1911s suck (not my article)

Status
Not open for further replies.
So what if we just simply duplicate what John Browning did back in 1910?
- http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=672470

6000 round torture test is quite a feat and I would say THAT 1910 did not suck.
On the testing and qualification day, 1910 model did not experience any malfunction during the 6000 round continuous firing "torture test". John Browning attended the first day of testing/qualifications only to make any modifications that may be needed and since the 1910 model did not experience any malfunction, he did not attend the rest of testing/qualification days.
 
To me 1911 is an outdated design. It is a fine design, that can be made to work well if done properly, but is behind the times none the less.

Most modern defensive pistols by collective nature are dominated by designs that are polymer framed, lightweight, very reliable out of the box, striker fired (or some other mechanism excluding an external hammer), high capacity, grossly simple by design, and priced around $500 or under. The 1911 just doesn't fit the modern pistol mold like it or not.

I still think they are great guns and for those that choose to rely on them for serious purposes my hat is off to you. I just hope you are honest about the shortcomings that can exist in its design and know how to cope.

I also think that the .45 acp is an obsolete caliber due to the advent of ammunition that expands reasonably reliably, but that's a different subject. ;)
 
Last edited:
You should, Dusty. They're quite good.

Me and the 1911 go back a long way. In the early 60s, my father...a tool and die maker, and his no-good brother...a retired Navy armorer...used to hit the gun shows and snap up USGI pistols to rebuild and shoot. Back then, there were usually 3-4 tables that had'em stacked like cordwood, and they couldn't give'em away. You could buy a decent one for 35 bucks and a nice one for 50. They usually bought the dogs. The ol' man like the pre-A1s while my uncle was partial to the WW2-era pistols.

The next tables had all the surplus parts needed and the ammunition was so cheap that nobody bothered to even pick up the brass because it cost more to reload it, even with home cast bullets.

And we shot'em. Boy howdy did we shoot'em. As the slides busted or beat the lugs to mush...they'd go to the shop and get another slide and barrel, and we were back in business. When the frames were so worn that they couldn't be used again, they'd toss'em and start over. And, of course, they sold a few to finance their hobby.

I shot a few of those pistols until the late 80s, and shot'em to destruction. The last one...an Ithaca...I rebuilt one last time and put it up. I still have it.

I realized that if I wanted another beater, I'd need a newer pistol...so I bought a 1991A1 in the fall of '91 and another in the spring of '92. I was so impressed that I bought three more over the next two years, and wound up selling two to friends who wanted'em more than I did. One is being kept as a spare, and has only seen about 15,000 rounds.

Armed with an unlimited supply of free wheelweights and cheap 60/40 bar solder, I proceeded to try to break both guns...so far without any real success. They both got tightened up and refitted at about 75,000 rounds, along with new barrels, which I wore out and replaced again with Kart barrels about 2 years ago. One is still operating on its OEM sear and disconnect...both MIM...and I replaced the disconnect in the other one at the refitting. Not because it was bad, but because it looked a little worn. Both still run with the original hammers.

I swapped the triggers for short ones. Even with large hands, I like the flat mainspring housing and short trigger. Did away with the Series 80 system because with cast bullets, I detail strip and clean every 2500 rounds, and it's faster and easier without the lawyer parts. I installed USGI grip safeties just because...and USGI thumb safeties because I like'em.
 
A friend, since deceased, assembled a number of serviceable pistols on Essex frames in the 1970s. His brother was in the USMC and would periodically send or bring home on leave ammo cans full of parts; sometimes a can of slides, sometimes a can of barrels and small parts. His STORY was that they had on contract regular deliveries of so many spare parts above actual needs that they just scrapped the old stock when a new shipment came in. So he wasn't really stealing anything, just salvaging scrap. Riiight.
 
1911 use outside of the US?

I'm honestly curious because I do not know; how common are 1911's (or very close variants) overseas in countries where pistol ownership is legal? I keep hearing over and over that 1911s popularity is proof of its awesomeness and superiority. Is that still the case in countries absent the storied past of our military's Pistol?

TCB
 
I'm honestly curious because I do not know; how common are 1911's (or very close variants) overseas in countries where pistol ownership is legal? I keep hearing over and over that 1911s popularity is proof of its awesomeness and superiority. Is that still the case in countries absent the storied past of our military's Pistol?

I haven't seen anyone here claiming that the 1911 is superior to any other gun. It is, however, undeniably popular and that fact was used to dispute the assertion that they suck.

