I'm Giving Up On 1911s

I've pushing a number of 1911's into 200-300 round workouts on a weekly basis over the course of many years. In that time, I've had extraordinarily few actual issues with any of the pistols, even when up well into the 20K+ rounds counts per pistol. The issues that I had were easily rectified (e.g. loose plunger tube), and none actually tied up the gun and rendered it non-functional.

On the other hand, I don't think that Hilton Yam is a stranger to high round count 1911s and their associated issues. His experience probably trumps mine.

This doesn't make the design bad, and it certainly doesn't make the design inherently unreliable.

Click to expand...

If they were that bad, they would have fallen into obscurity much like all the bad designs that never worked throughout the years. I seriously doubt that they would have served our military for 75 years much less be manufactured by so many companies over 100 years later.

I do follow Mr. Yams proving guideline for my 1911's that I put into SD service. Keeping in mind I am just an average Joe (no MIL or LEO either in past or present). So far none of them have failed, with my newest acquisition half way through my testing without a hitch.

Derek Zeanah said:

But the quote listed above? It doesn't match my experience, or the experiences of many here.

But this is the Internet. Everyone's opinion is equally valid, right?

Click to expand...

I think it's generally accepted that Hilton Yam is a 1911 expert. However, it would have been useful (and helpful) if he had provided more data such as type of failure along with the make and model of the 1911s in question. Simply stating "we typically saw a failure rate of over 50% of the student pistols in each class" isn't that helpful. Given that there are numerous 1911 manufacturers, his anecdotal "evidence" is of little help to someone wanting to buy a well built and reliable 1911.

What "Kind / Brand / Type" 1911 Was It ?

1858 said:

I think it's generally accepted that Hilton Yam is a 1911 expert. However, it would have been useful (and helpful) if he had provided more data such as type of failure along with the make and model of the 1911s in question. Simply stating "we typically saw a failure rate of over 50% of the student pistols in each class" isn't that helpful. Given that there are numerous 1911 manufacturers, his anecdotal "evidence" is of little help to someone wanting to buy a well built and reliable 1911.

Click to expand...

As stated earlier, "All 1911's are not created equal."

rbernie said:

On the other hand, I don't think that Hilton Yam is a stranger to high round count 1911s and their associated issues. His experience probably trumps mine.

Click to expand...

I noticed on his site he's a big fan of Chip McCormick mags, which have parallel feed-lips.

1858 said:

I think it's generally accepted that Hilton Yam is a 1911 expert. However, it would have been useful (and helpful) if he had provided more data such as type of failure along with the make and model of the 1911s in question. Simply stating "we typically saw a failure rate of over 50% of the student pistols in each class" isn't that helpful. Given that there are numerous 1911 manufacturers, his anecdotal "evidence" is of little help to someone wanting to buy a well built and reliable 1911.

Click to expand...

+1

I noticed some manufacturers that sell a lot of 1911s have a lot of issues, percentage-wise.

The other part is what kind of magazines were used? The 1911 was designed with tapered feed-lip magazines. There's a lot of parallel feed-lip mags out there.

I would be curious to know how many failures would not have happened if tapered feed-lip mags were used. Also, the amount of stoppages with 8-round flush-fit mags or 10 round extended tube mags.

Personal experience: I was using a flush-fit 8 round mag when I think an unfired round was ejected with the spent brass a couple of times. I sent that one back and received the requested 7 round version. I haven't had that problem since.

Peacebutready: I recently bought an American Classic Commander and the only magazine related problems I had was when I used either of my two Chip McCormick magazine.

I have a Series 70 Colt that I bought new in 1978. I don't shoot it as much as I used to but it probably has 6,000 to 7000 rounds through it. Mostly hardball. The number of jams I had with it - I could count on 2 hands and those came from using military magazines. I have no experience with any of the later model 1911s except a friend's Kimber which had no issues. From my recollection all of the Army 1911A1s I fired didn't give me any trouble with mil ammo.

