Pistol Choices II

[tipoc]

Also, I also didn't write that revolvers are too old of a design to use for personal defense. I stated many legitimate reasons why revolvers are less practical than semi-autos for personal defense against other armed humans.

It's terrible when a reasonable fella is misunderstood and persecuted for his beliefs ain't it? Just tragic.

From post 50 of this thread;

I am not implying that anything besides Sig and H&K are junk. I am implying that 1911's are outdated...

The thing about 1911 fanboys is that they refuse to admit that they carry an outdated handgun despite all logic and common sense. The same thing goes for revolver carry for SD, except that revolver fans don't make a big deal out if it. I would go so far as to say that almost any (NOT ALL) other semi-auto handgun models, in a SD-sufficient caliber, from any of the manufacturers listed in this poll would be an improvement over the heavy, low-capacity, tool-takedown, SAO 1911.

In the above quote I took it to read that you are saying that those who choose a 1911 or a revolver for personal defense are using an outdated design and lack common sense. Or at best, lack common sense and so refuse to acknowledge that they carry antiquated guns. Perhaps they made the wrong choice because they are fanboys" and "old men".

...I actually do have an extensive background in firearms - because apparently on THR you're considered to be a "new shooter" until you worship the 1911 (which I actually have owned, shot, and carried, and sold because it was impractical for the several reasons I mentioned in previous posts). I'm not trying to wave my SpecWar status in your face - I just thought it might show that I really may have a clue about the points I've been making - but obviously nothing of the sort matters to a bunch of old men who are stuck in their ways.

You can't seem to stop waving your bona fides in our faces. Unfortunately we all so old we can't read the tiny print.

You do not have to like 1911s or Glocks to be here or any forum on the internet. You can denounce either all day if you like. But it does help if you don't insult folks intelligence while you do so. It also helps when you say "this is my opinion" and try to convince folks of it. It don't help when you say "I'm an expert you are wrong and lack common sense." Experts are experts because they have expertise not because they say they are.

You've made a fun poll about you. Too bad.

tipoc

 

[MM60]

Tipoc,

When I fella says: "Personally I think there are better choices for self defense than a revolver a 1911 or a BHP" I'll listen and discuss. When a fella says: "The 1911 and the revolver are old antiquated designs unsuitable for personal defense and those that use them lack common sense" (all things you said) I think the speaker does not know what they are talking about.

I did not say that the 1911 and revolver are unsuitable for SD. You can defend yourself with a Mauser C96 or a sword if you want to. I just said that the 1911 and the revolver are outdated designs because there are better choices available now for CC/SD. Obviously, either a 1911 or a revolver will put a hole in a badguy. I'm not debating that. The thing is, I have asked over and over again for fans of the 1911 to provide some factual and logical reasons as to why they choose the 1911 over more-modern semi-autos, and instead of giving me any factual or logical reasons - they ridicule me for asking, take my statements out of context, say that I said things that I didn't say, write that I'm a "new and inexperienced shooter", and do whatever else they can do to steer everybody away from the fact that they have no facts or logic to support their carry choice. Also, as I've already reiterated, I have not been going out of my way to make the same point regarding revolver carry only because those who favor a revolver aren't usually over-zealous about it like the 1911 fans are, but if people are going to hassle me about my revolver statement from the other thread (titled: "help, my sister wants to get a .25acp") - I'm going to ask them for facts and logic as well. I asked my wife, and she said she didn't want to have anything to do with revolvers. She shoots a Ruger LCP very well. Her best friend has shot before and also wants to get a semi-auto. Obviously, revolvers are not necessarily the best choice to recommend for women; anybody who thinks so is basically assuming that women can't learn how manipulate the controls on a handgun other than to pull the trigger until it goes "click" instead of "boom".

In the thread you have referenced you state that till you joined THR you had never heard of Kahr firearms. This means you had never personally shot or handled one or read a single report on any of their guns that you recalled. Yet you had strong opinions of their guns and the quality of them. This is a mark of someone lacking in experience and judgement. The experienced person would say; "Tell me about Kahr firearms. I'm ignorant of them."

After I saw many people on THR writing about Kahr Arms, I went to the Kahr website and read all about their company and their pistols. I read the specifications for many of their models. I also looked at up-close photos of them on Google images. From what I see, the quality of the Kahr pistols appears similar to the quality of the firearms produced by Kel-Tec. I think that Kel-Tec makes very practical and innovative firearms that will function fine, but the quality in workmanship is not the best. On both the Kahr and the Kel-Tec, I see similar plastic with similar molding marks. On both pistols I see pins that could be aligned or sized better. The Kahr seems to be made with more metal parts than the Kel-Tec. The Kel-Tec seems to have a better-designed slide release lever than the Kahr (the Kahr's seems to protrude unnecessarily). After reading many people's posts about the Kahrs they own, reading the company's information on their own website, and comparing high-resolution photos of the Kahr to other firearms, why should I ask for additional information from more THR members before stating my observations?

