1911 reliability vs. more "modern day" guns

[bandit1200]

1911 vs "modern autoloaders"

I was once shown a high speed video of the feeding cycle of a 1911 Colt, series 70. The location of top round in the mag is well below the centerline of the bore in the first place. When the slide strips the round along the feed lips (commercial magazine, truncated cone hollowpoint, looked like a Speer JHP), the nose of the round strikes the feed ramp in the frame and actually noses up and hits the hood of the chamber. At that point, the tail end of the round is just about releasing from the front of the feed lips. The lips are wider at the forward end, so the case is also sitting higher, and the head of the case is now sliding up the breechface and under the extractor hook. By this time, the round has straightened out and is pretty much funnelling into the chamber. This is why it is BAD to drop rounds into the ejection port and dropping the slide. It will break the extractor pretty quick.
On the other hand, Glocks, Sigs, etc. the top round in the mag is sitting pretty much in line with the chamber in the first place. There is a straight push into the mouth of the chamber, and there is no controlled feeding of the cartridge. It's like the difference between the "push feed" and the controlled round feed of the Winchester Model 70s. The extractor hook just snaps over the rim.
Service autos have larger chamber dimensions than true "match" chambers, which also helps with reliability when the going gets dirty.
It has been well documented that most 1911s headspace on the extractor hook, rather than the chamber ledge. Most guys that reload .45 ACP don't bother to trim cases, because the average brass will split at the mouth before it grows long enough to cause a headspace or chambering issue. I used to use a snap gauge to check case lengths of my brass, and there was so much variation in length that it wasn't worth trimming all of them to the shortest one. The pressure levels of the .45 don't stress the brass very much. It didn't seem to make any difference at combat distances, anyway. Maybe the bullseye shooters trim their brass every reload.
Anyway, I find that magazines were the #1 cause of reliability problems in my 1911s. I switched to Wilson mags, and swear by them. I use the same ones for IDPA as with carry, and the mags are dropped during slide lock changes all the time. Never had a mag failure in over 15 years.

 

[ugaarguy]

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.

Perhaps the superior trigger which directly engages the sear, rather than using a link or series of linkages? Perhaps the fact that a 1911 can be detail stripped using nothing more than a cartridge case and the parts of the pistol itself. Perhaps the ability to easily replace these parts in the field. Perhaps the ability to change backstrap feel with various mainspring housing & grip safety variations, and change grips, all to fit the user's hand. Perhaps the weapon's actual record in combat as both a standard issue sidearm and now as a weapon used by more specialized units. None of the pistols you list begin to approach these attributes.

This has been proven time after time.

When have any of the pistols you list been widely issued to combat troops in a war?

Further, could you please tell us why you chose the .40 S&W Glock 23 rather than Glock 21 which is chambered in .45 ACP like all the other pistols you list? Also, when you refer to the "H&K mp-45" do you mean the H&K HK-45, H&K USP 45, H&K Mk23, the H&K MP-5 or SP-89 in .45 ACP, one of the other H&K machine pistols, or the S&W M&P 45?

I'll let the 1911 fanboys take it from here.

I'll ask that you refrain from the use of "fanboy" and other derogatory language, and point you to the forum rules as to why.

There are only a few house rules:

1.) All topics and posts must be related to firearms or civil liberties issues.
2.) Multiple user registrations are prohibited.
3.) As a family-friendly board, we ask that you keep your language clean. If you wouldn't say it in front of your dear old Grandma, you probably don't want to say it here.
4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
5.) We cannot provide a comprehensive list of "Things Not To Say".Posts that are contrary to the above policies, or to the mission of The High Road, may be edited or deleted at our sole discretion. Membership may be revoked if such a step is deemed necessary by us. We're a private venture enabled by an all-volunteer staff. Please treat this venue as a polite discussion in a friend's home and respect the wishes of the hosts.

http://www.thehighroad.org/code-of-conduct.html

 

[Michael Zeleny]

Perhaps the superior trigger which directly engages the sear, rather than using a link or series of linkages?

I am unconvinced that using a link or series of linkages degrades trigger pull as much as it is compromised by the M1911 single stage trigger. The limiting factor in a single stage trigger wihin a self-loading design is the required depth of sear engagement. In a double stage trigger such as is used in the SIG P210, the sear engagement between 0.5mm and 1mm (0.02" to 0.04") leaves an adequate safety margin when the action cycles. But in the second stage of the trigger pull the sear engagement is only 0.05mm (0.002"), causing next to no creep. Whereas a M1911 must have its sear engagement of at least 0.4 mm (0.016") to prevent the hammer from following the slide in cycling. Consequently, its trigger has to creep an order of magnitude more than a double stage design.

