1911's overrated?

[Hawk]

1911's overrated?

Nope, just "rated".
Some suck; some are sublime.

It's a patent-expired design that works. Much like "Kleenex" and "Xerox" it's a generic term for something that once was trademarked.

Asking "Are 1911s overrated" is like asking "Are cars overrated?".

Everybody, his brother and the horse they rode in on is making a 1911:

SIG, Kimber, Colt, STI, SVI, Para, SA, Taurus, RIA, Nighthawk, Baer, Brown, Wilson, Rock River, S&W and, no doubt, a host of others.

How do you draw a valid conclusion from all those disparate manufacturers? Obviously, you don't.

"What do you think of 1911s?"
Could be easily rephrased as:
"What do you think of short-recoil linked-barrel handguns?"
And the answer you get would be equally enlightening and, it should be noted, utterly worthless.

I've had an STI 2011 and a RIA base model. Without getting into specifics, they aren't the same. But they would both qualify as "modern 1911 types".

Only on internet fora would one group an RIA base model with an STI Legend and declare them "the same" 'cause they're both 1911s.

 

[azhunter122]

I know that I will probably be stoned for saying this but I have no need for a 1911 nor do I ever want one! Sorry but I think that Glocks are they best thing that ever happened, maybe with the exeption of the Springfield Glock copycat gun.

 

[theken206]

^ as well you should be hehehehe ;p

 

[Hawk]

I know that I will probably be stoned for saying this...

Piffle.

One of my favorite Mas Ayoob-isms is along the lines of "Guns aren't marriage, we're allowed to be promiscuous."

I had a Glock. You might want a 1911. Then you could profess your disinterest from a postion of knowledge rather than ignorance.

I should point out that, in this context, there's no negative connotation to "ignorance" - it simply means you haven't tried the item the question. Whereas, I have tried the Glock - rather liked it FWIW. I liked it considerably better than a pedestrian 1911 but found it wanting in comparison to a nicer 1911. While one might reasonably combine all Glocks together, it doesn't work worth a wet slap with 1911-mutant-pattern firearms - 1911s differ too much one from the other.

 

[Tamlin]

My first .45 was a Ruger P90. Great gun - loved it. Then I got the 1911 bug and traded it for a Dan Wesson Pointman 7. Two very different guns! I love the Dan Wesson, but sometimes I miss the Ruger. The 1911 fits my hand better, and it certainly looks sexier - - but I'm still getting used to carrying in Condition 1. With the Ruger, I could cock it and throw it in my backpack, knowing that the double action + safety would keep it ready when I needed it. When I throw my 1911 into my backpack, the manual thumb safety inevitably flips off, and I'm left feeling vulnerable to Accidental Discharge (the feeling is there, whether the reality is or not).

That being said, the Dan Wesson smokes rings around the Ruger as far as accuracy - and the triggers simply can't compare. The Ruger is spongy, while the 1911 is super-tight. Would I trade back? No. But, looking back, I would have bought the Dan Wesson and kept the Ruger, too.

 

[easyrider604]

1911's overrated?

Compared to what? In terms of what? Vague question but I'll jump in anyway.

Original post referred to the 1911's use in wartime conditions, not IPSC or bullseye competition or CCW. In this regard, the Colt/Remington/Springfield Armory/Ithaca, et al-built 1911A1's are not over-rated compared to other pistols (all of which were chambered in calibers beginning with the number 3) issued to the Allies or their enemies.

No discussion of the 1911 will be complete without delving into its cartridge, the .45 acp.

This cartridge is one reason, perhaps one might argue the "main" reason, for the 1911's existence and/or greatness. Had the 1911 been chambered for the 9 mm, there may not have been the 7 shot/7 kills (or close) records we read about. With 9 mm ball ammo, it is not likely possible to have the same record.

It was designed to be used as last resort or close quarter weapons, and as such, it excelled. It was mechanically dead reliable and adequately accurate with 230 grain full power FMJs, as well as highly reliable in making dead Kraut and Jap heroes.

Anyways, is the .45 (as I prefer to call the 1911 and its ammo) overrated in the context of the original post? No way. The .45 deserves all the credit, honor and respect it has been bestowed, notwithstanding the gallantry and skill of those who carried and used them.

For any other purpose, as in CCW or pistol games and such, the .45 was never designed for those anyway.

 

[Beagle-zebub]

One of my 1911's is capable of 1" and a half groups at 50 yards. I see not how I could ask more of it.

I was talking about strength, not accuracy. (Lord knows 1911s can be accurate as hell.) Those lugs just can't stand up to tons and tons of really hot 10mm or .45 Super, supposedly. With regular .45 ACP...well, it's a non-issue.

