Fair test or not: Colt 1911 .45 ACP

[jski]

I've watched this guy's reviews/tests for quite awhile and always enjoyed them, that is until now. But when it comes to an historic icon, Colt 1911 .45 ACP, well that's different. Does this truly mean the 1911's time has come and gone?

 

[mjsdwash]

not to nitpick, but Colt really isn't the best manufacturer, just from a quality control purpose. In addition, most 1911's have unfit extractors, and worn out springs, even new just from my experience. I can almost guarantee he's not using the GI mags its designed to use. That out of the way, my Springfield GI has has been through worse, and runs fine. Anyone who says 1911's have lots of parts, and difficult cleaning compared to modern pistols needs to be disregarded.

 

[mjsdwash]

"all these parts in the field would be a little bit challenging....to keep track of......" No reason to take the bushing off the slide in "the field", its supposed to have the spring captive to the plug in the front, and tight to the plug in the back. And a slide stop, barrel. 4 parts, wow. I noticed in other reviews he does the dirt with the hammer down, which had he done that with the 1911, many of those issues would not have been so. I should add Im more on the CZ side of things, I just don't think this was a great way to judge the 1911. Sorta like judging a glock by its ability to take acetone cleaning.

 

[someguy2800]

Honestly I’m not surprised. If your familiar with the internals of a 1911 there are several areas in a 1911 with tight clearances between parts that will stop cold if enough grit gets in them. This is an area where modern striker fired guns do well. Most of them have more room around there internal operating parts to clear debris out of their way.

Don’t throw your 1911 in the dirt I guess. Great guns, I love them.

 

[tarosean]

Does this truly mean the 1911's time has come and gone?
[

These "tests" dont tell a user anything. Why would you take that stance, when numerous striker fired poly guns have failed his "test". Has that genre came and gone too?

If I recall correctly the only gun that has made it through with 0 zero failures was some Sig clone/knockoff called the Rex zero. Should I toss my Glocks, 1911's, CZ's, Beretta's, etc. in the dumpster because they had failures in his "test" and run out and buy that thing? Homey don't think so. I will continue to use guns I own and trust 100% for my real life and plausible scenarios..

 

[Mizar]

Such "tests" are really deceiving for the common viewer, because one cannot guarantee repeating test conditions. It's a quite random occurrence for the mud/sand/gunk/whatever to enter the critical areas of the tested pistol - most of the times it will, but many times it will not. We see a mud-covered pistol, but what we don't see is if that mud made it to the locking lug/s for instance. It's true that some guns by design handle heavy fouling better than others, but I can guarantee you that once mud, or sand enters the barrel locking lug area, firing mechanism, slide rails, or firing pin/striker channel, the gun will stop functioning. Out of those the barrel locking lug/s is most vulnerable because it is readily exposed, opens for mud to enter at every shot and holds a tight tolerance, that is very, very sensitive to debris. Close next are the slide rails, but apart from tolerances, the recoil spring weight is of much importance there. I can bet that if Tim repeats the same test over and over again with the same gun, he will get different results every time.

P.S. And he did test that 1911 with cocked hammer, that although correct ("correct" from a 21st century CCW point of view), did put that pistol in immediate disadvantage as it allowed for dirt to readily enter the insides of the pistol.

 

[gotboostvr]

Honestly I’m not surprised. If your familiar with the internals of a 1911 there are several areas in a 1911 with tight clearances between parts that will stop cold if enough grit gets in them...

One of my Colts is an absolute rattle trap but shoots phenomenally. I would bet that it'd run well dirty, I KNOW it runs great clean.

Problem is, few would buy a 1911 that touts as loose a slide as my Commander has. The market generally wants tight fit guns.

I think if they were built with a little wiggle room they'd do better.

Edited to add: some marketing exec is gonna see this and unveil it off as "duty fit internals" and add a GripZoneRTF serration job on it.

