1911 Antiquated...

[akadave]

Just finished a 2 day course and put nearly 1,000 rounds of my handload 230gr LRN through my old old Kimber and not one hiccup! I used Bullseye powder too and its really dirty stuff. Cleaned the weapon once and that was the first night of the course.

 

[Shadowdancer]

I've had both Glocks and 1911's. I'm more accurate with the 1911. It fits my grip better because it is thinner. I stay out of war zones so I don't really need high capacity (besides... my previous carry gun was a S&W Airlite). I don't care that the 1911 is old school. It meets my needs better than any other firearm out there.

 

[1911Tuner]

How does having the four additional rounds per magazine violate Cooper's dictum?

It doesn't...and that sounds kinda "snarky" in its own right.

Nobody is claiming that more ammo is a bad thing. The point is that there's too much emphasis placed on equipment...and capacity...and that's a faulty approach. I think it was Clint Smith who said that capacity only means anything if you plan on missing a lot.

i.e. If you can't solve your immediate problem with seven rounds of .45 ACP, you're probably in so far over your head that you can't solve it at all...either by way of the situation or the fact that you can't hit your assailant.

Another of Cooper's wisdoms:

"It's the man who wins the fight. His weapon is incidental."

Reference the story of Brown on Resolution.

Condensed version:

Able seaman Brown, taken captive by German sailors abord the gunship Zeithen, jumped ship with a Mauser rifle, and was able to stop all repair work on her by firing on the repair crew from different points on the beach. A powerful warship was thus rendered inconsequential by a 20 year-old British seaman and a bolt-action rifle.

 

[Joe Demko]

Too much emphasis on equipment and capacity is certainly a bad thing. Gunfights being the uncertain and turbulent environment they are, though, one does want to accrue every possible advantage. This, obviously, means training, practice, and mindset. It also means things like equipment and capacity. See, every training program of which I am aware spends a lot of time on things like being able to reload one's weapon under the stress of battle. Why would I not, therefore, want the weapon with the higher capacity and equal levels of accuracy and reliability? I can shoot more between those magazine changes.
As for "planning on missing a lot," that is very glib but has little to do with using a gun in self-defense. Nobody plans on missing a lot, but if we were able to plan gunfights to be exactly the way we want them to be, I'd simply plan on not having any. Goblins (to use a pet word of Cooper's) don't always react to being shot the way we'd like them to react. Sometimes we have to shoot them some more. Sometimes there is more than one of them. Sometimes they are shooting back.
I try not to be so fixated on equipment that I cling to a particular piece when I could be using something that loses me no advantages and brings me additional ones.

 

[Dobe]

You give up in order to get. With a 1911, you give up high capacity, in order to have the 1911 ergonomics. You also get that 1911 trigger. I have read that Larry Vickers said that the 1911 was the easiest handgun to shoot well while under pressure. That means a lot. I'll give up capacity for that. Especially since I know there is very little chance of an armed confrontation going beyond 8 or 9 rounds.

 

[easyg]

I think it was Clint Smith who said that capacity only means anything if you plan on missing a lot.

i.e. If you can't solve your immediate problem with seven rounds of .45 ACP, you're probably in so far over your head that you can't solve it at all...either by way of the situation or the fact that you can't hit your assailant.

Those remarks sound stupid when applied to the 1911, which was designed as a service pistol to be used in war.

In fact, one the 1911's greatest strengths, at the time of its creation, was that it offered greater capacity than the service handgun it was replacing:

the 6-shot revolver.



As a service handgun designed for war the 1911 is clearly antiquated.
As a civilian self-defense handgun it's as relevant as the revolver.

 

[1911Tuner]

As a service handgun designed for war the 1911 is clearly antiquated.

I guess that's why the Special Operations Capable Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU-SOC) ask for them by name. Or maybe those boys are also antiquated...or stupid...or somethin'...

 

[easyg]

I guess that's why the Special Operations Capable Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU-SOC) ask for them by name.

If they are asking for a pistol that is a copy of the original 1911 design, including magazine capacity, then yes, that is stupid on their part in my opinion.

Just because one elite unit, within one branch of the military, wants a specific weapon, that does not make that weapon the best tool for the job.

Take the beret for example....
For many years only a few elite units wore the beret (British SAS, US Rangers, SF, and Airborne, etc...), but it's the most useless and stupid form or military headgear used today.
But everybody wanted a beret because that's what the elite wore.
Just utterly stupid.

