1911 Unreliable?

[MachIVshooter]

I thought that term mean't like a revolver you pick it up and shoot and it's as simple as that. No decocking etc. like on autos.

It describes guided munitions that don't need to be manually vectored after firing/launchig.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-and-forget

 

[hank327]

Since getting out of the Army in 1982, I've owned 7 1911s. Four 5" Government Model Colts, 1 Colt Combat Commander, 1 Colt Lightweight Commander and 1 Para Ordnance P13. All the Colts were/have been extremely reliable straight out of the box. No tweaks or mods needed to feed hollowpoints or to make them run. I felt/feel perfectly confidant carrying any of the Colt 1911s I've owned.

The Para Ordnance was a disappointment in that it suffered from frequent malfunctions that seemed to be magazine related. I've been satisfied with the 7 round magazines that I've tried in my Colts. Wilson, Colt, Chip McCormick, and Metalform have all worked well for me.

So to me, all this internet talk I hear about 1911's being finicky and unreliable has always astounded me as it is completely opposite to my experience. Even the old WWII Government Model that the Army issued me was perfectly reliable. It was accurate enough too, as even I who had zero handgun experience, had no problem hitting the pop up target at 10 or so meters!

I just found this video of a new 1911 owner and what he has to say about the current Colt 1991 Government Model.

http://www.youtube.com/user/tnoutdoors9#p/u/64/Fzpqy_gVqK8

 

[mavracer]

I thought that term mean't like a revolver you pick it up and shoot and it's as simple as that. No decocking etc. like on autos.

I think you meant "point and click" instead of "fire and forget"

 

[stinger 327]

It describes guided munitions that don't need to be manually vectored after firing/launchig.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-and-forget

Got it

 

[stinger 327]

I think you meant "point and click" instead of "fire and forget"

You are correct. It's simple no safety to worry about just point and shoot.

 

[mavracer]

It's simple no safety to worry about just point and shoot.

Of course nothing is free. If you don't train enough to operate a manuel safety will you train enough to keep that booger hook off the trigger.
I'm reminded of the saying "every time you try to idiot proof something somebody comes up with a better idiot."

 

[ATLDave]

mavracer, you are too right. But a huge amount of engineering across a wide variety of industries goes into making sure that multiple errors are required to get an injury from a consumer product. That isn't always possible, but designing around idiots is frequently the goal.

Again, I don't think the story makes Glocks defective or untrustworthy... but it reinforces my non-preference for one. I still like the external safety (or long DA pull for a revolver) - so long as it is conveniently placed and oriented.

 

[stinger 327]

will check into that.

 

[1911 guy]

Quote:
What is wrong with the ParaOrdinace?

Nothing, other than the fact that it would positively kill them to make a decent pistol. Or rectify any problems their paperweights have when customers contact them.

Way back when, Para made a decent line of conversions and parts for the 1911. They then decided to go whole hog and build complete pistols. They slacked off even more than most in the Q.C. and parts department. Anything and everything is made of plastic and what's not plastic is usually out of spec.

My most recent tale of Barely Ordnance was a disonnector. It was oversided and would hit the inserted magazine, causing hammer follow. Very unsafe, never should have left the factory. Called Para and got a 'smith on the phone. He was actually helpful, verified the problem over the phone based on my observations and his questions. I figured I'd send them the bad part (they called it "beefy") and they'd send me a new one. Nope. Total non-cooperation.

Couple my experience with loads of others who have systemic and rampant problems with them and they're just not worth the risk. Less money can be spent on a far superior pistol.

 

[stinger 327]

Quote:
What is wrong with the ParaOrdinace?

Nothing, other than the fact that it would positively kill them to make a decent pistol. Or rectify any problems their paperweights have when customers contact them.

Way back when, Para made a decent line of conversions and parts for the 1911. They then decided to go whole hog and build complete pistols. They slacked off even more than most in the Q.C. and parts department. Anything and everything is made of plastic and what's not plastic is usually out of spec.

My most recent tale of Barely Ordnance was a disonnector. It was oversided and would hit the inserted magazine, causing hammer follow. Very unsafe, never should have left the factory. Called Para and got a 'smith on the phone. He was actually helpful, verified the problem over the phone based on my observations and his questions. I figured I'd send them the bad part (they called it "beefy") and they'd send me a new one. Nope. Total non-cooperation.

Couple my experience with loads of others who have systemic and rampant problems with them and they're just not worth the risk. Less money can be spent on a far superior pistol.

Thank you for that information. It just confirms of what I have heard and talked to others about. Their customer service isn't good along with the product.
I'll probably get the Sig P-220 compact or full size