The HK Mk. 23 was required to stand up to 30,000+ rounds of +P, and did so. The Glock 20 performs comparably.

 

[Ske1etor]

Outdated means obsolete. Figure it out.

 

[Beatnik]

Add me to the "Overrated compared to what?" crowd.

I have never bought one, because mine is eventually coming via inheritance.
It was pieced together in a Coast Guard armory from spare parts.
It's a mix of the green and purple parkerized finishes.
It's my dad's frankengun.
I have no doubt that despite being accurized, it'll be outshot by a G21SF. I also have no doubt that you can't piecemeal a G21SF.

When my kids are able to handle 45ACP, they're going to shoot that 1911 first. Why? For the same reason they're going to drive stick first, they're going to use hand saws first, and they're going to learn how to do an octal dump on a computer file. Because I think the 1911 represents a basic, outdated, dead reliable method of doing things which will help in better understanding the modern way.

Although I gotta say I think parts of the design is overrated. I had more trouble figuring out how to field strip it than with a P38 - and I think an American gun shouldn't even come close to the confusion level of WWII-era German engineering. But Browning hit the nail on the head with the safety. All autos with a safety should be thumb-swipe down, not push-forward.

 

[NGIB]

A simple NO will suffice as an answer for this one...

 

[EHL]

Outdated???

Blasphemy. That gun is embedded in the fighting spirit of America. It has filled it's purpose for close to a hundred years, and no doubt will continue to do so long after all of us are dust and forgotten.

 

[steelyblue]

I simply love the 1911 design. It is the be all, end all of handguns for me. I have had many others: CZ, Glock, revolvers, Baretta, Ruger, S&W, Kel-Tec, Hi Point, HK, Sig. I shoot better with a 1911 and have no need for anything else. Overrated/Outdated? If it is, then I'll continue to shoot them anyway and love it.

 

[MikePGS]

I really like the design and ergonomics of the 1911, so i really can't say it's overweighted, but with only one exception. In my opinion and for my purposes, I believe that it is too large as a carry piece. Many other people are willing to make the tradeoff, and really it's not much of one. Your basically sacrificing a heavier gun for one of the best fighting handguns available. However, who's to say that you wouldn't be equally well armed with a smaller more concealable lighter gun? I guess the answer to that depends on who you ask.

 

[Dobe]

I've read these threads and have participated in these threads for a couple of years. After this one will be another. The mere presence of this continual topic is proof enought that the 1911 is still King.

 

[krs]

I know one thing _ I'll take my Glock 19 into the shower with me but I'd never do that to any of my TWENTY-TWO 1911 pistols.

It's a deciding factor, certainly.

 

[.45ACPLove]

the ak-47 is outdated, yet many countries still use it. the ar platform is aging as well and is outdated in the sense that new battle rifles have been designed, some with improvements. although it seems to be the general idea that the ar-15 is the end all, be all platform for a battle rifle. To me this debate is alot like ford vs chevy owners; or domestic vs import. both are great but people have a bias to one side or another and feel the need to bash the rival.

now me, i'm biased towards the 1911 because it holds a dear place in my heart....esp Colt's. Just because something is modern and cutting edge doesn't mean it's the best.

 

[theotherwaldo]

I would be more likely to say that the original 1911a1 design is obsolescent, in that it is still a valid military firearm but there are both unincorporated improvements for the base mechanism and other firearms that have noticeable advantages.

The 1873 Colt, or any other revolver, for example, is truly obsolete and would fit the "overrated" category if promoted as a current military firearm. The M-16a1 is likewise obsolete while the M-4 version is merely obsolescent in the current battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The question is not "is this a good firearm". The question is "is there a better firearm for this situation".

Under these circumstances, I would have to say that the original 1911a1 pistol is not the best choice for the situation and is therefore overrated by its supporters.

 

[daorhgih]

Once a Classic, always a Classic

I love my chromed, officer model, issued to a neighbor who was a veterinarian officer, WWII. It rattles, it clunks, it shoots every time. I learned how to shoot it "full-auto" from my neighbor before he died. I'll never sell this clunker, accurate or not. I don't even know how accurate it is. I also inherited his 1932 3-window, rumble-seat Ford V-8 coupe (80,000 mi.) The only non-stock items on the car are the electric wipers, Lincoln 2-coil ignition, and a 2-speed axle. Same with the car as with the 1911: both are classics, and can be improved upon. I like the way Glock has improved J. Browning's seminal invention. But both are permanent pieces in my heritage to be passed to my son when it's time.

