Most Reliable 1911 .45 ACP Pistol
- Thread starter Killer Angel
- Start date
- Status
Jammer Six
member
Unitman, that's not what I mean by "reliable".
When I say reliable, I'm talking about 300 rounds in a session, and a few thousand rounds between failures.
When the army adopted the 1911, it ran a six thousand round test, with a wipe down every couple hundred rounds, and a cleaning every 500 rounds.
Three separate 1911's went all six thousand rounds without failures.
That's what I'm talking about when I use the word "reliable", and I suspect that's what others here mean when they use the word.
Run 300 rounds through your weapon every week for a couple months, then run a case of your carry ammo through it. It should go a thousand rounds without cleaning, which means that at your rate, you've got a couple more months before you need to buy solvent.
If it doesn't pass muster, my opinion is that a milspec weapon is in order.
Either that, or lots and lots of practice clearing jams.
I practice jam drills on a milspec, but I'm conservative.
antediluvianist
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2003
- Messages
- 182
firing hollowpoints in your desired 1911?
The 1911 was not designed to feed hollowpoints. If you will be using .45 hollowpoints, which are, after all, more effective than .45 FMJ, then maybe you should drop the 1911 design altogether and consider more modern .45 designs such as the Glock, SIG and H&K.
Or spend a couple of hundred dollars extra to smith your 1911 to specifically feed hollowpoints reliably.
Just my experience. Mileage may differ.
The 1911 was not designed to feed hollowpoints. If you will be using .45 hollowpoints, which are, after all, more effective than .45 FMJ, then maybe you should drop the 1911 design altogether and consider more modern .45 designs such as the Glock, SIG and H&K.
Or spend a couple of hundred dollars extra to smith your 1911 to specifically feed hollowpoints reliably.
Just my experience. Mileage may differ.
MY TURN
IME an Ed Brown or Wilson 1911 will be extremely reliable.
Machines, though..........
For lower-cost option recommend Kimber as offering the most satisfying ownership experience.
No whining, please.
(Mine's a full-custom Caspian. Perfect.)
IME an Ed Brown or Wilson 1911 will be extremely reliable.
Machines, though..........
For lower-cost option recommend Kimber as offering the most satisfying ownership experience.
No whining, please.
(Mine's a full-custom Caspian. Perfect.)
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Lobotomy Boy said,
"DSK, do you think the Springfield Mil Spec is designed to acceptably loose tolerances? Judging by reports on various threads, that generally seems to be one of the most reliable 1911s."
The original 1911 was not loose. It wasn't until after being subcontracted out and determinations made that corners could be cut and the gun still function well that the looser tolerances became standard.
-------
antediluvianist said,
"The 1911 was not designed to feed hollowpoints. If you will be using .45 hollowpoints, which are, after all, more effective than .45 FMJ, then maybe you should drop the 1911 design altogether and consider more modern .45 designs such as the Glock, SIG and H&K.
Or spend a couple of hundred dollars extra to smith your 1911 to specifically feed hollowpoints reliably. "
The original 1911 was designed for a lot of things. It was not designed to shoot non-corrosive or jacketed ammo. It was not designed to be a race gun. It was not designed....for a lot of things, and yet it excels at them.
Assuming you are not referring a pre 1980s 1911/A1, the feeding hollowpoints should not be a problem. You see, after hollowpoints were invented, people realize that if they changed the design slightly, it would feet hollowpoints. My post 1980s 1911s are ALL designed to feed hollowpoints as none are the original 1911 design.
So, just because an object was not designed to do something does not mean it won't do it and just because an original design would not do something does not mean the modern redesigns won't do it either.
"DSK, do you think the Springfield Mil Spec is designed to acceptably loose tolerances? Judging by reports on various threads, that generally seems to be one of the most reliable 1911s."
The original 1911 was not loose. It wasn't until after being subcontracted out and determinations made that corners could be cut and the gun still function well that the looser tolerances became standard.
-------
antediluvianist said,
"The 1911 was not designed to feed hollowpoints. If you will be using .45 hollowpoints, which are, after all, more effective than .45 FMJ, then maybe you should drop the 1911 design altogether and consider more modern .45 designs such as the Glock, SIG and H&K.
Or spend a couple of hundred dollars extra to smith your 1911 to specifically feed hollowpoints reliably. "
The original 1911 was designed for a lot of things. It was not designed to shoot non-corrosive or jacketed ammo. It was not designed to be a race gun. It was not designed....for a lot of things, and yet it excels at them.
Assuming you are not referring a pre 1980s 1911/A1, the feeding hollowpoints should not be a problem. You see, after hollowpoints were invented, people realize that if they changed the design slightly, it would feet hollowpoints. My post 1980s 1911s are ALL designed to feed hollowpoints as none are the original 1911 design.
