1911 reliability
- Thread starter kokapelli
- Start date
- Status
The Real Hawkeye
member
The problem is that the 1911 is currently made by dozens of companies. If you find a NIB Colt all steel Government Model manufactured in 1958, for example, it will be as reliable as any Sig or Glock out there today. That's because there was only one company at that time manufacturing it in the United States, and they could control the quality of manufacture of each part, and of assembly. The DESIGN is excellent. Very rugged and reliable. It's just hard to get one today that's built right. At least it's harder than it is to get a Sig or Glock that's built according to their design specifications. That said, I have a Smith and Wesson 1911Sc Commander Model, and it has never had a malf of any kind in thousands of rounds. Same for a Springfield TRP. When put together right, they are just as reliable as anything else out there. Just have to avoid the bad ones or know how to make the bad ones right.
"Yes, the 1911 is as reliable as any other design? "
Well, I think the DESIGN is great and is as reliable as MOST any other design. I think with the advent of the new high-end factory 1911's (SIG, S&W, etc.) and some combat models of the semi-custom 1911's (Wilson, RRA, Nighthawk, etc.) you can easily get a very reliable and trust-worthy 1911 ... if you're willing to spend the cash. Plus, there's something almost magical about a 1911 that is working perfectly and accurately and throwing those .45ACPs down the range ... I don't know how to explain it, but I know a lot of you can relate. If you haven't experienced it, you probably won't understand.
I guess you can tell I'm a big 1911 fan!
Well, I think the DESIGN is great and is as reliable as MOST any other design. I think with the advent of the new high-end factory 1911's (SIG, S&W, etc.) and some combat models of the semi-custom 1911's (Wilson, RRA, Nighthawk, etc.) you can easily get a very reliable and trust-worthy 1911 ... if you're willing to spend the cash. Plus, there's something almost magical about a 1911 that is working perfectly and accurately and throwing those .45ACPs down the range ... I don't know how to explain it, but I know a lot of you can relate. If you haven't experienced it, you probably won't understand.
I guess you can tell I'm a big 1911 fan!
You also have to remember that the 1911 was designed at a time when handfitting was the norm. Labor was cheaper then machine time in those days.
Now the exact opposite is true. Why do Colt 1911s cost so much? Because of the handfitting that was done when they were assembled.
Many of the modern manufacturers don't have the gunsmiths on staff that hand assemble and fit the weapons together at the factory. With 1911s, like everything else, you get what you pay for. You can't buy a $400.00 1911 clone and expect it to perform. There was a lot of handfitting that went into the production of the USGI 1911A1s during WWII.
Jeff
Now the exact opposite is true. Why do Colt 1911s cost so much? Because of the handfitting that was done when they were assembled.
Many of the modern manufacturers don't have the gunsmiths on staff that hand assemble and fit the weapons together at the factory. With 1911s, like everything else, you get what you pay for. You can't buy a $400.00 1911 clone and expect it to perform. There was a lot of handfitting that went into the production of the USGI 1911A1s during WWII.
Jeff
10-Ring
Member
The 1911 is a fine firearm - mine have been very reliable & very accurate!
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
WW2
Jeff said:
>There was a lot of handfitting that went into the production of the USGI 1911A1s during WWII.<
*******************
Well...That's almost accurate. The handfitting was done was on the earlier GI contract models from Colt, but when the decision was made to bring other contractors into the game in order to meet wartime demands, there was a pressing need for speed and interchangeability of parts with...98% certainty IIRC...and the tolerances were loosened up a bit. Standardized gauges became the order of the day, and the prints for those gauges were shared by all. The criteria was that an example from each contractor was disassembled, and all parts tossed into a tray. Then, without trying to match anything up, the armorer should be able to assemble 5 complete, working pistols that met standard requirements. i.e. all guns had to function, all guns had to headspace correctly, and all had to accept standard ball ammo...and all had to meet minimum accuracy and reliability requirements. I imagine that a fairly extensive torture test was done to insure function. Maybe not as punishing as the initial trials...but you can be sure that they were wrung out.
