1911 Antiquated...

[Dobe]

I don't believe high cap mags cause poor shooting. Rather, poor shooters miss and continue to miss more with high cap mags. The point is: what does the average CCW holder need more, and is it worth the trade off? Each person carrying has to make his on decision about that. To me, it is like my rationalization of AR vs. AK. The AK may be more reliable in the most extreme situations. Yet, the AR is more than reliable enough, and the trade off is that I have a very accurate rifle, very easy to maintain, very easy to add optics, and assessorize. Plus, the ergonomics are superior. This is NOT meant to envoke AK vs AR post. It is only meant to serve as an example.

The 1911 has wonderful ergonomics, a superior trigger, easy to detail strip, and chambers a proven cartridge, and has proven reliability. Whether or not you feel you need more rounds is up to you.

As far as U.S. military handguns goes, the 1911 is dead. Only in rare circumstances will the 1911 be used again, and then by those most likely to actually use it, but still in very small numbers. The DA/SA high cap is here to stay, a least for some time. If I were back in the Army, I wouldn't want to carry a handgun at all. As well as the M4 works, I'd rather save the room and weight for more ammo. As a civilian, a 1911 will work just fine.

 

[valorius]

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.

Nothing else changed, so why would i attribute the change to anything but the increase in capacity?

PS: Compared to, say, German cops (or European cops in general), American cops typically shoot 10x or more more ammo per year.

 

[Joe Demko]

Badly trained shooters miss more when they have more ammo with which to miss. Please, let us not attribute the missing to the magazine capacity_again_when the issue is poor shooter training. What about blocking those magazines in your personal carry piece? Did you get around to doing that yet? Why not?

 

[bdb benzino]

As far as the reliability aspect goes for the 1911, in my experience I have owned 4 different 1911's and 3 of them being lower end 1911's.

1. 5'' Charles Daly 1911- used- no malfunctions of any kind
2. 5'' Metro Arms 1911 - new- flawless in function, really smooth for a inexpensive 1911
3. 3 1\2'' 1911 RIA Officer model - used- no malfunctions of any kind
4. 5'' Springfield Loaded 1911 - used- no malfunctions of any kind

I personally have not seen any reliability issues concerning 1911 but then maybe I am lucky.

 

[yeti]

What about blocking those magazines in your personal carry piece? Did you get around to doing that yet? Why not?

Ruins the balance of a 1911. Would make it feel too much like a Glock, or even worse, something made by H und K.

Is the 1911 Antiquated?

Maybe, but I don't care, I like it and all mine run fine. And if I feel the need to carry one of them new fangaled, high round count thingies, I just take the High Power and feel as thoroughly modern as Milly. I will admit to occasionally thinking of getting a 1911 in .38 Super, but I don't know, I'm still not completely sold on that light and fast being better than big and slow stuff...yet, but I'm getting there.

And nothing, except for a few old S&W revolvers come close to looking as good as a 1911 does, so if I can't beat them with bullets I can disarm them with design.

 

[Billy Shears]

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.

For the exact same reason you probably don't carry a high capacity .22LR. Why don't you? If magazine capacity is the end all and be all, and more rounds is better, period, then your ideal defensive carbine should be a Calico .22 with a 100 round drum. Why would you want an AR-15 with a piddling 30 rounds when you can have 100 on tap?

So how about it? You ready to stow away that AR and get a Calico? Think our soldiers should? After all, more rounds is always better, right?

I explained this to you, you're just being obtuse. Having a gun with a single column magazine, and making the most of it does not mean going to a ridiculous extreme and limiting yourself beyond any constraint imposed by the actual firearm. You are engaging in a false dilemma fallacy, and artificially limiting the choices to extremes. The reality is that any defensive firearm is a compromise. Ideally, you'd like the stopping power of a .50BMG, the capacity of a Calico .22, the lightness and compactness of an S&W bodyguard, and the accuracy and controlability of a .22 target pistol, but the laws of physics dictate that there's no way to have all those things at once, so you make what compromise you can to get the best balance of features. Lots of smaller rounds, like a hi cap 9mm is one balance that some people choose, fewer big rounds is a balance chosen by others. And the ergonomics and unique character of a particular handgun will also affect the overall final product and how well it suits you, the individual shooter. It just so happens that whether you would choose it or not, whether you agree with this compromise or not, and whether you like it or not, some people opt for a smaller number of bigger and more powerful rounds, as well as the particular features of the M1911 design. And if the smaller number of rounds happens to encourage the shooter to exercise a little more fire discipline... well as I said, it's a case of making a virtue of necessity, not of going to ridiculous and artificial extremes.

