I LOVE 1911s. I think they are beautiful work of art and design BUT they don't seem to like me one bit. I've owned three and all three have caused me some type of heart ache. Of JMB designs I prefer his earlier ones or his contributions to the BHP. I have two of then now and I love them.
1911's overrated?
- Thread starter badbadtz560
- Start date
- Status
tomemartin
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 3
>45s
My grandson is a Special Forces trooper very active in Afghanistan. What he and his troops (he's a Master Sargeant) carry whenever possibel, which is most of the time is a .45 and a M-14. They use these weapons because of the problems encountered with 9mm and .223. Non-stops!!! He says and has the experience to prove it that a COM hit with a .45 will definitely stop a man and a hit virtully anywhere with a 7.62 will do the same. .45 ACP can be accurized to shoot extremely accurately. That's the reasons!
My grandson is a Special Forces trooper very active in Afghanistan. What he and his troops (he's a Master Sargeant) carry whenever possibel, which is most of the time is a .45 and a M-14. They use these weapons because of the problems encountered with 9mm and .223. Non-stops!!! He says and has the experience to prove it that a COM hit with a .45 will definitely stop a man and a hit virtully anywhere with a 7.62 will do the same. .45 ACP can be accurized to shoot extremely accurately. That's the reasons!
I like the 1911 and have owned a number of 'em, from Colt enhanced to Ballester Molinas. They're good guns, easy to master, tolerable recoil with a big bore for serious takin' care of business. And reloading for the 1911 is as easy as assembling the pieces to make up a reliable, reusable round. I guess that makes it "green" too!
Right now I'm into 9mm and .357 Magnum. One of these days I'll get me another 1911. Every shooter needs at least 1.
Right now I'm into 9mm and .357 Magnum. One of these days I'll get me another 1911. Every shooter needs at least 1.
Dan Crocker
Member
After learning to shoot on a Sig P228, my first handgun was a Colt M1911 (well, really a 1991, but...) It was overpriced for what it was, but all in all was a decent pistol. During the first 500 rds, I had multiple malfunctions with the gun but stuck with it. Eventually the problems worked out and the gun was a great CCW firearm. A buddy of mine and fellow veteran convinced me to go the route of the Springfield XD, and I was amazed (and still am) to have not had a SINGLE malfunction of any type after several thousand rounds with this pistol. I gave the 1911 to my dad, who has always wanted one (this way it stays in the family!) and use my XD as my primary carry and home defense gun.
I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the 1911--it's a grand, beautiful old warhorse that has served our country well and proven itself time and time again. But there's something to be said for 13+1, and in my experience, ultimate reliability.
I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the 1911--it's a grand, beautiful old warhorse that has served our country well and proven itself time and time again. But there's something to be said for 13+1, and in my experience, ultimate reliability.
Billy Shears
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,020
I don't think they're overrated at all. In the hands of a very well trained shooter, there is no pistol out there that can perform appreciably better, and many that can't perform as well. Having said that, it's not the weapon for everyone. The short, light single action trigger demands a higher degree of skill, but it rewards that skill by making fast, accurate shots easier to achieve than any other design does. This is why the 1911 dominates so many shooting sports, and why the most elite military and law enforcement shooters tend to choose it.
Just look at the weapon's strengths. I've already mentioned the trigger, but it's worth repeating, since it is probably the number one reason why this almost century old design is still so favored. Many other guns can match the 1911s reliability and practical accuracy, but not one has as good, let alone a better trigger. Then there's ergonomics, which are unsurpassed by any other handgun; the gun points quite naturally for most shooters, and the controls are all placed ideally for rapid, positive operation, even under stress. The safety, magazine release, and slide release can all be operated by the shooting hand with great ease, and the motor skills they demand are not fine ones (certainly no finer than operating the trigger is). Thirdly, there is accuracy, of which the 1911 has more than enough. Some examples are capable of match grade accuracy (and they don't always necessarily give up too much reliability to achieve this either, though some do), but even a stock, GI 1911, that rattles like a castanet when you shake it typically has enough accuracy to put its full magazine inside an eight inch-diameter circle at 25 yards, and that's easily accurate enough for a combat pistol. Finally, there is reliability. Many, many people will sneer at the 1911 as a "design that you must spend a LOT on cash to be semi-reliable" (which quote, in fact, comes from page one of this thread), and this is simply rubbish. It's true that there are many unreliable 1911s out there. And the thing they all have in common is that the design has been monkeyed with to varying degrees. A well made, mil-spec 1911 is still as reliable as anything you can lay your hands on.