 

[.45ACPLove]

i don't think it's "is there a better firearm", but more of "can the firearm in question perform the job well to completion"

 

[Tirod]

Is the 1911 a valid design for combat TODAY?

No. That was answered when the trials were over. I'm as much aware Beretta got the contract because Italy pressured the US Gov't on naval and airborne bases there. That doesn't overcome the fact most entries were not 1911 based, and the Beretta is actually a P38 descendant.

Feature for feature, the 1911 isn't combat ready anymore. Weight? Too much for the military carriers load out. Capacity? Too little as it's a single stack magazine. Durability? All steel requires additional protective coatings and maintenance. Operational controls? Too many - It's not inherently safe in action and requires additional thumbing around, which is not a gross motor activity.

It's been said by many, and will show in tests, the .45 can be highly accurate. I would speculate that those results come from a few testers who regularly compete with them. The certainly aren't GI issue.

Having trained on the .45, then the M9, and carried both, I prefer the G19. It's more weather resistant, abrasion resistant, and operator malfunction resistant. When you need it, and it's loaded, you put your finger on the trigger and pull. It can't get much simpler than that, which makes it a superior combat pistol.

As a target shooter, 1911's are just fine - and probably the most developed platform out there. Like chevy motors, lots run them and run them well, but they have little in common with a 350 2bbl truck. It's already been decided where the action actually happens that plenty of other weapons will do better. It's just that operators get to spend more for a issue race gun because they only buy a few.

Where the budget meets the street, polymer striker fired weapons do better. The evidence is in the holsters everywhere you go. 1911's are in the minority.

 

[Erik]

"1911's overrated?"

Another, yes, no, maybe, depending on the make, model, and intended application of a given pistol for a given purpose.

There, that clears things up.

 

[.45ACPLove]

budget shouldn't be an issue when your life depends on it. magazine capacity is a weak point IMO because of the beaten into my head saying "handguns are a means to fighting to your long gun". if you are in a situation down to just your handgun and you are going to need more than 8-9 rounds without a reload in order to supress or eliminate a threat....chances are you are severely out gunned and those extra rounds of the double stack aren't going to keep you from being killed.

as far as looking at holsters, i don't care what i see on a cops hip, his departments BUDGET decides what goes on his hip.

 

[elChupacabra!]

Is the 1911 a valid design for combat TODAY?

No. That was answered when the trials were over. I'm as much aware Beretta got the contract because Italy pressured the US Gov't on naval and airborne bases there. That doesn't overcome the fact most entries were not 1911 based, and the Beretta is actually a P38 descendant.

Feature for feature, the 1911 isn't combat ready anymore. Weight? Too much for the military carriers load out. Capacity? Too little as it's a single stack magazine. Durability? All steel requires additional protective coatings and maintenance. Operational controls? Too many - It's not inherently safe in action and requires additional thumbing around, which is not a gross motor activity.

Tell that to Delta and Marine Force Recon. Tell that to FBI HRT. Tell that to Larry Vickers and other guys who actually have (probably) shot people with them.

Tell them their choice of handgun is too heavy, has too little capacity, isn't durable enough, isn't safe enough, and has too many operational controls.

Then tell us what they say in response

 

[AndyC]

No. That was answered when the trials were over. I'm as much aware Beretta got the contract because Italy pressured the US Gov't on naval and airborne bases there. That doesn't overcome the fact most entries were not 1911 based, and the Beretta is actually a P38 descendant.

Rubbish - the 1911 wasn't even a contender in the trials because they had to go 9mm in accordance with NATO agreements and specifically wanted double-action pistols, so how on earth can you say anything was answered?

Even Glock wasn't even allowed to participate because it isn't a double-action pistol. At the time, we heard that Beretta won out over the SIG primarily because the Beretta magazines were cheaper.

Feature for feature, the 1911 isn't combat ready anymore. Weight? Too much for the military carriers load out. Capacity? Too little as it's a single stack magazine. Durability? All steel requires additional protective coatings and maintenance. Operational controls? Too many - It's not inherently safe in action and requires additional thumbing around, which is not a gross motor activity.

Never met an operator yet who complained that a 1911 is too heavy. Capacity - sure, more is nice but it's a sidearm, not a primary weapon in the military. Durability - all weapons need protective coatings - total non-issue. Operational controls - yeah, a safety-catch is real difficult to learn how to use - gross motor activity, my arsium

 

[cookekdjr]

I am not a 1911 fanatic. I've never owned one. But it is not over-rated. It is one of the best handgun designs in history.

edited to add: I rarely shoot 1911's, but I tend to shoot them as well or better than any gun I regulary practice with.