Shot two 1911's the other day, don't love it

[PT1911]

and just what newer and better advances are being eluded to here?

"The fact is, nearly 100 years have passed since the 1911's inception, and some people can't cope with the fact that newer and better advances in technology have come along."

 

[Geronimo45]

and just what newer and better advances are being eluded to here?

How about field-stripping?

 

[PT1911]

it takes all of about 1 minute(if I'm slow) for me to strip my 1911's

not sure how much faster you need to do that...

granted it isnt a simply push a button and the gun flies apart, but take down is still quite simple... and doesnt require a trigger to be pulled..hmmmmmmm

 

[Geronimo45]

Sig doesn't require a trigger pull, either... and reassembly doesn't involve that weird swinging link. Best thing is that the recoil spring plug doesn't go flying across the room.

 

[PT1911]

granted it takes some getting used to, but once a person is familiar with disassembly it is all too easy.. the only thing that is genuinly easier for me to disassemble is my steyr M9-A1, I guess it is all in what you prefer.

I will say that i dont think a guns breakdown process (especially one that can be mastered so easily) can be seen as something from the past.. personally, I hate the way a glock breaks down, I only bring that up because, SADLY, that is the gun that all guns seem to be measured against right now...

cannot comment on the sig..no experience with them.

 

[Billy Shears]

Sig doesn't require a trigger pull, either... and reassembly doesn't involve that weird swinging link. Best thing is that the recoil spring plug doesn't go flying across the room.

The SIG has a higher bore axis (more muzzle flip), not nearly as nice a trigger, and what's so hard about dealing with the swinging link? And if you have a problem with the recoil spring plug, get a GI style one; it has pressed in catch, which grabs onto the spring and holds it in place.

 

[jerkface11]

and just what newer and better advances are being eluded to here?

How about a gun it's easy to de-cock? Or a gun you can clear the chamber on without disengaging the safety? In short how about a Hi-power or a CZ-75.

 

[Gryffydd]

Additionally, I don't think you should have to spend $1200 just to have a one optioned-out to perform where a $500 stock (insert Sig, Glock, etc here) performs right out of the box.

I wonder how I got so lucky to buy a $600 Springfield Armory Mil-Spec and have it perform right out of the box?
And where are these $500 Sigs?

I love the 1911 because it fits me. I love the XD because it fits me. I can't stand the Glock because it doesn't fit me. That doesn't make the Glock any worse of a firearm, it just makes it not fit well in my hand.

 

[Prince Yamato]

and just what newer and better advances are being eluded to here?

Don't forget DA triggers and ability to be easily suppressed. Also, take-down is rather primitive as most people end up with an "idiot mark" on their gun. Take-down should be simple enough that most people don't end up scratching their gun. Don't forget standardized sights (ie, you buy Glock sights for Glocks, XD sights for XDs, but you have to have custom work down for different sights on 1911s).

I think the 1911 is alright. I don't own one anymore. I sold my Springfield GI for a Glock 26 over a year ago. 1911s are great if you want to customize the heck out of your gun. A stock GI shoots nice but it is what it is, a 100 year old design.

It's a comfy gun to hold, so I can see it's appeal in that respect.

Other than that, sorry Grandpa, it's a 100 year old design.

 

[khegglie]

I'm a recent comvert to the 1911.
A Para 14-45 fills the need for a hi-cap. An LDA does the double action(AND hi-cap) thing, A RIA plain jane fills the just plain fun need!
Both feed any thing ang are make-me-look-good accurate.
Love.yeah. But I carry aGlock 27 for daily CC.

 

[Lonestar.45]

I don't get all the fuss about how hard 1911's are to take down. Really I don't.
Those with full length guide rods are super easy, and those without (the original GI style) even a monkey could disassemble/reassemble. Everyone now days seems to think if it isn't Lego snap together easy, it is just too difficult. I don't get it.

Technological advances? Okay, take down a Ruger Mk I, or a S&W 5906, (or any other number of new semi-autos) both of whose designs are decades newer than the 1911, and then tell me how difficult the 1911 is to take down.

 

[Deanimator]

A Series 70 Colt was my first handgun. It's still my bullseye wadcutter gun, with a 1" UltraDot mounted on the slide.

There are lots of guns that overall can do what an M1911 can do, about as well. I can't name one that does it better.

I carry a variety of firearms from day to day. I usually switch at the beginning of the week. I routinely carry a Norinco M1911. It gets the job done as well as anything else, and better than most. It's reliable, accurate and fires a highly effective round. It doesn't hold fifteen rounds, but nothing .45acp that does comfortably fits my hand. Only my High Power comes close to being as comfortable in my hand. Carrying cocked and locked is perfectly natural to me. It's a gun, not a 1938 vintage Japanese handgrenade I dug up on Saipan. It isn't going to "just go off" by itself. Even carried cocked and UNlocked, I still have to pull the trigger.

I carry alternately a Glock 19, a Glock 22, a S&W Model 65, a S&W Model 36, a Browning High Power, and a Norinco M1911. I feel every bit as confident in my ability to effectively defend myself with the M1911 as I do with any of the others.

 

[Billy Shears]

I think the 1911 is alright. I don't own one anymore. I sold my Springfield GI for a Glock 26 over a year ago. 1911s are great if you want to customize the heck out of your gun. A stock GI shoots nice but it is what it is, a 100 year old design.

Exactly, and that's why it's better. It was designed at a time when the goal was to build the most effective weapon possible, not to build one that was good enough while still being able to avoid product liability lawsuits.