I knew years back about Justin Moon's daddy (who, by the way, considers himself and his church to be Christian). John Browning was a Morman. The Catholic Church and some Baptists don't consider Mormans Christian so I understand it. I don't care about that when it comes to guns. I did not buy Justin Moon or his daddy. I did buy a Kahr to try one out for myself. I also shot several others over the years. That's another thread.

The Unification Church, Mormonism, and Catholicism are all para-Christian cults that add to and/or misinterpret the Bible to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. I am not suggesting that they misinterpret little irrelevant things - they make outlandish mistakes that change the meanings of all sorts of fundamental Christian beliefs. You may not have bought Justin Moon or his father, but you did support them by buying their products. It's not good.

You do not have to like 1911s or Glocks to be here or any forum on the internet. You can denounce either all day if you like. But it does help if you don't insult folks intelligence while you do so.

I have repeatedly stated that I think Glocks are high-quality firearms and I've recommended them even though I've also said that I don't personally care for the design, so I don't know where you're coming from with that. I have not denounced Glocks - I simply stated that it is my opinion that I don't care much for the design. You should consider it an insult to your own intelligence that you continue to suggest that I said things that I didn't say.

 

[content]

///////////////////

 

[MM60]

Tipoc,
Ok, I think I see the problem here. You seem to be getting the idea that I'm suggesting 1911's and revolvers are too old of a design to be used for self defense anymore, when what I'm really suggesting is only that better choices for concealed carry/self defense have been produced in the time that 1911's and revolvers have been around. When I say that 1911's and revolvers are outdated - I'm certainly not saying that they're completely useless or that they wouldn't be effective manstoppers. I'm simply stating that, for CC on a daily basis, it would be more logical to carry a lighter handgun with a higher capacity now that such guns are available. I don't always or even usually believe that something new is automatically better than something that is old, but in the case of 1911's and revolvers - compared to most newer semi-autos - I think that it is true, and I have yet to hear any factual or logical reasons to the contrary.

I hope this makes more sense to everybody.

 

[Gryffydd]

The thing is, I have asked over and over again for fans of the 1911 to provide some factual and logical reasons as to why they choose the 1911 over more-modern semi-autos, and instead of giving me any factual or logical reasons

I actually answered this one, but you ignored my question to you on the topic. To reiterate, I chose the 1911 because it could do everything I needed a pistol to do. It is accurate, reliable, has excellent ergonomics, an excellent trigger, and looks classy as a bonus feature. You keep talking about superior modern designs, but without defining them. Just because you think they're better and more modern does not make them better or more suited to my use. As I said before the 1911 WORKS. I'm perfectly comfortable with 8+1 capacity and another 8 on my belt. If I ever need more than that it'll be because I did something stupid like stand and fight instead of exercising Nike Jujitsu when I should have. Most of these new features you love so much were actually made specifically for people who don't want to learn how to use a handgun properly. Extra capacity, DA/SA & Decockers, magazine disconnects... I have yet to actually see you say what about the 1911 is outdated. You keep repeating "It's outdated because there are newer and better designs availble" Well, what are they? What features do they have that make them objectively and unquestionably better firearms than the 1911? Let's get down to the details here.

The Unification Church, Mormonism, and Catholicism are all para-Christian cults that add to and/or misinterpret the Bible to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. I am not suggesting that they misinterpret little irrelevant things - they make outlandish mistakes that change the meanings of all sorts of fundamental Christian beliefs. You may not have bought Justin Moon or his father, but you did support them by buying their products. It's not good.

And HK's founders came from Mauser, and Nazis used Mausers!

OH, and P.S. SIG started out making wagons and HK started out making sowing machines, so you I wouldn't let that scare you away from Kahrs.

 

[MM60]

And HK's founders came from Mauser, and Nazis used Mausers!

OH, and P.S. SIG started out making wagons and HK started out making sowing machines, so you I wouldn't let that scare you away from Kahrs.

The Nazis may have used Mausers, but if Mauser was currently owned by the Nazis and all purchases from the company went to support the Third Reich, would you buy one? There's a difference between "Nazis used Mausers" and "Nazis own Mauser and increase in wealth and power because of your purchases." I was only using Kahr's beginning as a machine shop as a similarity between them and Kel-Tec; I did not say there is anything wrong with that.

