1911 Antiquated...

[Bullnettles]

WITHOUT starting a flame war and getting this thread closed, I would like to know what makes the 1911 antiquated? I just got my second 1911 (sold my first one) and was looking it over last night and comparing to my glock and a buddy's PX4. I like all three, but I few them as different and don't see how a 100 year old design is antiquated (ie outdated) if it still does it's job perfectly. It doesn't have a firing pin blocker, but it also doesn't have the striker mechanism of the Glock. The only thing I can see would be the decocker, which I don't mind, but could be dangerous I suppose. Is that all there is?

 

[Jbabbler]

Yes, it is outdated, antiquated and old. Since it was designed over 100 years ago it no longer possess the ability to shoot effectively. It shoots an old caliber that is impossible to find in any store. You pretty much have to be a reloader to feed the gun it's obscure caliber. The gun is made of metal which is known to be much weaker than plastic and is prone to getting hot when placed in front of a heat source for an extended period of time. The gun requires oil to run properly. Oil is known to the state of California to cause cancer when administered rectally to hamsters in large doses several times a day for 5 or more years. Thousands of people have died as a result of acute lead poisoning after utilizing the muzzle end of the 1911.

 

[LeonCarr]

Taken from one of my previous postings:

The main reason I shoot the Glock is because of the 1911. I hate the 1911 because:

1. After thousands of dollars worth of quality gunsmithing work by American Handgunner Club 100 gunsmiths, with every part of the gun tuned or adjusted for maximum reliability, 1911s, in my experience, will still jam, FTF or FTE, never in practice and always during a match . You can take a Glock out of the box, check the bore for grease or obstructions, and take it out and shoot it, and it will run.

2. Glocks have no grip screw bushings or grip screws to come loose. Most new 1911s, in my experience, will have at least one grip screw bushing come loose when you take the grips off the first time, and it is usually attached to the grip screw itself, and it screws out of the frame.

3. A stock Glock does not hurt your hand and draw blood when you shoot it, unlike a 1911A1 with the stock hammer and the stock grip safety (YMMV, but it does it to me).

4. A stock Glock does not have to have aftermarket expensive magazines to function properly (ie Wilson's). IME the magazine that comes with most 1911s was made by the lowest bidder with soft metal bodies and feed lips. You do not have to "tune" the magazines or buy aftermarket magazines for a Glock.

5. The number one PITA with a 1911, the extractor. Most 1911s out of the box will have to have their extractor replaced with a better quality unit to maintain extractor tension. The Glock extractor is fine out of the box.

6. Glocks do not have plunger tubes that will come off of the frame. I once had a Series One Kimber, and during shooting the plunger tube came off. A gunsmith charged me 50 DOLLARS to replace that plunger tube (at that time about a six dollar part that took two minutes to install). That is the main incident that attracted me to the Glock. No plunger tube.

YMMV, but these are the main things that make me hate the 1911. Too much money for not enough gun.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[dmazur]

The main objections to the 1911 that I've read seem to be centered on -

1. capacity
2. weight

No valid arguments to these that I know of. Original single-stack design has limited capacity. Even with aluminum frames, the 1911 is still kind of heavy. And if you start using double-stack magazines and polymer frames, it really isn't a 1911, but "1911-ish"...

Other arguments center on reliability or safety.

These arguments seem to overlook the fact that the original 1911 design was reliable. Lots of non-spec copies and a proliferation of parts that don't interchange would cause trouble in any design.

And the arguments over safety attack things like the lack of a decocking mechanism when the 1911 doesn't need a decocker. (If you have a bobbed hammer, carry it in Condition 1. If you have a traditional long spur hammer, you might consider more historical modes of carry. In that case, the long hammer is the decocker...)

Another safety argument is that a 1911 can't be dropped on its muzzle safely.
Well, if this is a worry, get a Series 80. These have the firing pin block.

 

[Greg528iT]

I'm surprised the flames hadn't really started. 1 post being fecicious, 1 of a bad experience, 1 good description

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

there are more reliable and fiddle free guns out there. I love shooting my 1911 and have a lot of fun, but it's not as reliable as other, newer guns.

 

[easyg]

The main objections to the 1911 that I've read seem to be centered on -

1. capacity
2. weight

No valid arguments to these that I know of. Original single-stack design has limited capacity. Even with aluminum frames, the 1911 is still kind of heavy. And if you start using double-stack magazines and polymer frames, it really isn't a 1911, but "1911-ish"...

I agree 100%.

Yes, the 1911 is still a fine pistol.
Yes, the 1911 can be used to defend oneself.
And yes, the 1911 can be made reliable.

But it was originally designed to be a service size combat pistol.
And as such it is rather antiquated.

It's heavier than most combat pistols today.
It has a lower magazine capacity than most combat pistols today.
It has a more complicated manual of arms than most combat pistols today.
And it's more complicated to field-strip than most combat pistols today.


The very reason that we see so many variations and modifications to the original 1911 design is because folks have been trying to make the 1911 competitive with modern combat pistols for many many years....with dubious success.

