Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by RPRNY, Jan 3, 2017.
I think that's the argument both sides are making. The problem is, they have different ideas of what "function" means.
Why settle for 15?
I have a g20 and it isn't a bad pistol, but honestly it is big and (when loaded) heavy enough that another pound of loaded weight isn't going to change much for me.
My Glock is broken in enough that the trigger is as smooth and light as I need in a defensive firearm. I can pick up mags for my G20 at any of the half dozen or more sporting goods stores in my home town. I doubt if a single one of them would have a single magazine for the Armscor. I can pick up parts for the Glock at one of any of a dozen places online and install them myself without special tools or hand fitting. Try doing that with your proprietary double stack 1911. Believe me. My family is full of traditionalist. There are several 1911s along with some Ruger revolvers on the bed stands in my family. It should have been really easy for me to end up with a 1911 because that is a natural choice in my family. I over-thought it by some standards but in the end, I couldn't bring myself to jump on that bandwagon. I find the 1911 lacking in both firepower to weight ratio and performance to economy.
I am not a conformist but I also think some things are done for a reason and doing things just to be different at some point is two steps backwards. The current trend is towards striker fired polymer framed autos with high capacity double stack magazines because they represent an economical increase in firepower and performance. Luckily, it is still a free market economy so if you want to pay extra for soul or class or whatever, you can.
But you see that such evaluations are always subjective, right? You find that for yourself, but you can't really expect your standards to apply to everyone else.
I have an FNX 45. 15+1 rounds of .45ACP in a polymer framed, hammer fired, full size pistol. That's in every way a better pistol than the G20 or any 1911 I've ever played with...for what I use it for, for me. .45ACP is better than 10mm, the factory threaded barrel is better than having to buy an aftermarket barrel, 15rd .45 magazines are better than the 14rd mags I can find for a 1911 or 13rd I can find for a glock. It weighs 3.5lbs when fully loaded and accessorized, but that's not a problem for me.
Does that mean it would be better for you? Or even for me for a different application? For example .45 beats 10mm for what I use that gun for because 10mm is too fast, not because it is bad.
Everything is subjective.
Personally, once I'm actually aiming to shoot, and recovering from the last shot, I prefer the weight.
Not all of us expect to need much capacity for self defense, unless we were in a war zone. (If I'm in a war zone, I'll take a rifle.) I have no qualms with the .357 revolver in my nightstand, capacity wise.
You make points with some merit, but you don't seem to understand that your priorities and preferences may differ from those of others.
I am tired of people saying capacity isn't necessary. Capacity has been the constant improvement from the earliest firearms and continues to be an area with high interest in development because no one ever got into a gunfight and wished they had less ammunition. No one. Not ever. Yes the average defensive handgun engagement is five rounds. However, this is somewhat of a misnomer here because we are talking about an average anomaly. I don't get into gunfights ever day. I do my best to avoid them. But if trouble finds me, I am not interested in being prepared for the average anomaly. I am not fighting fair. I'll take all the advantages I can get. If I can get the fight stopping power of your .357 Magnum revolver in a system that gives me over twice the capacity, I'll take it, cause I'd rather have ammunition and not need it than need ammunition and not have it. I understand that some people may not see it this way, I just don't understand why.
For sure I don't understand people who make it out like capacity is a bad thing, like it means I intend to spray and pray. Just realistically I've seen enough data to suggest that we all think we are Chuck Norris until someone is shooting at us. Being shot at tends to have a derogatory effect on your marksmanship. I try counter this by training as realistically as possible, but I also acknowledge that if I am ever actually forced to use a handgun to defend myself, I may really need every opportunity I can get to save my own life. For sure when it comes to fighting my way to a long gun, 15+1 of 10mm in a Glock seems to stack up better than pretty much anything else. Your results may vary. You may not have a problem carrying more weight with less capacity. Some people wear fifteen pounds of chain around their necks cause they think it is cool. That doesn't mean we have to "get it."
I like the .45 because it performs better than 10mm - for this. That's the point. Performance is subjective. Everything is subjective. There is no such thing as performance outside of a particular frame of reference.
Why would I spend the money, and go through the hassle, to have a suppressed handgun and then fire light supersonic bullets through it?
OTOH, Glocks are easy to dislike for much of the same reasons. The grip is fat and sits at a weird angle, it feels like you're holding a 2x4. The pistol is blocky, and it's the same drab matte black as every other tacticool plastic gun on the shelf. The trigger is predictable but usually spongy, and you have to feel at least a little uneasy about a gun where the safety is also the trigger.
I personally don't like Glocks. If you offered me a Glock or a 1911 to go shoot with, I'm taking the 1911 9 times out of 10. But as a combat pistol, the Glock is miles ahead of the old 45. Double the capacity, half the cost, idiot-proof, and 100% unfailingly reliable. I would take care that we don't let our biases about what gun we shoot at paper or pop cans bleed over to what design is better for serious use.
