1911 reliability vs. more "modern day" guns

[andrewshogun]

When it comes to reliability, it seems like some of the more "modern day" designed guns (glocks, xd's) outshine the 1911 design. I've had my fair share of jams recently with all of the 1911 pistols I've handled but zero with any of the glocks and xds, so this very well could just be my personal experience. It just seems like 1911's tend to jam easier when they are limp wristed or not cleaned after a few trips to the range. Not trying to start a debate, just wanted to see if others have had similar findings? Thanks.

 

[Geronimo45]

I've heard many reasons for this. I'll try to cover a few of those thoughts.
1911s like to run wetter than newer guns (whose tennifer finishes may have better lubricity than 1911 finishes?)
Bad magazines - Originally, mags had a controlled-feed, but now they typically release like other mags (thus not adhering to older specs).
Bad QC. Manufacturers are sloppy. Only Glock makes Glocks. Nearly everyone but Ruger make 1911s. MIM parts are sometimes complained about.
Lack of original blueprints - manufacturers don't go by original specs, thus they mess things up, sometimes.
Cheap ammo.

 

[jpwilly]

Some 1911's do have reliability issues most don't. Ammo selection and magazines are most often the culprits. My PT1911 has never had any issues with JHP or FMJ ammo with any of my Magazines 2500+ rounds. On the other hand a batch of handloaded SWC ammo hung up (nose dive on first round) especially with Kimber and Wilson mags while the Taurus mags fed it just fine (softer springs). Loading only 7 rnds instead of 8 cured the problem. Otherwise my 1911 has been 100%.

 

[CPshooter]

I think it just depends. You have to consider if the 1911 or the browning tilt was a better design in the first place for reliability. After that it depends on the manufacturer interpretation of the original designs and tolerances/specs used. Simply, it just depends how the pistol was built. It will either be reliable or not. Like already mentioned, Glock is the only company building Glocks, which is still just a varation of the browning tilt design. They happen to have perfected the reliability and quality control methods to produce one hell of a reliable design.

With all that said, I personally think the "modern day" Glock or XD variation of the browning tilt design are more reliable guns than any 1911 out there. The design and operation seems to be more forgiving and less prone to failure.

 

[SilverState]

Good 1911s with good mags that are cleaned/lubed regularly (not necessarily religiously) are as reliable as a Glock and probably more reliable than an XD. The difference is that the polymer guns are less expensive and do not require a break-in period (two to four hundred rounds).

 

[RNB65]

I've got an SA 1911 that jammed a few times when it was brand new, but after a hundred rounds or so has never jammed since. It's so reliable it's boring.

My Glock and XD 9mm's have never once jammed from the first shot on.

My Kahr P9... Well, that's a whole 'nother story/nightmare. It took 3 months, 500+ rounds of ammo, and a trip back to Kahr to get it to run reliably.
-

 

[TimboKhan]

1911's are more reliable now than they have ever been. My PT1911 has been nothing but a workhorse.

What bugs me is when people state that they are the most reliable gun around, which just flatly isn't true. Hardcore Glockers and 1911 nuts are the most dramatic defenders of thier platforms, when the simple truth is that personal preference aside, there are plenty of guns out there that are just as dead-nuts reliable as the 1911 or the Glock.

 

[XavierBreath]

I've had a couple of 1911s that had feeding problems, but on the whole, the majority of my 1911s have been reliable. I have owned over twenty 1911s, so lets say about 8-10% had reliability problems. These include Colts, Springfields, Paras, Kimbers, and Smith & Wessons.

I have also owned one XD, and one Glock 26 (since you mentioned them specifically). The XD was reliable and accurate. The Glock rear sight came off after the first 100 rounds. Other "modern" designs I have owned have been reliable, but others have not.

Comparing the "1911" to specific pistols, or even specific manufacturers is not a fair comparison, because the "1911" encompasses many different manufacturers and specific designs as well as pistols.

 

[Zach S]

My 5" 1911s are normally cleaned somewhere between 1500 and 2000 rounds, with a quick wipe-down somewhere in the middle. I cant remember the last time one jammed. I dont think I cleaned my mil-spec for the year or two that I owned it, I did clean it before I traded it in though.

I own a glock. I carry a 1911.

 

[Walkalong]

The "design" is just as reliable as anything out there.

It sometimes gets iffy in manufacturing and assembly. :banghead:

 

[1911 guy]

Ditto to Walkalong.

Find an old Sistema or pre 1960 something Colt and just try to induce a malfunction. A well made 1911 with good mags is near unbeatable.

 

[weisse52]

I have stated this many times. I do not have problems with my 1911's jamming. The only ones I see that do jam have cheap mags, or the owner "never" cleans them, OR, it seems people like to "improve" them. An example is when companies try to cut them down to make them easy to carry. Yes, those things jam. But that is not the gun that was designed. The more you change from the orginal the more problems you have.

When I first started buying 1911's I did not have to "break them in" They worked as designed. The more "crap" people improve them with the more problems develop.

They work just fine as JMB designed them.

They worked just fine in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and numerous other actions around the world. IF they where truly a problem they would be gone. In fact they only get more popular.