 

[Dobe]

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Antiquated is not the word I would use. Other than the materials from which they are made (much of it related to cost cutting, e.g., plastic and MIM), virtually every firearm out there differs little from its ancestors of 70-100 (or even more) years ago. Rather, it suffers from a huge number of makers building them to different specs, exacerbated by often poor quality control. There seems to be little correlation between price and quality as well.

 

[Prosser]

I guess part of it comes down to the quality of the people using the gun, and, it's purpose for which they are using it. Glocks to me are simple, inaccurate, with more reliability and durability attributed then is actual.

Glocks have a clear advantage: they are made by one company, and, therefore when you get replacement parts you don't have to worry about if Ed Browns' safety is going to fit your Kimber.

1911's are made by dozens of companies, and even more make quality parts. There is a custom 1911 for EVERYONE, unless you want polymer and a double stack mag.
So, your chances of malfunction with a 1911 are not due to the design itself, but to the fact that they are produced by so many different companies, and, even these companies may use another companies parts. Doesn't happen with a Glock.

Glocks, most of them, are cheap to produce, easy to maintain, kind of sloppy fit on purpose, to allow for ammo variation, dirt, etc.

They are great guns for people that are required to carry a gun, or, someone that is not a gun person. Point, aim, pull terrible trigger, and you've just made a chest shot.

I have found accurate Glocks, but, they are custom tuned 34's and 35's.
Excellent triggers, etc. but, this is not the gun for your average soldier or police officer.

In short, experts can find either a Glock or a 1911 that fits their needs. Non-gun people, or people with limited shooting experience, and limited gun use are going to find a glock
passable, and may even think it's a great gun.

The real advantage to the 1911 is for a reasonable amount, or unreasonable amount,
you can have your own custom gun, designed as you want it.

With a Glock, you buy it, and your options aren't much. What has kept me from getting a Glock is the relatively high initial cost. I really don't think the gun is worth what is asked for it these days. I think Glocks cost is probably around 100 dollars or less, considering the quality of the parts.
I think he's made a LOT of money from his gun company, over 100 million dollars.
I suspect his profit margin is around 500%. I really don't want to give more money to Austria.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

The 1911 is one of the mostly heavily Custom and Self gunsmithed firearm platforms in the U.S.. It can be found in 9mm, 10mm, .40, .45 ACP, .38 Super, 9x23 Winchester, 9x25 Dillon, .22lr, .460 Rowland, .38 Casull to say the least. If it not had been for companies like Astra, there wouldn't have been the Mustang and Pony .380.

The 1911 is one of the most heavily copied platforms available. In the Phillipines today(Rock Island) the police use 18+1 9mm 1911 copies. Where pistols can still be owned by the public you will find the 1911.

The orignial 1911 like any good tool is not a victim of inefficiency but a victim of technology. And let us be reminded that the great John Mosses Browning was not a man to fixate himself on one design or idea. Had he still lived another twenty years he would have likely invented something better given the newer developments in technology and metallurgy. Had he lived on we could have seen a 1951 so to speak.

Give me a 1911 built hardy enough to digest 10mm doubletap loadings on a regular basis with a nine shot capacity, and I can't think of too many people who wouldn't want to carry that as a side arm to a battle rifle, a 10mm 200 Grain FMJ at 1250 fps and all the government supplies ammo you could practice with would make for a heck of battlefield side arm.

 

[Hatterasguy]

The 1911's capacity doesn't really bother me. A lot of people still carry and love revolvers and most of them are 5-6 shot guns.

People faught wars and defended themselves for hundreds of years with single shot black powder pistols, and than revolvers before automatics were invented.

I figure if 7 bullets isn't enough I'm on the wrong side of the argument.

 

[Hatterasguy]

The orignial 1911 like any good tool is not a victim of inefficiency but a victim of technology. And let us be reminded that the great John Mosses Browning was not a man to fixate himself on one design or idea. Had he still lived another twenty years he would have likely invented something better given the newer developments in technology and metallurgy. Had he lived on we could have seen a 1951 so to speak.

He did make a modern pistol, its called the Browning Hi Power. Which is another very good pistol, BTW, I'd put it up alongside any Glock 17.

It has a 13 round mag, and I'm sure their are some higher capacity versions. I beleive the militarys standard issue M9's are what 15?

 

[1911Tuner]

If they are asking for a pistol that is a copy of the original 1911 design, including magazine capacity, then yes, that is stupid on their part in my opinion.

What planet have you been residing on? They aren't asking for it. They have it, and they've been putting it to good use in the Middle Eastern Theater for several years now...and quite effectively, according to the reports.

 

[FuzzyBunny]

The 1911 just fits my hand better.