The features of the 1911 that make it an inferior design to more modern pistols are as follows:
-SAO (must be carried either with an empty chamber or with the hammer cocked)
-manual safety (basically mandatory to use while loaded)
-all-steel design (heavy compared to aluminum or polymer)
-single-stack magazine (low capacity compared to double-stacks)
-tool required to remove recoil spring guide in order to disassemble slide

More modern pistols usually have the following better features than the 1911:
-options include SA/DA, DAO, striker fired (none require use of a manual safety)
-safety lever either not mandatory for safe loaded carry or not present on firearm at all
-designs frequently use polymer, aluminum, and alloys to be strong and light-weight
-double-stack magazines provide higher capacity, some use single-stacks to be thinner
-takedown is usually accomplished with no tools and in very few steps

Regardless of whether you use actual hand-tools or parts of the 1911 itself during disassembly, you are still using whatever you are using as a tool for takedown, and the takedown procedure will be more complicated than it would be for a non-1911.

As you stated, the 1911 design does work, and you find it comfortable to carry and classy-looking. Anybody could argue that their favorite pistol works, is comfortable to carry, accurate, reliable, has excellent ergonomics, and has an excellent trigger; not to say the 1911 doesn't, but many other pistols do as well. Other than the fact that the 1911 does work, those are all more or less subjective statements. I provided objective statements in the two lists above. Would you be able to debate my objective comparison between the 1911 and more modern pistols that posess the characteristics I listed?

 

[waterhouse]

The features of the 1911 that make it an inferior design to more modern pistols are as follows:
-SAO (must be carried either with an empty chamber or with the hammer cocked)
-manual safety (basically mandatory to use while loaded)
-all-steel design (heavy compared to aluminum or polymer)
-single-stack magazine (low capacity compared to double-stacks)
-tool required to remove recoil spring guide in order to disassemble slide

I think a point you are missing is that the things immediately after the dash are facts (well, some of them are) and the things you put in the parenthesis are your interpretations of those facts.

For example, my list might go:

-SAO (I prefer only one type of trigger pull, and the 1911 has one of the best feeling triggers of any handgun)
-manual safety (this is a handy place for me to rest my thumb. I sure wish every gun had a safety so perfectly placed!)
-all-steel design (Although I own some very light weight 1911s due to advances in metallurgical science and this statement clearly doesn't apply to all 1911s, I like how the all steel ones stay on target and smoothly transition to the next target. It sure is nice to have some weight taking up that recoil!)
-single-stack magazine (which made the grip oh so comfortable for me. Having tried out the grips on literally hundreds of handguns, I prefer single stack, thin framed guns. Also, the thinness makes it easier to conceal!)
-tool required to remove recoil spring guide in order to disassemble slide (not with a short recoil spring guide it isn't, unless you are talking about things like a brain and opposable thumbs as tools.)

Once again, I don't normally carry a 1911, I just own several and have a different understanding of them than you do. (note that I'm not saying I'm right, but we that we looked at the same design and came to different conclusions.) You prefer having 2 different trigger pulls. I've tried that and don't prefer it. And I don't mean I looked at pictures on google images, I actually handle pistols every single day and based my decision on how the guns actually felt in my hand, how the triggers felt, etc. Your preference is, to me, not an improvement in the design. When gun writers talk about great triggers in gun magazines, they say things like "Gun X's trigger is almost 1911 like!" DA/SA guns are fine, and they work, but the design is not better, merely different.

I normally carry an HK. Before you jump for joy that I'm carrying a super advanced, better than 1911 gun, my HK is a low capacity, single stack, all steel, heavy, manual safety, SAO (basically) 9mm. It even has a tool available to assist in take down!, although the tool isn't necessary if you are adept at using your thumb. I only bring up the point to emphasize that you can't just say "HKs and SIGs are more advanced than 1911s." Sig makes 1911s now. HK makes (made, and still seems to do limited addition runs every now and then) all steel single stack guns.

And to the training issue, a good friend of mine was (is? I don't know if Navy guys go by the "once a Marine . . . " concept, because he doesn't talk about it much.) a SEAL. Even after getting similar training, he now carries an outdated single stack 1911.

 

[Zach S]

Regardless of whether you use actual hand-tools or parts of the 1911 itself during disassembly, you are still using whatever you are using as a tool for takedown, and the takedown procedure will be more complicated than it would be for a non-1911.

Just to clarify, I said detail strip, not field strip, which doesn't require any tools...

I'm pretty sure you're going to need tools to detail strip any autoloader more complicated, um, I mean, more advanced than a 1911...

