Which had more revolutionary impact: Glock or Colt 1911?

Um...Who cares?

They're both good guns. So much argument over something as incoherent and meaningless as "most revolutionary."

They're both great platforms. Get proficient with the one you prefer and carry away.

I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of thought that went into the first Glock pistol.
A lot of people underestimate what it took for JMB to invent the 1911,..and then come up with ways to modernize it without changing the basic design.
All mods to the 1911 were capable of being done in the field with tools availabe and the only machining being done with a file. That is through two Worlkd Wars.
I like Glocks and own two, they are my "go to" side arm, that being said, while sick and having some surgery on my abdomen, a 1911 was much easier to carry.
Each have their place.

StrikeFire83 said:

Um...Who cares?

They're both good guns. So much argument over something as incoherent and meaningless as "most revolutionary."

They're both great platforms. Get proficient with the one you prefer and carry away.

Click to expand...

Many of us obviously.

Well, enjoy yourselves. I learned a long time ago that banging your head against a wall is only fun for a little while.

Have at it, broheim.

Quote:
John Wayne would never use a Glock!
John Wayne was an actor who never fired a shot in combat. Far more 1911's have been used to shoot people in movies than in real life. Real people, who depend on real guns to protect themselves from real bad guys choose Glock by a very wide margin.

Guys who like to go to the range and shoot at targets and pretend they are John Wayne choose the 1911.

Click to expand...

Really, John Wayne was never at the Sands of Iwo Jima? Really?
Next you will be telling me Rambo never fired a shoot with a 1911 in combat either!!!!
Or Arnold Swartzenagger never fought the Predator with a 1911!!!! GEEEZZE!!

FTR, as a youngun that didn't grow up watching John Wayne, I find his representation of a tough guy cowboy totally ridiculous.

On handguns, the 1911 no contest. Impact on the gun community? I'd give it to Glock.

GLOOB said:

FTR, as a youngun that didn't grow up watching John Wayne, I find his representation of a tough guy cowboy totally ridiculous.

Click to expand...

You've obviously never seen True Grit.

I'm thinking it's not, that that distinction goes to one of the earlier colt models

Click to expand...

Correct. The 1911 was a refinement of the 1905, which in turn was a refined/updated 1900. All Browning designs, of course.

The 1911 gets the distinction because it is, by far, the most notable and more-or-less final incarnation of that JMB design. So in a sense, it was still the first, though the 3rd generation of the first. It would be sort of like arguing that the current Glock 4th generation guns do not embody what Glock did revolutionize; They do, they're just a later, more refined version of it.

FTR, as a youngun that didn't grow up watching John Wayne, I find his representation of a tough guy cowboy totally ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Say it aint true, Joe!

Eastwood would pown Wayne!!

Hunter2678 said:

Eastwood would pown Wayne!!

Click to expand...

Lee van Cleef would brush his 'stach with em both. Teehee

Eastwood would pown Wayne!!

Click to expand...

Lee van Cleef would brush his 'stach with em both. Teehee

Click to expand...

Well pilgrim, if you feel froggy, jump."

It's interesting reading the back and forth arguments based on the OP's question. Interesting because we are comparing dissimilar things.
The 1911 is a 'design'. Created by Browning and over the years, licensed and/or implemented by many companies. With small variations here and there, yielding incompatibilities between some of the varied parts, but still the same 'design'.
Glock is a company that makes one type of a gun, but it their means of implementation in manufacturing, sales and marketing that made them famous. That no one else can produce their gun will preclude them from reaching the level of fame of the 1911 design. We already see a number of different and completely incompatible guns, derived from those same ideas that led to Glocks, growing in adoption. The XD, M&P, maybe others will, over the next 100 years, likely make Glocks success over the last 25 seem like a brief blip in time.
I own neither, but if I was to buy another gun to use in anger, it would be the Glock. A more up-to-date design and very well implemented. But the gun that will likely still be sold, shot and discussed 100 years from now will the the 1911.

Looks like I have to add 62 people to my ignore list.

MachIVshooter said:

Correct. The 1911 was a refinement of the 1905, which in turn was a refined/updated 1900. All Browning designs, of course.

The 1911 gets the distinction because it is, by far, the most notable and more-or-less final incarnation of that JMB design. So in a sense, it was still the first, though the 3rd generation of the first. It would be sort of like arguing that the current Glock 4th generation guns do not embody what Glock did revolutionize; They do, they're just a later, more refined version of it.

Click to expand...

So there's absolutely NOTHING revolutionary about the 1911 WRT to the the tilting barrel. Because the 1911 is just like the glock in that it borrows IT'S lock up principal from an earlier JMB pistol.

This thread isn't about wich is more revolutionary the 1905 colt or glock. Its about the 1911 v glock. Your comparison about first to fourth Gen glocks to lend credence to lumping the 1905 in with the 1911 is a bit of a stretch. Many Parts interchange and the controls are the same on all glock models. This isn't the case betwixt the 1905 v 1911.

ttheel said:

Laugh out loud at this. I am not a Glock hater at all but to say that the 1911 was not revolutionary is a ridiculous statement.

Click to expand...

Prove it!

Your comparison about first to fourth Gen glocks to lend credence to lumping the 1905 in with the 1911 is a bit of a stretch.

Click to expand...