Since the 1911 gets an undeservedly bad rap for it, this issue of reliability is worth saying a bit more about. Remember, in its initial trials, the gun fired 5000 rounds nonstop with no malfunctions of any kind. And in the government tests that ended with the selection of the Beretta 92 as the M9, four M1911A1s, selected at random from government arsenals, were tested alongside the competing DA 9mms as control pistols (as were four S&W Model 15s, used by the air force). The M1911s placed ahead of several of the actual contenders, despite the fact that two of the four did not survive the tests; one suffered a cracked frame at 8,000 rounds, and the other a cracked slide at 6,400 rounds -- but remember, all the contenders were brand new guns made of the most modern steel, with the most advanced heat treatment processes available, and the 1911s were made in 1945 or earlier (possibly much earlier), and had already had tens if not hundreds of thousands of rounds through them. And yet still, the 1911s (in spite of the cracked frame and slide problems) managed to fire 34,400 rounds (the two surviving examples, of course, managed the full 10,000 each with no major malfunctions). Malfunctions totalled 46, giving 748 rounds between failure. Compare this to the HK P9S, which fired 18,697 rounds, suffered 357 malfunctions, and had an average of 52 rounds between failure. The DA pistol from FN managed to fire a total of 33,600 rounds and 81 malfunctions, giving an average of 415 rounds between failure. And even the pistol that ultimately prevailed, the Beretta came of worse than the 1911s in some respects. The rate of malfunctions was much lower -- at only 14 -- for an average of 2000 rounds between failure, but... the four Berettas tested only managed to fire a total 28,000 rounds, and none of the four was able to complete the full 10,000.
So there you have it. The 1911 is so unreliable, that ragged out examples which had been been used and abused for decades, and probably rebuilt more than once, more than held their own with the most modern brand new DA guns of the 1980s.
Now having said all this, I'll concede that the 1911 is far from perfect. And its day is done as a general issue sidearm with the military, and most law enforcement agencies. It has some small parts that are prone to breakage. The SA trigger is seen as a liability by the military and most law enforcement agencies. And it was designed in an age when labor was cheap and technology was expensive, while today the reverse is true, so it requires more machining, and is thus more expensive to manufacture than most more modern designs.
But for all that, its strengths still vastly outweigh its weaknesses, which is why it still remains the first choice many elite shooters who get choose their own pistol, when every single other autoloader of its generation is now a museum piece. I'd say that makes the gun very far from overrated.
Just look at the weapon's strengths. I've already mentioned the trigger, but it's worth repeating, since it is probably the number one reason why this almost century old design is still so favored. Many other guns can match the 1911s reliability and practical accuracy, but not one has as good, let alone a better trigger. Then there's ergonomics, which are unsurpassed by any other handgun; the gun points quite naturally for most shooters, and the controls are all placed ideally for rapid, positive operation, even under stress. The safety, magazine release, and slide release can all be operated by the shooting hand with great ease, and the motor skills they demand are not fine ones (certainly no finer than operating the trigger is). Thirdly, there is accuracy, of which the 1911 has more than enough. Some examples are capable of match grade accuracy (and they don't always necessarily give up too much reliability to achieve this either, though some do), but even a stock, GI 1911, that rattles like a castanet when you shake it typically has enough accuracy to put its full magazine inside an eight inch-diameter circle at 25 yards, and that's easily accurate enough for a combat pistol. Finally, there is reliability. Many, many people will sneer at the 1911 as a "design that you must spend a LOT on cash to be semi-reliable" (which quote, in fact, comes from page one of this thread), and this is simply rubbish. It's true that there are many unreliable 1911s out there. And the thing they all have in common is that the design has been monkeyed with to varying degrees. A well made, mil-spec 1911 is still as reliable as anything you can lay your hands on.
Since the 1911 gets an undeservedly bad rap for it, this issue of reliability is worth saying a bit more about. Remember, in its initial trials, the gun fired 5000 rounds nonstop with no malfunctions of any kind. And in the government tests that ended with the selection of the Beretta 92 as the M9, four M1911A1s, selected at random from government arsenals, were tested alongside the competing DA 9mms as control pistols (as were four S&W Model 15s, used by the air force). The M1911s placed ahead of several of the actual contenders, despite the fact that two of the four did not survive the tests; one suffered a cracked frame at 8,000 rounds, and the other a cracked slide at 6,400 rounds -- but remember, all the contenders were brand new guns made of the most modern steel, with the most advanced heat treatment processes available, and the 1911s were made in 1945 or earlier (possibly much earlier), and had already had tens if not hundreds of thousands of rounds through them. And yet still, the 1911s (in spite of the cracked frame and slide problems) managed to fire 34,400 rounds (the two surviving examples, of course, managed the full 10,000 each with no major malfunctions). Malfunctions totalled 46, giving 748 rounds between failure. Compare this to the HK P9S, which fired 18,697 rounds, suffered 357 malfunctions, and had an average of 52 rounds between failure. The DA pistol from FN managed to fire a total of 33,600 rounds and 81 malfunctions, giving an average of 415 rounds between failure. And even the pistol that ultimately prevailed, the Beretta came of worse than the 1911s in some respects. The rate of malfunctions was much lower -- at only 14 -- for an average of 2000 rounds between failure, but... the four Berettas tested only managed to fire a total 28,000 rounds, and none of the four was able to complete the full 10,000.