Other than that, the age of the design is irrelevant. When something was designed makes zero difference to how well it works. Age doesn't matter; performance matters. If it's accurate, reliable, user-friendly, and performs well (which the 1911 does, when it's not monkeyed with by unskilled gunsmiths), what possible difference can the age of the design make? Are you less dead when shot with a 100 year old gun?

 

[jdc1244]

Just my opinion.

Indeed.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Exactly, and that's why it's better. It was designed at a time when the goal was to build the most effective weapon possible, not to build one that was good enough while still being able to avoid product liability lawsuits.

A stock 1911, I would classify as very reliable. The issue is, you are still left with a 100 year-old design, with the aforementioned principal flaws. The sights are bad, it's single action, and take-down is more difficult than it needs to be.

Once you start changing the initial design, you start having problems. Now, others will say that their STIs are hi-cap and double action, but I believe you're then into the 2011 platform and in addition, IIRC, STIs are their own pattern of design and not fully interchangeable with the 1911. The same is true for people who customize their Glocks alla Robar and CCI. You start changing the design enough (like with steel guide rods) and you start having problems that were not present in the initial design.

 

[bottom shelf]

I'm not a big fan of the 1911 either, but there's no disputing it's rich history and tradition.

 

[1911Tuner]

No sin in havin' no joy with the 1911. Some don't. TheGlock is a good, solid weapon, but I can't warm up to'em to save me. Diff'rent strokes and all.

1911s are sweet guns, but I'd never trust my life on one.

This coming from a guy who has owned the best of the best (les baer TRS).

Pity. I've got about 3 dozen here that I'd trust without even takin'em out for a test run...and none of'em are high-end semi customs. That it costs about 3 times what it should ain't a guarantee that it's good.

it takes all of about 1 minute(if I'm slow) for me to strip my 1911's

If you're fast, you can detail strip one, starting with an assembled pistol...in under a minute for the slide and frame.

'Course, if it's got all them unnecessary doodads like reverse-plug recoil systems and 2-piece FLGRs and ambi safeties...it'll take a little longer.

 

[kbheiner7]

Not sure why anyone would want to dis the 1911. If you don't like it, fine - shoot something else.

Clearly, anyone saying Hi-point guns are more reliable than the 1911 is clinically insane and out to pick a fight.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

They are a novelty gun and shouldn't be used for HD or SD.

what the hell? :banghead:

 

[Billy Shears]

A stock 1911, I would classify as very reliable. The issue is, you are still left with a 100 year-old design...

Age means nothing. A design is not worse just because it is old, or better just because it is new. By that logic, an Airbus A380 is a better airplane than the SR-71 Blackbird, because the Blackbird is 50 years old. Age means nothing. Performance is what matters. If the gun can still do everything demanded of a combat handgun as well as any other design out there, then it makes not the slightest difference whatsoever that the design is old.

...with the aforementioned principal flaws. The sights are bad...

I can't think of a single 1911 anymore, even the bare stock ones, apart from exact copies of vintage guns, like the Colt WWI repro, that comes out of the box with bad sights. And if you should chance to get one, sights are just about the easiest fix there is on a gun.

...it's single action...

This is not a drawback. It's a virtue. There is no gun faster to get an accurate first shot off than a cocked and locked single action, and no gun permits faster follow up shots either, if the shooter has the skill to take advantage of the 1911's short trigger pull and short reset. If you don't like single actions, fine. But that's your preference, not a design flaw.

...and take-down is more difficult than it needs to be.

I think it takes me a whopping 20 whole seconds longer to strip my 1911 than it does my Glock 17. You're right. That's a deal breaker.

 

[Geronimo45]

There is no gun faster to get an accurate first shot off than a cocked and locked single action

Do you have any proof of that?

 

[jerkface11]

Oh yeah now I remember why 1911 guys bug me. The chip on their shoulder.

 

[Billy Shears]

Do you have any proof of that?

If you mean laboratory type studies performed under controlled conditions, no. I doubt if there ever can be such a thing, given different people's different reaction speeds.

But having said that, Jeff Cooper, Massad Ayoob, Chuck Taylor, and numerous others have found it to be the case. I have found it to be the case, and I have carried double action revolvers, DA/SA autos (my first police department-issued handgun), DA only autos (my second department-issued handgun), and the Glock, with its sort-of-double-action-only trigger. There is nothing I can get an accurate first shot off, or accurate rapid follow up shots with as fast as I can with a 1911. And finally, there is a reason that the 1911 dominates in competitions where speed out of the holster and speed at hitting targets is paramount.

All in all, it rather seems as though you are asking me to prove the sky is blue.

None of this is to say you can't be incredibly fast with a different gun if you have the skill. Bill Jordan, for example, was blindingly fast with the double action revolver that he preferred -- probably faster than 99.9% of 1911 shooters. The shooter, more than the handgun, is the critical factor. But all things considered, the light, short, and consistent pull of the 1911, along with its short reset, is a decided advantage, which is why so many people still choose it over anything else.

 

[1911Tuner]

There is no gun faster to get an accurate first shot off than a cocked and locked single action,

Actually, the gun that holds the distinction of being the fastest for an on-target first shot from the leather is the 1873 SAA. After that...yeah...the cocked single-action autopistol has it, though some of the well-practiced Glockers are closing the gap.

 

[Dan Crocker]

Funny how crazy people can get over this topic. Guy states his preference...big deal.