 

[Gryffydd]

-SAO (must be carried either with an empty chamber or with the hammer cocked)

What's wrong with having a hammer cocked?
The SAO design gives a trigger that is the same for every shot, including the all-important first shot. It has a short reset, and a light pull.

manual safety (basically mandatory to use while loaded)

I would say a manual safety--as long as it can be manipulated without sacrificing a good firing grip--is preferable to having to train to accurately shoot double taps with a drastically different trigger between shots.

all-steel design (heavy compared to aluminum or polymer)

There are plenty of aluminum framed 1911s. The difference in weight is marginal. The Springfield Armory full-size lightweight model is 33oz. The Sig P226 is 34. Oh and weight really helps with recoil and followup shots.

single-stack magazine (low capacity compared to double-stacks)

With which you get better ergonomics, magazines that are easier to conceal and carry and load. Oh, and you can get double stack 1911s too.

tool required to remove recoil spring guide in order to disassemble slide

Not on any 1911 I've ever owned (or would own). I'm sure there's somebody with something like that in their 1911 out there, but it's sure not a trait of the design.

On to the modern advantages...

options include SA/DA, DAO, striker fired (none require use of a manual safety)

Options are always good. Doesn't make them better. I've already addressed the problems with DA/SA. DAO is better, but still doesn't provide the quality of trigger that SAO does. Striker fired...what's the advantage there again?

safety lever either not mandatory for safe loaded carry or not present on firearm at all

Also, safety not there in case you did want one for some reason. They can be rather nice. Also, the 1911 safety can be easily flicked off during the draw and this can be done with a firing grip. Better than dealing with 2 different trigger pulls.

designs frequently use polymer, aluminum, and alloys to be strong and light-weight

So do 1911s...

double-stack magazines provide higher capacity, some use single-stacks to be thinner

I guess you've already covered this one!

takedown is usually accomplished with no tools and in very few steps

Takedown? What's that? Field Strip? Then that could be said of the 1911 as well. No tools, simple. Detail strip? Try that on any gun without tools.

I think it's funny that you ignore all the possible features of 1911s like lightweight models, double stack models, DAO models, etc. but you pull out this weird tool removal of the recoil spring guide thing. We need to either include all 1911s in the discussion or limit it to WWII GI models or something, because you're just cherry picking what features you want to talk about.

You're welcome to *prefer* all those new features. Just don't pretend they're objectively *better* for everyone.

 

[MM60]

-SAO (I prefer only one type of trigger pull, and the 1911 has one of the best feeling triggers of any handgun)
That's fine, but it's subjective to the user.

-manual safety (this is a handy place for me to rest my thumb. I sure wish every gun had a safety so perfectly placed!)
When you say "to rest my thumb", do you mean while you are actually shooting the gun? Or when you are pressing the lever? I have never heard of anybody resting their thumb on the safety lever while actually shooting.

-all-steel design (Although I own some very light weight 1911s due to advanced in metallurgical science and this statement clearly doesn't apply to all 1911s, I like how the all steel ones stay on target and smoothly transition to the next target. It sure is nice to have some weight taking up that recoil!)
Some may see this as a benefit in regards to a pistol that will be used regularly for target shooting purposes, but I would imagine that a lighter pistol would be better suited for daily carry. Like I said before - you're going to carry your CCW all day every day, you're not going to engage badguys with it all day every day. Unless you plan on doing more target shooting than carrying, a lighter handgun would be the better choice.

-single-stack magazine (which made the grip oh so comfortable for me. Having tried out the grips on literally hundreds of handguns, I prefer single stack, thin framed guns. Also, the thinness makes it easier to conceal!)
I have found that the removeable grip scales on most 1911's make the entire grip about equal in size to double-stack grips without removeable scales. The 1911 would need to be made with grip scales that do not cause the grip width to exceed the slide width in order for me to view them as being particularly thin.

-tool required to remove recoil spring guide in order to disassemble slide (not with a short recoil spring guide it isn't, unless you are talking about things like a brain and opposable thumbs as tools.
I'll give you guys this one. I was referring to full-sized 1911's where the recoil spring guide requires a hex key or screw driver to remove it from the slide. I was not aware that some models may not require a tool.

 

[waterhouse]

That's fine, but it's subjective to the user.

Yes, I know, I am the user. Picking a gun that agrees with me is a logical, common sense decision, although you seem to think that me shooting a 1911 defies all logic and common sense.

I have never heard of anybody resting their thumb on the safety lever while actually shooting.