So, just because an object was not designed to do something does not mean it won't do it and just because an original design would not do something does not mean the modern redesigns won't do it either.
hube1236
Member
I think another problen with the 1911 today is that they are the PC's of the pistol world, meaning that all the manufacturers, regardless of price, seem to use third party parts in the assembly process- much like the box you are reading this on.
Windows has a SP every 28 seconds. You have to connect to the internet to download a driver for your modem (?) and set dip switches on your drive using instructions written in singaporeeze.
How about a 1911 - say Kimber- with an Ed Brown safety, wilson mags, clark custom barrel, Chip Mc extractors- all made to, but not necessarily in MIL-SPEC tolerences.
All of these (+/-) add up. People using +/- 0.000X parts with other parts built to +/- 0.X will probably realize issues at some time. And they send the gun off to the Smith to get that +/- 0.000X part opened up and polished.
Aftermarket and third party parts are good, but I FEEL a lot of times both average Joe and factory assembler Joe (and hence the production staff) rarely care to work the pieces together until a desired fit is ok.
It happens, but from MY experience, people tend to leave the internals of Glocks and Sigs and H&K's- even Rugers to their host companies outside of a Glock 3.5 trigger set up.
Windows has a SP every 28 seconds. You have to connect to the internet to download a driver for your modem (?) and set dip switches on your drive using instructions written in singaporeeze.
How about a 1911 - say Kimber- with an Ed Brown safety, wilson mags, clark custom barrel, Chip Mc extractors- all made to, but not necessarily in MIL-SPEC tolerences.
All of these (+/-) add up. People using +/- 0.000X parts with other parts built to +/- 0.X will probably realize issues at some time. And they send the gun off to the Smith to get that +/- 0.000X part opened up and polished.
Aftermarket and third party parts are good, but I FEEL a lot of times both average Joe and factory assembler Joe (and hence the production staff) rarely care to work the pieces together until a desired fit is ok.
It happens, but from MY experience, people tend to leave the internals of Glocks and Sigs and H&K's- even Rugers to their host companies outside of a Glock 3.5 trigger set up.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
All major production 1911s out there are already throated from the factory for hollowpoints. They have been for about... 20 years now. 
The picture, left to right, is: GI-style barrel throat, standard "modern" barrel throat, and Colt's newest "dimple" throat. Both of the latter two are designed to feed hollow points.
The picture, left to right, is: GI-style barrel throat, standard "modern" barrel throat, and Colt's newest "dimple" throat. Both of the latter two are designed to feed hollow points.
Attachments
Rik,
No I wasn't talking about you. I've enjoyed our 1911 debates. I'm just not comfortable with the race analogies.
Clearly, you haven't seen any problems with 1911s. If I hadn't seen any problems I would believe the same way you do. My experience, and strangely, the experience of every person I personally know to have owned a 1911, has been the opposite. That, of course, leads me to give credit to the opinions of those that think the 1911 is less reliable than other modern designs.
GHB
No I wasn't talking about you. I've enjoyed our 1911 debates. I'm just not comfortable with the race analogies.
Clearly, you haven't seen any problems with 1911s. If I hadn't seen any problems I would believe the same way you do. My experience, and strangely, the experience of every person I personally know to have owned a 1911, has been the opposite. That, of course, leads me to give credit to the opinions of those that think the 1911 is less reliable than other modern designs.
GHB
BrokenArrow
Member
Any 5 inch model from Colt, SA, or Kimber could be.
I've got two stock SA Mil Specs now that are better than some more expensive 1911s I've had in the past, and are better than some more expensive 1911s my friends have now, and are better than the real deal M1911A1s Uncle Sam issued to me...
1911s: some can't live w 'em, some can't live w/o 'em... I sure can't.
I've got two stock SA Mil Specs now that are better than some more expensive 1911s I've had in the past, and are better than some more expensive 1911s my friends have now, and are better than the real deal M1911A1s Uncle Sam issued to me...
1911s: some can't live w 'em, some can't live w/o 'em... I sure can't.
Pendragon
Member
I am not convinced that any production 1911 can be guaranteed reliable.
The guns are all made on machines and tool wear means they all come out different - if only in the smallest way.
Semi customs are built more the way the original 1911s were built - one at a time, everything fitting properly.
Again, another myth.
Of course, everyone discounts the idea of getting a $1,200, $1500 or $1800 1911 because they see a gun that looks about the same for $550.
If you want a reliable production gun, bou a Sig or HK or Glock - those guns were designed to be manufactured.
The 1911 was designed to be made by a person.
My Valtro:
1. Hand scraped and EXTREMELY tight.
2. Guaranteed 1"@25yd accurate (don't ask me, I cant do it)
3. 100% reliable with FMJ, LRN, LSWC, LTC rounds - in cheap Mec-Gar mags
4. Well over 1000 rounds between cleaning - zero malfunction.
Double, maybe triple what a "ordinary" 1911 costs, but then - what is total reliability worth?