As far as military service goes, off the top of my head the Norwegians, Argentinians, Brazilians all adopted the gun as a standard service sidearm and manufactured them in-country. We also supplied a few countries such as Greece with 1911's that were surplussed from WWII. I can't speak to the civilian gun culture of other countries, but there are few where 1911's are popular. The Philippines seem to especially like the gun, to the point that they have a problem with fake Colts. .38 Super 1911's seems to be hugely popular in Mexico, where military calibers are banned from civilian use. That's just what I remember at the moment, but I'm sure there are others that can provide more detail.
 
I'm honestly curious because I do not know; how common are 1911's (or very close variants) overseas in countries where pistol ownership is legal? I keep hearing over and over that 1911s popularity is proof of its awesomeness and superiority. Is that still the case in countries absent the storied past of our military's Pistol?

I travel quite a bit for work and can honestly say Ive only seen ONE outside of North/South America. It was in France, and Im pretty sure it was a Llama. Which were made across the border in Spain.

*Keep in mind business and my contact with guns in most foreign countries is noticing what the Police/Security forces have. In that retrospect Glock and Sig dominate. Its rare that I see anything but.
 
Very interesting thread but ...7 pages of "I didn't mean to stir up crap." Yeah, ok.

Well...Sometimes a little needs to be stirred once in a while to provide the opportunity to intermingle some of the facts into opinion and internet myth. While some will never be convinced...a good many will at least open their minds to the concept that raving fanboys generally spin their versions of the truth by using two or three experiences with a given platform to "prove" that they all suck.

It's easy for a guy who's had a bad experience with a (Insert name of pistol here) to draw that conclusion because it cost him money and caused him no small amount of stress and frustration. If he has two such experiences, he's convinced, and nothing that you can say and nothing that you can show him that will change his mind.

The logical question that begs to be asked is:

"If the 1911 is so sucky...why is it still around and selling in record numbers after a hundred years?" Seems to me that if it was that fraught with problems, it would have become a museum curiosity sometime around 1918 with the rest sold for scrap.
 
I will say this...if I need a gun to defend myself, I know my 1911 or my Glock 19 will deliver the round on time and on target. I've had no problem with either.
 
A good accurate 1911 is one with tight tolerance. I just dont see that beating out Mark 23 in torture test that is if it was pitched againt mk23.

1911 has its following just like Glock and then at lesser scale CZ. These devoted souls cannot ever be convinced orherwise.

1911 is here to stay. Its been 100+ years. One should get that by now. There are certain advantages of 1911 that appeal to me. Like single stack grip, accuracy and all metal pistol for engravings etc

Glock has its advantage. Reliability and durability. Not to forget its customizable to your liking.

All that said, I believe tax payers view on the philosophy how money their money is spent in undeniablely important. Cost benefit analysis and audits are imparative on departments. Give them what they need to do the job effectively and efficiently, not what they want as they are subservient to national cause. Now, if after due diligence 1911 is chosen then so be it. Otherwise, if its a slip in accoubtibility it should be discussed in public accounts committee.
 
All that said, I believe tax payers view on the philosophy how money their money is spent in undeniablely important.

Of course it is, but this contract wasn't for a quarter-million pistols. It was small, and intended for an elite group of young lions. When your annual budget reaches multiple billions, griping over 20 million dollars is a little like worrying over the salinity of Lake Superior after ya take a leak in it. There was more money than that spent just recruiting and training those guys.

Consider the cost of a single Tomahawk missile. The term: "Swallowing the camel and gagging on the gnat" comes to mind.

Give them what they need to do the job effectively and efficiently, not what they want as they are subservient to national cause.

I'll have to disagree. Again, this is an exclusive club with a comparatively small membership. They have a very specific mission statement with the bottom line being that completing the mission successfully is paramount and critical to the above mentioned national cause. When a man is more confident with Weapon A than with Weapon B...he's more likely to complete that mission because when the chips are down...he wants to be alive at its conclusion, and he wants his comrades to be alive as well. Imagine yourself as a front-line infantryman in WW1. Would you feel better going over the top with a Chau Chaut in your hands or a BAR?
 
1911
I dont think you disagree with me even though you stated so. I am not saying that they should have sub standard weapons by any means. Like I said, they should have weapon that enable them to complete task effectively and efficiently. I doubt anyone can argue with that.