 

[Billy Shears]

If they are asking for a pistol that is a copy of the original 1911 design, including magazine capacity, then yes, that is stupid on their part in my opinion.

Yeah, those highly trained professionals couldn't possibly know what fits their needs best.

 

[easyg]

Yeah, those highly trained professionals couldn't possibly know what fits their needs best.

There are many elite highly trained professionals fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.
And a lot of them use different handguns.
The fact that one small group of them prefers an outdated service pistol does not impress me.


Again, the 1911 is a great pistol.
The design is pure genius.
But as a service pistol its day has come and gone.
There are simply better choices available today.

 

[Prosser]

Handguns are trade offs. The 1911 platform has some features that are NOT antiquated. The grip is a size, and design that lets a large number of people shoot it well. Likewise the trigger, sites, and the slim package.

Other service pistols compromise. The Browning High Power gives you a thicker grip, trigger that isn't as good, but it's close. Still, its 9mm.

The other service wonder nines sacrifice trigger, grip size, overall ergometrics, to accomplish their goal. And I nearly forgot recoil as part of the equation.
The usually heavier 1911 design is exceptional at absorbing recoil.

Depending upon which group you are trying to provide a service arm for, or whatever your intended purpose, the combination of caliber, and design may work or not.

One size does not fit all, and, the 1911, in it's variety has a viable, current, feature group.

 

[1911Tuner]

There are many elite highly trained professionals fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. And a lot of them use different handguns.
The fact that one small group of them prefers an outdated service pistol does not impress me.

There's a small but important difference. Most of the personnel who are issued handguns in a war zone have no real expectation of using them. Officers...Mortar and tank crews...Forward observers, etc. For the ones that actually carry a pistol with the possibility of shooting someone with it, it's there as an emergency backup weapon when everything is going to hell in a handbasket and the rifle is broken or dry. As a rule, 11B/0311 personnel aren't issued handguns, and are usually forbidden to carry them....even though many do in violation of policy.

The MEU-SOC personnel are the tip of the sword. They go into an AO with the expectation of fighting, and the pistol is much more than a fallback or expedient, last-ditch means of staying alive. They use them for extreme close quarters engagements and house clearing in tight dwellings...where the rifles would be a hindrance. They use rifles whenever possible, but the pistol is as much a first-response weapon as is the M4, and they train to use it as such, with each man firing upward of 25,000+ rounds annually in practice. They know that they'll be shooting people with that pistol...people who are doing their best to kill them.

They specifically asked for the .45 to be refurbished and returned to service because they weren't confident with the 9mm ball cartridge or the M9, even with 15 rounds on tap...and the Beretta M92/M9 has proven to be troublesome in the mid-east environment...while the 1911 has fared much better.

To quote part of an article that I read a few days ago...

"They wanted the .45 because of its reliability and its lethality."

Reports that trail in say that rarely is there a need to shoot twice with the .45 auto.

Whether or not you're impressed with their choice is of no consequence. They are...
and that's strong evidence that it has something going for it besides doublestack capacity, double-action, and a decocker thingy.

 

[Billy Shears]

Whether or not you're impressed with their choice is of no consequence. They are...
and that's strong evidence that it has something going for it besides doublestack capacity, double-action, and a decocker thingy.

Well said. A lot of people are overly impressed with magazine capacity, and like easyg here, seem to think that if a pistol isn't a hi cap, lightweight, DA it's an antiquated piece of junk. They forget that for soldiers, pistols are weapons of last resort, and even cops, for whom they are the primary weapon, take a long gun into situations where a fight seems likely, and if you are in a situation where you need 40+ rounds and you have to rely on a pistol, you're pretty much screwed six ways from Sunday. Most of time time, and this even applies to cops and soldiers (even elite ones) the fight is over with a relatively small number of pistol rounds expended. Thus, magazine capacity and/or quick reloading is a nice thing to have, but it's not necessarily foremost. Reliability, lethality, and ergonomics all come in ahead. The 1911 has them, thanks to its slim grip, low bore axis, powerful cartridge, and single action trigger, and to this day there is no other pistol that allows faster accurate fire. And given today's liability conscious society, there probably never will be, since it seems unlikely that any modern service pistol will ever again be designed with a single action trigger.