You have now. That's exactly where my thumb rests when I shoot 1911s. I've never found a reason to move it, and starts there as I draw. Works for me.

I have found that the removable grip scales on most 1911's make the entire grip about equal in size to double-stack grips without removable scales. The 1911 would need to be made with grip scales that do not cause the grip width to exceed the slide width in order for me to view them as being particularly thin.

Ah, another beauty of the 1911. Easily changeable grips! Mine wear thin grips, and there is a huge variety of selection. The SIG P series can change grips, but most Glocks and HKs you can't, and are generally stuck to some sort of slip on grip if the gun doesn't fit you from the factory (ETA or with the more recent interchangeable back straps).

I'll give you guys this one. I was referring to full-sized 1911's where the recoil spring guide requires a hex key or screw driver to remove it from the slide. I was not aware that some models may not require a tool.

Thank you for conceding the point. As originally designed, no tools are necessary.

 

[Gryffydd]

I have never heard of anybody resting their thumb on the safety lever while actually shooting.

That's fine, but it's subjective to the user.

That's what we've been trying to tell you all along... Does that mean you finally got the idea?

but I would imagine that a lighter pistol would be better suited for daily carry

Only if a difference of 5oz is enough to tire you out... Man, I thought SEALs were supposed to be tough!

Unless you plan on doing more target shooting than carrying, a lighter handgun would be the better choice.

In your opinion! With a good belt and a good holster I forget my full size all steel 1911 is even on my hip.

I'll give you guys this one. I was referring to full-sized 1911's where the recoil spring guide requires a hex key or screw driver to remove it from the slide. I was not aware that some models may not require a tool.

I would say that the VAST MAJORITY of models don't require a tool. In fact, funky recoil spring setups are more commonly found on the compact models. Are you really criticizing a gun you know that little about?

 

[Gryffydd]

Man, I need to quit getting interrupted while I'm posting. Waterhouse keeps beating me to the punch...

 

[waterhouse]

I have never heard of anybody resting their thumb on the safety lever while actually shooting.

Just so you don't think I'm an anomaly, here's a guy who knows a bit about pistol shooting, explaining how he gets his thumb on top of the safety (it's at about 1:17 in the video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa50-plo48

 

[easyg]

The 1911 is a very good design, which is why it has been around for so long.
And if it's what you're used to shooting then there's really no compelling reason to switch handguns.
Simply put: it works.

The same is true of revolvers...
The double-action revolver is a great design that has stood the test of time.
And for most shooters who are proficient with one, there's really no compelling reason to switch.

Warning: personal opinion to follow!


Until every "baby boomer" on the planet is dead and gone, the revolver and the 1911 will stay near the top of preferred handguns.
And no, I'm not saying that ALL boomers prefer revolvers or 1911's.
And no, I'm not saying that ALL post boomer generations disdain revolvers and 1911's.

But it has been my personal observations at gun shows and gun shops that the baby boomers are by far the largest fan base of revolvers and 1911's.

And while revolvers and 1911's are good designs, I never recommend them for a newbie just learning how to shoot.
I think that the last thing a newbie needs to worry about is learning to master a manual flip safety (1911) or a heavy double-action trigger (revolver).

This is why I recommend to newbies Glocks, XD's, S&W M&P's, and similar handguns....
Handguns without a manual flip safety, or a decocker, or DA first shot/SA follow-up shots....instead, handguns with a consistent trigger-pull from first shot to last shot.

 

[Kleanbore]

The thing about 1911 fanboys is that they refuse to admit that they carry an outdated handgun despite all logic and common sense. The same thing goes for revolver carry for SD, except that revolver fans don't make a big deal out if it. I would go so far as to say that almost any (NOT ALL) other semi-auto handgun models, in a SD-sufficient caliber, from any of the manufacturers listed in this poll would be an improvement over the heavy, low-capacity, tool-takedown, SAO 1911.

Outdated? You can design guns with slide rails molded into polymer frames that cost a whole lot less than a forged and machined 1911, HP, Beretta, or SIG, and you can reduce parts count to reduce cost. Those are the real and undeniable advantages of guns that are not "outdated." It's a matter of priorities; I'm not tying to buy 6000 guns within a budget to equip a police force, I want the best gun. So does the LAPD SWAT team; they carry 1911 pistols.

Heavy? All the better to get back on target rapidly, which can make the difference between life and death in a self defense situation. You can get a lighter 1911 if you want one--the Colt New Agent is very light--but some of us prefer a little more weight.

Low capacity? Therefore thinner.