Basically a GO and NO GO gauge set for nearly every part on the gun was used. If the part fit the GO and didn't fit the NO GO...it would be...as they say..."Close enough for gub'mint work." You could probably say that the gauge-assembled 1911A1s gave birth to the drop-in part. Though the gauges used were made with precisely-held tolerances, they didn't produce quite the same results as the hand-fitting of the earlier guns. The WW2 USGI pistol was, for the most part, a damned fine pistol, and it worked...but compared to a pre-war Colt, there was no contest. I have a very low-mileage commercial Colt built in 1925. Reblued, but mechanically as close to new as any I've ever seen that are that old. The fit, function, and plain butter smoothness flat outclasses all but the very expensive custom pistols. My pristine, also extremely low-mileage Remington Rand doesn't come close. Neither do the
Union Switch twins, and those US&S 1911s were some very good pistols.
So...The pistols that were built to government specs during the watershed of WW2 weren't exactly the same pistols that went to the trenches in WW1.
Reliability/durability wise, they were head and shoulders above the mid-range to top-end production pistols that have been produced by Colt and various other manufacturers since 1970...but a nice example of a Colt built from about 1930 until 1939 is truly a marvel to have and to hold. I shot my '25 Colt not long after I got it. From a sandbag, with factory PMC ball, it shot into 1.5 inches at 25 yards. It'll feed hollowpoints and 200-grain lead SWC handloads as slick as a button from the original magazine, and it piles the brass up in a 3-foot circle. The trigger breaks clean at 5 pounds even. I haven't done a thing to it except to clean it up and replace the springs.
Jeff said:
>There was a lot of handfitting that went into the production of the USGI 1911A1s during WWII.<
*******************
Well...That's almost accurate. The handfitting was done was on the earlier GI contract models from Colt, but when the decision was made to bring other contractors into the game in order to meet wartime demands, there was a pressing need for speed and interchangeability of parts with...98% certainty IIRC...and the tolerances were loosened up a bit. Standardized gauges became the order of the day, and the prints for those gauges were shared by all. The criteria was that an example from each contractor was disassembled, and all parts tossed into a tray. Then, without trying to match anything up, the armorer should be able to assemble 5 complete, working pistols that met standard requirements. i.e. all guns had to function, all guns had to headspace correctly, and all had to accept standard ball ammo...and all had to meet minimum accuracy and reliability requirements. I imagine that a fairly extensive torture test was done to insure function. Maybe not as punishing as the initial trials...but you can be sure that they were wrung out.
Basically a GO and NO GO gauge set for nearly every part on the gun was used. If the part fit the GO and didn't fit the NO GO...it would be...as they say..."Close enough for gub'mint work." You could probably say that the gauge-assembled 1911A1s gave birth to the drop-in part. Though the gauges used were made with precisely-held tolerances, they didn't produce quite the same results as the hand-fitting of the earlier guns. The WW2 USGI pistol was, for the most part, a damned fine pistol, and it worked...but compared to a pre-war Colt, there was no contest. I have a very low-mileage commercial Colt built in 1925. Reblued, but mechanically as close to new as any I've ever seen that are that old. The fit, function, and plain butter smoothness flat outclasses all but the very expensive custom pistols. My pristine, also extremely low-mileage Remington Rand doesn't come close. Neither do the
Union Switch twins, and those US&S 1911s were some very good pistols.
So...The pistols that were built to government specs during the watershed of WW2 weren't exactly the same pistols that went to the trenches in WW1.
Reliability/durability wise, they were head and shoulders above the mid-range to top-end production pistols that have been produced by Colt and various other manufacturers since 1970...but a nice example of a Colt built from about 1930 until 1939 is truly a marvel to have and to hold. I shot my '25 Colt not long after I got it. From a sandbag, with factory PMC ball, it shot into 1.5 inches at 25 yards. It'll feed hollowpoints and 200-grain lead SWC handloads as slick as a button from the original magazine, and it piles the brass up in a 3-foot circle. The trigger breaks clean at 5 pounds even. I haven't done a thing to it except to clean it up and replace the springs.