Wilson Combat CQB and Les Baer PII; shoot 230 gr. FMJ only - never, ever fail to run as advertised. Original design shoots as designed. Carried one in the Army and fell in love - my fav - good shooting!

I also have a love/hate relationship with the 1911. I LOVE the way they look, the genius of the design, the elegance of the pistol, etc.........BUT they hate me. I went through several 1911s of different brands until I found a good deal on a Colt Combat Commander. When I had it at home I loaded one of my McCormick Powermags with ball just to run the rounds through it to see that it would feed smoothly. When I dropped the slide, BANG!, and there was a .45 caliber hole through my bed. I inspected the gun to realized the hammer would drop about 1/3 of the time the slide went forward. I replaced the hammer, sear, dis-connector, and springs with Wilson parts and headed to the range. A few shots later the gun stopped. I looked it over and realized the barrel bushing had broken and had flown down range with the recoil spring plug and spring. I replaced those parts and headed to the range again. A few more shots and the shaft of the slide lock broke. I replaced that and then sold it for a few hundred less than I had in the weapon and all the damned parts. I got the bug again a while later when I handled an American Classic II at the LGS. It was even nicer than the Commander and the action was smooth as glass. I was accurate, reliable, and worked great. Once I finally found a 1911 that worked (it was my fifth I believe) I finally was cured and sold it to buy my second love a S&W 3913.

My honest opinion is that a good 1911 shoots and works as well as the best weapons out there, BUT the best weapons our there are a lot cheaper and the chances they will ALSO be reliable is a hell of a lot higher than the 1911. I would and will own another 1911 just for the love of the design, but when it comes to a tool, to defend what is important to me, I'll take an M&P, Glock, Sig, etc.......long before and ungrateful trifling 1911.

Add me to the list of folks who respect the design but don't trust them for carry. I've worked on quite a few for the guys at the range, and built some myself, (search build threads under my screen name for more info) but the honest truth is this.....
1911's are for guys who want to learn, or who already can, tinker with their guns. It's fine modifying, tinkering, cleaning, tuning, and otherwise obsessing over something you want to compete with, show off, or in my case I was still in a learning phase of gunsmithing.
But when you are defending yourself, (or more importantly, someone else.....) you can't be tinkering. You can't stop and show interested parties what you did with the trigger, or barrel, or whatever. You can't load up 200 rounds thinking it's acceptable that one or two will stove or fte.
When you are constitutionally protecting a human, via your God given right to Life, Liberty, and POH, then it's time for something that works 99.999999 percent of the time. I know nothing is perfect, not even the Glocks. But for every 5,000 rounds of training I have done with various Glocks I probably have 4 or 5 rounds that had a problem, usually ammo defect related. Out of every 5,000 rounds I have on 1911's, 1,000 of them are break in, 500 of them are tuning, and 100 more are failures.
I love 1911's, (see the ones i built from scratch, I really, really do love them,) but they are NOT best used as carry weapons.

theQman23 said:

Add me to the list of folks who respect the design but don't trust them for carry. I've worked on quite a few for the guys at the range, and built some myself, (search build threads under my screen name for more info) but the honest truth is this.....
1911's are for guys who want to learn, or who already can, tinker with their guns. It's fine modifying, tinkering, cleaning, tuning, and otherwise obsessing over something you want to compete with, show off, or in my case I was still in a learning phase of gunsmithing.
But when you are defending yourself, (or more importantly, someone else.....) you can't be tinkering. You can't stop and show interested parties what you did with the trigger, or barrel, or whatever. You can't load up 200 rounds thinking it's acceptable that one or two will stove or fte.
When you are constitutionally protecting a human, via your God given right to Life, Liberty, and POH, then it's time for something that works 99.999999 percent of the time. I know nothing is perfect, not even the Glocks. But for every 5,000 rounds of training I have done with various Glocks I probably have 4 or 5 rounds that had a problem, usually ammo defect related. Out of every 5,000 rounds I have on 1911's, 1,000 of them are break in, 500 of them are tuning, and 100 more are failures.
I love 1911's, (see the ones i built from scratch, I really, really do love them,) but they are NOT best used as carry weapons.