1900:


1902:



1905:



1910:



1911:



Gen I Glock:



Gen II Glock:



Gen III Glock:



Gen IV Glock:



In both cases, the evolution is extremely obvious. The Glock's outward appearance changed less, but it did change.

The glocks mechanics didn't change though.

The 1900 doesn't have a grip safety, has a different manual safety, a different grip angle, no bushing, no slide stop, has a heel mag release and the slide removes to the rear. Aside from the general outline its as different from a 1911 as any other handgun is. No matter how much for this discussion you want it to be a 1900 is NOT a 1911

Glock added a finger groove, rails and now some different backstraps. Everything still operates the same.

Just admit it. The 1911 didn't introduced anything new!

R.W.Dale said:

The glocks mechanics didn't change though.

The 1900 doesn't have a grip safety, has a different manual safety, a different grip angle, no bushing, no slide stop, has a heel mag release and the slide removes to the rear. Aside from the general outline its as different from a 1911 as any other handgun is. No matter how much for this discussion you want it to be a 1900 is NOT a 1911

Glock added a finger groove, rails and now some different backstraps. Everything still operates the same.

Just admit it. The 1911 didn't introduced anything new!

Click to expand...

You just listed six differences between the two designs. I'd call that improved upon, wouldn't you?
With Glock changing really nothing of importance to me, as their grips suck, I'd still never own one nor call it REVOLUTIONARY ever. They both evolved, however when the 1911 has seen 3 wars and numerous smaller conflicts, and has been copied, improved on, modified, and had millions sold I would call it revolutionary. When Glock has been put through it's 100 year paces, maybe I'll bat an eye at it. Maybe.

All this coming from a fella that prefers CZ75s to both of them, so I am unbiased in regards to personal feelings and fanboyism.

meanmrmustard said:

You just listed six differences between the two designs. I'd call that improved upon, wouldn't you?
.

Click to expand...

No I call that a different pistol. That's as less in common with a 1911 than a glock does. As far as you're willing to stretch logic to make a 1900 a 1911 you might as well just say the glock is a 1911 refinement since the only thing either has in common with the 1900 is their tilting barrel.

But hey I'm one of those weirdos who still call a duck a duck.

R.W.Dale said:

No I call that a different pistol. That's as less in common with a 1911 than a glock does. As far as you're willing to stretch logic to make a 1900 a 1911 you might as well just say the glock is a 1911 refinement since the only thing either has in common with the 1900 is their tilting barrel.

But hey I'm one of those weirdos who still call a duck a duck.

Click to expand...

That's my point. The evolution from one pistol to another is clearer in the 1911s case. What's the difference between the Glock Gen1 and Gen 4? Removable backstraps? Hoopty damn doo! The topic is Revolutionary, not Evolution from one gun to another. But, if it was, the Glock is not a whole lot different in any of it's reincarnations. The 1911 had to start as something, and it's obvious at least by MachIVshooter's pictures of several very chronologically close firearms. The 1900 didn't become a 1911 overnight, duh! But, to lump the Glock in as a revolutionary firearm and compare it's grip
change to the evolution of the JMB design of a tried and true battle pistol is ludicrous at best. The Glad Ware Pistol is here to stay, but will most likely live in the 1911s shadow.

The 1900 doesn't have a grip safety, has a different manual safety, a different grip angle, no bushing, no slide stop, has a heel mag release and the slide removes to the rear. Aside from the general outline its as different from a 1911 as any other handgun is. No matter how much for this discussion you want it to be a 1900 is NOT a 1911

Click to expand...

Evolution.

We don't claim a modern, gas piston uppered, Mag pul'd out AR isn't an AR because it has numerous changes as compared to the original Colt sporter.

Glock's "revolutionary" trigger system is nothing more than the 1881-patented Iver-Johnson safety trigger adapted to an autoloader:



The Glock is a darn good pistol, and I even own one of the ugly suckers. But it is not revolutionary. It is built using 70-100 year old designs incorporated with a polymer chassis pioneered a decade earlier by a another gunmaker. Every feature of the Glock pistol is owed to another design. It was marketing, not ingenuity, that made the Glock.

The 1911 gets it's credit because it was developed by the same man who created it's predecessors, and incorporates everything he learned designing the previous pistols, plus a couple of military-mandated features.

The Glock may be the inexpensive pocket calculator of guns, but the 1911 is the solid state transistor. The 1900 would be the thermionic triode.

MachIVshooter said:

Evolution.

We don't claim a modern, gas piston uppered, Mag pul'd out AR isn't an AR because it has numerous changes as compared to the original Colt sporter.

Glock's "revolutionary" trigger system is nothing more than the 1881-patented Iver-Johnson safety trigger adapted to an autoloader.



The "revolutionary" polymer frame was actually pioneered by HK a decade earlier, and, of course, we all know how much Browning design exists in the gun.

The Glock may be the inexpensive pocket calculator of guns, but the 1911 is the solid state transistor. The 1900 would be the thermionic triode.

Click to expand...

Ha! That's probably the wildest yet true statement yet. I agree 100% with your observation.

I'm sorry I thought this thread was about what gun brought more change to the autoloading handgun. Not which had more small changes from previous models!


The fact still remains that once you strip away the FALSE assumption that many base their votes on here that the 1911 was the first tilting barrel handgun then there's really nothing to base an assertion that its more revolutionary than the glock on.