"Modern" auto's pro's/cons

[Beowolf1911]

I think much of this dialoged got way away from the point since when did the most popular guns become the best guns? Most of the gun owners I know (and avoid) now shockingly little about guns. It has been mentioned and ignored before and will be ignored again but the best gun is the best gun for you. NOT the best gun for the majority of people out there. If you like a glock, HK, heck even a hi point go nuts. I just know with my 1911 I can close my eyes at 10 yards and put every shot in the first three rings of a silhouette. My brother in law can do it with his Glock. If we switch we can barely hit the paper.

 

[AK103K]

If we switch we can barely hit the paper.

Thats not the guns fault.

The BEST gun is the one in your hand when you really need it. Hopefully, your not just stuck on one and didnt bother to learn to use them all reasonably well.

 

[tipoc]

... some people were uncomfortable with cocked-and-locked and still wanted the benefit of a quick first shot. The Walther brothers showed us how to do that. Military services went to DA/SA pistols in the hope that they would be more idiot proof.

Pretty much on the money. At the end of WWII the U.S. military wanted to go to another pistol and dump the 1911. They wanted a gun that was da/sa, that was in 9mm, that had an alloy frame for lighter weight, that had a de-cocker, and that was as reliable as the 1911. Colt came up with the alloy framed Commander in response, S&W, a few years later came out with the M39. But the funds for a change over were not available so the 1911 soldiered on till the M9 (Berretta 92F) was introduced.

Was the reason they wanted a change because the 1911 was a bad design as RPCVYemen suggests?

No, it was because in the hands of poorly trained or little trained troops a da/sa gun was "safer". Same reason most law enforcement agencies opted for that or the Glock years later. The belief was, and is, that a long da pull for the first shot will give the officer, or soldier, a better chance of preventing an accident or a bad shooting. Same with DAO guns. In the case of police it will also limit liability.

My general impression is that a few folks get a reliable out of the box 1911, but that most folks don't.

A mistaken impression.

So maybe the difference is that people who use 1911's for sport accept a higher initial failure rate, because they are not using a 1911 out of the box in a life and death situation.

Another mistaken impression.

There is a reason that Colt, Sig, Smith and Wesson, Kimber, Springfield, Taurus, Wilson, Brown, Baer, Detonics, Armscorp, China, Llama and others all manufacture variants of the 1911. Glock chambered their guns in .45acp and .45 GAP to compete with it. Variations of it go for a few hundred dollars to a few thousand. This is the most widely produced and copied handgun around.
It is in most cases reliable out the box. It is more expensive to manufacture than several other types of handguns. It is the most widely customized gun in existence. They sell like hotcakes on a cold morning.

Is this possible with a gun that is "unreliable" in "life and death situations"?

Nope.

tipoc

 

[76shuvlinoff]

On other boards I belong to this discussion would be.... Honda or Harley? And there I would say there's an ass for every saddle.

The only question I have is somewhere above here I read that people can be a little nervous about carrying "locked and cocked" on a 1911. I don't see how that's much different in MY 1911 than it is in MY XD or YOUR Glock.Sig etc etc.
You (probably) have a round chambered.
The firing mechanism (striker or hammer) is "ready".
A safety of one type or another is engaged.

I see no reason to carry any other way whatever the sidearm is.

right or wrong?

 

[Hoppy590]

The only question I have is somewhere above here I read that people can be a little nervous about carrying "locked and cocked" on a 1911. I don't see how that's much different in MY 1911 than it is in MY XD or YOUR Glock.Sig etc etc.
You (probably) have a round chambered.
The firing mechanism (striker or hammer) is "ready".
A safety of one type or another is engaged.

exactly. the striker is still semi cocked, and can still MechMalf. the fact that there is no physical safety on a glock only adds to the likelyhood some one will ND

 

[AK103K]

Quote:
My general impression is that a few folks get a reliable out of the box 1911, but that most folks don't.

A mistaken impression.

Unless its a Colt, and even then, depending on era and ammo, I have to disagree. Its been my personal experience that this statement is correct, and I have owned many 1911's by different makers over the years. Of all of them, Colts by far, were the only truly reliable out of the box guns, and even they needed work "in the beginning" to reliably feed anything but hardball.(they got better in the Series 80 guns) They also needed S&W sights if you wanted something to look at on top of the slide. To this day, I'd still take that old out of the box Commander with its S&W sights and "reliability package" over any Kimber, Springfield, S&W, or any other "modern" 1911 maker.

Most box stock 1911's usually require "something" to make them right, and even the higher end guns are not always right.

If given the choice between any 1911, a SIG, an HK, or Todd forbid, even a Glock, without hesitation, that 1911 would still be sitting on the table.

the fact that there is no physical safety on a glock only adds to the likelyhood some one will ND

safety or no safety, whats it matter? a 1911 with the safety off is no more dangerous than a Glock in your hand or holster, if your competent. If your not, all the safeties in the world wont matter.