SAO? Yeah, years ago I thought that was a disadvantage, but many, if not most, people can shoot a single action pistol (1911, Browning HP, SIG 210) with a good trigger better than any DAO or striker fired pistol, and I'm among them; DA/SA pistols have the serious disadvantage of having a very different pull between the first and second shot.

I have never heard of anybody resting their thumb on the safety lever while actually shooting.

That's how instructors tell you to shoot. I don't, because I find it rather painful.

By the way, I do have one of the most popular and modern compact, polymer, striker fired pistols on the market. It cost a little more than half as much as my high-end 1911. When weight really matters or clothing dictates, I'll carry it. However, I can shoot my steel four inch 1911 a lot better, and I guarantee you that when I take a tactical training course next year that requires shooting 600 rounds in two days, I'll take the heavier 1911. A younger friend of mine, less recoil sensitive than I, took a polymer gun and would not do it again, partly because of the pain and partly because of the fact that repeat shots were less effective.

 

[Jonah71]

Just give me a .357 Python and I'll be fine.

 

[MM60]

Only if a difference of 5oz is enough to tire you out... Man, I thought SEALs were supposed to be tough!

There is a difference between having the ability to be tough and being unnecessarily uncomfortable on a daily basis. The SEALs actually tend to carry far more gear with them than you might think. At work, I would typically carry a 75lb+ rucksack, plus H-gear (LBE vest) under my ruck, plus my pistol on a belt under my H-gear. I find all of that to be extremely cumbersome, although much of it is necessary for the job. I like everything about my own Sig P226 other than the fact that the size and weight is not the most comfortable for carry on a daily basis. This is why I usually carry my Ruger LCP around town. I carry the Sig when I feel there is more potential for conflict wherever I may be headed, or when I know I won't be sitting in any sort of seat for long periods of time. Sometimes I carry it anyway. I have had lots of experience with lugging heavy gear around, and although I really like big knives, powerful guns, and cool-guy gear, I find it much more practical to bring the minimum essentials and rely on personal skill in most situations. So, it's really not an issue of toughness - just practicality. If you're interested in toughness, I have gone kayak camping by myself in remote salt-water areas in March when the water and air were both less than 40 degrees, and I actually camped on top of the kayak on the water (that's colder and less comfortable than you might think). On one of these trips, I navigated my kayak back to my vehicle for over 12 miles in the moonless night with no lights. And that was all on my own time - just for fun. Some of the guys went for a mile-long Chesapeake Bay swim in January just to see how fast they could do it. We also swam in Hurricane Isabel, but some Marine Corps. volunteer rescue force guy kicked us out. This winter I hope to go wilderness camping with my buddy who was discharged last year - with only the clothes we're wearing and one knife and firearm each. Tolerance to being cold and wet is a true test of toughness to which most people won't subject themselves. But we find it amusing, and it makes for good stories that other's don't really understand.

 

[easyg]

...I want the best gun. So does the LAPD SWAT team; they carry 1911 pistols.

The notion that the 1911 is "THE BEST GUN" simply because the LAPD SWAT team carries it is total nonsense.

Using that logic:
Since the Secret Service and the Border Patrol and the Coast Guard and the Texas Rangers (and hundreds of other agencies around the world) don't carry the 1911 then they must not want the best?

Nonsense!

The 1911 might be the best handgun for you.
But it is certainly not the best for everyone.

When I was a soldier we still had the 1911's in our armory, and I have seen plenty of soldiers forget to flip the manual safety off at the range.
Had they been in combat such a mistake could have cost them their lives.

If I'm teaching a novice, give me a handgun without a manual safety!

 

[MM60]

Thank you Easyg. As I stated earlier, the fact that a very small minority of spec-ops guys use a 1911 is irrelevant considering that the vast majority of spec-ops and conventional forces do not. I also agree with your statement that the baby boomers (old men) constitute the vast majority of 1911 and revolver fans, and I believe that this is simply because that's what they grew up with. In the next few decades, it is likely that we will see a major decline in 1911 and revolver popularity.

 

[Kleanbore]

The 1911 might be the best handgun for you.
But it is certainly not the best for everyone.

Good point, easyg. I'm fairly familiar with handguns. I can clear a jam, and I train from a "safety on position". Personally, however, I wouldn't carry a semi auto without a manual safety and I don't like the idea of a novice carrying one either. For those I recommend a revolver unless they're going into combat.

Since the Secret Service and the Border Patrol and the Coast Guard and the Texas Rangers (and hundreds of other agencies around the world) don't carry the 1911 then they must not want the best?

Again, you are right--best for Border Patrolmen and the Coast Guard would not involve concealment and would tend to require higher capacity, hence a double column magazine; same for SOCOM--there's a big difference between a pure civilian SD encounter and survival in a hostile military environment. (Wilson does provide 1911 pistols to Texas Rangers, however).

