1911 Antiquated...

[easyg]

"Out of the box reliability"???

What knid of damn fool is gonna trust their life to a brand new out of the box gun?

I dunno about you but I always put a few hundred rounds through ANY new pistol before I trust it as a carry weapon.

Unless you're a newb and it's your first and only gun why would you carry a gun that hasn't been broken in and tested so you can get a feel for it???

This might come as a surprise to you, but the vast majority of soldiers, Marines, sailors, airmen, and coastguardsmen don't get the luxury of shooting several hundred rounds through their assigned weapons before being deployed to the front lines.

 

[Taniwha]

Of course the 1911 is an outdated design. It came from an era when weapons were desgned to win fights, not to avoid product liability lawsuits. It came from an era where it was the norm to learn how your weapon operated and to practice that operation until it became second nature, not to design the piece to the lowest common denominator. It came from an era in which our country tried to supply it`s fighting men with the best tools possible, unlike today, when our fighting men and women are issued hardware that was adopted because of international deal-making or the fact that the factory is in some well-connected congressmens district. Yes, Beyond any shadow of a doubt, the 1911 IS an outdated design....and thats exactly what I love about it.
- Rosco S Benson

 

[Hatterasguy]

My Springfield 1911 has been 100% reliable, I have over 1k rounds through it now and havn't done anything to it other than stick mags in it and shoot.

I'd have no issues taking it into combat, it just seems to work.

I think reliability problems are not because of Brownings design, but because of all the company's that make them, and try to improve or change certain things. A 1911 built to spec is totaly reliable out of the box.

 

[1911Tuner]

the vast majority of soldiers, Marines, sailors, airmen, and coastguardsmen don't get the luxury of shooting several hundred rounds through their assigned weapons before being deployed to the front lines.

And how often is a brand new, unfired/untested weapon issued to a rifleman who is going in harm's way? They've all been fired, and any problems duly recorded and turned in to the unit armorer for inspection and repair.

 

[Prosser]

"I would like to know what makes the 1911 antiquated?"

The biggest single factor is that it's still mostly made of steel, or metal.

That, and a lack of magazine capacity. Also, it is an old design, and is VERY easy to work on.

The biggest problem is for some reason, people aren't inclined to buy plastic 1911's with larger mag capacity. Wilson tried it, and they didn't sell.

Also, since so few have been made, you don't have the endless supply of 1911 parts avaliable for it.

I for one, would like the 1911 design, with a double stack magazine, and in polymer.

All that said, the 1911 is NOT antiquated. It's an old, proven design. Glock, Sig Sauer, have certainly come up with higher capacity weapons, that are lighter to carry, and more simple in design. They have not come up with a better trigger, and a gun that is as thin, and easy to conceal, or carry for that matter.

Just because a firearm has a different set of features, and is designed for a different situation doesn't mean that a newer model is better.

Glocks have a certain set of design features, not the least of which is they are real cheap to produce.

Glock designed a gun that is cheap to produce, has the highest capacity, in the lightest package, going. It is very reliable, but, much like the original 1911, they aren't all that accurate, or easy to shoot, and, the loose tolerances designed for combat don't help with accuracy.

 

[1911Tuner]

much like the original 1911, they aren't all that accurate,

Whoops! Time to shoot another myth in the sittin' place.

The original 1911s were quite accurate, with off the rack/average examples often shooting into a 4-inch circle at 50 yards with issue ball ammo. A number of them would shoot even better with match grade hardball. Many would break the 3 inch line...and that's actually how service pistols were chosen for match tuning. If they'd shoot into 3 inches, they got the nod. If they didn't...even by a tiny bit...they were returned to line duty.

 

[The Bushmaster]

The old WW-II Colt (or its copy) not accurate? Who said. In 1984 I completed "Expert" with a WW-II Remington-Rand .45 ACP (from ships armory) at 25 yards. Not accurate? I shot a 298 out of 300 score...

 

[SuperNaut]

In all the years of THR's existence I cannot believe this hasn't been brought up before! Thanks OP for a timely and fresh topic!

 

[Dobe]

SuperNaut, that's good. What's more difficult to believe is that I'm back in this topic looking for somethng fresh. I did find one for sure. Tuner, I didn't know how some of the match 1911's were selected.

