1911s suck (not my article)
- Thread starter neviander
- Start date
- Status
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Nope. It's no joke, and recreational shooting is one of the best ways to develop skill, no? It's a known fact that police officers who only shoot their sidearms to qualify don't tend to do as well when the target shoots back as those who shoot for pleasure.
And...For the Marines in question...the 1911 isn't simply a sidearm in the normal sense. It's not a symbol of rank or an emergency fall back for mortar crews and the like. It's a second primary arm that will be used to shoot people. Regular infantry 11B/0311 personnel aren't issued sidearms. The SOC group all have pistols...and all those pistols are active weapons.
I'll look for the link, but don't hold your breath. It's been a while since I read up on the MEU-SOC's return/adoption of the 1911 pistol. Part of it was by letting the recruits shoot several different pistols and getting feedback from them.
Cost is always part of any military weapons contract, but there are other equally important considerations. Les Baer essentially builds a target pistol that is unnecessarily tight going to battery in order to achieve the level of (claimed) 50-yard accuracy and thus has greater potential for failures in a harsh environment. A pistol that's to be used at conversational distance has no need for that sort of accuracy, while reliable function is by far the most important criteria. A pistol that stops on the target range means little. The pistol that stops while somebody else is drawing a bead on you 15 feet away is another matter entirely. Not only does a fine, young Marine die, but his loss compromises the unit's chances of success.
It's also doubtful if Baer has the production capacity for such a contract, and...remember that the contract included spare parts and logistics support. Even if Baer could have met the contract, when all that is thrown in, the contract could have easily been double or triple the cost of Colt's bid.
And finally...is there just something about Colt that you hate? Why not Colt? They've been building the 1911 pistol non-stop for over a century, including many tens of thousands for military use. Odds are that they've got a pretty good handle on it.
Bingo! Give that man the chocolate layer cake.
And what is the job? Do you know? These new Colts are to replace the Kimbers that were spec'd out by Pat Rogers to replace the the in house built 1911s (built on WWII vintage frames) that were used by certain USMC units for decades. Nothing wrong with the Kimbers, they simply wore out from the number of rounds put through them. These pistols are used. The units that issue them burn through quantities of ammunition in their normal training cycles that make commanders of conventional units green with envy.
The units that use these pistols have a long history with the 1911 platform. Their training and their TTPs are designed around it. Their logistical support is set up for it.
There is a lot of ancillary equipment, holsters, magazines, mag pouches, armorers tool kits etc. that go with issuing a new pistol to a military unit. I don't know if you've ever looked at those costs, but if you changed platforms, buying all that new stuff would probably run the price per unit significantly higher then $500 for a Glock pistol.
As for the Glock 21 being the better platform, that's a matter of opinion. If I were going to pick a Glock to issue to any group, it certainly wouldn't be the 21. It's simply too big to fit most people's hands. I have worked for two departments who issued the Glock 21. Most officers end up learning the fundamentals on a loaner Glock in 9mm or .40 in the academy and moving to their issued 21 on the 2d or 3d day of firearms training.
The agency I work for now issues the Glock 21. We do have a liberal personal weapons policy and several of us carry 1911s. None of us are bothered that it's a 100 year old design. None of us are bothered by that fact we don't have 13 round magazines. And then there is this point, none of us thinks we are better armed then the deputies who carry the issue Glock 21s and not one of them has ever expressed the thought that they are better armed then those of us with 1911s.
It comes down to what works for you. And for a lot of reasons the Marines feel the 1911 works best for the special units that use it. If they had chosen Glocks I certainly wouldn't be saying they made the wrong choice. That's not my place.
The technological progress of cars doesn't compare very well to guns. In the past 100 years cars have come quite a long way, while guns haven't really developed all that much. Glock's don't have ECM models controlling their air/fuel mixtures and timing and 1911's don't have unhardened valve seats designed for leaded fuel.
I do find it funny that talks of 1911's being super intensive maintenance hogs usually seem to come from people like you, who have never even shot one, much less carry one daily.
When you are writing MTOEs for units then you get to decide what's best. The Marines decided sticking with the 1911 was best for them and that's the end of the story. You don't have to agree with it, you just have to live with it.
Why don't you let those people who have the training and operational experience make those decisions. Our special operations forces from all branches have the freedom to choose what works best for them. I would not presume to tell them what equipment fits their needs and I spent 20+ years as an Army Infantryman. In that time I lived with a lot of equipment that was clearly a mistake, the Dragon antitank missile springs immediately to mind. Fortunately SOF isn't constrained by that kind of procurement.
People with a lot of time at the pointy end made that decision and I'm not going to say it's the wrong one.
I like the 1911 the same way I like a Corvette. When propperly tuned and maintained, it is an excellent weapon of war. That is why the Marines (MARSOC and Recon) have them. But if you don't have an armorer and have to do and pay for the upkeep yourself, it becomes a bit more of a burden. I carry a glock and drive a Silverado...workhorses, not fine tuned racing machines.