 

[tinygnat219]

Now, I am no 1911 fanboy, but even I have to agree the 1911 design for some reason or another has soldiered on for the better part of a century. For a slightly modified 100 year old design, name one other pre WWI gun designed that's still out there and whose popularity is expanding and has survived at least 2 attempts at replacement (1941 with the M-1 Carbine and 1984 with the M-9)

There's only two that I can think of and both are revolvers:
1) the 1895 Nagant, which is still in use in Russia today in limited numbers and that's mostly b/c the Russians never throw anything away.
2) the S&W Model 10 which is the current champion of still produced firearms. Not bad for something introduced in 1899 or 1902.
The main thing here is that neither one is expanding in popularity. In fact, both are shrinking in use, and the Nagant Revolver hasn't been made since the 1940s or 1950s while the Model 10 has been replaced by the auto in just about every category.

The 1911 in the meantime, has never been more popular. You have more manufacturers for it today than ever. The exception to a mainline handgun company today is to not have a 1911 of some kind or another in production. It's a feature that seems to be endemic to the 1911 design. IMHO, no other gun design comes close to it's long-lasting popularity. Glock is the only other one on the radar at this point, as is the Hi-Power, but the Hi-Power is also in decline and it hasn't been around as long.

 

[The Bushmaster]

I am a 1911 fan and I don't seem to have all the problems [so far] listed here. I have no problem with the capacity. I have no problem with the weight. I have no problem with reliability on both my series 80 Colt or my Kimber UCC II (which I carry daily). In fact the Colt 1911 has NEVER failed to digest my reloads and it has been modified to enhance accuracy only (without jepordizing reliability). The Kimber had its problems (7 failures) in the first 200 rounds and has had 3,000 failure free rounds sense.

I have other semi-auto [modern] platforms that are just as good. BUT you can keep the tupper ware guns (in particular glock an S&W). I prefer metal by far...

 

[loadedround]

If you ever have a "Kaboom" for whatever reason, would you you rather have a steel 1911 or a plastic Glock? I have seen it happen with both and I rest my case.

 

[G27RR]

I have a somewhat different perspective. My first handgun was an HK USP. My second was a Glock 27. Good shooters and very reliable. Skip forward to my first 1911 - Colt Defender. Then, I got an STI Shadow and promptly ordered an STI Ranger II. Excellent shooters and 100pct reliable in all three cases.

Next, I bought a Kimber Super Carry Pro. I could't resist the looks and handling of this one. It's accurate, but not yet reliable. Last Kimber I will buy.

Monday, on a whim, I drove down to Cabela's to see if they had any Colts in stock. All my usual local dealers have been out for months. Saw a Colt Combat Elite and it was beautiful so I bought it. 100 pct perfect and accurate right out of th box.

What's my point? 4 out of 5 have been perfect and excellent shooters. The fifth was from a company known to have issues at times. So, the design works great when properly executed. The only handgun I can shoot as well as my 1911s is my Sig P226. I'd rather carry the 1911s. Slim grips make for easy carry, and I hea couple Kahrs that are slim but don't hold more or the same caliber.

Bottomline is, after using these STIs and Colts, I don't see myself buying more pistols that aren't 1911s, and I was a guy who started out wondering what the big deal was and avoiding them.

It's all personal preferences and needs (or perceived needs), but just having an older design doesn't make them inferior.

Oh yeah, and I have about one dozen STI mags and all work flawlessly. They only cost $14 at my local dealer.

 

[AirForceShooter]

Glocks have no soul.

But if I still carried everyday as a LEO I would carry a Glock

AFS

 

[GJW1911]

I love my 1911's, mine have been completely reliable and just plain fit me.
With that said a Glock is a work horse, very reliable, but do not stir my soul the way a 1911 does.
GJW1911

 

[Fourbits]

I have a WW2 Ithica Accurized in the 60's that has been trouble free for almost 50 years! It's set up for target loads (4.0 bullseye under a 200 grain LSWC) and has thousands of rounds through it. Just bought a Gen 4 Glock 17 and the recoil spring bound up after 60 rounds! Glock did quickly send a new one.

fourbits

 

[buck460XVR]

Glocks have no soul.

yep, and shootin' one is like havin' to french-kiss your sister, while shootin' a original Colt is like being seduced by the home-coming queen.......and yeah, she bites a little too.

 

[Greg528iT]

yeah, she bites a little too.

Which one? Your sister or the home coming queen?

 

[akadave]

Taken from one of my previous postings:

The main reason I shoot the Glock is because of the 1911. I hate the 1911 because:

1. After thousands of dollars worth of quality gunsmithing work by American Handgunner Club 100 gunsmiths, with every part of the gun tuned or adjusted for maximum reliability, 1911s, in my experience, will still jam, FTF or FTE, never in practice and always during a match . You can take a Glock out of the box, check the bore for grease or obstructions, and take it out and shoot it, and it will run.

2. Glocks have no grip screw bushings or grip screws to come loose. Most new 1911s, in my experience, will have at least one grip screw bushing come loose when you take the grips off the first time, and it is usually attached to the grip screw itself, and it screws out of the frame.

3. A stock Glock does not hurt your hand and draw blood when you shoot it, unlike a 1911A1 with the stock hammer and the stock grip safety (YMMV, but it does it to me).