 

[doubleh]

Typical youtube video. 4 minutes and 17 seconds of babble and blather until he fires the first shot. In the "intro" he did say he was using standard GI magazines. I didn't continue on as I really don't care about his opinion of 1911s. I like them and that's what counts with me.

 

[milemaker13]

I didn't watch the video, but reading your comments I thunk I git the jist.

The way I understand it, the old service issue 1911s had fairly loose tolerances in order to keep them running in the field. But modern 1911s have nice tight tolerances for better accuracy because they do not see the battlefield abuse their ancestors did.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

Any machine can fail.

Its your job, as the user of the machine , to keep the machine within operating conditions.

Leverage its strengths and do what you can to minimize weaknesses.

 

[someguy2800]

One of my Colts is an absolute rattle trap but shoots phenomenally. I would bet that it'd run well dirty, I KNOW it runs great clean.

Problem is, few would buy a 1911 that touts as loose a slide as my Commander has. The market generally wants tight fit guns.

I think if they were built with a little wiggle room they'd do better.

Edited to add: some marketing exec is gonna see this and unveil it off as "duty fit internals" and add a GripZoneRTF serration job on it.

I was going to comment as such that I bet an old GI colt that had much looser fitments than todays guns would probably do better, but I figured it’s a moot point since not many are carrying original GI models.

Either way I trust my 1911 even if it will not pass his dirt test.

 

[mjsdwash]

Typical youtube video. 4 minutes and 17 seconds of babble and blather until he fires the first shot. In the "intro" he did say he was using standard GI magazines. I didn't continue on as I really don't care about his opinion of 1911s. I like them and that's what counts with me.

he may have said that but when he zoomed in on the magazines, I only saw Colt "Hybrid" mags. The only mags my Springfield GI/R1S will fail with.

 

[jmr40]

The 1911 was surpassed by better designs in the 1930's. The military knew that going into WW-2 and by the end of the war was disappointed with both the 45 and 1911's performance. They really wanted to go with a more modern 9mm pistol in 1946 but budget cuts and an oversupply of 1911's in inventory prevented it at that time. The 1911's legendary superiority is mostly mythical made up by creative gun writers after the war.

I like the guns well enough for their historical significance, even if it is overstated, and own several. And I think they are a fine choice as a range or target gun. But their days as a front line combat pistol passed before most of us were born.

 

[jski]

Loose tolerances are the linchpin behind the AK’s incredible reliability.

 

[tarosean]

But their days as a front line combat pistol passed before most of us were born.

M9, Sig320, G17 all had failures too. Seems none of or military weapons are good enough for a youtubers test..
Like I said before, the test doesn't tell us a single thing.

 

[entropy]

Wasn't WWI, II , Korea, & VN enough of a torture test? It seems to have worked well enough in all those places, and many others.

 

[Walkalong]

Does this truly mean the 1911's time has come and gone?

Depends on who you talk to, some people have been calling it outdated and worthless for some time.

Heh, more for those us us that know better.

 

[nettlle]

I have a Colt Govt with 27K rounds through it now. It is one the most reliable pieces of equipment, of any kind, that I have ever owned. I haven't put on a face shield and rain jacket and wallowed around in the mud with it yet. But for everything else I couldn't want for anything more reliable and accurate for the price I paid.

 

[Devonai]

Many years ago my buddy's Saab 900 got stuck in the mud on a NH back road. While digging it out, my Beretta 96 worked its way out of my shoulder holster and went into the soup. Fortunately I also had my 92 in the car, but there was no way I was going to attempt to fire the 96 in that condition.

It took hours to clean after I got home, and the holster went into the trash.

 

[milemaker13]

Many years ago my buddy's Saab 900 got stuck in the mud on a NH back road. While digging it out, my Beretta 96 worked its way out of my shoulder holster and went into the soup. Fortunately I also had my 92 in the car, but there was no way I was going to attempt to fire the 96 in that condition.

It took hours to clean after I got home, and the holster went into the trash.