Can the experts, the ones in the know, please tell me exactly what this Marine super 1911 can do that you regular M9 (or a 92A1 if you need the accessory rail), maybe with the same exterior finishing and tricked up a little if you wish, cannot??
Please do not mention the effectiveness differences between the FMJ 45 ACP and the FMJ 9x19mm NATO...I have not seen any irrefutable proof of that...yet...
I remember that when the M9 was selected it showed very impressive reliability and durability results and it is battle tested around the world in the last 30 years.
Same thing for a Glock or a SIG platform...what this special 1911 can do that these cannot??
Please FACTS and not OPINIONS or personal preferences...I would be very curious to know.
Please do not mention the effectiveness differences between the FMJ 45 ACP and the FMJ 9x19mm NATO...I have not seen any irrefutable proof of that...yet...
I remember that when the M9 was selected it showed very impressive reliability and durability results and it is battle tested around the world in the last 30 years.
Same thing for a Glock or a SIG platform...what this special 1911 can do that these cannot??
Please FACTS and not OPINIONS or personal preferences...I would be very curious to know.
The M9 and now the M9A1 that most Marine units carry is a fantastic weapon. I loved minea. And someday when finances permit, will own one myself. What I did not like was 124gr NATO FMJ. I don't have any statistics, just first hand experiance. COM shot do not drop hostiles as quickly as 230gr FMJ .45. Period. If you want to debate that go to the sand box and figure it out for your self, as I already have. With non-expanding ammo, bigger bullets passing through make bigger holes and kill bad guys faster. When the round stays put in the body because of proper expansion, energy transfer plays a huge role. But with FMJ...bigger really is better
neviander
Member
True, but there weren't too many CNC mills, or plastic injection mold machines in 1920 either.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
As Jeff pointed out, these units have a lot of trigger time with the M1911 pistol. They know it intimately. They've shot it a lot and they're confident with it. The old adage: "Beware the man with only one gun" comes to mind. That, and confidence with one's weapon is a big part of it.
A major factor in the adoption of the 1911 pistol a hundred years ago was because it was easy to maintain in the field without need for an armorer, so that one doesn't fly, either.
In its original configuration, it could be quickly stripped to bare frame and slide without tools. I haven't seen one of the new pistols, so I don't know if any of their modifications have made that a lot more difficult, but I'd bet not. Even so, it would require a minimum in the way of tools in order to take it apart should it become fouled with dirt or mud.
The unit armorers are used for more major repairs...rebuilding the frames and refitting slides and barrels that are worn out or beaten out of serviceable condition. In the field, the pistol is a snap to maintain.
If you're ever in my neck of the woods, look me up and I'll knock one down for ya in about 60 seconds without so much as a punch...starting with a completely assembled gun.
They make those decisions, and then use the equipment from those decisions to fight for my right to criticize them for it. You're right, I'm not in the middle of what they are, and I haven't needed to actually use my firearm. With that said, it doesn't mean I can't theorize like we always do in these types of threads. I personally don't see an advantage the 1911 provides in this scenario, but I do see disadvantages. But, like I said, I think that when you're talking about the types of units that get to choose what they want, their skill and training is so far above the standard soldier that it's not going to make a difference.
My comment wasn't specifically aimed at the 1911, but more of the general idea that I might have a theoretical "best" option, but choose something else because it fits my situation better. For example, some think the .45 is the best, and regardless of whether or not you agree, a recoil-sensitive person would be better suited with a 9. I think an AR is better than a shotgun for HD, but because of the different rules at various local ranges, I feel I can practice better with a shotgun, so I use a shotgun.
Old Shooter
Member
For those who don't care for them or think 1911's suck....
It's a 1911 thing, you wouldn't understand
It's a 1911 thing, you wouldn't understand
CommanderCrusty
Member
I think of myself as primarily a revolver shooter. I have always shot revolvers better than automatics because the rolling trigger pull on the wheel gun is more flinch resistant. HOWEVER, two things have happened to make me change my mind and appreciate the 1911 single action .45 ACP.
In one sense, 1911s still suck! My Para Ordnance GI Expert, no-frills-nothing-extra-to-break pistol, bought new by me, was slightly defective. The hammer would follow the slide down about 1 time out of 50 shots. I sent the gun back to Para. They replaced the defective parts. Now, NOW, the gun is reliable! I've put about 500 rounds of factory ammo through the Para since then with zero malfunctions.
For me, I plan on every new gun I buy being a piece of junk. I now EXPECT every firearms I buy to be defective and budget time and money to send it back. So far, I haven't have to do that with my M&P .45, but I did choose to send it out for a trigger job. My Ruger GP100 has never malfunctioned, but my Ruger SR9 had to go back to the factory for a recall. My Browning .22 was a piece of junk. My S&W .22 revolver needed an action job.