 

[Txbushmaster77]

Not in the least

I have shot two 1911's. A Kimber and a Taurus both of which fired without a hitch and naturally flew to the targets. I own a PT145 millennium Pro made by Taurus and it has a tendency to stick a round against the feeding ramp every once in awhile. My next purchase will be a Taurus PT1911 and I will carry it everyday. Seven rounds of 45acp is plenty in most self defense situations. (unless you watch a lot of television and movies) If you feel you need more carry more magazines either way you still have more rounds than almost all wheel guns(I would bet my life on a good wheelie any day).

 

[valorius]

Badly trained shooters miss more when they have more ammo with which to miss. Please, let us not attribute the missing to the magazine capacity_again_when the issue is poor shooter training. What about blocking those magazines in your personal carry piece? Did you get around to doing that yet? Why not?

Nothing else changed, so why would i attribute the change to anything but the increase in capacity? But i repeat myself...

Ruins the balance of a 1911. Would make it feel too much like a Glock, or even worse, something made by H und K.

Hehe, wise guy.

 

[Jim Watson]

M Ayoob once wrote that the optimum seemed to be the single stack auto.
That a gun with capacity of 7-10 rounds yielded more hits in case studies than either a 5-6 shot revolver or a 12-17 shot high cap auto.

 

[akadave]

I have been considering a hi-cap Infintiy 1911. I was talking to some shooters at the range and one of them had one in a holster and I didnt even notice it, the way he was carrying. Im thinking 15+1 is a good thing!

 

[easyg]

M Ayoob once wrote that the optimum seemed to be the single stack auto.
That a gun with capacity of 7-10 rounds yielded more hits in case studies than either a 5-6 shot revolver or a 12-17 shot high cap auto.

I would have to see the data that backs up this notion.

Smells like BS to me.

 

[1911Tuner]

easyg...Mas is a member here. You can shoot him a PM and ask him yourself...unless you think you may not like the answer.

I saw a report once...don't know where to find it, but I'm sure it's there if you want to take the time to look for it.

To wit:

In WW1, the American armed forces were equipped with 5-round bolt action rifles. 7500 rounds of smallarms ammunition were expended for each enemy casualty.

In WW2, they had 8-round, semiauto M1 Garands, 15-round M1 Carbines, 20-round BARs, and Thompson submachineguns with varying capacities. The number of rounds to produce one enemy casualty jumped to 25,000. The Korean War produced similar numbers. WW2 gave birth to the term "Walking Fire" in which a rifle company walked abreast, firing a round or a burst every time the left foot hit the ground. They weren't firing at anything in particular. They were just laying down a wall of fire. Employed heavily in the hedgerows of Normandy, but it was much less common in other areas because it wasted ammunition to little effect.


In Vietnam, US forces entered the conflict with 20-round selective-fire M14 rifles, though most of them were equipped with the semiauto lockout. Later, the M16 became general issue. There was a plethora of smallarms used in that conflict, and saturation fire was the order of the day. The round count per casualty was off the scale at 50,000. This was due in no small part to select-fire capability at the disposal of all riflemen, and UH-1 Hueys standing ready to resupply the troops. Too often, when the flag went up, the tendency was to flip the switch and grab the trigger...as scared men are prone to do if the weapon will accommodate them.

Anybody see the connection between high capacity...rapid fire...fast reload capability...and on-call airborne resupply?

 

[bikerdoc]

Boyd -Mind set, skillset, toolset.

Cooper- You are ouy gunned only if you miss.