I certainly love my Kimber Ultra Carry II. My husband loves his Springfield GI. The GI needed a "break in" period, but it's great now. When we bought our reloading equipment recently, we bought dies for .45acp first because that's what we're most often shooting
Springmom
Springmom
VERY un-High Road. There is no need to such an arrogant response.
I don't think the 1991 has really gottne worse than it has been for 75 years. But I do think that in those 75 years, other manufacturers have caught up, and in some areas, surpassed the 1911 design. If you're just talking about reliablity, I think most modern weapons are on par with each other, including the 1991 and the Glock. I just think that there are other things to consider, like capcity, weight, rails, size, trigger types, etc, that other types of weapons do better than the 1911. Of course there are now 1911s with rails, 1911 chambered for other calibers and such. But I think as far as the overall design, there are other weapons that equal it. And for different people, surpass it. Like me for instance. I will always dig poly frames over steel, and DA/SA over any other trigger type. The 1911 just isn't for me. When I recently went looking for a .45, one of my stipulations was that it couldn't be a 1911, for just those reasons I listed. I know the 1911 is a great weapon for some people, but I do get tired of the 1911 fanboys telling everyone that it's the best gun for them too. The "US military sidearm" debate is a great example. Every time this is brought up, some people say "just go back to the 1911". But let's face it, that's not gonna happen. When the military moves on from the M9, they are gonna pick something using the most modern technology, designs and material. Not an all-steel 100 year old SA design. The 1911 is great for some, but the days of it being the best all around are past.
So I find the poll question flawed. It says "No, there are better and more reliable designed pistols than the 1911?"
Well better is in the eyes of the beholder. The 1911 is the best to some, and not to others.
Last edited:
daysleeprx
Member
I feel the same way about ANY fanboys. (1911, Glock, HK, Sig, CZ....whatever)
to concur with a lot of other people -
i think you'd be hard pressed to find a 1911 owner who hasn't found at least one combination of gun, mag and ammo that will cause a problem with some frequency. out of the box, yes, there's more reliable, at least in the standard "duty weapon" price range. they can be made uber-reliable, but that's not the point of this thread. you can upgrade anything. enough love and money can turn anything into a match/race/display/etc. grade item. this thread is sort of futile unless we look at it in terms of "out of the box." i love my 1911, in fact it's probably my favorite pistol, but if people are going to deny that 95 years of innovation have accomplished anything, we need to stop having these threads.
i think you'd be hard pressed to find a 1911 owner who hasn't found at least one combination of gun, mag and ammo that will cause a problem with some frequency. out of the box, yes, there's more reliable, at least in the standard "duty weapon" price range. they can be made uber-reliable, but that's not the point of this thread. you can upgrade anything. enough love and money can turn anything into a match/race/display/etc. grade item. this thread is sort of futile unless we look at it in terms of "out of the box." i love my 1911, in fact it's probably my favorite pistol, but if people are going to deny that 95 years of innovation have accomplished anything, we need to stop having these threads.
Old Dog
Member
DRRMR02 notes:
And finally, if you're gonna call someone out on the forum, at least get their username correct. For most of us, when we disagree with the tone of someone's post, a PM is appropriate.
Arrogant? Son, just what is your experience with 1911s? I'm no "fanboy" telling you that the 1911 is best for everyone; I'm simply stating that if you choose to use one, you are best served by dedicating yourself to the platform. Ferrari makes a terrific car, but it requires an astounding amount of maintenance and parts replacement compared to a Honda Civic. As with guns, it's your choice.
And finally, if you're gonna call someone out on the forum, at least get their username correct. For most of us, when we disagree with the tone of someone's post, a PM is appropriate.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
Well, there are so many variables one just can't conclude anything from simple and casual anecdotal observations. For example - Are 1911 owners more prone to be reloaders and using reloaded ammo? Ammo is a factor in the large, large majority of malfunctions.
Or, modification of the pistol. 1911s can be modified and are more prone to tampering than other makes. If you want to replace a worn Sig 220 spring, you get one spring weight choice. Replace a 5" 1911? People will use springs of all sorts of weights from heavy to light, from what, a dozen different companies?