To the original question, I submit that while controlled feed is not as critical in a recoil-operated semiauto as it is in a bolt-action rifle, it certainly does not compromise reliable action cycling in either design. The main obstacle in the feeding cycle of the M1911 is a truncated barrel ramp fed from low-slung magazine lips. As regards its production parameters, the M1911 is compromised by its reliance on variable fit in bushing and barrel link, made obsolete in 1935 with the advent of Radom Vis.

 

[LeonCarr]

I told myself for five years that the 1911 was the only handgun, until I woke up one day and realized my 1911s spent more time at the gunsmith than they did in my holster. I wish I had the money I have spent over the years trying to get 1911s to run right (hint: 6 brand new Glocks with night sights).

YMMV, but do a search on LeonCarr and Glock, or LeonCarr and 1911, to get the full story on my experience (hate-hate relationship) with 1911s.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[Byron Quick]

I've got five 1911's now, from a 1917 Model of 1911 to a couple of Dan Wesson Razorbacks in 10mm. I've owned others. All have functioned flawlessly right out of the box.

I also own a Glock 29, and a Glock 20. The Glock 20 will need to be sent in for repair as it is not functioning correctly. I can shoot the Glocks more accurately than the 1911's...marginally. When it comes down to comfort of carry in an IWB holster, I can forget the 1911 is there while the Glocks feel as if a brick was at my waist.

But there's this thing called personal preference, folks. I can't abide single action/double action autoloaders. If someone gave me one, I'd sell it. Others think they're the best thing since sliced bread. The fact that I don't like them means one thing: I don't like them. The fact that you drool all over them means you like them. It's no big deal.

 

[berkbw]

apples and oranges.

If I may - you might be better served in comparing NEW mfg 1911s to NEW more modern guns, Comparing NEW 1911s to old, original, 1911 & 1911A1s is a completely different horse. The purpose and the markets are not even similar.

b-

 

[ugaarguy]

If I may - you might be better served in comparing NEW mfg 1911s to NEW more modern guns, Comparing NEW 1911s to old, original, 1911 & 1911A1s is a completely different horse. The purpose and the markets are not even similar.

b-

I would agree with you. Most current 1911s are made to be range toys and not weapons. The price of a current production 1911 which was built as a weapon, either from the manufacturer or rebuilt by a competent gunsmith as such, has become quite high. The price of a Glock vs. the price of a current 1911 properly built as a weapon falls clearly in favor of Glock. Availability of parts, quality magazines, and competent gun smiths & armorers is a push between the two. Higher quality 1911 parts will certainly be more expensive than factory Glock parts though. That's why I love selling Glocks. However, I shoot 1911s far better than I shoot Glocks, so I find it worth the money to buy the ammo to reliability test my 1911s and pay the smith to make any necessary changes.

 

[czhen]

My.02 cents guys
JMB started the project in 1908 or so, new materials came up later, new machinery. Therefore, it is impossible to compare with news designs, he was a head of the time about some physics principles, though. He was copied to the limit that new pistols still used cam lock systems today.

czhen

 

[redman900]

I've had the "plastic guns, a glock, pt745 and they were nice guns. But the springfield G.I. i have now just plain feels good and shoots great.A real soild weapon. this is just my own opinion. What ever you feel good with.

 

[Ruggles]

I own and shoot 1911s, the only non 1911 I own is a Glock 17. I carry only 1911s and trust with my life. That being said they are simply not as reliable as modern designed handguns as a whole. My $400 Glock would go longer without a reliability issue than any 1911s I know of.

So what? Can not really ever imagine myself in a 50, 100, 300 or 500 rds gun fight, be kinda hard to carry all those magazines around anyways. Those 10,000 rds torture are worthless in my view, who cares if a handgun can shoot 10,000 rds without incident?

My current 1911s are: (Reliability)

Baer TRS Comanche (Very Good with FMJ)
STI Lawman (Outstanding)
Springer Black SS Loaded (OK)
Colt New Agent (Perfect)

Past 1911s: (Reliability)

Springer GI (Great)
Springer Mil Spec (Great)
Springer Loaded (Bad)
Kimber UCII (Very Very Bad)
Kimber Warrior (Bad)
Para LTC (Great)
Springer Operator (Great)
Colt Defender Plus (Good)
Colt Commander (Great)
Para Warthog (Very Good)
High Standard (Bad)
Colt Commander XSE (.38) (Perfect)

As you can see price really has no effect on reliability, the Para LTC was every bit as reliable as the Baer TRS at 25% of the cost. Kimbers and I just do not get along for some reason. Springers are hit and miss with me. Colt has been pretty good to me. STI has been pretty impressive to me. Baer are nice but I ma not sure they are worth the cost difference. The real jewel has been the Colt New Agent, a little 3" 1911 than just plain runs.