 

[Blakenzy]

I think the problem of high miss/hit ratio - if you can even blame it on hardware- comes from the semiauto (or fullauto or even the revolver double action) function rather than magazine capacity. Any gun that requires you to manually manipulate the action between each shot forces time upon you that makes it more likely to reacquire a good sight picture before the next round is in place be fired. With semiauto, you can easily fall into the flaw of firing again and again and again before you recover enough to even catch a glimpse of the front sight, much less get a square line up on the center of the target. It's even more than easy, it is just plain FUN to "let 'er rip". In this respect the 1911 and all modern pistol designs have the same potential for misuse, hi cap or not.

All that a large magazine capacity will do is magnify whatever it is you are already doing (hitting if you are disciplined or missing if you are mindless).

 

[Joe Demko]

All that a large magazine capacity will do is magnify whatever it is you are already doing (hitting if you are disciplined or missing if you are mindless).

Thank you. Exactly right.

 

[harmon rabb]

M Ayoob once wrote that the optimum seemed to be the single stack auto.
That a gun with capacity of 7-10 rounds yielded more hits in case studies than either a 5-6 shot revolver or a 12-17 shot high cap auto.

I'd like to see this study. It's likely flawed because the single stack auto in the study is likely the 1911. Gee, is it a shock that people hit more often with a 1911 than with a DA revolver? Lol.

If the 1911 represented the majority of single stack autos used in that study, all it shows is that the 1911 ergonomics and trigger make people shoot better, something which I will agree with 100%.

 

[Joe Demko]

Anybody see the connection between high capacity...rapid fire...fast reload capability...and on-call airborne resupply?

Do you suppose the whole doctrine of suppressive fire/maneuver that evolved during that time period might have something to do with your figures? Or that automatic fire went from something that sat on a tripod and weighed a lot to something every squad (and then every soldier) had? Do your figures include all rounds shot from every weapon or are they limited to the rifles carried by the individual soldiers? Until there is some context and provenance, those numbers don't mean anything.

 

[Roswell_Kid]

During the years I worked for a gaming computer company we sponsored or internally conducted many computer simulator and game competitions. One of the more interesting was an internal (employee) competition between two avid groups devoted to a very good WWII air combat simulator. Group A had far more practice and had competed online as a group for about a year. Group B, the challengers, was a loose organization of company middle management that decided to learn the game and challenge Group A.

The highly experienced Group A was decidedly beaten. With just a few months prep, Group B pounded A in every engagement without exception. Turns out the challengers learned the game and only practiced among themselves using Limited (realistic) Ammo option enabled, which severely restricts offensive strike capability using any aircraft. Group A always played "unlimited."

Not saying that 15 vs. 7 rounds is going to make any real difference among disciplined shooters, but I would not be a bit surprised. Having a lot of resources available vs. being forced to conserve makes a not-so-subtle difference in attitude and approach.

 

[migkillertwo]

The "best" 1911s today, IMO, are not much better than a glock or sig, but they can easily be twice as expensive as a glock or a sig. The firepower is lacking, and the battery of arms is too complex and hard to learn. You can't carry it with the hammer down, and you have to always remember to actuate the safety. On glocks and sigs, there are no safeties to dick around with, the triggers are just as good, and last but certainly not least, you get way more firepower.

Yes, IMO the 1911 is outdated as a defensive pistol, but I still love them for their history and the workmanship that has go into almost any 1911.

 

[1911Tuner]

The mental part of it plays a large role, too. Even with area/saturation fire, if there's a seemingly inexhaustible supply of ammunition on tap and on the way, the shooter tends to give in to firing at nothing in particular. Even saturation fire supposedly requires at least a suspicion that there's a target within the beaten zone...a reason for blowing it to hell and gone. All to often, the machine gunner will continue to pump rounds into it after the threat...real or percieved...has been neutralized. I've seen it happen.

The man who knows that his ammunition is limited...either on tap or in the way of resupply...tends to be more frugal with it when he puts his finger on the trigger. Rather than try to use "suppressive fire" in a kill or be killed situation that may involve multiple threats, or a single threat that has proven to be an evasive target. He knows instinctively that rynning dry can have dire consequences for him.

Incidentally, supressive fire works well when there's an automatic weapon used as a base of fire to allow a squad or a fire team maneuver. Not so well for a man operating alone with a pistol. He may get lucky and put his man down, but the odds are greatly against him.

I'd like to see this study. It's likely flawed because the single stack auto in the study is likely the 1911.