Same with magazines. Glock owners generally use Glock mags. Colt owners can use <insert one of 2 dozen brand> mags.
I've seen every brand of pistol malfunction. I can't make blanket conclusions about anything from it other than - mechanical things fail, so practice malfunction drills. I have guns that work. I don't claim any of them are perfect and have never failed. Anyone who thinks differently hasn't shot enough ammo to experience a bad round. But, they work. I still expect they might not, and instead of brag about their performance, I practice the drill over, and over, and over.
Factory premium ammo fails. The most reliable gun in the world won't cycle a bad round. During the Justice Department's selection of a new pistol for the INS a few years ago, a fellow team member, an engineer, served on the testing and review board for the selection. Part of it entailed ammo submissions for 40 S&W. Of the batches submitted by the companies for evaluation, significant statistical testing procedures were followed, in accordance with the RFP. The companies had them, and they knew the criteria. You failed testing, you were dropped from consideration of the contract award.
Even with that criteria, every ammo submission failed. Out of spec and faulty ammo caused EACH company to have to resubmit. They didn't even have ONE brand that passed. Even on second submission, the big name companies had ammo not fire. Specs permitted a ceiling for failures in the testing. Every brand had failures, some moreso than others.
He concluded two things -
Factory ammo isn't as reliable as we all believe it to be.
Practice malfunction drills.
If you shoot enough, the odds and statistics will catch up with you and you'll get one that won't fire, too.
Asked and illustrated.Old Dog said:
When you put it like that, Ferrari doesn't sound too reliable.Old Dog said:
Honda = reliable in more conditions
Ferrari = reliable in less conditions (condition: "astounding amount of maintenance and parts replacements")
You still have to rotate the tires and change the oil in a honda, and I'll probably eventually have to replace the recoil spring assembly in my GLOCK, and might have to change the solar cell in my frog, so obviously NOTHING is UNconditional, but I'll take least conditional reliability every time, ymmv.
1911 guy
Member
Yes, it's reliable.
Don't let the kitchen table gunsmith take on a job on your pistol and you'll be fine. Most jams you see are likely the result of someone changing something, be it spring weights, goobering up a feed ramp or improper maintenance. If you want your handgun changed, learn to do it properly or pay a real gunsmith (who knows 1911's) to do the job.
Don't let the kitchen table gunsmith take on a job on your pistol and you'll be fine. Most jams you see are likely the result of someone changing something, be it spring weights, goobering up a feed ramp or improper maintenance. If you want your handgun changed, learn to do it properly or pay a real gunsmith (who knows 1911's) to do the job.
Dr. Dickie
Member
So, what? Do I have to go home and tell all my 1911s that they need to start breaking down and not working?
Only problems I have had, were too long handloads FTRB, and not seated magazines causing a FTF. Sorry, can't blame the pistol for that!
I won't say it's for everybody, but it is for me!
Only problems I have had, were too long handloads FTRB, and not seated magazines causing a FTF. Sorry, can't blame the pistol for that!
I won't say it's for everybody, but it is for me!
mljdeckard
Member
When I was in Germany in 1992, we switched out our 1911s for Berettas, and I stole a double handful of old 1911 mags. I tried them, and held on to them, being so pleased with myself for getting over on the army, but when I tried them in my Kimber, they all failed reliability. I got rid of them one at a time.
I don't know the full story on this, but I'm thinking that in the years we continued to use WWII mfd 1911s, we had to cycle through a few contracts for magazines, and some of them just sucked.
This is the only problem I have ever had with my Kimber.
I don't know the full story on this, but I'm thinking that in the years we continued to use WWII mfd 1911s, we had to cycle through a few contracts for magazines, and some of them just sucked.
This is the only problem I have ever had with my Kimber.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Mags
mljdeckard...Shame. Wish I had'em. Some of those old magazines have had the same springs in'em since they were made. The ones I've run across that didn't work usually snapped to attention with a good scrubbin' and fresh springs.
mljdeckard...Shame. Wish I had'em. Some of those old magazines have had the same springs in'em since they were made. The ones I've run across that didn't work usually snapped to attention with a good scrubbin' and fresh springs.
- Status