It is amazing how some rumors get started, and no matter how loudly or vehemently one proves the contrary, the myth persist. I remember reading on a forum where a poster had claimed that in order for a 1911 to be reliable, it had to be a rattle-trap. Which meant it would be very inacurrate. He went on to write that in order for a 1911 to be accurate, it had to have extremely tight tolerences. Thus it would be unreliable. I wonder how may of these people actually have owned and shot 1911's, even some of those who say or write that they have.

I believe myths are implanted into young impressionable minds, and are long and lingering. I remember hearing the myth that M16 projectiles started tumbling in fight the moment the projecile left the bore. I have been told this by Viet Nam combat vets. I suppose, if you hear a drill sargeant say that the light M16 bullet will fragment and tumble within a human body, it is not hard for a young mind to extrapolate from this information that the bullet must start tumbling somewhere, why not from the bore?

I have an uncle who still believes that a .45 ACP will knock a man down, and severe his arm, if he is only shot in the hand. It gets to be humorous sometimes. Sometimes, it's just pathetic.

 

[kmbrman]

All of the talk about the 1911 having to be extremely tight fitted to be accurate is no longer true. More and more of the High End pistols can be easily broken down without a bushing wrench. My Kimber is like this and is more accurate than I can ever shoot it with my level of skill. The quality of the barrel and the smoothness of the trigger also come into play,not to mention the quality of the ammo. But the statement made on one contri about knowing how the qwerks of the 1911 affect the shooters skill, would probably dictate that a newby to auto pistols should use some design simpler at first until he becomes familiar with the operation of the 1911. Then after you become more proficient with a less complex action ,move on to the 1911. It is a more complex arm than a typical striker pistol.

 

[1911Tuner]

I remember reading on a forum where a poster had claimed that in order for a 1911 to be reliable, it had to be a rattle-trap.

Another one of my favorite myths!

While a little clearance is desirable, one that's so loose you can almost field strip it by shaking it vigorously is as bad or worse from a reliability standpoint than one that's too tight. Those huge clearances let big pieces of grit get into the works.

Loose doesn't guarantee reliability any more than tight guarantees accuracy. By the same token, tight and reliable aren't mutually exclusive. It mostly depends on the skill of the builder, and his attention to detail. I've seen pistols that were far tighter than I like to see'em, but never stopped on any reasonable ammunition. I've also seen a few that met my standards, yet wouldn't make it through a USPSA stage without choking.

Most of my "building" is actually rebuilding and refitting slide to frame clearances with the occasional barrel fitting if needed. I like to see .003 inch of side and vertical play, and I don't fit the barrel so that it pushes the slide up tightly against the frame. .003 inch between the hood and breechface is good, and the same for the sides, though .005 inch at the sides is also good. I like .002 inch clearance between bushing and barrel, and maybe a thou between bushing to slide...but mainly for durability's sake rather than accuracy.

With such clearances, the pistol won't be a contender at Camp Perry, but it'll shoot 3 inches or less at 50 with good ammunition, and it'll run under adverse conditions, even if pretty badly neglected.

Of course, my idea of "perfect" is different from some few others'. My goal is to set it up primarily for reliability and longevity. Accuracy runs a fairly distant third place. If a particular gun will shoot into 2 inches at 50 yards...as long as it runs...I'm as happy as a duck, but it's purely a fluke and not by intent on my part. I'm just as happy if it doesn't do any better than 4 inches...though they normally shoot much better.

 

[Weevil]

I wonder how may of these people actually have owned and shot 1911's, even some of those who say or write that they have.

Yeah I tend to question the credibility of a lot of these characters, especially the ones who trot out those long lists of all the problem guns they've supposedly owned.

In over 30 years of shooting and at least a couple of dozen handguns I've only had a couple that were lemons, yet these guys claim to have owned a half dozen or more total clunkers from top name makers.


Yeah right!


Either they're extremely unlucky or telling tales and I'd bet money it's the latter.

