow blueprints.

FWIW, I AM a Glock guy. I recommend them over 1911's to just about everyone. But they're not everything to everyone.

Edit to add:
My Springfield GI has had fewer issues per rounds fired than my Glock. Or my friends Glocks. But my Springfield has been worked over for reliability. Its itching to 7K since its last Jam.

JR24 said:

And yet my 1911s are all dead nuts reliable. Heck, my 9mm CCO will run ammo all day that chokes my Gen 5 Glocks and my old 26.

Both good designs, both good for a large number of uses.

Click to expand...

I have a Springfield GI in 45ACP, hasn't malfunctioned in almost 7000 rounds, when I did some reliability work. I have an AO in 9mm. Its at 2000, and has not yet had a malfunction. I would agree. "Dead nuts reliable".

So I woke up from my nap (yeah, it was a hot afternoon of yard work, and I'm gettin' old), powered up the Commodore 64 (or whatever computer I'm using these days) and lo and behold: I'm back in 1997 on the BBS (it's almost like Groundhog Day) -- a Glock vs. 1911 thread! Yay! ... (below courtesy of GunnyUSMC)

I'm not an engineer or a gunsmith, just a guy that put a lot of rounds through both platforms.
IMHO it is the slide rail design that makes the Glock more reliable overall than the 1911. Those long mating surfaces in the 1911 induce drag combined with poor shedding of powder fouling compared to the minimalist frame rail inserts of the Glock mean the Glock has less drag and doesn't foul as quickly (if ever).
If you look at the 2011 (STI) they have less frame rail length than a 1911.
I've got a 1911 that I keep around because someday I'm going to take a Dremel to the rails and see if I can make it run reliably.

And I thought this was going to be a "grip angle" thread...

S&W makes the best wonder nines. From the 59 first generation to the current Military&Police pistols.

With the benefit of 80 years of R&D, and the benefit of computer aided drafting, computer controlled machining, and a designer with a background in production....I would certianly hope its a better design mrchanically

There are too many differences between the two pistols to compare. And there are 70 years of difference between the two. Perhaps the only thing they have in common is that they were both twenty years ahead of their competitors at the time

I am not smart enough to comment on the design aspect, but for me my 1911's are keepers and my polymers are disposable.