As for whizzing in Lake Superior, if we open the sewerage lines of entire Michigan in it, it may become a problem albeit its just one state. Therefore, the prespective is different. I being in public sector face these issues in routine, which end up having aggregate effect and setting weak/wrong precedents if not enjoined from derailing from the stated philosophy if any. From a citizen's perspective yes its like one man whizzing in the Lake.

This by no means should be construed as equiping elite soldiers with inferior weapons. I am all in support for providin the best to those who defend a nation, just with proper accountability on spending so we can continue to provide the best for those brave men and women.
 
Tuner, I don't think 115FMJ...er..."Dusty Roads" will be revisiting the 1911 at any point. He already has that classic Remington Rand and a super rare United Switch & Signal, 1 of 1 I would bet... If they ain't the same feller they ought to get together, they both love Glocks, own R. R.s and Sig Pro 2022s and think the 1911 sucks...
 
I dont think you disagree with me even though you stated so. I am not saying that they should have sub standard weapons by any means.

Never said that you did.

Therefore, the prespective is different. I being in public sector face these issues in routine, which end up having aggregate effect and setting weak/wrong precedents if not enjoined from derailing from the stated philosophy if any.

And if the US military was talking of ordering a half-million of the pistols at the same cost per unit, I'd be questioning it, too...and loudly.

And from Dusty:

Regardless of caliber or make, the fact is that all handguns suck when you just get down to it.

True that, but the difference in effectiveness of the .45 ball and 9mm ball is known. If the pistol must be used, you want the heavier caliber, given a choice.

And...

It's also a fact that the 1911's clean, short single-action trigger is more conducive to getting hits on target quickly...and...In a situation where hitting quickly and hitting first can easily mean the difference between living and dying...the 1911 shines.

Contrary to what it may seem, I'm no 1911 fanboy. I'm well aware of its shortcomings and its limitations. Revolvers are my first love, and I can manage the DA trigger pretty well...but if I were limited to a sidearm to go with me into a nightmare, it would be the .45 caliber 1911 because I've found no other pistol that I can shoot quite as well with in a hurry. Almost as well wouldn't cut it. Lives often hinge on times measured in hundredths of seconds.

The pistol that is most often on my belt is a pure stock Model 13 Smith & Wesson, 3-inch round butt, and my nightstand gun is an old Model 10 with the tapered barrel.
 
Would you feel better going over the top with a Chau Chaut in your hands or a BAR?

For those who don't know what a Chau Chat is, imagine a machinegun made out of a PVC pipe, cuz that's what they would have used is PVC was around back then.
 
I think that the Sig 226 and the Glock 17 are just as good in a high stress situation.

As many do, including a lot of law enforcement agencies. My feeling is that, in a high stress situation, getting the action stopped with as few rounds as possible...hopefully one...is what makes the most sense to me. The more bullets in the air, the greater the chance of one or two goin' somewhere you don't want'em.

As Cooper noted:

"The man with the StG is more prone to spending rounds before he's got a solid lock on the target becasue he's got plenty in reserve, while the man with the Mauser knows that he as to hold and squeeze."
 
True that, but the difference in effectiveness of the .45 ball and 9mm ball is known. If the pistol must be used, you want the heavier caliber, given a choice.
Agreed.
It's also a fact that the 1911's clean, short single-action trigger is more conducive to getting hits on target quickly...and...In a situation where hitting quickly and hitting first can easily mean the difference between living and dying...the 1911 shines.
Agreed.
I will trade that for the added 2 millimeters in diameter of the projectile any day of the week.
I often feel the need to address this incorrect information. You have to compare surface area and percentages. May matter to you, may still not. But, at least you'll be working with the right numbers.
comparisons-updated.png
One 15 round double stack mag beats a single 7 in my book. I feel the more lead on the target the better.
So, if [strike]7[/strike] 9 (8+1) rounds of .45acp and [strike]15[/strike] 16 (15+1) rounds of 9mm all hit the target they put a comparable amount of "lead on target" in terms of effected surface area (depending on how bias you choose to be towards 9mm expansion vs. .45acp expansion). Sure, "all handguns suck", but compare 1 vs. 1 and it's no contest in favor of .45acp "sucking less" than 9mm. And, you can't predict misses or hits. But, if you tend/plan to spray-n-pray, definately 9mm no doubt.

I choose Glocks in 9mm and .45acp and the 1911 in .45acp as my primary platforms. I accept the strengths and weakness of both. And, I still choose 9mm for some applications, but I'm not in denial about it's capabilities or effectiveness vs. .45acp.
 