 

[HammerBite]

Glock did for striker-fired pistols what Walther did for hammer-fired pistols, along with showing that polymer is a viable option.

Actually striker fired pistols were in use before the Glock. The Nambu was one, Browning's early designs for the P35 also employed a striker mechanism, between 1925 and 36 the Soviets employed the striker fireing Korovin pistol, etc., etc.

I didn't say that Glock introduced the striker-fired pistol.

 

[Hoppy590]

safety or no safety, whats it matter? a 1911 with the safety off is no more dangerous than a Glock in your hand or holster, if your competent. If your not, all the safeties in the world wont matter

so what the hell right, were all super tactical operators right heck my pants exploded when i walked in the door, screw safetys in total. a safety is a speed bump. its not meant to completely stop accidents only make a vain attempt to. were all gunna mess up at one point.


ANY AND ALL FIREARMS INSTRUCTORS IN HERE.

safety or no safety, whats it matter?

 

[lee n. field]

Design? Nope 1911s are the most copied ever, Even you XD homers have to admit that

Might have something to do with any of the original patents having expired a human lifetime ago.

It is kind of like the 30-06 or the KJV bible.

Comparing yourself to KJV only nutters? We'll soon be hearing tales of Austrian heretics deliberately corrupting the pure design handed down through St. JMB, and impassioned bemoaning of "the modern versions".

 

[RPCVYemen]

Was the reason they wanted a change because the 1911 was a bad design as RPCVYemen suggests?

If you think that I was commenting that the 1911 was a bad design, then either I didn't explain myself, or you didnt' read what I wrote.

My point was that the various available pistols have designs that reflect the needs and or requirements of the people that buy them. As I do more and more design work on my job (not firearms), the more I understand the critical link between requirements and design.

There have been many times where I look at a piece of code and said, "That's stupid! What bozo wrote this crap?" Then I look a little deeper and consider the requirements at the time the code as designed, and more often than not, the code seems like a more or less reasonable response to requirements.

Speaking of a "good design" or a "bad design" seems silly to me without trying to understand the requirements (needs or perceived needs) of the users.

It must not be by accident that the 1911 is not the standard issue sidearm by any major armies in the world today. The 1911 was once the standard issue sidearm for at least one major army. The tells me that either the buyers' requirements changed - or solutions that more closely matched requirements have been developed.

It must also not be by accident that 1911 designs dominate some of the shooting sports. That must fit the requirements of that sport better than other weapons.

I suspect that the design requirements for a modern service pistol are reliability and low cost of manufacture. That leads to non-1911 designs.

I suspect that the design requirements for a sporting pistol are a light and predictable trigger, and ease of modification. That leads to non-1911 designs.

Different requirements = different designs.

What are the advantages other than magazine capacity?

I thought that your question was a real question - maybe you just wanted to spout.

My general impression is that a few folks get a reliable out of the box 1911, but that most folks don't.

A mistaken impression.

My experience is not a reasonable statistical sample, but a lot of my friends who have 1911s seem to have had at least one or two that have had to go to a gunsmith or back to the factory before they were reliable.

I do not like to shoot Glocks, but none of my friends that have them have had to take them to a smith. The friend that has the most weapons loves to shoot his 1911 the most of all his weapons, but a Glock is on his night table. I don't think that's at all unusual.

Of course they all look unreliable compared to my favorite - a Ruger Blackhawk. Though I love to shoot it, I would not argue that it would make a great service handgun today.


Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

It is kind of like the 30-06 or the KJV bible.

I shoot a Blackhawk in 45 LC, am saving for Marlin 1895 in 45-70, and read the Bible in Hebrew.

I don't much of these new fangled notions. I like to stick with the old time tested standards.

Mike

 

[brashboy]

1911 - the grip, the balance, the trigger, the pure mechanical beauty of it. It ain't perfect, although Ted Szabo was getting it there...

Best is ridiculous when it comes to pistols, might as well have a shootout over the best flavor of ice cream.

The 1911 isn't going anywhere. Even when we get to death-ray energy-bolt weapons, I'm keeping the 1911. And the Taurus, and the CZ97B, and... and... and...

 

[[email protected]]

You`re right but you`re also wrong

Yes the 1911 is a great gun but you must understand that as time moves on, so does innovation. Saying that the 1911 is a great gun is correct but speaking down on the more modern weapons is to me, thoughtless. I`m not trying to be offensive I`m just saying that I think that in time the 1911`s will probably fade away; not because their bad but because better weapons are developed now and will only get better as time passes.
Just my opinion sir. No offense intended

 

[M1 Shooter]

Yup, the 1911 will fade away, just like the Colt Model P. Don't even get me started on DA revolvers, we all know how absolutely useless those are now that we have our plastic hi cap 9's and .40's. (BTW, that was sarcasm)

Look, the 1911 is a great pistol. So are most of the newer designs, it is useless to try and say one is better than the other because we all have our own preferences and needs, and I do like many of the newer designs just fine. I just prefer the 1911 for my uses.