4. A stock Glock does not have to have aftermarket expensive magazines to function properly (ie Wilson's). IME the magazine that comes with most 1911s was made by the lowest bidder with soft metal bodies and feed lips. You do not have to "tune" the magazines or buy aftermarket magazines for a Glock.

5. The number one PITA with a 1911, the extractor. Most 1911s out of the box will have to have their extractor replaced with a better quality unit to maintain extractor tension. The Glock extractor is fine out of the box.

6. Glocks do not have plunger tubes that will come off of the frame. I once had a Series One Kimber, and during shooting the plunger tube came off. A gunsmith charged me 50 DOLLARS to replace that plunger tube (at that time about a six dollar part that took two minutes to install). That is the main incident that attracted me to the Glock. No plunger tube.

YMMV, but these are the main things that make me hate the 1911. Too much money for not enough gun.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

I have an old Kimber, one of their first that has thousands of rounds through it. Never a hiccup other than from a bad magazine. I call it "Mikey" because it will eat anything. It shoots as well as any Glock I have owned. Its still tight after all these years as well.

I love Glocks but they have their issues as well.

 

[Butter]

Never wanted to be a 1911 proponent, but after having shot a lot of plastic I realized a few things:

1) The modern guns that I have owned have all been pretty good, regardless of base model or mfr.

2) I don't like thick grips and don't own Sigs or CZs despite having shot and handled them since I have to cant the standard model guns slightly to get my smallish finger on the trigger.

3) I absolutely love the trigger on a tuned 1911.

4) The weight of the gun seems to tame muzzle flip and despite being smallish myself, at home for an SD gun, the weight and size are more comfort than hindrance.

As far as reliability or any of the other questions of temperment per a particular piece of shootingware, I have not had any real problems that spring changes wouldn't cure or regular cleaning couldn't help.

So, if you like the way a 1911 fits and handles and you shoot it better than something else, then I'd say go for it. That was my decision. As for Glocks great guns, just don't like 'em as well.

 

[KW]

I started shooting pistols with Sigs, Glocks, HKs etc. I always thought of 1911s as being old and outdated. But after shooting a few of them, my perspective has changed. The primary purpose of the handgun is to put the bullets on the target. In the case of a defensive handgun you want to do this as quickly as possible. For me, the 1911 does this better than anything else I have tried, and by a pretty big margin. Extra maintenance, weight, cost etc. are all things I can work around. Now the only handguns I own are 1911s.

 

[LHRGunslinger]

John Browning is THE single greatest firearms designer to ever walk the face of this earth. I would like to see ANY of you name ANY other designer who still has TWO of their designs in widespread use in the military and/or civilian market. Mr Browning built the M2HB and the M1911. Both are still in service with the US Military. If you need bells and whistles get something else. If you need something that's going to work each time, every time get a 1911. Don't take my word for it. Ask vets.

 

[BlayGlock]

The main reason the 1911 still sees the use that it does is that it is the easiest gun to make accurate hits with under stress. There is no substitute for a well tuned 1911 trigger. The platform is not without its disadvantages. The 1911 is not a platform for everbody, you need a passion for it and be willing to practice and be willing to become your own armorer. However, the platform greatly rewards those who are dilligent in pursuing it.

That is a tough question as I feel most people are best served NOT using a 1911 as a primary sidearm. Two criteria come to mind a) A passion for the 1911 platform and b) you are willing to be your own armorer and can fix relatively minor problems or fit certain parts yourself. If you are the kind of guy that doesn’t mind tinkering with your Harley Davidson motorcycle to keep it running then you are a candidate. If however you treat your pistols like we all treat our lawnmowers then don’t get a 1911 – use a Glock.

Mr. Vickers quote above sums it up nicely.

 

[CraigC]

I would like to know what makes the 1911 antiquated?

Perception, period. Folks' perception of what is "modern" and what is outdated is based very little in reality. Like so many other things, lots of bias against the 1911 is based on "what they heard" and very little on actual experience. Personally, while I've always been a traditionalist, I went from Glocks to 1911's because they simply fit me better. Reliability has never been an issue. Glocks are fine tools but not what one would consider "fine guns".

 

[easyg]

If you need bells and whistles get something else. If you need something that's going to work each time, every time get a 1911. Don't take my word for it. Ask vets.

Well I am a veteran.
And I did use the 1911 when I first joined the Army.
And for a combat service pistol, I will take a Glock over a 1911 every time.

 

[easyg]

b) you are willing to be your own armorer and can fix relatively minor problems or fit certain parts yourself. If you are the kind of guy that doesn’t mind tinkering with your Harley Davidson motorcycle to keep it running then you are a candidate. If however you treat your pistols like we all treat our lawnmowers then don’t get a 1911 – use a Glock.

I think they got this one backwards....

If you like to be your own armorer then get a Glock.
They are the ultimate in user-friendly-do-it-yourself pistols.

 

[CraigC]

The Harley reference is typical. Like most 1911's, there is no need for tinkering on a modern Harley, unless you just like to. They are easily as reliable as any import bike. Again, common perception is the only difference.