So, I guess I believe ALL handguns suck--until proven otherwise.
1) I finally mastered the single action trigger--thank you J. Michael Plaxco! Prep-Set-Squeeze-Freeze. Now I can shoot pretty good groups with a 1911, Glock, DA/SA pistol OR a revolver.
2) Then, I developed arthritis in the first finger, first joint of both hands. Suddenly a single action pistol was actually EASIER to shoot than any other action type.
2) Then, I developed arthritis in the first finger, first joint of both hands. Suddenly a single action pistol was actually EASIER to shoot than any other action type.
In one sense, 1911s still suck! My Para Ordnance GI Expert, no-frills-nothing-extra-to-break pistol, bought new by me, was slightly defective. The hammer would follow the slide down about 1 time out of 50 shots. I sent the gun back to Para. They replaced the defective parts. Now, NOW, the gun is reliable! I've put about 500 rounds of factory ammo through the Para since then with zero malfunctions.
For me, I plan on every new gun I buy being a piece of junk. I now EXPECT every firearms I buy to be defective and budget time and money to send it back. So far, I haven't have to do that with my M&P .45, but I did choose to send it out for a trigger job. My Ruger GP100 has never malfunctioned, but my Ruger SR9 had to go back to the factory for a recall. My Browning .22 was a piece of junk. My S&W .22 revolver needed an action job.
So, I guess I believe ALL handguns suck--until proven otherwise.
Yup..."victims of marketing hype."
Same as what's going on in the black-rifle craze: " You need to spend $1200 with AR/M4 company xyz to have a true battle rifle!" Marketing hype that's over the top, yet effective.
Interestingly enough, two of the top tier weapons trainers (IMHO) have made the switch from 1911 to polymers in the last 18 months, particularly in their competition and duty carry. (Glock and M&P) Actions speak louder than words.
Same as what's going on in the black-rifle craze: " You need to spend $1200 with AR/M4 company xyz to have a true battle rifle!" Marketing hype that's over the top, yet effective.
Interestingly enough, two of the top tier weapons trainers (IMHO) have made the switch from 1911 to polymers in the last 18 months, particularly in their competition and duty carry. (Glock and M&P) Actions speak louder than words.
Skylerbone
Member
I can say my training came from dear old dad, a man who spent 43 years in uniform as a soldier and LEO, who graduated from 2 police academies at the top of his class, a man who posted at age 60 (with trifocals) outshot every officer from 2 departments that day with an M9. This was not his personal sidearm, in fact his duty 92FS (from a civilian LE agency he spent several decades with) was sold off after 2 years in favor of a 686 (that's an old tyme wheel gun what only held 6 rounds).
As for me, dad started me on single shot firearms, progressed to bolts & levers, SA/DA revolvers and eventually autos like the Buckmark, Colt Mustang and 1911. How much do I shoot? Maybe 10,000 rounds in a good year and 5,000 in an off year. Do I own polymer frame pistols? Yes. Revolvers, automatics, shotguns, rimfires, centerfires, rifles, an AR, alloy frame? Yes to all of the above. Can I outshoot dad? The stars have occasionally aligned and the rest of the time it's damn close. Hope that answers your questions about me.
Now, back to the question I asked: can any here make fact of the "writer's" assertions? You see, over and over it is being asked "What does the 1911 do that a xxx cannot?" Well, what can an xxx do that a 1911 cannot? Cost less and have a pitiful trigger? I lumped in the Diamondback as a cheap Glock alternative since cost is apparently critical to many and because it's a "modern" firearm.
A few from my stash. Note the "old tyme" 1911 and the "ultra modern" M&P. What a difference 100 years makes!
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Which has nothing to do with what the Marine SOC units want. The trainers aren't going through the doors and they won't be crawling into the caves. In my way of thinking...the guy who's gonna go do that gets to pick whatever he wants to take in with him.
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
To me it is. I also like revolvers and CZ pistols.
To each his own, for his own purpose.
ccsniper
member
I stopped reading after "its unsafe for 95%" blah blah blah, if you don't know how to carry a gun cocked and locked then don't carry a gun. I don't even like the 1911 but that guy is just ridiculous
wow6599
Member
What is this guy's "beef" with Jeff Cooper? He is right that the 1911 was the prevalent sidearm in his time, but didn't Cooper champion the idea and creation of the Bren Ten?
IIRC, he was looking for a replacement for the 1911 / .45 ACP with the *idea* of the 10mm rd used in a non-1911 platform?
IIRC, he was looking for a replacement for the 1911 / .45 ACP with the *idea* of the 10mm rd used in a non-1911 platform?
I have no idea who this bozo is who wrote this article. I carry a Kimber .45ACP Custom Defender II because it works for me. Does this person really think I'm going to stop using a weapon that works just because he said so? It's a shame that stupid isn't painful.
- Status