 

[spencerhut]

The only problems I have with my 1911's are the ones I create myself. Since the 1911's I own are used for Steel Challenge (no power factor required) and for run and gun (165PF) I tend to forget to change a spring here and there and cause a jam. But that is hardly the guns fault.
As others have stated mags can be an issue. I've switched all the carry and competition mags I use over to Tripp Research mags and all mag related issues have vanished. It's funny, I now use Wilson 47d mags strictly for practice since some people consider them the best 1911 mags out there. Damn plastic followers.

Springfield MIL-SPEC .38 Super - All kinds of modifications, competitive use only.
Springfield Loaded .45ACP - Standard GI Guide Rod, CCW
Para SSP .38 Super - Stock, Competitive use only
Para SSP-SE1 .45ACP - Stock, CCW
Les Baer Premier II - Stock - Competitive Use Only

 

[GunTech]

I'm a huge fan of the 1911, but the design has a couple of flaws and is overly complicated compared to modern handguns. The link has always been an issue, and the fitting of the lugs, just as on the High Power is a much more complex task compared to the Sigs, Glocks, etc.

The biggest drawback to the 1911, and one that is well know to 1911 shooters, is the feed ramp. Most modern handguns have the feed ramp integral to the barrel. The 1911 splits the ramp between the barrel and the frame, and this interface can be problematic.

For the longest time, no one considered the commercial 1911 ready to fight out of the box. Now there are quite a few that have all the requisite tuning as shipped. Most of the 'wonder guns' like the Sig, Glock, HK have always been ready to shoot right out of the shipping box.

 

[Old Dog]

No offense intended to the OP, but this topic has been covered so many different ways in the forum that almost any search on "1911s" should provide numerous threads hashing out the 1911 reliability issue.

Yes, there are some 1911s sold that don't always run out of the box. Just fix, sell, trade or disable and throw 'em on the scrap heap.

Frankly, I've come to believe that only people who will commit to actually learning how their pistols function, what makes them tick, what could go wrong with them, and bother to learn how to maintain their pistols, should buy 1911s. The 1911 is not that complex, and it's relatively simple to keep your 1911 running -- if you can be bothered to learn the platform.

The rest of you can go buy Glocks. And keep taking your car to Jiffy Lube for oil and spark plug changes.

 

[1911 guy]

Hey, Old Dog

Can I steal that last paragraph?

 

[csay]

Most 1911's I've had have been 100% reliable. Mags seem to be the weak link. Extractors can be a problem too.

 

[Lonestar49]

I agree

...

+2 with Old Dog's last paragraph..


Ls

 

[CTPistol]

I love my 1911s, and find many to be pretty darn reliable...

but as reliable as a Glock? sorry, nope.

Glocks are boring but they simply run all the time....I wish I could shoot my 1911s 500rds at a time and just wipe off the exterior.

Thats being said, I do prefer to shoot the 1911s!

 

[Old Dog]

1911 guy asked

Hey, Old Dog

Can I steal that last paragraph?

Sure (I think I first used it on the 1911 forum about 4 years ago; can you tell I'm a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to this topic?) ...

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

I see no reason why the design should be inherently less reliable. The problem with too many of them is all the different makers and their executions of the design. And the original maker (Colt) has in the past had quality control problems, too.

 

[mpmarty]

I have Taurus PT145, PT745, SA XD45 and even a Glock 21. I don't feel that any of them is "more reliable" than either of my 1911s. Also, I can easily strip my 1911s down to their individual pieces except for the plunger tube and ejector, clean everything, check it for wear and reassemble in minutes. I don't have to punch out roll pins or anything like that and even if I felt comfortable doing the same to my tupperware, I fear in time they would loosen up just from the disassembly and reassembly. Furthermore the 1911 is not only every bit as reliable as my tupperware, it makes a dandy striking weapon in close quarters also, something I rather doubt my other lightweights would survive too well.

 

[stevereno1]

I'm glad that we're having this discussion on here, with real shooters, rather than listening to the "experts" in the gun rags. I swear that I cannot find a reason other than "looks" to recommend a 1911 over a G-23, xd-45, sig 220, or h&k mp-45. The 1911 is NOT a better design than ANY of these pistols. This has been proven time after time. I'll let the 1911 fanboys take it from here.

 

[GunTech]

'Simpler is better', while not always accurate, is a good place to start.

Someone mentioned the extractor issue on the 1911, which is another prblem area I forgot about. If the tension on the extractor on a 1911 isn't right, it can cause problems.

In my experience, with 1911s it still tends to be accuracy versus reliability. I have a GI WWI veteran 1911 that is dead nuts reliable with anything except wadcutters, and always have been. I have Kimber, Les Bauer and some custom-builts that occasionally have issues. I have an fairly basic SA that runs the best of the non-GI, with a few tweaks and no close tolerances.

We've all seen the multiple reliability tests that Glocks have been put through. Show me a similar test with a modern manufacture 1911.

 

[Deputy25]

I bought a Colt .45 auto (series 70) new in 1980. It looks a little worn now, but in THOUSANDS of rounds over 27 years, I've had two malfunctions. Both were 200 gr. LSWC reloads of my own recipe. I have a six year old Kimber CDP series 1 that hasn't malfunctioned yet. I read all the stuff about "getting a 1911 to run", but I've never experienced a problem. With that said, I rarely leave the house without at least one Glock on my belt.