 

[surjimmy]

This has come up before, and if I'm reposting I'm sorry. I didn't read every post. Bottom Line 1911 has been around for 100 YEARS has the Glock? NO. I'm not putting down the Glock, but when it's been around for 100 YEARS come talk to me. Every gun factory builds guns to sell to make money, if their guns don't sell no money. Then they go out of business, so there must be a reason why everyone and their dog is making 1911's. Wait.........I think I know this, because THEY SALE. If the design was crap, or they didn't hold enough ammo then they would not sale. So since they are selling and everyone is making them, they must hold enough ammo, not be too heavy, and are NOT a piece of crap. END OF RANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Prosser]

Glock designed a gun that is cheap to produce, has the highest capacity, in the lightest package, going. It is very reliable, but, much like the original 1911, they aren't all that accurate, or easy to shoot, and, the loose tolerances designed for combat don't help with accuracy.

1911Tuner: that is my quote, and don't take it out of context. I've had guys complain that the 1911's they had in WW1 and II were very inaccurate. They said it was due to worn out guns and parts being put into service when they should have been retired.

The guys I'm talking about are not gun stupid.

1911's are my favorite semi-auto, and my comment was really a dig at Glocks. With that horrible trigger, it makes a 1911 combat trigger look like a perfect trigger.

Browning designed the gun to be reliable first, period. It's a combat gun. The glock was designed to be a light weight, cop carry piece, that really isn't used often, but, when it is, has enough rounds to make up for the inaccuracy of the overall package. Glocks have to be accurate enough to pass LEO testing, and that's about it.

I guess I should post my 1911 experience. I shot, everyday, for 5 years, at least 2 hours every other day at the LEO range with a Detonics Combat Master VI.
I shot .451 Detonics level, 200 grain speer flying ashtrays at 1200 fps, all the time. I put stiff springs in the gun, shot the heck out of it, and, it drove tacks. I rarely ever cleaned the gun, and, after the first heavy springs put in it, never changed the springs.
It ran flawlessly for 5 years until the idiot user sold it. I was young, stupid...

I also have a custom smith tuned Kimber 1911, setup for 45 Super, changed timing, etc. and it just drives tacks.

I'm willing to say that perhaps, with a couple hundred thousand rounds through one, a Glock 34 or 35, custom tuned, MIGHT provide the same consistency, and accuracy
I get from a 1911.

Finally no one talks about Glocks flat mag springs, and other use of flat springs.
Flat springs are just not as reliable or consistent, period, as 1911 springs.
These springs caused my SWAT friend to pick Sig Sauer P220
s for our local PD. He's also a licensed S&W gunsmith, so he's no dummy.

 

[1911Tuner]

I didn't take it out of context, and I wasn't even responding directly to you. I was addressing a myth that keeps popping up, and used part of your post to illustrate and home in on that particular aspect of the debate.

Many times, we can be in agreement on a writer's comments, but in disagreement on a single, important point. We don't argue with the whole, but rather focus on the point.

I often quote a single sentence or even a few words instead of a whole paragraph in order to cut directly to the chase and direct the reader's attention to a point of debate or contention...and I'll continue to do so in the future when it's warranted. In this case, it was the oft-repeated myth that I wanted to address...not necessarily your comment.

 

[Dobe]

You boys are up early. 'Ya need to at least pour down that first cup before getting back on line.

 

[CDW4ME]

So far in this thread I've posted my preference for the Glock or XD over the 1911. However, I would chose a lightweight Officers size frame 1911 over some other popular pistols.

In another thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=535000&page=2 I would pick the 1911 over the original OP's current pistol.

Here is what I posted:

"On another THR thread I posted how I prefer the Glock or XD to a 1911.

However, I would rather have a 1911 Officers, CDP compact, or other 5'' height model 1911 over any DA/SA pistol like a Sig 226, Beretta 92 or S&W 5906 ect.... I do not like the DA/SA transition.

I want a consistent trigger whether it's "safe action" or single action.

The 1911 offers a consistent trigger, has a grip that fits most peoples hand, and launches a "big" bullet; it's also thin & flat which makes it fairly easy to conceal.

If I was going to carry a 1911 style pistol it would have a lightweight Officers frame (5'' overall height) and preferably a 4'' or Commander length barrel / slide. I had a Kimber CDP that was exactly what I'm talking about".