Seriously, what is it that make people like easyg dismiss it as antiquated? The single stack magazine? As I said, they put too much emphasis on magazine capacity, the vast majority of the time, a shooter won't need even the eight rounds a 1911 has available, so why must a gun have more? And the single stack magazine has advantages: a slimmer, more ergonomic grip that fits even smaller hands well, and this makes it easier for many people to shoot. Since only hits count, that's an advantage for some people. The single action trigger? It takes slightly more training time, but not much more, and the light, consistent, short pull rewards the skilled shooter by increasing his ability to hit the target with rapid follow up shots. This is another advantage. The greater weight of an all steel pistol? Again, this soaks up recoil, and in a holster, the extra few ounces are hardly noticeable. The fact that the 1911 is an older design, with more machining, and thus greater cost? This may make it less ideal than a more modern handgun for general issue, but for elite shooters, the extra capability that the gun gives them is worth the extra money.

Bottom line is that the elite shooters who prefer the 1911 have the skill, training, and experience to know what fits their needs best, and to know what particular qualities are most important in a handgun, and knowing these things, they still tend to prefer the 1911. Whether easyg or anyone else understands this or not, that's how it is.

 

[1911Tuner]

Billy, when I hear somebody talk smack about the old/outdated/obsolete 1911, and sing the praises of the Glock/Sig/HKUSP...I wonder if they're aware that those three fine/new/modern pistols have the heart of Browning's brainchild beating within them.

All three of those are short recoil, locked breech, tilt barrel designs. They work exactly the same way, and the ergonomics are incidental.

Double-action capability means nothing in the military...which has a policy of Condition Three carry until something is about to happen.

A smaller, lighter caliber that's less effective for man killing in the Hague acceptable hardball loadings.

A 9mm pistol with a double column/single feed position magazine. New? Innovative? Hardly. John Browning and Dieudonne Saive had that part figured out in the 1920s.

A decocker that's probably not a bad idea for conscripts who've had little training with the pistol beyond familiarization and qualifying, but is essentially an answer in search of a question for those who make an effort to learn to use a thumb safety until such time that the gun can be properly cleared and reholstered...in Condition Three as per Uncle Sugar's policy.

Now, then. Let's have a look at the Beretta 92 series...or M9 if you prefer.

Think that one is all new and superior? The product of a modern design genius? Head and shoulders above all others that have preceeded it?

Sorry. Wrong again. Go field strip a Walther P38 beside the Beretta and see whatcha think.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Good post, by the way.

 

[Prosser]

Billy Shears you bring up an intresting point. If glock did design the gun for the Austrian military, short time, poorly trained, maybe the high capacity mags are because they expect
the people to miss, and, they NEED the extra rounds?
Combine that with a trigger glock knows is not condusive to good shooting, and the design starts to make sense.

Also, let's not forget that the military has to play with ball ammo.

The Beretta's that have been the issue gun simply aren't that accurate, and, 9mm ball just doesn't hit like a .45ACP ball ammo.

Despite Glocks puffing, a Glock has NO safety. If you take the trigger down to the 1911 level, you now have a gun that is REALLY unsafe for carry, or use by police or military.

These limitations are just that.

 

[Billy Shears]

Billy Shears you bring up an intresting point. If glock did design the gun for the Austrian military, short time, poorly trained, maybe the high capacity mags are because they expect
the people to miss, and, they NEED the extra rounds?

Perhaps, but since I think they expect pistols to get little actual combat use, I suspect it has more to do with the dimensions of the 9mm cartridge -- since it's a cartridge that allows a high capacity magazine without making the grip unmanageably large, why not give it a high capacity magazine?

European armies have generally been a lot less concerned over pistols than we have. I've read that a lot of European military officers thought we made an unnecessarily large production over our pistol selection when we switched to the Beretta in the 1980s, given that pistols are really seldom used in combat. And I think that historically, American soldiers have tended to get slightly more use from their pistols, for whatever reason. Noted firearms expert Ian V. Hogg wrote about the gun the British issued in WWII, the Enfield .38/200 revolver, that "As a hip-shooting emergency weapon it was serviceable enough, but I have been unable to find any reliable record of it being used to good effect." About the 1911, by contrast, he wrote "There is no doubt that it was the most widely used of combat pistols (perhaps because the Americans are rather more 'hand-gun oriented') and there are innumerable stories of its effectiveness in combat."

I think American forces really have tended to use handguns more than European armies. The Austrians probably selected the Glock for service because it's dead simple, and admittedly very reliable. It has a small number of parts, its incredibly easy for armorers to work on, and it is easy to shoot when needed. That makes it ideal as a general issue sidearm from a cost-effectiveness standpoint.

 

[Hatterasguy]

Old design? I put 250 rounds through my 1911 today and shot just as well if not better than my friend with his brand new Sig 239 and 92FS.

The 1911 can still keep up with any modern pistol. I'll keep my 1911 thank you very much.