I was extremely disappointed in the fitting on my Colt Defender - it looked like it was made in high school shop class. Never ran right - although much improved after a few changes.
I would rather have 1 very reliable, well made, accurate, digests anything with any mag pistol, than have a box full of "also ran" guns.
I subscribe to the Cooper ideal of having your own "Personal Weapon" that you keep for life and that you trust and maintain and rely on and ultimately, hopefully, master.
So in the 20-50 years I hope I have left, what is an extra $700 or $900 amortized over my lifetime to be sure?
The guns are all made on machines and tool wear means they all come out different - if only in the smallest way.
Semi customs are built more the way the original 1911s were built - one at a time, everything fitting properly.
Again, another myth.
Of course, everyone discounts the idea of getting a $1,200, $1500 or $1800 1911 because they see a gun that looks about the same for $550.
If you want a reliable production gun, bou a Sig or HK or Glock - those guns were designed to be manufactured.
The 1911 was designed to be made by a person.
My Valtro:
1. Hand scraped and EXTREMELY tight.
2. Guaranteed 1"@25yd accurate (don't ask me, I cant do it)
3. 100% reliable with FMJ, LRN, LSWC, LTC rounds - in cheap Mec-Gar mags
4. Well over 1000 rounds between cleaning - zero malfunction.
Double, maybe triple what a "ordinary" 1911 costs, but then - what is total reliability worth?
I was extremely disappointed in the fitting on my Colt Defender - it looked like it was made in high school shop class. Never ran right - although much improved after a few changes.
I would rather have 1 very reliable, well made, accurate, digests anything with any mag pistol, than have a box full of "also ran" guns.
I subscribe to the Cooper ideal of having your own "Personal Weapon" that you keep for life and that you trust and maintain and rely on and ultimately, hopefully, master.
So in the 20-50 years I hope I have left, what is an extra $700 or $900 amortized over my lifetime to be sure?
PigPen
Member
I don't know that I have anything to add to this thread but,
I have a Springfield "Custom Carry", a Colt "Box stock" 70s "Gold Cup" two Colt Commanders (Lwt. is implied), Two custom built Caspian "Combat Commanders" that all run fully as well as my .45 USP compact H&K.
I think you guys are getting your panties in a wad over a honestly disputable issue.
Maybe we could agree that all of these pieces could be highly reliable with the dedicated skills of a good smith and without the homemade adjustments of some owners.
One other thing that I think some people overlook at times is that some of these firearms (If not all) need a couple hundred rounds (Minimal) to sort of "Burn in" and "become" more reliable if you will.......................One thing for sure, a home fixer upper gunsmith will make things worse.
PigPen
I have a Springfield "Custom Carry", a Colt "Box stock" 70s "Gold Cup" two Colt Commanders (Lwt. is implied), Two custom built Caspian "Combat Commanders" that all run fully as well as my .45 USP compact H&K.
I think you guys are getting your panties in a wad over a honestly disputable issue.
Maybe we could agree that all of these pieces could be highly reliable with the dedicated skills of a good smith and without the homemade adjustments of some owners.
One other thing that I think some people overlook at times is that some of these firearms (If not all) need a couple hundred rounds (Minimal) to sort of "Burn in" and "become" more reliable if you will.......................One thing for sure, a home fixer upper gunsmith will make things worse.
PigPen
Or only to those who shot everything from Auto-Ordnance to STI/SVI and never found a single 1911/2011 which worked 100% out-of-box without tweaking - and only for those who saw them break down (eating replacement parts and springs like candy) more times than all the other popular designs combined...
Pendragon
Member
The fact is, no matter how many rounds you have through your gun, there is simply no way to guarantee with 100% certainty, that it will go boom the next time you pull the trigger.
Having thousands of rounds through my gun without any stoppages makes me feel better - my Colt could not even do 100 - but no matter how many you shoot to "proof" it, it could always fail on the next shot.
That said, I would rather bet on my Valtro than my Colt - by more than 10 to 1.
Having thousands of rounds through my gun without any stoppages makes me feel better - my Colt could not even do 100 - but no matter how many you shoot to "proof" it, it could always fail on the next shot.
That said, I would rather bet on my Valtro than my Colt - by more than 10 to 1.
Pendragon
Member
Wow Gunhead, your anecdotal allusions are compelling.
It's not an anecdote, it's my 1st hand experience as an euro gun writer and competition shooter (who gets no pocket money and free guns from the manufacturers to bend the truth every month to their liking - unlike most of my colleagues in the States), but well, nevermind.
cratz2
Member
I don't pretend to be an expert on 1911s... been shooting them my whole life and I've owned at least one from just about every manufacturer that builds one under $1,000 except S&W.