Click to expand...

+1. My thoughts exactly.

You know, I hear this a lot, but I don't run into that problem myself. Four THR Staff members went to a 1911-only Gunsite course a few years back and we didn't see many problems with the 40,000-some-odd rounds fired. We brought a cheap 1911 that never fed a complete magazine without misfeeding and it continued to misfeed. I also brought a Rock Island pistol with less than 50 rounds through it and it didn't misfeed once over 1,200 rounds, despite the fact that I deliberately never cleaned it.

Click to expand...

I attended yet another "Level 2 Advanced Defensive Handgun" course in November 2013. The guy to my right had a Springfield Mil Spec that could not get through two magazines without a jam. Another guy brought two 9mm 1911 pistols. Both the Springfield Loaded and Dan Wesson Guardian were jamomatics. The instructor was a 1911 guy for many years, but got tired of the failures and switched to the M&P. He was able to diagnose the guns' problems. The first SA needed a basic tune up--new recoil spring and extractor tensioning. This was the student not following the maintenance schedule. He should have had those parts on hand and left with instructions on what parts to buy. I am not sure what was wrong with the SA 9mm; the DW's chamber was too tight and needed to be reamed out a bit.

Everyone else in the class ran Glocks, M&P's, with one SIG P229 in 357 SIG and one HK. I ran a SIG P220. There were several Glock 19's, one or two 17's, a few M&P 9 FS, and a whole bunch of ladies running M&P Shields. Nobody reported issues when I walked around and asked, though the Shields were difficult to get hits with past 35 yards on the "Walk Back" drill.

The first SA needed a basic tune up--new recoil spring and extractor tensioning. This was the student not following the maintenance schedule. He should have had those parts on hand and left with instructions on what parts to buy. I am not sure what was wrong with the SA 9mm; the DW's chamber was too tight and needed to be reamed out a bit.

Click to expand...

So one guy had worn parts and the other had guns that were out of spec. And that somehow reflects poorly on the 1911 as a design?

It's stuff like that that made me to start referring to non-Colts as "1911-pattern pistols" rather than 1911s. Granted, even Colt produces lemons on occasion (like jon in wv's commander) but even during the dark ages of the late 80s-early 90s, they were pretty rare.

The biggest issues are that these days, far too many companies and gunsmiths (both amateur and professional) are making target pistols and marketing them as defensive pistols and also that far too many companies are producing 1911-pattern pistols from out of spec parts and inferior materials in key areas to save on costs.

Colt "like" or 1911 "like" Pistols

You're right on, HDCamel ! If a spade is spade, then a Colt is a Colt, a Kimber is a Kimber, and a Springfield is a Springfield, etc., et al. If we start being more specific, maybe we can see which company's pistols are causing certain problems. Let's quit saying just "1911", and name names and models.

Slightly off the subject, but who said you have to add "semi" to automatic pistols. Fully automatic pistols are rarely and infrequently encountered by the gun public. Some collectors have "fully" automatic pistols, and then only after all the government red tape, and an expensive tax on same. The "ACP" of .32ACP, .380ACP, .45ACP, etc., is translated to Automatic Colt Pistol, not "Semi-"Automatic..... Why don't we just keep it simple, like Einstein said ?

It is great to know the difference between "specific" and "simple", and to practice both !

It's amusing how "lively" a 1911 discussion can get! Some folks consider it apostasy on a criminal level! I don't really see what the big deal is myself. If the OP has moved away from the 1911 what's the problem? It's not like everyone else has to follow. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of good sidearms out there- certainly there's room for personal preference.

My own opinion on the design waxes and wanes. I've owned 1911s in the past, both .38 Super and .45 ACP, and while I enjoyed my time with them I don't have any of them now. Maybe I'll pick another one, maybe I never will. There's nothing at all wrong with the 1911 design IMO, but there's very little that it alone can do that's unique to it. Better trigger than my USP45, I'll concede that. But most 1911s aren't any more accurate or reliable than my HK, nor are they appreciably cheaper. Many of them are vastly more expensive.