IMO, the 1911 is a pistol that is more suited to someone who is willing to put in the time to learn it, inside and out. If you are not willing to do that, or you are one of those with an irrational fear of condition 1 carry, fine, buy whatever you like and stop telling all us 1911 users that we are stupid because we like our "outdated", "unreliable" old pistols.

For the record, not all of us 1911 fans go around telling everyone who doesn't use one that they're a fool. I don't do that, and I expect the same courtesy from you. It's called respect. I respect your decision to carry and shoot whatever sidearm you want, and I respect your right to do so.

What I have been known to do is tell people looking for a 1911 to buy Colt, since those are the most reliable standard production 1911's in my experience.

Many here in this thread seem to have a problem with the concept that not all of us are the same. We all have our own preferences, needs , and wants for a defensive sidearm. What works for you may not work for me and vice versa. I don't understand what the problem is. I like what I like, it works for me, and you all like what you like, and it works for you. Just accept that and move on. Can't we find something more constructive to talk about?

 

[sm]

Many here in this thread seem to have a problem with the concept that not all of us are the same. We all have our own preferences, needs , and wants for a defensive sidearm. What works for you may not work for me and vice versa. I don't understand what the problem is. I like what I like, it works for me, and you all like what you like, and it works for you. Just accept that and move on. Can't we find something more constructive to talk about?

Great Post.

I suggest we do a thread on who had the best Cardboard box, and what all came in the box.

Like a real honest to goodness owner's manual, one could actually read with pictures, exploded diagram, parts numbers.

Neat goodies like a rod, brush, oil, screwdrivers.

Even the free box of ammo that came with the Cardboard box with whatever gun inside.

Quality Control Inspector Name and date, and by golly that person was proud to put their name on that box, and the gun worked from the get -go!

 

[mavracer]

Like a real honest to goodness owner's manual,

ya like one that actually used 4 or 5 pages to explain how that model worked not 30 pages of generic warnings.

 

[tipoc]

RPCVYemen wrote:

If you think that I was commenting that the 1911 was a bad design, then either I didn't explain myself, or you didnt' read what I wrote.

Actually that is what you wrote. If, as you suggest, the majority of 1911s made are not reliable in life and death situations it's no wonder that more militarys don't use them.

Deductive logic works fine, in it's own humble way, when writing code but when applied to the broader world it requires facts to work with. The history of the development of firearms and how they are used supplies us with those.

There is no mystery as to why law enforcement and the military have not gone with the 1911, or moved away from it. Myself and others have explained that.

The 1911 has dominated the shooting sports for 80 or so years. In the last decade or two it's been giving way to other designs in competitive shooting. Particularly as those designs are service sidearms. The 92F, the Glock, Sigs and others. No one gun will or has taken it's place. No other design will dominate the way the 1911 has. Why? History.

We live in a good time for handgunners. There are many choices available to suit about everyone and their tastes and needs.

The 1911 is not for everyone. You have to want to learn it and get used to the operating system. Very often operator error leads folks to believe that the gun is to blame for what they aren't used to. But it has proven itself time and time again to be useful and reliable.

By the way, the 1911 you buy today is usually quite a bit different from what was passed out to troops in 1913.

tipoc

 

[PPGMD]

The 1911 has dominated the shooting sports for 80 or so years. In the last decade or two it's been giving way to other designs in competitive shooting. Particularly as those designs are service sidearms. The 92F, the Glock, Sigs and others. No one gun will or has taken it's place. No other design will dominate the way the 1911 has. Why? History.

Depends on the sport. They dominated in the early days, but they lost favor in the era of wonder 9's, with the AWB magazine ban 1911's saw a resurgence, followed by the 2011's. But even with the 2011's EAA and CZ have been doing well in IPSC for quite a while.

 

[tipoc]

Depends on the sport. They dominated in the early days, but they lost favor in the era of wonder 9's, with the AWB magazine ban 1911's saw a resurgence, followed by the 2011's. But even with the 2011's EAA and CZ have been doing well in IPSC for quite a while.

Exactly my point.

tipoc

 

[AK103K]

so what the hell right, were all super tactical operators right heck my pants exploded when i walked in the door, screw safetys in total. a safety is a speed bump. its not meant to completely stop accidents only make a vain attempt to. were all gunna mess up at one point.

Your right about the messing up part, and it doesnt matter if the gun has a safety or not. I once dropped a freshly loaded Series 70 Commander before I got the safety on, and luckily, it didnt discharge when it bounced off the kitchen floor.(one reason I really prefer the Series 80 guns).

The main safety on any weapon is between your ears, not on the weapon. If your reasonably competent, its a non issue. Accidents do happen, and again, safeties, or lack there of, are usually not the cause.

Then again, with the 1911's, some people think the half cock IS a safety, and worse yet, some think its OK to lower the hammer on a live round. And your worried about ND's with a Glock!


Just curious, but how many guns without safeties, or with them for that matter, have you handled and or carried that discharged without your consent?