Last edited:
So, we agree cost per unit is high, but the difference is on the numbers bought and whom they are bought for.

Assume you were chairing the standing committee on new purchase of quarter million pistols for the USAF, and the recent purchase by marines was sited as good reliable pistol by the USAF. You would be very hard pressed to turn them down to a more economical pistol. In which event the recent purchase would be questioned. Dont you think so?
 
I would think any elite group, small in size would constitute a higher cost to equip than a standard infantry. Note the multi-billion dollar fighter jet with a single pilot or the huge sum paid for aircraft carriers or submarines. If a few can do the job of many while reducing the loss of life the cost is justifiable. Force multipliers.
 
Assume you were chairing the standing committee on new purchase of quarter million pistols for the USAF, and the recent purchase by marines was sited as good reliable pistol by the USAF. You would be very hard pressed to turn them down to a more economical pistol. In which event the recent purchase would be questioned. Dont you think so?

Well no, I would not be hard pressed to turn down a request by the USAF for 250,000 Colt made 1911s with rails because no such request has been made or will be made. No such request has been made in over 60 years.

In 1948 at the close of the second world war the U.S. military ceased to order any large orders of 1911s and decided that their next sidearm issued across the board as the general service sidearm would be quite different from the 1911. Colt continued to provide the military with spare parts though. From 1948 or so on the U.S. military made no new orders for 1911 pistols from any manufacturer (except for some branches of special forces).

However the U.S. military had little money to change over handguns at that time so the matter was put off. So through Korea and Viet Nam the 1911 soldiered on, spare parts being cobbled together and acquired from Colt. The gun did as it had always done an excellent job under the most rigorous conditions.

By the mid 80s though the U.S. military had the time and money and they chose, after extensive trials and debates, with the Berretta M9 and the Sig became an acceptable alternate in time. From that point on the 1911 was graduated out of service except in the hands of various of military police and special forces detachments (Seals, Force Recon, Deltas, etc.) It is not and will not be a general issue sidearm again in the U.S. or elsewhere.

Outside the U.S., by the 1960s and 70s other nations that issued the 1911 and used them in 45acp or 38 Super, phased them out for more modern and easier and cheaper to manufacture sidearms. In most cases it was a da/sa gun in 9mm, that was lighter than the 1911 and carried more rounds than the 1911. This was the type of gun the U.S. military wanted at the close of the Second World War but could not afford the transition to.

So why fellas worry about the cost of 12,000 handguns desired by MARSOC and to be delivered over a period of several years is kinda beyond me. Guns that may last them decades. It should be noted that MARSOC and other outfits like the seals, etc. have ordered and used slides from Springfield Armory, guns from Kimber, etc. over the last decade or so. This order from Colt is one of the larger special forces one.

tipoc
 
Last edited:
So why fellas worry about the cost of 12,000 handguns desired by MARSOC and to be delivered over a period of several years is kinda beyond me

Cause it's not their favorite pistol! Any brand would end with the same animosity...

As a US taxpayer who doesn't earn a single dime in the US. I vote to fire the 535 idiots in congress to help finance whatever a soldier wants.
 
So, we agree cost per unit is high, but the difference is on the numbers bought and whom they are bought for.

We don't know what the exact cost per pistol is. All we have is the cost of the contract, which includes spare parts, factory support, armorer training, and...for all we know...ammunition, and that's just what we know about. We're not privy to all the details of the contract.

Assume you were chairing the standing committee on new purchase of quarter million pistols for the USAF, and the recent purchase by marines was sited as good reliable pistol by the USAF. You would be very hard pressed to turn them down to a more economical pistol.

But MARSOC isn't your rank and file 'leven bang-bang infantry. The USAF has no real need of anything other than the standard issue sidearm, and not many of those...so your question is purely academic, and you're still trying hard to make me say that the pistols cost too much when I don't think so.

Again...the Corps has spent more money than the cost of the contract recruiting and training those guys. A lot more. If that's the pistol and the caliber that gives them the confidence to git'r done...I say God bless'em and give'em what they want.

And Marines is capitalized.
 
Tipoc
Apparently you chose not to read word "assume" in the begining of my post and yet argued in length that is not really in response to my post. Thus as soon as noticed you are choosing to ignore the assumption, I stopped reading.

1911
I guess it is now impractical for me to continue arguing since fundamentally we now differ on "need" and "want" aspect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top