I started out years ago with the most modern handgun on the market: the Smith and Wesson Model 39. I was enamored with the DA/SA feature and I liked the hammer drop safety, and the idea of having a 1911 "cocked and locked" scared me. High capacity was not an issue for me.

It was OK at the range firing SA, but I got it long before I knew the first thing about concealed carry. I replaced it after forty-three years with a compact high-cap striker fired gun--same trigger pull each time. It does have a safety. The only real disadvantages are the long trigger pull and the light weight.

Some time later, I happened to try a 1911 at the range after a police SWAT team lead showed me his 1911 back up gun. With its improved trigger and better sights it was a far cry from the issue guns that were around when I chose the Model 39. And I've gotten over my aversion to "Condition 1" carry. So I bought one.

I can shoot the 1911 a lot better--more shots on multiple targets more quickly, and more importantly to me, fewer shots that miss and might hit an unintended target.

Again, I was not constrained by a department budget, I do not carry openly, I do not expect to get into armed combat requiring sustained fire, and I am constrained from drawing and doing anything with a slide until I am in imminent danger. The Beretta M9 might otherwise suffice.

I simply need to be able to draw from concealment in a second and a half and get several shots on target(s) with great speed and certainty. I've concluded fairly recently that the 1911, which I personally considered to be outmoded forty-plus years ago, is best for me by a long shot.

When I started shooting handguns, the choices were the Browning Hi Power and .380; Colt Commander and Government Models; the Smith Model 39; the Walther PPK, surplus P-38, Radom and Lahti pistols; and DA revolvers. The choices today are mind boggling. The advent of CCW on a large scale and the need for law enforcement agencies to equip their officers with considerably more firepower has driven the change. Colt double action revolvers are no longer made, and there are numerous large and small semi-autos on the market--along with 1911 pistols from more manufacturers than were in existence in the mid 1960s. The 1911 pistols are inherently costly, and as you have pointed out, they require a little more training than some others, but their effectiveness is not in question unless you need more magazine capacity.

To each his own.

 

[Kleanbore]

But it has been my personal observations at gun shows and gun shops that the baby boomers are by far the largest fan base of revolvers and 1911's.

While I've also noticed a lot of ex servicemen looking at 1911s, some of the guys at my range who carry the very compact 1911 pistols concealed, and all of the policemen I know who carry them for backup, are quite young, and I see more young men and women than older people looking at J-frames.

And while revolvers and 1911's are good designs, I never recommend them for a newbie just learning how to shoot.

Agree on the 1911, but I really think that newbies are better off not having to operate a slide or clear a jam on any semi-auto.

I think that the last thing a newbie needs to worry about is learning to master a manual flip safety (1911) or a heavy double-action trigger (revolver).

This is why I recommend to newbies Glocks, XD's, S&W M&P's, and similar handguns....
Handguns without a manual flip safety, or a decocker, or DA first shot/SA follow-up shots....instead, handguns with a consistent trigger-pull from first shot to last shot.

The instructors where I shoot recommend revolvers to newbies, but they agree with your recommendations regarding which semi-autos to carry concealed. Oddly, about half of those instructors carry 1911s, but they demonstrate in class with real and dummy Glocks.

I bought an M&P (with a safety) on the strength of such recommendations, but I've since found that I don't really like the long trigger pull very much. I think the long pull design may be a product of litigation.

Regarding the safety, to me it's second nature, just like pulling the trigger, and I've heard too much about Glocks going off in officers' holsters to fully trust anything without one. Personal opinion.

 

[MM60]

Agree on the 1911, but I really think that newbies are better off not having to operate a slide or clear a jam on any semi-auto.

The instructors where I shoot recommend revolvers to newbies, but they agree with your recommendations regarding which semi-autos to carry concealed.

I see more young men and women than older people looking at J-frames.

If these statements are true of your particular area and reflect some amount of correlation, then there is a possibility that this may be a...
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: a prophecy that is declared as truth when it is actually false, which may sufficiently influence people, either through fear or logical confusion, so that their reactions ultimately fulfill the once-false prophecy.

-Instructors in your area tell new shooters it would be best to start with a revolver (opinion of those who favor revolvers)
-You see new shooters at gun shows in your area looking at/purchasing revolvers (following their instructors' recommendation)
-You relay to others the instructors' opinions and the result of those opinions as seen at the local gun shows (as though it was fact with supporting evidence)
-Over time it is generally accepted as "fact" that revolvers are best for new shooters (because some biased instructors say so, and because some unwitting new shooters take their biased advice)

I really think that newbies are better off not having to operate a slide or clear a jam on any semi-auto.