Would that have been different if you'd been carrying a 1911 at the time?

 

[bannockburn]

frogfurr

I have a Colt Govt with 27K rounds through it now. It is one the most reliable pieces of equipment, of any kind, that I have ever owned. I haven't put on a face shield and rain jacket and wallowed around in the mud with it yet. But for everything else I couldn't want for anything more reliable and accurate for the price I paid.

That's been pretty much my experiences with numerous 1911s over the years. And while I have never felt inclined to give them the WWI trench warfare treatment, I feel totally confident in their ability to work properly and to deliver the goods when called upon.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

Such "tests" are really deceiving for the common viewer, because one cannot guarantee repeating test conditions. It's a quite random occurrence for the mud/sand/gunk/whatever to enter the critical areas of the tested pistol - most of the times it will, but many times it will not. We see a mud-covered pistol, but what we don't see is if that mud made it to the locking lug/s for instance. It's true that some guns by design handle heavy fouling better than others, but I can guarantee you that once mud, or sand enters the barrel locking lug area, firing mechanism, slide rails, or firing pin/striker channel, the gun will stop functioning. Out of those the barrel locking lug/s is most vulnerable because it is readily exposed, opens for mud to enter at every shot and holds a tight tolerance, that is very, very sensitive to debris. Close next are the slide rails, but apart from tolerances, the recoil spring weight is of much importance there. I can bet that if Tim repeats the same test over and over again with the same gun, he will get different results every time.

P.S. And he did test that 1911 with cocked hammer, that although correct ("correct" from a 21st century CCW point of view), did put that pistol in immediate disadvantage as it allowed for dirt to readily enter the insides of the pistol.

This.

I think that people talking about reliability lose sight of the fact that enough mud or sand getting in the lockwork of any repeating gun ever made will cause it to fail. And like you said, whether enough debris get in there to stop it is basically a matter of chance.

It's not really a test of "reliability" to see if a gun can power through mud in the action. It's a fail condition for any gun ever made. About the only thing you can do is try to limit the amount of debris that can get in - but every time that action cycles or a mag is reloaded, you've opened up a weak point.

 

[dh1633pm]

So what he is saying is that a pistol for used for over 100 years is now no good? Silly.

 

[Charlie98]

Every mechanical device has a weakness... you can get anything to fail if you subject it to abuse, too.

The 1911 is a fine firearm, I would happily take it into combat. The Glock is also a fine firearm, I would happily take it into combat (even though I don't like Glocks, personally.) The list goes on.... and it's very likely I can get any of them to fail if I do enough 'torture testing,' finding it's chink in the armor, so to speak.

 

[giggitygiggity]

I like watching the MAC gauntlet tests as well as his other videos. He says in most videos that his impressions and experiences are usually a sample size of one and that folks should not buy or not buy or sell guns based on his reviews and/or tests. I think that is fair. I do not believe he has an agenda and he seems very upfront about things (whether he was provided ammo, mags, guns, etc from manufacturers).

With respect to the 1911 test, I do not think the 1911's time has come and gone. They will still be revered, bought, carried, and used. I will say that guns are compromises. If you want a reliable gun, it usually needs to have fewer parts and looser tolerances; this results in a more reliable gun at the expense of accuracy. Glocks and similar guns are great because they're generally reliable and accurate enough. 1911s are a joy to shoot, are generally reliable when kept clean, and are usually more accurate than Glock-based pistols.

MAC's test was not scientific and he admits that. Almost every pistol manufacturer makes a 1911 variant and has multiple sub-models. Therefore, just because MAC's Colt 1911 did not do well does not necessarily mean that all 1911s will do poorly during the same test. I'm sure some will do much better and some will do much worse. However, Colt is often seen as the standard for 1911s and he tested a sub-model that is pretty common.

In closing, the 1911 is not going anywhere. I still love my 1911s and trust them, especially since I do not plan nor do I think it is super likely mine will be fill with water, sand, dirt, and mud.