Is the 1911 antiquated? No.
Would I prefer a 1911 as described above over a DA/SA pistol? Yes.
Did I really have those various 1911 pistols and 4 out of 6 wouldn't feed 100%? Yes. (In 2007, I quickly traded the SWAT replica back at the store where I bought it for a Glock 38 & 39 (I've already gotten rid of the 39, too chunky for it's size.))

In fairness, I had a Glock 36 that pinched my pinky where the oversize magazine base met the frame, I sold it. Couple of years later I bought another 36 only to experience the same problem again (Duh). I have no love for the Glock 36.

I aslo have no use for the 17,22, or other Glocks with a overall height greater than 5''. This 5'' height requirement applies to XD's, 1911's ect... If I can't conceal carry the pistol without too much trouble it's usefullness is diminished.

I have not yet addressed the Kahr, but might as well. The PM9 is a nice little pistol offering a good blend of power and concealibility with a consistent trigger, I like it. The PM40 however kicks like heck. The PM45 has a stout recoil too and mine was ammo picky. The PM40 and PM45 went bye bye. I'll keep the PM9, but I seriously doubt I'll buy another Kahr.

Summary:
Glock & XD (26,27,33,19,23,32,30SF, XD45 compact, XDsc)= 1st choice
1911 with lightweight Officers frame (concealed carry in mind)= 2nd choice. 2nd place isn't bad.
Semiauto with DA/SA trigger (S&W, Sig) = 3rd choice

 

[CZ223]

Antiquated, maybe. Obsolete, no.

The 1911 design is antiquated in much the same way that the wheel is. Sure it has been a round for a lot of years but it is still relevant and useful. Are there newer designs, sure. Are there some that are better, probably. The fact is that a man armed with a properly tuned 1911, is well armed. Are there reasons to choose other newer high cap guns, sure. But when all is said and done I feel just as comfortable carrying my 1911s as I do carrying my Glocks.

 

[Jim Watson]

The glock was designed to be a light weight, cop carry piece, that really isn't used often

Actually, the Glock was designed to be an Austrian made Austrian military service pistol to replace their old P38s. Gaston G. got into the gun business because he did not want to see his country have to depend on a foreign supplier. And to make money, of course.

The Glock and the AUG rifle are made to be dead simple to operate because at the time they were adopted, Austria had universal military service with short active duty and there was not much time for training and practice.

 

[Joe Demko]

The 1911 will still do what it was designed to do. I own a couple of them and carried one as a duty pistol for several years with no worries. That said, I don't get all emotionally overwrought about them, either. I have here a S&W MP 45 that will run right alongside my 1911's in accuracy. In terms of reliability, it equals the Springfield 1911 (both have been free of problems) and exceeds the Colt 1911 (which has required work a couple of times). The Smith holds more ammo than the 1911's, has an even simpler manual of arms, and field strips/reassembles more easily.
Yes, I'd still carry a 1911 and not feel sorry for myself. It still does what it was designed to do. The S&W will do the same job while weighing less and holding more ammo. Snark about "outclassed shooters" aside, I'd rather have more ammo than less at my disposal if there is going to be 2-way shooting.
YMMV.

 

[1911Tuner]

Snark about "outclassed shooters" aside, I'd rather have more ammo than less at my disposal if there is going to be 2-way shooting.

No snark intended. That falls in line with Cooper's dictum that you're only outgunned if you miss. Hit first. Hit hard. End the fight.
That's the key to surviving.

And, I can't think of anyone who wouldn't prefer to have a Ma Deuce and a thousand belted rounds in a gunfight.

 

[Mp7]

I guess it´s taste. As the guy from germany i´d happily bring
a Luger to the BBQ .... and most of you would carry 1911s

For going into combat .... make it a Glock.

( interesting, mostly cool-headed thread here guys )

 

[Joe Demko]

That falls in line with Cooper's dictum that you're only outgunned if you miss. Hit first. Hit hard. End the fight.
That's the key to surviving.

Sage advice, indeed. How does having the four additional rounds per magazine violate Cooper's dictum?

 

[Walkalong]

So danged antiquated, I bought another one the other day.

It's sweeeeet

 

[06]

Ditto on Walkalong's. It is a SA stainless. My old Colt still works fine and it my "back door" gun. A bud's wife had a Kimber and sent it back--just would not work right. We all get a "lemon" sometimes but will take a 1911 when the chips are needed.