1911 Antiquated...

[jmorris]

It should be obvious by the fact that everyone and his brother is now making a 1911 because they made too much money selling all of their much more modern pistols and wanted to give employees a well deserved break.

 

[Skillet]

the question I have is why is it that people love or hate a gun? its not a live thing, so why hate or love it? that's kinda like saying i love or hate my electric toothbrush. its a gun. yeah, it functions decently and so does many other guns, but it basically goes bang just like any other gun. yay.

just my opinion.

 

[Greg528iT]

Skillet.. same story as to cars. I suppose if they started making toothbrushes that were something more than a appliance, we'd have a forum with Colgate and Crest lovers and haters.

If you decipher why men argue over guns, you'll unravell the mystery of man.
I didn't even get into Redheads, Brunettes and Blondes (errrrrr OK that's a live thing.. HOPEFULLY)

 

[akadave]

I wouldnt put an electric toothbrush or any other kind of appliance in the same category. To do so invites less than desireable results. Its a tool yes. A very special tool that is used for something a bit more serious than cavity prevention. Its literally a life or death kind of thing.

 

[Irate Iguana]

Funny how both sides go on and on about what soldiers might or might not want and yet nobody comes up with interviews or official documents. Right now this is a very nice thread full of hearsay and personal preference projected upon a very large group of individuals.

 

[Greg528iT]

akadave. wait I'm not talking these new fangled electric gizmos. I'm talking the toothbrushes like our grandfathers used in the trenches of WWII. The standard manual toothbrush is much SLIMMER and fits in smaller hands. Is the quickest, back on tooth action than any electric would ever wish to have.

 

[Prosser]

SUPPRESSIVE FIRE!!!
AMMO COMPATIBILITY WITH SUBMACHINE GUNS IN A PINCH.
LIGHTEST POSSIBLE WEAPON, MOST MAG CAPACITY.
The above should be mentioned when discussing high capacity combat pistols.

For those uses, the wonder 9's were made. IIRC, someone did a study and the actual kill to bullets fired ratio in was was something absurd, like 250k rounds to one death.

By far the greatest use of ammunition is to gain positional advantage, and to incapacitate, not kill.

Glocks remind me of Linus' blanket: you always want it with you, it makes you feel
good...

If I want to hit something, I'll take an M1A.

 

[easyg]

the question I have is why is it that people love or hate a gun? its not a live thing, so why hate or love it?

Just to be clear, I don't hate the 1911.

It's a fine handgun and will go down in history as one of the greatest handguns ever created.
I just happen to think that it's outdated as a military service pistol.
And some folks disagree.
And, apparently, we all like spirited debate.
Which is what this forum is all about.
After all, it wouldn't be much of a forum if we all thought the same.

 

[jackpinesavages]

It's a lot like the 5.7 liter, 350 that GM dumped: someone else like Toyota or Dodge will pick it up and run with it, across the finish line, to stand on top of the podium at a track near you.

My STI in .45 is an heirloom destined to stay in the family, with instructions written into the will, for at least until ammunition is available.

 

[akadave]

I think the round is the most important. I personnally think that 9mm has had its chance and .45 ACP should be the round of choice. Lots of info out there about its superiority to 9mm

 

[Joe Demko]

There's some truth to this. Having a large number of rounds in the magazine does seem to encourage some shooters to "spray and pray" rather than practice good marksmanship.

Then the flaw lies in the shooter, not the gun. If lowered capacity so effectively promotes marksmanship, why don't you block your 1911 magazines so they hold only four or five rounds? By your reckoning, that should make an already great gun even better.

 

[Billy Shears]

Then the flaw lies in the shooter, not the gun. If lowered capacity so effectively promotes marksmanship, why don't you block your 1911 magazines so they hold only four or five rounds? By your reckoning, that should make an already great gun even better.

Hey guy, it's not my fault if large capacities sometimes seem to encourage "spray and pray" and there's no need to be snide with me for pointing out a fact that plenty of other people have observed. It's just human nature to be profligate with abundant resources, and more frugal with limited ones. When you have lots of rounds, it's easy to take less care spending them. When you know you don't have as many, on the other hand, you take more care not to waste them. This is human nature. What it means, in practical terms, however, is that a lot of shooters will negate whatever advantage they might get from having more rounds, because they'll waste more by shooting less carefully and missing more often, so their total number of hits may not be any higher, despite all the extra rounds they have available. And pointing out that this flaw does indeed lie with the shooter doesn't cure it.

And don't be absurd. I don't really see any disadvantage to having a large magazine capacity per se. I merely point out that shooters with lower capacity guns have a tendency to make a virtue of necessity and exercise a little more fire discipline, as well as pointing out the fact that large capacity magazines don't come without costs of their own -- such as requiring the use of a smaller, less powerful round, and dictating larger grips that some shooters my find less ergonomic. And what that means is that a skilled shooter who finds the 1911 a more ergonomic platform, and who can take advantage of its trigger, may be better able to achieve accurate rapid fire with it than he can with any other handgun, thus making that gun the best choice for him as a combat arm.

Why so many people seem to have a problem with that mystifies me.

 

[1911Tuner]

When you have lots of rounds, it's easy to take less care spending them.