I've had at least one Springfield, Colt and Kimber than never, ever failed in any way with any ammo I used (keep in mind, I don't use junk ammo). I specifically tried to induce failure in the Kimber but it ran 100% including when firing weak handed upside down. The first Charles Daly I ever shot was 100% and that was on it's first outing... completely stock with nothing adjusted. One I shot later literally couldn't get through one magazine without a failure including a magazine I supplied. Both Daly's were 5" guns shooting ball ammo.
All companies make lemons... most make good guns. If you buy a Springfield MilSpec or a NRM Colt 1991 and properly clean and lube it, use a known good magazine and shoot S&B or WWB ammo, there is an extremely good chance you will not experience a 50% failure rate some 1911-haters would like to suggest. If you look through twenty examples of super duper tight Baers and select the very tighest one, and go to the range with 250 rounds of Wolf ammo... you just might get a failure or two.
Much like the Glocks that will instantly blow your hand off, a large percentage of those seem to be reloaded lead ammo. Many failures with 1911s, in my experience, are ammo-related, magazine-related or were never really even shot... just some internet geek that decided before he ever owned a gun that the Glock being the only reliable pistol available today.
It's also pretty amazing the number of shooters that will tell you how no 1911 will run 100% and in the same breath will tell you that their Glock or SIG can hold 1" groups at 25 yards with pretty much any ammo they tried. Just off handed, or two handed, not off a rest. I think a lot of people (but certainly not all) that claim to be able to hold consistant 1" groups at 25 yards with a handgun more than likely read the internet and/or gun magazines a lot more than they actually shoot. And it almost always seems to be a Glock, SIG or HK that can shoot these 1" groups that are not ammo dependant. Every single shooter I know that can consistantly shoot into 2" or less at 25 yards does so with a 1911 or a S&W 952. In all my years of shooting, I can't recall one single 1" groups fired at 25 yards from a SIG or a Glock.
What are the chances that with all the bullseye shooters and law enforcement officers I know, 1" 25 yard groups from Glocks and SIGs are so hard to come by yet on the internet, there are hundreds and hundreds of them?
I've had at least one Springfield, Colt and Kimber than never, ever failed in any way with any ammo I used (keep in mind, I don't use junk ammo). I specifically tried to induce failure in the Kimber but it ran 100% including when firing weak handed upside down. The first Charles Daly I ever shot was 100% and that was on it's first outing... completely stock with nothing adjusted. One I shot later literally couldn't get through one magazine without a failure including a magazine I supplied. Both Daly's were 5" guns shooting ball ammo.
All companies make lemons... most make good guns. If you buy a Springfield MilSpec or a NRM Colt 1991 and properly clean and lube it, use a known good magazine and shoot S&B or WWB ammo, there is an extremely good chance you will not experience a 50% failure rate some 1911-haters would like to suggest. If you look through twenty examples of super duper tight Baers and select the very tighest one, and go to the range with 250 rounds of Wolf ammo... you just might get a failure or two.
Much like the Glocks that will instantly blow your hand off, a large percentage of those seem to be reloaded lead ammo. Many failures with 1911s, in my experience, are ammo-related, magazine-related or were never really even shot... just some internet geek that decided before he ever owned a gun that the Glock being the only reliable pistol available today.
It's also pretty amazing the number of shooters that will tell you how no 1911 will run 100% and in the same breath will tell you that their Glock or SIG can hold 1" groups at 25 yards with pretty much any ammo they tried. Just off handed, or two handed, not off a rest. I think a lot of people (but certainly not all) that claim to be able to hold consistant 1" groups at 25 yards with a handgun more than likely read the internet and/or gun magazines a lot more than they actually shoot.
And it almost always seems to be a Glock, SIG or HK that can shoot these 1" groups that are not ammo dependant. Every single shooter I know that can consistantly shoot into 2" or less at 25 yards does so with a 1911 or a S&W 952. In all my years of shooting, I can't recall one single 1" groups fired at 25 yards from a SIG or a Glock. What are the chances that with all the bullseye shooters and law enforcement officers I know, 1" 25 yard groups from Glocks and SIGs are so hard to come by yet on the internet, there are hundreds and hundreds of them?
It certainly was not "grasping at straws." You gave anecdotal evidence to support your case---experiences that had, you said, happened to you and in your presence. I have my own experiences, and although to everyone else they are still anecdotal, since they happened to me, and in my presence, I find them convincing.
GoRon
Member
My anecdotal evidence is that my Springfield TRP goes and goes with no failures ( 1500 since last ftf, most likely caused by my following the slide inadvertently, I don't use the slide stop to drop the slide on first round) I do use Wilson and McCormick mags though. My buddies jammomatic has become flawless with new mags.
- Status