So... how would a new shooter eventually get used to using a semi-auto? Are you implying that, after using a revolver long enough, a new shooter will eventually understand how to manipulate the parts and controls of a semi-auto? Your statement is completely illogical. I think you are basically suggesting that "newbies" should just get a revolver to carry and not bother to actually learn anything.

 

[tipoc]

MM60,

At times the mind boggles...

From MM60;

I'll give you guys this one. I was referring to full-sized 1911's where the recoil spring guide requires a hex key or screw driver to remove it from the slide. I was not aware that some models may not require a tool.

You are also unaware then that some guns can have a bushing more than finger tight and require a bushing wrench for take down. When a 1911 is tuned for accuracy the barrel to slide fit can be improved on. One aspect of this is to tighten the bushing to slide fit to the point that a bushing wrench is required for take down. Usually a gun for carry does not require this. Someone familair with 1911s knows this.

When you say "to rest my thumb", do you mean while you are actually shooting the gun? Or when you are pressing the lever? I have never heard of anybody resting their thumb on the safety lever while actually shooting.

Since it's inception many shooters, not all though, have shot the 1911 with a high thumbs hold. It's origins go back to the days when one handed shooting was taught in the military. Jeff Cooper taught it as mandatory. A person passingly familiar with the 1911 would know of this.

I have found that the removeable grip scales on most 1911's make the entire grip about equal in size to double-stack grips without removeable scales. The 1911 would need to be made with grip scales that do not cause the grip width to exceed the slide width in order for me to view them as being particularly thin.

This simply defies the facts.

A fella who claims extensive expertize with firearms is unaware that alloy framed 1911s are made. Is unaware of the Colt Commander, Officer's Model, Detonics Combat Master, Kimber Ultra Carry, etc. Is unaware of the ParaOrd P14-45 or similar double stack offerings from other manufacturers in various calibers, is unaware of polymer framed 1911s. Makes the ridiculous statements above. Says with a straight face that he never heard of CZ or Kahr till 2 years ago when he joined THR but now knows all about them because he looked at pictures and read up on the internet. Becomes somewhat offended when folks question his opinions on things.

MM60 in all honesty you know next to nothing about 1911s. You have never given them more than a cursory examination. Worse, you believe you do know them. You know next to nothing about revolvers.

Nothing requires you to learn anything about them. Decades back the military and law enforcement (with a few exceptions) bypassed single action semis for da/sa or safe action guns. They left wheelguns behind. They did these things for precise reasons. There is nothing new in this discussion.

You have insulted anyone who choses to carry or use a 1911 or a wheelgun for self defense by saying that they lack common sense, are fanboys and old men (though some are women). You assume, incorrectly, that folks who do so believe that 1911s are best for all purposes and people. When called on this you switched to another topic.

You started two polls in which you made yourself the center of discussion and have challenged folks to get into a debate with you on the merits of Browning's design. (Using the search function you will soon learn that there have been many debates and discussions (a tedious number of them) on sa pistols vs. da/sa, dao, safe action etc. 1911 vs. Glock, vs. SIG, etc.)

If you wanted a debate on the 1911 why not bypass the poll and just do that. You have approached this dishonestly I feel.

tipoc

 

[waterhouse]

So... how would a new shooter eventually get used to using a semi-auto? Are you implying that, after using a revolver long enough, a new shooter will eventually understand how to manipulate the parts and controls of a semi-auto? Your statement is completely illogical. I think you are basically suggesting that "newbies" should just get a revolver to carry and not bother to actually learn anything.

I've generally taught people how to shoot using a .22 single action revolver (in fact, it is probably the only gun I own that has more rounds fired by other people than by me). There is more to learning to shoot a gun than learning how the gun works. Things like grip, stance, sight alignment, trigger pull, etc. Things that make new shooters nervous (I've found) are noise, recoil, and reminding them to make sure they keep their hand and thumb away from the rear of the slide so that it won't cut them.

After they are comfortable, we can move onto guns where there is more recoil, more complications, etc. Is that so hard to understand? No one is implying that after learning the basics you just toss a beginner a semi auto and say "figure it out, have fun, try not to shoot yourself!"

I see nothing illogical with this progression. This is the second time you have called a somewhat common practice (carrying a 1911 and teaching new shooters the basics on simple guns*) illogical.

* I understand that revolvers are complex machines and did not mean to offend the revolver gurus by implying that their guns are simple, merely more simple to understand how to operate them.