Why is this still going on??? I said I would take the 1911's and stop this controversy!:banghead::banghead:

I am still waiting to be contacted!? WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

be safe.

So one guy had worn parts and the other had guns that were out of spec. And that somehow reflects poorly on the 1911 as a design?

The biggest issues are that these days, far too many companies and gunsmiths (both amateur and professional) are making target pistols and marketing them as defensive pistols and also that far too many companies are producing 1911-pattern pistols from out of spec parts and inferior materials in key areas to save on costs.

Click to expand...

Excellent points. I won't buy most 1911s out there.

If we start being more specific, maybe we can see which company's pistols are causing certain problems. Let's quit saying just "1911", and name names and models.

Click to expand...

Bravo.


Also, the era of a manufacturer can play a part. Ex: New Colts are better than some periods in the past, new Kimbers seem to be inferior to ones in the past.

But most 1911s aren't any more accurate or reliable than my HK, nor are they appreciably cheaper. Many of them are vastly more expensive.

Click to expand...

Is that at least partly due to 1911s being in vogue?

A wise and visionary decision.

May I have your extra mags?

The current lot of 1911's made by a myriad of manufacturers other than Colt, for lack of a better term, are usurpers to the original Model of 1911. The gun that the U.S. Army adopted ran 6,000 rounds, over two days, without a single failure, and was cooled by dipping it in a bucket of water.

The specs of the current models are all over the place, and the very thought that the newer guns should run perfectly, out of the box, is unreasonable. While parts are held to tighter tolerances because of modern manufacturing methods, those tighter tolerances don't necessarily translate to a perfect end product. The newer specs vary greatly from the original.

When World War II ended, and well into the 1970's, Colt had a nearly perfect monopoly on the 1911. So, they manufactured them to their specs; tighter for target models, and more to GI specs on the rest; a bit loose. National Match models weren't designed to survive in the mud, and GI models wouldn't be competitive at national matches. You couldn't use the same gun for both jobs.

Enter the mid-1950's. Folks wanted to do "combat shooting". This required a gun which would shoot tighter groups, yet function like the GI models. Clark, King, and other customizers got a ton of business, so shooters could upgrade their standard models. Add sights, bushings, barrels, new safeties, etc., and the original model soon lost its identity. These were/are still compromises.

In the 1970's Randall, and a couple of other manufacturers got into the 1911 business, challenging Colt for market share. Later on, enter Kimber, Springfield, AMT, Smith & Wesson, and several others, each trying to "plus one" over Colt. They added beaver tail safeties, commander hammers, different sears, and other critical parts, and the original 1911 had lost its identity, compared to the original. The magazine, built for seven rounds, now has any number of different followers, springs, base plates, etc. Ever wonder why some guns don't run with some magazines?

People bought these new 1911's, then decided to further modify them. Add a Wilson beaver tail safety, a King hammer, Cylinder and Slide mainspring housing, different sights, Chip McCormick magazines. Now, you wonder why your "custom" 1911 doesn't feed properly; has FTE's, etc.

Will any of the modern 1911's, straight from the factory, run 6,000 rounds, without a failure? Hardly. However, if you spec'd that 1911 back to the original John Browning model, you might be talking real reliability.

"Which" 1911 Is Best For You ?

All right, pendennis ! You have it for sure. We need to keep track of which "Brands" and "models" do well, and which don't. Saying "My 1911" does (or doesn't) perform well, isn't enough.

Which are the more reliable ("mudders" that might even rattle), and which are the best target models, or a compromise between both ?

As far as the basic "carry" models, I believe the Colt 1970's or 1980's Series suit me. Also I like the Remington R1, and for economy, Rock Island Amory as best for the $ .

Please feel free to offer your opinion (but you don't need my permission).