So there you have it. The 1911 is so unreliable, that ragged out examples which had been been used and abused for decades, and probably rebuilt more than once, more than held their own with the most modern brand new DA guns of the 1980s.
Now having said all this, I'll concede that the 1911 is far from perfect. And its day is done as a general issue sidearm with the military, and most law enforcement agencies. It has some small parts that are prone to breakage. The SA trigger is seen as a liability by the military and most law enforcement agencies. And it was designed in an age when labor was cheap and technology was expensive, while today the reverse is true, so it requires more machining, and is thus more expensive to manufacture than most more modern designs.
But for all that, its strengths still vastly outweigh its weaknesses, which is why it still remains the first choice many elite shooters who get choose their own pistol, when every single other autoloader of its generation is now a museum piece. I'd say that makes the gun very far from overrated.
CSA 357
Member
Every red blooded american should own a 1911 45! by the way i dont think they are overrated!
Overrated?
Hardly.
At one time or another I've owned Glocks, Sigs, Berettas, Browning HiPowers, H&K's, Rugers, S&Ws, etc etc.
I've always came back to a 1911 as my "go to" pistol, as it is reliable, easier to shoot well, and fires a 230 grain bullet that will ruin a bad guys day.
Hardly.
At one time or another I've owned Glocks, Sigs, Berettas, Browning HiPowers, H&K's, Rugers, S&Ws, etc etc.
I've always came back to a 1911 as my "go to" pistol, as it is reliable, easier to shoot well, and fires a 230 grain bullet that will ruin a bad guys day.
elktrout
Member
There is nothing like the actual experience of war and arms' length combat to season a person's opinion about a tool like the 1911. It certainly has some faults, as most guns do.
I worked with a man who was an Army medic in the South Pacific in WWII. He swore by the 1911 because he carried it every day. Yes, a medic carrying a gun. It was common practice because the Japs shot all the medics or chopped them down with swords.
When I asked him if he ever had to use it to save his life, he smiled slightly and said "lots of times".
I worked with a man who was an Army medic in the South Pacific in WWII. He swore by the 1911 because he carried it every day. Yes, a medic carrying a gun. It was common practice because the Japs shot all the medics or chopped them down with swords.
When I asked him if he ever had to use it to save his life, he smiled slightly and said "lots of times".
I do not think they are overrated. The reason 1911's are still around is that they do what they are supposed to do.
I have had a Colt 1911 since I was nineteen (which was a long time ago). Over the years it has done it's job just with the Colt parts that came with it. Granted, the old girl doesn't see the range as much as she used to, but I would trust her with my life in any situation.
I have had a Colt 1911 since I was nineteen (which was a long time ago). Over the years it has done it's job just with the Colt parts that came with it. Granted, the old girl doesn't see the range as much as she used to, but I would trust her with my life in any situation.
jakk280rem
Member
i wasn't there mind you, but i have read several historical and firsthand accounts that the m1911a1 has saved the bacon of quite a few american soldiers. and probably a few brits too. used quite a bit in WWI in the trenches and some in WWII in house to house fighting. considering the gun it replaced, i'm sure that those that had them were happy to.
overated? perhaps. i think this mostly comes from people buying $300 pistols, finding out they dont shoot as well as the range reports of the baer, wilson, or brown that they read about in the latest gun rag, then sink several hundred into their pistols only to find out they're still not there.
there is very little middle ground in the world of the 1911. stick as close as you can to original g.i. as you can, don't expect better than standard combat accuracy, and shoot the hell out of it. or pony up and do the supertuned $3k gun. there are some manufactures in the middle, but they are full of comprimises. some are materials, some save money in attention to detail, some are machining tolerences.
it is these pistols in the middle ground that give the 1911 a bad rep. they try to be as accurate as a much higher dollar pistol but suffer on reliability. some try to be as reliable as possible, but move away from the original design. still others try to offer a pistol that looks like it cost $3k at a bargain price, but suffer from poor material quality and/or fit and finish.
usmc1371
Member
I think there are more over rated 1911 owners than guns. I am on my second one, nothing special just a springfield full size light weight and it suits my needs just right. I don't need a 1911 that can hit a golf ball at 50 yds with match ammo but can't feed good hp's. Never had a golf ball try to kill me. I can hit a paper plate at 50 yds most of the time so I guess thats minute of bad guy way farther than i will ever need. Its just a fun gun to carry and a joy to shoot I don't think I will ever be with out one around. I may ccw something diffrent at some point and I shoot a glock in ipsc but I wouldn't give up my 1911.
sohcgt2
Member
I think 1911's are crazy overrated, if you make one shoot straight it won't shoot long, if you make it reliable it will only shoot zip code accurate. In .45 acp 9 rounds is the limit for carry. In short I love mine and wouldn't trade it for the world.