This phenomenon was noted by Jeff Cooper in one of his writings. This may not be verbatim, but he said:

"High magazine capacity seems to encourage sloppy shooting. The guy with the AK47 tends to make a lot of noise and run out of ammunition quickly, while the man with the rusty old Mauser knows that he has to hold and squeeze."

 

[Prosser]

Oh please, it's not sloppy shooting. It's 'suppressive fire'.

John Linebaugh once wrote I can keep their head down with my 451 Detonics, while he sneaks around and hit's them with a REAL round: near 454 45 colt rounds.

In one sentence, he summed all this stuff up, 20 years ago...
Not bad for a guy that built guns as a crude smith...

 

[Joe Demko]

"High magazine capacity seems to encourage sloppy shooting. The guy with the AK47 tends to make a lot of noise and run out of ammunition quickly, while the man with the rusty old Mauser knows that he has to hold and squeeze."

That's a load of bollocks whoever said it. The untrained/undisciplined shooter makes a lot of noise and runs out of ammunition with any gun. The trained/disciplined shooter tries to make each shot count. No less of a marksmanship-oriented organization than the USMC has been issuing box-magazine fed rifles holding 20 or more rounds for several decades now. The key is training and self-discipline. 1911's do not magically instill it, however much you may personally like the design.

 

[1911Tuner]

That's a load of bollocks whoever said it.

That would be Jeff Cooper. What an idiot! Saying such a ridiculous thing after only having combat experience in the Pacific and Korea with a bunch of undisciplined Marines...

 

[Joe Demko]

Cooper was still but a man. That's the problem with any discussion involving Cooper. His admirers tend to get him confused with the other JC.

 

[Greg528iT]

As predicted, this thread has moved on from "is the 1911 antiquated" to another subject.

Pretty much from what I've read.. All pistols have been replaced as the primary fighting tool. (antiquated) Pistols are secondary / back up pieces of hardware.

 

[1911Tuner]

I'm not a staunch admirer of Cooper's, but the man was no idiot. There were many things that he had right...and that was one of them.

 

[Roswell_Kid]

"...fires lead pellets, propelled by expanding gasses."

Sulu, explaining his newly-found DA revolver to Kirk in "Shore Leave."

Provided we don´t all exterminate ourselves first, the day is coming when even the adored Glock barf will be regarded as an antique.

 

[CDW4ME]

Here is how a Colt lightweight Officers compares to a XDsc 40, Glock 27 (with pinky extension), and Glock 23.
I can't see the advantage in packing a 7 + 1 when it's size and weight are so comparable to other offerings that have more capacity.

The Glock 23 and Officers are very close in size. The 23 offers 13 + 1 rounds. Fully loaded weights of these two is nearly the same. Overall height is 5'' for both.

The XDsc and 27 are both smaller (easier to conceal) than the Officers. They both have a 9 + 1 capacity of 40 S&W and are very controlable.
Compared to the 27 and XDsc, with the Officers you give up 2 rounds, and increase size, for what?

I'm not buying less is better when it comes to capacity available in a SD situation.

 

[valorius]

I am sure that Jeff Cooper understood that the idea behind firing a lot of rounds, and having high ammo capacity in a military rifle is to create a high volume of fire for the purpose of suppressing enemy fire while your elements maneuver into position for a coup de grace (or break contact).

 

[Joe Demko]

I'm not buying less is better when it comes to capacity available in a SD situation.

I'm not either and I'm still waiting on an explanation of why the "less is more" crowd does not block or download their magazines to hold only four or five rounds. If having 7 or 8 shots is better than having 10 or 11, than having four or five should be better yet. Likewise, I'd expect revolver shooters who ascribe the same magic to lower ammo capacity to always keep an empty chamber under the hammer whether the design requires it or not.
This "less ammo makes you better" idea is a rationalization, plainly and simply. If you like the 1911 and can live with its ammo capacity, carry one and may you always triumph over your enemies. Don't try to float me a raft of **** that its more limited ammo capacity is an advantage, though. The shooter will shoot as he has trained and practiced. If he's a slob with a Glock 19 he will be a slob with a 1911 or a S&W Chiefs Special or a Ruger Vaquero. He'll be a slob with an AK or a Mauser 98 or a Savage 99. Shooters make guns perform well or poorly, not the other way around.
Cooper, rest him, was closely associated with the Bren Ten pistol. One notes that in 10mm it held 11 rounds whilst the .45 acp variant was to hold 10. Fancy that.

 

[valorius]

My carry pistols only hold 8 and 9 rounds respectively.

There is much to be said for the theory that "If you have it, you'll use it." Been a long time since i saw the stat, but after cops transitioned from wheel guns to autos in the US< the average police shooting went from something like 2.8 rds expended per shoot out, to approx. 4x that amount.

 

[Joe Demko]

Been a long time since i saw the stat, but after cops transitioned from wheel guns to autos in the US< the average police shooting went from something like 2.8 rds expended per shoot out, to approx. 4x that amount.

They perform as they were trained to perform and as they practice. LE, especially at the local level, in the US has never been wont to spend much money or man hours on training or mandated practice. So, poorly trained shooters miss a lot. Wow. In other news, the sky is blue. Do not ascribe poor performance on the shooter's part to some pernicious influence from higher capacity magazines.