The man armed with a double-action revolver tends to be even more careful with his ammunition expenditure because he knows that a reload..even from a speed-loader...is slower than with a magazine change. The most frugal of the lot is the man armed with a single-action revolver. He's the one that will work harder than any of the others to make every shot count. Even with a single-stack, the tendency is there to get on the trigger too quickly. During the testing phase with the M1 Garand, there were concerns over the weapon leading to ammunition waste. Running dry was the concern...not cost.

So, here we are...bogged down in another quagmire that we're not going to win with the present tactics...and it's been mostly responsible for creating an ammunition shortage in the private sector that we haven't seen since WW2. I don't have any documentation to verify it, but I've heard rumors that the round count to casualty ratio is apporoaching 100,000:1.

 

[1911Tuner]

The "best" 1911s today, IMO, are not much better than a glock or sig, but they can easily be twice as expensive as a glock or a sig. The firepower is lacking, and the battery of arms is too complex and hard to learn.

Firepower is lacking mainly if you miss a lot. As Clint Smith noted: "You can't miss fast enough to catch up." You're only outgunned if you miss.

Complex and hard to learn? Oh, please! Were the farm boys who went into the trenches in WW1 somehow that much smarter and better coordinated than we are today?

 

[Joe Demko]

For the exact same reason you probably don't carry a high capacity .22LR. Why don't you?

Kind of hard to carry what nobody makes. Feather made one for a while back in the 80's, never saw one in the flesh and they've been out of production for a long time. The TEC-22 would take high capacity 10-22 mags, but it was a shoddy POS and has also been out of production for a while. Keltec displayed a 30-shot .22WMR pistol at the SHOT show this year. I believe I'll pick one up after Keltec actually starts delivering some (and the Keltec fanbois finish debugging it).

But that is all neither here nor there. You're the one handicapping yourself by carrying those extra rounds. Don't you want to shoot the very best you could?

 

[migkillertwo]

well, people in the third world generally have better eyesight than us Anglo-saxons...

But anyway, with regards to firepower, I really dont buy that "you just need to shoot better" talking point. In a defensive situation, especially in a war-zone or disaster area, you might have to gun down more than one guy. Even though I'm probably not going to need all 17+1 rounds with my glock (hell, I might not even need the 5 rounds from my POS .38 revolver), I still want to have as much options.

And the battery of arms is complex, once again there IS a safety that you have to dick around with before you can shoot with. Also there's the grip safety. It's pretty damn easy to grip the 1911 in such a manner that you dont actuate the grip safety.

 

[Billy Shears]

The "best" 1911s today, IMO, are not much better than a glock or sig, but they can easily be twice as expensive as a glock or a sig. The firepower is lacking, and the battery of arms is too complex and hard to learn. You can't carry it with the hammer down, and you have to always remember to actuate the safety. On glocks and sigs, there are no safeties to dick around with...

Sorry but this is balderdash. The battery of arms absolutely is not "too complex and hard to learn" and the generations of men who have used the 1911 very effectively in combat are living proof of this statement. I'll never understand why people are prone to making statements that are directly contradicted by observed facts.

As for having to "dick around with" the safety... Buddy, if you can't learn to wipe the thumb down the side of the frame during your draw as you acquire the proper grip, then you must have a real hard time unsnapping a thumb brake holster or even pulling a trigger, because the motion is not one whit more complex. And it goes without saying that if the simple act of pushing down a lever that is already placed right under your thumb is "too complex and hard to learn" then speed reloads are quite beyond your capability.

 

[Billy Shears]

But that is all neither here nor there. You're the one handicapping yourself by carrying those extra rounds. Don't you want to shoot the very best you could?

Yeah, I do. Unfortunately my department won't let me carry the Les Baer Premier II Super Tac that I can do that with. I have to carry a Glock 17 instead. I like the Glock, and it's a huge step up from those crappy S&W 5946s we used to have, but I just plain shoot better with the 1911, especially at the longer ranges. Unfortunately, my department won't approve single actions. I get as close as I can off duty, because they did approve a .40S&W FN Hi Power with an SFS trigger (since FN's official position is that it is a DA handgun, for purposes of classifying it with the BATF). But if I had my choice I'd carry a 1911 and never look back.