I'm not a huge Glock fan (I subjectively like 1911's better), but as it turns out guys who: train a lot, have to shoot to high standards, maintain high levels of proficiency, and use their pistols in adverse conditions, and need it to work 100% of the time don't pick 1911's when given a choice. Both pistols are in inventory and the M45's now collect dust. Why is that? These guys shoot baddies in the face for a living and have access to both platforms. Have they made a mistake in picking the platform that is still easy to shoot well, holds lots of bullets, weighs less, is easier to conceal, is more reliable, and easier for their armorers to maintain?
I usually carry a J-frame. I don't see much likely hood of my needing more than 5 rounds. I'm not a cop and don't expect to take part in a prolonged firefight. I'm also confident in my ability to hit what I am shooting at and live in a low threat environment. Truth is, I often skip carrying. For a drive down a rural road in daylight to a hardware store...well, I've never even SEEN a thug-type in the local area.
As you noted, it is a free country and folks can carry and pay for whatever level of firepower they think makes sense. What I don't understand is why people feel a need to CONVERT someone else. Why should I be upset if you choose to carry a polymer, high capacity gun? What does it matter to me? And why does anyone feel a need to convert me (or to convert a 1911 fan, many of whom look down on my choice of gun as well)?
Why don't I carry a striker fired gun? Because the one I own has a dog-poop trigger, and because I've shot revolvers for 40 years and feel comfortable carrying & shooting them. I'll sell the Shield someday, and feel good about it because I know it IS a good self-defense gun...just not to my taste. I know several people who LOVE their Shields. I can't imagine getting upset with them.
Double-stack, all metal, 9mm, 1911 trigger...
And if someone tells me that he prefers the looks of a G17, there's that chick in the neighborhood who's been looking for a boyfriend ever since she left school...
I am in lust, because I love 1911's.
That still doesn't change the fact that as a modern service pistol the 1911 is outdated. That Wilson is a perfect example. It costs $2800, and in order to work right to Wilson's standards is hand fitted by an experienced gunsmith from expensive to produce forgings and billet machined parts. An agency wanting to field new pistols for their officers or a military needing pistols could buy 4-7 other functional pistols for that price, that will require less training, and less maintenance from a lower skilled armorer.
Yep. That's why the AK47 beats them all... And I mean it.
But still, I'll go for the expensive, hard to produce, skill-demanding piece every time!
Oh... And if you think they're less crazy when less pregnant, you're going to be disappointed...
It will always be with us, and folks who argue they are outdated will always think so.
No, it's probably not possible. At some point a few parties will get angry at someone dissing on their favorite gun and there'll be a 3rd page turn and the thinly veiled insults will fly.
If you're looking for either one or the other there's no way around it though.
I grew up with 1911's. My dad tended to gravitate towards either N and K frame Smiths and Swenson tuned 1911's. He had the occasional J frame S&W and BHP, but for the most part it was either the Smith revolvers or the 1911's. So if it's a semi I tend to judge them against 1911's. He died in 1988, so polymer framed pistols weren't really a consideration.
So while I like 1911's I tend to choose Glock's for carry a few reasons.
1) They're fairly inexpensive.
2) Their capacity is usually greater than the 1911 unless it's a double stack 1911.
3) They're reliable.
4) I keep my finger outside of the trigger guard until I'm on target, so having the safety on the trigger isn't a big deal for me.
5) If they get scratched or develop holster wear I'm okay with it because it's a utilitarian type of pistol anyway.
I tend to go with Glock 26's, 19's and 23's for everyday carry and Glock 20SF's or Glock 21 4th Gens for woods carry.
If you're looking for a one pistol to do it all and you're willing to give polymer a try I'd say go with a Glock 23 (.40) or a Glock 30SF (SF stands for Slim Frame and they tend to not be quite as bulky)
and just switch out for Underwood or Buffalo bore ammo when in the woods. The Glock 30SF is a .45 ACP.
If you're looking for a 1911 in a Commander size I know that Para Ordinance and STI both make double stack .45's. Heard great things about the STI (although a bit pricey) and varying things about the Para Ordinance (depending on who you're talking too).
No idea whatsoever about the RIA, but one pistol that I wish I hadn't gotten rid of was a Llama doublestack 45 Minimax (10+1). Got it an a trade. It's finish was sort of a phosphate deal.wish I'd never sold it. That thing looked rough, but it ran and was accurate
The 10mm Auto is admittedly not the ideal suppressed cartridge. However, if I was to suppress my 10mm, I would load some 220 gr FMJFPs to 1000 fps and call that good.
If you feel fine with five rounds, fine. I suppose anything is better than nothing. I am not talking about prolonged gunfights here. If I was, I would be advocating the US Marine Corp, not Glock,
9MM 1911 goodness. Not that I wouldn't be happy defending myself with my 19 round XDm, because I would, but I prefer the 1911.
Aren't HPs only 13+1? My 9mm 1911 holds 17+1 of 9mm. My cz75 is not bad at 16+1 but I'll take the extra round. Plus I'm pretty sure the 1911 has a better trigger. If that's clown shoes, I guess that explains why people fear clowns.
Separate names with a comma.