Quoheleth
Member
I haven't read all of these pages, but my Springfield GI, with not even a fluff & buff, was dead nuts reliable. Shot everything I was putting in it - including cast lead semi-wadcutters.
[Full disclosure: if you go back in my post history a year ago, you will see me reporting FTF/FTRTB issues. I discovered that as a lefty, I was riding my off hand against the right "button" side of the slide release tab, pushing it back just enough that it would catch the notch in the slide, preventing smooth functioning. Once I figured that out (and stopped doing it) I never had a problem]
My previous 1911, a Rock Island, is basically a 70-series Colt. Ditto the reliability issue.
I didn't run 10K through either pistol, and sold/traded both to move on to other guns, but neither had a problem.
Neither of these are over $500 new. Many guys over at the m1911 forum brag that their RIAs will shoot at-or-above high-end 1911 accuracy. Quite frankly, my GI shot better than my Loaded model I now have. In some ways, I wish I hadn't traded up on this one...
Q
[Full disclosure: if you go back in my post history a year ago, you will see me reporting FTF/FTRTB issues. I discovered that as a lefty, I was riding my off hand against the right "button" side of the slide release tab, pushing it back just enough that it would catch the notch in the slide, preventing smooth functioning. Once I figured that out (and stopped doing it) I never had a problem]
My previous 1911, a Rock Island, is basically a 70-series Colt. Ditto the reliability issue.
I didn't run 10K through either pistol, and sold/traded both to move on to other guns, but neither had a problem.
Neither of these are over $500 new. Many guys over at the m1911 forum brag that their RIAs will shoot at-or-above high-end 1911 accuracy. Quite frankly, my GI shot better than my Loaded model I now have. In some ways, I wish I hadn't traded up on this one...
Q
kwelz
Member
I love my 1911s but they have been surpassed by more modern designs. This is not to say they are in any way BAD pistols but they are dated.
commygun
Member
I've been a gun nut for over 20 years but never held, much less owned a 1911 till last month. I thought they were out moded, unreliable,and overpriced. I dropped my subscription to Handguns magazine because I got tired of seeing outlandish custom 1911's on the cover month after month. Well, shortly after New Year's, swayed by the numerous positive threads here about the RIA's I bought a RIA GI and started shooting the hell out of it. I really like this gun! It's accurate, stone reliable, great ergonomics, and yes, it reeks of history. It also weighs a ton. I wouldn't try to CCW it but it's now my nightstand gun.
WW I, WW II etc. etc. : sure, but consider :
The sword has been used in combat far longer & far more often than any firearm.
Would YOU consider it for SD based on that fact ?
I'm not a 1911 fan but a vast number of pistolshooters prefer it over anything else .
& a great many of those are far better shots with their 1911 than I am with any of my guns.
There's an argument I CAN'T argue with.
The sword has been used in combat far longer & far more often than any firearm.
Would YOU consider it for SD based on that fact ?
I'm not a 1911 fan but a vast number of pistolshooters prefer it over anything else .
& a great many of those are far better shots with their 1911 than I am with any of my guns.
There's an argument I CAN'T argue with.
stevereno1
Member
I really like my kimber 1911. I shoot it usually once a week. I also like my Glocks. I carry a G-27 with me all of the time in case I need it to save my life.
Billy Shears
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,020
Why not carry it? I've never understood this complaint. Take it from someone who carries an all steel gun every day, if you get a a proper belt, meant for carrying a holstered gun on (which you should do anyway) and a good quality holster, like a Milt Sparks summer special or versa max 2, you won't even notice the weight. And the gun is so flat you'll be amazed how comfortable it is for inside the waistband carry.
Marcus5aurelius
Member
1911 is underrated.
sohcgt2
Member
I'll second that, I carry a Glock G22 as my daily carry but I do sometimes carry the 1911 and it is much more comfortable on my hip. I still prefer the 16 rds of .40S&W that I get with the Glock.
pbearperry
Member
If I only had a 1911 for protection I would not feel undergunned.It throws big bullets every time I pull the trigger period.
- Status